Hey really well done man. I've always believed in evolution but had some problems (not with belief, more with the process of it) with the initial beginnings of life, but this really cleared some things up
I love how the christians are the ones like: "read da fuckin bible cunt! Itz da words ov god! Your lazy pricks, assholes and fuckfaces blah blah blah evolution isn't real balh blah blah." while the atheists are like :"here is the evidence, check it out, love the world, smile!"
Since nothing can come from nothing, it logically follows that there must be "an eternal source" -- a timeless, immaterial, ultimate source of all the energy and matter in existence, which existed before "spacetime." But what is this "source?" What is its nature? Whoever has a scientific answer - please enlighten us!! I want to know!!
@KopiedBb Also, this statement is not true. Atheists simply have no faith, and seek a purpose in THIS life, not the next. We are not lazy pricks. I could even back that up with data.
No matter what people say we evolved from. What made the substance we evolved from. Like ateism is the stupidest shit. Like idc if you convert. But evolution makes no fucking sense whatsoever. i mean i know atheist have nevr read the bible. Like the stuff that the bible said was gonna happen happend. And it was written over 3000 years ago (Correct me if im wrong). Stop litsening to scietist. There people who dont know shit. Thats Why all of this stuff End in "Theory" Cause that what it is theory
@KopiedBb One: No, your Bible is not special document, it is not true that everything it predicted was true.
Two: A Theory is a way science works. Like the Germ Theory of Disease. Or Atomic Theory.
Evolution is a settled scientific fact, but I'd suggest looking up some of the religious evolutionary biologists. It is perfectly possible to have faith without denying science.
@ncwdane I took a look at your channel, and I'm about 98% sure you are actually this and not a constructed persona for the purposes of satire.
On the off chance you're the 2%... awe-inspiring dedication. Great job.. minus the whole liking Ron Paul thing. No need to drag his name through the mud by association.
your opinion has such lil' integrity, there no insult youi can make towrds me that would caryy any wieght, I'm sorry you have to be you, it must breally suck,
I dont know why you feel the need to attack, but then again, beings you are wrong on so many fronts, why would you do anything that makes any since ?
A word of advice, do NOT trust your own opinion & just ask God to open your eyes so you will no longer be spiritually Blind
That was you.. equating "faith" to "maybe". It sounds like you have doubts, since "most likely" leaves a lot of room for being wrong. Again, that was your quote, not mine.
Have you spoken to God and expressed your doubts as to his existence? What was his response? Does he agree that you can still be a good Theist while believing he "most likely" exists, or is he a little miffed that you're hedging your bets?
Creationist will claim that the propability for spontanous generation of a cell is to small - but never actually calculate it.
For this calculation you would have to know the number of all posibble combinations a living cell could be build. It is faulty to just calculate the propability that a known cell is created at random - that cell is just one sample of gogols of possibilities.
If you claim the creation of single cell organism is to unlikely the burden of proof rests with you, guys!
@qwiksquirrel the thing is, "simple" is reletive. these claims fail because they has NO evidence to back it up. they have never succeded creating this in a lab wi scratch an under the conditions of a realistic prebiotic earthunder the massive radiation levels that destroy any chance of life arising, the stuff they have created was made from organic chemicals that would not hav ben there. u fail.a
This video is a total fail, its full of speculation, and fallacies, there is no such thing as simple life, if its alive it's complex beyond natural measure.
@RespectMyHate as said by you? or have you proven and tested it?
you'd be surprised at the knowledge we have as humans. and you are more then welcome to read a book and study it for yourself. just because people chose to ignore it, doesn't mean its not true.
UNC Charlotte? What's your name so I can run it through the student database and write a formal letter explaining you cheated during all classes and left the university with next to no biological knowledge. Maybe you should turn in your diploma; before they take it away.
Where exactly in the bible does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old?? I read a passage that stated that one day to God is like 1,000 years to man, but no where and I mean NO WHERE does it state that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago. Just because it was either written or translated into english that one day to man is like 1,000 years to god. That is just BS therories not facts put out there by fundamentalists. Your suppose to read the bible not make up your own stories from it.
@TheShasiti The way the fundies worked this out was by adding up the ages of the descendants of Adam and came up with the year 4004BC as the day Adam was made. Nevermind all the evidence that the world is billions of years old.
Your last two sentences show that you do not have an understanding of evolution. Experiments done at the University of Manchester show that with the right starting elements, riboneuclotides self-assemble naturally. Given a few hundred thousand years, they could have developed into mature cells. The earth has had much more time than that in it's history, this vast amount of time would have easily allowed for the right mutations to develop and form DNA.
@father042 OK, let's get into specifics here. Why do you say this is bullshit? Do you have any experience in organic chemistry or molecular biology? Even a cursory examination of the properties of carbon compounds will show you the vast range of molecules that can arise in common conditions. And it's taken a bit more than a billion years to produce a cat. The cell itself has had over 3.8 billion years to reach the state it's in now. Lots of room for innovation and modification.
you can certainly disagree with me, but I believe we will not be around long enough to figure out that we have everything backwards. copy and paste this link to see why america has a shitty economy and that we the working class are modern slave via "money/ legal tender" which used to an IOU for gold ergo "as good as gold" --- youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU --- if you still think everything you've been taught in school is 100% accurate
you can certainly disagree with me, but I believe we will not be around long enough to figure out that we have everything backwards. copy and paste this link to see why america has a shitty economy and that we the working class are modern slave via "money/ legal tender" which used to an IOU for gold ergo "as good as gold" --- youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU --- if you still think everything you've been taught in school is 100% accurate
...then you need to wake up. Look at weed. It's got more protien than eggs or soy, and cheaper to. Levi jeans, the american flag, gutenberg and KJV bibles, and most of the worlds paper and textiles were made of mari/hemp. You can fuel your car with it too. greedy capitolists didn't want to compete with it so they MADE UP reasons to illegalize it. We can't trust the ones who suppress the truth from the masses for personal profit "Idiocracy" the movie comes to mind..."wtf is water??"
What if an astroid or meteor or commet came to earth with simple life? I mean like bacteria. The original abiogenesis experiement showed that it IS possible to get amino acids from not under certain conditions; it was "disproven" because, whill the conditions were certainly feasable, they were not earths conditions. And still, like the water, life may be inherently alien. Whatcha thinka z'yat?
"Hypercycle of autocatalizing molecules" This is pure speculation. You accuse creationists and/or intelligent design advocates of making up numbers, yet whoever you got that information from did the exact same thing. This can not be proven scientifically. It is only what scientists think must have happened because it supports their claims.
@whiteliketar Quite possibly. However i'm a junior in my biochemistry degree. i'm fairly aware of how much i don't know it "all" but i know enough to be dangerous :P
@whiteliketar I suppose the converse of that statement is true. Saying he does exist doesn't prove he does any more than saying he doesn't exist does. In all fairness, i'd imagine they will always be unprovable on either side of the fence. I never claimed to have all of the answers.
@Horathgar42 well you'll learn soon enough if you are a baby atheist that your fellow cohorts will beat you into submission soon enough. Soon you will be 100 %confident that there is no God and that matter is eternal. hopefully you'll have still have a brain left to think for yourself when it's said and done. A little science will push a man away from God and a lot of science will draw him back - Sir Francis Bacon - is more appropiate than you can ever imagine.
@whiteliketar I'd like to think i'm a little more thoughtful than that. However that being said. I'm an Agnostic Atheist. (probably more accurately Ignostic Atheist look it up). God would have to be clearified before you can even make a proper argument that there is one, as there are too many to say simply that there "is one". I don't know if there is a god or not...but all evidence...or lack thereof, shows that there very probably isn't one, as much as we'd like there to be.
@whiteliketar Unfortunately the few people I know that are 100% sure of anything.....are all theists. Atheists tend to be a bit more tenative (at least most of the intelligent ones do) when you start talking about absolutes to date there is no 100% accuracy method to prove god or....for that matter "disprove"....so again..i'm going with the evidence on this one... you go with your evidence i'll go with mine.
Arguing with creationists is like that scene from War Games where the computer Joshua was playing tic-tac-toe with itself. You're screaming "learn, dammit!". Until they do, the only way to win with them is not to play.
