I wouldn't make a cow. I wouldn't make a Jeff. I cant truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Things simply change form. The idea that everything has to have a beginning and an end is not one that I personally believe in.
Silly analogy. In order to be angry with the builder means you affirm their existence. I am not angry with God because I do not believe he exists. Simple.
You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real. Peace.
You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real. Peace.
You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real. Peace.
Interesting perspective. My response is that you don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real.
Interesting perspective. My response is that you don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real.
Interesting perspective. You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real.
Interesting perspective. You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real.
How would I make a cow? Well I grab my bull and I grab my heifer and I lock them in a cage where they have cow sex.
Honestly why are you trying to compare 'God' to a house builder? There aren't people that don't believe in house builders. We can witness them building it with our eyes, do it on our own if we want, stop them from doing it, help them do it, on and on and on. You make the worst argument I have ever seen a theist make.
Atheists are just as angry with God, as Christians are with Thor for example. Christians are atheists too in a way. Atheists only deny one god more than Christians do. Once Christians understand why they deny the existence of all those other of thousands of known gods, they will understand why atheists deny their specific god as well.
The atheist population in America continues to grow slowly...its numbers are edging to the very desireable critical mass that we call "significant"..I know this is true because over the past 30 years I have added to that number and am encouraged to see others, like me...gradually enter our ranks. Unlike religions...the evidence that no such make believe diety exists continues to grow as well....Faith is just an utterly terrible excuse to avoid the implications of reason. Celebrate reason!!!
Ignorance must have some benefit in our civization; America has done quite well with such enormous masses of blistering ignorance. It's quite probable that most of these ignorant minds only practice.."part-time delusion" and apply reason when it's ;mostly urgent or necessary. Now if we can only convince them to practice it with more regularity and consistency.....our society just might even improve....There seems to be a slow...glacial shifting toward reason...Let's hope the trend continues.
@afar1 I realize that but there is strong reason why atheists have the highest rates of suicide and substance abuse int the world according to APA studies.AT any rate the ones we deal with daily are not atheists at all but the God-Haters that typify their actions. I call them "Evangelical atheists." And to hate you must believe.
@afar1 Athiests dont "hate god" due to the fact they do not believe in existance of one. Its the equivelant of one hating santa but they know santa does not exist.
The bible is full of holes as well as ridiculous tales, like this for an example.
The bible explains how we are so diff. is b/c a nation built a tower to heaven and god god mad so he destroyed the tower and seperated the people of this great nation to the 4 corners of the globe, by diff language, so that is how language was formed.
@tehrulez Biblical allegories and senseless twisting of Biblical facts aside, I leave you here...Santa Claus causes atheism.There's a disease called Santa syndrome that happens when a child finds out that Santa does not exist, which in turn causes Santa syndrome, which also triggers atheism. When a young child finds out there's no Santa it triggers something in the brain so that now they're afraid to believe in God.It's like a mental case that full of mentally challenging logic issues.
@afar1 And what about the people who looked at the piles and piles of evidence and thought 'kinda strange that we have piles of evidence for evolution and all but all that god has is a holy book and "faith" ' And people who have thought that science has done so much in these few hundred years while god sat on his ass watching plagues killing thousands of people and now tsunamis and what not else is destroying so many lifes. God doesn't do anything, we with science DO something.
@afar1 Why am I full of crap, did science never did those things? LOL
And these creatures? We have evidence, we found skeletons and what not more. But I'm no expert on this subject, you probaly try to say "AHA! You know nothing so your full of crap!!!" but tell me. If I have to proof it is right, aren't you able to proof me wrong? To proof all the evidence is wrong? I assume the well respected scientists aren't lieing with their evidence, so I assume they are right. You have NOTHINGjust faith
@GTASA911 Two things straight. Atheism and Evilussion have nothing to do with science. The "real" scientists are jumping ship on the the Darwin club by the numbers.What we (the skeptics) want is evidence for "evolution". If the
evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?Look, we all know you don't have fossil evidence and genetics has
limits that eliminates it as a method for evolution -- so I'll go easy
@foiran Nice term paper. Like I said "Opponents of science?" You mean evolutionists -right?You're so sure of yourself, deliver the goods. Give us *the* answer
and this thread will be over and you can get your nose back in joint.
Every book, by evolutionists provides many embarrasing quotes that can be
used as ammunition against the theory of evolution. Ive studied this
issue for over twentyfive years. How many of these quotes would you like
@afar1 You see this is one of the major problems with people like you, you put so much store in quotes, as if quoting some one or the bible is some form of evidence. You set up a false dichotomy as if there is a thing called science and a thing called evolution, I am sorry but evolutionary biology is part of the scientific cannon.
@foiran Preach on brother, your faith is immense!! Your major concern should be that today, Darwinism is in the same place in 2011 as communism was in1986. It's wheezing like a dying animal. Flailing wildly.Draining limited resources defending itself against attackers. It's barely able to feed its own people, let alone advance useful scientific theories ofits own.Ten more years and it will be dead
@afar1 Ill leave the preaching to religious morons thanks. And its only religious morons who talk about “Darwinism” normal people talk about evolutionary theory. And its only among religious morons that evolutionary theory is in danger; in universities its alive and well and continually developing and reworking to help explain the realities of biology.
@foiran Anyone else notice that this moron has no argument?
"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"
@afar1 If these quotes are so damaging post some, still, a few stupid quotes does not shake the veracity of evolutionary theory. And who are all of these scientists supposedly jumping ship? Where were they educated, what are their Ph.D.s in? The evidence in support of evolutionary theory is monumental, its only members of the Christian Taliban who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to look at it.
@foiran The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"
@afar1 And taking a portion of a quote out of its original context and trying to make it say something it is not is intellectual dishonesty, Gould was arguing against some points in evolutionary theory in favour of his own understanding of evolutionary theory. He was not arguing against the fact of evolution. But then you seem to be a creationist so intellectual dishonesty par for the course for you.
@foiran Anyone else notice that this moron has no argument besides myself?
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"
@afar1 "Every book, by evolutionists provides many embarrasing quotes that can be
used as ammunition against the theory of evolution."
Sir, allow me to assist with your edification. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and used DAILY by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
@afar1 James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
@afar1 Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95--99% depending on the primate.
Kirk seems mentally ill,or he thinks everyone is stupid.Cows evolved over millions of years.Non belief in god has nothing to do with doing what i want,it is a result of having an evolved brain able to be reasonable.I didnt choose to be an atheist,just like I didnt choose not to believe in santa claus.
@slothape Because they choose to believe differently. God doesn't make himself perfectly clear to us here on earth so that it is more of a trust with him. "If you believe, then you will be saved" If he showed himself perfectly to us, then what is the point? He wants to see who will read his word and obey and that is how we bring glory to him
@corgiluver26 When his word says stuff like this: "Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them," declares the LORD. "Do everything I have commanded you. Jeremiah 50:12" and "Now when the people complained, it displeased the Lord; for the Lord heard it, and His anger was aroused. So the fire of the Lord burned among them, and consumed some in the outskirts of the camp. Numbers 11:1" I'm much less likely to want to have anything to do with it.
@corgiluver26 or this "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him. - Leviticus 20:9"
@corgiluver26 So then you are disagreeing with Kirk Cameron in the video? (whose inane point was that God is 'blatantly obvious) My point was that it is not obvious and that is why there are other religions.
Hold on. Why is fornication so frowned upon? Its pretty hard to be fruitful and multiply without it. Also, if looking at a woman with lust is adultery, how do you meet, fall in love with, marry, and have kids with a woman without committing adultery?
@Andromedonian You don't have to have lust to meet someone. You don't have lust to fall in love. You don't have to have lust to marry. Once you are married "lust" toward your spouse isn't considered lust. If you "lust" toward someone other then her, then it is a sinful lust.
@corgiluver26 If you believe in love at first sight, which I do not, then you could meet a woman and have kids without committing adultery. Love by definition is "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person." By that definition I'd find it quite difficult to "love" a woman I just met. I believe love comes with time, and that lust is what starts it all. I believe lust is what keeps a guy trying. Without that, its no use! Women are too complicated.
@jberling1 Kirk encountered the living God through Jesus Christ, like many other true believers, including myself. True Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus Christ, not ritual or religion. Instead of following the crowd and conforming to society, why don't you investigate the evidence yourself and let the facts lead where they may? Are you afraid what facts and truth may arise? Don't be. Open your mind and heart to see if God is real. Read the Book of John in the Bible.
@OB4ITS2L8O Believe me when I say I gave christianity a shot. But as I advanced through school and learned what science had to teach me, I learned things that the bible never mentioned and also that it couldn't disprove. I acted rationally and stopped believing in christianity. I can see how people would get caught up in it though, it is a good read, but don't dwell from reality. And conforming to society would be if one became christian, atheists are the minority.
