Amazing! Your curiosity was your spark to enlightenment. Ken Hovind, in trying to use science to defend his position ends up destroying his position, because his viewpoint is incompatible with science.
A Fundementalist might say you stopped sinning the moment you fed your inquisitiveness and denied God, except denying God is defined as a sin on it's own (how convenient).
This guy you're talking about in the beginning seriously believed that the Earth is 6,000 years old and you couldn't think of any way to refute his claims? Dinosaurs died out 65 millionm years ago. We have absolute proof of this and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and you didn't bring that up? Carl Sagan is my hero. Watch Cosmos maybe, or damn near any show on the Science Channel.
Atheism is an emotional defense mechanism. They cant cope with a supreme God and His laws, so they deny the whole thing. Where they contradict themselves is where they begin to hate God. Its impossible to hate something you dont believe in.
Don't you love how these men of "truth" have such fear of atheism that they have to define our position for us? When you can't win honestly you're forced to lie and cheat I guess.
@theoak84 Christianity is an emotional defense mechanism. They can't cope with the fact that after you die, all of your organs shut down, your brain cells die, and with no brain, you are unable to think, feel, speak, etc. so they find solace in a very convenient solution which they call "God", and get upset when the oh so terrible Atheists refute their beliefs.
C.S. Lewis had a problem he could not resolve....he said man may be foolish but surely not so foolish to attribute the cruel creation to a loving God. He elaborates in his book about a moral order....check it out.
3. I am not a big fan of Hovind. The biggest problem I have is time is relative! Hovind is trying to put the creation of the universe in a earthly time frame.
Thanks for the story. I did enjoy your video. Thanks for serving our country. I do have a couple of comments:
1. Not sure science, physics, chemistry makes mores sense without a God. In my opinion it makes more sense with a God. The natural order of the universe implies a natural order in our spirits.
2. If you are in the process of studying you may want to read the books of another atheist by the name of C.S. Lewis. Check out his books Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain.
I always have a laugh at ikester's comments too. I have gotten into a few comment debates with him myself and find him frustrating and hilarious at the same time. He is also very good at pruning the comments on his videos so it looks like he won the argument so I just don't do it anymore.
"h8uall66" but you do watch them(obveously more than 1)
And no1 made this asshole Athies, you will only be who YOU chose to be.
Thats like me sayin YOU jumped off that tower, when really I triped and pushed your ass off... :) And like I always say, science is wrong yet again(dont get me wrong I love it, but)evolution should be from the sea,dino,GIANT HUMANS, ape, humans??should it not???
I've actually had a similar experience. When you're ignorant of science but slightly versed in the realm of logic, philosophy, intellectuality, etc, you tend to have a hyperactive "Spiderman sense" for bullshit. Well, I happened to be exposed to creationist/young earth arguments (and being the honest son of a bitch, I *actually* believed, for a short time there, that evolution wasn't a very intelligent idea at all). Being uncomfortable with the bullshit...
I submersed myself into the debate as best I could. I tried getting the creationist side, but I could totally spot the logical fallacies and total bias in almost every utterance that it stopped me, so I looked for the sources that, as could reasonably be expected of them, accurately represented the opposing view, and offered point by point rebuttals. Now i'm completely versed in the arguments for both sides, the almost opposite effect of those who exposed me to the debate wanted. lol
Semper Fi. What was your last unit? Mine was 2/11 at Pendleton until 2005.
I am a YEC and very interested in science.
If you still have any contact info on that Marine you were dealing with, please give him my screen name and have him send a message to me. I'd like to hear from him.
Well, Richard Dawkins makes me stay A Christian. Why? Just look at his comments about anyone who does not agree with his views. If evolution makes a person hate someone because they disagree, they can keep their theory of hate.
Evolution has nothing to do with hate any more than physics, chemistry or math. Oh, you can equivocate the two together if it makes you happy, but your happiness has no bearing on it's truth value what so ever. Either way, it's not my problem.
O, yes. Take the "fact" leap of faith. Why not just take it a step further and call it an absolute? Not much difference between the two. and while you are at it. Why not change the DNA difference percent, between human and chimps, to 99.999?
I would disagree. The only "process" of evolution that is observable is speciation, and mutation. The rest is end game evidence. Not observable process evidence. When the actual process of a theory is not observable, it's conclusions have to be based purely on faith. Why? How can you "prove" that something happened if you have only end game evidence? How can a theory become scientific if the millions of years process is not observable, or even testable? By faith.
