In my opinion only people with a small education believe to god. I never saw a person with a brilliant education and high cognitive abilities who believed in god.
But this is ok, if "small" people believe to god, because there is a high amount of inequity in this world. A College or a University is not for public domain, since it needs a lot of motivation and much more important, money. So not everyone can afford a high level of education and therefore those people believe to god.
oh come on you guys!!!! all the belief systems are a well organized propaganda to manipulate the mass . don't be fooled . the only thing that rule this universe is time , evolution , chemistry and coincidence .
sk yourself what is more likly; the universe began from simplicity and progressed into complex structures, or the universe was "created" by an infinatly complex being that we are told has always been there. If you use the argument that someone has to have created the elements involved in the big bang, something HAS to have created the creater.
religion is a ridiculous concept. It is shown that life came from no life by a chance chemical process, creating the simplest form of concievable life. This chemical process was built on naturaly by the reactions of chemicals to form more complex life that had several protiens. the rest is explained by evolution. religion is just ghost stories used to scare children, only being used on adults.
Creationists criticize evolution all the time. I have a challenge for them. Present us with a new species, without genetic antecedents to demonstrate your theory of spontaneous divine creation. Better yet, ask your God nicely to perform the miracle in front of a camera.
In the fossil record it shows species appearing all at once, fully formed with no predecesors. Just so you know, evolution would have you believe that life came from none life. Can you prove that?
You come from a different planet. The evidence on Earth shows life evolving at different times due to fossils found in different layers of sedimentation. Similarly, given how complex forms often emerge from simple ones, life may actually be quite common in outer space. Of course you don't believe in outer space, you believe in the firmament,
Provide us all with the evidence of the fossil which you say is an intermediate species. The arrogance of evolutionists is outstanding. But your ignorance of this matter is staggering.
There are some really good ones for horses now, and as for the emergence of fish onto land, and the turning of fins and flippers into limbs, they're excellent. Human evolution is also pretty well established now, with some lovely fossils of transitional humans, each a bit more like us. It's not arrogance; arrogance is when you think you have all the answers, like Christians. No doubt your God will punish you for it.
Just because we have not found the predecessors for certain species, that does not imply that they did not exist, and logical extrapolation from other matches of the fossil record with subsequent fossils and current species makes it unlikely that such were the case.
It in no way implies that the fossil record 'shows species appearing all at once'.
That is exactly what cambrenian era shows. Dawkins says that "it is as if they were planted there." And by your logic could we now say that just because we have not found the evidence of god that that does not imply he does not exist?
I prefer to speak of the existence of a deity rather than existence of God/god. This is because the various religious texts frequently contradict science and even contradict themselves, yet people still disregard this and pick and choose what is metaphor and what is literal. That leads to intractable debate.
Further, I was speaking of logical extrapolation, so your logic is not analogous to mine. Nevertheless, I never stated that the lack of evidence for a god implies non-existence.
However, this gets into the technicalities of the word 'imply'. One might state that it implies he does not exist in the same manner that any particular (random) entity for which there is no evidence is implied not to exist: with high probability, yet not certainty.
You could look at it that way, but even if you do, it is a greater leap for the theist.
We choose to disbelieve or disregard certain possibilities every day. According to quantum theory, spilled water could jump back into the glass - there is such an astoundingly minute probability though, that I'd prefer to mop it up.
When I sit on a chair I have sat on 100 times, it is not in my mind that it may collapse, though it is certainly possible.
I, however, do not even define it is as faith. I think faith implies a belief that involves either a certain statistical improbability or an inclination to a conclusion when there is no previous experience or analogy to support it. Of course, some might choose to disagree.
The main disagreement though, will probably be about the probability of the existence of a deity, and that is a long and tedious argument.
"I am saying that it, for both of us, is a leap of faith."
I know that makes you feel more comfortable with the fact that YOU believe in fairy tales, but redefining words to "prove" your claims doesn't prove they're true.
