Technically we ALL have to argue an agnostic viewpoint, since not a single one of us (not even those who truly feel it in their heart, sorry) can be absolutely sure either way, theist or not. I always assume that agnosticism is implied whenever someone says they don't believe in God. There's a difference between "not believing in God" and "believing there is no God".
"Atheists believe God doesn't exist." this video is perfect with that definition. From this video and several comments, I'm guessing that most atheists prefer it worded a different way: "Atheists do not hold the belief God exists".
I'm beginning to think NOBODY, even many atheists, knows the meaning of the word. The prefix 'a' essentially means "not." Thus "atheist" simply means "not theist."
A theist, by definition, believes (and for the record I have no problem with this word, whatever atheists do need to stop their bitching), believes in one or more deities who interact(s) with the universe in some way (the contrary would be deism). So anyone who does not believe this--deists, agnostics, apathetic--is an atheist. Okay?
It's amazing how many times people can explain the difference between atheists and agnostics and you still don't get it. Sad really. I am of the belief that there is no God, that is my belief but it is not one shared by all atheists. It is not a requisite for being an atheist. It's a really simple concept, why are you so confused?
@neolegionar You didn't really clarify what the metaphysics of atheism are but I know that most people say that the "religion" of atheism is science. If you're saying that you spit on science in general then I hope you don't use a cell phone, or trust the meteorologists on the weather channel, or use prescription glasses, or go to a doctor when you're sick. Because if you do, you're a hypocrite. That is, unless you say that some science is right and some is wrong. If so, please clarify.
Alright, now let's use the actual definition of atheist: a·the·ist; noun; a person who |denies| or |disbelieves| the existence of a supreme being or beings.
See how they use "disbelieves"? That's because it is passive and confusing to say that you believe that a negative is a negative.
Wrong = "I believe that JFK's assassination was not a conspiracy!"
Right = "I do not believe that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy"
Typical misuse of sentence structure, passive voice, and negatives.
@GuitarMannnnnn@GuitarMannnnnn but i still don't get what you mean. do you not believe JFK's assassination was a conspiracy because you have done your own investigation and found conclusive evidence Oswald acted alone? Or because, without sufficient evidence of a conspiracy, you accept a default hypothesis that Oswald acted alone. Or, you think there's lack of evidence either way. Or you, personally, just don't know whether it was or wasn't? Or, other?
To be an atheist you simply have to reject someone's version of a god. . All the other attributes you try to attach to atheism is bogus....Atheism is simply rejecting a claim of a version of a god nothing more...
Atheism is the rejection of someone's claim of a version of a god.......I encourage everyone to copy 0019josh7100's comment. Keeping copying it until this idiot gets it.
I don't like playing dictionary games because it defeats the point and just slants the argument in the wrong direction.
I am atheos, godless. I think that's a fairly unambiguous term, that everybody should be able to understand.
No matter what label one wishes to assign to me, won't change things; because it has no bearing on whether or not Jesus turned water into wine, died and then did a zombie thing, and controls the universe in his invisible space palace.
A belief and an opinion are different. Opinions require no support of any kind. A belief requires evidence or reason to why you believe.
"I like blue"... no evidence or reason needed.
"I believe the color blue exists"... provide me something that is blue.
I believe semantics can cloud the issue because definitions vary from person to person. So if you can cast some doubt on the words they are using, you may be able to cast doubt on the core issue.
The word "belief" is probably touchy because it's often assigned a religious connotation (i.e., religious beliefs).
Also, what about the "belief" that we simply haven't figured out the origin of the universe or meaning of life yet? What if the most intelligent human on Earth was not cognitively capable of explaining various phenomena (e.g., genetic mutation)? Is the only alternative to say "God did it" until we figured it out? Not understanding something doesn't confirm supernatural origins.
By the way you have no understanding of gnosticism and agnosticism. Those words are not exclusive from atheism and theism. Agnosticism only has to do with certainty. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist. Most atheists are agnostic as it is impossible to be a hundred percent certain that there is no God or anything for that matter.
They get worked up because you have no idea what you are talking about and you speak in a condescending voice. People get frustrated and annoyed when pretentious idiots talk down to them. This isn't some great mystery. Why do you think there is such a large movement against hipsters?
@SquallAKALeon 8) the world was created via a big bang by chance!! Assuming that there are 100 billion worlds that support life is an unprovable, unobservable assumption. It would be like me saying "Doctors used biological scientific methods to give a patient in a coma 0% chance of living. The patients family were praying for him and he pulled though, that's proof God exists". That would be an assumption. If the Goldie-Locks Zone stretches from Venus to Mars, why haven't we found intelligent
@SquallAKALeon 7) it hasn't become cancer or another, new disease. evolving & adapting occurs without the genesis of an entirely new disease. Fossils, again you were SURE that you had a fool-proof method of dating fossils until new fossils were being discovered of dinosaur bones that were not fossilized, leading your boys to say "ooops, maybe we need to have another look at how accurate our existing methods are and adapt them". As for Drake's equation, that too relies on the idea that the
@SquallAKALeon 6) completely isolated for thousands of years, even in today's globalised world they have only been observed aerially. They have NOT mixed with people, they have inter-breeded only among themselves (incest), yet they possess fully functioning human reproductive organs. Viruses, yes it's about out-breeding the competition, hence the reason that people can become taller, faster, stronger, but they are STILL people. AIDS has adapted, become more drug-resistant BUT it is still AIDS
@SquallAKALeon 5) still able to reproduce with eachother always will be, humans cannot reproduce with apes. So walking 5 feet might potentially mean that one can walk a mile, assuming walking 5 feet means it can fly is a huge assumption... oh and seeing a chicken fly 5 feet doesn't mean it can fly a mile either ;) As for African tribes not becoming a seperate species, there is much documented evidence of small tribal African and Amazonian communities that have been
@SquallAKALeon 4) that they can't explain how something can be created from complete "nothingness". I mean up until a month ago you were SURE that nothing could move faster than the speed of light! No ifs, no buts, you were sure. As for observed instances of speciation, one of the most exciting examples evolutionists use is that of the apple maggot fly, traits changed (in the same way that traits change between human races) but complete reproductive isolation has not been observed. They are
@SquallAKALeon 3) the world as we know it. Now scientists admit that that's about as likely as a tornado creating the colloseum (a practical mathematical impossibility), but let's leave that aside for a while, not enough antimatter exists in out solar system to create that sort of thing. When asked to explain what happened to the antimatter scientists say "we assume it disintegrated after the collision". That my friend is a leap of faith, just as in evolution. Not to mention the fact
@SquallAKALeon 2) reproduce with species of the same sex? I mean we evolved from apes but two men can't reproduce? As for "educated guesses", finding very few pieces and assuming it creates a "red ball" is exactly what evolutionists and big bang theorists do. Evolving to the extent where a new species entirely is created, that cannot reproduce with its original source, is not a question of a few "traits" altering. As for the big bang we are told that matter collided with antimatter to cause
@SquallAKALeon 1) So what if we don't have every single transitional fossil? Barely any exist to point to what you claim. Fossils are incredibly rare! Nobody doubts natural selection, what is doubted that the human species evolved from apes. Humans 10,000 years ago would have been able to reproduce with humans in 10,000 years from now, despite the fact that in 10,000 years they might be taller, faster, etc. According to biologists homosexuality is innate, so why have we evolved to be able to...
1) Barely any transitional fossiles? We have DOZENS from JUST recent HUNAN ancestry, and tons upon tons more for other animals. While Fossiles are relatively rare, you give anything, however rare, 3billion years to work with and you can amass quite the collection.
2) There are more than enough to infer common ancestry, but even if we had no fossiles evolution theory places more weight on genetics anyway, as evolution via natural selection is at its core a allele frequencies over time.
But just to put the fossile thing to rest, watch: /watch?v=QUn_ikSlFKE
3) Were you not paying attention to my other post? Speciation requires a large enough population to be isolated from the rest of the gene pool for thousands of generations, not years, generations, to occur. Humans move around too much for such isolation to occure, and people from 10thousand years ago aren't enough generations removed for us to speciate from them.
4) You'd need to go back about 200thousand years before you come close enough to speciation for infertility to arise, and even then you might still get infertile hybrids.
