It was 20 degrees cooler today than it was yesterday. If you extract this back just 20,000 days ago, the temperatures would have been hot enough to melt the Earth! The Earth is only one week old.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. 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)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). 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)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
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 did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
At 4:30 when you rebutt the proposal that at the start, there were only two humans, you say that evolution never said there were only two but that groups of people existed. Where did the groups of people arise from and if it was possible for these groups to interbreed then arguably, they were the same species? The truth is there are "species" and "species". A grizzly can mate with a polar bear to produce fertile offspring. These are regarded as different species but perhaps they shouldn't be?
I think they have weapons that can turn living organisms into a puddle of mush. I think the original poster was pointing out that the magnetic fields encasing the Earth are like our skin which holds us together. And he is making some edited point concerning the importance of balance in the electrically charged fields encasing the planet.
I GOT THIS INFORMATION FROM A FRIEND OF MINE AT THE LOCAL GYM.....LMAO I WAS TEARING UP FROM THE LAUGHTER... ALL THEY REALLY HAD TO DO IS ASK RICHARD SIMMONS....STOP IT YOU'RE KILLING ME OVER HERE!!!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. 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 The entire bible has been taken out of context - i.e. a work of fiction has been mistaken for non-fiction. Signing off your comment with your degree (if that is you) does not impress me. All it does is reminds me how anyone with an average intelligence can get one if they try hard enough.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). 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)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
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 did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
@Mogley52 You can't criticize evolution because you obviously don't know how it works. Take out just one book on the subject, just one book and you'll save yourself a lot of time.
@urcritic Let it go urcritic, Mogley52 is a troll. He goes to every video that talks about Evolution or science in general, reposts the same refuted arguments over and over again and never bothers to defend any of his statements. Just flag him for spam and move on.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed?
another great video. I saw it back when you first released it, and it was a real pleasure to watch it again as it is really hilarious. Keep it up potholer!
I have a science question. Well actually it might be a photography question but I think it has something to do with light:
Why is it that in some space pictures that show space walks, spacecraft, etc you can't see stars? I notice that in some pictures the background is just black space with no stars in sight. Any ideas as to why?
@BigBobsh2o probably would have something to do with how bright the object being photographed is. if its dark then the camera would let more light in letting you see the stars in the background. If its too bright then the camera would let less light in meaning you probably couldn't see the stars.
@BigBobsh2o When taking a picture in space, you have to account for the fact that you're trying to take a picture of a bright white object reflecting a lot of sunlight, whether it's an astronaut in a spacesuit, a spaceship, etc. The camera must be set for a fast exposure time and aperture narrowed. Otherwise, the picture wouldn't show much of anything except a whole lot of light. Since stars are very faint compared to these other objects, they simply don't develop in the picture.
Interestingly, the same situation applies here on Earth. Unless a camera is specifically set to pick up starlight, a picture of the night sky will produce only blackness.
Doubling every 150 year? Don't they know humans back then had like a life span of 30 to 50 years at most? So 2 people would not be 4 people in 150 years.
Man those creationist have flaws in their math right away.
Acctually most mathamaticl evidence offered up by cretards and theists I have seen is completely false and incorrect, no wonderbecause they start with the answer they want and work backwards, to attempt to find a proof. Of course this means they are forced to use incorrect maths, faulty logic then make rediculous and false assumptions to attain the result.
So my grandad was 6 foot 7 Dad was 6 foot 6 and I am 6 foot 4 claculating with a creationist calculator, Get the fuck outa here my great grandson 8 generations from now will be 13cm tall.
@jb0433628 I hate feeding trolls, but in case you are just genuinely misguided, I recommend reading "the Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. It's written for people who don't realize just how much evidence supports evolutionary theory. I say this with all sincerity: I would be less surprised to learn that the sun revolves around the earth, than that evolution does not fully explain earth's diversity of life. Do yourself a favor and appreciate the fact that you live at a time where we ca
For example, he said all living species are linked in their DNA in a clear family tree that retrace evolution. However, we don't even have the capability to sequence 1% of the DNA of 1% of species, and he says that like we had a complete knowledge. The more we compare chimp DNA with human DNA, the more distant they are. He won't talk about this however, this guy is a professionnal deceiver.
@nomen23 Might also want to point out that yes, it is a theory. You know like all the other silly theories, Germ Theory, Gravity is a theory... All those are theories as well, I don't see those getting ridiculed.
He does at 01:40 what I do every morning after coffee. And are you doing anything on the public speaking circuit? I'd love to hear you talk for an hour or so
@jb0433628. woohoo now out comes the crazy! I knew it wouldn't be long before you spilled your religious guts before all. Lucifer??? holey shit you got him involved now? Next you will using the illuminati and Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot n your arguements. oh, and my 30 yrs experience in forensic criminal investigation gave me a few pointers along the way as to what is a fact, tried and tested, and what is complete delusional bullshit. As you have been asked - 'put up or sut up'.
@jb0433628.. getting your information from 'Answers in Genisis' doesnt count... or perhaps you may be getting you info like the twat in this vid... from a guy at the gym! Alas those sources arent really recognised by educated people. hahah you arsehat. although I can't wait to see this vid you are going to post!
Indeed the sons of Adam and Eve married their sisters, this is in the book of Jubilee. The law about incest came 2000 years later with Moses. Since at the beginning there were no DNA errors, your childrens would not be handicapped because of consanguinity, so there was no use for such a law.
@jb0433628 So the explanation to this.. God decided that 2000 years later, that everyone who practised incest would have a high chance that their children would become handicapped.
Oh boy it all makes sense to me now. (ass move by god though hah!)
I love how the "doubling every 150 years" ignored the losses of the Black Plague, 2 world wars and a host of conflicts, genocides, natural disasters and culls through-out recorded history.
If magnetic fields could produce enough heat to melt rock, then there would be no need for Pyro in the X-Men. Magneto could just as easily do anything that Pyro could do and therefore negate the premise for a foundational pillar to villain sub-plot structure of the X-Men universe.
