Oh yeah, he loves me allright! so much that he'll send my soul to eternal torture after death... unless I agree with impossible rules, laws and tenants.
@SummerSunshine1988 Why did god set rules he knew we wouldn't be able to follow? Is it fair to demand that my child score 105% on a maths test and then blame HIM for not being able to do it?
@SummerSunshine1988 Then that's THEIR fault, not mine (or yours). Throwing somebody in prison for something their grandfather did isn't just, so throwing them into a lake of fire for the rest of eternity for something Adam & Eve did would be INFINITELY unjust.
I'm glad I don't believe in any of this, because if I did I'd have to somehow contort it to make the Xian god into the GOOD guy.
Also, why was the tree there in the first place if not to tempt Adam & Eve?
@SummerSunshine1988 Why offer them the choice at all? If god hadn't put the tree there, there would be no sin and he could have no-strings fellowship with every subsequent person who will ever live (and god is ostensibly all-knowing, so he knows this, too). Did Adam and Eve have free will before the Fall, or not?
If we are sinful by nature, then there's nothing we can do about it, so punishment is still unjust. It's like punishing somebody for having blue eyes.
@SummerSunshine1988 Adam displayed free will before the Fall. In fact, even before Eve was created. He named all the livestock, and CHOSE none of them as his helper. The tree was already redundant; Adam was never a robot.
@SummerSunshine1988 Since we agree that the Tree is irrelevant to free will in general, I think we're done.
God, being all-knowing, would know whether or not Adam and Eve would disobey without ever putting the Tree there at all, so the whole exercise was futile from the start, but if you don't want your child to disobey you, you warn them about the consequences BEFOREHAND. Obeisence in the face of conequences isn't robotic; it's choosing not to be punished.
@JMUDoc : That God knew ahead of time isn't the point. It was Adam and Eve that needed to learn. And God did warn them beforehand. He told them that they would die.
@SummerSunshine1988 And did they die? No. In fact, Adam lived for more than nine hundred years after leaving the Garden.
If you're going to tell me that they WOULD have been immortal had they not eaten of the Tree, please provide evidence other than "god cannot lie, so the only thing he could have meant is that they would become mortal upon eating the fruit."
I say "don't eat that banana or you'll die", but you eat the banana, and 40 years later, you die. When that time rolls around, would you say "he was right about that banana", or would you call me a liar IMMEDIATELY after eating it.
My money's on the second one, and the only reason god isn't called a liar is an unjustified, a priori assumption that he CAN'T lie.
@JMUDoc : They wouldn't have died anyway. They were immortal, like God. The reason they died is because they became mortal, and everything mortal eventually dies. Nowhere in Genesis does God say, "you will die immediately after you eat this". He only says "you will die".
@SummerSunshine1988 I anticipated this several replies ago. How do you know they were created immortal? That's what I'm trying to get at. "In god's image" doesn't imply immotality.
@SummerSunshine1988 Shifting of the burden of proof, I'm afraid. It's possible for me to create a portrait or sculpture (or, indeed, a child) in my own image, but it doesn't follow necessarily that it shares any property of mine that you can point to.
@SummerSunshine1988 Here is the difference. When you warn your kid, you expect that they will obey you. God KNEW they wouldn't obey him. His warning was useless, and he knew it. And if you want to get right down to it, he created Adam and Eve, gave them skepticism, and made them believe it was okay to eat the apple regardless of his warning. That is the fact of the matter.
God is responsible for the fall. Not Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were tools he used.
@start12poop Now who has MORE FAITH? You believe that we humans evolved from Fish but when I ask you to prove it you cant....Nice goin.......How is that any different that believing in a God? I wont even get to How the fish GOT THERE to begin with, but you have same Faith that believers have in god, and you cant prove it...thats a hypocrite
@start12poop What im telling you is that you cant believe what some1 else tells you just because of what degree they have. If you are going to believe that we evolved from fish because "they" said it than you are going to believe EVERYTHING else they say, thats being stupid. Where do you draw the line of what to believe and what not to believe?..
@start12poop What you're telling me is no matter what scientists say you are going to believe them. If they say there is a flying horse on the moon you will believe them because they are "scientists".
@start12poop Just because they believe in it doesnt make it true, i dont care who believes in it, if you believe that we were once fish than you are a fucking idiot.
Sadly, the transitional fossil record, between sea-living fish and land-living reptiles, shows exactly how the transition from water to land happened. But that's not all. Some landmammals have transitioned back to the sea to become sea-mammals. Not to mention all the other transitions in many different areas, like conquering the air. ONLY an idiot would deny evidence ... and there are many religious fanatics who believe in denying evidence.
@mas03 Yes! It is much more likely. There is oodles of evidence in its favor and nothing except "faith" to back the latter. Whatever this "faith" thing is.
Plato defined Wisdom, as "a condition of the soul" that has an affinity with that which it is familiar, becoming drunk when in it's presence. Plato capitalized *Wisdom to be subtely recognized. Consider the following in the context of Plato's brilliant definition "Would a wise man question the Wisdom of God?"
Responses range from a simple No, to insane oblivious epistiles of ignorance.
Divine Wisdom: Recv'd Holy Spirit = Confirmation of God ~ The Gift Jesus Christ Promised!~
God has manifested his glory and shown me wonderful things. God can do the same to you if you like. I have seen how God transform the life of others in a way impossible to reproduce by treatments, drugs or psychoanalysis. God had given me signs of things unknown to me that I have personally confirmed to be true after. God is conscious energy. There isn't a single argument to disprove his existence and many to support it. Your life will be better and you will be happier, then why not to believe?
The most frustrating thing about people like this is that they trust science in virtually every other facet of their life with the use of modern medicine, airplanes, computers, cell phones, cars...the list goes on.
But when it comes to evolution and world creation, they just close their ears and go "NOPE NOPE SCIENCE IS ANOTHER RELIGION FAITH FAITH NOPE NOPE THAT'S NOT TRUE IT'S MAGIC MAN IN THE CLOUDS THAT DID IT!!!!"
@Damarcast One thing you're missing here is that the use of modern medicine, airplanes etc. IS science! Who ever said that evo, bb, abio was a part of science? Science is empirical - ONLY. SO far these theories have virtually no empirical aspect among them at all. They are so wrapped up in conjecture I dont see how any competent person could try to justify them as inherently scientific. Look at the theories for what they are. They may seem to make sense but remove the conjecture and what's left?
Yep buddy, you're right. Fossil records that tend to coincide with chronology and complexity + observed differences as far back as over one hundred and fifty years ago that have been confirmed with carbon dating and the more modern discoveries in genetics that further prove it is all baseless conjecture.
Evolution, change over time, as stated, is a fact. Natural selection, as far as we know, is the most accurate and reasonable explanation of it.
@Damarcast Ok, so you have remains of creatures, and have observed differences in modern times, confirmed with carbon dating (which has been shown to not be 100% accurate) - what's your point?
