My god.. i have something to reverse every single point on this, besides like one person said with the whole circular reasoning part, but there's no one here to talk to..
LOL i've watched 5 seconds of this "The Truth War" "Seek Truth" This kind of thing is like a reverse argument. It's not straight up facts and we'll see what comes out on top it's more like stuff that you wouldn't naturally think, but since you're trying to "seek the truth" you're going to figure out why you're still right and still get to be comfortable with it. If many of these people weren't born in a christian home they wouldn't be stuck in this hole.
I copied and pasted your reference""national geographic Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas" from your post into google. Theologyweb comes up. Don't get all defensive. I don't believe in magic. It makes no difference to me if you do.
@wondergundy I copied and pasted the reference too...it IS from national geographic; and the theistic website is quoting National Geographic, it's original source
I love how this guy thinks a single sentence in a book can debunk several decades of dedicated lifelong research by thousands of scientists all over the world. He also seems to think evolution has no evidence, so apparently he thinks evidence is important in order to believe in something... but wait, if that were true, why would he believe in God? The bible is not evidence! The one question science cannot answer: How can creationists be so blatantly hypocritical, and not realize it?
Before trying to disprove science, first you have to understand it. Before saying why it doesn't work, one should understand how it works first.
Also, circular reasoning is not a good argument. The bible is true because god said so. God is true because the bible said so. The bible is the truth, yadda yadda yadda. I'm sorry, but no religious book is evidence. So you want to disprove a mountain of evidence for evolution by using non-evidence.
"There's never been one shred of evidence that matter can organize itself"
One, this is the field of abiogenesis, not evolution. Two, the simplest of lifeforms consisted of carbon, of which there was plenty. It is very well possible for life to have formed out of pure matter.
"A cell cannot increase its complexity"
It does not need to. DNA is not an IKEA manual, it is a string of values determining the outcome of a living being. Small changes in DNA mean small changes to the species.
@matt3i6 Oh, that's convenient. You criticize the big bang theory because it says everything came form nothing, but of course you know of the only exception.
@foroparapente It get's criticized because it is impossible. Everything cannot come from nothing, because it cannot do anything. No matter = no matter in return. Asses your remain choices.
@dontforgetme1651435 Except that no scientist says everything came from nothing. The most prominent hypothesis states that there was a concentrated mass which spread out over billions of years. This is only one of the possibilities because there is not enough evidence to form a conclusion about it.
Creationism, however, says everything came from nothing, and is dead sure about it.
@sethdesade please tell me how would God be worthy of praise if any ignorant scoffer like you would understand him?
tell me how all the mollecules of your computer randomly got together and formed an intelligent tool. of course.. without ever stating humans as an answer :)
you're doing the same.. you thing that the god that created the universe is in the universe and was in the universe beafore creating it.. wereas he was an exterior force :)
@atzutzu Yeah the 70 of you laugh at me. Ah shucks, you hurt my feelings with your flawed ideas. I was just making fun of creationists who claim that nothing can come from nothing (e.i - life) but God doesn<t count. God is anything you don't understand yet. A long time ago, god wa the sun, god was fire, god was thunder, then god became the universe, and the more we know about it, the farther away god's becoming. Funny isn't it ?
@HealthyCabbie I'm sure it's hard to accept that you've been believing a silly myth that's almost a carbon copy of a earlier myth (egyptian gods and messengers of god had been crucified on crosses and performed resurections long before jesus was born, it was a very common theme) but you'll get over it someday.
Evolution is not even debatable because it's been proven, you just were too lazy to ever pick up a proper book on it. It's as debatable as the earth being round.
@HealthyCabbie There are many theories on how matter, energy and life rose for non living material ! Plenty !!! You must have missed them because although many of them are very hard to grasp, they are quite plausible.
Easy to understand certainly doesn't make truth, common.
@HealthyCabbie I'm not going to rewrite pages and pages of thesis to show you, it"s up to you to find it yourself. Start with Abiogenesis on wikipeidia.
@HealthyCabbie There's a myth about us using only 10% but it's not true. It's closer to 100% at one point or another, never all at once. What's your point ?
@HealthyCabbie 100% of the brain is used, but even if it was only 60% (where did you find this info ?) that doesn't prove anything. There are many parts of our bodies that aren't needed anymore and that actually PROVE that we evolved. Look at wisdom teeth or the tail bone.
@sethdesade: Wisdom teeth is down to our degeneration, we used to be bigger, Gorillas have the same amount of teeth as humans, we can see by this we did not need these wisdom teeth, and the tooth number has not changed, if Apes had more then you may have had a case.
There is no physical data to determine in tangible evidence the amount of usage the human brain has, there is some estimates to say we use 60%.
@sethdesade Life has never and never will come from non-life. That's why the account in Genesis makes perfect sense. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and he "created every living thing according to its kind"
If no life can come from nothing, how did god come to be ? And if you don't consider him as a life form than indeed life can come from non-life.
Making sense has nothing to do with it. Does quantum physics make sense to you ? That an object can be in two seperate places at the same time ? The universe is vastly more complicated than what 'makes sense'.
@sethdesade He always existed. "in the beginning God" first 4 words in the Bible. Then look at John chapter 1 "In the beginning was the Word" which is Jesus. Jesus said "I am the alpha and the omega, first and last"
@TechLinkOnline Wow, have you ever learned to form a coerent argument ? What you're saying is: god exists - proof is the bible - which was written by god. WOW thanks. Wall Mart is America's one stop shop for all your household needs - why ? Because they said so. oh ok, that makes TOTAL sense.
@HealthyCabbie are you serious ? Just cause you thought its hard to understand the theory or perhaps the real way life arose on the planet , you just adapted and accepted the creationist theory which has no profs and no logical evidence huh ? Thats plain stupid , go search how life formed from matter , Its because of the same thing that medical science works nowadays too lol, Everything in our body is chemistry ,Everything thats what bio-chemistry is about lol
Well, you will never see a scientist in a medical conference about cancer talk about astrology, alchemy, voodu, religion, knitting, communism and whatever.
Such people are like really stubborn children, that just won't accept the truth. Adding information to DNA hasn't been observed? Oh come on. Look up Lenski experiment. Evolution happens by chance? Gee, you really have to read more about it. And, even IF evolution wasn't 100%, then how does it support the existence of God? It would just suggest that we don't know how life come into being but where are the clues toward there being a deity, caring for our sins etc. ?
@wondergundy But why wasn't that your response when you first heard the "theory of evolution" which claims that nothing, somehow, turned into not only everything, but a vast and complex universe beyond the wildest imagination, not too mention, life itself. Man is transcendent. Furthermore, evolution has never happened, there are theories abound, but not one shred of evidence. But you can go on believing what the apostle Paul simply referred to as "the lie" 2,000 years ago. Romans 1:25
@matt3i6 I have only heard one theory where there was nothing and that turned into everything... The" Let there be light "one. The absolute worst excuse for an explanation I have ever heard.
@wondergundy But that command "let there be light" came from God. Jesus told the massive storm on the sea of Galilee to calm down and it obeyed his voice. He thwarted the temptation of the devil by quoting Scripture, God's word. Jesus told the paralytic man "get up, pick up your mat and go" and the man rose up and walked. What man has ever explored this vast universe? Nobody. Yet God created it and sustains it every moment of every day.
@wondergundy By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark
to save his family. Fossil record evidence and archeology has long proved a world wide flood. This of course denied by evolutionist scientists because they operate by making their "science" fit their belief. We all have the same evidence - evolutionist sees the Grand Canyon and says "millions of years..." Creationist sees the GC and says "world wide flood caused that" obviously.
@TechLinkOnline Did you forgo school all together and opt for bible study?... 2000 year old mythology is not good reference material for debate. There is not enough water in existence to flood the earth. Obviously.
@wondergundy Nope. I'm fully indoctrinated by the public education system as well as multiple accredited universities. But like Jesus said to his disciples who believed "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" - not enough water? The vast majority of earth is covered by water and you have no idea how much is below the surface - it didn't just rain the Bible clearly says most the water came from "the great fountains of the deep" that broke out - Genesis 7:11
@TechLinkOnline The great fountains of the deep... This is why I question your education. We know how much water is inside the earth. We have been drilling holes in it for a century. The volume of water you need to flood the earth does not exist on this planet. So you failed math and geology? I don't think you are using the word truth properly either.
@wondergundy What about all the other flood stories? Outside the Bible from ancient literature? Oh boy - there was indeed a world wide flood and the Biblical account is, of course, the accurate one.
@TechLinkOnline There are floods... Every rainy season in the tropics there are floods.... The mississippi is flooding as we speak. Then there are stories... Legends about floods... Humans luv to bullshit. I think they put the scary stuff in the bible to test the nerve of the uneducated peasants of the bronze age. Reading that story now that we have a grasp of volume you can see it is BS. They lived in a desert...They may well have been aquaphobic!
@wondergundy "The volume of water you need to flood the earth does not exist on this planet." I respectfully disagree, there is at least 5 times as much water in the earth's mantle as there is in all the world's oceans combined. Google: "national geographic Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas" Now we know what God meant by the fountains of the great deep breaking open.
@wondergundy What are you talking about? You claimed in one of your previous postings that there isn't enough water inside the earth to completely flood the surface. I directed you to evidence that shows that there is more than enough water to cover the surface. I don't understand your objection other than maybe you're an atheist or something, then it would make total since.
@theabiotictheory The water in the mantle is a kind of water that is chemically bound to minerals that make up the mantle. It is like the water you can find in the formula for epsom salts. The amount in a cubic meter is actually quite small and hard to liberate. The only reason there is so much water there is because the mantle is so large. There is no way to release this water rapidly. This is from the theist website you sent me to. I see where your lack of logic comes from now.
@wondergundy "This is from the theist website you sent me to" I didn't send you to a theist website, I sent you to National Geographic, which is clear by my posting so stop playing games. You made a statement and I demonstrated it to be erroneous, now you're trying to make excuses. Besides another site contends there may be as much 30 times as much water in the earth's mantle as on the surface.
@theabiotictheory I copied and pasted your reference""national geographic Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas" from your post into google. Theologyweb comes up. Don't get all defensive. I don't believe in magic. It makes no difference to me if you do.
