i hate it so much when people say "but in the end, evolution is just a theory". would they know even the meaning of the word, they would believe in evolution as much as they believe in the theory of gravity.
What a great video. It reveals how divisive people can be to get "what they want". "It's about religion, politics and power." The exact cocktail we don't want in the USA! Such cocktails are more commonly found in underdeveloped nations and the middle east where backward people still adhere to such nonsense. It's interesting how Santorum, Bush and Philip Jonson fit into the picture and the "Wedge Strategy" and it's 20 year goals - absolutely scary in a modern world seeking legitimate answers.
I just love this!! All the lies and pretend-science presented to the court as scientific evidence by the Creationists and then DISPROVEN by Science. Religion is not science and has no place infecting the science lab!
"In the beginning, god created. To me, that's all i need to know"
That lady affirmed my belief that a lot of people choose to not believe in evolution simply because because it is easier for them to just say "god created all", instead of picking up a book and actually reading about alternative views on how we came to be
people need to separate religion and intelligent design. im not religious but i think most be something that create everything around us. well i see things different from atheist and religious people. maybe im wrong but i don't find no logical explanation with out intelligent design.but for now atheist are right. there no proof of God.or what ever made us. but if science is little more open mind it to new possibility maybe one day we find the true about where we came from who made us .
@types10000 so im ignorant because i think something just happen with out no help . what i say was my opinion. i think evolution is possible. but not completely true. . at the end is a theory. no body have all the true. but i think science is close. but still i don't think everything just happen. everything like animal plants the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc. came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. ?
"so im ignorant because i think something just happen with out no help"
- no, your claim commits the argument from ignorance logical fallacy because your asserting the subject to be responsible for something without first producing a causal link.
essentially:
'duhhhh i dont know how else this could have happened therefore x must have done it.'
@types10000 we give me an explanation out noting everything was just create. i can't prove god exist but you can't prove god don't exist. i just give an opinion. i didn't say is a fact. you sure God don't exist? can you prove it?
" i think evolution is possible. but not completely true. . at the end is a theory"
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY:
- theory in the coloquial sense is the same as a hypothesis
- however theory in the scientific sense is completely different and signifies the HIGHEST level of evidentiary support eg. the theory of gravity, atomic theory .etc
@types10000 yeah. but evolution is theory of how it work is not a theory to explain who make it work. look atheist say God didn't exists they certain of that. they can't prove it. believers say God exists they certain to . and they can't prove it. they way i see the world i just say something create all this.who i don't know. but i still don't think everything was made unintelligent . but at the end is just my opinion. and what is true is what science always discover.
"i see the world i just say something create all this.who i don't know"
- as i already pointed-out your position that SOMEONE must have created it is a position based on ignorance; your asserting that something intelligent must be responsible without evidence
" so is intelligent to thing everything was create out of noting then?"
- evolution doesnt assert everything was created out of nothing, it explains how life diversified from the first population of organisms that could breed with variation and were subject to natural selection
"at the end is just Ur opinion but i don't say is ignorance"
- unlike your opinion, mine doesnt commit any logical fallacies
@tocadiscos5 man... you're trippin' balls now.. science is trying to understand the origin of the universe while you fools sit back and hinder the process by claiming divine intervention. Do us ALL a favor and get some education.
'but i dont think things like animals, plants and complex brains just happened' [PARAPHRASE]
a). evolutionary theory doesnt assert 'they just happened', it provides a comprehensive framework to explain how it occurred, this framework is currently incredibly well evidenced.
b). even if evolution didnt exist there would still be no evidence that intelligence was involved and the logical thing to do would be to regard it as an unknown.
Dark age medieval is coming back. Only in USA and Islamic country's is possible. Science is not something perfect, but, by the nature of the science, is evolving. The more you study, observe, know, the more you discover. Religion "intelligent design" tells that the things are made by designer, is only some opinion, make believe, based on some old text. No proof, no nothing.end of discussion.Where is the science in this opinion?
And god is not love.Ask the Inquisition,Islamic fundamentalists.
Always surprised people still believe in Creationism, which is the same as Intelligent Design essentially. I live in Europe, where pretty much everyone is humble enough to admit that they are not scientists nor people who research the subject and therefore do not know more than those who do. Even those who do not accept evolution here seem to have enough self-awareness to keep shut unless they have questions.
Not too dissimilar from the ancient "Earth isn't the centre of the universe" subject.
@TacoBurgher327 Speaking about the Grand Canyon, I think its better that you guys debate this topic on my uploaded video -- "The Grand Canyon S02E01 - How the Earth Was Made - History Channel" -- watch?v=MhFIICXma7A
The video explained the Grand Canyon in great detail by our respected and legitimate geologists and experts.
@JungleJargon Creationism is ANTI-SCIENCE and is BULLSHIT to me. Creationists do its "scientific work" to promote their religious bullshits and nothing more.
@JungleJargon hey jungle, go fuck yourself ha ha ha u wanna block me from videos? that's fine, but I'm NOT the only one finding flaw after flaw after flaw in your "objects make us what we are" bullshit. You can't take the heat, so you block people who aare smarter then you. No problems you ignorant fuck!
@JungleJargon "ordered functions in life forms prove there is a very great Maker."
Ha ha ha this has been DIS PROVEN to you so many times. It's just pathetic how you literally fuckin put your fingers in your ears and just don't give a shit about what people are telling you. your a pussy. BEACHES are an ORDERED FUNCTION and HAVE NO MAKER ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Fuck off, and ANYONE talking to JJ better get ready to be ignored, then blocked ha ha ha FUCK off you little theistic bitch....
@JungleJargon you get no respect for BLOCKING someone who is simply smarter then you and UNDERSTANDS what evolution says...
'The only way to prove that ordered functions do not have maker is to show me one." Na, how about YOU show US one, because as i've stated before, ORDERED FUNCTION is something YOU made up....
"objects made them what they are."
Ha ha ha AGAIN, i've GIVIN you the definition of 'ordered' and my PARENTS fit in there VERY nicely, bitch... You're just NOT smart....
@TacoBurgher327 You were using foul language on my video so you can't say anything about respect.
I am the one that said your parents were ordered and have a Maker.
You said they were objects. - "Ha! Ha! Ha!"
So you can't come up with another example of ordered function that does not have a maker and that means that all ordered functions in life forms do have a Maker.
@JungleJargon "You were using foul language on my video"
AWWWW, ha ha ironically that has NOTHING to do with what i SAID, does it? Na, you just can't logically debate ANYONE, so you use "foul language" as an excuse to block people. Your NOT original you big pile of dog shit....
"You said they were objects."
MY PARENTS ARE OBJECTS YOU IGNORANT FUCK.... jesus christ. LOOK UP OBJECT IN THE DICTIONARY IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME. Did caps help?
@JungleJargon "So you can't come up with another example of ordered function that does not have a maker"
YOU haven't come up with an example either. COULDN'T be because YOU MADE UP ORDERED FUNCTION, could it? naaa, that's WAY to logical. As i've stated before, you're just stupid....
"Thank you."
For what? You IGNORING everything anyone tells you and continue to spew your "information" ad infinitum? AGAIN, that's NOT debating, that's preaching. You are NOT debating...
@JungleJargon "Show me another ordered function that does not have a maker."
FOR THE MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME, THE FUCKING MOON HAS ORDER (It's nice and round) AND SERVES A FUCKING FUNCTION (creates TIDES on earth) AND DOESN'T HAVE A MAKER. Jesus, what the fuck don't you understand?
@TacoBurgher327 The moon does not have any ordered function. Purpose is not the same thing as an ordered function.
Tides are not an ordered function. A wave machine is an example of ordered function and it has a maker.
The moon has a Maker because all matter has a Maker, it just does not have an observable ordered function. Ordered functions of hydrogen and most of the most common elements in life forms prove that we have a very great Maker of all things in the universe.
@JungleJargon "The moon does not have any ordered function."
BULLSHIT, it creates our tides. THAT"S AN ORDERED FUNCTION ha ha ha AGAIN, ORDER DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CLAIM A MAKER... You just aren't smart enough to understand at this point....
"Purpose is not the same thing as an ordered function."
