I'm a Christian. But when chuck refers to irreducible complexity I'll have to say that although it's true that-that bacteria won't propel itself any longer if just 1/40 of those parts are missing. However, can the resulting bacteria, that has a dysfunctional tail, can that survive the environment? If yes, though youll no longer have a mouse trap, you'll have something new that can survive. Irreducible complexity doesn't disprove evolution. Srry
Scottpastry: every living cell in your body is an example. So is the blood clotting mechanism; the immune system; the human eye,ear, heart, liver... EVERY part of your body is an example of the fearfully complex design that we are. Irreducible complexity exists in living organisms at every level: from the cell to the whole of the living creature. There are a great many parts of living organisms, that, if removed, will cause the death of the organism.
@okflyer777 Irreducible complexity is merely something A. Nobody can explain how it formed, or B. You aren't qualified enough to understand how it formed.
@gohoggyourself No that's not correct. The term "irreducible complexity" comes from PhD Biochemist Michael Behe, and is fully explained in his book "Darwins Black Box". From the book, page 39"
" By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning... " (cont'd)
@gohoggyourself ... " An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor system to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." end quote. So, as you can see I-C systems have nothing to do with our ability to explain or understand them. They're I-C due to the number and type of design-level components as Behe defines the term.
@gohoggyourself No, we have absolutely no idea how a system as complex as the human eye could evolve. Darwin didn't try to discover a real pathway that evolution might have used to evolve the eye. Rather, he pointed to organisms with different kinds of eyes and suggested the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as the intermediates. By the 19th century, the anatomy of the eye was known in detail. However, the various complex mechanisms (cont'd...)
... of the eye such as the pupil, muscular system, retina, and the biochemical/neurological system... each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Your assertion that we KNOW how the eye evolved is pure wishful thinking. Evolution hasn't been proven as hard science, not by a long shot. If it was, it wouldn't be a THEORY today. Yes, I've done my homework!
@okflyer777 You are a liar and have obviously researched nothing. You don't even know what the word THEORY means. You know that the earth revolving around the sun is a theory, and that too is contradicted by the Bible. Now child please go and REALLY do your homework. I am grading and it's due next week.
@TheSatanicView "The fossil record has, until now, been inadequate in providing insight into the early evolution of eyes during the initial radiation of many animal groups known as the Cambrian explosion."
and further: "This is surprising because Cambrian Burgess-Shale-type deposits are replete with exquisitely preserved animals, especially arthropods, that possess eyes3, 4, 5. However, with the exception of biomineralized trilobite eyes, virtually nothing is known about the details of their optical design." Nature Science Journal no 474, 631–634 30 June 2011 - no, we do not know how the eye 'evolved' - we're guessing and we keep being surprised by what we find.
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Some species live for days or only hours. How is the concept of evolution applied to such a creature? Its re-diddly-icilous. Besides, the fossil records are out of whack. Theres dino fossils from hundreds of million of years ago (not), but theres no fossils of all the 'evolving' creatures between then and now? Gimme a break.
Isnt it funny, the Bible never needs defending and always proves true, however science is always changing its mind and plays the eternal catch-up game.
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. —Prov. 26:12
Jesus told them, "If you were blind, you wouldn't be sinners. But now you say, 'We see,' so you continue to be sinners. —John 9:41
"The harvest is past, the summer has ended, and we are not saved." Since my people are crushed, I am crushed; I mourn, and horror grips me."—Jer. 8:20, 21
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.—Heb. 10:39
@okflyer777 please give me an example of irreducible complexity in a living organism to back up your claim. using a mousetrap as an example for simplicities sake negates a true understanding of what behes claims are.
but ill accept your premise for the sake of it... when does a mousetrap become 'alive' as opposed to its 'dead' predecessor ?? and why is a mousetrap that has a part removed suddenly 'non functioning' ?? as dr ken miller explains, it becomes a perfectly functioning tie clip!! :)
Dead organisms cannot evolve. With any part of the irreducible system taken away, the system does not function and is dead. The result cannot evolve; cannot support the theory.
Supposing there might be another "purpose" for the (now dead) life form does not refute the irreducible argument. Death = game over.
Behe's book: "Darwin's Black Box" makes the argument abundantly clear.
@okflyer777 then why use a mouse trap in the analogy, when it is also dead??? after all, evolutionists are only addressing behes specific clam about mouse traps.
@scottpastry If you take a part away from a mousetrap you can't catch a mouse with it anymore, that's the point. If you take a part away from the bacterial flagellum it loses the purpose it served.
@micah1116 "If you take a part away from a mousetrap you can't catch a mouse with it anymore, that's the point."
you dont have to catch a mouse with it!! as long as it serves a previous purpose at all, then we can explain why it existed and then incurred a mutation to change it to its current use!!
please try and grasp evolutionary theory, it is not goal driven.
@scottpastry No one is handicapped, Evolution is a theory, not a fact, the more you actually open up to the reality of it, you see how foolish it is. Even without adding the possibility of God or designer, Evolution is pure nonsense. Only the naive or the follower would cling to it, many Pro Evolution individuals are not even scientist, are just regular people following something in that which they believe and hold no stake in, without logical thought, just repeating someone else findings.
@scottpastry wow didn't know Behe accepted evolution. He's not alone. Francis Collins accepts it, yet claims it does not interfere with his faith. Also, Gerald Schroeder, as well a man of faith. Perhaps there is some pride to protect, because there is nothing in faith that compels them to accept such sophistry, nor to give it safer harbor. It's an affront to the Living God. The mere fact of God's last special act, Eve proves our point. Sex alone is enough to topple their idol. Chance is no god.
@sexyeur " Perhaps there is some pride to protect, because there is nothing in faith that compels them to accept such sophistry, nor to give it safer harbor. It's an affront to the Living God. The mere fact of God's last special act, Eve proves our point. Sex alone is enough to topple their idol."
semantics.......your assertion that gods creation is a fact is based on no demonstrative evidence.
@scottpastry I think the fact that you and I are corresponding here is enough evidence that chance is out of the question. You have free will. You are not responding because your physical body is urging you, but because your God-given mind compels you. Clearly you are more than mindless flesh. I attribute your miraculous consciousness and the fact you awake to it every morning per usual, to be one most astounding fact of many that you take for granted and for which science offers little "faith'.
@sexyeur you have completely left the relevant subject of evolutionary theory in this video. i dont care what you attribute your consciousness too..... but science happily and continually searches for answers on brain function, for which we understand much (the opposite of faith, which is belief without evidence) if neuron activity stops, so does consciousness...... nothing miraculous about that.
@scottpastry That you don't care is precisely your problem here, if you wish to honestly entertain the limitations of evolutionary theory in light of the subject matter in these videos. Foolishly as well, you take your position with no retreat. Every serious scientist revises, even discards his theories in the light of better information. Did you know that blind people have actually seen in near death experiences? Astounding evidence you will rule out of hand, no doubt to save little/no face.
@sexyeur what is this limiting factor in evolutionary theory you speak of? and whats it got to do with supposed near death experiences?? of course scientists discard theories in light of better info...... despite your earlier assertions that "There is collusion & suppression in the scientific community regarding the possibility of ANY competing theory we might accept which might improve or displace it altogether." (you cant jump between contradictory assertions and expect to be taken seriously)
@scottpastry To elucidate for you, the largest limiting factor in evolutionary theory to my mind is that many of its most ardent proponents insist there can be no other theory, however plausible to the worldview of so many others. Atheists petulantly refuse to admit that indeed they are in a clear minority here, despite the faith of so many distinguished believers who have advanced their knowledge. Many practiced science with an eye to the wonder of God's creation. Only bigots protest the fact.
@sexyeur im sure blind people have had near death experiences?? so what?? ask a christian what that experience was, and you will find it relates specifically to what they beleive about their religion. but ask a hindu the same thing and surprisingly (or not) you will find their experience relates specifically to their hindu beliefs.... are you saying that therefor the hindu religious claims must be true?? along with any other differing religious experiences people have supposedly had??
@scottpastry If you are so mentally constituted to discard the fact that blind people SAW their own bodies and were able to describe color, and provide impossible details—how does that escape you to prove that consciousness exists beyond the meager concept you proffer that consciousness ends when your neurons do? No words of mine will persuade such obstinance to better wisdom. Inevitably, most people I gather will make up their own minds and come to different conclusions.
@sexyeur "you are so mentally constituted to discard the fact that blind people SAW their own bodies and were able to describe color, and provide impossible details"
give examples that are testable and falsifiable, therefor making them scientifically valid..... thanks.
give evidence that consciousness extends beyond the end of brain function to back up your assertion.... thanks. your certainly right, no words of yours will convince me, only evidence.
@scottpastry "your right, no words of yours will convince me, only evidence." And glibly, you are quite the judge to qualify that, much less consider it, now aren't you? Who'd question the integrity of your noble "quest" to follow all Truth wherever it leads? Yet the blind do see. Read Mindsight, by Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper. They cite more than twenty cases where the blind detailed near death perception "indistinguishable from those of sighted persons." Evolutionists are silent.
@sexyeur haha you really need a dictionary...... what is an evolutionist??? how about all the theists out there that accept evolution?? your false dichotomies prove nothing and once again highlight your ignorance of basic definitions of terms. but obviously scientists would be silent on this 'book' just as they are silent on harry potter. they are not scientific papers published in a peer reviewed journal, hence not in the field of science, ready to be scrutinized and potentially falsified.
@scottpastry You asked for documented evidence, now that you've got it, you wouldn't consider it, such is your abiding nature. So regrettably like a hypocrite, you must allege "false dichotomies" by way of ad hominem. Yet take the objectivity to ask how do the blind see?' A god unto yourself, while you claim none else exists besides you, of course you wouldn't want to know. Of course you deny. You're too conceited to realize how belittled we already are. There is no pride but yours.
@sexyeur ahhhh evidence is testable and falsifiable..... the book you speak of is far from that...... give me testable, falsifiable evidence to consider and perhaps you will change my mind!!!
@scottpastry You insist on meeting a criminal standard you can't even prove. God has given us prophecy, while you coddle foolish conjecture you think dismisses any possibility of God summarily. The fool says in his heart, there is no god, our Scriptures say, I think, for good reason, and much better measure.
