"It's very hard to disprove something that can't be detected in any way." I had to laugh at that. The irony is SO thick, it'll break you nose if you walk into it. :-D
NOTHING has resisted detection better, or for longer, than god (any of them).
Yeah an 'Oort cloud rescue device' cant trump the 'GOD RESCUE DEVICE'. Well done. It disgusts me this man calls himself a doctor. Such a display of utter ignorance and an amazing show of irony regarding his invisble freind.........
Information science does not prove creation. Mutations HAVE been proven to create new information completely by random chance, and natural selection keeps all useful new information in existence. Well, MOST new useful information, anyway.
Your argument was already thoroughly refuted by cdk007 in one of his videos.
it's hard to comprehend how an astrophysics believes that a mystical being created the complex universe in 1 day but took 5-6 day to create this tiny grain in the universe which we call planet Earth. How can he believe that dinosaurs lived with humans? That the Continental drift took less than 6000y? And what does he know about biology? geology? He believes in a badly wrote fairy tail that want us to thing humanity came from Adam and Eve and their 3 SONS? this guy is an insult to science!
@ZZzzzzzWhat A badly wrote fairy tale, Seriously? That's just pure ignorance. If you read the Bible, you'd see quite clearly that Adam and Eve had more than 3 sons, and many daughters. This guy is not an insult to science, he's an insult to your predisposed ideas of evolution. We can believe those things because there's evidence. Check it.
@rhysdotcrowley Of course Man evolved from Ape! Not only do you find dead fossils of these transitory apemen, you can actually make coontact with living apemen! Go check out places like Apelanta, Detroit, Compton, Chimpcago, Nigwaulkee, or any coontry in Subhuman Apefrica. Make sure you're wearing body armor, these chimping niggers are dangerous after all. If that's too far, go check out your local niggerhood that straddles your local Marchin' Looter Koon Boulevard.
Darwin was taught the "theory of evolution" by Satan himself! Watch the movie on my channel, "A Trip Into the Supernatural" Darwin was full of BS! Simple as that!
Genetics is similar in that the potential sub-set of genetic information is also huge. Emergence in this case is due to a different type of feedback mechanism, natural selection. The insistence of the speaker to refer to it as random chance demonstrates his disregard for the feedback mechanism that results in information.
Using his analogy of a book, the alphabet has a potentially infinite sub-set of words and sentences associated with it. The emergence of language is due to a feedback mechanism, humans in that case. (cont)
Furthermore that information exists even if there is nobody measuring and analyzing it. Information in the way he has defined it doesn’t require intelligence, either as a source or a receiver. (cont)
His very first argument is flawed in the assumption that information must have an intelligent source. As an example, we can gain information about the sun based on measurements of radiation. Using his analogy, the fact that we can analyze the sun by measuring electromagnetic radiation, neutrinos, etc. means their emission is necessarily due to god. (cont)
I see a lot of garbage coming from atheists on here spouting nothing but ad hominem attacks against Jason Lisle. The atheists can provide no rational objections to ANYTHING Jason Lisle has said. Sure, they'll say "hahaha. Jason Lisle is a liar and an idiot" or "I feel sorry for creationists".
Yet can they refute a single one of Dr Jason Lisle's Points? NO!
uh, right. Submit evidence of creation to an evolutionist publication? Although there are innumerable proofs of creation and the flood, do we really think that the high priests of Darwinism would allow any quarter to any opposing viewpoint. Man's scientific assertions continually change, robbing adherents of any lifelong confidence in their veracity. The Bible however hasn't changed in thousands of years. You can trust God's word without apology! Bet your life on it!
Is he saying that comets are unique to our solar system and don't exist anywhere else in the universe? I think the reason nobody can see distant comets is because they are tiny. Obviously you cant see something that small at huge distances...I'm not an atheist, but I think this is a stupid argument and kind of makes me question whether the rest of his arguments are as meaningless as this one.
C-14 decays by weak beta decay to nitrogen-14 (with a half-life of approximately 5,730 years). If you refuse to accept this fact, YOU are the stroke victim.
I never used the phrase "no function." I also never said that ABCNews was a peer-reviewed organization. (Not that it really matters. "Creation Research Society Quarterly" is a peer-reviewed scientific publication, but I'll bet that doesn't persuade you much, nor am I saying that it should.) If you'd bothered to actually read the ABCNews article, though, you'd know that the fact of there being no such thing as "junk DNA" is based on findings "published in the journals Nature and Genome Research."
So-called "transposable elements" are supposed to be inherently a form of "junk DNA." Guess what? There is no such thing as junk DNA! Don't believe me? Here's a direct quote from ABCNewsOnline: "The scientists have found there is far more to genetics than the genes themselves and there is no such thing as 'junk DNA'." If you still believe in junk DNA, you're a moron.
Junk DNA doesn't mean no function it means you can interchange it with any random sequence of DNA and it would still work and you can take it out completely and there are no changes to the organism. ABCNEWS isn't a peer reviewed organization. Sorry
yea god created man, earth and the planets but he isn't the god you think he is ....he's a living alien being. they set up conditions for life on earth to thrive long ago, we are a vacationing destination for intergalactic time travelers. this "GOD" you speak of is in reality, many gods. not really gods either just beings far more advanced than us. no need to worship them they do nothing for you.
@probegt75 you bought the lie, they want us to think that they are gods and that they created us. lobl Only Yahweh created us and the angels; that these alien decendants come from.
Every single point this chump throws out I think "Really? Are you seriously trying to present these arguments as proof and evidence?"
You can't just throw out a sentence and walk away from i without any proof of WHY. I can't say "I think logically." without explanation just as Chumpsky McGee here can't say "Information can't create itself." Without first defining all of his terms, context, and evidence to his point. Quote mining is a terrible tactic and unfortunately ignorant people will follow
@Jrezky Thank God* someone realised that about the quotes, did you notice how the books from which he quoted were all written by people with similar beliefs to his own?
Carbon 14 does decay into Nitrogen (Nitrogen 14) Look up half-life and other atomic decay information. This program is provided in a respectable way, by posting rudely and without adequate information, you are doing disservice to the Atheist argument.
Also to note I do enjoy this as they make some interesting points, respectable points, unlike many others that use incomplete knowledge to attempt to create an argument.
I also find it a little funny that some statements like "It is hard to disprove something that cannot be detected in anyway." Since that same statement is used by atheists. I suppose that may just mean that neither side has irrefutable proof.
1 Origin of Information: this dials back to general origin, I would have to counter with "Then who created God" as Information cannot originate by itself, neither can god. All humans have a mind and all humans have an origin. Although, one could ask "who created 'Society"No one person created "Society" it was a group of individuals that come together for overall gain of all of them. The same could be said with complex life. Simple life forms come together (Coral as a more modern example)
I don't think anyone has said that diamonds take millions or billions of years to form. In fact, the amount of time it takes for a diamond to form is sketchy. "It may be that diamonds form over periods as short a time as days, weeks, months to millions of years."
"the philosphy of coming to the evidence without a philosphy is a philosphy" the way you said that is complex and contradictory, again, you twist facts to suit your needs, say it right or don't say it. We should let the evidence lead us to a sutible conclusion, not have a conclusion that we apply evidence to because it fits.
see, you say "we all come to the evidence with certain preconceptions" this is wrong, "one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - AC Doyle. Scientists start with a quesiton, perform an experiment, an if that esperiment does not prove their theory, they must re work the theory based on the evidence. Creationists start with the belief that god made everything, and they twist the facts to account for this view.
The amount of hubris needed to propose that an atheist (not a scientist, there are plenty of religious scientists) approaches science objectively is astonishing. Every single human being is inextricably linked to their worldview, whatever that may be. Atheism requires a great deal of extrapolation and belief in things that cannot be proven. Just because you hate the idea that an intelligent agent had something to do with the universe doesn't make your opponent wrong.
oh you cheaky bugger you! For the record, the oort could is a hypothesis that was formed after we had observational evidence of the Kuiper belt. and we KNOW its quite possably false and we don't use it as proof of anything, just as a possability. Yes, an astronamer would say that...if he was five and you were his sister. you say "rescuing device" we say "Fact based on observable evidence that has withstood over a century of scrutiny" potato potato really...
"Short life comets" Comet life span is measured more usefully in orbits, not years. A typical comet lasts about 400 orbits. if a comets orbit brings it close to the sun once every 100 years this means... 400*100= 40,000 years. that would mean the Earth is at least 40,000 years and since we know comets that have MUCH longer orbits than my example, that date can go back much farther.
We now have evidence of the source of refreshment for comets, the Kuiper Belt on the edge of the Solar System.
oh btw "nitrogen...is naturally present in all diamonds...in coal deposits where higher than expected C14 levels were detected there was a strong correlation with radioactive elements in the surrounding rock. [Scientists] postulated that the radioactive decay of the surrounding minerals might account for the odd C14 data." This is a real hypothesis. it starts with a problem, forms a theory, and it will I'm sure prove that hypothesis.
