People must understand how people's beliefs varies greatly.scientific people live by science and they call those who live by faith as ignorant while those who live by faith address scientific people as lost souls. As a Christian, all the world's present happenings are more than enough to say that the revelation prophesies are being fulfilled. Try reading it. As an advice, I think people of science and faith must indulge themselves in both contexts to see what is worth believing. God bless
What prophecy in Revelations is currently being fulfilled? Jesus told his disciples that their generation would not pass before he returned. Straight from the mouth of the son of god, and that never happened.
You should check out my video on failed bible prophecies. Which such an abysmal track record of the bible the only thing you have to base your assessments on is simply the desire to believe it's true, and nothing else.
@malignantpoodle hey can prove where in the context of science shows how "male and female" species aroused from the so called evolution theory.
You know, religion varies greatly.. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianism,Now if you define religion, that is usually faith. As a Christian those proofs of our faith our magnified as we live in God's law. Those things that we receive day by day, our answered prayers,blessings and trials are more than enough to make us believe in God. God bless, :)
First of all, male and female are not "species" of any kind. You're asking for justification for something you don't even understand so I won't even bother.
Religion is not faith. You can have one without the other. You say that god's blessings are received day by day but statistically Christians fair no better in health, fortune, and good luck than non-Christians.
lol why so we have science??? A while back the only people who studied it were monks and other religious people... they saw it as a way to be closer to God because they were studing His Creation.
No, organized religion studied and perpetuated science only as it complimented biblical "lessons". Organized religion systematically opposed, killed, and oppressed those with discoveries that challenged biblical claims. This began with astronomical observations and exists through to evolution today.
@malignantpoodle Yeah what a weak response from his " ok god bless you:) other words let me plug my ears and close my eyes... They are all just dishonest pricks
@MrXanthan19 The Greeks were studying science before Christianity was created, and these scientists believed in Greek gods, and likely had never heard of Judaism or Islam.
So God didn't start science, intelligent people started science, and retards kept following religion word for word without any evidence.
Hello, ignorantpoodle, this is DinosaurViking again. This is the only other account I have access to; thought I should tell you that right away. I don't think you understand what I was trying to say before, so I'll try one more time. God created plants with those elements in the plant already. He wouldn't have created something that wouldn't grow. Also, God created the plants bearing fruit etc. for when he created all the animals and Adam to eat. You should accept that this is a weak argument.
If you're blocked it's for censorship on your own channel. That's the only reason I block. You were given a private message explaining this, with a link to the video I made regarding that action.
Your argument here is a fancy way of saying, "God did it".
THAT is a weak argument... actually, it isn't an argument at all it's just blind acceptance of anything you're told about God that contributes to your faith.
@DeathToLoki I don't think you understand. The book is a lie, a fairy tale, used to control the flock and keep money coming in. There is no proof Jesus even lived. And please don't post the same worn out ones.
What is even more striking, is that it relies on the old model of the world:A huge amount of water; the earth as a disc on piles, below the realm of the death, above separated by a wall of water, heaven.
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.And God called the firmament Heaven."
the book in bible that explained creation has been grossly mistranslated.read the original text and tell me what you think(if you can,i cant)till then your just argue'in with king james bro.
Well in that case, I suppose all of the Christians that use the King James aren't Christians, they're just followers of KJ?
But ok, I have looked at the original text and the account of creation is one of the most accurate translations in the bible. You can try Blue Letter Bible if you like.
@malignantpoodle does that book say YHWH or god?but beside that i wanted your opinion of how it talks about mist coming up over the face of the earth.and wanted to know how you put that with the rest of your thoughts on this vid.just wandering if you put that in to this.because i think it may at least change your thought on the "creation story"not to make you not right that it is not true but to change it somehow scientific like.
It can never be scientific. Come on. The Earth older than the sun? Plants growing and bearing fruit before the sun? Heavier than iron elements before stars (plants require heavier than iron to survive which are only created in supernova).
It could never ever be scientific for several dozen reasons having not the least to do with what you're referring to.
@malignantpoodle and not to be rude,because you are not stupid.but to clarify to you that im sure you never read the original text because it is in hebrew and i dont think you know hebrew.well the hebrew like it was written.
@malignantpoodle i did not say you were wrong....i said im sure you never read the original text that is in hebrew and i dont think you know hebrew.the hebrew like it was written in the ORIGINAL TEXT of the creation.and the word god comes from the ancient german word "gott".not from the creation story you are refering to.it is not found anywhere in that story so it has nothing to do with this conversation.like i said you are talkin about a story from a mistranslated bible.
@419Unknown The, "ORIGINAL TEXT" says "Gods created heaven and earth in beginning". The, "ORIGINAL TEXT" says actually, "Gods", it's specifically plural. No, YOU have not read the original text. The, "ORIGINAL TEXT" says בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
@malignantpoodle but the closest translated version of the bible is the holy name bible.only trouble is it also has a lot of mistranslations and also many different versions.
There are very few mistranslations, most of them having to do with obsolete notions from one language to the next. There are plenty of contradictions and fallacies that exist within the original text that are translated over.
I see all your facts you have made and agree with all of them, they're all true. But... Like DinosaurViking and doggodwood said, you can't really argue this point as if you believe in Christianity or something similar, because they believe that if God created the Earth, then he probably created the elements like this with it. Unless it denies this somewhere in the Bible that I missed, then unfortunately your argument is invalid.
Actually, you're not an atheist. You're a sock puppet account from the same location that posted 1 minute BEFORE dinosaur viking and doggodwood did with the remark, "Like DinosaurViking and doggodwood said" BEFORE THEY HAD EVEN POSTED.
Uhhhh... Are you crazy? Listen. God made the Earth. When God made the Earth, he made all the ELEMENTS already on the Earth when he made it. He didn't just make a rock, he made Earth with it elements. Also, light (A.K.A. The sun), was made on the first day. The elements don't need to come from the stars. AND why are you hating on "THE CHRISTIAN GOD" in your response to "Dinosaur Viking?" Just because we're right, doesn't mean you have to get against Christians. What did they ever do to you?
Stupid fuck, first of all the sun was made on day 4 according to the bible, not day 1, go read it. Second, the title of the video is, "proving biblical creation false", so that already answers your question about why I'm talking about, "the christian god".
Not exactly. I'm saying that no God made the elements, especially not the Christian god, as the story of creation contradicts what we know about where the elements come from.
@malignantpoodle What is your basis for science? What basis do you have for assuming the uniformity of nature? How do you know that tomorrow will be like today?
I think it's funny that nutters like you ask, "what is your basis for science?" when they use the fruits of scientific knowledge... like medicine, the computer you're on, the food you eat... and you question the basis of science.
Science, unlike religion, doesn't require faith. It presents facts, and that which it cannot display as factual, it doesn't present. Go back to enjoying only what religion has brought you, and quit using any form of science.
@malignantpoodle If you read my question properly, you would notice that I asked for your basis for science. How can you account for the uniformity of nature? I am not questioning science itself at all.
If you're not questioning science then what are you saying? I'm presenting well established, peer reviewed, journal published facts. Since you're not questioning science at all, then you must agree with me. These are not my conjectures, they are established scientific phenomenon.
@malignantpoodle I am saying this: How can you account for the uniformity of nature? That is my question for you. If you don't answer it, then I believe that you can't.
Uniformity in nature is the inherent concept that science is built upon. It allows the universe in many cases to be testable, a yard stick of experimentation. The very nature of energy and matter has in general predicable traits that apply everywhere.
This venue is ripe for experimentation and predictability; knowledge can grow. Through that knowledge and experimentation, there is zero findings in support of a god. Lack of uniformity would be better evidence of a god at work
Furthermore, a lack of explanation does not mean that this is any evidence of a god. At one time people had no idea about the tides, or disease, or what the mechanism of a sunrise was, surmising at first that the sun WAS a god, then that perhaps the sun was moving around the earth. There are lots of time throughout history where man could explain something, but every time we've found the answer, it had nothing to do with god, but testable and verifiable natural phenomenon.
lay off the sock puppet accounts or be banned, you're terrible at it anyway. One of the accounts were formed today and has only ever posted here. Another quoted you BEFORE YOU HAD EVEN POSTED. So you're fucking terrible at lying and if you really represent a Christian view you should review what the bible says about being a liar.
and explain the galaxy that contains as many as 8 times the amount of stars as the milky way plus scientist say according to the law of super physics cannot exist..
i like the picture of events.. but explain the water covered earth.. i know we all have it at the tip of our tongues... come on.. yes the flood... repent sir and take this video off..theres still time
(in genesis) the bible also calls the moon a light source which we know of course it isn't... but the ignorant bronze age goat herders who wrote the bible thought that.
mp clearly shows the order of events wrong, not what constitutes a day
it's obvious you didn't even watch the video for expressing an opinion, just like you didnt even give life a chance before deciding upon christianity. poor you.