I have no idea what you're getting at about homosexuality, though I suspect you're under a misunderstanding about evolution. Individuals do not evolve, we are NOT pokemon. POPULATIONS evolve.
5) You're thinking of the Lamarrkian model of evolution, which was long ago replaced by the more accurate Darwinian model, which itself has been refined to be more accurate over time, like sharpening the blade of a knife.
As for what benefit homosexuality has evolutionarily, I'm not a scientist, but things I've heard has it that the trait is due mostly from hormones absorbed from the mother before birth.
6) The same hormones make the homosexuals' sisters more fertile, facilitating better and faster reproduction, while keeping closely related males away from them to prevent inbreeding.
You painfully misunderstand speciation as well, probably under the common misconception that to speciate a dog would have to give birth to a 'nondog'. This is a common problem mostly related to the human minds' desire organized everything into hard categories, but evolution doesn't work that way.
7) A POPULATION can only be considered 'nondogs' once it stops being able to reproduce with a POPULATION of what WE call 'dogs'.
Imagine a bar, and at the far left side it is colored solid dark black, though as you draw your eyes over it from left to right, the bar gradually transitions between lighter shades of black, to what we would call gray, and further on until you reach the right side of the bar, where the gray has gotten lighter and lighter until it is off-white,
8) and finally lighter still until the very end is bright white. The mind wants to zero in on the points at the far left, the middle, and the right, because it can put those into the hard categories of 'black', 'gray', and 'white', but the bar isn't actually divided like that, it slowly transitions from black to gray to white, and that's a good approximation of how speciation works.
9) I have absolutely know idea what you are talking about when it comes to the whole anti-matter thing, and to be honest would not be certain if either you yourself or some other creationist either made it all up or took something a real scientist said and intentially or accidentally misinterpritted it, or took something that's grossly out of date and accidentally or intentionally misinterpreted it,
10) or what. Last I heard, we're unsure of what happened before some miniscule fractions of a second after the big bang because physics as we known them did not work the way they do now, as space and TIME were both compressed into a single, extremely dence and hot point, and it's only after those fractions of a second when physics begin to work as we known them now to work that we begin to understand what was going on.
11) 'Blah blah Nothingness straw-man.' As has been explained to me before, no one but creationists believed anything came from nothing. When a physists says 'nothing' they are being playful with language, because what was there is extremely difficult to describe with our limited vocabular. Remember, all of TIME and SPACE was contained in a single small, extremely hot and extremely dense point,
12) and we know that enough densely compacted mass can create gravitational fields that do funny things with space-time, so imagine the funny things that were going on in such a point that contained ALL of space-time compacted into one point.
I have no idea what you're getting at with the 'moving faster than the speed of light' thing either.
13) The fly you mention under speciation is but one example of dozens of examples of observed speciation, and I'm not sure you understand what speciation means. 'Species' as defined among animals that reproduce sexually is based on the ability to produce offspring that can themselves reproduce. If offspring the only offspring produced are infertile hybrids, like mules or ligers, then the subjects are different species.
14) How do you know that humans can't reproduce with apes? No actual experiement has been done for various reasons, but humans and, say, chimpanzees, are more closely related to one another than donkeys and zebras, which are able to produce infertile hybrids (called a 'zonkey').
15) Gee, I wonder why walking five feet doesn't prove one can fly? Could it be because walking and flying require completely different mechanisms?? Whereas evolving and... evolving require the same mechanism because they are the exact same thing.
16) With reguards to African/Amazon tribes; as I said before, a mere few thousands years is not enough to time speciate. Constant contact with the outside world is not neccessary; contact even as little as once every few thousand years is enough to prevent them from splintering off far enough to speciate.
17) As for AIDS... AIDS isn't a virus, it's a syndrome (hence what the S at the end stands for). If you're referring to HIV, you're aware that HIV isn't just one virus, it's a collection of viral strains that all splintered off from each other grouped together because they all attack the immune system in symilar to identical fashion.
18) Same thing for influenza, the common cold. It's also why you have to get a different flu shot every year, because the medical community has to produce flu-shots based on what strain is going to be the big-hitter that year.
19) I have no idea why you think HIV would evolve into cancer. HIV is a virus, that's what the V stands for. Cancer refers to out of control cell-division. This is exactly like the straw-man argument that evolution says a dog should give birth to a cat; that is not anything remotely resembling how evolution actually works.
Back to fossiles, and I'm guessing you're talking about the fossile found by Mary Schweitzer back in the 90s.
20) Well, I'm afraid you're mistaken, as firstly Creationists loved to take poor Ms. Schweitzers PRELIMINARY annalysis and sensationalize it. Schweitzer believed she had found some kind of tissue in the fossil, not blood or hemogloban or anything like that, and she was later proven wrong, as what she believed to be tissue was just bacterial residue.
Why are you so obsessed with trying to straw-man me into believing in chance?
21) Especially since I believe Stephen Hawkings latest book suggested that the natural formation of universes is inevitable. I don't get why you think the universe has to be here by chance if not by a god. Claiming a chance occurrence implies that there is some other state that the Universe could be in, so where's your evidence that there is another state for the Universe to be in?
Your idea on Drake's equation is increadibly simplistic, like something a child would claim.
22) It's like saying that if only you and your wife live in the house, and someone ate your cookie, assuming your wife ate it is unprovable because you didn't observe her doing it. The figure of 100billion possible life-supporting worlds in the Milky Way is arived at by logical deduction of the available data, not by faith or guessing or anything like that. It's possible that it may not be wholly accurate, but it's as accurate as the data we have as our disposal.
23) And as for the Goldie-Locks zone, well AS FAR AS WE KNOW, liquid water is required for life to form, so the Goldie-Locks zone refers to the space from a star like Sol where water can be in a liquid state on an Earth-sized planet with an atmosphere. Water can remain liquid on an Earth-sized planet as close to a Sol-like star as Venus is, and as far away as half-way to Mars.
24) The reason Venus doesn't have life on it is because it has no liquid water, because the surface is too hot. The surface is, as you said, hotter than Mercury, because the tempreture is due to a run-away greenhouse effect, not because of proximity. If Venus' atmosphere was more like Earth's, allowing its surface to cool, it could very well have liquid water and thus support life of some form.
25) In other words, if the Earth were to suddenly move closer to the sun, it might be uncomfortable for current life on it, maybe even more than a lot of current forms of life could stand, but the Earth would hardly become a lifeless rock, and with enough time for evolution to run its cource new life better adabted to the tempreture would arise.
26) To close, the differnece between people of faith and people like me is that I'm willing to say I might be wrong, and change my opinion if I am proven wrong. But the thing about all of your arguments is that none of them prove the existence of YHWH, they just attempt to refute naturalistic explanations. That's not enough, you have to actually prove YHWH before I'd be willing to change my opinion on him.
27) Naturalistic explanations may not have 100% of the picture, but I find that they have more than enough of the picture for me to conclude that the Christian god is not in it. Maybe the deist god, but I doubt it, and ultimately as the deist god doesn't care about worship it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about it anyway.
Okay I have gone over all of your videos now, and have noticed one massive flaw, you attempt to credit vast amounts of belief to Atheism rather then what it actually is.
Atheism is the LACK of a belief in god and nothing more, the majority of your videos attack science and scientific theories, which is fine yet it still does not discredit Atheism, as they have no burden of proof.
2:44, my other comment your previous video mentioned that. I don't wish to insult you too much, but you are just rewording statements based on ambiguities within the English language, its not an intelligent argument.
2:05 Holy Sh*t this argument again? Okay, pretend (if you can) your a scientist (tricky right?) How exactly do you find evidence in existence that pre-dates the big bang and/or big crunch... Even taking into account whatever technological development we may have in the future...
@LivingInBadFaith ... we may never (probably never) find anything pre-dating the big bang/crunch, as if all matter and energy came together at a single point in the universe, all trace of what was would be rearranged by the act of the big bang itself. Therefore multiple theories among the scientific community (NOT the atheist community, please separate these in future, atheist=/=scientist) about the nature of existence before the big bang is perfectly warranted given the assumption that...
@LivingInBadFaith ... causal evidence must be found before one theory can be held as 'correct.' Here is one last question for you: Could your God (who is omnipotent, as I understand it) make a boulder so large even he couldn't lift it?
