no evidence for spontaneous generation occurring naturally in nature in all of history. There is no evidence for one animal gaining genetic information through beneficial mutations. There is no evidence for evolution at all, except for in the imagination. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are the same thing just different speeds. Neither are possible in nature
Do you believe that life is made of non-life? If life is made of non-life, is it possible that any one simple life, givin all the past time, could have been assembled from non-life? If life is not made of non-life, what is life made of?
Just once I would like a theist to talk about biological evolution without the erroneous comparison with cosmology. Is any but the most foolish convinced by this?
Well, if we're going to get technical, there are millions of ways that the universe could have come to be. One particular example is that we were created from the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodley appendages.
@koolkranny There's an infinite number of ways that the universe could be completed. Say you have a universe created in the most basic way possible. That universe continues to only have one life form. that life form develops a subconcious, the subconcious generates other quantum realities with other ways that the universe started. those realities spawn living organisms and then spawn more universes. everything's happening all the time, and at the same time.
Living as humans define the term in common english means a biological form , that eats, excretes and a few other things within a definition of plant , animal or bacteria. Does God do any of those ? If yes please show it , a lump of Gods poop would do, if not , then why do you claim a living God. ?
"If life can only come from life, then the Big Bang is NOT scientific!" , er wut ! you seem to have missed a few steps there . Pastuer only showed that spontaneous generation was wrong, thats fully formed complex animals appearing from nothing, like mice in grain or maggots in meat. Abiogenesis is something different.
Are you saying that God breaks the laws he himself set in place ?
You conflate evolution and big bang cosmology.
There are many creation stories and other science ideas.
I think you're forgetting the other alternatives to evolution, like the Hindu, Native-American, tribal, and other creation myths, which are all just about as credible as the bible.
I love it when the scientifically illiterate try to educate the scientificallly literate on science of all things.
1) The Big Bang has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. At all.
Moving on: Louis Pasteur lived in the days when knowledge on science was extremely limited. During Louis Pasteur's time nobody knew that all living things were fundamentally made of nonliving things, supported by further nonliving systems. Knowledge of chemistry and biology were also extremely limited at the time.
Actually the Big Bang theory fits with the Bible since the Big Bang says that the universe came from nothing, in a singularity void of matter & energy, therefore an intelligent causation,God, is the result of the Big Bang. In physics the outlandish theory is string theory not the Big Bang theory since string theory involves multiple dimensions and infinite universes, which are beyond the lab, and are more theoretical based on mathematics than scientific claims.
Your tag line demonstreat you utter ignorance,"If life can only come from life, then the Big Bang is NOT scientific"
The Big Bang has nothing to do with life, is has to do with cosmology not biology. The truth of Evolution is not contingent on the truth of the Big bang.
And PLEASE, stop saying that the big bang is nothing exploding into everything, it is everything expanding from an infintesimal point, stop attacking strawmen.
Creation is right, but it should be taught the way it really happened. God blew his bad breath(no toothpaste yet) over a clump of mud and, voila, it came alive and upright and all was well. Question remains, did Adam have a penis ? Because Eve was only created when Adam felt lonely and complained to god about it. Suppose god had given Adam a computer, and he had never felt lonely again, what would have happened. ? I leave this question for the theologians.
@Jmonkey515 I'm not saying there's a third choice. The framing of what he said makes absolutely no sense. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang for one thing, and the god of the Christian Bible is one of thousands of made-up deities humans have spewed over the millennia. Somehow IT is on par with evolution and the big bang when it comes to explaining anything?? Preposterous!! Like I said, he's an ignoramus
@Slacktoo hmm your right humans have mad up a lot of Gods but non of them lay the claim the god of the bible does s and proves it with historical accuracy and prophecy all coming true think about it for a second
@christlover3000 " historical accuracy and prophecy all coming true" Nothing of the sort. There is NO historical or archaeological support for most of the Bible myths. Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. The Exodus and Wanderings never happened. And the prophecies have NOT been fulfilled. Heck, even Jesus' prophecy that some of the folks in his audience " will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." did not happen. Seen any 2,000 year old Xians?
@christlover3000 Some prophecies are "fulfilled" by the simple expedient of inventing and writing a fulfillment that never happened in fact. An example is Matthew 2:13-15, which has Jesus as a child being hauled off to Egypt to escape the "slaughter of the innocents". Neither the move to Egypt nor the slaughter ever took place. Matthew wrote this lie to be able to say "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." " This never happened.
"living god" life is defined as the period between conception and death, to say that god is living is to say he had a beginning and he will have an end.
Yes, biogenesis is science, and some of us actually understand it
"one of those two actually lines up with science" hint, it's not the latter.
You would be so much better off it you just stop your embarrassing attempts to ad hoc rationalize your desert myth.
Also, saying the God of the Bible, and the Big Bang are the only two options is a false dichotomy. What about the God of the Quran, Zeus, Thor, Juju, Mythra? What about the multiverse theory? What about a natural occurrence that we don't yet understand? A true dichotomy is God and Not God, or Big Bang and Not Big Bang. But Big Bang and God is a false dichotomy. It is called fallacy of exclusion.
Good job using an outdated scientific source. The Miller-Urey experiment proves you wrong. Evolution is a fact. Abiogenesis is something completely different. Evolution happened. You may wish to believe god started it, but why? We have a good understanding of how it started. And the Big Bang, Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the beginning of the universe are all SEPERATE CONCEPTS. Stop muddling them into one thing.
Miller-Urey is still valid. The purpose of Miller-Urey was to show how life could have started from non living materials. They succeeded. Science still bases abiogenesis experiments off of that first one. It's not outdated. It being improved upon.
So which is outdated, Louis Pastuer, or Miller-Urey. Let's see Miller-Urey, 1950's. Pasteur, late 1800's. Looks like the NEW scientific discoveries from Miller-Urey showed that Louis Pasture, while a genius of his day, was not aware of the building blocks of life, (amino acids) and couldn't have been aware of a way that life could come from non living materials. Now that we understand better what life is made of, we can understand how it might form into life.
@riseofatheism Bio genesis is not outdated it is still used in the scientific community today life produces life though i do agree god had to create everything based on complexity I don't believe it is only six thousand years old ma by 6 billion at the least either way their has to be a designer and the god of the bible seems most legitimate.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. And yes there is evidence for abiogenesis. And if you're not willing to look it up for yourself, then I'm sorry, that's not really our problem.
@MrPrior69 Another thing. Non living things are very very very patient. in fact they're so patient that they had hundreds of millions of years of random combination generation on a planet with water on it. Now i'm fairly sure that i cant live hundreds of millions of years to conduct an experiment on the generation of life. And i'm doubly sure that creating a completely enclosed environment for my water over all that timespan is equally impossible with current technology.
The way they sound so sure of the things they espouse.
Whatever happened to EDUCATION???
Science is so evil, that I'll drive around in a car, use a mobile phone, a camcorder, computer, and when I get ill, I've got SO much faith the first thing I do is dash off to the doctors, for some of that scientific modern medicine.
Gross hypocrisy springs to mind.