There are certain things we know, some we don't know, and some we're on the fence about. With regard to origins, science can be wrong. But what we do know displays that creationism as described in the bible is false.
I don't like this argument much. If you believe God created Earth it not a stretch at all to believe he created it with all the heavier than iron elements in the first place.
Earth is special remember? Now, planets other than Earth... They had to wait for supernovae for their heavy elements, abiogenesis for life to take off, evolution for it to develop, before having a chance at plant life. But that's because God only loves the monkeys on this planet
Okay let me get this straight...you are "yet" to know how the universe came into existence and therefore to justify your claims you use a system of elimination to disprove all the others so that yours can be revered or "will be" revered as the true one? not to mention you are using your unproved creation criteria to disprove.
The only "devil's advocate" that I would give is this: the christian god created the necessary minerals/materials for the plants to survive, on day 3, . . . then created the sun/stars on day 4. It wouldn't matter if it were a day late, as the plants would survive one day in that setup.
However, there are so many other ridiculous notions in the biblical 6 day creation story that this [the above] doesn't satisfy the main problem.
For those that claim to subscribe both to science and the bible, that won't work. But, I have heard this before.
Remember however, that we have fruit bearing plants before the sun. It wasn't just that the plants "held on" for a day surviving in darkness. They were producing fruit without sun, and without explanation as to required elements.
Ah, . . . so it would be a false history. An event [the growing of fruit based upon a cycle] that never actually took place. Same as when we find supernova remnants more than 6,000-10,000 light years away.
First of all, I really do respect the degree of respect and maturity used in your reply. Most people would be rude, so thank you.
Second, I attribute these to a god because they were done in the name of the God described in the Christian Bible, so in that sense you are correct, that combined with me not having any scientific explanation for any of these things.
To the people who don't believe in this, I ask them, what if? What if it's all real? & respectfully let them make their own decision.
If this happened exclusively within Christian circles, you'd have a point. But it happens in contradictory religions.
Also, your default position is to assume that these things are true. However, none have ever been scientifically substantiated. That's a problem. An all powerful God seems to be elusive and backed only by unsubstantiated claims.
Sure, people can believe what they want, and we should let them. The part I have a problem with is the religious pushing their views on public policy.
If on the other hand you can show peer reviewed medical evidence published in a scientific journal claiming that an act of God healed someone, I'd be open to the idea.
I don't hold the standard of proof for a God any higher than I do anything else; be that electromagnetism, atomic theory, or medical science.
I think it's cool that you are open to ideas, many Christians, people of other faiths, Atheists, Agnostics, etc couldn't honestly say that about themselves. I consider myself a lot more open as well, for example I think anyone that doesn't believe in evolution is just stubborn, it obviously happens, and the age of the world is definitely older than most Christians believe. The Christian Bible does not contradict with this idea along with many others when studied. Most Christians are stubborn.
Evolution is very much incompatible with the bible. Even if we consider Genesis an allegory and such, this still presents one major problem; if man came about through evolution, then there can be no such thing as original sin. Without being born into sin, then Christ's sacrifice is a red herring. You must have original sin for Christ's sacrifice to even be relevant. With evolution, there is no original sin. Think about it.
That's where the concept of faith comes in. As I stated in my first post, I believe important books were left out and stuff has been changed, or even added. I do believe that the 7 days mentioned in the Bible are not to be taken literally, because it states that God is beyond the limits of time. I have come to accept the big bang as fact, and that it was created by a creator. I believe there was MUCH history before Genesis and it does not disprove this. It talks of many creatures and people
(continued)... living at the time of Adam and Eve and speaks of replenishing the earth. I believe there were many different species and civilizations before this. The Bible leaves open all these possibilities.
If I can assume safely just about anything, I can make any religious text possible. Bottom line for me is that there is zero in the way of objective, verifiable evidence.
Check out my video, "The Need Behind Faith", where I go into detail about how desire to believe, or need for faith trumps the need for evidence.
Well, opinions do differ, and I respect that. The concept of faith comes easier to some than others, and I think that has more to do with life experience than anything else. I completely agree with you on the part of people forcing their views, I hate that, it's very inconsiderate. I just show love for and respect people, tell them what I believe and why, and leave it at that. People can believe whatever the heck the want. These are just the beliefs I chose based on my life, and you have yours.
Well, your approach is certainly more mature than that of every day people of faith.
I did want to point out however that miracles, healings, etc. are not a matter of opinion; they're a matter of either folklore, conjecture, or substantiated scientific facts. Anyone with any proof of the supernatural can claim the $1M prize from Randi. The fact that there is no evidence for miracle healing is precisely why doctors go to med school and not seminary.
I know I'll be voted down, grilled, and bashed for this post but I don't really care...
I don't believe in God because of the Bible, in fact, I believe that many credible books were left out, and some were changed.
The reason I believe in God is because of the things I have seen. Visible tumors literally disappearing in matter of seconds, cancer completely eliminated from people's bodies over night, and actually feeling and seeing amazing things (without drugs). I didn't believe it either.
Aside from there being zero scientific substantiation for any of those claims... just ignoring that for a moment? Why automatically attribute it to a God instead of say, oh, natural phenomenon?
If there was no religious text or following, it's very possible that the thought of a God wouldn't even cross your mind. You can say you don't believe because of the bible, but without religious doctrine of any kind, it's likely you wouldn't attribute such things to god.
Sorry for double post, I just wanted to elaborate a little, and I don't mean to be a big dick about this, I was just watching some theist propaganda that got my back up. But you will never be able to prove to me that Zeus doesn't exist. Never. But I'm not going to believe in him until you can prove me wrong.
Exactly. That's the whole point behind the FSM, or the fact that these theists can't prove that I'm not really a pink monkey with a human brain transplanted in a government laboratory sent out to type out dissenting views against religion to support the CIA's global conspiracy. They can't PROVE it isn't true. So, perhaps some will believe that it is :)
Very well done, you deserve a higher than 2 1/2 stars for this. The answer is pretty simple: the bible is wrong. I say this, though I will still believe in God, and in science, your video wont change that. I believe the bible was gods way of explaining certain things to a culture who had the basic intelligence of a modern day six year old.
What's more important? Explaining creation to people thousands of years ago, or right now? An omnipotent God should be able to deliver a message that everyone could understand. If he can't, then he's not perfect.
The 2.5 star rating is a result of creationist votebots. I went from 5 stars to 2.5 stars in the matter of 8 hours.
It was much more important to explain it to people thousands of years ago. We now are discovering truths about the creation of the planet and the universe through scientific study. We don't need an explanation now, simply because we are finding it out for ourselves. The bible told us that the universe was created and that it was done by God. Do you really think Moses was ready to describe to the Hebrews quantum mechanics? Of course not. Even if it had been told, we wouldn't have understood.
We can understand something like agriculture in generations thousands of years apart. So it is possible to communicate across cultures and time. Not the case here I suppose.
"We don't need an explanation now, simply because we are finding it out for ourselves."
What we are finding out is not consistent with the bible.
"Do you really think Moses was ready to describe to the Hebrews quantum mechanics?"
A poor excuse for making up a story that we know today is completely false.
Furthermore, do you think if God appeared and told humans now how the universe was created we would understand?
Sure, he could allow us to understand by making us understand. However, this would change our anatomy to match the new requisite capacity for the memory. All this and humans, being the curious bunch that we are would still study it, and try to pull more information from it.
My point is: Yes, an omnipotent God could easily tell us how exactly the universe was created, but if he did
"if God appeared and told humans now how the universe was created we would understand?"
The explanation doesn't have to be detailed, but it should be at least consistent with fact. Citing a flat, unmoving earth is completely wrong. Why not a moving, round earth? What's hard to understand about that?
"
My point is: Yes, an omnipotent God could easily tell us how exactly the universe was created"
Very good video sir, and might I add that if there was a god who created the universe and was omnicient then he would have it within his skill set to describe the process in such a way that us humble human folk would definately understand. It's one thing for backfrombeyond to say that we lack the ability to understand but it's quite another to say that omnicient, omnipotent god could not find a way to make us understand.