"Mutation can't explain evolution" Duh, there are 4 coexisting means of forwarding evolution. 1) Mutation (Random) 2) Genectic Drift (Random) 3) Genetic Flow (Non-random) 4) Natural Selection (Non-Random). 2nd year anthropology class slaughters that argument.
"C-14 in Diamonds" thats junk science that has not been peer reviewed and was done by creationists already believing the answer they wanted from their "experiments" which were shoddy at best.
Gitts work is full of holes and contradictions, he's got most of his ideas backwards. use google please.
DNA is a chain of amino acids that have many reduntant codons and cause mutations most every time a cell divides, terribly ineficient and a bad proof for design. Information science does NOT confirm ceation, your argument lacks detail and an understanding of genetics. Next argument please...
Why not submit a paper to peer review? That's how you get published in the science world. His book lends no credence to Lisle's case.
Furthermore, the book cited was written by a man who's Ph.D. was in Physics, NOT biology. He's no more qualified to be an authority figure on biology than George Harrison.
2:00 Special pleading fallacy. If nothing can be created from nothing, then where did god come from? Saying he is eternal and was never created is saying that not everything begins to exist and that not everything needs a creator.
3:15 The fact that we have DNA is just that...the fact that we have DNA. Many hypothesis are being tested to determine how the first self replicating cells came into existence.
3:38 So what? Anyone can write a book. If his views were accurate, why not....cont
@wadecdavis1 hi again. Thanks for the help. I will try and think about what you have said and investigate more. It's hard to learn because I have to check everybodys facts and try and get to the truth. It's also hurtful that many Christians have said I'm not a true Christian because I accept evolution. I thank you very much for the help and congratulate you on your blog site. God bless my friend
@bagospannerz Thank you for your kind words & encouragement. I'm sorry that others have been mean to you. We are to preach the Gospel & encourage one another. Believing or not believing in evolution doesn't save you. Believing in Christ & Him crucified & being raised again to pay for your sin-debt, God incarnate saves you - refer to Romans 1:16. God is the true creator & He does according to His will. Trust in Him. God bless you.
@wadecdavis1 I am not hoping to start an argument with you - I really am trying to find answers. A lot of Christians have been mean to me because I accept evolution and it's hard to know if I'm getting honest information so I appreciate any help you give me. May I ask why it would be wrong to think god used evolution to bring about his will? God bless
@bagospannerz It's not wrong to think about how God could use evolution to bring about His will, I used to think about the possibility myself. There has been so much domestic breeding, for example, we probably do have breeds today that weren't here @ the beginning. A dog begetting another type of dog is both evolution as well an account that is completely Biblical.
@bagospannerz @ the same time, however, a protein with chance & time evolving until it forms a dog is NOT Biblical...refer to the Genesis passage I spoke of earlier.
@wadecdavis1 hi there. Thanks for the reply and info. I did read the worldview article, but I just don't get how science and empiricism is a worldview? When ken ham speaks of putting on biblical glasses - that really confuses me - why would we need to put biblical glasses on? Isn't that kind of biased from the start? I am severely disabled and have brain damage so there are some things I won't understand.
@bagospannerz Worldviews completely shape how we perceive things & EVERYONE has presuppositions. Scientists, for example, use the scientific method when they can't prove that it works, science presumes it. To use one thing to prove itself is circular reasoning, etc.
@wadecdavis1 hi there. What do you mean new species arising within a kind? Speciation is observed today - one example is allopatric speciation - one groups is split into two by a natural barrier - then so many changes accumulate that the new species can no longer interbreed with the original. Macroevolution has been observed. As for worldviews - science has nothing to do with worldviews. Could you give me a better definition of a kind? Take care
@bagospannerz Please refer to Genesis 7:14 for the definition for within a kind for this is how I am using the term - based on my belief in the Bible to be the inerant word of God.
@bagospannerz allopatric speciation, i.e. "speciation by geographic isolation" IS NOT creating a new KIND. U have in essence taken away an organisms ability to do something that it once could do, i.e. breed with it's own kind..u didn't ADD anything, u took something away...not evo in Darwinian terms by any means.
@bagospannerz As far as observing Macroevolution, refer to my article - "Using Our Inside Voice in Proclaiming Synthetic Life Creation" that is on my blog; faithredeemed.blogspot.com & I think you'll get a better idea of what I've been talking about. To get evo that is spoken of in absolute terms, the same as I described it in my article, we simple wouldn't see 1 kind of bacteria evolve into a different kind of bacteria we would see 1 kind of bacteria evolve into a complex amino acid etc.
@wadecdavis1 what other problems do you have with evolution? We can see evolution happening today. Bacteria resistance, pesticide resistance, and speciation has been observed. Many creationists are denying speciation - but you can see it for yourself. Thanks for the good discussion. Take care
@bagospannerz Again, I don't have a problem with "micro-evolution" but we both know that it never stops there when there r debates about evo. The Bible says that each kind begat it's own kind..it allows room for new species arising within it's own kind. Noone that I know of is arguing that there can't be changes, etc. It's 1 thing to observe changes in a kind & from that argue that 1 kind begets another, etc.
@wadecdavis1 hi there. Many creationists are lying. They have been shown their errors many times and still repeat the same lies. Misinformation is lying. The energy for evolution comes from the sun. If you can't accept that evolution is true because of the second law of thermodynamics - how do snowflakes form? With regards to energy at the beginning of our universe - are you now talking about the big bang theory? There is lots of evidence for the big bang. What other problems do you have with e
@bagospannerz Lying has to do w/intent. If they continue to repeat info that has supposedly been corrected then perhaps they don't accept said correction. Interpretation on ALL of this stuff is shaped & determined upon ur worldview. Please refer to the small piece I wrote about worldviews shaping interpretation on my blog; faithredeemed.blogspot.com - its called "Your Worldview Dictates Your Evidential Interpretation".
@wadecdavis1 ... I know many creationists have lied like Lee strobel for example so it's hard to know what information is trustworthy. I don't think there are that many kinds of evolution. Could you tell me where you got that info from please so I can learn more? Many thanks, merry christmas and god bless
@wadecdavis1 hi there. Thanks for the info. I can only scan back so far to older posts as I use an iPod. I know that the second law of thermodynamics is not something that would stop evolution. We gain energy constantly from the sun as the earth is not a closed system. I do know also that speciation has been observed. I mostly get other Christians telling me I am not a true christian and being mean, when really I am sincere in searching for the truth. I know that many creationists have lied, Le
@bagospannerz Hi, u shld by all means check info u get from anyone; as a way to start u off in a way that may b convenient, refer to wikipedia for each; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, micro-evolution, macro-evolution, molecular evolution, etc. I'm no expert by any means & do not profess to b 1 so by all means double check me.
@bagospannerz I don't know anything about Lee Strobel & I don't know about any lies that creationists have lied about. I don't know men's hearts so it's hard for me to say that anyone is lying about anything. There's a difference between a lie & misinformation. If I give u inaccurate info but I believe it to b true, I didn't lie to u, I misinformed u...huge difference. If i tell u a non-truth & I know it is a non-truth then I have lied to u. To say ANYONE has lied, u hve to know to b cont.
@bagospannerz In order to definitively say that someone has lied to u, u have to know they knew that they were aware that they were telling u a non-truth & told it to u anyways.
@bagospannerz My understanding about the 2nd law comment that in its natural state, nature is in a state of decay...things naturally run down, not create anything per se. Inorder for energy to b used from the sun like u say, there has to b a system in place that can convert said energy & w/o said system, energy from the sun will either go wasted or destroy, etc. In evo, u have to ask urself where is the energy coming from?
@bagospannerz ...if u go back far enough to the beginning of the Universe then the energy that kicked off the big bang had to come from somewhere...where did it come from?
@bagospannerz Hi. If ull scroll thru the posts here, u will c the problems I have w/evo - too much to re-list here if u want a comprehensive list. I wld encourage u to investigate & search for the truth the same as I did. As u search, beware w/the use of terms & meaning. There r many kinds of evo (Stellar, Chemical, macro,micro, etc) but only micro has been observed, measured & is replicable - the tru components of legitimate science. the other kinds dont meet this criteria...to be cont...
@bagospannerz ...Evidence will be given for micro & be used to validate the other kinds - complete intellectual dishonesty. Evo preaches substance+time+chance=evolution...if u push & ask when has time&chance ever produced anything, u will get, it takes alot of time...millions&millions, etc. as if there's a magical quality in time that makes thngs happen...research about how evo violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc. ...to b cont...