My point? If this 'theory' doesn't even stand up to comic-book scrutiny, how the hell is it supposed to stand up to scientific scrutiny?
@jb0433628 =Liar, how could you know ?= Frankly, I don't. I'm quoting well-accepted genetic studies that have been done on mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA and that show there was no original breeding 'pair' that lived contemporaneously. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Simply chanting "liar"is not much of an argument, is it?
I think mitochondrial Eve is the Eve from the Bible, and Noah would be the Y-chromosomal Adam. That would explain why Eve is older than the Y-chromosomal Adam. Also, the datations of both are in the 10 thousands of years instead of 6000 years, but it was made before the recent (2-3 years ago) findings that the mutation rate (used for those datings) were much higher than anticipated (10-100 times).
@jb0433628 Really, your understanding of genetics is so non-existent it is laughable, and every time you open your mouth you are advertising it for all to see. How embarrassing for you.
"I think mitochondrial Eve is the Eve from the Bible..." That's nice. Too bad that, once again, you have ZERO evidence to back that up. Please cite your peer reviewed scientific research that supports your asinine claim or just do us all a favor and be quiet.
It's funny how atheists think they are intelligent and knowledgeable while they display their ignorance to everyone with pride. The existence of mitochondrial Eve is a proof on the side of the Bible and against unconsistent theories like evolution, if you did not realize.
@jb0433628 I am intelligent and knowledgeable on this subject. Also, you complete delusional liar: "The existence of mitochondrial Eve is a proof on the side of the Bible"
Name me ONE well reviewed peer-reviewed research study published in a major journal that supports that position. ONE. Ramblings from your pastor don't count, and you may have to look up what "peer-reviewed" means, but I fucking dare you to find ONE.
@jb0433628 "One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time." -Takahata, N (January 1993), "Allelic genealogy and human evolution", Mol. Biol. Evol. 10 (1): 2–22, PMID 8450756
I.E.: You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Evolution is destroyed by information theory, I will soon post a video I will send you the link. But I can't convince you to stop believing in a pseudo-science based on no physical evidence.
@jb0433628 No no, some video of you ranting means jack shit. I'm publicly daring you to find a single credible published article in a scientific journal that backs up your claims. But you can't, you're just a clueless coward.
@jb0433628 "vote on?" Are you that dumb? So you're saying you don't even understand how the scientific method works, and yet 99% of all scientists are wrong but you and your barbaric religion have it all figured out how science "really" works. LOLOLOLOL. This just gets better and better. Oh please, do go on......
You haven't heard about the trials on creationism ? Evolutionists voted to say one scientist was wrong. They did not demonstrate it like in a real science. They voted on it.
Actually I probably know more than you about the scientific method, since I am studying for a master's degree in artificial intelligence and computer vision. I also took graduate classes in neurology.
For your information, the royal society of london was the first promoter of evolutionism, before any evidence was found (and we are still waiting, since there is no physical evidence of evolution whatsoever, and it goes against physics and probabilities). The royal society was founded not by atheists, but by Freemason, worshipers of Lucifer.
@jb0433628 Since when was Charles Stewart a Mason? Evidence for evolution was apparent since men started domesticated animals, and Origin of Species is packed with observational data. Evolution is an emergent property of any system showing reproduction, variation and selection. It's true because of the meaning of the words, inescapable, inevitable, a priori true, logically necessary. All emperical evidence supports it, and I do mean ALL, and there is no contradictory evidence.
Also, "scientific method" doesn't apply to evolutionists, none of them know how to use maths. They theorise, they do not demonstrate, big difference. Still, they want to play pseudo-science with their peer-reviewed toilet paper.
@jb0433628 "I prefer to think by myself" The same way the guy in the video came up with his nonsense ideas while sitting at the breakfast table eating cereal?
Do you think these pseudo-sciences are neutral ? In climatology for example, there is a huge lobbyism to bias the results. When results are bad (according to their agenda) they do not publish it. When the datation of mtEve showed that with the uptaded mutation rates, she was only 6000 years old, they kept silent on it. Wikipedia still shows the biased anterior results, and I doubt it can be modified even with multiple citations.
@jb0433628 "When the datation of mtEve showed that with the uptaded mutation rates, she was only 6000 years old, they kept silent on it."
Except they published in "Science," in an article you yourself linked. So were they trying to cover it up by publishing it in one of the most prominent science journals? You take your meds today there, or were just just born confused?
@jb0433628 "The article was published, but no one heard about it," Except......the dozen or so researchers and HUNDREDS working on matching evolutionary vs. archaeology timescales that revised predictions based on it. Keep lying.....believe me you are providing a lot of entertainment to the people that follow this site.
@jb0433628 Or maybe for you science is a popularity contest? The article you cited didn't make the front page of CNN or Fox News so there is a conspiracy? Because the popular media counts as the absolute authority on scientific research analysis right? Pathetic.
The problem is that atheists are obstructing the truth for ideological reasons. The theory of Evolution was promoted by "scientific" organisations such as the British Royal Society without any scientific reason, only because of their agenda. Same thing with ClimateGate.
@jb0433628 So let's recap all your positions so far: "Science is all a conspiracy, science journals are pseudo-science crap." "Okay wait, maybe they aren't all crap, they publish real articles but there is a conspiracy to cover them up, especially the articles I like." "The British Royal Society is an atheist conspiracy to cover up the truth about evolution."
I'm done here. All you've done is a great job as painting yourself as a conspiracy theorist lunatic. Case closed.
I am against false science and corruption. I think the universe is 13,6 billion years old, because I can see the science and agree with it. But the "proofs" behind evolution is severely lacking any serious science.
I am against false science and corruption. I think the universe is 13,6 billion years old, because I can see the science and agree with it. But the "proofs" behind evolution is severely lacking any serious science.
I am against false science and corruption. I think the universe is 13,6 billion years old, because I can see the science and agree with it. But the "proofs" behind evolution is severely lacking any serious science.