Finally, there has been evidence of life in the Precambrian era, however, it is sparser than in subsequent geological eras and as such shows less of a gradual development into Cambrian life as with other geological eras which seem to more adequately flow into each other.
I believe it has been hypothesised that this is because they were mostly soft-tissue creatures, and as such are less likely to be preserved for the fossil record.
True, but you have to admit that a jump from bacteria to animals is great jump indeed. I am only saying that there is no evidence of an intermediate. Only assumptions. Jay Gould was familiar with this.
No it doesn't. The cambrian "explosion" is really an incidence of quick development of many phyla. There are intermediate forms and the timescale of evolution is still reasonable.
What you see is not a sudden creation of a creature, but something called "evolution" where the body (and NOT the inteligence) adapts body data from its parents, where interbreeding fails(?) And thus evolves.
A famous subject is the eye, which evolved from only sensing light and dark, to locate where the light and dark meets (very blurry) then increased the amount of senses, to finally receive a vision.
i see the point but i still think that we as humans have too much of an advantage in our technology tool use comunication etc to be just another piece of eveloutionary history.
i mean if we are indeed just a few clicks above other animals how is it that we are masters of all plants and animals and WE are the ones controlling the world!!!
We do think we are the masters but in fact we're just really good at not being killed. We are a small badly behaved cog in the massive wheel that is our biosphere. If you want to imagine how much we lack mastery imagine the numbers of people who would die if bees disappeared tomorrow. Yes it is possible for us to pollinate plants without them, but not efficiently enough to stop most billions dying first.
granted we are very inter-tangled to other living orginisms but where as they will not be able to "evolve" quickly enough we as humans i am sure will be able to find a way to fill that gap, but enough of us vs them what about us vs us...if we were truly evolved from nothing then we would be able to adapt to our own environment quicker than we do take for eg the pigment in our skin why is it that a person living in the tropics whose melanine density is high does not loose that
density when he goes to a temporate region or vise versa or in the case of body odor we were supposed to use the scent to attract females but now that we have no use for it coupled with the fact that we try so hard to get rid of it or mask it why have we not evolved to just not having one like we did with body hair
Don't really know about the body odour one, my only thought on that would be, we probably do need it still despite trying to cover it up.
The skin colour one is a great question because it is such a common misconception. A person from the tropics stays a person from the tropics from birth to death. That's why they never lose the skin colour. Think of evolution as cutting away dead wood.
If the colour of a person's skin had a negative impact on their ability to produce children, that skin colour would disappear from the gene pool over several generations.
Hmm... our technology may be an evolutionary improvement only if we don't use it to destroy ourselves. Frankly, the insects are still beating us, not to mention the viruses. We are probably in the "top ten" species now, but do we have staying power or are we a one hit wonder ?
animals, Chimps are doing home invasions racoons and others ,they have been hunted and killed ,have studyed their enemy,the concious evolution of D.N.A. can be proven and can adapt quickly,changes in 2yrs for some species
So why haven't all creatures developed this ability? The short answer is survival. Creatures only keep the abilities which help them survive longer or better. But please note! No choice is being made by the individual... it can only work with the genes it was born with. I hope this answers your question, or at least gives you some new questions :)
Where can I get a high-res picture (preferably svg or some other vector format where "resolution" doesn't exist and can't degrade quality) of that "animal kingdom sphere"?
A good question but it has been answered many times. Think of the logical flaw inherent in the question you ask. If it is only a matter of time before creatures develop voice and language then all creatures would have voice and language capabilities. Would you use your face to drill a hole? No, of course not. But wood peckers do.
i guess but i still argue that humans are too far away from all other animals in an eolutionary sense to accept an atheist approch. i mean if evolution is to hold why are we dominating all other animals and plants??? would it not hold that all species that are on the brink of extinction should change to survive!!!
Its usually not new genes that make an impact on the changes within a species, but it is new groupings of the same genes that are responsible for the changes. There is only one human race, but different groupings of the same genes are responsible for ethnic and geographical differences.
we are not so far away from the other animals. over the years what we believed was exclusive to humans (emotions, speech, logical thinking, use of tools) was discovered in many other species, albeit in altered forms, but existant. we're not even the best at mental tasks. just look at that recent vid with humans having their asses handed to them by chimps at visual memory tests.