3:13 And more dishonesty. A/Gnosticism are positions of knowledge, A/Theism are positions of belief. They are not mutually exclusive. One can be agnostic and either a theist or atheist by simply admitting they don't know for sure.
3:21 You can be more clear on the topic by not being dishonest.
2:58 Imagine a an empty hole in the middle of a field. When an atheist says they 'do not believe in a god or gods' it's the same kind of negative belief as one would employ if they said 'the hole is empty.' When you say that we say 'we believe god does not exist,' it would be like saying 'the hole is full of nothingness.' These are not the same thing. You cannot remove the nothingness to fill the hole with something else, but you can fill an empty hole.
1:35 Because these 'alternative theories' have nothing to do with accepting or rejecting belief in deities. There is no reason one cannot believe both in a personal god and in, say, Big Bang cosmology.
2:07 You forget the ever-present third option: "I don't know."
2:44 Yes, I see that knocking down your own straw-man is very easy.
1:03 And the dishonesty begins. Theism is the belief in a personal god, or gods. Not all theists believe their gods are the creators of the Universe or are the best explanation for its creation. The ancient Greeks, for example, believed the Universe created the titans who in turn created the gods.
@SquallAKALeon to reject something you must take a fixed position, to take a fixed position in an argument you must believe that the points of the opposite argument are wrong! Atheism takes a definite position because it states with certainty that God "DOES NOT EXIST". They believe this, without a doubt, because they believe in counter arguments to the existence of God. Also evolution &the Big Bang theories have numerous holes in them, yet atheists still take a leap of faith to BELIEVE in them
No. Flat, no. You do not need to take a direct position on something to reject it. It's possible to just not care. I also reject the idea that the deist god exists, for example, though I don't really care if it does (as the deist god is non-interventional, so its existence doesn't even really matter).
And atheism need not take a positive stance. It is simply a lack of belief, thus one can be an atheist without even thinking about it. Babies are atheists, as they don't know anything about gods and thus can't believe in them. So are rocks, trees, and everything else. It's called 'implicit atheism.'
There need not be certainty in there either. This is called 'agnostic atheism.' I don't know for certain if deities exist or not, however I see no reason to believe they do, and will reject belief in them until I see reason to consider otherwise.
There is no faith involved in belief in evolution. There is more than enough evidence to decide that it is the best explanation for the complexity of life. Big Bang cosmology is a bit shakier but there is still more evidence to believe in that than in divine creation, and I'll go with that until a better model comes along; something that has evidence to back it up.
@SquallAKALeon A full set of transitional fossils has never been found so if i assume that a 100 piece puzzle exists but i can only find 20 pieces in sporadic order, it takes a huge leap of faith to assume that they equate to that puzzle. Furthermore, go to google and type in "how to disporve evolution using science". It's an ehow dot com article... enjoy
1) So what if we don't have every single transitional fossile? Evolution via natural selection is more about genetics than it is about bones. Besides that, let's take your puzzle analogy and think about it for a moment. With the pieces you have, you may not be able to tell exactly what it is, but you can make educated guesses, which is not at all the same thing as faith.
2) 'Faith' would be to say 'it's a picture of a red ball' without ever bothering to actually look at the puzzle, and hiding the pieces less someone else look at it to try and prove you wrong. THAT is faith.
3) Taking a look at the link you provided, and right off the bat they make a very common mistake; claiming that evolution cannot account for the diversity of species and that speciation has never been observed. I have something for you to google now; "Observed instances of speciation."
4) Besides that, this claim is like claiming you can walk five feet by putting one foot in front of the other, but you can't walk a mile doing the same thing. If a population continues to change over a long enough period of time they will eventually be considered a different species from wherever you started the count from.
5) On the second point, part of the reason Africans are 'not becoming a separate species' is because it's kind of impossible for a large enough population of humans to be cut off for the thousands of generations it would take to speciate.
6) We're flying all over the planet and interbreeding, and even the tribes in the deepest parts of africa are interbreeding with each other, and the ones on the perifery are interbreeding with the more civilized parts which are interbreeding with the rest of the world.
7) Shooting to the third point, drug-resistence for viruses/bacteria requires a high price in resources, resources that the non-resistant strains can put into reproducing out the resistence strains. Evolution isn't a race to the top like many people misunderstand it to be; it's about adapting to the enviroment and out-breeding the competition.
10) Also they mention the myth that fossiles date strata and strata dates fossiles. Certain fossiles which are known to only appear in particular layers of strata are sometimes use to 'quick date' a layer, but typically strata are dated radiometrically or by what strata are above and below them.
11) And lastly is the Mathmatical bunk. Apparently the author had never heard of Drake's Equation, which posits that there is potentially 100billion worlds in the Milkyway alone that could support life or have life. If you want to call 100billion worlds 'chance' be my guest.
12) Then there's the whole Goldie Locks zone BS, and of course they neglect to tell you that the 'Goldie Locks Zone' extends from as close as Venus to as far as half-way to Mars, and that's the conservative estimate. Not exactly a tiny bulls-eye, if you ask me.
@SquallAKALeon@SquallAKALeon 9) life on Venus? And that's assuming what you're saying is true because as far as i'm aware Venus has a more volatile environment than any other planet, it's surface is hotter than Mercury's.
13) And lastly, once life appeared on this planet it was a 100% garuntee that Natural Selection forces would do SOMETHING to it, be that survival and adaptation or extinction, all playing out for billions of years. To say getting where we are now was 'luck' is to count the hits after the shots have already been taken. If lottery numbers come up 1234 nobody will call it a 'lucky guess' if you count 1234 after the lotto-balls have already been counted.
8) When the enviroment is saturated with drugs, sacrificing reproductive efficiency to resist the drugs is advantageous, but as you're sacrificing reproductions when drugs are removed the resistant strain is quickly crowded out by the non-resistant strains.
9) Fourth point is the common BS about dating methods. Carbon isn't used for dating fossiles, as most fossiles are older than 50,000 years old, which is the limit for radiocarbon dating. When radiocarbon dating is use, as well as other forms of radiometric dating, it is reliably accurate WHEN USED PROPERLY.
Omng dude you don't have to have a theory of the beginning of the universe to be an atheist. . . Do you ever read your comments. . . Atheist simply rejects the notions of a version of a god. . You are being very deceptive . You try to attach all these straw men attributes to atheist just so you can make them look foolish. . The only thing atheist have in common is they reject the notions of a god. .
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)
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
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
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 structures, organs, reproductive system 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.
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 on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’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 and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's 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
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
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!
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.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT 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! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
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!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
The problem with the claim of "belief" being attributed to atheists is that it generally NOT an assertion, but the rejection of an assertion. It does NOT stand on its own. Granted you do make a case that has merits, but distorts the nature of the issue - which is a rejection of theistic claims of god. Yes, for some it is more than that...but the most the you can say about atheists as a group is the rejection of theistic notions...anything more and you are will probably be lying.
As I see it Atheism is either a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exists. One is a lack of belief and the other is a belief. Atheists may have all sorts of views about the beginning of the universe, but these are not encompassed in the definition of atheism. As lanzelots26 states, these things are part of an atheists world view, not part of the definition.
The dude in the vid just does not get it, does he?. Atheism though is just the lack of believe in the existence of a god. Everything else is part of my worldview. And of course being an atheist it follows logically that I assume certain things about the universe, but that is not part of atheism. Atheism is like a disposition for other views that complete my worldview (e.g skepticism, naturalism). Atheism is a very specific position to only one question (the existence of a god). Get it?
Well, if I said to you that I believe (without evidence) that you are really an alien lizard creature disguised as a human, sent here to destroy our civilization...then...maybe then you'd understand why atheists don't trust blind 'beliefs'.
If on the other hand you said you believed in evolution because, based on the scientific evidence and the human experience with breeding animals, that evolution as a process makes sense.
Then semantics matter because an apple isn't a orange!
No. And your reasoning and definitions in these two videos are wrong for the most part.
But just to entertain the idea for a bit... what IF atheism were a belief? What then?
It's funny, because you say so many atheists are talking about this, but in my experience the first salvo in this (hugely pointless) fight comes from theists claiming that atheism is a belief. Why is it so important for theists that atheism must be a belief?
And again you make a strawman argument by saying, that atheists propose, that god does not exist, which is false. Atheists are not believing the claim, that god does exist, because there has been no evidence to support that notion, but that does not mean, that atheists have blindly accepted the claim, that god does NOT exist. This claim would need evidence to support it, until then we don't believe it either.