@wondergundy "The amount in a cubic meter is actually quite small and hard to liberate." If it's so small then why was it causing seismic waves to decelerate, which is what prompted scientists to open up an investigation, because they were getting abnormal readings.
Evolution says nothing, let me repeat: nothing, about the origin of life, only it's development into different forms. Nor does it say anything about the cosmos. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, but even if the fossil record did not exist for one reason or another, there are still studies done on bacterium that should evolution, there are the species of bird in the galapagos islands that show how one species can turn into many.
@matt3i6- Why? Because I heard the actual Theory of Evolution not the creationist strawman version of it. Also, you do know that the Theory of Evolution only deals with the diversity of life, right? It doesn't deal with the universe, planets, or the origin of life. As for not having a shred of evidence that's a laugh! The genetic evidence alone is more than enough to demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt . Hell, ERVs alone make a strong enough case for it.
@califoniania I am sick of the argument "...the Theory of Evolution only deals with the diversity of life". This is only a half-thruth. The real truth is that evolution needs abiogenesis as a foundation in order for it to be complete and philosophically meaningful. The only reason evolution as a science discpline stays away from abiogenesis is because it has not been able to prove anything and research has failed over and over again.
@raponte1955- Don't care if you're sick of it, it's true. And you're assertion that ToE needs abiogenesis as a foundation is a bald faced lie. For example, many Christians (and Muslims and people of other faiths) believe that a god started life and then let it evolve. I don't believe that but it's a way that evolution can exist without abiogenesis. No, the reason ToE stays away from abiogenesis is because abiogenesis is out of ToE's jurisdiction.
(cont'd)- Expecting ToE to address abiogenesis is like expecting Nebula Theory to address the Big Bang. What creationists don't seem to grasp is that each theory stands on its own merits and that each theory has a certain scope hence why they are different fields of study. Hell, ToE and abiogenesis aren't even on the same branch of science. ToE is biology while abiogenesis is chemistry. As for research failing all the time, that's also a lie. Amino acids have been produced in the lab.
(cont'd)- We've even found amino acids in space. Sure, research into abiogenesis is nowhere NEAR complete but it's a young field yet. Hell, we still don't have gravity entirely nailed down quite yet and it's been studied for centuries. The important thing though is that scientists are honest about the shortcomings of abiogenesis and will freely admit that research is very incomplete on the topic, unlike creationists. And they don't simply resort to "magic man done it" when they don't know.
@califoniania Of course is true, but only semantically. Be honest with yourself: TOE's is the foundation of humanism and atheism, whose clear objective is to get rid of GOD completely. Evolutionists "pray" in private for the miracle of life "out of nothing" to be proved at labs. So to say evolution can exist without abiogenesis is plain hypocrisy.
@raponte1955- What are you talking about? Atheism existed long before ToE, it's existed for as long as religion has. And as I mentioned before, many Christians also accept evolution. There are also groups of atheists that DON'T accept evolution such as Raelians and alien engineering proponents so your assertion holds about as much water as Teflon net. Abiogenesis is not "life out of nothing", it's life out of chemical reactions under the correct conditions.
(cont'd)- "Evolutionists" don't pray for abiogenesis to be true because 1) most "evolutionists" are Christian and 2) scientists would rather not waste their time doing something as useless as praying. They'd rather actually do something useful like try a different method. There is no hypocrisy in saying that ToE can exist without abiogenesis because they are SEPARATE fields of study that address entirely different questions. And as I've mentioned, one can exist without the other.
@califoniania (1) You are intellectuallly dishonest to focus just on theist/atheist exceptions. The vast majority of evolutionists are atheists and viceversa, as well as the majority of christians are anti-evolution.. That's a FACT. (2) So you love to play with words? : "...it's life out of chemical reactions under the correct conditions" LOL. it's life from non-life...sounds better to you? The MIller-Urey experiment has done more to disprove abiogenesis than all creationists together.
@raponte1955- No, it's not. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore those especially since most "evolutionists" are Christian. Also, prove that most Christians are against evolution. Because last I checked most Catholics accept it and Catholics make up the vast majority of Christians in the world. Anglicans also accept ToE as do the vast majority of European Christians. Whatever, life from non-life works but "life from nothing" is a dishonest strawman.
(cont'd)- You do realize that Miller-Urey isn't the only experiment ever in the entire field of abiogenesis, right? In more recent experiments using hydration/dehydration cycles complex amino acids were formed in the lab. And as I've mentioned, amino acids were found in space.
@califoniania And are you aware of the the fact that all amino acids produced in a lab are a half left-handed and half right-handed mixture. Even in the laboratory, chemists use pre-existing homochirality from a biological source in order to synthesize homochiral compounds. The problem is left-handed sugars and right-handed amino acids can be toxic and PREVENT abiogenesis. Furthermore, most all enzymes are designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids.
@raponte1955- Yeah, and again, abiogenesis is an incomplete field as of now. And any scientist will freely admit that. There is still a ton we don't know regarding the origin of life. However, that's no excuse to say "Fuck it, magic man done it". As I said, scientists would rather do something useful like trying different conditions.
@califoniania Also, chemicals do not produce life; only complex structures such as DNA and enzymes produce life. Even if the source of the amino acids and the many other compounds needed could be explained, how these many diverse elements became aggregated in the same area and then properly assembled themselves must still be dealt with. This problem is a major stumbling block to all abiogenesis theories with no solution in sight!
@raponte1955- DNA is made out of...say it with me now...chemicals. I must reiterate, abiogenesis is a young field of study and there are still many major questions to answer. But, again, any intellectually honest scientist isn't going to simply give up and say it happened by magic. I also wanted to reiterate that even if we assume that abiogenesis is false (and it turns out life actually was conjured into existence by a fairy, a genie, or a god), that does nothing to the Theory of Evolution.
(cont'd)- ToE stands on its own merits and only a dishonest creationist would say that unanswered questions in abiogenesis somehow disprove evolution. As I mentioned (and with creationists I find that I have to keep repeating things because they usually conveniently forget), you can have life be created by gods or aliens or whatever and still have that life evolve. And the only reason creationists conflate abiogenesis with ToE is because ToE is impossible to disprove on its own merits.
@califoniania "Yeah, and again, abiogenesis is an incomplete field as of now" ...sounds like the ultimate cop out. "If there is still a ton we don't know.." but of course is a better choice to belief in a failed science than to belief in God. Ultimately you need more faith to believe in the miracle of life from non-life and the probabilistic miracles of random mutation/natural selection than to believe in a Creator. No thanks, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
@raponte1955- Oh? And "magic man done it" isn't a cop out? It's a cop out that's been used for centuries however, the gap for a god to fit in keeps getting smaller and smaller. First gods were used to explain weather, then natural disasters, then the Earth, then the diversity of life and now all that's left is the very beginnings of life and before the Big Bang. Of course, even when scientists discover the solution to those, religionists will just move the goalposts further back.
(cont'd)- But to get to abiogenesis, even if it had NO evidence at all and we had no freaking clue where to even start that's not a carte blanche to say that it happened by magic. Hell, even if we pretend that abiogenesis has just as much evidence as creationism abiogenesis still wins out due to being a more parsimonious explanation. We know chemicals exist and we know life is made of chemicals. No additional supernatural beings needed. Creationism on the other hand requires an unproven
(cont'd)- supernatural entity as a freaking AXIOM. Anyone who is familiar with Occam's Razor is puking with rage at your assertion that supernatural creation is a better explanation than the perfectly natural abiogenesis. You have every right to believe it of course, just as you have every right to believe that the planets are held up by angels but don't expect any critical thinker to take you seriously. "Fucking magic" is a non-answer and doesn't get us anywhere.
(cont'd)- Actually, I think my example with the angels pushing around the planets brings up a good point: gravity. We don't entirely understand it, it gives us problems on the quantum level, and we have a ton of unanswered questions about it. Does that mean we should say "fuck it, we'll just say angels are holding us to the ground"? And keep in mind that we've had a Theory of Gravity for centuries, abio didn't start seriously being studied until the 20th century, so it's GONNA be incomplete.
@califoniania I am the first to admit that the mistake Christianity made before Darwin was to try to give a theological answer to scientific questions, that is to invoke cotinually the God of the Gaps. But hell, the institutional religion does not represent the true christianity. Believers are learning that science and faith can co-exist and we thanks God for the science advancement and its benefits to mankind. But I am talking about true science, not about pseudo-science like evolution.
@raponte1955- You do know that ToE comes from the same scientific method that developed all of those other theories, right? And that ToE is one of the most well supported and widely accepted theories in all of science, right? It's the cornerstone of modern biology, it's verified by genetics (i.e. ERVs, human chromosome 2, the great ape vitamin C gene, etc.), paleontology (including the finding of Tiktaalik using ToE to predict where to find it), and observed instances of speciation.
(cont'd)- Hey, wanna hear something interesting I've observed? Creationists only have problems with the scientific theories that contradict the Bible. Evolution, the Big Bang, Nebula Theory, radiometric dating, etc. They don't seem to care mind things like Quantum Theory and the classical physics not working well together and sometimes contradicting each other. They don't care that the Theory of Gravity is incomplete. I just found that very interesting and wanted to share with you.
@califoniania I take exception to the Big Bang Theory. I firmly believe that Big Bang is the best cosmological evidence for a Creator starting the universe. As you know initially the Big Bang received resistance from the scientific community for its religious implications. Even Einstein, introduced the cosmological constant in his equations with a value higher than zero, just to avoid acceptance of an expanding universe leading to an universe with an origin.
@raponte1955- Einstein was a deist and he was avoiding the implication of an unbalanced universe not the implication of a god. Deists believe in a god. He simply didn't like the idea of an expanding universe that accelerates. Well, it's nice that unlike most creationists at least you accept the Big Bang. You do know that the Big Bang dates back to 13.7 billion years, right? Also, there are no religious implications. You can't get to any one religion from the Big Bang.
@califoniania It is extremely unlikely that an arbitrary cosmic design would just happen to be compatible with life, or with the generation of an enormous number of universes with varying laws of physics
We can't seem to get away from the appearance of intelligent design, we can only push the problem back to another level. Unless we have some a priori commitment to a materialistic worldview, which is usually the case, it seems clear to me, again, that Occam leads to a universe with a Creator.