@jberling1 Science isn't at odds with the Bible. God created science. What you are probably talking about is you were taught garbage disguised as science. Do you realize the Bible records things that predates modern science - such as freshwater springs at the bottom of the ocean? Do you realize that what we call 'science' today ends up being wrong given the passage of time?
@CiscoWes "God created science" that's your argument, what a joke. Obviously you are not just oblivious to science but to history as well. Any one who has studied just a little history can tell you that science and religion are two of the most conflicting studies there is. So what if the bible guessed there were springs, it also says bats are birds. What next gravity isn't real? Maybe you are now realizing that you have been taught 'garbage' your whole life, disguised as the Bible.
@jberling1 What is science? Science simply means knowledge gained by observation. We can study God's creation using science. Man's 'scientific discoveries' end up being changed, corrected, etc... The Bible doesn't change and doesn't need correcting. You're oblivious to the fact that the Bible mentions freshwater springs in the ocean - hundreds of years before modern 'discovery'. The Bible mentions the 'paths of the sea' long before our 'scientists 'discovered' it.
@CiscoWes The bible constantly contradicts itself such "as Salvation is by faith, apart from works." (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16) "Salvation is by good works, apart from faith." (James 2:17, 20, 26). This is just one of many but this is a contradiction and needs to be corrected. As for you statement "its never been changed" this is false. In fact there are biblical scholars who dedicate themselves to finding the changes made to the bible throughout the course of history.
@jberling1 you know it would actually help if maybe you read the WHOLE content before you make quotes. First off James was writting to believers, hence the word brethen or brothers and sisters in Christ. Second James says, "faith without works is dead." What does he mean? Works are to faith what the body is to the spirit. The body displays the life of the spirit. Work displays faith. The only way I can display that I am alive is with my body (movement, pulse, etc. Please let me finish
@jberling1 conti: The only way that I can display that I have faith is by my works.
If I have no works, does that mean that I have no faith? NO! NO! NO! That would be like saying that if I die physically, I would no longer exist. The truth is that I have eternal life, so though I may lose my body, I am still very much alive. If you have faith but no works, you simply cannot demonstrate to another that you have faith. That is the point James is making when he says...
@jberling1 conti: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works (James 2:18)."
To be effective, to be able to demonstrate our faith, and to earn rewards, we must have works.
James speaks of justification by works before men. Paul speaks of justification by faith before God. Paul speaks of that which justifies man before God, via: faith alone, wholly apart from works: James of the proof before men...
@jberling1 conti: that he who possesses to have justifying faith really has it. Paul speaks of what God sees-faith; James of what men see-works, as the visible evidence of faith. Paul draws his illustration from Genesis 15:6, James from Genesis 22:1-19. James's key-phrase is 'ye see' (James 2:24), for men cannot see faith except as manifested through works." That's what James is stating. If we read the whole content we can clearly see this. Now you've state the bible has changed. False...
@jberling1 conti: ones have changed it. For example Jefferson did this by saying the mircacles never happened. We reject that. If you look at the orginal manuscripts, for example the dead sea scrolls you can see only by the launage that we speak that the wording hasn't changed. It still means the same thing. The only way you could disprove the Bible to be false is if Jesus never rose from the dead. You have to argue the historal accounts of Jesus. I've studied history and have seen this is the..
@jberling1. why dont you TRY to disprove the bible before you write it off. i promise yoi or noone else will ever be able to disprove it. in fact, things are happening today that are prophesied in the bible 2000 years ago. like i said TRY
@cccfish10221022 There are many philosophical reasons that prove parts of the bible as false. For me to explain anyone of them in 500 characters would be impossible. However, it is like i said before science gives us a rational reason that we can observe, religion does not. And also a lot of the science we know today as truths contradict the bible. Ask yourself am I really writing off the bible or are you writing of science.
@cccfish10221022 Disprove what? There are many things in the bible that are correct and there are many that are scientifically and morally wrong. It has both true and false statements.
@jberling1 nope he is a Christian because he knows when the world comes to an end or when he dies, there is a God and he does want to go to heaven. His parents are not christian and didnt teach him he taught themselve NO he paid attention in science class he believed what they said.
@elibeth121 I didn't say he couldn't believe in a god. Whether he believes in a god or not is his decision, but what he is doing in this clip is absurd. Science has given us truths about the Universe that the Bible would explain with falsities. A rational person would take the side of science based on the fact that it gives evidence we can see. And knowing this it would be wise for a person to cast down any specific religion and take a broader approach to it, such as an agnostic would.
" And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him MUST BELIEVE HE EXISTS and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Doesn't this verse show that trying to convert a person, that has no faith to believe God exists, is a waste of Kingdom resources? The apostle paul did a great job of persuading the greeks to see their 'unknown god' as the one true Lord God!
You might want to reserve your 'good person test' for those who have first come to believe in God.
I said religion is on the way out because recent polls have showed that the religiously unaffiliated group is the fastest increasing group and the religious group is actually in a decreasing trend now.
More of Ray Comfort on this video attempting to explain why nonbelievers are HOSTILE to his deity:
"... and therefore going to the extreme of denying your very existence. In my mind you don't exist. And in so doing, he'll bring about what the bible calls 'swift destruction'."
Hey Ray .... I don't deny Vishvakarman, Brahma, Atum, Ptah, Elohim, Coatlique, or the hebrew babykilling deity yahweh. I understand they exist in ancient mythology.
On this video Ray Comfort tries to explain how the nonbeliever is hostile to his deity:
"He objects to the moral standard of god".
You mean the morality of babykilling, Ray?
"He says, god don't you tell me what to do with my life. I love my lust, my fornication, my adultery, and my pornography ... it's my life and I'll do what I want with it."
But didn't yahweh (the babykilling hebrew deity) create human lust? I personally would accept fornication and reject babykilling. But that's me :)
@talktoyourmamma1 Because you're a lying, thieving, adulterous (even if you've never even had sex in your life), blaspheming person who would rather believe in logic and a rational explanation for the universe than a collection of books written over thousands of years by 40 different authors in three different languages that repeatedly contradicts its self no matter how much Christians claim it doesn't. If you want to see how they argue science, scroll down just a little bit and look at my rant
@AymanRSaleh@AymanRSaleh lmao. It's good to run into rational people on these crazy xian videos. I see you had a conversation with the typical nutbag that refuses to accept big bang, evolution, or the hebrew flood myth as silly AND a ripoff of older flood myths. Crazy nutbags throw in everything they own with writings of bronze age desert dwellers >> all because their parents taught them these stories, myths, and rituals from birth. Oh well >> keep beating the drums of rational thought! :)
It's not God (the builder) that we should be angry with. It should be ourselves. It should be Satan and his demons. We are (all humans) in a spiritual warfare and most people are losing. There's an invisible war going on and the sad reality is that Satan is the god of this world. The world has been deceived by Satan. Satan is a thief who has come to steal kill and destroy and make no mistake he is good (the irony because he is evil) at what he does.
Sometimes it's a painting, sometimes it's a car, and now it's a house, that obviously had a designer. The problem with these analogies, is that we already know that these things are built by humans. We never find houses and cars that were not built by us.
2:10 "IF there's a god; AND he's good; AND he knows all things AND is all powerful..." That's quite a lot of 'if's'. I'm not sure what he's basing that on. In the bible, god says it's OK to own slaves, and to kill your kids.
@SirGriefALot In the Bible, God says everyone can go to heaven.
The problem with all of these statements is that they're oversimplifications. Please check out the slavery argument on the Christian-ThinkTank (the link id is "qnoslave" and "qnoslavent" for the OT and NT).
The slavery of old testament Hebrews was for all practical purposes BETTER than working at Wal-Mart in the modern day. Kidnapping wasn't allowed, slaves had equal legal rights to any other citizen, etc.
@dougmoerhoffman Slavery was better than working at Wal-Mart? Exodus 21:20-21 clearly states that you can't beat a slave to death on the spot, but if you beat him so bad that he dies from his injures in a few days, that's OK because the slave is your property.
@SirGriefALot When you don't apply good Hermeneutics, you reap what you sow.
That passage is a legal protection for the slave owner, since if a slave dies more than 2 days after being beaten, then he probably died from other causes so the owner shouldn't be guilty of murder.
However, another likely interpretation is that the original actually meant "if he gets up after 2 days, it's ok," as opposed to if he doesn't get up.
You learn when you read more than just atheist propaganda.
In 3rd grade a friend of mine would sometimes ridicule 2 special ed students who lined up with our class after recess. They were surprisingly self-assured by the name-calling, simply listening to my immature friend calling them retards then ironically responding by calling him the same. The point is they were mentally handicapped, but they didn’t know it. Perhaps, through no fault of their own, too unintelligent to realize their disadvantage. This seems to be the same case with Ray & Kirk.
