ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars .
@moroney1 HOWEVER, Science would be the appropriate field to answer it.
You know, just because you say "Science cannot answer it all" does not mean science can't answer it. What science does is work towards understanding and discoverying.
Did you know that humans didn't know that Earth revolved around the sun until SCIENCE showed it did?
@moroney1 I was hoping you would've said Hey, good point; obvious point; logical point. Addressing my reply directly would've been a more appropriate response.
@moroney1 Science can propose theories that can actually be tested and accordingly accepted or refuted. That's infinitely more than any mythological construct could ever do and has ever done. That aside, there are already scientific theories about the origin of the universe and each one of them makes infinitely more sense than "god did it."
How exactly can the Big Bang be tested? or any other theory about the origin universe?
Everything that begins to exist needs a first cause, as does the universe. The only way this can not become an infiniate regress would be if the universe was created by an uncaused cause, a first cause. You could call that cause God.
@moroney1 The fact that a phenomenon such as the Big Bang cannot be replicated in a lab doesn't mean its implications cannot be tested. Much the same way, the fact that we can't fully replicate nuclear fusion yet doesn't mean that it doesn't occur within stars.
@moroney1 Oh, and the cosmological argument makes very little sense. You're positing an uncaused cause to exit your infinite loop, but do so entirely arbitrarily. I remove your god and and contend that quantum fluctuations in a zero-point energy system be considered the first cause. That requires no higher power or intelligence and, in accordance with Occam's razor, I win. Incidentally, this is precisely the most widely accepted theory about the origin of the universe. Your god is dead.
@Kalevala87 I don't believe in God at present lol. But I do not like the arrogance and ad hominam attacks by many atheists when people simply ask the question, what caused the universe? You yourself replied to me stating that scietific theory is best because it can be tested and then accordingly accepted, but when I asked you about how you could test the Big Bang you said you could not. Surely thats a double standard on your part?
@moroney1 When did I say that? Where? I said the fact that we can't replicate the Big Bang doesn't mean we can't test the theory. Replicating a phenomenon and studying it are very different things in science. Saying that modern science has the potential to explain the universe without the need to postulate a metaphysical reality is not arrogance, it's the pure and simple truth. That includes the origin of the universe. A god would actually only confuse things, as it's untestable.
@Kalevala87 ''Science can propose theories that can actually be tested and accordingly accepted or refuted''
So how can we test if the Big Bang is true, or where is the evidence about its existance, and what existed before the big bang, what caused it? Please dont take this as some kind of persinal attack, I'm only curious.
@moroney1 being testable means making useful predictions.Theories are not just statements about the past, but explanation of how our universe works, when you say "this" is the way our universe started, well, that claim, MUST provide predictions...
@moroney1 We're not sure what caused the big bang, but it's important that you don't make the assumption that because we don't know right now, science can never find out.
@moroney1 having faith in science, is having faith in our ability to understand, not fully understand, but to understand more than we did before, which is a very useful one, and over history, it has been proven to be quite right. there is always capacity for us to understand.science is not just factual statements, it's a way, that each part of it can be reasoned.
Not really. We can use the various scientific disciplines to make accurate predictions. For example, look at the big bang: We don't know exactly how or why is happened, but we can make reasonable predictions based on the rate at which the universe is expanding, distribution of elements throughout the universe, background radiation, etc, and these predictions end up being incredibly accurate when put to the test.
@moroney1 Saying someone has faith in science is like saying someone has faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow, despite the fact that we can accurately model the elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun. All data points to it rising tomorrow. Faith isn't necessary.
@RevolverUnit No thats a category error. Having faith in the sun isnt really faith at all, but using the evidnece of experiencing the sun coming up every other day. But saying science will find out what is behind the Big Bang is having faith in the method. Im no Bible thumper, but many atheists have a fatih like arrogance that they are oblivious too
@moroney1 Well, let's just say we don't know yet, but, the strict casualty you seem to believe here (maybe you do, I don't know) is something that is still open for debate, you know there are things that have no cause behind them... but it's all fascinating to think about it, and not knowing it is very cool!
@moroney1 the atheist proposition, that is saying "there is no reason to believe in god" still remains true, no evidence, and god is often, not clearly defined.and I know some atheists are... well too sure.My opinion is that we must take the "I don't know" position as a valid and useful position in what we believe.
@sinachiniforoosh Youve made your own definiton of atheism there. Atheism is lack of beleif in God, thats it, not no reason to beleive based on no evidence, that isnt the definition
@moroney1 I didn't define atheism, I just said what atheists claim, which leads to a lack of believe in god, as a lack of belief in many other stuff...
