@PVcat1 Because lots of noise comes out of his mouth that seems to be made of words but none of it makes any sense...
Craig does the same thing too using lots of really big sounding words or concepts which impress some people, except those of us with some intellect who see it for what it is - empty words...
@BenjaminGoose Okay, what is your explanation? Do you think a gnat can understand who man is? Yahweh is infinitely bigger/greater compared to man as a gnat to man. However, God did not want to mandate that you love Him, so he didn't create robots. You are your own God. The original sin was pride as well. Nothing changes under the sun. I wish you no ill will.
Great explanation !!! It is true that not everything can be explained by science. There is always an element of faith that everyone has to believe in. The fad now is not to believe but to doubt. Doubt leads to death. How long will you remain in the the state of untruth ?
this guy is not a disgrace, this guy is a very smart theologian, and all through the Bible, and more so through the new testament there are plenty of times where Jesus is called God , so read some scripture for those that dont believe that..i believe everyone is so focused on getting some kind of view about God, or Jesus, they dont even read the Bible to the fullest or there not saved and will remain ignorant , regardless if they read the Bible or not, because they wont understand completely:)
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
He didn't even dive into the fulfilling of prophecy.. If these guys want to actually know the truth then just watch more Ravi videos, if you want to keep believing your lies, keep doing why your doing
@StefanJato You mean the very general self-fulfilling prophecies in the old testament that the authors of the new testament read, writing their new testament books to make the old testament prophecies fit? Nostradamus apparently had some prophecies come true as well. Do you believe he is god as well?
Ah the first cause argument. Don't understand or yet know how the universe came to be? Or whether or not everything has a first cause? Good, cause shoving whichever version of yaweh (god did it) as the answer is legitimate. Can't tell the difference between natural processes like recurring chemical reactions and a MCDonald's wrapper? Just chuck in god did it. Apparently Ravi doesn't understand science.
@mistereveready Apparently, neither do you. It has been shown repeatedly by scientists that natural processes are simply inadequate to explain even the most basic of bacterium, much less the human brain.
Nobody expects complex objects to arrive by chance. The road, the bridge, the novel, are all creations by intelligent people. How much more so for the universe, DNA, and life itself.
To remain an atheist is to remain in denial of the obvious. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.
@terminat1 Difference is, we can observe things like chemical replicators occurring w/o anyone messing with them. How complex then is your unproven god if it can consciously create something? None of the explanations I've heard or seen demonstrated about planets, stars, or the evolution of organisms insist on things starting complex. Where as the creationist idea starts with a supposedly infinitely complex creator, who w/o explanation of how, instantly creates very complex items.
@mistereveready Actually, many believe God to be a simple entity, in that He is a non-corporeal Spirit, and not composed of parts.
Even if things start out 'simple,' you still have to explain where everything came from. The universe couldn't have created itself (that's illogical), and science shows that it hasn't always existed.
Also, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics simply will not allow a random big bang eventually forming a viable universe. Randomness never produces order.
If the story of God and Satan is true would Satan not want us to be anti God? so it makes sense that people are so defensive over the atheist/theist subject.On youtube atheists defent their beleif like mad,if a guy is a comedian he is really funny untill he makes a joke about atheism and then suddenly he is shit.If atheists dont have a beleif and are so confident they are right what are they actually defending?? you cant tell me your this concerned over not believing in something.
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
Either you believe his explanation or you don't! If you believe then it's cool, keep believing in God with faith, if not, don't try to make yourself sound like you know better than he does and come up with explanations that try to make yourself sound educated when you're not! If you don't agree with him, get off of this video and go watch that dude who's got cancer and is about to find out the truth, whatever his name is!!!!! Peace!!!
Atheism is the laziness and ignorance of discovering the most powerful being in this so called universe. Refusal to open their eyes because they are scared of what might be the truth. I feel so sad for these blinded people.
@xlazer6 - Emotion has no place in science, and while your warm and fuzzy feelings give you comfort and certitude, I assure you, you are quite delusional. I do not fear a God because it is stupid to believe that one exists. You can not demonstrate a being with any traits of any God which distinguishes itself from nature let alone all of them. You are the one with fear, fear of dying, fear of hell, and fear of being wrong.
Christians say God planned Jesus'death before the foundations of the world.Let's see.God forbids murder and false testimony and knows humans will sin.So he makes humans
anyways knowing many go to hell.His plan requires men to murder and lie or it will not work.He cannot forgive unless his son,conceived through the rape of engaged girl,
is brutalized and killed.If we believe this wickedness,we are saved.This is evil by all human moral standards.Christianity should be banned.
God tells a man to kill and burn his son.Gen22.Previously,God instructed NOT to kill.Gen9.James1 says God will NOT tempt with evil.What would YHWH have done if Abram said to this demonic voice order his son burned,"Get behind me Satan,God has forbidden murder.You are wicked and in the name of YHWH,LEAVE ME NOW WICKED BEING."God said he NEVER commanded this burning of Isaac and never even thought about it.Jer19:5.He says he hates burning children.Deut12:31.Ravi money whore.U R blinded
Just because most of you aren't as well studied as this man, doesn't mean you should think he is trying to fool you. Narrow is the path to the Kingdom. Science proves that something can't be made from nothing. Jesus is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, forever and ever, Amen.
so he actually says that because he can't explain the creation of it, he credits a supernatural self-created god for it's creaton. ok that sounds accurate...
This man is a bunch a pseudo nonsense. please people think about what he is talking about, he is making up the rules, and applying certain knowledge to non-knowledge, acting as though he has said something significant. He is simply another Deepak Chopra.
Good job, but actually pseudo nonsense = fake nonsense, which indeed is grammatically redundant and confusing without a comma breaking up the two words. I only meant to emphasize how great the nonsense is in this video. I will continue to work on my grammar. Thank you.
@DeconversionCentral if you think this is nonsense then how would you explain it? if you can give something to explain about the universe, not just being antagonistic, then probably i could consider what have you just said.
Unless there is no origin and no cause, Mr. Zacharias, and the Universe has no beginning, therefore what is is only there because you bring it in the discussion. I figure the moral reality you talk about comes from the God of Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Stop misleading people! Stop confusing their minds with Christian "scientific" lectures.
@depthofgratitude He already answered your question "Anything Physical had to have a beginning". The Universe is a Physical system and had to be created. You can only make calculations outside of a physical system using Mathematical transforms but it would have to deal with another Physical system. What created the Universe would not be categorized as a Physical system.He's not misleading people, you just don't have a high enough level of Mathematical Understanding to understand the argument.
If you track through the Bibles generations, the BIble shows the earth only being 7,000 years old. Which that being said, according to the creation account in Genesis God created the earth and shortly after, created man.
This argument (as brilliantly put as it is) only really works (for me) if you completely deny evolution. To use it to substantiate the idea that god's main focus was human life- heaven and hell etc, then you'd have to explain why in the majority of the time the universe has existed, humans didn't exist.
@Griptease2 I don't see a problem with that. Let's say theistic evolution is indeed true, then we have that God planned everything in such a way that we finally came into existence. Why take billions of years or why 1 second? Why not earlier? It's just a matter of perspective and God has plenty of time on His hands. Also you're assuming we are near the end of time, I don't see why couldn't we exist 10 thousand times more years than have passed before. It's a matter or perspective.
@tiagotrinidad I do not think we are near the end of time at all, but I do believe in a few million years, we'll have evolved further (or may be extinct.) This argument can get as far as God existing (Deism.) There is no argument other than the bible that a God would have any interest in human life whatsoever. Also, with intelligent design, this hypothetical alien stumbling on an island, why would he not presuppose a creator if he found a tree or a rock?
Vibration without over elaborating on specific details I've felt is a major component to everything in existence no matter what it is. Theres more coming soon to a universe near you!
I believe in God, but I will not force my beliefs on anyone. I cannot prove scientifically that God is real but I can show circumstantial evidence and philosohical views showing how he probably is. However since I'm my own entity I can experience certain events first hand and prove to myself that God is real, and ultimately that's all that matters as far as "myself" is concerned. We all die and we will either fade to nothing (if I'm wrong) or see the light and all that is divine (if im right)
I got a question I would like to ask if anyone is interested, as a child growing and like many other children growing up I was told that if I did not believe in god that when I die I will burn in a sea of fire for ever and ever, many children are told this in everyday life, is this not a form of child abuse………………….