I KNOW, The moons PURPOSE isn't to create tides, however, that's what it does. Creating tides is a FUNCTION, NOT PURPOSE.... AGAIN, you're just not smart enough to understand...
if you had all the chemicals in the world could you create something living?
if you can (1)you proved there is a maker (2)you would get a medal or something.
but if you cant then that proves where not the primordial scum that you where so desperately hoping we where because you don't amount to anything so you don't want any
@dylan51292 "but if you cant then that proves where not the primordial scum that you where so desperately hoping"
WERE, not where, but anyways, I am not hoping for ANYTHING ha ha ha Experiments and data show us monomers COULD exist in totally natural instances, and experiments show how POLYmers could form through natural means. Again, I'm not wishing or hoping for anything, just logically looking at the data.....
@dylan51292 "because you don't amount to anything so you don't want any
one else to."
and how do you make the jump from create life with "all the chemicals in the world" and not amounting to anything? ha ha ha That simply makes no sense. As I've explained, it doesn't take a maker or a god for someone to have morals....
And why would I want others to amount to anything? Wouldn't it be beneficial for the species if people DID amount to things... again... logic.... use it.....
@dylan51292 So, let me just conclude by saying, asking someone if they could create life with every chemical known ISN'T a "hey man simple question." In fact, as you so scientifically put it, "you would get a medal or something." You'd actually win a Nobel Prize and be considered one of the smartest people on the planet, but the fact we HAVEN'T created life in the lab, truly means nothing, and in no way supports, nor is proof "god is real." ALL it means is we don't know yet.....
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
@TacoBurgher327 Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
@1tabligh "He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned"
Ad hominid attack, and a fail. We aren't the ones claiming "perfection" or "exact," YOU are, remember? ha ha ha things are the way they are, and that's a FACT. We're questioning HOW it happened, and to presuppose "god done it" means nothing to me....
" while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design"
@1tabligh " Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say."
Ha ha ha, again, a presupposition "God or Allah is real" So to sum up, you claim "god is real" and the only "evidence" you have is "you're stupid to think anything else?" ha ha ha *bro*, your so *far* from reality it's *funny*
@1tabligh "Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?"
Sure, when we have the math and science to BACK UP what were saying. ha ha ha AGAIN, you're calling the geometry "precise" and "perfect" in this universe, and i'm not arguing it isn't, i'm just saying, have you ever looked up WHY it appears perfect? Wouldn't the universe HAVE to appear perfect for us to be here?
@1tabligh ha ha oh and PS, i love the fact I called your entire argument an ad hominid attack and all of your justification, presuppositions, and you didn't deny it, nor defend yourself at all..... SHOULD tell someone with a rational mind SOMETHING.... but I'm sure with YOU, it just went in one ear and out the other! ha ha ha typical.....
@TacoBurgher327 When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
@1tabligh Ok, STOP preaching, please and have a NORMAL, INTELLIGENT conversation... I know that may be hard for you and Allah!
" When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task"
I have no idea what A task is, mr vague...
"are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?"
@1tabligh "the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world"
And how about some exacts here mr "i love god" ha ha ha your being quite vague with your preaching. WHAT exactitude's are we talking about here? The fact that things accrete in the universe? The fact GRAVITY impacts everything? Electromagnetism? WHAT r u even talking about?
@TacoBurgher327 We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
@1tabligh "We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity"
So because things are, there's a god.... ha ha ha WEAK sauce, boy....
" they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder."
Oh no, so when theists claim if you murder someone, just say your sorry to god, that's NOT disorder, or anarchy? Ha ha ha ha, AGAIN, the fact you can't see past your presupposition means NOTHING to me, and if you continue to fuel useless information, im done...
@1tabligh And what's up with theists ignoring EVERY question posed to them? ha ha ha for instance "WHAT exactitude's are we talking about here?", "have you ever looked up WHY it appears perfect?", while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design"
Why not?"
Ha ha ha so YOU get to throw out ANY bullshit you want, yet you answer NOTHING purposed to you? Ha ha ha Kid, You're TYPICAL....
@TacoBurgher327 If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?
Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
@1tabligh " If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?"
What the fuck don't you understand about a PRESUPPOSITION? Ha ha ha ya don't understand big words?? YES, IT IS WRONG TO ASSUME ANYTHING. Did Caps help ya?
"Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?"
Anything you DON'T assume? Ha ha Lets start there...
@1tabligh Oh and ps, i'm giving you ONE MORE CHANCE to speak like a big boy, meaning no more hypothetical questions, meaning no more ignoring questions, meaning NO MORE PREACHING. You get ONE more chance to speak like a fucking adult or you'll just be another name to add to the LONG list of complete theistic tools i;ve intelligently demolished on here.... The choice is yours, and I'm gonna predict your gonna continue to be a tool and ask stupid questions that have no relevance to the topic...
@TacoBurgher327 If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation.
Our thought and perception and unable to soar and take flight, and the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe.
Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence.
@1tabligh "If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation."
Ha ha so perfection PROVES a creator, but imperfections, don't DISprove him. Ha ha ha hypocrite!
"the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe."
Ha ha maybe YOUR intelligence is to short, but NO scientist on the planet is SO baffled about the universe, they are chalking some phenomenon up to god, NONE...
@1tabligh "Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence."
AGAIN, ASSUMING existence has a goal means NOTHING to me. As I've asked before, and you've ignored, is there anything you DON'T assume, when talking about theology? ha ha ha Honestly? You have a bunch of assumptions, and think that's justification for theism, which in reality, you're just proving your lack of research on the subject.
@1tabligh and AGAIN, HOW ABOUT SOME SPECIFICS HERE? "the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe."
WHICH MYSTERIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHICH MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE ARE YOU CHALKING UP TO GOD?
What the fuck don't you understand about the fact no one knows what your talking about when you talk like a vague little bitch? Ha ha ha Fuck, theists wouldn't listen if JESUS CHRIST was standing here talking to them....
@TacoBurgher327 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh "and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves,"
Ha ha look up baryogenesis. It is the generic term for hypothetical physical processes that produced an asymmetry between baryons and antibaryons in the very early universe, resulting in the substantial amounts of residual matter that make up the universe today.
@1tabligh And for that matter, even though scientists DON'T say matter magically made itself, even if they did, Quantum Mechanics allows this. Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there.
@1tabligh But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field).
@1tabligh Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described below. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy.
@1tabligh But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.
@1tabligh So AGAIN, Belief has to have some sort of REASON behind it. MY belief DOES have reason and evidence to support it. Your FAITH based belief doesn't. End of story. Cry, complain, call names, do whatever you want, the FACT is, atheists have DATA and EVIDENCE to support their claims, you have assumptions, WRONG assumptions...
@TacoBurgher327 The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied. It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence.
@1tabligh "The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim,"
Bro, what don't you understand, you presupposing that reality is guided, or has an aim means nothing to me. Presuppositions aren't justification and never will be, so STOP presupposing shit...
"purpose and will that cannot be denied."
I'm denying it.... Life is NOT guided.... see, denial..... it CAN be denied. AGAIN, stop presupposing everything....
@TacoBurgher327 Mechanisms that function as ordered to function always require a maker so the mechanisms that function as ordered in life forms require a very great Maker.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
@JungleJargon I have already explained to you HOW and WHY your stupid theory is wrong, and yet you keep ignoring MY question to you. In case you forgot, YOU claim scientists say deer become whales. Please explain, if that's the case, how scientists explain EVERY OTHER MAMMAL ON THE PLANET. Until you answer this, don't talk to me.....
@JungleJargon "and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible."
And i've also asked yo how many time YOU'VE tested evolution.... you ignored that as well.... AGAIN, answer the question or shut the fuck up and leave me alone troll.....
@1tabligh " It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence."
Ha ha ha so EVERYTHING i just tried to explain to you means nothing? ha ha ha the fact things DO pop into and out of existence, baryogenesis, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, ha ha ha you just said fuck it all? Typical closed minded theist. Scientific of you to just claim "you'er dumb to not believe in god" ha ha ha idiot.....
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
@1tabligh "What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha science worshipers??? Ha ha ha it is TRULY pathetic to see how bad theists want atheists to be JUST LIKE THEM. ha ha ha no one WORSHIPS science. Science proves itself time and time again to be the ONLY way to distinguish TRUTH from FICTION. Ha ha if you care to give us another was, we're all ears, but untill then, no one WORSHIPS science. Science just works, period...
@1tabligh "The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent."