@bagospannerz ...things by nature become less organized over time, not more...when we see changes in animals & plants, etc. information has been lost, not gained...ex. a giraffe getting a long neck...he had genes for a long & neck & short neck but over time lost the short neck gene...he lost info, didn't gain anything...this gets way too complicated to list on here, etc. The Bible...btw...allows for changes....each kind begat its own kind, otw dogs can change to create diff breeds, to b cont..
@bagospannerz ...Evo ontheotherhand teaches that kinds begat different kinds,complete contradiction from the Bible & never observed.I'm sure most of what I have said will be debated & that is fine...Don't take my word for any of it other than the only thing my full hope, trust & assurance is in Christ Jesus crucified. The Bible doesn't teach that things evolved, God made whole animals that didn't need to "evolve". I have given u a few things to investigate on ur own, I hope 4 u 2 have success!
@Eomer3434 Genius: "a person, a body of work, or a singular achievement of surpassing excellence" "(...) associated with achievement of insight which has transformational power"
This guy hasn't achieved anything, and sorely lacks insight. His religious beliefs (which is what you apparently would call insight) have little transformational power. This man hardly meets the definition of 'genius'.
This is quite funny for me as I am an European. Last time I checked we were also quite intelligent human beings. Some parts of american culture still cracks me up. You cannot be really serious? You invented the internet, you guys inveted google, you have great stem-cell research.
...of course it's the ultimate truth, to be a member of AIG you have to make a pledge to support biblical inerrancy. If they had already discovered the truth then why did they create this organization?...Because it's fun to waste time and money?
Well he already swept the fact that C-14 is still being made underground and in the atmosphere under the rug. It would be suitable for him to just throw away any case the Hubble telescope made that short-period comets come from a vast region of space beyond Neptune. There's a reason why Dr. Neil Tyson is Director of the Hayden Planetarium, and this guy isn't.
This poor speaker doesn't know what "information" is, or at least assumes that his audience does not. He avoids a rigorous definition because it would defeat his entire argument.
Actually, it is not true that 2+2 means the same now as in ancient days. You may be forgiven for not knowing advanced math but great modern mathematicians and philosophers like Whitehead worked very hard on just what 2+2 means. This is not "just semantics" but is the heart of math. For example, when Genesis was written, pi was thought to be a rational number but we now know better.
@rewinn The heart of math is presupposition. Try proving math without logic. The same as how critics say you can't prove the Bible by using the bible then it is true u can't prove math by using math/logic. Math hasn't changed since ancient times, our presuppositions have - assuming what u have told me is true. U can't tell me that the mathematical value of a man giving a man 2 chickens that has 2 is not the mathematical equivalent of a man giving another man 2 chickens w/2 today.
@WadeCDavis1 Math isn't the same thing as logic. Logic is understanding; you take the information you have at hand and draw conclusions. It's the basis of science.
Math is less presupposed than trees, air and the planet Earth. You can't prove it (as with absolutely everything else), but assuming it's true is far, far, far, far, far from a presupposition.
@cvillekeith Imo, a better analogy: the parent writes on a note that the child must eat lots and lots of cookies and then leaves the room (the child is too young to have any memory of the parent).
When the child has grown and leaves the room, the parent, waiting, punishes the child if it hasn't done as the note said, but rewards it if it's eaten unhealthy amounts of cookies.
at 3:40, Mutations do not add information to the Genome...... He's forgetting, Science is progressive, we now know that information is added through the assimilaiton of virusus. Im still waiting on the PROOF. An argument is not a "Proof". Proof is based on evidence.
@864208642 It's also worth noting that shuffling genes does not "add" anything but it can have radically different results. The phrase "1 head and 2 eyes" has the exact same amount of information as "2 heads and 1 eye" so nothing has been added, yet somehow I think that the difference would be noticed.
Absolute idiocy. You make HUGE assumptions. You assume the origin of DNA goes back to Adam and Eve. You can't prove the Bible's accuracy by using a story from the Bible. Wrong.
Odd that the quote you use to "disprove" mutation-driven evolution comes from a hardly respected creationist. Way to do unbiased research. I guarantee that scientists that affirm evolutionary theory greatly outnumber those that don't.
No need for me to watch the other 5 parts of this drivel.
@mugflub It's no more of an assumption that secular science makes. You can't prove that DNA doesn't go back to Adam & Eve - don't fall into the trap of thinking that science doesn't have it's own presuppositions. For a word about this, please see my May 26, 2010 post on the faithredeemed blogspot blog - titled - "Your Worldview Dictates Your Evidential Interpretation" to see what I'm referring to, etc.
@mugflub 1 Kings Chapter 22 is a wonderful example of how the populace can be wrong. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that a number of scientists "believing" in the evolutionary "theory" "proves" that it is correct.
@WadeCDavis1 You seem confused on just what is referred to as a theory in a scientific sense, its not just "believing" in it and hoping for the best, a scientific theory is based on fact, evidence and tests that are repeatable.
Evolution itself is a fact, it happens, you can dispute the theory behind it until your blue in the face but it still happens.
This guy is just talking absolute garbage, he uses the bible stories to prove the bible is true.. prime example of circular reasoning.
@WadeCDavis1...cont. Here are just a few primate examples: Parapithecus (early Oligocene), Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt) - from the same time as Parapithecus, but probably from the beginning of the ape lineage. First ape characters (deep jaw, 2 premolars, 5 cusped teeth etc). There are so many transitional fossils it would take me a week to list the rest.
@Eomer3434 This "stuff" is scientific FACT for goodness sake. You clowns refuse to even read the ever-increasing mountain of evidence that has been gathered over the last 151 years by actual evolutionary biologists. Scientists who spend whole careers gathering evidence and data. Even if a scientist does have presuppositions he can still only follow where the evidence leads. He is not doing science if his experiments and observations are not repeatable, falsifiable and peer-reviewed (oh, that...
@Eomer3434 ...will include ID then). I'm glad you brought whales & dolphins up. Probably the most well known case of atavism (reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character) is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs.
@Eomer3434 Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (Berzin 1972; Hall 1984). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961).
@Eomer3434 Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits. Whales & dolphins even grow a coat of fur whilst in the womb which is then shed before birth. WE grow a coat of fur also, which is then shed and makes up part of our first poo!!! I'd like to hear the creationist explanation for this (oh, backed up with scientific evidence please). This should be fun!
@WadeCDavis1 Get a grip. Evolutionary theory is one of the most proven and successful scientific theories known. It is demonstrable and backed up by a mountain of evidence and has not, and will not, be falsified. There is no "belief" in evolutionary theory. It is a FACT and supported by the vast majority of the scientific community. Give me ONE piece of evidence that disproves it. Good luck!
@crabbit101 You contradict yourself; if it is a fact then it's not a theory. Theories are NOT "fact". The beginning of the Universe was NOT observed; it is speculative and what we know can be collected for the purpose of making theories but a collection of data does not make the theory fact. By it's very nature, theories are never proven per se.
@WadeCDavis1 Mistake no.1: You have confused a scientific theory with a philosophical one as all creationists do. When will you guys understand this very simple difference? Even the last Pope admitted evolution to be a fact! The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.
@crabbit101 & by what authority does the Pope have to do such a thing? lol.
"...no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. what about the unknown hypothesis?"
@WadeCDavis1 My point about the pope is that he had every motive to declare it a nonsense and yet had the honesty to accept peer reviewed science (evolutionary biology in this case) as the best possible method of explaining the diversity of life. Unknown hypotheses? Err... by their very definition they're unknown so until they appear (unless you have a better idea) they're irrelevant. Why have you added the sentence " what about..." at the end that I didn't write?
@WadeCDavis1 You're completely missing the point. This is a man who had every motive and opportunity to declare to his flock (1.2 billion as they like to boast) that this area of science should be rejected as it conflicted with centuries of official dogma, but chose not to through a rare piece of papal honesty as the evidence was overwhelming and could not be denied. My point, is that to deny it is to be the equivalent of a flat-earther. I'm on an iPhone so this is taking a while to write.
@WadeCDavis1 Writing on an iPhone is a nightmare and it is 11:30 here in the uk so I shall answer the rest of your points tomorrow when I can type more easily.
@crabbit101 K. Sounds good. ur point was taken appropriately & my point still stands; the Pope has NO authority to declare either way on the validity of evolution. Outside of the Bible, he has no expertise on the subject matter at all. He needs to stand on the authority of scripture which he obviously has not done b/c he's been seduced by the world, etc.
@WadeCDavis1 Could you just answer me this?: What do you believe about the origins of life, the universe, earth etc and why do you believe it? It may prevent a lot of comments to-and-fro.
@crabbit101 What I believe about life is in the Bible; start at the beginning in Genesis & read until u get to the end of Revelations and that will just about cover it. I believe for the reason the Bible says I believe; I believe per faith & faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. Amen.