I did answer the question. It's not observable. Sorry, I don't answer "BAIT" questions from anti-creationist websites.
Do you know how may times that question has been asked during debates? It gets old. And do you know how many times I've seen the conclusion? That gets old too.
You should give me the URL to that website. Apparently they are stealing my ideas. Anyways, so you say that atoms are not observable. OK, so do you believe that they exist?
Not 100% sure. Science says they do, and built a bomb based on that. And it worked. So I'd be about 99% sure. But no one really knows what an atom looks like. It can only be theorized. I believe that the theories will change once we actually get to see one.
Not 100% sure is the best answer you could possibly give. All scientific knowledge is provisional, and atomic theory is no different. And you make a good point, they used atomic theory to build a weapon, tested the weapon, and it worked, thus giving them confidence that atomic theory was correct. Yet, to this day no one has observed an atom. Would you say that scientists have faith in atoms? Or would it be more correct to state that they accept the existence of atoms based on evidence?
It falls along the same lines as why you did not answer my message I sent you. You have either ignored it because you cannot reply to it because you cannot answer my questions.
Or you are searching for answers because you still want to believe what you do, and still be able to deny the existance of God.
Science has proven they exist. They have not proven what they actually look like. So one part of what is claimed does take faith.
I said that nothing in science is an absolute. Regardless, you claim that scientists have proven that atoms exist. Yet no one has ever observed one. So in other words, things do not need to be directly observed in order to be proven correct. This seems counter to your original statement that evolution relies on faith because it has not been observed.
The problem with your logic pretaining to evolution is that only one part of it can be observed. And that is micro-evolution, speciation, and mutation. The millions of years of evolution is not observable. And because of the time factor, never will be. And never means never.
But, the millions of years of claimed evolution is the whole story, right? Changes in life with little or no bounderies.
And if blood had to exist before anything else so that it cells could form organs, skin, and veins. How did the blood stay alive because it has to be oxgenated, and it has to circulate, it has to have viens, it has to have a pump (heart), and it has to have lungs already evolved.
Because that is a cop out answer. It's like saying: Poof there it is. Why?
Think about it. Anything that is more complexed takes more mutations, correct? So is every thing in the human body made with the same exact complexity? No.
So more mutations to evolve = more time needed.
You see, by actually saying this. You are actually adhereing to the creation idea where it was all created at the same time.
What the fuck? You're describing the process of creationism in that sentence.
To point out why your idea is flawed out of the gate, I must use an analogy Richard Dawkins used:
When we look at something like the eye and ask ourselves how it evolved, creationists tend to look at it as though it's perched on a mountain with a sheer cliff face. Evolution doesn't say that we jumped up this mountain to form the eye, we climb up the other, less steep slope, in gradual steps.
Skin is made from dead blood cells?!? Definitely NOT correct. Surprisingly enough it's made from skin cells. Where ever did you pluck that little gem from?
And I'm with h8uall on the rest. The seperate systems would not have been able to evolve independently of each other and would have evolved in parallel (except for the lungs, they evolved only at a much later date than the other parts of the circulatory system). It's not too tricky when you think about it.
Well, chaulk another wrong teaching from science class in a public school no less. It's amazing as I debate things all the stuff I can pull from school and find out it was wrong. And people wonder why I "don't" trust science on every issue.
Or maybe you just didn't pay attention in class? Besides, everything can and have perfectly evolved, the Creation story is pure pseudoscience. It's not even pseudoscience, it's just wrong, a joke.
The problem with my logic? I don't really see a problem at all. You made a statement that since evolution was not directly observable, then it is faith based. Then I questioned you on atoms and you agreed that even though atoms were not observable, their existence was not faith based. So the problem is not with my logic, it is with yours.
When you try to debunk what I believe, I get a little mad because anything I take by faith becomes personal.
When I try to debunk what you believe, what is it that is scientific that explains why you get a little mad? And what makes you take a theory so personal if you are not connected to it through faith?
It's not dodging the question at all. You asserted that I get mad at something that does not make me mad at all. Therefore the question is based on a faulty premise. That would be like asking you what the weather is like in your part of Mars and then accusing you of dodging the question when you respond that you are not on Mars but on Earth. As for your message, I also found that to be hilarious. I made a video about it yesterday.
i was an agnostic. i became an atheist when a friend asked me if i thought plants also had souls. thinking about it, i realized the entire idea of a soul is ridiculous. seeing as every religion i've come across was all about souls, i realized i no longer could give them the benefit of the doubt. Sorry guys, there is no mysterious energy floating around in your brain that controls your mind and leaves after you die. to me, that's the end of the conversation.