@Creationcreed Yep. Christians can all burn in the hell they create for themselves. I don't even want to care anymore. I'm not diving in to try to save any of their stupid asses ever again.
Only people capable of thinking clearly, or at least capable of valuing truth are worth my time. If they value faith over truth and logic, then throwing truth and logic at them is just like throwing pearls before swine.
@Crunchy68 "Christians can all burn in hell..." That doesn't make sense. I agree with your last two statments though: faith, logic and reason work hand-in-hand in figuring what the truth is, they aren't independent.
@Creationcreed Logic and reason do NOT require faith in order to work. Faith is what you use when you have no logic or reason. And though I don't want to debate the truth of the statement with you, I think it makes perfect sense for Christians to burn in hell. They invented it. It belongs to them. They surround themselves with hellish beliefs and historical practices. They should enjoy it, and are welcome to it. They're just too stupid to see their damnation applies to them alone.
There is a common thread of superiority everytime I speak to an "atheist". Religious doesn't equal dumb, I can't believe I have to say this again, but it seems to come up all the time. Faith is used in all idea, including atheism. You have faith that people in the other lane won't side swipe you as go the logical route to your destination, U have faith that the house u live in will not collaspe in the next 30 days, and your water is as clean as we all assume(without scientific experimentation).
@Creationcreed I'm an atheist, I tend to agree with your "superiority" comment. Atheists do tend to do that. Religious doesn't equal dumb. Oddly enough most christians accept evolution and probably would even with abiogenesis (especially if enough evidence is given [ala Galileo]). That being said, there's a pretty strong correlation (no its not absolute) with education and atheism. I'd imagine a lot of that is where the aire of superiority is from. Not saying its right though.
@Creationcreed But don't confuse faith with memory of the past and trust. Faith and trust aren't the same. Trust is remembering the past events and acting accordingly. Faith doesn't require memory. (I'll avoid going any further into the differences to avoid stepping into a realm of condescension.)
@Horathgar42 You have Faith can be applied off memory, or without total historical knowledge of the object. You take a step of faith that person next to you in a bus will not kill you in broad daylight, that the person you walk by is going to assassinate you, etc. Trust and faith work hand in hand. Faith that a parachute is the device to soften your fall, so you put trust in it to save you from death.
@Crunchy68 you can certainly disagree with me, but I believe we will not be around long enough to figure out that we have everything backwards. copy and paste this link to see why america has a shitty economy and that we the working class are modern slave via "money/ legal tender" which used to an IOU for gold ergo "as good as gold" --- youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU --- if you still think everything you've been taught in school is 100% accurate
@Crunchy68 It is crazy to me how everyone acts like Christians are so crazy and fear hell at all times in their lives...From what I've seen most Christians have been pretty normal and very kind. That is not the case with Atheists. Atheists act like they know it all. It is really annoying to me and I'm an Agnostic. They can't prove anything. They cling to science like it is the be all end all.
@UndercoverCracker Science, in a sense, is infallible. It is whatever is right. That there are mistakes from scientists gives little to no credence to the thought process behind science. There is no proof that there is a God, therefore there is no reason to assume one exists. Agnosticism is just a nice way of saying you're a temporary atheist.
@SocialDissimulation The Bible could be used as proof. After all history is just words written down. The Universe is so huge and it goes on forever...There has to be something more. I feel it.
@UndercoverCracker Here's the problem with that, there are plenty of spaces that are not only refuted -- just proven plain wrong. There are things that are verifiable, and things that are not in history. You can see empirical evidence pretty clearly. For instance: Noah's Flood. What are the chances that in the past 6,000 years (as espoused by Christians), that every animal in existance with nostrils marched into a ship? Giving this story any stock would be plain stupid.
@SocialDissimulation Can you prove it didn't happen? It is hard to believe but the universe going on forever is just as insane sounding as a man building a huge boat and putting animals on it. lol
@UndercoverCracker No, the Bible cannot be used as "proof." The bible is no more proof that God exists than the Harry Potter books are proof that Hogwart's exists. Star Trek has presented more verified predictions (Hand-held portable communicators, computers the size of small tablets) than any religious text. The Bible is a collection of bronze age myths that have been disproven thousands of times over, and clinging to it like literal truth is indicative of a weak mind.
@TrevorBlack79 There is hard evidence that Harry Potter doesn't exist...Are you that insane to even compare Harry Potter and God. lol Disproven? That is news to me. There have been plenty of things similar to what it says in the Bible. Also having a weak mind is someone who doesn't except the possibility something could be true without seeing it themselves...Like you. Personally I believe it could be either way. This is why my mind surpasses yours in openness.
@UndercoverCracker And there's hard evidence that the contents of the Bible - including the Biblical description of God - doesn't exist or never happened. And for the record, I gave the Biblical worldview a full and honest chance. I was, after all, raised in evangelical household and church environments. Having an open mind is useless if you refuse to filter out bad information.
@UndercoverCracker (Cont...) The vast majority of Biblical claims either cannot be substantiated or have no supporting evidence outside the Bible. The same applies to the Qu'ran, the Torah and the Vedas. The same applies to Greek and Roman mythology as well as Egyptian mythology. These views are equally unsubstantiated and often nonsensical, while being mutually exclusive. The only reasonable conclusion is that they are all false. This is why my mind surpasses yours in critical reasoning.
@TrevorBlack79 Your mind isn't as all knowing as you think. Just because Science hasn't proved something doesn't mean it isn't real. There is a difference between Jesus and the other religions you refer to. There is proof Jesus was a real man. So that makes you wrong right there. If God is all powerful what makes you think what your view of sensical is even applies to him. You have to take all recorded History with a grain of salt. We weren't around then. That is all.
That is not all. Events leave traces. Traces that allow us to reconstruct - not with absolute certitude, but sometimes with reasonable accuracy - how the events themselves occurred. This is what science does.
Sometimes. Not always. Many things in human history are lost in the clutter of the rapidly changing faces of civilisation. Cultures and kingdoms that existed only centuries, sometimes less, not leaving enough evidence for an accurate and detailed reconstruction of their history. But geology and astronomy don't move as fast as human civilisations, and the margin of error in their descriptive models does not swallow entire epochs.
I think it was in genesis where it said god was pleased, only to just a bit later say he wasn't pleased. Either way, there is enoug logical fallacy on every page of the Bible and the Quran, to make an entire comedy series out of it.
@Helge129 That wasn't telling me anything where in the Bible did it say that or are you making shit up. You havn't read the whole Bible don't kid yourself. You sound lonely and kind of pathetic. Good day.
@UndercoverCracker I'd go further and say we know nothing about god. At all. In fact, we know so little, there is no reason to believe he exists, other than bronze age myths written by people who explained everything they didn't understand with goddidit.
@UndercoverCracker I'm not close minded, you are. I'd believe in god, if there was enough empirical evidence that a god exists at all. But there is none, and you deny everything that conflicts with your belief.
@Helge129 That is stuff you don't believe how in the bloddy twats can you say that it isn't true. Also where in the Bible does it say the world is flat or the Earth is 6000 years old. It doesn't say anything like that. Now you really are pulling things from your ass.
@UndercoverCracker The Bible claims "God ressts/sits over the circle of the Earth", in the original Bible, in Hebrew, a different word for platter was used, never did it even imply the Earth was a sphere.
@Helge129 The circle of the Earth....The Earth is round....The solar system and galaxy reside in a circle shape. He doesn't have to say sphere. How did it even know the Earth is a circle people said it was flat and some thught it just dropped of like a square.
Do you feel something listening to that? I can feel it. How? Soul? Maybe. lol I know music personally makes me feel so much there has to be something more.
Platter as in round and you still haven't shown me any proof. lol
@TrevorBlack79 This is such a simple misunderstanding among so many people. The new testament holds itself as a historically accurate document and there is a wealth of information on the issue, some even from secular scholars. Anyone not willing to research this honestly is being intellectually dishonest to themselves.
I recommend that you should look into it more. There are alot of details and towns that are in scripture that are historically accurate. Such as the washing of feet before a party for example, and Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist.