The only way you go from that to the Theory of Evolution is wait for it...CONJECTURE! Actually look the word up man
You hide behind absolutes. So what if it's not 100% accurate, would 99.999% suffice? Also, you still aren't accounting for modern genetics which further confirms it.
Dictionary's first definition is "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."
There is sufficient evidence. All the things I just stated for you already. It is not conjecture. You are just refusing to listen to anyone that disagrees with you
@Damarcast No, 99.999% does not 'suffice' when you dont allow for other possibilities. Admit that it is possible (albeit improbable) that the universe came to be under intelligent design and we do not have to argue. I only have a problem when people disallow for other opinions when all they have themselves are their own opinions backed up by circumstantial evidence. Because the theory of intelligent design is very similar to abio, etc as far as evidence is concerned. Conjecture required
I have to admit ID is possible only because I do not have the ability to prove the negative. You must also admit the possibility that the spaghetti monster is the creator, spawning the universe in his tasty marinara sauce. See how this plays out?
Again, you don't seem to understand that our view of evolution through natural selection is the best possible explanation we have with the facts and evidence we have. Why can't you admit that? Oh, because you're a bible-toting creationist.
@Tarn1968 What 'skydaddy' claims have I presented? Perhaps instead of tring to strawman me you should debate me on the topics and issues I have raised...
He's likely referring to your belief in ID, which is creationism, which leads anyone with a brain to assume you're a theist, and based on you typing English on youtube, would probably make you a Christian.
Just because you don't mention your ridiculous belief system doesn't mean others can't tell right off the bat you believe in Jesus and the bible and all the other nonsense you personally justify to yourself.
So tell us, what are your beliefs and why do you believe them?
@Damarcast What he's likely doing is making assumptions. Non-scientific inferences based on his own interpretations of information. Not surprising really as that is what we are taught to do early on in justifying different theories.
I am a Christian - BUT I understand that I am only b/c the important people in my life were. If they had been Muslim, or Hindu, then I probably wouldve been also. Theres no absolute truth to religion and every religion could be wrong - or ONE of them could be right
@Damarcast 2) What makes my beliefs nonsense and the idea of abiogenesis plausible? Conjecture. People like you want us to believe in nonsensical 'scientific' ideas based on no evidence of their existence, while fully lacking the ability to reproduce or recreate and observe them. And yet you have the gall to write my thoughts off as nonsense/impossible. People like you are living contradictions.
For a change why dont we ONLY look at empirical evidence like science is supposed to work??
As far as abiogenesis is concerned (which is different from evolution), we have the Miller-Urey experiment, which shows it's possible for building blocks of life to be created from basic chemicals. Did lizards crawl out of the test tube? No. But it's all we have to go on. The jury is still out. People are working on it. And even though we don't have definite proof, every sane person admits abiogenesis is MORE LIKELY than magic man in the sky.
@Damarcast You havent provided ANY evidence of abiogenesis. All you have are observations/evidence that can be used to SUPPORT the idea and no evidence of the idea itself. In staying with your fashion of 'evidential claims' the mere fact that the atmosphere, system and energy source were not consistent with what was present and that the NINE amino acids are not lifeforms.
The fact that M-U created about half right and left handed acids also discredits the theory.
What the fuck??? What the hell do you think the Miller-Urey experiment WAS? The statement you made makes no friggen sense. it was tested and observable, it was recorded proper, retested, and thus proven. What evidence are you expecting? You just made your brand out to be even dumber than one could think possible.
@NUTCASE71733 I'm sorry I have to do this. I really mean it. Are you somehow implying that the creation of amino acids in a lab in the 20th century validates the theory of abiogenesis? There is big difference between evidence OF and evidence FOR - I probably shouldnt expect you to understand but let me put this as clearly as possible. YOU HAVE NEVER FOUND ANY EVIDENCE 'OF' ABIOGENESIS! What you have is evidence/observations that can be used - with conjecture - to support the idea. Learn
I have learned. I have learned creationists latch onto any idea to justify denying the scientific method. THAT'S what I've learned. Experiments and observation lead to evidence. the M-U experiment showed that life could form the way they showed. You're only upset because another god of the gaps argument was filled.
@NUTCASE71733 Wrong again. The MU experiment showed that AMINO ACIDS could be 'created' in the 20th century. Again, to go from that to abiogenesis takes a good imagination and conjecture. Conjecture alone does not make an idea invalid but when you rely completely on conjecture it does remove that idea from the scientific method. What is scientific about conjecture? Look objectively and empirically. That is the scientific method. Give me evidence OF abiogenesis or admit you're wrong...
@Damarcast 2) Evidence THAT CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT Creationism: There is no system in existence that can successfully separate left and right handed amino acids and allow them to continue to the next stage in life creation. As you should know life needs only levo acids. There is no system that can account for the information being added into our closed system - the universe. At the instant the universe was created ALL of the information availbale had to already be in existence.
@rngjudgement oooh yeah. Copious facepalmage. Just like every time I bring up evolution in conversations with my very good friend, he says "my uncle wasn't a fish". I'm dumbfounded when this happens. I love 'im, but sitll....
@Tarn1968 So you really dont know much about this fossil record business do you? Man you have a long way to go in this debating thing. You must just be starting out. The fossil record has been used to attempt and support evo by showing different characterizations of now-deceased animals. Studying the animals has showed anything from similarities in appearance to genetic info.
Faith in Science? lol oh the irony! This caller didn't consider the phone he's using to call the show he's watching on his TV was made possible by science.
@psford1 If you really, truly think that there's no evidence for evolution in the fossil record, you're either nuts or ignorant, which given your accusations against others is ironic. Head over to Talk Origins and take a look. Besides, we don't even need the fossil record to prove evolution - genetics alone can do that!
@GregJPreece Im sorry but I do truly, sincerely believe that there isnt a shred of evidence OF evo found in the partial recording known as the fossil record. Sure there is evidence that can be used to support the theory. But theres also evidence in genetics that COULD support the theory of ID. This is a very common argument and I'm sure that neither of us will ever see the others' point. Ive been to TO many times. But EVERY argument there can be argued against by Creationists - no smoking gun
@psford1 Oh, this should be good. You must have read TO with your eyes shut. Look at the evolution of the horse - that is so blindingly obvious it hurts.
But none of that matters right now - let's have some fun. What is the evidence in "genetics" that supports the idiocy of ID (don't you dare refer to it as a scientific theory). And that said idiots can argue against evolution doesn't make them right - see flat Earthers.
@GregJPreece I will check out the articles youre talkin about. But before I do tell me, is the information empirical or is it conjecture? You dont seem to listen to my beefs. There is plenty of evidence that can be used to support evo. But ALL of it so far is complete conjecture. Evo is defined as '...small adaptations over time leading to speciation'. Is that the conclusion that is empirically arrived upon from what we see in the ancient and modern equus family? Before I look I can tell you No!