@raponte1955- Oh, the design argument. Give me an example of something that's not designed in the universe (or even outside the universe). You need a basis of comparison, otherwise that label is meaningless, so where is this basis? Also, there may be an APPEARANCE of design but that's all it is, an appearance. Snowflakes appear to be designed but I don't think even a creationists would say that god sits there making snowflakes by hand. Emergent behavior can provide the illusion of design.
@califoniania just to give you an example of design: scientists are puzzled that vacuum or dark energy is not far greater (perhaps 10^120 times greater) than it is; but the actual level is crucial to existence of life.
Re: quantum mechanics: Pauli exclusion principle and characteristics of electrons allow atoms and molecules to exist. Slight early asymmetry of matter and antimatter allowed permanent matter to exist
Both visible and dark matter needed for stars to form and life to exist.
@califoniania Neutron-proton mass diff :The neutron is just slightly more massive than the proton
If neutron mass were slightly greater relative to proton mass, atomic nuclei could not form. More equal proton and neutron masses would have caused nearly all hydrogen to fuse into helium; stellar lifetimes greatly shortened . Neutron mass slightly smaller than proton mass would lead to an all-neutron universe. Ilusion of design? Again, commitment to a materialistic worldview, no matter what!
@raponte1955- And what gives you any indication that physical constants can be changed? How can you say, for example, "if neutron mass were slightly greater" when we don't even know that it CAN be different? It may be like saying "if red was more blue" or "if squares were more round". It may be impossible to be any other way. Do you have examples of any of your examples being able to be changed? As for the slight asymmetry of anti-matter I'm not a cosmologist so I do not know.
@raponte1955- "Again, commitment to a materialistic worldview, no matter what!"
Okay, I'm a bit sick of people using this BS argument. I'm don't have any commitment to a naturalistic worldview. However, we have a system in place that can reliably study the natural world and distinguish true claim about nature from false ones. The scientific method isn't perfect by any means but it works. Where is an equivalent "supernatural method" that can examine supernatural claims?
(cont'd)- How can anyone tell true supernatural claims from false ones? How can you even tell true ones from ones that people make up on the spot? How do you falsify a supernatural claim? How do you falsify YOUR supernatural claims? How can the supernatural be independently verified? How do you even examine the supernatural? I'd be happy to believe in the supernatural but I need a method to A) verify that it exists and B) separate true supernatural claims from false ones.
@califoniania Cosmological puzzles: (1) Horizon problem: How can widely separated regions be at the same temperature? (2) Roughness problem: What is the origin of the unevenness in the early universe that led to the development of structure? (3) Flatness problem: Why is the universe apparently geometrically flat? Crucial for the existence of stars, galaxies, and life. Design is inescapable everywhere we look.
@raponte1955- Not a cosmologist, so i have no idea. And I'm not going to defend something that I'm no expert in. But, still, to give up and say "oh well, must be magic" is incredibly intellectually dishonest. I'd rather say "I don't know" than to attribute it to magic.
@califoniania cont'd. Regarding Quantum theory, it also provides scientific evidence for a Creator. Quantum and classical physics does not contradict. As you should know String theory is the unifying element between gravity theory and sub-atomic particles behavior. I believe God determines outcomes by observation, does not choose any outcomes, does not change outcomes and ensures a deterministic world. Could talk more later on this and why I believe God uses Quantum mechanics.
@raponte1955- What evidence does quantum physics provide for a creator, let alone that creator being Yahweh? I'd REALLY love to see that trick pulled off. So you accept the String Theory (which I'm kind of surprised by, actually) yet you don't accept the Theory of Evolution which has much more evidence and has been observed in action? Wait, if it's true that the world is deterministic then why does Yahweh punish people for acting according to the way they're programmed? That makes no sense.
@califoniania I accept the String theory, but not the Superstring theory leading to a Multiverse. Multiverse is just an invention to avoid the obvious implications of a just right and infinitesimally well tuned universe.. There's where I see string theory leading the role as a unifying element to explain fine tuning both at the quanta level as well as the classical physics level. Finally I respectfully request from you firm evidence of evolution .
@raponte1955- I already gave you ERVs which are pretty much conclusive in just on their own. There is also human chromosome 2 which is a fusion of 2 great ape chromosomes, genetic analysis which confirms a nested hierarchy (and ERVs which show the SAME nested hierarchy), the fossil record which is full of transitions such as ambulocetus, archaeopteryx (please oh please ask me about archaeopteryx), and tiktaalik, and evolution is being used in engineering to make more efficient designs.
@califoniania Regarding ERVs: 1) ERVsAre a part of God's "original design." 2) ERV's are not viral in origin; rather they were always present in the genome. 3) ERVs are present at the same positions in the human and chimpanzee genomes because their proteins wouldn't "function" if the genes were located elsewhere.
4) ERVs and other genes have equal potential to be harmful. 5) ERVs can't be random insertions because , they must exist at one specific location in order to "function."
@raponte1955- ERV are VIRUS DNA fragments. We know what viral DNA looks like. Who do you think you're trying to fool? Where the hell did you get this garbage information from? As for the being part of "god's original design" argument, that's nothing but a deflection. It's essentially the same thing as saying "god just felt like it" which is as lazy an argument as anyone can possibly come up with. The only way it could get any lazier is by saying "it just is, okay".
(cont'd)- So far you've got special pleading, "god just felt like it", and a number of cosmological problems that may or may not actually be problematic (but I'll have to leave that to any cosmologist that happen by). And you're going with a solution that involves magic instead of even trying to look for natural causes. So how does this differ from people in the past assigning things to gods (including your own)? How is attributing life to god any different than attributing earthquakes to god?
@califoniania con't Genesis asserts that there was a beginning. The idea that the physical cosmos has always been is not supported by string theory.of how higher dimensional entities may have caused physical matter to exist. What is being proposed are models of how the beginning of the three-dimensional creation came to happen. The question of what the cause was may be answered in some way, but that answer points to a CAUSER.
@raponte1955- And what caused that causer? I know this is a classic retort that's been done to death but it really is a problem for those that claim there must be a primary mover. If you say "he's always existed" then you're engaging in special pleading and assigning special properties to an entity you haven't even demonstrated to exist yet. If you stay consistent and say he has a supergod that created him, now you've got infinite regress. There's no way out without causing a problem.
@califoniania Again, let's stick with Occam' razor. An infinite regression of gods is plain nonsense. The best and simpler explanation is that God is eternal. With no beggining and no end. This is beyond our comprehension because it was God himself who created the dimension of time, but God trascends any physical dimension known to men. That's precisely why He is God. Any lessser God simply, well, would not be God.
@raponte1955- If you're going to use Occam's Razor at least use it properly. An infinitely powerful being that follows none of the rules of science, has not been demonstrated to exist, and uses magic is not the most parsimonious solution. Also, what's the difference between one infinite god and an infinite number of gods? Infinity is infinity is infinity. There are no magnitudes of infinity and one slice of an infinite cake is exactly the same as infinite slices.
@califoniania . "An infinitely powerful being that follows none of the rules of science,"..How dare you? Actually he created all the rules by which the universe and life exist! Gravity, thermodynamics, energy, matter,etc all were established at the very moment of creation to allow something to exist rather than nothing. Actually, in virtue of quantum physics now we know why God created light before the sun and stars, since everything that exists is nothing else than solidified light!
@raponte1955- You completely missed the point here. I said that your god ITSELF doesn't follow the rules of science, not his (alleged) creation. He uses magic, can suspend the rules of physics to make the Sun stand still in the sky (for example), he is uncreated even though everything else (allegedly) need a creator, I could go on but in essence you're positing a being that has all sorts of special properties that have never been observed in ANYTHING. You're engaging in special pleading.
@califoniania "If you're going to use Occam's Razor at least use it properly" Same logical fallacy again by implicitly assuming Occam excludes the supernatural. It's about economy of assumptions. A zillion gods is totally unnecessary. So yes, there's a huge difference between an infinite number of gods and one God.And as I said, a god needing to be caused is a pathetic god, simply is not God.
@raponte1955- Yes, it is about the economy of assumptions but the assumptions themselves need to make sense. I can claim that instead of the hydrological cycle, rain comes from an elf taking a piss on us. That's far simpler and uses less entities but it makes no sense and elves have never been observed. Occam's Razor isn't simply "count the steps" but each step has to make sense. What you're suggesting is the same thing as the ancients did in ascribing lightening to Zeus.
@califoniania Beware of Occam, that razor could cut your throat! Occam does not preclude the supernatural as you seem to imply, only rules out the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions. And my hypothesis is very simple: everything that began to exists has a cause, and the cause is God. On the contrary abiogenesis and evolution in general depends on many unproven assumptions, which are even contrary to well proven and established laws of science.
@raponte1955- Actually, it does as the supernatural creates a whole new freaking realm as an assumption. That's a rather huge assumption to be making especially compared to simply using what we've already got. You're kidding, right? You claim your hypothesis is simple when you're postulating that an infinite, supernatural being whose son is a carpenter created everything ex nihilo including a talking snake and a deadly fruit and that's supposed to be more parsimonious than looking at nature?
I'm glad this guy paints the picture that biologists don't like evolution. There is no option other than the two (evolutionary mechanisms or god), because evolution is what has been proven whilst god is denial of such. But I blame not the god fearers, for they live in a world of purpose driven things and simply cannot grasp the uncaring and purposeless nature of evolution.
The "intelligent" design, or entropy of ignorance if you will, are still lurking around in darkness I see.....Do not these fanatic religious people realise they are a roadblock to science? Do they give it a thought, that their egocentric thinking rob their own children of the ability to deal with future problems?
No, they only care about themselves and their "god". Who cares about if people have the knowledge to save them self from disasters, let us all pray instead....
@Arnleifen The first scienctists were God believers. All civilizations have some form of a belief in a god/gods, it's when man tries to eliminate God that it turns really.....ugly, just look at history. Information (like DNA) is non-material. You can have matter and energy but without information to give it direction or purpose, it does nothing. Like a computer, without a computer code, it can't function or use software without it. A book without words (information) is blank pages.
@vbirdieb You proved your own point well enough... Information needs some sort of intelligence to make sense......