Ravi Zacharias may be smart, but not regarding evolution or quantum mechanics. Clearly, based on his explanations he is seriously lacking for information.
Explain soul, remorse, pain, guilt, compassion, pity, love, sacrifice. Explain the true experiences of Heaven and Hell in "The Lazarus Phenomenon" (On YouTube).
@dneuwen - New information can be generated in DNA by several means, there are several known, again, by not doing research except with your selected sources with extreme confirmation bias. Again you choose ignorance.
@stevenweir76 "New information can be generated in DNA by several means" gene duplication, chromosomal polypoidy or what? but these are still the same information, just repetition. in fact some of these repetitions are harmful as in extra chromosome 21 i think which causes down syndrome.
Satan created religions, God created only one religion or life illustration of the one true church of the house of Israel, judaism.The spark, if you will of judaism is the revelation of God in the flesh, Jesus Christ.Without out the revelation of Christ, judaism would have been another dead religion, man's effort to reach God, but the opposed is true God had reach down to man in the person of Jesus, God became a man.
This argument can be used to prove the existence of ANY God with equal validity (or invalidity - because this argument is idiotic). This argument does not prove Yahweh, the God of the bible.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 sure. expect him to prove Yahweh in 3 minutes. Go and listen to his other talks. He goes into detail in explaining why Jesus is the ultimate expression of God.
@nanamiyuki Maybe 'prove' wasn't the right word, as you picked up on. But this alone still isn't even a valid argument valid argument, becasue of those reasons that I specified.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 No it can't because no other false idol exemplifies the teaching's of the Bible. No other God as you put it came down and sacrificed himself for our salvation. There is only one true God.
@o0RaidR0o Sorry but you are wrong. Look up the similarities between Mithra, the Sun God of ancient Persia (who pre-dates Jesus by about 600 years) and Jesus. There are so many similarities between the two supposed dieties that it would take several comments to list them all. Much of the Christian religion is based on the religion of Mithra. Here are some of the MANY similarities between Jesus and Mithra:
- Both are said to have been born on the 25th of December
@o0RaidR0o Mithra's role in that religion was very similar to the role of Jesus in Christianity. Mithra's role was as a redeemer, to bring light to the darkness, enlightenment. Purify the impure, make the evil good, etc etc. Where's your God now? lmao
- Mithra was considered a great traveling teacher. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithra also performed miracles
- Like Jesus, Mithra was also called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb
- Mithra was supposedly born of a virgin
- He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
So...he didn't asnwered the question. Is like saying. I leave this here and set the pieces but I cannot answer that (just like all his other arguments) is what you believe in because people have different thoughts. In short...a load of bullshit.
@Italianboy225 There is only one Diety in Christianity. It's called Christianity becomes it reflects those who follow Christ. Christianity = Christ God almighty. I don't understand your confusion.
@Italianboy225 Oh okay, thanks. I was a bit confused because there are many different religions, and I couldn't quite understand which God he was referring to.
@o0RaidR0o Well actually depending on your religion there could be many Gods. I am always interested in hearing peoples religious beliefs and their reason for choosing that certain belief .
If a universe must have an explanation, then a universe-causer also requires an explanation. Ravi's first premise fails and his arguments explain nothing.
Because you know the definition of the word egregore you undermine religion in its entirety? You cannot deny that physical life as we know it was created by something unseen, or something/ some not physical. No scientific, or mathematical theory fits in the equation here. Bottom line there is a greater, we/the world, was created in the image of something or someone. Don't let false Christians or atheist throw you into there band wagon, do deepvin depth reasearch of your own.
@ConspiracyWithIntent Christians should just fucking keep to themselves instead of bothering every other religion ... You are not saving anyone by dedicating your life to an egregore ....
I wonder why ALL these people making negative comments about Christians are searching YouTube to see if there just possibly might be a God? Hmm. (Smh) No such thing as a coincidence. Somebody's praying for ya! Get ready to be born again. (John 3:3) Oh yeah, it's on ya!
@JRealityTV - We're not searching for God on youtube, we're seeking to undermine the establishment of superstition, and we're succeeding. I was born fine the first time, and we don't need religion to tell us how shitty we are, it's a waste of time. Cheer leading does not equate to logical argument, go back to school.
btw the fact taht the Bible exists does not negate all the other evidence for God...nice try tho fantom lord...think ur leaving out a few things... how about the fact taht all of civilization thought that a non physical being created the universe LONG BEFORE we "knew" exactly how old the earth was? which we dont. which is irrelevant in any case. some of the best scientists in the world are theists.
religion doesnt kno when to quit? first of all "religion" and God are too different things. second of all...ever heard richard dawkins speak? lol yeh..atheists are alwaysss completely unbiased and kno exactly when to quit. the idea that science can explain everything is remarkably false.
@jrdennis1 You exist now but something that you are going to create next week does not exist. God did not begin to exist while the universe BEGUN to exist. Big difference.
the atheist asks for evidence as if god is some evolved physical being that can be measured, analysed and confirmed. Science cannot answer the question of whether there is a god. it is not designed to do so. I want evidence that the speed of light is constant, hang on is it? scientific knowledge changes every day. There is no "god" meter that detects his presence. A theist thinks with reason. What is more reasonable? that God made us or we are a lucky accident?
@ngimangi A lucky accident. If the Bible, Qur'an, and or Torah didn't exist would you still believe that an "non physical being" created everything in a week about 10,000 years ago? Or would you believe that scientist are correct in saying that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old?
This entire world screams God. Their is absolutely NO WAY this world could have come to be without God. He is the alpha and omega, beginning and the end and their is absolutely NONE like HIM! Glory be to his name!
@stormsophia1994 - This entire world screams Zeus. Their is absolutely NO WAY this world could have come to be without Zeus. He is the alpha and omega, beginning and the end and their is absolutely NONE like HIM! Glory be to his name!
and god doesnt need to explain itself 'outside' itself. aagh! then a bunch of non-sequiturs. then 'from design to design'. The possibility of you, ravi, existing, is even less probable, and still you are here, annoying us with your pseudoscience rants. this man couldnt get any worse, maybe only trying to sound more scientific.
@stevenweir76 this is new to me. that evolution from ape to human should not be repeated or for that matter any other supposed evolution, otherwise evolution is false, this is counterintuitive. why shouldn't many of the supposed evolution be repeated when it advanced to that gradation because they are advantageous for survival. convergent evolution also pokes holes to this argument. if it cannot happen again, then there is no falsifiable prediction, only carte blanche.
@stevenweir76 God surrounded by four creatures with many eyes surrounded by 24 elders in heaven doesn't sound fanciful at all. even in our human affairs, kings and monarchs are surrounded by advisers and royal retinues likely copying the heavenly model. what's truly fanciful is that apes turning into humans. but surely from among the apes we have today many are perhaps the millionth descendants of their ancestors of 5 million years ago. any candidate there showing some humanlike phenotype?
@stevenweir76 "No they can't show how feet changed into flippers, only that it did."
can't you hear yourself and see that this is more of a willful faith than real science? you are the one denying reality since reality is grounded in observation. your statement is not an observation but an imagination. even if your imagination sounds realistic and probable it is still an imagination, not part of the real world,.
@dneuwen - It isn't faith to see the similarities distinct to branches on the tree of life even as through progression in time other differences occur. Maybe you can call it faith, but it is based upon evidence and reason, not fairy tale books. Apes never turned into humans, we share a common ancestor but have branched apart. Your other drivel about apes is a straw-man, and I've already stated such and why that is so. When you read, try to comprehend.
@stevenweir76 but the evolutionary tree of life is all twigs and stems , no major branches, lots of gaps and discontinuities nor is it backed up by evidence since no mutation or natural selection has shown one organism changing phylogenetically, only variations within the species.
and your playing with semantics since anyone seeing that purported ancestor would call it "ape" in every sense.