What you described under "theism" is actually deism. Then also replace "alternative theories" with "science" (which is not "alternative", but the most reliable and well-working tool we have), also only, if your assumption about it would be for the sake of argument accepted.
Then your #1 and #2 is also false, because it is a strawman of the big bang science, which does not mean "ex nihilo", but from prior matter.
But even so: What the heck has the big bang theory to do with atheism?
TO reiterate others, almost all atheists are agnostic. If you take the trouble to ask one, they can explain to you that atheists gladly say we "don't know". In fact, almost all atheists would agree that there could be a God. We just don't have any solid evidence for one..
Moreover, we reject unfounded claims like God presented himself to a bunch of sheepherders over 3k years ago so that he could give us an ancient book to guide our lives today. (insert other moronic faith based examples here)
The reason why atheists say different things is because atheism is merely a unified lack of belief in God creating the universe. What other theories they describe in place of God are a matter of what they think there is the best evidence for.
Then you pervert the meaning of the word agnostic. The actual definition of the word means 'without knowledge.' EVERYONE is agnostic. Almost no atheist says that god absolutely does not exist . They merely lack the belief in his existence.
atheism is a lack of a beleif in god. logically, an agnostic is an atheist. suddenly, your argument is shit, oh wait that was from when you started talking.
...Since this entity used love to create the universe, & since love is the most important thing in reality 7 is the most powerful, then this external entity would have to be an entity of love (source of life itself), since love is social then its quite possible for this entity to speak to people personally & have people tell others about him after being expose to this entity directly. Paul & John wrote that they met this entity & they said it is love incarnate
...Since this external entity had to have accounted for EVERYTHING & thus would've had to account for the existance of our minds & will (A.K.A. the soul), then this very entity has to have more will & a more advanced mind that we humans have, which means that this entity would have to be more of a person than we are. Since love is able to move or change molecules slightly, then it is evidence that the creator of the universe used love to create...
... & since the universe is made of energy & matter & cause & effect relationships, which requires the existance of a causeless entity that is external to energy/ matter, then this external entity would have to be higher dimensional, & it would have to have the ability to build & sustain all the mechanical complexities of the universe, which means it would have to have built our minds since it had to account for the existance of EVERYTHING...
...since the universe is made of cause & effect relationships then the universe is like a domino trail of energy/ matter. Since it is impossible for infinite regression to exist with entities that require an external cause to move without a causeless cause trandsendant of energy/ matter (like something external to dominos to start the domino trail), then the mere existance of the universe is evidence of an entity that trandsends energy/ matter...
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL You said, "Show me the so called 'evidence'. Yes 'love' clearly exists, yes there is power/ strength ina state of love/ appreciation/ egolessness. BUT, there is 'NO' proof that there is a 'GOD'"
-Well if you look at energy/ matter you learn that it is impossible for energy & matter to move on its own without something external to them moving them in the first place...
It's pretty obvious that you have no interest in an intellectually honest debate. Your tact is transparent and greasy.
It's the only recourse for creationists. You can't prove your claim, so you have no choice but to try to DISprove the very DISbelief of your claim. It's that effort that constantly drives this type of intellectual dishonesty.
Atheism is a belief? Sure, about as much as NOT collecting baseball cards is a habit.
Another excellent refutation of the logic in your video is to point out non-creative Theism. Suppose a theistic religion proposes that God exists, but did not create the universe.
By your definition, these people would believe in God... and yet they would be atheists? How does that work?
Both your definitions of atheism and agnosticism are incorrect.
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is unknown or unknowable, NOT the lack of commitment. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
Atheism is not the belief that the universe was created by 'alternative theories'. An atheist can (and often does) simply answer 'I don't know' when asked 'How did the universe come into being." 'I don't know' is not an alternate theory.
Even with your rhetoric, your definition of atheism is incorrect: there were atheists long before people had a notion of 'universe'. In fact, there were even atheistic religions that believed the universe to be DESIGNED and CREATED by a non-god entity (such as Taoism).
Atheists will say that freed from religious thinking, we could, of course, speculate on the eventual existence of some sort of god-like entity and the ultimate origins of the ordered universe. Maybe you`ll say that this is more like agnosticism, and that atheists actually believe, without really knowing, that god is not a possibility at all. It is a valid distinction. But people usually confound what you`d call atheism and agnosticism, and the outrage you get here is a consequence of that.
The atheists point is that sacred texts are not valid basis for knowledge. That we should use logic, maths, history and science if we want to know something. From that we can speculate about things, but we need to free our reasoning from religious thinking. Religion is something to be explained as a human behaviour, not something to use in order to attain knowledge.
You are the one too obsessed with semantics and logical fallacies. While here and in the other videos you do point out some important points and clarify the subject (great work, congratulations on that), I think you miss the main point that some comments presuppose just because they can`t put it in perfect logical sense. Most atheists will claim it`s not a belief in the common sense meaning that a belief is something irrational, that it is contrary to real knowledge.
Wait, you're STILL convinced that Atheism has something to do with the beginning of the Universe, dispide the fact that you yourself pointed out how much Atheists vary on the subject?
Oh you knew exactly what you were getting into. You can't go around telling other people that you know how they think and they don't, and thgen be suprised when thy get pissed off, or at least, when they all correct you.
Actually, strictly speaking, you have what could be referred to as shades of atheism, weak, and strong. Most atheists are technically agnostic, but hold the "God hypothesis" in the same regard as the "Fairy hypothesis", as once you get into any actual system of belief beyond the basic pantheistic or deistic belief in an ultimate creator, things get really pretty far fetched. Google "the teapot argument" to expand on what I'm trying to explain.
NO. Atheism is not a belief. Is transparent a color? This is the same non-sense question.
If you wish to know what is atheism, just ask yourself: Do I believe in Apollo, Zeus and Thor?
NO? Ok, then you are atheist for them. Is it your non-believing of Zeus a religion???? O_o
Magaciappi 2 weeks ago
Technically we ALL have to argue an agnostic viewpoint, since not a single one of us (not even those who truly feel it in their heart, sorry) can be absolutely sure either way, theist or not. I always assume that agnosticism is implied whenever someone says they don't believe in God. There's a difference between "not believing in God" and "believing there is no God".
LordHengun 1 month ago
This video is even more non-sensical than the first.
scrmayhem 1 month ago
"Atheists believe God doesn't exist." this video is perfect with that definition. From this video and several comments, I'm guessing that most atheists prefer it worded a different way: "Atheists do not hold the belief God exists".
SparkyApricot 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism is simply the rejection of a theist assertion for a version of a god..
0019josh7100 1 month ago
Atheism certainly has no proof or evidences... therefore its a belief...
MrBoomSonic 1 month ago
@MrBoomSonic I think the vast majority of the sciences hint at the non-existent of a deity, or at the very least an unintelligent god.
flammingbutter 1 month ago
anything in life is a belief, more or less!
VyckRo 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I'm beginning to think NOBODY, even many atheists, knows the meaning of the word. The prefix 'a' essentially means "not." Thus "atheist" simply means "not theist."
A theist, by definition, believes (and for the record I have no problem with this word, whatever atheists do need to stop their bitching), believes in one or more deities who interact(s) with the universe in some way (the contrary would be deism). So anyone who does not believe this--deists, agnostics, apathetic--is an atheist. Okay?
NeutralNewt 2 months ago
It's amazing how many times people can explain the difference between atheists and agnostics and you still don't get it. Sad really. I am of the belief that there is no God, that is my belief but it is not one shared by all atheists. It is not a requisite for being an atheist. It's a really simple concept, why are you so confused?
richjammcl 2 months ago
Atheism has its own metaphysics.... and is not rational at all. I spit on it.
neolegionar 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neolegionar You didn't really clarify what the metaphysics of atheism are but I know that most people say that the "religion" of atheism is science. If you're saying that you spit on science in general then I hope you don't use a cell phone, or trust the meteorologists on the weather channel, or use prescription glasses, or go to a doctor when you're sick. Because if you do, you're a hypocrite. That is, unless you say that some science is right and some is wrong. If so, please clarify.