Failed Analogy. It doesn't take ONE builder to build a house. I takes several. Then you have other types of laborers, roofers, plumbers electrons, painters to make a completed house.
Not believing in gods leads to immorality? Which is why atheists have the lowest divorce rate and are the most peaceful people by capita? (see crime in Sweden, Noway, Denmark, France)
Religion doesn't make you more, it's make you feel self-righteous in your immorality and bigotry
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn I'm sorry, but you haven't looked at the crime rates in Sweden, Norway, etc recently, have you? Rape has tripled in the last decade. Schools are burning. Whole city boroughs are no go zones for police because they'll be attacked if they enter, so lawlessness abounds unchecked.
The Swedes come from a Judeo-Christian background of morality. The Atheistic philosophy is what's led to the increase in crimes (and did you watch the riots that happened recently?)
You should go watch Pat Condell's video about the Swedish situation, which seems to have a lot to do with the Islamic immigration.
Anyways; in terms of "Judeo-Christian morality", have you ever bothered to read the Bible through? There's very little actual morality in it, mostly blood lust, pillaging, abuse of women and children, and psychological torture; all which led us into the dark ages
If you truly believe morality stems from this book we have nothing more to talk about
so u r implying that there HAS TO BE a builder, simply coz u cant find the answer to our existance aka how we were all created? Thats the most awful part about being a religious person, u make up ur own answers to the questions you dont have a answer to. You are implying god exists because you simple dont have the answer to the question that how we and the universe could be created without a creator. Primitive religious morons like you are the downfall of this 21st scientific century.
@thewayofthemaster He said I couldn't start with leather, he didn't say I couldn't start with hydrogen. But, since you ask, proton/anti proton pairs are created spontaneously all the time, and sometimes they get seperated. So really, to make a cow all you need to do is wait.
@dlbattle100 You need energy compressed into a tiny space for spontaneous proton production. So you're still not starting with "nothing". Where did that energy come from. And the space for it to be in? And when did time start?
@thewayofthemaster Ask Stephen Hawking, he just released a nice video explaining it all: Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe. I mean if you want say that God is synomymous with the energy inherent in empty space, fine. But that doesn't mean that that background energy demands blood sacrifice in payment for thought crimes. You still ahve all your work ahead of you.
@thewayofthemaster The law of conservation of energy says the energy was always there. Who's to say time is linear? What if I asked you what is north of the north pole? It's a silly question. But not nearly as silly as saying Atheists doubt the existence of a God who put a pair of every creature on earth into a boat 250 feet long, because we have sexual desires. And just because there are things science doesn't know everything doesn't mean God exists by default.
@AymanRSaleh "The law of conservation of energy says the energy was always there."
No it doesn't. It says that any energy that exists in the present universe cannot be destroyed. It also says that no energy can be created if it didn't exist. So what the law of conservation of energy actually says is that since the energy wasn't there from the start, it could NEVER come into existence.
@dougmoerhoffman The law of doesn't ever state there was no energy from the start. Hence if it is impossible for energy to be created or destroyed, it must have always been there. You've made an assumption that has zero scientific backing when you say that there was once nothing. You may ask what was there before the first instant of existence, and I would refer you back to my statement that time is not linear. We can even observe that it isn't with particles that move close to light speed.
@AymanRSaleh "The law of doesn't ever state there was no energy from the start."
It doesn't say anything either way. IF there was no energy from the start, THEN it couldn't be created. The problem is that you can't logically draw the conclusion that the energy always existed, from that information. You're begging the question.
@dougmoerhoffman The logic is very simple, the law states, in a nutshell, that the amount of energy in the universe NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER changes. For all eternity. How is it not logical to come to the conclusion that for this to be the case, the energy must have always been there?
@dougmoerhoffman And to touch on one more thing, If there was no more energy in the beginning, the fact that energy would have to be created would be a direct violation of the law of conservation of energy, which is one of the most tested laws of science. I can't say for certain that god doesn't exist, but as we understand the universe today, a god isn't necessary. But even if there were a god, the god of the bible certainly doesn't agree with any kind of logic. I choose evidence over faith.
@AymanRSaleh "If there was no more energy in the beginning, the fact that energy would have to be created would be a direct violation of the law of conservation of energy"
Which is why the big bang is impossible. But you don't even understand the big bang theory so how would you know?
I choose evidence over faith as well. But one of us knows the truth and the other has been deceived.
@dougmoerhoffman Please tell me where the big bang theory states that energy was created? It ALWAYS starts with an extremely small and extremely, wait for it, HOT(ie energetic) universe. No widely accepted scientific theory of the universe begins with "in the beginning, there was nothing."
@AymanRSaleh I can't give you links in youtube comments. You'll have to search for them.
Every media outlet that teaches about evolution/the big bang, every scientific journal and magazine, every astrophycisist you are probably aware of----
--all say that "in the beginning there was nothing."
If you don't believe me, this conversation is over. There's nothing more that can be said. i would instead encourage you to do your own research and not blindly follow your leaders like a sheep.
@dougmoerhoffman because I'm not retarded, I'll send you a link: pbs(dot)org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/bigbang(dot)html
"What theory tells us is that from an initial state in which matter and radiation are both in an extremely hot and dense form, the universe expands and the matter cools"
@dougmoerhoffman Now I have a question for you. Do you think God put every creature that walks upon the earth, plus all of the birds, onto a boat that was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet wide? And then sustained these creatures for nearly a year? If you say they were all babies, what about the mammals that need their mothers milk? If you say it wasn't every species, but every kind, did every kind just evolve into new species? How did the get their exercise?
@AymanRSaleh All the animals would've taken up less than 1 deck all told, leaving plenty of room for storage of food and room to move around. They wouldn't have to be babies, just young, but sexually mature.
Yes, the animals would have speciated afterwards through mixing of the alleles as they migrated in different directions.
For more information, read "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe. Or get over your fear of Answers in Genesis and read some of their articles.
@dougmoerhoffman So for Noah's to even exist, there would have to be an extensive amount of evolution given the time frame, regardless of what you may call it. Second, these young animals do this amazing thing called GROWING UP. And eventually all the carnivores will require meat, which requires extra animals which also grow up to sustain this population. And don't say they were all vegetarians because Noah brought extra "clean" animals to sustain his need for meat.
@AymanRSaleh Most carnivores can and do eat a lot of stuff other than meat to sustain themselves. Second, many animals that can't have speciated afterwards, but their ancestors could've digested a more omnivorous diet. Third, you're mistaken. Speciation is not evolution. It is the mere shuffling of genes. Evolution requires the addition of new genetic information, which IS NOT REQUIRED by the Creation Model after Noah's Flood.
@dougmoerhoffman Evolution is not the addition of genetic information. It is the selection of the most successful genetic information, some of which may have risen through mutation. Regardless, you are talking about biological changes that take place even faster than what evolution claims. That being said, why is it then so hard to believe that humans and chimps have a common ancestor? We are just smarter, more upright, less hairy (well not really) versions of them.
@AymanRSaleh No, you are missing the point. It is not the same mechanism. Yes, evolution REQUIRES the addition of genetic information to have happened in the past, otherwise there would be no genetic information since the atheistic theory requires that it starts at 0.
Please go to AiG's site and read their links. It's all explained very well.
@dougmoerhoffman And why not? I thought your criteria for evolution was added information. How do you explain transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx lithographica? And just an FYI, to give you an idea of how plausible the study you referred me to is, it states that Noah must have trained all 16,000 of the animals to defecate on command into buckets. I don't know that this is a very scientific study.
@AymanRSaleh "How do you explain transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx lithographica?"
That's a complex question fallacy. Archaeopteryx is just a bird. It's not transitional between anything.
You haven't read the study. Kindly take the time to do so and not let someone else pretend to read it for you and lie to you about its contents so you can feel justified in your ignorance.
@dougmoerhoffman Like it or not, It's in the study. Even after being criticized for it, Woodmorappe still maintains it is a possibility. Likely because he knows the alternatives he proposed such as sloped floors have shortcomings. Regardless, much of his explanation depends on the training of animals. Have you read the study?
@dougmoerhoffman So someone challenging how animals with no capability of crossing oceans, crossed oceans to get to their current habitats, isn't valid? Eventually your gonna have to realize you are settling for very unscientific evidence to support the bible. But I'll leave you alone now... I think you are so interested in finding "scientific proof" to support the bible that you never even stopped see if its flawed.
@dougmoerhoffman If no new genetic information can be added, they should be genetically identical. And I meant more closely related genetically, I ran into my character limit though. Ultimately that still means what you call speciation, by your own definition, is evolution.
@AymanRSaleh No, they should not. look at these lines:
aldkfjoieoehuo
kdjfoiwalghoier
They are not genetically identical, yet neither one has any more information than the other one.