@dneuwen There are many major branches but if you are expecting a big jump from one species to another like fish suddenly becoming frogs, I think you will be disappointed, any transitional form from one generation to the next will only have minor morphological differences. It took billions of years to get where we are today, and your children will differ from you only in minor ways. I will show you pictures of fossils and have you identify them, you tell me whether they are ape or human.
@stevenweir76 if evolution according to you is a very slow process with very minor morphological differences from generation to generation then all the more that we should see countless transitionals in varying degrees of change or gradation in living and in the fossil record. but that is not the case. as for hominid fossils whether they are apes or human, basically ape skulls have a sloping, jutting profile and no nose bridge and have smaller brain capacity than average human brain.
@dneuwen So you are arrogant enough to think you know more about evolution than 99% of evolutionary biologists? You think that what you read on some creationist website or heard from a fellow creationist discredits all the work that so many thousands of scientists have done testing the theory to make sure that it stands up to the evidence? Then why don't you do get yourself a masters degree in evolutionary biology, look at the evidence, test if these ideas are true...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 even some evolutionary biologists admit their evidence is largely a tautology and there is not a whit of observable evidence of one organism turning into another organism phylogenetically. and there is no objective testing of the hypothesis rather evidence are interpreted according to evolutionary presupposition that often paradigm becomes so malleable as to be totally non-falsifiable.
@dneuwen - We do have countless transitional forms, but what we do not have is every transitional form, you fill up your gas tank with a lot of them because they do not all fossilize nicely or at all. Even creationists argue what are humans and what are apes in the fossil record. Because they, like you, choose ignorance, instead of using any tangible definition of anything.
@stevenweir76 since you believe in gradual evolution, for every purported fossil deemed transitional there should be more transitional linking it to its ancestor and descendant. saying they they are not readily fossilized is a cop-out. it is a tacit admission that the fossil record don't support evolution and darwin would still be disappointed. as for creationists disagreements, this are rare occasion arising from the fragmentary nature of specimen.
@dneuwen - You are the one pulling the bait and switch or moving the goalposts as it were. You admit life changes but can't see how new species arrive.
You have no explanation for the diversity of life other than a magic man in the sky made all the living things, ignoring the evidence of evolution.
You are a joke, a sad little human who needs his sulky blanket of the promise of eternal life to avoid living in the first place. Grow up child.
@stevenweir76 there is nothing permanent in life except change. but change is not limitless. there is no evidence that one organism can change into another different organism. it can change color, size, behavior,etc enriching diversity in a species but the species will stay the same species or genus. to cite this limited type of change as evidence for phylogenetic change is bait-and-switch fallacy which often evolutionists are irresponsibly culpable of.
@dneuwen - Species do not morph in a generation, the subtle morphological differences in each generation are only amplified through time. Seeing as the Earth is incredibly old and we have fossils of millions of extinct species and have many layers which only contain simple or extinct life we know that change occured, the only question is exactly how, and the theory is evolution by natural selection. If you're not an evolutionist you deny change and that makes you stupid.
@stevenweir76 who denies change? we also espouse change only that there are limits to change in species. there is no evidence, molecular or biological that a species can change into another species phylogenetically. as for the fossil record it does not show gradual change from species to species but rather abrupt appearance of diverse phyla without trace of ancestry as in the cambrian and the record speaks of stasis as the norm rather than constant change.
@dneuwen - There is plenty of evidence for phylogenetic changes, species which no longer exist but bear similarities to mulitple species which are not found in the fossil record at the time. The fossil record doesn't show abrupt changes, it shows that you don't realize that not everything is fossilized, but even if it didn't you still can't explain all the species. Your evidence for stasis is over a period of your lifetime, which at best is 3 x 10-8 the span of life on Earth.
@stevenweir76 not just in our multiple lifetimes but evolutionists themselves like gould admitted that the fossil record is generally a picture of stasis not constant evolving. as for genes for gills in human, again a lot of baloney and you still spouting the embryonic recapitulation of haeckel long been exposed as a complete fraud. the apparent "gills" in human embryos are fold of skins not slit-like gills which develop into larynx, etc nothing to do with breathing at all.
@dneuwen - I'm not talking about morphology of embryos, although despite Haeckel's embellishment they are indeed evidence of our similarities to and evolution from other species, what I'm talking about are inactive genes, such as the genes for synthesizing vitamin C which rats still have and humans lost because of an error in duplication.
@stevenweir76 how can you say humans lost some gene for synthesizing vitamin c? have you sequenced the genome of your ancestors and see if they had the said gene in the first place? you are making up a fiction story based on your unproved evolutionary assumption.
@dneuwen - The loss of the ability to synthesize Vitamin C is evident in the sequence in mice which functions to that end yet in humans has a replication error which lost the ability to do so. Thus we can get scurvy. There are many scientific works which I can cite about this and they all cite prior scientific documents which lead to that logical conclusion. Here's a link so you can see what real science looks like. lewrockwell(dot)com(forward slash)sardi(forward slash)sardi91(dot)html
@stevenweir76 so mutation causes some humans to lose the ability to properly synthesize vitamin c. but what does it have to do with evolution? there is no point in time nor will there ever be that mice will gradually change into something. because we share with mice some biophysical similarities since we live in the same earth, breathe the same air, process the same basic food groups, God the common Designer used the same leitmotif design for efficient, economical functionality.
@dneuwen - Evolution is change, losing the ability to synthesize vitamin C is a deleterious mutation, but because we have other sources of vitamin C it isn't fatal. If it was a key protein that was needed for reproduction or survival it then that change would not survive, but we see this in many genetic diseases, we don't need to be perfect to survive and reproduce, only suitable. But we share a large part of the genome with mice.
@stevenweir76 Your arguments are sound, but understand you will never convince this dneuwen of anything. When he are equating biology with cars you know he is a moron. Your comments help youtube viewers sort through bull shit other are spreading. All the arguments Ravi is making have been refuted as false. If everything needs a first cause then by definition God must have a first cause. A wrapper on the beach is false, because we know that it is not natural occurring, an amino acid try that.
@dneuwen - Evolution is change, losing the ability to synthesize vitamin C is a deleterious mutation, but because we have other sources of vitamin C it isn't fatal. If it was a key protein that was needed for reproduction or survival it then that change would not survive, but we see this in many genetic diseases, we don't need to be perfect to survive and reproduce, only suitable. But we share a large part of the genome with mice.
@dneuwen ... and that is where the 'findings' of the experiments done by creationist scientists that support their worldview are then discredited when they are found to be invalid. You call this censoring (and probably an infringment on freedom of speech), well all the rest of the scientists aren't going to let invalid science become accepted science are they? Creationist sites are not scientifically supported. Just because a small group of scientists agree with it, does not mean it is correct.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 peer-reviewed journals by secular scientists they among themselves often disagree with the interpretation of evidence purporting to support evolution? there is no overwhelming consensus and many who have a lot of misgivings about evolution will still support the hypothesis because merely of groupthink and peer pressure.
@dneuwen - And that's because they approach the data without a prior conclusion, only a hypothesis, treat God as a hypothesis, instead of a conclusion and you'll understand why science rejects God. We are simply incapable of pushing aside facts, even when they are not convenient.
I don't like the fact that I'm going to die and my consciousness will probably cease to exist, but it taught me to appreciate the life I have, you won't even do that. You think living is in the way of truth.
@dneuwen - I will send you links to catalogues of fossils and where you can see them if you’d like, or maybe you could learn to use google and search for fossil images, go to the beach, you’ll probably find a fossil if you look hard enough. As for your guesses about what God is, you have no evidence for any of it, so while you may impress your ignorant Christian friends with your perceived grandiose connection to the unseen magical dictator you call God, I believe you are a liar or delusional.
@stevenweir76 i won't hold my breath in anxious anticipation for these catalogues of fossil as i have seen a few of them already and many of them are incomplete specimen and it never ceases to amaze me on how imaginative evolutionists reconstruct them to support their preconceived idea. it brings to mind how they reconstructed nebraska man and his whole entourage out of a single tooth. nor is this the only problem. some specimen parts are found in some distance from each other!
