I love it when Evo's say " he's not a real scientist " yet when he taught Evolution he WAS a real scientist !! And then they start name calling and bitching coz they can't argue with him coz he knows all the Evolution lies and Scams and botched up books coz he taught it !! " In the beginning GOD created " thats all we need to know !
It should be clear to McMurtry that there is no God because, surely, no divine being who cared for its creations would allow one of them to wear bullet-proof glass in their spectacles.
I was actually invited onto revelation TV, after I complained about them having this idiot on as an "expert" scientist. - I assumed it was to debate him. After an informal email debate and my attempting to clarify the rules for debate, they chickened out without notice..
He is one of the lamest of these creationist psuedo scientists - and that's going some!!!
. He thinks that pointing out what HE doesn't understand is debunking the scientists that do understand it!
If that is the best response that you can up with, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's just as well the 'debate' didn't happen - mcMurtry would have decimated you into pulp!
@osks I'm not asking for money to deliver misinformation that counters good information from REAL scientists!!
These bogus preachers, posing as preachers make me laugh! . Notice the way McMurtry uses the term we when he talks about making these discoveries. The jerk hasnt contributed a single piece of new knowledge to the world of education. Nor has he conducted an experiment or submitted anything for peer review.
@osks Yes - I know that for a fact _ Why don't you check for yourself and then you will too??
Or you ill have proved me wrong!!
. - His own website should tell you all you want to know _ And there arte lot's of other independent sources that will tell you want you want to know !
Go on!! - Do something no creationist has ever done - do some real research and prove a rationalist wrong!!
Geologists know the earth is millions of years old, they found that out 220 years ago when they went looking for evidence of a global flood.
Geologists know there was no global flood.
Astronomers know the universe is 13 Billion years old.
Biologists know Neanderthals lived 30,000 years ago and we interbreed with them. They were a different kind of human. The have 600 fossils of them and their DNA.
Paleontologist know that dinosaurs ruled the earth for 165 million years.
Are you perhaps suggesting that a proposition is only valid (or legitimate or true) if it enjoys support from the 'scientific community? In other words, is truth only what has been validated by science? If so, what scientific support is there for what YOU are saying here???
What you are doing here, is promoting the idea of SCIENTISM (and not science)! Please bear in mind that science is not propositional! It may very well cure cancer, but can never answer why we should (or should not)!
@michdesign1 Are you perhaps suggesting that a proposition is only valid (or legitimate or true) if it enjoys support from the 'scientific community?
Not necessarily - but it sure helps. Especially when it is offered up to the testability of peer review, and the skeptical enquiry of other equally qualified experts with a vested interest in falsifying it, if they can do so honestly.
This jerk McMurtry only misrepresents facts to support his congregations pre programmed superstitions
Are you perhaps suggesting that a proposition is only valid (or legitimate or true) if it enjoys support from the 'scientific community? In other words, is truth only what has been validated by science? If so, what scientific support is there for what YOU are saying here???
What you are doing, is promoting the idea of SCIENTISM (and not science)! Please bear in mind that science is not propositional! It may very well cure cancer, but can never answer why we should (or should not)!
Your posting of Obscure links from known enemies of Christianity
Your complete disregard for history.
Where are any complete original writings of Shakespear or Homer? Yet shcolars and people who study these documents find that the modern translations are accurate to the originals. Also, concerning the dates you should study where the modern calendar came from. Never the less the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming.
Of course as we get further away from Christian Morality the enemies of purity and morality continue to trash any thing that speaks of holiness and Godliness. Why? Because of the selfish desire, without conscience, to do whatever perversion drifts into ones mind. But in order for that to happen one must remove any barrier to their objective. Trash the Gospel.
Earlier generations had respect for morality and Godly authority, but the new generation would rather pervert morality.
The comparison is fair, to tell you that just because something is in a book, doesn't make it so. Especially when it's supernatural claims written down by non-eye-witnesses decades later, and we don't have any originals, only copies of copies of copies. Lots of them too, and none of them are the same.
The evidence for a supernatural Jesus is far from overwhelming, even if you'd like to think so. Just saying it doesn't make it so, you know.
But you do have eyewitnesses. Mathew Mark Luke John Paul were all eyewitnesses and their witness is coraborated by Josephus. Their witness is aslo back by the fact that Christianity remains a growing religion.
None of the gospel writers even met Jesus, and their accounts were written down decades later. From that we have no originals, but hundreds of copies, not one the same as the other.
"They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns.
-Bart Ehrman - The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
Of course after centuries of accepting Josephus and a credible historian, some are now questioning his authority. This is not because of any new information that has been acquired this is simply because they don't believe his writings. they have no evidence to support their disbelief they just don't "like" what he says.
Please back that one up, please. I would like to see you present evidence of historians not liking what Josephus says, and questioning his writings because of that.
My question is, do you find Josephus credible? Or is it just when he agrees with the Bible that you accept what he says?
Google: Lay it to Heart - Can Josephus be Trusted
Please display ANY new evidence for rejection of Josephus.writings!! The burden is on you not me. Josephus has been an accepted historian for centuries so display any new evidence that would lead anyone to doubt his credibility.
There are historians questioning some of Josephus' writings, suspecting later additions. Read "Jesus interrupted" by Bart Ehrman for more on that. It's a great read.
But he does say things that are in conflict with the Bible. Is this unproblematic to you?
If someone today wrote a book about David Koresh, stating that he worked miracles and making sure to get some geographical and historical truths in there, would that make it true for someone finding the book 2000 years from now?
Also, the earliest manuscripts for the New Testaments date to less around 75 years after Jesus. There are enough of them to legitimize the present day New Testament. There were 100s of eye witnesses to Jesus' death and as many people saw Him after the resurrection. Mathew Mark Luke John Pete and others wrote documents testify to His resurrection and some were crucified because of their testimony. There is plent more evidence for you.
Jesus crucified 66AD??? You are decades off, Craig. Can you provide a link showing that most historians believe this?
Also, that there were eye witnesses is a claim written decades after the supposed death of Jesus, for which we have no originals, only copies of copies of copies.
The fact that the discrepancies in the gospels regarding some happenings, f.ex. when Mary goes to check on Jesus' grave, makes it hard to take them as historical fact.
Of course when I ask you what evidence you need, you back up and say, "I don't know." What a cop out!! You won't accept ANY evidence. It doesn't matter what the evidence is you won't accept it. You have the entire universe as evidence but you don't accept that. What is the universe evidence of, if not God? Tell me where the universe came from. Come on Mr. Know-it-All. What created the universe. Your answer "I don't know, but it surely wasn't God!" Yeah good answer...Not!! Not by a long shot!!
I am confident that science will work that one out, just like every other natural phenomena that people once thought a god was responsible for.
Gods have always been peoples explanation to what they didn't know at the time, but with time and knowledge they have disappeared one by one. There's nothing different about the few gods we have left in the world today.
But you have to explain further. Why is the universe evidence of a god, and why your god and not another one?
I'm sorry that you wasted all that time doing all those prophecy studies, but failed to learn anything. Maybe you should request your money back. Of course considering your posts here i must conclude that you haven't done ANY prophecy studies. What did you learn about the prophecy of Daniel concerning the 70 weeks of years?
It wasn't a complete waste, I learned that they are just made up stories.
And the prophecy seminars were all free, so no money back is necessary.
Yes, that's one one of the most studied amongst the Adventists. But since that part of Daniel is written mid 2nd century BC and describes Antiochus Epiphanes, it has no value.
