Well done brother, You have probably already noticed that the Creationist or ID Theories have been completely blacklisted from the scientific community. Are you aware of Problematica. The scientific communities term for Evidence that does not quite muster up to their Evolution creating life theories. Here's a chunk of a wonderful verse talking about the last days. "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Dan 12:4 May God keep you and your family as you grow with Jesus.
@SerpentSlayer1 This is the teaching of amillenial covenant theology which is based on an allegorical interpretation of Scripture as opposed to a literal one This is the dominant teaching in most theological seminaries and has been for decades. As an example, there are 106 schools in the Christian College Coalition. Of those 106 only 5 teach a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation or that the flood was global & the flood prevailed the highest peaks Gen7:19,20
@lizazoon It was perfect, before man decided to sin and disobey God. Garden of Eden (known as the Fertile Crescent) was a perfect place, and so was the earth as a whole. Satan and man's choice to sin made it imperfect. Do some research.
Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, and that, therefore God is correct, is what we call a false dichotomy. Evidence against abiogenesis (which there is little, as it is the most widely accepted theory on the origins of life) is NOT proof of God. That is called an assumption.
You alwayshear the objection (if one is discussing evolution) that abiogenesis has "nothing to do with evolution". But the discussion is usually centred around whether there is a God so in that case abiogenesis is very relevant to the subject. In fact, without abiogenesis, there is no way for evolution to start. So really, abiogenesis is the father of evolution in the naturalistic scenario. I guess (since there's no relation) that means that evolution is abiogenesis' bastard son.
And in the end of the video we have the classic creator fallacy that while life cannot arise spontaneously, the creator somehow could...unless he was eternal, which then undermines the entire prime mover argument. But nice try.
If God is god he would NOT be limited to our space/time existance and thus BE eternal in that way. Quantum physics tells us the possibality of other existances, dementions and or universes is quite plausable.
@SerpentSlayer1 Even if string theory explained a selfcontained multiverse that created itself, you'd still find a way to squeeze good ol' God in there, wouldn't you? That's fine and well, but not very scientific.
I think you're putting words into the mouth of Dawkins. He's actually saying that he's open to all possibilities because of the current lack of knowledge. Theism is on the contrary making an a priori conclusion, refuting all other possibilities.
It's like saying the number on a dice in a cup MUST be 6, because you want it to be, rather than wait and see when the cup is liften. Dawkins is being open to any number on the dice and that gives him credit.
Everyone who is reading this comment, please click on my username for my videos I made about the The Truth of the World. I have found out what the truth of life is, the truth of the world, and the truth of God. Please, I really want people to watch and listen what I have to say. No more living in false reality, no more living in illusions, no more thinking there is no way out......its time to lead your life into The Truth of the World!!!!!!!!!
I've never heard of the miller experiments. But I did watch one video where Carl Sagan does say where they successfully did it. I won't go by that one because it was kind of old. But then I think it was Dr. Stzozak that demonstrated it. (I can't remember how to spell his name)
And even if it hasn't yet been performed then it would just go back to another god of the gaps argument.
See if you can find something about that dr stzozak thing for me please.
My arguments ,if youll read below in my replys to Pettingzoo,are about the lack of evidence for natural unguided darwinistic evolution to explain the complexity of life...from how it first sparked, to the biological cell and to higher conscious life ..humans.
There is a link to one of the videos in a series that has to do with the start of life.
Perhaps you should do more research on evolution. You say there is no evidence but I must ask what is the evidence of your designer? And what makes that designer the christian god?
I am an atheist, and disproving a particular theroy would in no way change that fact the there is no proof of any god. Atheism is not the belief in any scientific theory. Atheism is the non belief in any god.
I do not know everything, but I am comfortable with the fact that we do not know everything, and do not feel that I need to fill in the gaps with something that can never be proven. How does disproving one thing make the other true?
and by the way evolutionists do know how life originated - not exactly how and when, but the theory itself is capable of the explanation. if it had nothing to do with un-life substance turning into life-substance (or contradicted it) then u would be right, but natural selection is proved to work on anything in existence.
I don't see how abiogenesis is an Achilles Heel for atheism. The physical evidence of the initial event is gone (barring, as Dawkins said, ET seeding with signature). So the door is open for various informed speculations, but because the evidence is gone, we're unlikely to achieve greater confidence than "plausible". The naturalistic hypotheses admit it's an unlikely event, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen - we are here after all - and possibly we're the only life in a VERY big universe.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Its an Achilles heel because outside of intelligent,guided life and even intelligent guided evolution of that life atheism has NO explanation of how life started and how evolution and selection ,even over the time given,billion of years, could result in higher,thinking life. Theory after theory, multiple millions and still nothing concrete....BUT at the same time their SOOOO sure that intelligence had nothing to do with the incredible complexity of the life on this planet,
Re: "Its an Achilles heel because... atheism has NO explanation of how life started and how evolution... could result in higher,thinking life"
1) In my other post (you didn't approve), I disputed exactly this implicit argument that not having total knowledge about something somehow supports that God exists.
2) This is 100% false for evolution. It's deeply confused for abiogenesis (we've explanations, but the evidence is gone, so we can't know).
I already explained that what you're demanding is impossible, AND ALSO that it doesn't matter. It's mighty generous of you to offer to wait until I do what I've just said can't be done. Further, you're implicitly assuming that your position is established unless I produce what you demand. But I JUST STATED (#1, and unposted) that I don't accept that assumption. Why play this rhetorical game? If you think you've got a valid point here, then make it, rather than smugly embedding it like this.
Whether or not a snake ate a mouse, on the very spot where I'm now standing, on July 23 in the year 1,271 B.C., is simply a question we'll never know. Barring access to time travel, the evidence is simply gone. Likewise for the evidence about abiogenesis. We can evaluate the plausibilities of hypotheses (I don't think a leprechaun ate a mouse at that time, but a snake might have), but we can't definitively say what happened when the evidence is gone.
What I said was correct. It wasn't an excuse. The fact is that if abiogenesis occurred, all direct evidence of this event is now gone - billions of years gone. The case for abiogenesis isn't made, OR REFUTED, by looking for it under a rock. It's degree of plausibility (which isn't going to be decisive either for or against it) is based on examining the totality of what we do know - from the cell, from the Earth's environment back then, from physics and chemistry, etc.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "The fact is that if abiogenesis occurred, all direct evidence of this event is now gone"
So that just makes this your OPINION..Theres no evidence or proof..period...maby even for or against,as you say..so again thats OPINION and FAITH...nothing you can really say happened.
I don't dispute your last post's content, but I do its perspective. It's a scientific question - did something happen, or not, in the physical world? The scale here isn't proof, or fact vs opinion, but rather degrees of plausibility & confidence based on the totality (in the broadest sense) of the evidence. With all direct evidence gone (indirect evidence remains possible), it's impossible to be confident enough to say we know exactly what happened. But that's not the same as arbitrary opinion.
Why do you think we haven't ,even after about a half century of tring, reproduced anything remotely close to abiogenesis in controlled laboratory conditions?
Q: Why haven't reproduced abiogenesis, or something even similar, after lab experiments for half a century?
A: Because it's an incredibly unlikely event. Compare the "experiment" the Earth ran to create life. Potentially the entire surface of the planet "ran the experiment" for hundreds of millions of years. Consider "abiogenesis opportunities per square-meter-year" of 50 years in a few labs, vs what the Earth did - and it's like buying one lottery ticket versus trillions of lottery tickets.
Who knows - it might be that abiogenesis is so rare that this "experiment" yields a success (life) on only one planet in every several millions/billions of Earth-like planets in the universe. Using the lottery analogy, if you buy 50 lottery tickets, and none of them win, that doesn't prove - or even suggest - that the lottery can't be won, or that someone who claims to have won it is a liar.
..... So,with THAT in consideration, the idea that life was sparked and guided by purposeful,meaningfull design doesnt seem all that hard of a concept to consider. Especially when looking at the order and complexity of bilogical life...such as for example the once thought 'simple' biological cell,now known to be so complex were just beggining to understand how it functions .......Then not to mention higher,intelligent life.
"So,with THAT in consideration, the idea that life was sparked and guided by purposeful,meaningful design doesnt seem all that hard of a concept to consider"
The idea can be, and is, "considered". It remains possible even if science had the evidence to establish a highly confident and detailed abiogenesis theory. However, you're suggesting a God of the Gaps argument. Even if you decisively refuted abiogenesis (you haven't), that wouldn't support any supernatural claim, much less that God exists
When you discuss the order and complexity of biological life, you've moved from origins to evolution. Unlike abiogenesis, the mountains of discoverable and discovered evidence for evolution make it as confidently established as a scientific theory can be. The order and complexity of biological life is precisely explained by evolution, so there isn't a mystery or destroyed evidence here to give a pretext for a God of the Gaps argument.
What im meaning is Evolution does happen,such as viruses mutating to over come antibiotics. But the assumption that this happens everywhere, and is responsible for all life descending from a common ancestor is still unfounded.
The complexities of the cell are still unexplainable through Darwinian processes,and no scientists have forwarded a theory for it yet....cont..
