daogdaog, evolution does not work on speculation and assumptions. It is hard science and when papers are submitted for peer-review, they undergo scrutiny. If unfounded assumptions existed in any of these papers the peer-review process would tear them apart. As for the horseshoe crab not changing, even I (a total non-expert on science) can answer that. Perhaps the horseshoe crab was well adapted to it's environment and did not need to evolve much if any at all... other species as well. Cheers
@orangemod As far as I know you can distinguish the modern horseshoecrab from its jurassic counterpart. However even if their exterior didn't change the same cannot said about their interior since fossils usually can't show that.
Woah, are you really trying to suggest that correlation = causation in the latter half of part 3? I know you keep saying "I'm not attributing this to evolution", but you *do* seem to be attributing it to a _belief_ in evolution. You, as a scientist, should know better than to suggest that correlation = causation, and even though (I think) you are using this as a simple example, you ought not give your less-educated followers a frankly useless and unscientific talking point. My 2 cents, at least
Theory of evolution is not science at all. It never was. It is just assuimptions after assumptions. The only way to verify that evolution has ever taken place is to assume that it had taken place in the first place. So many fossilized species showed no trace of evolution ever happening. Horse shoe crabs existed before the dinos but they are the same specie as we see today.
@daogdaog You obviously have no idea what the theory of evolution is, nor the large amount of evidence that supports it. I encourage you to watch the series foundational falsehoods of creationism by Aronra. It should dispel the clear misconception you seem to have about evolution.
'Horse shoe crabs existed before the dinos but they are the same specie as we see today.' That's because not all species evolve at the same speed and some almost not at all.
@thomaseshuis The theory of evolution attempted to explain the diversity of life from a simple cell by continous random mutations and natural selection. It did not state that some animals should never evolved at all. Provide me a list of four legged animals with shorts necks that gradually change into a giraffe. There should be thousands if evolution is true.
@daogdaog 'It did not state that some animals should never evolved at all' I did not say that, I am just stating that neither did it state, nor do it's researchers state, that all species continually evolve. Therefore your giraffe question is pointless. I encourage you to watch the series made by Aronra, he'll explain how your crude understanding of evolution is severely flawed. Really, just watch it, what have you got to lose.
@thomaseshuis It was Darwin who stated that four legged animals with short necks will eventually become giraffes. So Darwin ideas were pointless? Otherwise, provide me a list of four legged animals with shorts necks that gradually change into a giraffe. Since the changes were incremental there should be thousands of forms in between if evolution is true.
@daogdaog 'It was Darwin who stated that four legged animals with short necks will eventually become giraffes.' 1. Just because he got the evolution of one species wrong, does not mean the rest of his theory is also wrong. It's not the basis of his theory. 2. Evolution theory has long since evolved beyond the specific theory that Darwin postulated.
Current evolution theory does not state that all four legged animals evolve to creatures with long necks.
@daogdaog 'Since the changes were incremental there should be thousands of forms in between if evolution is true. ' Again you show a great deal of ignorance on the current theory of evolution.
Untill you've watched the video's by Aronra or read some other up to date science book I'm done discussing with you, as you have not the faintest idea what evolution is.
@daogdaog not all animals live in the same environment as giraffes. giraffes eat i think from the Acacia tree. zebras don't a zebra with a giant neck and legs like a giraffe will find it difficult to eat grass. just look at how awkwardly they drink water. zebras eat grass, they're suited for that.
@Nixom1334 Studies have shown that giraffes normally eat vegetation just above the ground, those short scrubs even during droughts. Since female giraffes are normally a meter shorter than males, they should have starved and died according to Darwin. Can you provide a list of at least 10 four legged animals with shorts necks that gradually transformed into a giraffe?
@daogdaog I would like a link to your studies. If you have ever turned animal planet on you will almost always see them eating from a tree. and also you might want to look at the Okapi, shorter neck yet related to the giraffe. both of this animals share a common ancestor.
@Nixom1334 There are so many articles in the internet that disproved Darwin version on how giraffe evolved. Okapi coexisted with long necked giraffes and the assumed ancestors of okapi actually existed after the okapi. Assumed ancestors of okapi had long highly developed antlers. Those antlers had to undergo a reverse evolution just to fit okapi form. There is no evidence that okapi gradually transformed into a giraffe. Goats are known to climb trees. They dont need long necks to feed.
@daogdaog just because Darwing might be wrong doesn't mean the concept is false.
hahahaha, you naive little boy of course okapis don't turn into giraffes, they're not pokemon you moron. and as for your "reverse" evolution there's no such thing. like i said they're not pokemon just because they're cooler doesn't mean they're the "evolved form". as you might know Okapi's live in dense forests, forest's where big Sivatherium could not fit , hence smaller body and antlers.
@Nixom1334 okapis don't turn into giraffes? okapis are supposed ancestors of giraffes. I think you need some reading about results of scientific studies. You must have spent so much time watching cartoon network and animal planet. You dont even know that giraffes dont normally feed on acacia trees. Darwin stated that giraffes evolved by natural selection. If he was wrong as you claimed, it means that giraffes are the only animals that did not evolve by natural selection.
@daogdaog Okapis don't turn into giraffes, hahaha. they share a common ancestor their both from the Giraffidae family their not each other's ancestor, that's like saying chimps are our ancestor, and no, they're not our ancestor. what you're stating can be compared to saying that your cousin is your grandpa. unless you have some Oedipus shit going on in your family that's not going to happen.
@Nixom1334 In that case can you provide list of at least 10 four legged ancestor animals with shorts necks that GRADUALLY transformed into a giraffe?
@Nixom1334 another thing, like I said the concept is right even if darwin is wrong about giraffes. the conceot being Natural selection and evolution. please give me the name of what you think the common ancestor is because there is one. I already gave Sivatherium. another thing, giraffes do feed on Acacia trees, I think it's acacia I could be wrong regardless it's a tall thorny tree, hence their long leathery tongues. tongues perfectly evolved to eat from thorny branches.
@Nixom1334 another thing to consider is their neck battles, giraffes with long strong necks have favorable chances while competing with rivals for food and/or females.
to your other argument Okapis and giraffes are cousins although yes Okapis are extremely old, even considered living fossils. but this is where branching comes in, where common ancestors divide into different species. commonly because of habitat as we can see with the giraffes habitat: Savannah and the okapis: Jungle.
@daogdaog "Although giraffes can feed as low as 0.5 m and as high as 6 m off the ground, it appears that they most often feed between 2 and 4 m (7–14 ft).[38] However"
it's not that hard to use wikipedia dude. 7 ft. isn't just above the ground.
@Nixom1334 Again provide a list here of at least 10 four legged animals with shorts necks that GRADUALLY evolved or transformed into a giraffe? We will examine them one by one.
What you say is not true. Evolution, scientific evolution doesn't accept God. If you speak of evolution you have to say where it came from, you can't just say that animals evolve, you need to explain the main engine and how this engine came to be. You can't just say that animals evolve. If God created everything, even using evolution, then it's not evolution, it's creation.
Wow... you just don't pay attention. Evolution has NOTHING to say about the origin of life. Nada. No more than the bible has to say about the origin of video games. It is completely unconcerned with the origin, only with what happened once life existed. It also doesn't have anything to say about whether or not "god" created everything. It DOESN'T CARE. At all. There are theories about how life came to be in the first place, go bother those people.
@atalkingcow No, you don't pay attention. Scientist don't believe in creation,they don't believe in God. If you don't believe in God you can't tell me that life just evolves, you have to tell me how this life came to be. Because if God created it, then it's not evolution, it's creation. Atheist love to play games with this word.
Rather than argue semantics with you, I'll just leave you with this. We can see evolution happen. We can provide evidence that it has been happening for a long ass time. You have yet to provide proof of your god. Forgive me for not taking you seriously.
@atalkingcow Fine, a computer programmer can make a ai agent in a computer and you can say it's "evolving", but the programmer created the agent, the agent didn't create itself. Evolution doesn't mean that there is no creator, and if there is a creator, then it's not evolution, it's creation. And that's the whole argument, we can be here for ever arguing semantics. The important thing is who started the process, not how it happens. I can say that creation is evolving.
You have this idea in your head that evolution negates creation. It doesn't. Not even a little. And creation doesn't negate evolution. Neither of them have anything to say about the other. At all. Your argument boils down to, "This potato grew on a plant, therefore 2+2 does not equal 4." You make no sense, your argument doesn't even remotely address the point. And for the last time,we don't just say"It's evolving" We watch it happen. That's why you need a new flu vaccine every year.
If you want 'transitional forms' look at plants. They're not just all around, they're the top fear about Genetic Modification. Plant species are so close on a continuum and interbreed to create new species that anti-GM fear something fine in a domestic crop could transfer to the wild in a different species with unknown consequences - because it happens even without GM.
Hello everyone. i have another creationist scientist teacher question. we were talking about transitional species the other day and he said there is not transitional forms found. I tried to tell him about titaalk and homo erectus and homo habilis but his only rebuttal is "look online how many bones of those species they have". this leaves me speechless and unable to respond. who many fossils do you need to definitvely prove an animal is a seperate species not just a failed mutation?
@spartan5261 a good example of transitional forms are whales. Land dwelling dudes to large ass whale dudes. There are a good amount of fossils for this and are spaced in ways that are well in rage of predictions using comparative anatomy. Also many types of flightless birds are good examples of a species that lost use of wings for flight due to their environment not having need for wings to fly. Does it mean that god put wings on them that serve no purpose? Ask him that
A "creationist scientist teacher" ......... huuuuh? "Creationist" I get. "Science teacher" I get.
But together? The "creationist scientist teacher"-creature is fully as absurd as the creationists' fantasmagorical creations of duck-billed-dogs and the like.
@spartan5261 ---- "look online how many bones of those species they have" ---- It dosent matter if you have 1 skeleton or a thousand skeletons. Tiktaatilk existed... so did homo erectus. Tiktaatilk is structuraly both a fish and a tetropod. If it truely was a "failed" mutation then creationists have quite an uphill battle trying explain why it had functional gills yet at the same time was tetropodal.