Thats what I thought, You are given evidence, but you still reject it. I'm sure you are certain that Homer wrote the Iliad, but there is less evidence for that than there is for Jesus' resurection. Never-the-less you are certain that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. Go figure.
If the evidence is not valid, of course I reject it. Mormons will have their evidence that says there were huge settlements of Jews in USA 2000 years ago, but it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. So to with Daniel.
There is no historical evidence for Jesus resurrection, only the Bible.
And no, I'm not convinced Homer wrote the Iliad, but it doesn't really make a difference unless you build your life around believing it or not.
Now, what evidence do you have? Real evidence that is.
I have read some. He didn't live at the same time as Jesus making it all hearsay, and makes only 2 possible references of a Jesus, with nothing supernatural mentioned. This is really enough for you to base your life on?
Let's see Josephus was born in 37AD and Jesus was crucified arround 66AD (according to most historians) ??? In his writings, Josephus mentions the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. He mentions Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus (twice) and James the brother of Jesus.
God isn't your little circus pony that you can manipulate with sugar cubes, and your request indicates that you really don't know anything about God or His nature. Maybe you should pray that God would repair Your mind and show you what proper pray really is.
And who'se talking about tricking? You seem to think that your god would rather let someone suffer than heal them if that individual was part of an experiment. What a guy.
You are still speaking from ignorance. There is a solution to your ignorance. Read the Bible, and learn how to have a personal relationship with God, then YOU can pray for the sick people that God leads you to pray for. If you pray for people that God hasn't asked you to pray for then nothing will happen. You need to form a personal relationship with God, then He will tell you who to pray for. If God hasn't instructed you to pray for someone, but you pray anyway...nothing will happen.
Before I can have a relationship with someone I need some indication of their existence. There is none that I have seen.
About prayer: You mean to tell me that instead of just healing someone, God tries to get us to pray for them so that he then can heal them? What if we don't pray for these then? Will he let them suffer?
You seem to think that God is here to serve your every desire, and be a cosmic Santa Claus for you? Why do you deserve for God to serve oyur every wish?
What?? I have said no such thing. If I were God I would help as many as I could, sadly your God doesn't feel the same way. For a God to let other people decide if he helps someone is a jerk not worthy of any praise.
God built this world perfect for you, but you have trashed it. Man is a deceitful and wicked, but you think God should be your little circus monkey. Why should God help a bunch of selfish liars theives and murders? God gave people the world and people trashed it, and you want God to be your little trick pony? I'll bet you've told a told a slew of lies this week? Or looked at women/men with lust this week? Or gotten angry this week? Yeah you should be served hand over fist.
I have trashed it? Wow, that's some claim. What have I done to trash it?
I don't think helping everyone out is being a circus monkey. I think that would be being nice, and I'm sorry you and your god of choice doesn't think so.
Are thieves and murderers the only ones suffering? Give me a break.
No, I haven't lied this week, why do you think I have? And no, I haven't lusted after anyone either, or been angry. It takes a lot to make me angry, it happens only a dozen times a year.
I'm sure you aren't praying for anyone either, so I can't expect God to work on your behalf, and then you claim that God is cruel? You won't even pray for those who are hurting yet you want to claim that God is to blame. Funny.
Since I don't believe in any gods, I see no point in praying. I never claimed that your god should help me, just those in need. He does love everyone equally, right?
My point, which you are trying to avoid, is that no good being would let people suffer like they do in the world today. If there is a god, he truly is a horrible guy.
Craig, your arguments here have been strange at best, in which you have misrepresented my statements. You need to think for yourself, and let your mind free.
He's not my god. He IS God. He doesn't belong to anyone. Considering the evidence, you are irrational. Atheism is irrational.
Also your point is irrational. Why should God do anything about suffering people? Especially when people break all of His commandments, and you won't even pray for those suffering...not even your own mother's suffering? You claim He is letting people suffer, but I don't see you praying that He would stop any suffering.
What evidence is there for any gods, I haven't seen any.
Atheism is the only logical standpoint for someone who hasn't seen any evidence. Agree?
If I was all-powerful. there wouldn't be ANYONE suffering. So,either there is no god(s), or he is evil.
Why should I pray to an imaginary being? Do you pray to Zeus, Thor, or Ra? When you think about why you don't pray to these, you understand why I don't pray to your god.
EVERYTHING, Everything is substantial evidence for God. To deny God is to deny the universe exists.
Apparently you think God is a cosmic magician that will grant your every wish. God made the a perfect world, and if man had not screwed it up then there would be no suffering. There is no evidence for Zues, Thor, or Ra, but thereis sufficient evidence for God. Your attempt to compare God with myths is evident of your inability to properly discern the evidence. You won't even pray for your mama?
NO NO NO!!! How many times do I have to say it. I wouldn't expect a deity to do everything I want, but I would expect him to remove suffering. That is not the same thing, and you keep misrepresenting what I say. It's a straw man, and dishonest.
There is no evidence for your god, and it's pure chance that it's the one you believe in. If you were born in a different family or a different part of the world, you would defend another god the same way.
No its not a strawman. Who's fault is it that people suffer? It's man's fault that people suffer. And, yes you would expect God to do what ever you want. You tempt me subject God to some weird test. This shows that you think God should be your little dancing monkey.
Chance? Oh I see you believe there's a diety, but God is not him?
I could not have been born in a different family. God knew me before the foundation of the world. God knew who I was before He formed the world. He said so.
I don't know if its too much to ask. Why don't you ask the One who does know? Of course if you ask Him you must expect an answer, His Word says that those who come to God must first believe He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. I'm not a Christian by chance.
Yes I dispute it. Beforethe foundation of the earth God had already determined who my parents would be, so the was no way that I could have been born to Indian parents. Of course you could ask that question to Ravi Zacharias or D'Nesh D'Souza. Both of those guys are Indian and neither is Hindu. (google them).
The Atom and the Galaxie are evidence for God. the Universe is evidence for God. how much more evidence do you require?
So, your god has determined for some people to be Hindus, but for you to be a Christian?
Sure there are exceptions, but you get my point.
You think that a Universe exists is enough evidence for your god? It isn't even enough for A god, let along YOUR god. Even if it mean that a god existed, it's quite the leap from there to your god.
No it doesn't Bible says that the Lord is One God. It uses the word Elohim because it is referring to the trinity, but because you seem too ignorant to understand I feel that there is no need explaining it to you.
Talk origins is not a scientific journal its evolutionary nonsense that has no scientific basis. They post journal after journal of contradictary BS. They will post anything as long as it looks like it debunks creation, (it doesn't matter if it completely contradicts other articles that they have published) talkorigins...thats hilarious.
It's someone with knowledge of science explaining how evolution works to the layman. Give me one example of two articles that contradict each other. Hemoglobin isn't intact blood cells, it's protein molecules. Biochemicals can be preserved in rock if there is no bacteria to eat them, that's what causes rotting in dead tissue.
They were encased inside of solid bone buried in fine silt, not just sitting out in open air. The mud and bone prevented air and water, necessary for flesh eating microbes to metabolize, from reaching the chemicals in the bone.
No, there's no geological evidence for that. it could have died and fell into a puddle of thick mud, and the bacteria only had enough time to eat the flesh before it was cut off from oxygen. if a global flood did happen, why are there incredibly dense elements in one strata above a strata full of incredibly light elements? Why aren't all of the creatures jumbled around instead appearing in order in only a couple strata? there's not even enough water on the planet to cover all the land.
Every landform is different. there is no geologic colunm. The evolutionary argument says the "geologic column" is an orderly column that remains the samethroughout the globe with older things on the bottom and younger things on the top, but that is a lie. "The geologic column" is different in all locations. It is never the same. It jumbled the way you would expect it if a global catastrophe occured.