OHHH, sorry, I forgot all THOSE things aren't science are they???
that's not what every court that has been asked to decide has said, there is a very good reason creation "science" has lost every time to evolution (actual science) in well over a dozen trials. the reason is that creationism isn't science, and doesn't belong in our public education system run by the government.
hahaha you say mans limit of knowledge is better than God's infinite knowledge.. therefor shouldn't be in school systems, because we don't want kids to think to much now do we?
no, what i was hinting at was that the government shouldn't be biased towards any particular religion. kids can think as much as they want, as long as our public institutions don't favor one religion over another. evolution is not a religion, as our courts have decided many times.
have you looked into the "facts" of evolution? i'm not even a small chance convinced i came from a single cell organism at one point. so when you have many people saying the same thing also i believe there should be something else taught for people to speculate on if they do not wish to dismiss something greater to them than what a scientist has stated. i say stated because that is what we are taught.. the statements of darwin.. not findings..
actually i have looked into the facts, and so have our courts. the courts have decided that evolution is fact and that it belongs in our science classrooms. whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, but you're welcome to try to convince the american judicial system otherwise. a word of warning, though, you will probably fail just like all the others have. i'm not opposed to kids being taught about religion as long as every major religion is covered, and not in the science classroom.
ya i never even said i wanted to do that, but ya.. you didn't even know about the universe having an end or a begining so this conversation doesn't have much room to grow, cept for hahaha you'll never get into the education system.. ya God has been slowly getting pushed out for awhile now if you hadn't noticed that, i doubt they're going to throw a party to welcome Him back with creationism
@martiangrundy their is noting wrong with science except when it is turned into a secular humanist religion that gives nothing but its own points and nothing to the others Oh and just so you know I believe that God is the ultimate scientist I also believe God could have are had to created the universe over time because either way its just to complex to have happened by random chance in only 13.7 billion years scince and the bible fit together like a door and its key
because in this dimension there is no eternal because we have time and time has begining and end unfortunattely, however God doesn't stay in this dimension and is not bound to the laws of this dimension
no one knows what came before the big bang, it isn't a finished or complete idea. i'm not convinced the big bang was the beginning of time. i think time is what exists between two events. for something to happen, it must come from a point of where it hasn't happened. for there to be a bang at all there must have been time, otherwise nothing could have changed. as for time having an end, well i don't think there is any real evidence to support that either.
uh, well it's all pretty fascinating. but even if the universe is "finite" that's not any sort of evidence for the existence of god... and furthermore you'd be hard pressed to show how that first cause was YHWH as opposed to anything else. and relating to the video, bio-genesis is only concerned with "life" in a way that doesn't really include an invisible diety that lives outside of time and space and isn't composed of matter, that supposedly can't die... god certainly isn't biological...
Well actually no. It turns out that the theory of an increasingly expanding universe is concurrent with observations. When you take the same formulas to calculate back at time, it turns out the universe could only come into existence if there was an quantum mechanical nothing. For quantum mechanics, time is no factor of influence, and if a state is reached of absolute 0 quantum particles, this inevitably leads to a big bang (read Lawence Kraus).
Hi Daniel, agreed evolution is myth & bad science but it is possible to harmonize big bang theory with creation. It's hilarious & sad to recall athiests (who postulated eternal universe) sweat it out & reposition when big bang gained widespread acceptance.
The bible always said there was a beginning - Thank God, His Holy Word is proven is right again.
Of course athiests don't care much for the facts. they'd rather believe everything just fell into place, life popped out of slime etc.
Regarding age of universe debate: I have a theory that there was convergances of additional metaphysical dimensions (several additional dimensions are being shown as mathematical possibilties in quantum physics, & help explain string theory) at the start of creation (the big bang - when time itself was created) which might explain how the universe might appear older than it is, & why after all these so-called "billions of years" in spite of law of entropy the stars haven't all burned out.
Isn't it ironic that this concept, featured in the title for this video series, doesn't even exist?
There is no such thing as scientific proof! Mathematics uses proofs, and Science uses theories. Although theories are akin to proofs, and hold a similar weigh in value, they are not the same thing.
"CREATARDS, this is your Lord speaking. I command you to get an education!"
betty, if you think atheism is the GOOD fruit of the age of enlightenment I have one more reason to feel sorry for you.
Dr. Behe; Dr. Dembski; Dr. Gonzalez; Dr. Craig; thousands of other EDUCATED men have seen the lies,& evil agenda in the new age teachings & have dedicated their lives to exposing them. there are THOUSANDS more across the campuses of this nation.
There's no point in continuing the discussion - Ujust came here to be Satan's puppet, to mock and insult those of Christian faith.
This has very little to do with mocking people of faith. It has, instead, more to do with mocking those that choose to engage in the uttering of propaganda and complete and utter bunkum.
As for Satan's puppet, pnnfff! What? OK, so now I've been relegated to the fiery depths of demon sidekick. Great! How intellectually honest of you to admit your inner most thoughts and feelings, about my eternal soul's persuasion. Satan? Haha! Oh, dear oh deary me. Have you been reading too much Harry Potter?
As much as I've enjoyed talking to you, and witnessing the inner-most workings of the creationist mind, first hand. I gotta tell you, apart from your description of the eyes being a tool for collecting two dimensional images (which I don't yet know enough on to contest), you've said very little by ways of enlightening me.
I was also hoping to hear something from your lawyer and philosopher friends you spoke so highly of. They turn you down?
I mean, do you have the balls to actually ask them for their opinions, and to see if they can help you in your keyboard warrior quest to prove me wrong?
Remember these?
-Scientific Theory
-Scientific Law
-Mathematical Proof
-Preponderance of evidence (lowest level of proof)
-Beyond a reasonable doubt (highest level of proof)
All you have to do is provide a description that matches your words, or your definition, in contrast to the words I used in my definition. Provide your sources too please.
Well, to save yourself the trouble of picking apart my language, why don't you simply Google the said terms, and find out what is said elsewhere. Then say "Hey betty, check it out. Read it and weep" "Here are my sources too"
This is an exercise for your own good. Look at it this way, the next time you debate an atheist, you won't look so ignorant. And you'll have a far more pleasant time debating them, than you've so far had with me. I'm equipping you with weapons, not destroying your armour.
I see that you were unable to refute both betty's and my arguments, and come back with definitions that supported your claims of what the above words meant. Damn, humble pie is hardly the most pleasant dish to consume. However, at least I wouldn't mind eating it, if I meant that it would increase my knowledge, as well as potentially raise the level of respect in the eyes of my opponent.
Godless, I'm not here to digress from the subject of Daniel's conversation with your rabbit trail discussions of linguistics and word definitions. Daniel made his point, and I've made mine - the only point you've atheists made is you're a bunch of jerks.
We may very well be jerks, but at least most of us are probably honest jerks. In that we - like theists - seek out those things that can be perceived as true. The difference is, we use ALL the tools we can find to arrive at the best answer at that time. If we don't know the answer, we say "we don't know". Whereas your camp, well, they tend to use nothing more than a little black book of bronze age, goat herder stories, to fill in all the "I don't know(s)" with "Magic man in the sky dunnit(s)".
I'd like to think that I've been rather respectful to you in our exchange. I can't see one insult that I have used such as "You're a jerk" or "Stink brained theists" or the like. So why do you feel the need to vent your frustrations thus? Are you not man enough to simply have an adult discussion, with a person why may hold an opposing view? Are you all brawn and no brain?
Anyway, in reference to your comment concerning"..linguistics and word definitions", well, I wasn't on about that so much..
..instead, I was awaiting your response to a comment (see: "Scientific Proof of the Bible #3: Thermodynamics"), where I provided you with a number of statements - from a number of rather respectable individuals - who clearly state that there is no such thing as scientific proof.
In not replying, I can only but infer that you have, indeed, digressed from this matter, due to the fact that your intellectual ego has taken a rather wicked whipping, leaving you too bruised to continue. Well?
No I accept it because I have no counter argument. That's called intellectual honesty! You should try it some time, maybe you'll like it and apply it too.
Show me the evidence and I'll stop running from god.