You can call speciation "evolution" if you want, but it's not the kind of "evolution" that you NEED to observe for the claim of common ancestry of all life on earth to be proven right. That evolution could nEVER happen by the process of speciation that actually occurs in reality.
@dougmoerhoffman I'd really rather have a serious conversation rather than typing random letters. But regardless, they both have information that the other species doesn't. It doesn't matter whether one has more, it still shows that new information is there. If the only way you'll accept evolution is if you witness it, I wouldn't hold my breath. But the evidence for evolution is there. For example, Australopithecus > Homo Erectus > Homo Sapiens.
@dougmoerhoffman Your source for what evolution states is an anti evolution website... that doesn't bother you at all? But I get what your saying, you don't believe in mutations (new infor) being passed along to subsequent generations.
But for your theory to work, all species of the same "kind" should be genetically identical. In the study they say kind is more like biological family. Such as horses and zebras, which are NOT genetically identical.In Fact Humans and chimps are closer related.
@thewayofthemaster On the ball, Ray. The atheists like to claim that you're 'too ignorant of the science,' but this comment of yours displays some high-end dialectical questioning. ;)
Speaking of which, you were totally right with the banana thing. The modern banana couldn't be cultivated if there wasn't any original genetic content to 'select,' and God put it there. Thanks for not cowing out, ever!
@dlbattle100 that said, I can't argue for or against science. I believe Christ exists and I'd be more then happy to engage with you on that. Feel free to email me if you have any questions in my channel
Gah, I can't even stand to watch them, so moronic. Get a degree in biology and then talk to us about how evolution is "just no possible". Seriously, if you're so sure that you're right Kirk, get the degree, then you'll be better able to communicate with people who are educated in such matters.
Please die. The planet will be a more livable place without you ... and after all when you die you go to heaven so why spend more time in this silly world, die!
I don't know which disgusts me more, these theists idiots or the moronic atheist woman who is totally uninformed about how to deal with such stupidity.
Actually....nobody takes a friend through their house and makes such an imbecilic comment as that. My baker bakes cakes and isn't a god, just a baker.
Kirk should trouble himself sufficiently through an "authentic" science education to answer his own questions. He is not .....very bright.......
Anger does not answer for "reason"; therefore it does not answer for the person who requires "evidence" to prove a point. The assertion that "an emotion" is the reason that a person doubts an "alleged claim" is manifestly stupid. It is well known that people who do not believe in a god or any gods do so because there is no evidence, not because they experience an emotion. However, given Kirk's assertion that it is, it is far more likely that Kirk himself holds a belief in a god for this reason.
All I know is I'd rather live my life as if there was a God, than live my life like there was'nt, and find out that there was, and have to suffer the consequences!
This is a ludicrous argument. I know a house had a builder because I know the process of building a house. I may even have watched it being built from foundation to rafters. No mystery here. The universe, however, formed through a chemical eruption we as humans, only understand through our scientific conclusions of what likely occurred over the many millions of years it took to evolve. The earth is still evolving and changing and does not depend upon human comprehension to continue.
The condescending presumption that atheists "know there's a god" yet purposely reject him is another example of christian ignorance. It's a false stereotype constructed by religious bigotry & reflects the conceited nature in which many christians think. To undermine an entire faction of people like that is insulting & offensive.
first of God doesn't pressure us in obeying him, it is the choice to obey him or disobey him. Atheist think that God forces people, and they also think! God is a controlling freak but they are wrong!!!!!!!!! its your CHOICE! to obey or not God is giving you the freedom, and the free will! The problem is not that atheist think God forces people NO! The problems people love DARKNESS rather then LIGHT just like the bible saids PERIOD! nuff said.
I'm not forcing you to love me, but I'm just saying that if you don't then you'll be thrown into a pit of fire for all eternity.
That's like saying that a slave has the CHOICE to disobey his master, but if he doesn't then his master won't give him any food and watch him starve to death.
@WitchHunter93 Your wrong that is not what Bible says. The Bible says, if you not obeying God your father is the devil, obviously your choosing to love sin, and to practice, and to live in sin you want to follow the devil your a slave to the devil your a slave to sin!
No. I am able to not love neither god nor sin. I don't love sin, I don't love your god, I don't even believe in either.
Your argument is based on the idea that I have to take sides with either god or the devil. Well I choose to not take anyone's side, since I don't believe in them and don't worship them.
So I go back to my earlier statement.. As long as your god uses the system where you have to love him to save yourself from the pit, then it is a threat. Like a mafia boss
@WitchHunter93 again your wrong, your not talking biblical terms thats your problem. I suggest you read the bible im not arguing with you if your going to disagree its a waste of time.
I wouldn't make a cow. I wouldn't make a Jeff. I cant truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Things simply change form. The idea that everything has to have a beginning and an end is not one that I personally believe in.
VivicaGivesNoFux 1 week ago
To be angry with the builder would require me to believe in his or her existence. This directly contradicts what it means to be an Atheist. Nice try.
VivicaGivesNoFux 1 week ago
Silly analogy. In order to be angry with the builder means you affirm their existence. I am not angry with God because I do not believe he exists. Simple.
lecifbaby 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real. Peace.
lecifbaby 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real. Peace.
lecifbaby 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real. Peace.
lecifbaby 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting perspective. My response is that you don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real.
lecifbaby 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting perspective. My response is that you don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real.
lecifbaby 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting perspective. You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real.
lecifbaby 1 week ago
Interesting perspective. You don't make a cow, you don't make a Jeff, you don't truly make anything. Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. Everything just changes form. The idea that everything must have a beginning and an end is not one that I believe in. Simple as that. I'm not angry with something that I have not been given a reason to believe is real.
lecifbaby 1 week ago
How would I make a cow? Well I grab my bull and I grab my heifer and I lock them in a cage where they have cow sex.
Honestly why are you trying to compare 'God' to a house builder? There aren't people that don't believe in house builders. We can witness them building it with our eyes, do it on our own if we want, stop them from doing it, help them do it, on and on and on. You make the worst argument I have ever seen a theist make.
mistergreene13 1 week ago
Atheists are just as angry with God, as Christians are with Thor for example. Christians are atheists too in a way. Atheists only deny one god more than Christians do. Once Christians understand why they deny the existence of all those other of thousands of known gods, they will understand why atheists deny their specific god as well.
awende 1 week ago
LOL!!! this is TOO funny! If they now all the answers to debunk Evolution, what is their explanation for the Duck Billed Platypus?
PomonaPunkRock 1 week ago
these people were not prepared for the rhetoric encounter... kirk is easy. dr. lane craig is a bit of a slippery fish...
virgilxoxo1 1 month ago
The atheist population in America continues to grow slowly...its numbers are edging to the very desireable critical mass that we call "significant"..I know this is true because over the past 30 years I have added to that number and am encouraged to see others, like me...gradually enter our ranks. Unlike religions...the evidence that no such make believe diety exists continues to grow as well....Faith is just an utterly terrible excuse to avoid the implications of reason. Celebrate reason!!!
therearenogodsatall 1 month ago 2
Ignorance must have some benefit in our civization; America has done quite well with such enormous masses of blistering ignorance. It's quite probable that most of these ignorant minds only practice.."part-time delusion" and apply reason when it's ;mostly urgent or necessary. Now if we can only convince them to practice it with more regularity and consistency.....our society just might even improve....There seems to be a slow...glacial shifting toward reason...Let's hope the trend continues.
therearenogodsatall 1 month ago
Athism is currently on the rise next to Islam.
In fact, over 300 million plp in the world are athiests by global census.
The entire 80 percent population of Sweden is athiest.
On the other note, Sweden is the 2nd most peaceful country in the world.
tehrulez 2 months ago
@afar1 I realize that but there is strong reason why atheists have the highest rates of suicide and substance abuse int the world according to APA studies.AT any rate the ones we deal with daily are not atheists at all but the God-Haters that typify their actions. I call them "Evangelical atheists." And to hate you must believe.
afar1 2 months ago
@afar1 Athiests dont "hate god" due to the fact they do not believe in existance of one. Its the equivelant of one hating santa but they know santa does not exist.
The bible is full of holes as well as ridiculous tales, like this for an example.
The bible explains how we are so diff. is b/c a nation built a tower to heaven and god god mad so he destroyed the tower and seperated the people of this great nation to the 4 corners of the globe, by diff language, so that is how language was formed.
tehrulez 2 months ago
@tehrulez Biblical allegories and senseless twisting of Biblical facts aside, I leave you here...Santa Claus causes atheism.There's a disease called Santa syndrome that happens when a child finds out that Santa does not exist, which in turn causes Santa syndrome, which also triggers atheism. When a young child finds out there's no Santa it triggers something in the brain so that now they're afraid to believe in God.It's like a mental case that full of mentally challenging logic issues.
afar1 2 months ago
@afar1 And what about the people who looked at the piles and piles of evidence and thought 'kinda strange that we have piles of evidence for evolution and all but all that god has is a holy book and "faith" ' And people who have thought that science has done so much in these few hundred years while god sat on his ass watching plagues killing thousands of people and now tsunamis and what not else is destroying so many lifes. God doesn't do anything, we with science DO something.