Ha ha guess YOU don't go to hospitals, huh? Like that computer you sit at? Like having vaccines and cars and modern life? Ya, all given to us by SCIENCE, not your douch Allah, so praise whoever you want ha ha ha
Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. If, as the materialists imagine, the world of nature did not arise from knowledge and will (despite the signs of creativity and inventiveness apparent in its every phenomenon) then man, too, in order to attain his purposes would have to abandon his advance on the path of knowledge and imprison himself in ignorance in order to conform to the ignorance of nature itself.
@1tabligh "Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. "
Well, when no one CLAIMS knowledge was an accident, YES, it makes you ignorant.
" If, as the materialists imagine"
"Imagine", ha ha ha what can't theists understand about PROOF and REASON? ha ha ha we don't "imagine" anything, we LEARN about things ha ha ha BTW isn't it YOU imagining a god without proof?
@TacoBurgher327 After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction,
@1tabligh " nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction, planning and precision."
I'd be VERY interested in reading up about this organism... care to give the NAME of it?
@1tabligh "nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction"
And can i just point out, saying something observed in nature can ONLY be produced by a god is called a presupposition. AGAIN, presuppositions AREN'T scientific. Sure, we may not know where an organism comes from NOW, but all scientists agree, that doesn't mean we'll NEVER know.
But again, I'd love the name of that organism.....
@TacoBurgher327 Think of a typesetter in a printing house. He expends great care and attention when he is setting the letters required for one page of a book, but when he reviews his work, he comes across small errors arising from some slight inattention.
Were the typesetter to take a handful of letters and scatter them over the plate instead of carefully arraying them in rows, is it at all possible that the resulting page should be correct in its contents and free of error?
@1tabligh None of that has ANYTHING to do with the name of that organism you were just talking about.... but anyways....
"Were the typesetter to take a handful of letters and scatter them over the plate instead of carefully arraying them in rows, is it at all possible that the resulting page should be correct in its contents and free of error?"
Well, one, letters AREN'T alive, and hence, have no bearing on this conversation as we're talking about ALIVE objects, and two....
@1tabligh None of that has ANYTHING to do with the name of that organism you were just talking about.... but anyways....
"Were the typesetter to take a handful of letters and scatter them over the plate instead of carefully arraying them in rows, is it at all possible that the resulting page should be correct in its contents and free of error?"
Well, one, letters AREN'T alive, and hence, have no bearing on this conversation as we're talking about ALIVE objects, and two....
@1tabligh if the typesetter was given 13 billion years (the age of the universe) Sure, why COULDN'T he produce a page that was correct in context and free of error? Ha ha ha ever heard the old expression, "put enough moneys into a room with enough time and they'll create Shakespeare?" ha ha same idea here. please explain why he COULDN'T create a page, and the name of that organism, please....
@TacoBurgher327 It would be still more absurd to claim that a hundred kilograms of molten lead, forced through a tube, should emerge in the form of ready made letters; that a fierce tempest should then pick up those letters and arrange them in a particular and regular order on thousands of metal plates; and that these plates should result in the printing of a thousand-page book containing numerous precise scientific discussions and attractive, alluring expressions,
@1tabligh and AGAIN, the REASON it was dumb to make an analogy about NON living things compared to LIVING things ha ha ha. Ironic how, when you make a terrible analogy, such AS comparing living things to non living things, you can have any outcome you want, eh?
@TacoBurgher327 What do the materialists who deny God have to say concerning the emergence of the variegated forms of the letters of creation and the precise and complex relations that regulate the heavenly bodies, natural creation and all material objects?
@TacoB...Are the letters of creation (i.e., the atoms and the particles that comprise them) in any way lesser than the letters used in printing?
Is it in any way acceptable that these orderly, meaningful letters, this precise and well-organized geometry, the astounding forms depicted in the book of creation, should be the work of ignorance and aimlessness?
That a great and wise power, a miraculous ordering principle, should not be present in the very texture of the world?
@TacoBurgher327 Do not all phenomena arise from a manifestation of consciousness, awareness and power?
If the power hidden in the depths of matter does not arise from the universal intelligence, what factor guides it to the elaboration of forms, to an amazing regularity and harmony?
If that power is an agent devoid of intelligence and conscious will, why does it never fall prey to disorder, and why does its compounding of matter never result in collision and destruction?
@TacoBurgher327 It is here that belief in the creator bestows meaning on all existence and endows the world with sense and content. Those who possess deep vision and clear thought perceive plainly that an infinite power assures the preservation of the order of the world by means of firm supervision and absolute sovereignty.
@1tabligh "It is here that belief in the creator bestows meaning on all existence and endows the world with sense and content. Those who possess deep vision and clear thought perceive plainly that an infinite power assures the preservation of the order of the world by means of firm supervision and absolute sovereignty."
Blah blah blah blah ha ha ha keep ignoring the questions... For not answering ANYTHING asked to you, you're cut. bye bye now!
@1tabligh Ha ha ha and the fact you, nor JJ haven't answered ANY of my questions just assures me you two have NO idea what you're talking about, nor do you care about what you're talking about. You just do and/or say whatever the hell makes you two feel good, ignore ALL questions thrown your way, and continue trolling videos. Ha ha ha the time where religion DIDN'T have to answer for their claims (The DARK Ages) is OVER and science will emerge victorious. Doesn't MATTER what you think
there bitch.... (The DARK Ages) is OVER and science..
___
Poor fella!
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical illusion based on unproven theories
@TacoBurgher327 Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@1tabligh "Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism" Of course, cause atheists are so much morally worse then theists, right? That's why there's more THEISTS in prison then atheists, huh? ha ha ha ha kid, you fail on so many aspects of logic, it's hilarious!
@1tabligh ps you have STILL yet to answer why the letters COULDN'T arrange themselves in some sort of legible print, if given 13 billion years, AND you've yet to give the NAME of the organism that has every scientist SO baffles, they claim a god! ha ha ha THEN you MAKE up things that I claim, such as "Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical" Ha ha ha ha ha I never ONCE claimed science was pushing out god! Man the irony is KILLING me!
@1tabligh And the simple fact you THINK science needs to disprove something, anything, PROVES you have NO understanding of science in general. And for that matter, you have no idea about atheism either. AGAIN, atheism is a RESPONSE to the claim "god is real." AGAIN, it's not UP to us to disprove ANYTHING. It's up to YOU (the one MAKING the claim) to PROVE said claim..... That's literally one of the first things i learned about science.... read a third grade science book.....
@TacoBurgher327 Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
@1tabligh "In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic. "
@TacoBurgher327 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh "cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria"
Sure, hence why bigfoot, santa clause, leprechauns, and the flying spaghetti monster are considered real, right? Yes, something without material criteria CAN be considered not real. HOW ELSE would be distinguish real from fiction? Ha ha ha AGAIN, the proof is on the one's with the claim, not on those who disagree based on evidence...
@1tabligh "unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible."
No, That's not how science works. I don't need to DISprove anything. What's in question is the CLAIM "God is real." Again, I'm not the one claiming a particular god then saying he isn't real, YOUR claiming a god. And without proof or evidence, YOUR claim falls flat. Again, It isn't up to me to disprove YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to prove it...
@TacoBurgher327 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
@1tabligh "If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded,"
Like what? Care to give ANY example of a scientific truth we didn't directly observe OR don't have proof, to understand??
"since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing."
What do YOU think science is? Science is ONLY about things we can observe and ONLY about REtestable theories....
Let us for a short while inquire about those who glorify experimentation and scientific understanding, and who declare with full pride that they do not adopt any view unless confirmed by experiments and demonstrated empirically. (They continue saying) that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation,
@1tabligh "that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation, we must case it aside"
Simply not true, and AGAIN, you have a misunderstanding about science. OF COURSE we can test theistic claims. Why wouldn't we be able to? THE PROBLEM IS, and i don't know how many times I have to reexplain myself, THE CLAIM "god exists" doesn't stand up to facts and experiments. What don't you understand?
we must case it aside, concentrating on the truths and knowledge that can be grasped in the experimental field.
We would ask the experimentalists, 'What do you intend by "experiment", and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?'
If what is meant by their words is that they do not accept the existence of anything except if they have direct sense perception of chat thing, and they reject any idea except if they grasp its objective reality by
one of their senses, then this will be a blow to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths that are demonstrated by the experiments they glorify.
A demonstration of a scientific truth by experimentation does not mean a direct sense perception of that truth in the scientific field.
