Well I guess when a creatard is intellectually demolished, found out, exposed, completely torn apart and shown up to be the typical Christian with their dishonest quote mining, the only thing the creatard can do is say "Well... I guess I made my point ..." and scurry off, tail between the legs, like the poor insignificant fool he is. A message to creatards - stop believing the bullshit- let go of your guilt, there is no god... throw out that Koran/Bible and start living a normal life.
@MaybeFactor Darwin is giving his believers great comfort in the illusion that death is final. "I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear," Carnegie wrote. "Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. 'All is well since all grows better' became my motto, my true source of comfort."
kudos. the atheist experience just gave this misguided kid more education than he'll get in a year of wherever the hell he was indoctrinated with the incomplete darwin quote. you guys just performed a kind deed for him.
One of the biggest issues with the word "Darwinist" IMO is, that the theory we biologists call "(Synthetic) Theory of Evolution" is much broader than the theory Darwin invented 150 years ago.
@mikesomething Darwin did a lot in rationalizing atheist faith in the non-existence of Gods and the finality of death. He has been a source of great hope.
@alexthasy Atheism has nothing to do with Evolution. Millions of Christians (and also Muslims) accept Evolution, which by the way is a measurable fact (Evolution = Change over time) can be ovserved and reproduced.
If you have issues with the theoriy of evolution (which is a different thing) you are free to contribute to science with a better explanation. But be aware: Faith isn't an argument.
@fire112germany There may be a theist segment of Darwinism but it is a fact that its biggest sect uses the old defrocked protestant priest theory to rationalize atheism. Read through Darwinian atheist theologians Sagan and Dawkins and the way they are using the myth of natural selection to replace the need for a creator God to explain the designing, programming and engineering of the species. Rev Dawkins is even calling species designoids not being intelligently designed.
@alexthasy You can repeat it as often as you want. Evolution has nothing to da with atheism. I sometimes hear the "not a real christian" argument which falls obviously in the "not a real scotsman"-catheogorie.
In the context of all the knowledge we currently have I think that calling natural selection a myth is just plain ignorant. I read Sagan and Dawkins (wich I don't agree with in some things). The system is indeed complex but the mechanisms become clearer every day. (...)
@fire112germany Most of those defending a Darwinian evolutionary creation are indeed using it to rationalize their atheism and their hope in the finality of death, As a young man I wanted to believe in Darwin for that same reason and reading Carnegie conversion to evolutionism from his own memoirs it is clear that it freed him from all moral inhibitions
@alexthasy Oh, come on. This is really lame. You don't get it, do you? Accepting evolution has nothing to do with "believing in Darwin". And you are embarrassing yourself with your last sentence. Are you just trolling or do you really believe the stuff you write? You should bring the "Hitler was Atheist"-Argument. Just for the record.
@fire112germany Darwin was the Messiah of evolutionism. Do you think that those asking me to demonstrate that species like peacocks, swallows or honeybees are intelligently designed, programmed and engineered would be serious or mindlessly trolling? Hitler was a demon possessed psychopath
@alexthasy Even if we say that all currently accepted evolutionary mechanisms are false (evidence points to the contrary!) that would in no way lead to an intelligent designer. At least as long as no good evidence is provided. And for such an extraordinary claim you need really extraordinary evidence.
Calling scientists "Rev." and "theologians" ist nothing more than just stupid. Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
To say Einstein was wrong is inaccurate, just like saying Newton was 'wrong'. The only problem with their theories is that they aren't universal. Newton's equations and laws DO work, to a point, and Einstein's theorums work a bit better. the only problem is, they don't work for ALL things, which is good, because if they did, then there'd be no more need to do furthur research in their fields.
@GluttonForSex What would be the causality and the reason for anything to have a constant orderly evolution towards becoming exquisitely designed, programmed and engineered within a cult that prides itself of being atheistic? Natural section is nothing but a disguised goddess masquerading as a law of science. Darwinism is supported by voodoo magic
at least the caller had the rest of the book available and was not just using a quote from somewhere else. Maybe he will study the next section and come to understand what Darwin was saying. Maybe .
Darwinists, Darwin's theory? WTF! Darwin discovered the clue to how nature works when it comes to survival via improvement. Evidence has only reconfirmed this again and again. You see, religious believers, the 'truth' always needs 'evidence' as backup.
@alexthasy "Nature works miracles. She must be a goddess" The very best of alexthasy "logic". Deliberate ignoring of the usage of simile and metaphor. Inability to manage simple linguistic tools and a total lack of evidence and logic to back up an inane conclusion.
"Arguing with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over the chess pieces, craps on the board, and then flies back to its flock to declare victory."
@MrSmashman1981 True, a much better example is the human brain, after all its the brain thats interpreting visual information. The eye is just a translator.
@MrSmashman1981 Humanity has more bad stuff! Tailbone, goose bumps, extra ear muscles, plantaris muscle, wisdom teeth, third eyelid, they all count too. Wouldn't make sense to have them if you think we were designed.
@TheTriforcebearer And you are right to feel 'weird' because, according to you, the entire audience is exclusively mature men and, by your own admission, you are neither male nor mature. Please shut the door on your way out. Thank you.
@s10m0t10n are you kidding? I'm not leaving! I am watching these guys and others such as thinkingathiest and theamazingathiest because I agree with them. Debates and all science related material really interests me!I know I am ranting now and I am trying not to be rude but I would like to add that I am sometimes mistaken as an adult because of my maturity level and because i have such an adult demeanour.
Anyone else notice the caller was just reading the second half of the paragraph and not comprehending what he was reading? I almost wonder if he had maybe tried reading it before and just wasn't able to conclude what it meant. The worst part is, at the end of the call, he still didn't understand. It scares me how some people can be slapped in the face with something and still not see it.
@PapaCapinya Little did we know that man told all his buddies about how he owned the Atheist show with that quote mine, when in fact he talked with his feet in his mouth from the beginning. The fact that he said "well i made my point" makes me think he thought he got them.....what a complete fool unfortunately, caught in a quote mine and since he doesn't understand the second part he thinks he still made a point. Poor fool.
Let's face it guys. Its beyond the ability of your callers to comprehend such high levels of abstract reasoning. However I assume that your main goal isn't to convince a single caller but to use their ignorance to exploit the fallacies of faith. So..nvm. I refuted my own point.
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. He wants us to elevate our consciousness to the next level, is real
@dejesusluisx So that means that an objects mass is simply the sum total of its godliness times the speed of light squared. Therefore fat people are more likely to get into heaven.
@094250001 "Your holy math is wrong, a decrease in mass will directly correlate into a decrease in godliness. That means fasting is a sin." The math is right is the interpretation of fasting what you call wrong. If you want to communicate with God and have a relationship with Him, you would want less mass so the energy becomes less to for it to be more personal. Fasting is good for you, recent scientific discoveries had confirmed that. Isn't God awesome!!!
@dejesusluisx My interpretation of fasting was correct, you seem to be confused by your own completely insane energy/god equivalence theory. You cant communicate or have a relationship with the an objects ability to do work.
@094250001 You can communicate with conscious energy. Humans are “hardwired” for seeking God. The “hard wiring” is not necessarily related to the brain. The hard wire is in our consciousness. If you imagine the brain as magnet, consciousness would be the magnetic field. That field can attract other magnets if they complement each other, that's what I call being in tune. You have to be in tune with God's wavelength to be saved.
@dejesusluisx I'm not sure whats more appalling, your understanding of brain chemistry, your understanding of relativity, your understanding of energy, or your understanding of electromagnetism.