So, are you going to approach your friends or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
But back to your comment about accepting your explanation for one thing, but not for something else. Yes I did. You're right. But why wouldn't I? If you offer me an explanation about any given thing, which sounds credible at first glance. Then why wouldn't I accept it? What's preventing me from going "OK, well sounds fair and reasonable. I can't yet challenge it, so I'll put it on the mantle piece till I can". I'm not in the habit of saying things like "You liar" or "You're wrong" willy-nilly.
Instead, I'll take on board what you have to say, and if I don't know anything about the topic. I'll investigate further, and then come back to you once I've reached a reasonable conclusion that you are wrong, or incorrect on a given matter, and I'll happily provide my sources for your review too.
Why do you think that I determined those preconditions right off the bat? It's not because I was trying to irritate you, it's because in order to have a "fair and balanced" (thanks FAUX "News")
....discussion/debate, you need to set some boundaries: rules of engagement if you will, and you need to agree on a single definition of a given term, word or even an idea, before you can even advance a single argument. Otherwise you'll get what you've created in this discussion, which is a dog chasing it's tail the whole time.
Had you approached this discussion from an academic perspective, then you would have advanced your argument far better. Instead, you've created..this...mess!
Wow, you guys have been going at it for days now. Hahaha, don't you guys ever give up? It's obvious that you won't see eye-to-eye on anything, so why (not that's it's any of my business) do you keep this up?
You don't write much here on this video, but I gotta go with Betty again if she/he is carrying on with you guys' conversation here too, then I think she/he is right. If she/he is providing you with academic sources, then the arguments are much more closely akin to those found in academia.
And it would appear that you've failed to provide any such sources, at least that is betty's charge.
In addition, it doesn't look - to me at least - as though betty is challenging your beliefs, or the existence of god, but more that she/he wants to challenge the merits of your argument. Don't you think? Well, that's how it appears to me at least. It's not my argument, but sometimes a fresh set of eyes helps to reflect light on a given matter.
Something that popped in to existence ("God") that IS life, was created from nothing, created life by saying Alacazam! (or something of the sort). Also, evolution can't be correct, because its completely natural and logical, which is something you certainly can't agree with. So your hypothesis would be, "If something appeared from nothing that is life, then he must create life. I think this because I don't want to go to hell, and I like fairy-tales."
You didn't even think your argument that far through...not even that far...seriously?
Lies and lies and lies.. you'd surely burn for eternity if your beliefs were correct. You know very well you're misrepresenting everything you're claiming to refute; you're too old to be that ignorant of science. Take a step back and think for once.
@xccmx you're more alive there than you are here. your filled with the holy spirit and walking the streets of gold with Jesus Christ. all knowledge on earth is miniscule to what we will learn in Heaven for there is no limit to human understanding in the eternal Heaven. this life on Earth is but a journey to the eternal of which there are two paths, the path of the rightousness and the path of evil and sin. everyone is on the "highway to hell", only God chooses who to take off that road.
@xccmx oh very much so, more alive than what we can comprehend. he is involved in everything and is not only alive in the eternal but his holy spirit lives within us. on earth, its all a SUPERnatural thing, not in the sense that its just ghosts of which do not interact with us, he is within us. he is the reason for our conscience and our moral and spiritual attributes.
Perhaps you should read the law yourself. It specifically mentions "modern organisms".
For such an important subject, you demonstrate that you have taken absolutely no steps to ensure you understand and are correctly representing what you're trying to convey.
How immoral. Instead of urinating into the fountain of knowledge, how about you do some work and make sure your points are accurate.
2 chioses?? where in the world have YOU BEEN LIVING?? because in earth there are more than 2 choises... there is one choise for almost every religion that ever existed.. just because you are of one religion doesnt mean that you are right.... thats all my friend. there you go.
neat only 2 choices, that clears up everything....Because there are only 2 creation myths oth there....wait rephrase there are many creation myths and a few theories the strongest of which is evolution...But I don't believe modern science could disobey a "Law of Biogenisis" so I will continue to put my lot in with the bigoted savages from 2000+ years ago...yep
Louis Pasteur made huge advances in the fields of immunology and microbiology, however he didn't know everything about biology.
The Law of Biogenesis also applies to MODERN organisms in the CURRENT world. It does not apply to, nor tries to apply to previous states of the earth, ie when abiogenesis occured.
Lastly, "God created everything" cannot be supported by science because it cannot be tested by science, no more so than the existence of unicorns and pixies.
Lol, there's being misinformed, and then there's just plain denial. Oh and yeah, I've very confident. Congrats to me. If you wanna debated, then I'd be happy to prove your fallacious arguments incorrect. Merci beaucoup.
What an incredible reach. Total arrogance to make that kind of a non-proven leap, and you know it! Be honest and maybe we can have a real discussion. Your theories are so full of holes and you KNOW IT. Your rant here doesn't even reach the level of a strawman argument.
What I thought. no arguments just personal insults. Not very becoming of the intellectual community. You get pushed into a corner with real logic and exposed and all you can come up with is ****you. I guess I should appreciate the courtesy of the asteriks. I really want to take you seriously and talk but you have to take the mean spirited rant approach to arguments. Try again please.
Why rant about science that is hundreds of years old..?
So, sorry. One star for lack of knowledge and logic. Just ask me and I'll provide you with a better understanding. You deserve it for not knowing any better.
Oh, so you are saying that the scientific community can get things wrong. Well if you got that wrong what makes you think that you've got it right this time. The Bible has never disagreed with "provable" science.
Oh, my god... there are poeple with even less understanding than the guy in the video? Obviously so.
Science can get things wrong. But here, whis was not the case. Spontaneous generation was never a science, since noone had "proven" it scientificly. SCIENCE - not creationism - proved it to be wrong.
There is NO such thing as provable science, I hope you get that. The Bible DOES disagree with provable science, and that's a fact.
Are you insinuating that you don't "trust" science?
First of all, why is it that you guys always have to start you comments with an insult. When you do that it just makes me not want to take you seriously. I didn't peraonally attack you with my comment. Secondly, you contridicted yourself in your next to last statement., "There is NO such thing as provable science" and then you go onto say that "the Bible DOES disagree with provable science. and that's a fact." So is there provable science or not? Of course Christians believe in science.
How come people think being created my a creator is weird. But evolving from a puddle of sludge isn't. See God is all powerfull, and I'm sure he can create life to produce life. A puddle of sludge, hows that gonna create anything?
Now whose being ridiculuous. You are proving what we've been saying all along, that your reason for taking God out of the equation of science is because yoiu just don't want to serve Jehovah God. And that's your choice, but please don't cop out by saying that He doesn't exist when you and I both no deep in our hearts and minds that he does.
life came form life which came from the big bang whihc came from a universal creator, but if god ultimtely created everythig then where did god, a thinking reasoning being, come from? no one can asnwer all questions in the universe ppl just accept some things, the big bang did occur and evolution does too, but going back from there is unanswerable
ok so you said the big bang made everything but came from nothing... but then you said some being made everything but then where did he come from? most people would say nowhere, "he was always there". So here, either the big bang which came from nothing made everything, or some being that came from nothing made everything.. and he also had a son from a virgin who was stabed by jews... idk man.. sounds kinda fakee.
even scientist agree something that created the universe had to have existed forever. Even time had a start which means whatever created the universe existed before even time!? sounds crazy, but this is exactly what the bible said thousands of years before scientist came to that conclusion
"it ASSERTS that living things can only come from another living thing"
Assert (making a claim without evidence) being the operative word.
Big Bang or the God of the bible is not a dichotomy. lol
First of all there are hundreds of different existing supernatural creation stories, and almost as many potential natural explanations, multiverse, aliens from another universe, timeless singularity.