We would have to have a level of understanding currently impossible for a human.
If you knew how the universe was created, in its full extent, you would not research it as an intelligent individual.
Disbelieving the bible is intelligent, and scientific; we know its wrong. But saying that God cannot exist because if a perfect God existed he would show us is not scientific. Science is finding the truth, if you don't want to accept the possibility of something, you are in the wrong field.
"If you knew how the universe was created, in its full extent, you would not research it as an intelligent individual."
Again, we don't have to know the full extent. But we should have been given a story that is consistent with the facts. We don't need every detail. I fail to see how telling us that the earth is flat and unmoving is called for.
"if you don't want to accept the possibility of something, you are in the wrong field. "
Well than I have little more to say. As an intelligent individual who will accept the truth with evidence you are on a greater path to enlightenment (in whatever way you want to take the word) than most.
The bible is a great way to teach morals, (well besides all the gratuitous violence and sex) and that is the value I hold in it.
There is no evidence as to the absence of a God. Until there is, I will continue my belief. I choose B, while maintaining my belief in a God. Should you ever want
To believe something for which there is evidence is one thing. To believe something for which there is no disproof is another entirely.
The only evidence for the Christian god is the bible, and there are many contradictions, impossibilities, and we now know that the earth was not formed like the bible says. This is pretty strong evidence that the bible is wrong.
Well I have already agreed that the bible is wrong. However flawed religion has been, humans have believed in deities for longer than written history. It seems to be natural for the species.
On the topic of believing something for which there is no disproof, you ever hear of Descartes? We know our world through our senses, and we know of senses to be false at times: blindness, deafness, and hallucination. He argues the only truth that is infallible is that since we think, we have to exist.
Regardless of what phylosophers have said, I trust in science, while believing in an incredibly scientific version of a God.
It is an inherent truth that I know, much like I know what blue is, and what gravity is. I knew about gravity before I knew what it was called. I don't want to convert you to my way of thinking. I don't believe if you don't accept my God you are damned. Why would a perfect being care if we knew him or not? It doesn't make sense.
"Regardless of what phylosophers have said, I trust in science, while believing in an incredibly scientific version of a God."
A scientific version of God? Without scientific evidence, peer review, and experimentation with observation, there is no "scientific version" of God because there is no scientific process behind the belief. It's just wishful thinking and an attempt at credibility to call belief in god "scientific".
I forgot this, you are right. The earth is the oldest body in the univers. For those that disagree, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That sounds like the earth was one of the first things God made.
The bible is shown to be very accurate. It is safe to asume that if 97% of something is true, then the other 3% is also true (untill we are given reason to belive that it is not true).
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... That's laughable. And not how science works. Open a TextBook. I'm not here to educate you. It is apparent that the average high school failed to do that. But there are various sign posts to follow.
Well, I could belive in evolution, but the evolutionist still haven't solved the problem of how to add genetic information to DNA. They also can't explain how bule stars(which would burn out in less then a billion years) have been around for billions on years. Their best answer is that new stars must form, we don't no how they form, but they must. Same thing with comets the orbit the sun. They must be replenised, we have no evidence to support this, but it must be true.
Except that natural selection leads to a loss in genetic information, and all of the theories on how evolution works have major flaws. Which of the theories do you belive is right?
But it is the loss in less important information. The species that is more adept to adapt will survive.
If having a tail is a biological advantage then it will be selected for. If not the gene for it will start to be turned off. Eventually it will "go away."
Finally, what major flaws? What on earth are you talking about?
But how do you get a fish to turn into something that can walk if it is losing information.
Evolution has changed greatly since Darwin's time. The two most important changes are typically called Neo-Darwinism and punctuated epuilibrium. Neo-Darwinism stats that mutation is how evolution happened. But no mutation has been found that adds genetic information, but that doesn't bother the people that belive in Neo-Darwinism. I need a second post to talk about punctuated epuilibrium.
Punctuated epuilibrium views wvolution as a process that occurs in quick punctuations followed by long times in which no evolution occurs. The idea is that a group of organisms might be suddenly exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals or radiation. This would speed up the mutation rates among the individuals. Most of the resulting offspring would die, but a few would get several good mutations all at once. I need a third post to say why this doesn't work. I don't like the 500 character count.
This would explain the lack of intermediate links. The main problem is that when a organism changes as a result of many mutations, it can't interbreed with others of it's species. For that to happen, many organisms of the same kind would have to get the same mutations, at the same time, in the same place, and then breed together. This would have to happen several times. That sounds way better the God making everything. I'm done now.
It is separating both key points of Evolution. If you take one just at hand without taking the other into account then you are obviously going to come to an incorrect conclusion about this.
First you have a species that is being attacked by a predator. For the sake of simplicity we won't try to explain how they came to be, just that they are.
Most of the species that are on the ground are more apt to be eaten by this predator. But there are still enough to propigate the species.
Eventually one of these creatures discovers that climbing up trees puts them out of reach of the predators. They were born with an extra claw that assists them in climbing.
He gets to breed. Soon this mutation becomes a part of the species (over the course of many generations.) And what's more the species is becoming better adept to climbing.
Well done on your scenario. You have one problem though, the breeding rate. This creature must have a high breeding rate. If that is true, then so does it's extra claw counter part. The extra claw creature would have a higher surviving rate and would then cause an overpopulation the area because it's predator would not be able to kill the creature as fast as they breed.
That's when you don't take in part Counter Evolution. The Predator now sees his prey going up the trees. It is either adapt or die. If he can find away of reaching the trees or finding another form of food, he'll be able to continue on to the next generation.
They could figure out the trick of climbing, or they could sit in wait down below the trees for someone to fall...
In all cases, you need to look beyond the example after the demonstration has been set up. How can the predator get a meal?
But could the predator adapt before the population gets out of control? I don't think so, because the population of the creature with no extra claw would live for a long time after the extra claw creatures can around. The predator would have no need to hunt the extra clawed creature because it would hae easier prey. By the time it would have to adapt, the population would be out of control.
Belive it or not, I'm getting most of this from a science book called "Exploring Creation with Biology 2nd Edition" by Dr. Jay L. Wile & Marilyn F. Durnell.
I will not be able to respond to your next reply for 5 to 6 days because I won't have accsses to a computer for that amount of time. When I get back from my trip I look forward to reading your reply, and when I get back I'll watch the video you recommend. I will enjoy a chance at a debate.
And who said these trace elements weren't on Earth when God created the Earth?
He created the Earth as it is now. Yes, since there have been asteroids and whatnot but that doesn't God probably created the Earth with the necessary elements the plants need.
Your argument is based on the premise that the heavier elements originated from supernovas. While it can be proven that supernovas contain these elements, it is only your assumption that they all came from there.
In any case, the Bible does NOT say that the earth is the oldest body in the universe. Again, it is your assumption to set up your argument.
If God created all things (and He did), supplying the heavier elements on earth during creation was no big deal.
Yet they knew about Huge creatures in the sea when genesis was written HMMMMMM
you even dismantle what is said in the beginning... God created light before the sun...
Your saying the day to a million years is not important but that is why your argument is based on, It was 6 days! not thousands of years or millions as u say.
every other civilization knew about those? where's the proof on that one, when genesis was written in moses time.
and the whole argument is based on a verse that talks about a day is like a thousand years or so to God, meaning time is different to God than we, but he understands, and yes 6 days means 6 days.
then disprove the fact that it says i give you green herbs, and seed bearing plants...
and more to birds, how they can eat things that will make us people sick.
Where's the proof? In the works of other civilizations that were aware of sea life. All over.
"but he understands, and yes 6 days means 6 days. "
Again, it doesn't matter the time frame. I'm not debating that, although it seems important for you to say that over and over even though it's not in contention here.
The order of events is wrong. Regardless of the time in between them.
"The time frame obviously matters cause you said without light plants would die... obviously they can live through the night without light yes?"
Again you're making a strawman here. I don't care if plants can live without light. The argument here is one about heavy metals and where those come from. You're talking about something else entirely that I'm not even concerned about.
You know a thing or two about deception, especially considering that you STILL HAVE THE TEXT from the removed comment LOL.
"I'm outta here. To leave you in your own sordid little deceptive world."
Aw come on, we were just getting started. I was waiting to hear about how your report about stalking little girls is going to play out. I guess just like anything else, you don't have the sand to follow through with anything now do ya?