Interesting story. I've never seen anyone come at it from that angle. I am actually an agnostic atheist. I don't rule out the possibility of a god or gods, but I do not believe in any of the ones that I have heard of.
well, i used to hold that as part of my beliefs as well. But then i heard Dawkins' argument that he wouldn't disbelieve in a being that had it's own explanation and could also create a universe, but it's a principle property of gods to not have an explanation. If a great scientist could create a universe, we COULD call him god, but he'd be more accurately described as a scientist and the term 'god' would only be used as a metaphor.
to provide another example; i would never believe in unicorns. I would believe, if i saw evidence, in a horse that evolved to have a horn... but that's not a unicorn. a unicorn is supposed to have magical properties that could not be explained by materialist science. Even if you showed me that this horse's horn could cure any disease, i would never believe it did so by some inexplicable means, and i would never call it a unicorn except as a metaphor.
Also it's cool how you were able to pinpoint the exact moment where it all just made sense to you , the 'uh-huh' moment. The sense of fucking wonder of how everything just clicks on the molecular level. Fascinating stuff :)
my atheism came about by just scientific curiosity, when i learned about evolution my freshman year and pretty much its been rationalism from there on lol
Weird. For some reason I thought you were a theist. Not that it matters, as I don't discriminate based on stuff like that. I'm an atheist but not an anti-theist.
I haven't had much luck talking to religious people about this because most of them when they get to a certain point in the argument get mad and start yelling or start talking about faith.
I would say that religion and faith is the product of a mind that developed the urge to ansewr questions, and the ability to preseceve profound questions without the tools to answer them. Im with Cristopher Hitchens on this one. religion and belife in god, is the result of looking for profound answers in the absence of profound evedence. thank littel baby jeasus that we now have evolutonary biology and partical pyisics.
I broke my foot in boot camp, but I decided not to go for any disability. I guess in the long run that might have been a mistake, but it just felt dishonest of me to take money from the government for an injury that has zero effect on my life. I know it's not the same for everyone, but that's how it is for me.
Well they got everything they were going to get out of me. An observation i made about the army early on is that the only person who is realy going to take care of you is you, so when i had the chance to go for disability, i went for it. From the sound of it you had a better time of it in the mareins then i had in the army. Its somthing i was glad i did in retrospect but it if i could do it all over again i'd probably go into airforce so i could have deployed karioke night and a dairy qeen.
Man, the army was pretty Baptist. At basic the drill sgts asked the class if "there were any monkey people here?" I dident even know what they were talking about at first. they backed off after that, but I can say that was a theem while i was in the army.
Yep, half of my drill sergeants were reservist who happened to have the day job of Baptist minister. I got a talking' to for going to the Buddhist service, it wasent as bad at my unit, but it veryed from comander to comander.
One of my drills in particular wanted to have a talk with me about it. That talk never matirialised but im quite certen it would have consisted of him trying to get his sticky damn god all over me.
One of my drill instructors, a Southern Baptist, tried to convince us that the Koran had a passage in it that predicted that 9/11 would happen and that the very same passage proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the only true prophet and the savior of mankind. I tried not to laugh, but it was difficult. This guy was basically saying the the Koran could predict the future, but that it was still wrong about everything else. Huh?
Yeah, I never really believed in a god, but i only really started considering myself an atheist about two and a bit years ago. It started out with me questioning the whole idea of religious tolerance.
The straw that broke the camels back was when I discovered that one of my best friends had become a born again christian and young earth creationist. I seriously could not believe it. It was pretty much on par with when I found out that one of my best friends had leukemia.
I only had a problem once in the Air Force with a supervisor that was a Roman Catholic convert. He said me being an atheist was "unacceptable." I asked him if he wanted me to file an EEO complaint (as an idle threat, I'd never do a bitch thing like that), and he shut the fuck up.
So you DID find a practical use for the term agnostic.
Seriously, loved the story, just as I love hearing all stories about how people discover their atheism. My atheism was thrust upon me by an over zealous religious studies teacher who called me a 'Doubting Thomas' for asking a few questions. People like Kent merely compund and refine it.
You are right, I never really had it in for Christianity until these Creationists started this propaganda war with lies and stuff to fool uneducated people. Now I despise Christians, so I am sad for that but they are the reason. Glad someone else feels the same way.