Yes the there is plenty of water on the planet to cover all the land.
Craig, you're back. I had to look back to our private debate from last May, and I see you're the one using arguments like the "retreating moon" one. Needless to say, that one has been debunked, like all other of Creationists feeble attempt at keeping their literal interpretation of Genesis.
It's time to accept reality, and let your\ fantasies of invisible people go.
Science means not starting off with the conclusion, like you are doing. If the evidence shows no sign of a creator, there is no reason to believe in one.
Apparently you are confused. Science starts with a hypothesis and developes tests to falsify the hypothesis. Right if the evidence shows no sign of a creator then there is no reason to believe there is one, but the vidence demonstrates that there is most likely a creator. The evidence demonstrates that complex biological systems (life) cannot be duplicated by very intelligent scientists working in a lab, therefore it took a being with more intellect to create these systems
You don't look for "a creator" in tests, you look for natural explanations. If you don't find one, it doesn't mean that there is supernatural, invisible beings lurking around. Claiming "God did it" because of present day ignorance is something people have done for thousands of years, and one god at a time has been left behind. It's time we let the creator god go too.
Time to face it, Craig. Don't waste your only life.
Once again you show an inability to comprehend basic English. The evidence demonstrates that complex biological systems (life) cannot be duplicated by very intelligent scientists working in a laboratory with complex machines and testing equipment. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that more intelligence is required for this process. I guess you need God to wag His finger in your face for you to believe? Is that what you want? Hes not gonna do it, Hes already given you the evidence you need.
There is no evidence, and you're still arguing from present day ignorance. We can't do it YET. Who knows what we can do in the future. Claiming magic is a cop-out.
And if life is so complex it needs an intelligent creator, this creator - who must be even more complex - must need a creator too. And so on. It only raises more questions, it answers none.
If we did do it them it would be demonstrated that life came from an intelligent source. Yeah magic would be a cop-out, but giving glory to God for His creation isn't magic. Considering the evidence, God is a more plausible explanation.
"And if life is so complex it needs an intelligent creator, this creator - who must be even more complex - must need a creator too."
Since we have no idea what that conditions were, It would be a demonstration of life from an intelligent source.
Again, what do you want? God to kick you in the arse? Too bad Hes not going to do it. God has already given you all the evidence you need. Its all there and its sufficient proof for God's existence. God is self existent. He is not constrained by time, therefore He is eternal. You can't constrain God with something He created.
Yes crap...Your key word "IF" shows that what you have is a religion. What do you mean "IF?" If cows could fly we would have to use airplanes to get milk. IF indeed. Yeah yours is a religion. The evidence demonstrates that the best answer is an intelligent creator.
You said there is evidence for other gods. now you are saying there is none. Of course I could expect nothing less from someone who is believes in the religion of atheism...Yes its a religion, and I heard all the excuses atheist use to claim atheism isn't a religion, but that only shows that most atheist are ignorant of the definition of religion.
No, I never claimed there was any evidence for any gods. Atheism is not a religion, it's quite the opposite. It's a disbelief in a deity, nothing more.
How about praying for 20 sick people, without them knowing. Pray to your god for 10 randomly chosen, and then Thor for the other 10. See if there is any difference after a week."
Atheism is still no religion, even if you would like it to be. It's just another thing some Christians say to make themselves feel better about their own faith. But it's still wrong.
If some Atheists play soccer together, it has nothing to do with their Atheism. Atheism is by definition NOT a religion, it's simply a lack of belief.
Would that be tempting God? Do you mean that he while he normally would help some of these people, he will let them suffer so not to prove to you that he exists? What a guy.
You know why you don't want to do the experiment. It will show that praying to anyone will do no good.
Craighill9 : If you believe atheism is a religion, you don`t know what a religion is. Atheism says, given the absence of evidence, the existence of a god is very very unlikely.
How about praying for 20 sick people, without them knowing. Pray to your god for 10 randomly chosen, and then Thor for the other 10. See if there is any difference after a week.
Considering just three details, earth's magnetic field decay rate, polystrate fossils, and hemoblobin found in t-rex bones, there is a massive amount of evidence for a young earth. If you are going to argue against a young earth you MUST address these scientific facts. So far I have not seen these issues addresed by people who cling to the evolutionary old earth mindset.
wow. you know i bet if he were still an evolutionist you all would be defending him to no end. but because he learned through his research that evolution makes no sense you all ridicule him and say he isnt a scientist? thats ridiculous.
I'm Christian, but I'm going to pull the devil's advocate. If he were an evolutionist, would you be against him? He's very logical according to you.
Also, about the rock thing. I learned about that back in 9th grade biology, the Miller-Urey experiment. They were able to produce glycine from inorganic compounds. I'm sure by now it would be very possible to synthesize different amino acids from inorganic compounds.
This guy was never rational whatever his world view....He hasn't published a damn thing to disprove evolution. There are over 200,000 peer review articles, on PUBMED alone, in support of it.
I was invited on to a British TV programme to debate this guy when I complained about his dishonesty and ignorance. When they found out I had even a rudimentary knowledge of real science, they ran and hid!
I've listened to this idiot at length.....he's too much of a moron to realise what a moron he is.
He's using claims that are easy to debunk and have been for decades, Such as the percieved decay of the earth's magnetic field.
He even does that old chestnut about the reduction of the speed of light. trying to disprove things that are millions of light years couldn't have sent there light millions of years ago.
If he wants to debunk things, why doesn't he start with his own bogus diplomas?
I have done some research and his qualifications are in general science relating to agriculture. He has no qualifications in paleontology, geology or theoretical physics. Do a search in Google for "dr grady mcmurtry qualifications".
Does anyone know where he claims to have degrees from? I am preparing a video rebuttal of some of his assertions. A lot of the time he seems to say that he knows better because he has all these qualifications.
lol ... a doctrate in 'creation science' from a, no doubt, unaccredited random diploma mill (aka bible college) does not give you the ability comment on 'scientific grounds'
Actually evolution is made up of many different theories.
Mutation, Adaptation, Micro evolution and Natural selection are all very well accepted, almost every creationist accepts them too.
It's macro evolution that people criticize saying it's impossible. The thing is that it's not impossible and in fact it's quite probable, it's not a matter of "I don't know the answer so noone can" which is the excuse many creationists use.
None of what you have said relates to evolution the slightest bit!
Also i'm not sure if you've realised but I was not being literal when I said to be a creation scientist you just have to read the bible.
Yes you do have to study it, the only difference between when you were in highschool and had to study a WW2 book and the studying of the bible is that WW2 is based on historical events that have plenty of evidence to prove they exist.
If you can get a bible in creation science then I can in pixie and unicorn related studies.
Wow! If this guy can debunk so much of our current scientific knowledge then what is he waiting for?
There's two possible answers to this:
1. The science community are involved in some sort of conspiracy.
2. Dr McMurtry has no scientific grounds for his claims or is misrepresenting the evidence.
2 seems logical. 1 seems paranoid, delusional and indicative of, at least, mild psychosis. The scientific method is kept impartial by the peer review process. Which authority is the conspirator?