Gay people can have *non-reproductive* sex just fine for pleasure and bonding (as almost all heterosexuals do); it is not "counterfeit." Furthermore, because in any non-ass-backwards nation, heterosexual marriages are not invalidated by inability or refusal to produce children or raise already-born children (and gay people absolutely can do the latter), it logically follows that procreation is absolutely *not* a criterion for marriage: that leaves pair bonding, which gay people are capable of.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that same-sex unions "impersonate" anything. Gay people do not believe they can produce children without obtaining a sperm or ovum from an outside source (presently: science is hard at work cracking the epigenetic properties of sperm and ova, and ability to manipulate these properties would allow for two sperm or two ova to be spliced for reproductive purposes), and the assumption that they do is absurd.
The Christian bible is not suitable as a guide to morality because its lawgiver, in many instances, explicitly condones rape, genocide, slavery, and other such atrocities (and no, you can't put those in any context that makes them acceptable). If a deity ordered me to commit any of the above, I would disobey, because I consider rape, genocide, and slavery to be immoral--and any who would disobey a deity ordering them to do such things necessarily rejects morality by divine or biblical authority.
id love to see this guy debate kent hovind... or myself... he would loose both ways...he jsut talking on the computer hes not being challenged and thats where he would fail...
@yetiwestin He might have some trouble debating Hovind. Not that I think Hovind has anything to offer mind you. He just might have trouble fitting it into his schedule,. What with the fake doctor currently serving jail time for fraud and all that.
What a lie! You say evolution as taught today does not teach abiogensis. Almost every science text book you pick up says that there was rain on the rocks for millions of years and ligthing struck the chemical soup forming life. You suggested in another video were a Christian except you argue for a viewpoint that has no support Biblically. You are not a Christian, get off the fence and stop lying to yourself.
@CrownIdeas FYI, this was made in 2007, this is 3 years later into the present. Donexodus2 is no longer on the fence and lying to himself. And for the record, no where does a text book or biology book in any form and level says anything about " rain on the rocks for millions of years and ligthing struck the chemical soup forming life" That bs is what is put on creationist sites and apologist sites, its actually completely made up.
@MagrasKashi Nothing I said was any less relevant 2 years ago. What is your issue with what I said? I am asking the producer of the video to be logically consistent. If they have changed their position they should remove the video. I am a Christian and believe the Bible is authoritative. Some sciences have advanced technology, but microbes to man Darwninian type evolution, which is historical or at best forensic science, has contributed nothing to modern advancements.
@CrownIdeas Someone changes their faith. You require them to delete every video in which they held their previous faith? Changes happen. If you're offended by this or something, then don't watch the previous video. Or better yet, message the uploader.
@MagrasKashi I don't want people to be self-decieved. If you believe Darwins history of the earth then Christian theology falls apart. If no Adam no original sin, and sin can't be the reason for death. If sin is not the reason for death, then why did Jesus die for our sins? Since both positions are about events occurring in the past, they both take faith to believe. Both may appeart to have evidence to support them, but it is still based ultimately on faith.
@CrownIdeas Actually, Christian theology falls apart without needing aid from Darwin's history of the Earth. However, that isn't a discussion which I'll get into here, as there are many videos on YouTube which address the subject more succinctly and efficiently than I can.
@MagrasKashi how do you figure that? Every place in the world true Christianity has been made better for it. It is completely distinct and far above any other world religion, because it's not a religion. It's the answert to religion. How much have you really study Christianity and the Bible?
@CrownIdeas You are answering something different from what I proposed (granted, I was vague. I take fault for that). Specifically, I am saying that the logic and reasoning contained within the bible fall apart when you analyze them at all. Zinnia Jones and AronRa's channels sum up pretty much everything I could say, go take a look. (cont'd)
@MagrasKashi The crusades were not a true expression of Christianity. It was a government that was using the name of God as a politcal reason for imperialism. This Zinnia Jones doesn't make any rational arguments for atheism. HIs argument is I'm gay so it can't be wrong, therefore there's no God?
@CrownIdeas Honestly, the Bible does nothing but superficially assuage our thirst for knowledge, prematurely ending the search for answers. And no, Christianity has not made the world better everywhere it's been. The Crusades would hardly fit your claim. People globally use the Bible to persecute people, with it being the only reason they do so. Have you seen anything of the LGBT fight? Proposition 8? The Family Research Counsel?
Ignore this diot, he is a troll, and will not address one single point you make, except perhaps to brush over it (like "the crusades" makes Christianity bad(, then he moves on as though his accusation has completely vindicated everything he has said, and everything he will ever say, and just spouts out a load of rubbih.
He is either an idiot, or is dawkins (these are the only 2 people who are so arrogant, that you literally cant get a word in, thru the bullshit)
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Hey typo, are you talking about me? Because I don't think I've ever chatted with you before. Or are you talking about MagrasKashi?
He will nto bother to answer oyu, except for ridiculus insults, but will accuse you of cowardice for not answering him. If you do start answering he will bombard you with idiotic questions, and put words in your mouth, then state those words as evidence that you are a lier, or stupid or something.
Another example: i stated that i DID have experience of abortion, cus my ex did one, without my agreement - he said i was using "tainted, irrelevant experience", as evidence.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Do not misquote me. Your experience was made irrelevant by your own comparison. You claimed that experience matters because it provides practical information in career fields, which is completely different from what you experienced.
I will quote you directly if you do not believe me.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome (cont'd)Your experience tainted your opinion. Not once had I said that it was tainted, irrelevant experience. The latter part yes, but not the former.
Cowardice? Again, not once. I pointed out that you did not answer my questions, this is not the equivalent of calling you a coward. I simply asked you to answer them..
You just keep rambling on to yourself, yu dirty little creep. Im not replying to your hounding messages, any more.
You are liek a friggin stalker, who wont go away, aond contradicts EVERY single word. Go and cry to your parents, if you have any, not me - im not here to answer your beck and call - thats yor mothers job.
Go and pull the man next door off her, and get your attention form her, like all the other men in your street do.
So, if having your child killed in the womb, by your ex, against your wishes, just because she'd decided she wanted to shag her dads friend, instead, ISNT worthy experience of abortion - WHAT IS ?
His evidence was to tell me im bad, because "what if a woman is raped" ? (even though hardly ANY abortions are as a result of rape).
Then, when yu check his channel - HE's a FRIGGIN TEENAGER - AAAAAARGH !
You realsie, youve been phillosophising with a cock tugger !
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome thanks for the advice Tip, I don't allow people like this get me angry. I do think they need to be answered though when they speak lies and misrepresent the truth. I believe that there is objective moral truth and those who deny it are just trying to justify their only immorality.
WHY does anyone feel it so absolutely neccessary to deny even the possibility that there could be a father like God, who created us, for his own reasons ?
Answer: because they are dirty little homos, paedos, murderers, or some other kind of horrible little creatures, who KNOW they cannot prosper ina God lovong world !
I dont KNOW if there's a God, because I havent met him - but I HOPE there is one, cus im not a dingy little paedo/murderer.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying,God, be merciful to me a sinner! contd..
all im saying is, i agree with the pope, when he said Europe is being threatened by "aggressive athiesm".
The dirty little rats want to shout us off the stage, and force us to stop teaching our children about god, at school. But at the same time, any 12 year old in britain, is now being taught ANAL SEX lessons - how to get pleasure form anal sex !!
First it was "sex education", then they got the homo bit added in. The war has begun!
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Yes, I agree that our society in general is in moral decay. The reason for that is that men are born with evil in their hearts. It is a war but it's not against people in general. For it says in Eph. 6:12 we wrestle not against fleshand blood, but against spiritual principalities and power of this dark age, and dark spiritual forces. It's not wether God is with us, but wether or not we are with him.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Utterly ridiculous. I'm fine with you teaching your religion. Do it in a religious school, where it belongs. It has no place in the public school system, else there would be no distinction between public schools and catholic schools. If you were to put god in public school, you'd violate the religious rights of every other group.
Anal sex is not a homosexually-exclusive action. Another preposterous claim. Schools teach sexual education so students can practice safe-sex.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 18:10-14. Jesus has the answers for the sinner and we all have sinned. Just some sins are more socially acceptable than others or are more viseral to your average person, but to God all sin is worthy of death, but eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. Rom. 6:23
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Again, incorrect. I did not call you "bad" for denying abortions caused by rape - I pointed out that your blanketing statement is incorrect because it fails to take into account every possible situation. You did not once provide a solution which takes into account both sides, you hooted and hollered without thinking.
@MagrasKashi How does the fight for preserving marriage as the foundation of the family not make everything better. No one is saying gays and lesbians don't have the freedom to practice their lifestyle. They don't have the right to destroy the institution of marriage. Many cultures in the past who recognize homosexual activity still saw marriage as between a man and a woman. That's the only natural way to procreate.
@CrownIdeas Preserving marriage as the foundation of the family? What exactly are you saying here? Studies have shown that sexual orientation of the parents has no effect on the development of children. If you require a link then I will provide you with one.
@MagrasKashi Those studies are completely subjective. They already consider any sexual orientation as normal so the sexual confusion to the child that may be caused in that situation is considered to be normal and therefore of no effect.
It's not only for procreation but it is an integral part of the greater whole. Therefore, single gender unions can never truly be a marriage because they only impersonate what naturally takes place, and by defenition are counterfet.
@CrownIdeas Whether a sexual orientation is normal or not is not related to the effects of these studies whatsoever. They monitor the development of the child independent of this notion and compare those results to child development in heterosexual parents. I will send you the link to the studies.
Marriage is not natural - it is a man-made institution. Natural refers to occurrence in nature. If marriage were natural, then animals in nature would get married. This is not the case.
@MagrasKashi well, I wasn't commenting wether or not marriage was natural or occurs in nature, I was refering to natural pro-creation. Actually, though there are species of animals that do mate for life. Many varieties of birds do this. So your whole argument does not hold water. The point was they are subjective because they only deal with certain developmental features those that wouldn't be effected reguardless
@CrownIdeas Do these birds perform ceremonies that link them together for life? Marriage is not the same as mating for life.
You were not referring to natural procreation. "single gender unions can never truly be a marriage because they only impersonate what naturally takes place". This has nothing to do with procreation, and everything to do with marriage.
However, if marriage is so strongly related to procreation then why do couples marry but not procreate? Considering it's so integral.
@MagrasKashi What happens naturally is a man and woman have sex and that produces another human being. If 2 men or 2 women have sex it produces nothing except maybe an STD. I am a Christian and believe the Bible gives us the complete standard for morality. And it says the valid place for sex is in marriage(defined as 1 woman 1 man until death). This provides stability & safety for what in most cases leads to procreation. Marriage iiiis lifelong monogamy.
@CrownIdeas STDs are produced within heterosexual intercourse as well, that has absolutely no bearing on anything.