GTASA911 1 month ago
@GTASA911 You really are full of crap, aren't you? (Typical evolutionist.)Tired of being a blowhard? Then lay it out for me. Describe to me all
of these imaginary creatures you *know* existed in the grand march from
a small land mammal to a whale. And tell me how each successive
creature was better adapted than the last.
If you can't do that -- then you're full of crap.
afar1 1 month ago
@afar1 Why am I full of crap, did science never did those things? LOL
And these creatures? We have evidence, we found skeletons and what not more. But I'm no expert on this subject, you probaly try to say "AHA! You know nothing so your full of crap!!!" but tell me. If I have to proof it is right, aren't you able to proof me wrong? To proof all the evidence is wrong? I assume the well respected scientists aren't lieing with their evidence, so I assume they are right. You have NOTHINGjust faith
GTASA911 1 month ago
@GTASA911 Two things straight. Atheism and Evilussion have nothing to do with science. The "real" scientists are jumping ship on the the Darwin club by the numbers.What we (the skeptics) want is evidence for "evolution". If the
evidence is everywhere, why is it so hard to show it to us?Look, we all know you don't have fossil evidence and genetics has
limits that eliminates it as a method for evolution -- so I'll go easy
on you. See the above thread.
.
afar1 1 month ago
@afar1 moron
foiran 1 month ago
@foiran Nice term paper. Like I said "Opponents of science?" You mean evolutionists -right?You're so sure of yourself, deliver the goods. Give us *the* answer
and this thread will be over and you can get your nose back in joint.
Every book, by evolutionists provides many embarrasing quotes that can be
used as ammunition against the theory of evolution. Ive studied this
issue for over twentyfive years. How many of these quotes would you like
to see me post? These guys *are* real nutcases.
afar1 1 month ago
@afar1 You see this is one of the major problems with people like you, you put so much store in quotes, as if quoting some one or the bible is some form of evidence. You set up a false dichotomy as if there is a thing called science and a thing called evolution, I am sorry but evolutionary biology is part of the scientific cannon.
foiran 1 month ago
Comment removed
afar1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@foiran Preach on brother, your faith is immense!! Your major concern should be that today, Darwinism is in the same place in 2011 as communism was in1986. It's wheezing like a dying animal. Flailing wildly.Draining limited resources defending itself against attackers. It's barely able to feed its own people, let alone advance useful scientific theories ofits own.Ten more years and it will be dead
afar1 1 month ago
@afar1 Ill leave the preaching to religious morons thanks. And its only religious morons who talk about “Darwinism” normal people talk about evolutionary theory. And its only among religious morons that evolutionary theory is in danger; in universities its alive and well and continually developing and reworking to help explain the realities of biology.
foiran 1 month ago
@foiran Anyone else notice that this moron has no argument?
"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"
-Paleontologist George Gaylord
afar1 1 month ago
@afar1 If these quotes are so damaging post some, still, a few stupid quotes does not shake the veracity of evolutionary theory. And who are all of these scientists supposedly jumping ship? Where were they educated, what are their Ph.D.s in? The evidence in support of evolutionary theory is monumental, its only members of the Christian Taliban who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to look at it.
foiran 1 month ago
@foiran The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"
-Renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould
afar1 1 month ago
@afar1 And taking a portion of a quote out of its original context and trying to make it say something it is not is intellectual dishonesty, Gould was arguing against some points in evolutionary theory in favour of his own understanding of evolutionary theory. He was not arguing against the fact of evolution. But then you seem to be a creationist so intellectual dishonesty par for the course for you.
foiran 1 month ago
@foiran Anyone else notice that this moron has no argument besides myself?
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution"
-Renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould
afar1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@afar1 "Every book, by evolutionists provides many embarrasing quotes that can be
used as ammunition against the theory of evolution."
Sir, allow me to assist with your edification. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and used DAILY by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@afar1 James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@afar1 Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95--99% depending on the primate.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@afar1 You also said "Ive studied this issue for over twentyfive years."
Apparently you have been utilizing religious-blinding goggles the entire time. Here are some links for your perusal:
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/section1
anthro(dot)palomar(dot)edu/evolve/evolve_3
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
evolution(dot)berkeley(dot)edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2
txtwriter(dot)com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@afar1 Even the majority of religious believers worldwide (including Christianity) accept evolution as fact due to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.
Another link for your convenience:
wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Also, Google "Least likely to believe in religion" and see what you find...
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@afar1 dude, i don't think that this way of communicating will convince someone. Especially the proud and rebellious unbeliever.
SerJahPhoto 2 months ago
Kirk seems mentally ill,or he thinks everyone is stupid.Cows evolved over millions of years.Non belief in god has nothing to do with doing what i want,it is a result of having an evolved brain able to be reasonable.I didnt choose to be an atheist,just like I didnt choose not to believe in santa claus.
msc8472 2 months ago
If God's existence was so obvious then there wouldn't be all these other Religions.
slothape 2 months ago
@slothape Because they choose to believe differently. God doesn't make himself perfectly clear to us here on earth so that it is more of a trust with him. "If you believe, then you will be saved" If he showed himself perfectly to us, then what is the point? He wants to see who will read his word and obey and that is how we bring glory to him
corgiluver26 2 months ago
@corgiluver26 When his word says stuff like this: "Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them," declares the LORD. "Do everything I have commanded you. Jeremiah 50:12" and "Now when the people complained, it displeased the Lord; for the Lord heard it, and His anger was aroused. So the fire of the Lord burned among them, and consumed some in the outskirts of the camp. Numbers 11:1" I'm much less likely to want to have anything to do with it.
iFreeThinker 2 months ago
@corgiluver26 or this "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him. - Leviticus 20:9"
iFreeThinker 2 months ago
@corgiluver26 So then you are disagreeing with Kirk Cameron in the video? (whose inane point was that God is 'blatantly obvious) My point was that it is not obvious and that is why there are other religions.
slothape 2 months ago
Hold on. Why is fornication so frowned upon? Its pretty hard to be fruitful and multiply without it. Also, if looking at a woman with lust is adultery, how do you meet, fall in love with, marry, and have kids with a woman without committing adultery?
Andromedonian 2 months ago
@Andromedonian You don't have to have lust to meet someone. You don't have lust to fall in love. You don't have to have lust to marry. Once you are married "lust" toward your spouse isn't considered lust. If you "lust" toward someone other then her, then it is a sinful lust.
corgiluver26 2 months ago
@corgiluver26 If you believe in love at first sight, which I do not, then you could meet a woman and have kids without committing adultery. Love by definition is "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person." By that definition I'd find it quite difficult to "love" a woman I just met. I believe love comes with time, and that lust is what starts it all. I believe lust is what keeps a guy trying. Without that, its no use! Women are too complicated.
Andromedonian 2 months ago
@jberling1 Kirk encountered the living God through Jesus Christ, like many other true believers, including myself. True Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus Christ, not ritual or religion. Instead of following the crowd and conforming to society, why don't you investigate the evidence yourself and let the facts lead where they may? Are you afraid what facts and truth may arise? Don't be. Open your mind and heart to see if God is real. Read the Book of John in the Bible.
OB4ITS2L8O 2 months ago
@OB4ITS2L8O Believe me when I say I gave christianity a shot. But as I advanced through school and learned what science had to teach me, I learned things that the bible never mentioned and also that it couldn't disprove. I acted rationally and stopped believing in christianity. I can see how people would get caught up in it though, it is a good read, but don't dwell from reality. And conforming to society would be if one became christian, atheists are the minority.
jberling1 2 months ago
@jberling1 Science isn't at odds with the Bible. God created science. What you are probably talking about is you were taught garbage disguised as science. Do you realize the Bible records things that predates modern science - such as freshwater springs at the bottom of the ocean? Do you realize that what we call 'science' today ends up being wrong given the passage of time?
CiscoWes 2 months ago
@CiscoWes "God created science" that's your argument, what a joke. Obviously you are not just oblivious to science but to history as well. Any one who has studied just a little history can tell you that science and religion are two of the most conflicting studies there is. So what if the bible guessed there were springs, it also says bats are birds. What next gravity isn't real? Maybe you are now realizing that you have been taught 'garbage' your whole life, disguised as the Bible.
jberling1 2 months ago
@jberling1 What is science? Science simply means knowledge gained by observation. We can study God's creation using science. Man's 'scientific discoveries' end up being changed, corrected, etc... The Bible doesn't change and doesn't need correcting. You're oblivious to the fact that the Bible mentions freshwater springs in the ocean - hundreds of years before modern 'discovery'. The Bible mentions the 'paths of the sea' long before our 'scientists 'discovered' it.