And this guy is going to overturn the central tennent of biology, scientific theory supported mounds of evidence just because he has a PhD in bible reading. I can't see the logic matey. Maybe you could explain it
His DD is from a diploma mill. There is no thesis you can look at in the library. The guy has absolutely no basis for giving any opinion on anything other than his personal opinion - which like mine ultimately counts for nothing
your wrong this guy was at my church yesterday and he has about 4 hours worth of material to prove everything wrong that you thought was right about evolution
I love it when Evo's say " he's not a real scientist " yet when he taught Evolution he WAS a real scientist !! And then they start name calling and bitching coz they can't argue with him coz he knows all the Evolution lies and Scams and botched up books coz he taught it !! " In the beginning GOD created " thats all we need to know !
jonmorr777 1 year ago 4
It should be clear to McMurtry that there is no God because, surely, no divine being who cared for its creations would allow one of them to wear bullet-proof glass in their spectacles.
KarlyP 1 year ago
There is no science in the bible!
jloades 1 year ago
So you went from a field that offers the opportunity of empirical data, to a field that relies on magical beard men.
mexhuztla 1 year ago
This man is a joke and a fool.
uglyguy121909 1 year ago
At that point he stopped being a scientist. His mind was already made up and he stopped using logic.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I was actually invited onto revelation TV, after I complained about them having this idiot on as an "expert" scientist. - I assumed it was to debate him. After an informal email debate and my attempting to clarify the rules for debate, they chickened out without notice..
He is one of the lamest of these creationist psuedo scientists - and that's going some!!!
. He thinks that pointing out what HE doesn't understand is debunking the scientists that do understand it!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
If that is the best response that you can up with, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's just as well the 'debate' didn't happen - mcMurtry would have decimated you into pulp!
osks 1 year ago
@osks " it's just as well the 'debate' didn't happen - mcMurtry would have decimated you into pulp"
Maybe that's why he always sells this drivel to kneeslapping biblethumpers who won't ask awkward questions?
He runs a mile from anyone who knows anything about the science he's ignorant of!!
Have you actually heard him debate! - Or just his "sermon" If you have I'd like to see footage?!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@osks Is that because he decimated you to a pulp.
Not to correct your grammer, but things don't get "decimated" to pulp!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
This moron thinks a doctrate in divinity qualifies him to speak on science !!!
The richness of his hypocrisy is astounding, as is the irrelevent title of this vid!
Tobytrim 1 year ago 11
And pray tell - what qualifies you to speak with such 'authoritative' disdain about anyone?
osks 1 year ago
@osks I'm not asking for money to deliver misinformation that counters good information from REAL scientists!!
These bogus preachers, posing as preachers make me laugh! . Notice the way McMurtry uses the term we when he talks about making these discoveries. The jerk hasnt contributed a single piece of new knowledge to the world of education. Nor has he conducted an experiment or submitted anything for peer review.
Tobytrim 1 year ago 4
@Tobytrim Oops!! I meant : " These bogus preachers, posing as Scientists" Mia culpe!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Do you know that for a fact, or are you once again just shooting your mouth off here???
osks 1 year ago
@osks Yes - I know that for a fact _ Why don't you check for yourself and then you will too??
Or you ill have proved me wrong!!
. - His own website should tell you all you want to know _ And there arte lot's of other independent sources that will tell you want you want to know !
Go on!! - Do something no creationist has ever done - do some real research and prove a rationalist wrong!!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@osks Fact. Mr. Grady and Mr.Butinski and all these 'scientists' talk like that.
"We just don't know" Bull shit, real scientists know.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Please tell me - what is it that real scientists know?
And oh - please refrain from using vulgarities when you're trying to make any point!
osks 1 year ago
Geologists know the earth is millions of years old, they found that out 220 years ago when they went looking for evidence of a global flood.
Geologists know there was no global flood.
Astronomers know the universe is 13 Billion years old.
Biologists know Neanderthals lived 30,000 years ago and we interbreed with them. They were a different kind of human. The have 600 fossils of them and their DNA.
Paleontologist know that dinosaurs ruled the earth for 165 million years.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@osks "Do you know that for a fact, or are you once again just shooting your mouth off here???"
I know this for a fact, but, tell you what......Why don't you google up and post one of his peer review articles and make a liar of me ?? Hmmmmm????
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Creationist 'Dr' = No doctorate at all.Not recognized by the scientific community and therefore not recognized by the rest of Humanity.
stratocaster539 1 year ago
Are you perhaps suggesting that a proposition is only valid (or legitimate or true) if it enjoys support from the 'scientific community? In other words, is truth only what has been validated by science? If so, what scientific support is there for what YOU are saying here???
What you are doing here, is promoting the idea of SCIENTISM (and not science)! Please bear in mind that science is not propositional! It may very well cure cancer, but can never answer why we should (or should not)!
michdesign1 1 year ago
@michdesign1 Are you perhaps suggesting that a proposition is only valid (or legitimate or true) if it enjoys support from the 'scientific community?
Not necessarily - but it sure helps. Especially when it is offered up to the testability of peer review, and the skeptical enquiry of other equally qualified experts with a vested interest in falsifying it, if they can do so honestly.
This jerk McMurtry only misrepresents facts to support his congregations pre programmed superstitions
Tobytrim 1 year ago
@michdesign1 Science is testable it survives the extreme and rigorous scepticism of peer review.
I will happily read anything you would care to cite from McMurtry there that he has submitted to peer review. Or , for that matter that is testable?
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Are you perhaps suggesting that a proposition is only valid (or legitimate or true) if it enjoys support from the 'scientific community? In other words, is truth only what has been validated by science? If so, what scientific support is there for what YOU are saying here???
What you are doing, is promoting the idea of SCIENTISM (and not science)! Please bear in mind that science is not propositional! It may very well cure cancer, but can never answer why we should (or should not)!
michdesign1 1 year ago
Craig, do you still think Jesus died in 66AD?
olasonn 1 year ago
I also learned a lot from reading the posts of Iasion on this forum:
google: abovetopsecret did jesus exist
(top link there)
Read the posts of "iasion" from page 4 and on.
olasonn 1 year ago
Comment removed
Craighill9 1 year ago
Now you are getting silly.
Your comparison to David Koresh
Your posting of Obscure links from known enemies of Christianity
Your complete disregard for history.
Where are any complete original writings of Shakespear or Homer? Yet shcolars and people who study these documents find that the modern translations are accurate to the originals. Also, concerning the dates you should study where the modern calendar came from. Never the less the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Of course as we get further away from Christian Morality the enemies of purity and morality continue to trash any thing that speaks of holiness and Godliness. Why? Because of the selfish desire, without conscience, to do whatever perversion drifts into ones mind. But in order for that to happen one must remove any barrier to their objective. Trash the Gospel.
Earlier generations had respect for morality and Godly authority, but the new generation would rather pervert morality.
Craighill9 1 year ago
The comparison is fair, to tell you that just because something is in a book, doesn't make it so. Especially when it's supernatural claims written down by non-eye-witnesses decades later, and we don't have any originals, only copies of copies of copies. Lots of them too, and none of them are the same.
The evidence for a supernatural Jesus is far from overwhelming, even if you'd like to think so. Just saying it doesn't make it so, you know.
olasonn 1 year ago
But you do have eyewitnesses. Mathew Mark Luke John Paul were all eyewitnesses and their witness is coraborated by Josephus. Their witness is aslo back by the fact that Christianity remains a growing religion.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Do you still think Jesus dies in 66AD?
None of the gospel writers even met Jesus, and their accounts were written down decades later. From that we have no originals, but hundreds of copies, not one the same as the other.
Why do you think they were eye witnesses?
olasonn 1 year ago
Mathew Mark Luke John and Peter were all Disciples of Jesus. Yes the walked and talked with Jesus.
Craighill9 1 year ago
"They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns.
