There is no proof For Unbelief, its only when a person is willing and wants to know the truth will God reveal the truth to you, its a (DIVINE MIRACLE) That God Does.. God Reveals His Truth to us threw the power of the holy spirit.. people are ignorant because they dont beleive
@GiveMeJesus316 Ok god reveals the truth. How do you know which holy book is the true one, does god when revealing the truth tell you also that the Quran or Torah or the Bible is true?
If I say the Holocaust didn't happen & 6,000,000 Jews didn't go up in smoke, I can be arrested & jailed!
Yet, you have Jewish Clowns going around saying around denying Jesus Messiah & then saying in their Satanic Talmud that He is in Hell in boiling human dung!
Based on their terms of Law, I think ALL Jews that DENY & DENIGRATE Jesus Messiah, should be arrested & jailed!
It is a PRETEXT to say YHWH has forgiven His Satanic enemies (John 8:44-47)
Talmudic Jews & their Babylonian Talmud teach that Jesus Messiah is in HELL in boiling human dung along with His disciples. They teach Mary the mother of Jesus was a WHORE!
ALL Talmudic Jews will spend eternity in HELL with their father.UNLESS they repent! Accept Jesus as their Messiah!
@limerick121 Hate not your enemies. Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you. Do good to them spitefully use you and abuse you. Won't we all suffer eternity in hell if we do not repent? Romans 2 read it and learn to love. For we are told by the beloved Disciple. You can have all manner of gifts of discernment and if you have not charity and love it is for nothing.
The punishment for sin is death, God died to save us from our sin, but he didn't die, so WTF guys, did the fucker die for us or not? cause it sounds to me like he didn't die, otherwise his body would have been paraded around the streets, you guys have no sense of reality lol.
@TheAtheistFuture said "but he didn't die, so WTF guys, did the fucker die for us or not? cause it sounds to me like he didn't die,"
What is one day of crucifixion vs an eternity of a lake of fire? Which one would you take? Wouldn't a true sacrifice be for Jesus to burn forever for us?
@joestfrancois Dont think that Jesus merely died on the cross. He suffered ALL of your sins. He bore your sin meaning, the punishment you recieve(hopefully not) when suffering hell. He recieved that punishment. He suffered it for entire mankind, you only have to suffer for yourself, picture suffering for everyone whose ever excisted..
@Stianchez "He suffered ALL of your sins. He bore your sin meaning, the punishment you recieve(hopefully not) when suffering hell."
Think about that for a sec. According to you, where is Jesus now? With the father. What is the punishment for my sins? Eternal damnation. Why isn't Jesus in hell then? Jesus should be in hell for all eternity. Then your god would have really given his son, eh? But no, Jesus is in heaven and the debt goes unpaid. Use your brain.
@joestfrancois This is clearly a misunderstanding on the concept of hell.
Hell is not eternal. You see, God is perfectly just therefor there has to be a punishment.
If you don't accept Jesus Christ, you have to take that punishment yourself. Hell is a consuming fire, you will slowly perish according to your sin. The less you have sinned the quicker you will perish.
After your sins have been payed for you will be gone. (Hopefully not)
@Stianchez said "Hell is a consuming fire, you will slowly perish according to your sin. The less you have sinned the quicker you will perish."
HUH? LOL? This is a new one to me!! I mean, it is obvious that christians make up their religion as they go along, this is just another example. Where did you get this idea?
Still though, if Jesus is the sacrifice why isn't he consumed? Why is he back in heaven? Nothing was sacrificed.
@joestfrancois This isn't new at all, you just havent looked well enough into the subject. Philosophers from the early age of Jesus made similar claims.
/watch?v=iqtqaZPs_dI 1 hour video on just this topic referencing scripture.
The reason jesus wasn't consumed is because he took the punishment for our sins, and then beat death. That is the whole reason we can get saved. Remember he ressurected 3 days later.
PS Christiantiy is no more a religion than atheim.
@Stianchez said "The reason jesus wasn't consumed is because he took the punishment for our sins, and then beat death"
Uh huh, and you know this all, how? See, there is evidence for none of this. And even though your claim is not falsifiable, it is a claim made with no evidence, kinda like bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Face it dude, it makes no sense at all.
@joestfrancois The flying spagetti monster is not a contingent and necessary being. Plus it's materialistic, you can see it and touch it and even "eat it" logically. Whatever created the universe has to be matterless, timeless and spaceless. The FSM is none of these.
I didn't try and prove the bible to you, all I did was to show you how it's logically coherent on the biblical view, as that was your question. Proving the bible is a whole nother discussion.
@joestfrancois The best possible explination - The universe had a beginning, and that beginning came from a dense dot. This is a drastical simplifcation.
The universe is expanding - Space, within that space there is time. Matter came into being during the expansion of the universe. At the very beginning.
Thus whatever triggered the beginning, may it be big bang or whatever , has to be outside of these elements as they cannot create themselves.
Uh huh. Listen, you have still been unable to show how your bible is "logically coherent" much less prove the thing. Your claims are not falsifiable, they are just stupid claims to make.
(Also The FSM people tell me that he is matterless, timeless and spaceless. so you are wrong.)
@joestfrancois I'm not trying to prove the bible at all, all I am doing is showing you how it's logically coherent ON the biblical view. NOT on naturalism. If you can refute the bible on the biblical view, then congratulations you've refuted christianity.
All you're doing is applying the attributes of God and applying it to the FSM.
Since you know how he looks like, he's made out of matter. Since he can travel within this world. He is bound by time, and he is not spaceless.
@Stianchez said "all I am doing is showing you how it's logically coherent ON the biblical view. NOT on naturalism"
All you are doing is making claims. However the universe got here, it is very clear we are a product of evolution after the formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago. It is not "logically coherent" or whatever, to the bible.
Also, your vile lies about the FSM are unfounded. He is "matterless, timeless and spaceless." So is Santa called the Claus.
@Stianchez said "dont seem to understand what it means to show logically that your view can be correct a prior to the evidence"
Sure I do. You don't get that the evidence has shown your claims to be wrong. Logically they may be possible, it's the evidence that makes them wrong.
As far as the earth being 4.5 b, all the science points to that as being near the age of the earth. If you want to throw out one little exception, go ahead, you will look foolish, but that is your right.
@Stianchez "The flying spagetti monster is not a contingent and necessary being. Plus it's materialistic, you can see it and touch it and even "eat it" "
What is with all of the "relevantly dressed" young men spouting out really cheesy poetry and trying to sound super hardcore about it but its just super corny and annoying? Yeah some of what they say is true but whatever. Especially that other guy who does poetry in front of the strip club that Todd Friel was claiming promotes works righteousness. Funny stuff.
Thirdly, if you're an atheist you almost certainly don't think sin exists, and asserting that we know that it exists is the exact same argument as me telling you that you Christians know deep down inside that god/Jesus is just Santa Clause for adults. It's a fallacious argument, and it's quite rude.
If this was supposed to appeal to our rational minds, then this should appear as a terrible failure to everyone.
First off, proof is reserved for deductive logic, and unless you're going to propose a deductive argument you should only talk in inductive terms like demonstrate or evidence.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Gospels were first person accounts, and the first writings were decades to centuries after the fact. Even if there was, testimony is still the weakest and most likely false evidence you could possibly produce.
No. A whole bunch of assertions. Stupid, no truth in it. I never did anything that a man had to be tortured to death for, did you? Did you? Do you really believe that? You are so bad that some guy had to be killed to make it right? And how does that make it right? Killing some third party for some made up thing you did? Think about it! It makes no sense. Reject Human Sacrifice!! Embrace reason!!
The would never thing that punishment by proxy is a valid form of justice unless they are talking about their beliefs..... The disconnect there is disturbing...
@joestfrancois If you break even one of God's law your guilty of them all. If you say you've done no wrong you are a liar and the truth isn't in you. On the day of judgment do you honestly think your works will hold up to scrutiny?
@BrotherMichael1000 said "If you break even one of God's law your guilty of them all. If you say you've done no wrong you are a liar and the truth isn't in you. On the day of judgment do you honestly think your works will hold up to scrutiny?"
What laws? What judgement day? And do not call me a liar.
@joestfrancois Sacrifice from so many is what gives you the freedom to attack your creator and be intolerant to followers of Christ. That is just the thing, you NEVER did anything, and still don't. You just bask in your comfort from everyone elses sacrifice. Your embracing reason is a direct quote from Hitler too... You both quote hitler and think you mutated from an ape, then call the history of Christ stupid? Jesus came to seek and save the lost, and you will meet him soon enough. Pray bro.