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?
@1tabligh " then this will be a blow to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths"
AGAIN, CARE TO NAME ANY OF THESE "Scientific truths?" ha ha ha you are flat out IGNORING my comments and questions to you.
"When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?"
Yes, when the APPLE fell. He SAW gravity at work...
@1tabligh As i've stated before, you simply DON'T UNDERSTAND what science does and claims. OF COURSE newton had to observe SOMETHING before coming up with his theory about gravity. AGAIN, science deals with REAL and RETESTABLE theories. We can RETEST Newtons theory by simply throwing something in the air. You are literally OBSERVING gravity at work.
Again, I ask what YOU think science is and ANY scientific theory that doesn't have EVIDENCE to back it up (which is YOUR claim)....
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.
Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion. According to Newton, this phenomenon
could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force. From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method
by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically - namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon - then this is *exactly* the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.
@1tabligh "then this is *exactly* the method of demonstrating the *theological* position"
Ha ha ha okay, then WHAT are the theists "observing" to confirm, or at least give the indication, of a deity? As YOU stated "he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force" so, WHAT perceptible phenomenon are theists claiming "proof of god" with?
@Taco..When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
@1tabligh "When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity"
WHICH elements and natural factors are you talking about? Do you not understand what I'm asking you? You are very vague when talking about such an important subject... Oh and ps assuming elements DO have a creativity is called a PRESUPPOSITION, not the first you've made.
@1tabligh "when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause"
SUCH AS.... jesus christ, why are theists SO FUCKING VAGUE? ha ha WHICH experiences point to the conclusion "Nothing in nature occurs without reason??"
"when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on"
All of what? You haven't named ANY element or case.... NONE....
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh "a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system"
Great.... doesn't mean their correct.....
"they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic."
Great.... so the fuck what? What did ANY of that have to do with ANYTHING real or testable or WHAT scientific law isn't grounded in the scientific method??
@1tabligh All you continue to do is ignore questions and spout "Nope!" when you think someone's incorrect. You CONTINUE to NOT give examples of ANYTHING you're talking about, and CONTINUE to swerve the conversation into shit no one cares about, such as how SOME scientists are now theists... Again, No one cares what you and your fellow theists PRESUPPOSE. We care about what we can TEST, and from your very vague comments, seems you bring NOTHING to the table.....
@TacoBurgher327 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
@1tabligh "he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them."
Why couldn't we be finding out things were WRONG the way we thought of them in the past? The SUN was once considered a god.... were they WRONG, or are we just doubting the sun's a god? Your lack of logic is hilarious....
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh "Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!"
Ha ha ha name ONE fucking question I have dodged you piece of shit. I just gave you a LAUNDRY LIST of questions YOU'VE ignored, so please ONE fucking question I have not answered. Fucking theists, just make up ANYTHING that makes you feel fucking good.... FUCK YOU. You know what, FUCK THIS. Fuck you and your illogical, BULLSHITING mind. I don't give a shit anymore.
@1tabligh "is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic"."
Ha ha ha ya cause a theist who's 100% correct about EVERYTHING HASN'T shut out their mind to logic, huh? You're a hypocritical, LYING piece of shit who isn't worth my time anymore. Fuck you and your presuppositions.
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
Answer the question!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
Ha ha ha Fuck off. I TRIED to have a conversation with you, but claiming I am "Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!" deserves a HUGE FUCK YOU. I ask for EXAMPLES you ignore me. I ask for PROOF, you ignore me. I SHOW you how I don't have to disprove shit, you ignore me. Ya FUCK YOU. Stop talking to me
@TacoBurgher327 "And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
The Quran 2:171
Surely the vilest of animals, in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
PRE FUCKING SUPPOSITION. ASSUMING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING CREATED MATTER IS A PRE FUCKING SUPPOSITION!!! ha ha ha you just aren't fucking smart enough to know WHEN your assuming shit. Ha ha ha ALL YOU HAVE IS PRESUPPOSITIONS, bitch, and CONTINUE to spew it as fact. Your such a joke.
@1tabligh " what is the cause and origin of matter-energy"
WHY does there HAVE to be an origin? Cause YOU say so? The big bang is the BEST answer we have to the origin of matter. WHO or WHAT created the big bang is a PRESUPPOSITION. You just aren't smart enough to understand.
i hate it so much when people say "but in the end, evolution is just a theory". would they know even the meaning of the word, they would believe in evolution as much as they believe in the theory of gravity.
mikeee382 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a great video. It reveals how divisive people can be to get "what they want". "It's about religion, politics and power." The exact cocktail we don't want in the USA! Such cocktails are more commonly found in underdeveloped nations and the middle east where backward people still adhere to such nonsense. It's interesting how Santorum, Bush and Philip Jonson fit into the picture and the "Wedge Strategy" and it's 20 year goals - absolutely scary in a modern world seeking legitimate answers.
RATIONALMIND001 1 week ago
Intelligent design should be taught along side darwinism. Thinking people should have the choice.
futureseven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@futureseven
"Intelligent design should be taught along side darwinism. Thinking people should have the choice."
- intelligent design is unfounded religiously motivated nonsense
- 'Darwinism' hasnt existed since punctuated equilibrium back in the 60's
- Evolution is a credible scientific theory of the same level of scientific evidentiary support as gravity
It makes no more sense to teach intelligent design alongside evolution than it does to teach alchemy alongside chemistry.
types10000 1 month ago
I just love this!! All the lies and pretend-science presented to the court as scientific evidence by the Creationists and then DISPROVEN by Science. Religion is not science and has no place infecting the science lab!
daxx1178 1 month ago
"In the beginning, god created. To me, that's all i need to know"
That lady affirmed my belief that a lot of people choose to not believe in evolution simply because because it is easier for them to just say "god created all", instead of picking up a book and actually reading about alternative views on how we came to be
PlayboiX122 1 month ago
people need to separate religion and intelligent design. im not religious but i think most be something that create everything around us. well i see things different from atheist and religious people. maybe im wrong but i don't find no logical explanation with out intelligent design.but for now atheist are right. there no proof of God.or what ever made us. but if science is little more open mind it to new possibility maybe one day we find the true about where we came from who made us .
tocadiscos5 1 month ago
@tocadiscos5
"people need to separate religion and intelligent design"
- no not really, intelligent design was demonstrated to be a repackaging of christian creationism at the trial. ref. of pandas and people.
"im not religious but i think most be something that create everything around us"
- do you base this on actual evidence or your ignorance of how else it could have happened?
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 so im ignorant because i think something just happen with out no help . what i say was my opinion. i think evolution is possible. but not completely true. . at the end is a theory. no body have all the true. but i think science is close. but still i don't think everything just happen. everything like animal plants the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc. came from an unintelligent evolutionary process. ?
tocadiscos5 1 month ago
@tocadiscos5
"so im ignorant because i think something just happen with out no help"
- no, your claim commits the argument from ignorance logical fallacy because your asserting the subject to be responsible for something without first producing a causal link.
essentially:
'duhhhh i dont know how else this could have happened therefore x must have done it.'
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 we give me an explanation out noting everything was just create. i can't prove god exist but you can't prove god don't exist. i just give an opinion. i didn't say is a fact. you sure God don't exist? can you prove it?
tocadiscos5 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tocadiscos5
"we give me an explanation out noting..."
- there isnt any evidence things were created (your own claim is based on ignorance of other possibilities)
- evolution provides evidence things were not created.
- even if evolution didnt exist the logical thing would be to regard it as an unknown
" i can't prove god exist but you can't prove god don't exis"
- i dont have to, the position that god does not exist is the logical default until evidence of a god is presented.
types10000 1 month ago
@tocadiscos5
"i just give an opinion"
- your entitled to give your opinoin
- however i'm entitled to demonstrate why it is logically flawed.
Welcome to the public arena.
"you sure God don't exist?"
- i do not need to be certain of whether a god exists inorder to believe/disbelieve
- i simply dont believe in one because there isnt any evidence in favour of one.
types10000 1 month ago
@tocadiscos5
" i think evolution is possible. but not completely true. . at the end is a theory"
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY:
- theory in the coloquial sense is the same as a hypothesis
- however theory in the scientific sense is completely different and signifies the HIGHEST level of evidentiary support eg. the theory of gravity, atomic theory .etc
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 yeah. but evolution is theory of how it work is not a theory to explain who make it work. look atheist say God didn't exists they certain of that. they can't prove it. believers say God exists they certain to . and they can't prove it. they way i see the world i just say something create all this.who i don't know. but i still don't think everything was made unintelligent . but at the end is just my opinion. and what is true is what science always discover.
tocadiscos5 1 month ago
@tocadiscos5
"yeah. but evolution is theory of how it work is not a theory to explain who make it work"
- there isnt any evidence anyone is required to 'make it work'; it's essentially just mutations acted apon by natural selection.