-Bart Ehrman - The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
olasonn 1 year ago
Mathew Mark Luke John and Peter were all Disciples of Jesus. Yes the walked and talked with Jesus.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Do you still think Jesus died in 66AD?
olasonn 1 year ago
Of course after centuries of accepting Josephus and a credible historian, some are now questioning his authority. This is not because of any new information that has been acquired this is simply because they don't believe his writings. they have no evidence to support their disbelief they just don't "like" what he says.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Please back that one up, please. I would like to see you present evidence of historians not liking what Josephus says, and questioning his writings because of that.
My question is, do you find Josephus credible? Or is it just when he agrees with the Bible that you accept what he says?
Google: Lay it to Heart - Can Josephus be Trusted
olasonn 1 year ago
Please display ANY new evidence for rejection of Josephus.writings!! The burden is on you not me. Josephus has been an accepted historian for centuries so display any new evidence that would lead anyone to doubt his credibility.
Craighill9 1 year ago
There are historians questioning some of Josephus' writings, suspecting later additions. Read "Jesus interrupted" by Bart Ehrman for more on that. It's a great read.
But he does say things that are in conflict with the Bible. Is this unproblematic to you?
olasonn 1 year ago
If someone today wrote a book about David Koresh, stating that he worked miracles and making sure to get some geographical and historical truths in there, would that make it true for someone finding the book 2000 years from now?
For more on Josephus,
google: jesuspuzzle supp10
olasonn 1 year ago
Also, the earliest manuscripts for the New Testaments date to less around 75 years after Jesus. There are enough of them to legitimize the present day New Testament. There were 100s of eye witnesses to Jesus' death and as many people saw Him after the resurrection. Mathew Mark Luke John Pete and others wrote documents testify to His resurrection and some were crucified because of their testimony. There is plent more evidence for you.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Jesus crucified 66AD??? You are decades off, Craig. Can you provide a link showing that most historians believe this?
Also, that there were eye witnesses is a claim written decades after the supposed death of Jesus, for which we have no originals, only copies of copies of copies.
The fact that the discrepancies in the gospels regarding some happenings, f.ex. when Mary goes to check on Jesus' grave, makes it hard to take them as historical fact.
You should read Bart Ehrman's-Jesus interrupted
olasonn 1 year ago
Of course when I ask you what evidence you need, you back up and say, "I don't know." What a cop out!! You won't accept ANY evidence. It doesn't matter what the evidence is you won't accept it. You have the entire universe as evidence but you don't accept that. What is the universe evidence of, if not God? Tell me where the universe came from. Come on Mr. Know-it-All. What created the universe. Your answer "I don't know, but it surely wasn't God!" Yeah good answer...Not!! Not by a long shot!!
Craighill9 1 year ago
No, it's not a cop out. Think about it yourself. What evidence would you need to know there is NO god?
I could give you a couple of examples. A limb growing out. People raised from the dead. Detailed prophecy. (no, not the vague ones in the Bible)
You can drop the attitude, it's not very becoming. I don't how the universe came to be what it is, and I'm OK with not knowing.
olasonn 1 year ago
I am confident that science will work that one out, just like every other natural phenomena that people once thought a god was responsible for.
Gods have always been peoples explanation to what they didn't know at the time, but with time and knowledge they have disappeared one by one. There's nothing different about the few gods we have left in the world today.
But you have to explain further. Why is the universe evidence of a god, and why your god and not another one?
olasonn 1 year ago
Like I said it doesn't matter what evidence The Bible prophecies aren't vague. They are absolutely detailed.
Its apparent that you've never done a study on biblical prophecy.
What attitude? Calling your answer a cop out? It IS a cop out. God has done all those things you ask for and you still deny He exists.
Your answer is still," I don't know, but I'm sure it wasn't God!"
The laws of the universe are ONLY explained by intelligence. Intelligence is the ONLY answer.
Craighill9 1 year ago
If they weren't vague, you wouldn't have all the interpretations out there. Not even Christians can agree on what they mean.
I was a Adventist for 16 years of my adult life, I have done every prophecy study there is.
If you have any evidence, please present them.
olasonn 1 year ago
I thought you said that you don't lie.
You haven't done every prophecy study there is.
I have already presented it.
Craighill9 1 year ago
I said I hadn't lied that day, that's what you asked. But I am not lying about the prophecies either.
I have studied the prophecies on the Bible, and they're all vague nonsense. That's why no one agrees on them.
olasonn 1 year ago
I'm sorry that you wasted all that time doing all those prophecy studies, but failed to learn anything. Maybe you should request your money back. Of course considering your posts here i must conclude that you haven't done ANY prophecy studies. What did you learn about the prophecy of Daniel concerning the 70 weeks of years?
Craighill9 1 year ago
It wasn't a complete waste, I learned that they are just made up stories.
And the prophecy seminars were all free, so no money back is necessary.
Yes, that's one one of the most studied amongst the Adventists. But since that part of Daniel is written mid 2nd century BC and describes Antiochus Epiphanes, it has no value.
olasonn 1 year ago
Thats what I thought, You are given evidence, but you still reject it. I'm sure you are certain that Homer wrote the Iliad, but there is less evidence for that than there is for Jesus' resurection. Never-the-less you are certain that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. Go figure.
Craighill9 1 year ago
If the evidence is not valid, of course I reject it. Mormons will have their evidence that says there were huge settlements of Jews in USA 2000 years ago, but it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. So to with Daniel.
There is no historical evidence for Jesus resurrection, only the Bible.
And no, I'm not convinced Homer wrote the Iliad, but it doesn't really make a difference unless you build your life around believing it or not.
Now, what evidence do you have? Real evidence that is.
olasonn 1 year ago
Read the writings of Josephus
Craighill9 1 year ago
I have read some. He didn't live at the same time as Jesus making it all hearsay, and makes only 2 possible references of a Jesus, with nothing supernatural mentioned. This is really enough for you to base your life on?
olasonn 1 year ago
Let's see Josephus was born in 37AD and Jesus was crucified arround 66AD (according to most historians) ??? In his writings, Josephus mentions the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. He mentions Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus (twice) and James the brother of Jesus.
Read book 18 of the Antiquities, 63-64.
Josephus lived during Jesus time.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Google:
Contradictions in Gospel Accounts of Jesus' Crucifixion
olasonn 1 year ago
No, I just expect him to not let people suffer even if you are doing your own little experiment. Is that too much to ask?
You know that praying to your cat would give just as good a result, which is why you are reluctant to trying this.
olasonn 1 year ago
Comment removed
Craighill9 1 year ago
God isn't your little circus pony that you can manipulate with sugar cubes, and your request indicates that you really don't know anything about God or His nature. Maybe you should pray that God would repair Your mind and show you what proper pray really is.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Great, go ahead and don't do it. Proves my point just fine.
olasonn 1 year ago
And who'se talking about tricking? You seem to think that your god would rather let someone suffer than heal them if that individual was part of an experiment. What a guy.
olasonn 1 year ago
You are still speaking from ignorance. There is a solution to your ignorance. Read the Bible, and learn how to have a personal relationship with God, then YOU can pray for the sick people that God leads you to pray for. If you pray for people that God hasn't asked you to pray for then nothing will happen. You need to form a personal relationship with God, then He will tell you who to pray for. If God hasn't instructed you to pray for someone, but you pray anyway...nothing will happen.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Before I can have a relationship with someone I need some indication of their existence. There is none that I have seen.
About prayer: You mean to tell me that instead of just healing someone, God tries to get us to pray for them so that he then can heal them? What if we don't pray for these then? Will he let them suffer?
olasonn 1 year ago
The entire universe and all the laws of physics are more than an indication. Yes God gets man to pray for people so that He can heal them.