You would think someone who has been rebutted on this topic dozens of times would stop being so disingenuous. Honestly tell me you didn't know that this is not what Evolutionists believe, "mutated from an ape." No one believes this. Everyone who has taken high school biology (which ought to be near 100% of the population) knows that we had a common ancestor with apes. If you cannot understand this basic fact, its no wonder you're a creationist.
Gravity is just a theory. Germs and cells are just a theory. Atoms are just a theory. Theories are the highest possible position a scientific idea can obtain. Evolution especially is one of the most successful theories in human history, and it without it, nothing in Biology makes any sense. It has been tested, verified, and observed without any evidence to challenge it since its inception. Just like we know that the Earth pulls objects towards it, we know that life has evolved.
Yes but gravity is a fact up untill the moment i am writing this because i can proove it to myself, but there is no hard and fast evidence to prove evolution and radioactive dating has been proved to be inconsistant and unreliable.
Scientists use observational science but dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Assumptions are not fact and should not be wriitten as so.
You don't "prove" things in science, that is reserved for deductive logic; science is 100% inductive. Things are only demonstrated with evidence, and Evolution has been demonstrated with evidence for at least the last 100 years. That is why there is absolutely no debate about evolution in academia.
We can see Evolution happening before our eyes in simple experiments like the classic fruit fly experiment or in complex ones like Richard Lenski's long-term E. coli experiment.
Furthermore, I have never heard of a case of Radiometric dating giving results outside its error margin if the experimenters didn't screw up their results by testing something for which the method cannot fundamentally work. By the way, there are over 20 other methods like Dendrochronology, electron spin, amino acid, fission tracking, paleomagnetic, luminescence, etc. dating that completely agree with radiometric dating. There is nothing inconsistent or reliable about it.
The only thing you can dispute about radiometric dating is the chemistry behind about being able to deterministically measure radioactive decay. Unless you have discovered some new information demonstrating that our complete foundation of understanding radioactivity is flawed, there isn't anything to dispute here. Radiometric dating (along with the other 20 methods) are all consistent, and the ones that can, imply that the Earth is billions of years old.
Scientists aren't stupid, they would take that into account if they were miscalculating their data. They can look at Stratigraphy and estimate how much C14 should have been in the object by looking at the layers in the Earth. Furthermore, I mentioned other dating methods like Dendrochronology which isn't dependent on C14, but completely agrees with radiometric dating (don't forget all the other different types of radiometric dating that also agree with carbon dating).
You purposely lie about Christianity. You know its not true, but you keep preaching lies because you want to feel better about your absurd belief. Stop lying to people.
It's not only rude, but as uncharitable as possible to assume someone is lying. If you do it again, our conversation is over. There is no reason someone should have to put up with a troll who accuses his opponent of lying without any evidence.
Oh noez.... the pseudo-intellectual posted a video linking to the well documented phenomenon known as reservoir effects.... hosted by NephilimFree, of course. Why am I not surprised someone without understanding of C14 dating thinks reservoir effects debunks radiometric dating?
@Bluedragon094 Hey there, did you know that the video itself has nothing to do with NephilimFree himself, all it does is explain how radiometric dating works, and the assumptions they have to make, but I guess you don't care about that since evidence doesn't matter to you.
Y'know, I could match your smarmy attitude and point you right to modern medicine and genetics, because if evolution is false, both those disciplines fall with it.
But, just to feed the troll for jesus;
I'm going to assume you're making the claim that their are no transitional fossils, which means all you need to do is go to your nearest local museum of natural history to get that shit squared away. Oh wait, let me guess, where's the "missing link"? (cont.)
@Bluedragon094 Transitional Fossils are so extremely rare that it cannot even be counted. How big is the percentage of found transitional fossils based on how many fossils we've found? Besides that doesn't matter at all.
Go look at a 24 hour clock 1-24, and not 12 -1 .
If you start at 1 and spin your way around, all the way until around 21, there are only simple celled life forms... and suddenly in a timespan of 2 minutes on that clock you have cambrian explotion. *Thumbs up*
See, here's the reasons why the, "where's the missing link?" question is full of dishonest bullshit:
1. We have dozens. No they're not all forgeries, in fact, the only reason why forgeries were allowed to exist in the first place was because the private owners of the forgeries would not allow them to be submitted to be tested for authenticity, I'm sure you've heard the scientific names of them more than once so I wont bother repeating them. (cont.)
@Bluedragon094 You don't need to go on mindlessly expaining this as I've heard this crap before. Just answer my questions, I dont want to hear your religious views. No offense.
2. For every gap we fill, we create 2 new gaps on either side of the fossil because evolution is a CONTINUUM. There will always be "holes", and use the term "hole" EXTREMELY loosely, in the continuum in the sense that not every species of animal has fossilized and like I said, for every one we find, 2 new gaps appear on either side, one gap toward the ancestor, the other gap toward the descendant. (cont.)
So, your contentions on fossil evidence are either based on ignorance or based on dishonesty. You can take your pick.
I have no inclination to think you have any knowledge at all in terms of dating systems when you thought the reservoir effect debunked C14, read up on the topic.
T-rex protein what? Y'know, back in my day, Creationists thought dinosaurs were either lies by the evil Satan worshiping scientists or just there to test their faith. What... (cont.)
... ever happened to those good ol' times? Or are you too busy sucking on Hovind dick and think they're just "big lizards" from the garden of eden that lived for thousands of years and grew into fire-breathing dragons? I can't make this shit up, that's how retarded and against all reason some of this shit is.
And the down syndrome icing on the cake is you bringing up the Miller-Urey experiment thinking it has fuck all to do with evolution. (cont.)
@Bluedragon094 I like the excuse "there will always be 2 gaps" Why does there has to be? If you find a link that resembles two fossils it resembles two fossils, dont need another gap. Although, this reasoning makes it impossible to prove or disprove transitional fossils. Meaning it's not scientific. To be scientific it has to be falsifiable ;)
I've read up on the topic of dating, I suggest you do the same. Since you dont seem to know the assumptions they make. Do you?
"Meaning it's not scientific. To be scientific it has to be falsifiable ;)"
Love the winking face, as if a YEC cared at all about science.
Oh sure you've read up on the topic of radiometric dating alright, off all the little creationist propaganda websites that didn't bother to explain a basic principle of C14 dating, the reservoir effect.
Y'know maybe if you weren't home schooled in derp-enomics, you'd know a thing or 2 about science.
See, you'd have a point if I simply called you retarded in lieu of actually addressing what you say, but unfortunately for you, anyone can take a 2 minute romp through these comments to see that not only did I address what you were saying, but ridiculed you while doing it.
And no, ridicule and insults aren't an argument at all even. They're FLAVOR, and never have they been so rightfully deserved.
You people, YECs, are a cancerous blight upon society.
@Bluedragon094 Part 2 - No we didn't I've never met anyione who made that claim, the only ones i've met that made that claim are atheists, just like you say we believe the earth is flat..
Dinosaurs or as they were called Dragons before the 1800, there are many pictures from ancients time depicting drawings of dinosaurs, even before they excavated fossils.
Theres also ancient documents describing them. Marco Polo, said te chinese emprorer had 2 dragons pulling his carieer f.ex
@ddrninjette You seem to know your stuff, so correct me if im wrong. A cell is built up by protiens which again are built up by amino acids. So in order to get a cell you need randomly forming amino acids into protiens which then in turn make up the cell and all of its components, yes/no?
MFW Stianchez most likely has a tab open to a creationist website as he's paraphrasing the contents of said tab and regurgitating them on these comment pages in an attempt to play a petty "gotcha game":
@ddrninjette Yes, but I'm asking you how the first cell formed. So to my understanding a cell is made up of amino acids - Proteins, yes? So in order to get the first cell you need to have amino acids randomly assembling into proteins, and proteins then randomly making connections to make up the components of a cell? Is my understand wrong or correct?
@Stianchez Cells are more than proteins, as I already pointed out. DNA, for example, is an acid (duh). A rudimentary cell is a strand of RNA surrounded by a lipid bi-layer. Neither lipids nor RNA are proteins.
Proteins are created within the cell, like hemoglobin. But they are not necessarily the cell, if that makes sense. Most of the cell's structures consist of membranes.
@ddrninjette Aren't the building blocks to make up the DNA proteins? So you're telling me amino acid's dont randomly form together to make up the "building blocks" of the cell?
@Stianchez Let me just cut to the chase instead, I can swear I heard you need atleast 2000 proteins to make up the simplest cell. No problem it not making up the entire cell, but atleast 2000. Does that sound more correct to you?