..cont.. Inner cell machinery such as IFT (intrafflagellar transport system that builds and maintains the cilium(as if the complexity of the cilium wasn't enough by itself), as well as flagellum, are literal biological machines that totaly defy any trace or theories to successive mutations and display complexity only associated with design. As one biologist put it,"The cilium is no fluke and the cell is full of structures whos complexity is substantially greater than anything we knew" ..cont..
cont..In Darwin's day the cell was thought to be little more than blob of tissue. But within the last two decades with the aid of modern microscopes, the world of the "simple" cell has be exposed as literal biological factories of machinery,powered by,aminos,proteins,and guided by dna codes into ordered, automatic,purposeful processes.
Truly incredible discoveries that are still being looked at and found.
We don't know every detail and step in evolution back to the beginnings of life - I of course agree. If you're saying that some missing knowledge poses a "problem" to the theory of evolution being accepted, I completely disagree (as does the scientific world). There's no fact/observation/open problem that's suggesting that evolution might be wrong. The evolutionary history of the internal workings of the cell is incomplete, but there's nothing about that suggesting that cells haven't evolved.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo " but there's nothing about that suggesting that cells haven't evolved".
AND theres NOTHING to prove that it DID. Evolution...natural selection, works in some cases,but the dots just arent there to trace in COMPLEX systems like the Cell.
..cont...But whats Behe got to do with this?.Theres alot more biologists looking at the cell these days and shaking their heads in astonishment at it complexity and machine like workings and seeing no explanation with regards to a natural,unguided process to its development or maintenance.
Some people like Dawkins for example try the argument that complexity doesn't have to mean design and presents a very weak,mostly opinionated argument.
...cont...Yet in the next breath,you would say that the MAN that created the carving, who is infinitely more complex,intelligent,ordered and not to mention conscious and ALIVE , just HAPPENED to evolve just by natural unguided processes,for no reason,purpose or by no order or intellect or guidance.
Re: Your perspective on science and evolution - your use of: prove, unguided, random
As I posted before, science isn't in the proving business. Theories gain confidence based on the totality of the evidence it's not a question of proof.
To avoid misrepresenting evolution, it's good to remember:
When you use the word unguided, remember: The environment SELECTS.
When you use the word random, remember: Evolution is about PROCESS, not randomness.
The point is that atheism doesn't have a clue as to how life first started ,yet is soooo sure that intelligence,order,purpose and reason had nothing to do with it.
@SerpentSlayer1 The majority of mainstream scientists, and that includes those that accept and use the theories of evolution and abiogenesis, are theists.
I agree. Evolution is some respects is true. Its NATURAL evolution... dumb,blind chance,unguided, pointless meaningless purposeless evolution that has no support in science or theism.
@SerpentSlayer1 But a large part of evolutionary theory and the abiogenesis hypothesis expects and predicts direction, though most of it is a sort of snowball effect.
Nature is blind, but it has its way of keeping the coffee tables away from the shins.
The complexity ,order, laws, & systems that compose the complexity of even the once thought "simple" cell,we are just now beginning to see and understand.
Order, design, laws. These dont come about by dumb pointless chance like the theories suggest. Guided,directed evolution, is another story. That why these scientist maintain their theism. They see the complexity and order,design and thus a purpose behind it all. Cont....
..cont.. Here's a thought ;When you look at Mount Rushmore, do you say,
"Wow look at what million of years of erosion and pure chance did to that big rock! It looks just like four of our past Presidents!" Of course not. Its obvious that Mt Rushmore was carved by a man with intellect,purpose, design and reason. ..cont..
Yet in the next breath some would say that the MAN that created the carving, who is infinitely more complex,intelligent,ordered and ALIVE than the rock ,just HAPPENED to evolve into existence,for no reason,purpose or by no order or intellect.
Theres something not quite right about that thinking,dont you think?? :)
Ok, years are passing by and you still catch only cons to evolution. We all know this.
Bring us some light finally. Reveal any pros to ID? A single one?
Ok, we know we need a "creator" (this is just my assumption for this, particular imagination). What about him? Can you tell anything about him? Can you tell is he tall or bearded? Nice man, or screaming 40 year old woman? Any single feature for him, besides he has to be "intelligent"?
Serpent Slayer, just Wiki "Miller-Urey experiment" and get back to me. But I'm sure God planted the chemicals and conditions to generate life instead of snapping his fingers, just to make it interesting...
me being a atheist, did not become atheist because of evoultion. I am a atheist because i disbelieve and denie the existence or god or gods. Why do christians claim that all atheist believe the same? We don't, we are free thinkers and honest about our views.
What aetheist scientist says that they have evolution "nailed down"? Now i'll believe some uninformed aetheists think this (there are not many of those) but SCIENTISTS! really? No they will be the first to tell you that they don't know. And It does'nt kill them to say it ,like it does to you theists. They have theories that can be tested and proved or disproved. They don't make up things and believe them whole heartedly and let no one try and change their minds.
What Christian church would not allow one to change their mind? Freedom is what Jesus Christ talked about and preached. If any one tells people otherwise their not following Jesus' teaching.
Good point about real scientists will admit that they dont know either way. Agree.
Well nevermind that... Ok, we don't know how exactly life started on earth. But experiments have shown that aminoacids, the building blocks of life, form fairly easy.
We are trying to figure it out.
But you don't even try. Instead you use logical fallacies and speak nonsense.
It seems you don't even know the basics about evolution.
You discard all the evidence and claim that you KNOW how life here started. And you KNOW there is a god.
What you don't understand is that evolution is not (by it's nature) atheistic. The Pope believes in evolution for goodness sakes.
Also, people are not atheists because of evolutionary theory. It may cause many people to reject literalism in interpreting sacred texts, but it isn't your enemy.
I know. Evolution is some respects happens. The question is if it is responsable for all life forms, is tsill unanswered. Evolution and abiogenesis are differant theories.
I had a chance to watch Ben Stein's Expelled and I have to say, it is garbage. I am 16 and I don't even have a full high school education yet, and I can refute every claim he made in that movie. If you understand basic evolutionary theory, then you can easily see that he just doesn't understand evolution. Evolution is not atheistic, and it is a FACT. Dawkins was trying to be nice and give Stein's argument a chance. That was the best he could come up with.
Dawkins admitted he basically doesnt have a clue to where life came from. Best guess'?Aliens and fairy tale theories like abiogenesis.BTW,abiogenesis and evolution are 2 differant things. Abiogenesis tries,and poorly, to explain where life came from in the first place outside of pre intelligence ,order or design. Concerning evolution,some evolution,change,adaptation is apparent;microevolution,ect. But natural,blind unguided dumb chance evolution of complex life is so illogical its mind blowing.
It becomes more and more apparent that the words of Aurthur Keith,who wrote the foreword to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's Orgin of Species,sums up atheists like Dawkins. Keith said "Evolution is unproved and unprovable.We believe it only because the alternative is special creation,and that is unthinkable".
They dont WANT to believe in the possibility of intelligence and order behind life,because the consequences of answering to a God just doesn't sit well with them.
I don't think many people WANT to be atheists. Most of us would prefer a loving God to exist. But we can't lie when our brains tell us there is no God. And, if he exists,certainly has no interest in making himself heard or visible.
The point is the foolishness of natural selection mindlessly and by nothing but pointless, dumb chance, selecting the best paths for an orgisms survival.
yOu can accept this but not intelligent guidance of this life??
Natural selection isn't a roll of the dice. It's guided by necessity and survival. Whatever animal is better fit to survive in it's environment is more likely going to be able to spread it's genes. If there's a mutation that gives an animal a certain edge over others in the area (longer arms to reach food higher up, longer neck to be able to see predators, etc.) then that animal will likely be able to survive just a little better in the wild than it's competition. That's natural selection.
Yep, thats the theory that nobody has proven this yet.Natural evolutionists argue that natural selection evolved the cheetah into the fastest cat to catch its primary prey,the gazelle. It also says that it evolved the gazelle into such a fast animal to out run its main predator,the cheetah. BUT it could have picked so many other ways for the gazelle to escape the cheetah. Such as better camouflage,larger size,better weapons..larger horns,ect.
You've got a bunch of Cheetah's but they're not very fast, and you've got a bunch of Gazelle's, but they're also not very fast. The Cheetah's are fast enough to catch the slowest Gazelle's so they die off leaving the fast ones to continue mating and produce fast offspring. The slow Cheetah's can't catch the fast offspring so they die off leaving only the fast Cheetah's that can. Continue this process till you get very fast Cheetah's and very fast Gazelle's.
"BUT it could have picked so many other ways for the gazelle to escape the cheetah."
...
Do you understand that natural selection isn't intelligent? There's no design process, there's no picking, it's whatever pops up.
It's like throwing a dozen different darts at a dart board. Which ever one hits the bulls eye gets copied a dozen times with slight alterations. Do that enough times and you'll end up with the perfect dart for hitting the bulls eye regardless of how it manages to do that.
Yes...the argument is not WHAT natural selection theory is but wither it actually exists and is responsible for big changes in species leading from one type of animal to a completely differant one.
The changes in the cheetah and gazelle respectfully are examples of micro-evolution.