I'm gonna say this once more, energy is the ability for one physical system to exert a force on another physical system. It cannot by definition be conscious, saying it can makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
@094250001 How do you think you cell phone works, or radio signals, or wireless internet? They work thanks to energy. Energy waves can store and transmit all the information ever produced by mankind. Atheist claim our consciousness is the product of our brain capacity to handle more information, so why can't energy be conscious? Of course it can exert a force, that's what energy does, and that's how the universe was created. We can understand today mysteries theologians had asked for ages.
@dejesusluisx Wireless communication is done through the self propagation of artificially created transverse oscillating waves of electric and magnetic fields. The information is encoded into the wave by systematically changing certain properties of the waves. A receiver can then pick up and detect the changes in the waves properties and translate that into readable information.
@094250001"" Wireless communication is done through the self propagation (how) of artificially created transverse oscillating waves of electric (energy) and magnetic fields (energy). Thanks for the definition, and for helping me prove my case.
@dejesusluisx Also your incorrect in thinking that electromagnetic radiation itself is energy, rather electromagnetic radiation (photons) are force carriers of the electromagnetic force, they carry energy they are not themselves energy.
@094250001 "they carry energy they are not themselves energy" you mean like a passenger bus carry kids to school? no, isn't like that at all. The photons are packets of electromagnetic energy. It was argued by Einstein that a medium called the "ether" actually carried the photons, but that was never demonstrated empirically and the theory was discarded, so sorry, no school bus.
@094250001 "exerting force is not what energy does its what energy IS. Theres also no such thing as energy waves" so if there are no energy waves then can you explain how electromagnetic energy travel? Maybe you can come up with a new, Nobel price worthy theory.
@GluttonForSex Sarcasm is a great tool to get a message across. I guess you put the law of natural selection which is credited with taking land mammals through millions of years of evolution and numerous species while giving them to magically alter organs and limbs and evolve into whales in the same league as the law of gravity. I always thought that science could use a dose of voodoo magic. Someone in Harry Potter also magically grew limbs at one time.
@alexthasy Millions of years worth of non-stop evolution by natural selection embodies a physical process, the products of which we can see both in the fossil records we find and, with more modern methods, in the DNA sequencing of the species. No magic or voodoo involved there at all, at any point.
Invisible magic men in the sky snapping their fingers and creating the Universe on the other hand, now there's a fairy tale story if I ever heard one. :-)
you know, i used to love the eye arguement. but i just watched a video where a creationist was comparing TERMITE TURDS between dino time periods, to modern time periods. He claimed because they were the same, evolution was a lie. He even quoted the bible about coming forth from the same kind...LMAO..it's was just genius. Termite shit disproves evolution because it looks the same then and now. Just amazing how stupid these people are.
I love it how Creationists think that Darwin is an Atheists achilles heel,as if by rebuking him that somehow makes evolution invalid.Increasingly funny given the fact most of them have no idea what evolution actually is,in the same way people in this country think all socialism is bad,they dont know what it is but its gotta be bad i mean thats communist talk. lol
Quoting is just a poor method of debating, whether the quotes are mined or not. I'm a post graduate researcher and I would never dream of quoting someone in a scientific publication. Cite, yes; quote no.
When people start quoting it's a sure sign that they have no actual evidence. If you took quotes as proof, then you could support any position regardless of how strong or weak it is.
When someone starts quoting in a debate, then I know they've already lost the debate. Creationists quote a lot!
Claiming that skeptics "believe" in what Darwin wrote, is like accusing someone of using a Thomas Edison version of a light bulb crafted by Edison himself 100 plus years ago. Meanwhile we've got true "LED lights and optical fibers" when it comes to advances in evolutionary science. Forget the light bulb, morons! :P
I found exactly the same thing with the Jehovah's Witnesses. In one of their books called 'life' they're still using this quote from Darwin to disprove evolution. They even go as far as saying that we still (post Darwin) have no idea how the eye could have evolved. I can only suggest that they read any good textbook on evolution.
I love the callers final words (I made my point). OK, if your point is "I parrot quotes that I have been spoon-fed thinking they support my position when I clearly do not understand the context in which they were made", then yes, you made your point.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T CREATE. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process, not a creative process. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are possible in nature. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Mogley52 You do understand that you've applied backwards reasoning to this entire idea, right? You've already assumed your conclusion that the bible is true without demonstrating its veracity in any way. Why do you think anybody watching this video gives a shit about what your particular theory on your own delusion is? How about you take you religous, ranting waste of space somehwere else?
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T CREATE. It can only "select" from variations that occur which have survival value. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process, and what survival value would a partially-evolved organ have? The real issue is what biological variations in nature are possible. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@Mogley52 You're right in saying that natural selection doesn't explain the origin of life. That bit is explained by the science of abiogenesis. It is also true the natural selection only selects between variations, but genetic drift and mutation explain from where these variations come. Finally, partially formed organs can serve many purposes. I light sensitive piece of skin(or a proto-eye) can provide an advantage, however slight, to its owner. You are one insanely ignorant dumbass.
I read your article btw, you made many crass mistakes showing that you don't understand evolution outside of the creationist literature you've read. Read real book on the subject, then maybe you'll make a good point
"Fossils show that all species came into existence as complete, fully-formed/functional. That can only happen by creation" - Google "Pakicetus"
"The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, & there are no fossils showing such a creature existed" - Google "Mudskipper"
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
I think aswell as the idea that a darwinists accepts darwins theories because he is darwin that when creationists call you a darwinist they mean social darwinism aswell, eugenics etc. which is at the root of alot fear around evolution as a theory. its like they believe it leaves no room for love
« its like they believe it leaves no room for love »
No, that's merely an argument they use to bolster their own rejection of science. The real reason they reject science always was and will always remain the simple fact that it contradicts scripture, the core of their beliefs.
Darwinism is a term that originated within biology--it was coined by Huxley shortly after Origin of Species was published. It's not my preferred term, but I don't mind being called a Darwinist at all. I wish I were a quarter as great a scientist as Darwin was.
Science relies on evidence, reasoning, and common sense. Creationism relies on quote mining, deception, taking advantage of the uneducated, and the indoctrination of children.
Darwin's disciples love clinging to fallible reasoning: They believe, in a most dogmatic manner, that Evolution Theory is Scientific Law, despite the constant influx of counterintuitive cognition that demands a more rational explanation. In short, Evolution, at every point, fails to reconcile the most basic laws of our observable universe. There are a lot of intelligent people who show themselves to be extremely stupid.
@liOVERLOADil Don't be so naive. True atheism has no roots, its logic is like a vapor - fragile and without form. To assume that a theist, such as myself, simply "borrows" the arguments of an atheist is simply illogical. Why would I exalt something that I clearly denounce? To claim that one uses "the language of atheists" is an ignorant assumption. Nietzsche didn't invent his own language, he drew upon the work of others even as he claimed to offer a new morality. His is a sad story.
@liOVERLOADil Okay I'll slow it down for you: Atheism literally means a lack of belief in God. It is not a belief, rather, a lack of belief. It is merely a response to something that already was, is, and will be. The numbers alone tell the story: less than 10% of the world's population is truly atheist. When an entire sub-group of people is defined by their "lack of _____", it can only be regarded as reactionary.
@liOVERLOADil Of course, many atheists enjoy being a part of an exclusive elite or, as Nietzsche would say, "Hyperboreans". Therefore, it is not the existence of any true wisdom that defines these people, rather their self-constructed intelligentsia that feeds their pride as they stroke each others' egos. That, my friend, is the unfortunate reality as witnessed clearly in this video and others like it.