@Stianchez I never said anything about how many proteins are needed for a cell. I'm not sure how many proteins are found in a modern cell. A lot, probably. Proteins play a key role in the structure and function of modern cells. So 1,000 to 2,000 sounds about right for most cells you would find today.
Something simpler, like a virus, is just genetic material surrounded by a capsid though.
@ddrninjette Alright, so let's see if I got this. Amino Acids randomly form to make up proteins, based on the possibile combination you can combind the math and you will get a number showing the odds of just 1 protein forming by chance.
1/10^163 (lecture /watch?v=1--tP49mOoE )
This is just for one protein, if this calculation is correct. How on earth can anyone believe cells could form randomly?
@ddrninjette I havent looked into this depth that much but I am starting to see where this is going, it seems as if you're honest enough to admit there's something more to this so I'll have to do some research on this particular matter. You just agreed with me you need 2000 to form the simplest cell. Changeing your mind?
Just becuase you select away the ones that dont work doesn't mean you can overcome the odds of 1/10^163. You still have to bypass those odds.
@Stianchez The "simplest" cell would require few if any proteins. But you would expect to find thousands in a modern cell.
Luckily, protein formation and natural selection are non-random processes. Also, proteins are not like words or letters. You can change, add, or remove amino acids and still have a workable protein. It's like cooking.
Also, genes for certain proteins duplicate allowing for free mutation with the original still being produced.
@ddrninjette How do you know the "simplest" cell would require few if any proteins?
If you watched the source apparently if you get one right handed amino acid in there you entire connection will fall apart. Not so sure it's like cooking at all.
I'll look into it some more and get back to you with a proper rebutall
@ddrninjette I did some quick research this is my conclution from it :
A lipid bubble is a far cry from a cell membrane. Look into the complexity and design of the membrane. It's illogical to believe it could arise because molecules bump into each other. It seems like it's the same old "There's a chance!". Then you stll have to overcome the incredible odds 1/10^163 to just form one protein. You need atleast 2000...
Looks like im not the only one with faith in here.
@Stianchez What are the chances that oil droplets would form in water? Well, seeing as lipids are hydrophobic... Pretty high.
And remember, when we talk about the first, primitive cells, their membranes are going to be simple. Modern cells have lots of structures embedded into their membranes. The first cells cells had few if not zero.
@Stianchez Because while modern cells use thousands and thousands of different types of molecules, proto-cells developed in the lab (these things are simpler than than viruses btw) use about 10 types of molecules.
@Bluedragon094 Part 3 .. Funny enough I responded to one of them aggressive ignorant atheists.. If you have 0 tolerance, why do you bother talking to me?
"How has evolution been "tested/observed and verified"?"
I mentioned two experiments go look them up. The simple fruit fly experiment demonstrates mate selection which is the foundation of specization, and Richard Lenski's experiment demonstrates most everything macro evolution argues.
The Millery Urey experiment isn't relevant we are talking Evolution not Abiogenesis. It is successful at getting closer to explaining how life came from non-life.
@MaximumAxiom Part 1 I find it interesting how you guys always try to break the ties between Evolution theory and Abiogenesis, but that's no problem. Speciaztion isn't macro evolution. Just because something can change color, or grow an identical pair of wings doesn't show that macro evolution works.
Genetric entropy is a interesting topic on the matter.
The T-rex protein is in heavy dispute, and is lacking hard evidence. It has had many rebuttals. The only reason why you even heard about this silly claim is because the media blew it out of proportion like they always do. I also don't see why it would be contrary to Evolution either. Under the right conditions almost anything is possible.
No this doesn't go against the fossil record, and there is no evidence to the contrary of Evolution that I am aware of.
@MaximumAxiom "Under the right conditions almost anything is possible." Perhaps God could exist under the right condition? Or does that go under "almost"? ;)
The only reason the T-rex protein is in heavy dispute is because it breaks down the evolutionary timescale to a matter of a few thousand years.
Under the best possible conditions they have tasted that protein can max last 40,000 years. Last time I checked they confirmed it to be regular protein soft tissue.
God could exist, but I argue it's extremely unlikely even if with the most charitable definition.
As ddrninjette said, it doesn't seem to screw up the evolutionary timeline, it could just be a really lucky preservation, or a complete fluke that will later be revealed as bad science.
Same goes for your name. Nobody believes we are monkeys.
Hitler didn't embrace reason, if he did he would've known that Biology speaks volumes against racism. If anything Hitler justified his actions with Christianity when saying, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew."
It doesn't matter, it's a fallacy of relevance. Hitler was also a Vegetarian, are Vegetarians bad to?
You're right because no one BELIEVES we mutated from fish. Evolutionists say we had a common ancestor with fish because we had a common ancestor with virtually everything that has ever lived on this planet according to DNA.
Did modern day America mutate from modern day Britain? NO! They separated centuries ago and have evolved separately into the nations they are now.
@YouAreNotAMonkey said "You both quote hitler and think you mutated from an ape, then call the history of Christ stupid? Jesus came to seek and save the lost, and you will meet him soon enough"
Wow, pretty nice. You managed to link me to Hitler, put words in my mouth and threaten me in two sentences. There is intolerance for you.
Listen, that was not a Hitler quote, I did not mention evolution, and do not threaten me. It is prettty simple, I reject Human Sacrifice.
you think mentioning Jesus is a hate crime? Just like Hitler you wish you could take care of us. But you loose in the end...
ooo ooo ooo oooo oooo...that is ape talk and stands for you supporting a womans right to kill their baby, then saying you hate human sacrifice...for crying that God in the old testament wiped out a race that perfomed human sacrifice, and all the heros that sacrificed their lives so you can be so content to claim you are a monkey and believe in UFOs, wow
Yeah, you are a troll. I never said any of the things you said I did. I never mentioned abortion. I never used the word hate. I never quoted Hitler. I never said I was a monkey and never said I believe in UFOs. I never said mentioning Jesus was a hate crime. It seems you have trouble with the truth. Please, you do not have to be rude.
Languages have a clear historical pattern and history. This conflicts with the Biblical account for language. How am I to trust the Bible if it makes such mistakes? Could our science be wrong?
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof: [ with clause ] : he claimed that he came from a wealthy, educated family | [ with direct speech ] : “I'm entitled to be conceited,” he claimed | [ with obj. ] : these sunblocks claim protection factors as high as 34.
@jwissick I not gonna extrapolate all of what my comment means. I have better things to do then troll the "Wretched" comments page. My "claim" is Jesus has abolished death for all who repent and believe in him. Maybe you simply will not do that ? For your sake I hope I'm wrong. And really my friend you owe to yourself to research the a for mentioned claims because when it comes to man - centered- philosophy like, "humanism" I know the burden of proof rests with you.
@BrotherMichael1000 What seems to be the difference between us is that I investigated what was portrayed as evidence, like what you cited. (In fact, I used to cite all of that when I evangelized.) Most - if not all - falls apart when given an honest, unbiased, closer look. "...people like you do." Don't put me into categories when you know nothing about me or my background. I have changed many views when given evidence, however, most intellectually honest people like me do.
@MsScienceFTW You aren't honest. I've noticed the new waive of new atheists who come on youtube trumpeting loudly, "I once was a Christian Evangelist." When you really start questioning them on what they did it amounts to them reading books by Joyce Myers, Joel Olsteen, and T.D. Jakes. Don't come on here saying that historical, archaeological, and eye witness testimony doesn't matter. Then proclaim you looked at it through unbiased observation. Intellectually honest? Hardly.
@MsScienceFTW I do not care what you find revolting. Am I angry with you? Not at all. Do I find your claim that you where a born again Christian laughable? Indeed that would be more accurate. You think I hate you No friend I see you as a deceiver whose deceived yourself. You do not trust Christ and that means you where never a Christian. Saying Lord! Lord!doesn't make him your Lord. Profession without conviction means nothing.
@BrotherMichael1000 Good God, I never said I thought you hated me. Learn how to discuss things. Laugh at my claims I was a Christian-I don't care- I know what I believed. I will no longer respond to you. Who knows? You'll be saying I think you want to rob me next.
@MsScienceFTW Do not take his name in vain when you address me. I have learned how to discuss things. I just do not invest personal emotion into my discussions as you do. You know what you believed I'm sure and it had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. You claim a unbiased neutral view and yet you are so angry when someone challenges you and calls you on it. Who is Jesus Christ? If you where his and if he knew. You would have the answer.