The big question still remains and has yet to be proven is does it lead to changes, in dna ,into completely DIFFERANT animals..ie..macro-evolution?
The idea that there is no solid response to the question of where life came from, does not prove God exists. Its not even an argument in favor of God even if he exists or not (I dont have that answer either). One might say he knows where life came from.. "God", but its no more valid than anyone stating any opinion on the subject. Your getting caught up in the idea that Science is an attack on God. Its only a human attempt to understand the world we live in.
Stating that God needs to be the first cause only begs the question "what caused God?". If you then claim nothing caused God, you`re sipmply admitting to believing that something can come from nothing.
So-By all means-enjoy your cozy little thinking-loop (which enables you to even consider some allmighty being like the God of the old and the "new" testament).
Also, while I`m writing anyway; Could an omnipotent God change His mind? Being all knowing, would He not know in advance?
If God is indeed God he would not be confined to out limited time/space existance thus would not need a beginning in time as we understand it. As sciences like quantum physics are revealing,there are dementions that operate OUTSIDE of our understanding of time,beginnings and endings and theres alot more to the universe and existance than what we can readily percieve within our limited time and space. Just because you cant stuff it in a test tube,doesnt mean its not real.Far from it.
15He is the (A)image of the (B)invisible God, the (C)firstborn of all creation.
16For (D)by Him all things were created, (E)both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether (F)thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--(G)all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He (H)is before all things, and in Him all things hold together
There are invisble realities of creation that we do not understand but the mere fact that creation exists we know intelligence is GOD
I know WHAT it does. But no one buying atheistic ,natural evolution can even brgin to answer,, WHY WOULD MINDLESS, BLIND, NON- INTELLIGENTANCE "decide" this was the way to go after self replaction did the most incredable thing...create life from nothing??
so you're saying that believing in the evidence for abiogenisis and evolution, the big bang theory, etc. takes more faith then believing that there is a God, simply based on a book that was written centeries ago by many different people after decades of it being passed down through word of mouth and it being misinterpreted.
First...as i stated earlier and as the video link below explained, abiogenesis would be impossibal in early Earth conditions. And the assumption that it may of occured on another remote planet and found its way here is the stuff of blindly hopefull fairy tales.
As they say, "ass-umption will make as ass out of you". ;)
With regards to the reliability of the Bible I covered much of this in the video at
/watch?v=NQrUQhcdwjI
The book The Case For Christ,written by former atheist Lee Strobel covers topics including the history and consistency of the Bible from the original copies to what we have today.Theres a 98% consistency! That means only 2% as been lost,mostly in translation,from the oldest copies to todays Bible. As the video shows NO other book from history can come close to this in consistency.
Umm... Could you cite a scientific source which states that abiogenesis could not have occurred on earth? I want a scientific source, not a bible website.
Dawkin's just totally contradicts himself now saying that life on earth could have an intelligent designer. He says there could be an intelligent designer but if you believe in God your delusional? What a contradiction...
So, wait there ET seeded us, who made ET? Just puts the origins question further out to space and avoids the true origins of life on Earth.
We have a very intelligent designer Dawkin's, its the God of the Bible!
What all of you fail to understand (Concerning Dawkins saying that aliens might have seeded life on earth) Is that he says that the original way by which life arose is not explained by the "aliens seeded life". He even says that he does not believe that but he says that that IS a valid hypothesis.
If the designer...ie God is indeen God he would not be confined to out limited time/space dementions,thus would not "need" a beginning as we understand it. As sciences like quantum physics are revealing,theres alot more out there to our universe and existance than what we can readily percieve of our limited demention of time /space.
Because the universe and its matter is finite,in its present form and existance in space and time. Everything has to have a begining and an end within our space and time.
The idea that matter always existed,also known as a steady state universe is rulled out with the accepted idea that the universe started with the big bang, and could not have a timless existance.
I dont really understand what was the major achilles heel on atheism. That dawkings believes in aliens? .Or what was the point of this video? I am not trying to be disrespectful I just didnt get it.
That last comment " what i am saying that life came from nonlife requires...." you werent really saying that in this video or did i miss it? you were saying that dawkings believes in aliens that created life
Since we're not completely sold on the idea of abiogenesis, the next most likely possibility is some all-powerful interdimensional being whose existence is impossible to discern for certain, created everything for an unverifiable cause, and continues to involve himself in the affairs of this universe, particularly the tiny part of it that is humanity. Even if you disproved abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang, that doesn't mean that creation is true, you still have to prove it with evidence.
the big bang theory doesn't say that the universe was created in a "pathetic 'pop' ". it was and incredible explosion that created an enormous cloud of hydrogen. and over time, it cooled, expanded, and, due to gravity, formed billions of seperate pockets of swirling gas that would later become the galixies.
learn your facts before you make a comment on something.
Belief that life came from non-life takes a whole lot more faith than to believe intelligence came from intelligence, life came from life and design came from a designer.
Richard Dawkins is a snake oil salesman, not a scientist. He is part of a club. His club is how to get people en mass to believe his theories are factual and foundational for the existance of life.
If you build your world view on the Richard Dawkins' club of theories on the origins of life, that's OK!
On Dawkins' web site his groupies claimed Ben Stein tricked him. The affable Mr. Dawkins duped by Ben Stein?
No. To find out what really duped Richard Dawkins, just follow the money.
The point Dawkins was making was that, even IF E.T. or some other alien life created us, that alien would still had to have been created by an evolutionary process.
And why is a being that just spontaneously exist outside space & time dimension any more logical then E. T?
Quit lying and using steins quote mining. Your just another fundie who needs to get an education. And there is no alternate theory to evolution, once again, get an education.
To head off any objections to Cujo..There are plenty of misguided "hypothesis" which seek to be an alternative to evolution, or to disprove evolution. These are not anywhere near the same level as the theory of evolution. There is a huge difference in the scientific community between a hypothesis, and a theory. "Just a theory" is like saying gravity is "just a theory", and for some reason, you people believe that disproves evolution. It doesn't, for the same reason it doesn't disprove gravity.
Why do christians think that if they drone on long enough about amino acids and DNA they'll eventually convince their opponents that snakes can talk and dead martyrs can fly up into space? The bible doesn't mention jack about DNA. All it says is "believe or die!"
Also, everything in that expelled documentary has been debunked as BS, even the interviews. Go to expelledexposed . com for the facts.
No you're an atheist cuz your teacher taught you that you were a monkey! That's what my pastor told me! He also told me that you're a communist and a nazi like all atheists, even though those are conflicting ideologies. Be right back, I gotta eat more crayons!
God is the only answer to our existence and all you stupid moronic atheistds and evolutionists better start accepting that simple truth before you appear in front of the supreme court of the Almighty and answer to him
Just because someone is athiest, that doesn't make Ricky Dawkins their "hero"
and enough with this 'aliens are little green men' shit. we don't know what aliens look like. but it is highly unlikely that in all this known and unknown universe, that earth is the only planet with life. and these "little green men" did not start life on earth. it is a theory that it was bacteria that landed on earth on a bolide and evolved from there.
alright. bacteria and micro organisms. and the theory states that modern life has evolved from micro organisms. and from these bacteria, modern plant life evolved.
So if abiogenesis is doubtful on a planet perfect for life like earth, even tho conditions on a early earth were far from ideal,how is heck did it start on an even more hostile planet,and near enough that the organism would survive the trip through space where theres 0 tollerance for life?
The odds of abiogenesis and unguided,dumb blind chance life are unimagenable. You think we need faith to believe in a creator God. You need blind assumption to even begin to entertain unguided abiogenesis.
why is it that when a person believes in God it's called faith, but when someone else believes in scientific theories that have been proven to be most correct but not proven to be true it's called "blind assumption ".
and there are many planets in different solar systems with similar atmospheres to earth and perfect conditions for life. why is it so hard to believe that conditions on another planet where right for the urey and miller experiment to be true?
we don't know many things about this universe and it is impossible to know about every planet. but to me, it is highly unlikely that earth is the only planet within the entire universe that is right for life. there could be many planets that we don't know about that could have had the right conditions for abiogenisis
The only sure thing ,my friend is that it requires infinitly more blind faith and assumption to accept fairy tales like abiogenesis theory and unguided ,chance natural evolution, than to believe in a Creator /God that started and guided it all.
Infinite regression is a pathetic third-grade argument. Logic and rationality themselves point out to a a conclusion of the uncaused First Cause, otherwise causality itself is impossible - and that's a lie, so we're left with one simple rational paradox. Exclude the logically impossible and the most improbable is the answer.
I smell some ownage coming your way, you better check your pathetic arguments before making such idiotic claims.
How is it idiotic? It is perfectly resonable. How can there be something before there was something.
Your argument is self contradictory. Even if we accept the first cause argument why label it God?
The word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being.
Even if there is an infinite regess of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.
Yes, intelligent being. Because unfortunatelly for whatever your assumptions are, no abstract object is capable of establishing a set of universal laws and complexities that are given within the existence.
You didn't get half of what I've posted. There is no contradiction in the First Cause argument whatsoever. I doubt you're familiar with the concept of logical necessity, but that's exactly what the First Cause conclusion is. A wheel won't push itself.