@sinachiniforoosh Atheism is beleieivng there is no God, that kind of certainty is however I would think a bit delusional especially given our small knowledge abotthe origin of the univers, one can say organized religon is evidently false, or that they do not know if there issomething else, but to claim there is no God is a bit too concrete
@moroney1 first of all,atheism is the lack of belief in god's existence,not a belief in god's lack of existence!I know some people hold the position you just mentioned,but that is not atheism.However,in science & philosophy,it's always said to assume the existence of as less things as possible.In other words,"nothing exists until proven to exist."this is a very familiar principle,of which many other things derive, like "no one's guilty until proven to be guilty"which is as you know a human right
@moroney1 first of all,atheism is the lack of belief in god's existence,not a belief in god's lack of existence!I know some people hold the position you just mentioned,but that is not atheism.However,in science & philosophy,it's always said to assume the existence of as less things as possible.In other words,"nothing exists until proven to exist."this is a very familiar principle,of which many other things derive, like "no one's guilty until proven to be guilty"which is as you know a human right
@sinachiniforoosh Well we know from youtube that atheists laugh at theists with a rather mean streak claiming there is n God. Lack of belief in something means you do not beleive, it's semaNTICS TO COP OUT AND SAY THAT ATHEISTS DO NO HOLD A WORLDVIEW THAT THERE IS NO GOD, Its equally a cop out to assert that given the fact that we dont know what STARTED THE BIG BANG
@moroney1 what's the caps lock about?chill out.Youtube atheists are not the definition of atheist!atheists can be very different.And the word "start" is defined in a frame of time, but before big bang there was no time.and I don't want to start the "what was there before the big bang" discussion(again,"before" needs time.).And for me,atheism is not much of my worldview,my worldview is most affected by what I know about how the world is,not how it doesn't seem to be.I have an exam tomorrow,bye.
@sinachiniforoosh Sorry i was typing so fast i hit the caps lock, thst message looks a mess lol, but again if the big bang came out of nothing how did it even occur?
@moroney1 well, I can explain it this way, it's like a video clip. The universe was played at the big bang.and it didn't need any (out of the universe) cause, it was inevitable.(the explosion of a gigantic amount of matter in a very small place is sort of inevitable) now it's not exactly like that, but the thing is the matter that makes up our universe has been there all the time, so it didn't "come" out of nothing.
@sinachiniforoosh But exactly how do you know that matter is eternal? Not long ago it was believed the universe was eternal, how do we know matter is?
@moroney1 well, eternal in what sense? that it has always existed, it has existed since the start of time, it's a fundamental property of our universe, that's what they say.and we don't need to know what something is in order to know its properties, in fact, looking for properties is a good start.There's no (agreed) definition for life, but living things have some properties (like metabolism, self-replication, etc.) and these are really interesting questions you know, but I say, let's find them.
@igotsachubby Actually matter can be created and can be destroyed, however, Energy is a force that cannot be created or destroyed. Nevertheless your point remains valid and indisputable in as much that there has always been a universe. The universe does not need a creator. There is no hole in your logic
@moroney1 agnosticism and gnosticism aren't mutually exclusive from atheism and theism. You can be an agnostic atheist ("I'm not sure there are any gods, but I don't believe there is a sufficient evidence to prove there is one."), an agnostic theist ("I'm not sure there is a god, but I believe there is one"), a gnostic atheist ("I know there isn't a God"), or a gnostic theist ("I know there is a God".)
@moroney1 And just to clarify, when I use the word "know" it's not referring to an absolute truth, but rather knowing in the most practical sense of the word.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 I can think of nothing that "Has to be supernatural" unless it is made up. The universe came into existence. You are extremely lucky to be here. Stop making shit up! and Dance.
@Mogley52 look up membrane theory. answers all possible questions involving ex nihilo genesis in a macroscopic sense. Argument from causation still doesn't work, sorry.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived if their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. This article will also explain the scientific impossibility of life evolving into existence.
A creationist is someone that acknowledges that there is someone more advanced than us out there that makes our knowledge look primitive. You reject the notion, therefore rejecting common sense. Infinite time and space would evolve things you've never dreamed about. It's YOUR evolution. Don't limit what it can do. This is YOUR theory.
In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred according to the various theories of evolution, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position
24] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[25]
Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.[26][27]
(Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)
Twos up up going out for drinks with this guy! Mega interesting bloke zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Dawkins is a freakn saint to dedicate his life to educating the public about science. He is a brilliant scientist and a great person, I admire him immensely.
@ClumsyRoot because its a belief. you have to believe there is no God so therefor your belief becomes your God. your idea that there is no God controls you just as a religion does. atheism doesnt allow you to believe in heaven, angels, Jesus, or anything Godly. something good happens and it is just cause you cant say karma cause that is biblical. so you really dont have the freedom you say you do???
You seem a bit confused (e.g., karma is NOT a biblical concept), although you are correct when you say that lack of belief in God does affect one's life. For example, when I want something, I actually have to make an effort to get it--I don't kneel down and pray in hopes that some deity will do my work for me. And when something bad happens to me, I accept it and move on--I don't whine to some invisible being to save me from reality.
@ClumsyRoot true i didn't know the true meaning of karma, the karma i was actually talking of was just basic sowing and reaping. i don't remember exactly where in my bible its say that christians have to ask for things and not have to work to get them? its specifically says in genesis 3:19 that man will work by the sweat of his brow to get things that he wants. and you are very right about christians whining when reality hits people, they look for excuses and things to blame.