Prove that first scientists were God believers. Prove were history tell us that it "gets ugly" disobeying "God". I think most of it shows that it gets ugly when you do obey "God". Obeying "God", means obeying some sick bastards personal will, who claims it is "Gods" will.
You should go to a real school, and get a real education instead of telling rubbish from the stone age.
"Obeying "God", means obeying some sick bastards personal will, who claims it is "Gods" will." Then it wouldn't be God's will, at least not my God's will.
History proves the belief of the first scienctists.
Stalin, Marx, communistic China, tried to eliminate the belief in God. I'm sure there's more.
I'm smarter than most high school graduates, I believe in Jesus Christ, I use the Bible (KJV) and the holy ghost as my guide. I don't look to a man.
@vbirdieb You proved your own point well enough... Information needs some sort of intelligence to make sense....
Prove that first scientists were God believers. Prove were history tell us that it "gets ugly" disobeying "God". I think most of it shows that it gets ugly when you do obey "God". Obeying "God", means obeying some sick bastards personal will, who claims it is "Gods" will.
You should go to a real school, and get a real education instead of telling rubbish from the stone age.
@vbirdieb You proved your own point well enough... Information needs some sort of intelligence to make sense......
Prove that first scientists were God believers. Prove were history tell us that it "gets ugly" disobeying "God". I think most of it shows that it gets ugly when you do obey "God". Obeying "God", means obeying some sick bastards personal will, who claims it is "Gods" will.
You should go to a real school, and get a real education instead of telling rubbish from the stone age.
@kitwol abiogenesis is just another word - what is said in the video is true. No cell has ever taken itself to a higher level what part don't you understand? We all have the same evidence, just non-believers don't know how to interpret it
"No cell has ever taken itself to a higher level what part don't you understand?"
First off, what do you even mean by a "higher level"? If by "higher level', you mean to perform different functions, just take a look at enzymes and their role in speeding up chemical processes(hence deciding what each cell specifically does).
Also, you DO know that Abiogenesis HAS ALREADY been proven to be possible in a laboratory, right? Just saying that it's just another word doesn't prove anything.
@kitwol What, exactly was produced in the lab to prove Abiogenesis? Firefly's chemical glow? If so, that's not Abiogenesis, that's more like chemical interactions, not a living organism. Or is it something else? Just saying it took intelligence to discover it, to put it together, why is it so hard to believe it took intelligence to create us and everything else. We are way more complex than what they did in the lab, and it's not even a fair comparison.
@kitwol abiogensis is just another word - what is said in the video is true. No cell has ever taken itself to a higher level what part don't you understand? We all have the same evidence, just non-believers don't know how to interpret it
Holy shit this guy is an idiot. I burst out laughing at several points. He's so misinformed, that he's not even arguing against anything remotely like evolution. Half the shit he says is totally nonsensical.
What?! Pasteur disproved spontaneous Abiogenesis only for pasteurized environments! He did not disprove abiogenesis, which I'll assume is what you meant to say at 2:25, since biogenesis happens at least a hundred times per second. (any birth is biogenesis)
@TamaThePeck Why do you hate God? Actually, it's not surprise. I know and understand original sin, it's not your fault you are hostile to your Creator, He said you would be. I once was. We were all "born into iniquity" but that's no excuse for hearing the truth as presented here and still denying
If you want to have any meningful conversation, I'm afraid you are going to have to actually respond to what I say. But, you know what, I wasn't doing that either. I was just debunking the video, which is just the words of John F. MacArthur.
"it's not your fault you are hostile to your Creator"
My relationship with my mother is none of your business.
Seriously though, Pasteur disproved generatio spontaneo, not abiogenesis.
@matt3i6 i can't help but notice how you completely ignore what TamaThePeck said, and then say: "that's no excuse for hearing the truth as presented here and still denying." come on! if you're going to moralize, at least do so convincingly.
@matt3i6 I don't think people that believe evolution hate your God, it's just about following where the facts lead.
Your an Atheist to most Gods, as am I, and so here we are, both Atheists in our own right; looking for the truth of the Universe. Why Allow your religion to decide where we came from, instead of you God given senses?
@matt3i6 No,no,no,no,NO. This is exactly what I hate in debates like this. You CANNOT win a debate by saying "You hate God, I win". I will respect opinions, I will respect evidence, I will respect beliefs. What I will not respect is you basically insulting someone because "their side is wrong and yours is right". THAT'S THE POINT OF DEBATE. YOU CAN'T USE THE CONCLUSION TO PROVE YOUR SIDE. It doesn't matter what you believe, logic is universal. That is how Jesus beat the devil in the desert.
@Mx41204 I don't recall saying it that way. But how do we fit logic in with the supernatural? Knowing "First of all no prophecy came into being by the will of man" 2 Peter 1 - so where did we get the words of Scripture? "Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" is that logical? It is when you believe in God. Is this why it says in Scripture non-believers don't understand the Bible because it is "spiritually discerned"
@matt3i6 It's because he presents a reasonable response and you lead of with "Why do you hate God?". For me, belief is not following. It is discerning for yourself the truth. You may take the opinions of others, but it is ultimately your decision what you believe. There are millions of people out there who say that what they think is right, and yet you have your own belief. What makes you say outright that they are wrong? What makes you think that your way is right? and those millions of people,
@Mx41204 they're thinking the exact same thing. That is why we have talks and arguments like this, to see each other's viewpoints so that we may have a clearer view of the truth. That, my friend is logic. Taking all information available and reaching a conclusion. There is a reason for everything, even if the rules aren't set by us.
I love people like this guy who like to say evolution makes no sense, but an all-knowing creature created everything in one instance and made rules for it is perfectly plausible. I also like how God made light before he made a sun. He also made the earth, which would be lifeless without a sun to orbit, before the sun. But yeah, it all makes sense because somebody wrote it in a book 2000 years ago. T_T
8| for christ sake. I think some intelligent christian or theistic person should tell the guy on this video to stop making religion look so ridiculous.
I cant just think of all the errors in this video. It even makes me wonder if this is some kind of hoax.
to all christians: stop using the bible as proof it is only a book, its not any more true then lord of the rings. and two if evolution is not true then asneer this, why do male cats fight over who is going to mate with the female? and why is it so that we get our genes from our mother and father. if creatiosnism was true, we would all have the exact same genes, ether you would be a male, or you would be a female. if creationsim was true, our genes wouldnt change from generation to generation.
@gulbirk actually the Bible is not like any other book especially not likened to fiction as the Bible was written by 40 human authors but all corroborate the story of God over 1,500 year span and you compare that to fiction? Man couldn't have made up the Bible if he wanted to!
The New Testament in particular is the most verified ancient text in the world period.
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists believe that objects made them what they are.
Evolution is an absolute disgrace to science.
Objects never order anything, mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered.
Evolution is so irrational that it should be removed from all classrooms.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 4 months ago
My god.. i have something to reverse every single point on this, besides like one person said with the whole circular reasoning part, but there's no one here to talk to..
Manfish67 4 months ago
LOL i've watched 5 seconds of this "The Truth War" "Seek Truth" This kind of thing is like a reverse argument. It's not straight up facts and we'll see what comes out on top it's more like stuff that you wouldn't naturally think, but since you're trying to "seek the truth" you're going to figure out why you're still right and still get to be comfortable with it. If many of these people weren't born in a christian home they wouldn't be stuck in this hole.
Manfish67 4 months ago
Your first minute is the DEFINITION of circular reasoning.But what the hell..That's all creationists have these days..
Stevoukos 6 months ago
lol, fuckin retards
theshredator 6 months ago
Hmmm . . . a steady stream of misinformation and lies. Great job original poster. Just dippy.
wkrepelin 8 months ago
"This verse ASSERTS the existence of the universe and everything in it as a product of God's creative act."
Fixed.
L00NGB00W 8 months ago
I copied and pasted your reference""national geographic Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas" from your post into google. Theologyweb comes up. Don't get all defensive. I don't believe in magic. It makes no difference to me if you do.
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy I copied and pasted the reference too...it IS from national geographic; and the theistic website is quoting National Geographic, it's original source
lonewolf0017 8 months ago
Let me break it down for you:
The Bible is not an authoritative, or even an accurate, source of information.
Immediately, your theory has failed. Try again.
TheRegulator81 9 months ago
I love how this guy thinks a single sentence in a book can debunk several decades of dedicated lifelong research by thousands of scientists all over the world. He also seems to think evolution has no evidence, so apparently he thinks evidence is important in order to believe in something... but wait, if that were true, why would he believe in God? The bible is not evidence! The one question science cannot answer: How can creationists be so blatantly hypocritical, and not realize it?
hylogibbon 9 months ago
Just a little tip.
Before trying to disprove science, first you have to understand it. Before saying why it doesn't work, one should understand how it works first.
Also, circular reasoning is not a good argument. The bible is true because god said so. God is true because the bible said so. The bible is the truth, yadda yadda yadda. I'm sorry, but no religious book is evidence. So you want to disprove a mountain of evidence for evolution by using non-evidence.
Seriously, learn science.
kurayamisidekick 9 months ago
This video isn't fooling anyone, it's just making creationists believe there are alot of them around. There aren't. Morons an endangered species.
sethdesade 9 months ago
"There's never been one shred of evidence that matter can organize itself"
One, this is the field of abiogenesis, not evolution. Two, the simplest of lifeforms consisted of carbon, of which there was plenty. It is very well possible for life to have formed out of pure matter.
"A cell cannot increase its complexity"
It does not need to. DNA is not an IKEA manual, it is a string of values determining the outcome of a living being. Small changes in DNA mean small changes to the species.
Nidair 10 months ago
CREATIONISTS say that nothing can come from nothing - therefore god started it all.
WHO CREATED GOD ? - QED, bitches.
sethdesade 10 months ago
@sethdesade God always existed and always will, He never came into being He is the Un-created Creator.
matt3i6 10 months ago 2
@matt3i6 Yeah, he told you all that ? Ask him to FACEBOOK me sometime.
sethdesade 10 months ago
@matt3i6 Oh, that's convenient. You criticize the big bang theory because it says everything came form nothing, but of course you know of the only exception.