If more people would make videos of how creationist made them leave the church because of the dishonesty. It may send them a message that dishonesty tactics don't work.
Yes, Pat Tillman got shot by friendly fire. You should go read about him, some of the details of his death and how it was handled by the military are truly bizarre.
This has been flagged as spam show
you can mock me all you want, but you literally know nothing, you say you can debunk somthing yet you did not and cannot YOU ARE A JOKE.
ALLKINDZASH1T 7 months ago
you should win the award for most uninteresting man in the world nothing you say has any substance stop making videos
ALLKINDZASH1T 7 months ago
@ALLKINDZASH1T
You should win the award for most uninteresting troll in the world. Nothing you say has any substance. Stop trolling.
h8uall66 7 months ago
Kent Hovind Didn't make you do anything
you Chose to Rebel agaist GOD
KENT didn't say
I WILL MAKE THIS MAN A NON BELIEVER
no he DIDNT PAY HIS TAXES
and got in trouble with GOD
and THE LAW
but the LAW being upheld doesnt mean he is a LIER about Creation
if anything it proves his FAULT
and shows GODS justice
libbyandtai 8 months ago
@libbyandtai
You seem to have missed the point. Also, tone it down a little, Jihad Jim. This is a place for honest discussion not a place to scream and yell.
h8uall66 8 months ago
This video gets a like just for the title!!
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago
Amazing! Your curiosity was your spark to enlightenment. Ken Hovind, in trying to use science to defend his position ends up destroying his position, because his viewpoint is incompatible with science.
A Fundementalist might say you stopped sinning the moment you fed your inquisitiveness and denied God, except denying God is defined as a sin on it's own (how convenient).
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
This may be the only positive thing that Hovind has ever achieved.
Nocturnalux 1 year ago
This guy you're talking about in the beginning seriously believed that the Earth is 6,000 years old and you couldn't think of any way to refute his claims? Dinosaurs died out 65 millionm years ago. We have absolute proof of this and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and you didn't bring that up? Carl Sagan is my hero. Watch Cosmos maybe, or damn near any show on the Science Channel.
snatchpro 1 year ago
Atheism is an emotional defense mechanism. They cant cope with a supreme God and His laws, so they deny the whole thing. Where they contradict themselves is where they begin to hate God. Its impossible to hate something you dont believe in.
theoak84 1 year ago
@theoak84
Thank you for the analysis Dr. Bullshit. And you people wonder why we think you are delusional.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@theoak84 Wow I thought I was an atheist because I didn't find any evidence for god, but thank you for telling me the accual reason!
PaXx 1 year ago
@PaXx
Don't you love how these men of "truth" have such fear of atheism that they have to define our position for us? When you can't win honestly you're forced to lie and cheat I guess.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 Yup, I do ^^ I guess you could call it a straw man?
PaXx 1 year ago
@theoak84
Yes. ;)
No one made this nut anything. He has let himself become blinded to the truth.
Camel76 11 months ago
@theoak84 Christianity is an emotional defense mechanism. They can't cope with the fact that after you die, all of your organs shut down, your brain cells die, and with no brain, you are unable to think, feel, speak, etc. so they find solace in a very convenient solution which they call "God", and get upset when the oh so terrible Atheists refute their beliefs.
TheBonesBlog 9 months ago
@TheBonesBlog actually we can deal with that, but thats the point when the soul leaves the body. they are 2 separate things...
theoak84 9 months ago
continued..... Depending on matter, speed, etc time becomes relative. A much better explanation is by Hugh Ross.
4. Also check out Josh McDowell another former atheist who wrote the books More than a Carpenter and Evidence that demands a verdict.
holirumicsfriend 2 years ago
continued....
C.S. Lewis had a problem he could not resolve....he said man may be foolish but surely not so foolish to attribute the cruel creation to a loving God. He elaborates in his book about a moral order....check it out.
3. I am not a big fan of Hovind. The biggest problem I have is time is relative! Hovind is trying to put the creation of the universe in a earthly time frame.
holirumicsfriend 2 years ago
Thanks for the story. I did enjoy your video. Thanks for serving our country. I do have a couple of comments:
1. Not sure science, physics, chemistry makes mores sense without a God. In my opinion it makes more sense with a God. The natural order of the universe implies a natural order in our spirits.
2. If you are in the process of studying you may want to read the books of another atheist by the name of C.S. Lewis. Check out his books Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain.
holirumicsfriend 2 years ago
Interesting anecdote. Thanks.
TheRichDarkEarth 2 years ago
I always have a laugh at ikester's comments too. I have gotten into a few comment debates with him myself and find him frustrating and hilarious at the same time. He is also very good at pruning the comments on his videos so it looks like he won the argument so I just don't do it anymore.
poduck2 2 years ago
Dude, well done and well said.
sidewinderguy 2 years ago
Thank you!
h8uall66 2 years ago
Hey, just in case no one has mentioned, it doesn't go theist -> agnostic -> atheist, theism and gnosticism are different things.
Theism = I have a belief in gods
Atheism = I do not have a belief in gods (this includes uncertainty)
Gnosticism = I KNOW "X" exists
Agnosticism = I do not KNOW if "X" exists.
Gnostic theism = I know gods exist
Agnostic theism = I believe gods exist but don't know for sure
Gnostic atheism = I know gods do not exist
Agnostic atheism = I don't believe but aren't sure
NoeLPZC 2 years ago
I know, theism is a position on belief, while gnosticism is a position on knowledge. The two are not mutually exclusive.
h8uall66 2 years ago
"h8uall66" but you do watch them(obveously more than 1)
And no1 made this asshole Athies, you will only be who YOU chose to be.
Thats like me sayin YOU jumped off that tower, when really I triped and pushed your ass off... :) And like I always say, science is wrong yet again(dont get me wrong I love it, but)evolution should be from the sea,dino,GIANT HUMANS, ape, humans??should it not???
WhitebreedIndian 3 years ago
I've actually had a similar experience. When you're ignorant of science but slightly versed in the realm of logic, philosophy, intellectuality, etc, you tend to have a hyperactive "Spiderman sense" for bullshit. Well, I happened to be exposed to creationist/young earth arguments (and being the honest son of a bitch, I *actually* believed, for a short time there, that evolution wasn't a very intelligent idea at all). Being uncomfortable with the bullshit...
NwZ2 3 years ago
I submersed myself into the debate as best I could. I tried getting the creationist side, but I could totally spot the logical fallacies and total bias in almost every utterance that it stopped me, so I looked for the sources that, as could reasonably be expected of them, accurately represented the opposing view, and offered point by point rebuttals. Now i'm completely versed in the arguments for both sides, the almost opposite effect of those who exposed me to the debate wanted. lol
NwZ2 3 years ago
Semper Fi. What was your last unit? Mine was 2/11 at Pendleton until 2005.
I am a YEC and very interested in science.
If you still have any contact info on that Marine you were dealing with, please give him my screen name and have him send a message to me. I'd like to hear from him.
mikebForJesus 3 years ago
Well, Richard Dawkins makes me stay A Christian. Why? Just look at his comments about anyone who does not agree with his views. If evolution makes a person hate someone because they disagree, they can keep their theory of hate.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Evolution has nothing to do with hate any more than physics, chemistry or math. Oh, you can equivocate the two together if it makes you happy, but your happiness has no bearing on it's truth value what so ever. Either way, it's not my problem.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Just like lying has nothing to do with creation. But guilt by association is your only defense for evolution. Not my problem.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Evolution needs no defense. It's a fact.
h8uall66 3 years ago
O, yes. Take the "fact" leap of faith. Why not just take it a step further and call it an absolute? Not much difference between the two. and while you are at it. Why not change the DNA difference percent, between human and chimps, to 99.999?
ikester7579 3 years ago
Nothing in science is an absolute, all knowledge is provisional. That's one of the cornerstone principles of science. No faith needed.
h8uall66 3 years ago
I would disagree. The only "process" of evolution that is observable is speciation, and mutation. The rest is end game evidence. Not observable process evidence. When the actual process of a theory is not observable, it's conclusions have to be based purely on faith. Why? How can you "prove" that something happened if you have only end game evidence? How can a theory become scientific if the millions of years process is not observable, or even testable? By faith.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Not everything has to be directly observable for it to be science. When was the last time you observed an atom?
h8uall66 3 years ago
Yep, just like God. Not observable as well. And many though can tell you about His effects just like an atom.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Don't dodge the question. When was the last time you observed an atom?
h8uall66 3 years ago
I did answer the question. It's not observable. Sorry, I don't answer "BAIT" questions from anti-creationist websites.
