I know what happened! Jesus was an Aline, he came by a ship with God (who is also an Alien), built a city and the aliens took the city back with them. They will return on 12/21/2012, put the city back, have it broadcast using human built satellites, since God did not know how to do it back then!!. Please everyone go to Nazirath, wait there. The Aliens and God will bring Jesus and his town back, so they can re-enact his resurrection.. Hallooo Looo Yaaa
Jesus character is the repackaging of Egyptian Sun God Horus! He never existed. Roman needed a way to unite their people under one God to fight the Persians which were the biggest Empire of the world. They learned Persians believed on one God and were united because of it, so they fabricated Jesus and predated it 150 years! People are to be like Jesus obedient, at the same time Romans are to be feared and obeyed because even God did not do anything while his son was crucified. Put fear and Rule
God of universe is so Intelligent that created life forms billions of years ago. But yet the religions that say are from God are so Primitive! They are written on Stone Tablets and skins and most people can not translate it.. There is a disconnect hello.. God would have sent talking birds. Not Greedy, corrupt priests! He would have programmed you so you knew exactly what to do!..He would have at least paid his priest with Gold once a life time, if not daily, so they would not beg for our money!!
So what you're saying is that you can't prove Jesus was a magicy man, yet you laugh in the face of the volumes of proof for evolution. Nothing I can do once the cognitive barriers are so high. And the scientific world isn't necessarily the Atheistic world, lots of reasonable Christians accept evolution and science as valid.
This is called 'historicization'. Let's inflate the accepted 'isms' of a period with little in the way of actual documentation and evidence in order to monetize it.
Sunday School lesson. The Gospels do not claim that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Jesus' parents lived in Nazareth but traveled to Bethlehem for the a census and Jesus was born there before the family returned to Nazareth. He grew up in Nazareth but was not born there.
Thank you Mr. Randi for a very enlightening video. It is such a pleasure to hear an intelligent man talk. Oh my but what a great thing it would be if one could somehow convince Christians to just listen to your speech and to then, afterwards,...PONDER the things you have said, but, alas, it will not happen soon, for they regretably, have no powers of deducing what is RATIONAL and discarding what is not. Having had to do with some of them, I can really attest to the fact that they are a scary lot
@PukaMan Excellent point. I have been thinking and debating such things for a long time now, but that very logical point had totally escaped me. Thanks for thinking. Oh, that Christians could be taught to use their brains...
@bestvalue everything is a transitional form, whether you buy it or not. the great thing about science is that it doesnt require the say so of 'some guy on the internet' to be true. it requires testable and verifiable evidence. no amount of australopithecus fossils can convince you out of willful ignorance. im sorry for your loss.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 You would do well to note that the jesus of xianity can be dismissed as myth for lack of evidence. Or do you think every extraordinary claim is automatically true until proven false?
And you're actually citing the shroud of turin as evidence? It was independently analyzed by 3 different labs and dated to the Middle Ages ("The Shroud of Turin: An Answer Is at Hand"; Waldrop 1988). It's beyond pathetic if you're not aware of that.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Cold hard forensically proven evidence of the tangible manner that is available for scrutiny of the general public will do nicely.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Well I already gathered that's not your opinion, but surely you know that your opinion is not tantamount to fact. Neither are the voices in your head ("... best evidence is inside of me...").
Have you a study to cite for the alternate "conclusion" regarding the shroud -- just as I cited one?
The realm of Jesus is not from this world, but it is inside of you, therefore it is important what happens inside of you.If you don`t believe it just try it.
Pray to Jesus that you are a sinner and that you want him to dwell in your heart.
Pray that you please love him like he loves you.
Pray if you are real, than please reveal yourself to me.
Do this 2 weeks 10 minutes a day and see what happens.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I did not express an opinion, but rather drew a conclusion based on the evidence. You for your part admit that your best evidence is "inside of you", which for matters of historicity, amounts to no evidence for all.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I was christian for 20 years. Praying didn't work. Rather, studying scripture made it clear how poor the evidence for xianity is.
Hopefully you aren't so deluded to think you can pray your way to historical evidence.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Actually, yes. I studied theology in college and was planning on becoming a priest. It was during my studies -- in fact, on account of my studies -- that I gave up xianity.
Now if you wouldn't mind answering my question (which you already ignored once): Can you cite your source for the analysis of the shroud of Turin that came to "another conclusion", or were you just pulling that claim out of your ...
The pieces of the shroud of turin were taken all from the same part and this could be a repaired part, the dating is not so 100%sure like they want us to believe ....
on the eyes of the shroud there were some coins and they could see some letters and this coin was circulating in the time of jesus.
Like Stalin he also wanted to become a priest until he read the false book of darwin.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 So no -- you don't have an actual study to cite where radiocarbon testing dated the shroud to jesus' time. All you have is a speculation that maybe the part sampled for testing wasn't part of the original.
Of course it doesn't matter, because you're not actually concerned about actual evidence. As you've already acknowledged, all the confirmation you require are the voices in your head.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Actually, it is. William Lane Craig says that the confirmation for his beliefs is the "inner witness of the holy spirit". In other words, he doesn't care about the actual evidence, just like you. All his pseudo-intellectual arguments are constructed post-facto to make the voices in his head look "reasonable".
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Craig regurgitates the exact same argument in all of his debates, as well as in "Reasonable Faith": His belief is based on his inner witness, and all the "evidence" he provides is patchwork. He even said in "Reasonable Faith" that he would accept the inner witness over any evidence to the contrary. He, like you, doesn't actually care about the evidence.
@punnet2 You cant`t proof that life started through brainless chemical reactions but you believe in it anyway way? I believe in virgin birth because of witness accounts, prophecy of it , and confirmation about it through revelations.. The spritual world is real. Whatch this for exampel. /watch?v=CL09TRgcV44&feature=g-vrec&context=G2d34c40RVAAAAAAAACQ or ghostly encounters etc. Your materialistic worldview is wrong.But you hate jesus and god. Why hate something that does not exist?
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I never claimed to know how life started, but since scientists have been able to synthesize amino acids and RNA in the lab, there was a likely a natural origin, within nothing for a magical god to do.
"witness accounts"? Somebody witnessed Mary getting impregnated virginally? LOL!
I don't hate jesus/god, which don't exist. I hate the ignorance of gullible people like you who do believe it exists.
@punnet2 You don`t hate god than why the mockery of the holy ghost and the bible? So you believe that live started with no god but there is no proof what so ever. So you are a bliever in atheism. Nothing more. You believe that it is likely! What proof for god do you want exactly? Something what Elia did? Would that be enough for you to believe in Jehova? Atheism is stupid. Coded Information always need intelligence
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Not sure what you mean by "biological evidence" and I don't think you are either, actually. However, demonstrating a lump of clay turning into a fully-formed man; a rib turning into a full-formed woman; a talking snake or mule; or a member of one species turning into a member of an entirely different species might be a good start.
Now then; what would you consider as evidence (biological or otherwise) that god does not exist?
@Jesusisthetruth1000 The mockery is for your belief in such ridiculous things. Just as any adult who still believes in santa claus or that Elvis is alive deserves mockery.