@BrotherMichael1000 Oh God, I said I wasn't going to respond, but one more time for good luck! I am not having an emotional investment w/someone I don't know, but being accused of saying/believing things I didn't is rather annoying. I am sure you would respond with the same annoyance. If I wasn't putting off all the work I have, I wouldn't give what you've written a 2nd thought. And with that, I will not read anything else you write. So don't expect a response after this.
@MsScienceFTW John 10:14 Christ sad; "I am the Good Shepherd I know my sheep and am known of my sheep." If you where a Christian you would know that the Good Shepherd knows his sheep and they know him. You do not know him and it is certain he doesn't know you. How then could you have been a Christian?
@jwissick MsScienceFTW made statements that she had studied biblical manuscripts. Theocratickingdom asked her a few questions and her response was quote, "Can you please send me information on this stuff?I am not sure I am familiar with some of it." If she had studied these manuscripts at all she would have answers to the questions posed. Just like you jwissick. She didn't know what she was talking about. Given evidence you merely decide it's unreliable because you dont like the answer.
@jwissick Don't you love it? There is also an abundance of straw-man out today. BrotherMichael has claimed that I thought he hated me, said evidence isn't important,I was a follower of Joel Olsteen, and that I said I studied the biblical manuscripts. None that I said. (Although to fair I did study SOME manuscripts, I am just not 100% sure I could remember everything I read 4 years ago.) Careful, he might start doing it to you! lol. Sometimes people can be just childish.
@BrotherMichael1000 Your anger here is revolting. You don't know me & are 100% wrong in your assessment. I never read a book by any of those people. I was very against Joel Olsteen types. I was just what I said I was. I never said that stuff didn't matter. I said I investigated & was disappointed. Since you have shown that you are unable to handle someone disagreeing with you, & therefore can't have discussions about beliefs, this conversation is done.
@BrotherMichael1000: The better response to her might be to challange the myth of neutrality to begin with. Especially since Holy Writ teaches everyone is incapable of just looking at evidence. Evidence is not the issue. Scripture states man will NOT come to Christ no matter what evidence is presented. It is purely a work of grace. I'm not against evidence, but when someone tells you they are unbiased you should tell them neutrality is a fairy tale for grown ups.
@theocratickingdom30 Exactly friend. It is one of many fairytales that "grown ups" tell themselves. Just like the fairy tale that one day amino acids formed themselves and slowly evolved into life as we know it today. Without a cause and just randomly through permutation. Indeed it is the work of Grace that draws one to Christ and it wasn't my intent to say otherwise.
It's ridiculous to think that eye witness testimony (the absolute worst type of evidence), and an empty tomb (which can be accounted for by natural means) from around 2000 years ago merits belief in the supernatural. We should never come a supernatural conclusion unless all valid natural explanations have been exhausted, and it is trivial to account for events of the bible naturally.
@MaximumAxiom That is because you don't believe in God. With man these things are impossible. God on the other hand can do all things. Was the body secreted away by the disciples? Doubtful Matthew 27:62-67 Did the Sanhedrin do it? Extremely doubtful as they would want to keep the body right where it was. Any other natural means you care to mention?
@Bluedragon094 It was a new tomb that had never been used. The Sanhedrin requested from Pilate a contingent to guard the tomb. Those same guards sealed the tomb and guarded it. Your whole argument is 1 pointless and 2. ridicules.
No, my argument is that the tomb could have been disturbed, and why couldn't the guards have done the disturbing? The whole premise of Jesus's demise was because of Rome not liking Jesus's message enough to put him to death. It wouldn't be such a stretch to imagine the guards defiling the tomb.
@BrotherMichael1000 And guards are always 100% reliable and sober.... yeah right. Perhaps they weren't even at the right grave. Maybe he wasn't dead and wandered off. Not the first time back then a mistake was made.
You must eliminate ALL other possible natural explanations before you jump to supernatural... and even then its highly improbable its supernatural.
missing body = came back to life... and you can't think of any more plausible explanations?
BornUnderABadSign89 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
BornUnderABadSign89 2 weeks ago
There is no proof For Unbelief, its only when a person is willing and wants to know the truth will God reveal the truth to you, its a (DIVINE MIRACLE) That God Does.. God Reveals His Truth to us threw the power of the holy spirit.. people are ignorant because they dont beleive
GiveMeJesus316 1 month ago
@GiveMeJesus316 God saved me, even though i rejected Him and told Him I love my sin more and will not submit to Him.
000BITTER000 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@GiveMeJesus316 Ok god reveals the truth. How do you know which holy book is the true one, does god when revealing the truth tell you also that the Quran or Torah or the Bible is true?
scrap222666 1 month ago
Is this a spoof?
TravelingHab 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this a spoof? Is this guy serious? I can't tell.
EntinludeX 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Odd Thomas got mad skills!
mooney137 1 month ago
If I say the Holocaust didn't happen & 6,000,000 Jews didn't go up in smoke, I can be arrested & jailed!
Yet, you have Jewish Clowns going around saying around denying Jesus Messiah & then saying in their Satanic Talmud that He is in Hell in boiling human dung!
Based on their terms of Law, I think ALL Jews that DENY & DENIGRATE Jesus Messiah, should be arrested & jailed!
limerick121 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@limerick121 He forgave them and so should you friend.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000
A TEXT out of CONTEXT is a PRETEXT!
"Father forgive them....." TEXT
CONTEXT? Read Acts 2:14-27
It is a PRETEXT to say YHWH has forgiven His Satanic enemies (John 8:44-47)
Talmudic Jews & their Babylonian Talmud teach that Jesus Messiah is in HELL in boiling human dung along with His disciples. They teach Mary the mother of Jesus was a WHORE!
ALL Talmudic Jews will spend eternity in HELL with their father.UNLESS they repent! Accept Jesus as their Messiah!
limerick121 1 month ago
@limerick121 Hate not your enemies. Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you. Do good to them spitefully use you and abuse you. Won't we all suffer eternity in hell if we do not repent? Romans 2 read it and learn to love. For we are told by the beloved Disciple. You can have all manner of gifts of discernment and if you have not charity and love it is for nothing.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
The punishment for sin is death, God died to save us from our sin, but he didn't die, so WTF guys, did the fucker die for us or not? cause it sounds to me like he didn't die, otherwise his body would have been paraded around the streets, you guys have no sense of reality lol.
TheAtheistFuture 1 month ago
@TheAtheistFuture said "but he didn't die, so WTF guys, did the fucker die for us or not? cause it sounds to me like he didn't die,"
What is one day of crucifixion vs an eternity of a lake of fire? Which one would you take? Wouldn't a true sacrifice be for Jesus to burn forever for us?
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois Dont think that Jesus merely died on the cross. He suffered ALL of your sins. He bore your sin meaning, the punishment you recieve(hopefully not) when suffering hell. He recieved that punishment. He suffered it for entire mankind, you only have to suffer for yourself, picture suffering for everyone whose ever excisted..
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez "He suffered ALL of your sins. He bore your sin meaning, the punishment you recieve(hopefully not) when suffering hell."
Think about that for a sec. According to you, where is Jesus now? With the father. What is the punishment for my sins? Eternal damnation. Why isn't Jesus in hell then? Jesus should be in hell for all eternity. Then your god would have really given his son, eh? But no, Jesus is in heaven and the debt goes unpaid. Use your brain.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois This is clearly a misunderstanding on the concept of hell.
Hell is not eternal. You see, God is perfectly just therefor there has to be a punishment.
If you don't accept Jesus Christ, you have to take that punishment yourself. Hell is a consuming fire, you will slowly perish according to your sin. The less you have sinned the quicker you will perish.
After your sins have been payed for you will be gone. (Hopefully not)
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez said "Hell is a consuming fire, you will slowly perish according to your sin. The less you have sinned the quicker you will perish."
HUH? LOL? This is a new one to me!! I mean, it is obvious that christians make up their religion as they go along, this is just another example. Where did you get this idea?
Still though, if Jesus is the sacrifice why isn't he consumed? Why is he back in heaven? Nothing was sacrificed.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois This isn't new at all, you just havent looked well enough into the subject. Philosophers from the early age of Jesus made similar claims.
/watch?v=iqtqaZPs_dI 1 hour video on just this topic referencing scripture.
The reason jesus wasn't consumed is because he took the punishment for our sins, and then beat death. That is the whole reason we can get saved. Remember he ressurected 3 days later.