Do you know how may times that question has been asked during debates? It gets old. And do you know how many times I've seen the conclusion? That gets old too.
You should at least try and be original.
ikester7579 3 years ago
You should give me the URL to that website. Apparently they are stealing my ideas. Anyways, so you say that atoms are not observable. OK, so do you believe that they exist?
h8uall66 3 years ago
Not 100% sure. Science says they do, and built a bomb based on that. And it worked. So I'd be about 99% sure. But no one really knows what an atom looks like. It can only be theorized. I believe that the theories will change once we actually get to see one.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Not 100% sure is the best answer you could possibly give. All scientific knowledge is provisional, and atomic theory is no different. And you make a good point, they used atomic theory to build a weapon, tested the weapon, and it worked, thus giving them confidence that atomic theory was correct. Yet, to this day no one has observed an atom. Would you say that scientists have faith in atoms? Or would it be more correct to state that they accept the existence of atoms based on evidence?
h8uall66 3 years ago
It falls along the same lines as why you did not answer my message I sent you. You have either ignored it because you cannot reply to it because you cannot answer my questions.
Or you are searching for answers because you still want to believe what you do, and still be able to deny the existance of God.
Science has proven they exist. They have not proven what they actually look like. So one part of what is claimed does take faith.
Besides, there are no absolutes, right?
ikester7579 3 years ago
I said that nothing in science is an absolute. Regardless, you claim that scientists have proven that atoms exist. Yet no one has ever observed one. So in other words, things do not need to be directly observed in order to be proven correct. This seems counter to your original statement that evolution relies on faith because it has not been observed.
h8uall66 3 years ago
The problem with your logic pretaining to evolution is that only one part of it can be observed. And that is micro-evolution, speciation, and mutation. The millions of years of evolution is not observable. And because of the time factor, never will be. And never means never.
But, the millions of years of claimed evolution is the whole story, right? Changes in life with little or no bounderies.
Cont...
ikester7579 3 years ago
Let's take the evolution of the eye. Without going into it complexity, I have a simple question. Which evolved first?
1) The eye?
2) The vision center of the brian to process sight?
And let's take the circlatory system. Which evoled first?
1) Veins?
2) Blood?
3) Heart?
4) The lungs to oxgenate?
Question: Skin is made from dead blood cells correct? So what covered us until blood evolved and died to make skin?
How were the viens and other organs evolved without blood existing 1st?
ikester7579 3 years ago
And if blood had to exist before anything else so that it cells could form organs, skin, and veins. How did the blood stay alive because it has to be oxgenated, and it has to circulate, it has to have viens, it has to have a pump (heart), and it has to have lungs already evolved.
ikester7579 3 years ago
The Eye: Why couldn't the two systems have evolved together?
The Circulatory system: Again, why couldn't they have all evolved together?
Skin: Skin is not made of dead blood cells, so there is no point in answering this question.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Because that is a cop out answer. It's like saying: Poof there it is. Why?
Think about it. Anything that is more complexed takes more mutations, correct? So is every thing in the human body made with the same exact complexity? No.
So more mutations to evolve = more time needed.
You see, by actually saying this. You are actually adhereing to the creation idea where it was all created at the same time.
All evolved together = all created togehter.
ikester7579 3 years ago
"Poof there it is. Why?"
What the fuck? You're describing the process of creationism in that sentence.
To point out why your idea is flawed out of the gate, I must use an analogy Richard Dawkins used:
When we look at something like the eye and ask ourselves how it evolved, creationists tend to look at it as though it's perched on a mountain with a sheer cliff face. Evolution doesn't say that we jumped up this mountain to form the eye, we climb up the other, less steep slope, in gradual steps.
Uglytastic 3 years ago
Skin is made from dead blood cells?!? Definitely NOT correct. Surprisingly enough it's made from skin cells. Where ever did you pluck that little gem from?
And I'm with h8uall on the rest. The seperate systems would not have been able to evolve independently of each other and would have evolved in parallel (except for the lungs, they evolved only at a much later date than the other parts of the circulatory system). It's not too tricky when you think about it.
mungbeanman 3 years ago
Well, chaulk another wrong teaching from science class in a public school no less. It's amazing as I debate things all the stuff I can pull from school and find out it was wrong. And people wonder why I "don't" trust science on every issue.
ikester7579 3 years ago
Or maybe you just didn't pay attention in class? Besides, everything can and have perfectly evolved, the Creation story is pure pseudoscience. It's not even pseudoscience, it's just wrong, a joke.