If I said Obama moved to your neighbourhood last week, you'd probably know that I was lieing.
The Bible says Jesus moved to Capernaum for a time, so tell me, how do you explain the existance of believers in Capernaum?
@TheColaGoodfellow "There are alot of details and towns that are in scripture that are historically accurate."
Of course there are - we know those places existed, and the Bible was written at those times. That does not, however, substantiate grandiose claims about otherwise impossible events.
Just because New York exists does not mean Spider-Man is real, and future historians would be loathe to accept written text as sufficient evidence that he was.
*sigh* I hope future historians take context into account. But I bet they do base alot of their decisions on written text, because there would be little to no other way of knowing ancient history.
& because Jesus isn't the first prophet from Isreal to have done miracles and had them documented, it means repeatability also stands on the side of the miracles.
Again, without a motivation, or a good counter explanation for the things they claim to have seen, disbelief is weak.
@TheColaGoodfellow "because Jesus isn't the first prophet from Isreal to have done miracles and had them documented, it means repeatability also stands on the side of the miracles."
Why? Because I believe peer reviews and don't assume things are lies or conspiracies?
Miracles are repeated often in the Bible, and almost always infront of other people. Now, I could assume that all of them are lies, but then again I COULD assume that there's a big conspiracy amongst scientists and that all th evidence for evolution was manipulated and planted by anti-christian scientists.
Just because you can make up a conspiracy doesn't make you rational.
@TheColaGoodfellow but you are starting from the unproven position that the bible is accurate...but that aside, I'm curious..exactly how many scientists do you think are involved in this conspiracy?
You say unproven, there's so many accurate details in the 66 books and letters of the Bible (which were wrote by multiple people throguhout history) apart from the maybe first and second chapters of Genesis if I give you the benefit of the doubt, that I have little reason to single out the miracles just because I think they aren't possible.
And ontop of that, there's no motivation in context for them to lie.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy, I was merely pointing out that calling lies or conspiracy is an assumption based on events that you were simply not there to witness.
I don't see how it's more likely that multiple sources from throughout history are more likely to be lies than a group of scientists couped away from the public eye doing tests that the multitude wouldn't even understand.
@TheColaGoodfellow I'll give you one thing, you're very good at insinuating without actually committing to a statement, but for you to insinuate that it is possible for...wait for it... tens of thousands of molecular biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, palaentologists, evolutionary biologists from all around the world to somehow lie and cover-up for each other demonstrates just how little you know about how science works. It would be much easier for superstitious men, working cont.....
@TheColaGoodfellow cont...mostly from hearsay, many years later to embelish the stories. You know David Koresh's followers claimed he performed miracles. Benny Hinn does it every day. Now i do not doubt for a minute that there is factual information in the bible..names, places, but when the whole world to these people was the middle east and the politics of the day..and lets face it, there were some serious politics...well...why not invent a hero? For the record, I've read many religious..cont..
Hearsay? That's only the common assumption. The book of Luke is in the context of a message sent to a man called Theophilus, from apparantly Luke, who claims to have got his sources from first hand witnesses.
And the letters by the apostles are dated from only 10 to 20 years after Jesus' death atleast.
There's so much I've already told the last guy in terms of context and such that I honestly can't be bothered to repeat it.
Abiogenesis is fact - just last year in 2010 Craig Venter & co inserted a wholly artificial chromosome into a bacterial cell and thus created the first artificial life form (a.k.a "dial-a-genome").
They had to assemble the chromosome themselves, an artifical chromosome is complex and apparantly they didn't even put the whole of that together themselves (it was made up of several gene sequences from yeast).
Putting a man-made chromosome into a cell barely constitutes life coming from non-life naturally without intelligent help.
@TheColaGoodfellow "....a message sent to a man called Theophilus, from apparantly Luke, who claims to have got his sources from first hand witnesses." I don't know what your definition of hearsay is but that is hearsay.
10 to 20 years after Jesus' death? Why wait that long? Why, when all the alleged miracles were happening was someone not recording it. I mean, here was the son of god, healing the sick, walking on water, turning water into wine etc and everyone just said ," Meh."? cont...
Writing down eye witness testimony is hearsay?... If that's hearsay, people rely on written eye witness testimony all the time.
There very well might have been more earlier letters and records that simply didn't make it to today, infact it only makes sense to assume there were atleast earlier letters. How else would they communicate with the churches when away?
And if the miracles hadn't happened amongst these churches, who are they believing in? What are they believing?
@TheColaGoodfellow you know David Koresh's followers claimed he performed miracles? Look, you andI are never going to agree. Your burden of proof is clearly much much lower than mine. I guess that why they call it faith. I also think someone at your age should expand their worldview, educate themselves about topics they flippantly dismiss so that thier decisions and opinions are informed. Good luck to you.
I don't know much about this David Koresh, but I wouldn't doubt it if he did miracles. However, I trust who I choose to trust for reasons that I find trustworthy. Even non believers can do miracles nowadays (science).
I think you underestimate how much I have looked into things, which is understandable, considering you haven't heard all my replies or all my arguments because I don't have time to repeat them all.
@TheColaGoodfellow cont...Please. More likely, when the leader of the cult disappeared, these people were out of a job, living of the goodwill of their duped faithful so set about making a legend. Its more plausible than walking on water.
@TheColaGoodfellow cont 2..texts. I believe that in order to make informed comments about a subject you need to actually do a bit of research, otherwise you are speaking from a position of ignorance. I suggest that in your next 20 years kid, you maybe study up on how the scientific world operates so that you can make informed insinuations in the future.
"I believe that in order to make informed comments about a subject you need to actually do a bit of research"
And the same to you with the Bible and hebrew history. Ofcourse you should also take time considering context, because without considering it knowledge is useless.
Not the fail comparison of the Bible to Harry Potter!
Do you have any understanding of context? History has shown that the Bible has documented acts of God over the course of 1000 years, by around 30 different people throughout history. But Harry Potter was wrote by one writer!
At best Creation & the flood (aka 1 book out of all the 66) have been proven to need reinterpretation. That leaves 65 left with tons of evidence for their historical accuracy.
Unless you think a 1000 year old man wrote all the books and letters of the Bible, the different events were documented by different people in different periods of isrealite history. Chances that every single one decided to lie about miracles is rediculous.
It refers to many proven real people, places (people lived there) and wars. The miracles all occur in public places. It's so specific and so much is true that if the events had never occured, the locals would have known.
Apparantly the Council of Carthage accepted the combination of books and letters as we know it as being the god breathed ones (Why? i don't know, but I'm always open to the possibility that apocryphal books and letters could be God breathed also).
And then at some point they started started writing them as one book.
I don't know if you saw the other comment, but I'm not sure where to begin.
Look up dating the bible on wikipedia. It has sources.
To a degree you have to take words and things in context, which sometimes means taking them as evidence of reliability or a lack of in and of themselves. Example: An author says their book is meant to be fictional, from this we know it is.
If Jesus never went to Capernaum, why did the people of Capernaum accept the Bibles claim that he did?
@TheColaGoodfellow To the best of my understanding, there's very little contention among historians that Jesus actually existed. What I'm looking for is evidence that miracles occurred. Thus far, no such claim has been substantiated. Unfortunately, any miracle "documented" in the Bible is highly suspect - particularly those surrounding Jesus, as the gospels weren't written until several decades after his supposed death and resurrection. That renders the claims unresolvable, at best.
There's a handfull of scholars who try and make Jesus look like he never existed, but the last time I checked they were few, and the common opinion is that Jesus atleast existed.
A good point to make is that there's no real motivation for them to lie either.
@TheColaGoodfellow "A good point to make is that there's no real motivation for them to lie either."
That's not sufficient justification to believe any claim, especially not one as outlandish as miraculous occurrences. By that rationale, we should believe all claims put forth for the existence of aliens, bigfoot, nessie, el chupacabra, etc. We don't just believe any claim that comes forth, even if the claimant has no motivation to lie. Hence, we expect evidence to support the claim.