PS Christiantiy is no more a religion than atheim.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez said "The reason jesus wasn't consumed is because he took the punishment for our sins, and then beat death"
Uh huh, and you know this all, how? See, there is evidence for none of this. And even though your claim is not falsifiable, it is a claim made with no evidence, kinda like bigfoot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Face it dude, it makes no sense at all.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois The flying spagetti monster is not a contingent and necessary being. Plus it's materialistic, you can see it and touch it and even "eat it" logically. Whatever created the universe has to be matterless, timeless and spaceless. The FSM is none of these.
I didn't try and prove the bible to you, all I did was to show you how it's logically coherent on the biblical view, as that was your question. Proving the bible is a whole nother discussion.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez said "Whatever created the universe has to be matterless, timeless and spaceless. "
Huh? How do you know this? Where did this rule come from?
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois The best possible explination - The universe had a beginning, and that beginning came from a dense dot. This is a drastical simplifcation.
The universe is expanding - Space, within that space there is time. Matter came into being during the expansion of the universe. At the very beginning.
Thus whatever triggered the beginning, may it be big bang or whatever , has to be outside of these elements as they cannot create themselves.
Stephen hawkins supports it btw
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
Uh huh. Listen, you have still been unable to show how your bible is "logically coherent" much less prove the thing. Your claims are not falsifiable, they are just stupid claims to make.
(Also The FSM people tell me that he is matterless, timeless and spaceless. so you are wrong.)
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois I'm not trying to prove the bible at all, all I am doing is showing you how it's logically coherent ON the biblical view. NOT on naturalism. If you can refute the bible on the biblical view, then congratulations you've refuted christianity.
All you're doing is applying the attributes of God and applying it to the FSM.
Since you know how he looks like, he's made out of matter. Since he can travel within this world. He is bound by time, and he is not spaceless.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez said "all I am doing is showing you how it's logically coherent ON the biblical view. NOT on naturalism"
All you are doing is making claims. However the universe got here, it is very clear we are a product of evolution after the formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago. It is not "logically coherent" or whatever, to the bible.
Also, your vile lies about the FSM are unfounded. He is "matterless, timeless and spaceless." So is Santa called the Claus.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois You dont seem to understand what it means to show logically that your view can be correct a prior to the evidence.
How do you know the earth is 4,5 billion years old?
Stianchez 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stianchez said "dont seem to understand what it means to show logically that your view can be correct a prior to the evidence"
Sure I do. You don't get that the evidence has shown your claims to be wrong. Logically they may be possible, it's the evidence that makes them wrong.
As far as the earth being 4.5 b, all the science points to that as being near the age of the earth. If you want to throw out one little exception, go ahead, you will look foolish, but that is your right.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stianchez "The flying spagetti monster is not a contingent and necessary being. Plus it's materialistic, you can see it and touch it and even "eat it" "
you've seen & eaten a spagetti monster? Hmmm
EntinludeX 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
What does my "sin" have to do with the truth of any Christian claims for the resurrection?
SamWiseGingy 1 month ago
Awesome video, the resurrection is logical and I'm thankful I believe in it
ttyme1234 1 month ago
What is with all of the "relevantly dressed" young men spouting out really cheesy poetry and trying to sound super hardcore about it but its just super corny and annoying? Yeah some of what they say is true but whatever. Especially that other guy who does poetry in front of the strip club that Todd Friel was claiming promotes works righteousness. Funny stuff.
MaharlikaAWA 1 month ago
JUDGMENT IS SURE,no appeals,no lawyers,no hung jury.
God has provided a way out for us. Jesus alone.
That is the issue you must deal with ,all else is vanity.
zionsgates 1 month ago
Like
gweems828 1 month ago
Well said!... do you have a link to that vid?
Duplooytim 1 month ago
(2)
Thirdly, if you're an atheist you almost certainly don't think sin exists, and asserting that we know that it exists is the exact same argument as me telling you that you Christians know deep down inside that god/Jesus is just Santa Clause for adults. It's a fallacious argument, and it's quite rude.
If this was supposed to appeal to our rational minds, then this should appear as a terrible failure to everyone.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
(1)
First off, proof is reserved for deductive logic, and unless you're going to propose a deductive argument you should only talk in inductive terms like demonstrate or evidence.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Gospels were first person accounts, and the first writings were decades to centuries after the fact. Even if there was, testimony is still the weakest and most likely false evidence you could possibly produce.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is the guy in the clip doing the spoken word? I want to the original video.
ElijahDFaulkner 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is the guy in the clip doing the spoken word? I want to the original video.
ElijahDFaulkner 1 month ago
Who is the guy in the clip doing the spoken word? I want to the original video.
ElijahDFaulkner 1 month ago
No. A whole bunch of assertions. Stupid, no truth in it. I never did anything that a man had to be tortured to death for, did you? Did you? Do you really believe that? You are so bad that some guy had to be killed to make it right? And how does that make it right? Killing some third party for some made up thing you did? Think about it! It makes no sense. Reject Human Sacrifice!! Embrace reason!!
joestfrancois 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@joestfrancois
The would never thing that punishment by proxy is a valid form of justice unless they are talking about their beliefs..... The disconnect there is disturbing...
jwissick 1 month ago
@jwissick - The only disconnect is your applying man's faulty standards to God.
JMcH 1 month ago
@joestfrancois If you break even one of God's law your guilty of them all. If you say you've done no wrong you are a liar and the truth isn't in you. On the day of judgment do you honestly think your works will hold up to scrutiny?
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrotherMichael1000 said "If you break even one of God's law your guilty of them all. If you say you've done no wrong you are a liar and the truth isn't in you. On the day of judgment do you honestly think your works will hold up to scrutiny?"
What laws? What judgement day? And do not call me a liar.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois Sacrifice from so many is what gives you the freedom to attack your creator and be intolerant to followers of Christ. That is just the thing, you NEVER did anything, and still don't. You just bask in your comfort from everyone elses sacrifice. Your embracing reason is a direct quote from Hitler too... You both quote hitler and think you mutated from an ape, then call the history of Christ stupid? Jesus came to seek and save the lost, and you will meet him soon enough. Pray bro.
YouAreNotAMonkey 1 month ago
@YouAreNotAMonkey
(1)
You would think someone who has been rebutted on this topic dozens of times would stop being so disingenuous. Honestly tell me you didn't know that this is not what Evolutionists believe, "mutated from an ape." No one believes this. Everyone who has taken high school biology (which ought to be near 100% of the population) knows that we had a common ancestor with apes. If you cannot understand this basic fact, its no wonder you're a creationist.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom
my friend you are talking about a theory!!
3DL1 1 month ago
@3DL1
Gravity is just a theory. Germs and cells are just a theory. Atoms are just a theory. Theories are the highest possible position a scientific idea can obtain. Evolution especially is one of the most successful theories in human history, and it without it, nothing in Biology makes any sense. It has been tested, verified, and observed without any evidence to challenge it since its inception. Just like we know that the Earth pulls objects towards it, we know that life has evolved.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
Yes but gravity is a fact up untill the moment i am writing this because i can proove it to myself, but there is no hard and fast evidence to prove evolution and radioactive dating has been proved to be inconsistant and unreliable.
Scientists use observational science but dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Assumptions are not fact and should not be wriitten as so.
3DL1 1 month ago
@3DL1
(1)
You don't "prove" things in science, that is reserved for deductive logic; science is 100% inductive. Things are only demonstrated with evidence, and Evolution has been demonstrated with evidence for at least the last 100 years. That is why there is absolutely no debate about evolution in academia.
We can see Evolution happening before our eyes in simple experiments like the classic fruit fly experiment or in complex ones like Richard Lenski's long-term E. coli experiment.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@3DL1
(2)
Furthermore, I have never heard of a case of Radiometric dating giving results outside its error margin if the experimenters didn't screw up their results by testing something for which the method cannot fundamentally work. By the way, there are over 20 other methods like Dendrochronology, electron spin, amino acid, fission tracking, paleomagnetic, luminescence, etc. dating that completely agree with radiometric dating. There is nothing inconsistent or reliable about it.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@3DL1
(3)
The only thing you can dispute about radiometric dating is the chemistry behind about being able to deterministically measure radioactive decay. Unless you have discovered some new information demonstrating that our complete foundation of understanding radioactivity is flawed, there isn't anything to dispute here. Radiometric dating (along with the other 20 methods) are all consistent, and the ones that can, imply that the Earth is billions of years old.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom
Stop lieing to people,
Decay rate are affected by their chemical reactions, there are more c14 in the air today than there was 20 years ago, and enjoy /watch?v=6INhRd4MeXI
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
(1)
Scientists aren't stupid, they would take that into account if they were miscalculating their data. They can look at Stratigraphy and estimate how much C14 should have been in the object by looking at the layers in the Earth. Furthermore, I mentioned other dating methods like Dendrochronology which isn't dependent on C14, but completely agrees with radiometric dating (don't forget all the other different types of radiometric dating that also agree with carbon dating).
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@Stianchez
(2)
You purposely lie about Christianity. You know its not true, but you keep preaching lies because you want to feel better about your absurd belief. Stop lying to people.
It's not only rude, but as uncharitable as possible to assume someone is lying. If you do it again, our conversation is over. There is no reason someone should have to put up with a troll who accuses his opponent of lying without any evidence.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@3DL1 Let me handle MaximumAxiom. He purposely lies to you. =)
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez PS I sent you a video earlier /watch?v=6INhRd4MeXI if you didnt get it. Debunks radiometric dating easily (Y)
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
Oh noez.... the pseudo-intellectual posted a video linking to the well documented phenomenon known as reservoir effects.... hosted by NephilimFree, of course. Why am I not surprised someone without understanding of C14 dating thinks reservoir effects debunks radiometric dating?
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 Hey there, did you know that the video itself has nothing to do with NephilimFree himself, all it does is explain how radiometric dating works, and the assumptions they have to make, but I guess you don't care about that since evidence doesn't matter to you.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom How has evolution been "tested/observed and verified"?
Everything we can test goes again evolution. The fossil record, Dating systems??? ... Do I have to bring up T-rex protein?
I have a question, is the millery urey experiment successful?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez /1/
Y'know, I could match your smarmy attitude and point you right to modern medicine and genetics, because if evolution is false, both those disciplines fall with it.
But, just to feed the troll for jesus;
I'm going to assume you're making the claim that their are no transitional fossils, which means all you need to do is go to your nearest local museum of natural history to get that shit squared away. Oh wait, let me guess, where's the "missing link"? (cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 Transitional Fossils are so extremely rare that it cannot even be counted. How big is the percentage of found transitional fossils based on how many fossils we've found? Besides that doesn't matter at all.
Go look at a 24 hour clock 1-24, and not 12 -1 .
If you start at 1 and spin your way around, all the way until around 21, there are only simple celled life forms... and suddenly in a timespan of 2 minutes on that clock you have cambrian explotion. *Thumbs up*
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez /2/
See, here's the reasons why the, "where's the missing link?" question is full of dishonest bullshit:
1. We have dozens. No they're not all forgeries, in fact, the only reason why forgeries were allowed to exist in the first place was because the private owners of the forgeries would not allow them to be submitted to be tested for authenticity, I'm sure you've heard the scientific names of them more than once so I wont bother repeating them. (cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 You don't need to go on mindlessly expaining this as I've heard this crap before. Just answer my questions, I dont want to hear your religious views. No offense.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez /3/
2. For every gap we fill, we create 2 new gaps on either side of the fossil because evolution is a CONTINUUM. There will always be "holes", and use the term "hole" EXTREMELY loosely, in the continuum in the sense that not every species of animal has fossilized and like I said, for every one we find, 2 new gaps appear on either side, one gap toward the ancestor, the other gap toward the descendant. (cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Stianchez /4/
So, your contentions on fossil evidence are either based on ignorance or based on dishonesty. You can take your pick.
I have no inclination to think you have any knowledge at all in terms of dating systems when you thought the reservoir effect debunked C14, read up on the topic.
T-rex protein what? Y'know, back in my day, Creationists thought dinosaurs were either lies by the evil Satan worshiping scientists or just there to test their faith. What... (cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Stianchez /5/
... ever happened to those good ol' times? Or are you too busy sucking on Hovind dick and think they're just "big lizards" from the garden of eden that lived for thousands of years and grew into fire-breathing dragons? I can't make this shit up, that's how retarded and against all reason some of this shit is.
And the down syndrome icing on the cake is you bringing up the Miller-Urey experiment thinking it has fuck all to do with evolution. (cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 I like the excuse "there will always be 2 gaps" Why does there has to be? If you find a link that resembles two fossils it resembles two fossils, dont need another gap. Although, this reasoning makes it impossible to prove or disprove transitional fossils. Meaning it's not scientific. To be scientific it has to be falsifiable ;)
I've read up on the topic of dating, I suggest you do the same. Since you dont seem to know the assumptions they make. Do you?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
"I like the excuse "there will always be 2 gaps" Why does there has to be?"
Allow me to illustrate:
Common Ancestor // gap // Fossil1 // gap // Modern Day Organism
CA // gap // F1 // gap // F2 // gap // MDO
CA // gap // F3 // gap // F1 // gap // F2 // gap // MDO
There will always be a virtual infinity of "gaps".
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Stianchez
"Meaning it's not scientific. To be scientific it has to be falsifiable ;)"
Love the winking face, as if a YEC cared at all about science.
Oh sure you've read up on the topic of radiometric dating alright, off all the little creationist propaganda websites that didn't bother to explain a basic principle of C14 dating, the reservoir effect.
Y'know maybe if you weren't home schooled in derp-enomics, you'd know a thing or 2 about science.
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 If you want to continue having a seriouse discussion, then PM me. Comments are just to get started.
Insults and Ridicule is arguments of those who have no argument. No need to get angry.
Cheerio!
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
See, you'd have a point if I simply called you retarded in lieu of actually addressing what you say, but unfortunately for you, anyone can take a 2 minute romp through these comments to see that not only did I address what you were saying, but ridiculed you while doing it.
And no, ridicule and insults aren't an argument at all even. They're FLAVOR, and never have they been so rightfully deserved.
You people, YECs, are a cancerous blight upon society.
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 Come now, cancerous blight? That's kind of insulting. Maybe if you used more flavor...
ddrninjette 1 month ago
Maybe some curry... A little basil... hmmmm... need something... savory. Maybe saffron?
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 I was thinking of something along the lines of "fly vomit." But whatever.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 Part 2 - No we didn't I've never met anyione who made that claim, the only ones i've met that made that claim are atheists, just like you say we believe the earth is flat..
Dinosaurs or as they were called Dragons before the 1800, there are many pictures from ancients time depicting drawings of dinosaurs, even before they excavated fossils.
Theres also ancient documents describing them. Marco Polo, said te chinese emprorer had 2 dragons pulling his carieer f.ex
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
I never said you believed the earth is flat, and I doubt there's a christian alive that would have the gall to seriously suggest such a thing.
"Dinosaurs or as they were called Dragons..."
Okay you're done. There is no one with half a brain that is going to bother entertaining your little fantasy of IRL Dungeons and Dragons.
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Stianchez /6/
Evolution starts when life is already here, not before it began.
In short, you're a glorious winged faggot and your chariot awaits.
I have 0 tolerance for the aggressive ignorance of smarmy creationist scum such as yourself.
Christians I have no beef with, but YEC's are charlatans. The whole lot of them.
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 It should be noted that natural selection can occur before life (and evolution) leading to the first cell.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette How did the first cell get here?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez A bi-lipid layer formed around a strand of RNA in the ocean.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette How did a bi-lipid layer form in a strand of RNA in the ocean.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez Lipids are naturally occurring molecules that would have been in the vicinity of RNA molecules replicating via soil compounds.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette You seem to know your stuff, so correct me if im wrong. A cell is built up by protiens which again are built up by amino acids. So in order to get a cell you need randomly forming amino acids into protiens which then in turn make up the cell and all of its components, yes/no?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
MFW Stianchez most likely has a tab open to a creationist website as he's paraphrasing the contents of said tab and regurgitating them on these comment pages in an attempt to play a petty "gotcha game":
:I
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 If you want to tell him that, then be sure to actually write a comment to him and not me, instead of trying to attempt a child game.
Actually his argument is fairly new to me so I'm trying to learn. Right now the tabs I have open is Youtube, facebook and talking on messenger.
Cheerio
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
Well, I've been wrong before. Ho hum.
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 We all have. No worries!
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez Lipids aren't proteins. Neither is RNA.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette Yes, but I'm asking you how the first cell formed. So to my understanding a cell is made up of amino acids - Proteins, yes? So in order to get the first cell you need to have amino acids randomly assembling into proteins, and proteins then randomly making connections to make up the components of a cell? Is my understand wrong or correct?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez Cells are more than proteins, as I already pointed out. DNA, for example, is an acid (duh). A rudimentary cell is a strand of RNA surrounded by a lipid bi-layer. Neither lipids nor RNA are proteins.