@Tarn1968 Dude, seriously could you please take the time to actually research the ideas you claim to believe in. What exactly is the fossil record that you keep referring to? And what does it show? You must be able to answer both of those questions before you make any further references to the 'fossil record'. We'll forget about everything else i said until you can grasp this concept. The fossil record does not empirically show ANYTHING regarding to evolution of any kind!
@Tarn1968 Nice strawman. There is no evidence OF evolution, there is no evidence of God. But what there is for BOTH of them is evidence that can be used to support the idea. The mere fact that matter, time and space can not be created by any natural force is evidence that can be used to support the idea that there is an intelligent designer. That is empirical evidence that is used. That is the only way that evidence is ever used with regards to abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang. Learn
@Tarn1968 And I take it that you have never heard of conjecture. What does a fossil record, as incomplete as it is, empirically show?
In a lab scientists have reproduced evolution? The changing from one species to another? THAT is evolution. I hate to have to mirror the same arguments that Im sure you've heard but they are valid points. I asked you to think carefully before u responded. Change within a species does not empirically lead to the conclusion of evolution into another type of animal
@Tarn1968 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE 'OF' GOD! Only an idiot would expect there to be. Just like there is no evidence OF abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang. There is only observations/evidence that can be used to support the idea. But there is no direct, empirical evidence of any of these theories. I repeat, there is ONLY evidence 'that can be used to support them'. Conjecture. Seriously try to let that sink in before you start to type and show any ignorance. Pick any Creator you like, I dont care
Somehow the caller must have missed every single science class since elementary school because I can remember being taught science, scientific theory, hypotheses..etc before I hit the seventh grade. The fella sounded confused without sounding confused (if you catch my meaning) and that is scary.
'change over time is a fact' - OK. Enough change over time to lead to all the different lifeforms in existence - fact? Ok, then prove it. No? Religion, end of story. If not religion then a very elaborate and colorful fairy tale with some scientific ideas invloved.
No more arguing, if evolution is real and 'FACT' then just stop debating and prove it. Bottom line, a non falsifiable certainty claim with only conjectural evidence is NOT science - how is that so hard to understand?
How foolish. Something can only be a scientific theory or hypothesis, if it can be falsified. When you test the theory of evolution to this theory, you'd have to say for example that a fossil of a rabbit from the precambrium age would always falsify the theory. Up to date falsifying elements have never been found, however.
Science is not about faith or belief. It is a process that tries to make us aware of the world we live on. Science is a technique of repeated tests, observations, and conclusions of natural phenomena then scientists formulate a scientific theory based on this technique. Atheists can choose to ACCEPT or ignore these scientific theories. belief and faith is not the basis of scientific progress.
@drgoldteef sorry i have to keep apologizing for my brothers comments who keeps posting replys to videos using my youtube account its getting very annoying.
@slpnunes science doesnt support the naturalists ideas. The Creator created science and there will be NOTHING in science that offeres anything more than conjectural evidence to the contrary. I repeat, there is nothing in 'real' science that will undermine or offer evidence that there is no Creator. Peace
The speaker is right the Athiest failed. You cant say its absolute fact if its not. Science doesnt say this is exactly how it happens. It says this is the most likely our best guess of how we explain what happens. But it should all be taught in school. But the speaker is making a point the athiest just didnt understand.
@luyben12 yeah yeah go on in your dream world of good and evil. if you think it's that simple then it's sad, but dumb people are numb aren't they. good day, kid.
@luyben12 there again this stupid argument "there are more christians than others, so jesus is true". remember the past? remember how STUPID the majority of people, born from a barabarian culture with no intend of building up a high educated society, was in the past? you and you christian friends are the remainings of that barbaric, unclean and highly brutal and intolerant culture.
@luyben12 of course you as christian see yourself as a least one? temptation is there, isn't it? so it is indeed about being special. in gods eyes poor people are good ones and rich are evil and go to hell. in my eyes they are both humans and their respect depends on what they did in life. it's not always about just black and white, christian. and i see the world as a construct, constantly changing, with us humans as a tiny part of it. we can never get its "purpose" by reading a human's book.
@luyben12 so what? i am no christian pretending to be "special" or sth. i see reality. go on with your dreamy life of whatever insanity it will inherit. have a nice day. or night.
I don't put any faith in science, or anything else for that matter. I trust the scientific method as the only reliable means to knowledge and understanding about life, the universe, and everything. I trust that method because it has a proven track record of getting things right.
I find it funny how the best argument ever that god exists, is science. As in, that current science allows for a possibility for there to be a creator of everything. Well, if you can call that an argument for existence. As it's more just a 'maybe'.
This caller sounds like the same idiot who called and said that the proof of creationism is this: there are men and there are apes, and they're totally different. Sigh.
but i know there's people whom incorporated science into their ideology and their beliefs and use it to harm others. so dude i already know that science gives us the understanding of our world. and i'm not really religious i'm a secular. so you still get or not? if not then please reply to me thanx
@americanliberal09 Well, I don't see how you can take it "too far" ,science never asks your to believe what is says to a hundred percent, it's just saying what appears most likely for the time being. Putting faith in religion who claims it's 100% right without ANY evidence is taking it WAAAAYY to far.
@Drcrazy93 i know that dude that's not what i'm trying to say at all. they are some people who are into science that take to the extreme and use it for dangerous means. science say humans are sociable creatures which is true and i know i don't have to follow it but when certain people say science explains we humans beings are sociable creatures they will incorporated if it was a dogma to operate in life and that's what i mean dude. i already know that science give us general info
@americanliberal09 I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that people interpret our present scientific knowledge as an absolute truth and "follow" it without questioning it ? I don't really know how you "follow" science. It's just what we know of the world, it doesn't say how to live our lives, only why things are the way they are.
Sorry if I'm slow, english isn't my first language.
@Drcrazy93 what?????? i think your confuse here dude. first of all you misunderstand me dude i already know that science doesn't really tell you what to do. trust me dude their are people who are into science and they go will take to the extreme measures with it. i don't follow science i study it. science is a observational tool it can be use for good purposes and for bad. yes some crazed people will treat science as if it was a dogma of life. science never dogmas nor beliefs which is true
@americanliberal09 How to you take scientific facts of life into "extreme measures" How do you use proper science for doing things that are bad? If you're referring to what hitler did, it wasn't really science, it was pseudo science.
@Drcrazy93 o.k dude you prove me wrong it took a while to realize that when i did some research on my own.
i get things mixed up sometimes so no harsh feelings dude. i admitted that i didn't make sense at all so i hope that clears it up for you dude. and by the way thanx
You know what I find to be really pathetic and perhaps even monumentally depressing? The US is the only major modernized nation where science is pulled to the back-burner by religious idiots who want to keep society from progressing.
science changes win it finds new evidence or facts,religion does not change no matter what. which makes science more reasonable,because it look for the turth rather then assuming it has it like religion. THE problem however,is since religion never changes,stupid people think that makes it more reasonable and better because in the mind of the religious "if it doesn't change then it must be automatically right because it doesn't need changeing".