ImACuteGeek 2 months ago
Alright, now let's use the actual definition of atheist: a·the·ist; noun; a person who |denies| or |disbelieves| the existence of a supreme being or beings.
See how they use "disbelieves"? That's because it is passive and confusing to say that you believe that a negative is a negative.
Wrong = "I believe that JFK's assassination was not a conspiracy!"
Right = "I do not believe that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy"
Typical misuse of sentence structure, passive voice, and negatives.
GuitarMannnnnn 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@GuitarMannnnnn Very good logic. Although I am Agnostic, I have also discovered this "passive" assertion with regards to Atheists.
JMorde999 2 months ago in playlist More videos from GodLowDown
@GuitarMannnnnn @GuitarMannnnnn but i still don't get what you mean. do you not believe JFK's assassination was a conspiracy because you have done your own investigation and found conclusive evidence Oswald acted alone? Or because, without sufficient evidence of a conspiracy, you accept a default hypothesis that Oswald acted alone. Or, you think there's lack of evidence either way. Or you, personally, just don't know whether it was or wasn't? Or, other?
emdtb2001 2 months ago
once again the point of the argument was missed.
nonoobtubeplz122 2 months ago
Derp.
Parabol0086 2 months ago
Jesus Cracksmokin Christ are there any more strawmen you can construct?
alphaenemy 3 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
To be an atheist you simply have to reject someone's version of a god. . All the other attributes you try to attach to atheism is bogus....Atheism is simply rejecting a claim of a version of a god nothing more...
0019josh7100 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is atheism a belief? Sure is. They believe in their hearts, ..."there is no God". Psalm 14:1
mrtadreamer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism is the rejection of someone's claim of a version of a god.......I encourage everyone to copy 0019josh7100's comment. Keeping copying it until this idiot gets it.
Rahn127 3 months ago
@megawolf7
Atheism is the rejection of someone's claim of a version of a god.......
0019josh7100 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism is the BELIEF that God does not exist. Period.
megawolf7 3 months ago
I don't like playing dictionary games because it defeats the point and just slants the argument in the wrong direction.
I am atheos, godless. I think that's a fairly unambiguous term, that everybody should be able to understand.
No matter what label one wishes to assign to me, won't change things; because it has no bearing on whether or not Jesus turned water into wine, died and then did a zombie thing, and controls the universe in his invisible space palace.
imperator332 3 months ago
A belief and an opinion are different. Opinions require no support of any kind. A belief requires evidence or reason to why you believe.
"I like blue"... no evidence or reason needed.
"I believe the color blue exists"... provide me something that is blue.
I believe semantics can cloud the issue because definitions vary from person to person. So if you can cast some doubt on the words they are using, you may be able to cast doubt on the core issue.
wokkitout 4 months ago
The word "belief" is probably touchy because it's often assigned a religious connotation (i.e., religious beliefs).
Also, what about the "belief" that we simply haven't figured out the origin of the universe or meaning of life yet? What if the most intelligent human on Earth was not cognitively capable of explaining various phenomena (e.g., genetic mutation)? Is the only alternative to say "God did it" until we figured it out? Not understanding something doesn't confirm supernatural origins.
AKSBSU 4 months ago
By the way you have no understanding of gnosticism and agnosticism. Those words are not exclusive from atheism and theism. Agnosticism only has to do with certainty. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist. Most atheists are agnostic as it is impossible to be a hundred percent certain that there is no God or anything for that matter.
XKaliber2097 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They get worked up because you have no idea what you are talking about and you speak in a condescending voice. People get frustrated and annoyed when pretentious idiots talk down to them. This isn't some great mystery. Why do you think there is such a large movement against hipsters?
XKaliber2097 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon 8) the world was created via a big bang by chance!! Assuming that there are 100 billion worlds that support life is an unprovable, unobservable assumption. It would be like me saying "Doctors used biological scientific methods to give a patient in a coma 0% chance of living. The patients family were praying for him and he pulled though, that's proof God exists". That would be an assumption. If the Goldie-Locks Zone stretches from Venus to Mars, why haven't we found intelligent
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon 7) it hasn't become cancer or another, new disease. evolving & adapting occurs without the genesis of an entirely new disease. Fossils, again you were SURE that you had a fool-proof method of dating fossils until new fossils were being discovered of dinosaur bones that were not fossilized, leading your boys to say "ooops, maybe we need to have another look at how accurate our existing methods are and adapt them". As for Drake's equation, that too relies on the idea that the
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon 6) completely isolated for thousands of years, even in today's globalised world they have only been observed aerially. They have NOT mixed with people, they have inter-breeded only among themselves (incest), yet they possess fully functioning human reproductive organs. Viruses, yes it's about out-breeding the competition, hence the reason that people can become taller, faster, stronger, but they are STILL people. AIDS has adapted, become more drug-resistant BUT it is still AIDS
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon 5) still able to reproduce with eachother always will be, humans cannot reproduce with apes. So walking 5 feet might potentially mean that one can walk a mile, assuming walking 5 feet means it can fly is a huge assumption... oh and seeing a chicken fly 5 feet doesn't mean it can fly a mile either ;) As for African tribes not becoming a seperate species, there is much documented evidence of small tribal African and Amazonian communities that have been
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon 4) that they can't explain how something can be created from complete "nothingness". I mean up until a month ago you were SURE that nothing could move faster than the speed of light! No ifs, no buts, you were sure. As for observed instances of speciation, one of the most exciting examples evolutionists use is that of the apple maggot fly, traits changed (in the same way that traits change between human races) but complete reproductive isolation has not been observed. They are
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon 3) the world as we know it. Now scientists admit that that's about as likely as a tornado creating the colloseum (a practical mathematical impossibility), but let's leave that aside for a while, not enough antimatter exists in out solar system to create that sort of thing. When asked to explain what happened to the antimatter scientists say "we assume it disintegrated after the collision". That my friend is a leap of faith, just as in evolution. Not to mention the fact
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon 2) reproduce with species of the same sex? I mean we evolved from apes but two men can't reproduce? As for "educated guesses", finding very few pieces and assuming it creates a "red ball" is exactly what evolutionists and big bang theorists do. Evolving to the extent where a new species entirely is created, that cannot reproduce with its original source, is not a question of a few "traits" altering. As for the big bang we are told that matter collided with antimatter to cause
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon 1) So what if we don't have every single transitional fossil? Barely any exist to point to what you claim. Fossils are incredibly rare! Nobody doubts natural selection, what is doubted that the human species evolved from apes. Humans 10,000 years ago would have been able to reproduce with humans in 10,000 years from now, despite the fact that in 10,000 years they might be taller, faster, etc. According to biologists homosexuality is innate, so why have we evolved to be able to...
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
1) Barely any transitional fossiles? We have DOZENS from JUST recent HUNAN ancestry, and tons upon tons more for other animals. While Fossiles are relatively rare, you give anything, however rare, 3billion years to work with and you can amass quite the collection.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
2) There are more than enough to infer common ancestry, but even if we had no fossiles evolution theory places more weight on genetics anyway, as evolution via natural selection is at its core a allele frequencies over time.
But just to put the fossile thing to rest, watch: /watch?v=QUn_ikSlFKE
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
3) Were you not paying attention to my other post? Speciation requires a large enough population to be isolated from the rest of the gene pool for thousands of generations, not years, generations, to occur. Humans move around too much for such isolation to occure, and people from 10thousand years ago aren't enough generations removed for us to speciate from them.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
4) You'd need to go back about 200thousand years before you come close enough to speciation for infertility to arise, and even then you might still get infertile hybrids.
I have no idea what you're getting at about homosexuality, though I suspect you're under a misunderstanding about evolution. Individuals do not evolve, we are NOT pokemon. POPULATIONS evolve.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
5) You're thinking of the Lamarrkian model of evolution, which was long ago replaced by the more accurate Darwinian model, which itself has been refined to be more accurate over time, like sharpening the blade of a knife.
As for what benefit homosexuality has evolutionarily, I'm not a scientist, but things I've heard has it that the trait is due mostly from hormones absorbed from the mother before birth.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
6) The same hormones make the homosexuals' sisters more fertile, facilitating better and faster reproduction, while keeping closely related males away from them to prevent inbreeding.
You painfully misunderstand speciation as well, probably under the common misconception that to speciate a dog would have to give birth to a 'nondog'. This is a common problem mostly related to the human minds' desire organized everything into hard categories, but evolution doesn't work that way.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
7) A POPULATION can only be considered 'nondogs' once it stops being able to reproduce with a POPULATION of what WE call 'dogs'.
Imagine a bar, and at the far left side it is colored solid dark black, though as you draw your eyes over it from left to right, the bar gradually transitions between lighter shades of black, to what we would call gray, and further on until you reach the right side of the bar, where the gray has gotten lighter and lighter until it is off-white,
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
8) and finally lighter still until the very end is bright white. The mind wants to zero in on the points at the far left, the middle, and the right, because it can put those into the hard categories of 'black', 'gray', and 'white', but the bar isn't actually divided like that, it slowly transitions from black to gray to white, and that's a good approximation of how speciation works.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
9) I have absolutely know idea what you are talking about when it comes to the whole anti-matter thing, and to be honest would not be certain if either you yourself or some other creationist either made it all up or took something a real scientist said and intentially or accidentally misinterpritted it, or took something that's grossly out of date and accidentally or intentionally misinterpreted it,
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
10) or what. Last I heard, we're unsure of what happened before some miniscule fractions of a second after the big bang because physics as we known them did not work the way they do now, as space and TIME were both compressed into a single, extremely dence and hot point, and it's only after those fractions of a second when physics begin to work as we known them now to work that we begin to understand what was going on.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
11) 'Blah blah Nothingness straw-man.' As has been explained to me before, no one but creationists believed anything came from nothing. When a physists says 'nothing' they are being playful with language, because what was there is extremely difficult to describe with our limited vocabular. Remember, all of TIME and SPACE was contained in a single small, extremely hot and extremely dense point,
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
12) and we know that enough densely compacted mass can create gravitational fields that do funny things with space-time, so imagine the funny things that were going on in such a point that contained ALL of space-time compacted into one point.
I have no idea what you're getting at with the 'moving faster than the speed of light' thing either.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
13) The fly you mention under speciation is but one example of dozens of examples of observed speciation, and I'm not sure you understand what speciation means. 'Species' as defined among animals that reproduce sexually is based on the ability to produce offspring that can themselves reproduce. If offspring the only offspring produced are infertile hybrids, like mules or ligers, then the subjects are different species.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
14) How do you know that humans can't reproduce with apes? No actual experiement has been done for various reasons, but humans and, say, chimpanzees, are more closely related to one another than donkeys and zebras, which are able to produce infertile hybrids (called a 'zonkey').
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
15) Gee, I wonder why walking five feet doesn't prove one can fly? Could it be because walking and flying require completely different mechanisms?? Whereas evolving and... evolving require the same mechanism because they are the exact same thing.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
16) With reguards to African/Amazon tribes; as I said before, a mere few thousands years is not enough to time speciate. Constant contact with the outside world is not neccessary; contact even as little as once every few thousand years is enough to prevent them from splintering off far enough to speciate.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
17) As for AIDS... AIDS isn't a virus, it's a syndrome (hence what the S at the end stands for). If you're referring to HIV, you're aware that HIV isn't just one virus, it's a collection of viral strains that all splintered off from each other grouped together because they all attack the immune system in symilar to identical fashion.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
18) Same thing for influenza, the common cold. It's also why you have to get a different flu shot every year, because the medical community has to produce flu-shots based on what strain is going to be the big-hitter that year.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
19) I have no idea why you think HIV would evolve into cancer. HIV is a virus, that's what the V stands for. Cancer refers to out of control cell-division. This is exactly like the straw-man argument that evolution says a dog should give birth to a cat; that is not anything remotely resembling how evolution actually works.
Back to fossiles, and I'm guessing you're talking about the fossile found by Mary Schweitzer back in the 90s.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
20) Well, I'm afraid you're mistaken, as firstly Creationists loved to take poor Ms. Schweitzers PRELIMINARY annalysis and sensationalize it. Schweitzer believed she had found some kind of tissue in the fossil, not blood or hemogloban or anything like that, and she was later proven wrong, as what she believed to be tissue was just bacterial residue.
Why are you so obsessed with trying to straw-man me into believing in chance?
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
21) Especially since I believe Stephen Hawkings latest book suggested that the natural formation of universes is inevitable. I don't get why you think the universe has to be here by chance if not by a god. Claiming a chance occurrence implies that there is some other state that the Universe could be in, so where's your evidence that there is another state for the Universe to be in?
Your idea on Drake's equation is increadibly simplistic, like something a child would claim.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
22) It's like saying that if only you and your wife live in the house, and someone ate your cookie, assuming your wife ate it is unprovable because you didn't observe her doing it. The figure of 100billion possible life-supporting worlds in the Milky Way is arived at by logical deduction of the available data, not by faith or guessing or anything like that. It's possible that it may not be wholly accurate, but it's as accurate as the data we have as our disposal.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
23) And as for the Goldie-Locks zone, well AS FAR AS WE KNOW, liquid water is required for life to form, so the Goldie-Locks zone refers to the space from a star like Sol where water can be in a liquid state on an Earth-sized planet with an atmosphere. Water can remain liquid on an Earth-sized planet as close to a Sol-like star as Venus is, and as far away as half-way to Mars.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
24) The reason Venus doesn't have life on it is because it has no liquid water, because the surface is too hot. The surface is, as you said, hotter than Mercury, because the tempreture is due to a run-away greenhouse effect, not because of proximity. If Venus' atmosphere was more like Earth's, allowing its surface to cool, it could very well have liquid water and thus support life of some form.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
25) In other words, if the Earth were to suddenly move closer to the sun, it might be uncomfortable for current life on it, maybe even more than a lot of current forms of life could stand, but the Earth would hardly become a lifeless rock, and with enough time for evolution to run its cource new life better adabted to the tempreture would arise.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
26) To close, the differnece between people of faith and people like me is that I'm willing to say I might be wrong, and change my opinion if I am proven wrong. But the thing about all of your arguments is that none of them prove the existence of YHWH, they just attempt to refute naturalistic explanations. That's not enough, you have to actually prove YHWH before I'd be willing to change my opinion on him.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
27) Naturalistic explanations may not have 100% of the picture, but I find that they have more than enough of the picture for me to conclude that the Christian god is not in it. Maybe the deist god, but I doubt it, and ultimately as the deist god doesn't care about worship it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about it anyway.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mounopanothegreat
How many gods do you believe in. . .
0019josh7100 4 months ago
@GodLowDown Part 1 was hillarious. Keep up the great videos.
davegooley 4 months ago
Okay I have gone over all of your videos now, and have noticed one massive flaw, you attempt to credit vast amounts of belief to Atheism rather then what it actually is.
Atheism is the LACK of a belief in god and nothing more, the majority of your videos attack science and scientific theories, which is fine yet it still does not discredit Atheism, as they have no burden of proof.
malkeyor4 4 months ago in playlist More videos from GodLowDown
2:44, my other comment your previous video mentioned that. I don't wish to insult you too much, but you are just rewording statements based on ambiguities within the English language, its not an intelligent argument.
2:05 Holy Sh*t this argument again? Okay, pretend (if you can) your a scientist (tricky right?) How exactly do you find evidence in existence that pre-dates the big bang and/or big crunch... Even taking into account whatever technological development we may have in the future...
LivingInBadFaith 4 months ago
@LivingInBadFaith ... we may never (probably never) find anything pre-dating the big bang/crunch, as if all matter and energy came together at a single point in the universe, all trace of what was would be rearranged by the act of the big bang itself. Therefore multiple theories among the scientific community (NOT the atheist community, please separate these in future, atheist=/=scientist) about the nature of existence before the big bang is perfectly warranted given the assumption that...
LivingInBadFaith 4 months ago
@LivingInBadFaith ... causal evidence must be found before one theory can be held as 'correct.' Here is one last question for you: Could your God (who is omnipotent, as I understand it) make a boulder so large even he couldn't lift it?
LivingInBadFaith 4 months ago
a belief
and
to believe
are not the same
TheU2ubert 4 months ago
3:13 And more dishonesty. A/Gnosticism are positions of knowledge, A/Theism are positions of belief. They are not mutually exclusive. One can be agnostic and either a theist or atheist by simply admitting they don't know for sure.