Also evolution, the big bang, and abiogenesis are three entirely differe.nt things
Its unfortunate that your analogy shoots yourself in the foot.
You said your god is a living god. Thus this cannot be true as biogenesis says living things only come from other living things. So there must be other gods in order for your god to apear. so is god nonliving or are there more than 1 god?
if god is non living then there could not have been a jesus. as jesus is the product of god + mary and since god is nonliving he could not procreate with mary.
dear 3rdworlds.....sadly you have made far too much sense for the intellectual bankrupts and the bible bashers. while your simple logic is beautiful and reasonable, you are up against the ignorance of faith....good luck
It's funny how fully grown men can spout such utter nonsense with a straight face. Thank you creationism! Surely you make the world a more entertaining place. Though I feel kind of disillusioned with humanity.
There is no such thing as evolutionary Big Bang. Have the intellectual integrity to learn the correct definition of words and ideas you are trying to criticize.
If life can only come from life. Then the creation theory is not scientific. Don't mix actual science into bronze-age myths. How come people in Mesopotamia were ignorant of the Judaic/Christian god? Because we created them. Man created god.
Louis Pasteur disproved the spontaneous generation theory (That microorganisms can microorganisms can spontaneously combust, or create them-selfs.) by conducting a series of tests.
The big bang is actually quite probable and no reason for a Christian to think otherwise, as it points directly to God. For one, the bible afirms that God created from nothing, as the big bang afirms nothing to something. Google "Kalam Cosmological Argument" for example.
no evidence for spontaneous generation occurring naturally in nature in all of history. There is no evidence for one animal gaining genetic information through beneficial mutations. There is no evidence for evolution at all, except for in the imagination. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are the same thing just different speeds. Neither are possible in nature
BoloBeachBall 2 weeks ago
Do you believe that life is made of non-life? If life is made of non-life, is it possible that any one simple life, givin all the past time, could have been assembled from non-life? If life is not made of non-life, what is life made of?
floydnelson92 8 months ago
Pasture proved live does not ' spontaneously generate'' which has nothing to do with Abiogenesis or how live started on the earth.
gregrutz 9 months ago
This video is misleading and a misrepresentation of the truth. Fin.
aguteempasil 9 months ago
So... cosmology disproves biology?
Just once I would like a theist to talk about biological evolution without the erroneous comparison with cosmology. Is any but the most foolish convinced by this?
stramster1 9 months ago
Haha, funny to see how you Americans are so stupid. Good thing this nonsense is getting banned from schools.
UnlistedAccount 10 months ago
Well, if we're going to get technical, there are millions of ways that the universe could have come to be. One particular example is that we were created from the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodley appendages.
koolkranny 11 months ago
@koolkranny There's an infinite number of ways that the universe could be completed. Say you have a universe created in the most basic way possible. That universe continues to only have one life form. that life form develops a subconcious, the subconcious generates other quantum realities with other ways that the universe started. those realities spawn living organisms and then spawn more universes. everything's happening all the time, and at the same time.
shamen490 1 month ago
Living as humans define the term in common english means a biological form , that eats, excretes and a few other things within a definition of plant , animal or bacteria. Does God do any of those ? If yes please show it , a lump of Gods poop would do, if not , then why do you claim a living God. ?
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
"If life can only come from life, then the Big Bang is NOT scientific!" , er wut ! you seem to have missed a few steps there . Pastuer only showed that spontaneous generation was wrong, thats fully formed complex animals appearing from nothing, like mice in grain or maggots in meat. Abiogenesis is something different.
Are you saying that God breaks the laws he himself set in place ?
You conflate evolution and big bang cosmology.
There are many creation stories and other science ideas.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
I think you're forgetting the other alternatives to evolution, like the Hindu, Native-American, tribal, and other creation myths, which are all just about as credible as the bible.
HPAndranix 1 year ago
I love it when the scientifically illiterate try to educate the scientificallly literate on science of all things.
1) The Big Bang has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. At all.
Moving on: Louis Pasteur lived in the days when knowledge on science was extremely limited. During Louis Pasteur's time nobody knew that all living things were fundamentally made of nonliving things, supported by further nonliving systems. Knowledge of chemistry and biology were also extremely limited at the time.
tskasa1 1 year ago
Actually the Big Bang theory fits with the Bible since the Big Bang says that the universe came from nothing, in a singularity void of matter & energy, therefore an intelligent causation,God, is the result of the Big Bang. In physics the outlandish theory is string theory not the Big Bang theory since string theory involves multiple dimensions and infinite universes, which are beyond the lab, and are more theoretical based on mathematics than scientific claims.
bassmmbn3 1 year ago
Your tag line demonstreat you utter ignorance,"If life can only come from life, then the Big Bang is NOT scientific"
The Big Bang has nothing to do with life, is has to do with cosmology not biology. The truth of Evolution is not contingent on the truth of the Big bang.
And PLEASE, stop saying that the big bang is nothing exploding into everything, it is everything expanding from an infintesimal point, stop attacking strawmen.
ainefairygoddess 1 year ago
You are so far to be a "Truth" groupe. You are in a so great delusion ! OPEN YOUR EYES and learn a bit of biology for dummies.
eluhach 1 year ago
People just hate Jesus because Jesus rox!
blattt188 1 year ago
"If life can only come from life, then the Big Bang is NOT scientific! ..."
Please tell me I don't have to remind you that Cosmology (Big Bang) and Biology (Theory of Evolution) are 2 completely separate branches of science?
Do you think astronomers are anti-Christian? Oh, you do, you've said scientists = atheists before.
I'm sorry, did you say you were here to talk about science?
fkbryce 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religion is dwindling worldwide
as education becomes universal.
Primitive man thought that thunder was the shouting of gods,
that lightning was the spears of gods,
that the eclipse was god turning out the lights.
As science explains more and more natural phenomena
there are fewer and fewer dark corners of ignorance
for god(s) to hide in.
Education dissolves Religion.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
I love you guys. We're heading to the museum sometime this Summer. Hope to catch you there.
Drandon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creation is right, but it should be taught the way it really happened. God blew his bad breath(no toothpaste yet) over a clump of mud and, voila, it came alive and upright and all was well. Question remains, did Adam have a penis ? Because Eve was only created when Adam felt lonely and complained to god about it. Suppose god had given Adam a computer, and he had never felt lonely again, what would have happened. ? I leave this question for the theologians.
lizazoon 1 year ago
"...evolution/big bang and the god of the Bible... those are the only two choices"
HAHAHAHAHAHA what a fucking ignoramus. Please, my side hurts. Stop, please.
Slacktoo 1 year ago
@Slacktoo What's the third choice?
Jmonkey515 1 year ago
@Jmonkey515 I'm not saying there's a third choice. The framing of what he said makes absolutely no sense. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang for one thing, and the god of the Christian Bible is one of thousands of made-up deities humans have spewed over the millennia. Somehow IT is on par with evolution and the big bang when it comes to explaining anything?? Preposterous!! Like I said, he's an ignoramus
Slacktoo 1 year ago
@Slacktoo hmm your right humans have mad up a lot of Gods but non of them lay the claim the god of the bible does s and proves it with historical accuracy and prophecy all coming true think about it for a second
christlover3000 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
"living god" life is defined as the period between conception and death, to say that god is living is to say he had a beginning and he will have an end.
Yes, biogenesis is science, and some of us actually understand it
"one of those two actually lines up with science" hint, it's not the latter.
You would be so much better off it you just stop your embarrassing attempts to ad hoc rationalize your desert myth.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Pasteur's work only debunked the notion that maggots came from rotted meat, rats came from trash etc. had nothing to do with the origin of life.