CiscoWes 2 months ago
@CiscoWes The bible constantly contradicts itself such "as Salvation is by faith, apart from works." (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16) "Salvation is by good works, apart from faith." (James 2:17, 20, 26). This is just one of many but this is a contradiction and needs to be corrected. As for you statement "its never been changed" this is false. In fact there are biblical scholars who dedicate themselves to finding the changes made to the bible throughout the course of history.
jberling1 2 months ago
@jberling1 you know it would actually help if maybe you read the WHOLE content before you make quotes. First off James was writting to believers, hence the word brethen or brothers and sisters in Christ. Second James says, "faith without works is dead." What does he mean? Works are to faith what the body is to the spirit. The body displays the life of the spirit. Work displays faith. The only way I can display that I am alive is with my body (movement, pulse, etc. Please let me finish
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@jberling1 conti: The only way that I can display that I have faith is by my works.
If I have no works, does that mean that I have no faith? NO! NO! NO! That would be like saying that if I die physically, I would no longer exist. The truth is that I have eternal life, so though I may lose my body, I am still very much alive. If you have faith but no works, you simply cannot demonstrate to another that you have faith. That is the point James is making when he says...
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@jberling1 conti: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works (James 2:18)."
To be effective, to be able to demonstrate our faith, and to earn rewards, we must have works.
James speaks of justification by works before men. Paul speaks of justification by faith before God. Paul speaks of that which justifies man before God, via: faith alone, wholly apart from works: James of the proof before men...
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@jberling1 conti: that he who possesses to have justifying faith really has it. Paul speaks of what God sees-faith; James of what men see-works, as the visible evidence of faith. Paul draws his illustration from Genesis 15:6, James from Genesis 22:1-19. James's key-phrase is 'ye see' (James 2:24), for men cannot see faith except as manifested through works." That's what James is stating. If we read the whole content we can clearly see this. Now you've state the bible has changed. False...
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@jberling1 conti: ones have changed it. For example Jefferson did this by saying the mircacles never happened. We reject that. If you look at the orginal manuscripts, for example the dead sea scrolls you can see only by the launage that we speak that the wording hasn't changed. It still means the same thing. The only way you could disprove the Bible to be false is if Jesus never rose from the dead. You have to argue the historal accounts of Jesus. I've studied history and have seen this is the..
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@jberling1 conti: the truth. The choice is yours, but that's the answer to your comments.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@jberling1. why dont you TRY to disprove the bible before you write it off. i promise yoi or noone else will ever be able to disprove it. in fact, things are happening today that are prophesied in the bible 2000 years ago. like i said TRY
cccfish10221022 2 months ago
@cccfish10221022 There are many philosophical reasons that prove parts of the bible as false. For me to explain anyone of them in 500 characters would be impossible. However, it is like i said before science gives us a rational reason that we can observe, religion does not. And also a lot of the science we know today as truths contradict the bible. Ask yourself am I really writing off the bible or are you writing of science.
jberling1 2 months ago
@cccfish10221022 Disprove what? There are many things in the bible that are correct and there are many that are scientifically and morally wrong. It has both true and false statements.
Boomboxpower 2 months ago
@jberling1 nope he is a Christian because he knows when the world comes to an end or when he dies, there is a God and he does want to go to heaven. His parents are not christian and didnt teach him he taught themselve NO he paid attention in science class he believed what they said.
elibeth121 3 months ago
@elibeth121 I didn't say he couldn't believe in a god. Whether he believes in a god or not is his decision, but what he is doing in this clip is absurd. Science has given us truths about the Universe that the Bible would explain with falsities. A rational person would take the side of science based on the fact that it gives evidence we can see. And knowing this it would be wise for a person to cast down any specific religion and take a broader approach to it, such as an agnostic would.
jberling1 3 months ago
Very true.
NiKoWiThaK24 3 months ago
" And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him MUST BELIEVE HE EXISTS and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Doesn't this verse show that trying to convert a person, that has no faith to believe God exists, is a waste of Kingdom resources? The apostle paul did a great job of persuading the greeks to see their 'unknown god' as the one true Lord God!
You might want to reserve your 'good person test' for those who have first come to believe in God.
KingdomUploader 3 months ago
I said religion is on the way out because recent polls have showed that the religiously unaffiliated group is the fastest increasing group and the religious group is actually in a decreasing trend now.
jberling1 3 months ago
More of Ray Comfort on this video attempting to explain why nonbelievers are HOSTILE to his deity:
"... and therefore going to the extreme of denying your very existence. In my mind you don't exist. And in so doing, he'll bring about what the bible calls 'swift destruction'."
Hey Ray .... I don't deny Vishvakarman, Brahma, Atum, Ptah, Elohim, Coatlique, or the hebrew babykilling deity yahweh. I understand they exist in ancient mythology.
As far as swift destruction .... I'm waiting. :)
talktoyourmamma1 3 months ago
On this video Ray Comfort tries to explain how the nonbeliever is hostile to his deity:
"He objects to the moral standard of god".
You mean the morality of babykilling, Ray?
"He says, god don't you tell me what to do with my life. I love my lust, my fornication, my adultery, and my pornography ... it's my life and I'll do what I want with it."
But didn't yahweh (the babykilling hebrew deity) create human lust? I personally would accept fornication and reject babykilling. But that's me :)
talktoyourmamma1 3 months ago
Hey, Kirk and Ray .... I'm pretty sure I'm a good person. Want to come and explain to me why I'm not? :)
talktoyourmamma1 3 months ago
@talktoyourmamma1 Because you're a lying, thieving, adulterous (even if you've never even had sex in your life), blaspheming person who would rather believe in logic and a rational explanation for the universe than a collection of books written over thousands of years by 40 different authors in three different languages that repeatedly contradicts its self no matter how much Christians claim it doesn't. If you want to see how they argue science, scroll down just a little bit and look at my rant
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh @AymanRSaleh lmao. It's good to run into rational people on these crazy xian videos. I see you had a conversation with the typical nutbag that refuses to accept big bang, evolution, or the hebrew flood myth as silly AND a ripoff of older flood myths. Crazy nutbags throw in everything they own with writings of bronze age desert dwellers >> all because their parents taught them these stories, myths, and rituals from birth. Oh well >> keep beating the drums of rational thought! :)
talktoyourmamma1 3 months ago
Hey, Kirk and Ray ..... question for you:
Why did the yahweh/jehovah character in these hebrew stories kill human babies?
I want to hear the "glass if half-full" argument. Lay it on me :)
talktoyourmamma1 3 months ago
It's not God (the builder) that we should be angry with. It should be ourselves. It should be Satan and his demons. We are (all humans) in a spiritual warfare and most people are losing. There's an invisible war going on and the sad reality is that Satan is the god of this world. The world has been deceived by Satan. Satan is a thief who has come to steal kill and destroy and make no mistake he is good (the irony because he is evil) at what he does.
lifeInAFallenWorld22 3 months ago
@lifeInAFallenWorld22 We're angry with god for the same reason you're angry with Zeus.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
Comment removed
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
Kirk and Ray = FAIL by default.
ThePowerfulPanda 3 months ago
I love kirk
gregoryscottsr 3 months ago
Sometimes it's a painting, sometimes it's a car, and now it's a house, that obviously had a designer. The problem with these analogies, is that we already know that these things are built by humans. We never find houses and cars that were not built by us.
2:10 "IF there's a god; AND he's good; AND he knows all things AND is all powerful..." That's quite a lot of 'if's'. I'm not sure what he's basing that on. In the bible, god says it's OK to own slaves, and to kill your kids.
SirGriefALot 4 months ago
@SirGriefALot In the Bible, God says everyone can go to heaven.
The problem with all of these statements is that they're oversimplifications. Please check out the slavery argument on the Christian-ThinkTank (the link id is "qnoslave" and "qnoslavent" for the OT and NT).
The slavery of old testament Hebrews was for all practical purposes BETTER than working at Wal-Mart in the modern day. Kidnapping wasn't allowed, slaves had equal legal rights to any other citizen, etc.
Look it up.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Slavery was better than working at Wal-Mart? Exodus 21:20-21 clearly states that you can't beat a slave to death on the spot, but if you beat him so bad that he dies from his injures in a few days, that's OK because the slave is your property.
SirGriefALot 3 months ago
@SirGriefALot When you don't apply good Hermeneutics, you reap what you sow.
That passage is a legal protection for the slave owner, since if a slave dies more than 2 days after being beaten, then he probably died from other causes so the owner shouldn't be guilty of murder.
However, another likely interpretation is that the original actually meant "if he gets up after 2 days, it's ok," as opposed to if he doesn't get up.