@dneuwen ... of the animal that scientists believed the tooth belonged to before the error was verified. Most scientists were skeptical of the discovery and few, if any, reputable scientists made any bold assertions that this was a confirmed human ancestor. Since the discovery of the error, Nebraska man's only significant mention is in creationist literature that hopes to discredit evolution by exploiting a mistake - a mistake which was discovered and exposed by scientists anyway.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 so nebraska man was dubious to the keen eyes of evolutionists from the get-go yet didn't you know that this hoax was used by clarence darrow in the infamous scopes trial? and if evolutionists are so sharp as to see frauds or meticulous to correct errors then why did it take half a century to expose another infamous hoax- piltdown man? why is haeckel's embryonic fraud still not expunged from some school biology textbooks.
@dneuwen One more thing. The image I am referring to was in the London News many years ago (I don't know the exact date for sure, but I seem to recall it was 1922). The image of Nebraska man was accompanied by the following text: "Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius...". There, i'm done.
@dneuwen Look up the information I have given you if you want to verify it. You will find that it is accurate. Some of what I have been saying was merely copied and pasted from other websites.
@dneuwen - Your last statement is a rehash of your expectation that every specimen fossilizes. If you won't look at the evidence or offer an explanation which is falsifiable, you choose ignorance.
@stevenweir76 we don't require that every transitional be fossilized but since gradual evolution entails quite a manifold of intermediates is it too unreasonable to ask that you produce a good number of undisputed transitionals not just a handful of dicey candidates?
@dneuwen Actually, I am not going to bother with you. Pretty much everything you said is either misconception or just lies. Unless of course, if you want to have a proper rational discussion with me about evolution and find out how your information is incorrect, then I invite you to do some research (it looks like you really need to), then make your claims about the 'falsehood' of evolution one or two at a time. I am not going to respond to all of them at once.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 first genetic evidence for evolution is an pollyannaish illusion because molecular biology is still at a lost on to how a cell can form randomly let alone a single average protein and every mutation is either a loss of information or mere recombination not adding new information for evolution i.e molecules to man to happen. breeding dogs mirrors this loss of information or reshuffling. dogs will remain dogs and not evolve as according to evolutionists whales.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 as for censoring creationist research in scientific secular journals see the documentary "no intelligence allowed" by ben stein or read the book " the slaughter of dissidents " by dr. jerry bergman. however, creationists have their own peer-reviewed journals like the journal of creation and answers research journal with lots of phd scientists participating some of them renown even in the secular circles.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 even evolutionist reconstructions of neanderthals portray neanderthals as fully human that if one is intermingling today with us no one will know the difference. features of erectus, heidelbergensis, denisovans that maybe seemed a little bit odd for humans are actually present in today's population like thick eyebrow ridge, narrow sloping forehead, burly built or what-not. that is why there are all grouped under the genus homo as opposed to australopithecines ( apes).
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 i don't know where you get your information re evolution versus creation but though i get my information largely from creationist sites these sites use the same research and findings of evolutionists themselves to prove that there conclusions are wrong. that evidence does not speak for themselves (reification) but rather your presupposition/philosophy colors your conclusion in this case the philosophy of naturalism by evolutionists determine the final interpretation.
@dneuwen - Creation "scientists" do not use science, they do not even use scientific terminology, they can't even agree on what is what. They're all a bunch of buffoons with a wrong conclusion and no evidence.
@stevenweir76 "Creation "scientists" do not use science" tell that to pioneers of modern science to a man. tell that to contemporaries of darwin like owen agassiz, sedgwick, etc. tell that to nobe laureates like chain, eccles, millikan, etc. tell that to literally thousands of phd scientists today who eschew evolution. your broadside is ignorant at the least if not mean-spirited and vitriolic.
Hilarious, it just goes to show that you can construct grammatically correct sentences that make no sense.
BenjaminGoose 2 days ago
Everything he says is 100% true! God MUST exist.
TheOneWingedAngeI 2 days ago
@TheOneWingedAngeI
Which god? His argument points as much to Islam as it does to Hinduism.
piip4 2 days ago
@piip4 Watch my video... Atheism Destroyed... That gets discussed in the comments.
TheOneWingedAngeI 1 day ago
He is more retarded then Ray Comfort. At least good old banana-man is funny.
thogz777 2 days ago
Zacharias is a smart man!
sunshinegirl1967 2 days ago
This was suprisingly well thought out. Pay the person who doesnt understand this no heed. Their disbeleif does not harm reality.
MagnusCattus 2 days ago
Is this man retarded?
jagara1 3 days ago
@jagara1 You write this because?
PVcat1 3 days ago
@PVcat1 Because lots of noise comes out of his mouth that seems to be made of words but none of it makes any sense...
Craig does the same thing too using lots of really big sounding words or concepts which impress some people, except those of us with some intellect who see it for what it is - empty words...
jagara1 3 days ago
@jagara1 Thanks for responding. I don't know who Craig of whom you refer. I take it you don't believe in a Creator and we are somehow here magically?
PVcat1 3 days ago
@PVcat1 You mean we're here because some creator magically created us? :)
BenjaminGoose 2 days ago
@BenjaminGoose Okay, what is your explanation? Do you think a gnat can understand who man is? Yahweh is infinitely bigger/greater compared to man as a gnat to man. However, God did not want to mandate that you love Him, so he didn't create robots. You are your own God. The original sin was pride as well. Nothing changes under the sun. I wish you no ill will.
PVcat1 1 day ago
Great explanation !!! It is true that not everything can be explained by science. There is always an element of faith that everyone has to believe in. The fad now is not to believe but to doubt. Doubt leads to death. How long will you remain in the the state of untruth ?
yaksumne 4 days ago
@yaksumne Thank you... Please look at my new video on my channel. Atheism Explained... watch?v=FCLHL84rrLs
TheOneWingedAngeI 2 days ago
special pleading...completely erroneous statistics...& gobbledegook. well, what else can you expect from a theologian?
castelgandalf 5 days ago
this guy is not a disgrace, this guy is a very smart theologian, and all through the Bible, and more so through the new testament there are plenty of times where Jesus is called God , so read some scripture for those that dont believe that..i believe everyone is so focused on getting some kind of view about God, or Jesus, they dont even read the Bible to the fullest or there not saved and will remain ignorant , regardless if they read the Bible or not, because they wont understand completely:)
liliversion28379 1 week ago
god exists but jesus wasnt god he was a tguru this ravi is a disgrace he converted for money
jayd4ever 1 week ago
@jayd4ever
Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
hammerogod 4 days ago
@hammerogod that could be lord krishna he was born before jesus just like jesus lord krishna is more god than jesus revert back to the truth
jayd4ever 4 days ago
@jayd4ever
Oh Heck Yes.
Isaiah, a Hebrew Prophet, was talking about krishna.
Why didn't Isaiah call him Hiranyagarbha or Devadidev then?
hammerogod 4 days ago
@jayd4ever no chance why would people in the desert prophecy of the birth of krishna?
Taurion4467 4 days ago
The human enzyme?
Ignorant stupidity.
Human enzyme?
lol
hairyreasoner 1 week ago
What self-serving bullshit nonsense is this?
hairyreasoner 1 week ago
He didn't even dive into the fulfilling of prophecy.. If these guys want to actually know the truth then just watch more Ravi videos, if you want to keep believing your lies, keep doing why your doing
StefanJato 2 weeks ago
@StefanJato You mean the very general self-fulfilling prophecies in the old testament that the authors of the new testament read, writing their new testament books to make the old testament prophecies fit? Nostradamus apparently had some prophecies come true as well. Do you believe he is god as well?
jordaniac89 1 week ago
Ah the first cause argument. Don't understand or yet know how the universe came to be? Or whether or not everything has a first cause? Good, cause shoving whichever version of yaweh (god did it) as the answer is legitimate. Can't tell the difference between natural processes like recurring chemical reactions and a MCDonald's wrapper? Just chuck in god did it. Apparently Ravi doesn't understand science.
mistereveready 2 weeks ago
The universe came to be because God created it.