Of course you take the Bible as your complete standard for morality, your faith prohibits you from doing otherwise.
If marriage were truly lifelong monogamy, then married persons would not cheat on their spouses. Marriage is simply the union between two people that legally binds them as partners and bestows all the legal/financial benefits they receive as a married couple.
@MagrasKashi True heterosexuals who engage in multiple sex partners are likely to get an std, but I not as likely as people engagin in gay or lesbian sex.
What do you use as a standard for morality. At least I have a standard.
The standard is lifelong monogamy and that is what people expect out of marriage. Well, marriage has always gone beyond its legal implications until the debate for same sex marriage.
He will just contradict you, with an irrelivant pice of information, which may be true on its own, but actually doesnt answer your question - THEN he will state his opinion, as htough it is a proven fact - FULL STOP, YOU LOSE (according to him).
And the longer you try to debate, with any normal standard fo reaosning, the more points he thinks he's clockign up against oyu.
In the end, he will jsut tell you you've lost, and should shut up - you watch !
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I'm not worried about it. I know why he argues for his position so rabidly. He's also fighting against his own conscience. He knows what he is saying is wrong, but if he admits it than he might have to change his own lifestyle.
@CrownIdeas And by the way, by our moral standards in this civil society is more moral than the bible. Again, you have no argument. By our laws, god would be put on trial and sentenced to execution for his "immorality"
Stop telling me to show you things, or proof, or anything, you little weirdo !
No one like syu because you are a little weirdo.
You dont say anything - you are just rude and obnoxious. As i saod before, you are either Dawkins, ro soemone who sucks his backside.
Either way, look at the Dawkins vids, and imagine... does ANYONE liek him ? NO - no one likes him. His own children and parents and children (if he were man enough to make any) would hate him. Why ?
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I assume you were referring to me? If you are going to leave a comment, have the decency to address it to the correct person.
I can guarantee that more people like a respectful person than a belligerent loudmouth.
I have said plenty. If you believe otherwise, you're illiterate.
You have degenerated to a mess of meaningless rambling, ad hominem attacks and baseless claims. People like you need to be properly educated, for clearly you have not been.
Hey, get stuffed i will NOT obey you, nor whow you ANY respect, you dirty little weirdo.
And yuo may well be able to guarantee that people like respectful people better than a belligerant loudmouth - but WHO gave YOU the title of "respectful" ?
YOU did - YOU thnk YOU decide everything, because you are a stupid little weirdo, who relentlessly mouths off at people, trying to wear them down.
Basicaly, you are a little baby, with akeyboard, crying all over the interent - WOOAAAH!
@CrownIdeas Marriage was for the most part of history, two people agreeing to live together. There was no law, no marriage license or sacraments involved.
Also, I think if you asked newlyweds why they married each other, you would find few if any couples say "For the children."
People marry for love in Western countries, though there are cultures that still have arranged marriages.
So, why DO people marry each other?.
And Sterile heterosexual Marriages? MARRIAGE DENIED !?
@gjsterp What are you talking about? Marriage goes back at least 5,000 years. And thru all of the 5,000 years (varified by ancient writings like the Bible and summarian text) There was always some type of procedure that took place,exchanging doweries wedding parties etc. You are extrapulating things I said out of context. I was talking about why homosexual adoption is different from heterosexual. Not why people get married.
@CrownIdeas As for the whole gay marriage claim you make being rooted in religion is incorrect. Marriage is a cultural practice.In principle, NOT religious in nature. If you were right, marriage would not be legal since the 1st amendment disqualifies it. But since you are wrong, marriage is a civil legal responsibility. If you were right and the constitution did not have seperation of church and state, then marriage would only be allowed to be performed by the church ALONE!
@splicedenergy Actually no where does the constitution say seperation of church an state. 1st amendment says, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of. You anti-religious fascist are always trying to turn that around to say the government doesn't allow for religion. Christmas is definately rooted in religion and all Federal and state Governements in the US recognize it as a Holiday, or if you will Holy day!
@CrownIdeas I know that is what it says, it means the same thing. If you are that dense there is no hope for you. ALL the politicians use that phrase because its shorter. That doesnt make it partisen in the least. Since all do so, because there is no debate as to the reference. Christmas IS NOT based in christianity, christianity merely cloaked and stole it. Smoke and mirrors dear. JESUS didnt even exist. It isnt going to be a federal holiday much longer. The truth always prevails.
@splicedenergy You apparently don't know your history. The term "seperation of church and state" came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist minister in Danbury Conneticut. It was used in a supreme court case to show the founders intent. It is used by alot of politicians but the doesn't make it in the constitution. Jesus didn't even exist? Who would make such a preposterous statement. There is plenty of proof he existed, as much as any Roman emperor has of existing, perhaps more.
@CrownIdeas Exactly, he coined the phrase because its "in short". Documentaries are not classified as tv shows, they count as education. Which is what ancient aliens is, documentaries. In which you can verify everything claimed. Its called scientific evidence, ever heard of it? Not giving you ad hominems.
@splicedenergy He used the phrase one time in a letter. Some lawyer took months researching something he could use in his favor. The lawyers in The 20th century coined it. A ducumentary by defintion is a tv show. Look at the experts they have on that show(which I do watch and find entertaining) see if they are well respected in thier feilds. When someone quotes you historical facts that are easily confirmed and you call them stupid that is a personal attack, thankyou.
@CrownIdeas It isnt the fact that is stupid it is the fact that you dont understand that they mean the same fucking thing. That is the reasoning of my opinion of your stupidity.
@CrownIdeas Its only an ad hominem if it is only a personal attack. I give the reason for it, which takes the whole ad hominem thing into ad populem. It is universally agreed that in fact, there is nothing to substantiate the existance of jesus. Hearsay 3 generations removed is only that. I can give you tons of references for that
@splicedenergy I think you'll find that even the most liberal Bible scholar would confirm that all canonical scipture was completed within 100 years of the start of the Christian movement. Much of the New Testament is firsthand eyewitness testimony. Matthew assumed to be the apostle of the same name. Mark a student of Apostle Peter, Luke the companion of many of the Apostles who interviewed eyewitnesses. John, was himself the youngest apostle. Apostle Paul wrote of his own experiences.
@CrownIdeas NO there is ZERO evidence to conclude that. Look it up. There is ZERO eyewitness testimony. Thats a lie and they get away with pretending otherwise. Paul never met jesus, he was not even born yet! The phrase is still the truth no matter if you use the verbatim example long, or the short one. You have yet to make an argument that they are different from each other. They mean the same thing.
@splicedenergy Don't you think it strange that Paul never mentions a living Jesus when gospel says they were both in Jerusalem at the same time and Paul 'persecuting' Christians? What do you mean, 'Paul not born yet'? He is writing before 50, Jesus dies in the 30s. So Paul was a teenager? He held the cloaks at Stephen's (illegal) stoning (a lynch mob) shortly after Jesus died. He's born about five years before or after Jesus. Just shows how faith blinds to clear scriptural statement.
@Saiaton Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations.
@Saiaton Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earthTherefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.
@CrownIdeas The bible is proven to be fiction. As for your attempt to bring the sumerian tablets into evidence, I must remind you that sumerians were talking about the Annunaki, AKA ALIEN VISITORS not god. You really are clueless
@splicedenergy Ah no, you are clueless that idea of the Annunaki being aliens was made up by a guy who claimed to be a ancient language expert.(Zacharia Sitchin) Turns out the guy didn't know what he was talking about. Do the research from reputable language experts. They didn consider them god's..
@CrownIdeas 2 seasons of ancient aliens on the history channel proves that you are the one whom is clueless. You also do not seem to understand that the act of sex does not define a persons sexuality. It has little to do with intercourse. But you are really stupid, one of the stupidiest Ive ever come across on youtube. I cant fix your stupid. Pitiful
@splicedenergy You're going to use a tv show as your support for proof? The only stupid thing here is that when you start to lose an argument, you resort to name-calling and personal attacks.
@gjsterp I mean, that when a man and a woman have intercourse without any contraceptive there is a very good chance that they will produce an offspring. If 2 men or 2 women have sex they will never, never produce offspring. This is teh way of nature... For homosexuals to pretend they can have children without the oposite sex somehow involved is counterfeit. 2 people somewhere had to supply the sperm and the egg. Not 2 eggs or 2 sperm.
@CrownIdeas #1 My homosexual grandfather produced 2 sets of twin girls, 2 boys and 4 single birth girls. #2 More than 500 other social species (we are a social species) display homosexuality. Much of those species have a higher ratio than our species do. #3 Same Sex Sexual intercourse in principle alone DOES NOT define homosexuality. Anyone gay, straight or in different can choose to enjoy sex with what consentual adult. Especially if you are a crackhead, HELLO! #4 you have no argument
@splicedenergy Ya, your homosexual grandfather was not homosexual he was obviously bisexual.. Duh! he apparently wasn't impodent with the opposite sex right?
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by esthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for another of the same sex. (For an analysis of the difficulties involved in the issue of identification, see homosexuality and transgender and also heterosexuality and bisexuality.) wordiq/ (Psychology) a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex
@CrownIdeas adj1. (Psychology) of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) of or relating to the same sex Compare heterosexual
Collins English Dictionary freedictionary com/ Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual,
@CrownIdeas affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them wikipedia Wanna try leaving in the rest of the definition instead of cutting out that which you disagree with.
@splicedenergy I used the whole defention, there was just more than one. The other defintion wasn't much different it just had the words related to in front of it. How do any of the defintions you put out support your claim that who you have sex with doesn't tell wether someone is a homosexual or not?
@CrownIdeas As simple as I can make it, I will explain it to you. If you still dont get it, its not my problem to deal with. If you who is obviously a one man and one woman person and for whatever reason had sexual relations with someone who is the same gender as you purely out of experiance does not and will not define you as a homosexual for the rest of your life. Whether you did it for money, for experimentation, as a drunken stupor, as a prostitute or whatever. That does not make you a homo
Big Bang theory explained better 1400 yrs ago than no
Quran 21.30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together then I RIPPED them apart? And then I made of Water everything living? Would they still not believe
Big Crunch:
[Quran 21.104] On the day when I will fold the heaven, like the folder compacts the books, and as I originated the first creation I shall return it; a promise (binding on me); surely I will deliver.