@jb0433628 Yah, yah. yah. Conspiracy theories! The bible proves evolution wrong! Scientists are working for Satan! We've heard these nonsense "arguments" before. Go try and impress someone at Answers in Genesis.
You are hiding your weak arguments behind a facade of useless insults. Here's the article stating that mtEve is 6000 years old, in accordance with the Bible :
@jb0433628 Not a bad article, and a good source, however if you did read there are multitudes of other studies, as stated but not expressed, that suggest that these results are just phenomenon. And pointing to a single article and covering your ears screaming "This proves it" is not the way to go, though i cannot summarize a description on 500 characters I can say that you need more then just one article to prove a good argument.
I agree with you, and thanks for talking like a rational human being. If mtEve is the mother of all humans, not only on matrilinear side, it would be another possible explanation for the lack of variability in this DNA, presently explained by a bottleneck in human population lasting for thousand of years, 60 000 years ago.
@jb0433628 *yawn* That article is talking about mitochondrial DNA. No where does it mention the age of the earth (or mtEve, which I'm assuming you mean mount Everest). You've failed at a simple attempt to link me to the right article. I also don't give a shit. If you seriously believe this stuff, man, you are missing out on the true story of the universe. It's much more interesting then some bronze age fairy tales.
The article mention that mtEve would be only 6000 years old with the new mutation rates, but the emphasis is not put on that. search "6000" years in the document you will find it.
@jb0433628 The earth is billions of years old. This is an established fact. If you want to pretend your little story book has it right, go right ahead. The rest of us are going to keep living here, in the 21st century.
I also think the Earth is billion of years old, but this is not an issue for me. I think the information needed for life had to be provided by an intelligent being outside of this universe, because I think information can't be generated randomly. And "God" had to exist forever also for this reason.
@jb0433628 The earth is billions of years old, but mtEve is 6000? Something not really right with your math there. "I think the information" There's your first problem. The universe doesn't care what you think. Neither do I. People thought the sun went round the earth. Do you think that is correct? "provided by an intelligent being " What REASON do you have for thinking this? "And "God" had to exist forever" No, "god" didn't. See? I can make baseless assertions as well.
@jb0433628 Schneider's definition is Shannon Information, and it's perfectly valid. I notice the only objections that have been raised to Schneider come from Dembski and Meyer, neither of whom have been published in peer reviewed journals, unlike Schneider, and their motivation is political, not scientific.
The information had to be there before the big bang, since information can't be transmitted through the singularity. It had to exist forever because information can't be created, it can only decay.
Information can be created. I've just done it by typing this sentence. Ta da!
I think you mean to say information can't be created in a closed system and I think you probably get this notion from a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states entropy always increases in a closed system. Sadly this nothing much to do with information but many theists make this error so don't worry too much, but now you know better you won;t need to make this mistake again.
Increasing entropy does not mean decreasing information. Information is a human concept and requires a human mind (a decoder) for it to make any sense. Its not really anything to do with entropy.
Secondly even if it were linked to entropy the 2nd law applies to closed systems only, Humans and the entire earth are not a closed system so entropy can decrease in such system i.e. localised increases in order happen all the time!
Indeed he Earth is not a closed system because we receive energy from the Sun. However, energy doesn't contain information, I think we need a "source of information" to increase it in a system. Also, when I say information can't be created, I am talking about the minimal description(you can see the Kolmogorov complexity on wikipedia). The message (your sentence) that is generated by a system (you and the environment around you) was already contained in some way in the system.
Ultimately information is created by re-arranging matter. Be that matter in the brain or matter in a book. We assign the label "information" to certain arrangements of matter that have meaning to us. But that's all it is its just a label for certain kinds of arrangements of matter. Its not some intrinsic property of the universe like energy, it is merley a label for something that has meaning. Now what types of arrangements have meaning is an interesting discussion...
.... the types of arranegments of matter that have meaning are generally isomorphisms. Namely that the structure of the matter, or the rules of the formal system for making further re-arrangements of matter map directly to other concepts. So the concept 1+1=2 and arithmetic is mapped to the rules of rearranging symbols on a computer screen that represnt those things. But this is all there is to information. Its just us assigning meaning to patterns.
Ultimately, I would say the human DNA and the environment we live in contains all the information required to derive all books and artistic or scientific knowledge on the planet.
@jb0433628 I hope you realize that we are laughing at you. You and all creationists. You try and try to stick a natural universe into a bible shaped hole. It won't fit man. Trust me. Observation and experiment have shown time and time again that the tiny worldview our ancestors had is not even wrong.
@jb0433628 Please point me to where it says the earth is a SPHERE. Not a circle. Not a disk. A SPHERE. Spiderman comics says that New York is a city in America. That does not mean that Spiderman exists.
@jb0433628 Same old meaningless word play. "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth"" A circle IS NOT A SPHERE. the Hebrew word חוג refers to circles. "that it might take hold of the ends of the earth" Does a sphere have ends? Where are the ends on a sphere? "hangs the earth on nothing." The earth does not "hang" on anything. It orbits the sun at 66,000 miles per hour. And the vaccum of space is far from "nothing". The creator of the universe sure liked to use confusing terms
@jb0433628 "What shape other than a sphere can present this feature ?" A circle. If not ends, it does have an edge. A circle is not a sphere. You're a whole dimension off.
@jb0433628 "there is no need for it to be a circle anyway"
Agreed. But you've already contradicted yourself with Isaiah 40:22 which specifically says circle. You're boring. Have fun living in your fantasy world.
@jb0433628 The Bible also says that the earth is set upon pillars and is immovable, so it can hardly be orbiting the sun. The "four corners" of the earth do not mean the four directions, north, east, south and west. Poetic metaphors are no way for the creator of the entire universe to reveal his message. If that's how he writes his book, he is a shitty designer, a shitty writer and a shitty god.
@jb0433628 Seriously though. Stop worrying about demons, devils, desert jinns, and gods. You're wasting the only life that you've got. The priests lied to you when as a little kid they scared you with imagery of hell and torment, heaven and bliss. These things don't exists. They're fantasy. That's all I have left to say to you.