Craighill9 1 year ago
What if they don't pray? Does God then let them suffer?
olasonn 1 year ago
Comment removed
Craighill9 1 year ago
sometimes yes sometimes no
Craighill9 1 year ago
My goodness!!! Such an individual is not worthy of any worship. Wake up, Craig.
olasonn 1 year ago
There is a solution to your ignorance.
You seem to think that God is here to serve your every desire, and be a cosmic Santa Claus for you? Why do you deserve for God to serve oyur every wish?
Craighill9 1 year ago
What?? I have said no such thing. If I were God I would help as many as I could, sadly your God doesn't feel the same way. For a God to let other people decide if he helps someone is a jerk not worthy of any praise.
Don't you see the gaping holes in the logic here?
olasonn 1 year ago
God built this world perfect for you, but you have trashed it. Man is a deceitful and wicked, but you think God should be your little circus monkey. Why should God help a bunch of selfish liars theives and murders? God gave people the world and people trashed it, and you want God to be your little trick pony? I'll bet you've told a told a slew of lies this week? Or looked at women/men with lust this week? Or gotten angry this week? Yeah you should be served hand over fist.
Craighill9 1 year ago
I have trashed it? Wow, that's some claim. What have I done to trash it?
I don't think helping everyone out is being a circus monkey. I think that would be being nice, and I'm sorry you and your god of choice doesn't think so.
Are thieves and murderers the only ones suffering? Give me a break.
No, I haven't lied this week, why do you think I have? And no, I haven't lusted after anyone either, or been angry. It takes a lot to make me angry, it happens only a dozen times a year.
olasonn 1 year ago
Ignorance does sadden me, and can be downright annoying, but I feel more sorry than angry at the ones suffering.
olasonn 1 year ago
I'm sure you aren't praying for anyone either, so I can't expect God to work on your behalf, and then you claim that God is cruel? You won't even pray for those who are hurting yet you want to claim that God is to blame. Funny.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Since I don't believe in any gods, I see no point in praying. I never claimed that your god should help me, just those in need. He does love everyone equally, right?
My point, which you are trying to avoid, is that no good being would let people suffer like they do in the world today. If there is a god, he truly is a horrible guy.
Craig, your arguments here have been strange at best, in which you have misrepresented my statements. You need to think for yourself, and let your mind free.
olasonn 1 year ago
He's not my god. He IS God. He doesn't belong to anyone. Considering the evidence, you are irrational. Atheism is irrational.
Also your point is irrational. Why should God do anything about suffering people? Especially when people break all of His commandments, and you won't even pray for those suffering...not even your own mother's suffering? You claim He is letting people suffer, but I don't see you praying that He would stop any suffering.
Craighill9 1 year ago
What evidence is there for any gods, I haven't seen any.
Atheism is the only logical standpoint for someone who hasn't seen any evidence. Agree?
If I was all-powerful. there wouldn't be ANYONE suffering. So,either there is no god(s), or he is evil.
Why should I pray to an imaginary being? Do you pray to Zeus, Thor, or Ra? When you think about why you don't pray to these, you understand why I don't pray to your god.
All gods are the same, an invention of man.
olasonn 1 year ago
EVERYTHING, Everything is substantial evidence for God. To deny God is to deny the universe exists.
Apparently you think God is a cosmic magician that will grant your every wish. God made the a perfect world, and if man had not screwed it up then there would be no suffering. There is no evidence for Zues, Thor, or Ra, but thereis sufficient evidence for God. Your attempt to compare God with myths is evident of your inability to properly discern the evidence. You won't even pray for your mama?
Craighill9 1 year ago
NO NO NO!!! How many times do I have to say it. I wouldn't expect a deity to do everything I want, but I would expect him to remove suffering. That is not the same thing, and you keep misrepresenting what I say. It's a straw man, and dishonest.
There is no evidence for your god, and it's pure chance that it's the one you believe in. If you were born in a different family or a different part of the world, you would defend another god the same way.
And no, I don't pray to imaginary beings.
olasonn 1 year ago
No its not a strawman. Who's fault is it that people suffer? It's man's fault that people suffer. And, yes you would expect God to do what ever you want. You tempt me subject God to some weird test. This shows that you think God should be your little dancing monkey.
Chance? Oh I see you believe there's a diety, but God is not him?
I could not have been born in a different family. God knew me before the foundation of the world. God knew who I was before He formed the world. He said so.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Nope, not whatever I want. I would settle for removing suffering. Is that really too much to ask?
No, I don't believe in any deities. None of the evidence for any of the gods people believe in convinces me.
You're a Christian by chance, and is wasting your life with fairytales.
olasonn 1 year ago
I don't know if its too much to ask. Why don't you ask the One who does know? Of course if you ask Him you must expect an answer, His Word says that those who come to God must first believe He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. I'm not a Christian by chance.
The evidence demonstates that God exists.
Craighill9 1 year ago
If you grew up in India with Hindu parents, you would be a Hindu. Do you really dispute this?
And what evidence demonstrate your god?
olasonn 1 year ago
Yes I dispute it. Beforethe foundation of the earth God had already determined who my parents would be, so the was no way that I could have been born to Indian parents. Of course you could ask that question to Ravi Zacharias or D'Nesh D'Souza. Both of those guys are Indian and neither is Hindu. (google them).
The Atom and the Galaxie are evidence for God. the Universe is evidence for God. how much more evidence do you require?
Craighill9 1 year ago
So, your god has determined for some people to be Hindus, but for you to be a Christian?
Sure there are exceptions, but you get my point.
You think that a Universe exists is enough evidence for your god? It isn't even enough for A god, let along YOUR god. Even if it mean that a god existed, it's quite the leap from there to your god.
olasonn 1 year ago
Yes God has predetermined who would be Christian. Apparently you didn't understand the question. So, I will repeat it. What evidence do you require
Craighill9 1 year ago
So we don't have the free will to choose religion?
Reg. evidence, it's hard to say up front. If I am presented with any, I would have to evaluate it individually.
What have you got?
olasonn 1 year ago
So, the univere is not enough evidence huh?
Craighill9 1 year ago
No. It's not evidence of the existence of any supernatural beings, and most certainly not evidence of any specific one.
olasonn 1 year ago
Yeah its evidence, and its evidence of the God of the Bible.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Nowhere in the bible is the Trinity mentioned. The Trinity is a concept created by the council of Nicea in 325 AD.
So" Elohim" can hardly refer to the trinity.
lizazoon 1 year ago 3
@lizazoon 1 god + 1 god + 1 god = 1 god ! Easy to understand. Makes as much sense as putting everything on a boat.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Yes it does. It uses the word ELOHIM (gods) the singular being ELOHA(god)
lizazoon 1 year ago 3
No it doesn't Bible says that the Lord is One God. It uses the word Elohim because it is referring to the trinity, but because you seem too ignorant to understand I feel that there is no need explaining it to you.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Those who believe in a deity, cannot exclude the existence of many deities. In fact the bible in many instances refers to the" gods".
The earliest Genesis text in Hebrew reads as follows. ...GODS created heaven and earth,
lizazoon 2 years ago 3
"...GODS created heaven and earth, "
No it doesn't
Craighill9 1 year ago
Correction; Atheism is the belief that the existence of a god, given the absence of evidence is very, very unlikely.
lizazoon 2 years ago
No, you became a creationist, not a scientist.
gregrutz 2 years ago
creationism is the only true sience
Craighill9 2 years ago
Ha ha!! - "Biblical scientiic creationist"....Now THERE"S how to labour an oxymoron!!
This idiot thinks the bible is a science book.
And I'll bet he's done more preaching than publishing of research!!