@WadeCDavis1 ...cont. Religions can't all be right. But they can all be wrong. They are all equal glimpses of the same untruth. I have read the bible cover to cover which is precisely WHY I am an atheist! It is so shamelessly invented and full of contradictions, bigotry, racism, genocide, misogyny, ignorance, homophobia etc, etc that it never ceases to amaze me why people think it worthy of praise.
@crabbit101 First of all the Bible isn't scared of homosexuality, it condemns it, there's a difference; praise God. Next, just b/c there r wrongs listed in the Bible, does not mean the Bible endorses said wrongs. Also, I'm sure I can make u contradict urself left & right if I take your quotes out of context - which is a favorite tactic of critics. Stop hating and receive the light. Acknowledge love. G&P.
@WadeCDavis1 Homophobia according to Wikipedia: Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation. I think you'll find the bible's attitude to homosexuals in there. How about the god of the old testament? What about the 613 laws/commandments which include instructions on how to buy/sell/punish slaves,...
@WadeCDavis1 ...the punishment of unruly children by stoning to death, to slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city (Deut. 13:16-17). Are these the 'wrongs' you're referring to that the bible doesn't 'endorse'? Give me a break mate. I don't hate anyone, just ignorance and how it retards humanity.
@WadeCDavis1 You're still totally missing the point. It's almost the equivalent of Richard Dawkins declaring the bible an accurate, historical account. Except that would not be an acceptance of reality (which is what the pope did). Do you understand what I'm getting at now? So who has the authority to validate evolution, other than err...evolutionary biologists? If you say 'creationists' I am gonna piss myself laughing!
@crabbit101 God is the only one that can validate or invalidate evolution per His being the causation of creation, being there when it happened & witnessing it, etc. He's the only one that could ever validate/invalidate it. I have never said that evolution doesn't happen...it does...its called micro-evolution which is completely different than the other kinds used to explain creation & life on Earth.
@WadeCDavis1 First of all, you have to prove there is a God. You then have to prove he created the universe etc and not just by saying "It's in the good book so it must be true". Faith, by it's very definition, is belief without evidence and, unlike you, I care deeply whether my beliefs are true. You believe the bible because you happen to have been born in a broadly Christian nation. What about the billions that are not Christian and believe something else? Are they all wrong? cont....
@crabbit101 First of all, why do u care so deeply what I think? Why do u care about what I say? I'm not hurting u. I'm not hurting anyone. I'm not advocating violence or for people to mistreat others. I preach Christ crucified; a message of love. If I'm wrong then pity me, don't scold me. U should have a heart of love that wants to gently correct me & if there's not a God then why even care if I'm wrong or not? If there's not a God why care about any of it?
@WadeCDavis1 I care about my beliefs being true. I also care about videos such as this spreading superstition and misinformation to the weak-minded (especially children) and pseudoscientific nonsense being taught in schools. I care about childhood indoctrination. If you preach Christ, why these videos? The religious won't be satisfied until everybody else believes it too. You have absolutely every right to hold these views my friend, but they need to be opposed and kept right out of politics.
@WadeCDavis1 Preach? Haha! In my country where there must be daily collective worship "...of a broadly or wholly christian character" in every state funded school which parents must actively opt their kids out of. Bishops sit in the house of lords. Religion is subsidised by the government. One third of schools are 'faith' schools. The Vatican makes aid conditional on saying no to condoms (admittedly, this might change). A Christian woman is about to be executed in Pakistan for blasphemy.
@WadeCDavis1 Religion MUST impose it's views on others in order to survive. Children are all born atheists but forced to adopt the religious beliefs of their parents before they can possibly understand them. You don't know how lucky you are having the ONLY constitution in the world that doesn't mention god. It protects EVERYBODY'S rights. Don't dare try and accuse me of imposing my views on you. How can I possibly achieve that from 3000 miles away over the internet? Your religion, on the other..
@WadeCDavis1 ...hand, has a reach far greater than mine and routinely exploits the poor and ignorant around the world. We're having a debate. All I want is for people to be free to believe whatever they like, but to keep it to themselves and leave me the hell alone. Religion is totally incapable of that.
@crabbit101 First of all, I don't have a thing to do with what goes on in your country or anywhere else in the world. Contrary to popular belief, the Pope or the Vatican doesn't represent me or my beliefs in ANY way. Also, your last statement is a total contradiction, you want people to believe whatever they want but keep it to themselves but what if their belief encompasses sharing said belief? Who R U to dictate what people should believe and if they should share it or not?
@WadeCDavis1 Once again, you don't actually understand the words I write or points I make which is starting to make this conversation tedious. I could do without getting RSI at this keyboard if I can help it. I never claimed that YOU have anything to do with what happens in my country or anywhere else. I gave you examples of where religious views are FORCED on people. The representatives of religion will never be happy until I believe it too and stultifying nonsense (that these videos...
@WadeCDavis1 ...are pedalling) is taught to my kids. Your idea of "sharing" is exactly why our debate exists in the first place. I would never even attempt to stop people believing whatever they like but the problem is that beliefs most often dictate our actions. Don't think that I just have a problem with Christianity and the power it has. All religions need removing utterly from politics.
Everyone in this audience came to hear this person stand up for their collective imaginary friend.
Linazazel 5 days ago
Typical American creationist arrogant ignorance.
The only "irrefutable ultimate proof" is that their idiocy is immeasurable.
tellnet 1 month ago
No you haven't proven anything. ''We don't know so the earth is young'' is a poor argument.
Creationists invented the ''rescue device'' trying to explain a global flood.
And no, you don't have the same evidence, you have never opened a science book.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Very intelligent video
silvrstridr 3 months ago
its funny how u guys mock god yet doont put forth evidence saying it is just stupidd
emporroll134 4 months ago
@emporroll134
speaking of stupid, nice 3 post's
igotsachubby 2 months ago
its funny how u guys mock god yet doont put forth evidence saying it is just stupid
emporroll134 4 months ago
its funny how u guys mock god yet dont put forth evidence saying it is just stupid
emporroll134 4 months ago
@chmarais Yeah, all of those eyewitness accounts are really hard to detect. Watch out for that nose-crushing irony.
dinopad10 5 months ago
"It's very hard to disprove something that can't be detected in any way." I had to laugh at that. The irony is SO thick, it'll break you nose if you walk into it. :-D
NOTHING has resisted detection better, or for longer, than god (any of them).
chmarais 5 months ago
Yeah an 'Oort cloud rescue device' cant trump the 'GOD RESCUE DEVICE'. Well done. It disgusts me this man calls himself a doctor. Such a display of utter ignorance and an amazing show of irony regarding his invisble freind.........
Vader279 5 months ago
Information science does not prove creation. Mutations HAVE been proven to create new information completely by random chance, and natural selection keeps all useful new information in existence. Well, MOST new useful information, anyway.
Your argument was already thoroughly refuted by cdk007 in one of his videos.
ParaSpite 5 months ago
@ParaSpite
Please cite ONE instance of new information created by random chance and explain HOW the organism "knew" aforementioned information was "useful"...
MrSandykramer 3 months ago
embarrassing !
Arkesilo 6 months ago
it's hard to comprehend how an astrophysics believes that a mystical being created the complex universe in 1 day but took 5-6 day to create this tiny grain in the universe which we call planet Earth. How can he believe that dinosaurs lived with humans? That the Continental drift took less than 6000y? And what does he know about biology? geology? He believes in a badly wrote fairy tail that want us to thing humanity came from Adam and Eve and their 3 SONS? this guy is an insult to science!
ZZzzzzzWhat 7 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat A badly wrote fairy tale, Seriously? That's just pure ignorance. If you read the Bible, you'd see quite clearly that Adam and Eve had more than 3 sons, and many daughters. This guy is not an insult to science, he's an insult to your predisposed ideas of evolution. We can believe those things because there's evidence. Check it.
rhysdotcrowley 6 months ago
@rhysdotcrowley Of course Man evolved from Ape! Not only do you find dead fossils of these transitory apemen, you can actually make coontact with living apemen! Go check out places like Apelanta, Detroit, Compton, Chimpcago, Nigwaulkee, or any coontry in Subhuman Apefrica. Make sure you're wearing body armor, these chimping niggers are dangerous after all. If that's too far, go check out your local niggerhood that straddles your local Marchin' Looter Koon Boulevard.
SirChimpsalot 6 months ago
Darwin was taught the "theory of evolution" by Satan himself! Watch the movie on my channel, "A Trip Into the Supernatural" Darwin was full of BS! Simple as that!
SurprizedDaily 7 months ago
Genetics is similar in that the potential sub-set of genetic information is also huge. Emergence in this case is due to a different type of feedback mechanism, natural selection. The insistence of the speaker to refer to it as random chance demonstrates his disregard for the feedback mechanism that results in information.