@Atharkas big bang is a controversy by its self cos there was no BANG and it was not BIG nor was there explosion. everything was ripped and fabric of space was created. i did read some Vedas and in no way does it explain more precise than Quran.
here is from Vedas
"Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
Actually, the big bang just explains the expansion. Only idiots believe it was an explosion or loud. And I actually meant the 10th mandala, 72nd hymn and how the hindu mythology speaks of a cyclic universe (expansion/contraction) instead of just born out of nothing/expansion that islams claim. Good things both are mere fairy tales.
Recently some very delusional person suggested that there are no transitional forms, he wanted to see one species give birth to another species. I don't know why I bother responding to these people.
How can this pig ignorant science friek claim that ABORTION is LESS prevelant in countries where evolution is accepted, when in actual fact, the catholic church and islam FORBID abortion, and so there would be NONE, if religion were our guide.
He is SO untruthful, to claim that SECULARISM REDUCES ABORTION - what a lier !!
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome If abortion was illegal, women would be forced to do it in back alleys with coat hangers. Just because someone forbids something, it doesn't mean that everyone will stop doing it.
WRONG - if abortion were ilegal, then LESS women would do it, because not all women would be prepared to "do it in a back alley with coat hangers" (you IDIOT).
And NO, it doesnt mean that EVERYONE will stop doing it, just because its ilegal, but the fact hat LESS people would do it, menas that MORE children would be allowed to be born, and have alife on God's earth.
Presumably, you dont give a shit, because YOU were'nt ripped to pieces, in your mothers womb. Do some RESEARCH on it
2. Presumably, you don't understand that denying a person the right to do with their body as they please is wrong, nor do you comprehend all of the reasons behind an abortion. Would you want a mother to birth her child if it would grievously injure or even kill her? What about rape victims? Should they be forced to give birth to a child they will hate, something that lives on as a reminder of the violent torture they endured?
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome What you say here directly contradicts what you say below. Reread your earlier comment. And reread Annulable's comment. Is there any reference to a quantified difference in abortions taking place? Frankly, no there isn't.
Want to check trends between abortion and secularism? Type "trends between abortion rates and evolution" into Google. Point 16 in the Journal of Religion and Society outlines it.
"freak" is not spelled with an i. "Liar" is not spelled with an e, either.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Are you trying to tell me that the legality of abortion doesn't matter? Is this what you think I said? Because, unless you can point out specifically where I said that the legality of abortion doesn't matter, then you're putting words into my mouth.
Why not make it illegal? Simple. Because making abortion illegal is violating any woman's right to have an abortion (do as she wish with her body), regardless of the reason. Are you a woman? No? Then don't tell women what to do.
So whilst I do NOT consider myself the ultimatesource of knowledge for the subject, i DO have relevant experience, and KNOW that my child should be alive, not dead. There was NO physical or mental reason for her to murder our child.... she just took her father's word, that since i had refused to join the masons, and had argued with him, that she would be better off with his friend (a policemen).
Are YOU in agreement, that our child was HER child ? NOT mine ?
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome So rape victims have a duty to birth the embodiment of their torture? Women aren't vessels for birth. They do not have a duty to do anything.
Changing one's mind is natural. People do it on a daily basis. Regardless, nature has no place in this area.
I am not being self-righteous. Read your comments. You would have MURDERED HER FATHER. And you're justifying this?
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome And you haven't answered my questions, so I'll bring them back up. Would you want a mother to birth her child if it would grievously injure or even kill her? What about rape victims? Should they be forced to give birth to a child they will hate, something that lives on as a reminder of the violent torture they endured?
Your opinion is biased due to past life experiences, you can't look at the topic objectively. Abortion is not universally right nor universally wrong.
It has NOTHING to do with "rape victim" or "dangerous births" etc., since these are NOT the reason for the vast majority of abortions.
The normal reaosn is that some girl had sex, knowing that if she did get pregnant, she could have a pill, or an abortion. Most of those girls would have taken MUCH more care, if they werent gonna be allowed an abortion.
As Mother Teresa said "if you dont want the child, give it to me" (NOT MURDER IT).
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Yes, Mother Teresa would have wanted the child...so she could indoctrinate it.
Cite a statistic or study for your claim that the normal reason for abortion is that the mother was careless. Can you prove this claim? If so, do so. If not, then don't make the claim.
And you aren't answering the questions I asked you. Just because these cases may not be the majority, they should not be taken into account? Ridiculous! By your logic, the rights of minorities shouldn't matter.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome And yes, it has everything to do with rape victims and dangerous births, these are still reasons for abortion! I can't believe you'd even claim that they do not matter! Talk about immorality.
Finally: YOU would never have been aborted by ANY Christian, Muslim or ANY religious familly - ONLY filfthy athiests would ever DARE to murder a babay, born or unborn !
Just because your disgusting govt says its legal, doesnt give YOU a licence to kill !
You wouldnt have the guts to murder a baby which was 5 minutes old, so dont BRAGG about having the guts to murder it 5 minutes before it could have been born.
I have a girl 21 yrs old, who was born EARLIER the one aborted !!!!!
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Can you prove I would never have been aborted by a religious family, or only atheists abort?
This is just fallacious, it appeals to emotion instead of making actual arguments. It also makes ridiculous claims that it cannot prove.
I am not bragging about anything, I am arguing that a woman should have the right to do as she please (especially if her health is concerned). You, in contrast, 'bragged' that you would murder someone's father. Don't project your actions onto me.
Yes, religious families DONT go around aborting children (on the whole).
There is MUCH less chance of being aborted in a religious family, since they would muddle together and get through it, with a new life in their familly, and love the child.
And the right to "Do as You Please" is the ONE AND ONLY law, in the SATANIC BIBLE. Whether you call yourself satanic or not, YOU base your entire phylosophy on THEIR LAW.
Dont dont try and babble me, with your "rights to kill".
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome This is not proof. Again, cite a statistic or study to prove your claim.
Religious families cast out their children just as quickly as any other. If that child is not religious, or in MANY cases, is not heterosexual, then they are ostracized by these people.
There is no such thing as a satanic bible, unless this is what your bible is called?
I base my philosophy (see the spelling) on what is morally correct. I don't let my opinions be clouded, like you do.
Yes, of course, the "evolutionist" (ignorant satanic demon, as far as im concerned) resorts to wishing me dead, for objecting to child murder. Even stating how WONDERFUL the world would be, if i had not been born.
How ridiculous can you get ?
You see, this is the intelligence of the average "moderately educated" person. You spout out such idiotic rubbish, and truly believe that you sound intelligent, and you feel clever, for makign up a vile sentence.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome It's not child murder. It's fetal. Fetuses don't have a consciousness in early stages of development, they don't even know they exist. And they don't care because they can't care. You cannot judge value on potential, only on what has been realized.
And vile statements? I'll call your attention to your own vile statement:
"I wish I had killed her father, and left her to have our child, with me in prison."
The difference between you and i, is that i wish id done prison, to save a child's life, whereas YOU would hapilly support the killing of a child, as long as it hasnt left the womb, yet.
As i say, i have a 21 yr old daughter who was born EARLIEr than the one which was aborted (and so have many other people) - think about that !
Also, if the child comes out alive (which they often do) the "doctor" twists its head, and puts a quick end to that.
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome So the death of a man is justifiable so long as a child doesn't take their place? Nonsense.
You've said you have a daughter before. Do you know why I didn't address it? Because it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Let me rephrase. You have a daughter - so what?
Your third claim is a ridiculous theory planted by scare tactics. Prove that any licensed doctor will kill a baby in this matter. Again, cite evidence.
I'm all about killing babies. I think we need to expand abortion, have in-home abortion kits sold over the counter. We should also look into post-birth abortion as well. Sometimes you don't realize you shouldn't have had that baby until after it's born.
daogdaog, evolution does not work on speculation and assumptions. It is hard science and when papers are submitted for peer-review, they undergo scrutiny. If unfounded assumptions existed in any of these papers the peer-review process would tear them apart. As for the horseshoe crab not changing, even I (a total non-expert on science) can answer that. Perhaps the horseshoe crab was well adapted to it's environment and did not need to evolve much if any at all... other species as well. Cheers
orangemod 3 months ago
@orangemod As far as I know you can distinguish the modern horseshoecrab from its jurassic counterpart. However even if their exterior didn't change the same cannot said about their interior since fossils usually can't show that.
inotaishu1 1 month ago in playlist films
@inotaishu1 Interesting, thanks !!!
orangemod 1 month ago
Good stuff!
TheDisturbism 3 months ago
Woah, are you really trying to suggest that correlation = causation in the latter half of part 3? I know you keep saying "I'm not attributing this to evolution", but you *do* seem to be attributing it to a _belief_ in evolution. You, as a scientist, should know better than to suggest that correlation = causation, and even though (I think) you are using this as a simple example, you ought not give your less-educated followers a frankly useless and unscientific talking point. My 2 cents, at least
sheepthing 4 months ago
Theory of evolution is not science at all. It never was. It is just assuimptions after assumptions. The only way to verify that evolution has ever taken place is to assume that it had taken place in the first place. So many fossilized species showed no trace of evolution ever happening. Horse shoe crabs existed before the dinos but they are the same specie as we see today.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog You obviously have no idea what the theory of evolution is, nor the large amount of evidence that supports it. I encourage you to watch the series foundational falsehoods of creationism by Aronra. It should dispel the clear misconception you seem to have about evolution.
'Horse shoe crabs existed before the dinos but they are the same specie as we see today.' That's because not all species evolve at the same speed and some almost not at all.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis The theory of evolution attempted to explain the diversity of life from a simple cell by continous random mutations and natural selection. It did not state that some animals should never evolved at all. Provide me a list of four legged animals with shorts necks that gradually change into a giraffe. There should be thousands if evolution is true.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog 'It did not state that some animals should never evolved at all' I did not say that, I am just stating that neither did it state, nor do it's researchers state, that all species continually evolve. Therefore your giraffe question is pointless. I encourage you to watch the series made by Aronra, he'll explain how your crude understanding of evolution is severely flawed. Really, just watch it, what have you got to lose.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@thomaseshuis It was Darwin who stated that four legged animals with short necks will eventually become giraffes. So Darwin ideas were pointless? Otherwise, provide me a list of four legged animals with shorts necks that gradually change into a giraffe. Since the changes were incremental there should be thousands of forms in between if evolution is true.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog 'It was Darwin who stated that four legged animals with short necks will eventually become giraffes.' 1. Just because he got the evolution of one species wrong, does not mean the rest of his theory is also wrong. It's not the basis of his theory. 2. Evolution theory has long since evolved beyond the specific theory that Darwin postulated.