Jesus is Lord.
Peace.
toffeetigerkimba 2 weeks ago
@mistereveready Apparently, neither do you. It has been shown repeatedly by scientists that natural processes are simply inadequate to explain even the most basic of bacterium, much less the human brain.
Nobody expects complex objects to arrive by chance. The road, the bridge, the novel, are all creations by intelligent people. How much more so for the universe, DNA, and life itself.
To remain an atheist is to remain in denial of the obvious. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.
terminat1 1 week ago
@terminat1 i agree. you hit the nail right on the head mate!
cezza57 1 week ago
@terminat1 Difference is, we can observe things like chemical replicators occurring w/o anyone messing with them. How complex then is your unproven god if it can consciously create something? None of the explanations I've heard or seen demonstrated about planets, stars, or the evolution of organisms insist on things starting complex. Where as the creationist idea starts with a supposedly infinitely complex creator, who w/o explanation of how, instantly creates very complex items.
mistereveready 1 week ago
@mistereveready Actually, many believe God to be a simple entity, in that He is a non-corporeal Spirit, and not composed of parts.
Even if things start out 'simple,' you still have to explain where everything came from. The universe couldn't have created itself (that's illogical), and science shows that it hasn't always existed.
Also, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics simply will not allow a random big bang eventually forming a viable universe. Randomness never produces order.
terminat1 1 week ago
@terminat1
Yep!
hammerogod 4 days ago
excellent speach
mancsakacarl 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If the story of God and Satan is true would Satan not want us to be anti God? so it makes sense that people are so defensive over the atheist/theist subject.On youtube atheists defent their beleif like mad,if a guy is a comedian he is really funny untill he makes a joke about atheism and then suddenly he is shit.If atheists dont have a beleif and are so confident they are right what are they actually defending?? you cant tell me your this concerned over not believing in something.
pinball281 2 weeks ago
lol.
what a fuck loser
flywithmeamerica 3 weeks ago
@flywithmeamerica dumb stupid*retarded* american
mancsakacarl 2 weeks ago
@mancsakacarl yawn. you must be some_dumb_ass who believes in bronze age myth.
flywithmeamerica 2 weeks ago
What a load of BS
ronin7964 3 weeks ago
@ronin7964 bs? you stupid dumb shit i pity you
mancsakacarl 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
EXALTEDDIRT 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
Either you believe his explanation or you don't! If you believe then it's cool, keep believing in God with faith, if not, don't try to make yourself sound like you know better than he does and come up with explanations that try to make yourself sound educated when you're not! If you don't agree with him, get off of this video and go watch that dude who's got cancer and is about to find out the truth, whatever his name is!!!!! Peace!!!
geedup415 1 month ago
Atheism is the laziness and ignorance of discovering the most powerful being in this so called universe. Refusal to open their eyes because they are scared of what might be the truth. I feel so sad for these blinded people.
xlazer6 1 month ago
@xlazer6 - Emotion has no place in science, and while your warm and fuzzy feelings give you comfort and certitude, I assure you, you are quite delusional. I do not fear a God because it is stupid to believe that one exists. You can not demonstrate a being with any traits of any God which distinguishes itself from nature let alone all of them. You are the one with fear, fear of dying, fear of hell, and fear of being wrong.
stevenweir76 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevenweir76
Christians say God planned Jesus'death before the foundations of the world.Let's see.God forbids murder and false testimony and knows humans will sin.So he makes humans
anyways knowing many go to hell.His plan requires men to murder and lie or it will not work.He cannot forgive unless his son,conceived through the rape of engaged girl,
is brutalized and killed.If we believe this wickedness,we are saved.This is evil by all human moral standards.Christianity should be banned.
thedagonjones 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xlazer6
God tells a man to kill and burn his son.Gen22.Previously,God instructed NOT to kill.Gen9.James1 says God will NOT tempt with evil.What would YHWH have done if Abram said to this demonic voice order his son burned,"Get behind me Satan,God has forbidden murder.You are wicked and in the name of YHWH,LEAVE ME NOW WICKED BEING."God said he NEVER commanded this burning of Isaac and never even thought about it.Jer19:5.He says he hates burning children.Deut12:31.Ravi money whore.U R blinded
thedagonjones 4 weeks ago
saying something physical came from something non physical is like saying something came from nothing.
timo86m 1 month ago
all i have to say is Argument from Ignorance
TheCosmicTang 1 month ago
Rather than talk about things you know nothing about, maybe you should arrange a debate between me and Ravi Zecharias and see what I have.
depthofgratitude 1 month ago
Just because most of you aren't as well studied as this man, doesn't mean you should think he is trying to fool you. Narrow is the path to the Kingdom. Science proves that something can't be made from nothing. Jesus is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, forever and ever, Amen.
kylesalone 1 month ago
@kylesalone Don't even try. People are stupid, they can't understand you. (:
356designer 1 month ago
so he actually says that because he can't explain the creation of it, he credits a supernatural self-created god for it's creaton. ok that sounds accurate...
fevgaleoscy 1 month ago
This man is a bunch a pseudo nonsense. please people think about what he is talking about, he is making up the rules, and applying certain knowledge to non-knowledge, acting as though he has said something significant. He is simply another Deepak Chopra.
DeconversionCentral 1 month ago
@DeconversionCentral pseudo = Fake So fake nonsense. You should listen to what you say.
YouRNotQualified 1 month ago
@YouRNotQualified
Good job, but actually pseudo nonsense = fake nonsense, which indeed is grammatically redundant and confusing without a comma breaking up the two words. I only meant to emphasize how great the nonsense is in this video. I will continue to work on my grammar. Thank you.
DeconversionCentral 1 month ago
@DeconversionCentral if you think this is nonsense then how would you explain it? if you can give something to explain about the universe, not just being antagonistic, then probably i could consider what have you just said.
51leumas 1 month ago
@51leumas
Thank you for a honest reply, I will message you in order to save the mess of the comment page.
DeconversionCentral 1 month ago
Just another wishful thinker, trying to convince other wishful thinkers...
None of his arguments have any real substance to them. Another dissapointment.
andBassandSwing 1 month ago
@andBassandSwing He is stating a fact, He is not convincing you, he doesn't need to convince you, God only gives faith to the few.
51leumas 1 month ago
Unless there is no origin and no cause, Mr. Zacharias, and the Universe has no beginning, therefore what is is only there because you bring it in the discussion. I figure the moral reality you talk about comes from the God of Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Stop misleading people! Stop confusing their minds with Christian "scientific" lectures.
Debate me Mr. Zecharias. I am.
Enjoy the dream my unborn friend.
depthofgratitude 1 month ago
@depthofgratitude awesome post
andBassandSwing 1 month ago
@depthofgratitude hahaha so you cant answer him so you dismiss God? loool
Megapolable 1 month ago
@depthofgratitude He already answered your question "Anything Physical had to have a beginning". The Universe is a Physical system and had to be created. You can only make calculations outside of a physical system using Mathematical transforms but it would have to deal with another Physical system. What created the Universe would not be categorized as a Physical system.He's not misleading people, you just don't have a high enough level of Mathematical Understanding to understand the argument.
lion575 1 month ago
If you track through the Bibles generations, the BIble shows the earth only being 7,000 years old. Which that being said, according to the creation account in Genesis God created the earth and shortly after, created man.
Skinnydsmith 1 month ago
This argument (as brilliantly put as it is) only really works (for me) if you completely deny evolution. To use it to substantiate the idea that god's main focus was human life- heaven and hell etc, then you'd have to explain why in the majority of the time the universe has existed, humans didn't exist.
Griptease2 1 month ago
@Griptease2
@Griptease2 I don't see a problem with that. Let's say theistic evolution is indeed true, then we have that God planned everything in such a way that we finally came into existence. Why take billions of years or why 1 second? Why not earlier? It's just a matter of perspective and God has plenty of time on His hands. Also you're assuming we are near the end of time, I don't see why couldn't we exist 10 thousand times more years than have passed before. It's a matter or perspective.
tiagotrinidad 1 month ago
@tiagotrinidad I do not think we are near the end of time at all, but I do believe in a few million years, we'll have evolved further (or may be extinct.) This argument can get as far as God existing (Deism.) There is no argument other than the bible that a God would have any interest in human life whatsoever. Also, with intelligent design, this hypothetical alien stumbling on an island, why would he not presuppose a creator if he found a tree or a rock?