@1metallica1 Religion does change. For example. In the past most christians beleived slavery and killing of heathens was a holy work. Now most are against it.
@rangergxi I'd have to disagree with that one. Religion changes only in accordance with the law as dictated by secular society. Most Christians still believe slavery and killing in the name of their god is a good thing, and left to their own devices (no interference from judicial law) you can bet your ass they'd still be out there enforcing their beliefs. Remember, Negros were still being lynched without consequence right up to the 1940's.
Because something is scrutinized and revised to be more accurate it is not valid? As if we must be totally right about everything form the dawn of time and any equivocation to new evidence is a sign of weakness. That is false logic.
@AnomeStudios Acoustic theory, theory of relativity, quantum theory, big bang theory, kinetic theory of gases... You are using the colloquial understanding of the term theory rather than the scientific understanding of it.
@Sarusource that is what the scientific understanding of a theory is. Theories are generally things that we have SOME evidence but are yet to be proven as a definite fact i.e. the big bang theory there's no solid, no other way you can look at it proof that it happened. And then you have Laws which were originally theories that were proven to work 99.9999% with solid concrete cant be disputed evidence. i.e. the Law of Gravity
The caller(bill) is yet another delusional drone. Sad :O/
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 month ago
The religious disdain for science because it keeps changing and refining...
"How old do you think I am?"
Rational person: "32?"
*birth certificate showing age as 31
Rational person: "Ah, 31 then."
*evidence that the certificate is a forgery, and an ostensibly REAL certificate showing 33.
Rational person: "33 is now most likely."
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc
"How old do you think I am?"
Theist: "32"
*birth certificate showing age as 31
Theist: "No, you're still 32."
*sees evidence that the certificate is a forgery, and an ostensibly REAL certificate showing 33.
Theist: "NO! YOU'RE STILL 32!!!"
JMUDoc 2 months ago
God is real, and He loves you.
SummerSunshine1988 3 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988
Oh yeah, he loves me allright! so much that he'll send my soul to eternal torture after death... unless I agree with impossible rules, laws and tenants.
byatora 2 months ago
@byatora : God knows that we can't follow His rules perfectly. That's why Jesus came to die for our sins.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Why did god set rules he knew we wouldn't be able to follow? Is it fair to demand that my child score 105% on a maths test and then blame HIM for not being able to do it?
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : We would have been able to follow God's rules if Adam and Eve had just obeyed God.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Then that's THEIR fault, not mine (or yours). Throwing somebody in prison for something their grandfather did isn't just, so throwing them into a lake of fire for the rest of eternity for something Adam & Eve did would be INFINITELY unjust.
I'm glad I don't believe in any of this, because if I did I'd have to somehow contort it to make the Xian god into the GOOD guy.
Also, why was the tree there in the first place if not to tempt Adam & Eve?
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : We are not punished for Adam and Eve's sins, but we are affected by them.
The tree was there for them to choose if they wanted to.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Why offer them the choice at all? If god hadn't put the tree there, there would be no sin and he could have no-strings fellowship with every subsequent person who will ever live (and god is ostensibly all-knowing, so he knows this, too). Did Adam and Eve have free will before the Fall, or not?
If we are sinful by nature, then there's nothing we can do about it, so punishment is still unjust. It's like punishing somebody for having blue eyes.
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : He offered a choice because He didn't want to create robots.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Adam displayed free will before the Fall. In fact, even before Eve was created. He named all the livestock, and CHOSE none of them as his helper. The tree was already redundant; Adam was never a robot.
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : You are right, Adam did all of that. The tree was about choosing between obeying God or disobeying God.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Since we agree that the Tree is irrelevant to free will in general, I think we're done.
God, being all-knowing, would know whether or not Adam and Eve would disobey without ever putting the Tree there at all, so the whole exercise was futile from the start, but if you don't want your child to disobey you, you warn them about the consequences BEFOREHAND. Obeisence in the face of conequences isn't robotic; it's choosing not to be punished.
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : That God knew ahead of time isn't the point. It was Adam and Eve that needed to learn. And God did warn them beforehand. He told them that they would die.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 And did they die? No. In fact, Adam lived for more than nine hundred years after leaving the Garden.
If you're going to tell me that they WOULD have been immortal had they not eaten of the Tree, please provide evidence other than "god cannot lie, so the only thing he could have meant is that they would become mortal upon eating the fruit."
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : Are they alive today? No. So they did die.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SummerSunshine1988 "Are they alive today? No. So they did die." God lied to them. The fact that they eventually did in fact die is irrelevant.
He did not tell them the truth.
The serpent did, though.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 They would have died anyway is my.
I say "don't eat that banana or you'll die", but you eat the banana, and 40 years later, you die. When that time rolls around, would you say "he was right about that banana", or would you call me a liar IMMEDIATELY after eating it.
My money's on the second one, and the only reason god isn't called a liar is an unjustified, a priori assumption that he CAN'T lie.
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : They wouldn't have died anyway. They were immortal, like God. The reason they died is because they became mortal, and everything mortal eventually dies. Nowhere in Genesis does God say, "you will die immediately after you eat this". He only says "you will die".
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 I anticipated this several replies ago. How do you know they were created immortal? That's what I'm trying to get at. "In god's image" doesn't imply immotality.
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : How do you know that immortality doesn't fit the description of "in God's image"?
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Shifting of the burden of proof, I'm afraid. It's possible for me to create a portrait or sculpture (or, indeed, a child) in my own image, but it doesn't follow necessarily that it shares any property of mine that you can point to.
JMUDoc 2 months ago
@JMUDoc : If you create a child, that child has part of your DNA, so it does share property with you.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Here is the difference. When you warn your kid, you expect that they will obey you. God KNEW they wouldn't obey him. His warning was useless, and he knew it. And if you want to get right down to it, he created Adam and Eve, gave them skepticism, and made them believe it was okay to eat the apple regardless of his warning. That is the fact of the matter.
God is responsible for the fall. Not Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were tools he used.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe : It was the serpent who tempted them, not God.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 God created the serpent.