"By that rationale, we should believe all claims put forth for the existence of aliens, bigfoot, nessie, el chupacabra"
Again, you aren't considering context. Most alien abductions occur during the night and are thus suceptible to merely being dreams. Bigfoot, Nessie and Aliens etc are never or very rarely seen in public, unlike Jesus who was apparantly public almost his entire life.
In court of law, it wont be easy to jail a man without a motive.
@TheColaGoodfellow I beg to differ, and suggest that YOU aren't considering context. Again I point out that the "documentation" of Jesus' life came several decades AFTER his death. Given that the miracles in the synoptic gospels are, at best, second-hand accounts presented decades after the fact and completely uncorroborated by any documents outside the Bible, there is literally no reason to accept them at face value.
In a court of law, it won't be easy to jail a man on second-hand hearsay.
Actually, the gospel of Mark is now dated definatly around the year 70, only 30-40 years after his death.
If they all used hearsay, they used very good hearsay, because alot of the same stories appear in each one, just sometimes in different orders in time.
The letters of the apostles are dated at even earlier times, and also believing Jesus did miracles & died on the cross. The letters of the apostles are dated as early as year 50, only 10-20 years after.
Plus, from what I've researched, the actual dates used are put that way in an anti-christian interpretation on purpose, because they assume Jesus didn't predict the destruction of the temple, so they say Luke was written after it was destroyed (because it's the only way an atheist could explain the prediction).
@TrevorBlack79 Most people in that time period could not read or write. The most common way to pass on a story or bit of information was by word of mouth. As time progressed some of the Apostles were able to get a hold of scribes to either relay their thoughts via a letter or to keep records of what they experienced or witnessed. Considering their fates, their refusal to renounce their faith in Jesus Christ, and threats of torture and death they must have witnessed the super-natural.
@Creationcreed Ah, but wait... I'm almost breaking my own rule already. First tell me that you value truth more than you value "faith", or else it's pointless for me to talk with you. If faith matters more to you than logic and truth, then God bless your lil' pea-picking heart, but you and I could never have a decent conversation, so it's best if we just end it here.
@Crunchy68 U have faith that I am really a person who believes in God, and that you are more knowledgable about the Bible than I, without evidence btw. U can apply it to all aspect of life. Christian don't just jump into something with logic. If you know you hve 2 jump(50,000ft) off a plane, you logically put on a parachute(Jesus Christ = no hell). Everyone uses some logic in everyday life, and yes there are some who follow blindly(that includes atheism).
@Creationcreed But still... if you had to choose between something you could see and prove to be true vs. something your religion taught you which was in direct opposition to it, would you choose the truth, or your religion?
And please don't say your religion could logically never make a mistake. Please just imagine for a moment the possibility that it could. If it COULD be wrong, which would be more important to you?
@Crunchy68 God created us in His image: emotion, a mind, freewill, ability to reason, use logic, and observe. I do not observe the world around me and say "Oh, no one created this!" And evolution is far from reality from what I can observe as well, at least not in the darwinian sense. Change happens within all animal kinds, but not the kind where matter to single to human being. Not even big bang without a catalyst. A line of 100 dominos don't fall on their own.
Hey really well done man. I've always believed in evolution but had some problems (not with belief, more with the process of it) with the initial beginnings of life, but this really cleared some things up
petegriswold 13 hours ago
I love how the christians are the ones like: "read da fuckin bible cunt! Itz da words ov god! Your lazy pricks, assholes and fuckfaces blah blah blah evolution isn't real balh blah blah." while the atheists are like :"here is the evidence, check it out, love the world, smile!"
fastwritename 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since nothing can come from nothing, it logically follows that there must be "an eternal source" -- a timeless, immaterial, ultimate source of all the energy and matter in existence, which existed before "spacetime." But what is this "source?" What is its nature? Whoever has a scientific answer - please enlighten us!! I want to know!!
harvardlaw14 1 week ago
Dont rage at me. But i really think all atheist are just lazy pricks. Who want a excuse not to do shit. DONT fucking rage at me. I wont even reply
KopiedBb 2 weeks ago
@KopiedBb Also, this statement is not true. Atheists simply have no faith, and seek a purpose in THIS life, not the next. We are not lazy pricks. I could even back that up with data.
PointlessSteel 1 week ago
@KopiedBb It's the believers who are lazy, because instead of looking for answers they make them up with fairy tales..
gskowal 5 days ago
No matter what people say we evolved from. What made the substance we evolved from. Like ateism is the stupidest shit. Like idc if you convert. But evolution makes no fucking sense whatsoever. i mean i know atheist have nevr read the bible. Like the stuff that the bible said was gonna happen happend. And it was written over 3000 years ago (Correct me if im wrong). Stop litsening to scietist. There people who dont know shit. Thats Why all of this stuff End in "Theory" Cause that what it is theory
KopiedBb 2 weeks ago
@KopiedBb One: No, your Bible is not special document, it is not true that everything it predicted was true.
Two: A Theory is a way science works. Like the Germ Theory of Disease. Or Atomic Theory.
Evolution is a settled scientific fact, but I'd suggest looking up some of the religious evolutionary biologists. It is perfectly possible to have faith without denying science.
PointlessSteel 1 week ago
@KopiedBb troll
petegriswold 13 hours ago
ur wrong dis was god
SuperRegisteredUser 3 weeks ago
"Most Likely" = maybe = Faith based belief :-/
ncwdane 4 weeks ago
@ncwdane It's only faith-based belief if you stop at Most Likely and call it fact.
How about...
"Most Likely" = most supporting evidence at the moment = most promising direction for ongoing research and analysis = Science
Murchad99 3 weeks ago
@Murchad99 You believe that your computer Just popped up outta the lifeless Earth after millions & millions of years, that IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE !!!
That is so unlikely, to believe it, is just nsane !!!!
ncwdane 3 weeks ago
@ncwdane I took a look at your channel, and I'm about 98% sure you are actually this and not a constructed persona for the purposes of satire.
On the off chance you're the 2%... awe-inspiring dedication. Great job.. minus the whole liking Ron Paul thing. No need to drag his name through the mud by association.
Murchad99 3 weeks ago
@Murchad99 Judging by what you believe
your opinion has such lil' integrity, there no insult youi can make towrds me that would caryy any wieght, I'm sorry you have to be you, it must breally suck,
I dont know why you feel the need to attack, but then again, beings you are wrong on so many fronts, why would you do anything that makes any since ?
A word of advice, do NOT trust your own opinion & just ask God to open your eyes so you will no longer be spiritually Blind
ncwdane 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncwdane ""Most Likely" = maybe = Faith based belief :-/ "
That was you.. equating "faith" to "maybe". It sounds like you have doubts, since "most likely" leaves a lot of room for being wrong. Again, that was your quote, not mine.
Have you spoken to God and expressed your doubts as to his existence? What was his response? Does he agree that you can still be a good Theist while believing he "most likely" exists, or is he a little miffed that you're hedging your bets?
Murchad99 3 weeks ago
@ncwdane God can't open anyone's eyes because God's not real, you delusional, self-righteous prick.
KCKwarsick 2 weeks ago
Creationist will claim that the propability for spontanous generation of a cell is to small - but never actually calculate it.
For this calculation you would have to know the number of all posibble combinations a living cell could be build. It is faulty to just calculate the propability that a known cell is created at random - that cell is just one sample of gogols of possibilities.
If you claim the creation of single cell organism is to unlikely the burden of proof rests with you, guys!
MsBionomics 1 month ago
@davidkinane
watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc&feature=related
"The Origin of the Genetic Code"
stupidtrooper501 2 months ago
@qwiksquirrel the thing is, "simple" is reletive. these claims fail because they has NO evidence to back it up. they have never succeded creating this in a lab wi scratch an under the conditions of a realistic prebiotic earthunder the massive radiation levels that destroy any chance of life arising, the stuff they have created was made from organic chemicals that would not hav ben there. u fail.a
samster817 2 months ago
@samster817
watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
"The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak"
stupidtrooper501 2 months ago
Um. Wow.
attheveryend 3 months ago
This video is a total fail, its full of speculation, and fallacies, there is no such thing as simple life, if its alive it's complex beyond natural measure.