Griptease2 1 month ago
This is so sick. i love it!!!
TheRiddler8 1 month ago
Vibration without over elaborating on specific details I've felt is a major component to everything in existence no matter what it is. Theres more coming soon to a universe near you!
GameLevelEditor 1 month ago
I believe in God, but I will not force my beliefs on anyone. I cannot prove scientifically that God is real but I can show circumstantial evidence and philosohical views showing how he probably is. However since I'm my own entity I can experience certain events first hand and prove to myself that God is real, and ultimately that's all that matters as far as "myself" is concerned. We all die and we will either fade to nothing (if I'm wrong) or see the light and all that is divine (if im right)
03chrisv 1 month ago
I got a question I would like to ask if anyone is interested, as a child growing and like many other children growing up I was told that if I did not believe in god that when I die I will burn in a sea of fire for ever and ever, many children are told this in everyday life, is this not a form of child abuse………………….
theexplorable 2 months ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
Ravi Zacharias may be smart, but not regarding evolution or quantum mechanics. Clearly, based on his explanations he is seriously lacking for information.
veronicats100 2 months ago
Explain soul, remorse, pain, guilt, compassion, pity, love, sacrifice. Explain the true experiences of Heaven and Hell in "The Lazarus Phenomenon" (On YouTube).
rrmjvand 2 months ago
@dneuwen - New information can be generated in DNA by several means, there are several known, again, by not doing research except with your selected sources with extreme confirmation bias. Again you choose ignorance.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevenweir76 "New information can be generated in DNA by several means" gene duplication, chromosomal polypoidy or what? but these are still the same information, just repetition. in fact some of these repetitions are harmful as in extra chromosome 21 i think which causes down syndrome.
dneuwen 2 months ago
I don't think this PROVES the existence of god, so much so that it exemplifies that we can muse upon the existence of one.
punkmusicmetal 2 months ago
Satan created religions, God created only one religion or life illustration of the one true church of the house of Israel, judaism.The spark, if you will of judaism is the revelation of God in the flesh, Jesus Christ.Without out the revelation of Christ, judaism would have been another dead religion, man's effort to reach God, but the opposed is true God had reach down to man in the person of Jesus, God became a man.
Ajaxxism1 2 months ago
This argument can be used to prove the existence of ANY God with equal validity (or invalidity - because this argument is idiotic). This argument does not prove Yahweh, the God of the bible.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 sure. expect him to prove Yahweh in 3 minutes. Go and listen to his other talks. He goes into detail in explaining why Jesus is the ultimate expression of God.
nanamiyuki 2 months ago
@nanamiyuki Maybe 'prove' wasn't the right word, as you picked up on. But this alone still isn't even a valid argument valid argument, becasue of those reasons that I specified.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 No it can't because no other false idol exemplifies the teaching's of the Bible. No other God as you put it came down and sacrificed himself for our salvation. There is only one true God.
o0RaidR0o 2 months ago
@o0RaidR0o Sorry but you are wrong. Look up the similarities between Mithra, the Sun God of ancient Persia (who pre-dates Jesus by about 600 years) and Jesus. There are so many similarities between the two supposed dieties that it would take several comments to list them all. Much of the Christian religion is based on the religion of Mithra. Here are some of the MANY similarities between Jesus and Mithra:
- Both are said to have been born on the 25th of December
....
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@o0RaidR0o Mithra's role in that religion was very similar to the role of Jesus in Christianity. Mithra's role was as a redeemer, to bring light to the darkness, enlightenment. Purify the impure, make the evil good, etc etc. Where's your God now? lmao
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@o0RaidR0o You can't argue with historical fact!
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1
- Mithra was considered a great traveling teacher. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithra also performed miracles
- Like Jesus, Mithra was also called "the good shepherd, "the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb
- Mithra was supposedly born of a virgin
- He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
And there are many more.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
God Jesus is exist today, and He is always with us! God's bless you everyone! :)
simonshanoo 2 months ago
So...he didn't asnwered the question. Is like saying. I leave this here and set the pieces but I cannot answer that (just like all his other arguments) is what you believe in because people have different thoughts. In short...a load of bullshit.
SXL017 2 months ago
Which God does he believe in? And for what reasons did he choose that God?
Tokajein 2 months ago
@Tokajein he believes in Jesus Christ. but the point he's trying to get across is intelligent design, not a specific religious deity.
Italianboy225 2 months ago
@Italianboy225 There is only one Diety in Christianity. It's called Christianity becomes it reflects those who follow Christ. Christianity = Christ God almighty. I don't understand your confusion.
o0RaidR0o 2 months ago
@Italianboy225 Oh okay, thanks. I was a bit confused because there are many different religions, and I couldn't quite understand which God he was referring to.
Tokajein 2 months ago
@Tokajein I'm not sure what your trying to say. But there is only one God, Ravi makes no mistake about that. God is God!
o0RaidR0o 2 months ago
@o0RaidR0o Well actually depending on your religion there could be many Gods. I am always interested in hearing peoples religious beliefs and their reason for choosing that certain belief .
Tokajein 2 months ago
If a universe must have an explanation, then a universe-causer also requires an explanation. Ravi's first premise fails and his arguments explain nothing.
onlylettersand0to9 3 months ago
@onlylettersand0to9 Old questions there. Many answers out there also.
XxMarkTFx 2 months ago
@onlylettersand0to9 unless the universe causer has no cause and it's in itself self existent = God. It will only fail for atheists not for theists.
KingDcome11 2 months ago
It is awesome to see God turn the heart of the hateful to himself, it is grate to see when an atheist surrenders his heart to Jesus.
RichGonzalezVerona 3 months ago
Just an intelligent way of saying "tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain that."
TheSyrupMan 3 months ago
Because you know the definition of the word egregore you undermine religion in its entirety? You cannot deny that physical life as we know it was created by something unseen, or something/ some not physical. No scientific, or mathematical theory fits in the equation here. Bottom line there is a greater, we/the world, was created in the image of something or someone. Don't let false Christians or atheist throw you into there band wagon, do deepvin depth reasearch of your own.
jondabessman 3 months ago
@ConspiracyWithIntent Christians should just fucking keep to themselves instead of bothering every other religion ... You are not saving anyone by dedicating your life to an egregore ....
Zondroky 3 months ago
I wonder why ALL these people making negative comments about Christians are searching YouTube to see if there just possibly might be a God? Hmm. (Smh) No such thing as a coincidence. Somebody's praying for ya! Get ready to be born again. (John 3:3) Oh yeah, it's on ya!
JRealityTV 3 months ago
@JRealityTV - We're not searching for God on youtube, we're seeking to undermine the establishment of superstition, and we're succeeding. I was born fine the first time, and we don't need religion to tell us how shitty we are, it's a waste of time. Cheer leading does not equate to logical argument, go back to school.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
He is a respected theologian? HAHAHAHAAA
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 months ago
@ConspiracyWithIntent Why would atheist be misarable? They can do whatever they want...
and without ignorant christians that screams SINNER! to everyone except themselves then the world would be a happier place...
Zondroky 3 months ago
@ConspiracyWithIntent I can`t find any fingerprints.
ndzoko 3 months ago
God doesnt exist and you know it!
Christians are so depressed that they need a reason to live...