Because 2 people have different opinions, is one right and not the other? Or are they both right, or both wrong? See I can ask un-answerable questions too, doesn't prove anything though does it? If that's your best argument then you're probably better off saying nothing. Because whatever you say will mean nothing... with all due respect
My point is simply this. To believe in no god is a leap of faith. I admit I have faith. Now lets all see if you can do the same. And you did not answer my question!
To not believe in God requires no faith, btw i think i kinda mentioned it was an un-answerable question. What a pointless conversation tho eh? nobody will ever be proven right or wrong yet still we argue. I would say enjoy life but for some that means torturing others and i don't know you so, just try to keep the sins to a minimum incase you're right and i am wrong.
I'll approve this no problem. But no offence I really think it a weak counter claim. Then again it really up to the people to decide for themselves. Peace
In what way? A comment on your original video seems to indicate that by and large you accept at least macro evolution. Do you simply rejects its explanatory power in other areas?
IslamandFriends, your parallel between the human brain and a computer is undisputable, but it is certainly not evidence. Why is the burden of proof on the atheist (or scientist)? The believer says 'I can't explain the world so there must be an all-powerful, un-knowable being that created and maintains it'. The scientist says 'I can't explain the world but I will work hard so that some day I might be able to'. Which of those two paths is more virtuous?
The atheist says there is no God. Let him prove it without faith. Us believers have faith and we admit it. Let the atheist do the same! Athiestic evolution is a religion
No. A knowledgeable atheist should say, 'I acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a deity, yet I actively choose not to believe in one due to the lack of scientific necessity - and hence the statistical unlikelihood - for such a being to exist.'
Atheists miss practical world experience
but also christians miss lot of philosofical and logical workings (one thing that atheists did) .
You are both stupid for different reasons...
Christians for their fears and for believing in a ALLPOWERFULL.... CONTROLLER........
and Atheist... for missing the magic in the universe... meaning that there is MORE to reality.
You are both the 2 faces of the same coin . and if you want to evolve you have to co-operate and see what you miss on each other.
ultranet 3 years ago
the contrary happens HansImWald. and i am one of those you describe . i am in the 1% of the population... and i know lots of 1 percents...
Most quantum fysicist and most physicist in general and i can also tell you lot of higher scientists.... believe in something....
Mostly the universe.
We all don't believe in christianity but we accept the "fairytales" as having wisdom inside .
So you are both wrong and right .(atheists and christians)
DISCOVER THE TRUTH BY YOURSELF BY EXPERIENCE .
ultranet 3 years ago
In my opinion only people with a small education believe to god. I never saw a person with a brilliant education and high cognitive abilities who believed in god.
But this is ok, if "small" people believe to god, because there is a high amount of inequity in this world. A College or a University is not for public domain, since it needs a lot of motivation and much more important, money. So not everyone can afford a high level of education and therefore those people believe to god.
HansImWald 3 years ago
oh come on you guys!!!! all the belief systems are a well organized propaganda to manipulate the mass . don't be fooled . the only thing that rule this universe is time , evolution , chemistry and coincidence .
kwstis87 4 years ago 2
sk yourself what is more likly; the universe began from simplicity and progressed into complex structures, or the universe was "created" by an infinatly complex being that we are told has always been there. If you use the argument that someone has to have created the elements involved in the big bang, something HAS to have created the creater.
yblad 4 years ago
religion is a ridiculous concept. It is shown that life came from no life by a chance chemical process, creating the simplest form of concievable life. This chemical process was built on naturaly by the reactions of chemicals to form more complex life that had several protiens. the rest is explained by evolution. religion is just ghost stories used to scare children, only being used on adults.
yblad 4 years ago
Creationists criticize evolution all the time. I have a challenge for them. Present us with a new species, without genetic antecedents to demonstrate your theory of spontaneous divine creation. Better yet, ask your God nicely to perform the miracle in front of a camera.
formless777 4 years ago
In the fossil record it shows species appearing all at once, fully formed with no predecesors. Just so you know, evolution would have you believe that life came from none life. Can you prove that?