EineKleineAtheist 3 years ago
The problem with my logic? I don't really see a problem at all. You made a statement that since evolution was not directly observable, then it is faith based. Then I questioned you on atoms and you agreed that even though atoms were not observable, their existence was not faith based. So the problem is not with my logic, it is with yours.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Okay, let's do a faith based test.
When you try to debunk what I believe, I get a little mad because anything I take by faith becomes personal.
When I try to debunk what you believe, what is it that is scientific that explains why you get a little mad? And what makes you take a theory so personal if you are not connected to it through faith?
ikester7579 3 years ago
Why do you assume that I get mad? I usually laugh hysterically when I watch your videos or read your comments.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Well I guess I can answer in the same fashion since this has become more of a one up game than a scientific debate.
So, I laugh at your videos too. Especially the new introduction that you have. Put a lot of effort into that did you?
So you see, I can respond just like you. Nice try at dodging the question.
One more thing, still working on your response to the message I sent you? How's that comming?
Yes I can be sarcastic too. But to what point are we doing this?
ikester7579 3 years ago
It's not dodging the question at all. You asserted that I get mad at something that does not make me mad at all. Therefore the question is based on a faulty premise. That would be like asking you what the weather is like in your part of Mars and then accusing you of dodging the question when you respond that you are not on Mars but on Earth. As for your message, I also found that to be hilarious. I made a video about it yesterday.
h8uall66 3 years ago
i was an agnostic. i became an atheist when a friend asked me if i thought plants also had souls. thinking about it, i realized the entire idea of a soul is ridiculous. seeing as every religion i've come across was all about souls, i realized i no longer could give them the benefit of the doubt. Sorry guys, there is no mysterious energy floating around in your brain that controls your mind and leaves after you die. to me, that's the end of the conversation.
aleceth 3 years ago
Interesting story. I've never seen anyone come at it from that angle. I am actually an agnostic atheist. I don't rule out the possibility of a god or gods, but I do not believe in any of the ones that I have heard of.
h8uall66 3 years ago
well, i used to hold that as part of my beliefs as well. But then i heard Dawkins' argument that he wouldn't disbelieve in a being that had it's own explanation and could also create a universe, but it's a principle property of gods to not have an explanation. If a great scientist could create a universe, we COULD call him god, but he'd be more accurately described as a scientist and the term 'god' would only be used as a metaphor.
aleceth 3 years ago
cont'd
to provide another example; i would never believe in unicorns. I would believe, if i saw evidence, in a horse that evolved to have a horn... but that's not a unicorn. a unicorn is supposed to have magical properties that could not be explained by materialist science. Even if you showed me that this horse's horn could cure any disease, i would never believe it did so by some inexplicable means, and i would never call it a unicorn except as a metaphor.
aleceth 3 years ago
YOU made me atheist!!!
thanks
rorgay 3 years ago
Really? Wow! Cool!
h8uall66 3 years ago
Also it's cool how you were able to pinpoint the exact moment where it all just made sense to you , the 'uh-huh' moment. The sense of fucking wonder of how everything just clicks on the molecular level. Fascinating stuff :)
d1ssey 3 years ago
Beardie, that was supremely entertaining. More stories, more stories, more stories!!!
d1ssey 3 years ago
Wow, that's so unexpected!
Kent Hovind kindled your love for science, that's probably a first.
To think you would've never had that if not for him.
Shite, I'd never thought I'd say this, but... Thank you, Kent LOL
Atheistblindchick 3 years ago
my atheism came about by just scientific curiosity, when i learned about evolution my freshman year and pretty much its been rationalism from there on lol
coreyspaz 3 years ago
Weird. For some reason I thought you were a theist. Not that it matters, as I don't discriminate based on stuff like that. I'm an atheist but not an anti-theist.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Do you have any theories on how humans developed the concept of god?
I think it originated from fear and lack of knowledge. Or maybe from smoking random leaves lol...i dont know.
whatuseruser 3 years ago
I haven't had much luck talking to religious people about this because most of them when they get to a certain point in the argument get mad and start yelling or start talking about faith.
whatuseruser 3 years ago
I would say that religion and faith is the product of a mind that developed the urge to ansewr questions, and the ability to preseceve profound questions without the tools to answer them. Im with Cristopher Hitchens on this one. religion and belife in god, is the result of looking for profound answers in the absence of profound evedence. thank littel baby jeasus that we now have evolutonary biology and partical pyisics.