Zondroky 3 months ago
God is more elusive as Bigfoot. No sightings anywhere, not even a footprint.
ndzoko 3 months ago
btw the fact taht the Bible exists does not negate all the other evidence for God...nice try tho fantom lord...think ur leaving out a few things... how about the fact taht all of civilization thought that a non physical being created the universe LONG BEFORE we "knew" exactly how old the earth was? which we dont. which is irrelevant in any case. some of the best scientists in the world are theists.
jdaddy2323 3 months ago
religion doesnt kno when to quit? first of all "religion" and God are too different things. second of all...ever heard richard dawkins speak? lol yeh..atheists are alwaysss completely unbiased and kno exactly when to quit. the idea that science can explain everything is remarkably false.
jdaddy2323 3 months ago
Comment removed
krujosevillarisco 3 months ago
Yeah the universe can't just exhist but god can just exhist. LOL! This arguement tickles the shit out of me.
jrdennis1 3 months ago
@jrdennis1 You exist now but something that you are going to create next week does not exist. God did not begin to exist while the universe BEGUN to exist. Big difference.
jeejopallayi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeejopallayi LMAO!!! My point EXACTLY! LMOA!!!
jrdennis1 3 months ago
Comment removed
thugsingh1 3 months ago
the atheist asks for evidence as if god is some evolved physical being that can be measured, analysed and confirmed. Science cannot answer the question of whether there is a god. it is not designed to do so. I want evidence that the speed of light is constant, hang on is it? scientific knowledge changes every day. There is no "god" meter that detects his presence. A theist thinks with reason. What is more reasonable? that God made us or we are a lucky accident?
ngimangi 3 months ago
@ngimangi A lucky accident. If the Bible, Qur'an, and or Torah didn't exist would you still believe that an "non physical being" created everything in a week about 10,000 years ago? Or would you believe that scientist are correct in saying that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old?
FantomL0rd 3 months ago
@FantomL0rd there is also the Guru Granth Sahib (holy book) for Sikhs
thugsingh1 3 months ago
They just love to shoot themselves in the feet!
No wonder they 're hopping mad!
Great post. Some of it prepares me for 'open-air' work!
FindingJesusverytrue 3 months ago
This entire world screams God. Their is absolutely NO WAY this world could have come to be without God. He is the alpha and omega, beginning and the end and their is absolutely NONE like HIM! Glory be to his name!
stormsophia1994 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stormsophia1994 - This entire world screams Zeus. Their is absolutely NO WAY this world could have come to be without Zeus. He is the alpha and omega, beginning and the end and their is absolutely NONE like HIM! Glory be to his name!
stevenweir76 3 months ago
and god doesnt need to explain itself 'outside' itself. aagh! then a bunch of non-sequiturs. then 'from design to design'. The possibility of you, ravi, existing, is even less probable, and still you are here, annoying us with your pseudoscience rants. this man couldnt get any worse, maybe only trying to sound more scientific.
sirdelrio 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 this is new to me. that evolution from ape to human should not be repeated or for that matter any other supposed evolution, otherwise evolution is false, this is counterintuitive. why shouldn't many of the supposed evolution be repeated when it advanced to that gradation because they are advantageous for survival. convergent evolution also pokes holes to this argument. if it cannot happen again, then there is no falsifiable prediction, only carte blanche.
dneuwen 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 God surrounded by four creatures with many eyes surrounded by 24 elders in heaven doesn't sound fanciful at all. even in our human affairs, kings and monarchs are surrounded by advisers and royal retinues likely copying the heavenly model. what's truly fanciful is that apes turning into humans. but surely from among the apes we have today many are perhaps the millionth descendants of their ancestors of 5 million years ago. any candidate there showing some humanlike phenotype?
dneuwen 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 "No they can't show how feet changed into flippers, only that it did."
can't you hear yourself and see that this is more of a willful faith than real science? you are the one denying reality since reality is grounded in observation. your statement is not an observation but an imagination. even if your imagination sounds realistic and probable it is still an imagination, not part of the real world,.
dneuwen 3 months ago
@dneuwen - It isn't faith to see the similarities distinct to branches on the tree of life even as through progression in time other differences occur. Maybe you can call it faith, but it is based upon evidence and reason, not fairy tale books. Apes never turned into humans, we share a common ancestor but have branched apart. Your other drivel about apes is a straw-man, and I've already stated such and why that is so. When you read, try to comprehend.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 but the evolutionary tree of life is all twigs and stems , no major branches, lots of gaps and discontinuities nor is it backed up by evidence since no mutation or natural selection has shown one organism changing phylogenetically, only variations within the species.
and your playing with semantics since anyone seeing that purported ancestor would call it "ape" in every sense.
dneuwen 3 months ago
@dneuwen There are many major branches but if you are expecting a big jump from one species to another like fish suddenly becoming frogs, I think you will be disappointed, any transitional form from one generation to the next will only have minor morphological differences. It took billions of years to get where we are today, and your children will differ from you only in minor ways. I will show you pictures of fossils and have you identify them, you tell me whether they are ape or human.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 if evolution according to you is a very slow process with very minor morphological differences from generation to generation then all the more that we should see countless transitionals in varying degrees of change or gradation in living and in the fossil record. but that is not the case. as for hominid fossils whether they are apes or human, basically ape skulls have a sloping, jutting profile and no nose bridge and have smaller brain capacity than average human brain.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen So you are arrogant enough to think you know more about evolution than 99% of evolutionary biologists? You think that what you read on some creationist website or heard from a fellow creationist discredits all the work that so many thousands of scientists have done testing the theory to make sure that it stands up to the evidence? Then why don't you do get yourself a masters degree in evolutionary biology, look at the evidence, test if these ideas are true...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 even some evolutionary biologists admit their evidence is largely a tautology and there is not a whit of observable evidence of one organism turning into another organism phylogenetically. and there is no objective testing of the hypothesis rather evidence are interpreted according to evolutionary presupposition that often paradigm becomes so malleable as to be totally non-falsifiable.
dneuwen 2 months ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@dneuwen - We do have countless transitional forms, but what we do not have is every transitional form, you fill up your gas tank with a lot of them because they do not all fossilize nicely or at all. Even creationists argue what are humans and what are apes in the fossil record. Because they, like you, choose ignorance, instead of using any tangible definition of anything.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 since you believe in gradual evolution, for every purported fossil deemed transitional there should be more transitional linking it to its ancestor and descendant. saying they they are not readily fossilized is a cop-out. it is a tacit admission that the fossil record don't support evolution and darwin would still be disappointed. as for creationists disagreements, this are rare occasion arising from the fragmentary nature of specimen.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen - You are the one pulling the bait and switch or moving the goalposts as it were. You admit life changes but can't see how new species arrive.
You have no explanation for the diversity of life other than a magic man in the sky made all the living things, ignoring the evidence of evolution.
You are a joke, a sad little human who needs his sulky blanket of the promise of eternal life to avoid living in the first place. Grow up child.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 there is nothing permanent in life except change. but change is not limitless. there is no evidence that one organism can change into another different organism. it can change color, size, behavior,etc enriching diversity in a species but the species will stay the same species or genus. to cite this limited type of change as evidence for phylogenetic change is bait-and-switch fallacy which often evolutionists are irresponsibly culpable of.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen - Species do not morph in a generation, the subtle morphological differences in each generation are only amplified through time. Seeing as the Earth is incredibly old and we have fossils of millions of extinct species and have many layers which only contain simple or extinct life we know that change occured, the only question is exactly how, and the theory is evolution by natural selection. If you're not an evolutionist you deny change and that makes you stupid.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 who denies change? we also espouse change only that there are limits to change in species. there is no evidence, molecular or biological that a species can change into another species phylogenetically. as for the fossil record it does not show gradual change from species to species but rather abrupt appearance of diverse phyla without trace of ancestry as in the cambrian and the record speaks of stasis as the norm rather than constant change.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen - There is plenty of evidence for phylogenetic changes, species which no longer exist but bear similarities to mulitple species which are not found in the fossil record at the time. The fossil record doesn't show abrupt changes, it shows that you don't realize that not everything is fossilized, but even if it didn't you still can't explain all the species. Your evidence for stasis is over a period of your lifetime, which at best is 3 x 10-8 the span of life on Earth.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 not just in our multiple lifetimes but evolutionists themselves like gould admitted that the fossil record is generally a picture of stasis not constant evolving. as for genes for gills in human, again a lot of baloney and you still spouting the embryonic recapitulation of haeckel long been exposed as a complete fraud. the apparent "gills" in human embryos are fold of skins not slit-like gills which develop into larynx, etc nothing to do with breathing at all.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen - I'm not talking about morphology of embryos, although despite Haeckel's embellishment they are indeed evidence of our similarities to and evolution from other species, what I'm talking about are inactive genes, such as the genes for synthesizing vitamin C which rats still have and humans lost because of an error in duplication.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 how can you say humans lost some gene for synthesizing vitamin c? have you sequenced the genome of your ancestors and see if they had the said gene in the first place? you are making up a fiction story based on your unproved evolutionary assumption.