Grow up.
foroparapente 10 months ago
@foroparapente It get's criticized because it is impossible. Everything cannot come from nothing, because it cannot do anything. No matter = no matter in return. Asses your remain choices.
dontforgetme1651435 10 months ago
@dontforgetme1651435 Except that no scientist says everything came from nothing. The most prominent hypothesis states that there was a concentrated mass which spread out over billions of years. This is only one of the possibilities because there is not enough evidence to form a conclusion about it.
Creationism, however, says everything came from nothing, and is dead sure about it.
This has nothing to do with evolution though.
Nidair 10 months ago
@dontforgetme1651435 I think you're talking about the beginning of the Universe not evolution.
bebop7c2 10 months ago
@dontforgetme1651435 How do you know it's impossible? Just because it hasn't happened in your lifetime?
The remaining choices are : you don't know, neither do I.
Grow up.
foroparapente 9 months ago
@matt3i6 Let me get this right. Big bang is impossible because everything can't come from nothing.
But you do believe in someone who was not created that did create everything from nothing.
And we are supposed to be illogical?
foroparapente 9 months ago
@matt3i6
So you are saying he came from nothing.
lev18b 9 months ago
@matt3i6 God is a term, you're probably referring to Yahweh
4Gantz4 9 months ago
@sethdesade please tell me how would God be worthy of praise if any ignorant scoffer like you would understand him?
tell me how all the mollecules of your computer randomly got together and formed an intelligent tool. of course.. without ever stating humans as an answer :)
you're doing the same.. you thing that the god that created the universe is in the universe and was in the universe beafore creating it.. wereas he was an exterior force :)
no wonder my fellows creationists laugh at you:)
atzutzu 10 months ago
@atzutzu Yeah the 70 of you laugh at me. Ah shucks, you hurt my feelings with your flawed ideas. I was just making fun of creationists who claim that nothing can come from nothing (e.i - life) but God doesn<t count. God is anything you don't understand yet. A long time ago, god wa the sun, god was fire, god was thunder, then god became the universe, and the more we know about it, the farther away god's becoming. Funny isn't it ?
sethdesade 10 months ago
@sethdesade Oh, shut up
TheRegulator81 9 months ago
Comment removed
sethdesade 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRegulator81
******Asking christians to understand evolution is like asking a dog what he thinks about the neighbor.
They both bark alot but don't know what they're barking about.*******
sethdesade 9 months ago
@sethdesade: He was already there, He's always been there.
Time is only in this physical material dimension, God is outside time.
HealthyCabbie 7 months ago
@HealthyCabbie Of course, because he told you that the other day right ? on MSN ?
sethdesade 7 months ago
@sethdesade: Atheistic numpty.
HealthyCabbie 7 months ago
@HealthyCabbie I'm sure it's hard to accept that you've been believing a silly myth that's almost a carbon copy of a earlier myth (egyptian gods and messengers of god had been crucified on crosses and performed resurections long before jesus was born, it was a very common theme) but you'll get over it someday.
Evolution is not even debatable because it's been proven, you just were too lazy to ever pick up a proper book on it. It's as debatable as the earth being round.
sethdesade 6 months ago
@sethdesade: I used to be an evolutionist, until I asked a certain question.
How did matter and energy arise.
How can life begin from non living material, and by what mechanism did this life form evolve?
I got no answer, and was told to believe it because the alternative was God, and thats unthinkable.
This got me curious to what the other side was (creationists) I asked creationists questions, and it seemed more believable and easier to understand.
I saw through the lies of evolution.
HealthyCabbie 6 months ago
@HealthyCabbie There are many theories on how matter, energy and life rose for non living material ! Plenty !!! You must have missed them because although many of them are very hard to grasp, they are quite plausible.
Easy to understand certainly doesn't make truth, common.
sethdesade 6 months ago
@sethdesade: Whats the best one then, please tell me.
HealthyCabbie 6 months ago
@HealthyCabbie I'm not going to rewrite pages and pages of thesis to show you, it"s up to you to find it yourself. Start with Abiogenesis on wikipeidia.
sethdesade 6 months ago
@sethdesade: Question. How much of the brain capacity do we use?
Is it 100%?
HealthyCabbie 6 months ago
@HealthyCabbie There's a myth about us using only 10% but it's not true. It's closer to 100% at one point or another, never all at once. What's your point ?
sethdesade 6 months ago
@sethdesade: If evolution is true then 100% of our brian must be used, evolution demands the most out of all our organs including the brain.
If not it will cease to be any use, and the brain is so useful.
We apparently use 60% of our brain, so why did we evolve a brain that only uses approximately 60%
HealthyCabbie 6 months ago
@HealthyCabbie 100% of the brain is used, but even if it was only 60% (where did you find this info ?) that doesn't prove anything. There are many parts of our bodies that aren't needed anymore and that actually PROVE that we evolved. Look at wisdom teeth or the tail bone.
sethdesade 6 months ago
@sethdesade: Wisdom teeth is down to our degeneration, we used to be bigger, Gorillas have the same amount of teeth as humans, we can see by this we did not need these wisdom teeth, and the tooth number has not changed, if Apes had more then you may have had a case.
There is no physical data to determine in tangible evidence the amount of usage the human brain has, there is some estimates to say we use 60%.
t
HealthyCabbie 6 months ago
@sethdesade Life has never and never will come from non-life. That's why the account in Genesis makes perfect sense. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and he "created every living thing according to its kind"
TechLinkOnline 6 months ago
@TechLinkOnline
If no life can come from nothing, how did god come to be ? And if you don't consider him as a life form than indeed life can come from non-life.
Making sense has nothing to do with it. Does quantum physics make sense to you ? That an object can be in two seperate places at the same time ? The universe is vastly more complicated than what 'makes sense'.
sethdesade 6 months ago
@sethdesade He always existed. "in the beginning God" first 4 words in the Bible. Then look at John chapter 1 "In the beginning was the Word" which is Jesus. Jesus said "I am the alpha and the omega, first and last"
TechLinkOnline 6 months ago
@TechLinkOnline Wow, have you ever learned to form a coerent argument ? What you're saying is: god exists - proof is the bible - which was written by god. WOW thanks. Wall Mart is America's one stop shop for all your household needs - why ? Because they said so. oh ok, that makes TOTAL sense.
sethdesade 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HealthyCabbie are you serious ? Just cause you thought its hard to understand the theory or perhaps the real way life arose on the planet , you just adapted and accepted the creationist theory which has no profs and no logical evidence huh ? Thats plain stupid , go search how life formed from matter , Its because of the same thing that medical science works nowadays too lol, Everything in our body is chemistry ,Everything thats what bio-chemistry is about lol
djay00009 6 months ago
This video is an orgy of different sciences, alchemy, voodu and religion.
saintpine 10 months ago
@saintpine lol - that's an interesting conclusion.
matt3i6 10 months ago
@matt3i6
Well, you will never see a scientist in a medical conference about cancer talk about astrology, alchemy, voodu, religion, knitting, communism and whatever.
We did you get this commedian from ?
on what show did he appear ?
saintpine 10 months ago
Such people are like really stubborn children, that just won't accept the truth. Adding information to DNA hasn't been observed? Oh come on. Look up Lenski experiment. Evolution happens by chance? Gee, you really have to read more about it. And, even IF evolution wasn't 100%, then how does it support the existence of God? It would just suggest that we don't know how life come into being but where are the clues toward there being a deity, caring for our sins etc. ?
LockeSilver 11 months ago
I can't finish watching this...I,m drowning in stupid...gasp...gasp
wondergundy 1 year ago
@wondergundy But why wasn't that your response when you first heard the "theory of evolution" which claims that nothing, somehow, turned into not only everything, but a vast and complex universe beyond the wildest imagination, not too mention, life itself. Man is transcendent. Furthermore, evolution has never happened, there are theories abound, but not one shred of evidence. But you can go on believing what the apostle Paul simply referred to as "the lie" 2,000 years ago. Romans 1:25
matt3i6 9 months ago
@matt3i6 I have only heard one theory where there was nothing and that turned into everything... The" Let there be light "one. The absolute worst excuse for an explanation I have ever heard.
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy But that command "let there be light" came from God. Jesus told the massive storm on the sea of Galilee to calm down and it obeyed his voice. He thwarted the temptation of the devil by quoting Scripture, God's word. Jesus told the paralytic man "get up, pick up your mat and go" and the man rose up and walked. What man has ever explored this vast universe? Nobody. Yet God created it and sustains it every moment of every day.
matt3i6 9 months ago
@matt3i6 If you saw someone do the stunts you mention with your own eyes, you would not believe it was real. So why put all this stock in hearsay?
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark
to save his family. Fossil record evidence and archeology has long proved a world wide flood. This of course denied by evolutionist scientists because they operate by making their "science" fit their belief. We all have the same evidence - evolutionist sees the Grand Canyon and says "millions of years..." Creationist sees the GC and says "world wide flood caused that" obviously.
TechLinkOnline 9 months ago
@TechLinkOnline Did you forgo school all together and opt for bible study?... 2000 year old mythology is not good reference material for debate. There is not enough water in existence to flood the earth. Obviously.
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy Nope. I'm fully indoctrinated by the public education system as well as multiple accredited universities. But like Jesus said to his disciples who believed "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" - not enough water? The vast majority of earth is covered by water and you have no idea how much is below the surface - it didn't just rain the Bible clearly says most the water came from "the great fountains of the deep" that broke out - Genesis 7:11
TechLinkOnline 9 months ago
@TechLinkOnline The great fountains of the deep... This is why I question your education. We know how much water is inside the earth. We have been drilling holes in it for a century. The volume of water you need to flood the earth does not exist on this planet. So you failed math and geology? I don't think you are using the word truth properly either.
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy What about all the other flood stories? Outside the Bible from ancient literature? Oh boy - there was indeed a world wide flood and the Biblical account is, of course, the accurate one.
TechLinkOnline 9 months ago
@TechLinkOnline There are floods... Every rainy season in the tropics there are floods.... The mississippi is flooding as we speak. Then there are stories... Legends about floods... Humans luv to bullshit. I think they put the scary stuff in the bible to test the nerve of the uneducated peasants of the bronze age. Reading that story now that we have a grasp of volume you can see it is BS. They lived in a desert...They may well have been aquaphobic!