RespectMyHate 3 months ago
@RespectMyHate as said by you? or have you proven and tested it?
you'd be surprised at the knowledge we have as humans. and you are more then welcome to read a book and study it for yourself. just because people chose to ignore it, doesn't mean its not true.
lahav1 3 months ago
@RespectMyHate
Wow.. You just failed on the most basic of levels.
Simple life forms are a fact.
The basis of abiogenesis is testable fact. And the concept is remarkably simple to understand.
The fact that you don't understand something, does not mean that it does not exist, or that "god" did it.
Read a book sometime. You might be surprised at just how much the rest of the world knows.
qwiksquirrel 3 months ago
@qwiksquirrel I cast what you say off as rubbish.
RespectMyHate 3 months ago
@RespectMyHate
Sure you do. I would not have expected anything else.
It is after all easier to run and hide, than to deal with things that you don't understand.
qwiksquirrel 3 months ago
@qwiksquirrel Your talking to an honor student, and my major is biology at unc charlotte, so what are you talking about?
RespectMyHate 3 months ago
@RespectMyHate "Your talking to an honor student"
That's priceless. I should make a bumper sticker with that quote.
Datan0de 1 month ago
@RespectMyHate "Your talking to an honor student"
UNC Charlotte? What's your name so I can run it through the student database and write a formal letter explaining you cheated during all classes and left the university with next to no biological knowledge. Maybe you should turn in your diploma; before they take it away.
JamesCizuz 1 month ago
@JamesCizuz How about you eat a dick.
RespectMyHate 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RespectMyHate "How about you eat a dick."
Why is that an insult to you? You silly little man.
JamesCizuz 1 month ago
bacteria should generate continuously more complicated creatures.can scientists see this process?
for example which slightly complicated creature did evolve latest from bacteria ?
esraretin 3 months ago
Where exactly in the bible does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old?? I read a passage that stated that one day to God is like 1,000 years to man, but no where and I mean NO WHERE does it state that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago. Just because it was either written or translated into english that one day to man is like 1,000 years to god. That is just BS therories not facts put out there by fundamentalists. Your suppose to read the bible not make up your own stories from it.
TheShasiti 3 months ago
@TheShasiti The way the fundies worked this out was by adding up the ages of the descendants of Adam and came up with the year 4004BC as the day Adam was made. Nevermind all the evidence that the world is billions of years old.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
Thanks for the video, I had heard about the theory of Abiogenesis before, but never looked it up.
enigma2213322133 5 months ago
Spock's mom asked...
"How do you feel?"
blardosplats 6 months ago
I am christian and I accept avolution but abiogenesis is fucking BULLSHIT
It makes absolutely no sense
and unlike there is evidence for evolutin, there is absolutley no proof for this
It was even disproven several times before
It's like throw some chemical elements into a volcano or a sea and after billion years you'll make a Cat
or you'll throw iron, leather, some pl,astics and glass into furnace and you'll make a car
father042 6 months ago
@father042
Your last two sentences show that you do not have an understanding of evolution. Experiments done at the University of Manchester show that with the right starting elements, riboneuclotides self-assemble naturally. Given a few hundred thousand years, they could have developed into mature cells. The earth has had much more time than that in it's history, this vast amount of time would have easily allowed for the right mutations to develop and form DNA.
MonicaKn17 6 months ago
@father042 OK, let's get into specifics here. Why do you say this is bullshit? Do you have any experience in organic chemistry or molecular biology? Even a cursory examination of the properties of carbon compounds will show you the vast range of molecules that can arise in common conditions. And it's taken a bit more than a billion years to produce a cat. The cell itself has had over 3.8 billion years to reach the state it's in now. Lots of room for innovation and modification.
NorthForkFisherman 6 months ago
There's also some of this stuff over at Harvard Biochemistry department. Very interesting stuff.
Horathgar42 7 months ago 11
What about chirality?
ATBINTC 8 months ago
Very informative video thanks
guyver2095 9 months ago
lol my favorite christian on youtube
ThoseGamerguyz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you can certainly disagree with me, but I believe we will not be around long enough to figure out that we have everything backwards. copy and paste this link to see why america has a shitty economy and that we the working class are modern slave via "money/ legal tender" which used to an IOU for gold ergo "as good as gold" --- youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU --- if you still think everything you've been taught in school is 100% accurate
kfcguy1999 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you can certainly disagree with me, but I believe we will not be around long enough to figure out that we have everything backwards. copy and paste this link to see why america has a shitty economy and that we the working class are modern slave via "money/ legal tender" which used to an IOU for gold ergo "as good as gold" --- youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU --- if you still think everything you've been taught in school is 100% accurate
kfcguy1999 10 months ago
Comment removed
kfcguy1999 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...then you need to wake up. Look at weed. It's got more protien than eggs or soy, and cheaper to. Levi jeans, the american flag, gutenberg and KJV bibles, and most of the worlds paper and textiles were made of mari/hemp. You can fuel your car with it too. greedy capitolists didn't want to compete with it so they MADE UP reasons to illegalize it. We can't trust the ones who suppress the truth from the masses for personal profit "Idiocracy" the movie comes to mind..."wtf is water??"
kfcguy1999 10 months ago
Stop blowing into your mic; it's fucking annoying.
Bristlehoth 10 months ago
What if an astroid or meteor or commet came to earth with simple life? I mean like bacteria. The original abiogenesis experiement showed that it IS possible to get amino acids from not under certain conditions; it was "disproven" because, whill the conditions were certainly feasable, they were not earths conditions. And still, like the water, life may be inherently alien. Whatcha thinka z'yat?
cpmc1 10 months ago
Abiogenesis doesn't work. It is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 10 months ago
@achilles197474 Can you demonstrate this please?
AtheismIsCorrect 4 months ago
"Hypercycle of autocatalizing molecules" This is pure speculation. You accuse creationists and/or intelligent design advocates of making up numbers, yet whoever you got that information from did the exact same thing. This can not be proven scientifically. It is only what scientists think must have happened because it supports their claims.
Challagar 10 months ago
Geez this guy Don exodus is such a demented brainwashed atheist with his own lies and delusion - it's not even funny.
whiteliketar 11 months ago
@whiteliketar haha you got that right...he speaks as though he was there..lol
hendrixboy100 10 months ago
@whiteliketar Actually he's just reposting research done from a Nobe laureate from Harvard, what have you done lately?
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@Horathgar42 far more than you'll ever know ...mr know-it-all. lol
whiteliketar 10 months ago
@whiteliketar Quite possibly. However i'm a junior in my biochemistry degree. i'm fairly aware of how much i don't know it "all" but i know enough to be dangerous :P
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@Horathgar42 as it isaid - a little knowledge is dangerous.
whiteliketar 10 months ago
@whiteliketar No knowledge is even more dangerous.
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@Horathgar42 whose ...yours? lol
whiteliketar 10 months ago
@whiteliketar I'd imagine everyone who isn't educated to some amount....which sadly...is a LOT. Include yourself in this if you like, I don't know.
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@Horathgar42 blah blah blah - repeating like a parrot that God dosen't exist isn't going to cut it. lol
whiteliketar 10 months ago
@whiteliketar I suppose the converse of that statement is true. Saying he does exist doesn't prove he does any more than saying he doesn't exist does. In all fairness, i'd imagine they will always be unprovable on either side of the fence. I never claimed to have all of the answers.
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@Horathgar42 well you'll learn soon enough if you are a baby atheist that your fellow cohorts will beat you into submission soon enough. Soon you will be 100 %confident that there is no God and that matter is eternal. hopefully you'll have still have a brain left to think for yourself when it's said and done. A little science will push a man away from God and a lot of science will draw him back - Sir Francis Bacon - is more appropiate than you can ever imagine.
whiteliketar 10 months ago
@whiteliketar I'd like to think i'm a little more thoughtful than that. However that being said. I'm an Agnostic Atheist. (probably more accurately Ignostic Atheist look it up). God would have to be clearified before you can even make a proper argument that there is one, as there are too many to say simply that there "is one". I don't know if there is a god or not...but all evidence...or lack thereof, shows that there very probably isn't one, as much as we'd like there to be.
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@whiteliketar Unfortunately the few people I know that are 100% sure of anything.....are all theists. Atheists tend to be a bit more tenative (at least most of the intelligent ones do) when you start talking about absolutes to date there is no 100% accuracy method to prove god or....for that matter "disprove"....so again..i'm going with the evidence on this one... you go with your evidence i'll go with mine.
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@Horathgar42 suit yourself. life is short
whiteliketar 9 months ago
Good video.
Airmanf7 11 months ago
Arguing with creationists is like that scene from War Games where the computer Joshua was playing tic-tac-toe with itself. You're screaming "learn, dammit!". Until they do, the only way to win with them is not to play.
Crunchy68 11 months ago
@Crunchy68 Then you will not be commenting further to interfere with discussions, if your consistant and do not want to be charged with hypocracy.
Creationcreed 11 months ago
@Creationcreed Yep. Christians can all burn in the hell they create for themselves. I don't even want to care anymore. I'm not diving in to try to save any of their stupid asses ever again.
Only people capable of thinking clearly, or at least capable of valuing truth are worth my time. If they value faith over truth and logic, then throwing truth and logic at them is just like throwing pearls before swine.
Crunchy68 11 months ago
@Crunchy68 "Christians can all burn in hell..." That doesn't make sense. I agree with your last two statments though: faith, logic and reason work hand-in-hand in figuring what the truth is, they aren't independent.
Creationcreed 11 months ago
@Creationcreed Logic and reason do NOT require faith in order to work. Faith is what you use when you have no logic or reason. And though I don't want to debate the truth of the statement with you, I think it makes perfect sense for Christians to burn in hell. They invented it. It belongs to them. They surround themselves with hellish beliefs and historical practices. They should enjoy it, and are welcome to it. They're just too stupid to see their damnation applies to them alone.
Crunchy68 11 months ago 13
There is a common thread of superiority everytime I speak to an "atheist". Religious doesn't equal dumb, I can't believe I have to say this again, but it seems to come up all the time. Faith is used in all idea, including atheism. You have faith that people in the other lane won't side swipe you as go the logical route to your destination, U have faith that the house u live in will not collaspe in the next 30 days, and your water is as clean as we all assume(without scientific experimentation).
Creationcreed 11 months ago
@Creationcreed I'm an atheist, I tend to agree with your "superiority" comment. Atheists do tend to do that. Religious doesn't equal dumb. Oddly enough most christians accept evolution and probably would even with abiogenesis (especially if enough evidence is given [ala Galileo]). That being said, there's a pretty strong correlation (no its not absolute) with education and atheism. I'd imagine a lot of that is where the aire of superiority is from. Not saying its right though.
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@Creationcreed But don't confuse faith with memory of the past and trust. Faith and trust aren't the same. Trust is remembering the past events and acting accordingly. Faith doesn't require memory. (I'll avoid going any further into the differences to avoid stepping into a realm of condescension.)
Horathgar42 10 months ago
@Horathgar42 You have Faith can be applied off memory, or without total historical knowledge of the object. You take a step of faith that person next to you in a bus will not kill you in broad daylight, that the person you walk by is going to assassinate you, etc. Trust and faith work hand in hand. Faith that a parachute is the device to soften your fall, so you put trust in it to save you from death.
Creationcreed 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Crunchy68 you can certainly disagree with me, but I believe we will not be around long enough to figure out that we have everything backwards. copy and paste this link to see why america has a shitty economy and that we the working class are modern slave via "money/ legal tender" which used to an IOU for gold ergo "as good as gold" --- youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU --- if you still think everything you've been taught in school is 100% accurate
kfcguy1999 10 months ago
@Crunchy68 It is crazy to me how everyone acts like Christians are so crazy and fear hell at all times in their lives...From what I've seen most Christians have been pretty normal and very kind. That is not the case with Atheists. Atheists act like they know it all. It is really annoying to me and I'm an Agnostic. They can't prove anything. They cling to science like it is the be all end all.
UndercoverCracker 9 months ago
@UndercoverCracker Science, in a sense, is infallible. It is whatever is right. That there are mistakes from scientists gives little to no credence to the thought process behind science. There is no proof that there is a God, therefore there is no reason to assume one exists. Agnosticism is just a nice way of saying you're a temporary atheist.
SocialDissimulation 8 months ago
@SocialDissimulation The Bible could be used as proof. After all history is just words written down. The Universe is so huge and it goes on forever...There has to be something more. I feel it.
UndercoverCracker 8 months ago
@UndercoverCracker Here's the problem with that, there are plenty of spaces that are not only refuted -- just proven plain wrong. There are things that are verifiable, and things that are not in history. You can see empirical evidence pretty clearly. For instance: Noah's Flood. What are the chances that in the past 6,000 years (as espoused by Christians), that every animal in existance with nostrils marched into a ship? Giving this story any stock would be plain stupid.
SocialDissimulation 8 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Can you prove it didn't happen? It is hard to believe but the universe going on forever is just as insane sounding as a man building a huge boat and putting animals on it. lol
UndercoverCracker 8 months ago
@UndercoverCracker No, the Bible cannot be used as "proof." The bible is no more proof that God exists than the Harry Potter books are proof that Hogwart's exists. Star Trek has presented more verified predictions (Hand-held portable communicators, computers the size of small tablets) than any religious text. The Bible is a collection of bronze age myths that have been disproven thousands of times over, and clinging to it like literal truth is indicative of a weak mind.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago 39
@TrevorBlack79 There is hard evidence that Harry Potter doesn't exist...Are you that insane to even compare Harry Potter and God. lol Disproven? That is news to me. There have been plenty of things similar to what it says in the Bible. Also having a weak mind is someone who doesn't except the possibility something could be true without seeing it themselves...Like you. Personally I believe it could be either way. This is why my mind surpasses yours in openness.
UndercoverCracker 8 months ago
@UndercoverCracker And there's hard evidence that the contents of the Bible - including the Biblical description of God - doesn't exist or never happened. And for the record, I gave the Biblical worldview a full and honest chance. I was, after all, raised in evangelical household and church environments. Having an open mind is useless if you refuse to filter out bad information.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@UndercoverCracker (Cont...) The vast majority of Biblical claims either cannot be substantiated or have no supporting evidence outside the Bible. The same applies to the Qu'ran, the Torah and the Vedas. The same applies to Greek and Roman mythology as well as Egyptian mythology. These views are equally unsubstantiated and often nonsensical, while being mutually exclusive. The only reasonable conclusion is that they are all false. This is why my mind surpasses yours in critical reasoning.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Your mind isn't as all knowing as you think. Just because Science hasn't proved something doesn't mean it isn't real. There is a difference between Jesus and the other religions you refer to. There is proof Jesus was a real man. So that makes you wrong right there. If God is all powerful what makes you think what your view of sensical is even applies to him. You have to take all recorded History with a grain of salt. We weren't around then. That is all.
UndercoverCracker 8 months ago
« That is all. »
That is not all. Events leave traces. Traces that allow us to reconstruct - not with absolute certitude, but sometimes with reasonable accuracy - how the events themselves occurred. This is what science does.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor Reasonable accuracy. lol You are funny.
UndercoverCracker 8 months ago
« Reasonable accuracy »
Sometimes. Not always. Many things in human history are lost in the clutter of the rapidly changing faces of civilisation. Cultures and kingdoms that existed only centuries, sometimes less, not leaving enough evidence for an accurate and detailed reconstruction of their history. But geology and astronomy don't move as fast as human civilisations, and the margin of error in their descriptive models does not swallow entire epochs.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@UndercoverCracker What proof? That burial sheet from Turin? That was a hoax.
Helge129 7 months ago
@Helge129 The Bible...As well as other scripture.
UndercoverCracker 7 months ago
@UndercoverCracker Self-Contradicting and internally inconsitent, 2000 year old books are no kind of evidence.
Helge129 7 months ago
@Helge129 How is it self contradicting and internally inconsistent? You probably haven't even read it or took the time to think about it. lol
UndercoverCracker 7 months ago
@UndercoverCracker And it's inaccurate too.
I've read the Bible, and the Quran.