You learn when you read more than just atheist propaganda.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Then I guess I'm just more moral than god, because I don't support slavery or beating people.
SirGriefALot 3 months ago
In 3rd grade a friend of mine would sometimes ridicule 2 special ed students who lined up with our class after recess. They were surprisingly self-assured by the name-calling, simply listening to my immature friend calling them retards then ironically responding by calling him the same. The point is they were mentally handicapped, but they didn’t know it. Perhaps, through no fault of their own, too unintelligent to realize their disadvantage. This seems to be the same case with Ray & Kirk.
JackOSkull 4 months ago
Failed Analogy. It doesn't take ONE builder to build a house. I takes several. Then you have other types of laborers, roofers, plumbers electrons, painters to make a completed house.
MarcZERO1980 4 months ago
Not believing in gods leads to immorality? Which is why atheists have the lowest divorce rate and are the most peaceful people by capita? (see crime in Sweden, Noway, Denmark, France)
Religion doesn't make you more, it's make you feel self-righteous in your immorality and bigotry
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 4 months ago
@LadyAmaltheaUnicorn I'm sorry, but you haven't looked at the crime rates in Sweden, Norway, etc recently, have you? Rape has tripled in the last decade. Schools are burning. Whole city boroughs are no go zones for police because they'll be attacked if they enter, so lawlessness abounds unchecked.
The Swedes come from a Judeo-Christian background of morality. The Atheistic philosophy is what's led to the increase in crimes (and did you watch the riots that happened recently?)
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman
You should go watch Pat Condell's video about the Swedish situation, which seems to have a lot to do with the Islamic immigration.
Anyways; in terms of "Judeo-Christian morality", have you ever bothered to read the Bible through? There's very little actual morality in it, mostly blood lust, pillaging, abuse of women and children, and psychological torture; all which led us into the dark ages
If you truly believe morality stems from this book we have nothing more to talk about
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 3 months ago
so u r implying that there HAS TO BE a builder, simply coz u cant find the answer to our existance aka how we were all created? Thats the most awful part about being a religious person, u make up ur own answers to the questions you dont have a answer to. You are implying god exists because you simple dont have the answer to the question that how we and the universe could be created without a creator. Primitive religious morons like you are the downfall of this 21st scientific century.
florianfan2008 4 months ago
If I had to make a cow I would just put a bunch of hydrogen atoms in empty space and wait a few billion years. That seems to work fine.
dlbattle100 4 months ago 2
@dlbattle100 Where would you get the matter, space and time from?
thewayofthemaster 4 months ago
@thewayofthemaster He said I couldn't start with leather, he didn't say I couldn't start with hydrogen. But, since you ask, proton/anti proton pairs are created spontaneously all the time, and sometimes they get seperated. So really, to make a cow all you need to do is wait.
dlbattle100 4 months ago
@dlbattle100 You need energy compressed into a tiny space for spontaneous proton production. So you're still not starting with "nothing". Where did that energy come from. And the space for it to be in? And when did time start?
thewayofthemaster 4 months ago 6
@thewayofthemaster Ask Stephen Hawking, he just released a nice video explaining it all: Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe. I mean if you want say that God is synomymous with the energy inherent in empty space, fine. But that doesn't mean that that background energy demands blood sacrifice in payment for thought crimes. You still ahve all your work ahead of you.
dlbattle100 4 months ago
@thewayofthemaster The law of conservation of energy says the energy was always there. Who's to say time is linear? What if I asked you what is north of the north pole? It's a silly question. But not nearly as silly as saying Atheists doubt the existence of a God who put a pair of every creature on earth into a boat 250 feet long, because we have sexual desires. And just because there are things science doesn't know everything doesn't mean God exists by default.
AymanRSaleh 4 months ago
@AymanRSaleh "The law of conservation of energy says the energy was always there."
No it doesn't. It says that any energy that exists in the present universe cannot be destroyed. It also says that no energy can be created if it didn't exist. So what the law of conservation of energy actually says is that since the energy wasn't there from the start, it could NEVER come into existence.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman The law of doesn't ever state there was no energy from the start. Hence if it is impossible for energy to be created or destroyed, it must have always been there. You've made an assumption that has zero scientific backing when you say that there was once nothing. You may ask what was there before the first instant of existence, and I would refer you back to my statement that time is not linear. We can even observe that it isn't with particles that move close to light speed.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh "The law of doesn't ever state there was no energy from the start."
It doesn't say anything either way. IF there was no energy from the start, THEN it couldn't be created. The problem is that you can't logically draw the conclusion that the energy always existed, from that information. You're begging the question.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman The logic is very simple, the law states, in a nutshell, that the amount of energy in the universe NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER changes. For all eternity. How is it not logical to come to the conclusion that for this to be the case, the energy must have always been there?
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman And to touch on one more thing, If there was no more energy in the beginning, the fact that energy would have to be created would be a direct violation of the law of conservation of energy, which is one of the most tested laws of science. I can't say for certain that god doesn't exist, but as we understand the universe today, a god isn't necessary. But even if there were a god, the god of the bible certainly doesn't agree with any kind of logic. I choose evidence over faith.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh "If there was no more energy in the beginning, the fact that energy would have to be created would be a direct violation of the law of conservation of energy"
Which is why the big bang is impossible. But you don't even understand the big bang theory so how would you know?
I choose evidence over faith as well. But one of us knows the truth and the other has been deceived.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Please tell me where the big bang theory states that energy was created? It ALWAYS starts with an extremely small and extremely, wait for it, HOT(ie energetic) universe. No widely accepted scientific theory of the universe begins with "in the beginning, there was nothing."
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh I can't give you links in youtube comments. You'll have to search for them.
Every media outlet that teaches about evolution/the big bang, every scientific journal and magazine, every astrophycisist you are probably aware of----
--all say that "in the beginning there was nothing."
If you don't believe me, this conversation is over. There's nothing more that can be said. i would instead encourage you to do your own research and not blindly follow your leaders like a sheep.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman because I'm not retarded, I'll send you a link: pbs(dot)org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/bigbang(dot)html
"What theory tells us is that from an initial state in which matter and radiation are both in an extremely hot and dense form, the universe expands and the matter cools"
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Now I have a question for you. Do you think God put every creature that walks upon the earth, plus all of the birds, onto a boat that was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet wide? And then sustained these creatures for nearly a year? If you say they were all babies, what about the mammals that need their mothers milk? If you say it wasn't every species, but every kind, did every kind just evolve into new species? How did the get their exercise?
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh All the animals would've taken up less than 1 deck all told, leaving plenty of room for storage of food and room to move around. They wouldn't have to be babies, just young, but sexually mature.
Yes, the animals would have speciated afterwards through mixing of the alleles as they migrated in different directions.
For more information, read "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe. Or get over your fear of Answers in Genesis and read some of their articles.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman So for Noah's to even exist, there would have to be an extensive amount of evolution given the time frame, regardless of what you may call it. Second, these young animals do this amazing thing called GROWING UP. And eventually all the carnivores will require meat, which requires extra animals which also grow up to sustain this population. And don't say they were all vegetarians because Noah brought extra "clean" animals to sustain his need for meat.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh Most carnivores can and do eat a lot of stuff other than meat to sustain themselves. Second, many animals that can't have speciated afterwards, but their ancestors could've digested a more omnivorous diet. Third, you're mistaken. Speciation is not evolution. It is the mere shuffling of genes. Evolution requires the addition of new genetic information, which IS NOT REQUIRED by the Creation Model after Noah's Flood.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Evolution is not the addition of genetic information. It is the selection of the most successful genetic information, some of which may have risen through mutation. Regardless, you are talking about biological changes that take place even faster than what evolution claims. That being said, why is it then so hard to believe that humans and chimps have a common ancestor? We are just smarter, more upright, less hairy (well not really) versions of them.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh No, you are missing the point. It is not the same mechanism. Yes, evolution REQUIRES the addition of genetic information to have happened in the past, otherwise there would be no genetic information since the atheistic theory requires that it starts at 0.
Please go to AiG's site and read their links. It's all explained very well.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
Comment removed
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh "source for what evolution states is an anti evolution website."
Don't be foolish. i know exactly what 'evolution states' from actually heavily researching the opinions of the scientists who develop the theory.
"you don't believe in mutations being passed along to subsequent generations."
No I'm not. Mutations in germ lines do get passed on. It just doesn't lead to the kind of 'evolution' that would turn a dinosaur into a bird.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman And why not? I thought your criteria for evolution was added information. How do you explain transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx lithographica? And just an FYI, to give you an idea of how plausible the study you referred me to is, it states that Noah must have trained all 16,000 of the animals to defecate on command into buckets. I don't know that this is a very scientific study.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh "How do you explain transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx lithographica?"
That's a complex question fallacy. Archaeopteryx is just a bird. It's not transitional between anything.