@sexyeur insist on meeting a criminal standard?? what does that even mean?? or do you just say things that sound good to you??? if you want to talk facts, give evidence. if you want to discredit evolution thats fine too, just give evidence...... but if you accept any personal testimony as a fact then you are susceptible to believing any and every personal claim made. if thats your standard for discerning truth then so be it, im not likely to be able to change that.
@scottpastry "a criminal standard" Yes. That of BELIEVING something to be true "beyond a reasonable doubt." Can an ungodly man like yourself say for a fact beyond all reasonable doubt, "there is no god"? No. A civil standard need not rise to support the "absolute" claim, but is supported by a preponderance of evidence which crucifies evolutionary theory on several fronts. Your obfuscations do little to alleviate the surer fact. You may attack in 1 direction but you flee in 7 others.
@sexyeur "Can an ungodly man like yourself say for a fact beyond all reasonable doubt, "there is no god"? No"
when did i say there can be no god? that would be another strawman. im intellectually honest enough to know that i dont know if there is a god. only zealots talk in absolutes
instead of repeatedly asserting that there is evidence to 'crucify' evolution, how about actually offering it for scrutiny? after all, its kinda hard to 'flee' from something i havent been shown now is it?? :)
@scottpastry "when did i say there can be no god?" Every time science unnecessarily divorces reason from any religious notion to the possibility of more reasonable faith merely to suit abiding scientific pretension, we are, in effect, saying, "there is no god, but me; no theory, save mine." But don't retreat to an acknowledgement of God merely because I point out such notorious arrogance. There is a reason why David Berlinski calls it "The Devil's Delusion" however "scientific."
@sexyeur ahhh so you acknowledge you put words in my mouth and never said anything like 'there cant be a god" .....
first you say science disregards competing ideas, then you assert that science changes its views in light of better evidence, now your back to saying science is pretentious?? make up your mind if you want to be taken seriously!!
why would science be based on reason, when i have already explained it is based on evidence?? get that dictionary out please, for your own sake.
@scottpastry I merely asked the question you obstinately refuse to answer. Can you, an ungodly man, who does not assume the greater plausibility for God so many MORE cherish, say with no shadow of doubt for all absolutely, "There is no god"? No; and yet your confidence in mindless evolution where Chance takes seat as Creator, is unwavering. You seem not to know your place, causing me to wonder if you are in the habit of adopting positions for which you are ill-entitled.
@sexyeur "Can you, an ungodly man, who does not assume the greater plausibility for God so many MORE cherish, say with no shadow of doubt for all absolutely, "There is no god"? No;"
are you slow or wilfully ignorant?? you asked the question and i said no.... yet you still wish to strawman me and say i represent a different opinion!! i never said there is no god.
@sexyeur my confidence in evolution is becuase every piece of evidence supports it and none disproves it, and its all testable.
you keep strawmaning me, and then wonder why i adopt the positions i do?? you have misrepresented my stances repeatedly here, so im not surprised you find it all a bit confusing. you dont have a clue about scientific definitions, and dont hesitate to set up false dichotomies which can be blamed on nothing other than your lack of understanding of wolrdview definitions
@scottpastry "my confidence in evolution is becuase every piece of evidence supports it and none disproves it, and its all testable." That is clearly an article of faith you take flying in the face of the greater unknown. What drives evolution? Mutations. How do we account for the fact that mutations are diseased? The fact remains, others disagree particularly as to what you allow potentially to qualify and interpret as evidence. You have atheistic pretenses to regard, More do not.
@sexyeur since when are all mutations diseased?? if you understood evolutionary theory you would know that there are good, bad and neutral mutations.... next??
which evidence do scientists use for evolution that you consider does not qualify as evidence??
scientists presuppose nothing other than data which has been shown to be reliable in its predictive power.... but they will let it go in the face of evidence. creationists cant accept anything which they think negates their sky daddy....
@scottpastry "since when are all mutations diseased?" Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All systems break down. Why? Could it be a cursed creation? That's the evidence. But your disparagement of faith is clear saying "sky daddy." And yet you ask defensively where you've said there is no god? Creationists are respected scientists, whereas atheists in the same arena merely demand to be. Ponder why"The problem with your idea is not that it is crazy, but that it is not crazy enough."(Niels Bohr)
@sexyeur""since when are all mutations diseased?" Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All systems break down."
your highlighting your ignorance of science again, the 2nd law you bring up states all things head towards entropy IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. big difference. when energy can be applied to said system then the 2nd law is no longer compulsory. and as long as we have a continual energy source from the sun then we have an OPEN system, and no guarantee of entropy :)
@scottpastry "no gurantee of entropy" No guarantee of entropy? LOL Oh? How so? Everyday you are closer to death, than you a moment before. "Our life is a loan received from death with sleep as the daily interest on this loan."—Arthur Schopenhauer None of your baffoonery works. Our gene pool is a closed system. Science proves every day how it gets worse, not better. We have less species, not more. Scientists are worried about extinction, not unidentified newly-evolved wild animals. Wake up.
@sexyeur " No guarantee of entropy? LOL Oh? How so? Everyday you are closer to death, than you a moment before."
while there is an input of energy, then a system is not closed and therefor not necessarily subject to the laws of entropy. beyond the individual level, organisms are increasing in information and diversity, despite your claims that there are less species now than before (demonstratively false).
extinction? yes. 100s of new species discovered every year? yes :)
@scottpastry "extinction? yes. 100s of new species discovered every year? yes :)"
And yet STILL everyday, you're dying. You are aging unto death. And in at the end of your BS, they are too. We all are. You have no guarantee but death, unless you have a greater intelligence to know that life is more than material things. God saves. He gives life, and takes it away. He cursed creation. It's GUARANTEED entropy, you could say. Science proves it. Gene pools only deteriorate.
@sexyeur "You have no guarantee but death, unless you have a greater intelligence to know that life is more than material things"
greater intelligence to know things you cant demonstrate or test?? if believing in things beyond the material world gives you emotional solace then thats great. but thats all it is.
@scottpastry All it is? You have no intelligence if you demand miracles from a God you don't care to respect even IF He could be true. But God is love. How do you quantify that in your equations before you make a decision, Scott? How do you qualify compassion? Mercy, steadfastness? Forgiveness? Selflessness? Can you test them in a beaker? Do they meet the rigorous tests of "natural selection"? God tests the heart! He gives more than cheap notions of materialism, and "emotional solace."
@sexyeur "You have no intelligence if you demand miracles from a God you don't care to respect even IF He could be true."
"i demand of your god as much as i demand of unicorns.
How do you qualify compassion? Mercy, steadfastness? Forgiveness? Selflessness? Can you test them in a beaker?"
consequences of being part of a highly social species that has depended upon mutual cooperation for countless generations. evolutionary morality!! you scratch my back, and ill scratch yours!! :)
@scottpastry And if God is not a unicorn? I see that "unicorn" BS is prejudicially-solicited to overdraw on its unliklihood. But turn to other things we haven't seen and can't physically verify, but for which the odds are BELIEVED to be greater, and we've just described dark matter/energy, AND God. Then you speak of "evolutionary morality"? What happened to mindless natural selection where only sharp teeth win? Suddenly it's "love your neighbor'?? LOL Hypocrite! You've forgotten your science!
@sexyeur maybe your god is a unicorn.....news to me though.
"for which the odds are BELIEVED to be greater, and we've just described dark matter/energy, "
indeed you have.... and its level of acceptance is equal with its level of likelihood based on evidence..... relatively lower than that of evolutionary theory which is almost unanimously accepted throughout the scientific world, the basis of which is appropriate in relation to the evidence!!
@sexyeur" What happened to mindless natural selection where only sharp teeth win? "
which part of evolutionary theory states only sharp teeth win?? or are you getting your information from creationist sites? obviously in some circumstances it is more beneficial to be smaller, or, faster, or in our case, more co operative!! natural selection is simply the process that pits competing (and mutating) organisms against each other in a changing environment. for humans that included mutual cooperation!
@scottpastry Yet more tergiversating BS? Actually, I read the Bible. Try it sometime. Who cares what happened to your "evolving" natural selection! LOL Let's believe T-Rex's teeth turned into beaks, and his huge body miraculously mutated into a chicken—cooperatively, no less! LOL
Take it from American Express and scottpastry: "Evolution is anywhere you imagine it to be!" How blind can one be? "But if your light is darkness, how deep that darkness will be..."
@sexyeur i read the bible... far from impressive and even further from evidence.
im not concerned in the slightest if you dont care about evolution either :)
and no scientist thinks bird evolved from T rex, they think it came from therapods, of which t rex was one variation. remember, all danes are dogs, not all dogs are danes :)
that you would even posit the idea of a formed organism mutating into another organism , cooperatively, shows how little you understand about the theory.
@scottpastry You haven't read God's Word for truth. You just claim you do so you won't seem that stupid to others but it's clear to me you don't know God's Word, because you don't know Him. Jesus thanked God for revealing Himself to the "poor" and not the "wise" (meaning you, conceited in your own eyes). You have no need of Him, or His Word, so you can't see Him. He won't let you! It is written "...both the one who fools and the one fooled belong to Him." He has vessels of honor and of dishonor!
projecting again i see?? hey there is plenty of truth in the bible, references to real places and people (not unlike harry potter) just no supernatural evidence. :)
"it's clear to me you don't know God's Word, because you don't know Him"
@sexyeur its pretty funny, i explained the benefit of mutual co operation in a species in regards to succeeding in a particular environment, and you have misrepresented my claims by relating it to genetic mutations!! as though i would ever say that an organism 'cooperates with mutations' lol either you are a little slow, or very disingenuous......
@sexyeur "Do they meet the rigorous tests of "natural selection"?"
but of course they do!! in themselves, they demonstrate how individual members of social species benefit form mutual cooperation, giving an evolutionary advantage over individuals from that group that dont co operate!!
by all means, keep the evolutionary questions coming :)
@sexyeur gene pools only deteriorate?? im afraid to ask but... wheres your evidence for this, contradicting the mass of testable scientific evidence which contradicts your claim ??
send it along with your evidence against evolution, and your evidence that science states the universe came from nothing.... thanks :)
@sexyeur "But your disparagement of faith is clear saying "sky daddy." And yet you ask defensively where you've said there is no god?"
just becaese i call your god a sky daddy says nothing of my intellectual honesty in regards to acceptance of any particular god. you have proved very good at putting words in my mouth, but again you are the only one saying that i claim "there is no god".