"Nothing wrong with multiple accounts." Posting on different ones with different personal information is dishonest. I realize that you think there is nothing wrong with dishonesty, but some of us have standards.
"Was it this site? I really don't know. I was talking on a number of sites."
Right, you put so much shit out there you can't keep up with your own garbage. You're still accountable here.
"You owe me an apology for your false accusations."
I knew that you wouldn't admit to your false accusations. But check them out if you like. I have nothing to hide.
It is highly unethical and a misuse of your web host priveleges to be checking up on visitor's accounts and personal information. It is none of your business.
"I knew that you wouldn't admit to your false accusations." You knew because you know everything I said about you was right.
"It is highly unethical and a misuse of your web host priveleges to be checking up on visitor's accounts and personal information. It is none of your business."
News flash for the idiot; YOU came here, YOU posted here, on accounts YOU created with information YOU provided. Tough shit.
I've addressed everything you've brought up. So far, you've just been shown to be a liar that even most Christians would want to separate themselves from.
Please, I beg you, make good on your threats to report me. I can't wait to get more material for my website and next video.
Whereupon are the foundations (of the earth) thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning STARS sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.
The stars were there BEFORE the earth (if that makes you happy).
I'm not doubting supernovas and trace elements. That is no proof that the earth was not created with the trace elements necessary for life (a no brainer for God). You have no case.
Right, you can choose to disbelieve science. Trace elements are only formed in supernova.
Funny thing is, you're arguing that stars were around first, but that the earth was created by god with trace elements, instead of citing supernova activity prior to the earth.
Seems like you really haven't thought about it all that much, especially considering that you deleted several of your own idiotic statements on the subject already.
"Oh!! That's where that remark went. I was wondering about that. Honestly, there was a mixup between the two sites."
You said it was removed for typos. You've been caught lying, using sock puppet accounts, and further lack any credibility for failure to make a reasonable argument.
"I take objection to your snooping. Do you stalk little girls too?"
Snooping? I clicked on usernames you used to post here. You came to me, I didn't go to you.
"Maybe I should have you reported."
Oh yes, please do. We all know that you're a dishonest liar already, so it just fits with your personality that you would "report" someone based on lies.
I am telling the truth. You can check it out. I'm talking on a number of sites and forget what I said where.
This whole conversation is tangential. I think you derive some kind of perverted pleasure from this site. I've noticed that from a number of unintelligent design sites.
Real issues rarely get addressed. You're wasting my time.
"This whole conversation is tangential. I think you derive some kind of perverted pleasure from this site."
Oh I do, I love to see you idiot godheads squirm under real logic and reason, where your whole system breaks down and you have to resort to censorship, sock puppet accounts, and dishonest threats about reporting child exploitation.
I do in fact enjoy seeing liars and crooks stumble over their own words and excuses. It serves you people right.
People must understand how people's beliefs varies greatly.scientific people live by science and they call those who live by faith as ignorant while those who live by faith address scientific people as lost souls. As a Christian, all the world's present happenings are more than enough to say that the revelation prophesies are being fulfilled. Try reading it. As an advice, I think people of science and faith must indulge themselves in both contexts to see what is worth believing. God bless
icegrrr 1 week ago
@icegrrr
What prophecy in Revelations is currently being fulfilled? Jesus told his disciples that their generation would not pass before he returned. Straight from the mouth of the son of god, and that never happened.
You should check out my video on failed bible prophecies. Which such an abysmal track record of the bible the only thing you have to base your assessments on is simply the desire to believe it's true, and nothing else.
malignantpoodle 1 week ago
@malignantpoodle hey can prove where in the context of science shows how "male and female" species aroused from the so called evolution theory.
You know, religion varies greatly.. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianism,Now if you define religion, that is usually faith. As a Christian those proofs of our faith our magnified as we live in God's law. Those things that we receive day by day, our answered prayers,blessings and trials are more than enough to make us believe in God. God bless, :)
icegrrr 1 week ago
@icegrrr
First of all, male and female are not "species" of any kind. You're asking for justification for something you don't even understand so I won't even bother.
Religion is not faith. You can have one without the other. You say that god's blessings are received day by day but statistically Christians fair no better in health, fortune, and good luck than non-Christians.
malignantpoodle 1 week ago
lol why so we have science??? A while back the only people who studied it were monks and other religious people... they saw it as a way to be closer to God because they were studing His Creation.
MrXanthan19 8 months ago
@MrXanthan19
No, organized religion studied and perpetuated science only as it complimented biblical "lessons". Organized religion systematically opposed, killed, and oppressed those with discoveries that challenged biblical claims. This began with astronomical observations and exists through to evolution today.
malignantpoodle 8 months ago 2
@malignantpoodle ok God bless you :)
MrXanthan19 8 months ago
@MrXanthan19
Yeah, fuck you too buddy.
malignantpoodle 8 months ago 2
@malignantpoodle Yeah what a weak response from his " ok god bless you:) other words let me plug my ears and close my eyes... They are all just dishonest pricks
Algonquin81 3 months ago
@MrXanthan19 So in other words you are now going to close your eyes, and plug your ears. Thanks for making our case yet again.
Algonquin81 3 months ago
@MrXanthan19 The Greeks were studying science before Christianity was created, and these scientists believed in Greek gods, and likely had never heard of Judaism or Islam.
So God didn't start science, intelligent people started science, and retards kept following religion word for word without any evidence.
abviolin2 3 months ago
great video thanx:)
hyams1 1 year ago
Comment removed
sourlemonice 1 year ago
Hello, ignorantpoodle, this is DinosaurViking again. This is the only other account I have access to; thought I should tell you that right away. I don't think you understand what I was trying to say before, so I'll try one more time. God created plants with those elements in the plant already. He wouldn't have created something that wouldn't grow. Also, God created the plants bearing fruit etc. for when he created all the animals and Adam to eat. You should accept that this is a weak argument.
DeathToLoki 1 year ago
@DeathToLoki
If you're blocked it's for censorship on your own channel. That's the only reason I block. You were given a private message explaining this, with a link to the video I made regarding that action.
Your argument here is a fancy way of saying, "God did it".
THAT is a weak argument... actually, it isn't an argument at all it's just blind acceptance of anything you're told about God that contributes to your faith.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@DeathToLoki I don't think you understand. The book is a lie, a fairy tale, used to control the flock and keep money coming in. There is no proof Jesus even lived. And please don't post the same worn out ones.
wizard970 3 months ago
What is even more striking, is that it relies on the old model of the world:A huge amount of water; the earth as a disc on piles, below the realm of the death, above separated by a wall of water, heaven.
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.And God called the firmament Heaven."
Elune137 1 year ago
Wow - negative votes have shot up here over recent times. I'm guessing creationist votebots have been at work again. Cowards.
tafftastic 1 year ago
the book in bible that explained creation has been grossly mistranslated.read the original text and tell me what you think(if you can,i cant)till then your just argue'in with king james bro.
419Unknown 1 year ago
@419Unknown
Well in that case, I suppose all of the Christians that use the King James aren't Christians, they're just followers of KJ?
But ok, I have looked at the original text and the account of creation is one of the most accurate translations in the bible. You can try Blue Letter Bible if you like.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle does that book say YHWH or god?but beside that i wanted your opinion of how it talks about mist coming up over the face of the earth.and wanted to know how you put that with the rest of your thoughts on this vid.just wandering if you put that in to this.because i think it may at least change your thought on the "creation story"not to make you not right that it is not true but to change it somehow scientific like.
419Unknown 1 year ago
@419Unknown
It can never be scientific. Come on. The Earth older than the sun? Plants growing and bearing fruit before the sun? Heavier than iron elements before stars (plants require heavier than iron to survive which are only created in supernova).
It could never ever be scientific for several dozen reasons having not the least to do with what you're referring to.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle and not to be rude,because you are not stupid.but to clarify to you that im sure you never read the original text because it is in hebrew and i dont think you know hebrew.well the hebrew like it was written.
419Unknown 1 year ago
@419Unknown
Assuming an awful lot aren't you? How can you say that I might be wrong if you don't know Hebrew?
The word for god is "elohiym" which in Hebrew is אלהים
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle i did not say you were wrong....i said im sure you never read the original text that is in hebrew and i dont think you know hebrew.the hebrew like it was written in the ORIGINAL TEXT of the creation.and the word god comes from the ancient german word "gott".not from the creation story you are refering to.it is not found anywhere in that story so it has nothing to do with this conversation.like i said you are talkin about a story from a mistranslated bible.