"look atheist say God didn't exists they certain of that"
- incorrect, god 'not existing' is the logical default until evidence he does exist is presented, this doesnt require absolute certainty.
types10000 1 month ago
@tocadiscos5
"i see the world i just say something create all this.who i don't know"
- as i already pointed-out your position that SOMEONE must have created it is a position based on ignorance; your asserting that something intelligent must be responsible without evidence
types10000 1 month ago
@types10000 so is intelligent to thing everything was create out of noting then? at the end is just Ur opinion but i don't say is ignorance.
tocadiscos5 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tocadiscos5
" so is intelligent to thing everything was create out of noting then?"
- evolution doesnt assert everything was created out of nothing, it explains how life diversified from the first population of organisms that could breed with variation and were subject to natural selection
"at the end is just Ur opinion but i don't say is ignorance"
- unlike your opinion, mine doesnt commit any logical fallacies
types10000 1 month ago
@tocadiscos5 man... you're trippin' balls now.. science is trying to understand the origin of the universe while you fools sit back and hinder the process by claiming divine intervention. Do us ALL a favor and get some education.
mikeee382 1 week ago
@tocadiscos5
'but i dont think things like animals, plants and complex brains just happened' [PARAPHRASE]
a). evolutionary theory doesnt assert 'they just happened', it provides a comprehensive framework to explain how it occurred, this framework is currently incredibly well evidenced.
b). even if evolution didnt exist there would still be no evidence that intelligence was involved and the logical thing to do would be to regard it as an unknown.
types10000 1 month ago
Dark age medieval is coming back. Only in USA and Islamic country's is possible. Science is not something perfect, but, by the nature of the science, is evolving. The more you study, observe, know, the more you discover. Religion "intelligent design" tells that the things are made by designer, is only some opinion, make believe, based on some old text. No proof, no nothing.end of discussion.Where is the science in this opinion?
And god is not love.Ask the Inquisition,Islamic fundamentalists.
xplanetopplstupid 2 months ago
1:44 "It makes people stupid."
yoohootube 2 months ago
Always surprised people still believe in Creationism, which is the same as Intelligent Design essentially. I live in Europe, where pretty much everyone is humble enough to admit that they are not scientists nor people who research the subject and therefore do not know more than those who do. Even those who do not accept evolution here seem to have enough self-awareness to keep shut unless they have questions.
Not too dissimilar from the ancient "Earth isn't the centre of the universe" subject.
OshiSeven 2 months ago
If You Do Not Beleve in GOD You Dont Beleve In LOVE!!!!
7777777Derrick 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@7777777Derrick "If You Do Not Beleve in GOD You Dont Beleve In LOVE!!!!"
Then why are there more theists in prison then atheists?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
fuck u creationists !
Atheist961 2 months ago
is it just me or is this incredibly biased
DeJay17Revolution 3 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Speaking about the Grand Canyon, I think its better that you guys debate this topic on my uploaded video -- "The Grand Canyon S02E01 - How the Earth Was Made - History Channel" -- watch?v=MhFIICXma7A
The video explained the Grand Canyon in great detail by our respected and legitimate geologists and experts.
@JungleJargon Creationism is ANTI-SCIENCE and is BULLSHIT to me. Creationists do its "scientific work" to promote their religious bullshits and nothing more.
AtheistsAreSkeptics 3 months ago 2
@AtheistsAreSkeptics Can you prove your belief that Creationists believe things not based on science?
Science is all relative and subject to change and ordered functions in life forms prove there is a very great Maker.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon hey jungle, go fuck yourself ha ha ha u wanna block me from videos? that's fine, but I'm NOT the only one finding flaw after flaw after flaw in your "objects make us what we are" bullshit. You can't take the heat, so you block people who aare smarter then you. No problems you ignorant fuck!
TacoBurgher327 3 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Objects do not make us what we are. You failed to proved that objects make you what you are.
You are the one that used foul language on my video.
Show me another ordered function that does not have a maker.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon "ordered functions in life forms prove there is a very great Maker."
Ha ha ha this has been DIS PROVEN to you so many times. It's just pathetic how you literally fuckin put your fingers in your ears and just don't give a shit about what people are telling you. your a pussy. BEACHES are an ORDERED FUNCTION and HAVE NO MAKER ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Fuck off, and ANYONE talking to JJ better get ready to be ignored, then blocked ha ha ha FUCK off you little theistic bitch....
TacoBurgher327 3 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 The only way to prove that ordered functions do not have maker is to show me one.
You are a real example of someone that believes that objects made them what they are.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon you get no respect for BLOCKING someone who is simply smarter then you and UNDERSTANDS what evolution says...
'The only way to prove that ordered functions do not have maker is to show me one." Na, how about YOU show US one, because as i've stated before, ORDERED FUNCTION is something YOU made up....
"objects made them what they are."
Ha ha ha AGAIN, i've GIVIN you the definition of 'ordered' and my PARENTS fit in there VERY nicely, bitch... You're just NOT smart....
TacoBurgher327 3 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 You were using foul language on my video so you can't say anything about respect.
I am the one that said your parents were ordered and have a Maker.
You said they were objects. - "Ha! Ha! Ha!"
So you can't come up with another example of ordered function that does not have a maker and that means that all ordered functions in life forms do have a Maker.
Thank you.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon "You were using foul language on my video"
AWWWW, ha ha ironically that has NOTHING to do with what i SAID, does it? Na, you just can't logically debate ANYONE, so you use "foul language" as an excuse to block people. Your NOT original you big pile of dog shit....
"You said they were objects."
MY PARENTS ARE OBJECTS YOU IGNORANT FUCK.... jesus christ. LOOK UP OBJECT IN THE DICTIONARY IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME. Did caps help?
TacoBurgher327 3 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 People not using foul language were not blocked.
You said your parents were ordered.
Make up your mind.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon "So you can't come up with another example of ordered function that does not have a maker"
YOU haven't come up with an example either. COULDN'T be because YOU MADE UP ORDERED FUNCTION, could it? naaa, that's WAY to logical. As i've stated before, you're just stupid....
"Thank you."
For what? You IGNORING everything anyone tells you and continue to spew your "information" ad infinitum? AGAIN, that's NOT debating, that's preaching. You are NOT debating...
TacoBurgher327 3 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Life forms have ordered function so they have a Maker.
Show me another ordered function that does not have a maker.
You are the one who is screaming, yelling and avoiding the issues.
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon "Show me another ordered function that does not have a maker."
FOR THE MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME, THE FUCKING MOON HAS ORDER (It's nice and round) AND SERVES A FUCKING FUNCTION (creates TIDES on earth) AND DOESN'T HAVE A MAKER. Jesus, what the fuck don't you understand?
TacoBurgher327 3 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 The moon does not have any ordered function. Purpose is not the same thing as an ordered function.
Tides are not an ordered function. A wave machine is an example of ordered function and it has a maker.
The moon has a Maker because all matter has a Maker, it just does not have an observable ordered function. Ordered functions of hydrogen and most of the most common elements in life forms prove that we have a very great Maker of all things in the universe.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon "The moon does not have any ordered function."
BULLSHIT, it creates our tides. THAT"S AN ORDERED FUNCTION ha ha ha AGAIN, ORDER DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CLAIM A MAKER... You just aren't smart enough to understand at this point....
"Purpose is not the same thing as an ordered function."
I KNOW, The moons PURPOSE isn't to create tides, however, that's what it does. Creating tides is a FUNCTION, NOT PURPOSE.... AGAIN, you're just not smart enough to understand...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Where are the orders that direct the moon?
Tides are not an ordered function and the moon does not have an ordered function.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon "Where are the orders that direct the moon?"
....... GRAVITY!!! ha ha sorry YOUR cretarded brain thinks order requires a maker... as i've PROVEN to you before, it doesn't....
"Tides are not an ordered function and the moon does not have an ordered function."