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
You come from a different planet. The evidence on Earth shows life evolving at different times due to fossils found in different layers of sedimentation. Similarly, given how complex forms often emerge from simple ones, life may actually be quite common in outer space. Of course you don't believe in outer space, you believe in the firmament,
which is God's ceiling on the world.
formless777 4 years ago
Provide us all with the evidence of the fossil which you say is an intermediate species. The arrogance of evolutionists is outstanding. But your ignorance of this matter is staggering.
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
There are some really good ones for horses now, and as for the emergence of fish onto land, and the turning of fins and flippers into limbs, they're excellent. Human evolution is also pretty well established now, with some lovely fossils of transitional humans, each a bit more like us. It's not arrogance; arrogance is when you think you have all the answers, like Christians. No doubt your God will punish you for it.
formless777 4 years ago
Your comment is quite disingenuous.
Just because we have not found the predecessors for certain species, that does not imply that they did not exist, and logical extrapolation from other matches of the fossil record with subsequent fossils and current species makes it unlikely that such were the case.
It in no way implies that the fossil record 'shows species appearing all at once'.
SRagy 4 years ago
That is exactly what cambrenian era shows. Dawkins says that "it is as if they were planted there." And by your logic could we now say that just because we have not found the evidence of god that that does not imply he does not exist?
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
I prefer to speak of the existence of a deity rather than existence of God/god. This is because the various religious texts frequently contradict science and even contradict themselves, yet people still disregard this and pick and choose what is metaphor and what is literal. That leads to intractable debate.
SRagy 4 years ago
I agree. But please answer my original question. If something exists and is not observed does that mean it does not exist?
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
"If something exists and is not observed does that mean it does not exist?"
That depends on whether your premise, "If something exists" is proven true. Unless that happens, the rest of the question is nonsense.
FourDeuce01 4 years ago
Further, I was speaking of logical extrapolation, so your logic is not analogous to mine. Nevertheless, I never stated that the lack of evidence for a god implies non-existence.
However, this gets into the technicalities of the word 'imply'. One might state that it implies he does not exist in the same manner that any particular (random) entity for which there is no evidence is implied not to exist: with high probability, yet not certainty.
SRagy 4 years ago
True. I am saying that it, for both of us, is a leap of faith.
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
You could look at it that way, but even if you do, it is a greater leap for the theist.
We choose to disbelieve or disregard certain possibilities every day. According to quantum theory, spilled water could jump back into the glass - there is such an astoundingly minute probability though, that I'd prefer to mop it up.
When I sit on a chair I have sat on 100 times, it is not in my mind that it may collapse, though it is certainly possible.
SRagy 4 years ago
I, however, do not even define it is as faith. I think faith implies a belief that involves either a certain statistical improbability or an inclination to a conclusion when there is no previous experience or analogy to support it. Of course, some might choose to disagree.
The main disagreement though, will probably be about the probability of the existence of a deity, and that is a long and tedious argument.
SRagy 4 years ago
"I am saying that it, for both of us, is a leap of faith."
I know that makes you feel more comfortable with the fact that YOU believe in fairy tales, but redefining words to "prove" your claims doesn't prove they're true.
FourDeuce01 4 years ago
Finally, there has been evidence of life in the Precambrian era, however, it is sparser than in subsequent geological eras and as such shows less of a gradual development into Cambrian life as with other geological eras which seem to more adequately flow into each other.
I believe it has been hypothesised that this is because they were mostly soft-tissue creatures, and as such are less likely to be preserved for the fossil record.
SRagy 4 years ago
True, but you have to admit that a jump from bacteria to animals is great jump indeed. I am only saying that there is no evidence of an intermediate. Only assumptions. Jay Gould was familiar with this.