I think it was in genesis where it said god was pleased, only to just a bit later say he wasn't pleased. Either way, there is enoug logical fallacy on every page of the Bible and the Quran, to make an entire comedy series out of it.
Helge129 7 months ago
@Helge129 That wasn't telling me anything where in the Bible did it say that or are you making shit up. You havn't read the whole Bible don't kid yourself. You sound lonely and kind of pathetic. Good day.
UndercoverCracker 7 months ago
@UndercoverCracker And your denial of the inconsitencies is telling me that you haven't read even the first page. I've read it cover to cover.
Helge129 7 months ago
@Helge129 I truly doubt it. lol You couldn't even give me an exact place where there are inconsistencies in the Bible.
UndercoverCracker 7 months ago
@UndercoverCracker I read it several years ago, lol.
Anyway, read it again. You will every once in a while find a section that contradicts a previous one, or something that's downright illogical.
Helge129 7 months ago
@Helge129 How can you even apply what your grasp of logical is to God...We hardly know anything.
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker I'd go further and say we know nothing about god. At all. In fact, we know so little, there is no reason to believe he exists, other than bronze age myths written by people who explained everything they didn't understand with goddidit.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 That is pitiful you are so close minded to think that way. lol Oh well.
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker I'm not close minded, you are. I'd believe in god, if there was enough empirical evidence that a god exists at all. But there is none, and you deny everything that conflicts with your belief.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 My belief? I'm agnostic! LOL Dumb shit...
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker You did sound like a theist, lol.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 Nice job assuming...I'm open to everything and I don't talk badly about religion. Does that blow your mind??
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker I don't talk bad about religion, I never did. I talk bad about the idiotic assumptions of "modern" religions.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 Name these assumptions.
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker I'd need to fill several pages of youtube with all of them, so here are just a few examples:
-Their religion is the one and absolute truth.
-The Earth is 6000 years old.
-Man was created by some deity.
-Earth is flat.
-God exists, which really can only be believed on faith alone since no evidence for a deity exists...
-Heaven.
-Hell.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 That is stuff you don't believe how in the bloddy twats can you say that it isn't true. Also where in the Bible does it say the world is flat or the Earth is 6000 years old. It doesn't say anything like that. Now you really are pulling things from your ass.
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker The Bible claims "God ressts/sits over the circle of the Earth", in the original Bible, in Hebrew, a different word for platter was used, never did it even imply the Earth was a sphere.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 The circle of the Earth....The Earth is round....The solar system and galaxy reside in a circle shape. He doesn't have to say sphere. How did it even know the Earth is a circle people said it was flat and some thught it just dropped of like a square.
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker The original Bible, in hebrew, used a synonym for platter.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 Doesn't mean the world is flat. The Galaxy is literally the shape of a platter!
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker Yes, it means Exactly that it is flat. How else would you interpret the word "platter?"
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 /watch?v=NxIsKcdy3Jk
Do you feel something listening to that? I can feel it. How? Soul? Maybe. lol I know music personally makes me feel so much there has to be something more.
Platter as in round and you still haven't shown me any proof. lol
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker Read the bible in hebrew then. I suggest you learn hebrew/get someone who can read hebrew to translate it tho :P
Helge129 6 months ago
@UndercoverCracker About the music: Not really. I don't usually listen to music with voice anyway.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 I listen to both and I feel it in my soul I tell you!!
UndercoverCracker 6 months ago
Comment removed
Lisztman88 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 This is such a simple misunderstanding among so many people. The new testament holds itself as a historically accurate document and there is a wealth of information on the issue, some even from secular scholars. Anyone not willing to research this honestly is being intellectually dishonest to themselves.
Lisztman88 5 months ago
@Lisztman88 "The new testament holds itself as a historically accurate document "
No it doesn't. Sure, there are a few accurate elements (Jerusalem did, in fact, exist), but the majority of the text is nonsense.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
I recommend that you should look into it more. There are alot of details and towns that are in scripture that are historically accurate. Such as the washing of feet before a party for example, and Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist.
If I said Obama moved to your neighbourhood last week, you'd probably know that I was lieing.
The Bible says Jesus moved to Capernaum for a time, so tell me, how do you explain the existance of believers in Capernaum?
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow "There are alot of details and towns that are in scripture that are historically accurate."
Of course there are - we know those places existed, and the Bible was written at those times. That does not, however, substantiate grandiose claims about otherwise impossible events.
Just because New York exists does not mean Spider-Man is real, and future historians would be loathe to accept written text as sufficient evidence that he was.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
*sigh* I hope future historians take context into account. But I bet they do base alot of their decisions on written text, because there would be little to no other way of knowing ancient history.
& because Jesus isn't the first prophet from Isreal to have done miracles and had them documented, it means repeatability also stands on the side of the miracles.
Again, without a motivation, or a good counter explanation for the things they claim to have seen, disbelief is weak.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow "because Jesus isn't the first prophet from Isreal to have done miracles and had them documented, it means repeatability also stands on the side of the miracles."
It's a good thing you aren't a scientist.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
Why? Because I believe peer reviews and don't assume things are lies or conspiracies?
Miracles are repeated often in the Bible, and almost always infront of other people. Now, I could assume that all of them are lies, but then again I COULD assume that there's a big conspiracy amongst scientists and that all th evidence for evolution was manipulated and planted by anti-christian scientists.
Just because you can make up a conspiracy doesn't make you rational.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow but you are starting from the unproven position that the bible is accurate...but that aside, I'm curious..exactly how many scientists do you think are involved in this conspiracy?
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
You say unproven, there's so many accurate details in the 66 books and letters of the Bible (which were wrote by multiple people throguhout history) apart from the maybe first and second chapters of Genesis if I give you the benefit of the doubt, that I have little reason to single out the miracles just because I think they aren't possible.
And ontop of that, there's no motivation in context for them to lie.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
I don't believe there is a conspiracy, I was merely pointing out that calling lies or conspiracy is an assumption based on events that you were simply not there to witness.
I don't see how it's more likely that multiple sources from throughout history are more likely to be lies than a group of scientists couped away from the public eye doing tests that the multitude wouldn't even understand.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow I'll give you one thing, you're very good at insinuating without actually committing to a statement, but for you to insinuate that it is possible for...wait for it... tens of thousands of molecular biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, palaentologists, evolutionary biologists from all around the world to somehow lie and cover-up for each other demonstrates just how little you know about how science works. It would be much easier for superstitious men, working cont.....
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow cont...mostly from hearsay, many years later to embelish the stories. You know David Koresh's followers claimed he performed miracles. Benny Hinn does it every day. Now i do not doubt for a minute that there is factual information in the bible..names, places, but when the whole world to these people was the middle east and the politics of the day..and lets face it, there were some serious politics...well...why not invent a hero? For the record, I've read many religious..cont..
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
Hearsay? That's only the common assumption. The book of Luke is in the context of a message sent to a man called Theophilus, from apparantly Luke, who claims to have got his sources from first hand witnesses.
And the letters by the apostles are dated from only 10 to 20 years after Jesus' death atleast.
There's so much I've already told the last guy in terms of context and such that I honestly can't be bothered to repeat it.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
This is a science video not a mythology video?
What does the christian myth have to do with organic chemistry?
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985
If abiogenesis is science, it's a pretty loose definition of science.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
Abiogenesis is fact - just last year in 2010 Craig Venter & co inserted a wholly artificial chromosome into a bacterial cell and thus created the first artificial life form (a.k.a "dial-a-genome").
-talk origins web site
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985
Sounds more like intelligent design to me.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
What happened was they recreated the conditions and and added the chemical compounds it took on its own from there naturally.
In order for an intelligent designer to do it you have to give it an identity and present the designer for testing.
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheMrgoku1985
They had to assemble the chromosome themselves, an artifical chromosome is complex and apparantly they didn't even put the whole of that together themselves (it was made up of several gene sequences from yeast).
Putting a man-made chromosome into a cell barely constitutes life coming from non-life naturally without intelligent help.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow
Look it up yourself that not what happened.
Every time this is brought up people keep trying to fight facts.
It took naturaly all they did was recreate the environment that was around and it took naturally,
after that all that is needed is TIME.
Talk oregins web site
TheMrgoku1985 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow "....a message sent to a man called Theophilus, from apparantly Luke, who claims to have got his sources from first hand witnesses." I don't know what your definition of hearsay is but that is hearsay.
10 to 20 years after Jesus' death? Why wait that long? Why, when all the alleged miracles were happening was someone not recording it. I mean, here was the son of god, healing the sick, walking on water, turning water into wine etc and everyone just said ," Meh."? cont...
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
Writing down eye witness testimony is hearsay?... If that's hearsay, people rely on written eye witness testimony all the time.
There very well might have been more earlier letters and records that simply didn't make it to today, infact it only makes sense to assume there were atleast earlier letters. How else would they communicate with the churches when away?
And if the miracles hadn't happened amongst these churches, who are they believing in? What are they believing?
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow you know David Koresh's followers claimed he performed miracles? Look, you andI are never going to agree. Your burden of proof is clearly much much lower than mine. I guess that why they call it faith. I also think someone at your age should expand their worldview, educate themselves about topics they flippantly dismiss so that thier decisions and opinions are informed. Good luck to you.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
I don't know much about this David Koresh, but I wouldn't doubt it if he did miracles. However, I trust who I choose to trust for reasons that I find trustworthy. Even non believers can do miracles nowadays (science).
I think you underestimate how much I have looked into things, which is understandable, considering you haven't heard all my replies or all my arguments because I don't have time to repeat them all.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow cont...Please. More likely, when the leader of the cult disappeared, these people were out of a job, living of the goodwill of their duped faithful so set about making a legend. Its more plausible than walking on water.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow cont 2..texts. I believe that in order to make informed comments about a subject you need to actually do a bit of research, otherwise you are speaking from a position of ignorance. I suggest that in your next 20 years kid, you maybe study up on how the scientific world operates so that you can make informed insinuations in the future.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uknowispeaksense
"I believe that in order to make informed comments about a subject you need to actually do a bit of research"
And the same to you with the Bible and hebrew history. Ofcourse you should also take time considering context, because without considering it knowledge is useless.
TheColaGoodfellow 3 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
NoooooO!
Not the fail comparison of the Bible to Harry Potter!
Do you have any understanding of context? History has shown that the Bible has documented acts of God over the course of 1000 years, by around 30 different people throughout history. But Harry Potter was wrote by one writer!
At best Creation & the flood (aka 1 book out of all the 66) have been proven to need reinterpretation. That leaves 65 left with tons of evidence for their historical accuracy.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow "History has shown that the Bible has documented acts of God over the course of 1000 years"
No it hasn't.
"That leaves 65 left with tons of evidence for their historical accuracy."
Again, where's the evidence?
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
Unless you think a 1000 year old man wrote all the books and letters of the Bible, the different events were documented by different people in different periods of isrealite history. Chances that every single one decided to lie about miracles is rediculous.
It refers to many proven real people, places (people lived there) and wars. The miracles all occur in public places. It's so specific and so much is true that if the events had never occured, the locals would have known.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Hi there. The bible was written by many authors at different times. Any idea how all the books came together to form one book?
ResidentRetro 4 months ago
@ResidentRetro
Apparantly the Council of Carthage accepted the combination of books and letters as we know it as being the god breathed ones (Why? i don't know, but I'm always open to the possibility that apocryphal books and letters could be God breathed also).
And then at some point they started started writing them as one book.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
Actually, a few miracles did happen in less public situations, but most in teh public eye.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow And what evidence can you present to substantiate this claim?
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
I don't know if you saw the other comment, but I'm not sure where to begin.
Look up dating the bible on wikipedia. It has sources.
To a degree you have to take words and things in context, which sometimes means taking them as evidence of reliability or a lack of in and of themselves. Example: An author says their book is meant to be fictional, from this we know it is.
If Jesus never went to Capernaum, why did the people of Capernaum accept the Bibles claim that he did?
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow To the best of my understanding, there's very little contention among historians that Jesus actually existed. What I'm looking for is evidence that miracles occurred. Thus far, no such claim has been substantiated. Unfortunately, any miracle "documented" in the Bible is highly suspect - particularly those surrounding Jesus, as the gospels weren't written until several decades after his supposed death and resurrection. That renders the claims unresolvable, at best.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
There's a handfull of scholars who try and make Jesus look like he never existed, but the last time I checked they were few, and the common opinion is that Jesus atleast existed.
A good point to make is that there's no real motivation for them to lie either.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow "A good point to make is that there's no real motivation for them to lie either."
That's not sufficient justification to believe any claim, especially not one as outlandish as miraculous occurrences. By that rationale, we should believe all claims put forth for the existence of aliens, bigfoot, nessie, el chupacabra, etc. We don't just believe any claim that comes forth, even if the claimant has no motivation to lie. Hence, we expect evidence to support the claim.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
"By that rationale, we should believe all claims put forth for the existence of aliens, bigfoot, nessie, el chupacabra"
Again, you aren't considering context. Most alien abductions occur during the night and are thus suceptible to merely being dreams. Bigfoot, Nessie and Aliens etc are never or very rarely seen in public, unlike Jesus who was apparantly public almost his entire life.
In court of law, it wont be easy to jail a man without a motive.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TheColaGoodfellow I beg to differ, and suggest that YOU aren't considering context. Again I point out that the "documentation" of Jesus' life came several decades AFTER his death. Given that the miracles in the synoptic gospels are, at best, second-hand accounts presented decades after the fact and completely uncorroborated by any documents outside the Bible, there is literally no reason to accept them at face value.
In a court of law, it won't be easy to jail a man on second-hand hearsay.
TrevorBlack79 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
"several decades"
Actually, the gospel of Mark is now dated definatly around the year 70, only 30-40 years after his death.
If they all used hearsay, they used very good hearsay, because alot of the same stories appear in each one, just sometimes in different orders in time.
The letters of the apostles are dated at even earlier times, and also believing Jesus did miracles & died on the cross. The letters of the apostles are dated as early as year 50, only 10-20 years after.
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79
Plus, from what I've researched, the actual dates used are put that way in an anti-christian interpretation on purpose, because they assume Jesus didn't predict the destruction of the temple, so they say Luke was written after it was destroyed (because it's the only way an atheist could explain the prediction).
TheColaGoodfellow 4 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Most people in that time period could not read or write. The most common way to pass on a story or bit of information was by word of mouth. As time progressed some of the Apostles were able to get a hold of scribes to either relay their thoughts via a letter or to keep records of what they experienced or witnessed. Considering their fates, their refusal to renounce their faith in Jesus Christ, and threats of torture and death they must have witnessed the super-natural.
03chrisv 1 month ago
@Creationcreed Ah, but wait... I'm almost breaking my own rule already. First tell me that you value truth more than you value "faith", or else it's pointless for me to talk with you. If faith matters more to you than logic and truth, then God bless your lil' pea-picking heart, but you and I could never have a decent conversation, so it's best if we just end it here.
Crunchy68 11 months ago
@Crunchy68 U have faith that I am really a person who believes in God, and that you are more knowledgable about the Bible than I, without evidence btw. U can apply it to all aspect of life. Christian don't just jump into something with logic. If you know you hve 2 jump(50,000ft) off a plane, you logically put on a parachute(Jesus Christ = no hell). Everyone uses some logic in everyday life, and yes there are some who follow blindly(that includes atheism).
Creationcreed 11 months ago
@Creationcreed But still... if you had to choose between something you could see and prove to be true vs. something your religion taught you which was in direct opposition to it, would you choose the truth, or your religion?
And please don't say your religion could logically never make a mistake. Please just imagine for a moment the possibility that it could. If it COULD be wrong, which would be more important to you?
Crunchy68 11 months ago
@Crunchy68 God created us in His image: emotion, a mind, freewill, ability to reason, use logic, and observe. I do not observe the world around me and say "Oh, no one created this!" And evolution is far from reality from what I can observe as well, at least not in the darwinian sense. Change happens within all animal kinds, but not the kind where matter to single to human being. Not even big bang without a catalyst. A line of 100 dominos don't fall on their own.