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy "The volume of water you need to flood the earth does not exist on this planet." I respectfully disagree, there is at least 5 times as much water in the earth's mantle as there is in all the world's oceans combined. Google: "national geographic Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas" Now we know what God meant by the fountains of the great deep breaking open.
theabiotictheory 9 months ago
@theabiotictheory The water in the mantel does not count for anything. If it is ejected something else has to replace it .
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy What are you talking about? You claimed in one of your previous postings that there isn't enough water inside the earth to completely flood the surface. I directed you to evidence that shows that there is more than enough water to cover the surface. I don't understand your objection other than maybe you're an atheist or something, then it would make total since.
theabiotictheory 9 months ago
@theabiotictheory The water in the mantle is a kind of water that is chemically bound to minerals that make up the mantle. It is like the water you can find in the formula for epsom salts. The amount in a cubic meter is actually quite small and hard to liberate. The only reason there is so much water there is because the mantle is so large. There is no way to release this water rapidly. This is from the theist website you sent me to. I see where your lack of logic comes from now.
wondergundy 9 months ago
@wondergundy "This is from the theist website you sent me to" I didn't send you to a theist website, I sent you to National Geographic, which is clear by my posting so stop playing games. You made a statement and I demonstrated it to be erroneous, now you're trying to make excuses. Besides another site contends there may be as much 30 times as much water in the earth's mantle as on the surface.
theabiotictheory 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theabiotictheory I copied and pasted your reference""national geographic Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas" from your post into google. Theologyweb comes up. Don't get all defensive. I don't believe in magic. It makes no difference to me if you do.
wondergundy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wondergundy "The amount in a cubic meter is actually quite small and hard to liberate." If it's so small then why was it causing seismic waves to decelerate, which is what prompted scientists to open up an investigation, because they were getting abnormal readings.
theabiotictheory 9 months ago
@wondergundy Were you there when God said it? No? Wel then SHUT UP!!!!!!
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955 Puff, Puff, Pass. Friend.
wondergundy 7 months ago
@wondergundy LOL
raponte1955 7 months ago
@matt3i6
Evolution says nothing, let me repeat: nothing, about the origin of life, only it's development into different forms. Nor does it say anything about the cosmos. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, but even if the fossil record did not exist for one reason or another, there are still studies done on bacterium that should evolution, there are the species of bird in the galapagos islands that show how one species can turn into many.
Darkdantedevil 8 months ago
@matt3i6- Why? Because I heard the actual Theory of Evolution not the creationist strawman version of it. Also, you do know that the Theory of Evolution only deals with the diversity of life, right? It doesn't deal with the universe, planets, or the origin of life. As for not having a shred of evidence that's a laugh! The genetic evidence alone is more than enough to demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt . Hell, ERVs alone make a strong enough case for it.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania I am sick of the argument "...the Theory of Evolution only deals with the diversity of life". This is only a half-thruth. The real truth is that evolution needs abiogenesis as a foundation in order for it to be complete and philosophically meaningful. The only reason evolution as a science discpline stays away from abiogenesis is because it has not been able to prove anything and research has failed over and over again.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- Don't care if you're sick of it, it's true. And you're assertion that ToE needs abiogenesis as a foundation is a bald faced lie. For example, many Christians (and Muslims and people of other faiths) believe that a god started life and then let it evolve. I don't believe that but it's a way that evolution can exist without abiogenesis. No, the reason ToE stays away from abiogenesis is because abiogenesis is out of ToE's jurisdiction.
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- Expecting ToE to address abiogenesis is like expecting Nebula Theory to address the Big Bang. What creationists don't seem to grasp is that each theory stands on its own merits and that each theory has a certain scope hence why they are different fields of study. Hell, ToE and abiogenesis aren't even on the same branch of science. ToE is biology while abiogenesis is chemistry. As for research failing all the time, that's also a lie. Amino acids have been produced in the lab.
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- We've even found amino acids in space. Sure, research into abiogenesis is nowhere NEAR complete but it's a young field yet. Hell, we still don't have gravity entirely nailed down quite yet and it's been studied for centuries. The important thing though is that scientists are honest about the shortcomings of abiogenesis and will freely admit that research is very incomplete on the topic, unlike creationists. And they don't simply resort to "magic man done it" when they don't know.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania Of course is true, but only semantically. Be honest with yourself: TOE's is the foundation of humanism and atheism, whose clear objective is to get rid of GOD completely. Evolutionists "pray" in private for the miracle of life "out of nothing" to be proved at labs. So to say evolution can exist without abiogenesis is plain hypocrisy.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- What are you talking about? Atheism existed long before ToE, it's existed for as long as religion has. And as I mentioned before, many Christians also accept evolution. There are also groups of atheists that DON'T accept evolution such as Raelians and alien engineering proponents so your assertion holds about as much water as Teflon net. Abiogenesis is not "life out of nothing", it's life out of chemical reactions under the correct conditions.
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- "Evolutionists" don't pray for abiogenesis to be true because 1) most "evolutionists" are Christian and 2) scientists would rather not waste their time doing something as useless as praying. They'd rather actually do something useful like try a different method. There is no hypocrisy in saying that ToE can exist without abiogenesis because they are SEPARATE fields of study that address entirely different questions. And as I've mentioned, one can exist without the other.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania (1) You are intellectuallly dishonest to focus just on theist/atheist exceptions. The vast majority of evolutionists are atheists and viceversa, as well as the majority of christians are anti-evolution.. That's a FACT. (2) So you love to play with words? : "...it's life out of chemical reactions under the correct conditions" LOL. it's life from non-life...sounds better to you? The MIller-Urey experiment has done more to disprove abiogenesis than all creationists together.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- No, it's not. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore those especially since most "evolutionists" are Christian. Also, prove that most Christians are against evolution. Because last I checked most Catholics accept it and Catholics make up the vast majority of Christians in the world. Anglicans also accept ToE as do the vast majority of European Christians. Whatever, life from non-life works but "life from nothing" is a dishonest strawman.
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- You do realize that Miller-Urey isn't the only experiment ever in the entire field of abiogenesis, right? In more recent experiments using hydration/dehydration cycles complex amino acids were formed in the lab. And as I've mentioned, amino acids were found in space.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania And are you aware of the the fact that all amino acids produced in a lab are a half left-handed and half right-handed mixture. Even in the laboratory, chemists use pre-existing homochirality from a biological source in order to synthesize homochiral compounds. The problem is left-handed sugars and right-handed amino acids can be toxic and PREVENT abiogenesis. Furthermore, most all enzymes are designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- Yeah, and again, abiogenesis is an incomplete field as of now. And any scientist will freely admit that. There is still a ton we don't know regarding the origin of life. However, that's no excuse to say "Fuck it, magic man done it". As I said, scientists would rather do something useful like trying different conditions.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania Also, chemicals do not produce life; only complex structures such as DNA and enzymes produce life. Even if the source of the amino acids and the many other compounds needed could be explained, how these many diverse elements became aggregated in the same area and then properly assembled themselves must still be dealt with. This problem is a major stumbling block to all abiogenesis theories with no solution in sight!
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- DNA is made out of...say it with me now...chemicals. I must reiterate, abiogenesis is a young field of study and there are still many major questions to answer. But, again, any intellectually honest scientist isn't going to simply give up and say it happened by magic. I also wanted to reiterate that even if we assume that abiogenesis is false (and it turns out life actually was conjured into existence by a fairy, a genie, or a god), that does nothing to the Theory of Evolution.
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- ToE stands on its own merits and only a dishonest creationist would say that unanswered questions in abiogenesis somehow disprove evolution. As I mentioned (and with creationists I find that I have to keep repeating things because they usually conveniently forget), you can have life be created by gods or aliens or whatever and still have that life evolve. And the only reason creationists conflate abiogenesis with ToE is because ToE is impossible to disprove on its own merits.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania "Yeah, and again, abiogenesis is an incomplete field as of now" ...sounds like the ultimate cop out. "If there is still a ton we don't know.." but of course is a better choice to belief in a failed science than to belief in God. Ultimately you need more faith to believe in the miracle of life from non-life and the probabilistic miracles of random mutation/natural selection than to believe in a Creator. No thanks, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- Oh? And "magic man done it" isn't a cop out? It's a cop out that's been used for centuries however, the gap for a god to fit in keeps getting smaller and smaller. First gods were used to explain weather, then natural disasters, then the Earth, then the diversity of life and now all that's left is the very beginnings of life and before the Big Bang. Of course, even when scientists discover the solution to those, religionists will just move the goalposts further back.
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- But to get to abiogenesis, even if it had NO evidence at all and we had no freaking clue where to even start that's not a carte blanche to say that it happened by magic. Hell, even if we pretend that abiogenesis has just as much evidence as creationism abiogenesis still wins out due to being a more parsimonious explanation. We know chemicals exist and we know life is made of chemicals. No additional supernatural beings needed. Creationism on the other hand requires an unproven
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- supernatural entity as a freaking AXIOM. Anyone who is familiar with Occam's Razor is puking with rage at your assertion that supernatural creation is a better explanation than the perfectly natural abiogenesis. You have every right to believe it of course, just as you have every right to believe that the planets are held up by angels but don't expect any critical thinker to take you seriously. "Fucking magic" is a non-answer and doesn't get us anywhere.
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- Actually, I think my example with the angels pushing around the planets brings up a good point: gravity. We don't entirely understand it, it gives us problems on the quantum level, and we have a ton of unanswered questions about it. Does that mean we should say "fuck it, we'll just say angels are holding us to the ground"? And keep in mind that we've had a Theory of Gravity for centuries, abio didn't start seriously being studied until the 20th century, so it's GONNA be incomplete.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania I am the first to admit that the mistake Christianity made before Darwin was to try to give a theological answer to scientific questions, that is to invoke cotinually the God of the Gaps. But hell, the institutional religion does not represent the true christianity. Believers are learning that science and faith can co-exist and we thanks God for the science advancement and its benefits to mankind. But I am talking about true science, not about pseudo-science like evolution.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- You do know that ToE comes from the same scientific method that developed all of those other theories, right? And that ToE is one of the most well supported and widely accepted theories in all of science, right? It's the cornerstone of modern biology, it's verified by genetics (i.e. ERVs, human chromosome 2, the great ape vitamin C gene, etc.), paleontology (including the finding of Tiktaalik using ToE to predict where to find it), and observed instances of speciation.