Pay attention: I don't know how life started, nor does anyone currently. However, not knowing is no excuse to invent a god to explain it. Time and again, science has found natural explanations for phenomena we previously used a god to explain. The same is likely to happen with the origin of life.
@punnet2 Do God is per definition excluded from any possible explanation? Well that´s biased. Science should go whereever the evidence leads. Look on youtube for Jon Cotner. If Elvis would be still alive, i think he would sound the same. You have a Santa Claus Syndrom?LOL Santa Claus made coded softwareprogramms in every cell?LOL What about all those people who witnessed hauntings? All lying or just dreams? Why don`t you buy haunted houses no one else want to live in?
@Jesusisthetruth1000 No, god is not by definition excluded; simply put, if an explanation works well enough without including a magical sky pixie, it is useless to include a magical sky pixie in the explanation. And if we don't have an explanation for a particular phenomenon, saying "god did it" is not a useful explanation. It is more honest to simply say "we don't know".
No, it's you who has santa syndrome. All you did is add a cross and a zombie story.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Yes, god COULD exist, the same way leprechauns COULD exist. But without evidence, belief in god is just as ridiculous as belief in leprechauns or any other imaginary creature.
I'm not sure what you're implying by "coded software programs". Are you referring to DNA?
Science is not dogmatic; unlike religion, science is open to correction. It simply has no use for that which has no evidence (like god).
I did give you some examples of "biological evidence" for god, like: mud turning into a fully-formed human, a member of one species giving birth to a member of another species. Even a rotting corpse coming back to life would at least be interesting.
So go call your imaginary friend in the sky and see if he's willing to demonstrate any of this under controlled observing conditions. I can hardly wait...
@Jesusisthetruth1000 What is your god without the miracles? Absolutely nothing. So if your imaginary friend isn't going to demonstrate any miracles in a controlled test, there's no reason to believe in it.
And no, DNA is not "coded software". Do you even know how DNA is produced?
Even if we were to treat it as software: With junk DNA, birth defects, cancer, incompatible blood types, etc., it would mean the programmer (your god) is an incompetent idiot.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 "Natural means can't explain...(fill in the blank)...", and this somehow proves that a virgin gave birth to a magical zombie god?
Scientists have already created amino acids and RNA from "chemical substances". The more knowledge that is gained about the building blocks of life, the more we see there is no role for a god to play.
And that's actually a picture of Jerry Falwell, a fanatical idiot like so many other christians.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Just as it is now. There are many things we still can't explain, and there are possibly things we may never be able to explain -- and of course, there's no evidence for "special miracles".
What is your point in asking? As I've already pointed out to you: Inability to explain a particular phenomenon is not a sound justification for believing in god.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 the ignorance of you to assert that cancer is only caused by environmental issues is incredibly worrying. People can be struck with cancer at young ages before any exposure.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Oh, and this would in NO WAY be evidence of a christian god. So it would not legitimize Yahweh, or the bible creation story any more than it legitimizes 1000 other religions which make similarly ridiculous claims.
In which biology class can i learn the evidence that live started out of pure
chemicals?LOL
I know the biased just so stories of evolution nowadays.
Go to creation. c o m and you can learn a lot.
Science nowadays is per definition materialistic - no wonder that everything is interpreted materialistic when any other interpretation is strictly forbidden.
And it is chance and selection. So only chance could be creative because selection only selects.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 A simple life-form appearing spontaneously is much more likely than an all-powerful being appearing out of nowhere the same way. No, "it was always there" isn't going to get the job done. I can say the simple life form was "always there" - it's a non-argument.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Presuming that there is some yet undiscovered use of non-coding DNA, why do the same species which are claimed to share a common ancestor share it, while those who don't do not?
| You try to interpret everything to a materialistic worldview and you were so wrong so often
You are typing this on a computer. "We" were (and are) right. Science works, deal with it crybaby. Even that sad apologist website tries to use facts. Why bother?
@punnet2 So love itself does not exist, it is just an illusion of oxytocin etc.? Maybe love is the cause and oxytocin is the effect. Like when i lift my right arm the sleeve follows. But this is no proof that the sleeve moved my arm! Our body is the spacesuit of our soul. You really want god to write words in the sky. This would be faithbondage. You should be good out of your own will and not because god is appearing daily in the sky!
@Jesusisthetruth1000 There's nothing illusory about oxytocin - oxytocin levels can be measured in relation to one's emotional state. You may not want to believe that our emotions (love, fear, anger, etc.) are tied to brain chemistry, but that is what the evidence indicates.
"Our body is the spacesuit of our soul" -- What now, you think jesus is an alien?
Is this the argument you're going for now? "If you can't prove love exists, that proves a virgin gave birth to a water-walking zombie god". You're either getting desperate, ignorant of basic logic, and probably both.
And in any case: Yes, love can be proven. Neuroscientists have located the regions of the brain which activate when a person expresses the emotion of love, and that the hormone oxytocin is released. So there's evidence for love; none for your zombie jesus.
For starters, contemporary references to a historical jesus, instead of decades later. This would of course only serve as evidence for an ordinary human being. For the miracle stories to bear any credibility, they would have to be reproduced under controlled testing conditions. Decades-later writings of oral testimony are not reasonable validation of such extraordinary claims.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 "Which person in the ancient world is better documented than Jesus?" Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato, Aristotle, Trajan, Hadrian. Pompey Magnus, Augustus, Constantine, Mithridates, Boudicca, Justinian, Everything, Everything that exists in past, present, and future, in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions, and Hugh Jackman.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I was sarcastic and perhaps a bit abrasive before, but I'm being genuinely honest when I say that you are deluded if you believe that. The amount of evidence we have for Julius Caesar is like the amount of evidence we have that Abraham Lincoln was alive, and the only 'dark period' that came after the Romans was brought on by Christianity. When Christianity held the most sway in Europe is quite literally the time which historians call the Dark Ages.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 my book has a witness account from me doesn't make it true. You need MULTIPLE witness accounts for it to even be considered. Eye-witness is the lowest form of evidence in court.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 No, I did not say cancer is proof for no god; I said it's proof against an intelligent god, and your ignorant claim that DNA is coded software.
Do you believe that men can become marine mammal when they standing long time in the water?
Maybe it is proof that you are not intelligent?
After all the tschernobyl and fukushima and atmicbomb testing and pesticide and herbicide and plastizizer and junkfood and aspartam and all kind of human rays and many more you push all the blame to god for cancer???LOL
That is not proof for a dumb god but for a dumb accuser!
Cancer does not only occur through human-engineered causes. Cancer can occur simply from genetics (leukemia, for example), which means if DNA is "coded software", your god programmed cancer into it. Skin cancer can develop simply from exposure to the sun (did your god fine-tune that to happen?)
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Actually, false. Read Chapter 15, "Artificial Evolution", of Kevin Kelly's book "Out Of Control" -- it's available free online. You can read how an optimized program was produced by random bit-scrambling -- actually more optimal than a human's attempt.
Yes, I believe in science, because science actually works. You believe in the jesus-zombie because...well you already admitted you don't have a good reason.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Since you took pains to specify "macroevolution", I gather you believe in microevolution. If that is the case, you perhaps have yet to learn that "macroevolution" is true because "microevolution" is true.