Even if the law of biogenesis had anything to say on chemical abiogenesis, which it doesn't mind you, that just means it would be wrong.
No, you have the cosmological big bang.
"only two choices" see; False dichotomy (hint its a fallacy)
"everything came from nothing" see: strawman (yep its another fallacy)
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Also, saying the God of the Bible, and the Big Bang are the only two options is a false dichotomy. What about the God of the Quran, Zeus, Thor, Juju, Mythra? What about the multiverse theory? What about a natural occurrence that we don't yet understand? A true dichotomy is God and Not God, or Big Bang and Not Big Bang. But Big Bang and God is a false dichotomy. It is called fallacy of exclusion.
riseofatheism 2 years ago
Good job using an outdated scientific source. The Miller-Urey experiment proves you wrong. Evolution is a fact. Abiogenesis is something completely different. Evolution happened. You may wish to believe god started it, but why? We have a good understanding of how it started. And the Big Bang, Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the beginning of the universe are all SEPERATE CONCEPTS. Stop muddling them into one thing.
riseofatheism 2 years ago
Miller-Urey?
Are you kidding?
Who exactly are you accusing of using outdated sources?
theTRUTHgroup 2 years ago
@theTRUTHgroup
Miller-Urey is still valid. The purpose of Miller-Urey was to show how life could have started from non living materials. They succeeded. Science still bases abiogenesis experiments off of that first one. It's not outdated. It being improved upon.
riseofatheism 2 years ago
@theTRUTHgroup
So which is outdated, Louis Pastuer, or Miller-Urey. Let's see Miller-Urey, 1950's. Pasteur, late 1800's. Looks like the NEW scientific discoveries from Miller-Urey showed that Louis Pasture, while a genius of his day, was not aware of the building blocks of life, (amino acids) and couldn't have been aware of a way that life could come from non living materials. Now that we understand better what life is made of, we can understand how it might form into life.
riseofatheism 2 years ago
The Urey-MIller experiment has been vindicated in lava pools
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@theTRUTHgroup lol score one theTRUTHgroup score zero lia...evolutionists.
Jmonkey515 1 year ago
@theTRUTHgroup you know it is possible to except God created the earth and except the old earth theory right
christlover3000 1 year ago
@theTRUTHgroup
"Science" of the bible ??
"Evolutionary Big-Bang".
Daniel, you are too dumb to be dangerous.
tellnet 8 months ago 2
@riseofatheism Bio genesis is not outdated it is still used in the scientific community today life produces life though i do agree god had to create everything based on complexity I don't believe it is only six thousand years old ma by 6 billion at the least either way their has to be a designer and the god of the bible seems most legitimate.
christlover3000 1 year ago
@christlover3000
No it's not. Have you heard of. Oh I don't know. ABIOGENESIS? Yes life produces life. But ges what, non life produced life too. That's abiogenesis.
riseofatheism 1 year ago
@riseofatheism a christian scientist!! Isn't that just precious!! haha
chyeaaitskristyn 1 year ago
@riseofatheism of course there's no proof for Abiogenesis, except your Theory of evolution. Produce proof and I might be more willing to listen you.
MrPrior69 4 months ago
@MrPrior69
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. And yes there is evidence for abiogenesis. And if you're not willing to look it up for yourself, then I'm sorry, that's not really our problem.
IHasChannel 4 months ago
@MrPrior69 Another thing. Non living things are very very very patient. in fact they're so patient that they had hundreds of millions of years of random combination generation on a planet with water on it. Now i'm fairly sure that i cant live hundreds of millions of years to conduct an experiment on the generation of life. And i'm doubly sure that creating a completely enclosed environment for my water over all that timespan is equally impossible with current technology.
shamen490 1 month ago
The TRUTH group! INDEED!!!!!!
This is actually frightening, and worrying.
The way they sound so sure of the things they espouse.
Whatever happened to EDUCATION???
Science is so evil, that I'll drive around in a car, use a mobile phone, a camcorder, computer, and when I get ill, I've got SO much faith the first thing I do is dash off to the doctors, for some of that scientific modern medicine.
Gross hypocrisy springs to mind.
OHHH, sorry, I forgot all THOSE things aren't science are they???
martiangrundy 2 years ago
All of those things are what we like to call 'science'.
But, if you believe that we evolved from sludge, that's not science, it's religion and it's STUPID!
theTRUTHgroup 2 years ago 3
that's not what every court that has been asked to decide has said, there is a very good reason creation "science" has lost every time to evolution (actual science) in well over a dozen trials. the reason is that creationism isn't science, and doesn't belong in our public education system run by the government.
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
hahaha you say mans limit of knowledge is better than God's infinite knowledge.. therefor shouldn't be in school systems, because we don't want kids to think to much now do we?
kristophershaun 2 years ago
no, what i was hinting at was that the government shouldn't be biased towards any particular religion. kids can think as much as they want, as long as our public institutions don't favor one religion over another. evolution is not a religion, as our courts have decided many times.
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
have you looked into the "facts" of evolution? i'm not even a small chance convinced i came from a single cell organism at one point. so when you have many people saying the same thing also i believe there should be something else taught for people to speculate on if they do not wish to dismiss something greater to them than what a scientist has stated. i say stated because that is what we are taught.. the statements of darwin.. not findings..
kristophershaun 2 years ago
actually i have looked into the facts, and so have our courts. the courts have decided that evolution is fact and that it belongs in our science classrooms. whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, but you're welcome to try to convince the american judicial system otherwise. a word of warning, though, you will probably fail just like all the others have. i'm not opposed to kids being taught about religion as long as every major religion is covered, and not in the science classroom.
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
ya i never even said i wanted to do that, but ya.. you didn't even know about the universe having an end or a begining so this conversation doesn't have much room to grow, cept for hahaha you'll never get into the education system.. ya God has been slowly getting pushed out for awhile now if you hadn't noticed that, i doubt they're going to throw a party to welcome Him back with creationism
kristophershaun 2 years ago
yes, i'll get back to answering that now
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
@theTRUTHgroup You're 100% right. Religion IS stupid !
mcshundess 11 months ago 2
@martiangrundy their is noting wrong with science except when it is turned into a secular humanist religion that gives nothing but its own points and nothing to the others Oh and just so you know I believe that God is the ultimate scientist I also believe God could have are had to created the universe over time because either way its just to complex to have happened by random chance in only 13.7 billion years scince and the bible fit together like a door and its key
christlover3000 1 year ago
@martiangrundy Just for fun,
if you want to see some amazing bold lying
check out the person I'm talking to here
watch?v=fLk1Yx2OrVI
I am just amazed.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
if god is allowed to be eternal, why isn't the universe?
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
because in this dimension there is no eternal because we have time and time has begining and end unfortunattely, however God doesn't stay in this dimension and is not bound to the laws of this dimension
kristophershaun 2 years ago
interesting, do you have any evidence to suggest that time had a beginning or that it will end?
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
the begining of time was the big bang.
the ending could be a set of different things, it hasn't happened yet so we don't know how it will happen, but it will happen.
kristophershaun 2 years ago
no one knows what came before the big bang, it isn't a finished or complete idea. i'm not convinced the big bang was the beginning of time. i think time is what exists between two events. for something to happen, it must come from a point of where it hasn't happened. for there to be a bang at all there must have been time, otherwise nothing could have changed. as for time having an end, well i don't think there is any real evidence to support that either.
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
then you're in denial. and should look into physics some.
kristophershaun 2 years ago
this is the best i could find while rushing
/watch?v=zf2csQnE0jA
kristophershaun 2 years ago
what'd ya think?
kristophershaun 2 years ago
uh, well it's all pretty fascinating. but even if the universe is "finite" that's not any sort of evidence for the existence of god... and furthermore you'd be hard pressed to show how that first cause was YHWH as opposed to anything else. and relating to the video, bio-genesis is only concerned with "life" in a way that doesn't really include an invisible diety that lives outside of time and space and isn't composed of matter, that supposedly can't die... god certainly isn't biological...
Otsegoflesh 2 years ago
i was honestly trying to answer your original question.. is your question answered?
kristophershaun 2 years ago
@Otsegoflesh
Well actually no. It turns out that the theory of an increasingly expanding universe is concurrent with observations. When you take the same formulas to calculate back at time, it turns out the universe could only come into existence if there was an quantum mechanical nothing. For quantum mechanics, time is no factor of influence, and if a state is reached of absolute 0 quantum particles, this inevitably leads to a big bang (read Lawence Kraus).
Peace dude.
TheStarTux 2 years ago
Listen Dan if Science is so evil next time you get a toothache go see your Pastor.
definemaybe 2 years ago
Science is not evil.
It was created by God.
The only evil thing here is your false religious belief in slime to man evolution.
theTRUTHgroup 2 years ago 3
@theTRUTHgroup I feel compelled to say, you are incredibly stupid, sir.
Elvikowsky 1 year ago
i just pray to my Father and it goes away, same with migraines and the occassional asthma attack
kristophershaun 2 years ago
The evolutionary big bang? Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, or the origin of life for that matter.
And no your ultimatum is wrong as well, god of the gaps (by the same reasoning) is a cop out.
Biogenesis is an idea, not a theory or even hypothesis.
You seriously need to do some research.
roxasroks 2 years ago 5
Define life Daniel. I dare you.
holyhell5050 2 years ago
Hi Daniel, agreed evolution is myth & bad science but it is possible to harmonize big bang theory with creation. It's hilarious & sad to recall athiests (who postulated eternal universe) sweat it out & reposition when big bang gained widespread acceptance.
The bible always said there was a beginning - Thank God, His Holy Word is proven is right again.
Of course athiests don't care much for the facts. they'd rather believe everything just fell into place, life popped out of slime etc.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
Regarding age of universe debate: I have a theory that there was convergances of additional metaphysical dimensions (several additional dimensions are being shown as mathematical possibilties in quantum physics, & help explain string theory) at the start of creation (the big bang - when time itself was created) which might explain how the universe might appear older than it is, & why after all these so-called "billions of years" in spite of law of entropy the stars haven't all burned out.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
"Scientific proof..."????
Isn't it ironic that this concept, featured in the title for this video series, doesn't even exist?
There is no such thing as scientific proof! Mathematics uses proofs, and Science uses theories. Although theories are akin to proofs, and hold a similar weigh in value, they are not the same thing.
"CREATARDS, this is your Lord speaking. I command you to get an education!"
bettySwollox 2 years ago
betty, if you think atheism is the GOOD fruit of the age of enlightenment I have one more reason to feel sorry for you.
Dr. Behe; Dr. Dembski; Dr. Gonzalez; Dr. Craig; thousands of other EDUCATED men have seen the lies,& evil agenda in the new age teachings & have dedicated their lives to exposing them. there are THOUSANDS more across the campuses of this nation.
There's no point in continuing the discussion - Ujust came here to be Satan's puppet, to mock and insult those of Christian faith.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
This has very little to do with mocking people of faith. It has, instead, more to do with mocking those that choose to engage in the uttering of propaganda and complete and utter bunkum.
As for Satan's puppet, pnnfff! What? OK, so now I've been relegated to the fiery depths of demon sidekick. Great! How intellectually honest of you to admit your inner most thoughts and feelings, about my eternal soul's persuasion. Satan? Haha! Oh, dear oh deary me. Have you been reading too much Harry Potter?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Liar.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
You are some piece of work you know that chubby!
As much as I've enjoyed talking to you, and witnessing the inner-most workings of the creationist mind, first hand. I gotta tell you, apart from your description of the eyes being a tool for collecting two dimensional images (which I don't yet know enough on to contest), you've said very little by ways of enlightening me.
I was also hoping to hear something from your lawyer and philosopher friends you spoke so highly of. They turn you down?
bettySwollox 2 years ago
I mean, do you have the balls to actually ask them for their opinions, and to see if they can help you in your keyboard warrior quest to prove me wrong?
Remember these?
-Scientific Theory
-Scientific Law
-Mathematical Proof
-Preponderance of evidence (lowest level of proof)
-Beyond a reasonable doubt (highest level of proof)
All you have to do is provide a description that matches your words, or your definition, in contrast to the words I used in my definition. Provide your sources too please.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
If I were to pick apart your language and use of terminology betty, we'd be here for years - and you are too unpleasant for that.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
Well, to save yourself the trouble of picking apart my language, why don't you simply Google the said terms, and find out what is said elsewhere. Then say "Hey betty, check it out. Read it and weep" "Here are my sources too"
This is an exercise for your own good. Look at it this way, the next time you debate an atheist, you won't look so ignorant. And you'll have a far more pleasant time debating them, than you've so far had with me. I'm equipping you with weapons, not destroying your armour.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
lastdaysguitar
I see that you were unable to refute both betty's and my arguments, and come back with definitions that supported your claims of what the above words meant. Damn, humble pie is hardly the most pleasant dish to consume. However, at least I wouldn't mind eating it, if I meant that it would increase my knowledge, as well as potentially raise the level of respect in the eyes of my opponent.
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
Godless, I'm not here to digress from the subject of Daniel's conversation with your rabbit trail discussions of linguistics and word definitions. Daniel made his point, and I've made mine - the only point you've atheists made is you're a bunch of jerks.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
We may very well be jerks, but at least most of us are probably honest jerks. In that we - like theists - seek out those things that can be perceived as true. The difference is, we use ALL the tools we can find to arrive at the best answer at that time. If we don't know the answer, we say "we don't know". Whereas your camp, well, they tend to use nothing more than a little black book of bronze age, goat herder stories, to fill in all the "I don't know(s)" with "Magic man in the sky dunnit(s)".
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
I'd like to think that I've been rather respectful to you in our exchange. I can't see one insult that I have used such as "You're a jerk" or "Stink brained theists" or the like. So why do you feel the need to vent your frustrations thus? Are you not man enough to simply have an adult discussion, with a person why may hold an opposing view? Are you all brawn and no brain?
Anyway, in reference to your comment concerning"..linguistics and word definitions", well, I wasn't on about that so much..
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
@GodlessComedy
I'd LOVE to have an adult conversation with you. Stop by my channel anytime.
you jerk
just kidding lol :)
dragonking700 2 years ago
..instead, I was awaiting your response to a comment (see: "Scientific Proof of the Bible #3: Thermodynamics"), where I provided you with a number of statements - from a number of rather respectable individuals - who clearly state that there is no such thing as scientific proof.
In not replying, I can only but infer that you have, indeed, digressed from this matter, due to the fact that your intellectual ego has taken a rather wicked whipping, leaving you too bruised to continue. Well?
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
betty: you accept my explaination and teaching physical sight, but reject the same when it comes to spiritual sight because you are running from God.
lastdaysguitar 2 years ago
No I accept it because I have no counter argument. That's called intellectual honesty! You should try it some time, maybe you'll like it and apply it too.
Show me the evidence and I'll stop running from god.
So, are you going to approach your friends or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
But back to your comment about accepting your explanation for one thing, but not for something else. Yes I did. You're right. But why wouldn't I? If you offer me an explanation about any given thing, which sounds credible at first glance. Then why wouldn't I accept it? What's preventing me from going "OK, well sounds fair and reasonable. I can't yet challenge it, so I'll put it on the mantle piece till I can". I'm not in the habit of saying things like "You liar" or "You're wrong" willy-nilly.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Instead, I'll take on board what you have to say, and if I don't know anything about the topic. I'll investigate further, and then come back to you once I've reached a reasonable conclusion that you are wrong, or incorrect on a given matter, and I'll happily provide my sources for your review too.
Why do you think that I determined those preconditions right off the bat? It's not because I was trying to irritate you, it's because in order to have a "fair and balanced" (thanks FAUX "News")
bettySwollox 2 years ago
....discussion/debate, you need to set some boundaries: rules of engagement if you will, and you need to agree on a single definition of a given term, word or even an idea, before you can even advance a single argument. Otherwise you'll get what you've created in this discussion, which is a dog chasing it's tail the whole time.
Had you approached this discussion from an academic perspective, then you would have advanced your argument far better. Instead, you've created..this...mess!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Wow, you guys have been going at it for days now. Hahaha, don't you guys ever give up? It's obvious that you won't see eye-to-eye on anything, so why (not that's it's any of my business) do you keep this up?
You don't write much here on this video, but I gotta go with Betty again if she/he is carrying on with you guys' conversation here too, then I think she/he is right. If she/he is providing you with academic sources, then the arguments are much more closely akin to those found in academia.
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
And it would appear that you've failed to provide any such sources, at least that is betty's charge.
In addition, it doesn't look - to me at least - as though betty is challenging your beliefs, or the existence of god, but more that she/he wants to challenge the merits of your argument. Don't you think? Well, that's how it appears to me at least. It's not my argument, but sometimes a fresh set of eyes helps to reflect light on a given matter.
Peace!
GodlessComedy 2 years ago
Okay, thank you for clarifying.
Something that popped in to existence ("God") that IS life, was created from nothing, created life by saying Alacazam! (or something of the sort). Also, evolution can't be correct, because its completely natural and logical, which is something you certainly can't agree with. So your hypothesis would be, "If something appeared from nothing that is life, then he must create life. I think this because I don't want to go to hell, and I like fairy-tales."
chchockey51 2 years ago
Creation! Did I get it right? Because I don't want to have to blow Jesus like you did when you got it wrong.
goonodeath 2 years ago
"..one of those two actually lines up with science. I wonder which one.."
Hahahahahahaha! Giggle! Snigger!
Creationists are just so damn FUNNY!
What a pratt.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
stop doing that
notcutt 2 years ago
Epic fail. Try modern research for once.
Logos385 2 years ago
Also, look back in history at events where people thought the ends justified the means and see what happened most of the time.
xccmx 2 years ago
Wait, life only comes from life right...
God is alive, so God had to come from life?
You didn't even think your argument that far through...not even that far...seriously?
Lies and lies and lies.. you'd surely burn for eternity if your beliefs were correct. You know very well you're misrepresenting everything you're claiming to refute; you're too old to be that ignorant of science. Take a step back and think for once.
xccmx 2 years ago 2
Nope, God is NOT alive.
God IS...
... LIFE.
theTRUTHgroup 2 years ago
Thats the most pathetic arguement I've ever heard. Touché you top my list of " biggest douche bags"
Hyuk15 2 years ago
@xccmx he is ETERNAL. i hope u know what that means, u know, infinite? no beginning, no end, no middle, no past, present or future. there u go.
RCACsurvivorman 1 year ago
@RCACsurvivorman
So if you have an eternal afterlife ahead of you, you wouldn't be alive?
xccmx 1 year ago
@xccmx you're more alive there than you are here. your filled with the holy spirit and walking the streets of gold with Jesus Christ. all knowledge on earth is miniscule to what we will learn in Heaven for there is no limit to human understanding in the eternal Heaven. this life on Earth is but a journey to the eternal of which there are two paths, the path of the rightousness and the path of evil and sin. everyone is on the "highway to hell", only God chooses who to take off that road.
RCACsurvivorman 1 year ago
@RCACsurvivorman
So god is alive?
xccmx 1 year ago
@xccmx oh very much so, more alive than what we can comprehend. he is involved in everything and is not only alive in the eternal but his holy spirit lives within us. on earth, its all a SUPERnatural thing, not in the sense that its just ghosts of which do not interact with us, he is within us. he is the reason for our conscience and our moral and spiritual attributes.
RCACsurvivorman 1 year ago
0:30 - Life only comes from life.
Perhaps you should read the law yourself. It specifically mentions "modern organisms".
For such an important subject, you demonstrate that you have taken absolutely no steps to ensure you understand and are correctly representing what you're trying to convey.
How immoral. Instead of urinating into the fountain of knowledge, how about you do some work and make sure your points are accurate.
Thanks,
Rundvelt 2 years ago
2 chioses?? where in the world have YOU BEEN LIVING?? because in earth there are more than 2 choises... there is one choise for almost every religion that ever existed.. just because you are of one religion doesnt mean that you are right.... thats all my friend. there you go.
matc2 2 years ago
You certainly do not have the answer.Louis Pasteur was a scientist was he not.Didn't he find and ad evidence to the scientific claims.
no1saphead 2 years ago
wow never saw a creationist stupid enough to just come out and say "you only have two choices" RFOL
phookadude 2 years ago
when you say.."everything came from nothing".. define the word "nothing" in that sentence? there you go. Religion is NOT science!
DonatiAlfaYed 2 years ago
Dear watcher: after "evolutionary big bang" is stated, please discontinue listening to anything this man has to say.
He is a layman, and quite evidently uneducated in the field of which he is speaking.
JacobHooper 2 years ago
neat only 2 choices, that clears up everything....Because there are only 2 creation myths oth there....wait rephrase there are many creation myths and a few theories the strongest of which is evolution...But I don't believe modern science could disobey a "Law of Biogenisis" so I will continue to put my lot in with the bigoted savages from 2000+ years ago...yep
shadowgunman 2 years ago
If life can only come from life, then God couldn't have created life.
yugyfoog 2 years ago
"If life can only come from life"
Well THERES your problem, noones saying that.
but for a minute lets say they are, that means god has to be alive, and that means god had to have a living creator, ad infinitum
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 2
Yes, please ignore the question and bash the creation side instead of defending yours. you fail.
And going by our source of information, God is very much alive.
JcWhatCounts20 2 years ago
What question did I ignore?
And going by the pastafarians bible the flying spaghetti monster is very much alive.
DeliciousAsses 2 years ago
Louis Pasteur made huge advances in the fields of immunology and microbiology, however he didn't know everything about biology.
The Law of Biogenesis also applies to MODERN organisms in the CURRENT world. It does not apply to, nor tries to apply to previous states of the earth, ie when abiogenesis occured.
Lastly, "God created everything" cannot be supported by science because it cannot be tested by science, no more so than the existence of unicorns and pixies.
undescript0 2 years ago 2
This clip makes me nauseous, is this caused by the camera or the "evolutionary big bang"?
PrinzipHoffnung 2 years ago
Spontaneous generation is NOT the same as abiogenesis, you MORON.
middlekk 2 years ago
1) Argument is cop-out.
2) Argument works for theism in general, not a specific religion.
3) "Evolutionary Big Bang" is a nonsensical word.
M4ruta 2 years ago 2
Come on man! what's there to argue about? It's plain and simple watch the video once more. You have nothing to say.
You always want to debate. That's all you know. You are going to debate all the way to hell and that's really sad.
shayneby 2 years ago
"You always want to debate. That's all you know. You are going to debate all the way to hell and that's really sad. "
Congratulations, you have won a spot on my top 5 list of Bible Moron quotes!
pallevader 2 years ago
All the atheist are even more frustrated now.
They'r all coping out with various other arguments AS USUAL
shayneby 2 years ago
Lol, there's being misinformed, and then there's just plain denial. Oh and yeah, I've very confident. Congrats to me. If you wanna debated, then I'd be happy to prove your fallacious arguments incorrect. Merci beaucoup.
MKelly1919 2 years ago
Brilliant video!!!!!
comedyact56 2 years ago
Consider the virus - is it alive, or is it not?
It produces other viruses, but practically every other definition of "alive" you could use would classify it as "non-life".
However, it is possible for something like a virus to evolve into something more complex, that could be more easily defined as "alive".
There - life from non-life, no puddle of sludge involved. We win. Period.
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
What an incredible reach. Total arrogance to make that kind of a non-proven leap, and you know it! Be honest and maybe we can have a real discussion. Your theories are so full of holes and you KNOW IT. Your rant here doesn't even reach the level of a strawman argument.
comedyact56 2 years ago
That "non-proven leap" is evolution, which has been proven hundreds of times in dozens of ways, including actually being observed.
So **** you.
EvansRowan123 2 years ago
What I thought. no arguments just personal insults. Not very becoming of the intellectual community. You get pushed into a corner with real logic and exposed and all you can come up with is ****you. I guess I should appreciate the courtesy of the asteriks. I really want to take you seriously and talk but you have to take the mean spirited rant approach to arguments. Try again please.
comedyact56 2 years ago
Why rant about science that is hundreds of years old..?
So, sorry. One star for lack of knowledge and logic. Just ask me and I'll provide you with a better understanding. You deserve it for not knowing any better.
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
Oh, so you are saying that the scientific community can get things wrong. Well if you got that wrong what makes you think that you've got it right this time. The Bible has never disagreed with "provable" science.
comedyact56 2 years ago
Oh, my god... there are poeple with even less understanding than the guy in the video? Obviously so.
Science can get things wrong. But here, whis was not the case. Spontaneous generation was never a science, since noone had "proven" it scientificly. SCIENCE - not creationism - proved it to be wrong.
There is NO such thing as provable science, I hope you get that. The Bible DOES disagree with provable science, and that's a fact.
Are you insinuating that you don't "trust" science?
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
First of all, why is it that you guys always have to start you comments with an insult. When you do that it just makes me not want to take you seriously. I didn't peraonally attack you with my comment. Secondly, you contridicted yourself in your next to last statement., "There is NO such thing as provable science" and then you go onto say that "the Bible DOES disagree with provable science. and that's a fact." So is there provable science or not? Of course Christians believe in science.
comedyact56 2 years ago
I'll take "you guys" as an insult". Sorry if I have offended you.
I ment to put in citation marks, sorry.
There is NO provable science. The Bible DOES disagree with "provable" science, i. e. science at it's finest.
The Bible contradics real and actual science.
Sorry if I din't make myself all that clear, I admit my mistake.
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
How come people think being created my a creator is weird. But evolving from a puddle of sludge isn't. See God is all powerfull, and I'm sure he can create life to produce life. A puddle of sludge, hows that gonna create anything?
ryebones 2 years ago
how is the creator god of the bible and the big bang the only 2 options? Personally I like the idea of Zeus farting alot better.
FriendOregon 2 years ago
Now whose being ridiculuous. You are proving what we've been saying all along, that your reason for taking God out of the equation of science is because yoiu just don't want to serve Jehovah God. And that's your choice, but please don't cop out by saying that He doesn't exist when you and I both no deep in our hearts and minds that he does.
comedyact56 2 years ago
I'm not saying hes does not exist. I'm just saying there are many gods. Whilst the guy in the video only states 2 choices. There are actually many.
FriendOregon 2 years ago
Your argument is a cop out.
shayneby 2 years ago
life came form life which came from the big bang whihc came from a universal creator, but if god ultimtely created everythig then where did god, a thinking reasoning being, come from? no one can asnwer all questions in the universe ppl just accept some things, the big bang did occur and evolution does too, but going back from there is unanswerable
wdeaver7 2 years ago
I completely agree
Yamakoto120 2 years ago
ok so you said the big bang made everything but came from nothing... but then you said some being made everything but then where did he come from? most people would say nowhere, "he was always there". So here, either the big bang which came from nothing made everything, or some being that came from nothing made everything.. and he also had a son from a virgin who was stabed by jews... idk man.. sounds kinda fakee.
mejjop 2 years ago
even scientist agree something that created the universe had to have existed forever. Even time had a start which means whatever created the universe existed before even time!? sounds crazy, but this is exactly what the bible said thousands of years before scientist came to that conclusion
LivingthroughGod 2 years ago
"it ASSERTS that living things can only come from another living thing"
Assert (making a claim without evidence) being the operative word.
Big Bang or the God of the bible is not a dichotomy. lol
First of all there are hundreds of different existing supernatural creation stories, and almost as many potential natural explanations, multiverse, aliens from another universe, timeless singularity.
Also evolution, the big bang, and abiogenesis are three entirely differe.nt things
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
"Evolutionary Big Bang"?
Did I hear that right?
fonna 2 years ago
Its unfortunate that your analogy shoots yourself in the foot.
You said your god is a living god. Thus this cannot be true as biogenesis says living things only come from other living things. So there must be other gods in order for your god to apear. so is god nonliving or are there more than 1 god?
if god is non living then there could not have been a jesus. as jesus is the product of god + mary and since god is nonliving he could not procreate with mary.
3rdworlds 2 years ago 4
dear 3rdworlds.....sadly you have made far too much sense for the intellectual bankrupts and the bible bashers. while your simple logic is beautiful and reasonable, you are up against the ignorance of faith....good luck
having said that, i'm on your side mate.
alexsisko 2 years ago
"Evolutionary big bang".... HA!
It's funny how fully grown men can spout such utter nonsense with a straight face. Thank you creationism! Surely you make the world a more entertaining place. Though I feel kind of disillusioned with humanity.
pallevader 2 years ago 4
You don't even know what science means.
fxrams 2 years ago 3
There is no such thing as evolutionary Big Bang. Have the intellectual integrity to learn the correct definition of words and ideas you are trying to criticize.
fxrams 2 years ago 6
Know what no one's ever proven?
Dirt + Magic = Man
gregoryryan 2 years ago 5
What about evolutionism's formula:
Nothing + Nothing = Everything (and it's perfectly organized & extremely complicated...ON ACCIDENT!)
lol
SoloJESUSsalva1 2 years ago
LOL, nice!
kyebean 2 years ago
If life can only come from life. Then the creation theory is not scientific. Don't mix actual science into bronze-age myths. How come people in Mesopotamia were ignorant of the Judaic/Christian god? Because we created them. Man created god.
Have a wonderful life.
JustAManInAMask 2 years ago
Louis Pasteur disproved the spontaneous generation theory (That microorganisms can microorganisms can spontaneously combust, or create them-selfs.) by conducting a series of tests.
AspireE360 2 years ago
Is this guy lying, or is he just ignorant?
h8uall66 2 years ago
that's a cop out as you so called atheists always do
shayneby 2 years ago
How so?
h8uall66 2 years ago
No seriously, how so? Don't cop out and just make "drive-by" comments. You made a claim, now back it up.
h8uall66 2 years ago
The big bang is actually quite probable and no reason for a Christian to think otherwise, as it points directly to God. For one, the bible afirms that God created from nothing, as the big bang afirms nothing to something. Google "Kalam Cosmological Argument" for example.
Gentle135 2 years ago
can you use google??? they have synthesized RNA in laboratory.
blackmetalqueer 2 years ago