419Unknown 1 year ago
@419Unknown The, "ORIGINAL TEXT" says "Gods created heaven and earth in beginning". The, "ORIGINAL TEXT" says actually, "Gods", it's specifically plural. No, YOU have not read the original text. The, "ORIGINAL TEXT" says בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle but the closest translated version of the bible is the holy name bible.only trouble is it also has a lot of mistranslations and also many different versions.
419Unknown 1 year ago
@419Unknown
There are very few mistranslations, most of them having to do with obsolete notions from one language to the next. There are plenty of contradictions and fallacies that exist within the original text that are translated over.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
I'm an atheist.
I see all your facts you have made and agree with all of them, they're all true. But... Like DinosaurViking and doggodwood said, you can't really argue this point as if you believe in Christianity or something similar, because they believe that if God created the Earth, then he probably created the elements like this with it. Unless it denies this somewhere in the Bible that I missed, then unfortunately your argument is invalid.
TheLegendOfLuigi 1 year ago
@TheLegendOfLuigi
Actually, you're not an atheist. You're a sock puppet account from the same location that posted 1 minute BEFORE dinosaur viking and doggodwood did with the remark, "Like DinosaurViking and doggodwood said" BEFORE THEY HAD EVEN POSTED.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
Uhhhh... Are you crazy? Listen. God made the Earth. When God made the Earth, he made all the ELEMENTS already on the Earth when he made it. He didn't just make a rock, he made Earth with it elements. Also, light (A.K.A. The sun), was made on the first day. The elements don't need to come from the stars. AND why are you hating on "THE CHRISTIAN GOD" in your response to "Dinosaur Viking?" Just because we're right, doesn't mean you have to get against Christians. What did they ever do to you?
doggodwood 1 year ago
@doggodwood
Stupid fuck, first of all the sun was made on day 4 according to the bible, not day 1, go read it. Second, the title of the video is, "proving biblical creation false", so that already answers your question about why I'm talking about, "the christian god".
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
God is omnipotent and omniscient. And you are saying that He could not have made those elements?
DinosaurViking 1 year ago
@DinosaurViking
Not exactly. I'm saying that no God made the elements, especially not the Christian god, as the story of creation contradicts what we know about where the elements come from.
It's all laid out in the video.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle What is your basis for science? What basis do you have for assuming the uniformity of nature? How do you know that tomorrow will be like today?
DinosaurViking 1 year ago
@DinosaurViking
I think it's funny that nutters like you ask, "what is your basis for science?" when they use the fruits of scientific knowledge... like medicine, the computer you're on, the food you eat... and you question the basis of science.
Science, unlike religion, doesn't require faith. It presents facts, and that which it cannot display as factual, it doesn't present. Go back to enjoying only what religion has brought you, and quit using any form of science.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle If you read my question properly, you would notice that I asked for your basis for science. How can you account for the uniformity of nature? I am not questioning science itself at all.
DinosaurViking 1 year ago
@DinosaurViking
If you're not questioning science then what are you saying? I'm presenting well established, peer reviewed, journal published facts. Since you're not questioning science at all, then you must agree with me. These are not my conjectures, they are established scientific phenomenon.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle I am saying this: How can you account for the uniformity of nature? That is my question for you. If you don't answer it, then I believe that you can't.
DinosaurViking 1 year ago
@DinosaurViking
Uniformity in nature is the inherent concept that science is built upon. It allows the universe in many cases to be testable, a yard stick of experimentation. The very nature of energy and matter has in general predicable traits that apply everywhere.
This venue is ripe for experimentation and predictability; knowledge can grow. Through that knowledge and experimentation, there is zero findings in support of a god. Lack of uniformity would be better evidence of a god at work
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@DinosaurViking
Furthermore, a lack of explanation does not mean that this is any evidence of a god. At one time people had no idea about the tides, or disease, or what the mechanism of a sunrise was, surmising at first that the sun WAS a god, then that perhaps the sun was moving around the earth. There are lots of time throughout history where man could explain something, but every time we've found the answer, it had nothing to do with god, but testable and verifiable natural phenomenon.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@DinosaurViking
lay off the sock puppet accounts or be banned, you're terrible at it anyway. One of the accounts were formed today and has only ever posted here. Another quoted you BEFORE YOU HAD EVEN POSTED. So you're fucking terrible at lying and if you really represent a Christian view you should review what the bible says about being a liar.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
go ahead and laugh..
im about tired waiting for my explanation punk
and explain the galaxy that contains as many as 8 times the amount of stars as the milky way plus scientist say according to the law of super physics cannot exist..
this video is voo doo science man..
Sco0o213 1 year ago
@Sco0o213
let me get this straight... "scientists" are saying that something exists which "science" says cannot?
LOL
seems you haven't thought this whole lie through.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
i like the picture of events.. but explain the water covered earth.. i know we all have it at the tip of our tongues... come on.. yes the flood... repent sir and take this video off..theres still time
Sco0o213 1 year ago
@Sco0o213
LOL
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
Great video and proof !
MotorIHead 1 year ago
(in genesis) the bible also calls the moon a light source which we know of course it isn't... but the ignorant bronze age goat herders who wrote the bible thought that.
LeonardSecond 1 year ago
@LeonardSecond
Exactly.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
What makes you think that the day referred to in the Bible is 24 hours? which in fact is a man made time-scale.
charliesplinter 1 year ago
You didn't watch the video.
The amount of time which constitutes a day is not important.
It's the ORDER of events which are flawed.
Watch the video and try again.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
stupid fuck, look at 1:16
mp clearly shows the order of events wrong, not what constitutes a day
it's obvious you didn't even watch the video for expressing an opinion, just like you didnt even give life a chance before deciding upon christianity. poor you.
sproutness 1 year ago
You have a false premise here:
That there are people who believe that all that mainstream science tells us is true.
And that none of contemporary science will ever be proven false.
(Maybe there are people who do believe that, but they sure aren't scientists.)
Science is a stream of theories and falsifications.
nanino09 1 year ago
There are certain things we know, some we don't know, and some we're on the fence about. With regard to origins, science can be wrong. But what we do know displays that creationism as described in the bible is false.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
I don't like this argument much. If you believe God created Earth it not a stretch at all to believe he created it with all the heavier than iron elements in the first place.
Earth is special remember? Now, planets other than Earth... They had to wait for supernovae for their heavy elements, abiogenesis for life to take off, evolution for it to develop, before having a chance at plant life. But that's because God only loves the monkeys on this planet
lexxellex 2 years ago
Right, the argument is for those that claim to subscribe to both the bible and science. It demonstrates one incompatibility with the two.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
@malignantpoodle
Okay let me get this straight...you are "yet" to know how the universe came into existence and therefore to justify your claims you use a system of elimination to disprove all the others so that yours can be revered or "will be" revered as the true one? not to mention you are using your unproved creation criteria to disprove.
charliesplinter 1 year ago
Here, I'll spell it out for you since you didn't watch the video before commenting;
science does not claim to know the origin of the universe. BUT, what we do not unequivocally disproves creationism as described in the bible.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
The only "devil's advocate" that I would give is this: the christian god created the necessary minerals/materials for the plants to survive, on day 3, . . . then created the sun/stars on day 4. It wouldn't matter if it were a day late, as the plants would survive one day in that setup.
However, there are so many other ridiculous notions in the biblical 6 day creation story that this [the above] doesn't satisfy the main problem.
Orion8472 2 years ago
For those that claim to subscribe both to science and the bible, that won't work. But, I have heard this before.
Remember however, that we have fruit bearing plants before the sun. It wasn't just that the plants "held on" for a day surviving in darkness. They were producing fruit without sun, and without explanation as to required elements.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Ah, . . . so it would be a false history. An event [the growing of fruit based upon a cycle] that never actually took place. Same as when we find supernova remnants more than 6,000-10,000 light years away.
Thanks for the reply.
Orion8472 2 years ago
First of all, I really do respect the degree of respect and maturity used in your reply. Most people would be rude, so thank you.
Second, I attribute these to a god because they were done in the name of the God described in the Christian Bible, so in that sense you are correct, that combined with me not having any scientific explanation for any of these things.
To the people who don't believe in this, I ask them, what if? What if it's all real? & respectfully let them make their own decision.
bobbysimmons07 2 years ago
If this happened exclusively within Christian circles, you'd have a point. But it happens in contradictory religions.