Jesus said, "Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours." (Mark 11:24-25)
It's not my desire to argue either. My point is that disbelief in God requires people to take responsibility for their own lives. We rise or fall on our own. No one is going to save us from ourselves.
As for whether or not "God loves me," I really couldn't care less. Being loved isn't the most important thing in the world to me.
@ClumsyRoot i dont mean to try and argue with you about this subject but i just wanted to talk to you about it a bit. you have very good points for your side because there aint many christians that are good examples of practicing what you preach and truthfully i havent been either i mean look at my username!!!! lol doeboyfresh???? the bible says how can you try and remove the speck from your brothers eye but you have a plank in your own. even though you dont believe God loves you.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually one has to believe that there are no GODS not just the one you happen to believe in, Don't forget the in another part of the planet you live in, others believe in their own GODS don't be so selfish!
I think a Tyrannosaurus Rex should crossbreed with a pig and make a new human race. Too many people think that humans are evolved but what about the Tyrannosaurus?
@FluffyFeralMarmot Johnny Morris told a story of building a patio in a herring-bone brick. He was having difficulty keeping the lines straight, so gave up as dusk came. He said the next morning he opened the curtains and there it was, grinning at him.
@martinwazhere re "You know what will be the " greatest show on earth?" When Mr. Richard Dawkins stand before Christ".... then make it happen please. We'd all like to watch Dawkins interview him...
@trident3b You will see it happen.... and i hope you don't be one caught dead with out christ because you will also have to stand before christ and be sentenced to eternal condemation.
@martinwazhere ok... but can you prove that to me? I don't want to see any old statement that makes you believe it, just provide me with HARD evidence. If you know this you MUST have HARD evidence because you are sure. Please just provide that, and I'll believe you. Meanwhile I'll just dream up my own god and get him to tell me that I will end up with 5 million randy angels waiting for me when my time comes to provide me with eternal love because I had the intelligence to question this crap.
@martinwazhere I am not an atheist by conviction, I am free, but it is the religious who try to sell their or even force their religion on to me, as you are really. What do you gain from this? If you wish to believe in something that is 100% unsubstatiated, then you are free to do so. I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you otherwise. There is simply far too much defective (and often evil) and down right ridiculous in ALL the religions, & so, without evidence I won't believe them. That's it.
@martinwazhere Isn't god all knowing? Doesn't he already know who will not believe? Why would he create creatures that he already knows are doomed for hell?
@martinwazhere Evidence needed. I could say "Those who reject Allah will be judged also and sentenced to hell". The silly claims of the Muslim are just as ridiculous as yours, until Muslims or Christians come up with some evidence.
THIS IS PROOF THAT ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS!!!
youtube. com/ watch?v =jqsRDD6kXWY
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
evolution is based on dubious propositions, with no tangible evidence of pre-cellular life forms ever existing, not living or fossil. The supposed precursor to complex cellular life never existed. The simplest cell requires 400 genes, 10000s of digital DNA data bits, mitochondria cell power source, replicating machinery.. Nothing less than a full compliment of machinery / form / process would allow a cell to function. There are NO cellular precursor forms = zero evidence = not science
@exchangeisno I was going to reply to your comment, but then I noticed you liked cold play. Faggot, go sing us a gay song, no one's interested in what a cold play fan has to say
@RageAgainstNWO Did you realize the term "fool" as used in Psalm 14 more properly translates to "impertinent person" or "irreverent person", so, all I can say is: "That's a very accurate description of an atheist." ;-)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hey you big blind people , read read read, 2 corinthians 4:4 and romans 1:20 no excuse !! get some spiritual glasses namely study the with your whole heart and mind no excuses no excuses no excuses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@21porcelaindoll Having looked at these passages I can't help but wonder what it is with them that's supposed to be so impressive. What is it with those Bible quotes that you think would convince rational and sceptical people who don't believe your holy book to have any special authority. If you want to convince sceptical people of the truth of your holy book citing passages isn't going to help you, you have to actually present evidence and reasoned argument for why your views are correct.
@TheHabbadasher Ah yes, but when the Soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the Garden and Peter took a sword and cut the ear from a soldier, Jesus turned to the soldier and said, 'Do you want a bandage for that?', the soldier replied, 'No thanks, I've got one 'ear'.
@CrixMakin: But nowadays I actually here his voice when I read the books...and it makes them even better :) But maybe that is because English is not my mother tongue ...
@neoflyboy: Well.. I think the show of plate tectonics is at least as fascinating :) ( I may be biased) - and taken together both shows are truly marvellous..
I've heard that width of north america analogy many times from RD, and the number keeps changing... I heard 6.8, i've heard 8, i've heard "less than 10", and I've heard something like 26
People like this guy because of his accent. I could never prove it but I'd still be willing to bet money that if it wasn' t for Mr. Dawkins' accent, no one would give a shit what he had to say.
You do realize of course... that where he is actually from (where he became famous) he doesn't have an accent any different than everyone else around him.