You could falsify macroevolution by demonstrating that continuous small changes do not lead to larger changes over time.
Which would be like demonstrating someone could not eventually cover a large distance by taking small steps.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Weren't you paying attention? A world where miracles occur would have mud turning spontaneously into humans; or a man walking on water, multiplying loaves and withering trees with his mind; or dead bodies coming back to life. But oh look: those things don't happen. Most likely we live in a world without miracles.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Correct - when we discover the natural process behind a phenomenon, we stop calling it a miracle; there is no real evidence for miracles.
Dolphins and whales are marine mammals, and bats are mammals with wings, so not sure why you're laughing.
No, we cannot evolve into an existing species, any more than you could give birth to your cousin.
Again (pay attention!), a specimen giving birth to something entirely different would falsify evolution.
You still can say this was just very fast evolution, we did not know that evolution can work so fast.
So you demand miracles happen regularly as proof for a god an admit that this would be no proof because when things happen regularly it is not a miracle anymore???LOL
So mankind can get wings someday or someday we will be marine mammals?LOL
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Yes, it would falsify evolution. No set of mutations could occur in a single generation which would result in an entirely different specimen.
Bird species which have lost the ability to fly (after previously having it) are not examples of evolving "backwards" into a previous species.
You really should spend a few minutes learning about evolution from a credible resource, and not one whose a priori goal is to confirm the zombie story of jesus.
If we found rabbit skeletons from a time period when we thought there were just single celled life forms that would falsify evolution. If we found an animal with a radically different genome than us that would falsify evolution. If human genes were radically different from genes from great apes which we share a common ancestor with that would falsify evolution. There are lots of things like that. Yet no significant grounds have been found to falsify it in science
No there is no possible way that a cell stays elastic for million of years even in the best thinkable way of conservation.there is no such thing that there is no decay for million of years!(Even when frozen etc.)
Decomposition depends on bacteria. If no bacteria can survive and temperatures and pressures are right, conservation of a few cells is possible. And there would still be far more evidence that the bones are millions of years old anyways, there are multiple ways to cross check.
The dating of the rocks depends on the evolutionary sequence of the fossils, but the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils depends on the dating of the rocks.
h t t p://w w w.icr.o r g/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/
The age of the layer is calculated by the bones.
And the age of the bones is calculated by the layer!?
That's not true at all. This discussion can serve no purpose if you don't stick to facts; the dating of rocks is completely independent of fossils. I won't spend time explaining such basic things, you have a world of information at your fingertips.
"The dating of the rocks depends on the evolutionary sequence of the fossils, but the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils depends on the dating of the rocks."
Which is a complete lie. Stop changing the goal posts. Rock dating is completely independent of fossils. Seriously I think you're just pulling my leg now, ten seconds on google would have told you that.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Again, when you're admitting you don't understand what evolution is, not sure why you're laughing, much less how you can claim that "macroevolution" isn't possible.
At any rate: What would falsify the resurrection for you? (Now we'll see a reason to laugh...)
@Jesusisthetruth1000 But it is scientifically impossible to "make an animal out of pure chemicals", so how would accomplishing that prove that there is no god? You're asking for one miracle to disprove another.
So again: As you've admitted, you only believe in the resurrection because of the voices in your head. So how do you know those voices aren't lying to you?
As far as proof for resurrection, that's simple: Find a dead body, and bring it back to life.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 We would first have to establish that resurrection is even possible, rather than being a complete violation of our understanding of reality.
If you can demonstrate in a controlled test a dead body coming back to life, then yes it would be believable. If you genuinely think this can be done, then apply for the Randi challenge. Not only would you win $1 million (enough to build your own church), but you would advance our understanding of reality.
It is just the question who made that miracle God or chance?
Not the voices in my head, in my heart and confirmed through the new testament and other people over 2000 years who encountered jesus or angels or miracles or prophecies and neardeath experiences etc.
For example go to spritlessons. c o m
or to angelkiss.c o m/angels
or chariot wheels found in the read see as proof for the old testament
@Jesusisthetruth1000 How do you claim "live" is a miracle? We don't currently know how life began, but that doesn't mean it occurred through miraculous means.
Not the voices in your head, but in your heart? Um...the heart simply pumps blood (this goes for all animals, not just humans). If you're claiming to hear voices in your heart, either you're some extraordinary mutant, or your understanding of biology is even worse than your previous posts indicate.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 My "materialistic worldview" is wrong...because you hear voices...in your heart?
And no, I have not felt love in my heart, and neither have you -- unless you heart somehow produces neurotransmitters. Primitive, ignorant people held the mistaken belief that the heart is the seat of emotion -- some of whom also created the superstitious myths on which your zombie-jesus story is based.
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I have felt love, but it has nothing to do with my heart. Again: all the heart does is circulate blood. It does not regulate our emotional states. Anyone who has taken grade-school science class would know that.
I need only point you to talkorigins . o r g for responses to all your links. Someone who believes in ghosts, zombie gods and other such nonsense because of voices --in his heart!-- doesn't deserve any consideration beyond that.
Yes, the damage is in my hand but the pain is interpreted in my brain and projected onto my hand. Without the nerve connections between my hand and brain I wouldn't feel it at all. Grade 8 biology, my friend :P
I just did. All the reactions take place in your brain, but your brain projects the feeling elsewhere. If all feelings were felt in the brain rather than projected you would never know what part of your body was in pain or too cold etc. Have you not been to elementary school?
I'm more of a I-don't-care-about-religion-so-long-as-it-doesn't-harm-anyone-or-interfere-with-science-ist. And you provide us a prime example of how it interferes with science, the things I'm debating with you are taught to every elementary school student here and you can verify them by going to museums with our ancestors fossils in them, etc.
Again, this discussion can serve no purpose if you keep bouncing around whenever I make a point. I just explained why love happens in the brain but you feel it in your chest, address that. Repeating where you feel it doesn't change anything, the physical changes happen in your brain and that's proven and repeatable.
So you can`t explain why people feel love inside of their heart!
It is clear why you feel pain in your arm when i smash your arm, but why i feel love in my heart and not in my brain or in my back or my leg or my fingertips etc?
I feel love in all of my being. Some ancient cultures thought the liver was responsible for love, not the heart. It doesn't matter why you feel it in your heart, the point is the physical changes that go on are PROVEN to be in the brain, not the heart, same as any other feeling. You are deliberately missing this point.
I know what happened! Jesus was an Aline, he came by a ship with God (who is also an Alien), built a city and the aliens took the city back with them. They will return on 12/21/2012, put the city back, have it broadcast using human built satellites, since God did not know how to do it back then!!. Please everyone go to Nazirath, wait there. The Aliens and God will bring Jesus and his town back, so they can re-enact his resurrection.. Hallooo Looo Yaaa
Eventoast 11 hours ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 So apparently you think Confucius is god, since he stated the Golden Rule 500 years before jesus.
punnet2 11 hours ago
@punnet2
To love your neighbor was already in the old Testament!
And god guided also other nations not only the jews.