Keylimedelight 3 years ago
Did'ja get any disability? I got 30% for breaking myself jumping. its the shit.
Keylimedelight 3 years ago
I broke my foot in boot camp, but I decided not to go for any disability. I guess in the long run that might have been a mistake, but it just felt dishonest of me to take money from the government for an injury that has zero effect on my life. I know it's not the same for everyone, but that's how it is for me.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Well they got everything they were going to get out of me. An observation i made about the army early on is that the only person who is realy going to take care of you is you, so when i had the chance to go for disability, i went for it. From the sound of it you had a better time of it in the mareins then i had in the army. Its somthing i was glad i did in retrospect but it if i could do it all over again i'd probably go into airforce so i could have deployed karioke night and a dairy qeen.
Keylimedelight 3 years ago
Man, the army was pretty Baptist. At basic the drill sgts asked the class if "there were any monkey people here?" I dident even know what they were talking about at first. they backed off after that, but I can say that was a theem while i was in the army.
Keylimedelight 3 years ago
Holy crap! Are you saying that they referred to people that accepted the scientific fact of evolution as "monkey people"?
h8uall66 3 years ago
Yep, half of my drill sergeants were reservist who happened to have the day job of Baptist minister. I got a talking' to for going to the Buddhist service, it wasent as bad at my unit, but it veryed from comander to comander.
Keylimedelight 3 years ago
What did they say to you about going to the Buddhist service?
h8uall66 3 years ago
One of my drills in particular wanted to have a talk with me about it. That talk never matirialised but im quite certen it would have consisted of him trying to get his sticky damn god all over me.
Keylimedelight 3 years ago
One of my drill instructors, a Southern Baptist, tried to convince us that the Koran had a passage in it that predicted that 9/11 would happen and that the very same passage proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the only true prophet and the savior of mankind. I tried not to laugh, but it was difficult. This guy was basically saying the the Koran could predict the future, but that it was still wrong about everything else. Huh?
h8uall66 3 years ago
I love how people can segment there lives and thoughts like that. Its a impressive display of creativity.
Keylimedelight 3 years ago
"I am very typical of marines. I live to get hammered, and fuck."
Damn. I guess I should revise my negative stance on the military a bit ;-)
Killersepp 3 years ago
Yeah, I never really believed in a god, but i only really started considering myself an atheist about two and a bit years ago. It started out with me questioning the whole idea of religious tolerance.
The straw that broke the camels back was when I discovered that one of my best friends had become a born again christian and young earth creationist. I seriously could not believe it. It was pretty much on par with when I found out that one of my best friends had leukemia.
ubergossen 3 years ago
Now they've both made almost full recoveries.
ubergossen 3 years ago
I only had a problem once in the Air Force with a supervisor that was a Roman Catholic convert. He said me being an atheist was "unacceptable." I asked him if he wanted me to file an EEO complaint (as an idle threat, I'd never do a bitch thing like that), and he shut the fuck up.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
So you DID find a practical use for the term agnostic.
Seriously, loved the story, just as I love hearing all stories about how people discover their atheism. My atheism was thrust upon me by an over zealous religious studies teacher who called me a 'Doubting Thomas' for asking a few questions. People like Kent merely compund and refine it.
mungbeanman 3 years ago
kent hovind strengthened my atheism ten fold...and that's a conservative figure...
C0ct0pus 3 years ago
good story.
cozmikzen 3 years ago
I try and tell creationist your one of the biggest reasons why Christians leave not science.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago
You are right, I never really had it in for Christianity until these Creationists started this propaganda war with lies and stuff to fool uneducated people. Now I despise Christians, so I am sad for that but they are the reason. Glad someone else feels the same way.
ytben26 3 years ago
If more people would make videos of how creationist made them leave the church because of the dishonesty. It may send them a message that dishonesty tactics don't work.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago
Is he still in jail?
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
Yes.
Walabio 3 years ago
He's still got 9 years to go.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Did Pat get killed by friendly fire? Or am I thinking of the wrong guy?
themanwhoknew 3 years ago
Yes, Pat Tillman got shot by friendly fire. You should go read about him, some of the details of his death and how it was handled by the military are truly bizarre.
h8uall66 3 years ago
Yes sadly Pat Tillman was caught in friendly fire then to compound the issue the army tried to cover it up.
Was a real bummer all the way around.
Atheistprimate 3 years ago
Yes sir he is.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago