I thought they were going to show how the odds against that exact roll were huge - but it's not proof it couldn't happen, because it just did. Miracle!
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Well I think that you have no evidence of evolution and you are going by faith. But I can tell you that both of my parent know people that have died and came back and if you look a people that either are atheist ,muslim,buddhist,mormons ect have died and and seen hell how come the don't see nothing if there isn't a heaven and a hell
So, if there would be a designer, what is the meaning of the designer? Why is the purpose of its existence? Why would anything it does have any meaning?
Intelligent Design explanation would have a leg to stand on possibly if there weren't things like natural birth. If every creature were zapped or hand delivered from some factory, then they'd have an argument. Where no variations occur unless the makers decree it. If creationist could get past the false concept of immutability of creatures.
@funnygames1 Just look at what you've done, now I'm even more confused than I was. Well from now on I'll flip a coin everytime I have to use that word and will use either only 'die' or only 'dice' depending on the outcome. (Murphy's Law FTF.)
@snipersteel5200 "If she rolls all 6s that means the universe is structured to support life."
Now you're just making stuff up. Fact is, we don't even know if it's possible for the universe to be different than what it is. Even if you're right though, your utter ignorance of the number of trials involved with producing the natural laws so Tracy might have essentially an infinite amount of rolls to produce all 6s.
@snipersteel5200 Finally, you're falsely viewing this universe as a goal. In essence, you're demanding that someone deal the same bridge hand twice. The odds against that are astronomical, but when you deal the first hand *it must end up with some result*. Such an initial deal could well amount to this universe.
I have not taken stititics in a long time but I think it is 1/1,137,211,521,197,188,055.04 Each dice has 6 sides. 6^25 and lets say that order of the dice does not come into play you would divide by 25 dice. ((6^25)/25) = 1,137,211,521,197,188,055.04
If we say that the dice are the stars,planets and everything that exist.When we break it down the dice were created.I am pretty sure the dice didnt just come into existence.Therefore a creator played a part.
I don't think anyone is arguing that dice have a creator. However, just because a dice had a creator, doesn't mean EVERYTHING in the universe had to have a creator. Energy has no beginning and no end, it's always been.
And what about matter inside the earth that, under enormous amounts of pressure and heat, carbon forms into diamonds? Was it a WHO that "created" the diamond? No, it was a WHAT, and it was FORMED due to physical forces involving pressure and temperature.
Firstly, the dice couldn't have fallen without someone rolling them. Secondly, the dice bear no complexities as are in the human brain, the most complex thing on the face of this planet. Thirdly the dice had to be created by someone, so the way I see it, you just proved God a little more :)
@treesofmarble Someone rolling dice. The complexities of the Human Brain. Someone created dice. How do these 3 things prove the existence of a god ?
Please define god in specific terms & present credible evidence (NOT scripture, personal revelation, logical fallacies or an Argumentum ad Populum) to support Your positive claim that a god exists. The Burden of Proof is on You to present evidence to prove Your positive claim NOT for others refute it.
@tranquility4all I have seen those who have tried to define it as god is love, but the bibles own ddefinition of love contradicts this since according to the bible love is not provoked and yet god is provoked several times.
@Sweddude god is love isn't defining a god in specific terms. The BUY BULL is filled with contradictions. Many christians claim a god exists because it is written in the BUY BULL. They also claim it's the word of god. Circular reasoning has made many christians dizzy. Many christians were indoctrinated at an early age & choose to remain willfully ignorant. If early childhood indoctrination was criminalized, All religions especially christianity would die a swift death.
@treesofmarble What if there's and earthquake and the dice fall to the floor? Or what if the dice pot is outside and a strong wind brings it down? Or a dog passes by and pushes the dice pot by accident? Or a bird? Or what if, what if... INFINITE possibilities.
Denying the Creator is Denying yourself. Everything in existence is God even yourself, you have the capacity to change everything around you. We are bounded by Universal Laws of Karma, Law of Attraction, Law of Earth, Law of Space, Law of Gravity and so on. We created this whole physical journey for an adventure.... So have fun in your journey here on earth, Do what you want but remember dear God that you have to abide the Law of Karma, Do Good you will be blessed with Good.
People, respect this person's beliefs. How he/she feels towards good may be as real as how I think my laptop is right below my fingers at this moment.
I'd like to go with believing what I find most justified, reasoned and true to myself. I'd like to die happy without worrying whether or not "the man" upstairs was pleased.
They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator God - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.
"And the parable of those....more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
@1tabligh There has passed a long time since I have read this much text that has said so little.
Drop the superiority complex, man. You aren't better than us because your god decided that we wouldn't believe in him. (since he sees into the future as well as being all powerful)
@DisembowelMe Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@DisembowelMe Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
We don't "delude ourselves" about the elemental origins. We have very well worked out and detailed theories about all this that agree with other theories and observation, if you'de care to look.
We also pretty much KNOW that these are the "source of other things". Do you have a reason to suppose anything is NOT made out of these fundamental particles?
Researching physics, quantum theory and stellar nucleosynthesis may help you to understand how all this is explainable without a deity.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
I see you completely decided to eschew my suggestion to avail yourself of a little education.
Yours is an absolutely classic textbook argument from ignorance/incredulity.
Just because YOU cannot imagine how something might come about does not mean it didn't. Especially when all the evidence would suggest that it indeed did.
IF this is as you suggest, where did your deity come from?
And please don't bother with the "he's the alpha and omega" meaningless idiocy.
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
@martiangrundy In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@mikeyo1234 How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
their devils and spectres. They have eyes but do not see, they have tongues but are dumb, and do not understand. They have ears but do not hear. They are happy in their contemptible degradation. They presume that they are well-guided. They are diverted from the rank of rational beings. They feed on the vegetation of' polluted dirty people. They deem themselves safe from a sudden visitation of death and the retribution of deeds. Alas! How ill fated are these people! (Con't)
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
This analogy holds good in the case of those who deny the creative factor and the argument in favour of Divine Design. Failing to appreciate the merit of their provision, the perfection of creation and the beauty of design, they start wandering in the wide world, bewildered by their inability to grasp with their brains the underlying causes and principles. Mankind is perplexed and bewildered, blind, infatuated in their perverseness, following (Con't)
And this is what the ATHEISTS fail to understand and in their misguided blindness and bewilderment they are like the blind people groping right and left not knowing the purpose for this Universe, and unaware of the underlying ingenuity, they might begin to reprimand the architect of the Universe in their offensive rage, whereas, as a matter of fact, the fault lies with their own inability to see. (Con't)
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded ignorant atheists* say. ...
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis. ...
The horrible reality of this particular brand of nonsense is that its propagators and supporters are immune to reason and logic. Spout all the well structured arguments you want; debunk, break down and dismiss their arguments, they'll still not go away, and they'll still not rethink their ludicrous opinions. Persistence in the face of adversity is a virtue held close to heart by these people. 'tis the very definition of fruitless labour.
Even if the exact locations of the 25 dice didn't matter, the chance that they would land with the up-faces that they did, would 1 in about 28,430,288,000,000,000,000.
28 quintillion, 438 quadrillion, 288 trillion. Only once out of ROUGHLY that many rolls, ON AVERAGE, would the 25 six-sided dice come up in ANY specified pattern. I'd say that IS pretty astronomically high. And that's WITHOUT their exact locations in the universe having mattered.
for their first fallacy model, they are completely ignoring the cause of the dice to fall in that random order, why? who is the one that rolled the dice onto the table? after rolling the dice, she could just have easily placed the dice in whatever position she wanted. science has brought about evolution as a theory, just because there is no other theory/answer/belief outside of religion, it does not mean that evolution is the answer. In fact, science has disproved several elements of evolution.
@thejdblue842 I agree that the theory of evolution by means of natural selection may not be the end all theory to explain the phenomenon of evolution. However, I completely disagree with you about your last statement. Please provide your peer-reviewed article source for the claim that "science has disproved several elements of evolution" because such evidence would be all over the news as the next Nobel Prize winner in Biology.
@lhvinny Science has not disproved elements of evolution all at once. Right now, there is no understanding for how organisms abruptly appeared in the fossil record in the precambrian era. bacteria did not just turn into complex organisms like the trilobites. if evolution was such a gradual process, scientists would find incomplete organisms with unusable parts in the fossil record, however none exist. As for mutations, they're harmful more times than not, so how would they help creatures survive
@thejdblue842 Your comment only illustrates that you have very limited understanding of the theory of evolution. Nowhere does the theory say an organism would be "incomplete" or have "unusable parts." This is a strawman constructed by those who think evolution has a complex organelle or other functional part in mind, and that all parts beforehand must have no function at all. Evolution requires that all parts have a function, otherwise its traits would not be selected for during reproduction.
@lhvinny this still doesn't account for the missing middle ground between evolving organisms. whether the parts are usable or not, that are not present in the fossil findings. i understand things change, and i know populations adapt and change according to their environment and such. mutations are weeded out by natural selection for the benefit of the organism. new animals are not formed from mutations over time. mutations do not provide new information for an organism, they lose it.
@thejdblue842 Your comment that mutations do not provide new information, by which I assume you mean increased genetic variety or novel genetic information, is horribly false. Increased genetic variety has been documented by Lenski in "Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations." American Naturalist 1995.
@thejdblue842 An increase in genetic information is documented by Alves in "Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review." Genetica 2001. Novel genetic material is documented by Knox in "Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance." Chemistry and Biology 1996. Novel genetically regulated abilities is documented by Prijambada in 1995.
@thejdblue842 All you have done is spout Intelligent Design movement propaganda that has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. ID was founded in the court of law to be nothing more than pseudo science. The idea barely even passes as a hypothesis.
I am sorry that you find it convincing, but please take a look at the actual science I have cited for you, against which you have posted no articles to back up your claims.
@gregrutz you lose the information that it was a car!! r u that dense??
say a dog has its dna mutated, lets say a regular dog's code translated to "great hearing," as it should be
but the dog with the mutated dna has the code translated to "bad hearing." the dog loses the information for good hearing, no matter what type of mutation. the dog lost the instructions for great hearing.
Of course they can add new information to a chromosome, that's the whole point behind a base insertion.
Genetic mutation is an extremely complex field with many many mechanisms possible. You also have to remember that most change between generations will occur during unrepaires problems meiosis and during crossing over, where you can get abnormal numbers of whole chromosomes.
@thejdblue842 Your statement that mutations are harmful more times than not does nothing more than admit that beneficial and neutral mutations do occur, which is all that is necessary for a species to become more well adapted for its environment. Mutations being harmful more times than not simply says that the process of evolution taking a substantial number of generations in order for noticeable changes to accumulate.
@thejdblue842 Lastly, the evolution from bacteria to trilobites has been studied and written about in articles of peer-reviewed scientific journals. One example is "Olenid trilobites: The oldest known chemoautotrophic symbionts?" by Richard Fortey, National Academy of Science 2000.
Is she seriously going to compare life and all of the universe to dice? The difference in the analogies is that the idea that everything happened by chance couldnt possibly of created the order in the universe that we see today. when you roll dice each dices probability is independent of the other. in the world we find many dependencies on each other. rolling dice will never create order
@heimdog8 I disagree. It's certainly not a perfect analogy, but it makes the point--which is there are many ways things could have turned out, and they happened to turn out one particular way. The dice do interact, they thrown together, bump against each other, and combined form a particular outcome. We "see" order because we are biased to see it. One could just as easily see order in the dice. "Wow--look how many fives there are! What are the chances of that?! There must be a God!"
negative. your missing the point. the universe is not one single act that happened by chance. for example, you cant take one roll of the dice as the example. you would have to roll the dice and whatever you get the first time like she said. you would then have to do that EXACT same thing for a streak of say a million for it to mean anything. the first time it doesnt work you have to start over thats the chance were talkin about.
@heimdog8 Maybe we're talking about different things. I'm referring to the initial creation, and the initial conditions of the universe--like the fact that we have gravity, the small nuclear force, the big nuclear force, etc.--the basic ingredients of the universe. Certainly there was a development period--and then one thing caused another--for example gravity making stars and galaxies coalesce. So maybe dice for the beginning, and dominos afterwards?
initial creation? thank you, it must have all came about at the same time in creation then right? and no there are so many things that go into play with life and the beginning of the universe. One roll of dice doesnt begin to illustrate that. and its interesting u mention gravity creating stars...has anyone ever seen that happen?
@heimdog8 WHAT must have all come about at the same time? I perceive that you are leaping to conclusions. Your assertion that "one roll of the dice doesn't illustrate" is an opinion that has no facts to back it up--it's just how you see it through the filter of your theistic bias. As far as gravity creating stars, yes, scientists see it all the time in places like the Orion nebula, and we can demonstrate the basic principle of gravity by just holding an object and letting go.
@heimdog8 You obviously misunderstand the demonstration, she never said that rolling dice would create order, she is saying the odds against ANYTHING happening are astronomical, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. "Everything happened by chance" is a vast oversimplification of the scientific theory of the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution (3 seperate things, by the way)
refer to my post to the other guy. the universe wasnt one single act like the rolling of dice. it would be much closer to rolling the dice a million times and getting the exact same results everytime. each roll has to be the same or you have to start over. thats what we mean by chance. and im the one simplifying? u cant possibly think dna just randomly happened
@heimdog8 I guess I would also add that we do not know the cause of the "Big Bang". I guess the larger point is this--you can have causes, without necessarily having such causes driven by purpose or intelligence.
A thought: Creationists and believing people in general conduct their believe in creation by the conclusion that the universe couldnt originate from nothing. Though creating things is solely the human way of adapting to the conditions, alternatively of changing the conditions, to be able to survive. The consequential question is: Why would an almighty entity create?
That's a pretty poor demonstration of how evolution works, in a given generation, there is of course a chance that the species moves further away from the ideal form.
Yes, but that's exactly the analogy I think he was getting at. In fact the roll that resulted in no 2's, or a low ratio of 2's, would fit your given generation/s where it moved farther away. But over the long haul, chances are that the traits that are advantageous are automatically selected for, meaning in the next generation yet more will occur.
It isn't an exact analogy, but I don't think it's all that bad.
lol, your response was so much more respectful than the response I got on this other youtube video where all I said was that the Christian Bible was NOT the most criticized book ever, nor the most criticized religion ever.
Thanks :) Christianity may be one of the most criticized religions ever, but that would be because of its magnitude and not some supernaturally motivated malice on the part of the critics as some christians like to believe.
@ml497 I would also add that in this country, Christianity is all over the place. It's the religion that is right in front of us, that is trying to take over our government, the religion that is trying to insert itself into our schools and into our science classrooms. I intend to speak out vigorously against it while I still can, because if Christianity were to gain total power in this country the way Islam has in Iran, what I am doing now would be illegal, blasphemous, and a capital crime.
The existence of god is subjective not objective, bearing this in mind; keep your fucking religious crackpot shit to yourselves; why do you bother desperately trying to defend your position, are you really that insecure in your belief ?
There you go again, Your mind is YOUR GOD. Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts". All of your attempts at dismissing God are just that, attempts. Read "Behold Your God" by Fred Wright.
@RastaSkater93 : Which specific logical fallacy is it. Please elaborate and give detais. Making pointlessly ambiguous statements only exposes the true nature of your statement.
Ahh Tracie, poor girl, typical third-grade idiotic remarks... "1 baby saved - God's great, but another 199 dead - God had nothing to do with that". Who told you that? lol. God had everything to do with it. The question is, what makes YOU think it makes God "evil"? What makes YOU think it "wasn't time for those people to go"?
It's hilariously funny when half-wit wannabes try to be smarter than God. lmfao
@jortylbro "The concept of a god has been around in every human society" Indeed. And at first, that concept was a LOT bigger. God was responsible for sunrise, god was responsible for storms, volcano's, earthquakes, thunder, lightning... First they walked among us, then they dissappeared in the "underworld" and now they are even "outside the universe". And as science made progress, the concept of god narrowed further and further. Think about that for a second.
@SmokiSounds It amazes me that you are claiming the high ground on logic and in the same breath think it's logical for a god to "sacrifice" (we can put quotes around that because what 'sacrifice' is it really to die when you have eternal life and the ability to resurect anyway??) himself to himself in order to be ABLE to forgive the NATURE of the creatures HE HIMSELF created.
@dxrocker69 Of course it amazes you, since you know jackshit about the topic, as it seems. Recap: God, first of all, doesn't NEED anything. At all. He's fully self-sufficient, thus, anything that is done for you is done in the act of personal love. The sacrifice of Jesus wasn't to be ABLE to forgive the nature of humans (where the hell have you read that pathetic assumption?), it was to make US realize OUR sins. And sins aren't "human nature", that's just bullsh*t.
@SmokiSounds Again, what "sacrifice" is death really when you are god, have eternal life and have the ability to resurect anyway? That's not a sacrifice. It's pure bullocks.
@SmokiSounds And this "sin" stuff IS human nature. It's human nature to be jealous. It's human nature to be greedy. It's human nature to be aroused upon seeing a sexy babe. If anything is bullshit, it's your twisted religious system. Your god is making the rules. There's no point in sacrificing himself to himself to "bent" the rules he himself created.
You just didn't hack it, did you. Completely dismissed my point. I said the sacrifice wasn't "himself to himself" (keep embarrassing yourself with that third-grade idiocy), but himself to the people, so WE CAN SEE what's wrong with us. THAT'S called Love.
It's also "human nature" to kill, rape and violate, we can go into detail. But you wouldn't want to. You'll stick with greed and jealousy. Aww. Perfect example of pathetic escape route, you guys love to do that.
@SmokiSounds It's not a pathetic escape route. Tell me if you get jealous or not when you see a random dude flirt with your wife and see her enjoying the attention.
Secondly, WHAT sacrifice? A sacrifice is to give something up. In jezus' case, what he gave up was his "life". How much of a sacrifice is giving up your life when you are are immortal, can resurect and are even god himself? It makes no sense. It's bullocks and immoral
Of course it's "bullocks", kid. Of course. You just can't hack the concept of Jesus being man and God to the fullest of both aspects. Same human emotions (turning over merchant's tables in the temples), same human pain (tortured and crucified). You don't get it, do you. When your emotions lead you to do BAD things, that's where they become sins.
Of course I'd be jealous if someone flirted with my wife. And? If I'd beat him, or her, that'd be a sin.
@SmokiSounds You seem to conviently forget that thoughts are sins too. Maybe read your bible once.
Furthermore, I fail to see how torturing and/or killing ANYONE (as a sacrifice or otherwise) puts me in the clear for my sins. Only an immoral character would think like that. In your immoral theology, a mass murderer can go to heaven while a normal person such as myself would go to hell for not accepting your bullshit story. Hahaha. Move to Iran man.
Nice try telling me to ready "my Bible". I guess I should teach you: thoughts aren't sins. Thoughts that LEAD to a sin are sinful. YOU should read the Book and KNOW what you're talking about, before making a fool out of yourself. FURTHERMORE, you can't hack the idea of sacrifice at all, and you agree with that, thinking that God himself must be dumber than you are by making such an incomprehensible move. Of course. And no, my theology doesn't say you will go to hell. Don't worry ;)
If you theology doesn't say that I will go to hell, then your entire religion (including this alledged "sacrifice") is completely pointless and unnesecary.
And I consider myself morally superior to your god by all means. When talking moral intellect, yes, your god most certainly is dumber then me without a doubt. We don't even compare. Hitler is even morally superior to your god. At least he let his own people live.
Another classic escape route, lol, poor guy, googling those passages. Of course looking at a woman LUSTfully is a sin, because it corrupts your moral basis. Uncomfortable about that? Sure you are, and then claiming to be morally superior to God, lmfao, PLEASE kiddo.
"Let his own people live"? What makes you think that physical life is in any way better than eternal life? Stupid, stupid kid, struggling to defend your little flaws and weaknesses. Pathetic.
@SmokiSounds "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" Where I come from, that is a thought crime. Because you're not doing anything. No action is involved. It's all in your head. It's thought.
Man, you should really read your bible a bit more attentively. The amount of immoral practices are through the roof. I can't even count how many innocents your god killed in his anger.
LMFAO, telling God killed "innocents" for the kicks, lololol PLEASE kid, KEEP embarrassing yourself with that perception. Of course, you must know what's best for HIS creation, you dumb idiot. Thinking that if anyone dies it must be because God wants to kill them? IDIOT, how about if it's for a greater eternal afterlife? Can't hack that? Doesn't suit your pathetic opinion? Meh. You have no damn idea about the concepts of Love and Justice. Keep blabbering.
Of course, since you haven't died. But countless accounts of people who's brain and heart were clinically dead aren't for nothing. Moreover, concluding that physical life is all there is, is a logical impossibility. Will gladly elaborate, but I'm scared you won't hack that, since you can't even understand the basics.
@SmokiSounds Learn about fyisiology and biology. "the white light" in NDE's is explained in detail and can even be reproduced through experiments. I'm not concluding anything. YOU are concluding things for wich there is no evidence and just "assume" that you are correct because a 2000 year old book says so. Who's the idiot who doesn't understand the basics here?
White light? Who's talking about a white light? That's all you can explain? How about full-on detailed accounts of the afterlife? Mind you, it doesn't fall under "dream" concept, because brain and heart aren't BIOLOGICALLY active. So you tell me, smartass, wannabe know-it-all, you tell me, do you REALLY think that "science" and "biology" is all there is to this world and life? lol. Superficial. Pathetic. Banal.
That "2000 year old book" holds the basis for modern society. Think.
@SmokiSounds The basis for modern society????? LOLOLOLOL!!! The basis of MODERN society, you fool, is called the renaissance... you know... when we shoved the bible up the church's ass. You're such a morron. And I'm not just talking about the white light, but the whole shebang (hence the quotes). It's called hallucination.
@SmokiSounds Full-on accounts? Hahaha! You mean like the "full on accounts" of people being abducted by aliens and playing poker with Elvis 10 years after he died? HAHAHAHA! Yes, biology is all life is.
@SmokiSounds And more importantly, biology is all that is needed to explain life. There's no need for a magical ghost in the sky (or worse: beyond the sky). Cry me a river Jezus freak.
Your tone shows your third-grade in-the-box half-wit education very well. Poor little puppy, angry at God, struggling to find excuses for your pathetic self. I know your kind very well. "Magical ghost in the sky"? lol. School kid. Too much to learn.
Don't step on grandpa - it's that rock over there.
@SmokiSounds how can I be angry at something I don't even believe to exist I wonder... And my "lack" of education? LOL
The funny thing is, when we look at demographies... We see the opposite... the higher the level of education, the higher the percentage of atheist. The lower the level of education, the higher the percentage of radical religious folks. Statistics disagree with you. As for me, I got 5 years off university under my belt, thank you.
Hard to watch with your shitty backgrounds. Thanks anyway...good stuff.
stanleysteama 1 month ago
I thought they were going to show how the odds against that exact roll were huge - but it's not proof it couldn't happen, because it just did. Miracle!
bigglyguy 1 month ago
watch the FSM on the desk, he is known to cheat at dice. One quick flip of a noodley appendage and the result is changed.
SqueakerAlpha 4 months ago
WOW THEY ARE FUCKING STUPID LOLL
mas03 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well I think that you have no evidence of evolution and you are going by faith. But I can tell you that both of my parent know people that have died and came back and if you look a people that either are atheist ,muslim,buddhist,mormons ect have died and and seen hell how come the don't see nothing if there isn't a heaven and a hell
ada2step 5 months ago
So, if there would be a designer, what is the meaning of the designer? Why is the purpose of its existence? Why would anything it does have any meaning?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
God rolled the dice.
DannyPhantomBeast 5 months ago
great example but that jar was raping my ears. (yes earphones xd)
Lexadrik 6 months ago
Sorry, but that's a terrible model.
Pomaori 6 months ago
@Pomaori
Please explain :D
ChiefWahoo100 5 months ago
William Lane Craig seems intent on consistently invoking this fallacy to disprove the supposedly unlikely events in human evolution.
dhadfield91 7 months ago
Intelligent Design explanation would have a leg to stand on possibly if there weren't things like natural birth. If every creature were zapped or hand delivered from some factory, then they'd have an argument. Where no variations occur unless the makers decree it. If creationist could get past the false concept of immutability of creatures.
mistereveready 7 months ago
Alea iacta est.
gamesbok 7 months ago
Tracie rolled the dice and scored a critical hit against religion. Apparently it had a low THAC0. Now re-roll for damage!
Maeryck 7 months ago
I'm getting me a jar of dice to worship!
Kailoa36 7 months ago
so she is saying just because something that happens that had a low chance doesn't mean there was an intent behind it, it just happened.
sailornaruto39 7 months ago
"answered" prayers are simply the outcome of constant praying. It's all statistical like dice.
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
Dice is the plural of die, dammit.
funnygames1 8 months ago 4
@funnygames1 Just look at what you've done, now I'm even more confused than I was. Well from now on I'll flip a coin everytime I have to use that word and will use either only 'die' or only 'dice' depending on the outcome. (Murphy's Law FTF.)
Ibucrthis 8 months ago
@Ibucrthis Yes, I seem to have gone and confused myself.
funnygames1 8 months ago
die is the plural of dice, dammit.
funnygames1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fuckmania07 Believe in jesus and burn forever in the lake of ignorance
LesPaul2006 9 months ago
If she rolls all 6s that means the universe is structured to support life.
If she places all 6s face up that means the universe is structured to support life.
snipersteel5200 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snipersteel5200 "If she rolls all 6s that means the universe is structured to support life."
Now you're just making stuff up. Fact is, we don't even know if it's possible for the universe to be different than what it is. Even if you're right though, your utter ignorance of the number of trials involved with producing the natural laws so Tracy might have essentially an infinite amount of rolls to produce all 6s.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@snipersteel5200 Finally, you're falsely viewing this universe as a goal. In essence, you're demanding that someone deal the same bridge hand twice. The odds against that are astronomical, but when you deal the first hand *it must end up with some result*. Such an initial deal could well amount to this universe.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
You guys should fire your editor; I can see the green screen on your outlines.
TheCanadianZoetrope 10 months ago
@TheCanadianZoetrope Good call man, I thought they were actually on Mars. Glad you cleared that up.
PREM00SE 10 months ago
I have not taken stititics in a long time but I think it is 1/1,137,211,521,197,188,055.04 Each dice has 6 sides. 6^25 and lets say that order of the dice does not come into play you would divide by 25 dice. ((6^25)/25) = 1,137,211,521,197,188,055.04
blizzard242 10 months ago
@blizzard242 just noticed I mutilated the spelling of "Statistics".
blizzard242 10 months ago
@blizzard242 Sorry bad math ((25^6)/25) = 1/9,765,625
blizzard242 10 months ago
This appears to be another caricature of creation and evolution; bad analogies. What kind of God is represented here I wonder
no1hoopsman 11 months ago
If we say that the dice are the stars,planets and everything that exist.When we break it down the dice were created.I am pretty sure the dice didnt just come into existence.Therefore a creator played a part.
RMBellamy914 11 months ago
@RMBellamy914
I don't think anyone is arguing that dice have a creator. However, just because a dice had a creator, doesn't mean EVERYTHING in the universe had to have a creator. Energy has no beginning and no end, it's always been.
And what about matter inside the earth that, under enormous amounts of pressure and heat, carbon forms into diamonds? Was it a WHO that "created" the diamond? No, it was a WHAT, and it was FORMED due to physical forces involving pressure and temperature.
BastEternal 10 months ago
XD if ur a christian, dont look at the sky in the background, youl see what i see and you wont shut up about it! XD
quantum8kid 1 year ago
Great video clip! ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 year ago
Firstly, the dice couldn't have fallen without someone rolling them. Secondly, the dice bear no complexities as are in the human brain, the most complex thing on the face of this planet. Thirdly the dice had to be created by someone, so the way I see it, you just proved God a little more :)
treesofmarble 1 year ago
@treesofmarble
Totally agree with you man.
She seems to forget one simple thing....she's the one rolling the dice. I just had to LOL!
1SavageDragon1 1 year ago
@1SavageDragon1 @treesofmarble you two fail do define design
thetrazor 1 year ago 2
@1SavageDragon1 You didn't understand tracie's point. 'lol'...
pillsareyummy 1 year ago
@treesofmarble Someone rolling dice. The complexities of the Human Brain. Someone created dice. How do these 3 things prove the existence of a god ?
Please define god in specific terms & present credible evidence (NOT scripture, personal revelation, logical fallacies or an Argumentum ad Populum) to support Your positive claim that a god exists. The Burden of Proof is on You to present evidence to prove Your positive claim NOT for others refute it.
tranquility4all 1 year ago
@tranquility4all Dont bother, he wont give you any evidence :P
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude Provide evidence ?
She / he hasn't even attempted to define god.
tranquility4all 11 months ago
@tranquility4all Yeah, he/she/it wont even do that ya know :P
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude This should not surprise You.
How many theists especially christians have ever attempted to define god in specific terms & present credible evidence to support its' existence ?
tranquility4all 11 months ago
@tranquility4all I have seen those who have tried to define it as god is love, but the bibles own ddefinition of love contradicts this since according to the bible love is not provoked and yet god is provoked several times.
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude god is love isn't defining a god in specific terms. The BUY BULL is filled with contradictions. Many christians claim a god exists because it is written in the BUY BULL. They also claim it's the word of god. Circular reasoning has made many christians dizzy. Many christians were indoctrinated at an early age & choose to remain willfully ignorant. If early childhood indoctrination was criminalized, All religions especially christianity would die a swift death.
tranquility4all 11 months ago
@treesofmarble What if there's and earthquake and the dice fall to the floor? Or what if the dice pot is outside and a strong wind brings it down? Or a dog passes by and pushes the dice pot by accident? Or a bird? Or what if, what if... INFINITE possibilities.
LesPaul2006 9 months ago
dead mans hand again
carbonfconfusion 1 year ago
snake eyes watching u
carbonfconfusion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Denying the Creator is Denying yourself. Everything in existence is God even yourself, you have the capacity to change everything around you. We are bounded by Universal Laws of Karma, Law of Attraction, Law of Earth, Law of Space, Law of Gravity and so on. We created this whole physical journey for an adventure.... So have fun in your journey here on earth, Do what you want but remember dear God that you have to abide the Law of Karma, Do Good you will be blessed with Good.
TheIgorKock 1 year ago
@TheIgorKock
People, respect this person's beliefs. How he/she feels towards good may be as real as how I think my laptop is right below my fingers at this moment.
I'd like to go with believing what I find most justified, reasoned and true to myself. I'd like to die happy without worrying whether or not "the man" upstairs was pleased.
TheBlackmentos94 10 months ago
i love this show
dunamiz05 1 year ago
I do not wanna play yatzee against matt...
he is the master of twos..
ImperiousViking 1 year ago
A well displayed example of evolution by way of the lure of averages...interestingly done (...and congrats on yatzee, by the way). :)
mdlittle5466 1 year ago 20
I live in Ohio so can anyone tell me what time this show is on for ET
SnipersScope55 1 year ago
@SnipersScope55 e.t. doesn't watch tv
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 hahaha very funny thats not what I meant though
SnipersScope55 1 year ago
This is a truly creative display and expressive analogy of the way our world works beyond the argument against intelligent design.
LifeinaRaindrop 1 year ago
They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator God - a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.
"And the parable of those....more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand. "
The Quran 2:171
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh There has passed a long time since I have read this much text that has said so little.
Drop the superiority complex, man. You aren't better than us because your god decided that we wouldn't believe in him. (since he sees into the future as well as being all powerful)
DisembowelMe 1 year ago
@DisembowelMe Then how can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh I don't claim to know exactly what happened, but the complexity of nature doesn't necessitate a god.
DisembowelMe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DisembowelMe Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
We don't "delude ourselves" about the elemental origins. We have very well worked out and detailed theories about all this that agree with other theories and observation, if you'de care to look.
We also pretty much KNOW that these are the "source of other things". Do you have a reason to suppose anything is NOT made out of these fundamental particles?
Researching physics, quantum theory and stellar nucleosynthesis may help you to understand how all this is explainable without a deity.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@martiangrundy
God and Empirical Logic.
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Materialism imagines that lowly objects are the source for the emergence of higher objects without troubling to ascertain whether the higher, in fact, exists at the level of the lower. If lowly matter is unable even at the highest stage of its development, namely thought and reflection— ....
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
I see you completely decided to eschew my suggestion to avail yourself of a little education.
Yours is an absolutely classic textbook argument from ignorance/incredulity.
Just because YOU cannot imagine how something might come about does not mean it didn't. Especially when all the evidence would suggest that it indeed did.
IF this is as you suggest, where did your deity come from?
And please don't bother with the "he's the alpha and omega" meaningless idiocy.
Magic is NO explanation.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@martiangrundy
Matter and Motion
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
What are you suggesting? That the matter was set in motion by a magic man?
You seem very coy about this, You keep couching it in semi scientific terms as though this is really not what you're alluding to.
At least be honest. You mean god did it, at least admit it.
I notice you still fail to answer my questions too.
BTW, yes, matter can indeed set itself into motion. Ever hear of GRAVITY? How do you think a molocular cloud collapses into a system.
As I said, do a little research first.
martiangrundy 1 year ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
@martiangrundy In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
1tabligh 1 year ago
either to create itself or to violate any of the laws that rule over it, it follows ineluctably that it is unable to create other beings and the laws regulating them. How, then, can it be believed that lowly matter should engage in the creation and origination of higher beings or have the power to bestow existence on lofty phenomena?
1tabligh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DisembowelMe
Use the reply button instead!
How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh They became vegetarians, and because of a deficiency of meat began eating vegetables.
The Quorn 2:171
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikeyo1234 How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 1 year ago
their devils and spectres. They have eyes but do not see, they have tongues but are dumb, and do not understand. They have ears but do not hear. They are happy in their contemptible degradation. They presume that they are well-guided. They are diverted from the rank of rational beings. They feed on the vegetation of' polluted dirty people. They deem themselves safe from a sudden visitation of death and the retribution of deeds. Alas! How ill fated are these people! (Con't)
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh cool story bro
AleximusMaximus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AleximusMaximus
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
The Quran [2.62]
1tabligh 1 year ago
This analogy holds good in the case of those who deny the creative factor and the argument in favour of Divine Design. Failing to appreciate the merit of their provision, the perfection of creation and the beauty of design, they start wandering in the wide world, bewildered by their inability to grasp with their brains the underlying causes and principles. Mankind is perplexed and bewildered, blind, infatuated in their perverseness, following (Con't)
1tabligh 1 year ago
And this is what the ATHEISTS fail to understand and in their misguided blindness and bewilderment they are like the blind people groping right and left not knowing the purpose for this Universe, and unaware of the underlying ingenuity, they might begin to reprimand the architect of the Universe in their offensive rage, whereas, as a matter of fact, the fault lies with their own inability to see. (Con't)
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Why does the universe need a purpose?
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded ignorant atheists* say. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
Intelligent Design Fallacy Model
______
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis. ...
1tabligh 1 year ago
About as good an illustration as one could present.
Of course, there are some that will still not get it.
faithisfiction 1 year ago 2
can i worship and devote my entire life to serving your invisable magic die?
got to worship something
robertwc82 1 year ago
The horrible reality of this particular brand of nonsense is that its propagators and supporters are immune to reason and logic. Spout all the well structured arguments you want; debunk, break down and dismiss their arguments, they'll still not go away, and they'll still not rethink their ludicrous opinions. Persistence in the face of adversity is a virtue held close to heart by these people. 'tis the very definition of fruitless labour.
Inafiscisis 1 year ago
This is so beautiful
03veritas 1 year ago
Even if the exact locations of the 25 dice didn't matter, the chance that they would land with the up-faces that they did, would 1 in about 28,430,288,000,000,000,000.
28 quintillion, 438 quadrillion, 288 trillion. Only once out of ROUGHLY that many rolls, ON AVERAGE, would the 25 six-sided dice come up in ANY specified pattern. I'd say that IS pretty astronomically high. And that's WITHOUT their exact locations in the universe having mattered.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
for their first fallacy model, they are completely ignoring the cause of the dice to fall in that random order, why? who is the one that rolled the dice onto the table? after rolling the dice, she could just have easily placed the dice in whatever position she wanted. science has brought about evolution as a theory, just because there is no other theory/answer/belief outside of religion, it does not mean that evolution is the answer. In fact, science has disproved several elements of evolution.
thejdblue842 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 I agree that the theory of evolution by means of natural selection may not be the end all theory to explain the phenomenon of evolution. However, I completely disagree with you about your last statement. Please provide your peer-reviewed article source for the claim that "science has disproved several elements of evolution" because such evidence would be all over the news as the next Nobel Prize winner in Biology.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny Science has not disproved elements of evolution all at once. Right now, there is no understanding for how organisms abruptly appeared in the fossil record in the precambrian era. bacteria did not just turn into complex organisms like the trilobites. if evolution was such a gradual process, scientists would find incomplete organisms with unusable parts in the fossil record, however none exist. As for mutations, they're harmful more times than not, so how would they help creatures survive
thejdblue842 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 Your comment only illustrates that you have very limited understanding of the theory of evolution. Nowhere does the theory say an organism would be "incomplete" or have "unusable parts." This is a strawman constructed by those who think evolution has a complex organelle or other functional part in mind, and that all parts beforehand must have no function at all. Evolution requires that all parts have a function, otherwise its traits would not be selected for during reproduction.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny this still doesn't account for the missing middle ground between evolving organisms. whether the parts are usable or not, that are not present in the fossil findings. i understand things change, and i know populations adapt and change according to their environment and such. mutations are weeded out by natural selection for the benefit of the organism. new animals are not formed from mutations over time. mutations do not provide new information for an organism, they lose it.
thejdblue842 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 Your comment that mutations do not provide new information, by which I assume you mean increased genetic variety or novel genetic information, is horribly false. Increased genetic variety has been documented by Lenski in "Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations." American Naturalist 1995.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 An increase in genetic information is documented by Alves in "Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review." Genetica 2001. Novel genetic material is documented by Knox in "Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance." Chemistry and Biology 1996. Novel genetically regulated abilities is documented by Prijambada in 1995.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 All you have done is spout Intelligent Design movement propaganda that has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. ID was founded in the court of law to be nothing more than pseudo science. The idea barely even passes as a hypothesis.
I am sorry that you find it convincing, but please take a look at the actual science I have cited for you, against which you have posted no articles to back up your claims.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 mutations do not provide new information
What are they providing? Isn't every change new information?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz nope,any type of mutation is the removal of information.
example: The red car is moving fast.
point mutation- The red Bar is moving fast.
deletion-The red is moving fast
Insertion-The red car akjf is moving fast
inversion- The dre arc si ovngmi saft
in all cases, the information that "the red car is moving fast" is lost
thejdblue842 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 ... A mutation is a change in information, not a loss.
Change is called evolution.
.
Darwin did not know about mutation, and he still showed how evolution happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz wow, i just explained to you how a mutation is a loss of information. really....wow.
thejdblue842 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 You did?
[The red Bar is moving fast.] is still a sentance that makes sense.
NEW INFORMATION
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz you lose the information that it was a car!! r u that dense??
say a dog has its dna mutated, lets say a regular dog's code translated to "great hearing," as it should be
but the dog with the mutated dna has the code translated to "bad hearing." the dog loses the information for good hearing, no matter what type of mutation. the dog lost the instructions for great hearing.
thejdblue842 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 And dinosaur scales lost the information for being scales and are now feathers.
DNA codes for making proteins, not a code for good hearing.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz oh good, you know about proteins, i've been dumbing it down for you.
thejdblue842 1 year ago
@thejdblue842
"mutation is a loss of information"
I have no idea where you got that rubbish from but you clearly don't know how genetic mutations work.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 What has more information, a big wolf or a small wolf?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 What about 'The red car is moving very fast'?
666or999 1 year ago
@gregrutz
"mutations do not provide new information"
Of course they can add new information to a chromosome, that's the whole point behind a base insertion.
Genetic mutation is an extremely complex field with many many mechanisms possible. You also have to remember that most change between generations will occur during unrepaires problems meiosis and during crossing over, where you can get abnormal numbers of whole chromosomes.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 of course.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 Your statement that mutations are harmful more times than not does nothing more than admit that beneficial and neutral mutations do occur, which is all that is necessary for a species to become more well adapted for its environment. Mutations being harmful more times than not simply says that the process of evolution taking a substantial number of generations in order for noticeable changes to accumulate.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 Lastly, the evolution from bacteria to trilobites has been studied and written about in articles of peer-reviewed scientific journals. One example is "Olenid trilobites: The oldest known chemoautotrophic symbionts?" by Richard Fortey, National Academy of Science 2000.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@thejdblue842 I bet whales keep using their legs =)
Murdulo 1 year ago
Is she seriously going to compare life and all of the universe to dice? The difference in the analogies is that the idea that everything happened by chance couldnt possibly of created the order in the universe that we see today. when you roll dice each dices probability is independent of the other. in the world we find many dependencies on each other. rolling dice will never create order
heimdog8 1 year ago
@heimdog8 I disagree. It's certainly not a perfect analogy, but it makes the point--which is there are many ways things could have turned out, and they happened to turn out one particular way. The dice do interact, they thrown together, bump against each other, and combined form a particular outcome. We "see" order because we are biased to see it. One could just as easily see order in the dice. "Wow--look how many fives there are! What are the chances of that?! There must be a God!"
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@DandAinTac
negative. your missing the point. the universe is not one single act that happened by chance. for example, you cant take one roll of the dice as the example. you would have to roll the dice and whatever you get the first time like she said. you would then have to do that EXACT same thing for a streak of say a million for it to mean anything. the first time it doesnt work you have to start over thats the chance were talkin about.
heimdog8 1 year ago
@heimdog8 Maybe we're talking about different things. I'm referring to the initial creation, and the initial conditions of the universe--like the fact that we have gravity, the small nuclear force, the big nuclear force, etc.--the basic ingredients of the universe. Certainly there was a development period--and then one thing caused another--for example gravity making stars and galaxies coalesce. So maybe dice for the beginning, and dominos afterwards?
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@DandAinTac
initial creation? thank you, it must have all came about at the same time in creation then right? and no there are so many things that go into play with life and the beginning of the universe. One roll of dice doesnt begin to illustrate that. and its interesting u mention gravity creating stars...has anyone ever seen that happen?
heimdog8 1 year ago
@heimdog8 WHAT must have all come about at the same time? I perceive that you are leaping to conclusions. Your assertion that "one roll of the dice doesn't illustrate" is an opinion that has no facts to back it up--it's just how you see it through the filter of your theistic bias. As far as gravity creating stars, yes, scientists see it all the time in places like the Orion nebula, and we can demonstrate the basic principle of gravity by just holding an object and letting go.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@heimdog8 You obviously misunderstand the demonstration, she never said that rolling dice would create order, she is saying the odds against ANYTHING happening are astronomical, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. "Everything happened by chance" is a vast oversimplification of the scientific theory of the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution (3 seperate things, by the way)
wendighoul 1 year ago
@wendighoul
refer to my post to the other guy. the universe wasnt one single act like the rolling of dice. it would be much closer to rolling the dice a million times and getting the exact same results everytime. each roll has to be the same or you have to start over. thats what we mean by chance. and im the one simplifying? u cant possibly think dna just randomly happened
heimdog8 1 year ago
@heimdog8 I guess I would also add that we do not know the cause of the "Big Bang". I guess the larger point is this--you can have causes, without necessarily having such causes driven by purpose or intelligence.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
lotto!!
ahmology 1 year ago
That's it! I'm converting to worship of the supernatural transcendent dice! They get RESULTS!
(tongue, meet cheek)
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A thought: Creationists and believing people in general conduct their believe in creation by the conclusion that the universe couldnt originate from nothing. Though creating things is solely the human way of adapting to the conditions, alternatively of changing the conditions, to be able to survive. The consequential question is: Why would an almighty entity create?
Philparkour 1 year ago
That's a pretty poor demonstration of how evolution works, in a given generation, there is of course a chance that the species moves further away from the ideal form.
ml497 1 year ago
@ml497
Yes, but that's exactly the analogy I think he was getting at. In fact the roll that resulted in no 2's, or a low ratio of 2's, would fit your given generation/s where it moved farther away. But over the long haul, chances are that the traits that are advantageous are automatically selected for, meaning in the next generation yet more will occur.
It isn't an exact analogy, but I don't think it's all that bad.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@ml497
I believe she's aware of that.
That's not the point she's making.
She's addressing the common argument of , "OMG The odds of this are too high for it to happen."
but Regardless of how high the odds are against it falling in that exact arrangement, they all managed to fall exactly that way.
Effectively showing that there argument has absolutely no relevance even IF we disregard the fact that they have the idea entirely wrong!
christoph2005 1 year ago
@christoph2005
I agree she probably is aware of that, I was merely making the point that it is a misleading demonstration.
ml497 1 year ago
@ml497
lol, your response was so much more respectful than the response I got on this other youtube video where all I said was that the Christian Bible was NOT the most criticized book ever, nor the most criticized religion ever.
Here's a thumbs up for you.
christoph2005 1 year ago
@christoph2005
Thanks :) Christianity may be one of the most criticized religions ever, but that would be because of its magnitude and not some supernaturally motivated malice on the part of the critics as some christians like to believe.
ml497 1 year ago
@ml497 I would also add that in this country, Christianity is all over the place. It's the religion that is right in front of us, that is trying to take over our government, the religion that is trying to insert itself into our schools and into our science classrooms. I intend to speak out vigorously against it while I still can, because if Christianity were to gain total power in this country the way Islam has in Iran, what I am doing now would be illegal, blasphemous, and a capital crime.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
The existence of god is subjective not objective, bearing this in mind; keep your fucking religious crackpot shit to yourselves; why do you bother desperately trying to defend your position, are you really that insecure in your belief ?
richybinns 1 year ago
There you go again, Your mind is YOUR GOD. Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts". All of your attempts at dismissing God are just that, attempts. Read "Behold Your God" by Fred Wright.
otnt66 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
for the number pattern alone for 25 dies are 28.43 billion billion to 1
systematic101 1 year ago
this video is a logical fallacy
RastaSkater93 1 year ago
@RastaSkater93 : Which specific logical fallacy is it. Please elaborate and give detais. Making pointlessly ambiguous statements only exposes the true nature of your statement.
Naked4Jesus 1 year ago
@RastaSkater93 You are a logical fallacy.
EPR89 1 year ago
Ahh Tracie, poor girl, typical third-grade idiotic remarks... "1 baby saved - God's great, but another 199 dead - God had nothing to do with that". Who told you that? lol. God had everything to do with it. The question is, what makes YOU think it makes God "evil"? What makes YOU think it "wasn't time for those people to go"?
It's hilariously funny when half-wit wannabes try to be smarter than God. lmfao
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@1timothy215 And if Elvis would do a live show on TV tonight, I wonder if all these people would continue to say that he is dead.