Why aren't tides ordered function?Cause it would go against your presupposition? Ironic, huh?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327
hey man simple question?
if you had all the chemicals in the world could you create something living?
if you can (1)you proved there is a maker (2)you would get a medal or something.
but if you cant then that proves where not the primordial scum that you where so desperately hoping we where because you don't amount to anything so you don't want any
one else to.
dylan51292 2 months ago
@dylan51292 Your claim: If you don't know how to make life, then God made all life.
zhalfirim 2 months ago
@dylan51292 "if you had all the chemicals in the world could you create something living?"
if put in the correct order, sure....
"you proved there is a maker"
How? If chemicals are placed in a natural environment and form life, how did I have ANY part in anything? Look up the Miller- Urey experiment.
"you would get a medal or something."
Scientific......
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@dylan51292 "but if you cant then that proves where not the primordial scum that you where so desperately hoping"
WERE, not where, but anyways, I am not hoping for ANYTHING ha ha ha Experiments and data show us monomers COULD exist in totally natural instances, and experiments show how POLYmers could form through natural means. Again, I'm not wishing or hoping for anything, just logically looking at the data.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@dylan51292 "because you don't amount to anything so you don't want any
one else to."
and how do you make the jump from create life with "all the chemicals in the world" and not amounting to anything? ha ha ha That simply makes no sense. As I've explained, it doesn't take a maker or a god for someone to have morals....
And why would I want others to amount to anything? Wouldn't it be beneficial for the species if people DID amount to things... again... logic.... use it.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@dylan51292 So, let me just conclude by saying, asking someone if they could create life with every chemical known ISN'T a "hey man simple question." In fact, as you so scientifically put it, "you would get a medal or something." You'd actually win a Nobel Prize and be considered one of the smartest people on the planet, but the fact we HAVEN'T created life in the lab, truly means nothing, and in no way supports, nor is proof "god is real." ALL it means is we don't know yet.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh First off, what's with all the *'s?
Second, "Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator"
Why? Beaches, galaxies, the sun, planets, all have order to them without a creator.
"disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator"
This is a presupposition, and I don't deal with them or the people who use them as justification...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned"
Ad hominid attack, and a fail. We aren't the ones claiming "perfection" or "exact," YOU are, remember? ha ha ha things are the way they are, and that's a FACT. We're questioning HOW it happened, and to presuppose "god done it" means nothing to me....
" while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design"
Why not?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh " Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say."
Ha ha ha, again, a presupposition "God or Allah is real" So to sum up, you claim "god is real" and the only "evidence" you have is "you're stupid to think anything else?" ha ha ha *bro*, your so *far* from reality it's *funny*
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 The Manifestations of God in Nature!
Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?"
Sure, when we have the math and science to BACK UP what were saying. ha ha ha AGAIN, you're calling the geometry "precise" and "perfect" in this universe, and i'm not arguing it isn't, i'm just saying, have you ever looked up WHY it appears perfect? Wouldn't the universe HAVE to appear perfect for us to be here?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh ha ha oh and PS, i love the fact I called your entire argument an ad hominid attack and all of your justification, presuppositions, and you didn't deny it, nor defend yourself at all..... SHOULD tell someone with a rational mind SOMETHING.... but I'm sure with YOU, it just went in one ear and out the other! ha ha ha typical.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh Ok, STOP preaching, please and have a NORMAL, INTELLIGENT conversation... I know that may be hard for you and Allah!
" When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task"
I have no idea what A task is, mr vague...
"are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?"
No, that's called a PRESUPPOSITION...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh "the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world"
And how about some exacts here mr "i love god" ha ha ha your being quite vague with your preaching. WHAT exactitude's are we talking about here? The fact that things accrete in the universe? The fact GRAVITY impacts everything? Electromagnetism? WHAT r u even talking about?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity"
So because things are, there's a god.... ha ha ha WEAK sauce, boy....
" they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder."
Oh no, so when theists claim if you murder someone, just say your sorry to god, that's NOT disorder, or anarchy? Ha ha ha ha, AGAIN, the fact you can't see past your presupposition means NOTHING to me, and if you continue to fuel useless information, im done...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh And what's up with theists ignoring EVERY question posed to them? ha ha ha for instance "WHAT exactitude's are we talking about here?", "have you ever looked up WHY it appears perfect?", while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design"
Why not?"
Ha ha ha so YOU get to throw out ANY bullshit you want, yet you answer NOTHING purposed to you? Ha ha ha Kid, You're TYPICAL....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?
Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh " If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?"
What the fuck don't you understand about a PRESUPPOSITION? Ha ha ha ya don't understand big words?? YES, IT IS WRONG TO ASSUME ANYTHING. Did Caps help ya?
"Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?"
Anything you DON'T assume? Ha ha Lets start there...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh Oh and ps, i'm giving you ONE MORE CHANCE to speak like a big boy, meaning no more hypothetical questions, meaning no more ignoring questions, meaning NO MORE PREACHING. You get ONE more chance to speak like a fucking adult or you'll just be another name to add to the LONG list of complete theistic tools i;ve intelligently demolished on here.... The choice is yours, and I'm gonna predict your gonna continue to be a tool and ask stupid questions that have no relevance to the topic...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation.
Our thought and perception and unable to soar and take flight, and the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe.
Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "If we occasionally perceive weak points in nature this does not imply inadequacy or defect in the vast book of creation."
Ha ha so perfection PROVES a creator, but imperfections, don't DISprove him. Ha ha ha hypocrite!
"the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe."
Ha ha maybe YOUR intelligence is to short, but NO scientist on the planet is SO baffled about the universe, they are chalking some phenomenon up to god, NONE...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Our intellect cannot discern all the aims and goals of existence."
AGAIN, ASSUMING existence has a goal means NOTHING to me. As I've asked before, and you've ignored, is there anything you DON'T assume, when talking about theology? ha ha ha Honestly? You have a bunch of assumptions, and think that's justification for theism, which in reality, you're just proving your lack of research on the subject.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh and AGAIN, HOW ABOUT SOME SPECIFICS HERE? "the reach of our intelligence is too short to understand all the mysteries and enigmas of the universe."
WHICH MYSTERIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHICH MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE ARE YOU CHALKING UP TO GOD?
What the fuck don't you understand about the fact no one knows what your talking about when you talk like a vague little bitch? Ha ha ha Fuck, theists wouldn't listen if JESUS CHRIST was standing here talking to them....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves,"
Ha ha look up baryogenesis. It is the generic term for hypothetical physical processes that produced an asymmetry between baryons and antibaryons in the very early universe, resulting in the substantial amounts of residual matter that make up the universe today.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh The next step after baryogenesis is the much better understood Big Bang nucleosynthesis, during which light atomic nuclei began to form.
Hmmm, so seems not even SCIENTISTS say matter magically made itself.... isn't that YOUR claim BTW?
Seems instead of LOOKING UP the information, you simply started bashing something you have no idea about.... typicalllllll
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh And for that matter, even though scientists DON'T say matter magically made itself, even if they did, Quantum Mechanics allows this. Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field).
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described below. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh So AGAIN, Belief has to have some sort of REASON behind it. MY belief DOES have reason and evidence to support it. Your FAITH based belief doesn't. End of story. Cry, complain, call names, do whatever you want, the FACT is, atheists have DATA and EVIDENCE to support their claims, you have assumptions, WRONG assumptions...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim, purpose and will that cannot be denied. It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "The reality that guides and directs the functioning of the world with such regularity and orderliness possesses an aim,"
Bro, what don't you understand, you presupposing that reality is guided, or has an aim means nothing to me. Presuppositions aren't justification and never will be, so STOP presupposing shit...
"purpose and will that cannot be denied."
I'm denying it.... Life is NOT guided.... see, denial..... it CAN be denied. AGAIN, stop presupposing everything....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Mechanisms that function as ordered to function always require a maker so the mechanisms that function as ordered in life forms require a very great Maker.
The genome is the *only* physical thing that reorders the genome. No external factors of any kind are able to order anything in the genome. It's the genome that reorders the selections, nothing else does. Get that simple fact through your head and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon dont talk to me cretard
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@JungleJargon I have already explained to you HOW and WHY your stupid theory is wrong, and yet you keep ignoring MY question to you. In case you forgot, YOU claim scientists say deer become whales. Please explain, if that's the case, how scientists explain EVERY OTHER MAMMAL ON THE PLANET. Until you answer this, don't talk to me.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Your fellow evolutionists believe that some deer like creatures became whales and others became the deer we see today.