AussieAtheist1 7 months ago
Using his analogy of a book, the alphabet has a potentially infinite sub-set of words and sentences associated with it. The emergence of language is due to a feedback mechanism, humans in that case. (cont)
AussieAtheist1 7 months ago
Furthermore that information exists even if there is nobody measuring and analyzing it. Information in the way he has defined it doesn’t require intelligence, either as a source or a receiver. (cont)
AussieAtheist1 7 months ago
@AussieAtheist1
"information exists even if there is nobody measuring ... it." But the measurements change if it is being observed; to wit, the Heisenberg Principle.
MrSandykramer 3 months ago
His very first argument is flawed in the assumption that information must have an intelligent source. As an example, we can gain information about the sun based on measurements of radiation. Using his analogy, the fact that we can analyze the sun by measuring electromagnetic radiation, neutrinos, etc. means their emission is necessarily due to god. (cont)
AussieAtheist1 7 months ago
I see a lot of garbage coming from atheists on here spouting nothing but ad hominem attacks against Jason Lisle. The atheists can provide no rational objections to ANYTHING Jason Lisle has said. Sure, they'll say "hahaha. Jason Lisle is a liar and an idiot" or "I feel sorry for creationists".
Yet can they refute a single one of Dr Jason Lisle's Points? NO!
Atheists = fail.
Daracon75 7 months ago
"People are not always convinced, even by a very good argument."
see: creationists
MisterLando 8 months ago 3
uh, I feel bad for anyone who tries to use this seminar thing to argue anyone in public.
Dethreid 9 months ago
Bashes on logical fallacies. Then uses logical fallacy to make an argument.
diablossmirk 9 months ago
Submit it to Nature or Science magazines, let it be peer-reviewed, and get back to me.
theyliedaboutiraq 9 months ago
uh, right. Submit evidence of creation to an evolutionist publication? Although there are innumerable proofs of creation and the flood, do we really think that the high priests of Darwinism would allow any quarter to any opposing viewpoint. Man's scientific assertions continually change, robbing adherents of any lifelong confidence in their veracity. The Bible however hasn't changed in thousands of years. You can trust God's word without apology! Bet your life on it!
Bildad1976 7 months ago
I wonder how he can lie through his teeth yet still look in mirror.
lordnuck33 10 months ago
Is he saying that comets are unique to our solar system and don't exist anywhere else in the universe? I think the reason nobody can see distant comets is because they are tiny. Obviously you cant see something that small at huge distances...I'm not an atheist, but I think this is a stupid argument and kind of makes me question whether the rest of his arguments are as meaningless as this one.
spncer1 10 months ago
"People are not always convinced, even by a very good argument. People sometimes are convinced by a very bad argument."
Oh, the irony.
BloodJihad 10 months ago 3
@BloodJihad But a true statement...you cannot argue that it is false
redeemedfrom1 8 months ago
@BloodJihad just like the four guys that liked you
RockStarNorthSide 6 months ago
C-14 decays by weak beta decay to nitrogen-14 (with a half-life of approximately 5,730 years). If you refuse to accept this fact, YOU are the stroke victim.
1kdtaylor 11 months ago 15
I never used the phrase "no function." I also never said that ABCNews was a peer-reviewed organization. (Not that it really matters. "Creation Research Society Quarterly" is a peer-reviewed scientific publication, but I'll bet that doesn't persuade you much, nor am I saying that it should.) If you'd bothered to actually read the ABCNews article, though, you'd know that the fact of there being no such thing as "junk DNA" is based on findings "published in the journals Nature and Genome Research."
1kdtaylor 11 months ago
So-called "transposable elements" are supposed to be inherently a form of "junk DNA." Guess what? There is no such thing as junk DNA! Don't believe me? Here's a direct quote from ABCNewsOnline: "The scientists have found there is far more to genetics than the genes themselves and there is no such thing as 'junk DNA'." If you still believe in junk DNA, you're a moron.
1kdtaylor 11 months ago 3
" believe in junk DNA, you're a moron"
Junk DNA doesn't mean no function it means you can interchange it with any random sequence of DNA and it would still work and you can take it out completely and there are no changes to the organism. ABCNEWS isn't a peer reviewed organization. Sorry
sweatytoothmadman 11 months ago
yea god created man, earth and the planets but he isn't the god you think he is ....he's a living alien being. they set up conditions for life on earth to thrive long ago, we are a vacationing destination for intergalactic time travelers. this "GOD" you speak of is in reality, many gods. not really gods either just beings far more advanced than us. no need to worship them they do nothing for you.
you my friend are a charlatan.
probegt75 11 months ago
@probegt75 you bought the lie, they want us to think that they are gods and that they created us. lobl Only Yahweh created us and the angels; that these alien decendants come from.
toiwin 9 months ago
@toiwin Only Yahweh created everyone!!!!
redeemedfrom1 8 months ago
@toiwin No. It was Baal. he told me so himself; I have a personal relationship with Baal, so anything I say him has to be true, doesn't it?
HConstantine 8 months ago
I love u dr JASON! u shuld be on opera screw zoe.
jathomas901 11 months ago
Every single point this chump throws out I think "Really? Are you seriously trying to present these arguments as proof and evidence?"
You can't just throw out a sentence and walk away from i without any proof of WHY. I can't say "I think logically." without explanation just as Chumpsky McGee here can't say "Information can't create itself." Without first defining all of his terms, context, and evidence to his point. Quote mining is a terrible tactic and unfortunately ignorant people will follow
Jrezky 1 year ago
@Jrezky Thank God* someone realised that about the quotes, did you notice how the books from which he quoted were all written by people with similar beliefs to his own?
tiansivive 10 months ago
@tiansivive That's how peer-review works.That's also how evolution first gained ground.
dameon692002 9 months ago
Jason Lisle: posterboy for both creationist and academic dishonesty.
jknengr796 1 year ago
@rave4daze
Carbon 14 does decay into Nitrogen (Nitrogen 14) Look up half-life and other atomic decay information. This program is provided in a respectable way, by posting rudely and without adequate information, you are doing disservice to the Atheist argument.
TearDownGenesis 1 year ago
Also to note I do enjoy this as they make some interesting points, respectable points, unlike many others that use incomplete knowledge to attempt to create an argument.
I also find it a little funny that some statements like "It is hard to disprove something that cannot be detected in anyway." Since that same statement is used by atheists. I suppose that may just mean that neither side has irrefutable proof.
TearDownGenesis 1 year ago
1 Origin of Information: this dials back to general origin, I would have to counter with "Then who created God" as Information cannot originate by itself, neither can god. All humans have a mind and all humans have an origin. Although, one could ask "who created 'Society"No one person created "Society" it was a group of individuals that come together for overall gain of all of them. The same could be said with complex life. Simple life forms come together (Coral as a more modern example)
TearDownGenesis 1 year ago
"you cant add information with DNA mutations"
uhhh ever heard of transposable elements moron?
also single point mutations would not do much. it's thousands of them over hundreds of years.
get an education.
GENMOJO 1 year ago 3
"C-14 would have decayed into nitrogen..."
Alright, is this guy some kind of stroke victim?
rave4daze 1 year ago 4
I don't think anyone has said that diamonds take millions or billions of years to form. In fact, the amount of time it takes for a diamond to form is sketchy. "It may be that diamonds form over periods as short a time as days, weeks, months to millions of years."
wordslingerbrookslik 1 year ago
"the philosphy of coming to the evidence without a philosphy is a philosphy" the way you said that is complex and contradictory, again, you twist facts to suit your needs, say it right or don't say it. We should let the evidence lead us to a sutible conclusion, not have a conclusion that we apply evidence to because it fits.
mrlegendaryinc 1 year ago
@mrlegendaryinc "we should let evidence lead us to a suitable conclusion" - that IS A PHILOSOPHY on how to interpret evidence
SamuraiMissionary 1 year ago
see, you say "we all come to the evidence with certain preconceptions" this is wrong, "one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - AC Doyle. Scientists start with a quesiton, perform an experiment, an if that esperiment does not prove their theory, they must re work the theory based on the evidence. Creationists start with the belief that god made everything, and they twist the facts to account for this view.
mrlegendaryinc 1 year ago
@mrlegendaryinc
The amount of hubris needed to propose that an atheist (not a scientist, there are plenty of religious scientists) approaches science objectively is astonishing. Every single human being is inextricably linked to their worldview, whatever that may be. Atheism requires a great deal of extrapolation and belief in things that cannot be proven. Just because you hate the idea that an intelligent agent had something to do with the universe doesn't make your opponent wrong.
amdjacobsen 1 year ago
oh you cheaky bugger you! For the record, the oort could is a hypothesis that was formed after we had observational evidence of the Kuiper belt. and we KNOW its quite possably false and we don't use it as proof of anything, just as a possability. Yes, an astronamer would say that...if he was five and you were his sister. you say "rescuing device" we say "Fact based on observable evidence that has withstood over a century of scrutiny" potato potato really...
mrlegendaryinc 1 year ago
"Short life comets" Comet life span is measured more usefully in orbits, not years. A typical comet lasts about 400 orbits. if a comets orbit brings it close to the sun once every 100 years this means... 400*100= 40,000 years. that would mean the Earth is at least 40,000 years and since we know comets that have MUCH longer orbits than my example, that date can go back much farther.