Proteins are created within the cell, like hemoglobin. But they are not necessarily the cell, if that makes sense. Most of the cell's structures consist of membranes.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette Aren't the building blocks to make up the DNA proteins? So you're telling me amino acid's dont randomly form together to make up the "building blocks" of the cell?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez Let me just cut to the chase instead, I can swear I heard you need atleast 2000 proteins to make up the simplest cell. No problem it not making up the entire cell, but atleast 2000. Does that sound more correct to you?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez I never said anything about how many proteins are needed for a cell. I'm not sure how many proteins are found in a modern cell. A lot, probably. Proteins play a key role in the structure and function of modern cells. So 1,000 to 2,000 sounds about right for most cells you would find today.
Something simpler, like a virus, is just genetic material surrounded by a capsid though.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette Alright, so let's see if I got this. Amino Acids randomly form to make up proteins, based on the possibile combination you can combind the math and you will get a number showing the odds of just 1 protein forming by chance.
1/10^163 (lecture /watch?v=1--tP49mOoE )
This is just for one protein, if this calculation is correct. How on earth can anyone believe cells could form randomly?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez The earliest cell would have been a strand of RNA and a lipid bi-layer. What protein(s) do you speak of?
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette I havent looked into this depth that much but I am starting to see where this is going, it seems as if you're honest enough to admit there's something more to this so I'll have to do some research on this particular matter. You just agreed with me you need 2000 to form the simplest cell. Changeing your mind?
Just becuase you select away the ones that dont work doesn't mean you can overcome the odds of 1/10^163. You still have to bypass those odds.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez The "simplest" cell would require few if any proteins. But you would expect to find thousands in a modern cell.
Luckily, protein formation and natural selection are non-random processes. Also, proteins are not like words or letters. You can change, add, or remove amino acids and still have a workable protein. It's like cooking.
Also, genes for certain proteins duplicate allowing for free mutation with the original still being produced.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette How do you know the "simplest" cell would require few if any proteins?
If you watched the source apparently if you get one right handed amino acid in there you entire connection will fall apart. Not so sure it's like cooking at all.
I'll look into it some more and get back to you with a proper rebutall
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez "How do you know the "simplest" cell would require few if any proteins?"
Because the simplest cell consists of RNA and a lipid bi-layer.
"if you get one right handed amino acid in there you entire connection will fall apart."
All 20 amino acids found in all life on Earth are left handed...
"Not so sure it's like cooking at all."
Well, it is because it's organic chemistry.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@Stianchez Actually, some bacteria may use some right handed amino acids too, but I think they're rare.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@Stianchez Oh, speaking of evolution and the formation of proteins, you realize natural selection is a non-random process, yes?
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette I did some quick research this is my conclution from it :
A lipid bubble is a far cry from a cell membrane. Look into the complexity and design of the membrane. It's illogical to believe it could arise because molecules bump into each other. It seems like it's the same old "There's a chance!". Then you stll have to overcome the incredible odds 1/10^163 to just form one protein. You need atleast 2000...
Looks like im not the only one with faith in here.
Cheerio
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez What are the chances that oil droplets would form in water? Well, seeing as lipids are hydrophobic... Pretty high.
And remember, when we talk about the first, primitive cells, their membranes are going to be simple. Modern cells have lots of structures embedded into their membranes. The first cells cells had few if not zero.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@ddrninjette You know this how?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez Because while modern cells use thousands and thousands of different types of molecules, proto-cells developed in the lab (these things are simpler than than viruses btw) use about 10 types of molecules.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 Part 3 .. Funny enough I responded to one of them aggressive ignorant atheists.. If you have 0 tolerance, why do you bother talking to me?
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
(1)
"How has evolution been "tested/observed and verified"?"
I mentioned two experiments go look them up. The simple fruit fly experiment demonstrates mate selection which is the foundation of specization, and Richard Lenski's experiment demonstrates most everything macro evolution argues.
The Millery Urey experiment isn't relevant we are talking Evolution not Abiogenesis. It is successful at getting closer to explaining how life came from non-life.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom Part 1 I find it interesting how you guys always try to break the ties between Evolution theory and Abiogenesis, but that's no problem. Speciaztion isn't macro evolution. Just because something can change color, or grow an identical pair of wings doesn't show that macro evolution works.
Genetric entropy is a interesting topic on the matter.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
(2)
The T-rex protein is in heavy dispute, and is lacking hard evidence. It has had many rebuttals. The only reason why you even heard about this silly claim is because the media blew it out of proportion like they always do. I also don't see why it would be contrary to Evolution either. Under the right conditions almost anything is possible.
No this doesn't go against the fossil record, and there is no evidence to the contrary of Evolution that I am aware of.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom I think the preservation of certain proteins are much more accepted than you make it out to be, but here is what you need to remember.
A) The scientists finding these things are not creationists.
B) These same scientists don't think these findings dispute evolution nor the age of the fossils.
Some stuff can be preserved for a long period of time under the right conditions. Woot.
ddrninjette 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom "Under the right conditions almost anything is possible." Perhaps God could exist under the right condition? Or does that go under "almost"? ;)
The only reason the T-rex protein is in heavy dispute is because it breaks down the evolutionary timescale to a matter of a few thousand years.
Under the best possible conditions they have tasted that protein can max last 40,000 years. Last time I checked they confirmed it to be regular protein soft tissue.
Stianchez 1 month ago
@Stianchez
God could exist, but I argue it's extremely unlikely even if with the most charitable definition.
As ddrninjette said, it doesn't seem to screw up the evolutionary timeline, it could just be a really lucky preservation, or a complete fluke that will later be revealed as bad science.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@3DL1
That's right, you heard it here folks!
Gravity: Just a theory.
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@3DL1 Dont listen to Maximum Axiom, he's lieing to you.
/watch?v=6INhRd4MeXI
Debunk of radiometric dating. Easily done. Just take basic knowledge =)
Stianchez 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom you mutated from a fish too right? Before you were a monkey?
beached dolphins are really trying to learn how to walk on land?
YouAreNotAMonkey 1 month ago
@YouAreNotAMonkey
(2)
Same goes for your name. Nobody believes we are monkeys.
Hitler didn't embrace reason, if he did he would've known that Biology speaks volumes against racism. If anything Hitler justified his actions with Christianity when saying, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew."
It doesn't matter, it's a fallacy of relevance. Hitler was also a Vegetarian, are Vegetarians bad to?
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom You call that reason?
What ever you say....but bro, you are not a mutated fish ok?
look in mirror...not an ape either...
Honestly your reason is a bad joke...not even a little funny...
UFO seed implanted, to mutated fish, to mutated fruitcake.
YouAreNotAMonkey 1 month ago
@YouAreNotAMonkey
"You call that reason?"
Yes, I call logical thinking reasoning.
"you are not a mutated fish"
You're right because no one BELIEVES we mutated from fish. Evolutionists say we had a common ancestor with fish because we had a common ancestor with virtually everything that has ever lived on this planet according to DNA.
Did modern day America mutate from modern day Britain? NO! They separated centuries ago and have evolved separately into the nations they are now.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@YouAreNotAMonkey said "You both quote hitler and think you mutated from an ape, then call the history of Christ stupid? Jesus came to seek and save the lost, and you will meet him soon enough"
Wow, pretty nice. You managed to link me to Hitler, put words in my mouth and threaten me in two sentences. There is intolerance for you.
Listen, that was not a Hitler quote, I did not mention evolution, and do not threaten me. It is prettty simple, I reject Human Sacrifice.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
@joestfrancois
you think mentioning Jesus is a hate crime? Just like Hitler you wish you could take care of us. But you loose in the end...
ooo ooo ooo oooo oooo...that is ape talk and stands for you supporting a womans right to kill their baby, then saying you hate human sacrifice...for crying that God in the old testament wiped out a race that perfomed human sacrifice, and all the heros that sacrificed their lives so you can be so content to claim you are a monkey and believe in UFOs, wow
YouAreNotAMonkey 1 month ago
@YouAreNotAMonkey
Yeah, you are a troll. I never said any of the things you said I did. I never mentioned abortion. I never used the word hate. I never quoted Hitler. I never said I was a monkey and never said I believe in UFOs. I never said mentioning Jesus was a hate crime. It seems you have trouble with the truth. Please, you do not have to be rude.
joestfrancois 1 month ago
Languages have a clear historical pattern and history. This conflicts with the Biblical account for language. How am I to trust the Bible if it makes such mistakes? Could our science be wrong?
ddrninjette 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Amen!