Also, your default position is to assume that these things are true. However, none have ever been scientifically substantiated. That's a problem. An all powerful God seems to be elusive and backed only by unsubstantiated claims.
Sure, people can believe what they want, and we should let them. The part I have a problem with is the religious pushing their views on public policy.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
If on the other hand you can show peer reviewed medical evidence published in a scientific journal claiming that an act of God healed someone, I'd be open to the idea.
I don't hold the standard of proof for a God any higher than I do anything else; be that electromagnetism, atomic theory, or medical science.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I think it's cool that you are open to ideas, many Christians, people of other faiths, Atheists, Agnostics, etc couldn't honestly say that about themselves. I consider myself a lot more open as well, for example I think anyone that doesn't believe in evolution is just stubborn, it obviously happens, and the age of the world is definitely older than most Christians believe. The Christian Bible does not contradict with this idea along with many others when studied. Most Christians are stubborn.
bobbysimmons07 2 years ago
Evolution is very much incompatible with the bible. Even if we consider Genesis an allegory and such, this still presents one major problem; if man came about through evolution, then there can be no such thing as original sin. Without being born into sin, then Christ's sacrifice is a red herring. You must have original sin for Christ's sacrifice to even be relevant. With evolution, there is no original sin. Think about it.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
That's where the concept of faith comes in. As I stated in my first post, I believe important books were left out and stuff has been changed, or even added. I do believe that the 7 days mentioned in the Bible are not to be taken literally, because it states that God is beyond the limits of time. I have come to accept the big bang as fact, and that it was created by a creator. I believe there was MUCH history before Genesis and it does not disprove this. It talks of many creatures and people
bobbysimmons07 2 years ago
(continued)... living at the time of Adam and Eve and speaks of replenishing the earth. I believe there were many different species and civilizations before this. The Bible leaves open all these possibilities.
bobbysimmons07 2 years ago
If I can assume safely just about anything, I can make any religious text possible. Bottom line for me is that there is zero in the way of objective, verifiable evidence.
Check out my video, "The Need Behind Faith", where I go into detail about how desire to believe, or need for faith trumps the need for evidence.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Well, opinions do differ, and I respect that. The concept of faith comes easier to some than others, and I think that has more to do with life experience than anything else. I completely agree with you on the part of people forcing their views, I hate that, it's very inconsiderate. I just show love for and respect people, tell them what I believe and why, and leave it at that. People can believe whatever the heck the want. These are just the beliefs I chose based on my life, and you have yours.
bobbysimmons07 2 years ago
Well, your approach is certainly more mature than that of every day people of faith.
I did want to point out however that miracles, healings, etc. are not a matter of opinion; they're a matter of either folklore, conjecture, or substantiated scientific facts. Anyone with any proof of the supernatural can claim the $1M prize from Randi. The fact that there is no evidence for miracle healing is precisely why doctors go to med school and not seminary.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I know I'll be voted down, grilled, and bashed for this post but I don't really care...
I don't believe in God because of the Bible, in fact, I believe that many credible books were left out, and some were changed.
The reason I believe in God is because of the things I have seen. Visible tumors literally disappearing in matter of seconds, cancer completely eliminated from people's bodies over night, and actually feeling and seeing amazing things (without drugs). I didn't believe it either.
bobbysimmons07 2 years ago
Aside from there being zero scientific substantiation for any of those claims... just ignoring that for a moment? Why automatically attribute it to a God instead of say, oh, natural phenomenon?
If there was no religious text or following, it's very possible that the thought of a God wouldn't even cross your mind. You can say you don't believe because of the bible, but without religious doctrine of any kind, it's likely you wouldn't attribute such things to god.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
"There is no evidence as to the absence of a God. Until there is, I will continue my belief."
Anybody who understands logic would understand that you cannot require someone to prove a negative. THAT is precisely the damage done by religion.
pencert 2 years ago
Sorry for double post, I just wanted to elaborate a little, and I don't mean to be a big dick about this, I was just watching some theist propaganda that got my back up. But you will never be able to prove to me that Zeus doesn't exist. Never. But I'm not going to believe in him until you can prove me wrong.
pencert 2 years ago
Exactly. That's the whole point behind the FSM, or the fact that these theists can't prove that I'm not really a pink monkey with a human brain transplanted in a government laboratory sent out to type out dissenting views against religion to support the CIA's global conspiracy. They can't PROVE it isn't true. So, perhaps some will believe that it is :)
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
to discuss issues such as this with me, it would be my pleasure.
5/5 for this video. Anything else is just hurt feelings.
backfromthebeyond 2 years ago
Very well done, you deserve a higher than 2 1/2 stars for this. The answer is pretty simple: the bible is wrong. I say this, though I will still believe in God, and in science, your video wont change that. I believe the bible was gods way of explaining certain things to a culture who had the basic intelligence of a modern day six year old.
backfromthebeyond 2 years ago
What's more important? Explaining creation to people thousands of years ago, or right now? An omnipotent God should be able to deliver a message that everyone could understand. If he can't, then he's not perfect.
The 2.5 star rating is a result of creationist votebots. I went from 5 stars to 2.5 stars in the matter of 8 hours.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
It was much more important to explain it to people thousands of years ago. We now are discovering truths about the creation of the planet and the universe through scientific study. We don't need an explanation now, simply because we are finding it out for ourselves. The bible told us that the universe was created and that it was done by God. Do you really think Moses was ready to describe to the Hebrews quantum mechanics? Of course not. Even if it had been told, we wouldn't have understood.
backfromthebeyond 2 years ago
1
We can understand something like agriculture in generations thousands of years apart. So it is possible to communicate across cultures and time. Not the case here I suppose.
"We don't need an explanation now, simply because we are finding it out for ourselves."
What we are finding out is not consistent with the bible.
"Do you really think Moses was ready to describe to the Hebrews quantum mechanics?"
A poor excuse for making up a story that we know today is completely false.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Furthermore, do you think if God appeared and told humans now how the universe was created we would understand?
Sure, he could allow us to understand by making us understand. However, this would change our anatomy to match the new requisite capacity for the memory. All this and humans, being the curious bunch that we are would still study it, and try to pull more information from it.
My point is: Yes, an omnipotent God could easily tell us how exactly the universe was created, but if he did
backfromthebeyond 2 years ago
"if God appeared and told humans now how the universe was created we would understand?"
The explanation doesn't have to be detailed, but it should be at least consistent with fact. Citing a flat, unmoving earth is completely wrong. Why not a moving, round earth? What's hard to understand about that?
"
My point is: Yes, an omnipotent God could easily tell us how exactly the universe was created"
So god lied.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Very good video sir, and might I add that if there was a god who created the universe and was omnicient then he would have it within his skill set to describe the process in such a way that us humble human folk would definately understand. It's one thing for backfrombeyond to say that we lack the ability to understand but it's quite another to say that omnicient, omnipotent god could not find a way to make us understand.
Naked4Jesus 2 years ago
Exactly!
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
We would have to have a level of understanding currently impossible for a human.
If you knew how the universe was created, in its full extent, you would not research it as an intelligent individual.
Disbelieving the bible is intelligent, and scientific; we know its wrong. But saying that God cannot exist because if a perfect God existed he would show us is not scientific. Science is finding the truth, if you don't want to accept the possibility of something, you are in the wrong field.
backfromthebeyond 2 years ago
"If you knew how the universe was created, in its full extent, you would not research it as an intelligent individual."
Again, we don't have to know the full extent. But we should have been given a story that is consistent with the facts. We don't need every detail. I fail to see how telling us that the earth is flat and unmoving is called for.
"if you don't want to accept the possibility of something, you are in the wrong field. "
I require evidence. There is none
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I accept that I can be wrong about anything. But I do require evidence. I am not willing to state that something is true without evidence.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Well than I have little more to say. As an intelligent individual who will accept the truth with evidence you are on a greater path to enlightenment (in whatever way you want to take the word) than most.
The bible is a great way to teach morals, (well besides all the gratuitous violence and sex) and that is the value I hold in it.
There is no evidence as to the absence of a God. Until there is, I will continue my belief. I choose B, while maintaining my belief in a God. Should you ever want
backfromthebeyond 2 years ago
To believe something for which there is evidence is one thing. To believe something for which there is no disproof is another entirely.
The only evidence for the Christian god is the bible, and there are many contradictions, impossibilities, and we now know that the earth was not formed like the bible says. This is pretty strong evidence that the bible is wrong.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Well I have already agreed that the bible is wrong. However flawed religion has been, humans have believed in deities for longer than written history. It seems to be natural for the species.