Current evolution theory does not state that all four legged animals evolve to creatures with long necks.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@daogdaog 'Since the changes were incremental there should be thousands of forms in between if evolution is true. ' Again you show a great deal of ignorance on the current theory of evolution.
Untill you've watched the video's by Aronra or read some other up to date science book I'm done discussing with you, as you have not the faintest idea what evolution is.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@daogdaog not all animals live in the same environment as giraffes. giraffes eat i think from the Acacia tree. zebras don't a zebra with a giant neck and legs like a giraffe will find it difficult to eat grass. just look at how awkwardly they drink water. zebras eat grass, they're suited for that.
Nixom1334 5 months ago
@Nixom1334 Studies have shown that giraffes normally eat vegetation just above the ground, those short scrubs even during droughts. Since female giraffes are normally a meter shorter than males, they should have starved and died according to Darwin. Can you provide a list of at least 10 four legged animals with shorts necks that gradually transformed into a giraffe?
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog I would like a link to your studies. If you have ever turned animal planet on you will almost always see them eating from a tree. and also you might want to look at the Okapi, shorter neck yet related to the giraffe. both of this animals share a common ancestor.
Nixom1334 5 months ago
@Nixom1334 There are so many articles in the internet that disproved Darwin version on how giraffe evolved. Okapi coexisted with long necked giraffes and the assumed ancestors of okapi actually existed after the okapi. Assumed ancestors of okapi had long highly developed antlers. Those antlers had to undergo a reverse evolution just to fit okapi form. There is no evidence that okapi gradually transformed into a giraffe. Goats are known to climb trees. They dont need long necks to feed.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog just because Darwing might be wrong doesn't mean the concept is false.
hahahaha, you naive little boy of course okapis don't turn into giraffes, they're not pokemon you moron. and as for your "reverse" evolution there's no such thing. like i said they're not pokemon just because they're cooler doesn't mean they're the "evolved form". as you might know Okapi's live in dense forests, forest's where big Sivatherium could not fit , hence smaller body and antlers.
Nixom1334 5 months ago
@Nixom1334 okapis don't turn into giraffes? okapis are supposed ancestors of giraffes. I think you need some reading about results of scientific studies. You must have spent so much time watching cartoon network and animal planet. You dont even know that giraffes dont normally feed on acacia trees. Darwin stated that giraffes evolved by natural selection. If he was wrong as you claimed, it means that giraffes are the only animals that did not evolve by natural selection.
daogdaog 5 months ago
@daogdaog Okapis don't turn into giraffes, hahaha. they share a common ancestor their both from the Giraffidae family their not each other's ancestor, that's like saying chimps are our ancestor, and no, they're not our ancestor. what you're stating can be compared to saying that your cousin is your grandpa. unless you have some Oedipus shit going on in your family that's not going to happen.
Nixom1334 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nixom1334 In that case can you provide list of at least 10 four legged ancestor animals with shorts necks that GRADUALLY transformed into a giraffe?
daogdaog 5 months ago
@Nixom1334 another thing, like I said the concept is right even if darwin is wrong about giraffes. the conceot being Natural selection and evolution. please give me the name of what you think the common ancestor is because there is one. I already gave Sivatherium. another thing, giraffes do feed on Acacia trees, I think it's acacia I could be wrong regardless it's a tall thorny tree, hence their long leathery tongues. tongues perfectly evolved to eat from thorny branches.
Nixom1334 5 months ago
@Nixom1334 another thing to consider is their neck battles, giraffes with long strong necks have favorable chances while competing with rivals for food and/or females.
to your other argument Okapis and giraffes are cousins although yes Okapis are extremely old, even considered living fossils. but this is where branching comes in, where common ancestors divide into different species. commonly because of habitat as we can see with the giraffes habitat: Savannah and the okapis: Jungle.
Nixom1334 5 months ago
@daogdaog "Although giraffes can feed as low as 0.5 m and as high as 6 m off the ground, it appears that they most often feed between 2 and 4 m (7–14 ft).[38] However"
it's not that hard to use wikipedia dude. 7 ft. isn't just above the ground.
Nixom1334 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nixom1334 Again provide a list here of at least 10 four legged animals with shorts necks that GRADUALLY evolved or transformed into a giraffe? We will examine them one by one.
daogdaog 5 months ago
What you say is not true. Evolution, scientific evolution doesn't accept God. If you speak of evolution you have to say where it came from, you can't just say that animals evolve, you need to explain the main engine and how this engine came to be. You can't just say that animals evolve. If God created everything, even using evolution, then it's not evolution, it's creation.
cmpresents 6 months ago
@cmpresents
Wow... you just don't pay attention. Evolution has NOTHING to say about the origin of life. Nada. No more than the bible has to say about the origin of video games. It is completely unconcerned with the origin, only with what happened once life existed. It also doesn't have anything to say about whether or not "god" created everything. It DOESN'T CARE. At all. There are theories about how life came to be in the first place, go bother those people.
atalkingcow 6 months ago
@atalkingcow No, you don't pay attention. Scientist don't believe in creation,they don't believe in God. If you don't believe in God you can't tell me that life just evolves, you have to tell me how this life came to be. Because if God created it, then it's not evolution, it's creation. Atheist love to play games with this word.
cmpresents 6 months ago
@cmpresents
Rather than argue semantics with you, I'll just leave you with this. We can see evolution happen. We can provide evidence that it has been happening for a long ass time. You have yet to provide proof of your god. Forgive me for not taking you seriously.
atalkingcow 6 months ago
@atalkingcow Fine, a computer programmer can make a ai agent in a computer and you can say it's "evolving", but the programmer created the agent, the agent didn't create itself. Evolution doesn't mean that there is no creator, and if there is a creator, then it's not evolution, it's creation. And that's the whole argument, we can be here for ever arguing semantics. The important thing is who started the process, not how it happens. I can say that creation is evolving.
cmpresents 6 months ago
@cmpresents
You have this idea in your head that evolution negates creation. It doesn't. Not even a little. And creation doesn't negate evolution. Neither of them have anything to say about the other. At all. Your argument boils down to, "This potato grew on a plant, therefore 2+2 does not equal 4." You make no sense, your argument doesn't even remotely address the point. And for the last time,we don't just say"It's evolving" We watch it happen. That's why you need a new flu vaccine every year.
atalkingcow 6 months ago
Evolution doesn't cause more peaceful societies, etc. They are both effects of the same cause: a more educated, rational populace.
every116 6 months ago
WORDS
mikeeboy1000 6 months ago
ever considered republishing these videos in HD?
RafaChannel3001 6 months ago
Micro evolution yes macro no no proof of macro never has been.
glendaweil 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glendaweil
Try to find some newer creationist fallacies to repeat as a mindless parrot.
That's a really old one and everyone is tired of it already.
Read and learn:
wikipedia . org / wiki / Macroevolution#Misuse
talkorigins . org / indexcc / CB / CB901 . html
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 6 months ago
@raptorcat61
Looking back, almost would have been a better fit.
nukepwetty 7 months ago
I feel like a horrible person saying this, but the terrorist blowing up is the most hillarious thing I've seen in a long time.
nukepwetty 7 months ago
@nukepwetty Don't feel bad, I found it hilarious and you can find the entire clip on Military.com.
You get guys that stupid when you mix weapons with uneducated religious zeal.
raptorcat61 7 months ago
Just to end all arguments, let's build a time machine, go back to the beginning of the universe and see for yourself how it all happened. lol
icky8vicky 10 months ago
If you want 'transitional forms' look at plants. They're not just all around, they're the top fear about Genetic Modification. Plant species are so close on a continuum and interbreed to create new species that anti-GM fear something fine in a domestic crop could transfer to the wild in a different species with unknown consequences - because it happens even without GM.
Saiaton 11 months ago
Hello everyone. i have another creationist scientist teacher question. we were talking about transitional species the other day and he said there is not transitional forms found. I tried to tell him about titaalk and homo erectus and homo habilis but his only rebuttal is "look online how many bones of those species they have". this leaves me speechless and unable to respond. who many fossils do you need to definitvely prove an animal is a seperate species not just a failed mutation?
spartan5261 1 year ago
@spartan5261 a good example of transitional forms are whales. Land dwelling dudes to large ass whale dudes. There are a good amount of fossils for this and are spaced in ways that are well in rage of predictions using comparative anatomy. Also many types of flightless birds are good examples of a species that lost use of wings for flight due to their environment not having need for wings to fly. Does it mean that god put wings on them that serve no purpose? Ask him that
Iopipimps 1 year ago
@spartan5261
A "creationist scientist teacher" ......... huuuuh? "Creationist" I get. "Science teacher" I get.
But together? The "creationist scientist teacher"-creature is fully as absurd as the creationists' fantasmagorical creations of duck-billed-dogs and the like.
Get a science teacher!
growingvegetable 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spartan5261 ---- "look online how many bones of those species they have" ---- It dosent matter if you have 1 skeleton or a thousand skeletons. Tiktaatilk existed... so did homo erectus. Tiktaatilk is structuraly both a fish and a tetropod. If it truely was a "failed" mutation then creationists have quite an uphill battle trying explain why it had functional gills yet at the same time was tetropodal.
AcanLord 11 months ago
Gay people can have *non-reproductive* sex just fine for pleasure and bonding (as almost all heterosexuals do); it is not "counterfeit." Furthermore, because in any non-ass-backwards nation, heterosexual marriages are not invalidated by inability or refusal to produce children or raise already-born children (and gay people absolutely can do the latter), it logically follows that procreation is absolutely *not* a criterion for marriage: that leaves pair bonding, which gay people are capable of.
belladonna5012 1 year ago 35
@belladonna5012 I just wanted to say that was a great comment.
bugninja80 1 year ago
Furthermore, there is no evidence that same-sex unions "impersonate" anything. Gay people do not believe they can produce children without obtaining a sperm or ovum from an outside source (presently: science is hard at work cracking the epigenetic properties of sperm and ova, and ability to manipulate these properties would allow for two sperm or two ova to be spliced for reproductive purposes), and the assumption that they do is absurd.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
The Christian bible is not suitable as a guide to morality because its lawgiver, in many instances, explicitly condones rape, genocide, slavery, and other such atrocities (and no, you can't put those in any context that makes them acceptable). If a deity ordered me to commit any of the above, I would disobey, because I consider rape, genocide, and slavery to be immoral--and any who would disobey a deity ordering them to do such things necessarily rejects morality by divine or biblical authority.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
id love to see this guy debate kent hovind... or myself... he would loose both ways...he jsut talking on the computer hes not being challenged and thats where he would fail...
yetiwestin 1 year ago
@yetiwestin He might have some trouble debating Hovind. Not that I think Hovind has anything to offer mind you. He just might have trouble fitting it into his schedule,. What with the fake doctor currently serving jail time for fraud and all that.