Oh, and another thing. Atheists do not proclaim that science knows how life began. No scientist, who is a respected scientist who gets his papers published in peer review journals, will say for a fact that they know hwo life began. Don't go shooting yourself in the foot. And Richard Dawkins doesn't NEED to say how life began. He has a degree in evolutionary biology. EVOLUTIONARY. That is the science of how life EVOLVED after the fact. He holds no claim to knowledge about the origin.
Consequently, abiogenisis is a similar scientific hurdle. We don't know how life initially began. There are multiple theories about how it began, and there are theories which state that organic life could evolve where inorganic materials exist. But that's just academic. We don't know.
The real harm is not in not knowing, but in believing that we don't need to do research, because we can just assume that it was God.
Newton himself was a theist who, when confronted with a wall that he couldn't get past to explain how the motion of the planets worked within his framework, he automatically chalked it up to God. And further exploration of his ideas was stunted. It took another hundred years or so before that wall was broken down and was explained with more scientific evidence, and eventually the theory of God working to hold the cosmic bodies together was quietly swept under the rug. We didn't need it anymore.
The thing you fail to understand is that the argument for God from Abiogenisis is a horrible syllogism. It basically says that because we don't know, for a scientific fact, how the origin of life BEGAN, before we even get into how it evolved, that it somehow proves the existence of an intelligent designer.
If we used this type of reasoning for every scientific inquiry, then we would never have discovered the true motion of the planets in our solar system, or our place in it.
Dawkins is mocking you all, and making an important point. Even if life came to Earth in that way it still couldn't have just "popped into existence" However it happened life evolved slowly through naturally replicating RNA or other amino acids. Aliens sure cast a shorter shadow than a god and if you can't see that then I am sorry but you are lacking the fundamental tools required to even understand evolutionary theory!
DNA came from RNA, RNA came from protein molecules. Protein molecules came from amino acids. Amino acids came from the elements of which they were composed, all of which were present on the primordial earth. We do not yet know the mechanism of this organization. Note that plenty of matter is self organizing - like stars and crystals and ice, This is one hypothesis for the mechanism of that first, relatively simple organization.
I hate to tell ya, but E.T. is actually a more rational explanation than your super power daddy in the sky. I don't know if you noticed, but humans are now extra terrestrial and capable of spreading the seeds of life away from our home planet. What a waste of time.
im not familiar with these gaps.... and I admit believing in the designer is a religion because its something i cant prove much like the origin of life or macro evolution cant be proven... sounds to me like they are both religions. now why dont you start a church for evolution where people can CHOOSE to go learn it instead of stealing my tax dollars and forcing kids to learn it and be tested on it in our public schools?
you don't get it do you ?God has no limits ,,, there's no limits ,, you think making some thing irrational fit your world is rational ,,,, that's truly self indulgent ! ,,,,,,,
If God is indeed god he would not be confined to our space/time existence/dimensions thus would not need a start or beginning as we know it .
Why can't life be a natural occurring phenomenon? AS I talked about in the videos,the chances of abiogenesis require more faith then an intelligent Creator does. After decades and multiple millions,were still light years away from either acknowledging or debunking the theory.
Well done brother, You have probably already noticed that the Creationist or ID Theories have been completely blacklisted from the scientific community. Are you aware of Problematica. The scientific communities term for Evidence that does not quite muster up to their Evolution creating life theories. Here's a chunk of a wonderful verse talking about the last days. "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Dan 12:4 May God keep you and your family as you grow with Jesus.
Jon45914 1 year ago
If we had a perfect creator, we would have a perfect creation. Don`t come up with that "original sin" nonsense.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon
If Life dident come from intelligence how and where did it come from?
Don't come up any of with that "abiogenesis" or "aliens did it" nonsence.
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
@SerpentSlayer1 This is the teaching of amillenial covenant theology which is based on an allegorical interpretation of Scripture as opposed to a literal one This is the dominant teaching in most theological seminaries and has been for decades. As an example, there are 106 schools in the Christian College Coalition. Of those 106 only 5 teach a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation or that the flood was global & the flood prevailed the highest peaks Gen7:19,20
lizazoon 1 year ago
@SerpentSlayer1 If intelligence created life what created intelligence?
And science does not claim to know, but we do claim to have the only tools that ever might figure it out.
Thornbrier 1 year ago
@lizazoon It was perfect, before man decided to sin and disobey God. Garden of Eden (known as the Fertile Crescent) was a perfect place, and so was the earth as a whole. Satan and man's choice to sin made it imperfect. Do some research.
Bllackguard666 8 months ago
Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that abiogenesis and evolution are wrong, and that, therefore God is correct, is what we call a false dichotomy. Evidence against abiogenesis (which there is little, as it is the most widely accepted theory on the origins of life) is NOT proof of God. That is called an assumption.
akclark09 1 year ago
@akclark09 @akclark09 ..."Evidence against abiogenesis (which there is little, as it is the most widely accepted theory on the origins of life..."
Sorry, but....talk about blowing hot wind there Dude!!...
EVIDENCE...abiogenesis?????
ACCEPTED theory???
PLEASE... enlighten us all!!
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
You alwayshear the objection (if one is discussing evolution) that abiogenesis has "nothing to do with evolution". But the discussion is usually centred around whether there is a God so in that case abiogenesis is very relevant to the subject. In fact, without abiogenesis, there is no way for evolution to start. So really, abiogenesis is the father of evolution in the naturalistic scenario. I guess (since there's no relation) that means that evolution is abiogenesis' bastard son.
tubewatch59 1 year ago
And in the end of the video we have the classic creator fallacy that while life cannot arise spontaneously, the creator somehow could...unless he was eternal, which then undermines the entire prime mover argument. But nice try.
bongolongo 1 year ago
@bongolongo
If God is god he would NOT be limited to our space/time existance and thus BE eternal in that way. Quantum physics tells us the possibality of other existances, dementions and or universes is quite plausable.
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
@SerpentSlayer1 Even if string theory explained a selfcontained multiverse that created itself, you'd still find a way to squeeze good ol' God in there, wouldn't you? That's fine and well, but not very scientific.
bongolongo 1 year ago
I think you're putting words into the mouth of Dawkins. He's actually saying that he's open to all possibilities because of the current lack of knowledge. Theism is on the contrary making an a priori conclusion, refuting all other possibilities.
It's like saying the number on a dice in a cup MUST be 6, because you want it to be, rather than wait and see when the cup is liften. Dawkins is being open to any number on the dice and that gives him credit.
bongolongo 1 year ago
Hello Youtube,
Everyone who is reading this comment, please click on my username for my videos I made about the The Truth of the World. I have found out what the truth of life is, the truth of the world, and the truth of God. Please, I really want people to watch and listen what I have to say. No more living in false reality, no more living in illusions, no more thinking there is no way out......its time to lead your life into The Truth of the World!!!!!!!!!
I love our Lord!!! God bless!!
theseeker2k5 1 year ago
Dawkns is very hateful, biased, one-sided, confirmation bias,
and ignorant!!
God has chosen to create us!!
Yes indeed SerpentSlayer1.
TheForthcoming1 1 year ago
Awesome video!!!
Ilikejpegs is nothing but a troll btw.
TheForthcoming1 1 year ago
I've never heard of the miller experiments. But I did watch one video where Carl Sagan does say where they successfully did it. I won't go by that one because it was kind of old. But then I think it was Dr. Stzozak that demonstrated it. (I can't remember how to spell his name)
And even if it hasn't yet been performed then it would just go back to another god of the gaps argument.
Ilikejpgs 1 year ago
See if you can find something about that dr stzozak thing for me please.
My arguments ,if youll read below in my replys to Pettingzoo,are about the lack of evidence for natural unguided darwinistic evolution to explain the complexity of life...from how it first sparked, to the biological cell and to higher conscious life ..humans.
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
There is a link to one of the videos in a series that has to do with the start of life.
Perhaps you should do more research on evolution. You say there is no evidence but I must ask what is the evidence of your designer? And what makes that designer the christian god?
Ilikejpgs 1 year ago
"Perhaps you should do more research on evolution"
Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.
"what is the evidence of your designer?"
Start with looking at the DESIGN.
Example...the CELL... See below.
I check out the video and get back to u.
"
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
Actually if you will do some research you can find that abiogenesis has been at least somewhat demonstrated in labratories.
Ilikejpgs 1 year ago
@Ilikejpgs
"somewhat demonstrated in labratories."
I hope your not refering to the Miller experiments there.
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
Don't forget about natural selection over a vast period of time.
Ilikejpgs 1 year ago
I am an atheist, and disproving a particular theroy would in no way change that fact the there is no proof of any god. Atheism is not the belief in any scientific theory. Atheism is the non belief in any god.
I do not know everything, but I am comfortable with the fact that we do not know everything, and do not feel that I need to fill in the gaps with something that can never be proven. How does disproving one thing make the other true?
Nice try though.
bryanmci80 2 years ago
and by the way evolutionists do know how life originated - not exactly how and when, but the theory itself is capable of the explanation. if it had nothing to do with un-life substance turning into life-substance (or contradicted it) then u would be right, but natural selection is proved to work on anything in existence.