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- Hey, wanna hear something interesting I've observed? Creationists only have problems with the scientific theories that contradict the Bible. Evolution, the Big Bang, Nebula Theory, radiometric dating, etc. They don't seem to care mind things like Quantum Theory and the classical physics not working well together and sometimes contradicting each other. They don't care that the Theory of Gravity is incomplete. I just found that very interesting and wanted to share with you.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania I take exception to the Big Bang Theory. I firmly believe that Big Bang is the best cosmological evidence for a Creator starting the universe. As you know initially the Big Bang received resistance from the scientific community for its religious implications. Even Einstein, introduced the cosmological constant in his equations with a value higher than zero, just to avoid acceptance of an expanding universe leading to an universe with an origin.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- Einstein was a deist and he was avoiding the implication of an unbalanced universe not the implication of a god. Deists believe in a god. He simply didn't like the idea of an expanding universe that accelerates. Well, it's nice that unlike most creationists at least you accept the Big Bang. You do know that the Big Bang dates back to 13.7 billion years, right? Also, there are no religious implications. You can't get to any one religion from the Big Bang.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania It is extremely unlikely that an arbitrary cosmic design would just happen to be compatible with life, or with the generation of an enormous number of universes with varying laws of physics
We can't seem to get away from the appearance of intelligent design, we can only push the problem back to another level. Unless we have some a priori commitment to a materialistic worldview, which is usually the case, it seems clear to me, again, that Occam leads to a universe with a Creator.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- Oh, the design argument. Give me an example of something that's not designed in the universe (or even outside the universe). You need a basis of comparison, otherwise that label is meaningless, so where is this basis? Also, there may be an APPEARANCE of design but that's all it is, an appearance. Snowflakes appear to be designed but I don't think even a creationists would say that god sits there making snowflakes by hand. Emergent behavior can provide the illusion of design.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania just to give you an example of design: scientists are puzzled that vacuum or dark energy is not far greater (perhaps 10^120 times greater) than it is; but the actual level is crucial to existence of life.
Re: quantum mechanics: Pauli exclusion principle and characteristics of electrons allow atoms and molecules to exist. Slight early asymmetry of matter and antimatter allowed permanent matter to exist
Both visible and dark matter needed for stars to form and life to exist.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@califoniania Neutron-proton mass diff :The neutron is just slightly more massive than the proton
If neutron mass were slightly greater relative to proton mass, atomic nuclei could not form. More equal proton and neutron masses would have caused nearly all hydrogen to fuse into helium; stellar lifetimes greatly shortened . Neutron mass slightly smaller than proton mass would lead to an all-neutron universe. Ilusion of design? Again, commitment to a materialistic worldview, no matter what!
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- And what gives you any indication that physical constants can be changed? How can you say, for example, "if neutron mass were slightly greater" when we don't even know that it CAN be different? It may be like saying "if red was more blue" or "if squares were more round". It may be impossible to be any other way. Do you have examples of any of your examples being able to be changed? As for the slight asymmetry of anti-matter I'm not a cosmologist so I do not know.
califoniania 7 months ago
@raponte1955- "Again, commitment to a materialistic worldview, no matter what!"
Okay, I'm a bit sick of people using this BS argument. I'm don't have any commitment to a naturalistic worldview. However, we have a system in place that can reliably study the natural world and distinguish true claim about nature from false ones. The scientific method isn't perfect by any means but it works. Where is an equivalent "supernatural method" that can examine supernatural claims?
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- How can anyone tell true supernatural claims from false ones? How can you even tell true ones from ones that people make up on the spot? How do you falsify a supernatural claim? How do you falsify YOUR supernatural claims? How can the supernatural be independently verified? How do you even examine the supernatural? I'd be happy to believe in the supernatural but I need a method to A) verify that it exists and B) separate true supernatural claims from false ones.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania Cosmological puzzles: (1) Horizon problem: How can widely separated regions be at the same temperature? (2) Roughness problem: What is the origin of the unevenness in the early universe that led to the development of structure? (3) Flatness problem: Why is the universe apparently geometrically flat? Crucial for the existence of stars, galaxies, and life. Design is inescapable everywhere we look.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- Not a cosmologist, so i have no idea. And I'm not going to defend something that I'm no expert in. But, still, to give up and say "oh well, must be magic" is incredibly intellectually dishonest. I'd rather say "I don't know" than to attribute it to magic.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania cont'd. Regarding Quantum theory, it also provides scientific evidence for a Creator. Quantum and classical physics does not contradict. As you should know String theory is the unifying element between gravity theory and sub-atomic particles behavior. I believe God determines outcomes by observation, does not choose any outcomes, does not change outcomes and ensures a deterministic world. Could talk more later on this and why I believe God uses Quantum mechanics.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- What evidence does quantum physics provide for a creator, let alone that creator being Yahweh? I'd REALLY love to see that trick pulled off. So you accept the String Theory (which I'm kind of surprised by, actually) yet you don't accept the Theory of Evolution which has much more evidence and has been observed in action? Wait, if it's true that the world is deterministic then why does Yahweh punish people for acting according to the way they're programmed? That makes no sense.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania I accept the String theory, but not the Superstring theory leading to a Multiverse. Multiverse is just an invention to avoid the obvious implications of a just right and infinitesimally well tuned universe.. There's where I see string theory leading the role as a unifying element to explain fine tuning both at the quanta level as well as the classical physics level. Finally I respectfully request from you firm evidence of evolution .
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- I already gave you ERVs which are pretty much conclusive in just on their own. There is also human chromosome 2 which is a fusion of 2 great ape chromosomes, genetic analysis which confirms a nested hierarchy (and ERVs which show the SAME nested hierarchy), the fossil record which is full of transitions such as ambulocetus, archaeopteryx (please oh please ask me about archaeopteryx), and tiktaalik, and evolution is being used in engineering to make more efficient designs.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania Regarding ERVs: 1) ERVsAre a part of God's "original design." 2) ERV's are not viral in origin; rather they were always present in the genome. 3) ERVs are present at the same positions in the human and chimpanzee genomes because their proteins wouldn't "function" if the genes were located elsewhere.
4) ERVs and other genes have equal potential to be harmful. 5) ERVs can't be random insertions because , they must exist at one specific location in order to "function."
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- ERV are VIRUS DNA fragments. We know what viral DNA looks like. Who do you think you're trying to fool? Where the hell did you get this garbage information from? As for the being part of "god's original design" argument, that's nothing but a deflection. It's essentially the same thing as saying "god just felt like it" which is as lazy an argument as anyone can possibly come up with. The only way it could get any lazier is by saying "it just is, okay".
califoniania 7 months ago
(cont'd)- So far you've got special pleading, "god just felt like it", and a number of cosmological problems that may or may not actually be problematic (but I'll have to leave that to any cosmologist that happen by). And you're going with a solution that involves magic instead of even trying to look for natural causes. So how does this differ from people in the past assigning things to gods (including your own)? How is attributing life to god any different than attributing earthquakes to god?
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania con't Genesis asserts that there was a beginning. The idea that the physical cosmos has always been is not supported by string theory.of how higher dimensional entities may have caused physical matter to exist. What is being proposed are models of how the beginning of the three-dimensional creation came to happen. The question of what the cause was may be answered in some way, but that answer points to a CAUSER.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- And what caused that causer? I know this is a classic retort that's been done to death but it really is a problem for those that claim there must be a primary mover. If you say "he's always existed" then you're engaging in special pleading and assigning special properties to an entity you haven't even demonstrated to exist yet. If you stay consistent and say he has a supergod that created him, now you've got infinite regress. There's no way out without causing a problem.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania Again, let's stick with Occam' razor. An infinite regression of gods is plain nonsense. The best and simpler explanation is that God is eternal. With no beggining and no end. This is beyond our comprehension because it was God himself who created the dimension of time, but God trascends any physical dimension known to men. That's precisely why He is God. Any lessser God simply, well, would not be God.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- If you're going to use Occam's Razor at least use it properly. An infinitely powerful being that follows none of the rules of science, has not been demonstrated to exist, and uses magic is not the most parsimonious solution. Also, what's the difference between one infinite god and an infinite number of gods? Infinity is infinity is infinity. There are no magnitudes of infinity and one slice of an infinite cake is exactly the same as infinite slices.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania . "An infinitely powerful being that follows none of the rules of science,"..How dare you? Actually he created all the rules by which the universe and life exist! Gravity, thermodynamics, energy, matter,etc all were established at the very moment of creation to allow something to exist rather than nothing. Actually, in virtue of quantum physics now we know why God created light before the sun and stars, since everything that exists is nothing else than solidified light!
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- You completely missed the point here. I said that your god ITSELF doesn't follow the rules of science, not his (alleged) creation. He uses magic, can suspend the rules of physics to make the Sun stand still in the sky (for example), he is uncreated even though everything else (allegedly) need a creator, I could go on but in essence you're positing a being that has all sorts of special properties that have never been observed in ANYTHING. You're engaging in special pleading.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania "If you're going to use Occam's Razor at least use it properly" Same logical fallacy again by implicitly assuming Occam excludes the supernatural. It's about economy of assumptions. A zillion gods is totally unnecessary. So yes, there's a huge difference between an infinite number of gods and one God.And as I said, a god needing to be caused is a pathetic god, simply is not God.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- Yes, it is about the economy of assumptions but the assumptions themselves need to make sense. I can claim that instead of the hydrological cycle, rain comes from an elf taking a piss on us. That's far simpler and uses less entities but it makes no sense and elves have never been observed. Occam's Razor isn't simply "count the steps" but each step has to make sense. What you're suggesting is the same thing as the ancients did in ascribing lightening to Zeus.
califoniania 7 months ago
@califoniania "only rules out the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions" Sorry for the mistake. I meant to say the opposite, of course,
raponte1955 7 months ago
@califoniania Beware of Occam, that razor could cut your throat! Occam does not preclude the supernatural as you seem to imply, only rules out the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions. And my hypothesis is very simple: everything that began to exists has a cause, and the cause is God. On the contrary abiogenesis and evolution in general depends on many unproven assumptions, which are even contrary to well proven and established laws of science.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955- Actually, it does as the supernatural creates a whole new freaking realm as an assumption. That's a rather huge assumption to be making especially compared to simply using what we've already got. You're kidding, right? You claim your hypothesis is simple when you're postulating that an infinite, supernatural being whose son is a carpenter created everything ex nihilo including a talking snake and a deadly fruit and that's supposed to be more parsimonious than looking at nature?
califoniania 7 months ago
I'm glad this guy paints the picture that biologists don't like evolution. There is no option other than the two (evolutionary mechanisms or god), because evolution is what has been proven whilst god is denial of such. But I blame not the god fearers, for they live in a world of purpose driven things and simply cannot grasp the uncaring and purposeless nature of evolution.
raphanon 1 year ago
The "intelligent" design, or entropy of ignorance if you will, are still lurking around in darkness I see.....Do not these fanatic religious people realise they are a roadblock to science? Do they give it a thought, that their egocentric thinking rob their own children of the ability to deal with future problems?
