Singer looks perplexed. I don't think he is used to being in situations where people are so openly dishonest and being applauded for it. His hopes for the world is crumbling in front of his eyes while observing this audience and fraud.
Geat and very educational debate, i think mr. singer is a confused individual beening an atheist he sure not really represnting the view of atheism . it feel like he is somewhere in the middle, he is not an athiest nor a religious person.
@Yekerable He's an atheist. If you knew anything about atheism (combined with the fact that he's debating Dinesh) you'd realise that he's an atheist. What, precisely, about his position or anything he said in this debate makes you think he's "somewhere in the middle" ? He sees no good reason to believe in a theistic god - you're confused because?????
@Yekerable I don't think you understand what being atheist means. It's exactly what Singer say: "There is no evidence for a god, so I don't think there is one."
That's it!
Beyond that he is expressing his own view on morality and what he sees as a problem with Christianity based on his own ethics.
If you think there should be a set of morals and views for all atheists I think you've joined the wrong side.
On Singer being confused, lol. Very few people are as rational and logical as him.
Dinesh already answered his own question. Why do we invent hell? Because we want to believe that there is ultimate justice and bad people eventually get what they deserve.
Dinesh is sharp, the American Christian right must be proud of him. His comment about going ahead and marrying the woman instead of "waiting for the data to come in" is actually a brilliant way of making agnosticism look silly. Of course, if you scratch its surface, the argument is crazy, and could be used to defend any ill-advised appeal to blind faith. It is like saying "our lives are short, so go right ahead and insert any old myth as an explanation to what ever puzzles you about the world".
@andreasdrg he uses that argument often and i really dislike it. Dating and scientific inquiry are two completely different endeavors. I doubt that there is a single scientist in the world who does science so he can know within a few months whether god exists or not. Scientific inquiry arises from our natural curiosity and its sound methodology places on the very opposite spectrum of the impracticality and stupidity of "waiting for the data to come in" on your sexual attraction to someone.
I absolutely loved the way Peter remained calm, concentrated and respectful. And Dinesh... well when did he not throw an underhand insult? For that matter when did he stay on topic?
Well done to both Singer and Dinesh, nothing new was covered, the same old tired and worn out arguments. All you atheists have is criticism, anyone can do that. you offer no solutions to poverty or suffering Singers explanation for the eternal universe was no explanation at all, he used words like "its possible", "simply don't know", "there may be other laws" etc. sounds more like a position of faith than science.
@outbackcafe Science is perfectly comfortable with "simply don't know".This is called honesty, not faith. The debate wasn't about solutions to poverty or suffering, but these are both topics that Peter SInger has written on extensively.
@outbackcafe You don't have to be a thiest to offer solutions to suffering. Why don't you try googling buddhism for example, and educate yourself a little bit.
You are in error because you do not know the bible, there are just so many verses on helping others and solving poverty. The problem is, are we willing to obey God? Are we willing to share from our excess and abundance?. "For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me............'
@outbackcafe Altruism and compassion are not exclusive to Christianity. Since you KNOW the bible, then surely you've read Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21 and Luke 18:22. Assuming you're a follower of Jesus, you should sell all your possessions and give them to the poor. Unfortunately, this is not the real solution to the real problem of poverty.
@sgunsgun2 " Altruism and compassion are not exclusive to Christianity" Christian founded charities Just so happens to be the overwhelming majority, just at the top of my head. the largest charities in the world are St Vincent De Paul, Red cross, Salvation army etc. What charities are founded by Atheist? Do you do any charity work?
Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22 and Mark 10:21 "Jesus looked at him and loved him." This was a test for the rich young man and as you can see Jesus still loved him!!
@outbackcafe Churches demand exorbitant tithes from their adherents. It would be a true miracle if they didn't do anything useful for the world with all that money. There are non-religious organizations that also do charity work, such as Amnesty International, Unicef, Doctors Without Borders, etc. By the way, Red Cross is not a religious organization, although it sounds like one.
@sgunsgun2"By the way, Red Cross is not a religious organization, although it sounds like one." Yes I know that is why I used the words, "Christian founded charities. ' The Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war,The list might go on.
@outbackcafe So? There are many world-renowned major charities that have no religious roots. Top philanthropists in the US just happen to be atheists. Both you and I can agree that it is not their lack of faith, or reluctance to believe in a supernatural dimension that motivated their altruistic actions. Both Christians and non-believers can organize charities on a colossal scale, for goodness sake.
@outbackcafe Christians do not have the right to claim monopoly over altruism and compassion. You can help other people with purely humanitarian purposes, without proselytizing your religion, without the lie that condoms spread AIDS, without the hope for a reward (or fear of punishment).
And you haven't really responded to my arguments. You can explain what bible verses mean all day, but what's the real solution to poverty?
@sgunsgun2 "but what's the real solution to poverty?" I know one thing for sure the solution would not originate from more greed and selfishness. For example: Some people have so much money and food while others go hungry. If people loved their fellow human being as they love themselves we would not be here exchanging these messages. The bible really does have the answers.
@outbackcafe "the solution would not originate from more greed and selfishness". Sure, that's self-evident. Greed and selfishness of some individuals make the lives of many miserable, I agree. But the main problem is unfair distribution of natural resources. Geography and droughts cause famine more than anything. And I can't imagine that a loving, caring and peaceful god would allow children in the millions to starve because of their placement in nature, or because of a Hebrew-talking snake.
@outbackcafe And since I'm constantly in "error" because I don't understand the bible as much as you do, can you tell me how to interpret and understand the following verses?
2 Kings 2:23-24 - Elisha summons bears with god's help and kills 42 children for calling him a "baldy".
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - If a woman has sexual intercourse before marriage, she's to be stoned to death in public in front of her father's house.
Psalms 137:9 - Happily crush Egyptian babies against a stone.
@sgunsgun2 " Elisha summons bears with god's help and kills 42 children for calling him a "baldy" Baldy can be insulting, just kidding. There is a long answer to this one but i prefer the fact that these youths were just nasty. They knew exactly what was coming to them Leviticus 26:21-22 “If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey me, I will inflict disaster on you seven times over for your sins. 22 I will send wild animals that will rob you of your children and destroy.....
@outbackcafe I'm simply shocked at how religion poisons the mind :( how religious beliefs can make ordinary literate people like you in the 21st century say the most primitive and barbaric things, without any shame and self-respect.
@sgunsgun2 "Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - If a woman has sexual intercourse before marriage, she's to be stoned to death in public in front of her father's house." Hm how society has changed. Now days a man marries a girl and has to live with the very uncomfortable fact that other males have already had sex with their wife. Besides, there is not one mention in the whole bible where this has ever taken place. Would you not be impressed with your father in-law if he kept your wife just for you?
@sgunsgun2 "Psalms 137:9 - Happily crush Egyptian babies against a stone."
BTW the group Bony M got its lyrics from this Psalm "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we....
Psalm 137 verse 8; "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us."
The Jews were simply venting their anger at their captors, and basically saying how would you like it if we re- payed you in the same way, by dashing your children against the rocks
@outbackcafe "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled" is what Christianity purports to be the solution. Sounds like false consolation and wishful thinking to me.
In many parts of the world, the "empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction" is the solution to poverty. And this is from Christopher Hitchens, not Christ.
@sgunsgun2 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled"
You are again in error because you do not understand the bible. The above verse you have chosen is not talking about spiritual food. Read the verse below, Jesus is not referring to physical bread, he use it as a illustration
John 6:35 - “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
@outbackcafe sounds more like a person who does not pretend to know things that cannot be known. Theists claim to know things that cannot be possibly known objectively. God talking in your head is not objectively attained knowledge. For example, I could say that god just told me that you are an idiot and I am sure you will not agree that this is an objective statement regarding your mental faculties.
@Adamalgorithm "Theists claim to know things that cannot be possibly known objectively." Care to give an example. Also I see it the other way round, It is atheists who insist everything must be explained in a materialistic way and thus come up with so much pseudo science, like the supposed big bang from practically nothing. "God talking in your head" Classic straw man, find me even one reference in the bible where God talks to people in their heads.
@Surroundx "Are you arguing that if it isn't in the Bible, it doesn't happen?" If you are referring to your previous comment "God talking in your head" the answer is yes, I don't know of any one case from the bible where God speaks to people in their heads, guess he could if he wanted to but he could also speak to people in many different ways. For example, through the bible itself.
How does Dinesh know which parts of the bible are metaphorical and which are literal? How does he know his bible is more justified than any other holy book, if applying the same standards? It seems he picks and chooses his morality from the bible to be compatible with the modern age.
Not come up with hell? Of course we would! Hell was invented for people we don't want in heaven. Not come up with Morality? Without morality we wold not have survived as a species! Consider social contract. Come on Dinesh, you are smarter than that, stop fooling yourself
I couldn't finish the video. Dinesh is unbelievably irrational and dishonest and I can't believe that he's a best-selling author with so many believers. I'm sorry I hate to say it but it reflects terribly on your society (mine isn't better)
where was Dinesh D'Souza being dishonest if may ask? just wanted to see if anyone else saw and hear what i did. also where was singer being dishonest because i saw that many times as well.
The argument that your religion depends on where you live is not an instance of the genetic fallacy, as Dinesh claims, because it is based on the Christian assertions that Yahweh is all-loving and that he will send you to Hell if you don't believe in Him. But if your belief depends on where you were born, then whether you go to Hell also depends on where you were born, and to send someone to Hell because of his birthplace cannot be called just.
Its so funny to watch this part, this was supposed to be a debate on whether god exists or not, and now this guy is giving a class on christian theology!lol It shows how arrogant these christian believers are, they just assume what they believe in is true! .... Pathetic.....
Dinesh is such a dumbass! Singer is not saying that "if you were born somewhere then your beliefs are wrong" Singer's point was that there are many religions in the world and they are incompatible with each other, in other words how do you know that your religion is the right one?