Jesusisthetruth1000 6 hours ago
Jesus character is the repackaging of Egyptian Sun God Horus! He never existed. Roman needed a way to unite their people under one God to fight the Persians which were the biggest Empire of the world. They learned Persians believed on one God and were united because of it, so they fabricated Jesus and predated it 150 years! People are to be like Jesus obedient, at the same time Romans are to be feared and obeyed because even God did not do anything while his son was crucified. Put fear and Rule
Eventoast 11 hours ago
God of universe is so Intelligent that created life forms billions of years ago. But yet the religions that say are from God are so Primitive! They are written on Stone Tablets and skins and most people can not translate it.. There is a disconnect hello.. God would have sent talking birds. Not Greedy, corrupt priests! He would have programmed you so you knew exactly what to do!..He would have at least paid his priest with Gold once a life time, if not daily, so they would not beg for our money!!
Eventoast 11 hours ago
Every knee will bow and JAMES RANDI too shall confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD
msgiman1 13 hours ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
So what you're saying is that you can't prove Jesus was a magicy man, yet you laugh in the face of the volumes of proof for evolution. Nothing I can do once the cognitive barriers are so high. And the scientific world isn't necessarily the Atheistic world, lots of reasonable Christians accept evolution and science as valid.
tipoomaster 13 hours ago 2
@tipoomaster
First evolution is not proven.Not repeatable, not testable.
Mathematical not possible. Voodoo science.
I respect real repeatable , testable science but not docmatically driven interpretations.
Second even if it would be proven, it would be not proven that it was a guided process.
And the beginning of the universe and the start of live is not proven!
Jesusisthetruth1000 6 hours ago
@tipoomaster
Sorry, a mistake.
Second even if it would be proven, it would be not proven that it was NOT a guided process.
Jesusisthetruth1000 6 hours ago
This is called 'historicization'. Let's inflate the accepted 'isms' of a period with little in the way of actual documentation and evidence in order to monetize it.
gr33nman 17 hours ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 You do not feel love in your heart; Your heart is a organ that pumps blood throughout the blood vessels, it's all in your mind.
aprox23 1 day ago
Sunday School lesson. The Gospels do not claim that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Jesus' parents lived in Nazareth but traveled to Bethlehem for the a census and Jesus was born there before the family returned to Nazareth. He grew up in Nazareth but was not born there.
verumdolor 3 days ago
@verumdolor sunday school sucks lol
butobuto1 3 days ago
Thank you Mr. Randi for a very enlightening video. It is such a pleasure to hear an intelligent man talk. Oh my but what a great thing it would be if one could somehow convince Christians to just listen to your speech and to then, afterwards,...PONDER the things you have said, but, alas, it will not happen soon, for they regretably, have no powers of deducing what is RATIONAL and discarding what is not. Having had to do with some of them, I can really attest to the fact that they are a scary lot
zideffil 5 days ago
I dunno, I think Santa Claus is less hidden than you think... In fact, I think he's riiight under our nose.... >>
MisterTTG 5 days ago
I like that guy!
kaizoebara 1 week ago
Creates whole universe from nothing; Needs rib to create one more thing.
PukaMan 1 week ago 14
@PukaMan Excellent point. I have been thinking and debating such things for a long time now, but that very logical point had totally escaped me. Thanks for thinking. Oh, that Christians could be taught to use their brains...
zideffil 5 days ago
i agree with every word you said in the video.
"RELIGION IS THE BIGGEST VACUUM CLEANER EVER SOLD
TO THE PEOPLE
BY THE PEOPLE
TO RIP-OFF PEOPEL".
zulfitareen 1 week ago
@bestvalue everything is a transitional form, whether you buy it or not. the great thing about science is that it doesnt require the say so of 'some guy on the internet' to be true. it requires testable and verifiable evidence. no amount of australopithecus fossils can convince you out of willful ignorance. im sorry for your loss.
SuperfluousTrousers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i agree with every word you said in the video.
"RELIGION IS THE BIGGEST VACUUM CLEANER EVER SOLD
TO THE PEOPLE
BY THE PEOPLE
TO RIP-OFF PEOPEL".
zulfitareen 1 week ago
i agree every word you said in the video.
'RELIGION IS THE BIGGEST VACUUM CLEANER EVER SOLD
TO THE PEOPLE
BY THE PEOPLE
TO RIP-OFF PEOPEL".
zulfitareen 1 week ago
The town of nazareth of today is not necessarily the same town in which jesus lived.
The nazareth of jesus could on another place after all this time under some soil.
It is just a town with the same name and people try to make money out of it!
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 weeks ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Or jesus could just be a myth, and people try to make money off of it.
By the evidence, what is more likely?
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Or it is true that Jesus is not just a myth and of course people try to make money out of it and misuse Jesus and his teaching.
Show me one true thing which man never misused to make money out of it!
What evidence do you have that Jesus is a myth?
Go to reasonablefaith. o r g
or the new testament or encounters with jesus over 2000 years or angel stories(.ainglkiss.c o m/angels/ )and encounters or the shroud of turin.
I think the evidence is more likely for jesus.
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 You would do well to note that the jesus of xianity can be dismissed as myth for lack of evidence. Or do you think every extraordinary claim is automatically true until proven false?
And you're actually citing the shroud of turin as evidence? It was independently analyzed by 3 different labs and dated to the Middle Ages ("The Shroud of Turin: An Answer Is at Hand"; Waldrop 1988). It's beyond pathetic if you're not aware of that.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
So no evidence for Jesus?
NOt my opinion.
Shroud of Turin is not my best evidence and new results of analyzing it came to another conclusion.
My personel best evidence is inside of me.
What evidence for Jesus you would accept?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Cold hard forensically proven evidence of the tangible manner that is available for scrutiny of the general public will do nicely.
sacrenough 1 week ago
@sacrenough What exactly and in detail should be forensically proven?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Well I already gathered that's not your opinion, but surely you know that your opinion is not tantamount to fact. Neither are the voices in your head ("... best evidence is inside of me...").
Have you a study to cite for the alternate "conclusion" regarding the shroud -- just as I cited one?
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Your opinion is also not tantamount to fact.
The realm of Jesus is not from this world, but it is inside of you, therefore it is important what happens inside of you.If you don`t believe it just try it.
Pray to Jesus that you are a sinner and that you want him to dwell in your heart.
Pray that you please love him like he loves you.
Pray if you are real, than please reveal yourself to me.
Do this 2 weeks 10 minutes a day and see what happens.
Give it a try?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I did not express an opinion, but rather drew a conclusion based on the evidence. You for your part admit that your best evidence is "inside of you", which for matters of historicity, amounts to no evidence for all.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
What is your evidence?
Can you prove that Love exists?
You believe that love exists?I don´t believe that love exists. ;-) Proof it to me!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
Love is brain chemistry - do some research and you will find plenty of evidence for this.
JUSTHELLBENT 1 week ago
@punnet2
So you will not try it and you will not pray to Jesus?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I was christian for 20 years. Praying didn't work. Rather, studying scripture made it clear how poor the evidence for xianity is.
Hopefully you aren't so deluded to think you can pray your way to historical evidence.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
So you loved jesus as much as you could?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Actually, yes. I studied theology in college and was planning on becoming a priest. It was during my studies -- in fact, on account of my studies -- that I gave up xianity.
Now if you wouldn't mind answering my question (which you already ignored once): Can you cite your source for the analysis of the shroud of Turin that came to "another conclusion", or were you just pulling that claim out of your ...
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
The pieces of the shroud of turin were taken all from the same part and this could be a repaired part, the dating is not so 100%sure like they want us to believe ....
on the eyes of the shroud there were some coins and they could see some letters and this coin was circulating in the time of jesus.
Like Stalin he also wanted to become a priest until he read the false book of darwin.
You also?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 So no -- you don't have an actual study to cite where radiocarbon testing dated the shroud to jesus' time. All you have is a speculation that maybe the part sampled for testing wasn't part of the original.
Of course it doesn't matter, because you're not actually concerned about actual evidence. As you've already acknowledged, all the confirmation you require are the voices in your head.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
It is not only the voices in my head.
Go to reasonablefaith. o r g
aomin. o r g
/watch?v=dr9_v5A4a2w
/watch?v=YrmA1H6wFPU
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Actually, it is. William Lane Craig says that the confirmation for his beliefs is the "inner witness of the holy spirit". In other words, he doesn't care about the actual evidence, just like you. All his pseudo-intellectual arguments are constructed post-facto to make the voices in his head look "reasonable".
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
You watched my links?
Lane Craig is not only speaking about his inner witness!
By the way can you proof to me that something like love exists?
Can you proof it to me. I don`t believe that love exists.
Do you believe that love exists and why?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 love can be demonstrated through action.
The26Dude 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Craig regurgitates the exact same argument in all of his debates, as well as in "Reasonable Faith": His belief is based on his inner witness, and all the "evidence" he provides is patchwork. He even said in "Reasonable Faith" that he would accept the inner witness over any evidence to the contrary. He, like you, doesn't actually care about the evidence.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
what evidence you have that jesus is a zombie?
What evidence you have that atheism is accurate and correct?
What evidence you have that coded information and softwarprogramms
devevelops through brainless functions?
You watched my links?
There is new information about the shroud!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
-Pardon me, but it's you who believes that jesus was a zombie -- a body that came back to life. And as you've already admitted, you have no evidence.
-As long as there is no evidence for god (which again, you've already admitted), atheism is the most accurate position to hold.
-You can't prove the virgin birth, but you believe in it anyway. Why?
punnet2 1 week ago
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I never claimed to know how life started, but since scientists have been able to synthesize amino acids and RNA in the lab, there was a likely a natural origin, within nothing for a magical god to do.
"witness accounts"? Somebody witnessed Mary getting impregnated virginally? LOL!
I don't hate jesus/god, which don't exist. I hate the ignorance of gullible people like you who do believe it exists.
punnet2 1 week ago
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
What biological evidence for god you would accept?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Not sure what you mean by "biological evidence" and I don't think you are either, actually. However, demonstrating a lump of clay turning into a fully-formed man; a rib turning into a full-formed woman; a talking snake or mule; or a member of one species turning into a member of an entirely different species might be a good start.
Now then; what would you consider as evidence (biological or otherwise) that god does not exist?
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Maybe i can answer only next weekend we will see!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 The mockery is for your belief in such ridiculous things. Just as any adult who still believes in santa claus or that Elvis is alive deserves mockery.
Pay attention: I don't know how life started, nor does anyone currently. However, not knowing is no excuse to invent a god to explain it. Time and again, science has found natural explanations for phenomena we previously used a god to explain. The same is likely to happen with the origin of life.
punnet2 1 week ago
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 No, god is not by definition excluded; simply put, if an explanation works well enough without including a magical sky pixie, it is useless to include a magical sky pixie in the explanation. And if we don't have an explanation for a particular phenomenon, saying "god did it" is not a useful explanation. It is more honest to simply say "we don't know".
No, it's you who has santa syndrome. All you did is add a cross and a zombie story.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
As long as you don`t know you have to say it could be!
Where is the proof that coded softwarprogramms are comming to existence
through brainless reactions?
You told me not how a biological evidence for god must look like for you?!
God is per definition excluded.(or any higher intelligence)
Science has the dogma that science must be materialistic!
And mock people like you who believe they were stones and fishes and evolved through brainless reactions!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Yes, god COULD exist, the same way leprechauns COULD exist. But without evidence, belief in god is just as ridiculous as belief in leprechauns or any other imaginary creature.
I'm not sure what you're implying by "coded software programs". Are you referring to DNA?
Science is not dogmatic; unlike religion, science is open to correction. It simply has no use for that which has no evidence (like god).
punnet2 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
I did give you some examples of "biological evidence" for god, like: mud turning into a fully-formed human, a member of one species giving birth to a member of another species. Even a rotting corpse coming back to life would at least be interesting.
So go call your imaginary friend in the sky and see if he's willing to demonstrate any of this under controlled observing conditions. I can hardly wait...
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Those are miracles and not biological evidences!!!
And yes DNA is coded softwareprogramm and it is very stupid to think that chance and
selection can make softwarprogramms!!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 What is your god without the miracles? Absolutely nothing. So if your imaginary friend isn't going to demonstrate any miracles in a controlled test, there's no reason to believe in it.
And no, DNA is not "coded software". Do you even know how DNA is produced?
Even if we were to treat it as software: With junk DNA, birth defects, cancer, incompatible blood types, etc., it would mean the programmer (your god) is an incompetent idiot.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Biology should proof that there is no god but you can not say how biology must be theoretically that it would proof a god???LOL
So there is no fasification possible?
Tell me how DNA is produced and tell me how much better are humans in
producing condensed storage media!
What about the marine mammals?Can men become marine mammals someday?
Even if it would be bad software it still would be software and software needs a creator!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I already told you how. Weren't you paying attention?
Without the miracles, there is nothing for your god to do. Everything else can be explained through natural means, with no role for your god to play.
Thank you at least for admitting that the god you believe in is an incompetent idiot (as implied by your "dna is software" assertion).
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Your natural means can´t explain how life started, how universe started , how the universe is finetuned, how sex originate and many more.
Your god is called chance!
Oh everything was chance and selection???LOL
Very good explanation through natural means.
Make one living thing out of chemical substances only one!!!
Of course when i look on your DNA than i have to admit that god had a very bad day
when he made your DNA. ;-)
Nice picture.Teletubbie?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 "Natural means can't explain...(fill in the blank)...", and this somehow proves that a virgin gave birth to a magical zombie god?
Scientists have already created amino acids and RNA from "chemical substances". The more knowledge that is gained about the building blocks of life, the more we see there is no role for a god to play.
And that's actually a picture of Jerry Falwell, a fanatical idiot like so many other christians.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
How must the world look like that it would be not all explainable for you through natural means?(Without special miracles)
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Just as it is now. There are many things we still can't explain, and there are possibly things we may never be able to explain -- and of course, there's no evidence for "special miracles".
What is your point in asking? As I've already pointed out to you: Inability to explain a particular phenomenon is not a sound justification for believing in god.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Bad software when we do not follow his word?
We are polluting our enviroment and then god is accountable for cancer?
Junk DNA?Yeah? Like the junk appendix?All not true.