We now have evidence of the source of refreshment for comets, the Kuiper Belt on the edge of the Solar System.
mrlegendaryinc 1 year ago
oh btw "nitrogen...is naturally present in all diamonds...in coal deposits where higher than expected C14 levels were detected there was a strong correlation with radioactive elements in the surrounding rock. [Scientists] postulated that the radioactive decay of the surrounding minerals might account for the odd C14 data." This is a real hypothesis. it starts with a problem, forms a theory, and it will I'm sure prove that hypothesis.
mrlegendaryinc 1 year ago
"Mutation can't explain evolution" Duh, there are 4 coexisting means of forwarding evolution. 1) Mutation (Random) 2) Genectic Drift (Random) 3) Genetic Flow (Non-random) 4) Natural Selection (Non-Random). 2nd year anthropology class slaughters that argument.
"C-14 in Diamonds" thats junk science that has not been peer reviewed and was done by creationists already believing the answer they wanted from their "experiments" which were shoddy at best.
mrlegendaryinc 1 year ago
Gitts work is full of holes and contradictions, he's got most of his ideas backwards. use google please.
DNA is a chain of amino acids that have many reduntant codons and cause mutations most every time a cell divides, terribly ineficient and a bad proof for design. Information science does NOT confirm ceation, your argument lacks detail and an understanding of genetics. Next argument please...
mrlegendaryinc 1 year ago
...from part 1
Why not submit a paper to peer review? That's how you get published in the science world. His book lends no credence to Lisle's case.
Furthermore, the book cited was written by a man who's Ph.D. was in Physics, NOT biology. He's no more qualified to be an authority figure on biology than George Harrison.
jesuriah 1 year ago
2:00 Special pleading fallacy. If nothing can be created from nothing, then where did god come from? Saying he is eternal and was never created is saying that not everything begins to exist and that not everything needs a creator.
3:15 The fact that we have DNA is just that...the fact that we have DNA. Many hypothesis are being tested to determine how the first self replicating cells came into existence.
3:38 So what? Anyone can write a book. If his views were accurate, why not....cont
jesuriah 1 year ago
Admission fees for truth, Religion in a nutshell
420dseifer 1 year ago
@LittleMissSweetieKat Shoot.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
do the videos cover the question of why creation, if its true and has scientific evidence, hasn't been accepted by scientists?
hey12hey10 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 hi again. Thanks for the help. I will try and think about what you have said and investigate more. It's hard to learn because I have to check everybodys facts and try and get to the truth. It's also hurtful that many Christians have said I'm not a true Christian because I accept evolution. I thank you very much for the help and congratulate you on your blog site. God bless my friend
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@bagospannerz Thank you for your kind words & encouragement. I'm sorry that others have been mean to you. We are to preach the Gospel & encourage one another. Believing or not believing in evolution doesn't save you. Believing in Christ & Him crucified & being raised again to pay for your sin-debt, God incarnate saves you - refer to Romans 1:16. God is the true creator & He does according to His will. Trust in Him. God bless you.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 I am not hoping to start an argument with you - I really am trying to find answers. A lot of Christians have been mean to me because I accept evolution and it's hard to know if I'm getting honest information so I appreciate any help you give me. May I ask why it would be wrong to think god used evolution to bring about his will? God bless
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@bagospannerz It's not wrong to think about how God could use evolution to bring about His will, I used to think about the possibility myself. There has been so much domestic breeding, for example, we probably do have breeds today that weren't here @ the beginning. A dog begetting another type of dog is both evolution as well an account that is completely Biblical.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz @ the same time, however, a protein with chance & time evolving until it forms a dog is NOT Biblical...refer to the Genesis passage I spoke of earlier.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 hi there. Thanks for the reply and info. I did read the worldview article, but I just don't get how science and empiricism is a worldview? When ken ham speaks of putting on biblical glasses - that really confuses me - why would we need to put biblical glasses on? Isn't that kind of biased from the start? I am severely disabled and have brain damage so there are some things I won't understand.
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@bagospannerz Worldviews completely shape how we perceive things & EVERYONE has presuppositions. Scientists, for example, use the scientific method when they can't prove that it works, science presumes it. To use one thing to prove itself is circular reasoning, etc.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 "Scientists, for example, use the scientific method when they can't prove that it works, science presumes it."
Can you give one example of this? Some paper or experiment that was done?
jesuriah 1 year ago
@bagospannerz Keep searching & pray for understanding. James says that God gives to those that ask...persevere in your pursuit of Him!
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 hi there. What do you mean new species arising within a kind? Speciation is observed today - one example is allopatric speciation - one groups is split into two by a natural barrier - then so many changes accumulate that the new species can no longer interbreed with the original. Macroevolution has been observed. As for worldviews - science has nothing to do with worldviews. Could you give me a better definition of a kind? Take care
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@bagospannerz Please refer to Genesis 7:14 for the definition for within a kind for this is how I am using the term - based on my belief in the Bible to be the inerant word of God.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz allopatric speciation, i.e. "speciation by geographic isolation" IS NOT creating a new KIND. U have in essence taken away an organisms ability to do something that it once could do, i.e. breed with it's own kind..u didn't ADD anything, u took something away...not evo in Darwinian terms by any means.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz As far as observing Macroevolution, refer to my article - "Using Our Inside Voice in Proclaiming Synthetic Life Creation" that is on my blog; faithredeemed.blogspot.com & I think you'll get a better idea of what I've been talking about. To get evo that is spoken of in absolute terms, the same as I described it in my article, we simple wouldn't see 1 kind of bacteria evolve into a different kind of bacteria we would see 1 kind of bacteria evolve into a complex amino acid etc.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz "As for worldviews - science has nothing to do with worldviews." You didn't read the article I referred you to did you?
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 what other problems do you have with evolution? We can see evolution happening today. Bacteria resistance, pesticide resistance, and speciation has been observed. Many creationists are denying speciation - but you can see it for yourself. Thanks for the good discussion. Take care
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@bagospannerz Again, I don't have a problem with "micro-evolution" but we both know that it never stops there when there r debates about evo. The Bible says that each kind begat it's own kind..it allows room for new species arising within it's own kind. Noone that I know of is arguing that there can't be changes, etc. It's 1 thing to observe changes in a kind & from that argue that 1 kind begets another, etc.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 hi there. Many creationists are lying. They have been shown their errors many times and still repeat the same lies. Misinformation is lying. The energy for evolution comes from the sun. If you can't accept that evolution is true because of the second law of thermodynamics - how do snowflakes form? With regards to energy at the beginning of our universe - are you now talking about the big bang theory? There is lots of evidence for the big bang. What other problems do you have with e
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@bagospannerz Lying has to do w/intent. If they continue to repeat info that has supposedly been corrected then perhaps they don't accept said correction. Interpretation on ALL of this stuff is shaped & determined upon ur worldview. Please refer to the small piece I wrote about worldviews shaping interpretation on my blog; faithredeemed.blogspot.com - its called "Your Worldview Dictates Your Evidential Interpretation".
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 ... I know many creationists have lied like Lee strobel for example so it's hard to know what information is trustworthy. I don't think there are that many kinds of evolution. Could you tell me where you got that info from please so I can learn more? Many thanks, merry christmas and god bless
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 hi there. Thanks for the info. I can only scan back so far to older posts as I use an iPod. I know that the second law of thermodynamics is not something that would stop evolution. We gain energy constantly from the sun as the earth is not a closed system. I do know also that speciation has been observed. I mostly get other Christians telling me I am not a true christian and being mean, when really I am sincere in searching for the truth. I know that many creationists have lied, Le
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@bagospannerz Hi, u shld by all means check info u get from anyone; as a way to start u off in a way that may b convenient, refer to wikipedia for each; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, micro-evolution, macro-evolution, molecular evolution, etc. I'm no expert by any means & do not profess to b 1 so by all means double check me.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz I don't know anything about Lee Strobel & I don't know about any lies that creationists have lied about. I don't know men's hearts so it's hard for me to say that anyone is lying about anything. There's a difference between a lie & misinformation. If I give u inaccurate info but I believe it to b true, I didn't lie to u, I misinformed u...huge difference. If i tell u a non-truth & I know it is a non-truth then I have lied to u. To say ANYONE has lied, u hve to know to b cont.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz In order to definitively say that someone has lied to u, u have to know they knew that they were aware that they were telling u a non-truth & told it to u anyways.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz My understanding about the 2nd law comment that in its natural state, nature is in a state of decay...things naturally run down, not create anything per se. Inorder for energy to b used from the sun like u say, there has to b a system in place that can convert said energy & w/o said system, energy from the sun will either go wasted or destroy, etc. In evo, u have to ask urself where is the energy coming from?