That is your problem, not mine. You have to explain how that supposedly happened.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
@JungleJargon "and you will see there is no mechanism to make evolution possible."
And i've also asked yo how many time YOU'VE tested evolution.... you ignored that as well.... AGAIN, answer the question or shut the fuck up and leave me alone troll.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 You cannot test something that never happens. Evolution never happens so it can never be reproduced or tested.
Life forms being the result of a preexisting word happens all the time.
JungleJargon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh " It cannot be supposed that the ceaseless process of action and reaction advances in a fixed direction without the intervention and supervision of an intelligence."
Ha ha ha so EVERYTHING i just tried to explain to you means nothing? ha ha ha the fact things DO pop into and out of existence, baryogenesis, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, ha ha ha you just said fuck it all? Typical closed minded theist. Scientific of you to just claim "you'er dumb to not believe in god" ha ha ha idiot.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha science worshipers??? Ha ha ha it is TRULY pathetic to see how bad theists want atheists to be JUST LIKE THEM. ha ha ha no one WORSHIPS science. Science proves itself time and time again to be the ONLY way to distinguish TRUTH from FICTION. Ha ha if you care to give us another was, we're all ears, but untill then, no one WORSHIPS science. Science just works, period...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh " is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world."
Yea, those laws and that single dimention, it's called REALITY ha ha ha you and your fellow theists should try and join it sometime!
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh "The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent."
Ha ha guess YOU don't go to hospitals, huh? Like that computer you sit at? Like having vaccines and cars and modern life? Ya, all given to us by SCIENCE, not your douch Allah, so praise whoever you want ha ha ha
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. If, as the materialists imagine, the world of nature did not arise from knowledge and will (despite the signs of creativity and inventiveness apparent in its every phenomenon) then man, too, in order to attain his purposes would have to abandon his advance on the path of knowledge and imprison himself in ignorance in order to conform to the ignorance of nature itself.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "Accident cannot perform the task of knowledge, moreover, that is never commingled with ignorance in any way. "
Well, when no one CLAIMS knowledge was an accident, YES, it makes you ignorant.
" If, as the materialists imagine"
"Imagine", ha ha ha what can't theists understand about PROOF and REASON? ha ha ha we don't "imagine" anything, we LEARN about things ha ha ha BTW isn't it YOU imagining a god without proof?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh "in order to attain his purposes would have to abandon his advance on the path of knowledge"
In order for man to obtain purpose, we must abandon knowledge.... I mean, do theists even READ what they write? ha ha ha so illogical it's funny...
"and imprison himself in ignorance in order to conform to the ignorance of nature itself."
And please tell us WHERE we're being ignorant? By not having presupposition god exists? Oh, yea, how stupid of us!
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 After years of careful planning and exhausting labor, biochemists have succeeded in discovering certain experimental organisms on a very simple and primitive level from which all trace of life is absent. This scientific triumph was regarded as very valuable and received with great enthusiasm in scientific circles, and nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction,
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh " nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction, planning and precision."
I'd be VERY interested in reading up about this organism... care to give the NAME of it?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh "nobody claimed that this highly deficient and primitive laboratory creation had come into being as the result of chance, without direction"
And can i just point out, saying something observed in nature can ONLY be produced by a god is called a presupposition. AGAIN, presuppositions AREN'T scientific. Sure, we may not know where an organism comes from NOW, but all scientists agree, that doesn't mean we'll NEVER know.
But again, I'd love the name of that organism.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Think of a typesetter in a printing house. He expends great care and attention when he is setting the letters required for one page of a book, but when he reviews his work, he comes across small errors arising from some slight inattention.
Were the typesetter to take a handful of letters and scatter them over the plate instead of carefully arraying them in rows, is it at all possible that the resulting page should be correct in its contents and free of error?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh None of that has ANYTHING to do with the name of that organism you were just talking about.... but anyways....
"Were the typesetter to take a handful of letters and scatter them over the plate instead of carefully arraying them in rows, is it at all possible that the resulting page should be correct in its contents and free of error?"
Well, one, letters AREN'T alive, and hence, have no bearing on this conversation as we're talking about ALIVE objects, and two....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh None of that has ANYTHING to do with the name of that organism you were just talking about.... but anyways....
"Were the typesetter to take a handful of letters and scatter them over the plate instead of carefully arraying them in rows, is it at all possible that the resulting page should be correct in its contents and free of error?"
Well, one, letters AREN'T alive, and hence, have no bearing on this conversation as we're talking about ALIVE objects, and two....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh if the typesetter was given 13 billion years (the age of the universe) Sure, why COULDN'T he produce a page that was correct in context and free of error? Ha ha ha ever heard the old expression, "put enough moneys into a room with enough time and they'll create Shakespeare?" ha ha same idea here. please explain why he COULDN'T create a page, and the name of that organism, please....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 It would be still more absurd to claim that a hundred kilograms of molten lead, forced through a tube, should emerge in the form of ready made letters; that a fierce tempest should then pick up those letters and arrange them in a particular and regular order on thousands of metal plates; and that these plates should result in the printing of a thousand-page book containing numerous precise scientific discussions and attractive, alluring expressions,
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh and AGAIN, the REASON it was dumb to make an analogy about NON living things compared to LIVING things ha ha ha. Ironic how, when you make a terrible analogy, such AS comparing living things to non living things, you can have any outcome you want, eh?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 What do the materialists who deny God have to say concerning the emergence of the variegated forms of the letters of creation and the precise and complex relations that regulate the heavenly bodies, natural creation and all material objects?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I'm done answering YOUR question until you answer ONE of mine ha ha ha YOU don't get to ask all the questions there bitch....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoB...Are the letters of creation (i.e., the atoms and the particles that comprise them) in any way lesser than the letters used in printing?
Is it in any way acceptable that these orderly, meaningful letters, this precise and well-organized geometry, the astounding forms depicted in the book of creation, should be the work of ignorance and aimlessness?
That a great and wise power, a miraculous ordering principle, should not be present in the very texture of the world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Do not all phenomena arise from a manifestation of consciousness, awareness and power?
If the power hidden in the depths of matter does not arise from the universal intelligence, what factor guides it to the elaboration of forms, to an amazing regularity and harmony?
If that power is an agent devoid of intelligence and conscious will, why does it never fall prey to disorder, and why does its compounding of matter never result in collision and destruction?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 It is here that belief in the creator bestows meaning on all existence and endows the world with sense and content. Those who possess deep vision and clear thought perceive plainly that an infinite power assures the preservation of the order of the world by means of firm supervision and absolute sovereignty.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "It is here that belief in the creator bestows meaning on all existence and endows the world with sense and content. Those who possess deep vision and clear thought perceive plainly that an infinite power assures the preservation of the order of the world by means of firm supervision and absolute sovereignty."
Blah blah blah blah ha ha ha keep ignoring the questions... For not answering ANYTHING asked to you, you're cut. bye bye now!
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh Ha ha ha and the fact you, nor JJ haven't answered ANY of my questions just assures me you two have NO idea what you're talking about, nor do you care about what you're talking about. You just do and/or say whatever the hell makes you two feel good, ignore ALL questions thrown your way, and continue trolling videos. Ha ha ha the time where religion DIDN'T have to answer for their claims (The DARK Ages) is OVER and science will emerge victorious. Doesn't MATTER what you think
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
there bitch.... (The DARK Ages) is OVER and science..
___
Poor fella!
So much science for this brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical illusion based on unproven theories
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical "
YOUR dilution that that's what I was even arguing is laughable. AGAIN, bye bye now!
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism" Of course, cause atheists are so much morally worse then theists, right? That's why there's more THEISTS in prison then atheists, huh? ha ha ha ha kid, you fail on so many aspects of logic, it's hilarious!
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh ps you have STILL yet to answer why the letters COULDN'T arrange themselves in some sort of legible print, if given 13 billion years, AND you've yet to give the NAME of the organism that has every scientist SO baffles, they claim a god! ha ha ha THEN you MAKE up things that I claim, such as "Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical" Ha ha ha ha ha I never ONCE claimed science was pushing out god! Man the irony is KILLING me!