Go to creation. c o m and search for junk NDA and appendix!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 so your options for the appendix are it's a curse or we don't know what to use it for yet? Seems a bit like a get out clause.
awfycooper 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 the ignorance of you to assert that cancer is only caused by environmental issues is incredibly worrying. People can be struck with cancer at young ages before any exposure.
awfycooper 1 week ago
@punnet2
You think that men can become watermammals when they stand long enough in water?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@punnet2
Why don`t you mock satan?
Or try the same thing with the Quran?LOL
I know what i mean with biological evidence!
You try to proof with biology that there can be no god, but you can not show me
how biology should be, so that it would proof a god???LOL
Your examples are not biological evidences but miracles, and the rib of Adam was a parabel.
to your question!
When men can make living animals out of pure chemicals!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 satan doesn't exist any more than jesus does. I mock clowns like you who believe in satan & jesus.
Of course I mock the qu'ran. It's just as ridiculous as the bible, and muslims are just as clownish as christians like you.
So let me get this straight: You don't believe adam was made from mud, and eve was made from a rib? If not, how do you think humans emerged?
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Adam and Eve were made from mud.(their bodies)
You think if men are standing long enough in water they become
watermammals some day?(Like the whales)
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@punnet2
How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
How did the DNA code originate?
How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 look it up,do some learning
Rockster969 1 week ago
@punnet2
What biological evidence for god you would accept as evidence?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Out of thousands and thousands of things which support evolution and not creation, here is one.
If there was no shared junk DNA between species which share a common ancestor.
If they didn't evolve together, there is no reason that 2 species individually created would share the same useless junk.
Let alone there being no good reason to have junk DNA in the first place in the case of creation.
IvanAndreevich 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Oh, and this would in NO WAY be evidence of a christian god. So it would not legitimize Yahweh, or the bible creation story any more than it legitimizes 1000 other religions which make similarly ridiculous claims.
IvanAndreevich 1 week ago
@IvanAndreevich
What biological evidence you would accept?(In detail)
Yeah junk DNA?Funny
Read this or search in the mask of creation. c o m for junk DNA
h t t p://creation.c o m/vestigial-organs-questions-and-answers
The same stupid false argument llike that the appendix is for no use!
You try to interpret everything to a materialistic worldview and you were so wrong so often.You are biased.
DNA is coded information, coded softwareprogramm, that comes from chance?LOL
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Take a biology class, it's not chance but what starts out as very simple over billions of years becomes complex.
TheAwakenedHeretic 1 week ago
@TheAwakenedHeretic
In which biology class can i learn the evidence that live started out of pure
chemicals?LOL
I know the biased just so stories of evolution nowadays.
Go to creation. c o m and you can learn a lot.
Science nowadays is per definition materialistic - no wonder that everything is interpreted materialistic when any other interpretation is strictly forbidden.
And it is chance and selection. So only chance could be creative because selection only selects.
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 A simple life-form appearing spontaneously is much more likely than an all-powerful being appearing out of nowhere the same way. No, "it was always there" isn't going to get the job done. I can say the simple life form was "always there" - it's a non-argument.
IvanAndreevich 5 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Presuming that there is some yet undiscovered use of non-coding DNA, why do the same species which are claimed to share a common ancestor share it, while those who don't do not?
| You try to interpret everything to a materialistic worldview and you were so wrong so often
You are typing this on a computer. "We" were (and are) right. Science works, deal with it crybaby. Even that sad apologist website tries to use facts. Why bother?
IvanAndreevich 5 days ago
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 There's nothing illusory about oxytocin - oxytocin levels can be measured in relation to one's emotional state. You may not want to believe that our emotions (love, fear, anger, etc.) are tied to brain chemistry, but that is what the evidence indicates.
"Our body is the spacesuit of our soul" -- What now, you think jesus is an alien?
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
When all is just chemistry, so why don`t you start new living creatures just out of chemical
substances?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@punnet2
Of course jesus is an alien, because his realm is not of this world.
Luzifer is not an alien because it is his world!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Ok, so you do believe jesus was an alien. You're one of those Raelian or Heaven's Gate types.
Go get an education before they make you drink the Kool-Aid.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
And i don`t say that i can proof virgin birth, neither can you proof that
love itself does exist.
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
And by the way sience itself can proof in reallity very little.
They need unproven axioms to start their work!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
Is this the argument you're going for now? "If you can't prove love exists, that proves a virgin gave birth to a water-walking zombie god". You're either getting desperate, ignorant of basic logic, and probably both.
And in any case: Yes, love can be proven. Neuroscientists have located the regions of the brain which activate when a person expresses the emotion of love, and that the hormone oxytocin is released. So there's evidence for love; none for your zombie jesus.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Maybe we should say in the future not
I love you
but
I oxytocin you!
?????
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 false book ur saying theres a true book lolol wow "i reject reality and substitute my own"" thats u
rbone892 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 And you should stop belaboring this "pray to jesus" argument, since you cannot pray your way to historical evidence.
If you don't comprehend this, you should stop praying long enough to take a class in basic logic.
punnet2 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 As far as acceptable evidence for a historical jesus:
For starters, contemporary references to a historical jesus, instead of decades later. This would of course only serve as evidence for an ordinary human being. For the miracle stories to bear any credibility, they would have to be reproduced under controlled testing conditions. Decades-later writings of oral testimony are not reasonable validation of such extraordinary claims.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Which person of the ancient world is better documented than Jesus?
You want Jesus in a labatory to proof his miracles?
Well people like you tried already to test Jesus, like King Herodes you asked him to make miracles and Jesus refused.
The miracles is not the important thing, it is his message.
Love god over all and your neighbor like yourself.
In front of people with no love Jesus performed no miracles.
Do you believe that love exist?
Can you proof it?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 "Which person in the ancient world is better documented than Jesus?" Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato, Aristotle, Trajan, Hadrian. Pompey Magnus, Augustus, Constantine, Mithridates, Boudicca, Justinian, Everything, Everything that exists in past, present, and future, in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions, and Hugh Jackman.
SuperfluousTrousers 1 week ago
@SuperfluousTrousers
I don´t think so that we have more historical documents of these persons you are
mentioning!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 We do. There is no mention of Jesus whatsoever during the time he was 'alive'.
SuperfluousTrousers 1 week ago
@SuperfluousTrousers
There is even mentioning of jesus before he was on earth.
Of the most people of ancient times we have no documents during the time they were alive because paper does not last 2000 years.
The speeches of Caesar - we do not have the originales and there is a "dark period"
of 900 years!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I was sarcastic and perhaps a bit abrasive before, but I'm being genuinely honest when I say that you are deluded if you believe that. The amount of evidence we have for Julius Caesar is like the amount of evidence we have that Abraham Lincoln was alive, and the only 'dark period' that came after the Romans was brought on by Christianity. When Christianity held the most sway in Europe is quite literally the time which historians call the Dark Ages.
SuperfluousTrousers 1 week ago 3
@SuperfluousTrousers
That´s not true.
And when this period was dark than not because of Christianity but of the egoistic
perversion of christianity of the catholic church.
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Amen!
GoodyBob 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 the Shroud of Turin is a terrible example to use when arguing evidence. It's one of the most disputed artifacts of all time.
awfycooper 1 week ago
@awfycooper
So you know how the shroud of turin was made?
The new testament is a witness account!
Can you proof that you are god?
Jesus did!