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
No it doesn't. The cambrian "explosion" is really an incidence of quick development of many phyla. There are intermediate forms and the timescale of evolution is still reasonable.
JackOfFlames 4 years ago
Notice I ask for proof. Not assumptions. I dare you to provide proof!
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
Oh no... More excuses for existence of a creator.
What you see is not a sudden creation of a creature, but something called "evolution" where the body (and NOT the inteligence) adapts body data from its parents, where interbreeding fails(?) And thus evolves.
A famous subject is the eye, which evolved from only sensing light and dark, to locate where the light and dark meets (very blurry) then increased the amount of senses, to finally receive a vision.
Zhyrca 4 years ago
i see the point but i still think that we as humans have too much of an advantage in our technology tool use comunication etc to be just another piece of eveloutionary history.
i mean if we are indeed just a few clicks above other animals how is it that we are masters of all plants and animals and WE are the ones controlling the world!!!
m3ntalcas3 4 years ago
We do think we are the masters but in fact we're just really good at not being killed. We are a small badly behaved cog in the massive wheel that is our biosphere. If you want to imagine how much we lack mastery imagine the numbers of people who would die if bees disappeared tomorrow. Yes it is possible for us to pollinate plants without them, but not efficiently enough to stop most billions dying first.
sonicthebadger 4 years ago 2
granted we are very inter-tangled to other living orginisms but where as they will not be able to "evolve" quickly enough we as humans i am sure will be able to find a way to fill that gap, but enough of us vs them what about us vs us...if we were truly evolved from nothing then we would be able to adapt to our own environment quicker than we do take for eg the pigment in our skin why is it that a person living in the tropics whose melanine density is high does not loose that
m3ntalcas3 4 years ago
density when he goes to a temporate region or vise versa or in the case of body odor we were supposed to use the scent to attract females but now that we have no use for it coupled with the fact that we try so hard to get rid of it or mask it why have we not evolved to just not having one like we did with body hair
m3ntalcas3 4 years ago
Don't really know about the body odour one, my only thought on that would be, we probably do need it still despite trying to cover it up.
The skin colour one is a great question because it is such a common misconception. A person from the tropics stays a person from the tropics from birth to death. That's why they never lose the skin colour. Think of evolution as cutting away dead wood.
sonicthebadger 4 years ago
If the colour of a person's skin had a negative impact on their ability to produce children, that skin colour would disappear from the gene pool over several generations.
sonicthebadger 4 years ago
Same thing about body odour.
nervesint 4 years ago
LMAO, nice comment :) How many generations does
that take to breed out the undesirable ? Why don't we all smell like roses instead of pork ?
formless777 4 years ago
Hmm... our technology may be an evolutionary improvement only if we don't use it to destroy ourselves. Frankly, the insects are still beating us, not to mention the viruses. We are probably in the "top ten" species now, but do we have staying power or are we a one hit wonder ?
formless777 4 years ago
hm..... i feal sorry for the blind when the path is right there. all they need is a light.
redeyesthe20th 4 years ago
i love jesus
musicus8 4 years ago
Amen brother, so do I.
peletonkambing 4 years ago
So do I. And I must add that I am Muslim.
clearsunnysky 4 years ago
...I'm not really understanding what this has to do with the video.
JackOfFlames 4 years ago
Many have noticed increased intelligence in
animals, Chimps are doing home invasions racoons and others ,they have been hunted and killed ,have studyed their enemy,the concious evolution of D.N.A. can be proven and can adapt quickly,changes in 2yrs for some species
zyx645 4 years ago
Sorry, my comments were meant to be a response to m3ntalcas3
sonicthebadger 4 years ago
So why haven't all creatures developed this ability? The short answer is survival. Creatures only keep the abilities which help them survive longer or better. But please note! No choice is being made by the individual... it can only work with the genes it was born with. I hope this answers your question, or at least gives you some new questions :)
sonicthebadger 4 years ago
Where can I get a high-res picture (preferably svg or some other vector format where "resolution" doesn't exist and can't degrade quality) of that "animal kingdom sphere"?