No, they only care about themselves and their "god". Who cares about if people have the knowledge to save them self from disasters, let us all pray instead....
Responsibility?
Arnleifen 1 year ago
@Arnleifen The first scienctists were God believers. All civilizations have some form of a belief in a god/gods, it's when man tries to eliminate God that it turns really.....ugly, just look at history. Information (like DNA) is non-material. You can have matter and energy but without information to give it direction or purpose, it does nothing. Like a computer, without a computer code, it can't function or use software without it. A book without words (information) is blank pages.
vbirdieb 11 months ago
@vbirdieb You proved your own point well enough... Information needs some sort of intelligence to make sense......
Prove that first scientists were God believers. Prove were history tell us that it "gets ugly" disobeying "God". I think most of it shows that it gets ugly when you do obey "God". Obeying "God", means obeying some sick bastards personal will, who claims it is "Gods" will.
You should go to a real school, and get a real education instead of telling rubbish from the stone age.
Arnleifen 10 months ago
@Arnleifen Oooooo, why so angry?
"Obeying "God", means obeying some sick bastards personal will, who claims it is "Gods" will." Then it wouldn't be God's will, at least not my God's will.
History proves the belief of the first scienctists.
Stalin, Marx, communistic China, tried to eliminate the belief in God. I'm sure there's more.
I'm smarter than most high school graduates, I believe in Jesus Christ, I use the Bible (KJV) and the holy ghost as my guide. I don't look to a man.
vbirdieb 10 months ago
@vbirdieb What history proves the belief of first scientists?
So what you are saying, is that any "God" denied by communism leads to ugly things?
In which case makes that argument also imply that any "God" must real, not only your Jesus ghost guide...right?
If you so smart, how come you need a "ghost" to guide you? Smart people do not need "guidance", they figure out life on their own.
Arnleifen 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbirdieb What history proves the belief of first scientists?
So what you are saying, is that any "God" denied by communism leads to ugly things?
In which case makes that argument also imply that any "God" must be real, not only your Jesus ghost guide...right?
If you so smart, how come you need a "ghost" to guide you? Smart people do not need "guidance", they figure out life on their own.
Arnleifen 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbirdieb You proved your own point well enough... Information needs some sort of intelligence to make sense....
Prove that first scientists were God believers. Prove were history tell us that it "gets ugly" disobeying "God". I think most of it shows that it gets ugly when you do obey "God". Obeying "God", means obeying some sick bastards personal will, who claims it is "Gods" will.
You should go to a real school, and get a real education instead of telling rubbish from the stone age.
Arnleifen 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbirdieb You proved your own point well enough... Information needs some sort of intelligence to make sense......
Prove that first scientists were God believers. Prove were history tell us that it "gets ugly" disobeying "God". I think most of it shows that it gets ugly when you do obey "God". Obeying "God", means obeying some sick bastards personal will, who claims it is "Gods" will.
You should go to a real school, and get a real education instead of telling rubbish from the stone age.
Arnleifen 10 months ago
@kitwol abiogenesis is just another word - what is said in the video is true. No cell has ever taken itself to a higher level what part don't you understand? We all have the same evidence, just non-believers don't know how to interpret it
matt3i6 1 year ago
@matt3i6
"No cell has ever taken itself to a higher level what part don't you understand?"
First off, what do you even mean by a "higher level"? If by "higher level', you mean to perform different functions, just take a look at enzymes and their role in speeding up chemical processes(hence deciding what each cell specifically does).
Also, you DO know that Abiogenesis HAS ALREADY been proven to be possible in a laboratory, right? Just saying that it's just another word doesn't prove anything.
kitwol 1 year ago
@kitwol What, exactly was produced in the lab to prove Abiogenesis? Firefly's chemical glow? If so, that's not Abiogenesis, that's more like chemical interactions, not a living organism. Or is it something else? Just saying it took intelligence to discover it, to put it together, why is it so hard to believe it took intelligence to create us and everything else. We are way more complex than what they did in the lab, and it's not even a fair comparison.
vbirdieb 11 months ago
@kitwol abiogensis is just another word - what is said in the video is true. No cell has ever taken itself to a higher level what part don't you understand? We all have the same evidence, just non-believers don't know how to interpret it
matt3i6 1 year ago
Holy shit this guy is an idiot. I burst out laughing at several points. He's so misinformed, that he's not even arguing against anything remotely like evolution. Half the shit he says is totally nonsensical.
tatterdemalionlljk 1 year ago 2
@tatterdemalionlljk "laugh it up fuzz ball" everything he said is true
matt3i6 1 year ago
What?! Pasteur disproved spontaneous Abiogenesis only for pasteurized environments! He did not disprove abiogenesis, which I'll assume is what you meant to say at 2:25, since biogenesis happens at least a hundred times per second. (any birth is biogenesis)
TamaThePeck 1 year ago
@TamaThePeck Why do you hate God? Actually, it's not surprise. I know and understand original sin, it's not your fault you are hostile to your Creator, He said you would be. I once was. We were all "born into iniquity" but that's no excuse for hearing the truth as presented here and still denying
matt3i6 1 year ago
@matt3i6
I don't hate God any more than you hate unicorns.
TamaThePeck 1 year ago
@matt3i6
I don't have God, and I never said I did.
If you want to have any meningful conversation, I'm afraid you are going to have to actually respond to what I say. But, you know what, I wasn't doing that either. I was just debunking the video, which is just the words of John F. MacArthur.
"it's not your fault you are hostile to your Creator"
My relationship with my mother is none of your business.
Seriously though, Pasteur disproved generatio spontaneo, not abiogenesis.
TamaThePeck 1 year ago
@matt3i6 i can't help but notice how you completely ignore what TamaThePeck said, and then say: "that's no excuse for hearing the truth as presented here and still denying." come on! if you're going to moralize, at least do so convincingly.
TigrisCariosus 1 year ago
@matt3i6
So it is your gut reaction that anybody who accepts science "hates God"?
Why do you hate the truth?
odinata 1 year ago
@matt3i6 I don't think people that believe evolution hate your God, it's just about following where the facts lead.
Your an Atheist to most Gods, as am I, and so here we are, both Atheists in our own right; looking for the truth of the Universe. Why Allow your religion to decide where we came from, instead of you God given senses?
bebop7c2 10 months ago
@matt3i6 No,no,no,no,NO. This is exactly what I hate in debates like this. You CANNOT win a debate by saying "You hate God, I win". I will respect opinions, I will respect evidence, I will respect beliefs. What I will not respect is you basically insulting someone because "their side is wrong and yours is right". THAT'S THE POINT OF DEBATE. YOU CAN'T USE THE CONCLUSION TO PROVE YOUR SIDE. It doesn't matter what you believe, logic is universal. That is how Jesus beat the devil in the desert.
Mx41204 9 months ago
@Mx41204 I don't recall saying it that way. But how do we fit logic in with the supernatural? Knowing "First of all no prophecy came into being by the will of man" 2 Peter 1 - so where did we get the words of Scripture? "Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" is that logical? It is when you believe in God. Is this why it says in Scripture non-believers don't understand the Bible because it is "spiritually discerned"
matt3i6 9 months ago
@matt3i6 It's because he presents a reasonable response and you lead of with "Why do you hate God?". For me, belief is not following. It is discerning for yourself the truth. You may take the opinions of others, but it is ultimately your decision what you believe. There are millions of people out there who say that what they think is right, and yet you have your own belief. What makes you say outright that they are wrong? What makes you think that your way is right? and those millions of people,
Mx41204 9 months ago
@Mx41204 they're thinking the exact same thing. That is why we have talks and arguments like this, to see each other's viewpoints so that we may have a clearer view of the truth. That, my friend is logic. Taking all information available and reaching a conclusion. There is a reason for everything, even if the rules aren't set by us.
Mx41204 9 months ago
I love people like this guy who like to say evolution makes no sense, but an all-knowing creature created everything in one instance and made rules for it is perfectly plausible. I also like how God made light before he made a sun. He also made the earth, which would be lifeless without a sun to orbit, before the sun. But yeah, it all makes sense because somebody wrote it in a book 2000 years ago. T_T
FullMetalPrower 1 year ago
darn, he didn't get to the second part of genisis where god trys to make Adam screw a goat.
phookadude 1 year ago
I can "affirm" something just by saying "yup" ... there's a difference between affirming something and confirming it with fact or induction
funincluded 1 year ago
8| for christ sake. I think some intelligent christian or theistic person should tell the guy on this video to stop making religion look so ridiculous.
I cant just think of all the errors in this video. It even makes me wonder if this is some kind of hoax.
adriiPortillo 1 year ago
to all christians: stop using the bible as proof it is only a book, its not any more true then lord of the rings. and two if evolution is not true then asneer this, why do male cats fight over who is going to mate with the female? and why is it so that we get our genes from our mother and father. if creatiosnism was true, we would all have the exact same genes, ether you would be a male, or you would be a female. if creationsim was true, our genes wouldnt change from generation to generation.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk actually the Bible is not like any other book especially not likened to fiction as the Bible was written by 40 human authors but all corroborate the story of God over 1,500 year span and you compare that to fiction? Man couldn't have made up the Bible if he wanted to!
The New Testament in particular is the most verified ancient text in the world period.
TechLinkOnline 1 year ago