There. Equally "bulletproof" logic.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@jortylbro "The concept of a god has been around in every human society" Indeed. And at first, that concept was a LOT bigger. God was responsible for sunrise, god was responsible for storms, volcano's, earthquakes, thunder, lightning... First they walked among us, then they dissappeared in the "underworld" and now they are even "outside the universe". And as science made progress, the concept of god narrowed further and further. Think about that for a second.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
Comment removed
Condane 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds It amazes me that you are claiming the high ground on logic and in the same breath think it's logical for a god to "sacrifice" (we can put quotes around that because what 'sacrifice' is it really to die when you have eternal life and the ability to resurect anyway??) himself to himself in order to be ABLE to forgive the NATURE of the creatures HE HIMSELF created.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69 Of course it amazes you, since you know jackshit about the topic, as it seems. Recap: God, first of all, doesn't NEED anything. At all. He's fully self-sufficient, thus, anything that is done for you is done in the act of personal love. The sacrifice of Jesus wasn't to be ABLE to forgive the nature of humans (where the hell have you read that pathetic assumption?), it was to make US realize OUR sins. And sins aren't "human nature", that's just bullsh*t.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Again, what "sacrifice" is death really when you are god, have eternal life and have the ability to resurect anyway? That's not a sacrifice. It's pure bullocks.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds And this "sin" stuff IS human nature. It's human nature to be jealous. It's human nature to be greedy. It's human nature to be aroused upon seeing a sexy babe. If anything is bullshit, it's your twisted religious system. Your god is making the rules. There's no point in sacrificing himself to himself to "bent" the rules he himself created.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69
You just didn't hack it, did you. Completely dismissed my point. I said the sacrifice wasn't "himself to himself" (keep embarrassing yourself with that third-grade idiocy), but himself to the people, so WE CAN SEE what's wrong with us. THAT'S called Love.
It's also "human nature" to kill, rape and violate, we can go into detail. But you wouldn't want to. You'll stick with greed and jealousy. Aww. Perfect example of pathetic escape route, you guys love to do that.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds It's not a pathetic escape route. Tell me if you get jealous or not when you see a random dude flirt with your wife and see her enjoying the attention.
Secondly, WHAT sacrifice? A sacrifice is to give something up. In jezus' case, what he gave up was his "life". How much of a sacrifice is giving up your life when you are are immortal, can resurect and are even god himself? It makes no sense. It's bullocks and immoral
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69
Of course it's "bullocks", kid. Of course. You just can't hack the concept of Jesus being man and God to the fullest of both aspects. Same human emotions (turning over merchant's tables in the temples), same human pain (tortured and crucified). You don't get it, do you. When your emotions lead you to do BAD things, that's where they become sins.
Of course I'd be jealous if someone flirted with my wife. And? If I'd beat him, or her, that'd be a sin.
Get real.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds You seem to conviently forget that thoughts are sins too. Maybe read your bible once.
Furthermore, I fail to see how torturing and/or killing ANYONE (as a sacrifice or otherwise) puts me in the clear for my sins. Only an immoral character would think like that. In your immoral theology, a mass murderer can go to heaven while a normal person such as myself would go to hell for not accepting your bullshit story. Hahaha. Move to Iran man.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69
Nice try telling me to ready "my Bible". I guess I should teach you: thoughts aren't sins. Thoughts that LEAD to a sin are sinful. YOU should read the Book and KNOW what you're talking about, before making a fool out of yourself. FURTHERMORE, you can't hack the idea of sacrifice at all, and you agree with that, thinking that God himself must be dumber than you are by making such an incomprehensible move. Of course. And no, my theology doesn't say you will go to hell. Don't worry ;)
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Mathew 5:28. Epic fail on your part.
If you theology doesn't say that I will go to hell, then your entire religion (including this alledged "sacrifice") is completely pointless and unnesecary.
And I consider myself morally superior to your god by all means. When talking moral intellect, yes, your god most certainly is dumber then me without a doubt. We don't even compare. Hitler is even morally superior to your god. At least he let his own people live.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69
Another classic escape route, lol, poor guy, googling those passages. Of course looking at a woman LUSTfully is a sin, because it corrupts your moral basis. Uncomfortable about that? Sure you are, and then claiming to be morally superior to God, lmfao, PLEASE kiddo.
"Let his own people live"? What makes you think that physical life is in any way better than eternal life? Stupid, stupid kid, struggling to defend your little flaws and weaknesses. Pathetic.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" Where I come from, that is a thought crime. Because you're not doing anything. No action is involved. It's all in your head. It's thought.
Man, you should really read your bible a bit more attentively. The amount of immoral practices are through the roof. I can't even count how many innocents your god killed in his anger.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69
LMFAO, telling God killed "innocents" for the kicks, lololol PLEASE kid, KEEP embarrassing yourself with that perception. Of course, you must know what's best for HIS creation, you dumb idiot. Thinking that if anyone dies it must be because God wants to kill them? IDIOT, how about if it's for a greater eternal afterlife? Can't hack that? Doesn't suit your pathetic opinion? Meh. You have no damn idea about the concepts of Love and Justice. Keep blabbering.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Reread your bible and learn about the countless genocides at the hands of your ruthless god.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds And fyi: there's no reason at all to assume that anything other then physical life exists.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69
Of course, since you haven't died. But countless accounts of people who's brain and heart were clinically dead aren't for nothing. Moreover, concluding that physical life is all there is, is a logical impossibility. Will gladly elaborate, but I'm scared you won't hack that, since you can't even understand the basics.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Learn about fyisiology and biology. "the white light" in NDE's is explained in detail and can even be reproduced through experiments. I'm not concluding anything. YOU are concluding things for wich there is no evidence and just "assume" that you are correct because a 2000 year old book says so. Who's the idiot who doesn't understand the basics here?
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69
White light? Who's talking about a white light? That's all you can explain? How about full-on detailed accounts of the afterlife? Mind you, it doesn't fall under "dream" concept, because brain and heart aren't BIOLOGICALLY active. So you tell me, smartass, wannabe know-it-all, you tell me, do you REALLY think that "science" and "biology" is all there is to this world and life? lol. Superficial. Pathetic. Banal.
That "2000 year old book" holds the basis for modern society. Think.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds The basis for modern society????? LOLOLOLOL!!! The basis of MODERN society, you fool, is called the renaissance... you know... when we shoved the bible up the church's ass. You're such a morron. And I'm not just talking about the white light, but the whole shebang (hence the quotes). It's called hallucination.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds Full-on accounts? Hahaha! You mean like the "full on accounts" of people being abducted by aliens and playing poker with Elvis 10 years after he died? HAHAHAHA! Yes, biology is all life is.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds And more importantly, biology is all that is needed to explain life. There's no need for a magical ghost in the sky (or worse: beyond the sky). Cry me a river Jezus freak.
dxrocker69 1 year ago
@dxrocker69
Your tone shows your third-grade in-the-box half-wit education very well. Poor little puppy, angry at God, struggling to find excuses for your pathetic self. I know your kind very well. "Magical ghost in the sky"? lol. School kid. Too much to learn.
Don't step on grandpa - it's that rock over there.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds how can I be angry at something I don't even believe to exist I wonder... And my "lack" of education? LOL
The funny thing is, when we look at demographies... We see the opposite... the higher the level of education, the higher the percentage of atheist. The lower the level of education, the higher the percentage of radical religious folks. Statistics disagree with you. As for me, I got 5 years off university under my belt, thank you.
dxrocker69 1 year ago