I'm sure that's not the case, his book doesn't talk yet it sells, his knowledge bypasses any dumb priest talking crap about a 7k old earth and a talking snake.
@uzimachi1 yes and its funny when he encounter the usual creationist that denie and lie about the evidence and then he smashes there argument u have to admit its intertaining like matt on atheist experiance
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 week ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY. Read this Internet article. Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. Given enough time, all of the energy becomes useless and the universe cannot be sustained. Even in an open system, there has to be an already existing energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 week ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 week ago
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 week ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 week ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 week ago
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 week ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, etc., etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars .
Mogley52 1 week ago
trumps?
thealltedrygt 1 month ago
chewbacca at 1:34
spittal69 2 months ago 2
it's funny how he has to resort to being rude to try to get his point across.
irhjma30000 4 months ago
@irhjma30000 How so?
Kalevala87 3 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins on Why Evolution Trumps Creationism
How did the universe occur though? Science cannot answer it at all
moroney1 4 months ago
@moroney1 HOWEVER, Science would be the appropriate field to answer it.
You know, just because you say "Science cannot answer it all" does not mean science can't answer it. What science does is work towards understanding and discoverying.
Did you know that humans didn't know that Earth revolved around the sun until SCIENCE showed it did?
YTChriscc88 4 months ago
@YTChriscc88 So you have faith in science?
moroney1 4 months ago
@moroney1 I was hoping you would've said Hey, good point; obvious point; logical point. Addressing my reply directly would've been a more appropriate response.
YTChriscc88 4 months ago
@moroney1 Science can propose theories that can actually be tested and accordingly accepted or refuted. That's infinitely more than any mythological construct could ever do and has ever done. That aside, there are already scientific theories about the origin of the universe and each one of them makes infinitely more sense than "god did it."
Kalevala87 3 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins on Why Evolution Trumps Creationism
@Kalevala87
How exactly can the Big Bang be tested? or any other theory about the origin universe?
Everything that begins to exist needs a first cause, as does the universe. The only way this can not become an infiniate regress would be if the universe was created by an uncaused cause, a first cause. You could call that cause God.
moroney1 3 months ago
@moroney1 The fact that a phenomenon such as the Big Bang cannot be replicated in a lab doesn't mean its implications cannot be tested. Much the same way, the fact that we can't fully replicate nuclear fusion yet doesn't mean that it doesn't occur within stars.
Kalevala87 3 months ago
Comment removed
Kalevala87 3 months ago
@moroney1 Oh, and the cosmological argument makes very little sense. You're positing an uncaused cause to exit your infinite loop, but do so entirely arbitrarily. I remove your god and and contend that quantum fluctuations in a zero-point energy system be considered the first cause. That requires no higher power or intelligence and, in accordance with Occam's razor, I win. Incidentally, this is precisely the most widely accepted theory about the origin of the universe. Your god is dead.
Kalevala87 3 months ago
@Kalevala87 I don't believe in God at present lol. But I do not like the arrogance and ad hominam attacks by many atheists when people simply ask the question, what caused the universe? You yourself replied to me stating that scietific theory is best because it can be tested and then accordingly accepted, but when I asked you about how you could test the Big Bang you said you could not. Surely thats a double standard on your part?
moroney1 3 months ago
@moroney1 When did I say that? Where? I said the fact that we can't replicate the Big Bang doesn't mean we can't test the theory. Replicating a phenomenon and studying it are very different things in science. Saying that modern science has the potential to explain the universe without the need to postulate a metaphysical reality is not arrogance, it's the pure and simple truth. That includes the origin of the universe. A god would actually only confuse things, as it's untestable.
Kalevala87 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kalevala87 ''Science can propose theories that can actually be tested and accordingly accepted or refuted''
So how can we test if the Big Bang is true, or where is the evidence about its existance, and what existed before the big bang, what caused it? Please dont take this as some kind of persinal attack, I'm only curious.
moroney1 3 months ago
@moroney1 being testable means making useful predictions.Theories are not just statements about the past, but explanation of how our universe works, when you say "this" is the way our universe started, well, that claim, MUST provide predictions...
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@sinachiniforoosh But how do we know what caused the big bang?
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 We're not sure what caused the big bang, but it's important that you don't make the assumption that because we don't know right now, science can never find out.
RevolverUnit 2 months ago
@RevolverUnit but tvh, isnt that having faith in science?
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 having faith in science, is having faith in our ability to understand, not fully understand, but to understand more than we did before, which is a very useful one, and over history, it has been proven to be quite right. there is always capacity for us to understand.science is not just factual statements, it's a way, that each part of it can be reasoned.
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
Not really. We can use the various scientific disciplines to make accurate predictions. For example, look at the big bang: We don't know exactly how or why is happened, but we can make reasonable predictions based on the rate at which the universe is expanding, distribution of elements throughout the universe, background radiation, etc, and these predictions end up being incredibly accurate when put to the test.