Tobytrim 2 years ago
Craighill9's so called unaddressed issues are no mysteries. Go to talkorigins for all the answers.
olasonn 2 years ago
talkorigins?
You have got to be joking.
Talk origins is not a scientific journal its evolutionary nonsense that has no scientific basis. They post journal after journal of contradictary BS. They will post anything as long as it looks like it debunks creation, (it doesn't matter if it completely contradicts other articles that they have published) talkorigins...thats hilarious.
Craighill9 2 years ago
It's someone with knowledge of science explaining how evolution works to the layman. Give me one example of two articles that contradict each other. Hemoglobin isn't intact blood cells, it's protein molecules. Biochemicals can be preserved in rock if there is no bacteria to eat them, that's what causes rotting in dead tissue.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
No, its nonsense, and anyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge knows it.
If there is no bacteria to eat them?
Yeah you are right these T-Rex bones were sterilized then preserved in a clean room. The archeologists dug up an ancient clean room.
Craighill9 2 years ago
They were encased inside of solid bone buried in fine silt, not just sitting out in open air. The mud and bone prevented air and water, necessary for flesh eating microbes to metabolize, from reaching the chemicals in the bone.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
You mean it would have to be a rapid burial...like a flood?
Craighill9 2 years ago
No, there's no geological evidence for that. it could have died and fell into a puddle of thick mud, and the bacteria only had enough time to eat the flesh before it was cut off from oxygen. if a global flood did happen, why are there incredibly dense elements in one strata above a strata full of incredibly light elements? Why aren't all of the creatures jumbled around instead appearing in order in only a couple strata? there's not even enough water on the planet to cover all the land.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
Every landform is different. there is no geologic colunm. The evolutionary argument says the "geologic column" is an orderly column that remains the samethroughout the globe with older things on the bottom and younger things on the top, but that is a lie. "The geologic column" is different in all locations. It is never the same. It jumbled the way you would expect it if a global catastrophe occured.
Yes the there is plenty of water on the planet to cover all the land.
Craighill9 2 years ago
"The geologic column" is different in all locations
First, that is proof there was no flood.
Second, the geologic column is a TIME scale. Permian PERIOD, Cambrian PERIOD. Time, not layers of rock.
gregrutz 2 years ago
"The geologic column" is different in all locations"
Proof of flood
Craighill9 2 years ago
Craig, you're back. I had to look back to our private debate from last May, and I see you're the one using arguments like the "retreating moon" one. Needless to say, that one has been debunked, like all other of Creationists feeble attempt at keeping their literal interpretation of Genesis.
It's time to accept reality, and let your\ fantasies of invisible people go.
olasonn 2 years ago
Try something...
see the box next to search?
type in proof of evolution and hit enter.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I did that..I found that there are many people full of deception who are trying to decieve others with a mindset that claims there is no creator
Craighill9 2 years ago
Science means not starting off with the conclusion, like you are doing. If the evidence shows no sign of a creator, there is no reason to believe in one.
olasonn 2 years ago
Apparently you are confused. Science starts with a hypothesis and developes tests to falsify the hypothesis. Right if the evidence shows no sign of a creator then there is no reason to believe there is one, but the vidence demonstrates that there is most likely a creator. The evidence demonstrates that complex biological systems (life) cannot be duplicated by very intelligent scientists working in a lab, therefore it took a being with more intellect to create these systems
Craighill9 2 years ago
You don't look for "a creator" in tests, you look for natural explanations. If you don't find one, it doesn't mean that there is supernatural, invisible beings lurking around. Claiming "God did it" because of present day ignorance is something people have done for thousands of years, and one god at a time has been left behind. It's time we let the creator god go too.
Time to face it, Craig. Don't waste your only life.
olasonn 2 years ago
Once again you show an inability to comprehend basic English. The evidence demonstrates that complex biological systems (life) cannot be duplicated by very intelligent scientists working in a laboratory with complex machines and testing equipment. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that more intelligence is required for this process. I guess you need God to wag His finger in your face for you to believe? Is that what you want? Hes not gonna do it, Hes already given you the evidence you need.
Craighill9 2 years ago
There is no evidence, and you're still arguing from present day ignorance. We can't do it YET. Who knows what we can do in the future. Claiming magic is a cop-out.
And if life is so complex it needs an intelligent creator, this creator - who must be even more complex - must need a creator too. And so on. It only raises more questions, it answers none.
olasonn 2 years ago
"We can't do it YET"
If we did do it them it would be demonstrated that life came from an intelligent source. Yeah magic would be a cop-out, but giving glory to God for His creation isn't magic. Considering the evidence, God is a more plausible explanation.
"And if life is so complex it needs an intelligent creator, this creator - who must be even more complex - must need a creator too."
Not if He is self-existent
Craighill9 2 years ago
You said:
"If we did do it them it would be demonstrated that life came from an intelligent source."
No, it would be demonstrated that if those were the conditions at the beginning, it could have happened naturally.
You said:
"Not if He is self-existent "
The mother of all cop-outs. The rules doesn't apply to God, huh? Right.
olasonn 2 years ago
Whats this "if those were the conditions" crap?
Since we have no idea what that conditions were, It would be a demonstration of life from an intelligent source.
Again, what do you want? God to kick you in the arse? Too bad Hes not going to do it. God has already given you all the evidence you need. Its all there and its sufficient proof for God's existence. God is self existent. He is not constrained by time, therefore He is eternal. You can't constrain God with something He created.
Craighill9 2 years ago
You said:
"Whats this "if those were the conditions" crap?"
Crap? Please. Read up.
You said:
"God has already given you all the evidence you need."
That's what people of all religions say, but you don't seem to be too impressed with their evidence, just like they aren't with yours.
If you think about why you're not impressed by the evidence for other gods, it's probably close to why I reject the evidence for yours.
olasonn 2 years ago
Comment removed
Craighill9 2 years ago
Whats this "if those were the conditions" crap?"
Yes crap...Your key word "IF" shows that what you have is a religion. What do you mean "IF?" If cows could fly we would have to use airplanes to get milk. IF indeed. Yeah yours is a religion. The evidence demonstrates that the best answer is an intelligent creator.
Craighill9 2 years ago
"by the evidence for other gods,"
Oh so you are claiming there are more than one? So, you believe in many gods not one true God?
Craighill9 2 years ago
@Craighill9
I'm not the one claiming this, I'm just saying that there's nothing special about your god. It's just one of many invisible friends people have.
There are no evidence for any gods, it's as simple as that. If you want to waste your life believing in the non-existant, go right ahead.
olasonn 2 years ago
You said there is evidence for other gods. now you are saying there is none. Of course I could expect nothing less from someone who is believes in the religion of atheism...Yes its a religion, and I heard all the excuses atheist use to claim atheism isn't a religion, but that only shows that most atheist are ignorant of the definition of religion.
Craighill9 2 years ago
No, I never claimed there was any evidence for any gods. Atheism is not a religion, it's quite the opposite. It's a disbelief in a deity, nothing more.
About the prayer challenge. Are you up for it?
olasonn 2 years ago
Absolutely atheism is a religion. religion -
re⋅li⋅gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
Atheism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...a religion.
You can deny it all you wish, but you are just lying to yourself.
Craighill9 1 year ago
Craighill9: If the denial of a god is a religion sir, then" not collecting post stamps" is a hobby.
By the way I am not an atheist, but I strongly believe in REASON.
lizazoon 1 year ago
You didn't get back to me on the prayer challenge. How about it?
olasonn 1 year ago
what prayer challenge?
Atheism is a religion...thats all.