EternallyExistent 2 years ago
I don't see how abiogenesis is an Achilles Heel for atheism. The physical evidence of the initial event is gone (barring, as Dawkins said, ET seeding with signature). So the door is open for various informed speculations, but because the evidence is gone, we're unlikely to achieve greater confidence than "plausible". The naturalistic hypotheses admit it's an unlikely event, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen - we are here after all - and possibly we're the only life in a VERY big universe.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Its an Achilles heel because outside of intelligent,guided life and even intelligent guided evolution of that life atheism has NO explanation of how life started and how evolution and selection ,even over the time given,billion of years, could result in higher,thinking life. Theory after theory, multiple millions and still nothing concrete....BUT at the same time their SOOOO sure that intelligence had nothing to do with the incredible complexity of the life on this planet,
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Re: "Its an Achilles heel because... atheism has NO explanation of how life started and how evolution... could result in higher,thinking life"
1) In my other post (you didn't approve), I disputed exactly this implicit argument that not having total knowledge about something somehow supports that God exists.
2) This is 100% false for evolution. It's deeply confused for abiogenesis (we've explanations, but the evidence is gone, so we can't know).
3) Notice you're equating atheism and science
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Show me unequivocal evidence of abiogenesis and you might have a case against the existence of a creator God....I'll wait.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
I already explained that what you're demanding is impossible, AND ALSO that it doesn't matter. It's mighty generous of you to offer to wait until I do what I've just said can't be done. Further, you're implicitly assuming that your position is established unless I produce what you demand. But I JUST STATED (#1, and unposted) that I don't accept that assumption. Why play this rhetorical game? If you think you've got a valid point here, then make it, rather than smugly embedding it like this.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Whether or not a snake ate a mouse, on the very spot where I'm now standing, on July 23 in the year 1,271 B.C., is simply a question we'll never know. Barring access to time travel, the evidence is simply gone. Likewise for the evidence about abiogenesis. We can evaluate the plausibilities of hypotheses (I don't think a leprechaun ate a mouse at that time, but a snake might have), but we can't definitively say what happened when the evidence is gone.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
"simply a question we'll never know. Barring access to time travel, the evidence is simply gone. Likewise for the evidence about abiogenesis."
LOL... That old excuse..."The dog ate my home work"
Crash and burn friend...crash and burn.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
What I said was correct. It wasn't an excuse. The fact is that if abiogenesis occurred, all direct evidence of this event is now gone - billions of years gone. The case for abiogenesis isn't made, OR REFUTED, by looking for it under a rock. It's degree of plausibility (which isn't going to be decisive either for or against it) is based on examining the totality of what we do know - from the cell, from the Earth's environment back then, from physics and chemistry, etc.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "The fact is that if abiogenesis occurred, all direct evidence of this event is now gone"
So that just makes this your OPINION..Theres no evidence or proof..period...maby even for or against,as you say..so again thats OPINION and FAITH...nothing you can really say happened.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
I don't dispute your last post's content, but I do its perspective. It's a scientific question - did something happen, or not, in the physical world? The scale here isn't proof, or fact vs opinion, but rather degrees of plausibility & confidence based on the totality (in the broadest sense) of the evidence. With all direct evidence gone (indirect evidence remains possible), it's impossible to be confident enough to say we know exactly what happened. But that's not the same as arbitrary opinion.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Why do you think we haven't ,even after about a half century of tring, reproduced anything remotely close to abiogenesis in controlled laboratory conditions?
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Q: Why haven't reproduced abiogenesis, or something even similar, after lab experiments for half a century?
A: Because it's an incredibly unlikely event. Compare the "experiment" the Earth ran to create life. Potentially the entire surface of the planet "ran the experiment" for hundreds of millions of years. Consider "abiogenesis opportunities per square-meter-year" of 50 years in a few labs, vs what the Earth did - and it's like buying one lottery ticket versus trillions of lottery tickets.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
Who knows - it might be that abiogenesis is so rare that this "experiment" yields a success (life) on only one planet in every several millions/billions of Earth-like planets in the universe. Using the lottery analogy, if you buy 50 lottery tickets, and none of them win, that doesn't prove - or even suggest - that the lottery can't be won, or that someone who claims to have won it is a liar.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
And maby it soooo rare that it actually never hppened....:p
Those chances,that abiogenesis happened at all,are so indescribably incredable that I would never even assume to bet on them,personally.
WE have a good idea today of early earth conditions,atmosphere,ect,and weve tried duplication things in controlled labratory conditions,to no avail.
Again as i said above,abiogenesis iS rare alright...as rare as it never happened according to this and the chances in an hostile early earth.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
..... So,with THAT in consideration, the idea that life was sparked and guided by purposeful,meaningfull design doesnt seem all that hard of a concept to consider. Especially when looking at the order and complexity of bilogical life...such as for example the once thought 'simple' biological cell,now known to be so complex were just beggining to understand how it functions .......Then not to mention higher,intelligent life.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
"So,with THAT in consideration, the idea that life was sparked and guided by purposeful,meaningful design doesnt seem all that hard of a concept to consider"
The idea can be, and is, "considered". It remains possible even if science had the evidence to establish a highly confident and detailed abiogenesis theory. However, you're suggesting a God of the Gaps argument. Even if you decisively refuted abiogenesis (you haven't), that wouldn't support any supernatural claim, much less that God exists
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
When you discuss the order and complexity of biological life, you've moved from origins to evolution. Unlike abiogenesis, the mountains of discoverable and discovered evidence for evolution make it as confidently established as a scientific theory can be. The order and complexity of biological life is precisely explained by evolution, so there isn't a mystery or destroyed evidence here to give a pretext for a God of the Gaps argument.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
What im meaning is Evolution does happen,such as viruses mutating to over come antibiotics. But the assumption that this happens everywhere, and is responsible for all life descending from a common ancestor is still unfounded.
The complexities of the cell are still unexplainable through Darwinian processes,and no scientists have forwarded a theory for it yet....cont..
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
..cont.. Inner cell machinery such as IFT (intrafflagellar transport system that builds and maintains the cilium(as if the complexity of the cilium wasn't enough by itself), as well as flagellum, are literal biological machines that totaly defy any trace or theories to successive mutations and display complexity only associated with design. As one biologist put it,"The cilium is no fluke and the cell is full of structures whos complexity is substantially greater than anything we knew" ..cont..
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
cont..In Darwin's day the cell was thought to be little more than blob of tissue. But within the last two decades with the aid of modern microscopes, the world of the "simple" cell has be exposed as literal biological factories of machinery,powered by,aminos,proteins,and guided by dna codes into ordered, automatic,purposeful processes.
Truly incredible discoveries that are still being looked at and found.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
We don't know every detail and step in evolution back to the beginnings of life - I of course agree. If you're saying that some missing knowledge poses a "problem" to the theory of evolution being accepted, I completely disagree (as does the scientific world). There's no fact/observation/open problem that's suggesting that evolution might be wrong. The evolutionary history of the internal workings of the cell is incomplete, but there's nothing about that suggesting that cells haven't evolved.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo " but there's nothing about that suggesting that cells haven't evolved".
AND theres NOTHING to prove that it DID. Evolution...natural selection, works in some cases,but the dots just arent there to trace in COMPLEX systems like the Cell.
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
...cont.."You might want to read how biologists have responded to Behe/ID proponents"
I have... I like keeping track of both sides of an issue....you might want to read those boilogists who AGREE.
...cont...
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
..cont...But whats Behe got to do with this?.Theres alot more biologists looking at the cell these days and shaking their heads in astonishment at it complexity and machine like workings and seeing no explanation with regards to a natural,unguided process to its development or maintenance.
Some people like Dawkins for example try the argument that complexity doesn't have to mean design and presents a very weak,mostly opinionated argument.
..cont..
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
..cont..BUT complexity such as this must point to DESIGN.
Think about this:When you look at Mount Rushmore, do you say..
"Wow! look at what million of years of erosion and pure chance did to that big rock! It looks just like four of our past Presidents!"
Of course you dont say that. Its obvious to anyone that Mt Rushmore was carved by a man with intellect,purpose, design and reason.
...cont...
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
...cont...Yet in the next breath,you would say that the MAN that created the carving, who is infinitely more complex,intelligent,ordered and not to mention conscious and ALIVE , just HAPPENED to evolve just by natural unguided processes,for no reason,purpose or by no order or intellect or guidance.
Hmmmm..something just isnt right about that.
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
Re: Your perspective on science and evolution - your use of: prove, unguided, random
As I posted before, science isn't in the proving business. Theories gain confidence based on the totality of the evidence it's not a question of proof.
To avoid misrepresenting evolution, it's good to remember:
When you use the word unguided, remember: The environment SELECTS.
When you use the word random, remember: Evolution is about PROCESS, not randomness.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
This video is more about abiogenesis that evolution.
SerpentSlayer1 1 year ago
I think the point is, is that we do not know.
It takes faith to believe in evolution as well as God creating the world.
Though how life began... I don't know how a scientist can honestly explain that.
OH, watched the movie before seeing this. It IS a good one!
nightwolf117610 2 years ago
The point is that atheism doesn't have a clue as to how life first started ,yet is soooo sure that intelligence,order,purpose and reason had nothing to do with it.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
@SerpentSlayer1 The majority of mainstream scientists, and that includes those that accept and use the theories of evolution and abiogenesis, are theists.