Appendix is a curse?Go to creation. c o m and search for appendix and learn.
Oh and young children and their mother and their forefathers were not under the influence of poisons like radiation.
You know how many test atomicbomb test were made in the last decades?
Isn`t it to simple to say there is cancer therefore there can be no god?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 my book has a witness account from me doesn't make it true. You need MULTIPLE witness accounts for it to even be considered. Eye-witness is the lowest form of evidence in court.
awfycooper 1 week ago
@awfycooper
Multiple witnesses died for the truth that jesus rose from the death.
punnet2 said that cancer is somekind of proof for no god.
Peoples action are not important?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 No, I did not say cancer is proof for no god; I said it's proof against an intelligent god, and your ignorant claim that DNA is coded software.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
DNS is not coded software?LOL
Do you believe that men can become marine mammal when they standing long time in the water?
Maybe it is proof that you are not intelligent?
After all the tschernobyl and fukushima and atmicbomb testing and pesticide and herbicide and plastizizer and junkfood and aspartam and all kind of human rays and many more you push all the blame to god for cancer???LOL
That is not proof for a dumb god but for a dumb accuser!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Does your ignorance know no depths?
Cancer does not only occur through human-engineered causes. Cancer can occur simply from genetics (leukemia, for example), which means if DNA is "coded software", your god programmed cancer into it. Skin cancer can develop simply from exposure to the sun (did your god fine-tune that to happen?)
If your god existed, it would be an idiot.
punnet2 1 week ago
@punnet2
Coded software always needs a intelligent source!
How do you explain all paranormal experiences?
And even matter is itself an illusion. Matter is condensed spirit.
It is just a lot of nothing , an a little bit of vibrating energy.
An idiot is who finds coded software and assumes that chances did it!
You are a great believer.You believe in sience and matter!
Tell me how the DNA must look like that you have to assume that there is a god!
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 week ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Actually, false. Read Chapter 15, "Artificial Evolution", of Kevin Kelly's book "Out Of Control" -- it's available free online. You can read how an optimized program was produced by random bit-scrambling -- actually more optimal than a human's attempt.
Yes, I believe in science, because science actually works. You believe in the jesus-zombie because...well you already admitted you don't have a good reason.
With DNA, there is nothing for a god to do
punnet2 6 days ago
@punnet2
So you believe in Macroevolution!You call it science!
Well define macroevolution and show me how it could be falsificated!
If it can`t be falsificated it is not science!
How must a world look like where miracles occur?
You also believe in miracles. THe miracle that time made a frog into a prince!
You believe that men could become a marine mammal oneday?
Jesusisthetruth1000 6 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Since you took pains to specify "macroevolution", I gather you believe in microevolution. If that is the case, you perhaps have yet to learn that "macroevolution" is true because "microevolution" is true.
You could falsify macroevolution by demonstrating that continuous small changes do not lead to larger changes over time.
Which would be like demonstrating someone could not eventually cover a large distance by taking small steps.
punnet2 6 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Weren't you paying attention? A world where miracles occur would have mud turning spontaneously into humans; or a man walking on water, multiplying loaves and withering trees with his mind; or dead bodies coming back to life. But oh look: those things don't happen. Most likely we live in a world without miracles.
punnet2 6 days ago
@punnet2
When a miracle is everyday happening it is not consider anymore as a miracle but
a law of nature!
O maybe mankind will became oneday a marine mammal???LOL
Or maybe we get some wings oneday right?
Or maybe we evolve back to dinosaur?LOLOL
WHAT WOULD BE THE FALSIFICATION OF EVOLUTION!
(THAT microevotion is a proof for macroevolution is wrong, it is true in your imagination!)
Jesusisthetruth1000 6 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Correct - when we discover the natural process behind a phenomenon, we stop calling it a miracle; there is no real evidence for miracles.
Dolphins and whales are marine mammals, and bats are mammals with wings, so not sure why you're laughing.
No, we cannot evolve into an existing species, any more than you could give birth to your cousin.
Again (pay attention!), a specimen giving birth to something entirely different would falsify evolution.
punnet2 5 days ago
@punnet2
Not it would not falsify evolution.
You still can say this was just very fast evolution, we did not know that evolution can work so fast.
So you demand miracles happen regularly as proof for a god an admit that this would be no proof because when things happen regularly it is not a miracle anymore???LOL
So mankind can get wings someday or someday we will be marine mammals?LOL
Jesusisthetruth1000 5 days ago
@punnet2
So we can not evolve backwards? According to evolution fairy tail yes it is possible!
h t t p://creation.c o m/bird-evolution-discontinuities-and-reversals
Jesusisthetruth1000 5 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Yes, it would falsify evolution. No set of mutations could occur in a single generation which would result in an entirely different specimen.
Bird species which have lost the ability to fly (after previously having it) are not examples of evolving "backwards" into a previous species.
You really should spend a few minutes learning about evolution from a credible resource, and not one whose a priori goal is to confirm the zombie story of jesus.
punnet2 4 days ago
@punnet2
So the only thing what could falsify evolution would be for example that a zebra gives birth to a crododile???LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
No other way to falsify evolution???LOLOLOLOL
Jesusisthetruth1000 4 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
Oh dear.
If we found rabbit skeletons from a time period when we thought there were just single celled life forms that would falsify evolution. If we found an animal with a radically different genome than us that would falsify evolution. If human genes were radically different from genes from great apes which we share a common ancestor with that would falsify evolution. There are lots of things like that. Yet no significant grounds have been found to falsify it in science
tipoomaster 4 days ago 4
@tipoomaster
Science found cells of a dinosaur which were still elastic and with DNA and i think
with blood.
Dinosaurs are supposed to be dead since Million of years and cells can not stay elastic for million of years, so there is a problem!
Jesusisthetruth1000 3 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
Yes, one in a few thousands of fossils were preserved in such a way where decay could not take place. How does that disprove evolution?
tipoomaster 3 days ago
@tipoomaster
No there is no possible way that a cell stays elastic for million of years even in the best thinkable way of conservation.there is no such thing that there is no decay for million of years!(Even when frozen etc.)
Jesusisthetruth1000 3 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
Decomposition depends on bacteria. If no bacteria can survive and temperatures and pressures are right, conservation of a few cells is possible. And there would still be far more evidence that the bones are millions of years old anyways, there are multiple ways to cross check.
tipoomaster 3 days ago
@tipoomaster
Cross check through circular reasoning?
The dating of the rocks depends on the evolutionary sequence of the fossils, but the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils depends on the dating of the rocks.
h t t p://w w w.icr.o r g/article/circular-reasoning-evolutionary-biology/
The age of the layer is calculated by the bones.
And the age of the bones is calculated by the layer!?
Circular Reasoning!
Jesusisthetruth1000 3 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
That's not true at all. This discussion can serve no purpose if you don't stick to facts; the dating of rocks is completely independent of fossils. I won't spend time explaining such basic things, you have a world of information at your fingertips.
tipoomaster 3 days ago
@tipoomaster
No no in the theorie of evoulution there is no circular reasoning???LOL
Jesusisthetruth1000 3 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I was talking about this
"The dating of the rocks depends on the evolutionary sequence of the fossils, but the evolutionary interpretation of the fossils depends on the dating of the rocks."