Craighill9 1 year ago
You asked me how to falsify God, and I said:
"You could try this:
How about praying for 20 sick people, without them knowing. Pray to your god for 10 randomly chosen, and then Thor for the other 10. See if there is any difference after a week."
Atheism is still no religion, even if you would like it to be. It's just another thing some Christians say to make themselves feel better about their own faith. But it's still wrong.
olasonn 1 year ago
religion -
re⋅li⋅gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
Atheism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...a religion.
You can deny it all you wish, but you are just lying to yourself.
Craighill9 1 year ago
No, Atheism isn't a set of beliefs, it's the opposite. It's a lack of a belief in a deity. That's all.
olasonn 1 year ago
Yes atheism is a religion, atheists have even formed "churches" to preach their poor religion.
Craighill9 1 year ago
If some Atheists play soccer together, it has nothing to do with their Atheism. Atheism is by definition NOT a religion, it's simply a lack of belief.
olasonn 1 year ago
@craighill
Will you do the prayer challenge? Give it a go.
olasonn 1 year ago
Are you asking me to tempt God?
Craighill9 1 year ago
Would that be tempting God? Do you mean that he while he normally would help some of these people, he will let them suffer so not to prove to you that he exists? What a guy.
You know why you don't want to do the experiment. It will show that praying to anyone will do no good.
olasonn 1 year ago
Oh, so you are saying that God's main function is to prove to you that He exists?
Craighill9 1 year ago
No, I said no such thing.
To the issue:
Do you think he would refuse to heal someone if you did a test like this? That he would rather let them suffer?
olasonn 1 year ago
Apparently you think God is supposed to be your little trick pony, and when you tell Him to hop, He is supposed to ask you "how high?"
Craighill9 1 year ago
Craighill9 : If you believe atheism is a religion, you don`t know what a religion is. Atheism says, given the absence of evidence, the existence of a god is very very unlikely.
lizazoon 2 years ago 2
@Craighill9
So, how do you falsify your god?
You could try this:
How about praying for 20 sick people, without them knowing. Pray to your god for 10 randomly chosen, and then Thor for the other 10. See if there is any difference after a week.
olasonn 2 years ago
Comment removed
olasonn 2 years ago
Considering just three details, earth's magnetic field decay rate, polystrate fossils, and hemoblobin found in t-rex bones, there is a massive amount of evidence for a young earth. If you are going to argue against a young earth you MUST address these scientific facts. So far I have not seen these issues addresed by people who cling to the evolutionary old earth mindset.
Craighill9 2 years ago
T-rex "haemoglobin"? Polystrate trees? Earth's magnetic field?
Why do yo think these are evidence for a young earth?
Are you aware, by the way, of the reasons that the whole scientific community KNOWS that the Earth (and universe) are billions of years old?
Tobytrim 2 years ago
wow. you know i bet if he were still an evolutionist you all would be defending him to no end. but because he learned through his research that evolution makes no sense you all ridicule him and say he isnt a scientist? thats ridiculous.
cjandlc 2 years ago
I'm Christian, but I'm going to pull the devil's advocate. If he were an evolutionist, would you be against him? He's very logical according to you.
Also, about the rock thing. I learned about that back in 9th grade biology, the Miller-Urey experiment. They were able to produce glycine from inorganic compounds. I'm sure by now it would be very possible to synthesize different amino acids from inorganic compounds.
vr00m123 2 years ago
So if they synthesized amino acids from inorganic compounds would it be considered intelligent design or naturalism?
Craighill9 2 years ago
nope not yet
Songandgroove 2 years ago
This guy was never rational whatever his world view....He hasn't published a damn thing to disprove evolution. There are over 200,000 peer review articles, on PUBMED alone, in support of it.
I was invited on to a British TV programme to debate this guy when I complained about his dishonesty and ignorance. When they found out I had even a rudimentary knowledge of real science, they ran and hid!
Tobytrim 2 years ago
@Tobytrim NOOB
darpachief 2 years ago
YEP you're too easy!!
Tobytrim 2 years ago
@Tobytrim ---Dr Grady McMurtry <<<< lot more smarter than you. :-)
darpachief 2 years ago
I've listened to this idiot at length.....he's too much of a moron to realise what a moron he is.
He's using claims that are easy to debunk and have been for decades, Such as the percieved decay of the earth's magnetic field.
He even does that old chestnut about the reduction of the speed of light. trying to disprove things that are millions of light years couldn't have sent there light millions of years ago.
If he wants to debunk things, why doesn't he start with his own bogus diplomas?
Tobytrim 3 years ago 2
delusional fraud
WisdomVendor 3 years ago
I have done some research and his qualifications are in general science relating to agriculture. He has no qualifications in paleontology, geology or theoretical physics. Do a search in Google for "dr grady mcmurtry qualifications".
hostroute 3 years ago
Does anyone know where he claims to have degrees from? I am preparing a video rebuttal of some of his assertions. A lot of the time he seems to say that he knows better because he has all these qualifications.
hostroute 3 years ago
lol ... a doctrate in 'creation science' from a, no doubt, unaccredited random diploma mill (aka bible college) does not give you the ability comment on 'scientific grounds'
SupremeChimp 3 years ago
I bet this guy isn't even a proper scientist.
To be a scientist you need to go to college.
To be a creation scientist you need to read the bible.
I see how you're trying to trick people here...
wayzey 3 years ago
you have to go to college to become a creation scientist. just like any other scientist.
but he's got good points.
explosions have never constructed a building, so how could a massive explosion of two gases that cant combine in the first place, create people?
and evolutionists believe rocks created the single cells organisms that eventually led to all life on the planet.
it seems he's the more logical one.
cjandlc 2 years ago
Actually evolution is made up of many different theories.
Mutation, Adaptation, Micro evolution and Natural selection are all very well accepted, almost every creationist accepts them too.
It's macro evolution that people criticize saying it's impossible. The thing is that it's not impossible and in fact it's quite probable, it's not a matter of "I don't know the answer so noone can" which is the excuse many creationists use.
None of what you have said relates to evolution the slightest bit!
wayzey 2 years ago
Also i'm not sure if you've realised but I was not being literal when I said to be a creation scientist you just have to read the bible.
Yes you do have to study it, the only difference between when you were in highschool and had to study a WW2 book and the studying of the bible is that WW2 is based on historical events that have plenty of evidence to prove they exist.
If you can get a bible in creation science then I can in pixie and unicorn related studies.
wayzey 2 years ago
If you can get a degree in creation science then I can in pixie and unicorn related studies.
Degree not bible :/
wayzey 2 years ago
Wow! If this guy can debunk so much of our current scientific knowledge then what is he waiting for?
There's two possible answers to this:
1. The science community are involved in some sort of conspiracy.
2. Dr McMurtry has no scientific grounds for his claims or is misrepresenting the evidence.
2 seems logical. 1 seems paranoid, delusional and indicative of, at least, mild psychosis. The scientific method is kept impartial by the peer review process. Which authority is the conspirator?
holyhell5050 3 years ago
Is this just your opinion?
osks 3 years ago
And this guy is going to overturn the central tennent of biology, scientific theory supported mounds of evidence just because he has a PhD in bible reading. I can't see the logic matey. Maybe you could explain it
bootrous 3 years ago
His DD is from a diploma mill. There is no thesis you can look at in the library. The guy has absolutely no basis for giving any opinion on anything other than his personal opinion - which like mine ultimately counts for nothing
hostroute 3 years ago
your wrong this guy was at my church yesterday and he has about 4 hours worth of material to prove everything wrong that you thought was right about evolution
hbknutjack 3 years ago