MattThermo 1 year ago
@yetiwestin you're just talking on the computer as well.. and it's not about who can argue better but who is RIGHT!! and he definitely is
DaMastaOfRoad 1 year ago
What a lie! You say evolution as taught today does not teach abiogensis. Almost every science text book you pick up says that there was rain on the rocks for millions of years and ligthing struck the chemical soup forming life. You suggested in another video were a Christian except you argue for a viewpoint that has no support Biblically. You are not a Christian, get off the fence and stop lying to yourself.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrownIdeas FYI, this was made in 2007, this is 3 years later into the present. Donexodus2 is no longer on the fence and lying to himself. And for the record, no where does a text book or biology book in any form and level says anything about " rain on the rocks for millions of years and ligthing struck the chemical soup forming life" That bs is what is put on creationist sites and apologist sites, its actually completely made up.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas This video is two years old. Remember that.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi Nothing I said was any less relevant 2 years ago. What is your issue with what I said? I am asking the producer of the video to be logically consistent. If they have changed their position they should remove the video. I am a Christian and believe the Bible is authoritative. Some sciences have advanced technology, but microbes to man Darwninian type evolution, which is historical or at best forensic science, has contributed nothing to modern advancements.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Someone changes their faith. You require them to delete every video in which they held their previous faith? Changes happen. If you're offended by this or something, then don't watch the previous video. Or better yet, message the uploader.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi ok, point taken, but why do you care?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Honestly? Because trivial things like that amuse me. Why do you?
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi I don't want people to be self-decieved. If you believe Darwins history of the earth then Christian theology falls apart. If no Adam no original sin, and sin can't be the reason for death. If sin is not the reason for death, then why did Jesus die for our sins? Since both positions are about events occurring in the past, they both take faith to believe. Both may appeart to have evidence to support them, but it is still based ultimately on faith.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Actually, Christian theology falls apart without needing aid from Darwin's history of the Earth. However, that isn't a discussion which I'll get into here, as there are many videos on YouTube which address the subject more succinctly and efficiently than I can.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi how do you figure that? Every place in the world true Christianity has been made better for it. It is completely distinct and far above any other world religion, because it's not a religion. It's the answert to religion. How much have you really study Christianity and the Bible?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas You are answering something different from what I proposed (granted, I was vague. I take fault for that). Specifically, I am saying that the logic and reasoning contained within the bible fall apart when you analyze them at all. Zinnia Jones and AronRa's channels sum up pretty much everything I could say, go take a look. (cont'd)
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi The crusades were not a true expression of Christianity. It was a government that was using the name of God as a politcal reason for imperialism. This Zinnia Jones doesn't make any rational arguments for atheism. HIs argument is I'm gay so it can't be wrong, therefore there's no God?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Honestly, the Bible does nothing but superficially assuage our thirst for knowledge, prematurely ending the search for answers. And no, Christianity has not made the world better everywhere it's been. The Crusades would hardly fit your claim. People globally use the Bible to persecute people, with it being the only reason they do so. Have you seen anything of the LGBT fight? Proposition 8? The Family Research Counsel?
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
Crownideas:
Ignore this diot, he is a troll, and will not address one single point you make, except perhaps to brush over it (like "the crusades" makes Christianity bad(, then he moves on as though his accusation has completely vindicated everything he has said, and everything he will ever say, and just spouts out a load of rubbih.
He is either an idiot, or is dawkins (these are the only 2 people who are so arrogant, that you literally cant get a word in, thru the bullshit)
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Hey typo, are you talking about me? Because I don't think I've ever chatted with you before. Or are you talking about MagrasKashi?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas:
ha ha, sorry, i was tlaking to you about him. Just advising you, you will get nothing except aggrivated, talking to him.
Mother Teresa said "if you dont want that child, give it to me" (she used to take in orphans, and was speaking against abortiion.
His reply was "yes, mother teresa wanted children, so she could indoctrinate them".
Over afew shared comments, i realised, all i was getting was angry. Then he bollocks me for not answering his questions - he's a wind up merchant.
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas:
Cont'd....
He will nto bother to answer oyu, except for ridiculus insults, but will accuse you of cowardice for not answering him. If you do start answering he will bombard you with idiotic questions, and put words in your mouth, then state those words as evidence that you are a lier, or stupid or something.
Another example: i stated that i DID have experience of abortion, cus my ex did one, without my agreement - he said i was using "tainted, irrelevant experience", as evidence.
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome @AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Do not misquote me. Your experience was made irrelevant by your own comparison. You claimed that experience matters because it provides practical information in career fields, which is completely different from what you experienced.
I will quote you directly if you do not believe me.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome (cont'd)Your experience tainted your opinion. Not once had I said that it was tainted, irrelevant experience. The latter part yes, but not the former.
Cowardice? Again, not once. I pointed out that you did not answer my questions, this is not the equivalent of calling you a coward. I simply asked you to answer them..
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
You just keep rambling on to yourself, yu dirty little creep. Im not replying to your hounding messages, any more.
You are liek a friggin stalker, who wont go away, aond contradicts EVERY single word. Go and cry to your parents, if you have any, not me - im not here to answer your beck and call - thats yor mothers job.
Go and pull the man next door off her, and get your attention form her, like all the other men in your street do.
You little FRIEK !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome And you still have not answered my questions. Talking to you is like talking to a stump.
Show me how every word of what I've said is contradictory. If you can't, then don't make claims you know to be wrong.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas:
Finally:
So, if having your child killed in the womb, by your ex, against your wishes, just because she'd decided she wanted to shag her dads friend, instead, ISNT worthy experience of abortion - WHAT IS ?
His evidence was to tell me im bad, because "what if a woman is raped" ? (even though hardly ANY abortions are as a result of rape).
Then, when yu check his channel - HE's a FRIGGIN TEENAGER - AAAAAARGH !
You realsie, youve been phillosophising with a cock tugger !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome thanks for the advice Tip, I don't allow people like this get me angry. I do think they need to be answered though when they speak lies and misrepresent the truth. I believe that there is objective moral truth and those who deny it are just trying to justify their only immorality.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas:
Yes, thats more or less what i say:
WHY does anyone feel it so absolutely neccessary to deny even the possibility that there could be a father like God, who created us, for his own reasons ?
Answer: because they are dirty little homos, paedos, murderers, or some other kind of horrible little creatures, who KNOW they cannot prosper ina God lovong world !
I dont KNOW if there's a God, because I havent met him - but I HOPE there is one, cus im not a dingy little paedo/murderer.
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying,God, be merciful to me a sinner! contd..
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas:
Im not usre i undertsand all that, completely.
all im saying is, i agree with the pope, when he said Europe is being threatened by "aggressive athiesm".
The dirty little rats want to shout us off the stage, and force us to stop teaching our children about god, at school. But at the same time, any 12 year old in britain, is now being taught ANAL SEX lessons - how to get pleasure form anal sex !!
First it was "sex education", then they got the homo bit added in. The war has begun!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Yes, I agree that our society in general is in moral decay. The reason for that is that men are born with evil in their hearts. It is a war but it's not against people in general. For it says in Eph. 6:12 we wrestle not against fleshand blood, but against spiritual principalities and power of this dark age, and dark spiritual forces. It's not wether God is with us, but wether or not we are with him.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Utterly ridiculous. I'm fine with you teaching your religion. Do it in a religious school, where it belongs. It has no place in the public school system, else there would be no distinction between public schools and catholic schools. If you were to put god in public school, you'd violate the religious rights of every other group.
Anal sex is not a homosexually-exclusive action. Another preposterous claim. Schools teach sexual education so students can practice safe-sex.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 18:10-14. Jesus has the answers for the sinner and we all have sinned. Just some sins are more socially acceptable than others or are more viseral to your average person, but to God all sin is worthy of death, but eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. Rom. 6:23
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Again, incorrect. I did not call you "bad" for denying abortions caused by rape - I pointed out that your blanketing statement is incorrect because it fails to take into account every possible situation. You did not once provide a solution which takes into account both sides, you hooted and hollered without thinking.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi How does the fight for preserving marriage as the foundation of the family not make everything better. No one is saying gays and lesbians don't have the freedom to practice their lifestyle. They don't have the right to destroy the institution of marriage. Many cultures in the past who recognize homosexual activity still saw marriage as between a man and a woman. That's the only natural way to procreate.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Preserving marriage as the foundation of the family? What exactly are you saying here? Studies have shown that sexual orientation of the parents has no effect on the development of children. If you require a link then I will provide you with one.
Marriage is not only for procreation.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi Those studies are completely subjective. They already consider any sexual orientation as normal so the sexual confusion to the child that may be caused in that situation is considered to be normal and therefore of no effect.
It's not only for procreation but it is an integral part of the greater whole. Therefore, single gender unions can never truly be a marriage because they only impersonate what naturally takes place, and by defenition are counterfet.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Whether a sexual orientation is normal or not is not related to the effects of these studies whatsoever. They monitor the development of the child independent of this notion and compare those results to child development in heterosexual parents. I will send you the link to the studies.
Marriage is not natural - it is a man-made institution. Natural refers to occurrence in nature. If marriage were natural, then animals in nature would get married. This is not the case.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi well, I wasn't commenting wether or not marriage was natural or occurs in nature, I was refering to natural pro-creation. Actually, though there are species of animals that do mate for life. Many varieties of birds do this. So your whole argument does not hold water. The point was they are subjective because they only deal with certain developmental features those that wouldn't be effected reguardless
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Do these birds perform ceremonies that link them together for life? Marriage is not the same as mating for life.
You were not referring to natural procreation. "single gender unions can never truly be a marriage because they only impersonate what naturally takes place". This has nothing to do with procreation, and everything to do with marriage.