Godzgyrl7 1 month ago
Odd Thomas
MrSiklon762 1 month ago
So god sacraficed himself to himself....hmmmm yeah that makes total sence now!!!
TheJdecka 1 month ago
@TheJdecka Tell me, what do you know about Judaism?
nicodemous52 1 month ago
@TheJdecka - That old straw man? Don't you have anything new and logically non-fallacious?
JMcH 1 month ago
Comment removed
RVGuy1959 1 month ago
Evidence-------
Manuscript evidence
Archaeology
Prophecies
Statistical
Empty tomb
Every Apostle changed
Eyewitnesses
dmzle 1 month ago
@dmzle Not evidence. Those are CLAIMS.
There is a world of difference.
jwissick 1 month ago
@jwissick - "Those are CLAIMS." That's your claim, so prove it.
JMcH 1 month ago
@JMcH claim |klām|
verb [ reporting verb ]
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof: [ with clause ] : he claimed that he came from a wealthy, educated family | [ with direct speech ] : “I'm entitled to be conceited,” he claimed | [ with obj. ] : these sunblocks claim protection factors as high as 34.
DERP!
jwissick 1 month ago
@jwissick - Yes, you made a claim without providing evidence or proof. Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot, James.
JMcH 1 month ago
@jwissick - By the way, I see you've once again given up in the other video's comments after being thrashed.
JMcH 1 month ago
@jwissick I not gonna extrapolate all of what my comment means. I have better things to do then troll the "Wretched" comments page. My "claim" is Jesus has abolished death for all who repent and believe in him. Maybe you simply will not do that ? For your sake I hope I'm wrong. And really my friend you owe to yourself to research the a for mentioned claims because when it comes to man - centered- philosophy like, "humanism" I know the burden of proof rests with you.
dmzle 1 month ago
@dmzle Done the research. The claims are empty.
jwissick 1 month ago
No, I don't know that God exists...and nice job avoiding giving any evidence, as usual.
MsScienceFTW 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos 2
@MsScienceFTW dmzle gave you some evidence
Evidence-------
Manuscript evidence
Archaeology
Prophecies
Statistical
Empty tomb
Every Apostle changed
Eyewitnesses
Of course you will reject it most people like you do.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000 What seems to be the difference between us is that I investigated what was portrayed as evidence, like what you cited. (In fact, I used to cite all of that when I evangelized.) Most - if not all - falls apart when given an honest, unbiased, closer look. "...people like you do." Don't put me into categories when you know nothing about me or my background. I have changed many views when given evidence, however, most intellectually honest people like me do.
MsScienceFTW 1 month ago
@MsScienceFTW You aren't honest. I've noticed the new waive of new atheists who come on youtube trumpeting loudly, "I once was a Christian Evangelist." When you really start questioning them on what they did it amounts to them reading books by Joyce Myers, Joel Olsteen, and T.D. Jakes. Don't come on here saying that historical, archaeological, and eye witness testimony doesn't matter. Then proclaim you looked at it through unbiased observation. Intellectually honest? Hardly.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
Comment removed
MsScienceFTW 1 month ago
Comment removed
MsScienceFTW 1 month ago
@MsScienceFTW I do not care what you find revolting. Am I angry with you? Not at all. Do I find your claim that you where a born again Christian laughable? Indeed that would be more accurate. You think I hate you No friend I see you as a deceiver whose deceived yourself. You do not trust Christ and that means you where never a Christian. Saying Lord! Lord!doesn't make him your Lord. Profession without conviction means nothing.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000 Good God, I never said I thought you hated me. Learn how to discuss things. Laugh at my claims I was a Christian-I don't care- I know what I believed. I will no longer respond to you. Who knows? You'll be saying I think you want to rob me next.
MsScienceFTW 1 month ago
@MsScienceFTW Do not take his name in vain when you address me. I have learned how to discuss things. I just do not invest personal emotion into my discussions as you do. You know what you believed I'm sure and it had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. You claim a unbiased neutral view and yet you are so angry when someone challenges you and calls you on it. Who is Jesus Christ? If you where his and if he knew. You would have the answer.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000 Oh God, I said I wasn't going to respond, but one more time for good luck! I am not having an emotional investment w/someone I don't know, but being accused of saying/believing things I didn't is rather annoying. I am sure you would respond with the same annoyance. If I wasn't putting off all the work I have, I wouldn't give what you've written a 2nd thought. And with that, I will not read anything else you write. So don't expect a response after this.
MsScienceFTW 1 month ago
@MsScienceFTW John 10:14 Christ sad; "I am the Good Shepherd I know my sheep and am known of my sheep." If you where a Christian you would know that the Good Shepherd knows his sheep and they know him. You do not know him and it is certain he doesn't know you. How then could you have been a Christian?
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@MsScienceFTW Ah the no true christian fallacy... The sign that the christian can't meet his burden of proof.
The abundance of stupid of the christians on this channel is just shocking.
jwissick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jwissick MsScienceFTW made statements that she had studied biblical manuscripts. Theocratickingdom asked her a few questions and her response was quote, "Can you please send me information on this stuff?I am not sure I am familiar with some of it." If she had studied these manuscripts at all she would have answers to the questions posed. Just like you jwissick. She didn't know what she was talking about. Given evidence you merely decide it's unreliable because you dont like the answer.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@jwissick Don't you love it? There is also an abundance of straw-man out today. BrotherMichael has claimed that I thought he hated me, said evidence isn't important,I was a follower of Joel Olsteen, and that I said I studied the biblical manuscripts. None that I said. (Although to fair I did study SOME manuscripts, I am just not 100% sure I could remember everything I read 4 years ago.) Careful, he might start doing it to you! lol. Sometimes people can be just childish.
MsScienceFTW 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000 Your anger here is revolting. You don't know me & are 100% wrong in your assessment. I never read a book by any of those people. I was very against Joel Olsteen types. I was just what I said I was. I never said that stuff didn't matter. I said I investigated & was disappointed. Since you have shown that you are unable to handle someone disagreeing with you, & therefore can't have discussions about beliefs, this conversation is done.
MsScienceFTW 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000: The better response to her might be to challange the myth of neutrality to begin with. Especially since Holy Writ teaches everyone is incapable of just looking at evidence. Evidence is not the issue. Scripture states man will NOT come to Christ no matter what evidence is presented. It is purely a work of grace. I'm not against evidence, but when someone tells you they are unbiased you should tell them neutrality is a fairy tale for grown ups.
theocratickingdom30 1 month ago
@theocratickingdom30 Exactly friend. It is one of many fairytales that "grown ups" tell themselves. Just like the fairy tale that one day amino acids formed themselves and slowly evolved into life as we know it today. Without a cause and just randomly through permutation. Indeed it is the work of Grace that draws one to Christ and it wasn't my intent to say otherwise.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000
It's ridiculous to think that eye witness testimony (the absolute worst type of evidence), and an empty tomb (which can be accounted for by natural means) from around 2000 years ago merits belief in the supernatural. We should never come a supernatural conclusion unless all valid natural explanations have been exhausted, and it is trivial to account for events of the bible naturally.
MaximumAxiom 1 month ago
@MaximumAxiom That is because you don't believe in God. With man these things are impossible. God on the other hand can do all things. Was the body secreted away by the disciples? Doubtful Matthew 27:62-67 Did the Sanhedrin do it? Extremely doubtful as they would want to keep the body right where it was. Any other natural means you care to mention?
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000 /1/
I find your assessment of the situation of the empty tomb wanting at best.
Lets suppose you enter any cemetery in the country and you see a giant hole next to an old grave where the corpse had been stored.
Is the first reasonable explanation that comes to mind for you that the corpse just got up and did the Irish Jig off the cemetery grounds?
You'd come to the conclusion of possibly they've run out of room and are clearing out... (cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 It was a new tomb that had never been used. The Sanhedrin requested from Pilate a contingent to guard the tomb. Those same guards sealed the tomb and guarded it. Your whole argument is 1 pointless and 2. ridicules.
BrotherMichael1000 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000
No, my argument is that the tomb could have been disturbed, and why couldn't the guards have done the disturbing? The whole premise of Jesus's demise was because of Rome not liking Jesus's message enough to put him to death. It wouldn't be such a stretch to imagine the guards defiling the tomb.
Also you mean "ridiculous".
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@BrotherMichael1000 And guards are always 100% reliable and sober.... yeah right. Perhaps they weren't even at the right grave. Maybe he wasn't dead and wandered off. Not the first time back then a mistake was made.
You must eliminate ALL other possible natural explanations before you jump to supernatural... and even then its highly improbable its supernatural.
jwissick 1 month ago