Bweeman 2 years ago
I agree. Evolution is some respects is true. Its NATURAL evolution... dumb,blind chance,unguided, pointless meaningless purposeless evolution that has no support in science or theism.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
@SerpentSlayer1 But a large part of evolutionary theory and the abiogenesis hypothesis expects and predicts direction, though most of it is a sort of snowball effect.
Nature is blind, but it has its way of keeping the coffee tables away from the shins.
Bweeman 2 years ago
@Bweeman But snowballs arent complicated :)
The complexity ,order, laws, & systems that compose the complexity of even the once thought "simple" cell,we are just now beginning to see and understand.
Order, design, laws. These dont come about by dumb pointless chance like the theories suggest. Guided,directed evolution, is another story. That why these scientist maintain their theism. They see the complexity and order,design and thus a purpose behind it all. Cont....
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
..cont.. Here's a thought ;When you look at Mount Rushmore, do you say,
"Wow look at what million of years of erosion and pure chance did to that big rock! It looks just like four of our past Presidents!" Of course not. Its obvious that Mt Rushmore was carved by a man with intellect,purpose, design and reason. ..cont..
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
...cont...
Yet in the next breath some would say that the MAN that created the carving, who is infinitely more complex,intelligent,ordered and ALIVE than the rock ,just HAPPENED to evolve into existence,for no reason,purpose or by no order or intellect.
Theres something not quite right about that thinking,dont you think?? :)
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
So you look at a human being and think he´s designed and has a reason and purpose?
stefansv 2 years ago
Ok, years are passing by and you still catch only cons to evolution. We all know this.
Bring us some light finally. Reveal any pros to ID? A single one?
Ok, we know we need a "creator" (this is just my assumption for this, particular imagination). What about him? Can you tell anything about him? Can you tell is he tall or bearded? Nice man, or screaming 40 year old woman? Any single feature for him, besides he has to be "intelligent"?
nonseans 2 years ago
"Can you tell anything about him?"
Please try the Bible.
Start with the new testimentand the story of of Jesus the Christ.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
that's cause there is no evidence to support it :P
paimail21 2 years ago
Serpent Slayer, just Wiki "Miller-Urey experiment" and get back to me. But I'm sure God planted the chemicals and conditions to generate life instead of snapping his fingers, just to make it interesting...
SaturdaySoundOffsTV 2 years ago
How old is the Earth?
odinata 2 years ago
me being a atheist, did not become atheist because of evoultion. I am a atheist because i disbelieve and denie the existence or god or gods. Why do christians claim that all atheist believe the same? We don't, we are free thinkers and honest about our views.
atheistmick 2 years ago
What aetheist scientist says that they have evolution "nailed down"? Now i'll believe some uninformed aetheists think this (there are not many of those) but SCIENTISTS! really? No they will be the first to tell you that they don't know. And It does'nt kill them to say it ,like it does to you theists. They have theories that can be tested and proved or disproved. They don't make up things and believe them whole heartedly and let no one try and change their minds.
MichaelHasNoFriends 2 years ago
"let no one try and change their minds. "
What Christian church would not allow one to change their mind? Freedom is what Jesus Christ talked about and preached. If any one tells people otherwise their not following Jesus' teaching.
Good point about real scientists will admit that they dont know either way. Agree.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
What has atheism got to do with abiogenesis?
Well nevermind that... Ok, we don't know how exactly life started on earth. But experiments have shown that aminoacids, the building blocks of life, form fairly easy.
We are trying to figure it out.
But you don't even try. Instead you use logical fallacies and speak nonsense.
It seems you don't even know the basics about evolution.
You discard all the evidence and claim that you KNOW how life here started. And you KNOW there is a god.
kormyniska 2 years ago
Abiogenesis theory is SOME atheist's hopefull answer to replace the idea of a creator.
...'But experiments have shown that aminoacids, the building blocks of life, form fairly easy".
Really? please show us.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
What you don't understand is that evolution is not (by it's nature) atheistic. The Pope believes in evolution for goodness sakes.
Also, people are not atheists because of evolutionary theory. It may cause many people to reject literalism in interpreting sacred texts, but it isn't your enemy.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
I know. Evolution is some respects happens. The question is if it is responsable for all life forms, is tsill unanswered. Evolution and abiogenesis are differant theories.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Dawkins idea is more rational.
RoliQc 2 years ago
If your smoking pot.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
I had a chance to watch Ben Stein's Expelled and I have to say, it is garbage. I am 16 and I don't even have a full high school education yet, and I can refute every claim he made in that movie. If you understand basic evolutionary theory, then you can easily see that he just doesn't understand evolution. Evolution is not atheistic, and it is a FACT. Dawkins was trying to be nice and give Stein's argument a chance. That was the best he could come up with.
nautola 2 years ago
Dawkins admitted he basically doesnt have a clue to where life came from. Best guess'?Aliens and fairy tale theories like abiogenesis.BTW,abiogenesis and evolution are 2 differant things. Abiogenesis tries,and poorly, to explain where life came from in the first place outside of pre intelligence ,order or design. Concerning evolution,some evolution,change,adaptation is apparent;microevolution,ect. But natural,blind unguided dumb chance evolution of complex life is so illogical its mind blowing.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
It becomes more and more apparent that the words of Aurthur Keith,who wrote the foreword to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's Orgin of Species,sums up atheists like Dawkins. Keith said "Evolution is unproved and unprovable.We believe it only because the alternative is special creation,and that is unthinkable".
They dont WANT to believe in the possibility of intelligence and order behind life,because the consequences of answering to a God just doesn't sit well with them.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
I don't think many people WANT to be atheists. Most of us would prefer a loving God to exist. But we can't lie when our brains tell us there is no God. And, if he exists,certainly has no interest in making himself heard or visible.
dave4248 2 years ago
95% of people on this planet believe in a god.Theve seen ,looked for or found something that satisfied them of that question.
"Seek and you will find" If you are REALLY seeking and WANT to find.
Peace.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
95% of people on this earth have very little original thought, and are simply taught what to believe by their parents or society... BE FREE
piglatin2 2 years ago
WOW! !
Now theres the epitome of extreem,blind arrogance. Your tiny tiny minority is right and the other 6 BILLION people in the majority are ALL wrong.
WOW Dude you must feel "special"
You must
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
The point is the foolishness of natural selection mindlessly and by nothing but pointless, dumb chance, selecting the best paths for an orgisms survival.
yOu can accept this but not intelligent guidance of this life??
Give your head a shake.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Evolution by natural selection is the complete opposite of chance.
Ryou516 2 years ago
Huh........I'll be nice and give you another chance...:)
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Natural selection isn't a roll of the dice. It's guided by necessity and survival. Whatever animal is better fit to survive in it's environment is more likely going to be able to spread it's genes. If there's a mutation that gives an animal a certain edge over others in the area (longer arms to reach food higher up, longer neck to be able to see predators, etc.) then that animal will likely be able to survive just a little better in the wild than it's competition. That's natural selection.
zakabog 2 years ago
Yep, thats the theory that nobody has proven this yet.Natural evolutionists argue that natural selection evolved the cheetah into the fastest cat to catch its primary prey,the gazelle. It also says that it evolved the gazelle into such a fast animal to out run its main predator,the cheetah. BUT it could have picked so many other ways for the gazelle to escape the cheetah. Such as better camouflage,larger size,better weapons..larger horns,ect.
..cont..
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
...cont...
All the other gazelles and its ancestors died off trying to get away from its enemy until natural selection and one gazelle finally got it right .
I say this with toung-in-cheek.
...:)
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Wow you don't get it at all...
You've got a bunch of Cheetah's but they're not very fast, and you've got a bunch of Gazelle's, but they're also not very fast. The Cheetah's are fast enough to catch the slowest Gazelle's so they die off leaving the fast ones to continue mating and produce fast offspring. The slow Cheetah's can't catch the fast offspring so they die off leaving only the fast Cheetah's that can. Continue this process till you get very fast Cheetah's and very fast Gazelle's.
zakabog 2 years ago
Duu..Yea.
You just repeated in your own words what I said.
Whats your point.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Or maybe that the cheetah evolved to become fast enough to catch the quick gazelles so that it wouldn't starve to death.
drelln 2 years ago
"BUT it could have picked so many other ways for the gazelle to escape the cheetah."
...
Do you understand that natural selection isn't intelligent? There's no design process, there's no picking, it's whatever pops up.
It's like throwing a dozen different darts at a dart board. Which ever one hits the bulls eye gets copied a dozen times with slight alterations. Do that enough times and you'll end up with the perfect dart for hitting the bulls eye regardless of how it manages to do that.
zakabog 2 years ago
Yes...the argument is not WHAT natural selection theory is but wither it actually exists and is responsible for big changes in species leading from one type of animal to a completely differant one.
The changes in the cheetah and gazelle respectfully are examples of micro-evolution.
The big question still remains and has yet to be proven is does it lead to changes, in dna ,into completely DIFFERANT animals..ie..macro-evolution?