@TheLogicalKey Tell me about it. It's hard to determine if these people are genuine, or just trolls. Then again, I've started to wonder if religion itself isn't one big troll.
I have in the past however, if not successfully gotten a god bot to embrace reality, at least to take an interest in astronomy. Plant the seeds of doubt.
@jb0433628 The original word was חוּג chûg khoog >From Strong's Concordance: H2328; a circle: - circle, circuit, com passive. It does not mean a sphere. Hebrew has at least two words that mean sphere: : כדור (he) (kadúr) m., ספרה (he) (sféra).
Apparently god failed geometry as well as biology.
@jb0433628 You're not being a very good troll, you know. You're supposed to at least have something plausible to say in order to provoke emotions in people. You're just being ridiculous. You're not original, and you're not interesting. I've seen kindergartners troll better then you.
@jb0433628 I have no other reason not to, just because I found my way out of what I saw as bullshit doesn't mean I get the chance to ridicule someone else because of their beliefs. As well, evolution is not 100% complete, nor will it ever be, nor can genetics tell us 100% of the truth, I do not think they themselves claim to, but it does allow them to be more precise on dates, as well as where they found it. And that is all that matters in uncovering the past. Until more data is collected.
@Aezelll I believe potholer54 also asked you for a citation of some hard evidence, at which point you just stopped in the argument and ran away like a scared child with his tail between his legs. You know you can't cite any evidence, so you just spew more bullshit, and more bullshit. Somehow you think if you spew enough bullshit it will smell like roses eventually.
You believe that the Earth was empty, and then 1 billion years later there are civilisation on it. This is insanity, but you can't see it because you have been brainwashed by the system.
Well, technically, the Earth IS rather young.
Compared to 13 trillbilliodamadeupfuckingwordforlotsandlotsofyears years, that is.
SeedsOfHatred 10 hours ago
@mogley52 Fine then it's the most unjust punishment in History, just because it's punishment (supposedly) it doesn't mean it's at all just or moral.
kyekire 2 days ago
Has anyone noticed creationists always seem to think they can just reverse time and everything is linear so it will somehow prove something?
kyekire 2 days ago
HAhahah love this video, you got one more sub! :D
watcheem 4 days ago
I remember this freak. Have a debate with him on my channel, which was disturbing. He hasn't come back, has he? Please tell me he's not back.
Orthrus 5 days ago
It was 20 degrees cooler today than it was yesterday. If you extract this back just 20,000 days ago, the temperatures would have been hot enough to melt the Earth! The Earth is only one week old.
newdimensionfilms 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. 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 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). 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 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 6 days 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 did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 6 days ago
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! Read this Internet article. According to a Newsweek quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space which could have reached Mars. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.).
Mogley52 6 days ago
A moth bumped into me the other day at .00002 pounds of force. 20,000 years ago IT WOULD OF BLEW ME INTO THE FUCKING SUN.
grendelee 1 week ago
Original Population: 2 LOL! Now that is truly funny.
spekonaspek 1 week ago
At 4:30 when you rebutt the proposal that at the start, there were only two humans, you say that evolution never said there were only two but that groups of people existed. Where did the groups of people arise from and if it was possible for these groups to interbreed then arguably, they were the same species? The truth is there are "species" and "species". A grizzly can mate with a polar bear to produce fertile offspring. These are regarded as different species but perhaps they shouldn't be?
punksachoo 1 week ago
evolution is the greatest lie every to be perpetuated on human kind.
we will never know our history until those who have come before will return.
faron27 1 week ago
Comment removed
BackInTheCage 1 week ago
@BackInTheCage i'll try... by the way your comment was removed somehow?
faron27 1 week ago
I think they have weapons that can turn living organisms into a puddle of mush. I think the original poster was pointing out that the magnetic fields encasing the Earth are like our skin which holds us together. And he is making some edited point concerning the importance of balance in the electrically charged fields encasing the planet.
TheSHERIE68 1 week ago
Im not sure which is funnier
The way Pothler54 destorys these creatards
Creatards are actually dumb enuff to believe this crap
gorilla199uncensored 1 week ago
LOVE this video, Potholer. Keep up the funny! :D
santosbl01 2 weeks ago
HAHA!!! This video is so entertaining:)
slesperado 2 weeks ago
I GOT THIS INFORMATION FROM A FRIEND OF MINE AT THE LOCAL GYM.....LMAO I WAS TEARING UP FROM THE LAUGHTER... ALL THEY REALLY HAD TO DO IS ASK RICHARD SIMMONS....STOP IT YOU'RE KILLING ME OVER HERE!!!
hellasow 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. 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 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52 The entire bible has been taken out of context - i.e. a work of fiction has been mistaken for non-fiction. Signing off your comment with your degree (if that is you) does not impress me. All it does is reminds me how anyone with an average intelligence can get one if they try hard enough.
urcritic 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). 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 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 2 weeks 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 did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
@Mogley52 You can't criticize evolution because you obviously don't know how it works. Take out just one book on the subject, just one book and you'll save yourself a lot of time.
urcritic 2 weeks ago
@urcritic Let it go urcritic, Mogley52 is a troll. He goes to every video that talks about Evolution or science in general, reposts the same refuted arguments over and over again and never bothers to defend any of his statements. Just flag him for spam and move on.
oaajbs 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate when no directing code and mechanisms existed?
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site. The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation).
Mogley52 2 weeks ago
Isn't the electromagnetic field the thing that keeps the solar radiation from cooking us?
Jonstern1983 2 weeks ago
another great video. I saw it back when you first released it, and it was a real pleasure to watch it again as it is really hilarious. Keep it up potholer!
sorrysonofa 2 weeks ago
I have a science question. Well actually it might be a photography question but I think it has something to do with light:
Why is it that in some space pictures that show space walks, spacecraft, etc you can't see stars? I notice that in some pictures the background is just black space with no stars in sight. Any ideas as to why?
BigBobsh2o 2 weeks ago
@BigBobsh2o probably would have something to do with how bright the object being photographed is. if its dark then the camera would let more light in letting you see the stars in the background. If its too bright then the camera would let less light in meaning you probably couldn't see the stars.