TheIncognitusMe 2 months ago
@TheIncognitusMe : True.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
Too dumb to understand evolution? Try creationism!
dummychaos 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@start12poop Now who has MORE FAITH? You believe that we humans evolved from Fish but when I ask you to prove it you cant....Nice goin.......How is that any different that believing in a God? I wont even get to How the fish GOT THERE to begin with, but you have same Faith that believers have in god, and you cant prove it...thats a hypocrite
mas03 4 months ago
@start12poop Ok prove to me that we were once Fish.
mas03 4 months ago
Comment removed
mas03 4 months ago
@start12poop What im telling you is that you cant believe what some1 else tells you just because of what degree they have. If you are going to believe that we evolved from fish because "they" said it than you are going to believe EVERYTHING else they say, thats being stupid. Where do you draw the line of what to believe and what not to believe?..
mas03 4 months ago
@start12poop What you're telling me is no matter what scientists say you are going to believe them. If they say there is a flying horse on the moon you will believe them because they are "scientists".
mas03 4 months ago
@start12poop Just because they believe in it doesnt make it true, i dont care who believes in it, if you believe that we were once fish than you are a fucking idiot.
mas03 4 months ago
@start12poop I dont care who believes it, its just stupidly ridiculous
mas03 4 months ago
This is the same guy who claims that rape is impossible right?
3234718 4 months ago
no offense, but ONLY an idiot would believe that humans evolved from fish...and there are many atheists who believe that
mas03 4 months ago
@mas03
Sadly, the transitional fossil record, between sea-living fish and land-living reptiles, shows exactly how the transition from water to land happened. But that's not all. Some landmammals have transitioned back to the sea to become sea-mammals. Not to mention all the other transitions in many different areas, like conquering the air. ONLY an idiot would deny evidence ... and there are many religious fanatics who believe in denying evidence.
tdjdk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mas03 Thank you for pointing out that you are an Idiot.
mas03 4 months ago
So humans evolving from fish is more likely than there being a god?.....Is this what you atheists believe, thats ridiculous lol
mas03 4 months ago
Comment removed
azzy314159 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mas03 Yes! It is much more likely. There is oodles of evidence in its favor and nothing except "faith" to back the latter. Whatever this "faith" thing is.
azzy314159 4 months ago
I could never host this show. I would be cursing at the callers. You guys have lots of patience. Thanks for the show/videos.
torputube 4 months ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
i became atheist because Tracy is a cutie
SpilkyWay 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Plato defined Wisdom, as "a condition of the soul" that has an affinity with that which it is familiar, becoming drunk when in it's presence. Plato capitalized *Wisdom to be subtely recognized. Consider the following in the context of Plato's brilliant definition "Would a wise man question the Wisdom of God?"
Responses range from a simple No, to insane oblivious epistiles of ignorance.
Divine Wisdom: Recv'd Holy Spirit = Confirmation of God ~ The Gift Jesus Christ Promised!~
waketheoblivious 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God has manifested his glory and shown me wonderful things. God can do the same to you if you like. I have seen how God transform the life of others in a way impossible to reproduce by treatments, drugs or psychoanalysis. God had given me signs of things unknown to me that I have personally confirmed to be true after. God is conscious energy. There isn't a single argument to disprove his existence and many to support it. Your life will be better and you will be happier, then why not to believe?
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It must hurt to be as stupid as that caller!
QueOraSi 5 months ago
It must hurt to be as stupid as that caller!
QueOraSi 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
It must hurt to be as stupid as that caller!
QueOraSi 5 months ago
It must hurt to be as stupid as that caller!
QueOraSi 5 months ago
*facepalm
KittJT2 5 months ago
i swear if i hear "its just a theory" again i'm gonna track down these callers and shove their holy bable right up their pious asses.
JuanchoMan 6 months ago
Please Matt! Tell me where you get your shirt!!!
tenglee2 6 months ago
The most frustrating thing about people like this is that they trust science in virtually every other facet of their life with the use of modern medicine, airplanes, computers, cell phones, cars...the list goes on.
But when it comes to evolution and world creation, they just close their ears and go "NOPE NOPE SCIENCE IS ANOTHER RELIGION FAITH FAITH NOPE NOPE THAT'S NOT TRUE IT'S MAGIC MAN IN THE CLOUDS THAT DID IT!!!!"
Damarcast 6 months ago
@Damarcast One thing you're missing here is that the use of modern medicine, airplanes etc. IS science! Who ever said that evo, bb, abio was a part of science? Science is empirical - ONLY. SO far these theories have virtually no empirical aspect among them at all. They are so wrapped up in conjecture I dont see how any competent person could try to justify them as inherently scientific. Look at the theories for what they are. They may seem to make sense but remove the conjecture and what's left?
psford1 6 months ago
@psford1
Yep buddy, you're right. Fossil records that tend to coincide with chronology and complexity + observed differences as far back as over one hundred and fifty years ago that have been confirmed with carbon dating and the more modern discoveries in genetics that further prove it is all baseless conjecture.
Evolution, change over time, as stated, is a fact. Natural selection, as far as we know, is the most accurate and reasonable explanation of it.
What's your theory? Magic man in sky?
Damarcast 6 months ago
@Damarcast Ok, so you have remains of creatures, and have observed differences in modern times, confirmed with carbon dating (which has been shown to not be 100% accurate) - what's your point?
The only way you go from that to the Theory of Evolution is wait for it...CONJECTURE! Actually look the word up man
psford1 6 months ago
@psford1
You hide behind absolutes. So what if it's not 100% accurate, would 99.999% suffice? Also, you still aren't accounting for modern genetics which further confirms it.
Dictionary's first definition is "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."
There is sufficient evidence. All the things I just stated for you already. It is not conjecture. You are just refusing to listen to anyone that disagrees with you
You lose, and so does your god.
Damarcast 6 months ago
@Damarcast No, 99.999% does not 'suffice' when you dont allow for other possibilities. Admit that it is possible (albeit improbable) that the universe came to be under intelligent design and we do not have to argue. I only have a problem when people disallow for other opinions when all they have themselves are their own opinions backed up by circumstantial evidence. Because the theory of intelligent design is very similar to abio, etc as far as evidence is concerned. Conjecture required
psford1 6 months ago
@psford1
I have to admit ID is possible only because I do not have the ability to prove the negative. You must also admit the possibility that the spaghetti monster is the creator, spawning the universe in his tasty marinara sauce. See how this plays out?
Again, you don't seem to understand that our view of evolution through natural selection is the best possible explanation we have with the facts and evidence we have. Why can't you admit that? Oh, because you're a bible-toting creationist.
Damarcast 6 months ago
I feel so bad for the word "theory", so abused and misunderstood.
ithacasteveo 6 months ago 12
@ithacasteveo The word 'theory' is the red-headed stepchild of all theistic debates.
TheGeneralCritic 5 months ago
@Tarn1968 What 'skydaddy' claims have I presented? Perhaps instead of tring to strawman me you should debate me on the topics and issues I have raised...
psford1 7 months ago
@psford1
He's likely referring to your belief in ID, which is creationism, which leads anyone with a brain to assume you're a theist, and based on you typing English on youtube, would probably make you a Christian.
Just because you don't mention your ridiculous belief system doesn't mean others can't tell right off the bat you believe in Jesus and the bible and all the other nonsense you personally justify to yourself.
So tell us, what are your beliefs and why do you believe them?
Damarcast 6 months ago
@Damarcast What he's likely doing is making assumptions. Non-scientific inferences based on his own interpretations of information. Not surprising really as that is what we are taught to do early on in justifying different theories.
I am a Christian - BUT I understand that I am only b/c the important people in my life were. If they had been Muslim, or Hindu, then I probably wouldve been also. Theres no absolute truth to religion and every religion could be wrong - or ONE of them could be right
psford1 6 months ago
@Damarcast 2) What makes my beliefs nonsense and the idea of abiogenesis plausible? Conjecture. People like you want us to believe in nonsensical 'scientific' ideas based on no evidence of their existence, while fully lacking the ability to reproduce or recreate and observe them. And yet you have the gall to write my thoughts off as nonsense/impossible. People like you are living contradictions.
For a change why dont we ONLY look at empirical evidence like science is supposed to work??
psford1 6 months ago
@psford1
As far as abiogenesis is concerned (which is different from evolution), we have the Miller-Urey experiment, which shows it's possible for building blocks of life to be created from basic chemicals. Did lizards crawl out of the test tube? No. But it's all we have to go on. The jury is still out. People are working on it. And even though we don't have definite proof, every sane person admits abiogenesis is MORE LIKELY than magic man in the sky.
Now, provide evidence for creationism.
Damarcast 6 months ago
@Damarcast You havent provided ANY evidence of abiogenesis. All you have are observations/evidence that can be used to SUPPORT the idea and no evidence of the idea itself. In staying with your fashion of 'evidential claims' the mere fact that the atmosphere, system and energy source were not consistent with what was present and that the NINE amino acids are not lifeforms.
The fact that M-U created about half right and left handed acids also discredits the theory.
psford1 6 months ago
@psford1
What the fuck??? What the hell do you think the Miller-Urey experiment WAS? The statement you made makes no friggen sense. it was tested and observable, it was recorded proper, retested, and thus proven. What evidence are you expecting? You just made your brand out to be even dumber than one could think possible.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 I'm sorry I have to do this. I really mean it. Are you somehow implying that the creation of amino acids in a lab in the 20th century validates the theory of abiogenesis? There is big difference between evidence OF and evidence FOR - I probably shouldnt expect you to understand but let me put this as clearly as possible. YOU HAVE NEVER FOUND ANY EVIDENCE 'OF' ABIOGENESIS! What you have is evidence/observations that can be used - with conjecture - to support the idea. Learn
psford1 6 months ago
@psford1
I have learned. I have learned creationists latch onto any idea to justify denying the scientific method. THAT'S what I've learned. Experiments and observation lead to evidence. the M-U experiment showed that life could form the way they showed. You're only upset because another god of the gaps argument was filled.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Wrong again. The MU experiment showed that AMINO ACIDS could be 'created' in the 20th century. Again, to go from that to abiogenesis takes a good imagination and conjecture. Conjecture alone does not make an idea invalid but when you rely completely on conjecture it does remove that idea from the scientific method. What is scientific about conjecture? Look objectively and empirically. That is the scientific method. Give me evidence OF abiogenesis or admit you're wrong...
psford1 6 months ago
@Damarcast 2) Evidence THAT CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT Creationism: There is no system in existence that can successfully separate left and right handed amino acids and allow them to continue to the next stage in life creation. As you should know life needs only levo acids. There is no system that can account for the information being added into our closed system - the universe. At the instant the universe was created ALL of the information availbale had to already be in existence.
Your turn...
psford1 6 months ago
everyone in mutual agreement of facepalm?
rngjudgement 7 months ago 21
@rngjudgement oooh yeah. Copious facepalmage. Just like every time I bring up evolution in conversations with my very good friend, he says "my uncle wasn't a fish". I'm dumbfounded when this happens. I love 'im, but sitll....
wildsmiley 6 months ago
@rngjudgement i need to use my fist this time, a palm is not enough.
topperheartramada 4 months ago
@Tarn1968 So you really dont know much about this fossil record business do you? Man you have a long way to go in this debating thing. You must just be starting out. The fossil record has been used to attempt and support evo by showing different characterizations of now-deceased animals. Studying the animals has showed anything from similarities in appearance to genetic info.
psford1 7 months ago
Faith in Science? lol oh the irony! This caller didn't consider the phone he's using to call the show he's watching on his TV was made possible by science.
kaikincaid96 8 months ago
If you think that the 'fossil record' shows anything empirically related to evolution of any kind you are a complete moron.
That isnt aimed at any one in particular I'm just tired of idiots using this fossil record idea to somehow back evolution up...
psford1 8 months ago
@psford1 If you really, truly think that there's no evidence for evolution in the fossil record, you're either nuts or ignorant, which given your accusations against others is ironic. Head over to Talk Origins and take a look. Besides, we don't even need the fossil record to prove evolution - genetics alone can do that!
GregJPreece 7 months ago
@GregJPreece Im sorry but I do truly, sincerely believe that there isnt a shred of evidence OF evo found in the partial recording known as the fossil record. Sure there is evidence that can be used to support the theory. But theres also evidence in genetics that COULD support the theory of ID. This is a very common argument and I'm sure that neither of us will ever see the others' point. Ive been to TO many times. But EVERY argument there can be argued against by Creationists - no smoking gun
psford1 7 months ago
@psford1 Oh, this should be good. You must have read TO with your eyes shut. Look at the evolution of the horse - that is so blindingly obvious it hurts.
But none of that matters right now - let's have some fun. What is the evidence in "genetics" that supports the idiocy of ID (don't you dare refer to it as a scientific theory). And that said idiots can argue against evolution doesn't make them right - see flat Earthers.
GregJPreece 7 months ago
@GregJPreece I will check out the articles youre talkin about. But before I do tell me, is the information empirical or is it conjecture? You dont seem to listen to my beefs. There is plenty of evidence that can be used to support evo. But ALL of it so far is complete conjecture. Evo is defined as '...small adaptations over time leading to speciation'. Is that the conclusion that is empirically arrived upon from what we see in the ancient and modern equus family? Before I look I can tell you No!
psford1 7 months ago
@Tarn1968 Dude, seriously could you please take the time to actually research the ideas you claim to believe in. What exactly is the fossil record that you keep referring to? And what does it show? You must be able to answer both of those questions before you make any further references to the 'fossil record'. We'll forget about everything else i said until you can grasp this concept. The fossil record does not empirically show ANYTHING regarding to evolution of any kind!
psford1 8 months ago
@Tarn1968 Nice strawman. There is no evidence OF evolution, there is no evidence of God. But what there is for BOTH of them is evidence that can be used to support the idea. The mere fact that matter, time and space can not be created by any natural force is evidence that can be used to support the idea that there is an intelligent designer. That is empirical evidence that is used. That is the only way that evidence is ever used with regards to abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang. Learn
psford1 8 months ago
@Tarn1968 And I take it that you have never heard of conjecture. What does a fossil record, as incomplete as it is, empirically show?
In a lab scientists have reproduced evolution? The changing from one species to another? THAT is evolution. I hate to have to mirror the same arguments that Im sure you've heard but they are valid points. I asked you to think carefully before u responded. Change within a species does not empirically lead to the conclusion of evolution into another type of animal
psford1 8 months ago
I like that crunchy bass in the intro, now I'm gonna have to start listening to Motorhead. :)
Akira625 8 months ago
@Tarn1968 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE 'OF' GOD! Only an idiot would expect there to be. Just like there is no evidence OF abiogenesis, evolution or the big bang. There is only observations/evidence that can be used to support the idea. But there is no direct, empirical evidence of any of these theories. I repeat, there is ONLY evidence 'that can be used to support them'. Conjecture. Seriously try to let that sink in before you start to type and show any ignorance. Pick any Creator you like, I dont care
psford1 8 months ago
Somehow the caller must have missed every single science class since elementary school because I can remember being taught science, scientific theory, hypotheses..etc before I hit the seventh grade. The fella sounded confused without sounding confused (if you catch my meaning) and that is scary.
jrcahill2 8 months ago
'change over time is a fact' - OK. Enough change over time to lead to all the different lifeforms in existence - fact? Ok, then prove it. No? Religion, end of story. If not religion then a very elaborate and colorful fairy tale with some scientific ideas invloved.
No more arguing, if evolution is real and 'FACT' then just stop debating and prove it. Bottom line, a non falsifiable certainty claim with only conjectural evidence is NOT science - how is that so hard to understand?
psford1 8 months ago
How foolish. Something can only be a scientific theory or hypothesis, if it can be falsified. When you test the theory of evolution to this theory, you'd have to say for example that a fossil of a rabbit from the precambrium age would always falsify the theory. Up to date falsifying elements have never been found, however.
drummerponsi 8 months ago
@drummerponsi *test the theory of evolution with this scientific method
drummerponsi 8 months ago
Matt shouted 'JesusChrist' at 5:11 and Tracie looked at him dumbfounded to what she just heard. Matt is a believer. Yaaaaaaayyy, I knew it.
zweiosterei 8 months ago
@zweiosterei This dumb bastard caller is enough to make Christopher Hitchens shout Jesus Christ!
greeny202a 8 months ago
Science is not about faith or belief. It is a process that tries to make us aware of the world we live on. Science is a technique of repeated tests, observations, and conclusions of natural phenomena then scientists formulate a scientific theory based on this technique. Atheists can choose to ACCEPT or ignore these scientific theories. belief and faith is not the basis of scientific progress.
FallofDarkness55 9 months ago
@drgoldteef sorry i have to keep apologizing for my brothers comments who keeps posting replys to videos using my youtube account its getting very annoying.
hulkmedia 9 months ago
Religious people always spit in science, because science doesn't support their believes.
slpnunes 9 months ago
@slpnunes science doesnt support the naturalists ideas. The Creator created science and there will be NOTHING in science that offeres anything more than conjectural evidence to the contrary. I repeat, there is nothing in 'real' science that will undermine or offer evidence that there is no Creator. Peace
psford1 8 months ago
The speaker is right the Athiest failed. You cant say its absolute fact if its not. Science doesnt say this is exactly how it happens. It says this is the most likely our best guess of how we explain what happens. But it should all be taught in school. But the speaker is making a point the athiest just didnt understand.
hulkmedia 9 months ago
@hulkmedia "The speaker is right the Athiest failed."
Are you serious? Stop watching wrestling and go to school.
drgoldteef 9 months ago
OMG...is this caller a product of US public education??? He has no grasp of science as taught at the elementary school level :(
jrcahill2 9 months ago 2
"i'm not going to base my whole existance on the fact that i evolved from a fish". Who, THE fuck does that.
t1mel1ne 10 months ago
8 planets to 9...to 8 to 9 and possibly 11 planets. I think they been finding planets orbiting stars now. I wonder how many we know of....38? 54?
jondeare 10 months ago
20 years ago a tires had inner tubes, but there are no inner tubes now because the design changed.
Tires, and the vehicles they are designed to work with would not exist without science. This is also a change.
Religions are afraid of changes, but Science embrace changes as its most basic principle.
Neosaigo 10 months ago
@Neosaigo
Bicycle tyres have inner tyres mate. So obviously that is a case of divergent evolution, right?
:P
Surtak 10 months ago
@luyben12 yeah yeah go on in your dream world of good and evil. if you think it's that simple then it's sad, but dumb people are numb aren't they. good day, kid.
donttttt 10 months ago
@luyben12 there again this stupid argument "there are more christians than others, so jesus is true". remember the past? remember how STUPID the majority of people, born from a barabarian culture with no intend of building up a high educated society, was in the past? you and you christian friends are the remainings of that barbaric, unclean and highly brutal and intolerant culture.
donttttt 10 months ago
@luyben12 of course you as christian see yourself as a least one? temptation is there, isn't it? so it is indeed about being special. in gods eyes poor people are good ones and rich are evil and go to hell. in my eyes they are both humans and their respect depends on what they did in life. it's not always about just black and white, christian. and i see the world as a construct, constantly changing, with us humans as a tiny part of it. we can never get its "purpose" by reading a human's book.
donttttt 10 months ago
@luyben12 so what? i am no christian pretending to be "special" or sth. i see reality. go on with your dreamy life of whatever insanity it will inherit. have a nice day. or night.
donttttt 10 months ago
@luyben12 this was just nonsense. it didnt even make sense in itself.
donttttt 10 months ago
What an ASSHOLE.
LesPaul2006 11 months ago
I don't put any faith in science, or anything else for that matter. I trust the scientific method as the only reliable means to knowledge and understanding about life, the universe, and everything. I trust that method because it has a proven track record of getting things right.
Kailoa36 11 months ago
Don't keep the faith Al.
simpsonmark 11 months ago
"I set this time aside to humiliate myself in public."
Paetaor 11 months ago
The laugh at 4:24 is all that needs to be said about what Bill (who has called in many times on other episodes with nonsense) really thinks.
He is too far gone. Say a prayer for him LOL.
spydertub3 11 months ago
Is it true that in some schools in the south states, evolution is not allowed?????????
gulbirk 1 year ago
I want Matt's shirt!
Hedigermj 1 year ago
@Hedigermj its a shirt from xkcd, a web comic.
randaldull 1 year ago
wait if christianity gets a course for itself, why can't any other religion?
guyana001 1 year ago
I find it funny how the best argument ever that god exists, is science. As in, that current science allows for a possibility for there to be a creator of everything. Well, if you can call that an argument for existence. As it's more just a 'maybe'.
Sanquinity 1 year ago
Another theist not understanding anything about science.
Scorpitarios 1 year ago
Comment removed
nemirn 1 year ago
@nemirn Sam Harris isn't that good
vcomp1960 1 year ago
im soooo stoned...
Jip4head 1 year ago
One of the most frustrating videos from TAE...
You have to actually pinch yourself: People, like this moron in there, really exist?
Are they part of our society? Are they allowed to vote? Are any of them, the members of a decision making board of...anything?
Do they sign the papers? Are they free to express their opinion on anything? Publicly?
I feel like vomiting.
MrJurekGG 1 year ago
This caller sounds like the same idiot who called and said that the proof of creationism is this: there are men and there are apes, and they're totally different. Sigh.
Nabiki73 1 year ago
@Nabiki73 I think you are right.............only he hasn't evolved into a human yet!
vcomp1960 1 year ago
but i know there's people whom incorporated science into their ideology and their beliefs and use it to harm others. so dude i already know that science gives us the understanding of our world. and i'm not really religious i'm a secular. so you still get or not? if not then please reply to me thanx
americanliberal09 1 year ago
i love science but i don't take it to far with though
americanliberal09 1 year ago
@americanliberal09 Well, I don't see how you can take it "too far" ,science never asks your to believe what is says to a hundred percent, it's just saying what appears most likely for the time being. Putting faith in religion who claims it's 100% right without ANY evidence is taking it WAAAAYY to far.
Drcrazy93 1 year ago
@Drcrazy93 i know that dude that's not what i'm trying to say at all. they are some people who are into science that take to the extreme and use it for dangerous means. science say humans are sociable creatures which is true and i know i don't have to follow it but when certain people say science explains we humans beings are sociable creatures they will incorporated if it was a dogma to operate in life and that's what i mean dude. i already know that science give us general info
americanliberal09 1 year ago
@americanliberal09 I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Do you mean that people interpret our present scientific knowledge as an absolute truth and "follow" it without questioning it ? I don't really know how you "follow" science. It's just what we know of the world, it doesn't say how to live our lives, only why things are the way they are.
Sorry if I'm slow, english isn't my first language.
Drcrazy93 1 year ago
@Drcrazy93 what?????? i think your confuse here dude. first of all you misunderstand me dude i already know that science doesn't really tell you what to do. trust me dude their are people who are into science and they go will take to the extreme measures with it. i don't follow science i study it. science is a observational tool it can be use for good purposes and for bad. yes some crazed people will treat science as if it was a dogma of life. science never dogmas nor beliefs which is true
americanliberal09 1 year ago
@americanliberal09 How to you take scientific facts of life into "extreme measures" How do you use proper science for doing things that are bad? If you're referring to what hitler did, it wasn't really science, it was pseudo science.
Drcrazy93 1 year ago
@Drcrazy93 o.k dude if that doesn't sum it up then i don't what
americanliberal09 1 year ago
@Drcrazy93 o.k dude if that doesn't sum it up for you then i don't what else to say for you dude?
americanliberal09 1 year ago
@Drcrazy93 o.k dude you prove me wrong it took a while to realize that when i did some research on my own.
i get things mixed up sometimes so no harsh feelings dude. i admitted that i didn't make sense at all so i hope that clears it up for you dude. and by the way thanx
americanliberal09 1 year ago
@americanliberal09 You do not make much sense, you keep repeating the same things over and over and don't explain them any further.
Drcrazy93 1 year ago
This caller took a major u-turn half way through his call.
capoman1 1 year ago
You know what I find to be really pathetic and perhaps even monumentally depressing? The US is the only major modernized nation where science is pulled to the back-burner by religious idiots who want to keep society from progressing.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
This guy is such an idiot. He KNOWS that he was being destroyed in this argument.
Zentz29 1 year ago
How often does this same fucking guy call this show?
mzyzer19 1 year ago
science changes win it finds new evidence or facts,religion does not change no matter what. which makes science more reasonable,because it look for the turth rather then assuming it has it like religion. THE problem however,is since religion never changes,stupid people think that makes it more reasonable and better because in the mind of the religious "if it doesn't change then it must be automatically right because it doesn't need changeing".
1metallica1 1 year ago
@1metallica1 Religion does change. For example. In the past most christians beleived slavery and killing of heathens was a holy work. Now most are against it.
Religion is what people think is good.
rangergxi 1 year ago
Comment removed
eurisko67 1 year ago
@rangergxi I'd have to disagree with that one. Religion changes only in accordance with the law as dictated by secular society. Most Christians still believe slavery and killing in the name of their god is a good thing, and left to their own devices (no interference from judicial law) you can bet your ass they'd still be out there enforcing their beliefs. Remember, Negros were still being lynched without consequence right up to the 1940's.
Religion is a weapon. Always has been.
eurisko67 1 year ago
@eurisko67 Depends on the individual and church. People tend to only look at the good parts.
rangergxi 1 year ago
Comment removed
1metallica1 1 year ago
This caller is one of the stupidest dumb shits I've ever heard.
Khyrid 1 year ago
I would have dropped this clowns call so long ago, why let a person like this ramble in ignorance
VictorEchoNovember79 1 year ago
@VictorEchoNovember79 Its my favorit part of the show. Religious people show that they have no idea about what they are talking about.
rangergxi 1 year ago
Oh jeez... the stupid burns...
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
"Sir, I can't follow your ABSURD logic. Please shut the fuck up."
Unclesamslair 1 year ago
his mocking laugh made me laugh tho
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago
I'm amazed that Matt managed to listen that long to him, I would have hung up out of frustration long before that.
UniversalCipher 1 year ago
Because something is scrutinized and revised to be more accurate it is not valid? As if we must be totally right about everything form the dawn of time and any equivocation to new evidence is a sign of weakness. That is false logic.
eayrs 1 year ago 44
"but science doesn't change, 20 years ago a tire was still a tire..."
*facepalm*
Analphabet1337 1 year ago 60
@Analphabet1337
Science does change that is why its different than religion. it gets better and smarter and more advanced but u dont care this was 8 months ago lol
mephisto279 9 months ago
@Analphabet1337
My bad "facepalm"
mephisto279 9 months ago
lmao the caller said he didnt have faith in science, that doesnt stop him from driving his car to work or brushing his teeth. epic fucking fail.
ShroomFuu86 1 year ago
SCIENCE
IT WORKS BITCHES
Mattysmyth0593 1 year ago
........but evolution IS a theory..... thats why they call it The Theory of Evolution NOT the Law of Evolution
AnomeStudios 1 year ago
@AnomeStudios Acoustic theory, theory of relativity, quantum theory, big bang theory, kinetic theory of gases... You are using the colloquial understanding of the term theory rather than the scientific understanding of it.
Sarusource 1 year ago
@Sarusource that is what the scientific understanding of a theory is. Theories are generally things that we have SOME evidence but are yet to be proven as a definite fact i.e. the big bang theory there's no solid, no other way you can look at it proof that it happened. And then you have Laws which were originally theories that were proven to work 99.9999% with solid concrete cant be disputed evidence. i.e. the Law of Gravity
AnomeStudios 1 year ago