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz ...if u go back far enough to the beginning of the Universe then the energy that kicked off the big bang had to come from somewhere...where did it come from?
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@wadecdavis1 hi there - I am Christian and I accept evolution. What problems do you have with evolution? God bless
bagospannerz 1 year ago
@bagospannerz Hi. If ull scroll thru the posts here, u will c the problems I have w/evo - too much to re-list here if u want a comprehensive list. I wld encourage u to investigate & search for the truth the same as I did. As u search, beware w/the use of terms & meaning. There r many kinds of evo (Stellar, Chemical, macro,micro, etc) but only micro has been observed, measured & is replicable - the tru components of legitimate science. the other kinds dont meet this criteria...to be cont...
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz ...Evidence will be given for micro & be used to validate the other kinds - complete intellectual dishonesty. Evo preaches substance+time+chance=evolution...if u push & ask when has time&chance ever produced anything, u will get, it takes alot of time...millions&millions, etc. as if there's a magical quality in time that makes thngs happen...research about how evo violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc. ...to b cont...
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz ...things by nature become less organized over time, not more...when we see changes in animals & plants, etc. information has been lost, not gained...ex. a giraffe getting a long neck...he had genes for a long & neck & short neck but over time lost the short neck gene...he lost info, didn't gain anything...this gets way too complicated to list on here, etc. The Bible...btw...allows for changes....each kind begat its own kind, otw dogs can change to create diff breeds, to b cont..
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@bagospannerz ...Evo ontheotherhand teaches that kinds begat different kinds,complete contradiction from the Bible & never observed.I'm sure most of what I have said will be debated & that is fine...Don't take my word for any of it other than the only thing my full hope, trust & assurance is in Christ Jesus crucified. The Bible doesn't teach that things evolved, God made whole animals that didn't need to "evolve". I have given u a few things to investigate on ur own, I hope 4 u 2 have success!
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
This guy is a genius!
Eomer3434 1 year ago
@Eomer3434 Genius: "a person, a body of work, or a singular achievement of surpassing excellence" "(...) associated with achievement of insight which has transformational power"
This guy hasn't achieved anything, and sorely lacks insight. His religious beliefs (which is what you apparently would call insight) have little transformational power. This man hardly meets the definition of 'genius'.
Gewath 1 year ago
this is what real scientists call pseudoscience
wrongoggy 1 year ago 2
@wrongoggy Off-the-record, it's what they call idiotic nonsense.
Gewath 1 year ago
Evolution just got OWNED.
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 si senoir
Nerdykid1017 1 year ago
Happy Creation Day! The world was "created" on this day in 4004 B.C. You know, thousands of years after the domestication of the dog
thedude3092 1 year ago 9
This is quite funny for me as I am an European. Last time I checked we were also quite intelligent human beings. Some parts of american culture still cracks me up. You cannot be really serious? You invented the internet, you guys inveted google, you have great stem-cell research.
I do like religion, just dont take it too far..
phiwi2705 1 year ago 5
Creation is impossible!
hubpages com/hub/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIBLE-Space-Matter-Motion-are-ETERNAL
fatfist 1 year ago
The philosophy that we should come to evidence without a philosophy is not self refuting, but self confirming.
domokosdoug 1 year ago
@domokosdoug yes it is refuting because youre having a philosophy
Nerdykid1017 1 year ago
btw its Maths not Math
TheEmpireofEagles 1 year ago
I watched all 6 parts and am simply astounded by how well this video was put together. Thank you for this, I've posted it on my Facebook. God Bless!
MatMorrisInGermany 1 year ago
...of course it's the ultimate truth, to be a member of AIG you have to make a pledge to support biblical inerrancy. If they had already discovered the truth then why did they create this organization?...Because it's fun to waste time and money?
leeharveyosmosis 1 year ago
"The heart of math is presupposition. Try proving math without logic."
You can't "prove math" any more than you can "prove" English or even "prove" logic.
This video is so riddling with logic errors that I'm not sure it is not parody.
rewinn 1 year ago 2
Well he already swept the fact that C-14 is still being made underground and in the atmosphere under the rug. It would be suitable for him to just throw away any case the Hubble telescope made that short-period comets come from a vast region of space beyond Neptune. There's a reason why Dr. Neil Tyson is Director of the Hayden Planetarium, and this guy isn't.
macharius188 1 year ago
This poor speaker doesn't know what "information" is, or at least assumes that his audience does not. He avoids a rigorous definition because it would defeat his entire argument.
rewinn 1 year ago
Actually, it is not true that 2+2 means the same now as in ancient days. You may be forgiven for not knowing advanced math but great modern mathematicians and philosophers like Whitehead worked very hard on just what 2+2 means. This is not "just semantics" but is the heart of math. For example, when Genesis was written, pi was thought to be a rational number but we now know better.
rewinn 1 year ago
@rewinn The heart of math is presupposition. Try proving math without logic. The same as how critics say you can't prove the Bible by using the bible then it is true u can't prove math by using math/logic. Math hasn't changed since ancient times, our presuppositions have - assuming what u have told me is true. U can't tell me that the mathematical value of a man giving a man 2 chickens that has 2 is not the mathematical equivalent of a man giving another man 2 chickens w/2 today.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Math isn't the same thing as logic. Logic is understanding; you take the information you have at hand and draw conclusions. It's the basis of science.
Math is less presupposed than trees, air and the planet Earth. You can't prove it (as with absolutely everything else), but assuming it's true is far, far, far, far, far from a presupposition.
Gewath 1 year ago
@cvillekeith Imo, a better analogy: the parent writes on a note that the child must eat lots and lots of cookies and then leaves the room (the child is too young to have any memory of the parent).
When the child has grown and leaves the room, the parent, waiting, punishes the child if it hasn't done as the note said, but rewards it if it's eaten unhealthy amounts of cookies.
Gewath 1 year ago
Everything he said was totally refutable
pooooccurs 1 year ago 6
at 3:40, Mutations do not add information to the Genome...... He's forgetting, Science is progressive, we now know that information is added through the assimilaiton of virusus. Im still waiting on the PROOF. An argument is not a "Proof". Proof is based on evidence.
864208642 1 year ago
@864208642 It's also worth noting that shuffling genes does not "add" anything but it can have radically different results. The phrase "1 head and 2 eyes" has the exact same amount of information as "2 heads and 1 eye" so nothing has been added, yet somehow I think that the difference would be noticed.
rewinn 1 year ago
Yea its hard to prove somthing that is not there.
mangetuffa 1 year ago
Thank you WadeCDavis1
That was the funniest thing i have seen all day. I needed the laugh
My favorite joke was about DNA losing information and not gaining it. Keep up the comedy
ninjabob42 1 year ago 2
University of Colorado! Shame on you for giving this guy a PhD.
huitetdemi 1 year ago 2
Absolute idiocy. You make HUGE assumptions. You assume the origin of DNA goes back to Adam and Eve. You can't prove the Bible's accuracy by using a story from the Bible. Wrong.
Odd that the quote you use to "disprove" mutation-driven evolution comes from a hardly respected creationist. Way to do unbiased research. I guarantee that scientists that affirm evolutionary theory greatly outnumber those that don't.
No need for me to watch the other 5 parts of this drivel.
mugflub 1 year ago 3
@mugflub It's no more of an assumption that secular science makes. You can't prove that DNA doesn't go back to Adam & Eve - don't fall into the trap of thinking that science doesn't have it's own presuppositions. For a word about this, please see my May 26, 2010 post on the faithredeemed blogspot blog - titled - "Your Worldview Dictates Your Evidential Interpretation" to see what I'm referring to, etc.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@mugflub 1 Kings Chapter 22 is a wonderful example of how the populace can be wrong. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that a number of scientists "believing" in the evolutionary "theory" "proves" that it is correct.
Grace & Peace,
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 You seem confused on just what is referred to as a theory in a scientific sense, its not just "believing" in it and hoping for the best, a scientific theory is based on fact, evidence and tests that are repeatable.
Evolution itself is a fact, it happens, you can dispute the theory behind it until your blue in the face but it still happens.
This guy is just talking absolute garbage, he uses the bible stories to prove the bible is true.. prime example of circular reasoning.
Philip0209 1 year ago 2
@Philip0209 Micro-Evolution is fact; the rest is speculation presented as fact and have not been observed and therefore can't be scientific.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1...cont. Here are just a few primate examples: Parapithecus (early Oligocene), Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt) - from the same time as Parapithecus, but probably from the beginning of the ape lineage. First ape characters (deep jaw, 2 premolars, 5 cusped teeth etc). There are so many transitional fossils it would take me a week to list the rest.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 actually you have committed the fallacy of elephant hurling, that is, listing a lot of "stuff" that has
nothing to do with the point at hand. Everyone has the
same evidence but we interpret the evidence differently
because we have different presuppositions. You have
also assumed that similarity is proof of evolution, but
what about Whales and dolphins, very similar in
appearance and habitat, yet evolutionists claim that
one did not come from the other.