D’Souza has spoken clearly and concisely. He has shown Singer to be inconsistent. In Part9 1:25, he provided clear and convincing argument refuting the case against God. He provided examples of atheism riding under the banner of Science and in Part10 3:30, he shows Singer to be in error over his misstating of modern physics. Exposing Singers “genetic fallacy” was masterful debate.
The amount of vitriolic illogical ad hominem attacks against D’Souza on here is clear evidence that the trolling Singer sycophants have no reasoned argument to use against him. For the purposes of debate, D’Souza has to be seen as the clear winner. Singer speaks clearly and with conviction but fails through to address specific points put to him, preferring instead to rephrase points in such a way they become digression.
D'Souza is alright. I was disappointed with the first nine minutes of the debate, during which he thoroughly misrepresented Peter Singer's views on ethics. Singer, perhaps used to similarly asinine accusations, did not take the time to respond.
I much prefer Singer's writing over his debating, and you may be correct that Dinesh "won" this debate, but -- if I'm not mistaken -- D'Souza failed to provide any arguments for theism that cannot be explained in a naturalistic framework.
Where D’Souza failed, in my view, was to provide clear structured and premised argument in favour of a belief in God. His challenge of Singer’s position as extreme may or may not be justified. However Singer was able to refute or correct the assertions levelled at him and he chose not to and instead, he chose simply to dismiss them.
In doing so he too failed , by virtue of a fallacy of authority, inferring that the challenges did not require a response simply on the basis that he didn’t think they do. When in debate, you respond to the charges levelled at you as best you can and with the strongest argument you have. Anything else, no matter how courteous or eloquent, amounts to little more than a rant.
Equally poor was D’Souza’s opening gambit and his inference that the alternative is so bad that we should stick with theistic belief. This too represents exceptionally weak argument as it reduces the objective validity of theistic belief to ambiguous estimations of probability.
Dismissing D’Souza because he failed to provide any arguments for theism in an entirely naturalistic sense begs the question. It assumes the validity of a supposition, namely that all knowledge is derived by entirely naturalistic means.
At 2:35, they made hell to scare people into believing in the religion. Can't make people act contrary to human nature without a scare tactic to back it up.
I think D'Souza is wrong about hell. The bottom line is that most people who profess to believe in hell don't think they are going there.
If we consider that the early Christians were heavily persecuted it's not too hard to think they would want God to bring justice to their persecutors. Given the variety of mingling cultures and influences on the early church why should hell not come up as part of their theological reflection & experience?
if you can pick and choose what to follow in the bible (which is what dinesh is saying) and anyone who follows it literally is a fundamentalist then how in the blue hell is that an objective moral standard? if it is that open to interpretation then it has no objective worth. also it shows that christians who can know that the genocides instructed in the bible were bad werent discarding that because of the bible but merely because of an inbuilt moral objectivity.
@bonfirejovi No but Jesus worked a miracle in his life. He then goes on to say one of their livestock fall in a pit, they retrieve it on the sabbath. I do not think you, or many (myself included), have a good understanding on how to keep the Sabbath holy.
I love Dinesh's use of "E=MC Square" with no d. Who's MC Square, the archnemesis of KRS1 in the 80's rap scene? Clearly, with his ignorance of even the pop culture surface of relativity, he's qualified to make concise statements about all reality.
Dinesh asks, "Why would we make up the Hell and the Ten Commandments?" etc. Does he know nothing of power politics? The old Jewish elders wanted power, they created a problem, gave a solution, made everything worldly sinful by default so they could claim credit and benevolence every time they said something was ok. Hence, not exactly a plethora of libertarian dictators.
There is no evidence that there were thousands of other contemporaries of Jesus - that just presupposes that Jesus really lived, the very point you are tring to support.
There are many examples of made up stories which have been around for centuries. That a stroy is or isn't remembered a century later is irrelevant as evidence for the truth of the story. What an absurd thing to claim!
paul's letters are personal, real-time reflections and accounts of the significant events of that period. all bearing his handwritten signature. to say paul (also peter, john, james, jude) wrote letters to people with made-up stories and the people actually believed them including the highly-skeptical jews, sophisticated greeks and romans, some of the elite, violated all common sense, logic and good understanding of human nature. your theory 2,000 years after the fact won't stand scrutiny.
Yes, he wrote make-believe. People believe all sorts of things without evidence. You mean the 1000s of differrent gods are all true?
No such thing as common sense. Yes the human brain is very susceptible to delusion. That's why sicence has been needed - the only method shown to be capable of working out the truth.
@dbes02 yes, the brain conjures up delusion like your own delusion believing foolishly you know better than all the 1st and 2nd century believers whose writings survived us today like clement, ignatius, eusebius. closer to the unfolding events they more than anybody else are in best position to research and examine the facts as compared to you and other skeptics of the 21st century far removed from the fact by thousands of years whose opinion can't even withstand historical and evidential rigor.
i mean island of patmos. read the bible if you can show me any astrological concept forming a part of the basic biblical principles. on the contrary, any astrological allusion in the bible clearly emphasizes the abhorrent nature of the ancient practice.
btw. astrology is debunked seeing there are 9 planets or 8 minus pluto in our solar system not 7.
don't easily believe some 20th-century scholar saying things other than that which stood the test of time and was grounded on hundreds of years of traditions and documentations. these people like the jesus seminar and dan brown would have you believe some obscure apocryphal writings of much later dates. these gnostic writings have no credebility in terms of origin,historicity, factual claims and contradictions.
read revelation. the author was not in judea figting the romans. he was in parthos.
no coincidence about 7 and 12 significance if there is really some validity of some connection if all mankind descended from noah's sons. nor is it controversial to say the israelites formerly worshipped many gods since they came out of egypt. in fact during exodus they reverted back to worshipping idols. as for astrology, such was hardly mentioned in the bible and in few occasions was sternly condemned. nor was there any basis of angel/constellation worship underlying biblical judaism.
besides, the fathers lived from the end of 1st century ad to several hundred years after the event. they of all people had the best authoritative say regarding the authorships. the general public of that epoch wouldn't be easily deceive into believing a great falsehood either having some knowledge of the general events. would anyone today believe hamlet was not written by shakespeare? would you prefer to believe this casey guy, a man 2,000 years removed from the actual events?
the essenes were very reclusive people living in caves and wilderness like qumran. most of their writings like the dead sea scrolls dated 100 to 200 years earlier than the apostles. the gospels never even mention this group. baseless speculation to say an essene wrote the gospels and revelation. the church fathers like polycarp(c.105 ad) were bishops of these seven churches like smyrna. historically false to say these churches ceased to exist after ad 70. wiki, you should know, is a bad source.
another baseless speculation. can you show any earlier manuscript where the "multitude" verse is not included as proof? every known extant oldest manuscipt contains all verses currently found in revelation. by all reliable traditions, revelation was written by john around 90 ad while the siege of jerusalem was already over 20 years earlier. john was clearly speaking of much future events not the seige of 70 ad.
devout jews don't believe in horoscopes. number 12 is bible number for organization.
evolution is a made-up fantasy cloaked in science. but no matter how deceptive and loud the proponents of this fairy tale are they're continuously losing credibility in public opinion among americans the last decade. they're browbeating their way this 150 years propaganda -wise yet all they can offer are evidence so flimsy and disingenuous as to be corrupt intellectually.
see the meaning of origin and if you can tell what's first to first (not f lol) there's no contradiction.
law of biogenesis states that life can only come from pre-existing life. i don't quite grasp what relevance is not fully-formed lifeforms. the law debunks chemical evolution because it presupposes life came from lifeless mixture of organic compounds. it was exactly what pasteur demonstrated and so axiomatic it is called a law not a theory.
radiometric dating is baloney. it presupposes known original material, uniform rate of decay and no outside contamination which is absurd in open system.
you're reading too much into this schneider findings. every known mutation in the molecular level (point, inversion, indel, frame-shift, etc) suffers from greater loss of information and is often harmful to the organism. that's an irrefutable, observable fact.
rather, evolution is another psuedoscience in the mold of global warming. it is replete with speculative interpretations and overreaching conclusions. no success ever in experimental predictions. full of exaggerations and fudged datas.
brimming with evidence? you mean speculations, extrapolations, artist's depictions,propaganda, hoaxes, etc. give hard facts that are observable and testable. that's real science after all.
rather it puts into question the whole evolution thesis because collagen can't survive that long or that lazarus bacteria can't be that old since hydrolysis and decomposition process starts instantly at death. not even a very hardy bacteria can't last a million years let alone 250 milion years.
it's not ironic but just indicative of how sunken and compromised liberal theology has become. no surprise there since predicted apostasy is as old as the gospel itself.
the stupendous design in DNA storage is unmatched by any cutting-edge counterparts and it's illogic to claim natural forces and chance did it.
current, extant, but evolution can't explain how it came about in the first place. no natural process is shown to create intelligible information.
And the old 2nd law canard. Evolution doesn't violate it because the Earth is not a closed system.
Such pathetic canards have been debunked in the past, even without reference to relevant scientific literature, by people who pay attention to the scientific basics. Once the relevant scientific literature is consulted, these canards become obviously nonsense.
It has become clear that you just like to hear yourself talk and it is quite boring. If you have googled the admission by Richard Leowntin, or saw the end of the movie of Expelled where we see Dawkins speak, both of these situations clearly tell you that A. Science has an agenda and will not concede to a Eternal creator, which just makes sense.
When a question is asked of a respected scientist with regard to how we got here, they never know but they know it couldn't be God. How pathetic is it to say that were not sure how it started but we know it wasn't God. All the science in the world as much as it is constantly changing will only prove to the design in creation. Science always testifies to designs. People like you are darkened by your pride and will never find any transtional fossils, because there aren't any.
The inanity of your argument is: if science can't tell us X then god did it. This is the pitiful "god of the gaps", an argument from ignorance. An infantile assertion that a naturalist needs evidence but a supernaturalist can just make things up. But there is excellent evidence for how we got here: evolution of complex from simple life form. And excellent evidence for chemical evolution, the origin of life (which is simply chemicals). Religious claims get ground into the dirt.
@t0t8o The same reason you know Titans from greek mythology did not create the world. Just cause i do not understand something fully does not i can use a myth. A believer in the god Ahura Mazda will argue exactly like you would. He would ask someone to explain how this physical wold came to be. They would say we think "blah blah, but we are not sure". He would say, seeeeee how can u say ur not sure how it started but u can say for sure ahura mazda didnt do it. U have no point here.
The biggest fairy tale ever is the planet of the apes you people think we came from, what a complete joke. Now the evidence for that is so sad and is always wrong it is supposed or what it would have looked like. Darwin in the orgin of species refers to a creator and calls him God 7 times. You have no argument. Truth He ripped off Edward Blyth anyway....Check
Many transitional fossils. Every living thing past and present is a type of transitional fossil. Humans don't come from apes. They share a common ancestor. The theory of evolution is one of the most successful theories of all time. It accounts brilliantly for the data. So Darwin talked about God? Irrelevant to the evidence. He ripped off someone? Again irrelevant. Just pitiful red herrings from you.
Science brilliantly testifies to natural processes.Making nonsense of religious claims.
every living things past and present is a type of transitional fossil. and every trees is a type of transitional banana. and where is this common ancestor? all speculations, fantasy. majority of fossils like jellyfish, coelecanths, wollemi pine tree, etc, look exactly the same as today. a more logical conclusion is that there is not really millions of years gap between the two. that supposedly millions of years of sediments in geologic time without any trace of them supports this evaluation.
Apostasy is indeed old - the fist Christians were apostates.
Information storage in the genome through natural processes is perfectly logical, consistent with Kolmogorov's analysis of information storage.
The information doesnt have to be"intelligible". No minds involved.
Scientific literature shows many examples of beneficial mutations. You're welcome to read them and refute them. Even a duplication of a gene is additional information.
for all we know kolmogorov's analysis doesn't say how it all came about just a depiction of the process already at work. it doesn't explain why the 4-letter nucleotides only and not use more amino acids.
ksh7yerhhdu - is this an example of information for you? can RNA read what it means and transmit?
i don't question examples of "beneficial" mutation. what at issue is does it increase genetic information? no everytime.
a duplicated gene like for a hand for therapod will not produce a wing.
Exactly, evolution is brilliantly observable, testable. Real science. Two of the most obvious predictions of the theory which came true were genes and DNA.
DNA/molecular biology provides brilliant evidence for common descent.
What has the survival of collagen got to do with evolution?
Lazarus bacteria resurrects itself! I thought youd be excited about that. Especially as the Jesus meme has proven to be as pernicious, malicious and destructive as the most deadly bacteria.
you often misread what i wrote. first, i said evolution per se is NOT observed. dawkins inadvertently affirmed it when he said it is observed just that it is NOT OBSERVED WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
prediction of genes was first proposed by mendel, a creationist,
molecular biology doesn't show increase in genetic material for protozoa ancestor to be a metazoa to support common descent.
evolution which relies in millions of years is debunked with collagen in fossils and lazarus bacteria.
Definition of law of biogenesis provided. You believe life came from non life, so what's your problem other than sinking your own argument.
If radioactive decay was at a different rate, turning billions of years into a few thousand, everything would have fried (radiation produces heat). So much for stupidity young earth creationist claims.
And all those archaeological finds relevant to Biblical history would be nonsense.
Independent measures other than radiometry show multi-billion year agee.
another misread. i believe life came from pre-existing life only and it is evolutionist who believe the opposite contradicting the very law of biogenesis.
what is the half-life of say c14? about 5,000 years. even if we increase the decay rate to 10x it will still be 500 years. for uranium about million years. even if we increase the rate exponentially still we have big numbers here. so even if radiation produces extreme heat i don't see why it would fry the specimen every 500 years or so.
you also have to understand that radiometric date is calibrated by the remaining amount of radioisotopes in the specimen. the lesser the amount the older it is according to evolutionary paradigm. if the decay rate is much faster in times past than it is today, then naturally you would have much lesser remaining amount making the specimen much older than it actually is.
The fossil record is excellent evidence for evolution, showing much change. Humans show fascinating progression through the fossil record. Science is a brilliantly self-correcting, and evolution theory is yet to falter. What the American population believes is irrelevant. And your "satisfaction" of no consequence at all, given the stupidity of your arguments.
As the scientific evidence makes nonsense off Genesis - myths like every creation story. You need some coherent evidence to move forward.
above is all opinion, less fact. for one the fossil record shows not gradual change but the sequence of the burial of organisms in the past. if for example cataclysmic flood buried fauna and flora in one swoop, the sedimentation will just reveal one strata with fossils buried overlying another. not milions of years of geologic time.
science indeed is self-correcting and one example is the credence of catastrophism causing several formations like scablands superseding aeons of sedimentation.
Completely relevant, it shows that he worked towards an agenda, Darwin said to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess absurd in the highest degree. You have no rudementry skills in the slightest. You talk alot but don't understand that if someone can use your argument against you, then you have NOTHING!....u too easy...think....
And Darwin was correct. The eye evolved by natural selection - many times, through different animal paths. Darwin didn't have the genetic mechanism - we do. And it fits brilliantly. My argument is not based on Darwin. Its based on the genius of science.. Dont worry, Im immune to your insults.
Agenda skews evidence and what it means. Richard Leowntin already admitted that, and Dawknins said that a serious case can be made for a diety. I'm sorry that you are so intent but your own people amit that there is serious holes and gaps that are just assumed. That will never give 100% on anything.
And still the genius of science goes on. Obviously science doesn't always change. The Earth still orbits the Sun.
Just because something doesn't change doesn't mean it's correct. What a ridiculous thing to say. But regardless, Christians believe that the laws of their god changed (old to new), so your whole position is nonsense.
Meanwhile, all the evidence about the way the world works supports naturalism - the rational position.
You fail to see that when someone says something that goes against what they have done or ar currently doing. that means they negate what they have provided as evidence. Darwin is guility of this. Everyone knows this and it is not hard to see. This is all the evidence anyone would need to see that this hypothesis is weak at best, just like Dr. Leowntin stated in his omission. Read it, I know it will break your heart but science is your faith,but it won't lead u anywhere because too many holes...
People can say things. Why does it "go against me"? There is no evidence for any god - argument from ignorance. How does it "negate evidence"?
Science is based on evidence, hence it is not faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, an ignoble and ignorant endeavour. Naturalism is the rational position.
Faith comes from hearing the words of God and of Jesus and the Bible is the best kept set of scriptures spannig over thousands of years. The Bible blows science away because science always changes and God's word does not....
Exactly, faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Ignorant, ignoble and irresponsible.
Playing the faith card is useless. According to faith, every religion is the true way.
So what if Jesus said something? Irrelevant. Your beliefs about "judgement day" also irrelevant, with the same evidence base as belief in fairies - nil.
The Quran teaches that those who reject Islam will burn in Hell. You're going to Hell. Or maybe you're not covered by Islam's "laws"? Well I'm not covered by yours.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Actually you r the one who is ignorant, meaning you are informed. So you'll want to know that the historical and archeological evidence for the Bible in impecable. The new testment which the book of Romans comes from, has been constructed with 100% of the Greek text. 5600 copies testify to the accountability of the people and stories in it. You have been darkened by satan and he is using science as a veil over your mind. Your promblem is that u rely on physcial evidence, the spiritual is NOT.
My information, as shown, is impeccable. Archaeology shows nothing for the supernatural. The Romans kept great records, and great archaeological evidence, therefore their gods are real. You can have a million copies of nonsense - still nonsense. We must rely on empirical evidence - it's the only way shown to work. Religious belief always shown to be nonsense. But you contradict yourself - using empirical evidence when it suits then saying you dont need it when suits - more nonsense from you.
It shows that the scriptures that make up 100% of the new testament prove to the sites and locations where Jesus walked, lived, died, and rose from the grave and even who he appeared to after his ressurection. Also we have secular histiorians testify to a man named Jesus who lived during this time. So people who weren't even his follower testified to his life. The author and sustainer of it all. Science only testifies to the creation of the Creator. Your pride blinds you. for what?
You see what u wanna see and thus in deep darkness. Have you ever told a lie? Stolen anything? Looked with lust? Jesus said whoever has looked with lust has already committed adlutery with her in his heart. If you have then you r a lying,thieving,adlutery at heart and on Judgement day you will be found guilty and end up in Hell, forever. But that's not God's will. We broke his law (10 commandments) but Jesus paid our fine on the cross. Died and rose again. If you repent and trust the savior.
God will forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life. So confess your sins to God today, put your faith in Christ then read the Bible daily and obey what u read. (see John 14:21) Be sensible and get right with God today...
read on further and you will discover that a great multitude from every nation, tribe, and language will also be protected from the coming day of the LORD judgment (rev. 7). the 144,000 comprises the twelve tribes except dan. most like joseph and manasseh are not jews (from the tribe of judah) and historically formed the northern kingdom of israel opposite the southern kingdom of judah during the schism after solomon's death and the reign of his son rehoboam.
If you think decay rates have increased, then the archaeology used to support biblical dates is nonsense. You stupidly contradict yourself - now the Biblical dates are wrong. Where is evidence for higher decay rates in the past? Other creationist carry on that rates were higher! 750,000x to get from 4.5 billion years down to 6,000 years. Frying everything.
144,000 to be saved, no Christians allowed, no room for gentile pigs (I love the way 1st century Jews called non-Jews swine.)
if put into consideration the flood upheaval caused rapid production of c14 then naturally artefacts close to the flood would have higher number of c14 thus older dates. but after the flood the rate had stabilized hence more or less accurate dates from 4,000 years ago up to the present. so archaeology generally got right biblical dates.
why should creationist use 4.5 billion age (purely speculative) as factor to calculate decay rates?
jews like paul disagrees. he an apostle to the gentiles.
Kolmogorov's analysis about storage of information. (But you don't even know what he did, "for all we know"). Now DNA is ONLY 4 letters, not more? First everything's too complex, now it's too simple? More nonsense from you.
If every fossil was 6000 years old collagen would be flowing out of every bone - but it doesn't. Why not? For the hard of hearing: Lazarus bacteria - discovery of a novel genetic repair process that allows a desert microbe to die and resurrect over and over again.
so explain. for all we know just like ida and countless others another propaganda, another dud. DNA uses 4 nitrogenous letters AGCT. but the information is like all editions of complete sets of encyclopedia britannica.
depends on the pressure and minerals in situ. fact is almost all fossils are hardly wholly permineralized. in marshlands of britain, new fossils are made quickly by the reaction of bacteria and minerals.
you think a bacteria is the longest living not the alleged bristlecone?
i used c14 only because wer'e talking of archeological dates specifically. now geologic evidence shouts mostly for catastropic event not gradual process. the burial of whole forest resulting in coal speaks of catastrophe likely massive flood with colossal mudflows.
paul is not irrelevant. he founded most of the gentile churches.
DNA is information. you don't get that just by molecules reacting in number of ways (whatever that means.)
where you there when amber was in its initial stage?
Fist you say beneficial mutations don't exist, now yoy accept them! More nonsense from you. Yes, evolution is observed eg, in adaption by bacteria. Funny how the fossil record is so ordered - no evidence for global flood, like humans in the Cambrian.
No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent: DNA is stunning evidence, predictions of common descent confirmed from independent areas of science, no contradictory evidence yet confirmed.
beneficial mutations do exist in the sense the always infomation-loss mutations, hence not really beneficial, happen to have some advantages for an organism in a particular setting. for example a flightless cormorant in a windy island.
adaptation is natural selection not evolution from goo to zoo. equivocation.
cambrian fossils all marine animals would not include humans or land animals since they lived in different ecological niche.
DNA shows no common descent only variation within kinds.
skin color? only a matter of melanin not new phenotype.
that life IS ETERNAL. look for the meaning of eternal.
not based on evidence but based on faulty and biased interpretation of evidence.
ok, how about predict a repetition of the supposed evolution of dino into bird tomorrow? out of billions of step-by-step evolution, surely we should see even one at some point.
not if you can predict 5,000 PIN nos. correctly at one try will you even remotely have the miracle of chemical evolution.
Exactly, wide variations in human skin tones have been correlated with mutations in a gene.
No evidence life is eternal.
Biological evolution won't occur the same way. It's not pre-determined, and events around it aren't predtermined. Earth happens to get hit by a meteor - leads to different outcomes. Chemical evolution isn't pre-determined either. No evidence that life is irreducibly complex.. No need to appeal to god fairies.
various sin colors are not mutations. perhaps, red-haired with rudddy skin. however it does not produce say dermal scales as should mutations leading to evolution per se would do. it's still human skin not a feather or scales.
all the more it adds to the highest impossibility of chemical or biological evolution admitting no pre-determination, its unpredictability.
so a meteor probably spawned life on earth. are you that dogmatically blind to see that this is stuff fairy tales are made of?
there is evidence for eternal life. that life had been witnessed many times, by 500 people at one time. the critics during that period had no plausible explanation and the rules of evidence based on judicial court rulings overwhelmingly back up the claim of these many witnesses. history, rule of courts on evidence, 1st-century tradition and logic lend credence.
talking of predictions, here, real fulfilled predictions or prophecies too bolster the existence ot this eternal life and power.
No evidence at all, just someone writing that 500 people saw something. Just like in a novel. Plausible explanation - someone just made it up. Would be thrown out of court.
No REAL fulfilled prophecies of anything.
If life must come from life, then according to your claim a god must come from previous life.
well, tell that to other thousands of readers and hearers who were contemporaries and knowledgeable about the unfolding events. if someone would make them up they would already be discredited and disgraced right there and then. dan brown and the 9/11 truthers are modern examples of made-up stories. a hundred years from now no one will even remember them.
"Peter, you didn't answer my irrelevant and inaccurate accusation!"
Okaruwazashi 1 week ago
Singer looks perplexed. I don't think he is used to being in situations where people are so openly dishonest and being applauded for it. His hopes for the world is crumbling in front of his eyes while observing this audience and fraud.
fjoo 1 month ago
BLA BLA BLA I DON'T EVEN NEED TO WATCH THE VIDEO TO KNOW THAT D'SOUZA IS A FOUNTAIN OF BULLSHIT
TheGerogero 1 month ago
I have less than positive feelings about Dinesh D'Souza. I'm allergic to purveyors of (what I think are) lies and delusions.
lancethrustworthy 2 months ago
I can't believe I watched all of this bullshit. Peter Singer should not have graced Dinesh with his presence. That is all.
joseromero2010 2 months ago 2
Geat and very educational debate, i think mr. singer is a confused individual beening an atheist he sure not really represnting the view of atheism . it feel like he is somewhere in the middle, he is not an athiest nor a religious person.
Yekerable 3 months ago
@Yekerable He's an atheist. If you knew anything about atheism (combined with the fact that he's debating Dinesh) you'd realise that he's an atheist. What, precisely, about his position or anything he said in this debate makes you think he's "somewhere in the middle" ? He sees no good reason to believe in a theistic god - you're confused because?????
MrSDSTRIKEBREAKER 3 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer
@Yekerable I don't think you understand what being atheist means. It's exactly what Singer say: "There is no evidence for a god, so I don't think there is one."
That's it!
Beyond that he is expressing his own view on morality and what he sees as a problem with Christianity based on his own ethics.
If you think there should be a set of morals and views for all atheists I think you've joined the wrong side.
On Singer being confused, lol. Very few people are as rational and logical as him.
fjoo 1 month ago
Dinesh already answered his own question. Why do we invent hell? Because we want to believe that there is ultimate justice and bad people eventually get what they deserve.
Springheel01 4 months ago
the analogy to e=mc^2 is not a good one as it is comparing something that can be proven with soemthing that cannot
superseagal1 5 months ago
hell is an idea to scare non-christians
superseagal1 5 months ago
Why would God change its tatic with mankind from the old to the nem testament?I thought that he didn't change ever...
rubstrol 5 months ago
Dinesh is sharp, the American Christian right must be proud of him. His comment about going ahead and marrying the woman instead of "waiting for the data to come in" is actually a brilliant way of making agnosticism look silly. Of course, if you scratch its surface, the argument is crazy, and could be used to defend any ill-advised appeal to blind faith. It is like saying "our lives are short, so go right ahead and insert any old myth as an explanation to what ever puzzles you about the world".
andreasdrg 5 months ago
@andreasdrg he uses that argument often and i really dislike it. Dating and scientific inquiry are two completely different endeavors. I doubt that there is a single scientist in the world who does science so he can know within a few months whether god exists or not. Scientific inquiry arises from our natural curiosity and its sound methodology places on the very opposite spectrum of the impracticality and stupidity of "waiting for the data to come in" on your sexual attraction to someone.
cerberusdest 2 months ago
If people want to stay with religion, then so be it. I don't care, as long as it is not going to be political and as long as it stays private.....
balouthewatz 6 months ago
this part has 19094 viewers? Thought all the interesting things had been said by Singer?
Jerrez 6 months ago
Comment removed
Jerrez 6 months ago
I absolutely loved the way Peter remained calm, concentrated and respectful. And Dinesh... well when did he not throw an underhand insult? For that matter when did he stay on topic?
Never3rd 6 months ago
Well done to both Singer and Dinesh, nothing new was covered, the same old tired and worn out arguments. All you atheists have is criticism, anyone can do that. you offer no solutions to poverty or suffering Singers explanation for the eternal universe was no explanation at all, he used words like "its possible", "simply don't know", "there may be other laws" etc. sounds more like a position of faith than science.
outbackcafe 7 months ago
Comment removed
SarniaLute 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outbackcafe Science is perfectly comfortable with "simply don't know".This is called honesty, not faith. The debate wasn't about solutions to poverty or suffering, but these are both topics that Peter SInger has written on extensively.
SarniaLute 7 months ago
@outbackcafe You don't have to be a thiest to offer solutions to suffering. Why don't you try googling buddhism for example, and educate yourself a little bit.
qwertytalkszee 7 months ago
@outbackcafe Your god doesn't offer solutions to poverty either.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
You are in error because you do not know the bible, there are just so many verses on helping others and solving poverty. The problem is, are we willing to obey God? Are we willing to share from our excess and abundance?. "For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me............'
Matthew 25:31-40
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe Altruism and compassion are not exclusive to Christianity. Since you KNOW the bible, then surely you've read Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21 and Luke 18:22. Assuming you're a follower of Jesus, you should sell all your possessions and give them to the poor. Unfortunately, this is not the real solution to the real problem of poverty.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@sgunsgun2 " Altruism and compassion are not exclusive to Christianity" Christian founded charities Just so happens to be the overwhelming majority, just at the top of my head. the largest charities in the world are St Vincent De Paul, Red cross, Salvation army etc. What charities are founded by Atheist? Do you do any charity work?
Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22 and Mark 10:21 "Jesus looked at him and loved him." This was a test for the rich young man and as you can see Jesus still loved him!!
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe Churches demand exorbitant tithes from their adherents. It would be a true miracle if they didn't do anything useful for the world with all that money. There are non-religious organizations that also do charity work, such as Amnesty International, Unicef, Doctors Without Borders, etc. By the way, Red Cross is not a religious organization, although it sounds like one.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@sgunsgun2"By the way, Red Cross is not a religious organization, although it sounds like one." Yes I know that is why I used the words, "Christian founded charities. ' The Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war,The list might go on.
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe So? There are many world-renowned major charities that have no religious roots. Top philanthropists in the US just happen to be atheists. Both you and I can agree that it is not their lack of faith, or reluctance to believe in a supernatural dimension that motivated their altruistic actions. Both Christians and non-believers can organize charities on a colossal scale, for goodness sake.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@outbackcafe Christians do not have the right to claim monopoly over altruism and compassion. You can help other people with purely humanitarian purposes, without proselytizing your religion, without the lie that condoms spread AIDS, without the hope for a reward (or fear of punishment).
And you haven't really responded to my arguments. You can explain what bible verses mean all day, but what's the real solution to poverty?
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@sgunsgun2 "but what's the real solution to poverty?" I know one thing for sure the solution would not originate from more greed and selfishness. For example: Some people have so much money and food while others go hungry. If people loved their fellow human being as they love themselves we would not be here exchanging these messages. The bible really does have the answers.
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe "the solution would not originate from more greed and selfishness". Sure, that's self-evident. Greed and selfishness of some individuals make the lives of many miserable, I agree. But the main problem is unfair distribution of natural resources. Geography and droughts cause famine more than anything. And I can't imagine that a loving, caring and peaceful god would allow children in the millions to starve because of their placement in nature, or because of a Hebrew-talking snake.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@outbackcafe And since I'm constantly in "error" because I don't understand the bible as much as you do, can you tell me how to interpret and understand the following verses?
2 Kings 2:23-24 - Elisha summons bears with god's help and kills 42 children for calling him a "baldy".
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - If a woman has sexual intercourse before marriage, she's to be stoned to death in public in front of her father's house.
Psalms 137:9 - Happily crush Egyptian babies against a stone.
Thanks.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@sgunsgun2 " Elisha summons bears with god's help and kills 42 children for calling him a "baldy" Baldy can be insulting, just kidding. There is a long answer to this one but i prefer the fact that these youths were just nasty. They knew exactly what was coming to them Leviticus 26:21-22 “If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey me, I will inflict disaster on you seven times over for your sins. 22 I will send wild animals that will rob you of your children and destroy.....
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe I'm simply shocked at how religion poisons the mind :( how religious beliefs can make ordinary literate people like you in the 21st century say the most primitive and barbaric things, without any shame and self-respect.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@sgunsgun2 "Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - If a woman has sexual intercourse before marriage, she's to be stoned to death in public in front of her father's house." Hm how society has changed. Now days a man marries a girl and has to live with the very uncomfortable fact that other males have already had sex with their wife. Besides, there is not one mention in the whole bible where this has ever taken place. Would you not be impressed with your father in-law if he kept your wife just for you?
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe You gotta be kidding me. Done talking with you, bye.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@sgunsgun2 "Psalms 137:9 - Happily crush Egyptian babies against a stone."
BTW the group Bony M got its lyrics from this Psalm "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we....
Psalm 137 verse 8; "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us."
The Jews were simply venting their anger at their captors, and basically saying how would you like it if we re- payed you in the same way, by dashing your children against the rocks
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled" is what Christianity purports to be the solution. Sounds like false consolation and wishful thinking to me.
In many parts of the world, the "empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction" is the solution to poverty. And this is from Christopher Hitchens, not Christ.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@sgunsgun2 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled"
You are again in error because you do not understand the bible. The above verse you have chosen is not talking about spiritual food. Read the verse below, Jesus is not referring to physical bread, he use it as a illustration
John 6:35 - “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe sounds more like a person who does not pretend to know things that cannot be known. Theists claim to know things that cannot be possibly known objectively. God talking in your head is not objectively attained knowledge. For example, I could say that god just told me that you are an idiot and I am sure you will not agree that this is an objective statement regarding your mental faculties.
Adamalgorithm 6 months ago
@Adamalgorithm "Theists claim to know things that cannot be possibly known objectively." Care to give an example. Also I see it the other way round, It is atheists who insist everything must be explained in a materialistic way and thus come up with so much pseudo science, like the supposed big bang from practically nothing. "God talking in your head" Classic straw man, find me even one reference in the bible where God talks to people in their heads.
outbackcafe 6 months ago
@outbackcafe Are you arguing that if it isn't in the Bible, it doesn't happen?
Surroundx 6 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer
This has been flagged as spam show
@Surroundx "Are you arguing that if it isn't in the Bible, it doesn't happen?" If you are referring to your previous comment "God talking in your head" the answer is yes, I don't know of any one case from the bible where God speaks to people in their heads, guess he could if he wanted to but he could also speak to people in many different ways. For example, through the bible itself.
outbackcafe 6 months ago
well, let's hope evolution will put an end to souzzy and his friends...
ComputerScience54 8 months ago
1:34
How does Dinesh know which parts of the bible are metaphorical and which are literal? How does he know his bible is more justified than any other holy book, if applying the same standards? It seems he picks and chooses his morality from the bible to be compatible with the modern age.
Bremerxxxx 8 months ago
Not come up with hell? Of course we would! Hell was invented for people we don't want in heaven. Not come up with Morality? Without morality we wold not have survived as a species! Consider social contract. Come on Dinesh, you are smarter than that, stop fooling yourself
twilliams232 9 months ago
I couldn't finish the video. Dinesh is unbelievably irrational and dishonest and I can't believe that he's a best-selling author with so many believers. I'm sorry I hate to say it but it reflects terribly on your society (mine isn't better)
incaayoub 9 months ago
it's so sad that smart people like D'souza waste so much time not admitting that they don't have good evidence.
itchynights 10 months ago
where was Dinesh D'Souza being dishonest if may ask? just wanted to see if anyone else saw and hear what i did. also where was singer being dishonest because i saw that many times as well.
SuperMarco7 11 months ago
D'Souza arguing such stupidity makes me want to punch myself in the face .
msteele79 11 months ago
The argument that your religion depends on where you live is not an instance of the genetic fallacy, as Dinesh claims, because it is based on the Christian assertions that Yahweh is all-loving and that he will send you to Hell if you don't believe in Him. But if your belief depends on where you were born, then whether you go to Hell also depends on where you were born, and to send someone to Hell because of his birthplace cannot be called just.
jackfrombaltimore 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Dinesh D'Souza contributes to the suffering of intelligent people in the world
esiosan 1 year ago 3
tribal god to universal god...sounds nice. I thought god was supposed to be eternal :p
Existentialisht 1 year ago
@Existentialisht
And unchanging..
menonfire12 1 year ago
Its so funny to watch this part, this was supposed to be a debate on whether god exists or not, and now this guy is giving a class on christian theology!lol It shows how arrogant these christian believers are, they just assume what they believe in is true! .... Pathetic.....
youngfart40 1 year ago
why do i have to turn down my speakers when Dinesh starts talking??
oh because he thinks volume = knowledge. He's a douche and a half.
bwh2o 1 year ago
Dinesh is such a dumbass! Singer is not saying that "if you were born somewhere then your beliefs are wrong" Singer's point was that there are many religions in the world and they are incompatible with each other, in other words how do you know that your religion is the right one?
xoloxum 1 year ago
D’Souza has spoken clearly and concisely. He has shown Singer to be inconsistent. In Part9 1:25, he provided clear and convincing argument refuting the case against God. He provided examples of atheism riding under the banner of Science and in Part10 3:30, he shows Singer to be in error over his misstating of modern physics. Exposing Singers “genetic fallacy” was masterful debate.
Logosok 1 year ago
The amount of vitriolic illogical ad hominem attacks against D’Souza on here is clear evidence that the trolling Singer sycophants have no reasoned argument to use against him. For the purposes of debate, D’Souza has to be seen as the clear winner. Singer speaks clearly and with conviction but fails through to address specific points put to him, preferring instead to rephrase points in such a way they become digression.
Logosok 1 year ago
@Logosok
D'Souza is alright. I was disappointed with the first nine minutes of the debate, during which he thoroughly misrepresented Peter Singer's views on ethics. Singer, perhaps used to similarly asinine accusations, did not take the time to respond.
I much prefer Singer's writing over his debating, and you may be correct that Dinesh "won" this debate, but -- if I'm not mistaken -- D'Souza failed to provide any arguments for theism that cannot be explained in a naturalistic framework.
ComprehendingChaos 1 year ago
Where D’Souza failed, in my view, was to provide clear structured and premised argument in favour of a belief in God. His challenge of Singer’s position as extreme may or may not be justified. However Singer was able to refute or correct the assertions levelled at him and he chose not to and instead, he chose simply to dismiss them.
Logosok 1 year ago
In doing so he too failed , by virtue of a fallacy of authority, inferring that the challenges did not require a response simply on the basis that he didn’t think they do. When in debate, you respond to the charges levelled at you as best you can and with the strongest argument you have. Anything else, no matter how courteous or eloquent, amounts to little more than a rant.
Logosok 1 year ago
Equally poor was D’Souza’s opening gambit and his inference that the alternative is so bad that we should stick with theistic belief. This too represents exceptionally weak argument as it reduces the objective validity of theistic belief to ambiguous estimations of probability.
Logosok 1 year ago
Dismissing D’Souza because he failed to provide any arguments for theism in an entirely naturalistic sense begs the question. It assumes the validity of a supposition, namely that all knowledge is derived by entirely naturalistic means.
Logosok 1 year ago
Nice classy touch by Dinesh bringing up killing babies in his concluding statement.
m0nkey13 1 year ago
At 2:35, they made hell to scare people into believing in the religion. Can't make people act contrary to human nature without a scare tactic to back it up.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Dinesh, the most obvious reason for the non-existence of god is this very same debate. Have you ever debated with someone on your own existence?
persianmovie 1 year ago
people come up with the idea of heaven because they want to go there.
people come up with the idea of hell because they want everyone they hate and are jealous of to go there.
omnissient 1 year ago 2
@omnissient and I'm sure d'Souza knows that very well and he's simply dishonest on this issue (as he usually is on many other)
HerrVonManstein 1 year ago
I think D'Souza is wrong about hell. The bottom line is that most people who profess to believe in hell don't think they are going there.
If we consider that the early Christians were heavily persecuted it's not too hard to think they would want God to bring justice to their persecutors. Given the variety of mingling cultures and influences on the early church why should hell not come up as part of their theological reflection & experience?
gextvedde 1 year ago
if you can pick and choose what to follow in the bible (which is what dinesh is saying) and anyone who follows it literally is a fundamentalist then how in the blue hell is that an objective moral standard? if it is that open to interpretation then it has no objective worth. also it shows that christians who can know that the genocides instructed in the bible were bad werent discarding that because of the bible but merely because of an inbuilt moral objectivity.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Christianity is not a pick and choose. I think you have a bad misunderstanding of Christianity for whatever reason.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 actually that is exactly what is. and thanks for ignoring the rest of the points i made.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi How do you know that is exactly how it is?
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 because dinesh doesnt support stoning people who work on the sabbath but supports dont steal. its simple.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath according to did he not?
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 that man wasnt working on the sabbath. what is your point?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi No but Jesus worked a miracle in his life. He then goes on to say one of their livestock fall in a pit, they retrieve it on the sabbath. I do not think you, or many (myself included), have a good understanding on how to keep the Sabbath holy.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 i dont know what that has do with my point.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Just think about it
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 i have... it has nothing to do with my point.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi according to Mt. 12*
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
I love Dinesh's use of "E=MC Square" with no d. Who's MC Square, the archnemesis of KRS1 in the 80's rap scene? Clearly, with his ignorance of even the pop culture surface of relativity, he's qualified to make concise statements about all reality.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
Dinesh asks, "Why would we make up the Hell and the Ten Commandments?" etc. Does he know nothing of power politics? The old Jewish elders wanted power, they created a problem, gave a solution, made everything worldly sinful by default so they could claim credit and benevolence every time they said something was ok. Hence, not exactly a plethora of libertarian dictators.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
I've never yet heard a satisfying debate between a Christian and Atheist. This was not one either.
Entropy56 1 year ago
Pascal's Wager: no unsophisticated Christian apologetic is complete without it.
jtbovis 1 year ago
There is no evidence that there were thousands of other contemporaries of Jesus - that just presupposes that Jesus really lived, the very point you are tring to support.
There are many examples of made up stories which have been around for centuries. That a stroy is or isn't remembered a century later is irrelevant as evidence for the truth of the story. What an absurd thing to claim!
dbes02 1 year ago
paul's letters are personal, real-time reflections and accounts of the significant events of that period. all bearing his handwritten signature. to say paul (also peter, john, james, jude) wrote letters to people with made-up stories and the people actually believed them including the highly-skeptical jews, sophisticated greeks and romans, some of the elite, violated all common sense, logic and good understanding of human nature. your theory 2,000 years after the fact won't stand scrutiny.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Yes, he wrote make-believe. People believe all sorts of things without evidence. You mean the 1000s of differrent gods are all true?
No such thing as common sense. Yes the human brain is very susceptible to delusion. That's why sicence has been needed - the only method shown to be capable of working out the truth.
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02 yes, the brain conjures up delusion like your own delusion believing foolishly you know better than all the 1st and 2nd century believers whose writings survived us today like clement, ignatius, eusebius. closer to the unfolding events they more than anybody else are in best position to research and examine the facts as compared to you and other skeptics of the 21st century far removed from the fact by thousands of years whose opinion can't even withstand historical and evidential rigor.
dneuwen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mutations can be negative netural or beneficial.
Yes, someone made it up. No evidence that Jesus was even a real person.
So where is the evidence for eternal life?
Black and white, light and dark, life and no life. Yes, very simple.
And religions are examples of ancient made up stories.
dbes02 1 year ago
i mean island of patmos. read the bible if you can show me any astrological concept forming a part of the basic biblical principles. on the contrary, any astrological allusion in the bible clearly emphasizes the abhorrent nature of the ancient practice.
btw. astrology is debunked seeing there are 9 planets or 8 minus pluto in our solar system not 7.
dneuwen 1 year ago
don't easily believe some 20th-century scholar saying things other than that which stood the test of time and was grounded on hundreds of years of traditions and documentations. these people like the jesus seminar and dan brown would have you believe some obscure apocryphal writings of much later dates. these gnostic writings have no credebility in terms of origin,historicity, factual claims and contradictions.
read revelation. the author was not in judea figting the romans. he was in parthos.
dneuwen 1 year ago
no coincidence about 7 and 12 significance if there is really some validity of some connection if all mankind descended from noah's sons. nor is it controversial to say the israelites formerly worshipped many gods since they came out of egypt. in fact during exodus they reverted back to worshipping idols. as for astrology, such was hardly mentioned in the bible and in few occasions was sternly condemned. nor was there any basis of angel/constellation worship underlying biblical judaism.
dneuwen 1 year ago
besides, the fathers lived from the end of 1st century ad to several hundred years after the event. they of all people had the best authoritative say regarding the authorships. the general public of that epoch wouldn't be easily deceive into believing a great falsehood either having some knowledge of the general events. would anyone today believe hamlet was not written by shakespeare? would you prefer to believe this casey guy, a man 2,000 years removed from the actual events?
dneuwen 1 year ago
the essenes were very reclusive people living in caves and wilderness like qumran. most of their writings like the dead sea scrolls dated 100 to 200 years earlier than the apostles. the gospels never even mention this group. baseless speculation to say an essene wrote the gospels and revelation. the church fathers like polycarp(c.105 ad) were bishops of these seven churches like smyrna. historically false to say these churches ceased to exist after ad 70. wiki, you should know, is a bad source.
dneuwen 1 year ago
another baseless speculation. can you show any earlier manuscript where the "multitude" verse is not included as proof? every known extant oldest manuscipt contains all verses currently found in revelation. by all reliable traditions, revelation was written by john around 90 ad while the siege of jerusalem was already over 20 years earlier. john was clearly speaking of much future events not the seige of 70 ad.
devout jews don't believe in horoscopes. number 12 is bible number for organization.
dneuwen 1 year ago
evolution is a made-up fantasy cloaked in science. but no matter how deceptive and loud the proponents of this fairy tale are they're continuously losing credibility in public opinion among americans the last decade. they're browbeating their way this 150 years propaganda -wise yet all they can offer are evidence so flimsy and disingenuous as to be corrupt intellectually.
see the meaning of origin and if you can tell what's first to first (not f lol) there's no contradiction.
dneuwen 1 year ago 2
law of biogenesis states that life can only come from pre-existing life. i don't quite grasp what relevance is not fully-formed lifeforms. the law debunks chemical evolution because it presupposes life came from lifeless mixture of organic compounds. it was exactly what pasteur demonstrated and so axiomatic it is called a law not a theory.
radiometric dating is baloney. it presupposes known original material, uniform rate of decay and no outside contamination which is absurd in open system.
dneuwen 1 year ago 2
you're reading too much into this schneider findings. every known mutation in the molecular level (point, inversion, indel, frame-shift, etc) suffers from greater loss of information and is often harmful to the organism. that's an irrefutable, observable fact.
rather, evolution is another psuedoscience in the mold of global warming. it is replete with speculative interpretations and overreaching conclusions. no success ever in experimental predictions. full of exaggerations and fudged datas.
dneuwen 1 year ago 2
brimming with evidence? you mean speculations, extrapolations, artist's depictions,propaganda, hoaxes, etc. give hard facts that are observable and testable. that's real science after all.
rather it puts into question the whole evolution thesis because collagen can't survive that long or that lazarus bacteria can't be that old since hydrolysis and decomposition process starts instantly at death. not even a very hardy bacteria can't last a million years let alone 250 milion years.
dneuwen 1 year ago 2
it's not ironic but just indicative of how sunken and compromised liberal theology has become. no surprise there since predicted apostasy is as old as the gospel itself.
the stupendous design in DNA storage is unmatched by any cutting-edge counterparts and it's illogic to claim natural forces and chance did it.
current, extant, but evolution can't explain how it came about in the first place. no natural process is shown to create intelligible information.
just give proof for my satisfaction
dneuwen 1 year ago 2
He knows it, he just wants the glory, all glory to God!!!
t0t8o 1 year ago
And the old 2nd law canard. Evolution doesn't violate it because the Earth is not a closed system.
Such pathetic canards have been debunked in the past, even without reference to relevant scientific literature, by people who pay attention to the scientific basics. Once the relevant scientific literature is consulted, these canards become obviously nonsense.
But please come back with more asinine comments.
dbes02 1 year ago
It has become clear that you just like to hear yourself talk and it is quite boring. If you have googled the admission by Richard Leowntin, or saw the end of the movie of Expelled where we see Dawkins speak, both of these situations clearly tell you that A. Science has an agenda and will not concede to a Eternal creator, which just makes sense.
t0t8o 1 year ago
it has become clear that you just like to hear yourself talking and it is quite boring.
If were to, say, take the concept of the god of the Bible, we find that the scientific evidence makes nonsense of Genesis - hence it is make-believe.
of course you may want to show evidence for for your god fairy.
dbes02 1 year ago
When a question is asked of a respected scientist with regard to how we got here, they never know but they know it couldn't be God. How pathetic is it to say that were not sure how it started but we know it wasn't God. All the science in the world as much as it is constantly changing will only prove to the design in creation. Science always testifies to designs. People like you are darkened by your pride and will never find any transtional fossils, because there aren't any.
t0t8o 1 year ago
The inanity of your argument is: if science can't tell us X then god did it. This is the pitiful "god of the gaps", an argument from ignorance. An infantile assertion that a naturalist needs evidence but a supernaturalist can just make things up. But there is excellent evidence for how we got here: evolution of complex from simple life form. And excellent evidence for chemical evolution, the origin of life (which is simply chemicals). Religious claims get ground into the dirt.
dbes02 1 year ago
@t0t8o The same reason you know Titans from greek mythology did not create the world. Just cause i do not understand something fully does not i can use a myth. A believer in the god Ahura Mazda will argue exactly like you would. He would ask someone to explain how this physical wold came to be. They would say we think "blah blah, but we are not sure". He would say, seeeeee how can u say ur not sure how it started but u can say for sure ahura mazda didnt do it. U have no point here.
DRoooPHILTH 1 year ago
The biggest fairy tale ever is the planet of the apes you people think we came from, what a complete joke. Now the evidence for that is so sad and is always wrong it is supposed or what it would have looked like. Darwin in the orgin of species refers to a creator and calls him God 7 times. You have no argument. Truth He ripped off Edward Blyth anyway....Check
t0t8o 1 year ago
Many transitional fossils. Every living thing past and present is a type of transitional fossil. Humans don't come from apes. They share a common ancestor. The theory of evolution is one of the most successful theories of all time. It accounts brilliantly for the data. So Darwin talked about God? Irrelevant to the evidence. He ripped off someone? Again irrelevant. Just pitiful red herrings from you.
Science brilliantly testifies to natural processes.Making nonsense of religious claims.
dbes02 1 year ago
every living things past and present is a type of transitional fossil. and every trees is a type of transitional banana. and where is this common ancestor? all speculations, fantasy. majority of fossils like jellyfish, coelecanths, wollemi pine tree, etc, look exactly the same as today. a more logical conclusion is that there is not really millions of years gap between the two. that supposedly millions of years of sediments in geologic time without any trace of them supports this evaluation.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Apostasy is indeed old - the fist Christians were apostates.
Information storage in the genome through natural processes is perfectly logical, consistent with Kolmogorov's analysis of information storage.
The information doesnt have to be"intelligible". No minds involved.
Scientific literature shows many examples of beneficial mutations. You're welcome to read them and refute them. Even a duplication of a gene is additional information.
dbes02 1 year ago
for all we know kolmogorov's analysis doesn't say how it all came about just a depiction of the process already at work. it doesn't explain why the 4-letter nucleotides only and not use more amino acids.
ksh7yerhhdu - is this an example of information for you? can RNA read what it means and transmit?
i don't question examples of "beneficial" mutation. what at issue is does it increase genetic information? no everytime.
a duplicated gene like for a hand for therapod will not produce a wing.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Exactly, evolution is brilliantly observable, testable. Real science. Two of the most obvious predictions of the theory which came true were genes and DNA.
DNA/molecular biology provides brilliant evidence for common descent.
What has the survival of collagen got to do with evolution?
Lazarus bacteria resurrects itself! I thought youd be excited about that. Especially as the Jesus meme has proven to be as pernicious, malicious and destructive as the most deadly bacteria.
dbes02 1 year ago
you often misread what i wrote. first, i said evolution per se is NOT observed. dawkins inadvertently affirmed it when he said it is observed just that it is NOT OBSERVED WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
prediction of genes was first proposed by mendel, a creationist,
molecular biology doesn't show increase in genetic material for protozoa ancestor to be a metazoa to support common descent.
evolution which relies in millions of years is debunked with collagen in fossils and lazarus bacteria.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Definition of law of biogenesis provided. You believe life came from non life, so what's your problem other than sinking your own argument.
If radioactive decay was at a different rate, turning billions of years into a few thousand, everything would have fried (radiation produces heat). So much for stupidity young earth creationist claims.
And all those archaeological finds relevant to Biblical history would be nonsense.
Independent measures other than radiometry show multi-billion year agee.
dbes02 1 year ago
another misread. i believe life came from pre-existing life only and it is evolutionist who believe the opposite contradicting the very law of biogenesis.
what is the half-life of say c14? about 5,000 years. even if we increase the decay rate to 10x it will still be 500 years. for uranium about million years. even if we increase the rate exponentially still we have big numbers here. so even if radiation produces extreme heat i don't see why it would fry the specimen every 500 years or so.
dneuwen 1 year ago
you also have to understand that radiometric date is calibrated by the remaining amount of radioisotopes in the specimen. the lesser the amount the older it is according to evolutionary paradigm. if the decay rate is much faster in times past than it is today, then naturally you would have much lesser remaining amount making the specimen much older than it actually is.
dneuwen 1 year ago
The fossil record is excellent evidence for evolution, showing much change. Humans show fascinating progression through the fossil record. Science is a brilliantly self-correcting, and evolution theory is yet to falter. What the American population believes is irrelevant. And your "satisfaction" of no consequence at all, given the stupidity of your arguments.
As the scientific evidence makes nonsense off Genesis - myths like every creation story. You need some coherent evidence to move forward.
dbes02 1 year ago
No. The Cambrian explosion castes much doubt.
Questfortruth86 1 year ago
How?
dbes02 1 year ago
Clearly it didn't cast as much doubt as first thought. Maybe somebody checked out a little scientific research. :-)
CornCob6000 1 year ago
above is all opinion, less fact. for one the fossil record shows not gradual change but the sequence of the burial of organisms in the past. if for example cataclysmic flood buried fauna and flora in one swoop, the sedimentation will just reveal one strata with fossils buried overlying another. not milions of years of geologic time.
science indeed is self-correcting and one example is the credence of catastrophism causing several formations like scablands superseding aeons of sedimentation.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Completely relevant, it shows that he worked towards an agenda, Darwin said to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess absurd in the highest degree. You have no rudementry skills in the slightest. You talk alot but don't understand that if someone can use your argument against you, then you have NOTHING!....u too easy...think....
t0t8o 1 year ago
Agendas are irrelevant to the evidence.
And Darwin was correct. The eye evolved by natural selection - many times, through different animal paths. Darwin didn't have the genetic mechanism - we do. And it fits brilliantly. My argument is not based on Darwin. Its based on the genius of science.. Dont worry, Im immune to your insults.
dbes02 1 year ago
Agenda skews evidence and what it means. Richard Leowntin already admitted that, and Dawknins said that a serious case can be made for a diety. I'm sorry that you are so intent but your own people amit that there is serious holes and gaps that are just assumed. That will never give 100% on anything.
t0t8o 1 year ago
And still the genius of science goes on. Obviously science doesn't always change. The Earth still orbits the Sun.
Just because something doesn't change doesn't mean it's correct. What a ridiculous thing to say. But regardless, Christians believe that the laws of their god changed (old to new), so your whole position is nonsense.
Meanwhile, all the evidence about the way the world works supports naturalism - the rational position.
dbes02 1 year ago
You fail to see that when someone says something that goes against what they have done or ar currently doing. that means they negate what they have provided as evidence. Darwin is guility of this. Everyone knows this and it is not hard to see. This is all the evidence anyone would need to see that this hypothesis is weak at best, just like Dr. Leowntin stated in his omission. Read it, I know it will break your heart but science is your faith,but it won't lead u anywhere because too many holes...
t0t8o 1 year ago
People can say things. Why does it "go against me"? There is no evidence for any god - argument from ignorance. How does it "negate evidence"?
Science is based on evidence, hence it is not faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, an ignoble and ignorant endeavour. Naturalism is the rational position.
dbes02 1 year ago
Faith comes from hearing the words of God and of Jesus and the Bible is the best kept set of scriptures spannig over thousands of years. The Bible blows science away because science always changes and God's word does not....
t0t8o 1 year ago
Exactly, faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Ignorant, ignoble and irresponsible.
Playing the faith card is useless. According to faith, every religion is the true way.
So what if Jesus said something? Irrelevant. Your beliefs about "judgement day" also irrelevant, with the same evidence base as belief in fairies - nil.
The Quran teaches that those who reject Islam will burn in Hell. You're going to Hell. Or maybe you're not covered by Islam's "laws"? Well I'm not covered by yours.
dbes02 1 year ago
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
t0t8o 1 year ago
Quoting something from a book is useless as evidence. All it does is beg the question - a pitiful fallacy.
Mr Romans is presenting a classic argument from ignorance. If that's all you provide, it is quite pathetic.
dbes02 1 year ago
Actually you r the one who is ignorant, meaning you are informed. So you'll want to know that the historical and archeological evidence for the Bible in impecable. The new testment which the book of Romans comes from, has been constructed with 100% of the Greek text. 5600 copies testify to the accountability of the people and stories in it. You have been darkened by satan and he is using science as a veil over your mind. Your promblem is that u rely on physcial evidence, the spiritual is NOT.
t0t8o 1 year ago
I mean uninformed and you an incredulious person.
t0t8o 1 year ago
My information, as shown, is impeccable. Archaeology shows nothing for the supernatural. The Romans kept great records, and great archaeological evidence, therefore their gods are real. You can have a million copies of nonsense - still nonsense. We must rely on empirical evidence - it's the only way shown to work. Religious belief always shown to be nonsense. But you contradict yourself - using empirical evidence when it suits then saying you dont need it when suits - more nonsense from you.
dbes02 1 year ago
It shows that the scriptures that make up 100% of the new testament prove to the sites and locations where Jesus walked, lived, died, and rose from the grave and even who he appeared to after his ressurection. Also we have secular histiorians testify to a man named Jesus who lived during this time. So people who weren't even his follower testified to his life. The author and sustainer of it all. Science only testifies to the creation of the Creator. Your pride blinds you. for what?
t0t8o 1 year ago
The genius of science testifies to natural processes. No supernatural required. Naturalism is the rational position.
Names of sites in the Bible? Doesnt even provide evidence that Jesus lived.
HG Wells referred to London in War of the Worlds, therefore Martians invaded Earth.
Every historical novel written suddenly becomes true. You've made a brilliant discovery!
Contemporary historians didnt write about Jesus. Later ones referred to Christians ranting about him. Still no evidence.
dbes02 1 year ago
You see what u wanna see and thus in deep darkness. Have you ever told a lie? Stolen anything? Looked with lust? Jesus said whoever has looked with lust has already committed adlutery with her in his heart. If you have then you r a lying,thieving,adlutery at heart and on Judgement day you will be found guilty and end up in Hell, forever. But that's not God's will. We broke his law (10 commandments) but Jesus paid our fine on the cross. Died and rose again. If you repent and trust the savior.
t0t8o 1 year ago
God will forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life. So confess your sins to God today, put your faith in Christ then read the Bible daily and obey what u read. (see John 14:21) Be sensible and get right with God today...
t0t8o 1 year ago
But you're welcome to your infantile attachment to fairy tales.
dbes02 1 year ago
Only 144,000 Jewish male virgins will be saved, 12,000 form each tribe. Doesn't include me, so let's have some fun!
dbes02 1 year ago
read on further and you will discover that a great multitude from every nation, tribe, and language will also be protected from the coming day of the LORD judgment (rev. 7). the 144,000 comprises the twelve tribes except dan. most like joseph and manasseh are not jews (from the tribe of judah) and historically formed the northern kingdom of israel opposite the southern kingdom of judah during the schism after solomon's death and the reign of his son rehoboam.
dneuwen 1 year ago
If you think decay rates have increased, then the archaeology used to support biblical dates is nonsense. You stupidly contradict yourself - now the Biblical dates are wrong. Where is evidence for higher decay rates in the past? Other creationist carry on that rates were higher! 750,000x to get from 4.5 billion years down to 6,000 years. Frying everything.
144,000 to be saved, no Christians allowed, no room for gentile pigs (I love the way 1st century Jews called non-Jews swine.)
dbes02 1 year ago
if put into consideration the flood upheaval caused rapid production of c14 then naturally artefacts close to the flood would have higher number of c14 thus older dates. but after the flood the rate had stabilized hence more or less accurate dates from 4,000 years ago up to the present. so archaeology generally got right biblical dates.
why should creationist use 4.5 billion age (purely speculative) as factor to calculate decay rates?
jews like paul disagrees. he an apostle to the gentiles.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Kolmogorov's analysis about storage of information. (But you don't even know what he did, "for all we know"). Now DNA is ONLY 4 letters, not more? First everything's too complex, now it's too simple? More nonsense from you.
If every fossil was 6000 years old collagen would be flowing out of every bone - but it doesn't. Why not? For the hard of hearing: Lazarus bacteria - discovery of a novel genetic repair process that allows a desert microbe to die and resurrect over and over again.
dbes02 1 year ago
so explain. for all we know just like ida and countless others another propaganda, another dud. DNA uses 4 nitrogenous letters AGCT. but the information is like all editions of complete sets of encyclopedia britannica.
depends on the pressure and minerals in situ. fact is almost all fossils are hardly wholly permineralized. in marshlands of britain, new fossils are made quickly by the reaction of bacteria and minerals.
you think a bacteria is the longest living not the alleged bristlecone?
dneuwen 1 year ago
Geologic evidence contraedciting global flood not based on C14.
4.5b years based on evidence.
Paul is irrelevant. May as well quote Donald Duck.
DNA is a complex molecule that can can react in a large number of ways with other organic molecules. Just chemistry.
Dating of sediments by many independent measures shows millions of years.
Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber takes millions of years more.
Please come back with more nonsense and arguments from ignorance.
dbes02 1 year ago
i used c14 only because wer'e talking of archeological dates specifically. now geologic evidence shouts mostly for catastropic event not gradual process. the burial of whole forest resulting in coal speaks of catastrophe likely massive flood with colossal mudflows.
paul is not irrelevant. he founded most of the gentile churches.
DNA is information. you don't get that just by molecules reacting in number of ways (whatever that means.)
where you there when amber was in its initial stage?
dneuwen 1 year ago
Geologic evidence contradicts glob al flood.
Paul irrelevant
DNA just chemical proceeses.
Were you there?
dbes02 1 year ago
Fist you say beneficial mutations don't exist, now yoy accept them! More nonsense from you. Yes, evolution is observed eg, in adaption by bacteria. Funny how the fossil record is so ordered - no evidence for global flood, like humans in the Cambrian.
No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent: DNA is stunning evidence, predictions of common descent confirmed from independent areas of science, no contradictory evidence yet confirmed.
dbes02 1 year ago
beneficial mutations do exist in the sense the always infomation-loss mutations, hence not really beneficial, happen to have some advantages for an organism in a particular setting. for example a flightless cormorant in a windy island.
adaptation is natural selection not evolution from goo to zoo. equivocation.
cambrian fossils all marine animals would not include humans or land animals since they lived in different ecological niche.
DNA shows no common descent only variation within kinds.
dneuwen 1 year ago
All evidence contradicts global flood. Evolution predicts hereditary mechanism - genes. Fulfilled.
If life comes from life and God is life, then God came from other life - so your argument is nonsense again.
Biology shows mutations can increase information and be beneficial.
Humans lived in a later time to the Cambrian period.
DNA is excellent evidence for common descent.
Natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism.
And DNA was a product of chemical evolution - no god fairies required.
dbes02 1 year ago
evolution should predict an amoeba turning into euglena, fly into a wasp or a monkey into a chimp. unfulfilled.
not if that LIFE is eternal meaning no beginning or end. still not grasping the meaning of eternal.
mutations don't increase information. you don't see a fly mutate with a bee sting.
humans lived on land while cambrian jellyfishes lived on sea. cambrian shows the sequential burial of things (marine life first) not million-age gap.
DNA shows limits of mutations barring goo to zoo.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Mutations have been shown to increase information.
If a god fairy is a life form then according to you it must have come from other life, therefore not eternal.
Evolution from simple to complex life forms consistent with all the evidence.
Fly with bee sting irrelevant.
No evidence for humans in Cambrian period. Cambrian period over a period of 50 million years.
DNA chemically evolved from simpler chemicals. No limits.
dbes02 1 year ago
give specific example of mutation resulting in increase in information that produces phenotype not found before.
false premise(disregarding that LIFE is already eternal), therefore false conclusion.
you say mutation adds information. how about a fly mutating with a new information for butterfly wings?
cambrian period about 400 million years according to the illusion of evo-religionists.
rational thinking man can't even duplicate DNA and you want us to believe it just happened to evolve.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Skin colour.
If life must come from life - therefore a god fairy must come from other life. Your stupid argument.
Cambrian period 500 million years ago based on evidence.
Fly with butterfly wings - strawman. Evolution doesnt predict that everything that can be thought of must have happened . More stupidity from you.
So what if humans cant duplicate DNA?
Evidence shows chemical evolution.
dbes02 1 year ago
skin color? only a matter of melanin not new phenotype.
that life IS ETERNAL. look for the meaning of eternal.
not based on evidence but based on faulty and biased interpretation of evidence.
ok, how about predict a repetition of the supposed evolution of dino into bird tomorrow? out of billions of step-by-step evolution, surely we should see even one at some point.
not if you can predict 5,000 PIN nos. correctly at one try will you even remotely have the miracle of chemical evolution.
dneuwen 1 year ago
Exactly, wide variations in human skin tones have been correlated with mutations in a gene.
No evidence life is eternal.
Biological evolution won't occur the same way. It's not pre-determined, and events around it aren't predtermined. Earth happens to get hit by a meteor - leads to different outcomes. Chemical evolution isn't pre-determined either. No evidence that life is irreducibly complex.. No need to appeal to god fairies.
dbes02 1 year ago
various sin colors are not mutations. perhaps, red-haired with rudddy skin. however it does not produce say dermal scales as should mutations leading to evolution per se would do. it's still human skin not a feather or scales.
all the more it adds to the highest impossibility of chemical or biological evolution admitting no pre-determination, its unpredictability.
so a meteor probably spawned life on earth. are you that dogmatically blind to see that this is stuff fairy tales are made of?
dneuwen 1 year ago
Like you've said many times - something can't explain it's own existence. So a god fairy can't explain its own existence. Sunk by your own stupidity.
dbes02 1 year ago
No evidence life is already eternal - premise stands.
dbes02 1 year ago
there is evidence for eternal life. that life had been witnessed many times, by 500 people at one time. the critics during that period had no plausible explanation and the rules of evidence based on judicial court rulings overwhelmingly back up the claim of these many witnesses. history, rule of courts on evidence, 1st-century tradition and logic lend credence.
talking of predictions, here, real fulfilled predictions or prophecies too bolster the existence ot this eternal life and power.
dneuwen 1 year ago
No evidence at all, just someone writing that 500 people saw something. Just like in a novel. Plausible explanation - someone just made it up. Would be thrown out of court.
No REAL fulfilled prophecies of anything.
If life must come from life, then according to your claim a god must come from previous life.
dbes02 1 year ago
well, tell that to other thousands of readers and hearers who were contemporaries and knowledgeable about the unfolding events. if someone would make them up they would already be discredited and disgraced right there and then. dan brown and the 9/11 truthers are modern examples of made-up stories. a hundred years from now no one will even remember them.
dneuwen 1 year ago
@dneuwen Stop ur strawman bulshit who said a fly got mutated and turned into a butterfly. Jesus Christ.... You are ignorant.
DRoooPHILTH 1 year ago