IDESTROYSTUF 2 weeks ago
@BigBobsh2o When taking a picture in space, you have to account for the fact that you're trying to take a picture of a bright white object reflecting a lot of sunlight, whether it's an astronaut in a spacesuit, a spaceship, etc. The camera must be set for a fast exposure time and aperture narrowed. Otherwise, the picture wouldn't show much of anything except a whole lot of light. Since stars are very faint compared to these other objects, they simply don't develop in the picture.
peoplesfront0fjudea 2 weeks ago
Interestingly, the same situation applies here on Earth. Unless a camera is specifically set to pick up starlight, a picture of the night sky will produce only blackness.
peoplesfront0fjudea 2 weeks ago
Serge from Beverly Hills Cop makes everything right!
Zen0xious 2 weeks ago
Doubling every 150 year? Don't they know humans back then had like a life span of 30 to 50 years at most? So 2 people would not be 4 people in 150 years.
Man those creationist have flaws in their math right away.
Zefar77 2 weeks ago
@Zefar77
Acctually most mathamaticl evidence offered up by cretards and theists I have seen is completely false and incorrect, no wonderbecause they start with the answer they want and work backwards, to attempt to find a proof. Of course this means they are forced to use incorrect maths, faulty logic then make rediculous and false assumptions to attain the result.
VideoAudioDisco09 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 2 weeks ago
So my grandad was 6 foot 7 Dad was 6 foot 6 and I am 6 foot 4 claculating with a creationist calculator, Get the fuck outa here my great grandson 8 generations from now will be 13cm tall.
Yeah perfect sence.......
VideoAudioDisco09 2 weeks ago 30
This has been flagged as spam show
@VideoAudioDisco09 "So my grandad was 6 foot 7 Dad was 6 foot 6 and I am 6 foot 4 "
Nope there is a missing link in there somewhere. Your Father must be your Grandfather. There must be another link that is exactly 6 foot 5.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@VideoAudioDisco09 You ancestors were FIFTEEN THOUSAND FEET TALL.
grendelee 1 week ago
:50 "dttt kakaka dtdtdtd kakaka!!!"
BeondaPale 2 weeks ago
watched i agajn and. still keep kacking mhself at the 'get the fuck outtahere! b
psycho3968 2 weeks ago 14
Wonderful video as usual... I lol'ed and learned; that is what is important.
GWillM 2 weeks ago 2
i think billy got the population thing from Dawkins LOL
unassumption 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
Oblate sphereoid
psycho3968 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 what do you mean "the more we compare" chimpanzee DNA and human DNA
nomen23 2 weeks ago
Excellent video, as usual.
Sebastian198004 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 I hate feeding trolls, but in case you are just genuinely misguided, I recommend reading "the Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. It's written for people who don't realize just how much evidence supports evolutionary theory. I say this with all sincerity: I would be less surprised to learn that the sun revolves around the earth, than that evolution does not fully explain earth's diversity of life. Do yourself a favor and appreciate the fact that you live at a time where we ca
nomen23 2 weeks ago
@nomen23
Dawkins is a liar, I listened to several of his videos.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@nomen23
For example, he said all living species are linked in their DNA in a clear family tree that retrace evolution. However, we don't even have the capability to sequence 1% of the DNA of 1% of species, and he says that like we had a complete knowledge. The more we compare chimp DNA with human DNA, the more distant they are. He won't talk about this however, this guy is a professionnal deceiver.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@nomen23 Might also want to point out that yes, it is a theory. You know like all the other silly theories, Germ Theory, Gravity is a theory... All those are theories as well, I don't see those getting ridiculed.
SongofthePresence 2 weeks ago
Population doubles every 150 years...
Umm... Natural Selection was proposed and shown valid a long time ago. Not everyone gets the chance to get busy and have kids.
roont 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Damn, this makes me want to go to HornyHabits com! Haha
JennyLawsx 2 weeks ago
He does at 01:40 what I do every morning after coffee. And are you doing anything on the public speaking circuit? I'd love to hear you talk for an hour or so
AppiusOS 2 weeks ago
Some guy down the gym huh.
Well it sounds legitimate to me.
ultrademigod 2 weeks ago
Excellent! I'm grateful for the re-uploads, I've never seen this before & I'm so happy I had the opportunity.
sheri226 2 weeks ago
"Shut the fuck up! Get the fuck out of here!"
HAHAHAHAOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOMGOMGOMNGOMGOMGAHAHAHAHHA
weeeezzll 2 weeks ago
Thank you for doing these. It would be so easy to just say, "stupid."
sowcratees 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628. woohoo now out comes the crazy! I knew it wouldn't be long before you spilled your religious guts before all. Lucifer??? holey shit you got him involved now? Next you will using the illuminati and Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot n your arguements. oh, and my 30 yrs experience in forensic criminal investigation gave me a few pointers along the way as to what is a fact, tried and tested, and what is complete delusional bullshit. As you have been asked - 'put up or sut up'.
psycho3968 2 weeks ago
get the fuck out of here lol
tomyo669 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628.. getting your information from 'Answers in Genisis' doesnt count... or perhaps you may be getting you info like the twat in this vid... from a guy at the gym! Alas those sources arent really recognised by educated people. hahah you arsehat. although I can't wait to see this vid you are going to post!
psycho3968 2 weeks ago 2
@psycho3968
Sorry for having more scientific education then you. Have you finished your high school yet ? Or maybe you dropped out before ?
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 When criticizing someone for being uneducated, it's best to proofread your own post for errors, lest you come off as a hypocrite.
skevoid 2 weeks ago
even if there WAS an original pair.. Wouldn't that lead to be incest?
Christianity smiles on incest? Really?
I expect a no to this question.
Raizo886 2 weeks ago
@Raizo886
Indeed the sons of Adam and Eve married their sisters, this is in the book of Jubilee. The law about incest came 2000 years later with Moses. Since at the beginning there were no DNA errors, your childrens would not be handicapped because of consanguinity, so there was no use for such a law.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 So the explanation to this.. God decided that 2000 years later, that everyone who practised incest would have a high chance that their children would become handicapped.
Oh boy it all makes sense to me now. (ass move by god though hah!)
Raizo886 2 weeks ago
Well done!
MarthaL1942 2 weeks ago
I love how the "doubling every 150 years" ignored the losses of the Black Plague, 2 world wars and a host of conflicts, genocides, natural disasters and culls through-out recorded history.
Kargush 2 weeks ago
If magnetic fields could produce enough heat to melt rock, then there would be no need for Pyro in the X-Men. Magneto could just as easily do anything that Pyro could do and therefore negate the premise for a foundational pillar to villain sub-plot structure of the X-Men universe.
My point? If this 'theory' doesn't even stand up to comic-book scrutiny, how the hell is it supposed to stand up to scientific scrutiny?
IrwinJohnFinster 2 weeks ago 2
"I got this number from a friend of mine at the fitness club in my local area" HAHHAAHA!
Tarhini 2 weeks ago
2:00 "...which is an old idea, long discarded."
True. But if we could stop them making that mistake then there wouldn't be any creationists anyway.
chrisofnottingham 2 weeks ago
Is there anything funnier than potholer saying "Get the fuck out of here" in a really high voice? No. The correct answer is no.
dorsk188 2 weeks ago 2
FUCK I WISH MY MAGNETIC FIELDS MELTED SHIT ):<
fucktardickis 2 weeks ago
Fwark not mathematics!
IamBread18 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"there were never an original pair of breeding humans"
Liar, how could you know ? Y-chromosomal Adam is only the youngest of the branch, most likely someone like...Noah.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 =Liar, how could you know ?= Frankly, I don't. I'm quoting well-accepted genetic studies that have been done on mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA and that show there was no original breeding 'pair' that lived contemporaneously. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Simply chanting "liar"is not much of an argument, is it?
potholer54 2 weeks ago 38
@potholer54
If mitochondrial Eve had children from a single man, then this man is the father of all humans.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 My, that's an interesting story you have there. What's your point?
NKL005 2 weeks ago
@NKL005
I think mitochondrial Eve is the Eve from the Bible, and Noah would be the Y-chromosomal Adam. That would explain why Eve is older than the Y-chromosomal Adam. Also, the datations of both are in the 10 thousands of years instead of 6000 years, but it was made before the recent (2-3 years ago) findings that the mutation rate (used for those datings) were much higher than anticipated (10-100 times).
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Cool, do you have any evidence to support your claim?
NKL005 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Really, your understanding of genetics is so non-existent it is laughable, and every time you open your mouth you are advertising it for all to see. How embarrassing for you.
"I think mitochondrial Eve is the Eve from the Bible..." That's nice. Too bad that, once again, you have ZERO evidence to back that up. Please cite your peer reviewed scientific research that supports your asinine claim or just do us all a favor and be quiet.
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
It's funny how atheists think they are intelligent and knowledgeable while they display their ignorance to everyone with pride. The existence of mitochondrial Eve is a proof on the side of the Bible and against unconsistent theories like evolution, if you did not realize.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 I am intelligent and knowledgeable on this subject. Also, you complete delusional liar: "The existence of mitochondrial Eve is a proof on the side of the Bible"
Name me ONE well reviewed peer-reviewed research study published in a major journal that supports that position. ONE. Ramblings from your pastor don't count, and you may have to look up what "peer-reviewed" means, but I fucking dare you to find ONE.
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time." -Takahata, N (January 1993), "Allelic genealogy and human evolution", Mol. Biol. Evol. 10 (1): 2–22, PMID 8450756
I.E.: You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
Evolution is destroyed by information theory, I will soon post a video I will send you the link. But I can't convince you to stop believing in a pseudo-science based on no physical evidence.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 No no, some video of you ranting means jack shit. I'm publicly daring you to find a single credible published article in a scientific journal that backs up your claims. But you can't, you're just a clueless coward.
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
You would actually believe anything that pseudo-scientists vote on at majority.
I prefer to think by myself.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "vote on?" Are you that dumb? So you're saying you don't even understand how the scientific method works, and yet 99% of all scientists are wrong but you and your barbaric religion have it all figured out how science "really" works. LOLOLOLOL. This just gets better and better. Oh please, do go on......
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
You haven't heard about the trials on creationism ? Evolutionists voted to say one scientist was wrong. They did not demonstrate it like in a real science. They voted on it.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
Actually I probably know more than you about the scientific method, since I am studying for a master's degree in artificial intelligence and computer vision. I also took graduate classes in neurology.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
For your information, the royal society of london was the first promoter of evolutionism, before any evidence was found (and we are still waiting, since there is no physical evidence of evolution whatsoever, and it goes against physics and probabilities). The royal society was founded not by atheists, but by Freemason, worshipers of Lucifer.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Since when was Charles Stewart a Mason? Evidence for evolution was apparent since men started domesticated animals, and Origin of Species is packed with observational data. Evolution is an emergent property of any system showing reproduction, variation and selection. It's true because of the meaning of the words, inescapable, inevitable, a priori true, logically necessary. All emperical evidence supports it, and I do mean ALL, and there is no contradictory evidence.
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
Also, "scientific method" doesn't apply to evolutionists, none of them know how to use maths. They theorise, they do not demonstrate, big difference. Still, they want to play pseudo-science with their peer-reviewed toilet paper.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "I prefer to think by myself" The same way the guy in the video came up with his nonsense ideas while sitting at the breakfast table eating cereal?
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont
Do you think these pseudo-sciences are neutral ? In climatology for example, there is a huge lobbyism to bias the results. When results are bad (according to their agenda) they do not publish it. When the datation of mtEve showed that with the uptaded mutation rates, she was only 6000 years old, they kept silent on it. Wikipedia still shows the biased anterior results, and I doubt it can be modified even with multiple citations.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "When the datation of mtEve showed that with the uptaded mutation rates, she was only 6000 years old, they kept silent on it."