@scottpastry Your intellectual dishonesty is well-noted. The issue is not what god YOU tergiversatingly do not claim as god, but in the Living God others do claim, and for which we have proof.
Read the prophecies! BEFORE you discard them for your foolish stupidity. Save your soul, or damn yourself willingly. Science won't change a thing. Behold I give you life and death, God says. Keep my word and I'll abide. Or refuse Me and die. You wager your soul on personal, sheer ignorance? Not wise!
@sexyeur you accept as absolute truth the manipulative threats of men from the bronze age?? your choice..... but certainly not evidence for your god :)
am i to wait for this evidence of your god as i seem to be waiting on this evidence against evolution you keep claiming exists??
@sexyeur "causing me to wonder if you are in the habit of adopting positions for which you are ill-entitled. "
thats rich coming from someone who thinks a scientific theory is the same as a personal theory, that an evolutionist cant beleive in god, and that evolution makes any statement whatsoever on the supernatural....
@scottpastry "someone who thinks..theory...is personal...that an evolutionist cant beleive in god, and that evolution makes any statement whatsoever on the supernatural."
Why do you now lie? I've repeatedly acknowledged that some Believers do in fact accept evolution in some form, quite "personally." I merely point out what others have in that there is entrenched prejudice to merely atheistic pretenses in scientific communities whereby many are cowed from more legitimate expression of faith.
@sexyeur" I merely point out what others have in that there is entrenched prejudice to merely atheistic pretenses in scientific communities"
by atheistic pretenses you mean they dont use supernatural explanations that cant be tested and falsified?? but of course!! anything supernatural is, by definition, excluded from the scientific method until it becomes testable, therefor part of the natural world, therefor no longer supernatural..... your god included :)
@scottpastry The world you take for granted is supernaturally held together. You'd have yet to answer why there should be anything at all, much less any mind or reason to understand it by betraying sheer purpose. You'll discover teleology, even while the Anthropic principle beckons you. Don't be damned: this world began with God's awesome power, and it will end with His awesome power. Perhaps you could regard naturalism as a lesser "persuasion?" Ah! Now that would be refreshing.
Well by your reasoning, before the big bang, I could say there shouldn't be anything because from nothing comes nothing. But here we are! It's really something! Fine-tuned at that! So, if nothing comes from nothing, why should there be anything so exquisite exotic at all? Nothing. Denying God, Absolutely Nothing. That's fundamental science. But these are *God's* laws. Not Einstein's. Discover the Anthropic principle. Science discovers what God designs!
@sexyeur the universe comes form nothing?? it seems you listen to what crationists tell you science states, rather than checking for yourself..... no scientific theory states the universe came from nothing.... because scientists are intellectually honest enough to admit when they dont know something. scientists cant yet measure anything beyond moments after the big bang!!
cite one peer reviewed paper from a scientific journal that claims the universe came form nothing.... thanks :)
@scottpastry God created the universe. A child will tell you. but your science offers you no explanation whatsoever. You're thinking stops at that horizon because you can't rise above your own tergiversations. Think. You know it came from something, don't you. Something Very Powerful. The universe is a BIG big place to get lost in, if you could only measure it with a span of your hand like God does. It is written. God created the world. Not science.
@scottpastry "unlike you, i dont claim to know anything i dont have evidence for."
Open a bible, and you're staring at His evidence! Read the prophecies and stop insisting you have no evidence for Him because you're too bigotted and lazy to read it His dealings were elicited from outside time and space. No one can predict things and make them happen hundreds of years later! He challenges us if we don't believe Him, then believe what He does! That's prophecy you could be too dumb to consider.
@scottpastry Cyrus did no such thing. God said Cyrus would have no knowledge of Him. He didn't. Your conjecture that somehow people who didn't even subscribe to Hebrew faith conspired to fulfill scriptures in many cases hundreds of years before they transpired even while they didn't know of them, shows how little you really are. It's even much MORE than Cyrus but I won't throw my pearls to swine, and I won't give His bread to dogs like you.
@sexyeur what evidence do you have that cyrus was unaware of hebrew scriptures?? particularly when he was obviously familiar enough with the hebrew people to liberate them??
use as many biblical based derogatory comments as you like....... it washes over me much in the same way it does when alien abductees get defensive when you doubt their evidence.
but again, why you digress into biblical content as a means of refuting evolutionary theory i will never know.
@sexyeur "It's even much MORE than Cyrus but I won't throw my pearls to swine, and I won't give His bread to dogs like you. "
(Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
if you really beleive the bible then you have major grounds for concern :)
@scottpastry Scottpastry, you hypocrite. You quote Matt 5:22 to me, but you're no brother. You're no Believer. When Mary came for Jesus, He said "THESE are my family!" Your provocations prove you are the evil swine who tramples pearls God spoke of and the dog that waits to turn on me. So because you say you "see" better than He, your guilt remains such that you are "guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." My patience with you is only like hot coals on your head!
@scottpastry destruction has never produced construction. if one bang started all galaxies they wouldnt spin some clockwise, some counterclockwise. look at dna, the world around you. science found that our eyes and all senses are only there because we sense it . closely enough all particles are vibrating , and only energy. its a matrix we have been created to be in... pray, study, you'll find truth if u want it and pray earnestly for it. you'll know ur saved
@scottpastry wow your pretty stubborn aren't you zackrowe1 clearly made better points than you, all you did was deny what he said. You can believe whatever you want, but have the guts to admit when you lost, be a man...
@scottpastry What are you talking about? i never made any "unsupported comments" or called you "gutless"
all i said was that you were denying the stuff other people where saying, which you did? Are you just being a troll or something because you've posted, like, 20 comments in one day? Get a life, I dont even know who your talking to anymore, all these comments seem to be yours.
@scottpastry OMG! when i said you have been at this for days it was a real understatement! your comments go back 3 months from now! you really need some friends dude...
@BoredomPie wow. 20 comments in 1 day suddenly jumps to 60 over........... months and months?? and each a response to conversations started by theists who wish to start dialogue with me. and im happy to have discussions with them. the fact that you think you can work out i have no life or friends from that, show exactly how deluded and self assured you are. but i now come to expect ad hominem arguments from creationists who make unsupported assertions and then disappear.... have fun.
@BoredomPie The irony is really dripping from your baseless, unsupported comments now. At least the other creationists here have the intellectual fortitude to defend their claims. Then you come along, make vague assertions and call me gutless..... and then utterly fail to back up anything you said when called out on it.
It would be hilarious actually, if it wasnt so lame. You give creationists a bad name......
@scottpastry Lol. are you still here, you have atleast 30-60 comments on here, you've been at it for days, i will not reply to your comments any further because unlike you, I have friends, and better things to do.
@scottpastry "and when did i retreat to an acknowledgment of god?? more strawmen, this seems to be your forte."
Perhaps you're the straw man waiting like the chaff to be blown away with the wind. More intelligently, you did ask, in your own defense no less "when did I say there can't be a god?" Would you use His "possible" existence only when it's advantageous for you? How exhausting.
@sexyeur "you did ask, in your own defense no less "when did I say there can't be a god?" Would you use His "possible" existence only when it's advantageous for you? "
i asked it because you claimed i did when i clearly didnt........
i havent come across an instance in my life yet where the possible existence of a god is 'advantageous to me'. so the question is baseless until that happens. :)
Small children need to be spoon fed, and have their azzes wiped for them. They cry, "Give me! Give me! Give me!" But so young, they never really mean to change their minds. They merely assume yours for their own. The blind see and yet pretend not to thinking our lowly minds are such a prize. But the heart of a man is a much deeper matter.
@sexyeur you want to talk about the attitudes of children and blind people now?? find another video dude..... when you have something tangible to discuss about evolution then lets talk :)
@sexyeur im alleging false dichotomies by way of ad hominem?? you really need a dictionary..... ad hominem is arguments is making claims against a persons character or actions separate to the original argument........ you are the one that characterised 'evolutionists' as unwilling to accept differing evidence (ironically this is ad hominem), i simply pointed out how fallacious this argument was, becuase plenty of people who are religious and/or accept NDE also accept evolution.
@sexyeur so you think that any religious experience a person has when they are near death proves said religion?? you believe their are multiple gods and heavens based on different peoples testimonies??
@scottpastry "so you think that any religious experience a person has when they are near death proves said religion?? you believe their are multiple gods and heavens based on different peoples testimonies??" No, rather you deftly mischaracterize evidence so that you may not even merely consider any view to what evolution couldn't be. Chance is god but tell me what greater dignity evolution affords you for all your endearing passions and abiding concerns that His faithful would not understand.
@sexyeur "No, rather you deftly mischaracterize evidence so that you may not even merely consider any view to what evolution couldn't be"
so you would accept the evidence of a christian that had a near death experience, but disregard any other religious experience?? dont blame your personal bias on me!!
and you set up a false dichotomy...... evolution is not mutually exclusive from any religion, let alone the Christianity. why you thought near death experiences disproved evolution is beyond me.
@scottpastry Rather I would, and you should, accept the evidence that many BLIND persons contrary to the scientifically accepted expectations of what or should be possible in our day and quite *irregardless of faith* and/or religious experience, have actually SEEN, even while clinically dead. Why should this startling fact elude you most particularly even when it apprehends the rest of us? It is telling that evolutionary theory does not even begin to rise to any explanation, yes? More agree.
@sexyeur so you do accept any claims of NDE based on anyone of differing religions then!! what a weak, vunerable basis for discernign truth!! but whatever floats your boat.
anecdotal testimony is not evidence, however convincing you find it. again, when its testable and falsifiable then it can be scientifically considered.
and only someone with a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory states could think it is supposed to explain anything other than diversity in species.
@scottpastry "so you do accept any claims of NDE based on anyone of differing religions then!! what a weak, vunerable basis for discernign truth!"
it's sincerely stupid to keep confusing the fact of the phenomenon, ie. that of acute consciousness beyond clinical death or incapacitation—astoundingly when there is no neural activity—with the vagary that they must also qualify to have some religious epiphany because of it. It's inconsequential to anyone with eyes to see your hypocrisy.
@sexyeur no neural activity?? really??then you dont know what death is....... your heart can stop, you can stop breathing and be returned ..... but when neural activity fully ceases, there is no return to life..... so while one may be close to death, as long as the brain is functioning, it is capable of activity that can be interpreted as a religious epiphany.... no one has fully ceased brain function and returned to tell their experience!! including non christian NDE experiences!! :)
@scottpastry Are you still persistent in the stupidity that NDE's for your "esteemed" consideration must necessarily regard a religious aspect? Not all do. You still have the monumental problem of determining how "natural" it is that clinically dead blind people report seeing, accurately, verifiably. How should the evolution you defend which denies God's superintendence over His creation even begin to explain? There is a Reality that demands greater respect than frivolous contempt.
@sexyeur why does evolution deny god?? why should a theory explaining diversity in organisms explain supernatural entities any more than gravity theory should?? and when did i say ALL NDEs have religious connotations??
and as i have explained, just because you are clinically dead does not necessarily mean neural activity has fully ceased!! the fact they were brought back to give their anecdotal experience shows their brain was still functioning!! what is so hard to comprehend about this??
@scottpastry Evolution is godless because it takes all God's rightful creative glory (and hence His authority and our blessings) and dismisses them to blind chance. Unlike evolution, gravity is not trying to supersede God as negligible. "What is so hard to comprehend about this?" Your obduracy. The question stands.How is it blind people in clinical death, when brain functioning is significantly impaired, are able to give detailed accounts that require open eyes by every other "natural" standard?
how is gravity any different to evolution, if an atheist claims both have purely natural causes??
your assertions about the difference between the theories of evolution and gravity are merely personal opinions, personal incredulity with no grounding in evidence. the fact that many theists see no problem with a god creating evolution refutes that argument entirely.
@sexyeur "How is it blind people in clinical death, when brain functioning is significantly impaired, are able to give detailed accounts that require open eyes by every other "natural" standard?"
heightened sensitivity of the other senses, something blind people are renowned for :)
@sexyeur why dont you ask gravitational theory (which i assume you accept based on inferred science) to explain NDEs??? it certainly cant, so you doubt it too???
again you fail to address the false dichotomy you set up, and i refute. how do you explain the many theists that accept evolution??
@scottpastry How do I explain the many deists that accept evolution, you ask? I've already addressed this. But once again for deaf ears: they speak for themselves. Francis Collins "accepts" evolution. He is a believer. Gerald Schroeder is also a man of faith who "accepts" evolution, but their sense faith is greater.. These believers "accept" evolution not in the strictest sense you do, since they believe God. All that seems to remain is your nagging hypocrisy in sheer light of it.
@sexyeurim glad you recognize the false dichotomy you set up doesnt actually exist. indeed many theists accept evolution in light of the evidence. and their is no element of evolution i accept that they dont. if people think a god is required for evolution to work, thats fine. at least they are intellectually honest enough to recognise facts and evidence before their eyes, and not try and discredit that evidence by claiming it fails to answer everything!!!
@scottpastry it's not about the NDE's per se. It's about your allegation that underlying assumption of evolution that everything has natural explanations. Clearly the fact that blind people are proven to see in clinical death disarms any such casual stupidity. You pretend to miss the point, per usual.
@sexyeur when did i claim everything has natural explanations?? quite obviously , thats a strawman , as i have never said such a thing. i do , however, say that only things in the natural world are testable, meaning only things in the natural world can be considered by the scientific method. you seem to think science should take seriously any and every personal testamony, including contradictory NDE experiences (unless you accept multiple gods/afterlifes) alien abdution testamonies etc.
@scottpastry "when did i claim everything has natural explanations?" When you stuck your neck out for evolution as if it was all that could ever be true and decried "religious" experience in favor of outright prejudice. Yet again you are the minority. The world over believes in some form of afterlife. Must we all be wrong? Christians, moreover, have more than science. They have God's Self-Affirming prophecy. Have you heard of Israel? They were born as in a day as God before declared. Uncanny?
@sexyeur "When you stuck your neck out for evolution as if it was all that could ever be true and decried "religious" experience in favor of outright prejudice"
lol projecting much??? if your argument is based on putting words in my mouth then you wont get far in rational debates. again, if you think relgious testamony is adequate for you, you must accept multiple gods and afterlifes!! so be it......
the world over believes in some form of afterlife?? except for those who dont??
@sexyeur im in the minority?? which minority is that?? and besides, any argument ad populum is fallacious...... just becuase a majority of people beleive something does not make it true.
and how does Christianity have science, when you have gone to such efforts to discredit it as scientists 'unwilling to accept different ideas'....... all fields of science agree and converge with evolution :)
@scottpastry "im in the minority? which minority?" Jesus answers like this: "When someone invites you to a feast, don't take the highest seat of honor, or the host may come say to you "Give this more noble man your seat." Humiliated, you'll have to take the least important seat. Instead, when invited, take the lowest seat, so when the Host comes, He says to you, "Friend, move up to a better place." Then you will be honored." The moral? If you exalt yourself, you will be humbled. THAT minority.
@sexyeur im not interested in the pride complex of your god. im interested in the supposed evidence against evolution that you repeatedly assert exists and that i run away from, yet you have failed to produce. find someone else to project your moral and character judgements on...... it has nothing to do with this video :)
@scottpastry "project your moral and character judgments...it has nothing to do with this video" I don't wish to judge you. Your arrogance confronts every bearing of the evidence that you capriciously reject, for the falser claim you've never seen it, nor been told. Read the prophecies. How was Cyrus called by name more than 100 years before? How do the blind see to recall detailed events, when they're dead? Evolution requires much less; yet stubbornly, God's Word IS our best evidence.Go figure.
@sexyeur you dont wish to judge me but im arrogant?? that makes as much sense as scientists that simultaniously deny new evidence while also accepting new evidence as you have claimed earlier lol... contradiction at every turn.......
you keep talking about this evidence against evolution, but you wont show it to me!! you sound like a broken record....
and cyrus is another example of self forfulled prophecy.... naming a child in reference to your religious beliefs is hardly evidence for that god.
@sexyeur heard of the self forfulled prophecy of israel?? sure... if enough people want to see that prophecy forfulled then of course they can make it so!! hardly miraculous or evidence of a deity.
what is interesting is the countless false biblical prophecies, including that of jesus. is that evidence of no god??
@scottpastry heard of the self forfulled prophecy of israel?? if enough people want to see that prophecy forfulled then of course they can make it so!!...including that of jesus."
You're hateful because you've never read the prophecies. It's evidence of greater stupidity really to comment on something before you've seriously looked at it. But"if enough people want to see that [evolution is true and you hate God] then of course they can make it so". Yet God is still true, despite you. Amen.
@sexyeur you keep projecting on me dude.... im not hateful of you or your god (i hate your god about as much as i hate unicorns).
i havent looked at the prophecies?? the countless false prophecies (including those of jesus) over the centuries??
that is evidence for you?? fair enough whatever suits you.......
get back to me with this evidence against evolution when you find it.... along with the scientific paper that states the universe cam from nothing.. thanks :)
@scottpastry The prophecies of God are true. That you've found countless false doesn't change Him. You are not fair. You are not just. You hang your ignorance on callous disregard for the integrity of Scripture and you expect me not to see you for who you are? You are hateful in your dishonesty. God sees you. He could care less about your scientific papers, my friend. His word is evidence. He testifies to Himself so that you are without excuse. Only God is true and every man is a liar.
@sexyeur as long as you think scientific papers hold no evidence... and a contrived piece of bronze age literature is absolute truth... the you are not even in the same ball park as the scientifically enlightened, let alone in a position to refute it :)
when you give up the semantics and offer evidence for any of your claims, then we can get somewhere..... until then you are mere
Irreducible complexity proves "design".. design proves "intelligence".. "intelligent design" disproves EVOLUTION!
amgineco 2 months ago
Video #3 disproves Evolution..
amgineco 2 months ago
I'm a Christian. But when chuck refers to irreducible complexity I'll have to say that although it's true that-that bacteria won't propel itself any longer if just 1/40 of those parts are missing. However, can the resulting bacteria, that has a dysfunctional tail, can that survive the environment? If yes, though youll no longer have a mouse trap, you'll have something new that can survive. Irreducible complexity doesn't disprove evolution. Srry
tatsumakisempyukaku 2 months ago
@tatsumakisempyukaku your logic (or lack of it) disproves evolution though. :/
stefanielorimer 3 weeks ago
Scottpastry: every living cell in your body is an example. So is the blood clotting mechanism; the immune system; the human eye,ear, heart, liver... EVERY part of your body is an example of the fearfully complex design that we are. Irreducible complexity exists in living organisms at every level: from the cell to the whole of the living creature. There are a great many parts of living organisms, that, if removed, will cause the death of the organism.
okflyer777 6 months ago
@okflyer777 Irreducible complexity is merely something A. Nobody can explain how it formed, or B. You aren't qualified enough to understand how it formed.
gohoggyourself 5 months ago
@gohoggyourself No that's not correct. The term "irreducible complexity" comes from PhD Biochemist Michael Behe, and is fully explained in his book "Darwins Black Box". From the book, page 39"
" By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning... " (cont'd)
okflyer777 5 months ago
@gohoggyourself ... " An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor system to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." end quote. So, as you can see I-C systems have nothing to do with our ability to explain or understand them. They're I-C due to the number and type of design-level components as Behe defines the term.
okflyer777 5 months ago
@okflyer777 See here's the thing, we KNOW how the eye evolved, as well as many other claimed I-C systems, you are just too lazy to look them up.
gohoggyourself 5 months ago
@gohoggyourself No, we have absolutely no idea how a system as complex as the human eye could evolve. Darwin didn't try to discover a real pathway that evolution might have used to evolve the eye. Rather, he pointed to organisms with different kinds of eyes and suggested the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as the intermediates. By the 19th century, the anatomy of the eye was known in detail. However, the various complex mechanisms (cont'd...)
okflyer777 5 months ago
... of the eye such as the pupil, muscular system, retina, and the biochemical/neurological system... each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Your assertion that we KNOW how the eye evolved is pure wishful thinking. Evolution hasn't been proven as hard science, not by a long shot. If it was, it wouldn't be a THEORY today. Yes, I've done my homework!
okflyer777 5 months ago 2
@okflyer777 You are a liar and have obviously researched nothing. You don't even know what the word THEORY means. You know that the earth revolving around the sun is a theory, and that too is contradicted by the Bible. Now child please go and REALLY do your homework. I am grading and it's due next week.
TheSatanicView 5 months ago
@TheSatanicView "The fossil record has, until now, been inadequate in providing insight into the early evolution of eyes during the initial radiation of many animal groups known as the Cambrian explosion."
stefanielorimer 3 weeks ago
and further: "This is surprising because Cambrian Burgess-Shale-type deposits are replete with exquisitely preserved animals, especially arthropods, that possess eyes3, 4, 5. However, with the exception of biomineralized trilobite eyes, virtually nothing is known about the details of their optical design." Nature Science Journal no 474, 631–634 30 June 2011 - no, we do not know how the eye 'evolved' - we're guessing and we keep being surprised by what we find.
stefanielorimer 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
This has been flagged as spam show
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
This has been flagged as spam show
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
This has been flagged as spam show
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
This has been flagged as spam show
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
This has been flagged as spam show
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
This has been flagged as spam show
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 7 months ago in playlist on stem cells by chuck missler
Some species live for days or only hours. How is the concept of evolution applied to such a creature? Its re-diddly-icilous. Besides, the fossil records are out of whack. Theres dino fossils from hundreds of million of years ago (not), but theres no fossils of all the 'evolving' creatures between then and now? Gimme a break.
Isnt it funny, the Bible never needs defending and always proves true, however science is always changing its mind and plays the eternal catch-up game.
kaderoder 9 months ago
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. —Prov. 26:12
Jesus told them, "If you were blind, you wouldn't be sinners. But now you say, 'We see,' so you continue to be sinners. —John 9:41
"The harvest is past, the summer has ended, and we are not saved." Since my people are crushed, I am crushed; I mourn, and horror grips me."—Jer. 8:20, 21
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.—Heb. 10:39
sexyeur 9 months ago
5 parts to catch a mouse, you have to have all parts to catch a mouse
if you have 4 of the 5 parts, you don't catch 4/5 as many mice lol
MrSuperEman 10 months ago
Scottpastry, I believe the mousetrap analogy was used merely for simplicity.
We could use an actual living organism as an example also. Either way, the result is a dead non-functioning mass.
okflyer777 10 months ago
@okflyer777 please give me an example of irreducible complexity in a living organism to back up your claim. using a mousetrap as an example for simplicities sake negates a true understanding of what behes claims are.
but ill accept your premise for the sake of it... when does a mousetrap become 'alive' as opposed to its 'dead' predecessor ?? and why is a mousetrap that has a part removed suddenly 'non functioning' ?? as dr ken miller explains, it becomes a perfectly functioning tie clip!! :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
4:20 - 5:00 is extremely compelling, even for an atheist. Can't explain that away.
jatroup12 11 months ago
Dead organisms cannot evolve. With any part of the irreducible system taken away, the system does not function and is dead. The result cannot evolve; cannot support the theory.
Supposing there might be another "purpose" for the (now dead) life form does not refute the irreducible argument. Death = game over.
Behe's book: "Darwin's Black Box" makes the argument abundantly clear.
okflyer777 11 months ago
@okflyer777 then why use a mouse trap in the analogy, when it is also dead??? after all, evolutionists are only addressing behes specific clam about mouse traps.
scottpastry 11 months ago
the origins of information is the Word of God wich is Jesus the Christ
RONIDC1979 1 year ago 2
Behes' irreducible complexity argument has already been found to be false.
a. Take a part out of a mouse trap... it still works as a belt buckle...
b. It has already been shown how a bacterial flagellum works without one, even many of its parts.
See : Dover Trial.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry If you take a part away from a mousetrap you can't catch a mouse with it anymore, that's the point. If you take a part away from the bacterial flagellum it loses the purpose it served.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 "If you take a part away from a mousetrap you can't catch a mouse with it anymore, that's the point."
you dont have to catch a mouse with it!! as long as it serves a previous purpose at all, then we can explain why it existed and then incurred a mutation to change it to its current use!!
please try and grasp evolutionary theory, it is not goal driven.
scottpastry 1 year ago
@scottpastry No one is handicapped, Evolution is a theory, not a fact, the more you actually open up to the reality of it, you see how foolish it is. Even without adding the possibility of God or designer, Evolution is pure nonsense. Only the naive or the follower would cling to it, many Pro Evolution individuals are not even scientist, are just regular people following something in that which they believe and hold no stake in, without logical thought, just repeating someone else findings.
Shadowlooker12 11 months ago
@Shadowlooker12 Behe accepts that evolution is true, so he is a fool right??? lol
scottpastry 11 months ago
@scottpastry wow didn't know Behe accepted evolution. He's not alone. Francis Collins accepts it, yet claims it does not interfere with his faith. Also, Gerald Schroeder, as well a man of faith. Perhaps there is some pride to protect, because there is nothing in faith that compels them to accept such sophistry, nor to give it safer harbor. It's an affront to the Living God. The mere fact of God's last special act, Eve proves our point. Sex alone is enough to topple their idol. Chance is no god.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur " Perhaps there is some pride to protect, because there is nothing in faith that compels them to accept such sophistry, nor to give it safer harbor. It's an affront to the Living God. The mere fact of God's last special act, Eve proves our point. Sex alone is enough to topple their idol."
semantics.......your assertion that gods creation is a fact is based on no demonstrative evidence.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry I think the fact that you and I are corresponding here is enough evidence that chance is out of the question. You have free will. You are not responding because your physical body is urging you, but because your God-given mind compels you. Clearly you are more than mindless flesh. I attribute your miraculous consciousness and the fact you awake to it every morning per usual, to be one most astounding fact of many that you take for granted and for which science offers little "faith'.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur you have completely left the relevant subject of evolutionary theory in this video. i dont care what you attribute your consciousness too..... but science happily and continually searches for answers on brain function, for which we understand much (the opposite of faith, which is belief without evidence) if neuron activity stops, so does consciousness...... nothing miraculous about that.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry That you don't care is precisely your problem here, if you wish to honestly entertain the limitations of evolutionary theory in light of the subject matter in these videos. Foolishly as well, you take your position with no retreat. Every serious scientist revises, even discards his theories in the light of better information. Did you know that blind people have actually seen in near death experiences? Astounding evidence you will rule out of hand, no doubt to save little/no face.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur what is this limiting factor in evolutionary theory you speak of? and whats it got to do with supposed near death experiences?? of course scientists discard theories in light of better info...... despite your earlier assertions that "There is collusion & suppression in the scientific community regarding the possibility of ANY competing theory we might accept which might improve or displace it altogether." (you cant jump between contradictory assertions and expect to be taken seriously)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry To elucidate for you, the largest limiting factor in evolutionary theory to my mind is that many of its most ardent proponents insist there can be no other theory, however plausible to the worldview of so many others. Atheists petulantly refuse to admit that indeed they are in a clear minority here, despite the faith of so many distinguished believers who have advanced their knowledge. Many practiced science with an eye to the wonder of God's creation. Only bigots protest the fact.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur im sure blind people have had near death experiences?? so what?? ask a christian what that experience was, and you will find it relates specifically to what they beleive about their religion. but ask a hindu the same thing and surprisingly (or not) you will find their experience relates specifically to their hindu beliefs.... are you saying that therefor the hindu religious claims must be true?? along with any other differing religious experiences people have supposedly had??
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry If you are so mentally constituted to discard the fact that blind people SAW their own bodies and were able to describe color, and provide impossible details—how does that escape you to prove that consciousness exists beyond the meager concept you proffer that consciousness ends when your neurons do? No words of mine will persuade such obstinance to better wisdom. Inevitably, most people I gather will make up their own minds and come to different conclusions.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur "you are so mentally constituted to discard the fact that blind people SAW their own bodies and were able to describe color, and provide impossible details"
give examples that are testable and falsifiable, therefor making them scientifically valid..... thanks.
give evidence that consciousness extends beyond the end of brain function to back up your assertion.... thanks. your certainly right, no words of yours will convince me, only evidence.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "your right, no words of yours will convince me, only evidence." And glibly, you are quite the judge to qualify that, much less consider it, now aren't you? Who'd question the integrity of your noble "quest" to follow all Truth wherever it leads? Yet the blind do see. Read Mindsight, by Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper. They cite more than twenty cases where the blind detailed near death perception "indistinguishable from those of sighted persons." Evolutionists are silent.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur haha you really need a dictionary...... what is an evolutionist??? how about all the theists out there that accept evolution?? your false dichotomies prove nothing and once again highlight your ignorance of basic definitions of terms. but obviously scientists would be silent on this 'book' just as they are silent on harry potter. they are not scientific papers published in a peer reviewed journal, hence not in the field of science, ready to be scrutinized and potentially falsified.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry You asked for documented evidence, now that you've got it, you wouldn't consider it, such is your abiding nature. So regrettably like a hypocrite, you must allege "false dichotomies" by way of ad hominem. Yet take the objectivity to ask how do the blind see?' A god unto yourself, while you claim none else exists besides you, of course you wouldn't want to know. Of course you deny. You're too conceited to realize how belittled we already are. There is no pride but yours.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur ahhhh evidence is testable and falsifiable..... the book you speak of is far from that...... give me testable, falsifiable evidence to consider and perhaps you will change my mind!!!
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry You insist on meeting a criminal standard you can't even prove. God has given us prophecy, while you coddle foolish conjecture you think dismisses any possibility of God summarily. The fool says in his heart, there is no god, our Scriptures say, I think, for good reason, and much better measure.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur insist on meeting a criminal standard?? what does that even mean?? or do you just say things that sound good to you??? if you want to talk facts, give evidence. if you want to discredit evolution thats fine too, just give evidence...... but if you accept any personal testimony as a fact then you are susceptible to believing any and every personal claim made. if thats your standard for discerning truth then so be it, im not likely to be able to change that.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "a criminal standard" Yes. That of BELIEVING something to be true "beyond a reasonable doubt." Can an ungodly man like yourself say for a fact beyond all reasonable doubt, "there is no god"? No. A civil standard need not rise to support the "absolute" claim, but is supported by a preponderance of evidence which crucifies evolutionary theory on several fronts. Your obfuscations do little to alleviate the surer fact. You may attack in 1 direction but you flee in 7 others.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur "Can an ungodly man like yourself say for a fact beyond all reasonable doubt, "there is no god"? No"
when did i say there can be no god? that would be another strawman. im intellectually honest enough to know that i dont know if there is a god. only zealots talk in absolutes
instead of repeatedly asserting that there is evidence to 'crucify' evolution, how about actually offering it for scrutiny? after all, its kinda hard to 'flee' from something i havent been shown now is it?? :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "when did i say there can be no god?" Every time science unnecessarily divorces reason from any religious notion to the possibility of more reasonable faith merely to suit abiding scientific pretension, we are, in effect, saying, "there is no god, but me; no theory, save mine." But don't retreat to an acknowledgement of God merely because I point out such notorious arrogance. There is a reason why David Berlinski calls it "The Devil's Delusion" however "scientific."
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur ahhh so you acknowledge you put words in my mouth and never said anything like 'there cant be a god" .....
first you say science disregards competing ideas, then you assert that science changes its views in light of better evidence, now your back to saying science is pretentious?? make up your mind if you want to be taken seriously!!
why would science be based on reason, when i have already explained it is based on evidence?? get that dictionary out please, for your own sake.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry I merely asked the question you obstinately refuse to answer. Can you, an ungodly man, who does not assume the greater plausibility for God so many MORE cherish, say with no shadow of doubt for all absolutely, "There is no god"? No; and yet your confidence in mindless evolution where Chance takes seat as Creator, is unwavering. You seem not to know your place, causing me to wonder if you are in the habit of adopting positions for which you are ill-entitled.
sexyeur 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sexyeur "Can you, an ungodly man, who does not assume the greater plausibility for God so many MORE cherish, say with no shadow of doubt for all absolutely, "There is no god"? No;"
are you slow or wilfully ignorant?? you asked the question and i said no.... yet you still wish to strawman me and say i represent a different opinion!! i never said there is no god.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur my confidence in evolution is becuase every piece of evidence supports it and none disproves it, and its all testable.
you keep strawmaning me, and then wonder why i adopt the positions i do?? you have misrepresented my stances repeatedly here, so im not surprised you find it all a bit confusing. you dont have a clue about scientific definitions, and dont hesitate to set up false dichotomies which can be blamed on nothing other than your lack of understanding of wolrdview definitions
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "my confidence in evolution is becuase every piece of evidence supports it and none disproves it, and its all testable." That is clearly an article of faith you take flying in the face of the greater unknown. What drives evolution? Mutations. How do we account for the fact that mutations are diseased? The fact remains, others disagree particularly as to what you allow potentially to qualify and interpret as evidence. You have atheistic pretenses to regard, More do not.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur since when are all mutations diseased?? if you understood evolutionary theory you would know that there are good, bad and neutral mutations.... next??
which evidence do scientists use for evolution that you consider does not qualify as evidence??
scientists presuppose nothing other than data which has been shown to be reliable in its predictive power.... but they will let it go in the face of evidence. creationists cant accept anything which they think negates their sky daddy....
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "since when are all mutations diseased?" Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All systems break down. Why? Could it be a cursed creation? That's the evidence. But your disparagement of faith is clear saying "sky daddy." And yet you ask defensively where you've said there is no god? Creationists are respected scientists, whereas atheists in the same arena merely demand to be. Ponder why"The problem with your idea is not that it is crazy, but that it is not crazy enough."(Niels Bohr)
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur""since when are all mutations diseased?" Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All systems break down."
your highlighting your ignorance of science again, the 2nd law you bring up states all things head towards entropy IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. big difference. when energy can be applied to said system then the 2nd law is no longer compulsory. and as long as we have a continual energy source from the sun then we have an OPEN system, and no guarantee of entropy :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "no gurantee of entropy" No guarantee of entropy? LOL Oh? How so? Everyday you are closer to death, than you a moment before. "Our life is a loan received from death with sleep as the daily interest on this loan."—Arthur Schopenhauer None of your baffoonery works. Our gene pool is a closed system. Science proves every day how it gets worse, not better. We have less species, not more. Scientists are worried about extinction, not unidentified newly-evolved wild animals. Wake up.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur " No guarantee of entropy? LOL Oh? How so? Everyday you are closer to death, than you a moment before."
while there is an input of energy, then a system is not closed and therefor not necessarily subject to the laws of entropy. beyond the individual level, organisms are increasing in information and diversity, despite your claims that there are less species now than before (demonstratively false).
extinction? yes. 100s of new species discovered every year? yes :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "extinction? yes. 100s of new species discovered every year? yes :)"
And yet STILL everyday, you're dying. You are aging unto death. And in at the end of your BS, they are too. We all are. You have no guarantee but death, unless you have a greater intelligence to know that life is more than material things. God saves. He gives life, and takes it away. He cursed creation. It's GUARANTEED entropy, you could say. Science proves it. Gene pools only deteriorate.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur "You have no guarantee but death, unless you have a greater intelligence to know that life is more than material things"
greater intelligence to know things you cant demonstrate or test?? if believing in things beyond the material world gives you emotional solace then thats great. but thats all it is.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry All it is? You have no intelligence if you demand miracles from a God you don't care to respect even IF He could be true. But God is love. How do you quantify that in your equations before you make a decision, Scott? How do you qualify compassion? Mercy, steadfastness? Forgiveness? Selflessness? Can you test them in a beaker? Do they meet the rigorous tests of "natural selection"? God tests the heart! He gives more than cheap notions of materialism, and "emotional solace."
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur "You have no intelligence if you demand miracles from a God you don't care to respect even IF He could be true."
"i demand of your god as much as i demand of unicorns.
How do you qualify compassion? Mercy, steadfastness? Forgiveness? Selflessness? Can you test them in a beaker?"
consequences of being part of a highly social species that has depended upon mutual cooperation for countless generations. evolutionary morality!! you scratch my back, and ill scratch yours!! :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry And if God is not a unicorn? I see that "unicorn" BS is prejudicially-solicited to overdraw on its unliklihood. But turn to other things we haven't seen and can't physically verify, but for which the odds are BELIEVED to be greater, and we've just described dark matter/energy, AND God. Then you speak of "evolutionary morality"? What happened to mindless natural selection where only sharp teeth win? Suddenly it's "love your neighbor'?? LOL Hypocrite! You've forgotten your science!
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur maybe your god is a unicorn.....news to me though.
"for which the odds are BELIEVED to be greater, and we've just described dark matter/energy, "
indeed you have.... and its level of acceptance is equal with its level of likelihood based on evidence..... relatively lower than that of evolutionary theory which is almost unanimously accepted throughout the scientific world, the basis of which is appropriate in relation to the evidence!!
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur" What happened to mindless natural selection where only sharp teeth win? "
which part of evolutionary theory states only sharp teeth win?? or are you getting your information from creationist sites? obviously in some circumstances it is more beneficial to be smaller, or, faster, or in our case, more co operative!! natural selection is simply the process that pits competing (and mutating) organisms against each other in a changing environment. for humans that included mutual cooperation!
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry Yet more tergiversating BS? Actually, I read the Bible. Try it sometime. Who cares what happened to your "evolving" natural selection! LOL Let's believe T-Rex's teeth turned into beaks, and his huge body miraculously mutated into a chicken—cooperatively, no less! LOL
Take it from American Express and scottpastry: "Evolution is anywhere you imagine it to be!" How blind can one be? "But if your light is darkness, how deep that darkness will be..."
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur i read the bible... far from impressive and even further from evidence.
im not concerned in the slightest if you dont care about evolution either :)
and no scientist thinks bird evolved from T rex, they think it came from therapods, of which t rex was one variation. remember, all danes are dogs, not all dogs are danes :)
that you would even posit the idea of a formed organism mutating into another organism , cooperatively, shows how little you understand about the theory.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry You haven't read God's Word for truth. You just claim you do so you won't seem that stupid to others but it's clear to me you don't know God's Word, because you don't know Him. Jesus thanked God for revealing Himself to the "poor" and not the "wise" (meaning you, conceited in your own eyes). You have no need of Him, or His Word, so you can't see Him. He won't let you! It is written "...both the one who fools and the one fooled belong to Him." He has vessels of honor and of dishonor!
sexyeur 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@sexyeur "You haven't read God's Word for truth."
projecting again i see?? hey there is plenty of truth in the bible, references to real places and people (not unlike harry potter) just no supernatural evidence. :)
"it's clear to me you don't know God's Word, because you don't know Him"
just as im sure you dont know the unicorn hey??
"You have no need of Him, or His Word,"
your starting to get it i think!! :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur its pretty funny, i explained the benefit of mutual co operation in a species in regards to succeeding in a particular environment, and you have misrepresented my claims by relating it to genetic mutations!! as though i would ever say that an organism 'cooperates with mutations' lol either you are a little slow, or very disingenuous......
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur "Do they meet the rigorous tests of "natural selection"?"
but of course they do!! in themselves, they demonstrate how individual members of social species benefit form mutual cooperation, giving an evolutionary advantage over individuals from that group that dont co operate!!
by all means, keep the evolutionary questions coming :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur gene pools only deteriorate?? im afraid to ask but... wheres your evidence for this, contradicting the mass of testable scientific evidence which contradicts your claim ??
send it along with your evidence against evolution, and your evidence that science states the universe came from nothing.... thanks :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur "But your disparagement of faith is clear saying "sky daddy." And yet you ask defensively where you've said there is no god?"
just becaese i call your god a sky daddy says nothing of my intellectual honesty in regards to acceptance of any particular god. you have proved very good at putting words in my mouth, but again you are the only one saying that i claim "there is no god".
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry Your intellectual dishonesty is well-noted. The issue is not what god YOU tergiversatingly do not claim as god, but in the Living God others do claim, and for which we have proof.
Read the prophecies! BEFORE you discard them for your foolish stupidity. Save your soul, or damn yourself willingly. Science won't change a thing. Behold I give you life and death, God says. Keep my word and I'll abide. Or refuse Me and die. You wager your soul on personal, sheer ignorance? Not wise!
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur you accept as absolute truth the manipulative threats of men from the bronze age?? your choice..... but certainly not evidence for your god :)
am i to wait for this evidence of your god as i seem to be waiting on this evidence against evolution you keep claiming exists??
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur "Creationists are respected scientists, whereas atheists in the same arena merely demand to be. "
and what are you basing this on, your own opinion again?? you could try backing one of these assertions up with a citation of evidence.....
but for your information, a large majority (at least 95%) of biologists accept evolution....
wikipedia. org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
this is a citation, something you use to back up specific claims :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sexyeur "Ponder why"The problem with your idea is not that it is crazy, but that it is not crazy enough."(Niels Bohr)"
the significance of this eludes me... you will have to explain its relevance since it makes no scientific claims.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur "causing me to wonder if you are in the habit of adopting positions for which you are ill-entitled. "
thats rich coming from someone who thinks a scientific theory is the same as a personal theory, that an evolutionist cant beleive in god, and that evolution makes any statement whatsoever on the supernatural....
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "someone who thinks..theory...is personal...that an evolutionist cant beleive in god, and that evolution makes any statement whatsoever on the supernatural."
Why do you now lie? I've repeatedly acknowledged that some Believers do in fact accept evolution in some form, quite "personally." I merely point out what others have in that there is entrenched prejudice to merely atheistic pretenses in scientific communities whereby many are cowed from more legitimate expression of faith.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur" I merely point out what others have in that there is entrenched prejudice to merely atheistic pretenses in scientific communities"
by atheistic pretenses you mean they dont use supernatural explanations that cant be tested and falsified?? but of course!! anything supernatural is, by definition, excluded from the scientific method until it becomes testable, therefor part of the natural world, therefor no longer supernatural..... your god included :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry The world you take for granted is supernaturally held together. You'd have yet to answer why there should be anything at all, much less any mind or reason to understand it by betraying sheer purpose. You'll discover teleology, even while the Anthropic principle beckons you. Don't be damned: this world began with God's awesome power, and it will end with His awesome power. Perhaps you could regard naturalism as a lesser "persuasion?" Ah! Now that would be refreshing.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur why should there be anything at all?? why shouldnt there be?? when the only example we have shows things do exist??
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "why shouldn't there be?"
Well by your reasoning, before the big bang, I could say there shouldn't be anything because from nothing comes nothing. But here we are! It's really something! Fine-tuned at that! So, if nothing comes from nothing, why should there be anything so exquisite exotic at all? Nothing. Denying God, Absolutely Nothing. That's fundamental science. But these are *God's* laws. Not Einstein's. Discover the Anthropic principle. Science discovers what God designs!
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur the universe comes form nothing?? it seems you listen to what crationists tell you science states, rather than checking for yourself..... no scientific theory states the universe came from nothing.... because scientists are intellectually honest enough to admit when they dont know something. scientists cant yet measure anything beyond moments after the big bang!!
cite one peer reviewed paper from a scientific journal that claims the universe came form nothing.... thanks :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry God created the universe. A child will tell you. but your science offers you no explanation whatsoever. You're thinking stops at that horizon because you can't rise above your own tergiversations. Think. You know it came from something, don't you. Something Very Powerful. The universe is a BIG big place to get lost in, if you could only measure it with a span of your hand like God does. It is written. God created the world. Not science.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur "God created the universe. A child will tell you"
only children that have been told about a god..... the others obviously wouldnt :)
"but your science offers you no explanation whatsoever."
what are you talking about?? science offers many explanations...... but not for the very beginning of the universe, despite your claims.
"You know it came from something, don't you. Something Very Powerful."
unlike you, i dont claim to know anything i dont have evidence for.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "unlike you, i dont claim to know anything i dont have evidence for."
Open a bible, and you're staring at His evidence! Read the prophecies and stop insisting you have no evidence for Him because you're too bigotted and lazy to read it His dealings were elicited from outside time and space. No one can predict things and make them happen hundreds of years later! He challenges us if we don't believe Him, then believe what He does! That's prophecy you could be too dumb to consider.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur again, i couldnt care less if your standards for discerning truth include stories written by bronze age men......
"No one can predict things and make them happen hundreds of years later!"
no, but someone who wants to see the prophecy forfulled can help forfill it ie working towards reinstalling the state of israel .
"His dealings were elicited from outside time and space"
you will have to show evidence that something other than men wrote the bible to begin with :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry Cyrus did no such thing. God said Cyrus would have no knowledge of Him. He didn't. Your conjecture that somehow people who didn't even subscribe to Hebrew faith conspired to fulfill scriptures in many cases hundreds of years before they transpired even while they didn't know of them, shows how little you really are. It's even much MORE than Cyrus but I won't throw my pearls to swine, and I won't give His bread to dogs like you.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur what evidence do you have that cyrus was unaware of hebrew scriptures?? particularly when he was obviously familiar enough with the hebrew people to liberate them??
use as many biblical based derogatory comments as you like....... it washes over me much in the same way it does when alien abductees get defensive when you doubt their evidence.
but again, why you digress into biblical content as a means of refuting evolutionary theory i will never know.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur "It's even much MORE than Cyrus but I won't throw my pearls to swine, and I won't give His bread to dogs like you. "
(Matthew 5:22) - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
if you really beleive the bible then you have major grounds for concern :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry Scottpastry, you hypocrite. You quote Matt 5:22 to me, but you're no brother. You're no Believer. When Mary came for Jesus, He said "THESE are my family!" Your provocations prove you are the evil swine who tramples pearls God spoke of and the dog that waits to turn on me. So because you say you "see" better than He, your guilt remains such that you are "guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." My patience with you is only like hot coals on your head!
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur how am i a hypocrite?? the bible is your standard, not mine :)
are you claiming that verse was only referring to brothers and/or believers??
i wont turn on you .... i only ask for the evidence against evolution, and the evidence that science claims the universe came form nothing ... thanks
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "how am I a hypocrite?" By your very nature, by your very own "natural selection" of course, you could say. LOL caio!
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur looking forward to citations for evidence against evolution and your "universe from nothing" claim... thanks :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry destruction has never produced construction. if one bang started all galaxies they wouldnt spin some clockwise, some counterclockwise. look at dna, the world around you. science found that our eyes and all senses are only there because we sense it . closely enough all particles are vibrating , and only energy. its a matrix we have been created to be in... pray, study, you'll find truth if u want it and pray earnestly for it. you'll know ur saved
zackrowe1 7 months ago
@zackrowe1 "destruction has never produced construction." water and wind erosion creates new and natural stone structures by the ocean all the time.
"if one bang started all galaxies they wouldnt spin some clockwise, some counterclockwise. "
the galaxies were not formed by a bang.
"look at dna"
awesome hey??
"science found that our eyes and all senses are only there because we sense it "
which peer reviewed paper concluded this?
"pray earnestly for it. you'll know ur saved"
from what??
scottpastry 7 months ago
@scottpastry wow your pretty stubborn aren't you zackrowe1 clearly made better points than you, all you did was deny what he said. You can believe whatever you want, but have the guts to admit when you lost, be a man...
BoredomPie 6 months ago
@BoredomPie clearly better points hey? which ones were they??
scottpastry 6 months ago
@BoredomPie if by 'deny' you mean that i clearly refuted each of his claims, then absolutely !! :)
scottpastry 6 months ago
@scottpastry What are you talking about? i never made any "unsupported comments" or called you "gutless"
all i said was that you were denying the stuff other people where saying, which you did? Are you just being a troll or something because you've posted, like, 20 comments in one day? Get a life, I dont even know who your talking to anymore, all these comments seem to be yours.
BoredomPie 6 months ago
@BoredomPie" i never made any "unsupported comments""
"zackrowe1 clearly made better points than you, all you did was deny what he said"
oh, so what argument did you use to support your claims zackrowe made better points than me? none. thats whats called an unsupported comment.
"have the guts to admit when you lost, be a man..."
telling me to have some guts can only imply you think i have none. which is fine. just 'have some guts' and admit you said it.
scottpastry 6 months ago
@BoredomPie "you were denying the stuff other people where saying,"
no i was refuting it. big difference. the only person denying anything here is you , when you said you didnt call me gutless.
20 comments in 1 day? are you on drugs?
if by 'trolling' you mean i comprehensively disagree with almost everything in this video, then yes im trolling.
why wouldnt you know who i am talking to? my comments are addressed to the people i address them to, such as yourself? too complicated for you?
scottpastry 6 months ago
@scottpastry OMG! when i said you have been at this for days it was a real understatement! your comments go back 3 months from now! you really need some friends dude...
BoredomPie 6 months ago
@BoredomPie wow. 20 comments in 1 day suddenly jumps to 60 over........... months and months?? and each a response to conversations started by theists who wish to start dialogue with me. and im happy to have discussions with them. the fact that you think you can work out i have no life or friends from that, show exactly how deluded and self assured you are. but i now come to expect ad hominem arguments from creationists who make unsupported assertions and then disappear.... have fun.
scottpastry 6 months ago
@BoredomPie The irony is really dripping from your baseless, unsupported comments now. At least the other creationists here have the intellectual fortitude to defend their claims. Then you come along, make vague assertions and call me gutless..... and then utterly fail to back up anything you said when called out on it.
It would be hilarious actually, if it wasnt so lame. You give creationists a bad name......
scottpastry 6 months ago
@scottpastry Lol. are you still here, you have atleast 30-60 comments on here, you've been at it for days, i will not reply to your comments any further because unlike you, I have friends, and better things to do.
BoredomPie 6 months ago
@sexyeur "It is written."
the bible?? by bronze age men??? sure was....... "God created the world. Not science. "
well considering science is a concept of humans, then only a fool would even entertain that idea, let alone try to refute it.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur and when did i retreat to an acknowledgment of god?? more strawmen, this seems to be your forte.
scottpastry 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scottpastry "and when did i retreat to an acknowledgment of god?? more strawmen, this seems to be your forte."
Perhaps you're the straw man waiting like the chaff to be blown away with the wind. More intelligently, you did ask, in your own defense no less "when did I say there can't be a god?" Would you use His "possible" existence only when it's advantageous for you? How exhausting.
sexyeur 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sexyeur "you did ask, in your own defense no less "when did I say there can't be a god?" Would you use His "possible" existence only when it's advantageous for you? "
i asked it because you claimed i did when i clearly didnt........
i havent come across an instance in my life yet where the possible existence of a god is 'advantageous to me'. so the question is baseless until that happens. :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
Small children need to be spoon fed, and have their azzes wiped for them. They cry, "Give me! Give me! Give me!" But so young, they never really mean to change their minds. They merely assume yours for their own. The blind see and yet pretend not to thinking our lowly minds are such a prize. But the heart of a man is a much deeper matter.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur you want to talk about the attitudes of children and blind people now?? find another video dude..... when you have something tangible to discuss about evolution then lets talk :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur im alleging false dichotomies by way of ad hominem?? you really need a dictionary..... ad hominem is arguments is making claims against a persons character or actions separate to the original argument........ you are the one that characterised 'evolutionists' as unwilling to accept differing evidence (ironically this is ad hominem), i simply pointed out how fallacious this argument was, becuase plenty of people who are religious and/or accept NDE also accept evolution.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur so you think that any religious experience a person has when they are near death proves said religion?? you believe their are multiple gods and heavens based on different peoples testimonies??
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "so you think that any religious experience a person has when they are near death proves said religion?? you believe their are multiple gods and heavens based on different peoples testimonies??" No, rather you deftly mischaracterize evidence so that you may not even merely consider any view to what evolution couldn't be. Chance is god but tell me what greater dignity evolution affords you for all your endearing passions and abiding concerns that His faithful would not understand.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur "No, rather you deftly mischaracterize evidence so that you may not even merely consider any view to what evolution couldn't be"
so you would accept the evidence of a christian that had a near death experience, but disregard any other religious experience?? dont blame your personal bias on me!!
and you set up a false dichotomy...... evolution is not mutually exclusive from any religion, let alone the Christianity. why you thought near death experiences disproved evolution is beyond me.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry Rather I would, and you should, accept the evidence that many BLIND persons contrary to the scientifically accepted expectations of what or should be possible in our day and quite *irregardless of faith* and/or religious experience, have actually SEEN, even while clinically dead. Why should this startling fact elude you most particularly even when it apprehends the rest of us? It is telling that evolutionary theory does not even begin to rise to any explanation, yes? More agree.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur so you do accept any claims of NDE based on anyone of differing religions then!! what a weak, vunerable basis for discernign truth!! but whatever floats your boat.
anecdotal testimony is not evidence, however convincing you find it. again, when its testable and falsifiable then it can be scientifically considered.
and only someone with a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory states could think it is supposed to explain anything other than diversity in species.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "so you do accept any claims of NDE based on anyone of differing religions then!! what a weak, vunerable basis for discernign truth!"
it's sincerely stupid to keep confusing the fact of the phenomenon, ie. that of acute consciousness beyond clinical death or incapacitation—astoundingly when there is no neural activity—with the vagary that they must also qualify to have some religious epiphany because of it. It's inconsequential to anyone with eyes to see your hypocrisy.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur no neural activity?? really??then you dont know what death is....... your heart can stop, you can stop breathing and be returned ..... but when neural activity fully ceases, there is no return to life..... so while one may be close to death, as long as the brain is functioning, it is capable of activity that can be interpreted as a religious epiphany.... no one has fully ceased brain function and returned to tell their experience!! including non christian NDE experiences!! :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry Are you still persistent in the stupidity that NDE's for your "esteemed" consideration must necessarily regard a religious aspect? Not all do. You still have the monumental problem of determining how "natural" it is that clinically dead blind people report seeing, accurately, verifiably. How should the evolution you defend which denies God's superintendence over His creation even begin to explain? There is a Reality that demands greater respect than frivolous contempt.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur why does evolution deny god?? why should a theory explaining diversity in organisms explain supernatural entities any more than gravity theory should?? and when did i say ALL NDEs have religious connotations??
and as i have explained, just because you are clinically dead does not necessarily mean neural activity has fully ceased!! the fact they were brought back to give their anecdotal experience shows their brain was still functioning!! what is so hard to comprehend about this??
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry Evolution is godless because it takes all God's rightful creative glory (and hence His authority and our blessings) and dismisses them to blind chance. Unlike evolution, gravity is not trying to supersede God as negligible. "What is so hard to comprehend about this?" Your obduracy. The question stands.How is it blind people in clinical death, when brain functioning is significantly impaired, are able to give detailed accounts that require open eyes by every other "natural" standard?
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur
how is gravity any different to evolution, if an atheist claims both have purely natural causes??
your assertions about the difference between the theories of evolution and gravity are merely personal opinions, personal incredulity with no grounding in evidence. the fact that many theists see no problem with a god creating evolution refutes that argument entirely.
scottpastry 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sexyeur "How is it blind people in clinical death, when brain functioning is significantly impaired, are able to give detailed accounts that require open eyes by every other "natural" standard?"
heightened sensitivity of the other senses, something blind people are renowned for :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur why dont you ask gravitational theory (which i assume you accept based on inferred science) to explain NDEs??? it certainly cant, so you doubt it too???
again you fail to address the false dichotomy you set up, and i refute. how do you explain the many theists that accept evolution??
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry How do I explain the many deists that accept evolution, you ask? I've already addressed this. But once again for deaf ears: they speak for themselves. Francis Collins "accepts" evolution. He is a believer. Gerald Schroeder is also a man of faith who "accepts" evolution, but their sense faith is greater.. These believers "accept" evolution not in the strictest sense you do, since they believe God. All that seems to remain is your nagging hypocrisy in sheer light of it.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeurim glad you recognize the false dichotomy you set up doesnt actually exist. indeed many theists accept evolution in light of the evidence. and their is no element of evolution i accept that they dont. if people think a god is required for evolution to work, thats fine. at least they are intellectually honest enough to recognise facts and evidence before their eyes, and not try and discredit that evidence by claiming it fails to answer everything!!!
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur you have not given one testable example of any supposedly failing aspect of evolutionary theory.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry it's not about the NDE's per se. It's about your allegation that underlying assumption of evolution that everything has natural explanations. Clearly the fact that blind people are proven to see in clinical death disarms any such casual stupidity. You pretend to miss the point, per usual.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur when did i claim everything has natural explanations?? quite obviously , thats a strawman , as i have never said such a thing. i do , however, say that only things in the natural world are testable, meaning only things in the natural world can be considered by the scientific method. you seem to think science should take seriously any and every personal testamony, including contradictory NDE experiences (unless you accept multiple gods/afterlifes) alien abdution testamonies etc.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "when did i claim everything has natural explanations?" When you stuck your neck out for evolution as if it was all that could ever be true and decried "religious" experience in favor of outright prejudice. Yet again you are the minority. The world over believes in some form of afterlife. Must we all be wrong? Christians, moreover, have more than science. They have God's Self-Affirming prophecy. Have you heard of Israel? They were born as in a day as God before declared. Uncanny?
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur "When you stuck your neck out for evolution as if it was all that could ever be true and decried "religious" experience in favor of outright prejudice"
lol projecting much??? if your argument is based on putting words in my mouth then you wont get far in rational debates. again, if you think relgious testamony is adequate for you, you must accept multiple gods and afterlifes!! so be it......
the world over believes in some form of afterlife?? except for those who dont??
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur im in the minority?? which minority is that?? and besides, any argument ad populum is fallacious...... just becuase a majority of people beleive something does not make it true.
and how does Christianity have science, when you have gone to such efforts to discredit it as scientists 'unwilling to accept different ideas'....... all fields of science agree and converge with evolution :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "im in the minority? which minority?" Jesus answers like this: "When someone invites you to a feast, don't take the highest seat of honor, or the host may come say to you "Give this more noble man your seat." Humiliated, you'll have to take the least important seat. Instead, when invited, take the lowest seat, so when the Host comes, He says to you, "Friend, move up to a better place." Then you will be honored." The moral? If you exalt yourself, you will be humbled. THAT minority.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur im not interested in the pride complex of your god. im interested in the supposed evidence against evolution that you repeatedly assert exists and that i run away from, yet you have failed to produce. find someone else to project your moral and character judgements on...... it has nothing to do with this video :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry "project your moral and character judgments...it has nothing to do with this video" I don't wish to judge you. Your arrogance confronts every bearing of the evidence that you capriciously reject, for the falser claim you've never seen it, nor been told. Read the prophecies. How was Cyrus called by name more than 100 years before? How do the blind see to recall detailed events, when they're dead? Evolution requires much less; yet stubbornly, God's Word IS our best evidence.Go figure.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur you dont wish to judge me but im arrogant?? that makes as much sense as scientists that simultaniously deny new evidence while also accepting new evidence as you have claimed earlier lol... contradiction at every turn.......
you keep talking about this evidence against evolution, but you wont show it to me!! you sound like a broken record....
and cyrus is another example of self forfulled prophecy.... naming a child in reference to your religious beliefs is hardly evidence for that god.
scottpastry 9 months ago
@sexyeur heard of the self forfulled prophecy of israel?? sure... if enough people want to see that prophecy forfulled then of course they can make it so!! hardly miraculous or evidence of a deity.
what is interesting is the countless false biblical prophecies, including that of jesus. is that evidence of no god??
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry heard of the self forfulled prophecy of israel?? if enough people want to see that prophecy forfulled then of course they can make it so!!...including that of jesus."
You're hateful because you've never read the prophecies. It's evidence of greater stupidity really to comment on something before you've seriously looked at it. But"if enough people want to see that [evolution is true and you hate God] then of course they can make it so". Yet God is still true, despite you. Amen.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur you keep projecting on me dude.... im not hateful of you or your god (i hate your god about as much as i hate unicorns).
i havent looked at the prophecies?? the countless false prophecies (including those of jesus) over the centuries??
that is evidence for you?? fair enough whatever suits you.......
get back to me with this evidence against evolution when you find it.... along with the scientific paper that states the universe cam from nothing.. thanks :)
scottpastry 9 months ago
@scottpastry The prophecies of God are true. That you've found countless false doesn't change Him. You are not fair. You are not just. You hang your ignorance on callous disregard for the integrity of Scripture and you expect me not to see you for who you are? You are hateful in your dishonesty. God sees you. He could care less about your scientific papers, my friend. His word is evidence. He testifies to Himself so that you are without excuse. Only God is true and every man is a liar.
sexyeur 9 months ago
@sexyeur as long as you think scientific papers hold no evidence... and a contrived piece of bronze age literature is absolute truth... the you are not even in the same ball park as the scientifically enlightened, let alone in a position to refute it :)
when you give up the semantics and offer evidence for any of your claims, then we can get somewhere..... until then you are mere