valcaron 4 years ago
the eg used has no comparison to the human body or brain and even if so would not chimps by now have voice and language capabilities???
m3ntalcas3 4 years ago
A good question but it has been answered many times. Think of the logical flaw inherent in the question you ask. If it is only a matter of time before creatures develop voice and language then all creatures would have voice and language capabilities. Would you use your face to drill a hole? No, of course not. But wood peckers do.
sonicthebadger 4 years ago
i guess but i still argue that humans are too far away from all other animals in an eolutionary sense to accept an atheist approch. i mean if evolution is to hold why are we dominating all other animals and plants??? would it not hold that all species that are on the brink of extinction should change to survive!!!
m3ntalcas3 4 years ago
Its usually not new genes that make an impact on the changes within a species, but it is new groupings of the same genes that are responsible for the changes. There is only one human race, but different groupings of the same genes are responsible for ethnic and geographical differences.
parduspilot 4 years ago
we are not so far away from the other animals. over the years what we believed was exclusive to humans (emotions, speech, logical thinking, use of tools) was discovered in many other species, albeit in altered forms, but existant. we're not even the best at mental tasks. just look at that recent vid with humans having their asses handed to them by chimps at visual memory tests.
intigfx 4 years ago
the voice ruins your point of view
CrazyyStrangerr 4 years ago
i agree
Falcon2900 4 years ago
its hard to concentrate with that voice
Mohabias 4 years ago 2
Lmao.
And that is the proof of God?
The flying spaghetti monster exist as well. It may be gravity having its act on my spaghetti dropping 5 foot high. But who's to say it's not alive?
LovelyYTRocks 4 years ago
I have a question. If something exists and has not been observed does that mean it does not really exist?
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
Because 2 people have different opinions, is one right and not the other? Or are they both right, or both wrong? See I can ask un-answerable questions too, doesn't prove anything though does it? If that's your best argument then you're probably better off saying nothing. Because whatever you say will mean nothing... with all due respect
rahzel8 4 years ago
My point is simply this. To believe in no god is a leap of faith. I admit I have faith. Now lets all see if you can do the same. And you did not answer my question!
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
To not believe in God requires no faith, btw i think i kinda mentioned it was an un-answerable question. What a pointless conversation tho eh? nobody will ever be proven right or wrong yet still we argue. I would say enjoy life but for some that means torturing others and i don't know you so, just try to keep the sins to a minimum incase you're right and i am wrong.
rahzel8 4 years ago
Why do our eyebrow hairs point upward?
rcarson00 4 years ago
Oh yeah kickass video. Yay for evoloution!
finbar1984 5 years ago
Of course I disagree with you, but we can chalk this up to differences of opinion. Thanks for the reply.
JackOfFlames 5 years ago
Great video.
HC4D 5 years ago
I'll approve this no problem. But no offence I really think it a weak counter claim. Then again it really up to the people to decide for themselves. Peace
IslamandFriends 5 years ago
In what way? A comment on your original video seems to indicate that by and large you accept at least macro evolution. Do you simply rejects its explanatory power in other areas?
monitajb 5 years ago
no its not, evaluate and differentiate what he said, including the phenomenon of convergent properties.
mrblicko 4 years ago
IslamandFriends, your parallel between the human brain and a computer is undisputable, but it is certainly not evidence. Why is the burden of proof on the atheist (or scientist)? The believer says 'I can't explain the world so there must be an all-powerful, un-knowable being that created and maintains it'. The scientist says 'I can't explain the world but I will work hard so that some day I might be able to'. Which of those two paths is more virtuous?
Grug27 4 years ago
The atheist says there is no God. Let him prove it without faith. Us believers have faith and we admit it. Let the atheist do the same! Athiestic evolution is a religion
nusouthneocon 4 years ago
No. A knowledgeable atheist should say, 'I acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a deity, yet I actively choose not to believe in one due to the lack of scientific necessity - and hence the statistical unlikelihood - for such a being to exist.'
SRagy 4 years ago