Except they published in "Science," in an article you yourself linked. So were they trying to cover it up by publishing it in one of the most prominent science journals? You take your meds today there, or were just just born confused?
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
The article was published, but no one heard about it, and Wikipedia is out of date on mtEve. That's what I meant.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "The article was published, but no one heard about it," Except......the dozen or so researchers and HUNDREDS working on matching evolutionary vs. archaeology timescales that revised predictions based on it. Keep lying.....believe me you are providing a lot of entertainment to the people that follow this site.
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
If you had the least part of good faith and scientific rectitude you would argue on the real issues instead of arguing on the style.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Or maybe for you science is a popularity contest? The article you cited didn't make the front page of CNN or Fox News so there is a conspiracy? Because the popular media counts as the absolute authority on scientific research analysis right? Pathetic.
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
The problem is that atheists are obstructing the truth for ideological reasons. The theory of Evolution was promoted by "scientific" organisations such as the British Royal Society without any scientific reason, only because of their agenda. Same thing with ClimateGate.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 So let's recap all your positions so far: "Science is all a conspiracy, science journals are pseudo-science crap." "Okay wait, maybe they aren't all crap, they publish real articles but there is a conspiracy to cover them up, especially the articles I like." "The British Royal Society is an atheist conspiracy to cover up the truth about evolution."
I'm done here. All you've done is a great job as painting yourself as a conspiracy theorist lunatic. Case closed.
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
Just like I said.
Also, I am talking about pseudo-science like evolutionism, not the real sciences like maths and physics.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
Reviewer for pseudo-scientific articles about evolution are working for the same journals that publish real science articles.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
I am against false science and corruption. I think the universe is 13,6 billion years old, because I can see the science and agree with it. But the "proofs" behind evolution is severely lacking any serious science.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aezelll
I am against false science and corruption. I think the universe is 13,6 billion years old, because I can see the science and agree with it. But the "proofs" behind evolution is severely lacking any serious science.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aezelll
I am against false science and corruption. I think the universe is 13,6 billion years old, because I can see the science and agree with it. But the "proofs" behind evolution is severely lacking any serious science.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
Articles are published, but the opinion of the "scientific community" is something else.
Articles saying humans are not the cause of the global warming are published, but have you heard about them ?
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Yah, yah. yah. Conspiracy theories! The bible proves evolution wrong! Scientists are working for Satan! We've heard these nonsense "arguments" before. Go try and impress someone at Answers in Genesis.
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont
You are hiding your weak arguments behind a facade of useless insults. Here's the article stating that mtEve is 6000 years old, in accordance with the Bible :
sciencemag . org / content /279/5347/28
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SongofthePresence 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Not a bad article, and a good source, however if you did read there are multitudes of other studies, as stated but not expressed, that suggest that these results are just phenomenon. And pointing to a single article and covering your ears screaming "This proves it" is not the way to go, though i cannot summarize a description on 500 characters I can say that you need more then just one article to prove a good argument.
SongofthePresence 2 weeks ago
@SongofthePresence
I agree with you, and thanks for talking like a rational human being. If mtEve is the mother of all humans, not only on matrilinear side, it would be another possible explanation for the lack of variability in this DNA, presently explained by a bottleneck in human population lasting for thousand of years, 60 000 years ago.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 *yawn* That article is talking about mitochondrial DNA. No where does it mention the age of the earth (or mtEve, which I'm assuming you mean mount Everest). You've failed at a simple attempt to link me to the right article. I also don't give a shit. If you seriously believe this stuff, man, you are missing out on the true story of the universe. It's much more interesting then some bronze age fairy tales.
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont
The article mention that mtEve would be only 6000 years old with the new mutation rates, but the emphasis is not put on that. search "6000" years in the document you will find it.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 No thanks. I try not to waste my time reading about something I know is bunk.
roont 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jb0433628 No thanks. I try not to waste my time reading about something I know is bunk.
roont 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 The earth is billions of years old. This is an established fact. If you want to pretend your little story book has it right, go right ahead. The rest of us are going to keep living here, in the 21st century.
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont
I also think the Earth is billion of years old, but this is not an issue for me. I think the information needed for life had to be provided by an intelligent being outside of this universe, because I think information can't be generated randomly. And "God" had to exist forever also for this reason.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 The earth is billions of years old, but mtEve is 6000? Something not really right with your math there. "I think the information" There's your first problem. The universe doesn't care what you think. Neither do I. People thought the sun went round the earth. Do you think that is correct? "provided by an intelligent being " What REASON do you have for thinking this? "And "God" had to exist forever" No, "god" didn't. See? I can make baseless assertions as well.
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont
I think is not good enough for you ?
The information contained in DNA can't be created by any physical mean, and this has never been contradicted.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 ‘Evolution of Biological Information’, Thomas Schneider, Journal of Nuclaic Acid Research, Oxford University, July 2000.v
Wrong again.
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
@gamesbok
Wrong, his definition of information is invalid.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Schneider's definition is Shannon Information, and it's perfectly valid. I notice the only objections that have been raised to Schneider come from Dembski and Meyer, neither of whom have been published in peer reviewed journals, unlike Schneider, and their motivation is political, not scientific.
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
@roont
The information had to be there before the big bang, since information can't be transmitted through the singularity. It had to exist forever because information can't be created, it can only decay.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628
Information can be created. I've just done it by typing this sentence. Ta da!
I think you mean to say information can't be created in a closed system and I think you probably get this notion from a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states entropy always increases in a closed system. Sadly this nothing much to do with information but many theists make this error so don't worry too much, but now you know better you won;t need to make this mistake again.
evilreligion 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628
To re-iterate
Increasing entropy does not mean decreasing information. Information is a human concept and requires a human mind (a decoder) for it to make any sense. Its not really anything to do with entropy.