Which is a complete lie. Stop changing the goal posts. Rock dating is completely independent of fossils. Seriously I think you're just pulling my leg now, ten seconds on google would have told you that.
tipoomaster 3 days ago
@tipoomaster
You mean radiometric dating?
h t t p://creation.c o m/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating
Jesusisthetruth1000 3 days ago
@punnet2
Or to be more correct.
The only thing what could falsify evolution would be if a zebra is laying a crocodile egg or
gives birth to a dog or a kangaroo????LOLOLOL
Jesusisthetruth1000 4 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Again, when you're admitting you don't understand what evolution is, not sure why you're laughing, much less how you can claim that "macroevolution" isn't possible.
At any rate: What would falsify the resurrection for you? (Now we'll see a reason to laugh...)
punnet2 4 days ago
@punnet2
How can i dare to say that macroevolution isn` t possible?LOL
I do not say that my believe in jesus is science.Therefore i don´t need a falsification for it.
But anyway i answer. If you make a living animal out of pure chemicals, that would falsify it i think!
Jesusisthetruth1000 3 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Making an animal out of pure chemicals would falsify the resurrection for you?
What does one have to do with the other?
punnet2 3 days ago
@punnet2
Can`t you see?
If this would be possible, there would be no god and Jesus could be not the messiah
and the resurrection could be not true!Because we all would be just pure chemicals!
What would you make to believe that the resurrection would be true?
Jesusisthetruth1000 3 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 But it is scientifically impossible to "make an animal out of pure chemicals", so how would accomplishing that prove that there is no god? You're asking for one miracle to disprove another.
So again: As you've admitted, you only believe in the resurrection because of the voices in your head. So how do you know those voices aren't lying to you?
As far as proof for resurrection, that's simple: Find a dead body, and bring it back to life.
punnet2 2 days ago
@punnet2
What would you make believe that jesus resurrected from the dead?
I can show you cases of people resurrected form the dead on youtube through praying to jesus, but you will not believe it right?
So nature could make living things out of chemical substances by chance but for mankind it is impossible by intelligence???LOL
But it is true it would be a miracle to create live out of chemicals but chance made that miracle come true?
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 We would first have to establish that resurrection is even possible, rather than being a complete violation of our understanding of reality.
If you can demonstrate in a controlled test a dead body coming back to life, then yes it would be believable. If you genuinely think this can be done, then apply for the Randi challenge. Not only would you win $1 million (enough to build your own church), but you would advance our understanding of reality.
punnet2 2 days ago
@punnet2
You never felt love in your heart?
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@punnet2
Live is a miracle!
It is just the question who made that miracle God or chance?
Not the voices in my head, in my heart and confirmed through the new testament and other people over 2000 years who encountered jesus or angels or miracles or prophecies and neardeath experiences etc.
For example go to spritlessons. c o m
or to angelkiss.c o m/angels
or chariot wheels found in the read see as proof for the old testament
/watch?v=d90NM9tgDQE&feature=related
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 How do you claim "live" is a miracle? We don't currently know how life began, but that doesn't mean it occurred through miraculous means.
Not the voices in your head, but in your heart? Um...the heart simply pumps blood (this goes for all animals, not just humans). If you're claiming to hear voices in your heart, either you're some extraordinary mutant, or your understanding of biology is even worse than your previous posts indicate.
punnet2 2 days ago
@punnet2
Stay with your stone to man hypothesis i stay with my jesus hypotheses.
your materiaistic worldview is plain wrong.
Just watch My ghost story or gostly encounters or celbrity ghost story etc.
There is a other world bejond your understanding!
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 My "materialistic worldview" is wrong...because you hear voices...in your heart?
And no, I have not felt love in my heart, and neither have you -- unless you heart somehow produces neurotransmitters. Primitive, ignorant people held the mistaken belief that the heart is the seat of emotion -- some of whom also created the superstitious myths on which your zombie-jesus story is based.
punnet2 2 days ago
@punnet2
You never felt a warm feeling of love inside of your heart?
Poor man!
I gave you a lot of links but you don`t watch them!
I gave you the link that confirmes that moses split the red sea and that the chariots
were destroyed in the red sea. So it is not all a myths!
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 I have felt love, but it has nothing to do with my heart. Again: all the heart does is circulate blood. It does not regulate our emotional states. Anyone who has taken grade-school science class would know that.
I need only point you to talkorigins . o r g for responses to all your links. Someone who believes in ghosts, zombie gods and other such nonsense because of voices --in his heart!-- doesn't deserve any consideration beyond that.
punnet2 2 days ago
@punnet2
Where ub your body you felt love?
Who believes in Jesus deserves no consideration but who believes in the miracle that chance made stones to man deserves all consideration?LOL
You are just one thing.
IGNORANT!
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000 You may feel it in your chest but everything going on is in your brain.
tipoomaster 2 days ago
@tipoomaster
When i smash your hand you feel it in your hand but everything going on is in your brain?
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
Yes, the damage is in my hand but the pain is interpreted in my brain and projected onto my hand. Without the nerve connections between my hand and brain I wouldn't feel it at all. Grade 8 biology, my friend :P
tipoomaster 2 days ago 3
@tipoomaster
Can you explain to me why i feel love inside of my heart?
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
I just did. All the reactions take place in your brain, but your brain projects the feeling elsewhere. If all feelings were felt in the brain rather than projected you would never know what part of your body was in pain or too cold etc. Have you not been to elementary school?
tipoomaster 1 day ago 2
@Jesusisthetruth1000 Define love.
donaldio1 1 day ago
@tipoomaster
You are an atheist like Dawkins or an agnostic?
Jesusisthetruth1000 2 days ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
I'm more of a I-don't-care-about-religion-so-long-as-it-doesn't-harm-anyone-or-interfere-with-science-ist. And you provide us a prime example of how it interferes with science, the things I'm debating with you are taught to every elementary school student here and you can verify them by going to museums with our ancestors fossils in them, etc.
tipoomaster 1 day ago 9
@tipoomaster
Fossils proof evolution???
I feel love in my heart!
Where do you feel love?
Evolution is not science it is voodoo science.
Not repeatable not testable.
It is a philosophy dressed up as science!
h t t p://creation.c o m/15-ways-to-refute-materialistic-bigotry
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 day ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
Again, this discussion can serve no purpose if you keep bouncing around whenever I make a point. I just explained why love happens in the brain but you feel it in your chest, address that. Repeating where you feel it doesn't change anything, the physical changes happen in your brain and that's proven and repeatable.
tipoomaster 1 day ago 2
@tipoomaster
So you can`t explain why people feel love inside of their heart!
It is clear why you feel pain in your arm when i smash your arm, but why i feel love in my heart and not in my brain or in my back or my leg or my fingertips etc?
Jesusisthetruth1000 1 day ago
@Jesusisthetruth1000
I feel love in all of my being. Some ancient cultures thought the liver was responsible for love, not the heart. It doesn't matter why you feel it in your heart, the point is the physical changes that go on are PROVEN to be in the brain, not the heart, same as any other feeling. You are deliberately missing this point.
tipoomaster 1 day ago
@tipoomaster
You can`t explain it why many people feel love in their heart!