On the topic of believing something for which there is no disproof, you ever hear of Descartes? We know our world through our senses, and we know of senses to be false at times: blindness, deafness, and hallucination. He argues the only truth that is infallible is that since we think, we have to exist.
backfromthebeyond 2 years ago
Regardless of what phylosophers have said, I trust in science, while believing in an incredibly scientific version of a God.
It is an inherent truth that I know, much like I know what blue is, and what gravity is. I knew about gravity before I knew what it was called. I don't want to convert you to my way of thinking. I don't believe if you don't accept my God you are damned. Why would a perfect being care if we knew him or not? It doesn't make sense.
backfromthebeyond 2 years ago
"Regardless of what phylosophers have said, I trust in science, while believing in an incredibly scientific version of a God."
A scientific version of God? Without scientific evidence, peer review, and experimentation with observation, there is no "scientific version" of God because there is no scientific process behind the belief. It's just wishful thinking and an attempt at credibility to call belief in god "scientific".
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The most ridiculous video in the history of mankind.
FirstFreedomFighter 2 years ago
I disagree with you. This video is a special awesome.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
I forgot this, you are right. The earth is the oldest body in the univers. For those that disagree, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That sounds like the earth was one of the first things God made.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
The bible isn't proof in of itself.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
The bible is shown to be very accurate. It is safe to asume that if 97% of something is true, then the other 3% is also true (untill we are given reason to belive that it is not true).
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... That's laughable. And not how science works. Open a TextBook. I'm not here to educate you. It is apparent that the average high school failed to do that. But there are various sign posts to follow.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Well, I could belive in evolution, but the evolutionist still haven't solved the problem of how to add genetic information to DNA. They also can't explain how bule stars(which would burn out in less then a billion years) have been around for billions on years. Their best answer is that new stars must form, we don't no how they form, but they must. Same thing with comets the orbit the sun. They must be replenised, we have no evidence to support this, but it must be true.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
You do realize that Cosmology isn't Evolution right?
See,when you assume that evolution explains "All Science" a logical fallacy happens.
It doesn't.That is like asking why Evolution doesn't explain Gravity.
Because evolution isn't a part of Gravity.The Theory of Gravity(scientific theory is what we are talking about.) goes into explaining Gravity.
Evolution is about biological life adapting and changing via the means of natural selection and mutation over the course of thousands of generations.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Except that natural selection leads to a loss in genetic information, and all of the theories on how evolution works have major flaws. Which of the theories do you belive is right?
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
But it is the loss in less important information. The species that is more adept to adapt will survive.
If having a tail is a biological advantage then it will be selected for. If not the gene for it will start to be turned off. Eventually it will "go away."
Finally, what major flaws? What on earth are you talking about?
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
But how do you get a fish to turn into something that can walk if it is losing information.
Evolution has changed greatly since Darwin's time. The two most important changes are typically called Neo-Darwinism and punctuated epuilibrium. Neo-Darwinism stats that mutation is how evolution happened. But no mutation has been found that adds genetic information, but that doesn't bother the people that belive in Neo-Darwinism. I need a second post to talk about punctuated epuilibrium.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
Punctuated epuilibrium views wvolution as a process that occurs in quick punctuations followed by long times in which no evolution occurs. The idea is that a group of organisms might be suddenly exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals or radiation. This would speed up the mutation rates among the individuals. Most of the resulting offspring would die, but a few would get several good mutations all at once. I need a third post to say why this doesn't work. I don't like the 500 character count.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
This would explain the lack of intermediate links. The main problem is that when a organism changes as a result of many mutations, it can't interbreed with others of it's species. For that to happen, many organisms of the same kind would have to get the same mutations, at the same time, in the same place, and then breed together. This would have to happen several times. That sounds way better the God making everything. I'm done now.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
This is argument from ignorance.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Other than argument from ignorance...
It is separating both key points of Evolution. If you take one just at hand without taking the other into account then you are obviously going to come to an incorrect conclusion about this.
First you have a species that is being attacked by a predator. For the sake of simplicity we won't try to explain how they came to be, just that they are.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Continuing...
Most of the species that are on the ground are more apt to be eaten by this predator. But there are still enough to propigate the species.
Eventually one of these creatures discovers that climbing up trees puts them out of reach of the predators. They were born with an extra claw that assists them in climbing.
He gets to breed. Soon this mutation becomes a part of the species (over the course of many generations.) And what's more the species is becoming better adept to climbing.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
By repeating steps over and over until a desired result has been obtained over the course of thousands upon thousands of generations.
And keep in mind there are still fish today that are still semi-amphibious. Prime examples are the Walking Catfish, and the Mudskipper. Look them up.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
The lest you can do is tell me the flaw[s] in what I've said.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
So, it isn't just slow adaptation and quick mutations. It is a combination of Both. M'kay?
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Well done on your scenario. You have one problem though, the breeding rate. This creature must have a high breeding rate. If that is true, then so does it's extra claw counter part. The extra claw creature would have a higher surviving rate and would then cause an overpopulation the area because it's predator would not be able to kill the creature as fast as they breed.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
That's when you don't take in part Counter Evolution. The Predator now sees his prey going up the trees. It is either adapt or die. If he can find away of reaching the trees or finding another form of food, he'll be able to continue on to the next generation.
They could figure out the trick of climbing, or they could sit in wait down below the trees for someone to fall...
In all cases, you need to look beyond the example after the demonstration has been set up. How can the predator get a meal?
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
But could the predator adapt before the population gets out of control? I don't think so, because the population of the creature with no extra claw would live for a long time after the extra claw creatures can around. The predator would have no need to hunt the extra clawed creature because it would hae easier prey. By the time it would have to adapt, the population would be out of control.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
Just because you don't think so, doesn't make it so. This is an argument from ignorance.
Good thing about ignorance is that it is curable.
My suggestion, watch the video "25 Creationist Fallacies".
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Belive it or not, I'm getting most of this from a science book called "Exploring Creation with Biology 2nd Edition" by Dr. Jay L. Wile & Marilyn F. Durnell.
I will not be able to respond to your next reply for 5 to 6 days because I won't have accsses to a computer for that amount of time. When I get back from my trip I look forward to reading your reply, and when I get back I'll watch the video you recommend. I will enjoy a chance at a debate.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
I do believe it. This is called Foundational Bias. If your foundation is faulty, it opens up the realm for a host of fallacies to take place.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Next...
See, predator/prey cycles work as thus.
Large number of prey and we introduce a predator. The number of prey goes down and the number of predator goes up.
But the at critical mass there are too many predators. They start to die from starvation.
The prey species has pressure taken off and starts to rise in number. This then is balanced out because there is more food for the predators to eat.
This cycle goes back and forth. Get it?
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
You assume that a supernova is the only way to get those trace elements. Things happend in the past that don't happen now.
MegaStarWarsFan 2 years ago
And who said these trace elements weren't on Earth when God created the Earth?
He created the Earth as it is now. Yes, since there have been asteroids and whatnot but that doesn't God probably created the Earth with the necessary elements the plants need.
Benbo222 2 years ago
Your argument is based on the premise that the heavier elements originated from supernovas. While it can be proven that supernovas contain these elements, it is only your assumption that they all came from there.
In any case, the Bible does NOT say that the earth is the oldest body in the universe. Again, it is your assumption to set up your argument.
If God created all things (and He did), supplying the heavier elements on earth during creation was no big deal.
inuktuk09 2 years ago
Actually, the Nobel Prize in physics in 1983 was awarded for this discovery. It is not assumption but demonstrable fact.
The bible mentions the creation of everything other than the earth, after the earth. The earth is the first thing created.
"supplying the heavier elements on earth during creation was no big deal."
Of course, if you don't believe that science is right, you can use this argument. This video is for those that believe in the bible and science.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Yet they knew about Huge creatures in the sea when genesis was written HMMMMMM
you even dismantle what is said in the beginning... God created light before the sun...
Your saying the day to a million years is not important but that is why your argument is based on, It was 6 days! not thousands of years or millions as u say.
Your theory is completely false...
minime00 2 years ago
"Your saying the day to a million years is not important but that is why your argument is based on"
The order of events is the problem. The time between them isn't. Whether 6 days or 4 billion years, the order is flawed.