@ThisIDig That is a bit harsh.So don't swalloing everything without evidence is a selfconstructed intelligentia to only feed pride?Well we all then must have egos the size of a planet because of not swallowing stories about fairies,dragons etc.
To not swallow something because of lack of evidence shows a logic and somehow scientific worldview.Its not about wisdom but rejecting the wannabe "wisdom" of theists.You can't prove or disprove a god so not buying it is one (logical) conclusion.
@gastarbeiter1 The "evidence" you look for is found in every known scientific law. We live in a rational world, and it reflects our rational creator. Not chaos, but order; an order that is entirely inconsistent with atheist thought. Throughout history (up until 100 years ago), no one questioned this most-obvious truth. Egos arise (in this case) where we stubbornly refute the obvious. And the men in this video are a perfect example of egotistical pride. It is all about wisdom, entirely.
@ThisIDig Okay you have to define what you mean with order in that sense.What for you is obvious here comes from the presumption of a creator in the first place.Also I think you should define what you mean with the term creator.The believe in a creator in the past came from from the lack of knowledge about the very ways nature work.For them it was obvious.Knowledge about the world diminishes the places where a god can be(god of the gaps).So its not about pride or ego but knowledge. cont
@gastarbeiter1 Cosmos, the "Harmony of the Spheres", the seasons, the cycles of life, the symbiotic relationships that exist in every form and sub-species on this planet, the earth's relationship to the moon, our biological makeup, electricity, magnetism, gravity, physical science in general, etc. The doubter can continue to doubt as long as he wishes, but the earth will continue to rotate and revolve around the sun - not around him.
@gastarbeiter1 Please don't confuse "harshness" with being direct and to-the-point. We are all too wrapped up in political correctness in our false attempt to display "tolerance". Do you see what happens there? The truth is done away with. And science without truth is not science at all, but only socio-political diatribe. We can do without any more of that nonsense.
@ThisIDig Science itself doesn't deal with the last questions.The consequences that arise from scientific knowledge about the world are also spreading in philosophy.What former was a work of god now can be explained by science thats why more and more people don't believe in a deity today.So to propose a creator god needs some reasons for you.And I would be pleased if you tell me what your reasons are why a creator for you is obvious.
@gastarbeiter1 Reasons for God (and reasoning attributed to God): Life, Love, Knowledge of Good and Evil, Human History, Law, Ethics, Physics, Mathematics, Geology, Cosmology, Biology, Anthropology, Aesthetics (in general), Art, Music, Harmony (in all senses of the word). For someone to claim that God doesn't exist because of a "lack of proof" is akin to someone claiming that oxygen doesn't exist because we can't see it. Both figuratively and literally, "it is the air we breathe".
@ThisIDig How do you come to the conclusion that all this is evidence or reason for your conclusion of a god?I would argue that most of these has nothing to do nor indicates a god.
All you mention about the cosmos can(mostly) directly be explained by science.No god necessary.And I am not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that all this is evidence for god.
@gastarbeiter1 "All you mention about the cosmos can(mostly) directly be explained by science.No god necessary." If you are speaking of a total naturalistic view of the universe, then I would say 2 things: 1) The opposite is true. The more we discover about the universe, the more we are consistently shocked at what we find. 2) Science itself (its laws) is founded upon belief in constants, yet we have absolutely no idea if these laws truly are constant. We chose to operate with that assumption
@ThisIDig 1)Of course we are shocked what we find.But its not designed on purpose.Biological life is always remodelled by natural selection.Nature is like it is because of the natural laws we discovered.And the funny thing is we don't assume that it was as this in the past.We can test it.When we look at distant galaxies and stars we see light that is sometimes billions of years old.And it fits with observations we do on earth.So for all light we can see the laws apply.No assumption but tested.
@gastarbeiter1 "But its not designed on purpose" This is a general blanket statement that needs some explanation.
"Biological life is always remodelled by natural selection" Natural selection doesn't "remodel" anything. It simply does away with the regressive genes, the harmful mutations that more often hinder an organism than aid in its survival. "Survival of the fittest" is not a mechanism capable of producing - it merely diminishes. That is the great hoax of Evolution Theory.
@aaaaaFuck Your argument is merely pedantic. At the end of the day you still have to figure out how a mechanism for destruction is able to create new information. Its simple math. The operand remains the same, it is natural selection (a subtractor). You are trying to tell me that it is a multiplicand. It just isn't so.
« It simply does away with the regressive genes, the harmful mutations that more often hinder an organism than aid in its survival »
And it promotes any variant allele that might bestow a reproductive advantage upon its bearer, given its particular environment. This may or may not include such occurrences as the mutation in an Italian family that basically makes them immune to high cholesterol, or the mutation in a German family that gives them unusually sturdy bones.
@XGralgrathor Variant allele (Amorphic Allele, Pseudoalelle Allele, Reeler Allele, etc.) display the same phenomenon - regressive mutations that hinder the survival of an organism. Search Nature.com for "mouse mutant reeler".
Any benefits from variant allele are limited to special circumstances, and almost always still hinder the organism in other ways (requiring more food/energy, leading to atrophy in other organs, etc.)
« display the same phenomenon - regressive mutations »
Newly detected variants usually do affect the organism in a detrimental way, yes. Of the few percent of mutations that actually does anything, some 70% affects the organism in a detrimental way. Those are the ones we notice, due to their effects. That of course leaves 30% of neutral or weakly beneficial variants for natural selection to work with.
Natural selection works on circumstances that affect survival or reproduction; and that covers an extremely broad range of things. They are not "special" circumstances.
Well, not given broader knowledge of observable reality. One might however argue that each and every environment has a *unique* combination of parameters for the organism to conform to, which might justify use of the word "special".
@XGralgrathor "particles-to-people" did not happen due to "special circumstances" as observed by natural selection - how could it have? Again, we are looking at a net gain of billions in genetic information. What is the advantage of Multiple Sclerosis or Brain Cancer? Mutation destroys the prototypical image. Death is incapable of producing anything. It simply destroys. This is simple logic. Show me any logical construct that offers the opposite outcome and you will be in business.
We were discussing adaptation, not the abiogenesis.
« Again, we are looking at a net gain of billions in genetic information »
More accurately, we are looking at an increase in the number of genetic sequences in our genome that have certain chemical effects. Whether or not such sequences contain or represent information isn't even something we have to consider, since we can explain how such sequences come about without consulting information theory.
@XGralgrathor "We were discussing adaptation, not the abiogenesis."
Where do you draw the line? What of "the Origin of the Species"? Neo-Darwinists fully attest evolution as being responsible for life on earth, even if they cannot point to its specific origin
"Whether or not such sequences contain or represent information isn't even something we have to consider, since we can explain how such sequences come about without consulting information theory."
Where classical evolution takes hold, eg. with life more or less the same as we see now; life that is determined more by inheritance than by lateral gene transfer.
@ThisIDig Sigh.You can't separate both.beneficial mutations as observed do happen.Due to natural selection these good mutations spread.So natural selection does remodel.No hoax.You just can't look at them seperately.
@gastarbeiter1 You absolutely must look at each example individually. Otherwise its an overgeneralized and bloated theory that doesn't have a leg to stand on: evolution.
So lets look at some specifics: Polyploidy (plants) have proven to mutate in beneficial ways that show an increase in genetic information. This is due to the cross-pollination possibilities that each plant comes with in its "information package". Unfortunately, we don't have that built into our genetic code.
@ThisIDig We find out more and more about all things and discover the nature behind it.Untikl now there is nothing that can only be explained by a god magically poofing something into existance.We may not understand everything but just stop investigating and say well god didit would just be mental lazyness and mind limiting.Can you show me something that leads can't and will never be explainable AND can ONLY be explained by using a god?
@gastarbeiter1 "We may not understand everything but just stop investigating and say well god didit would just be mental lazyness and mind limiting" The opposite can also be said; to limit our knowledge based merely on "what we see" would be a devastatingly regressive approach to scientific study. M-Theory, for example, would only be scoffed at. Yet, M-Theory is perhaps one of the most convincing "proofs" of the supernatural (outside of general revelation).
@aaaaaFuck M-Theory mathematically proves the existence of multiple dimensions. We cannot "see" these dimensions, however, we conclude they exist. This is evidence of the supernatural, where the very laws of physics are turned inside out. Dimensions where our laws do not exist IS evidence of the supernatural!
> M-Theory mathematically proves the existence of multiple dimensions. We cannot "see" these dimensions
Mathematical proofs relies on its initial assumptions about the universe being true. Assumptions which require evidence through testing and observations.
By itself, mathematics cannot verify anything about the universe.
@aaaaaFuck A very interesting point. Mathematics do rely on our assumptions - I completely agree. This is an amazing thing. We must take on faith, that we live in a rational universe governed by specific laws. These laws cannot be "proven" in and of themselves, rather, we must assume a stable, constant dimension is at work.
Not really. Mathematics relies on *axioms*. Axioms are per definition true; they need not have a relation to physical reality. For instance, the axioms used in a description of Euclidian space are different than those describing Einsteinian space, but no less 'true' for that, whether an Euclidian space actually exists or not.
« If you make a mathematical model that is internally logically consistent, that's not the same as saying it's an accurate description of reality. »
Yep, that's what I was saying. Mathematics is a way of describing how we perceive the relations between quantitatively measurable entities to work out, but the relations don't necessarily apply to physically existing geometries and so on.
@XGralgrathor A simpler example can be seen comparing multiplication tables vs addition. 2+2=4, and 2x2=4. Both are true, yet the operation is different. By utilizing a different series of numbers, the calculations result in a different outcome, yet each remains true to their unique properties. My point is not about the math, its about our reliance on the reliability of math. We have no idea what laws exist outside our known conclave in space and time, but we ASSUME a state of constancy
Well I guess when a creatard is intellectually demolished, found out, exposed, completely torn apart and shown up to be the typical Christian with their dishonest quote mining, the only thing the creatard can do is say "Well... I guess I made my point ..." and scurry off, tail between the legs, like the poor insignificant fool he is. A message to creatards - stop believing the bullshit- let go of your guilt, there is no god... throw out that Koran/Bible and start living a normal life.
MrDevilstreaker 1 week ago
thumbs up just for the name
faceshed 1 week ago
Matt wear funny hat.
mattjindrak 1 week ago
Taking quotes out of context is a common trait in creationists.
Dannicthemanic 2 weeks ago 3
I love the way that Jeff pounces on the computer as soon as he hears "human eye".
MrFungus420 3 weeks ago
20:13 - Does this caller know how to read?
jagara1 1 month ago
I would love to meet these guys.
californiarednek 1 month ago
I love being able to google it an dismantle their argument, NO THOUGHT REQUIRED.
FactualCommentor 1 month ago
Perfectly said Matt.★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 month ago
It seems as if the caller contacted them before reading the whole paragraph.
pat5168 1 month ago
Darwinist - someone who believes that Darwin was a man... yep, I'm a Darwinist!
MaybeFactor 1 month ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaybeFactor Darwin is giving his believers great comfort in the illusion that death is final. "I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear," Carnegie wrote. "Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. 'All is well since all grows better' became my motto, my true source of comfort."
alexthasy 4 weeks ago
kudos. the atheist experience just gave this misguided kid more education than he'll get in a year of wherever the hell he was indoctrinated with the incomplete darwin quote. you guys just performed a kind deed for him.
castelgandalf 1 month ago 2
The word "epic" is used much too often in online-commentaries. That said, this was nonetheless absolutely epic!
trallalala100 1 month ago
One of the biggest issues with the word "Darwinist" IMO is, that the theory we biologists call "(Synthetic) Theory of Evolution" is much broader than the theory Darwin invented 150 years ago.
fire112germany 1 month ago
@fire112germany The delusion has become way more elaborate that is for sure.
alexthasy 1 month ago
jesusists believe in jesusism
mikesomething 1 month ago
@mikesomething Darwin did a lot in rationalizing atheist faith in the non-existence of Gods and the finality of death. He has been a source of great hope.
alexthasy 1 month ago
@alexthasy Atheism has nothing to do with Evolution. Millions of Christians (and also Muslims) accept Evolution, which by the way is a measurable fact (Evolution = Change over time) can be ovserved and reproduced.
If you have issues with the theoriy of evolution (which is a different thing) you are free to contribute to science with a better explanation. But be aware: Faith isn't an argument.
fire112germany 1 month ago
@fire112germany There may be a theist segment of Darwinism but it is a fact that its biggest sect uses the old defrocked protestant priest theory to rationalize atheism. Read through Darwinian atheist theologians Sagan and Dawkins and the way they are using the myth of natural selection to replace the need for a creator God to explain the designing, programming and engineering of the species. Rev Dawkins is even calling species designoids not being intelligently designed.
alexthasy 1 month ago
@alexthasy You can repeat it as often as you want. Evolution has nothing to da with atheism. I sometimes hear the "not a real christian" argument which falls obviously in the "not a real scotsman"-catheogorie.
In the context of all the knowledge we currently have I think that calling natural selection a myth is just plain ignorant. I read Sagan and Dawkins (wich I don't agree with in some things). The system is indeed complex but the mechanisms become clearer every day. (...)
fire112germany 1 month ago
@fire112germany Most of those defending a Darwinian evolutionary creation are indeed using it to rationalize their atheism and their hope in the finality of death, As a young man I wanted to believe in Darwin for that same reason and reading Carnegie conversion to evolutionism from his own memoirs it is clear that it freed him from all moral inhibitions
alexthasy 1 month ago
@alexthasy Oh, come on. This is really lame. You don't get it, do you? Accepting evolution has nothing to do with "believing in Darwin". And you are embarrassing yourself with your last sentence. Are you just trolling or do you really believe the stuff you write? You should bring the "Hitler was Atheist"-Argument. Just for the record.
fire112germany 1 month ago
@fire112germany Darwin was the Messiah of evolutionism. Do you think that those asking me to demonstrate that species like peacocks, swallows or honeybees are intelligently designed, programmed and engineered would be serious or mindlessly trolling? Hitler was a demon possessed psychopath
alexthasy 1 month ago
@alexthasy Even if we say that all currently accepted evolutionary mechanisms are false (evidence points to the contrary!) that would in no way lead to an intelligent designer. At least as long as no good evidence is provided. And for such an extraordinary claim you need really extraordinary evidence.
Calling scientists "Rev." and "theologians" ist nothing more than just stupid. Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
fire112germany 1 month ago
THAT GUY GOT OWNED! LOL
Casshyr 1 month ago
Einstein was mostly wrong tho. On almost every aspects. Now we're seeing it more and more. :)
chibraxial 2 months ago
@chibraxial Wrong? No.
Not completely accurate? Sure.
To say Einstein was wrong is inaccurate, just like saying Newton was 'wrong'. The only problem with their theories is that they aren't universal. Newton's equations and laws DO work, to a point, and Einstein's theorums work a bit better. the only problem is, they don't work for ALL things, which is good, because if they did, then there'd be no more need to do furthur research in their fields.
BigLundi 2 months ago
@BigLundi
Yeah, I was being a bit provocative here .
chibraxial 2 months ago
There's no such thing as a 'darwinist' you creationist fucktard!
Lennon4ever1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GluttonForSex What would be the causality and the reason for anything to have a constant orderly evolution towards becoming exquisitely designed, programmed and engineered within a cult that prides itself of being atheistic? Natural section is nothing but a disguised goddess masquerading as a law of science. Darwinism is supported by voodoo magic
alexthasy 2 months ago
at least the caller had the rest of the book available and was not just using a quote from somewhere else. Maybe he will study the next section and come to understand what Darwin was saying. Maybe .
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
Comment removed
alexthasy 2 months ago
Darwinists, Darwin's theory? WTF! Darwin discovered the clue to how nature works when it comes to survival via improvement. Evidence has only reconfirmed this again and again. You see, religious believers, the 'truth' always needs 'evidence' as backup.
cuevarap 2 months ago
@cuevarap Nature works miracles. She must be a goddess
alexthasy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexthasy "Nature works miracles. She must be a goddess" The very best of alexthasy "logic". Deliberate ignoring of the usage of simile and metaphor. Inability to manage simple linguistic tools and a total lack of evidence and logic to back up an inane conclusion.
FAIL
ozowen 2 months ago
Speaking of quotes:
"Arguing with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over the chess pieces, craps on the board, and then flies back to its flock to declare victory."
Vire70 2 months ago 2
This caller never understood what the rest of Darwin's quote meant and thought
that he made his point.
mentalphysicalism 2 months ago
if you get played like a monkey and didn't realize it and left satisfy because you thought you make your point then you really are a monkey
chonwai 3 months ago
I'm a James Joycean!
Ematched 3 months ago
my god, he didnt even realize they proved him completly wrong lol, he thought he made his point lmao
themindbusterator 3 months ago
The Eyes of the Mantis Shrimp have the most complex eyes of the Animal Kingdom. they can even see more of the spectrum that we cannot.
onthecuttingedge2005 3 months ago
Octopus eyes are far superior to human eyes, in fact, human eyes are quite flawed and are a bad example for intelligent design
MrSmashman1981 3 months ago
@MrSmashman1981 True, a much better example is the human brain, after all its the brain thats interpreting visual information. The eye is just a translator.
094250001 3 months ago
@MrSmashman1981 Humanity has more bad stuff! Tailbone, goose bumps, extra ear muscles, plantaris muscle, wisdom teeth, third eyelid, they all count too. Wouldn't make sense to have them if you think we were designed.
PointlessSteel 2 months ago
i cant believe he actually read the rest of the quote! lol
red666111 3 months ago
I'm an Hawkingist.
svaught32 3 months ago
Audiences
This video is most popular with:
Gender Age
Male 45-54
Male 35-44
Male 25-34
I'm 16 and female, this makes me feel a bit weird XD
TheTriforcebearer 3 months ago
@TheTriforcebearer My caremeter isn't reacting. Please go away.
pedarikarhu 3 months ago
@TheTriforcebearer And you are right to feel 'weird' because, according to you, the entire audience is exclusively mature men and, by your own admission, you are neither male nor mature. Please shut the door on your way out. Thank you.
s10m0t10n 3 months ago
@s10m0t10n are you kidding? I'm not leaving! I am watching these guys and others such as thinkingathiest and theamazingathiest because I agree with them. Debates and all science related material really interests me!I know I am ranting now and I am trying not to be rude but I would like to add that I am sometimes mistaken as an adult because of my maturity level and because i have such an adult demeanour.
TheTriforcebearer 3 months ago
@TheTriforcebearer Don't worry, I'm just outside those figures by 5 years & I always feel weird X3
Tarynus 3 months ago
"I made my point anyway."
chrisofnottingham 3 months ago
Darwin was a fantastic, brilliant scientist!
Forlo12345 3 months ago
this is just too good
aierce 3 months ago
Anyone else notice the caller was just reading the second half of the paragraph and not comprehending what he was reading? I almost wonder if he had maybe tried reading it before and just wasn't able to conclude what it meant. The worst part is, at the end of the call, he still didn't understand. It scares me how some people can be slapped in the face with something and still not see it.
PapaCapinya 3 months ago
@PapaCapinya Little did we know that man told all his buddies about how he owned the Atheist show with that quote mine, when in fact he talked with his feet in his mouth from the beginning. The fact that he said "well i made my point" makes me think he thought he got them.....what a complete fool unfortunately, caught in a quote mine and since he doesn't understand the second part he thinks he still made a point. Poor fool.
Antimidation 2 months ago
@PapaCapinya I dont know he sounded pretty embarrassed when he hung up
zzyzx0788 2 months ago
Let's face it guys. Its beyond the ability of your callers to comprehend such high levels of abstract reasoning. However I assume that your main goal isn't to convince a single caller but to use their ignorance to exploit the fallacies of faith. So..nvm. I refuted my own point.
TheMasterfulcreator 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. He wants us to elevate our consciousness to the next level, is real
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx So that means that an objects mass is simply the sum total of its godliness times the speed of light squared. Therefore fat people are more likely to get into heaven.
Maybe I should start eating more cheetos.
094250001 3 months ago
@094250001 In any case is mass equal godliness divided by speed of light squared, that's why fasting is important ; ).
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Your holy math is wrong, a decrease in mass will directly correlate into a decrease in godliness. That means fasting is a sin.
094250001 3 months ago
@094250001 "Your holy math is wrong, a decrease in mass will directly correlate into a decrease in godliness. That means fasting is a sin." The math is right is the interpretation of fasting what you call wrong. If you want to communicate with God and have a relationship with Him, you would want less mass so the energy becomes less to for it to be more personal. Fasting is good for you, recent scientific discoveries had confirmed that. Isn't God awesome!!!
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx My interpretation of fasting was correct, you seem to be confused by your own completely insane energy/god equivalence theory. You cant communicate or have a relationship with the an objects ability to do work.
094250001 3 months ago
@094250001 You can communicate with conscious energy. Humans are “hardwired” for seeking God. The “hard wiring” is not necessarily related to the brain. The hard wire is in our consciousness. If you imagine the brain as magnet, consciousness would be the magnetic field. That field can attract other magnets if they complement each other, that's what I call being in tune. You have to be in tune with God's wavelength to be saved.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx I'm not sure whats more appalling, your understanding of brain chemistry, your understanding of relativity, your understanding of energy, or your understanding of electromagnetism.
I'm gonna say this once more, energy is the ability for one physical system to exert a force on another physical system. It cannot by definition be conscious, saying it can makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
This is like high school Newtonian physics.
094250001 3 months ago
@094250001 How do you think you cell phone works, or radio signals, or wireless internet? They work thanks to energy. Energy waves can store and transmit all the information ever produced by mankind. Atheist claim our consciousness is the product of our brain capacity to handle more information, so why can't energy be conscious? Of course it can exert a force, that's what energy does, and that's how the universe was created. We can understand today mysteries theologians had asked for ages.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Wireless communication is done through the self propagation of artificially created transverse oscillating waves of electric and magnetic fields. The information is encoded into the wave by systematically changing certain properties of the waves. A receiver can then pick up and detect the changes in the waves properties and translate that into readable information.
094250001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@094250001"" Wireless communication is done through the self propagation (how) of artificially created transverse oscillating waves of electric (energy) and magnetic fields (energy). Thanks for the definition, and for helping me prove my case.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx Also your incorrect in thinking that electromagnetic radiation itself is energy, rather electromagnetic radiation (photons) are force carriers of the electromagnetic force, they carry energy they are not themselves energy.
094250001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@094250001 "they carry energy they are not themselves energy" you mean like a passenger bus carry kids to school? no, isn't like that at all. The photons are packets of electromagnetic energy. It was argued by Einstein that a medium called the "ether" actually carried the photons, but that was never demonstrated empirically and the theory was discarded, so sorry, no school bus.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx One more thing, exerting force is not what energy does its what energy IS. Theres also no such thing as energy waves.
094250001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@094250001 "exerting force is not what energy does its what energy IS. Theres also no such thing as energy waves" so if there are no energy waves then can you explain how electromagnetic energy travel? Maybe you can come up with a new, Nobel price worthy theory.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
The sad thing is that the caller probably will continue to use that quote mine hoping the next guy doesnt know the rest of the quote.
matszz 4 months ago
I'm a Newtonist, I believe in gravity.
pchtermino1 4 months ago
@pchtermino1 Gravity is a lie! Learn about Intelligent Falling instead!
GluttonForSex 3 months ago
@GluttonForSex Sarcasm is a great tool to get a message across. I guess you put the law of natural selection which is credited with taking land mammals through millions of years of evolution and numerous species while giving them to magically alter organs and limbs and evolve into whales in the same league as the law of gravity. I always thought that science could use a dose of voodoo magic. Someone in Harry Potter also magically grew limbs at one time.
alexthasy 2 months ago
@alexthasy Millions of years worth of non-stop evolution by natural selection embodies a physical process, the products of which we can see both in the fossil records we find and, with more modern methods, in the DNA sequencing of the species. No magic or voodoo involved there at all, at any point.
Invisible magic men in the sky snapping their fingers and creating the Universe on the other hand, now there's a fairy tale story if I ever heard one. :-)
GluttonForSex 2 months ago
Comment removed
alexthasy 2 months ago
Comment removed
alexthasy 2 months ago
Comment removed
alexthasy 2 months ago
what a maroon!
topperheartramada 4 months ago
I'm sorry to hear this, did anyone's ego survive the collapse?
EthanNin0 4 months ago
Dude got his ass kicked.
DuskOnVega 4 months ago
you know, i used to love the eye arguement. but i just watched a video where a creationist was comparing TERMITE TURDS between dino time periods, to modern time periods. He claimed because they were the same, evolution was a lie. He even quoted the bible about coming forth from the same kind...LMAO..it's was just genius. Termite shit disproves evolution because it looks the same then and now. Just amazing how stupid these people are.
Digityus 4 months ago
The Pope himself said, "I do not believe there is a god, and I engage in gay sex regularly."
(Note: Letters, their arrangement, and punctuation may have been taken out of context.)
TuahShinguru 4 months ago
Nice hat bro
JeffWatersRules 4 months ago
I love it how Creationists think that Darwin is an Atheists achilles heel,as if by rebuking him that somehow makes evolution invalid.Increasingly funny given the fact most of them have no idea what evolution actually is,in the same way people in this country think all socialism is bad,they dont know what it is but its gotta be bad i mean thats communist talk. lol
DastardlyDereK 4 months ago
Comment removed
DastardlyDereK 4 months ago
Quoting is just a poor method of debating, whether the quotes are mined or not. I'm a post graduate researcher and I would never dream of quoting someone in a scientific publication. Cite, yes; quote no.
When people start quoting it's a sure sign that they have no actual evidence. If you took quotes as proof, then you could support any position regardless of how strong or weak it is.
When someone starts quoting in a debate, then I know they've already lost the debate. Creationists quote a lot!
genericmember1 4 months ago
oh man those two are really smart.
cateattingmonster0 4 months ago
Claiming that skeptics "believe" in what Darwin wrote, is like accusing someone of using a Thomas Edison version of a light bulb crafted by Edison himself 100 plus years ago. Meanwhile we've got true "LED lights and optical fibers" when it comes to advances in evolutionary science. Forget the light bulb, morons! :P
oldpiq 5 months ago
Comment removed
pardArt 5 months ago
Google that s**t!! Haha, awesome...
MackanK94 5 months ago
I found exactly the same thing with the Jehovah's Witnesses. In one of their books called 'life' they're still using this quote from Darwin to disprove evolution. They even go as far as saying that we still (post Darwin) have no idea how the eye could have evolved. I can only suggest that they read any good textbook on evolution.
gextvedde 5 months ago
I love the callers final words (I made my point). OK, if your point is "I parrot quotes that I have been spoon-fed thinking they support my position when I clearly do not understand the context in which they were made", then yes, you made your point.
xretrovertigox 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T CREATE. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process, not a creative process. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are possible in nature. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Hey, it's "Troll-boy!"
donfishmaster 5 months ago
@Mogley52 You do understand that you've applied backwards reasoning to this entire idea, right? You've already assumed your conclusion that the bible is true without demonstrating its veracity in any way. Why do you think anybody watching this video gives a shit about what your particular theory on your own delusion is? How about you take you religous, ranting waste of space somehwere else?
TysicJC 5 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T CREATE. It can only "select" from variations that occur which have survival value. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. Natural selection is a passive process, and what survival value would a partially-evolved organ have? The real issue is what biological variations in nature are possible. Read my Internet article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 You're right in saying that natural selection doesn't explain the origin of life. That bit is explained by the science of abiogenesis. It is also true the natural selection only selects between variations, but genetic drift and mutation explain from where these variations come. Finally, partially formed organs can serve many purposes. I light sensitive piece of skin(or a proto-eye) can provide an advantage, however slight, to its owner. You are one insanely ignorant dumbass.
TysicJC 5 months ago
@Mogley52
1/1
So the nylonase enzymes that certain bacteria use to digest the man made nylon existed before mankind even invented nylon?
Or perhaps a mutated enzyme was produced through evolution. I think the latter is some what more rational to accept, don't you?
genericmember1 4 months ago
Comment removed
genericmember1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 2/2
I read your article btw, you made many crass mistakes showing that you don't understand evolution outside of the creationist literature you've read. Read real book on the subject, then maybe you'll make a good point
"Fossils show that all species came into existence as complete, fully-formed/functional. That can only happen by creation" - Google "Pakicetus"
"The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, & there are no fossils showing such a creature existed" - Google "Mudskipper"
genericmember1 4 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 5 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
I *love* this quote, because all creationists need to do to answer the question is read *four lines farther*
TKZ100 5 months ago
I think aswell as the idea that a darwinists accepts darwins theories because he is darwin that when creationists call you a darwinist they mean social darwinism aswell, eugenics etc. which is at the root of alot fear around evolution as a theory. its like they believe it leaves no room for love
chr1sred 5 months ago
« its like they believe it leaves no room for love »
No, that's merely an argument they use to bolster their own rejection of science. The real reason they reject science always was and will always remain the simple fact that it contradicts scripture, the core of their beliefs.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
Darwinism is a term that originated within biology--it was coined by Huxley shortly after Origin of Species was published. It's not my preferred term, but I don't mind being called a Darwinist at all. I wish I were a quarter as great a scientist as Darwin was.
acr08807 5 months ago
love the hat
rogeriosantos77 5 months ago
what's that muffled sound I'm hearing? A creationist is trapped in a mine?! Oh, nevermind, it's a collapsed quote mine.
nukepwetty 6 months ago
Comment removed
pimpymcdougall 6 months ago
Science relies on evidence, reasoning, and common sense. Creationism relies on quote mining, deception, taking advantage of the uneducated, and the indoctrination of children.
Skymnkey995 6 months ago 59
@Skymnkey995 Truer words were never spoken.
DaemonAnt 3 months ago
@Skymnkey995 Science doesn't rely on common sense, but overall I approve of this message. :)
Tairaa2 3 months ago
This caller and people like that are horrible. A lot Creationist twist around what people say to fit their beliefs. This is so wrong.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
one of the best videos yet :) brilliant ownage of a creationist
shandow15 6 months ago 23
This has been flagged as spam show
God sacrificed himself to himself for a loophole for the rules that he made in the first place. Fucking retarded. Christians make my skin crawl.
scotttebben 6 months ago
What a fucking idiot, reads one sentence and burn himself :) gotta love them christians
TheSilas20 6 months ago
Darwin's disciples love clinging to fallible reasoning: They believe, in a most dogmatic manner, that Evolution Theory is Scientific Law, despite the constant influx of counterintuitive cognition that demands a more rational explanation. In short, Evolution, at every point, fails to reconcile the most basic laws of our observable universe. There are a lot of intelligent people who show themselves to be extremely stupid.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig Don't try to attack your 'enemy' by using his same arguments and verbiage against him. We see through you Christfag.
liOVERLOADil 6 months ago
@liOVERLOADil Don't be so naive. True atheism has no roots, its logic is like a vapor - fragile and without form. To assume that a theist, such as myself, simply "borrows" the arguments of an atheist is simply illogical. Why would I exalt something that I clearly denounce? To claim that one uses "the language of atheists" is an ignorant assumption. Nietzsche didn't invent his own language, he drew upon the work of others even as he claimed to offer a new morality. His is a sad story.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig You are all over the place straw-man. Believing in theism is an indication of a lack of logic, and your reply is proof that you have none.
liOVERLOADil 6 months ago
@liOVERLOADil Okay I'll slow it down for you: Atheism literally means a lack of belief in God. It is not a belief, rather, a lack of belief. It is merely a response to something that already was, is, and will be. The numbers alone tell the story: less than 10% of the world's population is truly atheist. When an entire sub-group of people is defined by their "lack of _____", it can only be regarded as reactionary.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@liOVERLOADil Of course, many atheists enjoy being a part of an exclusive elite or, as Nietzsche would say, "Hyperboreans". Therefore, it is not the existence of any true wisdom that defines these people, rather their self-constructed intelligentsia that feeds their pride as they stroke each others' egos. That, my friend, is the unfortunate reality as witnessed clearly in this video and others like it.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig That is a bit harsh.So don't swalloing everything without evidence is a selfconstructed intelligentia to only feed pride?Well we all then must have egos the size of a planet because of not swallowing stories about fairies,dragons etc.
To not swallow something because of lack of evidence shows a logic and somehow scientific worldview.Its not about wisdom but rejecting the wannabe "wisdom" of theists.You can't prove or disprove a god so not buying it is one (logical) conclusion.
gastarbeiter1 6 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 The "evidence" you look for is found in every known scientific law. We live in a rational world, and it reflects our rational creator. Not chaos, but order; an order that is entirely inconsistent with atheist thought. Throughout history (up until 100 years ago), no one questioned this most-obvious truth. Egos arise (in this case) where we stubbornly refute the obvious. And the men in this video are a perfect example of egotistical pride. It is all about wisdom, entirely.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig Okay you have to define what you mean with order in that sense.What for you is obvious here comes from the presumption of a creator in the first place.Also I think you should define what you mean with the term creator.The believe in a creator in the past came from from the lack of knowledge about the very ways nature work.For them it was obvious.Knowledge about the world diminishes the places where a god can be(god of the gaps).So its not about pride or ego but knowledge. cont
gastarbeiter1 6 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 Cosmos, the "Harmony of the Spheres", the seasons, the cycles of life, the symbiotic relationships that exist in every form and sub-species on this planet, the earth's relationship to the moon, our biological makeup, electricity, magnetism, gravity, physical science in general, etc. The doubter can continue to doubt as long as he wishes, but the earth will continue to rotate and revolve around the sun - not around him.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 Please don't confuse "harshness" with being direct and to-the-point. We are all too wrapped up in political correctness in our false attempt to display "tolerance". Do you see what happens there? The truth is done away with. And science without truth is not science at all, but only socio-political diatribe. We can do without any more of that nonsense.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig Science itself doesn't deal with the last questions.The consequences that arise from scientific knowledge about the world are also spreading in philosophy.What former was a work of god now can be explained by science thats why more and more people don't believe in a deity today.So to propose a creator god needs some reasons for you.And I would be pleased if you tell me what your reasons are why a creator for you is obvious.
gastarbeiter1 6 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 Reasons for God (and reasoning attributed to God): Life, Love, Knowledge of Good and Evil, Human History, Law, Ethics, Physics, Mathematics, Geology, Cosmology, Biology, Anthropology, Aesthetics (in general), Art, Music, Harmony (in all senses of the word). For someone to claim that God doesn't exist because of a "lack of proof" is akin to someone claiming that oxygen doesn't exist because we can't see it. Both figuratively and literally, "it is the air we breathe".
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig How do you come to the conclusion that all this is evidence or reason for your conclusion of a god?I would argue that most of these has nothing to do nor indicates a god.
All you mention about the cosmos can(mostly) directly be explained by science.No god necessary.And I am not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that all this is evidence for god.
gastarbeiter1 6 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "All you mention about the cosmos can(mostly) directly be explained by science.No god necessary." If you are speaking of a total naturalistic view of the universe, then I would say 2 things: 1) The opposite is true. The more we discover about the universe, the more we are consistently shocked at what we find. 2) Science itself (its laws) is founded upon belief in constants, yet we have absolutely no idea if these laws truly are constant. We chose to operate with that assumption
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig 1)Of course we are shocked what we find.But its not designed on purpose.Biological life is always remodelled by natural selection.Nature is like it is because of the natural laws we discovered.And the funny thing is we don't assume that it was as this in the past.We can test it.When we look at distant galaxies and stars we see light that is sometimes billions of years old.And it fits with observations we do on earth.So for all light we can see the laws apply.No assumption but tested.
gastarbeiter1 6 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "But its not designed on purpose" This is a general blanket statement that needs some explanation.
"Biological life is always remodelled by natural selection" Natural selection doesn't "remodel" anything. It simply does away with the regressive genes, the harmful mutations that more often hinder an organism than aid in its survival. "Survival of the fittest" is not a mechanism capable of producing - it merely diminishes. That is the great hoax of Evolution Theory.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig
What's to explain about that statement? It's saying there was no *intent* behind it.
Also, "survival of the fittest" is an inaccurate description of natural selection.
It's more like "survival of the most adaptable" or "survival of the most suited to the circumstances"
And it is not only the removal of genes that hinder survival. Some genes do give a higher probability of survival or reproduction.
aaaaaFuck 6 months ago
@aaaaaFuck Your argument is merely pedantic. At the end of the day you still have to figure out how a mechanism for destruction is able to create new information. Its simple math. The operand remains the same, it is natural selection (a subtractor). You are trying to tell me that it is a multiplicand. It just isn't so.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig
> At the end of the day you still have to figure out how a mechanism for destruction is able to create new information.
No, natural selection is not simply "a method for destruction". It favors genetic material that provides survival and/or reproductive advantages.