RevolverUnit 2 months ago
@moroney1 Saying someone has faith in science is like saying someone has faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow, despite the fact that we can accurately model the elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun. All data points to it rising tomorrow. Faith isn't necessary.
RevolverUnit 2 months ago
@RevolverUnit No thats a category error. Having faith in the sun isnt really faith at all, but using the evidnece of experiencing the sun coming up every other day. But saying science will find out what is behind the Big Bang is having faith in the method. Im no Bible thumper, but many atheists have a fatih like arrogance that they are oblivious too
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 Well, let's just say we don't know yet, but, the strict casualty you seem to believe here (maybe you do, I don't know) is something that is still open for debate, you know there are things that have no cause behind them... but it's all fascinating to think about it, and not knowing it is very cool!
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@sinachiniforoosh but can someone really be an atheist if that kindve thing is an uncertainty, an agnostic yes, but surely not an atheist
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 the atheist proposition, that is saying "there is no reason to believe in god" still remains true, no evidence, and god is often, not clearly defined.and I know some atheists are... well too sure.My opinion is that we must take the "I don't know" position as a valid and useful position in what we believe.
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@sinachiniforoosh Youve made your own definiton of atheism there. Atheism is lack of beleif in God, thats it, not no reason to beleive based on no evidence, that isnt the definition
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 I didn't define atheism, I just said what atheists claim, which leads to a lack of believe in god, as a lack of belief in many other stuff...
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@sinachiniforoosh Atheism is beleieivng there is no God, that kind of certainty is however I would think a bit delusional especially given our small knowledge abotthe origin of the univers, one can say organized religon is evidently false, or that they do not know if there issomething else, but to claim there is no God is a bit too concrete
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 first of all,atheism is the lack of belief in god's existence,not a belief in god's lack of existence!I know some people hold the position you just mentioned,but that is not atheism.However,in science & philosophy,it's always said to assume the existence of as less things as possible.In other words,"nothing exists until proven to exist."this is a very familiar principle,of which many other things derive, like "no one's guilty until proven to be guilty"which is as you know a human right
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@moroney1 first of all,atheism is the lack of belief in god's existence,not a belief in god's lack of existence!I know some people hold the position you just mentioned,but that is not atheism.However,in science & philosophy,it's always said to assume the existence of as less things as possible.In other words,"nothing exists until proven to exist."this is a very familiar principle,of which many other things derive, like "no one's guilty until proven to be guilty"which is as you know a human right
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@sinachiniforoosh Well we know from youtube that atheists laugh at theists with a rather mean streak claiming there is n God. Lack of belief in something means you do not beleive, it's semaNTICS TO COP OUT AND SAY THAT ATHEISTS DO NO HOLD A WORLDVIEW THAT THERE IS NO GOD, Its equally a cop out to assert that given the fact that we dont know what STARTED THE BIG BANG
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 what's the caps lock about?chill out.Youtube atheists are not the definition of atheist!atheists can be very different.And the word "start" is defined in a frame of time, but before big bang there was no time.and I don't want to start the "what was there before the big bang" discussion(again,"before" needs time.).And for me,atheism is not much of my worldview,my worldview is most affected by what I know about how the world is,not how it doesn't seem to be.I have an exam tomorrow,bye.
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@sinachiniforoosh Sorry i was typing so fast i hit the caps lock, thst message looks a mess lol, but again if the big bang came out of nothing how did it even occur?
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 well, I can explain it this way, it's like a video clip. The universe was played at the big bang.and it didn't need any (out of the universe) cause, it was inevitable.(the explosion of a gigantic amount of matter in a very small place is sort of inevitable) now it's not exactly like that, but the thing is the matter that makes up our universe has been there all the time, so it didn't "come" out of nothing.
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@sinachiniforoosh But exactly how do you know that matter is eternal? Not long ago it was believed the universe was eternal, how do we know matter is?
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1 well, eternal in what sense? that it has always existed, it has existed since the start of time, it's a fundamental property of our universe, that's what they say.and we don't need to know what something is in order to know its properties, in fact, looking for properties is a good start.There's no (agreed) definition for life, but living things have some properties (like metabolism, self-replication, etc.) and these are really interesting questions you know, but I say, let's find them.
sinachiniforoosh 2 months ago
@moroney1
Fact: matter cannot be created or destroyed
Fact: matter exists today
Therefore: it has always existed
Please find a hole in my logic
igotsachubby 1 month ago
@igotsachubby Actually matter can be created and can be destroyed, however, Energy is a force that cannot be created or destroyed. Nevertheless your point remains valid and indisputable in as much that there has always been a universe. The universe does not need a creator. There is no hole in your logic
neilmcintosh5150 1 week ago
@moroney1 agnosticism and gnosticism aren't mutually exclusive from atheism and theism. You can be an agnostic atheist ("I'm not sure there are any gods, but I don't believe there is a sufficient evidence to prove there is one."), an agnostic theist ("I'm not sure there is a god, but I believe there is one"), a gnostic atheist ("I know there isn't a God"), or a gnostic theist ("I know there is a God".)
RevolverUnit 2 months ago
@moroney1 And just to clarify, when I use the word "know" it's not referring to an absolute truth, but rather knowing in the most practical sense of the word.
RevolverUnit 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins, y u so awesome?
GnarlyNewEngland 4 months ago
i bet Richard is a Jack Daniels type of guy
painsey 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
2:53 to skip the intro
Riiye 6 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 yeah the universe might have a perceptual beginning but existence is another thing!
jammapcb 6 months ago
@Mogley52 By a big man in the sky? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
MrWigglyy 6 months ago in playlist atheism
@Mogley52 I can think of nothing that "Has to be supernatural" unless it is made up. The universe came into existence. You are extremely lucky to be here. Stop making shit up! and Dance.
wondergundy 5 months ago
@Mogley52 look up membrane theory. answers all possible questions involving ex nihilo genesis in a macroscopic sense. Argument from causation still doesn't work, sorry.
hollowloki 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived if their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins won't debate with creationists who are scientists, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institure for Creation Research. Ask him why? Read my Internet article: ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. This article will also explain the scientific impossibility of life evolving into existence.
Mogley52 6 months ago
2:56 for the BIG MAN to start.
xRA1D32x 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
A creationist is someone that acknowledges that there is someone more advanced than us out there that makes our knowledge look primitive. You reject the notion, therefore rejecting common sense. Infinite time and space would evolve things you've never dreamed about. It's YOUR evolution. Don't limit what it can do. This is YOUR theory.
Bobweiserbudman 7 months ago
Comment removed
Guttermouth 7 months ago
In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred according to the various theories of evolution, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position
LordEli 7 months ago
24] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[25]
Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.[26][27]
LordEli 7 months ago
3:04 to is when Richard Dawkins talks
warnut8 8 months ago 14
5 people went to jesus camp
MadMAn12gauge 8 months ago
2:52 to skip the inarticulate babble
ridonculous34 8 months ago 2
@ridonculous34 That was needlessly mean :/
Not everyone is as practiced as Dawkins at public speaking.
gggrow 8 months ago
The YouTube videos that Atheists avoid like fhe plague-------v
Bobweiserbudman 9 months ago
(Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)
Bobweiserbudman 9 months ago
RD starts at 3:02 - FF
sieracki001 9 months ago
Like this!
XUltra00 11 months ago
I was there.
Richard was awesome.
MichaelKingsfordGray 11 months ago 3
what an intelligent and articulate man
gtirjohn 1 year ago
Twos up up going out for drinks with this guy! Mega interesting bloke zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
TAER99 1 year ago
you can argue the whole your life but the fact is that evolution is a fact!
Leofox94 1 year ago 3
Same way Scientology qualifies as a religion
tienen23 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins is a freakn saint to dedicate his life to educating the public about science. He is a brilliant scientist and a great person, I admire him immensely.
anetchi 1 year ago
now boiled down to this? atheism is just another religion, a new idea. The world leader is richard dawkins, LOL
ElenDiana1 1 year ago
@ElenDiana1
Let's see...no supernatural beings, no doctrines, no holy men, no rites or rituals, no churches, no moral commandments...
Exactly how does atheism qualify as a religion?
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot because its a belief. you have to believe there is no God so therefor your belief becomes your God. your idea that there is no God controls you just as a religion does. atheism doesnt allow you to believe in heaven, angels, Jesus, or anything Godly. something good happens and it is just cause you cant say karma cause that is biblical. so you really dont have the freedom you say you do???
doeboyfresh863 1 year ago
@doeboyfresh863
You seem a bit confused (e.g., karma is NOT a biblical concept), although you are correct when you say that lack of belief in God does affect one's life. For example, when I want something, I actually have to make an effort to get it--I don't kneel down and pray in hopes that some deity will do my work for me. And when something bad happens to me, I accept it and move on--I don't whine to some invisible being to save me from reality.
Atheism is a symptom of growing up.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot true i didn't know the true meaning of karma, the karma i was actually talking of was just basic sowing and reaping. i don't remember exactly where in my bible its say that christians have to ask for things and not have to work to get them? its specifically says in genesis 3:19 that man will work by the sweat of his brow to get things that he wants. and you are very right about christians whining when reality hits people, they look for excuses and things to blame.
doeboyfresh863 1 year ago
@doeboyfresh863
Jesus said, "Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours." (Mark 11:24-25)
It's not my desire to argue either. My point is that disbelief in God requires people to take responsibility for their own lives. We rise or fall on our own. No one is going to save us from ourselves.
As for whether or not "God loves me," I really couldn't care less. Being loved isn't the most important thing in the world to me.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@ClumsyRoot i dont mean to try and argue with you about this subject but i just wanted to talk to you about it a bit. you have very good points for your side because there aint many christians that are good examples of practicing what you preach and truthfully i havent been either i mean look at my username!!!! lol doeboyfresh???? the bible says how can you try and remove the speck from your brothers eye but you have a plank in your own. even though you dont believe God loves you.
doeboyfresh863 1 year ago
@doeboyfresh863
What does your screen name mean? It didn't strike me as offensive.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
@doeboyfresh863
"you have to believe there is no God so therefor your belief becomes your God. "
That doesn't even make a shred of sense.
MomoTheBellyDancer 11 months ago 17
@MomoTheBellyDancer Believe what you will, but remember, not everyone is as stupid as you, therefore it does make sense to others
TheNomad1970 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheNomad1970
"not everyone is as stupid as you, therefore it does make sense to others"
Hmm. Nope. Still doesn't make sense. You know, maybe you could try THINKING before typing something here.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually one has to believe that there are no GODS not just the one you happen to believe in, Don't forget the in another part of the planet you live in, others believe in their own GODS don't be so selfish!
LeoR86 5 months ago
I think a Tyrannosaurus Rex should crossbreed with a pig and make a new human race. Too many people think that humans are evolved but what about the Tyrannosaurus?
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot
Cross a chimpanzee with a brick wall and you get a creationist.
jazzx251 1 year ago
@jazzx251 Brick walls can't breed.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot And creatonists shouldn't.
byteresistor 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot Johnny Morris told a story of building a patio in a herring-bone brick. He was having difficulty keeping the lines straight, so gave up as dusk came. He said the next morning he opened the curtains and there it was, grinning at him.
gamesbok 10 months ago
@gamesbok Finally someone who makes sense around here.
FluffyFeralMarmot 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FluffyFeralMarmot What on Earth are you on?
psychobartus 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You know what will be the " greatest show on earth?" When Mr. Richard Dawkins stand before Christ .
martinwazhere 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martinwazhere re "You know what will be the " greatest show on earth?" When Mr. Richard Dawkins stand before Christ".... then make it happen please. We'd all like to watch Dawkins interview him...
trident3b 1 year ago
@trident3b You will see it happen.... and i hope you don't be one caught dead with out christ because you will also have to stand before christ and be sentenced to eternal condemation.
read Romans 1: 21-32
martinwazhere 1 year ago
@martinwazhere ok... but can you prove that to me? I don't want to see any old statement that makes you believe it, just provide me with HARD evidence. If you know this you MUST have HARD evidence because you are sure. Please just provide that, and I'll believe you. Meanwhile I'll just dream up my own god and get him to tell me that I will end up with 5 million randy angels waiting for me when my time comes to provide me with eternal love because I had the intelligence to question this crap.
trident3b 1 year ago
@trident3b Romans 1: 16-32. Tell me : Why are you an atheist?
martinwazhere 1 year ago
@martinwazhere I am not an atheist by conviction, I am free, but it is the religious who try to sell their or even force their religion on to me, as you are really. What do you gain from this? If you wish to believe in something that is 100% unsubstatiated, then you are free to do so. I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you otherwise. There is simply far too much defective (and often evil) and down right ridiculous in ALL the religions, & so, without evidence I won't believe them. That's it.
trident3b 1 year ago
@martinwazhere Isn't god all knowing? Doesn't he already know who will not believe? Why would he create creatures that he already knows are doomed for hell?
It's a sadistic game.
BrainInSkull 1 year ago
@martinwazhere
You mad?
itarethetroll 1 year ago
@itarethetroll No i'm not... :) it will happen. and also those who reject christ will be judged also and sentenced to hell.
martinwazhere 1 year ago
@martinwazhere Evidence needed. I could say "Those who reject Allah will be judged also and sentenced to hell". The silly claims of the Muslim are just as ridiculous as yours, until Muslims or Christians come up with some evidence.
itarethetroll 1 year ago
@itarethetroll Romans 1: 16-32. Tell me : why are you an atheist?
martinwazhere 1 year ago
@martinwazhere Because there's no reason to believe in god(s). Unless you know one.
itarethetroll 1 year ago
@martinwazhere LOL that was funny. Its kinda sad though.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
Gollum introduced Dumbledork
RageAgainstNWO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS IS PROOF THAT ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS!!!
youtube. com/ watch?v =jqsRDD6kXWY
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
God bless You
JezusSlave 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
evolution is based on dubious propositions, with no tangible evidence of pre-cellular life forms ever existing, not living or fossil. The supposed precursor to complex cellular life never existed. The simplest cell requires 400 genes, 10000s of digital DNA data bits, mitochondria cell power source, replicating machinery.. Nothing less than a full compliment of machinery / form / process would allow a cell to function. There are NO cellular precursor forms = zero evidence = not science
cornwallsteve 1 year ago
there are evolution deniers in australia too richard! can you believe it?
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
Yes - I think he knows that. He appeared on Q & A a few months ago where Stephen Fields (I think that's his name) was on the panel being a dick.
jazzx251 1 year ago
@jazzx251 LOL because he cant be bothered with retarded evolution - deniers its a waste of his time
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
"It's like the sermon on the Mount." Well after all Dawkins is preaching.