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
The idea that there is no solid response to the question of where life came from, does not prove God exists. Its not even an argument in favor of God even if he exists or not (I dont have that answer either). One might say he knows where life came from.. "God", but its no more valid than anyone stating any opinion on the subject. Your getting caught up in the idea that Science is an attack on God. Its only a human attempt to understand the world we live in.
dcinstinct 2 years ago
Stating that God needs to be the first cause only begs the question "what caused God?". If you then claim nothing caused God, you`re sipmply admitting to believing that something can come from nothing.
So-By all means-enjoy your cozy little thinking-loop (which enables you to even consider some allmighty being like the God of the old and the "new" testament).
Also, while I`m writing anyway; Could an omnipotent God change His mind? Being all knowing, would He not know in advance?
statany 2 years ago
If God is indeed God he would not be confined to out limited time/space existance thus would not need a beginning in time as we understand it. As sciences like quantum physics are revealing,there are dementions that operate OUTSIDE of our understanding of time,beginnings and endings and theres alot more to the universe and existance than what we can readily percieve within our limited time and space. Just because you cant stuff it in a test tube,doesnt mean its not real.Far from it.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
15He is the (A)image of the (B)invisible God, the (C)firstborn of all creation.
16For (D)by Him all things were created, (E)both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether (F)thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--(G)all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He (H)is before all things, and in Him all things hold together
There are invisble realities of creation that we do not understand but the mere fact that creation exists we know intelligence is GOD
utubejvs3 2 years ago
perhaps you could cite some scientific evidence of god's existence?
rddaos 2 years ago
Site some evidence that he dosent.
OPEN YOUR EYES my friend.
The complexity of your very life,body and being isn't enough?
Consider the birth of a baby and the whole idea of how we reproduce. Are you saying THAT complexity and order just "happened"?
What advantage would we have in going from supposed "self replacating" organisms to the need to share dna in copulation with another?
Godless natural evolution and its fairy tale theories like abiogenesis are a stretch at best and illogical.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Swapping dna leads to more mutations than a-sexual organisms. This increases the rate of adaptations.
SidewaysGts 2 years ago
I know WHAT it does. But no one buying atheistic ,natural evolution can even brgin to answer,, WHY WOULD MINDLESS, BLIND, NON- INTELLIGENTANCE "decide" this was the way to go after self replaction did the most incredable thing...create life from nothing??
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
so you're saying that believing in the evidence for abiogenisis and evolution, the big bang theory, etc. takes more faith then believing that there is a God, simply based on a book that was written centeries ago by many different people after decades of it being passed down through word of mouth and it being misinterpreted.
john910lennon 2 years ago
First...as i stated earlier and as the video link below explained, abiogenesis would be impossibal in early Earth conditions. And the assumption that it may of occured on another remote planet and found its way here is the stuff of blindly hopefull fairy tales.
As they say, "ass-umption will make as ass out of you". ;)
..cont..
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
With regards to the reliability of the Bible I covered much of this in the video at
/watch?v=NQrUQhcdwjI
The book The Case For Christ,written by former atheist Lee Strobel covers topics including the history and consistency of the Bible from the original copies to what we have today.Theres a 98% consistency! That means only 2% as been lost,mostly in translation,from the oldest copies to todays Bible. As the video shows NO other book from history can come close to this in consistency.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
cont..you really need to read more and get informed on these topics BEFORE making assumptions and conclusions.
For me,I dont believe something just because it feels good or i want to.
I read up and study it from ALL angles and biases.
You really need to do that especially these days.
Be well.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
Umm... Could you cite a scientific source which states that abiogenesis could not have occurred on earth? I want a scientific source, not a bible website.
rddaos 2 years ago
Heres a good video that shows the best experiments and intentions regarding abiogenesis.
/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
So no scientific source....
stefansv 2 years ago
Dawkin's just totally contradicts himself now saying that life on earth could have an intelligent designer. He says there could be an intelligent designer but if you believe in God your delusional? What a contradiction...
So, wait there ET seeded us, who made ET? Just puts the origins question further out to space and avoids the true origins of life on Earth.
We have a very intelligent designer Dawkin's, its the God of the Bible!
TruthAndDiscovery 2 years ago
What all of you fail to understand (Concerning Dawkins saying that aliens might have seeded life on earth) Is that he says that the original way by which life arose is not explained by the "aliens seeded life". He even says that he does not believe that but he says that that IS a valid hypothesis.
sasirut 2 years ago
We have created life in a lab, abiogenesis has been confirmed.
FuckGod 2 years ago
NO we have not as per an early Earth and early life.
Get educated on real abiogenesis.
Watch this.
/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
So who designed a desiner;-)???
Kharmazov 2 years ago
If the designer...ie God is indeen God he would not be confined to out limited time/space dementions,thus would not "need" a beginning as we understand it. As sciences like quantum physics are revealing,theres alot more out there to our universe and existance than what we can readily percieve of our limited demention of time /space.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
In other words if a poential creatar was always there why not simply go one step foward that the Universe was always the in one or another form ???
Kharmazov 2 years ago
Because the universe and its matter is finite,in its present form and existance in space and time. Everything has to have a begining and an end within our space and time.
The idea that matter always existed,also known as a steady state universe is rulled out with the accepted idea that the universe started with the big bang, and could not have a timless existance.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
I dont really understand what was the major achilles heel on atheism. That dawkings believes in aliens? .Or what was the point of this video? I am not trying to be disrespectful I just didnt get it.
That last comment " what i am saying that life came from nonlife requires...." you werent really saying that in this video or did i miss it? you were saying that dawkings believes in aliens that created life
RibInmYAsS 2 years ago
Since we're not completely sold on the idea of abiogenesis, the next most likely possibility is some all-powerful interdimensional being whose existence is impossible to discern for certain, created everything for an unverifiable cause, and continues to involve himself in the affairs of this universe, particularly the tiny part of it that is humanity. Even if you disproved abiogenesis, evolution, and the big bang, that doesn't mean that creation is true, you still have to prove it with evidence.
NanakiAnthem 2 years ago
Once I've decided that the theory of Intelligent design is evidence of a Creator then what is the next step?
How do I decide which God is the right one?
doireallyneed1 2 years ago
Ill send you a note.
One of the best reads on this is a book called "The Case For Christ"
One of the best books Ive ever read!
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
well the big bang theory is far more realistic than creationism. PERIOD!
saibotmark 2 years ago
The big Bang theory is the perfect discription of creation.
"God said,Let there be light".
BOOM!
"And it WAS!
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
amen, i believe when God created the universe it wasn't some pathetic 'pop'. it must have been HUGE!!!
dicko2704 2 years ago
the big bang theory doesn't say that the universe was created in a "pathetic 'pop' ". it was and incredible explosion that created an enormous cloud of hydrogen. and over time, it cooled, expanded, and, due to gravity, formed billions of seperate pockets of swirling gas that would later become the galixies.
learn your facts before you make a comment on something.
john910lennon 2 years ago
Belief that life came from non-life takes a whole lot more faith than to believe intelligence came from intelligence, life came from life and design came from a designer.
Well said.
emaleroland 2 years ago
Evolution isa speculative theory based on FRAUD and this theory is used to promote and support Atheism
shayneby 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins is a snake oil salesman, not a scientist. He is part of a club. His club is how to get people en mass to believe his theories are factual and foundational for the existance of life.
If you build your world view on the Richard Dawkins' club of theories on the origins of life, that's OK!
On Dawkins' web site his groupies claimed Ben Stein tricked him. The affable Mr. Dawkins duped by Ben Stein?
No. To find out what really duped Richard Dawkins, just follow the money.
1GODISNOWHERE1 2 years ago
The point Dawkins was making was that, even IF E.T. or some other alien life created us, that alien would still had to have been created by an evolutionary process.
And why is a being that just spontaneously exist outside space & time dimension any more logical then E. T?
Doperwtje81 2 years ago 2
just because science can explain how life happened you also can't say that a God did it, probe it and don't tell me that the Bible says it. ,
alcaraz1963 2 years ago 2
Two thumbs. ¦)
temporaldisplacement 2 years ago
atheist need to unite
olli19800 2 years ago
Never trust any twat who wears sunglasses indoors.
lozman67 2 years ago 4
Quit lying and using steins quote mining. Your just another fundie who needs to get an education. And there is no alternate theory to evolution, once again, get an education.
cujomade101 2 years ago
To head off any objections to Cujo..There are plenty of misguided "hypothesis" which seek to be an alternative to evolution, or to disprove evolution. These are not anywhere near the same level as the theory of evolution. There is a huge difference in the scientific community between a hypothesis, and a theory. "Just a theory" is like saying gravity is "just a theory", and for some reason, you people believe that disproves evolution. It doesn't, for the same reason it doesn't disprove gravity.
Cyllid 2 years ago
Why do christians think that if they drone on long enough about amino acids and DNA they'll eventually convince their opponents that snakes can talk and dead martyrs can fly up into space? The bible doesn't mention jack about DNA. All it says is "believe or die!"
Also, everything in that expelled documentary has been debunked as BS, even the interviews. Go to expelledexposed . com for the facts.
kalfjak 2 years ago 2
Exactly. These religious nuts do more damage to their side than any atheist or scientist could dream of doing.
kalfjak 2 years ago
No you're an atheist cuz your teacher taught you that you were a monkey! That's what my pastor told me! He also told me that you're a communist and a nazi like all atheists, even though those are conflicting ideologies. Be right back, I gotta eat more crayons!
kalfjak 2 years ago
God is the only answer to our existence and all you stupid moronic atheistds and evolutionists better start accepting that simple truth before you appear in front of the supreme court of the Almighty and answer to him
vincenz55 2 years ago
of course, the most logical defense of christianity is name calling and threatening eternal torture. what brilliant debate skills!
lilredfilmgeek 2 years ago
Hi Cassie..
Of course your hero Ricky Dawkins never calls names... :0
(Plus not to mention believes that little green men started life on Earth.
tisk..tisk..)
Poor guy..one has to feel a little sorry for him tho,he is showing signs of dementia in his old age.
So... what "brilliant debating skills" do you bring to the table?
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
may i step in here.
Just because someone is athiest, that doesn't make Ricky Dawkins their "hero"
and enough with this 'aliens are little green men' shit. we don't know what aliens look like. but it is highly unlikely that in all this known and unknown universe, that earth is the only planet with life. and these "little green men" did not start life on earth. it is a theory that it was bacteria that landed on earth on a bolide and evolved from there.
john910lennon 2 years ago
Bacteria would already be a lifeform and that theory still raises the same question of how it formed in the first place ,where ever it came from.
But evolution theory is clear that higher lifeforms,ie animals and Homo sapiens did not evolve from bacteria.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
alright. bacteria and micro organisms. and the theory states that modern life has evolved from micro organisms. and from these bacteria, modern plant life evolved.
and just so you know. humans are animals.
john910lennon 2 years ago
So if abiogenesis is doubtful on a planet perfect for life like earth, even tho conditions on a early earth were far from ideal,how is heck did it start on an even more hostile planet,and near enough that the organism would survive the trip through space where theres 0 tollerance for life?
The odds of abiogenesis and unguided,dumb blind chance life are unimagenable. You think we need faith to believe in a creator God. You need blind assumption to even begin to entertain unguided abiogenesis.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
why is it that when a person believes in God it's called faith, but when someone else believes in scientific theories that have been proven to be most correct but not proven to be true it's called "blind assumption ".
and there are many planets in different solar systems with similar atmospheres to earth and perfect conditions for life. why is it so hard to believe that conditions on another planet where right for the urey and miller experiment to be true?
john910lennon 2 years ago
"scientific theories that have been proven to be most correct " Which ones are you refering to?
" there are many planets in different solar systems with similar atmospheres to earth and perfect conditions for life".
No, we do not know of any. Which ones are you refering to?
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
we don't know many things about this universe and it is impossible to know about every planet. but to me, it is highly unlikely that earth is the only planet within the entire universe that is right for life. there could be many planets that we don't know about that could have had the right conditions for abiogenisis
john910lennon 2 years ago
"could " might" "maby" "hope"
The only sure thing ,my friend is that it requires infinitly more blind faith and assumption to accept fairy tales like abiogenesis theory and unguided ,chance natural evolution, than to believe in a Creator /God that started and guided it all.
SerpentSlayer1 2 years ago
This video is stupid? A question that no atheist can answer, it's a question that no theist can answer either.
When you say that God did it, what does that even mean? What can you infer about God that is not presumed or assumed?
To say God did it is just the same as saying Zeus did it, or the magic pixies did it, or my shoe's did it. It's a totally absurd notion.
If God is the creator then who created God? Perfectly valid question folks, good look avoiding the infinite regression.
CrosshairJack 2 years ago 2
Infinite regression is a pathetic third-grade argument. Logic and rationality themselves point out to a a conclusion of the uncaused First Cause, otherwise causality itself is impossible - and that's a lie, so we're left with one simple rational paradox. Exclude the logically impossible and the most improbable is the answer.
I smell some ownage coming your way, you better check your pathetic arguments before making such idiotic claims.
SmokiSounds 2 years ago
How is it idiotic? It is perfectly resonable. How can there be something before there was something.
Your argument is self contradictory. Even if we accept the first cause argument why label it God?
The word "God" carries a lot of undesirable cultural baggage, denoting an intelligent being.
Even if there is an infinite regess of causes, so what? The human mind is uncomfortable with the concept of infinity, but reality has no obligation to make us comfortable.
CrosshairJack 2 years ago
Yes, intelligent being. Because unfortunatelly for whatever your assumptions are, no abstract object is capable of establishing a set of universal laws and complexities that are given within the existence.
You didn't get half of what I've posted. There is no contradiction in the First Cause argument whatsoever. I doubt you're familiar with the concept of logical necessity, but that's exactly what the First Cause conclusion is. A wheel won't push itself.
SmokiSounds 2 years ago
Guy's! Being an atheist is the cool new thing! You don't want to be uncool huh?! Lets be atheists and smoke as well!!
ilblackfire 2 years ago
Oh, and another thing. Atheists do not proclaim that science knows how life began. No scientist, who is a respected scientist who gets his papers published in peer review journals, will say for a fact that they know hwo life began. Don't go shooting yourself in the foot. And Richard Dawkins doesn't NEED to say how life began. He has a degree in evolutionary biology. EVOLUTIONARY. That is the science of how life EVOLVED after the fact. He holds no claim to knowledge about the origin.
ThroneofEden 2 years ago 2
Consequently, abiogenisis is a similar scientific hurdle. We don't know how life initially began. There are multiple theories about how it began, and there are theories which state that organic life could evolve where inorganic materials exist. But that's just academic. We don't know.
The real harm is not in not knowing, but in believing that we don't need to do research, because we can just assume that it was God.
ThroneofEden 2 years ago
Newton himself was a theist who, when confronted with a wall that he couldn't get past to explain how the motion of the planets worked within his framework, he automatically chalked it up to God. And further exploration of his ideas was stunted. It took another hundred years or so before that wall was broken down and was explained with more scientific evidence, and eventually the theory of God working to hold the cosmic bodies together was quietly swept under the rug. We didn't need it anymore.
ThroneofEden 2 years ago
The thing you fail to understand is that the argument for God from Abiogenisis is a horrible syllogism. It basically says that because we don't know, for a scientific fact, how the origin of life BEGAN, before we even get into how it evolved, that it somehow proves the existence of an intelligent designer.
If we used this type of reasoning for every scientific inquiry, then we would never have discovered the true motion of the planets in our solar system, or our place in it.
ThroneofEden 2 years ago
what does Abiogenesis have to do with Atheism, what is the matter with you
mikejohncooper 2 years ago
Evolution is contingent upon Abiogenesis. That is, if abiogenesis is impossible, then evolution will have been falsified.
The we learn, the more abiogenesis looks impossible. In fact, any other theory would already have been abandoned in the face of such evidence.
Witness Dawkins grasping at aliens to explain life on Earth--anything but a Supreme Being!
In fact, aliens just cast a long shadow...where did alien DNA come from?
JackHartHome 2 years ago
Dawkins is mocking you all, and making an important point. Even if life came to Earth in that way it still couldn't have just "popped into existence" However it happened life evolved slowly through naturally replicating RNA or other amino acids. Aliens sure cast a shorter shadow than a god and if you can't see that then I am sorry but you are lacking the fundamental tools required to even understand evolutionary theory!
mikejohncooper 2 years ago
DNA came from RNA, RNA came from protein molecules. Protein molecules came from amino acids. Amino acids came from the elements of which they were composed, all of which were present on the primordial earth. We do not yet know the mechanism of this organization. Note that plenty of matter is self organizing - like stars and crystals and ice, This is one hypothesis for the mechanism of that first, relatively simple organization.
TaylorThaHick 2 years ago
I hate to tell ya, but E.T. is actually a more rational explanation than your super power daddy in the sky. I don't know if you noticed, but humans are now extra terrestrial and capable of spreading the seeds of life away from our home planet. What a waste of time.
camperstyle 2 years ago 3
Science for the science class, religion for churches. It's quite simple.
NDLlama1 2 years ago 2
im not familiar with these gaps.... and I admit believing in the designer is a religion because its something i cant prove much like the origin of life or macro evolution cant be proven... sounds to me like they are both religions. now why dont you start a church for evolution where people can CHOOSE to go learn it instead of stealing my tax dollars and forcing kids to learn it and be tested on it in our public schools?
wauft 2 years ago
well said
wauft 2 years ago
thank heAVENS FOR THE TWITS LIKE THIS
dodbell 2 years ago
as daft as daft could be
dodbell 2 years ago
you don't get it do you ?God has no limits ,,, there's no limits ,, you think making some thing irrational fit your world is rational ,,,, that's truly self indulgent ! ,,,,,,,
lesterclaypool1 2 years ago
Where did god come from?
If God is indeed god he would not be confined to our space/time existence/dimensions thus would not need a start or beginning as we know it .
Why can't life be a natural occurring phenomenon? AS I talked about in the videos,the chances of abiogenesis require more faith then an intelligent Creator does. After decades and multiple millions,were still light years away from either acknowledging or debunking the theory.
SerpentSlayer01 2 years ago