3:21 You can be more clear on the topic by not being dishonest.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
2:58 Imagine a an empty hole in the middle of a field. When an atheist says they 'do not believe in a god or gods' it's the same kind of negative belief as one would employ if they said 'the hole is empty.' When you say that we say 'we believe god does not exist,' it would be like saying 'the hole is full of nothingness.' These are not the same thing. You cannot remove the nothingness to fill the hole with something else, but you can fill an empty hole.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
1:35 Because these 'alternative theories' have nothing to do with accepting or rejecting belief in deities. There is no reason one cannot believe both in a personal god and in, say, Big Bang cosmology.
2:07 You forget the ever-present third option: "I don't know."
2:44 Yes, I see that knocking down your own straw-man is very easy.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
1:03 And the dishonesty begins. Theism is the belief in a personal god, or gods. Not all theists believe their gods are the creators of the Universe or are the best explanation for its creation. The ancient Greeks, for example, believed the Universe created the titans who in turn created the gods.
Atheism is the rejection of belief in deities.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon to reject something you must take a fixed position, to take a fixed position in an argument you must believe that the points of the opposite argument are wrong! Atheism takes a definite position because it states with certainty that God "DOES NOT EXIST". They believe this, without a doubt, because they believe in counter arguments to the existence of God. Also evolution &the Big Bang theories have numerous holes in them, yet atheists still take a leap of faith to BELIEVE in them
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
No. Flat, no. You do not need to take a direct position on something to reject it. It's possible to just not care. I also reject the idea that the deist god exists, for example, though I don't really care if it does (as the deist god is non-interventional, so its existence doesn't even really matter).
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
And atheism need not take a positive stance. It is simply a lack of belief, thus one can be an atheist without even thinking about it. Babies are atheists, as they don't know anything about gods and thus can't believe in them. So are rocks, trees, and everything else. It's called 'implicit atheism.'
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
There need not be certainty in there either. This is called 'agnostic atheism.' I don't know for certain if deities exist or not, however I see no reason to believe they do, and will reject belief in them until I see reason to consider otherwise.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
There is no faith involved in belief in evolution. There is more than enough evidence to decide that it is the best explanation for the complexity of life. Big Bang cosmology is a bit shakier but there is still more evidence to believe in that than in divine creation, and I'll go with that until a better model comes along; something that has evidence to back it up.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon A full set of transitional fossils has never been found so if i assume that a 100 piece puzzle exists but i can only find 20 pieces in sporadic order, it takes a huge leap of faith to assume that they equate to that puzzle. Furthermore, go to google and type in "how to disporve evolution using science". It's an ehow dot com article... enjoy
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
1) So what if we don't have every single transitional fossile? Evolution via natural selection is more about genetics than it is about bones. Besides that, let's take your puzzle analogy and think about it for a moment. With the pieces you have, you may not be able to tell exactly what it is, but you can make educated guesses, which is not at all the same thing as faith.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
2) 'Faith' would be to say 'it's a picture of a red ball' without ever bothering to actually look at the puzzle, and hiding the pieces less someone else look at it to try and prove you wrong. THAT is faith.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
3) Taking a look at the link you provided, and right off the bat they make a very common mistake; claiming that evolution cannot account for the diversity of species and that speciation has never been observed. I have something for you to google now; "Observed instances of speciation."
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
4) Besides that, this claim is like claiming you can walk five feet by putting one foot in front of the other, but you can't walk a mile doing the same thing. If a population continues to change over a long enough period of time they will eventually be considered a different species from wherever you started the count from.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
5) On the second point, part of the reason Africans are 'not becoming a separate species' is because it's kind of impossible for a large enough population of humans to be cut off for the thousands of generations it would take to speciate.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
6) We're flying all over the planet and interbreeding, and even the tribes in the deepest parts of africa are interbreeding with each other, and the ones on the perifery are interbreeding with the more civilized parts which are interbreeding with the rest of the world.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
7) Shooting to the third point, drug-resistence for viruses/bacteria requires a high price in resources, resources that the non-resistant strains can put into reproducing out the resistence strains. Evolution isn't a race to the top like many people misunderstand it to be; it's about adapting to the enviroment and out-breeding the competition.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
10) Also they mention the myth that fossiles date strata and strata dates fossiles. Certain fossiles which are known to only appear in particular layers of strata are sometimes use to 'quick date' a layer, but typically strata are dated radiometrically or by what strata are above and below them.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
11) And lastly is the Mathmatical bunk. Apparently the author had never heard of Drake's Equation, which posits that there is potentially 100billion worlds in the Milkyway alone that could support life or have life. If you want to call 100billion worlds 'chance' be my guest.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
12) Then there's the whole Goldie Locks zone BS, and of course they neglect to tell you that the 'Goldie Locks Zone' extends from as close as Venus to as far as half-way to Mars, and that's the conservative estimate. Not exactly a tiny bulls-eye, if you ask me.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon @SquallAKALeon 9) life on Venus? And that's assuming what you're saying is true because as far as i'm aware Venus has a more volatile environment than any other planet, it's surface is hotter than Mercury's.
MounopanoTheGreat 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
13) And lastly, once life appeared on this planet it was a 100% garuntee that Natural Selection forces would do SOMETHING to it, be that survival and adaptation or extinction, all playing out for billions of years. To say getting where we are now was 'luck' is to count the hits after the shots have already been taken. If lottery numbers come up 1234 nobody will call it a 'lucky guess' if you count 1234 after the lotto-balls have already been counted.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@SquallAKALeon
8) When the enviroment is saturated with drugs, sacrificing reproductive efficiency to resist the drugs is advantageous, but as you're sacrificing reproductions when drugs are removed the resistant strain is quickly crowded out by the non-resistant strains.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat
9) Fourth point is the common BS about dating methods. Carbon isn't used for dating fossiles, as most fossiles are older than 50,000 years old, which is the limit for radiocarbon dating. When radiocarbon dating is use, as well as other forms of radiometric dating, it is reliably accurate WHEN USED PROPERLY.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
0:20 If you really think it's so trivial then why bother putting in the effort for a video? What do you have to gain from this?
0:24 I don't get worked up about belief, I get worked up when people claim I believe things I don't.
SquallAKALeon 4 months ago
*Multiverse
FuryOfMidgets 4 months ago
Omng dude you don't have to have a theory of the beginning of the universe to be an atheist. . . Do you ever read your comments. . . Atheist simply rejects the notions of a version of a god. . You are being very deceptive . You try to attach all these straw men attributes to atheist just so you can make them look foolish. . The only thing atheist have in common is they reject the notions of a god. .
0019josh7100 4 months ago
lmao great vid, god bless
pwrayhi 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 4 months ago
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 4 months ago
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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 structures, organs, reproductive system 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 4 months 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 on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’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 and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's 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 4 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months 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 4 months 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 4 months ago
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT 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! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 4 months ago
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months 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 4 months ago
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 4 months ago
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
The problem with the claim of "belief" being attributed to atheists is that it generally NOT an assertion, but the rejection of an assertion. It does NOT stand on its own. Granted you do make a case that has merits, but distorts the nature of the issue - which is a rejection of theistic claims of god. Yes, for some it is more than that...but the most the you can say about atheists as a group is the rejection of theistic notions...anything more and you are will probably be lying.
MyContext 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
for someone who is 'tired of the topic' you sure like to talk about it a lot.
Hufflewaffle 4 months ago
As I see it Atheism is either a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exists. One is a lack of belief and the other is a belief. Atheists may have all sorts of views about the beginning of the universe, but these are not encompassed in the definition of atheism. As lanzelots26 states, these things are part of an atheists world view, not part of the definition.
TheRapture66 4 months ago
The good old straw-man idiotism. Redefine a word/thing/whatever and then be intellectually dishonest and point that straw-man definition.
Itchyback 4 months ago
The dude in the vid just does not get it, does he?. Atheism though is just the lack of believe in the existence of a god. Everything else is part of my worldview. And of course being an atheist it follows logically that I assume certain things about the universe, but that is not part of atheism. Atheism is like a disposition for other views that complete my worldview (e.g skepticism, naturalism). Atheism is a very specific position to only one question (the existence of a god). Get it?
lanzelotz26 4 months ago
Well offc. if you get smacked for being wrong and slanderous about Atheists.
That is your own fault.
But you still make errors!
First, Suggests that my definition sticks to your found definitions.