However, if marriage is so strongly related to procreation then why do couples marry but not procreate? Considering it's so integral.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi What happens naturally is a man and woman have sex and that produces another human being. If 2 men or 2 women have sex it produces nothing except maybe an STD. I am a Christian and believe the Bible gives us the complete standard for morality. And it says the valid place for sex is in marriage(defined as 1 woman 1 man until death). This provides stability & safety for what in most cases leads to procreation. Marriage iiiis lifelong monogamy.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas STDs are produced within heterosexual intercourse as well, that has absolutely no bearing on anything.
Of course you take the Bible as your complete standard for morality, your faith prohibits you from doing otherwise.
If marriage were truly lifelong monogamy, then married persons would not cheat on their spouses. Marriage is simply the union between two people that legally binds them as partners and bestows all the legal/financial benefits they receive as a married couple.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi True heterosexuals who engage in multiple sex partners are likely to get an std, but I not as likely as people engagin in gay or lesbian sex.
What do you use as a standard for morality. At least I have a standard.
The standard is lifelong monogamy and that is what people expect out of marriage. Well, marriage has always gone beyond its legal implications until the debate for same sex marriage.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas:
ha ha, i TOLD you !
He will just contradict you, with an irrelivant pice of information, which may be true on its own, but actually doesnt answer your question - THEN he will state his opinion, as htough it is a proven fact - FULL STOP, YOU LOSE (according to him).
And the longer you try to debate, with any normal standard fo reaosning, the more points he thinks he's clockign up against oyu.
In the end, he will jsut tell you you've lost, and should shut up - you watch !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I'm not worried about it. I know why he argues for his position so rabidly. He's also fighting against his own conscience. He knows what he is saying is wrong, but if he admits it than he might have to change his own lifestyle.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas:
Yep !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas And by the way, by our moral standards in this civil society is more moral than the bible. Again, you have no argument. By our laws, god would be put on trial and sentenced to execution for his "immorality"
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas:
Stop telling me to show you things, or proof, or anything, you little weirdo !
No one like syu because you are a little weirdo.
You dont say anything - you are just rude and obnoxious. As i saod before, you are either Dawkins, ro soemone who sucks his backside.
Either way, look at the Dawkins vids, and imagine... does ANYONE liek him ? NO - no one likes him. His own children and parents and children (if he were man enough to make any) would hate him. Why ?
Becuase he's a HOOOMO !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome I assume you were referring to me? If you are going to leave a comment, have the decency to address it to the correct person.
I can guarantee that more people like a respectful person than a belligerent loudmouth.
I have said plenty. If you believe otherwise, you're illiterate.
You have degenerated to a mess of meaningless rambling, ad hominem attacks and baseless claims. People like you need to be properly educated, for clearly you have not been.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
Hey, get stuffed i will NOT obey you, nor whow you ANY respect, you dirty little weirdo.
And yuo may well be able to guarantee that people like respectful people better than a belligerant loudmouth - but WHO gave YOU the title of "respectful" ?
YOU did - YOU thnk YOU decide everything, because you are a stupid little weirdo, who relentlessly mouths off at people, trying to wear them down.
Basicaly, you are a little baby, with akeyboard, crying all over the interent - WOOAAAH!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Marriage was for the most part of history, two people agreeing to live together. There was no law, no marriage license or sacraments involved.
Also, I think if you asked newlyweds why they married each other, you would find few if any couples say "For the children."
People marry for love in Western countries, though there are cultures that still have arranged marriages.
So, why DO people marry each other?.
And Sterile heterosexual Marriages? MARRIAGE DENIED !?
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp What are you talking about? Marriage goes back at least 5,000 years. And thru all of the 5,000 years (varified by ancient writings like the Bible and summarian text) There was always some type of procedure that took place,exchanging doweries wedding parties etc. You are extrapulating things I said out of context. I was talking about why homosexual adoption is different from heterosexual. Not why people get married.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas As for the whole gay marriage claim you make being rooted in religion is incorrect. Marriage is a cultural practice.In principle, NOT religious in nature. If you were right, marriage would not be legal since the 1st amendment disqualifies it. But since you are wrong, marriage is a civil legal responsibility. If you were right and the constitution did not have seperation of church and state, then marriage would only be allowed to be performed by the church ALONE!
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy Actually no where does the constitution say seperation of church an state. 1st amendment says, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of. You anti-religious fascist are always trying to turn that around to say the government doesn't allow for religion. Christmas is definately rooted in religion and all Federal and state Governements in the US recognize it as a Holiday, or if you will Holy day!
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas I know that is what it says, it means the same thing. If you are that dense there is no hope for you. ALL the politicians use that phrase because its shorter. That doesnt make it partisen in the least. Since all do so, because there is no debate as to the reference. Christmas IS NOT based in christianity, christianity merely cloaked and stole it. Smoke and mirrors dear. JESUS didnt even exist. It isnt going to be a federal holiday much longer. The truth always prevails.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy You apparently don't know your history. The term "seperation of church and state" came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist minister in Danbury Conneticut. It was used in a supreme court case to show the founders intent. It is used by alot of politicians but the doesn't make it in the constitution. Jesus didn't even exist? Who would make such a preposterous statement. There is plenty of proof he existed, as much as any Roman emperor has of existing, perhaps more.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Exactly, he coined the phrase because its "in short". Documentaries are not classified as tv shows, they count as education. Which is what ancient aliens is, documentaries. In which you can verify everything claimed. Its called scientific evidence, ever heard of it? Not giving you ad hominems.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy He used the phrase one time in a letter. Some lawyer took months researching something he could use in his favor. The lawyers in The 20th century coined it. A ducumentary by defintion is a tv show. Look at the experts they have on that show(which I do watch and find entertaining) see if they are well respected in thier feilds. When someone quotes you historical facts that are easily confirmed and you call them stupid that is a personal attack, thankyou.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas It isnt the fact that is stupid it is the fact that you dont understand that they mean the same fucking thing. That is the reasoning of my opinion of your stupidity.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Its only an ad hominem if it is only a personal attack. I give the reason for it, which takes the whole ad hominem thing into ad populem. It is universally agreed that in fact, there is nothing to substantiate the existance of jesus. Hearsay 3 generations removed is only that. I can give you tons of references for that
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy I think you'll find that even the most liberal Bible scholar would confirm that all canonical scipture was completed within 100 years of the start of the Christian movement. Much of the New Testament is firsthand eyewitness testimony. Matthew assumed to be the apostle of the same name. Mark a student of Apostle Peter, Luke the companion of many of the Apostles who interviewed eyewitnesses. John, was himself the youngest apostle. Apostle Paul wrote of his own experiences.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas NO there is ZERO evidence to conclude that. Look it up. There is ZERO eyewitness testimony. Thats a lie and they get away with pretending otherwise. Paul never met jesus, he was not even born yet! The phrase is still the truth no matter if you use the verbatim example long, or the short one. You have yet to make an argument that they are different from each other. They mean the same thing.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy Don't you think it strange that Paul never mentions a living Jesus when gospel says they were both in Jerusalem at the same time and Paul 'persecuting' Christians? What do you mean, 'Paul not born yet'? He is writing before 50, Jesus dies in the 30s. So Paul was a teenager? He held the cloaks at Stephen's (illegal) stoning (a lynch mob) shortly after Jesus died. He's born about five years before or after Jesus. Just shows how faith blinds to clear scriptural statement.
Saiaton 11 months ago
@Saiaton Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations.
splicedenergy 11 months ago
@Saiaton Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earthTherefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.
splicedenergy 11 months ago 11
@CrownIdeas The bible is proven to be fiction. As for your attempt to bring the sumerian tablets into evidence, I must remind you that sumerians were talking about the Annunaki, AKA ALIEN VISITORS not god. You really are clueless
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy Ah no, you are clueless that idea of the Annunaki being aliens was made up by a guy who claimed to be a ancient language expert.(Zacharia Sitchin) Turns out the guy didn't know what he was talking about. Do the research from reputable language experts. They didn consider them god's..
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas 2 seasons of ancient aliens on the history channel proves that you are the one whom is clueless. You also do not seem to understand that the act of sex does not define a persons sexuality. It has little to do with intercourse. But you are really stupid, one of the stupidiest Ive ever come across on youtube. I cant fix your stupid. Pitiful
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy You're going to use a tv show as your support for proof? The only stupid thing here is that when you start to lose an argument, you resort to name-calling and personal attacks.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas "It's not only for procreation but it is an integral part of the greater whole.
Please explain " an integral part of the greater whole."
You wrote: "they only impersonate what naturally takes place, and by defenition are counterfet."
So, homosexuals have counterfeit sex? Your definition?
It's NOT legal TENDERness ?
Or are you saying they don't really enjoy it and counterfeit their orgasms?
Maybe we should ban contraceptive devices and pills for married couples?
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp I mean, that when a man and a woman have intercourse without any contraceptive there is a very good chance that they will produce an offspring. If 2 men or 2 women have sex they will never, never produce offspring. This is teh way of nature... For homosexuals to pretend they can have children without the oposite sex somehow involved is counterfeit. 2 people somewhere had to supply the sperm and the egg. Not 2 eggs or 2 sperm.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas #1 My homosexual grandfather produced 2 sets of twin girls, 2 boys and 4 single birth girls. #2 More than 500 other social species (we are a social species) display homosexuality. Much of those species have a higher ratio than our species do. #3 Same Sex Sexual intercourse in principle alone DOES NOT define homosexuality. Anyone gay, straight or in different can choose to enjoy sex with what consentual adult. Especially if you are a crackhead, HELLO! #4 you have no argument
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy Ya, your homosexual grandfather was not homosexual he was obviously bisexual.. Duh! he apparently wasn't impodent with the opposite sex right?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas no dummy. The act does not dicate ones sexuality. Go look in the dictionary
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy This is from Merriam Webster online.....
Homosexual - of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas Homosexuality - Definition
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by esthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for another of the same sex. (For an analysis of the difficulties involved in the issue of identification, see homosexuality and transgender and also heterosexuality and bisexuality.) wordiq/ (Psychology) a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas adj1. (Psychology) of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) of or relating to the same sex Compare heterosexual
Collins English Dictionary freedictionary com/ Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual,
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them wikipedia Wanna try leaving in the rest of the definition instead of cutting out that which you disagree with.
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@splicedenergy I used the whole defention, there was just more than one. The other defintion wasn't much different it just had the words related to in front of it. How do any of the defintions you put out support your claim that who you have sex with doesn't tell wether someone is a homosexual or not?