Secondly even if it were linked to entropy the 2nd law applies to closed systems only, Humans and the entire earth are not a closed system so entropy can decrease in such system i.e. localised increases in order happen all the time!
evilreligion 2 weeks ago
@evilreligion
Indeed he Earth is not a closed system because we receive energy from the Sun. However, energy doesn't contain information, I think we need a "source of information" to increase it in a system. Also, when I say information can't be created, I am talking about the minimal description(you can see the Kolmogorov complexity on wikipedia). The message (your sentence) that is generated by a system (you and the environment around you) was already contained in some way in the system.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628
Ultimately information is created by re-arranging matter. Be that matter in the brain or matter in a book. We assign the label "information" to certain arrangements of matter that have meaning to us. But that's all it is its just a label for certain kinds of arrangements of matter. Its not some intrinsic property of the universe like energy, it is merley a label for something that has meaning. Now what types of arrangements have meaning is an interesting discussion...
evilreligion 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628
.... the types of arranegments of matter that have meaning are generally isomorphisms. Namely that the structure of the matter, or the rules of the formal system for making further re-arrangements of matter map directly to other concepts. So the concept 1+1=2 and arithmetic is mapped to the rules of rearranging symbols on a computer screen that represnt those things. But this is all there is to information. Its just us assigning meaning to patterns.
evilreligion 2 weeks ago
@evilreligion
Ultimately, I would say the human DNA and the environment we live in contains all the information required to derive all books and artistic or scientific knowledge on the planet.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Does this human DNA and the environment contain the presice information of the time of the radioactive decay of an individual Uranium atom?
Our only source of information about the sun is the energy we receive, and yet it seems to contain rather a lot of information.
Your theory of information would seem to indicate a deterministic universe, and contradict theological considerations of free will.
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 I hope you realize that we are laughing at you. You and all creationists. You try and try to stick a natural universe into a bible shaped hole. It won't fit man. Trust me. Observation and experiment have shown time and time again that the tiny worldview our ancestors had is not even wrong.
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont
Two ancient books of the Bible (1000BC) state that the Earth is a sphere, and Isaiah (800BC)states that 2/3 of it is covered with water.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Please point me to where it says the earth is a SPHERE. Not a circle. Not a disk. A SPHERE. Spiderman comics says that New York is a city in America. That does not mean that Spiderman exists.
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont
"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth" - Isaiah 40.22
But the word "חוג" in hebrew also means "globe".
If the Earth was flat, there is no need for it to be a circle anyway...
However here is another one :
"Have you commanded the morning in your days, and caused the dawn to know its place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth" - Job 38.13
What shape other than a sphere can present this feature ?
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jb0433628 Same old meaningless word play. "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth"" A circle IS NOT A SPHERE. the Hebrew word חוג refers to circles. "that it might take hold of the ends of the earth" Does a sphere have ends? Where are the ends on a sphere? "hangs the earth on nothing." The earth does not "hang" on anything. It orbits the sun at 66,000 miles per hour. And the vaccum of space is far from "nothing". The creator of the universe sure liked to use confusing terms
roont 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "What shape other than a sphere can present this feature ?" A circle. If not ends, it does have an edge. A circle is not a sphere. You're a whole dimension off.
roont 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 "there is no need for it to be a circle anyway"
Agreed. But you've already contradicted yourself with Isaiah 40:22 which specifically says circle. You're boring. Have fun living in your fantasy world.
roont 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 The Bible also says that the earth is set upon pillars and is immovable, so it can hardly be orbiting the sun. The "four corners" of the earth do not mean the four directions, north, east, south and west. Poetic metaphors are no way for the creator of the entire universe to reveal his message. If that's how he writes his book, he is a shitty designer, a shitty writer and a shitty god.
roont 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 Seriously though. Stop worrying about demons, devils, desert jinns, and gods. You're wasting the only life that you've got. The priests lied to you when as a little kid they scared you with imagery of hell and torment, heaven and bliss. These things don't exists. They're fantasy. That's all I have left to say to you.
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont I used to write comments like that to deluded people. I just can't anymore, it can get tiring lol.
TheLogicalKey 2 weeks ago
@TheLogicalKey Tell me about it. It's hard to determine if these people are genuine, or just trolls. Then again, I've started to wonder if religion itself isn't one big troll.
I have in the past however, if not successfully gotten a god bot to embrace reality, at least to take an interest in astronomy. Plant the seeds of doubt.
roont 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 The original word was חוּג chûg khoog >From Strong's Concordance: H2328; a circle: - circle, circuit, com passive. It does not mean a sphere. Hebrew has at least two words that mean sphere: : כדור (he) (kadúr) m., ספרה (he) (sféra).
Apparently god failed geometry as well as biology.
v
gamesbok 2 weeks ago
@roont
Out of context, here's another very interesting verse : "He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing."
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 You're not being a very good troll, you know. You're supposed to at least have something plausible to say in order to provoke emotions in people. You're just being ridiculous. You're not original, and you're not interesting. I've seen kindergartners troll better then you.
roont 2 weeks ago
@roont
I care about scientific arguments, logic and truth, while you and most evolutionist are hiding behind meaningless speaches. Way to go sheep.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 I've got some amazing evidence that the bible is true. I own a talking snake.
Bornofbadger 2 weeks ago
@jb0433628 I have no other reason not to, just because I found my way out of what I saw as bullshit doesn't mean I get the chance to ridicule someone else because of their beliefs. As well, evolution is not 100% complete, nor will it ever be, nor can genetics tell us 100% of the truth, I do not think they themselves claim to, but it does allow them to be more precise on dates, as well as where they found it. And that is all that matters in uncovering the past. Until more data is collected.
SongofthePresence 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll I believe potholer54 also asked you for a citation of some hard evidence, at which point you just stopped in the argument and ran away like a scared child with his tail between his legs. You know you can't cite any evidence, so you just spew more bullshit, and more bullshit. Somehow you think if you spew enough bullshit it will smell like roses eventually.
Aezelll 2 weeks ago
@Aezelll
You believe that the Earth was empty, and then 1 billion years later there are civilisation on it. This is insanity, but you can't see it because you have been brainwashed by the system.
jb0433628 2 weeks ago