Second, How did you found out about the Decoder ring ?!?!
Third, You ignore the problem of definitions and then say "Atheists believe"
Offc. you are tried of this argument, its because your wrong, but its a nice way to sneak away isnt it :D
HilleInc 5 months ago
Well, if I said to you that I believe (without evidence) that you are really an alien lizard creature disguised as a human, sent here to destroy our civilization...then...maybe then you'd understand why atheists don't trust blind 'beliefs'.
If on the other hand you said you believed in evolution because, based on the scientific evidence and the human experience with breeding animals, that evolution as a process makes sense.
Then semantics matter because an apple isn't a orange!
bitphr3ak 5 months ago
i do not collects stamps, so i am a stamp collector.
you are pretty damn retarded to have to go through 2 videos to TRY and say that is logical.
i only needed 11 words to show that you are dumb
spacecoke 5 months ago
No. And your reasoning and definitions in these two videos are wrong for the most part.
But just to entertain the idea for a bit... what IF atheism were a belief? What then?
It's funny, because you say so many atheists are talking about this, but in my experience the first salvo in this (hugely pointless) fight comes from theists claiming that atheism is a belief. Why is it so important for theists that atheism must be a belief?
Gnug215 5 months ago
And again you make a strawman argument by saying, that atheists propose, that god does not exist, which is false. Atheists are not believing the claim, that god does exist, because there has been no evidence to support that notion, but that does not mean, that atheists have blindly accepted the claim, that god does NOT exist. This claim would need evidence to support it, until then we don't believe it either.
MardasMan 5 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von GodLowDown
What you described under "theism" is actually deism. Then also replace "alternative theories" with "science" (which is not "alternative", but the most reliable and well-working tool we have), also only, if your assumption about it would be for the sake of argument accepted.
Then your #1 and #2 is also false, because it is a strawman of the big bang science, which does not mean "ex nihilo", but from prior matter.
But even so: What the heck has the big bang theory to do with atheism?
MardasMan 5 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von GodLowDown
TO reiterate others, almost all atheists are agnostic. If you take the trouble to ask one, they can explain to you that atheists gladly say we "don't know". In fact, almost all atheists would agree that there could be a God. We just don't have any solid evidence for one..
Moreover, we reject unfounded claims like God presented himself to a bunch of sheepherders over 3k years ago so that he could give us an ancient book to guide our lives today. (insert other moronic faith based examples here)
michaelthomas1234 5 months ago
The reason why atheists say different things is because atheism is merely a unified lack of belief in God creating the universe. What other theories they describe in place of God are a matter of what they think there is the best evidence for.
Then you pervert the meaning of the word agnostic. The actual definition of the word means 'without knowledge.' EVERYONE is agnostic. Almost no atheist says that god absolutely does not exist . They merely lack the belief in his existence.
Doodoorump 5 months ago
atheism is a lack of a beleif in god. logically, an agnostic is an atheist. suddenly, your argument is shit, oh wait that was from when you started talking.
richotim 5 months ago
What dictionary did you use... lol ???
kailabreece 5 months ago
Looking foward to your next vid
BibleIsland 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL ---Continued
...Since this entity used love to create the universe, & since love is the most important thing in reality 7 is the most powerful, then this external entity would have to be an entity of love (source of life itself), since love is social then its quite possible for this entity to speak to people personally & have people tell others about him after being expose to this entity directly. Paul & John wrote that they met this entity & they said it is love incarnate
starsheild7 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL ---Continued
...Since this external entity had to have accounted for EVERYTHING & thus would've had to account for the existance of our minds & will (A.K.A. the soul), then this very entity has to have more will & a more advanced mind that we humans have, which means that this entity would have to be more of a person than we are. Since love is able to move or change molecules slightly, then it is evidence that the creator of the universe used love to create...
Continue---
starsheild7 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL ---Continued
... & since the universe is made of energy & matter & cause & effect relationships, which requires the existance of a causeless entity that is external to energy/ matter, then this external entity would have to be higher dimensional, & it would have to have the ability to build & sustain all the mechanical complexities of the universe, which means it would have to have built our minds since it had to account for the existance of EVERYTHING...
Continue---
starsheild7 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL ---Continued
...since the universe is made of cause & effect relationships then the universe is like a domino trail of energy/ matter. Since it is impossible for infinite regression to exist with entities that require an external cause to move without a causeless cause trandsendant of energy/ matter (like something external to dominos to start the domino trail), then the mere existance of the universe is evidence of an entity that trandsends energy/ matter...
Continue---
starsheild7 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL You said, "Show me the so called 'evidence'. Yes 'love' clearly exists, yes there is power/ strength ina state of love/ appreciation/ egolessness. BUT, there is 'NO' proof that there is a 'GOD'"
-Well if you look at energy/ matter you learn that it is impossible for energy & matter to move on its own without something external to them moving them in the first place...
Continue---
starsheild7 5 months ago
Comment removed
starsheild7 5 months ago
It's pretty obvious that you have no interest in an intellectually honest debate. Your tact is transparent and greasy.
It's the only recourse for creationists. You can't prove your claim, so you have no choice but to try to DISprove the very DISbelief of your claim. It's that effort that constantly drives this type of intellectual dishonesty.
Atheism is a belief? Sure, about as much as NOT collecting baseball cards is a habit.
MrKeenoRossi 5 months ago
Another excellent refutation of the logic in your video is to point out non-creative Theism. Suppose a theistic religion proposes that God exists, but did not create the universe.
By your definition, these people would believe in God... and yet they would be atheists? How does that work?
FiverBeyond 5 months ago
Both your definitions of atheism and agnosticism are incorrect.
Agnosticism is the position that the existence of a god is unknown or unknowable, NOT the lack of commitment. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
Atheism is not the belief that the universe was created by 'alternative theories'. An atheist can (and often does) simply answer 'I don't know' when asked 'How did the universe come into being." 'I don't know' is not an alternate theory.
FiverBeyond 5 months ago
Even with your rhetoric, your definition of atheism is incorrect: there were atheists long before people had a notion of 'universe'. In fact, there were even atheistic religions that believed the universe to be DESIGNED and CREATED by a non-god entity (such as Taoism).
FiverBeyond 5 months ago
Atheists will say that freed from religious thinking, we could, of course, speculate on the eventual existence of some sort of god-like entity and the ultimate origins of the ordered universe. Maybe you`ll say that this is more like agnosticism, and that atheists actually believe, without really knowing, that god is not a possibility at all. It is a valid distinction. But people usually confound what you`d call atheism and agnosticism, and the outrage you get here is a consequence of that.
marconatalino 5 months ago
The atheists point is that sacred texts are not valid basis for knowledge. That we should use logic, maths, history and science if we want to know something. From that we can speculate about things, but we need to free our reasoning from religious thinking. Religion is something to be explained as a human behaviour, not something to use in order to attain knowledge.
marconatalino 5 months ago
You are the one too obsessed with semantics and logical fallacies. While here and in the other videos you do point out some important points and clarify the subject (great work, congratulations on that), I think you miss the main point that some comments presuppose just because they can`t put it in perfect logical sense. Most atheists will claim it`s not a belief in the common sense meaning that a belief is something irrational, that it is contrary to real knowledge.
marconatalino 5 months ago
Wait, you're STILL convinced that Atheism has something to do with the beginning of the Universe, dispide the fact that you yourself pointed out how much Atheists vary on the subject?
dechha1981 5 months ago in playlist More videos from GodLowDown
Oh you knew exactly what you were getting into. You can't go around telling other people that you know how they think and they don't, and thgen be suprised when thy get pissed off, or at least, when they all correct you.
dechha1981 5 months ago in playlist More videos from GodLowDown
Actually, strictly speaking, you have what could be referred to as shades of atheism, weak, and strong. Most atheists are technically agnostic, but hold the "God hypothesis" in the same regard as the "Fairy hypothesis", as once you get into any actual system of belief beyond the basic pantheistic or deistic belief in an ultimate creator, things get really pretty far fetched. Google "the teapot argument" to expand on what I'm trying to explain.
ramshaka 5 months ago
@ChuckNorrisKratosLOL You said, "In other words, preaching a belief as if "you know" it is true is delusional"
-Who told you that I'm preaching a mere "belief" & telling people it is truth? You must have trust baggage to automatically "as