"Yet they knew about Huge creatures in the sea when genesis was written HMMMMMM"
So did every other civilization. This proves what exactly?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
every other civilization knew about those? where's the proof on that one, when genesis was written in moses time.
and the whole argument is based on a verse that talks about a day is like a thousand years or so to God, meaning time is different to God than we, but he understands, and yes 6 days means 6 days.
then disprove the fact that it says i give you green herbs, and seed bearing plants...
and more to birds, how they can eat things that will make us people sick.
minime00 2 years ago
Where's the proof? In the works of other civilizations that were aware of sea life. All over.
"but he understands, and yes 6 days means 6 days. "
Again, it doesn't matter the time frame. I'm not debating that, although it seems important for you to say that over and over even though it's not in contention here.
The order of events is wrong. Regardless of the time in between them.
Disprove that god gave us herbs? LOL
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
All over where? from what the 10th century the 14th century?...
The time frame obviously matters cause you said without light plants would die... obviously they can live through the night without light yes?
yes LOL you can't
minime00 2 years ago
"The time frame obviously matters cause you said without light plants would die... obviously they can live through the night without light yes?"
Again you're making a strawman here. I don't care if plants can live without light. The argument here is one about heavy metals and where those come from. You're talking about something else entirely that I'm not even concerned about.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
they came from the ground when God divided the waters with land
minime00 2 years ago
ok wow they can't live too long without light if you couldnt put that together by yourself
joehjh666 2 years ago
ok? your point is?
minime00 2 years ago
nobody knows how long a day would be in gods eyes.
joehjh666 2 years ago
I'd say ask him, but he's not real.
DieHardDeus 2 years ago
Really I hope you know that the last word in your name means God in Latin.
edae13 2 years ago
Don't catch a lot of fish, do you malignant?
Makes sense though, judging from the garbage you dish out to posters.
lArelYoulSurel 2 years ago
Account #4 for you. I catch enough where I don't need multiple accounts and circumvention to get traffic. Unlike you.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Furthermore, I had no reason to lie. I would love to repeat my comment that I accidentally retracted if you like.
"And don't make any more false claims that your stupid puny attempt to disprove the Bible from this video has never met with any credible rebuttal.
I've made 3 valid points already.
And face it, you can't answer them."
I'm outta here. To leave you in your own sordid little deceptive world.
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
You know a thing or two about deception, especially considering that you STILL HAVE THE TEXT from the removed comment LOL.
"I'm outta here. To leave you in your own sordid little deceptive world."
Aw come on, we were just getting started. I was waiting to hear about how your report about stalking little girls is going to play out. I guess just like anything else, you don't have the sand to follow through with anything now do ya?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
"you STILL HAVE THE TEXT from the removed comment LOL."
YOU GAVE IT TO ME!!! I cut and pasted it from your OWN website.
The typos? I already explained that it was the other site. You can check it out - since your stalking abilities seem quite honed.
I'm tired of false accusations. You are really twisted.
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
Everything I've said about you is absolutely true; you have multiple accounts. FACT.
You have been dishonest, and you proved that by stating you would report me for stalking little girls.
I showed how you claimed remarks were removed for typos. FACT. Then you said you removed it by accident FACT.
"Do you stalk little girls too?
Maybe I should have you reported. "
"I'm tired of false accusations"
...and a hypocrite
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Nothing wrong with multiple accounts.
I said that I SHOULD - not WOULD - study up on your modals.
Was it this site? I really don't know. I was talking on a number of sites. All I know is that I'm telling the truth and that you are twisting it.
You owe me an apology for your false accusations. But funny, I don't think you know how to do that.
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
"Nothing wrong with multiple accounts." Posting on different ones with different personal information is dishonest. I realize that you think there is nothing wrong with dishonesty, but some of us have standards.
"Was it this site? I really don't know. I was talking on a number of sites."
Right, you put so much shit out there you can't keep up with your own garbage. You're still accountable here.
"You owe me an apology for your false accusations."
Nothing I said about you was false.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I knew that you wouldn't admit to your false accusations. But check them out if you like. I have nothing to hide.
It is highly unethical and a misuse of your web host priveleges to be checking up on visitor's accounts and personal information. It is none of your business.
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
"I knew that you wouldn't admit to your false accusations." You knew because you know everything I said about you was right.
"It is highly unethical and a misuse of your web host priveleges to be checking up on visitor's accounts and personal information. It is none of your business."
News flash for the idiot; YOU came here, YOU posted here, on accounts YOU created with information YOU provided. Tough shit.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
NO. Everything you said about me was NOT RIGHT and you know it.
I told you no lies and I explained myself. I really can't do any more, can I?
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
Everything I've said about you is absolutely true; you have multiple accounts. FACT.
You have been dishonest, and you proved that by stating you would report me for stalking little girls.
I showed how you claimed remarks were removed for typos. FACT. Then you said you removed it by accident FACT.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
"I would love to repeat my comment that I accidentally retracted if you like."
and only 15 minutes earlier...
"It WAS removed for typos - whether on this one or the other, I forget."
LOL
"thou shalt not lie"
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Do some more snooping if you wish. It WAS removed for typos - whether on this one or the other, I forget. I forgot to negate the statement.
You're really into character assassination, aren't you?
Why don't you answer my questions?
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
I've addressed everything you've brought up. So far, you've just been shown to be a liar that even most Christians would want to separate themselves from.
Please, I beg you, make good on your threats to report me. I can't wait to get more material for my website and next video.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Comment removed
IslThatlRight 2 years ago
Job 38:6-8
Whereupon are the foundations (of the earth) thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning STARS sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.
The stars were there BEFORE the earth (if that makes you happy).
So take your silly video off Youtube.
IslThatlRight 2 years ago
"Job 38:6-8
Whereupon are the foundations (of the earth) thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof"
Let me guess, you also think that the earth is stationary and doesn't move either.
Besides, this passage says nothing about the order of creation for the subjects it mentions.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I'm not doubting supernovas and trace elements. That is no proof that the earth was not created with the trace elements necessary for life (a no brainer for God). You have no case.
IslThatlRight 2 years ago
Right, you can choose to disbelieve science. Trace elements are only formed in supernova.
Funny thing is, you're arguing that stars were around first, but that the earth was created by god with trace elements, instead of citing supernova activity prior to the earth.
Seems like you really haven't thought about it all that much, especially considering that you deleted several of your own idiotic statements on the subject already.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Comments were removed for typos that affected meaning.
You have not intelligently responded to any of my comments. Makes sense though - 'unintelligent design' proponents are usually unintelligent.
IslThatlRight 2 years ago
"Comments were removed for typos that affected meaning."
Lies. I can see the comments that you remove because I get notified of the messages you post. You removed this entirely,
"And don't make any more false claims that your stupid puny attempt to disprove the Bible from this video has never met with any credible rebuttal.
I've made 3 valid points already.
And face it, you can't answer them."
No typos. So you're just another hateful, dishonest creationist.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Oh!! That's where that remark went. I was wondering about that. Honestly, there was a mixup between the two sites.
I'll repeat it though. There was no reason why I would have wanted to remove it anyway. :)
"And don't make any more false claims that your stupid puny attempt to disprove the Bible from this video has never met with any credible rebuttal.
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
"Oh!! That's where that remark went. I was wondering about that. Honestly, there was a mixup between the two sites."
You said it was removed for typos. You've been caught lying, using sock puppet accounts, and further lack any credibility for failure to make a reasonable argument.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
have 2 birthdays, physical and spiritual. I'm under no obligation to divulge either.
And I can use as many names as I wish.
I take objection to your snooping. Do you stalk little girls too?
Maybe I should have you reported.
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
"I take objection to your snooping. Do you stalk little girls too?"
Snooping? I clicked on usernames you used to post here. You came to me, I didn't go to you.
"Maybe I should have you reported."
Oh yes, please do. We all know that you're a dishonest liar already, so it just fits with your personality that you would "report" someone based on lies.
Does Jesus like it when you lie?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I am telling the truth. You can check it out. I'm talking on a number of sites and forget what I said where.
This whole conversation is tangential. I think you derive some kind of perverted pleasure from this site. I've noticed that from a number of unintelligent design sites.
Real issues rarely get addressed. You're wasting my time.
maggiemaid77 2 years ago
"This whole conversation is tangential. I think you derive some kind of perverted pleasure from this site."
Oh I do, I love to see you idiot godheads squirm under real logic and reason, where your whole system breaks down and you have to resort to censorship, sock puppet accounts, and dishonest threats about reporting child exploitation.
I do in fact enjoy seeing liars and crooks stumble over their own words and excuses. It serves you people right.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago