Let's summarize the argument. The claims of a bunch of brainwashed cultist nutters claiming that JC came back to life after 3 days of death constitutes an 'indisputable truth' that the resurrection really happened. These nutters may simply have been thrown to the lions for hanging out with JC, or they may have been as screwy as the followers of Jim Jones (who all committed suicide en masse) or David Koresh (ditto). So why believe JC's followers and not Jim Jones' or David Koresh's? Huh?
"Let's keep in mind here that true science has never disproved God or anything that I said.". Well I don't know what you mean by "true science", and I don't suppose you do either. There are some things that science/reason/logic cannot disprove. Can you diprove that Jesus was a rampant homosexual? Of course you can't. Can a scientist disprove that there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars? No. The point is, why believe in little silly fairy tales, simply because they can't be disproved?
"Let's keep in mind here that true science has never disproved God or anything that I said.". Well I don't know what you mean by "true science", and I don't suppose you do either. There are some things that science/reason/logic, call it what you will, cannot disprove. Can you diprove that Jesus wasn't a rampant homosexual? Of course you can't. Can a scientist disprove that there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars? No. The point is, why believe in silly fair tales, even if they can't be disprove
Your "evidence" simply is't good enough. People don't rise up from the dead. If jc rose from the dead, where the fuck ti the bitch now, huh? Where is the bitch so we can all see for ourselves today? Dead as a fucking dodo.
@ilkinond Well their is an answer for that, though you probably won't accept it. He ascended into heaven which all the disciples claimed happened and died for saying it. You won't accept it because it doesn't line up with your previous biases, not because its not good enough. You'll accept everything that agrees with what you already say, but nothing that doesn't. And Christians are the close minded ones. Right.
@ilkinond Not particularly, mainly because you have offered basically no defense of your point except mindless profanities and useless ad hominem. Good job, dude. Once you start making points and using historical evidence to back them up, then we will actually have a debate. You've only manufactured theories with no historical backing to make your point, which is basically no point at all.
@reo345678 And I know - I've manufactured ludicrous theories like people don't come back from the dead. Imagine believing that!!!! Like bitchy didn't get sucked up into heaven through god's dick. How could anyone think such nonesense in the face of this wealth of incontrovertible evidence that you offer up. A few suicide bombers got thrown to the lions by the Romans so it must all be true. What utter, utter shit.
@ilkinond Yet, you still offer up no answers as to how and why these historical events took place if he didn't rise from the dead. You are saying completely off the wall things that are, I guess, an attempt to insult Christianity, but frankly you sound like an idiot, babbling on about who knows what. Your last argument was almost completely incoherent. What are talking about suicide bombers? When did I reference those? You are making stuff up.
@reo345678 Well what I think is a little more likely, than people coming magically back to life, is that those brainwashed weak-minded idiots who claimed to have seen da bitch come back to life were thrown to the lions by the Romans for hanging out with jc. They probably begged for their lives and admitted it was all crap, but the Romans had to have their entertainment. Completely unimpressive.
@reo345678 I hope there are other people reading this. He is asking you to believe that people come back from the dead and get born to virgins on the strength of unverified claims made 2000 years ago. He calls that shit "indisputable facts". He says that science is wrong because its methods aren't good enough - but expects you to be persuaded by the testimoies of a bunch of bearly literate superstitious peasants - the gospelers & martyrs. He calls that "indisputable facts". Think about that.
@ilkinond Let's keep in mind here that true science has never disproved God or anything that I said. How could you possibly say that no one ever has risen from the dead, scientifically? You would be making a universal statement, however, you then, have to look at history, which clearly points to the resurrection. Everything you've said has been completely made up with no backing. You've said so much that could have happened, but not one thing about what DID happen, that accounts for what we know
@reo345678 You have looked at the evidence from the mindset that there is no way that the Bible could be true therefore when faced with evidence you just throw it out. And just for the record I hope other people will read it as well, because they will see a renowned university professor such as yourself debating for over 3 months with a high school student and still has to resort to name calling.
@reo345678 Why on earth should anyone, who is neither psychotic nor deeply intellectually disabled, adopt the position that the bible could be true? Mmmmmm? Any idea? Can mama help you wid dat?
@ilkinond Possibly because it's true. The inspired Word of God with no contradictions and a book that was written over a period of thousands of years that still possesses cohesion.
@ilkinond More name calling? I thought we were past that. Once again, you refuse to deal with the evidence and you fall back on spiteful name calling. Nice job. As I have said before, the Bible is not necessary to say the resurrection is true, however it is the Word of God so I believe, but no where in my arguments did I use the circular reasoning you are referring to. You made that up.
@ilkinond But if the apostles who died made it up why would they be martyred for it? The Islamic terrorist is, first off, not martyrdom. Second off, we're not talking about people who have been brainwashed by something they couldn't see.
@ilkinond I don't think you understand what martyrdom is, but no matter. The point is you don't have a reasonable explanation that takes into account what we know about history. Fact: Jesus was a person. Fact: the disciples said that they saw him after He died. Fact: 11 of the 12 apostles were killed for saying this. Now, why did they die? They could have admitted they made it up. Why didn't they? Because they didn't make it up. It's that simple.
@reo345678 "Indisputable facts?" Hahahahaha. I need rather better evidence than you do. There is nothing "indisputable" about christianity or any other religious nonesense. 2000 year old "testimonies" about people coming back to life after 3 days of death just aren't good enough for me. Admit it - you have chosen christianity as your superstition, and are trying to argue that its idiotic claims can be proved. They cant. But why should it matter to you that I think it's shit?
@ilkinond Fine. What is there to dispute about what I've said? Why does the age of the testimonies matter? And it's not about the testimonies of His resurrection; it's about the actions of the apostles after the claimed to see Him rise from the dead. Thomas was stabbed for preaching in India. Matthew was beheaded. Bartholomew was skinned alive. Peter, Andrew, Jude, and Phillip were crucified. And every time, each was given an opportunity to stop and say it wasn't true. And none of them did.
@reo345678 And dozens of people died with David Koresh in Waco, presumably because they believed He was some kind of messiah... I am still completely unimpressed by your "facts" and the outrageous nonsense they claim to prove. But why are you having this argument with me? What does it matter to you that I know christianity is a load of shit?
@ilkinond Yes, but now that he's dead, are his followers still preaching what he said, and still being persecuted for it? You're telling me that if someone put a gun to an old follower of this man and said I'm going to kill you unless you renounce this man, that they wouldn't do it? Same scenario only the Apostles didn't renounce Jesus.
@reo345678 And what stupid fuckers they were to die for a load of superstitious shit. Still, survival of the fittest applies equally to intellectual fitness as physical. A good Darwinian example of elimination of individuals on the basis of monumental stupidity, don't you think? Pity we can't have the Romans back to continue the process.
@ilkinond Well, they said they did. Told others. Wrote it down in a book. And died for it. If we're going to use your logic, how do we know anything? Everything we know from history is from sources. What else could any reasonable person possibly want?
@reo345678 Oh that one - a singularly boring book at that. So what you have finally stated then, by naming that book, is that the bible is true because it says so in the bible. I knew I'd get you round to saying that in the end. Indisputable bullshit.
@ilkinond Actually I have said nothing of the sort, though what you have said is true. We've been arguing in circles for a few weeks now and since no evidence will convince you of what i am saying, I leave you with this. As a scientist, which you claim to be, you are supposed to observe a set of rules, one of which says that you can have no preconceived notions about the evidence you are looking at, no biases. Which you have already said you have. Before looking at the evidence, you already
@ilkinond And, by the way, we aren't talking scientifically here; we are talking historically. Now, how do you prove historically that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States? Because, people witnessed his tenure, claimed he was President, and wrote it down. By this same token, I prove Jesus rose from the dead. You cannot come to any other conclusion if you look at historical evidence.
@ilkinond rule out the resurrection. And instead of editing your hypothesis, you decide that the evidence isn't true because you have already made up your mind that it can't be. This a completely unscientific, biased way of looking at things. If Copernicus sees evidence for heliocentricism but is already committed to geocentricism, he's going to have a wrong conclusion, but he wasn't. He was unbiased and in the end correct.
How do you know what they "witnessed"? As I have said before there is no professional historian in the world who would take that nonsensical "testimony" seriously, and even you agreed in an earlier message that people don't come back to life after 3 days of death. It just doesn't happen does it? And a claim as outrageous as that requires rather better evidence than you are offering. Face it, it is about faith, not proof. There is no proof, just a decision to believe in fairy tales.
@ilkinond They claimed to witness it, AND then died for saying they saw. Now, if they didn't, why in the world would they die for saying they did? What you're saying makes no sense. No one will die for something they know is a lie. It's that simple.
Hey hey hey... wait a fcking moment. If the stories originated from tower of babel... the great flood.... How the fck we still have fcking Australian natives? Wasnt all supposed to fcking die in the retard flood myth?
Or, did noahs daughters just happen to squeeze a Australian native from her ass? The negros of Africa? American natives? Asians? EUROPEANS?
Really, the creationists are so fcking full of shit, that its beyond reason. They seriously need help and a strightjacket!
My reasonable explanation for the resurrection is that it didn't happen. I think I have made that clear "multiple times" myself. (People don't come back to life after 3 days' of death, see?) And I make no apologies for branding you a moron for beliving in such shit.
@ilkinond Yet you offer no evidence besides it's impossible. You don't even address the story told from all the angles and even look at evidence for it. You already have in your mind that it can't happen there fore no evidence, no matter how conclusive, will convince you.Well how's this we've never seen spontaneous generation of life occur, therefore it can't happen. You rule out the spiritual realm, so anything you claim with no evidence has to have a natural explanation, so explain it.
@ilkinond The problem with that is that it wouldn't be impossible. People reported sightings of Him a few days after he was definitely dead. Explain the sightings.
@reo345678 Explain them? Those "sightings" are unverifiable horse-shit from a few long dead myth-spinners, and they amount to absolutely nothing. They are no more proof of the resurrection than are tales of Zeus turning into a gazelle or Jack climbing up the beanstalk.... Pure myth which you have chosen to believe, but which proove nothing.
@ilkinond If 11 people who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead all died for it, and not one confessed to not seeing him, it's pretty clear their not just idiots. No one will die for a lie.
@reo345678 Yet more garbage. Suicide bombers die committing acts of terrorism because they are weak-minded fools who have been persuaded that they will go straight to heaven for sacrificing themselves in the name of jihad. The early christian "martyrs" were gullible idiots of exactly the same kind. I am still completely unimpressed by anything you have had to say in support of christian fairytale. Can you imagine a professional historian or scientist taking any of that crap seriously? Can you?
@ilkinond Yes, but the problem is that the disciples actually witnessed Jesus' resurrection, they were not brainwashed by someone else. They witnessed it firsthand, and died for it. I'm telling you that if they made up the resurrection story there's no way that under threat of death that not one of them would have admitted to it.
On the contrary - I am building the most likely theory to account for the recorded observations. Rather more likely than JC being the only organism in the history of earthly biology to have come back to lfe after a protracted period of death, don't you think? You probably think his mom was a virgin too, don't you? What a biologically incredible family those Christs were!! Again, I would offer a more scientific and probable explanation for Mary's pregnancy than parthenogenesis.
I think this research nails it: the less educated you are, the less likely you are to believe in evolution. Take a look at this: youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=YNZA1ATxLiE
@ilkinond Also, genetics and mutations in genetics have only further proven a Creator. No genetic mutation has occurred without some kind of negative reaction. So where is this library of evidence? Also, evolution totally throws out the law of cause and effect. If nothing caused the first physical thing to happen there can be no effect i.e. the big bang. If the law of cause and effect doesnt apply how can anyone know anything? How do you that everything scientists have observed wont just change?
@ilkinond Well basically, here's how I show you that you are wrong. If he was killed, which you said. His disciples claimed he rose from the dead, would you say that much? Now did they hallucinate when they saw him? No, group hallucinations have never occurred, so there goes that. Now, did they form a conspiracy? No, all of them besides John, died brutal deaths for their beliefs, going to the grave believing they saw him. So, 11 people were all brutally tortured. Cont...
@ilkinond For something they knew wasn't true. You believe that not one would talk? That 11 people would die for a lie? You could say he never died. Also impossible, no one can survive that kind of torture and crucifixion. And if he did there was no way he could have rolled the stone away without breaking the seal, which the roman soldiers claimed happened. So what did happen? what really happened? Since you obviously have all the answers.
@ilkinond No all I'm saying is that there is no logical way that two thousand year old bread or evidence of the red sea parting could ever be found. If you go in with the assertion that it's false, then there's no way you would believe it even if faced with evidence. You would just accredit it to something else.
@reo345678 Exactly - no evidence whatsoever for events that don't ever occur. That's why I reject your bible as bullshit. And yet you make every effort to fault radiometric dating although in fact you don't have a clue about the science underlying it, even though you think you do. That's it - I offer you evidence-supported fact, and you offer me (by your own admission) insubstantiable myth and expect me to believe that. BULLSHIT!!
@reo345678 Oh and by the way - isn't it amazing that Noah fitted this lot (multiplied by two of course) into his big wooden boat - Hahahahaha!! Funny shit.
** Species count put at 8.7 million **
The world contains about 8.7 million species, according to the latest estimate.
@ilkinond Basically you have no way of knowing whether 8.7 million animals existed. Latest estimate implies that it is typically changing. So how could it be impossible?
@ilkinond The big bang theory is an insult to science. It flies in the face of everything scientific. It pretty much contradicts everything we know about science. No explanation for where the energy came from to compress it. What set in motion? Nothing, because nothing was around. It throws out the law of cause and effect which is necessary for science. The description of what exploded is simply absurd. Infinitely small, hot, and dense? First off, nothing could even compress something cont...
@ilkinond to be that small and its impossible for anything physical to be infinite. What are its redeeming qualities? With all these flaws, a Creator is much more likely. It can explain the first cause, uniformity, complexity, every question that evolutionists cannot answer can be answered by a Creator-God.
@reo345678 I agree, god is the simple, easy explanation that can neither be proved nor disproved - exactly the answer that incurious, intellectually weak little minds find satisfactory. Science however does it the hard way - searching for evidence to support its theories - and guess what? It hasn't found all the answers yet! So cling to your little book of fairy tales - but dont pretend you understand a thing about science.
@ilkinond I have no problem accepting science. Science points to a Creator. Weak souls like you can't deal with having to answer to someone infinitely more powerful than you so you suppress the truth and convince yourself to believe that there is no God. What has science proven that disproves the Bible or even contradicts it in any way. Simply because there is no evidence for miracles today, doesn't mean they didn't happen and certainly doesn't mean there impossible.
@ilkinond Why, you evolutionists believe in miracles too. The miracle of spontaneous generation. So basically by saying miracles don't exist you have actually disproved your own worldview.
@reo345678 8.7 million, even if it is an estimate, implies that the real number is rather large don't you think? And btw how do you explain the presence of dinosaur fossils in sedimentary rock, the youngest of which (late Jurassic) is well over sixty million years old and contains no primate fossils, while the first primate remains occur in rock strata many layers above (and therefore millions of years younger than) the Jurassic ones?
@reo345678 No, you stupid shit-for-brains - can't you get the difference through your thick fundie skull? The origins of life are as yet an unanswered scientific question - not a miracle. Moses making the Red Sea part - when we know that things like that can't happen in nature - is a fairy tale (or "miracle" to use your idiotic term). Got the difference yet? Jesus give me fucking strength.
@ilkinond No a miracle is something that can only happen supernaturally. i.e. something that doesn't naturally occur. Therefore spontaneous generation and random explosions with no cause are supernatural events or miracles. Evolution has not only NOT been proven, but there is a whole ton of evidence against it that proves it never did and could never occur. By the way, if science were to tell you that God does exist and the Bible is true, would you believe it? Do you trust science that much?
@reo345678 Yes - of course - what a stupid question! If there were solid scientific evidence in favour of biblical claims then I would have to accept them as fact. Now let's hear your "whole ton of evidence" proving that evolution never occurred.You can begin with just a couple of pounds of it if you like.
@ilkinond No, not at all. "No one knows the day nor the hour, except the father". I fully expected it NOT to happen I also don't expect it to happen again when he repredicted it. That kind of stuff has been going on for hundreds of years.
@ilkinond So basically. if I had answered yes, you would have called me a fool and if I answered no you would have called me a fool. Nice question. Anyways, how could anyone predict the end of the world from a scientific stand point. As a scientist, allegedly, you tell me, what have you done to predict the end of the world then.
@reo345678 WOW!! - That’s right - it's sinking in isn’t it? You are a fool because you have totally contradicted yourself in previous messages, so no further answer could be possible - other than the admission that you are an complete uncomprehending fool. Congratulations! I qualified as a doctor of neuropharmacology (a study which you know doubt understand completely, just like all the others) at University College London, UK. Where did you study science and what branch did you specialize in?
@ilkinond If you're so smart, why don't you have a better platform than youtube to get angry at people? You also have not offered any evidence besides easily disproved. By the way, if your so smart and I am so stupid, why haven't you won yet?
@reo345678 I have won. Science won long ago. The only losers in all of this are the idiots like you who don't realize that, and nothing is ever going to change the fact that you believe in fairies. That is the only sense in which I have not won. In all the arguments we have had, I have stated that I believe in evidence-supported fact, while you are prepared to believe in "miracles". That is the very definition of a fool - which you so clearly are - that nothing will cure him of his idiocy.
@ilkinond I believe the Bible. Now, if you don't believe in miracles. I'll explain how you have no choice, but to believe in the resurrection, which just so happens to be a miracle. First, every historian at that time claims that Jesus was crucified and his disciples SAID he rose from the dead. Now, if the disciples said they saw Him after he was killed there are basically 3 possibilities. 1) He never died. 2) The disciples made it up. 3) They hallucinated, thinking they saw him.
@reo345678 The gospels were written 30 to 70 years after Christ's death, on the testimony of the few aged survivors who had hung around with him at various times. The kingdom of heaven, as predicted by Christ, had not yet arrived and still hasn't, and the new testament was written in a language foreign to its author's - John's Greek was particularly putrid. And this constitues solid proof for you that Christ, the only human ever to do so, came back to life after 3 days of death? What utter shit.
@ilkinond How is anything that you said even relevant to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. So again, when the evidence points to something that you do not want to believe, you talk about something that does not even pertain to the issue and try to disprove it that way. How well John spoke Greek is completely irrelevant to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. The evidence points that He did and you choose not to accept it.
@reo345678 What I said is relevant because what you cited as "evidence" of the resurrection it's shit. It wouldn't stand up in a kangaroo court, let a lone a scientific journal. That's why it's relevant - can't you even get that tthroiugh your skull?
@ilkinond No it isn't. It makes perfect sense, you can't get it through your thick skull that it actually happened. How could you explain the evidence? It's not just the Bible that references Jesus' life and resurrection, its every other historical book written during that time. They all give evidence for the resurrection. What else could possibly have happened, with the events that occurred during that time?
@reo345678 That JC came back to life, 3 days after his death, makes him the only human being - the only organism - in the history of life on earth ever to have done so. And you are convinced of so outrageous, bizarre and just plain crazy a claim by the writings, corrupted as they have been over the last 2 millennia, of 4 men who neither knew JC nor witnessed his "resurrection"??!! Good luck getting into those "top notch" universities then - coz you gonna need a miracle to do so!!! Hahahahaha!!!
@ilkinond So what your saying basically proves two things. 1) You know nothing about the men who wrote the gospels. 2) You did not read my argument. I did not use the Bible to prove Jesus' resurrection I used common historical knowledge and the writings of roman and jewish historians of the day. You know the kind of historians who wanted to prove Jesus did not rise from the dead. I deduced from the evidence gathered from those sources that no other outcome is possible. Get your facts straight.
@reo345678 You deduced it! Look, let’s consider the facts and offer a more likely explanation. You’ve heard of Occam’s razor, no doubt? Try this: JC and Judas framed Barabbas, who was the one who really got crucified, split the 40 pieces of silver, got fucked senseless, pissed drunk, and then turned up in Nazareth 3 days later looking like shit. Of course JC had to come up with some kind of outlandish excuse, having previously claimed to be the son of god.
@ilkinond So basically, you won't accept the resurrection as truth so you've resorted to conspiracy theories with no real evidence. Nice job by a research scientist. Completely throwing out all evidence.
@reo345678 And by the way, my rejection of the "evidence" of four men who never knew JC nor witnessed any of his "miracles" as evidence of the crappiest quality imaginable, does not make me a bad scientist, it makes you a gullible fool for accepting it.
@ilkinond Matthew and John were both apostles so I'm pretty sure they knew Jesus. You may be wrong on that. His miracles did not happen in a vacuum. The others could have talked with people could have talked with people who did witness them. Anyways, you have still failed to offer a reasonable explanation about Jesus' rise from the dead, that is not completely made up and accounts for any evidence. And for the 50th time all the evidence I offered came from other sources, non-Biblical sources.
@reo345678 I know, and for the 50th time all that "evidence" from all those "sources" claiming to be proof for things that we know don't happen in nature - resurrections and all the other rabbits that JC pulled out of his hat - are uttterly inadequate and prove nothing. The bible is unprovable rot. If it is good enough for you though, I assume you also believe in Zeus and Apollo and all of Greek mythology, since there are many ancient writings describing those gods and their "miracles".
@reo345678 No you fool - that is what you are saying!!!! LOL!!! Can't you see that!! I think both christianity and Greek mythology are nonesense - YOU are the one choosing which fairy tales to believe., while I think they are all crap. Can't you even see that?????
@ilkinond Listen I've laid it out for you multiple times. You still have not come up with a reasonable explanation for the resurrection. You're just shrinking behind ad hominem because you know I'm right. Most historians believe that Jesus was a real person, was crucified, and the apostles claim he rose from the dead. With that knowledge, I have already proven that He did in fact, rise from the dead. You just don't want to believe it even though I'm not using the Bible to make my case.
@ilkinond Now, with those three possibilities plus the possibility that He did rise from the dead, let's start eliminating options. 1) The simple fact that no one survives crucifixion. This also does not account for the stone being rolled away. He would not have had the strength for it. 2) If the disciples made it up, why would they die for a lie? Your own study of neuropharmacology proves they wouldn't. No one will die for a lie. 3) It is impossible for multiple people to hallucinate the same
@ilkinond thing at the same time. So that eliminates option 3. Lastly, we have He truly rose from the dead. if he rose from the dead, it would be considered a miracle. And if that miracle were possible it must mean miracles in general are possible. There you have it. How else could you possibly explain it? If you only believe in evidence based fact then by your admission cannot believe in the big bang or spontaneous generation of life.
@ilkinond It's kind of sad that a self-proclaimed scientist such as yourself would feel the need to insult a person, when arguing with someone. If you are so much smarter than me, why haven't you offered any substantial evidence for your position? Why is it that you just get mad?
@reo345678 I'm sorry - I just like insulting you because you have revealed yourself - in every one of your silly little messages - to be a complete fundie cretin who understands nothing about science. I will soon deal with those 6 king-sized bobbing turds that you dropped out of your intellectual anus in your last message, as evidence against evolution and atheism, one-by-one in subsequent postings, in the simplest possibles term I can muster.
@reo345678 OK – but before I expend any more energy trying to educate an imbecile, I want to know what your scientific credentials are – I have told you mine – now I want to know yours. I’ll begin by dealing with that shit you wrote about Pasteur – but first I want to know in which university you studied science and which branch of it you specialized in.
@ilkinond I have no scientific credentials, yet, as I am only a senior in high school. But, before you think this is relevant: If I am completely dead wrong, with no hope, why are we still arguing? Why haven't you used well reasoned responses as opposed to just ad hominem? Why won't you address the resurrection, which I clearly spelled out for you? Why is all of this?
@reo345678 "I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS." Ok, good. I want anyone following this "argument" to be aware of that. You are a high school student and I am a research scientist with a PhD. I am not saying that makes me smart - Galileo, Darwin and Einstein were smart - but it makes me informed which your previous postings have demonstrated you are not. You have an awful lot to learn about the work of great men, and it don't look like you're gonna get beyond high school wirth what you know.
@ilkinond Now then, scientific credentials are not needed to understand that evolution is unscientific. Just because you claim you are informed does not mean you are informed correctly. Never have I seen any substantial evidence for evolution, everything is just speculation or misinterpretation. Now, if you are going to say I am not getting past high school, think again. I have the ability to go to University of Chicago, Duke, or Emory. All top notch universities.
@reo345678 Best of luck getting into those top notch universities - if you seriously think there is "no substantial evidence for evolution" then they are preceisely the places you need to go.
@reo345678 Ok 2 points here. 2nd law of thermodynamics - means disorder rules - energy spreads out - matter spreads out - chemicals come into contact with each other and new chemical reactions become possible - enabling reactions leading to biochemsitry. Again your knowledge of science is firmly located in your rectum. 2nd point - your total failure to understand radiometric dating does not prove that the technique doesn't work, but that you completely fail to understand it. Now for DNA....
@ilkinond Exactly, if disorder rules naturally, then what caused a sudden, random ordering, that somehow produced life. And, no I understand it completely, what i don't understand is how it can pass for science with all the assumptions it makes.
@reo345678 So in fact you don’t really have the first fucking clue about thermodynamics or the ludicrous arguments you are trying to make with it, do you? As I said before, you are the most tiresome kind of fool – the one who thinks he is wise. And I’m still waiting for that “ton of evidence” disproving evolution.
@ilkinond Ok, here's my evidence against evolution and just atheism in general. 1) Throws out the law of cause and effect, nothing cause the first cause with no God. 2) Spontaneous generation of life was disproven by Louis Pastuer. 3) Things naturally break down, they do not build themselves up. 4) Nothing can be self-created. 5) No positive mutations have been observed. 6) We are far too complex to have happened by accident. Evolution ignores all of these.
@reo345678 Wait a minute now, a couple of messages ago you were arguing that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was incontrovertible evidence that god exists – now you are saying “I don’t understand how it can pass for science with all the assumptions it makes.”
@ilkinond No when I am talking about assumptions, I am talking about your indisputable radiometric dating. When you make assumptions about anything scientific, how can you say the answers that you get are definitely, 100% true? You can't. Science doesn't make assumptions, it only deals with facts. So, therefore, radiometric dating is not scientific.
Listen up...There is no devil and there is no god like it or not and it's embarrassing that an Aussie creatard runs this house of bullshit but I'd like to thank him for showing just how desperate they are and as for humans and dinosaurs coexisting HaHaHaHa that really is hilarious.I hear good ol Ken is opening up a new exhibit featuring Santa,Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.:-)
Well everybody will notice the occurrences of spelling gross mistakes and logic failures in the boards appearing in this clip. Which only confirm that the authors of this prejudiced clip are themselves ignorant bigots of the worst kind.
@Oxyoke100 The point is what kind of good your religion does? I mean, atheism has helped in development of science, most of scientists are atheists. In the other hand, we are spectators of the "so called good for God" like terrorists attacks, attacks to abortion clinics, fascism, intolerance and I can go on an on, and everything in the name of God, of course, their own and personal interpretated one.
HAHAHA! how cute... another assassin bites the dust. What's the good of Sugar, for that matter? All it does is causing Diabetes. With that kinda logic, you'll go fascist faster than your mother could fart! watch out for nasty gaz atacks! ^^
I never have understood why people reject ideas that are helpful. How has atheism or evolution helped anyone individually or society as a whole. The bottom line is we all one day will die. What then? If I choose to believe in God and heaven and believe that accepting Christ as my Savior will get me to heaven, what is wrong with that? If I believe that doing good is God's will for my life, what is wrong with that? Let me die happily in my ignorance. If it is all a myth, I haven't lost anything.
@oxyoke100 There is nothing wrong with that. Evolution doesn't have to go against being a Christian unless you take what the book of genesis says literally.
Ken ham is a great man, and it is only too amusing that his beliefs are censored by the atheistic community. You may ridicule him, you may turn your ear away, but the truth always conquers. Man did live in harmony with dinosaurs, and the earth is 6000 years old. Mr. Ham, keep preaching your scientific genius!
@Eye2EyeIIV Oh my... truly stupid, plz understand the Jewish-zombie you pray to isn't there. It's almost as if you are alien, you cannot possibly be that stupid?! uhmm try looking up ken ham vs hugh ross another christian that dominates ham's severe ignorance...
If you come across a watch in the desert, you will assume someone created it. You would not say time and chance came together to create this watch because that would be ridiculous. Why can you believe in a watchmaker, but not in a Creator God?
@bjam89 Even if you believe a Creator is not necessary, how do you account for the beginnings of the universe? If you claim the big bang occurred, what exploded? If nothing was around what could have? Unless you claim matter and energy have always existed in which case you might as well say that matter and energy are gods. What is the difference between believing in an everlasting being (God) or everlasting substances (Matter and Energy)?
@reo345678 the big bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of time and space, nothing blew up as nothing could blow up if you even knew what an explosion was you would laugh your ass off at your own comment, now i am one of those who follow the big bounce, and just cause we do not know what the start of the universe was do not mean some sky daddy did it, that is taking one mystery and putting in a lazy answer in and leaving it at that, don't be lazy learn stuff and free your mind
@reo345678 ah that is a good question sort of...anyway, lets just look at the sun shall we, now adays we laugh a people who think the sun is moving around the earth, but before people used to think god did it, or a sun god moved the sun over the skies, saying god did it rule out your search, it gives you a mystery you can't solve instead of give you a search that could be fun, i don't say god did it as to me that is lazy i am fine with not knowing, rather then be lazy about it
@bjam89 But, by being content with not knowing aren't you being lazy yourself? By the way, there is no claim in the Bible as to what revolves around what. The people who believed that the sun revolved around the earth were just that, people. They were simply scientists or philosophers who came to that conclusion apart from anything God revealed to them. Just like evolutionary scientists who attempt to create theories which give an excuse to live apart from God.
@reo345678 i am not educated in astrophysics well somewhat over basic school level in Norway but not more then that i don't give a flying f about the bible there is lots of other religions in this world, Baldr the norse sun god, Ra from Egypt, Amaratsu of shinto religion, Helios and Apollo from greek mythology your faith is not alone nor will it ever be alone, please don't think all had your faith is alone, pick up a history book your faith is rather new
@reo345678 and here is a fun little fact while i am an Atheist and open about it i still work for my local church(free of charge, we have a deal, i can see no proof in god they can use me to see if they got facts right) and they all believe in evolution every last one of the priests, the church bell ringers the money gatherers and so on all of them believe in evolution, evolution do not deal with your god or any god, it do not disprove gods it just states what it states nothing more
@bjam89 It actually does though, because if you disregard the Creation account, how can you say that the rest of the Bible is true? If you open a book and the first chapter is all false how can you expect any different from the rest of the book? Evolution clearly is against Christianity and other religions who believe in God. Why else would it claim that no God exists? Just because a priest or church member believes in atheism doesn't mean that all Christians can. They are misguided about God.
@reo345678 listen i am not saying they are that i am saying i am one but the priests still think god is real and jesus was his son, evolution only say one thing small changes over time make big changes (if you really really boil it down) it has nothing about how life got made or the universe all it deals with is how life can be so diverse, and only Christianity believe in god, Jews and Muslims sort of believe in god too but different versions of god, how much do you know of evolution?
@reo345678 If the first chapter of a book does not match any of the physical facts available why would anyone think it was true? One would think a god would have a better understanding of biology than nomadic primate shepherds... Apparently the christian god didn't know how everything really works ^_^ If a God actually knows the truth then it should tell its pets to stop making it look like a moron ;D
@PinkProgram You are taking my words out of context. The person I was arguing with stated that all of the priests and church people he knows dont believe in Creation. I was saying that there is no way to believe in the Christian faith without the belief in Creationism. Evolution says that man evolved through time and chance, survival of the fittest, etc. But in the Bible it says death is punishment for sin. There can be no death without sin, thus not allowing evolution if you believe the Bible.
@reo345678 if death is the punishment for sin alone then what is the tree of life? There were two forbidden trees in the garden. Humans were never intended to be immortal ^_^
@PinkProgram The tree of Life wasn't forbidden. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. Your understanding of the first chapters of Genesis is incorrect.
@PinkProgram Gen. 2:16-17 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die". Are you reading the Bible, or some other book? Because what you are saying is so wrong.
@PinkProgram First off, I'm not sure how that's relevant to our argument. But it is because he wanted to redeem us through His Son. He says we will surely die or we will begin to die, continue to die, and eventually die. Not just die immediately. He wants to give us hope.
@reo345678 Then god is a liar. If I were to tell Adam that if he ate the fruit he would die it would either be because it was toxic or I intended to punish the disobedience with death. If there was no death in the garden how would Adam even know dying was a punishment? God should have snapped their necks on the spot and started over. Instead he exiled them and held the transgression against all humans until they made an appropriate blood sacrifice to quench his thirst. Evil god you have.
@PinkProgram First off, they died, didn't they? So He didn't lie. Secondly, what standard of evil are you appealing to? Because that just seems like your opinion, which frankly doesn't carry much weight. Who are you to tell God what He should do with His creation?
@reo345678 so your god is an internet troll. If a human did the same things your god is said to do you would call for it to be executed but since its god its "all cool bro". If you see a child tying explosives to a cat would you stop it or would you say "well it is his cat." You have stockholm syndrome. You can't see how evil your god is because you were taught that anything it does is good. Then you had that beat into you with the fear of hell.
@PinkProgram The problem with what you're saying is that you have no standard of good and evil to judge God with. Your argument basically comes down to. "Well, I don't like what God does, so He's evil." What are you judging Him based on? Your opinion is not an argument.
@reo345678 Morality is an opinion. In the bible "god" does several things that would legally get it executed in most parts of the world. What kind of monster tries to drown an entire planet because its in a bad mood? What kind of monster tells a guy to kill his own child and then says "just kidding" at the last possible second? What kind of monster tortures its most faithful follower to the point of breaking on a bet? What standard are you judging god with? It looks evil to me.
@PinkProgram Again, you are using such loaded words. Would you consider Hitler to be an evil monster? Well, that's too bad. Without a standard of morality, you're stuck. It's his opinion on what's right and wrong, so who are we to tell him otherwise? But, if you believe in God's Word, anything that goes against it morally is wrong. Murder, Theft, Adultery, etc. And, as a human how can you judge a God who is infinitely times wiser and more powerful than you? You can't, without a standard
And yet, Ken Hams facial hair here makes him look like the missing link. :P
8310silas 1 month ago 2
Let's summarize the argument. The claims of a bunch of brainwashed cultist nutters claiming that JC came back to life after 3 days of death constitutes an 'indisputable truth' that the resurrection really happened. These nutters may simply have been thrown to the lions for hanging out with JC, or they may have been as screwy as the followers of Jim Jones (who all committed suicide en masse) or David Koresh (ditto). So why believe JC's followers and not Jim Jones' or David Koresh's? Huh?
ilkinond 1 month ago
"Let's keep in mind here that true science has never disproved God or anything that I said.". Well I don't know what you mean by "true science", and I don't suppose you do either. There are some things that science/reason/logic cannot disprove. Can you diprove that Jesus was a rampant homosexual? Of course you can't. Can a scientist disprove that there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars? No. The point is, why believe in little silly fairy tales, simply because they can't be disproved?
ilkinond 2 months ago
"Let's keep in mind here that true science has never disproved God or anything that I said.". Well I don't know what you mean by "true science", and I don't suppose you do either. There are some things that science/reason/logic, call it what you will, cannot disprove. Can you diprove that Jesus wasn't a rampant homosexual? Of course you can't. Can a scientist disprove that there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Mars? No. The point is, why believe in silly fair tales, even if they can't be disprove
ilkinond 2 months ago
Your "evidence" simply is't good enough. People don't rise up from the dead. If jc rose from the dead, where the fuck ti the bitch now, huh? Where is the bitch so we can all see for ourselves today? Dead as a fucking dodo.
ilkinond 2 months ago
@ilkinond Well their is an answer for that, though you probably won't accept it. He ascended into heaven which all the disciples claimed happened and died for saying it. You won't accept it because it doesn't line up with your previous biases, not because its not good enough. You'll accept everything that agrees with what you already say, but nothing that doesn't. And Christians are the close minded ones. Right.
reo345678 2 months ago
@reo345678 You-re right - it's yet more superstitious christian shit. I think you are beginning to realise that yourself, aren't you?
ilkinond 2 months ago
@ilkinond Not particularly, mainly because you have offered basically no defense of your point except mindless profanities and useless ad hominem. Good job, dude. Once you start making points and using historical evidence to back them up, then we will actually have a debate. You've only manufactured theories with no historical backing to make your point, which is basically no point at all.
reo345678 2 months ago
@reo345678 And I know - I've manufactured ludicrous theories like people don't come back from the dead. Imagine believing that!!!! Like bitchy didn't get sucked up into heaven through god's dick. How could anyone think such nonesense in the face of this wealth of incontrovertible evidence that you offer up. A few suicide bombers got thrown to the lions by the Romans so it must all be true. What utter, utter shit.
ilkinond 2 months ago
@ilkinond Yet, you still offer up no answers as to how and why these historical events took place if he didn't rise from the dead. You are saying completely off the wall things that are, I guess, an attempt to insult Christianity, but frankly you sound like an idiot, babbling on about who knows what. Your last argument was almost completely incoherent. What are talking about suicide bombers? When did I reference those? You are making stuff up.
reo345678 2 months ago
@reo345678 Well what I think is a little more likely, than people coming magically back to life, is that those brainwashed weak-minded idiots who claimed to have seen da bitch come back to life were thrown to the lions by the Romans for hanging out with jc. They probably begged for their lives and admitted it was all crap, but the Romans had to have their entertainment. Completely unimpressive.
ilkinond 2 months ago
@reo345678 An by da way bitch, whyz you right an dem Muslims wrong, huh? Coz yuz white ow some shit like dat?
ilkinond 2 months ago
@reo345678 I hope there are other people reading this. He is asking you to believe that people come back from the dead and get born to virgins on the strength of unverified claims made 2000 years ago. He calls that shit "indisputable facts". He says that science is wrong because its methods aren't good enough - but expects you to be persuaded by the testimoies of a bunch of bearly literate superstitious peasants - the gospelers & martyrs. He calls that "indisputable facts". Think about that.
ilkinond 2 months ago
@ilkinond Let's keep in mind here that true science has never disproved God or anything that I said. How could you possibly say that no one ever has risen from the dead, scientifically? You would be making a universal statement, however, you then, have to look at history, which clearly points to the resurrection. Everything you've said has been completely made up with no backing. You've said so much that could have happened, but not one thing about what DID happen, that accounts for what we know
reo345678 2 months ago
@reo345678 You have looked at the evidence from the mindset that there is no way that the Bible could be true therefore when faced with evidence you just throw it out. And just for the record I hope other people will read it as well, because they will see a renowned university professor such as yourself debating for over 3 months with a high school student and still has to resort to name calling.
reo345678 2 months ago
@reo345678 Why on earth should anyone, who is neither psychotic nor deeply intellectually disabled, adopt the position that the bible could be true? Mmmmmm? Any idea? Can mama help you wid dat?
ilkinond 2 months ago
@ilkinond Possibly because it's true. The inspired Word of God with no contradictions and a book that was written over a period of thousands of years that still possesses cohesion.
reo345678 2 months ago
@reo345678 A pity it's such a laughable bag of shit though,
ilkinond 2 months ago
@reo345678 Yeah - I think you are a stupid cunt for your sheepish imbecility - I make no apologies for calling you out as that.
ilkinond 2 months ago
@reo345678 "Indisputable proof".....
youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=P_WrhhQ2C4g
ilkinond 2 months ago
You fucking did you lying christian cunt. You said the bible's true coz it says so in the fucking bible.
ilkinond 2 months ago
@ilkinond More name calling? I thought we were past that. Once again, you refuse to deal with the evidence and you fall back on spiteful name calling. Nice job. As I have said before, the Bible is not necessary to say the resurrection is true, however it is the Word of God so I believe, but no where in my arguments did I use the circular reasoning you are referring to. You made that up.
reo345678 2 months ago
"No one will die for something they know is a lie." Just like those Islamist suicide bombers you mean? They know they're going to heaven.
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond But if the apostles who died made it up why would they be martyred for it? The Islamic terrorist is, first off, not martyrdom. Second off, we're not talking about people who have been brainwashed by something they couldn't see.
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 They matyred because they were idiots who believed in shit. Like the Islamic terrorist. Like you.
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond I don't think you understand what martyrdom is, but no matter. The point is you don't have a reasonable explanation that takes into account what we know about history. Fact: Jesus was a person. Fact: the disciples said that they saw him after He died. Fact: 11 of the 12 apostles were killed for saying this. Now, why did they die? They could have admitted they made it up. Why didn't they? Because they didn't make it up. It's that simple.
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 It's also a load of superstitious shit.
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond What is superstitious about a collection of indisputable facts that inevitably lead you to a certain conclusion?
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 "Indisputable facts?" Hahahahaha. I need rather better evidence than you do. There is nothing "indisputable" about christianity or any other religious nonesense. 2000 year old "testimonies" about people coming back to life after 3 days of death just aren't good enough for me. Admit it - you have chosen christianity as your superstition, and are trying to argue that its idiotic claims can be proved. They cant. But why should it matter to you that I think it's shit?
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond Fine. What is there to dispute about what I've said? Why does the age of the testimonies matter? And it's not about the testimonies of His resurrection; it's about the actions of the apostles after the claimed to see Him rise from the dead. Thomas was stabbed for preaching in India. Matthew was beheaded. Bartholomew was skinned alive. Peter, Andrew, Jude, and Phillip were crucified. And every time, each was given an opportunity to stop and say it wasn't true. And none of them did.
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 And dozens of people died with David Koresh in Waco, presumably because they believed He was some kind of messiah... I am still completely unimpressed by your "facts" and the outrageous nonsense they claim to prove. But why are you having this argument with me? What does it matter to you that I know christianity is a load of shit?
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond Yes, but now that he's dead, are his followers still preaching what he said, and still being persecuted for it? You're telling me that if someone put a gun to an old follower of this man and said I'm going to kill you unless you renounce this man, that they wouldn't do it? Same scenario only the Apostles didn't renounce Jesus.
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 And what stupid fuckers they were to die for a load of superstitious shit. Still, survival of the fittest applies equally to intellectual fitness as physical. A good Darwinian example of elimination of individuals on the basis of monumental stupidity, don't you think? Pity we can't have the Romans back to continue the process.
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond It's not superstitious if they saw it, now was it?
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 How do you know what they "saw"? How does anybody?
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond Well, they said they did. Told others. Wrote it down in a book. And died for it. If we're going to use your logic, how do we know anything? Everything we know from history is from sources. What else could any reasonable person possibly want?
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 Wrote it down in a book? What book?
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond Oh gee I don't know. Maybe a book that is the best selling book ever published, most popular book ever, the Bible.
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 Oh that one - a singularly boring book at that. So what you have finally stated then, by naming that book, is that the bible is true because it says so in the bible. I knew I'd get you round to saying that in the end. Indisputable bullshit.
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond Actually I have said nothing of the sort, though what you have said is true. We've been arguing in circles for a few weeks now and since no evidence will convince you of what i am saying, I leave you with this. As a scientist, which you claim to be, you are supposed to observe a set of rules, one of which says that you can have no preconceived notions about the evidence you are looking at, no biases. Which you have already said you have. Before looking at the evidence, you already
reo345678 3 months ago
@ilkinond And, by the way, we aren't talking scientifically here; we are talking historically. Now, how do you prove historically that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States? Because, people witnessed his tenure, claimed he was President, and wrote it down. By this same token, I prove Jesus rose from the dead. You cannot come to any other conclusion if you look at historical evidence.
reo345678 2 months ago
@ilkinond rule out the resurrection. And instead of editing your hypothesis, you decide that the evidence isn't true because you have already made up your mind that it can't be. This a completely unscientific, biased way of looking at things. If Copernicus sees evidence for heliocentricism but is already committed to geocentricism, he's going to have a wrong conclusion, but he wasn't. He was unbiased and in the end correct.
reo345678 3 months ago
How do you know what they "witnessed"? As I have said before there is no professional historian in the world who would take that nonsensical "testimony" seriously, and even you agreed in an earlier message that people don't come back to life after 3 days of death. It just doesn't happen does it? And a claim as outrageous as that requires rather better evidence than you are offering. Face it, it is about faith, not proof. There is no proof, just a decision to believe in fairy tales.
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond They claimed to witness it, AND then died for saying they saw. Now, if they didn't, why in the world would they die for saying they did? What you're saying makes no sense. No one will die for something they know is a lie. It's that simple.
reo345678 3 months ago
Hey hey hey... wait a fcking moment. If the stories originated from tower of babel... the great flood.... How the fck we still have fcking Australian natives? Wasnt all supposed to fcking die in the retard flood myth?
Or, did noahs daughters just happen to squeeze a Australian native from her ass? The negros of Africa? American natives? Asians? EUROPEANS?
Really, the creationists are so fcking full of shit, that its beyond reason. They seriously need help and a strightjacket!
preetor1 4 months ago
My reasonable explanation for the resurrection is that it didn't happen. I think I have made that clear "multiple times" myself. (People don't come back to life after 3 days' of death, see?) And I make no apologies for branding you a moron for beliving in such shit.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond Yet you offer no evidence besides it's impossible. You don't even address the story told from all the angles and even look at evidence for it. You already have in your mind that it can't happen there fore no evidence, no matter how conclusive, will convince you.Well how's this we've never seen spontaneous generation of life occur, therefore it can't happen. You rule out the spiritual realm, so anything you claim with no evidence has to have a natural explanation, so explain it.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 "Yet you offer no evidence besides it's impossible." I'm glad that we are at least agreed on that then!!!!!!
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond The problem with that is that it wouldn't be impossible. People reported sightings of Him a few days after he was definitely dead. Explain the sightings.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 Explain them? Those "sightings" are unverifiable horse-shit from a few long dead myth-spinners, and they amount to absolutely nothing. They are no more proof of the resurrection than are tales of Zeus turning into a gazelle or Jack climbing up the beanstalk.... Pure myth which you have chosen to believe, but which proove nothing.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond If multiple people are killed for saying they saw something, you have to take some stock in it.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 Meaningless bullshit.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond How could you possibly sat that?
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 Proves nothing except those "martyrs" were idiots.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond If 11 people who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead all died for it, and not one confessed to not seeing him, it's pretty clear their not just idiots. No one will die for a lie.
reo345678 3 months ago
@reo345678 Yet more garbage. Suicide bombers die committing acts of terrorism because they are weak-minded fools who have been persuaded that they will go straight to heaven for sacrificing themselves in the name of jihad. The early christian "martyrs" were gullible idiots of exactly the same kind. I am still completely unimpressed by anything you have had to say in support of christian fairytale. Can you imagine a professional historian or scientist taking any of that crap seriously? Can you?
ilkinond 3 months ago
@ilkinond Yes, but the problem is that the disciples actually witnessed Jesus' resurrection, they were not brainwashed by someone else. They witnessed it firsthand, and died for it. I'm telling you that if they made up the resurrection story there's no way that under threat of death that not one of them would have admitted to it.
reo345678 3 months ago
On the contrary - I am building the most likely theory to account for the recorded observations. Rather more likely than JC being the only organism in the history of earthly biology to have come back to lfe after a protracted period of death, don't you think? You probably think his mom was a virgin too, don't you? What a biologically incredible family those Christs were!! Again, I would offer a more scientific and probable explanation for Mary's pregnancy than parthenogenesis.
ilkinond 4 months ago
I think this research nails it: the less educated you are, the less likely you are to believe in evolution. Take a look at this: youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=YNZA1ATxLiE
ilkinond 5 months ago
If Ken ham's asshole could talk, it would be a lot more worth listening to than his mouth.
ilkinond 5 months ago
@ilkinond Also, genetics and mutations in genetics have only further proven a Creator. No genetic mutation has occurred without some kind of negative reaction. So where is this library of evidence? Also, evolution totally throws out the law of cause and effect. If nothing caused the first physical thing to happen there can be no effect i.e. the big bang. If the law of cause and effect doesnt apply how can anyone know anything? How do you that everything scientists have observed wont just change?
reo345678 5 months ago
@ilkinond Well basically, here's how I show you that you are wrong. If he was killed, which you said. His disciples claimed he rose from the dead, would you say that much? Now did they hallucinate when they saw him? No, group hallucinations have never occurred, so there goes that. Now, did they form a conspiracy? No, all of them besides John, died brutal deaths for their beliefs, going to the grave believing they saw him. So, 11 people were all brutally tortured. Cont...
reo345678 5 months ago
@ilkinond For something they knew wasn't true. You believe that not one would talk? That 11 people would die for a lie? You could say he never died. Also impossible, no one can survive that kind of torture and crucifixion. And if he did there was no way he could have rolled the stone away without breaking the seal, which the roman soldiers claimed happened. So what did happen? what really happened? Since you obviously have all the answers.
reo345678 5 months ago
@ilkinond No all I'm saying is that there is no logical way that two thousand year old bread or evidence of the red sea parting could ever be found. If you go in with the assertion that it's false, then there's no way you would believe it even if faced with evidence. You would just accredit it to something else.
reo345678 5 months ago
@reo345678 Exactly - no evidence whatsoever for events that don't ever occur. That's why I reject your bible as bullshit. And yet you make every effort to fault radiometric dating although in fact you don't have a clue about the science underlying it, even though you think you do. That's it - I offer you evidence-supported fact, and you offer me (by your own admission) insubstantiable myth and expect me to believe that. BULLSHIT!!
ilkinond 5 months ago
@reo345678 Oh and by the way - isn't it amazing that Noah fitted this lot (multiplied by two of course) into his big wooden boat - Hahahahaha!! Funny shit.
** Species count put at 8.7 million **
The world contains about 8.7 million species, according to the latest estimate.
bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/science-environment-14616161 >
ilkinond 5 months ago
@ilkinond Basically you have no way of knowing whether 8.7 million animals existed. Latest estimate implies that it is typically changing. So how could it be impossible?
reo345678 5 months ago
Comment removed
ilkinond 5 months ago
Comment removed
ilkinond 5 months ago
@ilkinond The big bang theory is an insult to science. It flies in the face of everything scientific. It pretty much contradicts everything we know about science. No explanation for where the energy came from to compress it. What set in motion? Nothing, because nothing was around. It throws out the law of cause and effect which is necessary for science. The description of what exploded is simply absurd. Infinitely small, hot, and dense? First off, nothing could even compress something cont...
reo345678 5 months ago
@ilkinond to be that small and its impossible for anything physical to be infinite. What are its redeeming qualities? With all these flaws, a Creator is much more likely. It can explain the first cause, uniformity, complexity, every question that evolutionists cannot answer can be answered by a Creator-God.
reo345678 5 months ago
@reo345678 I agree, god is the simple, easy explanation that can neither be proved nor disproved - exactly the answer that incurious, intellectually weak little minds find satisfactory. Science however does it the hard way - searching for evidence to support its theories - and guess what? It hasn't found all the answers yet! So cling to your little book of fairy tales - but dont pretend you understand a thing about science.
ilkinond 5 months ago
@ilkinond I have no problem accepting science. Science points to a Creator. Weak souls like you can't deal with having to answer to someone infinitely more powerful than you so you suppress the truth and convince yourself to believe that there is no God. What has science proven that disproves the Bible or even contradicts it in any way. Simply because there is no evidence for miracles today, doesn't mean they didn't happen and certainly doesn't mean there impossible.
reo345678 5 months ago
@ilkinond Why, you evolutionists believe in miracles too. The miracle of spontaneous generation. So basically by saying miracles don't exist you have actually disproved your own worldview.
reo345678 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@reo345678 If humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, how does your silly little bible explain those findings?
ilkinond 5 months ago
@reo345678 8.7 million, even if it is an estimate, implies that the real number is rather large don't you think? And btw how do you explain the presence of dinosaur fossils in sedimentary rock, the youngest of which (late Jurassic) is well over sixty million years old and contains no primate fossils, while the first primate remains occur in rock strata many layers above (and therefore millions of years younger than) the Jurassic ones?
ilkinond 5 months ago
Comment removed
ilkinond 5 months ago
@reo345678 No, you stupid shit-for-brains - can't you get the difference through your thick fundie skull? The origins of life are as yet an unanswered scientific question - not a miracle. Moses making the Red Sea part - when we know that things like that can't happen in nature - is a fairy tale (or "miracle" to use your idiotic term). Got the difference yet? Jesus give me fucking strength.
ilkinond 5 months ago
@ilkinond No a miracle is something that can only happen supernaturally. i.e. something that doesn't naturally occur. Therefore spontaneous generation and random explosions with no cause are supernatural events or miracles. Evolution has not only NOT been proven, but there is a whole ton of evidence against it that proves it never did and could never occur. By the way, if science were to tell you that God does exist and the Bible is true, would you believe it? Do you trust science that much?
reo345678 5 months ago
@reo345678 Yes - of course - what a stupid question! If there were solid scientific evidence in favour of biblical claims then I would have to accept them as fact. Now let's hear your "whole ton of evidence" proving that evolution never occurred.You can begin with just a couple of pounds of it if you like.
ilkinond 5 months ago
@ilkinond No, not at all. "No one knows the day nor the hour, except the father". I fully expected it NOT to happen I also don't expect it to happen again when he repredicted it. That kind of stuff has been going on for hundreds of years.
reo345678 4 months ago
Comment removed
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond So basically. if I had answered yes, you would have called me a fool and if I answered no you would have called me a fool. Nice question. Anyways, how could anyone predict the end of the world from a scientific stand point. As a scientist, allegedly, you tell me, what have you done to predict the end of the world then.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 WOW!! - That’s right - it's sinking in isn’t it? You are a fool because you have totally contradicted yourself in previous messages, so no further answer could be possible - other than the admission that you are an complete uncomprehending fool. Congratulations! I qualified as a doctor of neuropharmacology (a study which you know doubt understand completely, just like all the others) at University College London, UK. Where did you study science and what branch did you specialize in?
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond If you're so smart, why don't you have a better platform than youtube to get angry at people? You also have not offered any evidence besides easily disproved. By the way, if your so smart and I am so stupid, why haven't you won yet?
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 I have won. Science won long ago. The only losers in all of this are the idiots like you who don't realize that, and nothing is ever going to change the fact that you believe in fairies. That is the only sense in which I have not won. In all the arguments we have had, I have stated that I believe in evidence-supported fact, while you are prepared to believe in "miracles". That is the very definition of a fool - which you so clearly are - that nothing will cure him of his idiocy.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond I believe the Bible. Now, if you don't believe in miracles. I'll explain how you have no choice, but to believe in the resurrection, which just so happens to be a miracle. First, every historian at that time claims that Jesus was crucified and his disciples SAID he rose from the dead. Now, if the disciples said they saw Him after he was killed there are basically 3 possibilities. 1) He never died. 2) The disciples made it up. 3) They hallucinated, thinking they saw him.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 The gospels were written 30 to 70 years after Christ's death, on the testimony of the few aged survivors who had hung around with him at various times. The kingdom of heaven, as predicted by Christ, had not yet arrived and still hasn't, and the new testament was written in a language foreign to its author's - John's Greek was particularly putrid. And this constitues solid proof for you that Christ, the only human ever to do so, came back to life after 3 days of death? What utter shit.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond How is anything that you said even relevant to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. So again, when the evidence points to something that you do not want to believe, you talk about something that does not even pertain to the issue and try to disprove it that way. How well John spoke Greek is completely irrelevant to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. The evidence points that He did and you choose not to accept it.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 What I said is relevant because what you cited as "evidence" of the resurrection it's shit. It wouldn't stand up in a kangaroo court, let a lone a scientific journal. That's why it's relevant - can't you even get that tthroiugh your skull?
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond No it isn't. It makes perfect sense, you can't get it through your thick skull that it actually happened. How could you explain the evidence? It's not just the Bible that references Jesus' life and resurrection, its every other historical book written during that time. They all give evidence for the resurrection. What else could possibly have happened, with the events that occurred during that time?
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 That JC came back to life, 3 days after his death, makes him the only human being - the only organism - in the history of life on earth ever to have done so. And you are convinced of so outrageous, bizarre and just plain crazy a claim by the writings, corrupted as they have been over the last 2 millennia, of 4 men who neither knew JC nor witnessed his "resurrection"??!! Good luck getting into those "top notch" universities then - coz you gonna need a miracle to do so!!! Hahahahaha!!!
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond So what your saying basically proves two things. 1) You know nothing about the men who wrote the gospels. 2) You did not read my argument. I did not use the Bible to prove Jesus' resurrection I used common historical knowledge and the writings of roman and jewish historians of the day. You know the kind of historians who wanted to prove Jesus did not rise from the dead. I deduced from the evidence gathered from those sources that no other outcome is possible. Get your facts straight.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 You deduced it! Look, let’s consider the facts and offer a more likely explanation. You’ve heard of Occam’s razor, no doubt? Try this: JC and Judas framed Barabbas, who was the one who really got crucified, split the 40 pieces of silver, got fucked senseless, pissed drunk, and then turned up in Nazareth 3 days later looking like shit. Of course JC had to come up with some kind of outlandish excuse, having previously claimed to be the son of god.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond So basically, you won't accept the resurrection as truth so you've resorted to conspiracy theories with no real evidence. Nice job by a research scientist. Completely throwing out all evidence.
reo345678 4 months ago
Comment removed
ilkinond 4 months ago
@reo345678 And by the way, my rejection of the "evidence" of four men who never knew JC nor witnessed any of his "miracles" as evidence of the crappiest quality imaginable, does not make me a bad scientist, it makes you a gullible fool for accepting it.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond Matthew and John were both apostles so I'm pretty sure they knew Jesus. You may be wrong on that. His miracles did not happen in a vacuum. The others could have talked with people could have talked with people who did witness them. Anyways, you have still failed to offer a reasonable explanation about Jesus' rise from the dead, that is not completely made up and accounts for any evidence. And for the 50th time all the evidence I offered came from other sources, non-Biblical sources.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 I know, and for the 50th time all that "evidence" from all those "sources" claiming to be proof for things that we know don't happen in nature - resurrections and all the other rabbits that JC pulled out of his hat - are uttterly inadequate and prove nothing. The bible is unprovable rot. If it is good enough for you though, I assume you also believe in Zeus and Apollo and all of Greek mythology, since there are many ancient writings describing those gods and their "miracles".
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond So what your saying is, you follow all historical evidence until it disagrees with what you're saying.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 No you fool - that is what you are saying!!!! LOL!!! Can't you see that!! I think both christianity and Greek mythology are nonesense - YOU are the one choosing which fairy tales to believe., while I think they are all crap. Can't you even see that?????
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond Listen I've laid it out for you multiple times. You still have not come up with a reasonable explanation for the resurrection. You're just shrinking behind ad hominem because you know I'm right. Most historians believe that Jesus was a real person, was crucified, and the apostles claim he rose from the dead. With that knowledge, I have already proven that He did in fact, rise from the dead. You just don't want to believe it even though I'm not using the Bible to make my case.
reo345678 4 months ago
@ilkinond Now, with those three possibilities plus the possibility that He did rise from the dead, let's start eliminating options. 1) The simple fact that no one survives crucifixion. This also does not account for the stone being rolled away. He would not have had the strength for it. 2) If the disciples made it up, why would they die for a lie? Your own study of neuropharmacology proves they wouldn't. No one will die for a lie. 3) It is impossible for multiple people to hallucinate the same
reo345678 4 months ago
@ilkinond thing at the same time. So that eliminates option 3. Lastly, we have He truly rose from the dead. if he rose from the dead, it would be considered a miracle. And if that miracle were possible it must mean miracles in general are possible. There you have it. How else could you possibly explain it? If you only believe in evidence based fact then by your admission cannot believe in the big bang or spontaneous generation of life.
reo345678 4 months ago
@ilkinond It's kind of sad that a self-proclaimed scientist such as yourself would feel the need to insult a person, when arguing with someone. If you are so much smarter than me, why haven't you offered any substantial evidence for your position? Why is it that you just get mad?
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 I'm sorry - I just like insulting you because you have revealed yourself - in every one of your silly little messages - to be a complete fundie cretin who understands nothing about science. I will soon deal with those 6 king-sized bobbing turds that you dropped out of your intellectual anus in your last message, as evidence against evolution and atheism, one-by-one in subsequent postings, in the simplest possibles term I can muster.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond Go ahead. I'll be waiting.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 OK – but before I expend any more energy trying to educate an imbecile, I want to know what your scientific credentials are – I have told you mine – now I want to know yours. I’ll begin by dealing with that shit you wrote about Pasteur – but first I want to know in which university you studied science and which branch of it you specialized in.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond I have no scientific credentials, yet, as I am only a senior in high school. But, before you think this is relevant: If I am completely dead wrong, with no hope, why are we still arguing? Why haven't you used well reasoned responses as opposed to just ad hominem? Why won't you address the resurrection, which I clearly spelled out for you? Why is all of this?
reo345678 4 months ago
Comment removed
ilkinond 4 months ago
@reo345678 "I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS." Ok, good. I want anyone following this "argument" to be aware of that. You are a high school student and I am a research scientist with a PhD. I am not saying that makes me smart - Galileo, Darwin and Einstein were smart - but it makes me informed which your previous postings have demonstrated you are not. You have an awful lot to learn about the work of great men, and it don't look like you're gonna get beyond high school wirth what you know.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond Now then, scientific credentials are not needed to understand that evolution is unscientific. Just because you claim you are informed does not mean you are informed correctly. Never have I seen any substantial evidence for evolution, everything is just speculation or misinterpretation. Now, if you are going to say I am not getting past high school, think again. I have the ability to go to University of Chicago, Duke, or Emory. All top notch universities.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 Best of luck getting into those top notch universities - if you seriously think there is "no substantial evidence for evolution" then they are preceisely the places you need to go.
ilkinond 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ilkinond Let's hear some then.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 By the way - a digression I admit - but speaking of miracles, were you disappointed when the "rapture" didn't happen earlier on this year?
ilkinond 5 months ago
@reo345678 Ok 2 points here. 2nd law of thermodynamics - means disorder rules - energy spreads out - matter spreads out - chemicals come into contact with each other and new chemical reactions become possible - enabling reactions leading to biochemsitry. Again your knowledge of science is firmly located in your rectum. 2nd point - your total failure to understand radiometric dating does not prove that the technique doesn't work, but that you completely fail to understand it. Now for DNA....
ilkinond 5 months ago
@ilkinond Exactly, if disorder rules naturally, then what caused a sudden, random ordering, that somehow produced life. And, no I understand it completely, what i don't understand is how it can pass for science with all the assumptions it makes.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 So in fact you don’t really have the first fucking clue about thermodynamics or the ludicrous arguments you are trying to make with it, do you? As I said before, you are the most tiresome kind of fool – the one who thinks he is wise. And I’m still waiting for that “ton of evidence” disproving evolution.
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond Ok, here's my evidence against evolution and just atheism in general. 1) Throws out the law of cause and effect, nothing cause the first cause with no God. 2) Spontaneous generation of life was disproven by Louis Pastuer. 3) Things naturally break down, they do not build themselves up. 4) Nothing can be self-created. 5) No positive mutations have been observed. 6) We are far too complex to have happened by accident. Evolution ignores all of these.
reo345678 4 months ago
@reo345678 Wait a minute now, a couple of messages ago you were arguing that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was incontrovertible evidence that god exists – now you are saying “I don’t understand how it can pass for science with all the assumptions it makes.”
ilkinond 4 months ago
@ilkinond No when I am talking about assumptions, I am talking about your indisputable radiometric dating. When you make assumptions about anything scientific, how can you say the answers that you get are definitely, 100% true? You can't. Science doesn't make assumptions, it only deals with facts. So, therefore, radiometric dating is not scientific.
reo345678 4 months ago
Listen up...There is no devil and there is no god like it or not and it's embarrassing that an Aussie creatard runs this house of bullshit but I'd like to thank him for showing just how desperate they are and as for humans and dinosaurs coexisting HaHaHaHa that really is hilarious.I hear good ol Ken is opening up a new exhibit featuring Santa,Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.:-)
Tindting 5 months ago
Well everybody will notice the occurrences of spelling gross mistakes and logic failures in the boards appearing in this clip. Which only confirm that the authors of this prejudiced clip are themselves ignorant bigots of the worst kind.
carnasso 6 months ago 2
@carnasso I totally agree
reo345678 6 months ago
Ham is such a chimp! SO ironic that such a pig-headed creationist looks like the missing link! LMFAO!
ilkinond 6 months ago
dood video but too much stop and start
trolla77trolla 8 months ago
I looked up the word tedious in the dictionary & there was a picture of Ken Ham.
gextvedde 10 months ago
@Oxyoke100 The point is what kind of good your religion does? I mean, atheism has helped in development of science, most of scientists are atheists. In the other hand, we are spectators of the "so called good for God" like terrorists attacks, attacks to abortion clinics, fascism, intolerance and I can go on an on, and everything in the name of God, of course, their own and personal interpretated one.
flyassasin 1 year ago
@flyassasin
HAHAHA! how cute... another assassin bites the dust. What's the good of Sugar, for that matter? All it does is causing Diabetes. With that kinda logic, you'll go fascist faster than your mother could fart! watch out for nasty gaz atacks! ^^
carnasso 5 months ago
I agree evolution is bunk. But, Ken Ham shouldn't be the spokesman for the cause against evolution myth. He's got the personality of a tree.
EdMahoney19 1 year ago
@EdMahoney19 Evolution has one of the largest amounts of evidence of any scientific theory
quote55 11 months ago
I never have understood why people reject ideas that are helpful. How has atheism or evolution helped anyone individually or society as a whole. The bottom line is we all one day will die. What then? If I choose to believe in God and heaven and believe that accepting Christ as my Savior will get me to heaven, what is wrong with that? If I believe that doing good is God's will for my life, what is wrong with that? Let me die happily in my ignorance. If it is all a myth, I haven't lost anything.
oxyoke100 1 year ago
@oxyoke100 There is nothing wrong with that. Evolution doesn't have to go against being a Christian unless you take what the book of genesis says literally.
dragondisaster 1 year ago
@oxyoke100 Except all the time and knowledge religion has taken from you. But hey, to each their own
MrSwedenik 1 year ago
Ken ham is a great man, and it is only too amusing that his beliefs are censored by the atheistic community. You may ridicule him, you may turn your ear away, but the truth always conquers. Man did live in harmony with dinosaurs, and the earth is 6000 years old. Mr. Ham, keep preaching your scientific genius!
Eye2EyeIIV 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIV are you a poe or a moron?
bjam89 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIV Oh my... truly stupid, plz understand the Jewish-zombie you pray to isn't there. It's almost as if you are alien, you cannot possibly be that stupid?! uhmm try looking up ken ham vs hugh ross another christian that dominates ham's severe ignorance...
buktomsin 11 months ago
@reo345678 hi there. Who created god? God bless
bagospannerz 1 year ago
He wouldn't just pick the parts that fit the bible? I have never heard of creationists doing THAT? LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
If you come across a watch in the desert, you will assume someone created it. You would not say time and chance came together to create this watch because that would be ridiculous. Why can you believe in a watchmaker, but not in a Creator God?
reo345678 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@reo345678 Do you really think Allah did it ?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@reo345678 listen this is old news, i say watch the blind watchmaker and you will find out just why that one is so wrong
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 Even if you believe a Creator is not necessary, how do you account for the beginnings of the universe? If you claim the big bang occurred, what exploded? If nothing was around what could have? Unless you claim matter and energy have always existed in which case you might as well say that matter and energy are gods. What is the difference between believing in an everlasting being (God) or everlasting substances (Matter and Energy)?
reo345678 10 months ago
@reo345678 the big bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of time and space, nothing blew up as nothing could blow up if you even knew what an explosion was you would laugh your ass off at your own comment, now i am one of those who follow the big bounce, and just cause we do not know what the start of the universe was do not mean some sky daddy did it, that is taking one mystery and putting in a lazy answer in and leaving it at that, don't be lazy learn stuff and free your mind
bjam89 10 months ago
@bjam89 If you are unsure how the universe began, how can you rule out God?
reo345678 10 months ago
@reo345678 ah that is a good question sort of...anyway, lets just look at the sun shall we, now adays we laugh a people who think the sun is moving around the earth, but before people used to think god did it, or a sun god moved the sun over the skies, saying god did it rule out your search, it gives you a mystery you can't solve instead of give you a search that could be fun, i don't say god did it as to me that is lazy i am fine with not knowing, rather then be lazy about it
bjam89 10 months ago
@bjam89 But, by being content with not knowing aren't you being lazy yourself? By the way, there is no claim in the Bible as to what revolves around what. The people who believed that the sun revolved around the earth were just that, people. They were simply scientists or philosophers who came to that conclusion apart from anything God revealed to them. Just like evolutionary scientists who attempt to create theories which give an excuse to live apart from God.
reo345678 10 months ago
@reo345678 i am not educated in astrophysics well somewhat over basic school level in Norway but not more then that i don't give a flying f about the bible there is lots of other religions in this world, Baldr the norse sun god, Ra from Egypt, Amaratsu of shinto religion, Helios and Apollo from greek mythology your faith is not alone nor will it ever be alone, please don't think all had your faith is alone, pick up a history book your faith is rather new
bjam89 10 months ago
@reo345678 and here is a fun little fact while i am an Atheist and open about it i still work for my local church(free of charge, we have a deal, i can see no proof in god they can use me to see if they got facts right) and they all believe in evolution every last one of the priests, the church bell ringers the money gatherers and so on all of them believe in evolution, evolution do not deal with your god or any god, it do not disprove gods it just states what it states nothing more
bjam89 10 months ago
@bjam89 It actually does though, because if you disregard the Creation account, how can you say that the rest of the Bible is true? If you open a book and the first chapter is all false how can you expect any different from the rest of the book? Evolution clearly is against Christianity and other religions who believe in God. Why else would it claim that no God exists? Just because a priest or church member believes in atheism doesn't mean that all Christians can. They are misguided about God.
reo345678 10 months ago
@reo345678 listen i am not saying they are that i am saying i am one but the priests still think god is real and jesus was his son, evolution only say one thing small changes over time make big changes (if you really really boil it down) it has nothing about how life got made or the universe all it deals with is how life can be so diverse, and only Christianity believe in god, Jews and Muslims sort of believe in god too but different versions of god, how much do you know of evolution?
bjam89 10 months ago
@reo345678 If the first chapter of a book does not match any of the physical facts available why would anyone think it was true? One would think a god would have a better understanding of biology than nomadic primate shepherds... Apparently the christian god didn't know how everything really works ^_^ If a God actually knows the truth then it should tell its pets to stop making it look like a moron ;D
PinkProgram 7 months ago
@PinkProgram You are taking my words out of context. The person I was arguing with stated that all of the priests and church people he knows dont believe in Creation. I was saying that there is no way to believe in the Christian faith without the belief in Creationism. Evolution says that man evolved through time and chance, survival of the fittest, etc. But in the Bible it says death is punishment for sin. There can be no death without sin, thus not allowing evolution if you believe the Bible.
reo345678 7 months ago
@reo345678 if death is the punishment for sin alone then what is the tree of life? There were two forbidden trees in the garden. Humans were never intended to be immortal ^_^
PinkProgram 7 months ago
@PinkProgram The tree of Life wasn't forbidden. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. Your understanding of the first chapters of Genesis is incorrect.
reo345678 7 months ago
@reo345678 they were kicked out lest they reach out their hands and eat from the tree of life, becoming immortal as gods. Read your book again ^_^
PinkProgram 7 months ago
@PinkProgram Gen. 2:16-17 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die". Are you reading the Bible, or some other book? Because what you are saying is so wrong.
reo345678 7 months ago
@reo345678 and why did God kick them out instead of killing them on the spot? What does the bible say about that?
PinkProgram 7 months ago
@PinkProgram First off, I'm not sure how that's relevant to our argument. But it is because he wanted to redeem us through His Son. He says we will surely die or we will begin to die, continue to die, and eventually die. Not just die immediately. He wants to give us hope.
reo345678 7 months ago
@reo345678 Then god is a liar. If I were to tell Adam that if he ate the fruit he would die it would either be because it was toxic or I intended to punish the disobedience with death. If there was no death in the garden how would Adam even know dying was a punishment? God should have snapped their necks on the spot and started over. Instead he exiled them and held the transgression against all humans until they made an appropriate blood sacrifice to quench his thirst. Evil god you have.
PinkProgram 7 months ago
@PinkProgram First off, they died, didn't they? So He didn't lie. Secondly, what standard of evil are you appealing to? Because that just seems like your opinion, which frankly doesn't carry much weight. Who are you to tell God what He should do with His creation?
reo345678 7 months ago
@reo345678 so your god is an internet troll. If a human did the same things your god is said to do you would call for it to be executed but since its god its "all cool bro". If you see a child tying explosives to a cat would you stop it or would you say "well it is his cat." You have stockholm syndrome. You can't see how evil your god is because you were taught that anything it does is good. Then you had that beat into you with the fear of hell.
PinkProgram 7 months ago
@PinkProgram The problem with what you're saying is that you have no standard of good and evil to judge God with. Your argument basically comes down to. "Well, I don't like what God does, so He's evil." What are you judging Him based on? Your opinion is not an argument.
reo345678 7 months ago
@reo345678 Morality is an opinion. In the bible "god" does several things that would legally get it executed in most parts of the world. What kind of monster tries to drown an entire planet because its in a bad mood? What kind of monster tells a guy to kill his own child and then says "just kidding" at the last possible second? What kind of monster tortures its most faithful follower to the point of breaking on a bet? What standard are you judging god with? It looks evil to me.
PinkProgram 7 months ago
@PinkProgram Again, you are using such loaded words. Would you consider Hitler to be an evil monster? Well, that's too bad. Without a standard of morality, you're stuck. It's his opinion on what's right and wrong, so who are we to tell him otherwise? But, if you believe in God's Word, anything that goes against it morally is wrong. Murder, Theft, Adultery, etc. And, as a human how can you judge a God who is infinitely times wiser and more powerful than you? You can't, without a standard
reo345678 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@reo345678 I'm not a human you monkey ^_^
PinkProgram 7 months ago
@PinkProgram Nice response
reo345678 6 months ago
@reo345678 And you little bible provides the only moral standard possible does it? You stupid little imbecile.
ilkinond 6 months ago