Eomer3434 1 year ago
@Eomer3434 This "stuff" is scientific FACT for goodness sake. You clowns refuse to even read the ever-increasing mountain of evidence that has been gathered over the last 151 years by actual evolutionary biologists. Scientists who spend whole careers gathering evidence and data. Even if a scientist does have presuppositions he can still only follow where the evidence leads. He is not doing science if his experiments and observations are not repeatable, falsifiable and peer-reviewed (oh, that...
crabbit101 1 year ago
@Eomer3434 ...will include ID then). I'm glad you brought whales & dolphins up. Probably the most well known case of atavism (reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character) is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@Eomer3434 Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (Berzin 1972; Hall 1984). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961).
crabbit101 1 year ago
@Eomer3434 Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits. Whales & dolphins even grow a coat of fur whilst in the womb which is then shed before birth. WE grow a coat of fur also, which is then shed and makes up part of our first poo!!! I'd like to hear the creationist explanation for this (oh, backed up with scientific evidence please). This should be fun!
crabbit101 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Get a grip. Evolutionary theory is one of the most proven and successful scientific theories known. It is demonstrable and backed up by a mountain of evidence and has not, and will not, be falsified. There is no "belief" in evolutionary theory. It is a FACT and supported by the vast majority of the scientific community. Give me ONE piece of evidence that disproves it. Good luck!
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 You contradict yourself; if it is a fact then it's not a theory. Theories are NOT "fact". The beginning of the Universe was NOT observed; it is speculative and what we know can be collected for the purpose of making theories but a collection of data does not make the theory fact. By it's very nature, theories are never proven per se.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Mistake no.1: You have confused a scientific theory with a philosophical one as all creationists do. When will you guys understand this very simple difference? Even the last Pope admitted evolution to be a fact! The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 & by what authority does the Pope have to do such a thing? lol.
"...no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. what about the unknown hypothesis?"
What about the unknown ones?
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 My point about the pope is that he had every motive to declare it a nonsense and yet had the honesty to accept peer reviewed science (evolutionary biology in this case) as the best possible method of explaining the diversity of life. Unknown hypotheses? Err... by their very definition they're unknown so until they appear (unless you have a better idea) they're irrelevant. Why have you added the sentence " what about..." at the end that I didn't write?
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 it must've been a typo on my end...I apologize for that.
The Pope is irrelevant; he is not an authority by any means.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 You're completely missing the point. This is a man who had every motive and opportunity to declare to his flock (1.2 billion as they like to boast) that this area of science should be rejected as it conflicted with centuries of official dogma, but chose not to through a rare piece of papal honesty as the evidence was overwhelming and could not be denied. My point, is that to deny it is to be the equivalent of a flat-earther. I'm on an iPhone so this is taking a while to write.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Writing on an iPhone is a nightmare and it is 11:30 here in the uk so I shall answer the rest of your points tomorrow when I can type more easily.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 K. Sounds good. ur point was taken appropriately & my point still stands; the Pope has NO authority to declare either way on the validity of evolution. Outside of the Bible, he has no expertise on the subject matter at all. He needs to stand on the authority of scripture which he obviously has not done b/c he's been seduced by the world, etc.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Could you just answer me this?: What do you believe about the origins of life, the universe, earth etc and why do you believe it? It may prevent a lot of comments to-and-fro.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 What I believe about life is in the Bible; start at the beginning in Genesis & read until u get to the end of Revelations and that will just about cover it. I believe for the reason the Bible says I believe; I believe per faith & faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. Amen.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 ...cont. Religions can't all be right. But they can all be wrong. They are all equal glimpses of the same untruth. I have read the bible cover to cover which is precisely WHY I am an atheist! It is so shamelessly invented and full of contradictions, bigotry, racism, genocide, misogyny, ignorance, homophobia etc, etc that it never ceases to amaze me why people think it worthy of praise.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 First of all the Bible isn't scared of homosexuality, it condemns it, there's a difference; praise God. Next, just b/c there r wrongs listed in the Bible, does not mean the Bible endorses said wrongs. Also, I'm sure I can make u contradict urself left & right if I take your quotes out of context - which is a favorite tactic of critics. Stop hating and receive the light. Acknowledge love. G&P.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Homophobia according to Wikipedia: Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation. I think you'll find the bible's attitude to homosexuals in there. How about the god of the old testament? What about the 613 laws/commandments which include instructions on how to buy/sell/punish slaves,...
crabbit101 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 ...the punishment of unruly children by stoning to death, to slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city (Deut. 13:16-17). Are these the 'wrongs' you're referring to that the bible doesn't 'endorse'? Give me a break mate. I don't hate anyone, just ignorance and how it retards humanity.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 You're still totally missing the point. It's almost the equivalent of Richard Dawkins declaring the bible an accurate, historical account. Except that would not be an acceptance of reality (which is what the pope did). Do you understand what I'm getting at now? So who has the authority to validate evolution, other than err...evolutionary biologists? If you say 'creationists' I am gonna piss myself laughing!
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 God is the only one that can validate or invalidate evolution per His being the causation of creation, being there when it happened & witnessing it, etc. He's the only one that could ever validate/invalidate it. I have never said that evolution doesn't happen...it does...its called micro-evolution which is completely different than the other kinds used to explain creation & life on Earth.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 First of all, you have to prove there is a God. You then have to prove he created the universe etc and not just by saying "It's in the good book so it must be true". Faith, by it's very definition, is belief without evidence and, unlike you, I care deeply whether my beliefs are true. You believe the bible because you happen to have been born in a broadly Christian nation. What about the billions that are not Christian and believe something else? Are they all wrong? cont....
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 First of all, why do u care so deeply what I think? Why do u care about what I say? I'm not hurting u. I'm not hurting anyone. I'm not advocating violence or for people to mistreat others. I preach Christ crucified; a message of love. If I'm wrong then pity me, don't scold me. U should have a heart of love that wants to gently correct me & if there's not a God then why even care if I'm wrong or not? If there's not a God why care about any of it?
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 I care about my beliefs being true. I also care about videos such as this spreading superstition and misinformation to the weak-minded (especially children) and pseudoscientific nonsense being taught in schools. I care about childhood indoctrination. If you preach Christ, why these videos? The religious won't be satisfied until everybody else believes it too. You have absolutely every right to hold these views my friend, but they need to be opposed and kept right out of politics.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 You preach that it's not right for me to impose my views on you all the while you are trying to impose your views on me!
Classic.
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Preach? Haha! In my country where there must be daily collective worship "...of a broadly or wholly christian character" in every state funded school which parents must actively opt their kids out of. Bishops sit in the house of lords. Religion is subsidised by the government. One third of schools are 'faith' schools. The Vatican makes aid conditional on saying no to condoms (admittedly, this might change). A Christian woman is about to be executed in Pakistan for blasphemy.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Religion MUST impose it's views on others in order to survive. Children are all born atheists but forced to adopt the religious beliefs of their parents before they can possibly understand them. You don't know how lucky you are having the ONLY constitution in the world that doesn't mention god. It protects EVERYBODY'S rights. Don't dare try and accuse me of imposing my views on you. How can I possibly achieve that from 3000 miles away over the internet? Your religion, on the other..
crabbit101 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 ...hand, has a reach far greater than mine and routinely exploits the poor and ignorant around the world. We're having a debate. All I want is for people to be free to believe whatever they like, but to keep it to themselves and leave me the hell alone. Religion is totally incapable of that.
crabbit101 1 year ago
@crabbit101 First of all, I don't have a thing to do with what goes on in your country or anywhere else in the world. Contrary to popular belief, the Pope or the Vatican doesn't represent me or my beliefs in ANY way. Also, your last statement is a total contradiction, you want people to believe whatever they want but keep it to themselves but what if their belief encompasses sharing said belief? Who R U to dictate what people should believe and if they should share it or not?
WadeCDavis1 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 Once again, you don't actually understand the words I write or points I make which is starting to make this conversation tedious. I could do without getting RSI at this keyboard if I can help it. I never claimed that YOU have anything to do with what happens in my country or anywhere else. I gave you examples of where religious views are FORCED on people. The representatives of religion will never be happy until I believe it too and stultifying nonsense (that these videos...
crabbit101 1 year ago
@WadeCDavis1 ...are pedalling) is taught to my kids. Your idea of "sharing" is exactly why our debate exists in the first place. I would never even attempt to stop people believing whatever they like but the problem is that beliefs most often dictate our actions. Don't think that I just have a problem with Christianity and the power it has. All religions need removing utterly from politics.
crabbit101 1 year ago