TheTruthGardian 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Smug bastard puts himself in the place of Jesus for you fools. "This reminds me of the sermon on the mount "
RageAgainstNWO 1 year ago
@RageAgainstNWO
Go talk to a burning bush. We're not intersted in your faith except to laugh at it.
exchangeisno 1 year ago
@exchangeisno I was going to reply to your comment, but then I noticed you liked cold play. Faggot, go sing us a gay song, no one's interested in what a cold play fan has to say
RageAgainstNWO 1 year ago
@RageAgainstNWO Did you realize the term "fool" as used in Psalm 14 more properly translates to "impertinent person" or "irreverent person", so, all I can say is: "That's a very accurate description of an atheist." ;-)
steveb0503 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RageAgainstNWO
Yeah we know.... thats the joke.
snolan1990 1 year ago
if the announcer spoke a little higher, he'd sound like stewy when he's asking bryan about writing his novel...
lukeism2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey you big blind people , read read read, 2 corinthians 4:4 and romans 1:20 no excuse !! get some spiritual glasses namely study the with your whole heart and mind no excuses no excuses no excuses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21porcelaindoll 1 year ago
@21porcelaindoll Study what? Superstitious nonsense from the bronze age?
Einsteinian99 1 year ago 3
@21porcelaindoll Having looked at these passages I can't help but wonder what it is with them that's supposed to be so impressive. What is it with those Bible quotes that you think would convince rational and sceptical people who don't believe your holy book to have any special authority. If you want to convince sceptical people of the truth of your holy book citing passages isn't going to help you, you have to actually present evidence and reasoned argument for why your views are correct.
TheHabbadasher 1 year ago 3
@TheHabbadasher Ah yes, but when the Soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the Garden and Peter took a sword and cut the ear from a soldier, Jesus turned to the soldier and said, 'Do you want a bandage for that?', the soldier replied, 'No thanks, I've got one 'ear'.
gamesbok 9 months ago
@gamesbok Ah, well, that changes everyting, how could I not believe after hearing that :)
TheHabbadasher 9 months ago 2
God does exist.
SummerSunshine1988 1 year ago
@SummerSunshine1988 Probably not
Henrikswanstrom 1 year ago 2
@SummerSunshine1988 So does the Tooth Fairy. Why? Simply because I said so. Now Summer, do you recognize the flaw in this type of argument?
"That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
lormendi 1 year ago 5
evolution has:overwelming facts.Creationism has:no facts
mastaODI56 1 year ago 5
@mastaODI56 Evidence for "Creationism" : Something was "Created" so that it could evolve into ANYTHING in the first place.
RageAgainstNWO 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins is legendary
ThePalaeontologist 1 year ago 26
3:04 for anyone who wants to skip the MC
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
I'm fast forwarding past the announcer... and yet he still has the power to be boring.
JanisXAChambers 1 year ago
My brother dropped dead beside me @ 1:59 ... I didn't know boredom could kill a man!...
TAz69x 1 year ago
@Kriimlanga Given that he first became famous through his books, I'd agree that his accent had sweet FA to do with it.
CrixMakin 1 year ago
@CrixMakin: But nowadays I actually here his voice when I read the books...and it makes them even better :) But maybe that is because English is not my mother tongue ...
Nalae1978 1 year ago
Evolution the greatest show on Earth the only game in town! =)
neoflyboy 1 year ago 21
@neoflyboy: Well.. I think the show of plate tectonics is at least as fascinating :) ( I may be biased) - and taken together both shows are truly marvellous..
Nalae1978 1 year ago
I've heard that width of north america analogy many times from RD, and the number keeps changing... I heard 6.8, i've heard 8, i've heard "less than 10", and I've heard something like 26
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
@Nemesis000000
Well - my analogy is of a standard white piano key representing 6000 years.
The true age of the universe would be 750 000 piano keys. A piano that was 9 miles wide!
jazzx251 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People like this guy because of his accent. I could never prove it but I'd still be willing to bet money that if it wasn' t for Mr. Dawkins' accent, no one would give a shit what he had to say.
tgz1000 1 year ago
...considering how popular Richard is in England that doesn't make any sense. He is however a great speaker and keeps his cool.
graphicism 1 year ago 6
@tgz1000
You do realize of course... that where he is actually from (where he became famous) he doesn't have an accent any different than everyone else around him.
Think about it.
onestephen 1 year ago 3
I don't think that plays part in his belief system. Think about it
:P
mku17ra 1 year ago
I'm sure that's not the case, his book doesn't talk yet it sells, his knowledge bypasses any dumb priest talking crap about a 7k old earth and a talking snake.
uzimachi1 1 year ago
@uzimachi1 yes and its funny when he encounter the usual creationist that denie and lie about the evidence and then he smashes there argument u have to admit its intertaining like matt on atheist experiance
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@tgz1000
that's just ignorant, sir - he is liked because he is an intelligent man, not because of his accent
OKCFrog 1 year ago
@tgz1000 That is just stupid Christopher Hitchens has the same accent and so many people hate him.
You cannot prove it because it is just stupid and wrong people like him because they respect his work in evolutionary science.
People in England think he talks normal and you have an accent and they like him too.
pranays 1 year ago