You haven't read the study. Kindly take the time to do so and not let someone else pretend to read it for you and lie to you about its contents so you can feel justified in your ignorance.
K?
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Like it or not, It's in the study. Even after being criticized for it, Woodmorappe still maintains it is a possibility. Likely because he knows the alternatives he proposed such as sloped floors have shortcomings. Regardless, much of his explanation depends on the training of animals. Have you read the study?
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman I couldn't help but think of you,
/watch?v=gdrSkQqNj6M&feature=related
I know you must think this guy's the anti-christ. But even you have to laugh.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh and this
/watch?v=7niqJfO-Yjk
especially since this has a lot to do with major contributors to answers in genesis.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh It wasn't funny at all. He didn't make a single valid point.
You really should read a book.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman So someone challenging how animals with no capability of crossing oceans, crossed oceans to get to their current habitats, isn't valid? Eventually your gonna have to realize you are settling for very unscientific evidence to support the bible. But I'll leave you alone now... I think you are so interested in finding "scientific proof" to support the bible that you never even stopped see if its flawed.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AymanRSaleh "all species of the same "kind" should be genetically identical."
No they shouldn't. Their ancestral populations should have had the ability to interbreed to produce offspring. That's it. Not any fancier than that.
"Humans and chimps are closer related in fact."
False. Horses and zebras can produce fertile offspring, humans and chimps cannot.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman If no new genetic information can be added, they should be genetically identical. And I meant more closely related genetically, I ran into my character limit though. Ultimately that still means what you call speciation, by your own definition, is evolution.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@AymanRSaleh No, they should not. look at these lines:
aldkfjoieoehuo
kdjfoiwalghoier
They are not genetically identical, yet neither one has any more information than the other one.
You can call speciation "evolution" if you want, but it's not the kind of "evolution" that you NEED to observe for the claim of common ancestry of all life on earth to be proven right. That evolution could nEVER happen by the process of speciation that actually occurs in reality.
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman I'd really rather have a serious conversation rather than typing random letters. But regardless, they both have information that the other species doesn't. It doesn't matter whether one has more, it still shows that new information is there. If the only way you'll accept evolution is if you witness it, I wouldn't hold my breath. But the evidence for evolution is there. For example, Australopithecus > Homo Erectus > Homo Sapiens.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@dougmoerhoffman Your source for what evolution states is an anti evolution website... that doesn't bother you at all? But I get what your saying, you don't believe in mutations (new infor) being passed along to subsequent generations.
But for your theory to work, all species of the same "kind" should be genetically identical. In the study they say kind is more like biological family. Such as horses and zebras, which are NOT genetically identical.In Fact Humans and chimps are closer related.
AymanRSaleh 3 months ago
@thewayofthemaster On the ball, Ray. The atheists like to claim that you're 'too ignorant of the science,' but this comment of yours displays some high-end dialectical questioning. ;)
Speaking of which, you were totally right with the banana thing. The modern banana couldn't be cultivated if there wasn't any original genetic content to 'select,' and God put it there. Thanks for not cowing out, ever!
dougmoerhoffman 3 months ago
@thewayofthemaster pwned
tjreeseman92 4 months ago
@dlbattle100 wow...all that for one cow? the earth must be A LOT older then we think then
Danthious 4 months ago
@Danthious You're making my point.
dlbattle100 4 months ago
@dlbattle100 that said, I can't argue for or against science. I believe Christ exists and I'd be more then happy to engage with you on that. Feel free to email me if you have any questions in my channel
Danthious 4 months ago
Gah, I can't even stand to watch them, so moronic. Get a degree in biology and then talk to us about how evolution is "just no possible". Seriously, if you're so sure that you're right Kirk, get the degree, then you'll be better able to communicate with people who are educated in such matters.
dlbattle100 4 months ago
"How would you create a cow? " major LULZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
radioforworldpeace 4 months ago
Please die. The planet will be a more livable place without you ... and after all when you die you go to heaven so why spend more time in this silly world, die!
drrdragoss 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't know which disgusts me more, these theists idiots or the moronic atheist woman who is totally uninformed about how to deal with such stupidity.
RevolutionNo7 4 months ago
Comment removed
RevolutionNo7 4 months ago
Rating have been disabled. What a surprise.
RevolutionNo7 4 months ago
Wait... if the guy hit his head with an exposed beam... that would mean the builder sucked at doing his job. Wouldn't it? This video is stupid.
roblanco 4 months ago
This is actually beyond retarded
Maskanders 4 months ago
this was like the croc hunter for idiots/ Oyyy n thats the problem with wild atheist and god
vinlahadin2 4 months ago
What scares you most in life?
Ray Comfort
ryankc83 5 months ago
What scares you most in life?
Ray Comfort
ryankc83 5 months ago
The end is telling. The unsaved "want what they want when they want it."
Despise the Light.
Brucev7 5 months ago
Actually....nobody takes a friend through their house and makes such an imbecilic comment as that. My baker bakes cakes and isn't a god, just a baker.
Kirk should trouble himself sufficiently through an "authentic" science education to answer his own questions. He is not .....very bright.......
therearenogodsatall 5 months ago
Anger does not answer for "reason"; therefore it does not answer for the person who requires "evidence" to prove a point. The assertion that "an emotion" is the reason that a person doubts an "alleged claim" is manifestly stupid. It is well known that people who do not believe in a god or any gods do so because there is no evidence, not because they experience an emotion. However, given Kirk's assertion that it is, it is far more likely that Kirk himself holds a belief in a god for this reason.
therearenogodsatall 5 months ago
All I know is I'd rather live my life as if there was a God, than live my life like there was'nt, and find out that there was, and have to suffer the consequences!
6464tiffany 5 months ago
@6464tiffany I'd rather live my life knowing there's no God, then waste my time praying to some made up person in the sky. "God" is a thug.
oGODLESS 5 months ago
This is a ludicrous argument. I know a house had a builder because I know the process of building a house. I may even have watched it being built from foundation to rafters. No mystery here. The universe, however, formed through a chemical eruption we as humans, only understand through our scientific conclusions of what likely occurred over the many millions of years it took to evolve. The earth is still evolving and changing and does not depend upon human comprehension to continue.
bboots100 5 months ago
Im sorry but everytime I see Kirk Cameron I think about Buck Williams.
CHASEDONKYFISH 6 months ago
Comment removed
shueyk2320 6 months ago
The condescending presumption that atheists "know there's a god" yet purposely reject him is another example of christian ignorance. It's a false stereotype constructed by religious bigotry & reflects the conceited nature in which many christians think. To undermine an entire faction of people like that is insulting & offensive.
JackOSkull 6 months ago
My grandma was struck by lightening once. I was so pissed off with Zeus I stopped believing in him.
Megaritz 6 months ago
first of God doesn't pressure us in obeying him, it is the choice to obey him or disobey him. Atheist think that God forces people, and they also think! God is a controlling freak but they are wrong!!!!!!!!! its your CHOICE! to obey or not God is giving you the freedom, and the free will! The problem is not that atheist think God forces people NO! The problems people love DARKNESS rather then LIGHT just like the bible saids PERIOD! nuff said.
NarutoTailFoxPwnage 7 months ago
@NarutoTailFoxPwnage
I'm not forcing you to love me, but I'm just saying that if you don't then you'll be thrown into a pit of fire for all eternity.
That's like saying that a slave has the CHOICE to disobey his master, but if he doesn't then his master won't give him any food and watch him starve to death.
As long as hell exists, then it is a threat.
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 Your wrong that is not what Bible says. The Bible says, if you not obeying God your father is the devil, obviously your choosing to love sin, and to practice, and to live in sin you want to follow the devil your a slave to the devil your a slave to sin!
NarutoTailFoxPwnage 6 months ago
@NarutoTailFoxPwnage
No. I am able to not love neither god nor sin. I don't love sin, I don't love your god, I don't even believe in either.
Your argument is based on the idea that I have to take sides with either god or the devil. Well I choose to not take anyone's side, since I don't believe in them and don't worship them.
So I go back to my earlier statement.. As long as your god uses the system where you have to love him to save yourself from the pit, then it is a threat. Like a mafia boss
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@NarutoTailFoxPwnage
Besides, the devil isn't supposed to be stronger than god. He should have no influence on me if it goes against god's will.
So if the devil can do anything that beats god's will, then that implies that he has some power over god..
WitchHunter93 6 months ago
@WitchHunter93 again your wrong, your not talking biblical terms thats your problem. I suggest you read the bible im not arguing with you if your going to disagree its a waste of time.
NarutoTailFoxPwnage 6 months ago
@NarutoTailFoxPwnage
You haven't read your own bible, have you..?
"if your going to disagree its a waste of time"
I'm the one explaining why I disagree >.> you just say "your wrong" and preach something irrelevant.
WitchHunter93<