dneuwen 1 month ago
@dneuwen - The loss of the ability to synthesize Vitamin C is evident in the sequence in mice which functions to that end yet in humans has a replication error which lost the ability to do so. Thus we can get scurvy. There are many scientific works which I can cite about this and they all cite prior scientific documents which lead to that logical conclusion. Here's a link so you can see what real science looks like. lewrockwell(dot)com(forward slash)sardi(forward slash)sardi91(dot)html
stevenweir76 1 month ago
@stevenweir76 so mutation causes some humans to lose the ability to properly synthesize vitamin c. but what does it have to do with evolution? there is no point in time nor will there ever be that mice will gradually change into something. because we share with mice some biophysical similarities since we live in the same earth, breathe the same air, process the same basic food groups, God the common Designer used the same leitmotif design for efficient, economical functionality.
dneuwen 1 month ago
@dneuwen - Evolution is change, losing the ability to synthesize vitamin C is a deleterious mutation, but because we have other sources of vitamin C it isn't fatal. If it was a key protein that was needed for reproduction or survival it then that change would not survive, but we see this in many genetic diseases, we don't need to be perfect to survive and reproduce, only suitable. But we share a large part of the genome with mice.
stevenweir76 1 month ago
@stevenweir76 Your arguments are sound, but understand you will never convince this dneuwen of anything. When he are equating biology with cars you know he is a moron. Your comments help youtube viewers sort through bull shit other are spreading. All the arguments Ravi is making have been refuted as false. If everything needs a first cause then by definition God must have a first cause. A wrapper on the beach is false, because we know that it is not natural occurring, an amino acid try that.
yeudh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dneuwen - Evolution is change, losing the ability to synthesize vitamin C is a deleterious mutation, but because we have other sources of vitamin C it isn't fatal. If it was a key protein that was needed for reproduction or survival it then that change would not survive, but we see this in many genetic diseases, we don't need to be perfect to survive and reproduce, only suitable. But we share a large part of the genome with mice.
stevenweir76 1 month ago
@dneuwen ... and that is where the 'findings' of the experiments done by creationist scientists that support their worldview are then discredited when they are found to be invalid. You call this censoring (and probably an infringment on freedom of speech), well all the rest of the scientists aren't going to let invalid science become accepted science are they? Creationist sites are not scientifically supported. Just because a small group of scientists agree with it, does not mean it is correct.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 peer-reviewed journals by secular scientists they among themselves often disagree with the interpretation of evidence purporting to support evolution? there is no overwhelming consensus and many who have a lot of misgivings about evolution will still support the hypothesis because merely of groupthink and peer pressure.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen - And that's because they approach the data without a prior conclusion, only a hypothesis, treat God as a hypothesis, instead of a conclusion and you'll understand why science rejects God. We are simply incapable of pushing aside facts, even when they are not convenient.
I don't like the fact that I'm going to die and my consciousness will probably cease to exist, but it taught me to appreciate the life I have, you won't even do that. You think living is in the way of truth.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevenweir76 lol, science rejects God? Are you kidding me? What kind of sick atheist liar are you.
I challenge show me the scientific paper that demonstrates a scientific disproval of the existence of God.
And remember psychology, anthropology et al are pseudo-sciences.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@dneuwen - I will send you links to catalogues of fossils and where you can see them if you’d like, or maybe you could learn to use google and search for fossil images, go to the beach, you’ll probably find a fossil if you look hard enough. As for your guesses about what God is, you have no evidence for any of it, so while you may impress your ignorant Christian friends with your perceived grandiose connection to the unseen magical dictator you call God, I believe you are a liar or delusional.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 i won't hold my breath in anxious anticipation for these catalogues of fossil as i have seen a few of them already and many of them are incomplete specimen and it never ceases to amaze me on how imaginative evolutionists reconstruct them to support their preconceived idea. it brings to mind how they reconstructed nebraska man and his whole entourage out of a single tooth. nor is this the only problem. some specimen parts are found in some distance from each other!
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen ... of the animal that scientists believed the tooth belonged to before the error was verified. Most scientists were skeptical of the discovery and few, if any, reputable scientists made any bold assertions that this was a confirmed human ancestor. Since the discovery of the error, Nebraska man's only significant mention is in creationist literature that hopes to discredit evolution by exploiting a mistake - a mistake which was discovered and exposed by scientists anyway.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 so nebraska man was dubious to the keen eyes of evolutionists from the get-go yet didn't you know that this hoax was used by clarence darrow in the infamous scopes trial? and if evolutionists are so sharp as to see frauds or meticulous to correct errors then why did it take half a century to expose another infamous hoax- piltdown man? why is haeckel's embryonic fraud still not expunged from some school biology textbooks.
dneuwen 2 months ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@dneuwen One more thing. The image I am referring to was in the London News many years ago (I don't know the exact date for sure, but I seem to recall it was 1922). The image of Nebraska man was accompanied by the following text: "Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius...". There, i'm done.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
Comment removed
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dneuwen Look up the information I have given you if you want to verify it. You will find that it is accurate. Some of what I have been saying was merely copied and pasted from other websites.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@dneuwen - Your last statement is a rehash of your expectation that every specimen fossilizes. If you won't look at the evidence or offer an explanation which is falsifiable, you choose ignorance.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 we don't require that every transitional be fossilized but since gradual evolution entails quite a manifold of intermediates is it too unreasonable to ask that you produce a good number of undisputed transitionals not just a handful of dicey candidates?
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen Actually, I am not going to bother with you. Pretty much everything you said is either misconception or just lies. Unless of course, if you want to have a proper rational discussion with me about evolution and find out how your information is incorrect, then I invite you to do some research (it looks like you really need to), then make your claims about the 'falsehood' of evolution one or two at a time. I am not going to respond to all of them at once.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 first genetic evidence for evolution is an pollyannaish illusion because molecular biology is still at a lost on to how a cell can form randomly let alone a single average protein and every mutation is either a loss of information or mere recombination not adding new information for evolution i.e molecules to man to happen. breeding dogs mirrors this loss of information or reshuffling. dogs will remain dogs and not evolve as according to evolutionists whales.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 as for censoring creationist research in scientific secular journals see the documentary "no intelligence allowed" by ben stein or read the book " the slaughter of dissidents " by dr. jerry bergman. however, creationists have their own peer-reviewed journals like the journal of creation and answers research journal with lots of phd scientists participating some of them renown even in the secular circles.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 even evolutionist reconstructions of neanderthals portray neanderthals as fully human that if one is intermingling today with us no one will know the difference. features of erectus, heidelbergensis, denisovans that maybe seemed a little bit odd for humans are actually present in today's population like thick eyebrow ridge, narrow sloping forehead, burly built or what-not. that is why there are all grouped under the genus homo as opposed to australopithecines ( apes).
dneuwen 2 months ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 i don't know where you get your information re evolution versus creation but though i get my information largely from creationist sites these sites use the same research and findings of evolutionists themselves to prove that there conclusions are wrong. that evidence does not speak for themselves (reification) but rather your presupposition/philosophy colors your conclusion in this case the philosophy of naturalism by evolutionists determine the final interpretation.
dneuwen 2 months ago
@dneuwen - Creation "scientists" do not use science, they do not even use scientific terminology, they can't even agree on what is what. They're all a bunch of buffoons with a wrong conclusion and no evidence.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 "Creation "scientists" do not use science" tell that to pioneers of modern science to a man. tell that to contemporaries of darwin like owen agassiz, sedgwick, etc. tell that to nobe laureates like chain, eccles, millikan, etc. tell that to literally thousands of phd scientists today who eschew evolution. your broadside is ignorant at the least if not mean-spirited and vitriolic.
dneuwen 2 months ago