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh And the simple fact you THINK science needs to disprove something, anything, PROVES you have NO understanding of science in general. And for that matter, you have no idea about atheism either. AGAIN, atheism is a RESPONSE to the claim "god is real." AGAIN, it's not UP to us to disprove ANYTHING. It's up to YOU (the one MAKING the claim) to PROVE said claim..... That's literally one of the first things i learned about science.... read a third grade science book.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic. "
Presupposition.... you'll just NEVER get it......
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria"
Sure, hence why bigfoot, santa clause, leprechauns, and the flying spaghetti monster are considered real, right? Yes, something without material criteria CAN be considered not real. HOW ELSE would be distinguish real from fiction? Ha ha ha AGAIN, the proof is on the one's with the claim, not on those who disagree based on evidence...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh "unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible."
No, That's not how science works. I don't need to DISprove anything. What's in question is the CLAIM "God is real." Again, I'm not the one claiming a particular god then saying he isn't real, YOUR claiming a god. And without proof or evidence, YOUR claim falls flat. Again, It isn't up to me to disprove YOUR claim, it's up to YOU to prove it...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded,"
Like what? Care to give ANY example of a scientific truth we didn't directly observe OR don't have proof, to understand??
"since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing."
What do YOU think science is? Science is ONLY about things we can observe and ONLY about REtestable theories....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Like what? Care to give ANY example
____
Concerning Experimentalists.
Let us for a short while inquire about those who glorify experimentation and scientific understanding, and who declare with full pride that they do not adopt any view unless confirmed by experiments and demonstrated empirically. (They continue saying) that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation,
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "that since the theological position is concerned with invisible things beyond the limits of the senses and experimentation, we must case it aside"
Simply not true, and AGAIN, you have a misunderstanding about science. OF COURSE we can test theistic claims. Why wouldn't we be able to? THE PROBLEM IS, and i don't know how many times I have to reexplain myself, THE CLAIM "god exists" doesn't stand up to facts and experiments. What don't you understand?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
we must case it aside, concentrating on the truths and knowledge that can be grasped in the experimental field.
We would ask the experimentalists, 'What do you intend by "experiment", and what do you mean by rejecting every doctrine not confirmed by the senses?'
If what is meant by their words is that they do not accept the existence of anything except if they have direct sense perception of chat thing, and they reject any idea except if they grasp its objective reality by
1tabligh 2 months ago
one of their senses, then this will be a blow to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths that are demonstrated by the experiments they glorify.
A demonstration of a scientific truth by experimentation does not mean a direct sense perception of that truth in the scientific field.
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh " then this will be a blow to the whole scientific edifice and a falsification of all the major truths"
AGAIN, CARE TO NAME ANY OF THESE "Scientific truths?" ha ha ha you are flat out IGNORING my comments and questions to you.
"When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, did he perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.?"
Yes, when the APPLE fell. He SAW gravity at work...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh As i've stated before, you simply DON'T UNDERSTAND what science does and claims. OF COURSE newton had to observe SOMETHING before coming up with his theory about gravity. AGAIN, science deals with REAL and RETESTABLE theories. We can RETEST Newtons theory by simply throwing something in the air. You are literally OBSERVING gravity at work.
Again, I ask what YOU think science is and ANY scientific theory that doesn't have EVIDENCE to back it up (which is YOUR claim)....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327
Nope!
When Newton, for example, put forth the law of general gravity in light of experimentation, he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses.
Instead, he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force. He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion. According to Newton, this phenomenon
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "he had *not* perceived this gravity force by any of his five senses."
So then the legend of the apple falling and hitting Newton, leading to the theory of gravity, isn't seeing and feeling gravity how?
" He noticed that the planets do not move in a straight line. Rather, they have a circular motion. According to Newton, this phenomenon"
By noticed, do you mean OBSERVED? Ha ha ha is Sight NOT a sense to you?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
could not occur had there not been a gravity force. The reason is that the principle of essential deficiency requires chat a body move in a straight direction unless another manner [of movement] is imposed on it from an external force. From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. If these experimentalists who advocate and glorify experimentation intend the same method
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "According to Newton, this phenomenon could not occur had there not been a gravity force."
Hmmm so AGAIN, Newton OBSERVED something and came up with a theory about gravity... You are literally confirming EVERYTHING i just said....
"From this, Newton obtained the law of gravity that asserts that the planets are subject to a central force, which is gravity. "
Ha ha ha you can avoid saying "Observation" all you want, the simple fact is, and YOU agree, Newton OBSERVED something first...
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
by means of which the forces and secrets of the universe are discovered scientifically - namely, the study of a fixed perceptible phenomenon by experimentation and the rational inference of another thing from that phenomenon as the only explanation of the existence of that phenomenon - then this is *exactly* the method of demonstrating the *theological* position.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "then this is *exactly* the method of demonstrating the *theological* position"
Ha ha ha okay, then WHAT are the theists "observing" to confirm, or at least give the indication, of a deity? As YOU stated "he discovered it by way of another perceptible phenomenon for which he found no explanation except by supposing the gravity force" so, WHAT perceptible phenomenon are theists claiming "proof of god" with?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@Taco..When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity"
WHICH elements and natural factors are you talking about? Do you not understand what I'm asking you? You are very vague when talking about such an important subject... Oh and ps assuming elements DO have a creativity is called a PRESUPPOSITION, not the first you've made.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause"
SUCH AS.... jesus christ, why are theists SO FUCKING VAGUE? ha ha WHICH experiences point to the conclusion "Nothing in nature occurs without reason??"
"when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on"
All of what? You haven't named ANY element or case.... NONE....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system"
Great.... doesn't mean their correct.....
"they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic."
Great.... so the fuck what? What did ANY of that have to do with ANYTHING real or testable or WHAT scientific law isn't grounded in the scientific method??
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh All you continue to do is ignore questions and spout "Nope!" when you think someone's incorrect. You CONTINUE to NOT give examples of ANYTHING you're talking about, and CONTINUE to swerve the conversation into shit no one cares about, such as how SOME scientists are now theists... Again, No one cares what you and your fellow theists PRESUPPOSE. We care about what we can TEST, and from your very vague comments, seems you bring NOTHING to the table.....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them."
Why couldn't we be finding out things were WRONG the way we thought of them in the past? The SUN was once considered a god.... were they WRONG, or are we just doubting the sun's a god? Your lack of logic is hilarious....
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!"
Ha ha ha name ONE fucking question I have dodged you piece of shit. I just gave you a LAUNDRY LIST of questions YOU'VE ignored, so please ONE fucking question I have not answered. Fucking theists, just make up ANYTHING that makes you feel fucking good.... FUCK YOU. You know what, FUCK THIS. Fuck you and your illogical, BULLSHITING mind. I don't give a shit anymore.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh "is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic"."
Ha ha ha ya cause a theist who's 100% correct about EVERYTHING HASN'T shut out their mind to logic, huh? You're a hypocritical, LYING piece of shit who isn't worth my time anymore. Fuck you and your presuppositions.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 ...FUCK YOU......
____
The argument of an IGNORANT!
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
Answer the question!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "The argument of an IGNORANT!"
Ha ha ha Fuck off. I TRIED to have a conversation with you, but claiming I am "Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!" deserves a HUGE FUCK YOU. I ask for EXAMPLES you ignore me. I ask for PROOF, you ignore me. I SHOW you how I don't have to disprove shit, you ignore me. Ya FUCK YOU. Stop talking to me
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Answer the question!"
How about YOU answer the fucking questions FIRST, bitch. YOU don't get to ask ALL the questions, while ignoring those asked to you, remember?
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@TacoBurgher327 "And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
The Quran 2:171
Surely the vilest of animals, in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.
The Quran Chapter 8, Verse 22
1tabligh 2 months ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Tell us who created primary matter."
PRE FUCKING SUPPOSITION. ASSUMING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING CREATED MATTER IS A PRE FUCKING SUPPOSITION!!! ha ha ha you just aren't fucking smart enough to know WHEN your assuming shit. Ha ha ha ALL YOU HAVE IS PRESUPPOSITIONS, bitch, and CONTINUE to spew it as fact. Your such a joke.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago
@1tabligh " what is the cause and origin of matter-energy"
WHY does there HAVE to be an origin? Cause YOU say so? The big bang is the BEST answer we have to the origin of matter. WHO or WHAT created the big bang is a PRESUPPOSITION. You just aren't smart enough to understand.
TacoBurgher327 2 months ago