Genes that do something better compete with genes that don't, and are favoured for reproduction, food gathering, avoiding predators, etc.
aaaaaFuck 6 months ago
« It simply does away with the regressive genes, the harmful mutations that more often hinder an organism than aid in its survival »
And it promotes any variant allele that might bestow a reproductive advantage upon its bearer, given its particular environment. This may or may not include such occurrences as the mutation in an Italian family that basically makes them immune to high cholesterol, or the mutation in a German family that gives them unusually sturdy bones.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor Variant allele (Amorphic Allele, Pseudoalelle Allele, Reeler Allele, etc.) display the same phenomenon - regressive mutations that hinder the survival of an organism. Search Nature.com for "mouse mutant reeler".
Any benefits from variant allele are limited to special circumstances, and almost always still hinder the organism in other ways (requiring more food/energy, leading to atrophy in other organs, etc.)
ThisIDig 6 months ago
« display the same phenomenon - regressive mutations »
Newly detected variants usually do affect the organism in a detrimental way, yes. Of the few percent of mutations that actually does anything, some 70% affects the organism in a detrimental way. Those are the ones we notice, due to their effects. That of course leaves 30% of neutral or weakly beneficial variants for natural selection to work with.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« Any benefits from variant allele are limited to special circumstances »
Natural selection works entirely with "special circumstances": the environmental parameters specific to the environment that the organism inhabits.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Natural selection works on circumstances that affect survival or reproduction; and that covers an extremely broad range of things. They are not "special" circumstances.
aaaaaFuck 6 months ago
« They are not "special" circumstances. »
Well, not given broader knowledge of observable reality. One might however argue that each and every environment has a *unique* combination of parameters for the organism to conform to, which might justify use of the word "special".
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor "particles-to-people" did not happen due to "special circumstances" as observed by natural selection - how could it have? Again, we are looking at a net gain of billions in genetic information. What is the advantage of Multiple Sclerosis or Brain Cancer? Mutation destroys the prototypical image. Death is incapable of producing anything. It simply destroys. This is simple logic. Show me any logical construct that offers the opposite outcome and you will be in business.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
« "particles-to-people" »
We were discussing adaptation, not the abiogenesis.
« Again, we are looking at a net gain of billions in genetic information »
More accurately, we are looking at an increase in the number of genetic sequences in our genome that have certain chemical effects. Whether or not such sequences contain or represent information isn't even something we have to consider, since we can explain how such sequences come about without consulting information theory.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor "We were discussing adaptation, not the abiogenesis."
Where do you draw the line? What of "the Origin of the Species"? Neo-Darwinists fully attest evolution as being responsible for life on earth, even if they cannot point to its specific origin
"Whether or not such sequences contain or represent information isn't even something we have to consider, since we can explain how such sequences come about without consulting information theory."
I would like to hear more on this
ThisIDig 6 months ago
« Where do you draw the line? »
Where classical evolution takes hold, eg. with life more or less the same as we see now; life that is determined more by inheritance than by lateral gene transfer.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« Neo-Darwinists fully attest evolution as being responsible for life on earth »
No they don't. "The Origin of Species" does not comment on the origin of life, nor does the modern synthesis.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« I would like to hear more on this »
Through reproductive variation and differential reproductive success. I think I've told you this a number of times now.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« What is the advantage of Multiple Sclerosis or Brain Cancer? »
None. And therefore mutations causing such conditions would be selected against.
« Mutation destroys the prototypical image »
There is no such image. The only place where an immutable species-image exists is in your head.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« Show me [...] the opposite outcome »
Any number of research papers:
Borland et al, 2008, Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.
Rolshausen, 2009, Contemporary Evolution of Reproductive Isolation and Phenotypic Divergence in Sympatry...
Herrel et al, 2008, Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance...
Prijambada et al, 1995, Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes...
And so on.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@ThisIDig Do you have more to refute on evolution then polyploidi?
gastarbeiter1 6 months ago
@ThisIDig Sigh.You can't separate both.beneficial mutations as observed do happen.Due to natural selection these good mutations spread.So natural selection does remodel.No hoax.You just can't look at them seperately.
gastarbeiter1 6 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 You absolutely must look at each example individually. Otherwise its an overgeneralized and bloated theory that doesn't have a leg to stand on: evolution.
So lets look at some specifics: Polyploidy (plants) have proven to mutate in beneficial ways that show an increase in genetic information. This is due to the cross-pollination possibilities that each plant comes with in its "information package". Unfortunately, we don't have that built into our genetic code.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig We find out more and more about all things and discover the nature behind it.Untikl now there is nothing that can only be explained by a god magically poofing something into existance.We may not understand everything but just stop investigating and say well god didit would just be mental lazyness and mind limiting.Can you show me something that leads can't and will never be explainable AND can ONLY be explained by using a god?
gastarbeiter1 6 months ago
@gastarbeiter1 "We may not understand everything but just stop investigating and say well god didit would just be mental lazyness and mind limiting" The opposite can also be said; to limit our knowledge based merely on "what we see" would be a devastatingly regressive approach to scientific study. M-Theory, for example, would only be scoffed at. Yet, M-Theory is perhaps one of the most convincing "proofs" of the supernatural (outside of general revelation).
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig
M-theory says nothing supernatural.
A scientific theory is a model that describes observations, and makes testable predictions.
If something is "outside nature" (supernatural), by definition it can't be tested, and therefore can't be part of a scientific theory.
aaaaaFuck 6 months ago
@aaaaaFuck M-Theory mathematically proves the existence of multiple dimensions. We cannot "see" these dimensions, however, we conclude they exist. This is evidence of the supernatural, where the very laws of physics are turned inside out. Dimensions where our laws do not exist IS evidence of the supernatural!
ThisIDig 6 months ago
@ThisIDig
> M-Theory mathematically proves the existence of multiple dimensions. We cannot "see" these dimensions
Mathematical proofs relies on its initial assumptions about the universe being true. Assumptions which require evidence through testing and observations.
By itself, mathematics cannot verify anything about the universe.
aaaaaFuck 6 months ago
@aaaaaFuck A very interesting point. Mathematics do rely on our assumptions - I completely agree. This is an amazing thing. We must take on faith, that we live in a rational universe governed by specific laws. These laws cannot be "proven" in and of themselves, rather, we must assume a stable, constant dimension is at work.
ThisIDig 6 months ago
« Mathematics do rely on our assumptions »
Not really. Mathematics relies on *axioms*. Axioms are per definition true; they need not have a relation to physical reality. For instance, the axioms used in a description of Euclidian space are different than those describing Einsteinian space, but no less 'true' for that, whether an Euclidian space actually exists or not.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor
Mathematics is a system of description. Kind of like a language.
We use mathematics to describe observations, and then perhaps to form further conclusions from that.
If you make a mathematical model that is internally logically consistent, that's not the same as saying it's an accurate description of reality.
We need observations first.
aaaaaFuck 6 months ago
« If you make a mathematical model that is internally logically consistent, that's not the same as saying it's an accurate description of reality. »
Yep, that's what I was saying. Mathematics is a way of describing how we perceive the relations between quantitatively measurable entities to work out, but the relations don't necessarily apply to physically existing geometries and so on.
Well, something like that at least.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor A simpler example can be seen comparing multiplication tables vs addition. 2+2=4, and 2x2=4. Both are true, yet the operation is different. By utilizing a different series of numbers, the calculations result in a different outcome, yet each remains true to their unique properties. My point is not about the math, its about our reliance on the reliability of math. We have no idea what laws exist outside our known conclave in space and time, but we ASSUME a state of constancy
ThisIDig 6 months ago