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas I said that the sexual act ALONE does not make one a homosexual. Can you even read. There is a severe disconnect in your head for real
splicedenergy 1 year ago
@CrownIdeas As simple as I can make it, I will explain it to you. If you still dont get it, its not my problem to deal with. If you who is obviously a one man and one woman person and for whatever reason had sexual relations with someone who is the same gender as you purely out of experiance does not and will not define you as a homosexual for the rest of your life. Whether you did it for money, for experimentation, as a drunken stupor, as a prostitute or whatever. That does not make you a homo
splicedenergy 1 year ago
Big Bang theory explained better 1400 yrs ago than no
Quran 21.30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together then I RIPPED them apart? And then I made of Water everything living? Would they still not believe
Big Crunch:
[Quran 21.104] On the day when I will fold the heaven, like the folder compacts the books, and as I originated the first creation I shall return it; a promise (binding on me); surely I will deliver.
StuntWorkz 1 year ago
@StuntWorkz
And it's just a copy of the Rig Veda that was written 1900 years earlier.
Atharkas 1 year ago
@Atharkas big bang is a controversy by its self cos there was no BANG and it was not BIG nor was there explosion. everything was ripped and fabric of space was created. i did read some Vedas and in no way does it explain more precise than Quran.
here is from Vedas
"Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
With no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
That ONE arose through the power of heat"
nice try!!!!!
StuntWorkz 1 year ago
@StuntWorkz
Actually, the big bang just explains the expansion. Only idiots believe it was an explosion or loud. And I actually meant the 10th mandala, 72nd hymn and how the hindu mythology speaks of a cyclic universe (expansion/contraction) instead of just born out of nothing/expansion that islams claim. Good things both are mere fairy tales.
Atharkas 1 year ago
Recently some very delusional person suggested that there are no transitional forms, he wanted to see one species give birth to another species. I don't know why I bother responding to these people.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Because smart people find that level of stupidity offensive?
Macrochenia 1 year ago
@Macrochenia
XD
That may be about right. I just feel inclined to dispel ignorance if I can despite my meager knowledge on subjects such as biology.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
How can this pig ignorant science friek claim that ABORTION is LESS prevelant in countries where evolution is accepted, when in actual fact, the catholic church and islam FORBID abortion, and so there would be NONE, if religion were our guide.
He is SO untruthful, to claim that SECULARISM REDUCES ABORTION - what a lier !!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome If abortion was illegal, women would be forced to do it in back alleys with coat hangers. Just because someone forbids something, it doesn't mean that everyone will stop doing it.
Annulable 1 year ago
@Annulable:
WRONG - if abortion were ilegal, then LESS women would do it, because not all women would be prepared to "do it in a back alley with coat hangers" (you IDIOT).
And NO, it doesnt mean that EVERYONE will stop doing it, just because its ilegal, but the fact hat LESS people would do it, menas that MORE children would be allowed to be born, and have alife on God's earth.
Presumably, you dont give a shit, because YOU were'nt ripped to pieces, in your mothers womb. Do some RESEARCH on it
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1. Prove it's god's earth.
2. Presumably, you don't understand that denying a person the right to do with their body as they please is wrong, nor do you comprehend all of the reasons behind an abortion. Would you want a mother to birth her child if it would grievously injure or even kill her? What about rape victims? Should they be forced to give birth to a child they will hate, something that lives on as a reminder of the violent torture they endured?
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome What you say here directly contradicts what you say below. Reread your earlier comment. And reread Annulable's comment. Is there any reference to a quantified difference in abortions taking place? Frankly, no there isn't.
Want to check trends between abortion and secularism? Type "trends between abortion rates and evolution" into Google. Point 16 in the Journal of Religion and Society outlines it.
"freak" is not spelled with an i. "Liar" is not spelled with an e, either.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
So, by YOUR rationale (babble, mor elike), it makes NO dofference if abortion is legal, or ilega ?
So why not make it ilegal then ?
IOh, its because you are full of babble, and are trying to fool people - BYE !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Are you trying to tell me that the legality of abortion doesn't matter? Is this what you think I said? Because, unless you can point out specifically where I said that the legality of abortion doesn't matter, then you're putting words into my mouth.
Why not make it illegal? Simple. Because making abortion illegal is violating any woman's right to have an abortion (do as she wish with her body), regardless of the reason. Are you a woman? No? Then don't tell women what to do.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
Cont'd....
So whilst I do NOT consider myself the ultimatesource of knowledge for the subject, i DO have relevant experience, and KNOW that my child should be alive, not dead. There was NO physical or mental reason for her to murder our child.... she just took her father's word, that since i had refused to join the masons, and had argued with him, that she would be better off with his friend (a policemen).
Are YOU in agreement, that our child was HER child ? NOT mine ?
GROW UP!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome So rape victims have a duty to birth the embodiment of their torture? Women aren't vessels for birth. They do not have a duty to do anything.
Changing one's mind is natural. People do it on a daily basis. Regardless, nature has no place in this area.
I am not being self-righteous. Read your comments. You would have MURDERED HER FATHER. And you're justifying this?
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome And you haven't answered my questions, so I'll bring them back up. Would you want a mother to birth her child if it would grievously injure or even kill her? What about rape victims? Should they be forced to give birth to a child they will hate, something that lives on as a reminder of the violent torture they endured?
Your opinion is biased due to past life experiences, you can't look at the topic objectively. Abortion is not universally right nor universally wrong.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
It has NOTHING to do with "rape victim" or "dangerous births" etc., since these are NOT the reason for the vast majority of abortions.
The normal reaosn is that some girl had sex, knowing that if she did get pregnant, she could have a pill, or an abortion. Most of those girls would have taken MUCH more care, if they werent gonna be allowed an abortion.
As Mother Teresa said "if you dont want the child, give it to me" (NOT MURDER IT).
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Yes, Mother Teresa would have wanted the child...so she could indoctrinate it.
Cite a statistic or study for your claim that the normal reason for abortion is that the mother was careless. Can you prove this claim? If so, do so. If not, then don't make the claim.
And you aren't answering the questions I asked you. Just because these cases may not be the majority, they should not be taken into account? Ridiculous! By your logic, the rights of minorities shouldn't matter.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome And yes, it has everything to do with rape victims and dangerous births, these are still reasons for abortion! I can't believe you'd even claim that they do not matter! Talk about immorality.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi
Finally: YOU would never have been aborted by ANY Christian, Muslim or ANY religious familly - ONLY filfthy athiests would ever DARE to murder a babay, born or unborn !
Just because your disgusting govt says its legal, doesnt give YOU a licence to kill !
You wouldnt have the guts to murder a baby which was 5 minutes old, so dont BRAGG about having the guts to murder it 5 minutes before it could have been born.
I have a girl 21 yrs old, who was born EARLIER the one aborted !!!!!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome Can you prove I would never have been aborted by a religious family, or only atheists abort?
This is just fallacious, it appeals to emotion instead of making actual arguments. It also makes ridiculous claims that it cannot prove.
I am not bragging about anything, I am arguing that a woman should have the right to do as she please (especially if her health is concerned). You, in contrast, 'bragged' that you would murder someone's father. Don't project your actions onto me.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
Yes, religious families DONT go around aborting children (on the whole).
There is MUCH less chance of being aborted in a religious family, since they would muddle together and get through it, with a new life in their familly, and love the child.
And the right to "Do as You Please" is the ONE AND ONLY law, in the SATANIC BIBLE. Whether you call yourself satanic or not, YOU base your entire phylosophy on THEIR LAW.
Dont dont try and babble me, with your "rights to kill".
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome This is not proof. Again, cite a statistic or study to prove your claim.
Religious families cast out their children just as quickly as any other. If that child is not religious, or in MANY cases, is not heterosexual, then they are ostracized by these people.
There is no such thing as a satanic bible, unless this is what your bible is called?
I base my philosophy (see the spelling) on what is morally correct. I don't let my opinions be clouded, like you do.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome
Ah, if only you were conceived in an Atheist mother, then YOU might have been aborted. What a wonderful place the world would have been without you.
luminaeus 1 year ago
@luminaeus:
Yes, of course, the "evolutionist" (ignorant satanic demon, as far as im concerned) resorts to wishing me dead, for objecting to child murder. Even stating how WONDERFUL the world would be, if i had not been born.
How ridiculous can you get ?
You see, this is the intelligence of the average "moderately educated" person. You spout out such idiotic rubbish, and truly believe that you sound intelligent, and you feel clever, for makign up a vile sentence.
How pathetic !!
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome It's not child murder. It's fetal. Fetuses don't have a consciousness in early stages of development, they don't even know they exist. And they don't care because they can't care. You cannot judge value on potential, only on what has been realized.
And vile statements? I'll call your attention to your own vile statement:
"I wish I had killed her father, and left her to have our child, with me in prison."
True, utter hypocrisy.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
The difference between you and i, is that i wish id done prison, to save a child's life, whereas YOU would hapilly support the killing of a child, as long as it hasnt left the womb, yet.
As i say, i have a 21 yr old daughter who was born EARLIEr than the one which was aborted (and so have many other people) - think about that !
Also, if the child comes out alive (which they often do) the "doctor" twists its head, and puts a quick end to that.
WHERE do people like you stop?
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome So the death of a man is justifiable so long as a child doesn't take their place? Nonsense.
You've said you have a daughter before. Do you know why I didn't address it? Because it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Let me rephrase. You have a daughter - so what?
Your third claim is a ridiculous theory planted by scare tactics. Prove that any licensed doctor will kill a baby in this matter. Again, cite evidence.
People like me stop when lunatics like you do.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome
I'm all about killing babies. I think we need to expand abortion, have in-home abortion kits sold over the counter. We should also look into post-birth abortion as well. Sometimes you don't realize you shouldn't have had that baby until after it's born.
luminaeus 1 year ago
@luminaeus Hitler is case-in-point.
MagrasKashi 1 year ago
Comment removed
luminaeus 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi
Ah yes, Hitler had almost post-birth aborted an entire race of people. Quite the champion of abortion!
But don't tell AnnoyingTypoSyndrom that Hitler was Catholic!
luminaeus 1 year ago
@MagrasKashi:
NO - if a woman has sex, and takes the seed of a man, she allows ANOTHER life to grow inside herself. To "change her mind" is NOT a NATURAL option.
Once she is pregnant, she is pregnant - its her DUTY to allow that boy or girl, to live.
Unless you have personal experience of how hideous this issue is, you should abstain from a self righteous position, on the matter.
Yes, i am male, but i suffered one of my children being aborted, by a slut mother, so she could "swap boyfriends"
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago