This honestly sounds like a typical angry rant from an anti-christian atheist. Not saying all atheists are anti-christian. There are atheists, and then there are atheists who have to angrily argue, insult, and try to refute everyone's beliefs. That is what I believe to be at work here.
A poorly composed analysis criticizing Lee Strobel. If there were substance to the claims, there would be no need to criticize the structure, composition, styling, and music of the film to add much needed weight to the argument. The contradiction in all this is, the poster's criticism about the set up of the authoritive figure presenting this information. What authority does the editor of this video have as compared to Lee Strobel?
Wow... lol, if this is the best evidence that can be presented agsainst the beforementioned video.. Heh... its like saying... He's wrong just because...
This video’s obsessive repetition that “science makes no comment on the supernatural”, revolves around a continual confusion between argument premises and argument implications. Strobel himself clarifies this point on more than one occasion, i.e. intelligent design might have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious premises. The notion of intelligent design is not a comment on the supernatural, but a hypothesis used to explain phenomena.
"Smashed his new toy !?!? I'll bet his parents worked hard to buy that train for him. Would be the last toy I'd ever buy him if I was his Parents !!! That isn't healthy curiosity of mechanics, it's just a waste of money.
Don't you think it's a bit silly to pick on the editing? If you really had something to say about the science, or lack of it, then why would you need to come up with additional things to pick on? Also, why can't science comment on the supernatural? If there is scientific evidence to suggest something supernatural, or evidence against it, then surely it has as much right to comment on it as anyone else.
I see someone didn't watch the whole series. The one point applied for editing failure pales in comparison to the number of total errors.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest something supernatural exists, and science is specifically designed to analyze the natural world. Look up the philosophy of science.
@dessertthingy Science can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural. The reply from TheZooCrew is one-sided. Just like there is no scientific evidence to suggest something supernatural exists, there is no scientific evidence to prove it does not exist.
I started reading this book. The first 3 chapters are about him setting himself up as an investigative journalist. He doesnt mention he is a liar. Opps i mean lawyer. Same thing...
@MrDoobious Nor does Strobel mention his "scientists" are his friends from the Discovery Institute (an organization trying to get religion in schools), nor does he mention his "religious science" doesnt hold up in court. Watch Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. Strobel science is shown to be pure garbage.
"Faith is belief in spite of an utter lack of evidence"
How many chairs have you sat down in with the faith that the chair would not collapse underneath you, despite an utter lack of evidence that it won't? This is just one of a huge amount of possible examples. Everyone has faith, whether they accept it or not.
Sadly, intellegence often clouds wisdom. Ever looked into what Einstein has to say about God?
@mellowsubs Are you serious? Fact: Chairs are made to be sat on. Theres no great leap of faith to conclude that you can sit on a chair without breaking it. That example is totally irrelevant.
I've not once met an atheist that didn't hate God. People have no problem with scientists' drive to disprove God, but insult the scientists that realize that we are quite limited in our 3 dimensional human perceptions? The universe is beyond comprehension, and that is fact. And to Information39: are really ignorant enough to think that all 'believers' avoid education? I'm insulted, sir. You sound like just another confused and bitter atheist, attacking others.
I think you're confused. Atheists don't believe that your god exists. If an atheist hates your god, they hate it like they hate any villain in literature. See your god has committed and ordered genocide and infantcide many times. Yahweh is a butcher.
hahahhah a pathetic excuse to try and "debunk" actual claims, listen bud if you want to prove there is no god through science then make your own movie, dont criticize a man on his movie making that simply implys we didnt form by chance, which top scientists agree on, this is just a sad look on how athiests think because you cant seem to understand we arent the most intelligent beings
lee stobels big fat stupid head... fucking huge ass head man.... god damn thats a big head... his head proves theres no god... why would he create that fucked up mess... i can see god slipping up on something like a hurricane or a flood but this fucking asshole? come on
People like Strobel and his “scientists” don’t post their work in scientific journals or put their work up for peer review. Therefore, they can say anything they want. This is part of the process by which science sorts good science from garbage. Strobel’s “scientists” are their own in-house people from an organization called the discovery institute. If you would like to see how Strobel’s “scientists” hold up in court watch “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”
It appears to me, based on an observation, that the author of this analysis is bringing forth biased facts on his side of the argument, following an insult to each individual line in this documentary. This, in turn, keeps the argument alive. If Gods existence were false, then it would be of no importance, but, if Gods existence were true, it would be more important than anything in the world. Therefore believing in God, through faith, is better than not, even if he is not visible, because he is.
@jer5345 - I don't understand why the existence of a god would be necessarily important. Unless of course one falls for dogmatic issues regarding eternal torture, then it's understandable albeit irrational.
@jer5345 "If Gods existence were false, then it would be of no importance." You may want to look into the dark ages, ww1, ww2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Hitler, or basically any war or any war leader. Religion has been used by many to unite the masses to kill. Educating and ridding ourselves of something that has been used throughout history to kill is extremely important and has nothing to do with gods existance. Your comment is based on not educating yourself, which is the key to believing.
@Information39 This makes sense. If we get rid of God then people will automatically never fight. Then again, when people stopped following the principles of God in "the dark ages, ww1, ww2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Hitler or basically any war" it lead to those. Brilliant! ... And to think, you pompously call us "believers." :)
@mradamlaurie When did I say people wouldnt fight? I didnt, you did. You mean God's principles like an eye for an eye. Killing for absurd reasons such as being a witch, working on the Sabbath, false prophets, non believers, gays, sons of sinners, etc,etc,etc. Open your bible. Tell me how religion and the wars above are connected. You have no idea do you? Watch "naked science:was darwin wrong National Geograpic (youtube). There is one thing I know about believers, they avoid education.
@Information39 You blamed war having to do with people NOT following God on those that follow God acting like God equates war. You prove my point with your personal insults that I am not the one avoiding education. :) Really? You are going to make a case for persecution of the religious based on centuries old witch hunts and gay people not being told their perfect? Next up I am sure is a reference to the Crusades. I refuse to argue on Youtube with a zealot. Good luck in all you do and God bless.
@Information39 By the way, if you would like to E-mail me to actually discuss philosophy then please do as I am an enthusiast. But, I will no longer respond to your personal insults. I assume that is below both of our intellects.
@mradamlaurie The video I sent you to watch was an hour long. But some how you got through it in 6 minutes and responded to me. Quick to respond, not interested in learning.
@Information39 Again with the insults. I do not think Atheists refuse knowledge and you are representing them very poorly. I think I speak for most of them when I say your accusations of not wanting to learn shows a clear bigotry towards religious people. If you were looking for a comprehensive synopsis of your film then maybe you should E-mail me as you were invited to do so. 200-characters in a forum is hardly the place for true debate. Speak with you soon. :)
@mradamlaurie What do you mean send an email? Give some stranger my real email address on the internet...lol..not smart/scary. I think you can friend me on youtube if you would like to write more. I dont see why that is a prerequisite for you to watch and learn something.
@Information39 That makes sense, I thought private messages on Youtube did not reveal any personal information though like actual E-mail addresses? I will send a friend request though since that probably would be easier. Talk with you soon. Oh, and your caution is wise but unnecessary in this case, I assure you I am very much not scary. Just a hobbyist. :)
@Information39 Oh and no, I have not yet watched your film but I plan to as soon as I hear from you. If you are truly invested in sharing your peace then I am sure I will. However, I do not need to see a film to know that without God all the world would be at peace with one another. That is empirically inaccurate, and as I am sure you would agree, very unwarranted castigation. Again, send me an E-mail and this should be a good discussion.
Science doesn't comment on the supernatural. Philosophical idealism had room for a god, philosophical materialism had not. However, we shouldn't throw out the baby of idealism with the bathwater of a god. It is misleading to conflate arguments idealism makes, critical of materialism, with a god.
Opposing idealism and materialism comes not from nature but from history and culture. This would require more space than I can devote to it here. Toulmin's "Cosmopolis" is a book you should consult.
It seems like I am confused about your problem with what Strobel has said. It seems clear to me that he is talking about implications, and what some scientists say. He then looks at alternative theories that don't preclude a transcendant designer.
I don't remember the whole video, but I did not find any faults, which shocked me. I always thought these ID claims were a joke, till I paid attention with an open mind.
I've also seen people start getting disrespectful & sarcastic, using ad hominem attacks that reveal their case is emotional rather than rational.
The evidence is not clear either way. That is why this video needs improvement.
I was told constantly that science did disprove God, and I fond out later they were wrong.
The rest is subjective. In addition, the claims about the Bible being unscientific because those commenting could not imagine the natural laws permitting it to happen.
Science does not comment on supernatural. That is correct. It is without question outside the scope.
I think that often people get emotional and make their points imperfectly.
There are also large doses of sarcasm not appropriate to the gravity of the topic, and people expect you to respond to it?
But let me say that I think Strobel is in agreement about the scope of science, but in his experiences he interpreted the statements of *scientists* who commented on Darwin etc disproving God.
This is hardly a professional rebuttal. It seems more like a response from a frustrated atheist. Rather than rebut, if it can be called as such, with meaningless statements, try using counter-claims and evidence to support them. Tell me why you decided to include the text you chose at each point. Help me to understand what you mean and how your view is more accurate than Lee's. Otherwise it's very...unscientific.
This is hardly a professional rebuttal. It seems more like a response from a frustrated atheist. Rather than rebut, if it can be called as such, with meaningless statements, try using counter-claims and evidence to support them. Tell me why you decided to include the text you chose at each point. Help me to understand what you mean and how your view is more accurate than Lee's. Otherwise it's very...unscientific.
Hardly a professional rebuttal. Seems more like a frustrated atheist was unhappy with the direct science is heading. Perhaps some specific counter-claims would help your point, rather than meaningless text.
More lonely atheist clones ragging on people with a clue. Atheists are zombies as far as I can tell. They are just jiggling soft tissue with no plan or purpose. Even if they say they have a plan or a purpose, they don't.
@loonpolice1 im an atheist zombie clone??? that actually sounds pretty sweet! Im going to have to disagree with a few points you made in your argument tho. first off, jiggling soft tissue? no way. rigor mortis has already set in looong ago in zombie form. no jiggling here. and no plan or purpose?? are you kidding?? the plan - shamble after the living. the purpose - braaaaaaaaaaaaains btw unless you understand zombie, you wont be hearing us say we have a plan or purpose. graaargh graahh!
I don't know who's responsible for the "critical analysis" but it's embarrassingly bad. They are not making actual counter points (debate 101) but rather restating claims that the original video is challenging (example: the video is challenging the claim that science has to stay neutral or even challenging the idea that scientists really have stayed neutral). To reply with, "science can make no claim about the supernatural" is mute. In debate, this is the equivalent of saying, "huh uh!"
Umm...come again? In order to expose "fallacious arguments", you have to make a counter argument. Simply restating the original claim that the opposition is arguing against is neither proof of anything nor a counter argument.
The video constantly tries to explain the supernatural with science. The critical analysis states that science does not comment on the supernatural. This is not a matter of argument. It's a matter of clarity. The supernatural, by definition, cannot be explained by natural law. Science is about explaining through natural law. There is nothing to debate about that. Perhaps I just missed the point of your comment.
there is generally no evidence for negative statements. can you prove that rocks don't have feelings? can you prove that aliens don't exist? in the same way, the absence of god can never be proven.
what remains for us to examine the evidence for the creator, which for me is not convincing.
believing in a creator, despite the lack of convincing evidence requires a great deal of faith. there is no faith for me.
@StarCreme It would seem to me that to not believe in a creator would require more faith. For instance, it might be similar proportion to the chance of another inhabitable planet as expressed in the film...some number of trillions, etc.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You're forgetting that Satan is already defeated, one little word shall fell him... there are no soul eating demons - only people who decide to reject the way of salvation and send themselves to torment... hell wont be a party where you get to do what you want... believing Satans lies means you are the sheep. So glad I have a GREAT SHEPHERD & will be rewarded for my decisions and actions... satan offers no reward b/c he doesnt love anyone but himself & he is in denial about the truth like ur..
In blasphemy I shall rise. For the delights of hell are to come. Father Satan, our almighty god. Together we are as one in darkness. To battle by the side of the devil. To hear his victorious roars across the land. To seize hordes of religious sheep. Open wide the gates to the valley of twilight. Standing above is our master. Cowering below are beaten sheep. He breeds panic throughout the masses. Now are the first days for soul eating demons. They will feast upon thy prayers.
That's pretty funny. God created Satan. You are following a creation and shunning the creator. Who do you think will win this battle? Who will have the greater reward?
Blasphemous rites during the middle of the night. My father Satan is with me. I can see into another enchanting world. Standing beneath a sky full of shining stars. Freedom with the master, the reason for my being. I can hear your futile prayers from beyond the void. Again, you are searching for false hope. Cowards of the cross, you shall hide from me. Your churches are shelters from all. You feel Satan's power but you cannot stop him. Old Nick shall be crowned our newest king.
The soldier of darkness that I am. Drinking blood to quench our beast. The ignorant sheep are my slaves. It was a long time ago... When I sold my soul to the devil. He shall kill their god and become their new god. Those who refuse, shall be eaten alive. Dragged into the shadows of Hell. Empty Abyss, void of nothingness. Deep inside, devoid of all holy light. I shall serve Satan forever in darkness. As a faithful Demon by his throne. Surrounded by the filth of departed angels.
This ignorant sheep is laughing at you! Please, recite more ignorance (which appears to be a cut and paste job) What compensation did you get for your soul? The inability to think logically and to mimic someone else's fantasies? Jesus Christ destroyed Satan's hold on mankind forever. The only ones going to hell my friend are the ones who WANT TO. Why I am legitimizing you by even responding is a mystery to me. Ah well, it's good fun. God bless!
The soldier of darkness that I am. Drinking blood to quench our beast. The ignorant sheep are my slaves. It was a long time ago... When I sold my soul to the devil. He shall kill their god and become their new god. Those who refuse, shall be eaten alive. Dragged into the shadows of Hell. Empty Abyss, void of nothingness. Deep inside, devoid of all holy light. I shall serve Satan forever in darkness. As a faithful Demon by his throne. Surrounded by the filth of departed angels.
9:38 Is only one definition of faith. All theistic approaches aside, you may look into the context of what was said. In such a case i believe that the correct definition would be:
something that is believed especially with strong conviction
Critical analysis of critical analysis: In reference to pope John Paul 2. He is referrenced as being the authority of the "religious" community. This is not true. He was the leader of a particular sect but not of the faith itself. This statement is found to persuade people to "authority" as the analysis had previously accused Illustra media of doing in the first place. By no means is any pope a final auhority in a matter.
Talk about "cheap knock-offs" such is your response.
Most naturalist blindly accept the unproven theory that non-life can produce life. Where is your proof, not speculation?? You have none.
Also, information content (complex instructions) has always been observed to come from intelligent sources. There is no empirical evidence that random, blind, purposeless matter will organize itself into DNA (biological software of complex information content).
All life is made of non-living material, there is nothing about life that is irreducably 'alive,' therefore it is conceivable that life can come from non-life, you just have to get the right materials together. Furthermore, every cell that ever made up your body started out as non-living matter, you eat non-living material that becomes a part of your living body. Life is a biological machine made of non-living parts.
jeeze how many times r u going to comment on the supernatural? commenting has nothing to do with the prove of eveidence they seek and find thru science , why don't you just say "science can make no comment on family" when he talks about his kids and wife lol!
and also they are not using the supernatural in any means its straight science , its like your trying to tell plp that Dolly Parrtons tits are small when everyone with eyes and red blood running thru their vains can see there huge! Plus there REAL! lol!
"science can make no comment on the supernatural" yeah we get it.. but science is the quest for ultimate truth is it not? if you study all this and don't wonder why it is you're studying it then you're living in ignorance. there are things that cannot be explained in the natural realm that are still claimed to be scientific. so you are an idiot with no case
I don't happen to agree with Strobel's views on evolution, but 50 seconds into this video was the charge of quote-mining. I'm not sure if the author understands this term, but it seems that the quote is consistant with this scientist's views, as he is a theist. Remember - quote-mining isn't borrowing a quote, but taking the quote out of context!
It's weird, the positive changes he saw in his wife when she became a christian are the exact same as the changes people saw with me when I left the church and became an agnostic. But it has to be god and not a clearing of mental pressure and clutter by eliminating internal contradictions and moving into a more individually fulfilling place (mentally, that is).
Wow. That didn't seem "raging" to me. Agnosticism is just when a person seems no evidence. There are agnostic christians and jews who still have faith and attend churches.
Yes actually I would say my life is much better. I have accepted myself and have been able to become a fuller person and develope social skills. I don't get angry as much and have become far less worried about every little thing that happens being some wrath from above for an unknown crime. So, yeah, happiness is great!
Only a real idiot would smash something to see how it works. Those of us witha real rational mind toook the train apart and put it back together, because it is in the reassembly that people really lears. He would probably break a clock to find the tick.
@mellowsubs None of this has to do with young children being completely rational... Most young children are not rational. Few adults are always completely rational.
for EVERY IDIOT who is buying all the BS from PSEUDO-SCIENTIST (or creationistic scientist making ridiculous claims outside their profession WITH NO EVIDENCE just PLAIN STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS and "I-dont-get-it,-so-GOD -DIT-IT" or "I can make a claim which i cant back up with evidence but you cant disprove it either SO IM RIGHT AND LETS TEACH OUR KIDS CREATIONISM)
please...GO LIVE LIKE THE AMISH DO
and DONT be a &$#*($ HYPOCRITE, ENJOYING ALL SCIENCE HAS BROUGHT....GO!
Oh dear, why post such biased nonsense as this? The warning sign was there as soon as i read "rather than speak to actual research scientists, Mr. Strobel chose to become a puppet of the discovery institute" What utter Atheist nonsense this is...
Could you please define random as many such as Dawkins reject randomness in the evolutionary process.
Also are you saying that new distinct species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestoral species has been observed coming into eistance? Or are you saying new species such as the variety of Galapagos finchs that mate with each other at various times?
I was under the impression that the theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory
DNA evidence now points to the fact that all humans are related and have common ancestry with a single male and a single female they name these "Adam" and "Eve" look it up.
if you are refering to mitochondrial Eve also known as African eve who is estimated to have lived about 170,000 years ago. This puts her alive 164,000 years before creationists say God created earth. She is simply the MRCA (most recent common ancester)just like the male version they call adam. This does not imply a bottle neck in genetic reproduction since they may have lived at very diffent times and different parts of the african continent.
Have you done any actual reading about this or are you just being stubborn. The idea of african eve does not support the garden at all and that is not the point. Historical scholars have never claimed the garden of eden was in Africa. Did you ever ask any of your preachers to support their postition with facts? I could explain evolution to you but your mind is made up and you don't care about facts if they do not support your faith.
I'd be interested to hear. All the so-called evidence behind evolution that I know of was disproven years ago. The only truth to it is micro-evolution (variations WITHIN the kinds) but to take that and say it proves macro? No. Theres just one of many assumptions in this theory that were never empiracally established. Its why evolution is not science but merely another religion. Now you believers in it can kick up all you want but theres a lot this theory just blindly assumes to make itself work.
I can't watch your childish and bogus repeating that scieence makes no claims as to the supernatural is annoying and crazy. If you can't do any better than quit.
The faith that science puts in unobserved and unrepeatable events is a plea to the supernatural. Hawking has said that the laws of nature did not apply at the singularity. That certainly sounds supernatural to me. Life has only been observed orininating from other life and yet science says that life sprang into being from non life.
Also, evolution has no direction because it is based on RANDOM variations through natural selecton, self orginization, and so forth. You are not stupid, you knew what he was saying. Having good debate skills dosn't mean your correct.
Your critque on this film is stupid so far! I have researched this for three years, both sides of the issue and you are just trying to twist words, Miller was trying to "demonstrate the spontaneous formation of simple organic compounds," but he was doing to show how life could have been created! So far your showing a bias, and NOT trying to be scientific.
to the disingenuous supposed devoted catholic "toolismyfavband" who claims to believe in evolution & a bible that allegedly contradicts itself:
That is an oxymoronic position. I expected that you are deluded about what the Bible says and that you are ill informed about the pseudo-scientific pseudo-intellectual metaphysical fantastic notions of Evolutionism/Darwinism. The Pope is no different than you.
Did you know Jesus was a Creationist? That would make him an anti-Darwinist/EVIL-utionist
ExtantD0d0, I take it you've completed your freshman-level logic and critical thinking course. Now you should take one in the philosophy of religion and another in the philosophy of science.
Pardon my snarkiness.
Seriously, do you rule out Dawkins's arguments in *The Blind Watchmaker* (subtitle = "How the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design) and *The God Delusion* on the basis that "science makes no claims about the supernatural"?
Actually, as my channel clearly states, I am from the UK. We do not have 'freshmen' years and do not study logic or critical thinking- completely different educational systems.
As I have stated numerous times in the comments (and my channels says) this is a mirror channel- these are not my videos.
I do not feel in a position to argue against your claims.
Dawkins claim was that there is no need for a belief in god when you have evolution. This is Mr Dawkin's personal response to the evidence provided by science. Science it's self is not commenting on the supernatural. Evolution says things change over time- it is opinionative and out of the realms of science when that is extended to mean that as the process no God then there is no God or likely no God.
"I am from the UK. We do not...study logic or critical thinking- completely different educational systems."
That *is* completely different! And just when I thought Brits were so smart! (j/k; I assume you didn't mean to say what you said there)
It appears that you are assuming that there are two and only two kinds of claims: "scientific" claims and (merely) "opinionative" claims. Is that right? And if so, do you have any good *reason* to believe it, or is it merely your opinion? :-)
" I assume you didn't mean to say what you said there"-? I assumed you study logic/critical thinking as whole subjects, we do not. Anyway, isn't that a little off topic?
I guess appearances can be deceptive, I said it was an opinion which he based on evidence or facts or science, w/e you want to call it- therefore I implied that opinion and fact can be mixed...
Richard Dawkins is a complete MORON, a KING of FOOLS.
Why didn't he wait for his books of pure piffle to assemble themselves?
Science is a human endeavour using intellect which is God given, and senses which are also God designed. Human science is full of error. Humans are fallible, biased, and have limited abilities & life spans.
You should STOP elevating science to a demigod status. Human science does not equal truth when it should only reveal truth. EVO is a LIE
So by your own words God gave us a limited ability to understand him. We also know He can predict the future with 100% accuracy so he knew we would mess it up and because of that mess up many of his creations would burn in eternal hell. He created us all anyways in full knowlege of out fate because nothing can suprise God for he can do anything and knows all always.
The Bible for says that God created some for glory and some for destruction. I would think that even you could understand that Omnipotent God is not subject to your distorted morals but rather does whatever he wants.
If he wants to make you knowing that he will destroy you so what. It does not diminish him in any way it just show that he is sovereign.
If this God exists then how could you presume to know his reasons or purpose for doing such, as if he needs a reason.
Its not a distorted moral its the same morals i learned when i grew up in a christian house hold. If you honestly believe that he creates some people for destruction and you still think he is good then you are the one with distorted morals.
Whoever creates everything from nothing and holds it together with his word gets to make the rules. If he says something is good and right it is, it is not your place to tell God he did not do it right.
You are a like a spoiled child that has been told by his mom that he can not have a cookie "waaah! it just isn't fair".
God created us for his pleasure, we live under the laws of nature and morality that he declares he is not subject to you or your morals it is the other way around.
I would say that you have committed your life to something that does not stack up to logic. When the contradiction is pointed out to you, you start your name calling and turn a blind eye to the same logic you expect from everything else in your life. If you believe God creates some people intending to send them to hell then he stops been completely good. If God does not know that people will go to hell he is not all powerful. He was made up by man and there is a flaw in the logic.
Says you. Because you cannot fully understand God you decide to dictate to him what is right. I am saying that he created some knowing that they would not believe and because of that foreknowlege used them to acheive his purposes.
God hardened the heart of Pharoah and used his unbelief to free his people.
You seem to have a good moral compass for an evolved bag of bacteria with no mind only an electro chemically controlled brain. So much so that you presumed to tell God what to do.
From your persepective it might seem i am trying to tell God what to do but from my perspective there is no God to tell what to do and if there is a God my opinion would not even be a blip on his radar. If you sincerely believe that unbelievers were created by God to be unbelievers to achieve his purposes then there really isn't any purpose in preaching to me because God made me to knowing i would suffer for eternity. My perspective should not think of him as "good" for that reason.
Your last statement sounds like you agree with me. God exercised HIS choice even knowing what my choices would be. So in his mind he knew my life would be a one way trip to eternal suffering but as a way of demonstrating his sovereignty he knowingly made me for dishonor. How much choice do i really have in all this? It seems i am barely a factor at all.
Conversly if you choose him you would not suffer and he would have made you knowing you would have chosen him.
Your destiny is not set in stone from your perspective choose him and live.
It is only because God is outside of time that he knows the decision you will make in time.
Still the decision to live is up to you. If you choose not to choose God pehaps your life will influence someone else to choose him even if you never do. God only knows
Is your belief something you can turn on and off like a light switch? I could say i believe in God and win the approval of believers. With my knowledge of the bible i could pull it off convincingly too, but if there is a God he would know my heart and i would still go to hell. I honestly don't see any merit in the magical faerie tales of the bible. if there is a God he built me knowing i would not believe. If there is a God i would rather he just not make me then make me for hell. Thats evil
If you recognize the problem, why not just use backspace? With such little space you might focus on elevating your stance rather than falling down to the level of your target?
This is disappointingly weak. Assertion after assertion that science makes no claim about the supernatural... Um, is there a defense of that to be offered? Maybe somebody should tell Richard Dawkins-- and quickly, before he keeps going around embarrassing himself by saying the contrary!
you mean assertion in response to a claim with a source after assertion in response to a claim with a source?
you are ignoring a lot of the video, extantdodo includes this to be intellectually honest- instead of editing out parts of the creationist video. afterall, this is a point by point refutation...
"Um, is there a defense of that to be offered?"- There is a source....
"Maybe somebody should tell Richard Dawkins"- red herring, appeal to authority and possibly a 'guilt by association'.
Anyways, you seem like a decent enough person, promoting your views. That's noble enough. I myself am an theistic evolutionist, and not a creationist in the 10,000 year old earth sense(that always makes me laugh, like the big bang model of the Universe doesn't have an enormous body of evidence). But, anyways. I'm done here. Just remember, no one deserves ridicule for their beliefs. You can, ABSOLUTELY SLAM them, with logical reasoning, and with a superior hypothesis, and, or theory, however.
My objectivity, and aggression towards uncovering truth, are great qualities, for studying science. It's probably why I have a 4.0 GPA =). That includes those pesky logic/reason classes in philosophy.
Surely, such an agression would mean you would find the quickest way to discover truth- i.e. reading my channel, realising it is a mirror channel then searching 'extantdodo' BEFORE making a personal attack against the messenger.
"I didn't even realize I could do that."- you didn't notice the search bar? I assume reading isn't a new skill to you. I think you are making excuses...
That's so weird, the dumb guy is getting attitude with me. lol
Anyways, I'm still getting used to Youtube. I've had an account for a long time, but only recently started using it. You don't need to get hostile with me, I'll verbally spank ya, and send you back to yo moma.
I'd prefer, for future reference, you address me point by point, instead of spewing you stupidity.
And, no, actually, basic research wouldn't. I engage in basic research lol. PHD students should be able to utilize logic better, and cover up their bias in a better way. YOU, clearly, are the one unwilling to seek the truth. You seem as dogmatic as the people you purport to dislike.
"I'd prefer, for future reference, you address me point by point, instead of spewing you stupidity."- what if, hypothetically, i agreed with you on everything except that point?
for a scientific discussion you seemed to include a large number of insults...
it would matter that you asked me to respond 'point by point'- if i agree with you on all but one point it is idiotic to spend time responding to them...
Ooo, correcting me on my spelling, how mature, you really showed me to be a complete idiot. really, resorting to semantics. why don't you present some 'scientific' arguments in this "scientific discussion"?
No, you're not a complete idiot. An idiot, maybe, but not complete.
Actually, I just like to bust you up... it's been fun. If I spelled something wrong, I'd expect it thrown in my face. That part, is just messin with ya.
My point was not whether or not the argument was compelling. Please, pull your head out of your butt, just long enough to read what I wrote. Then, you may re-insert it.
And, when bias shows, then, there is a problem. I addressed them point, by point. I didn't make anything up. I seek the truth in all I do, and always reach for objectivity. Do I accomplish it 100% of the time, no. No one does. But I at least TRY. This video(I haven't looked at the others) was fairly poor.
If the creationist's arguement was compelling, it would not matter whether extantdodo was bias or not, it is obvious he is intelligent enough to base his beliefs on evidence.
"you don't appear to be educated"- in which case you have a bad judge of character, the dodos are PhD students, basic research would answer your retoric. To me, this shows complete unwillingness to seek truth, not a great quality when studying science.
5. Sorry, Zippy, you're not stating the information correctly. Don't call the scripture metaphor, if that has not been established. That, is merely your interpretation.
6.*sigh* Science can make an argument against teleological argument... Ask Myers and Dawkins... *sigh* silly zippy...
7. It is not an argument from personal incredulity. He had a premise and supporting nodes.*sigh* Again, see Myers, and Dawkins.
8. They are not red herrings, he's stating experience. The audience can discern.
No. That argument incurs scientific thought. It says that the world is so complex that it had to be created by a supernatural power. The general premise can be tested, or the probability can be.
4. Most American Christians are not Catholic. One clearly(silly you) would not have to live in a hole to find that out, later in life. Much MORE(common sense) prominent were battles between evolution, and creationism.
1. Yes, science can. When the supernatural interferes with the natural, then, science can comment on the supernatural directly, and also, on the probability.
So, indeed, you are wrong.
2. Essentially, they are correct about Millers experiment. The direct point of the experiment was to create organic compounds. The broader point was to understand how life formed. Common sense. You're over analyzing.
3. He didn't say evolutionary biology was bound to either. Again, you are making things up.
science (freeonlinedictionary)- Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Science would only comment on the hypothetical effect the supernatural has on the natural not on the supernatural itself and one would never know when the natural was being influenced by the supernatural. So, in useful terms, science cannot comment on the supernatural.
"So, indeed, you are wrong." - i never stated these positions are mine, it is a repost. i didn't think my audience would require a disclaimer- meh, i would rather overestimate the intelligence of the audience than underestimate it. So, i would guess that the veracity of positions i never endorced would have no effect on me being 'wrong'
Promoting? You mean reposting. This is a mirror channel- the whole point is to repost a whole host of videos by that user. I am doing this so that creationists cannot censor people who disagree with them.
Yet again, if you had read my channel you would see that this channel is pro-free speech and anti-censorship more than anything.
I could crucify you for I have not received these 'texts', but I have empathy for my fellow humans- I am sure you have other pursuits...
Reading your channel means nothing. What you CLAIM, means nothing. Your observed behavior and language is far more important than your claims. Your integrity has not been established.
Lol. You have not the capability to even make me sweat. Never mind crucifying. Notice I said, 'mail'. Not e-mail. I was quite obviously kidding. You're so foolish, that I was making a joke at your expense. Ad Hominem. I commited it, but, it was worth it =)
"Your observed behavior and language is far more important than your claims."- It is arguable that this is a false dichotomy. Arguing against you must mean arguing in favour of extantdodo.
"I committed it, but, it was worth it" lol, I like the way you pretend that it was intentional just because you know that I cannot falsify such a claim, kind of petty, really.
"Quote-mining... In addition to using a cheap knockoff of the Harry Potter theme track, this presentation opens with quote-mining. This never bodes well...sigh."
It's a tactic also employed in the much-loved Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum movies, isn't it? Except these quotes, unlike the one from Addendum about Bush having plans on September 9th for a full-on invasion of Afghanistan, his quotes are real.
It is a close-minded stance that science is limited and can't comment on an issue. This is your best argument against this video. Please leave the scientific argument to actual scientists.
Just because you claim to follow the scientific method doesn't give you any sort of credentials.
Is this a joke? This is a critical analysis?
kimintacoma 1 month ago
This honestly sounds like a typical angry rant from an anti-christian atheist. Not saying all atheists are anti-christian. There are atheists, and then there are atheists who have to angrily argue, insult, and try to refute everyone's beliefs. That is what I believe to be at work here.
sonoftheking85 2 months ago in playlist Critical analysis of 'Case for a Creator'
A poorly composed analysis criticizing Lee Strobel. If there were substance to the claims, there would be no need to criticize the structure, composition, styling, and music of the film to add much needed weight to the argument. The contradiction in all this is, the poster's criticism about the set up of the authoritive figure presenting this information. What authority does the editor of this video have as compared to Lee Strobel?
sonoftheking85 2 months ago in playlist Critical analysis of 'Case for a Creator'
Wow... lol, if this is the best evidence that can be presented agsainst the beforementioned video.. Heh... its like saying... He's wrong just because...
CrippledKnight 5 months ago
Really just an emotional rant.
This video’s obsessive repetition that “science makes no comment on the supernatural”, revolves around a continual confusion between argument premises and argument implications. Strobel himself clarifies this point on more than one occasion, i.e. intelligent design might have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious premises. The notion of intelligent design is not a comment on the supernatural, but a hypothesis used to explain phenomena.
Matthysable 7 months ago
"Smashed his new toy !?!? I'll bet his parents worked hard to buy that train for him. Would be the last toy I'd ever buy him if I was his Parents !!! That isn't healthy curiosity of mechanics, it's just a waste of money.
orangemod 8 months ago
Don't you think it's a bit silly to pick on the editing? If you really had something to say about the science, or lack of it, then why would you need to come up with additional things to pick on? Also, why can't science comment on the supernatural? If there is scientific evidence to suggest something supernatural, or evidence against it, then surely it has as much right to comment on it as anyone else.
dessertthingy 8 months ago
@dessertthingy
I see someone didn't watch the whole series. The one point applied for editing failure pales in comparison to the number of total errors.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest something supernatural exists, and science is specifically designed to analyze the natural world. Look up the philosophy of science.
TheZooCrew 8 months ago
@dessertthingy Science can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural. The reply from TheZooCrew is one-sided. Just like there is no scientific evidence to suggest something supernatural exists, there is no scientific evidence to prove it does not exist.
sonoftheking85 2 months ago in playlist Critical analysis of 'Case for a Creator'
I started reading this book. The first 3 chapters are about him setting himself up as an investigative journalist. He doesnt mention he is a liar. Opps i mean lawyer. Same thing...
MrDoobious 10 months ago
@MrDoobious Nor does Strobel mention his "scientists" are his friends from the Discovery Institute (an organization trying to get religion in schools), nor does he mention his "religious science" doesnt hold up in court. Watch Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. Strobel science is shown to be pure garbage.
Information39 3 months ago
I like how the intro shows a bunch of high tech things made by science and this pos wrapping his beliefs around it.
agetro82 10 months ago
"Faith is belief in spite of an utter lack of evidence"
How many chairs have you sat down in with the faith that the chair would not collapse underneath you, despite an utter lack of evidence that it won't? This is just one of a huge amount of possible examples. Everyone has faith, whether they accept it or not.
Sadly, intellegence often clouds wisdom. Ever looked into what Einstein has to say about God?
mellowsubs 10 months ago
@mellowsubs Are you serious? Fact: Chairs are made to be sat on. Theres no great leap of faith to conclude that you can sit on a chair without breaking it. That example is totally irrelevant.
What did Einstein say about God?
MrDoobious 10 months ago
I've not once met an atheist that didn't hate God. People have no problem with scientists' drive to disprove God, but insult the scientists that realize that we are quite limited in our 3 dimensional human perceptions? The universe is beyond comprehension, and that is fact. And to Information39: are really ignorant enough to think that all 'believers' avoid education? I'm insulted, sir. You sound like just another confused and bitter atheist, attacking others.
mellowsubs 10 months ago
@mellowsubs
I think you're confused. Atheists don't believe that your god exists. If an atheist hates your god, they hate it like they hate any villain in literature. See your god has committed and ordered genocide and infantcide many times. Yahweh is a butcher.
Dudeatheist 6 months ago
hahahhah a pathetic excuse to try and "debunk" actual claims, listen bud if you want to prove there is no god through science then make your own movie, dont criticize a man on his movie making that simply implys we didnt form by chance, which top scientists agree on, this is just a sad look on how athiests think because you cant seem to understand we arent the most intelligent beings
avinci03 11 months ago
lee stobels big fat stupid head... fucking huge ass head man.... god damn thats a big head... his head proves theres no god... why would he create that fucked up mess... i can see god slipping up on something like a hurricane or a flood but this fucking asshole? come on
drinkmoresoda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People like Strobel and his “scientists” don’t post their work in scientific journals or put their work up for peer review. Therefore, they can say anything they want. This is part of the process by which science sorts good science from garbage. Strobel’s “scientists” are their own in-house people from an organization called the discovery institute. If you would like to see how Strobel’s “scientists” hold up in court watch “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”
Information39 1 year ago
It appears to me, based on an observation, that the author of this analysis is bringing forth biased facts on his side of the argument, following an insult to each individual line in this documentary. This, in turn, keeps the argument alive. If Gods existence were false, then it would be of no importance, but, if Gods existence were true, it would be more important than anything in the world. Therefore believing in God, through faith, is better than not, even if he is not visible, because he is.
jer5345 1 year ago
@jer5345 - I don't understand why the existence of a god would be necessarily important. Unless of course one falls for dogmatic issues regarding eternal torture, then it's understandable albeit irrational.
DuTriDu 1 year ago
@jer5345 "If Gods existence were false, then it would be of no importance." You may want to look into the dark ages, ww1, ww2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Hitler, or basically any war or any war leader. Religion has been used by many to unite the masses to kill. Educating and ridding ourselves of something that has been used throughout history to kill is extremely important and has nothing to do with gods existance. Your comment is based on not educating yourself, which is the key to believing.
Information39 1 year ago
@Information39 This makes sense. If we get rid of God then people will automatically never fight. Then again, when people stopped following the principles of God in "the dark ages, ww1, ww2, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Hitler or basically any war" it lead to those. Brilliant! ... And to think, you pompously call us "believers." :)
mradamlaurie 11 months ago
@mradamlaurie When did I say people wouldnt fight? I didnt, you did. You mean God's principles like an eye for an eye. Killing for absurd reasons such as being a witch, working on the Sabbath, false prophets, non believers, gays, sons of sinners, etc,etc,etc. Open your bible. Tell me how religion and the wars above are connected. You have no idea do you? Watch "naked science:was darwin wrong National Geograpic (youtube). There is one thing I know about believers, they avoid education.
Information39 11 months ago
@Information39 You blamed war having to do with people NOT following God on those that follow God acting like God equates war. You prove my point with your personal insults that I am not the one avoiding education. :) Really? You are going to make a case for persecution of the religious based on centuries old witch hunts and gay people not being told their perfect? Next up I am sure is a reference to the Crusades. I refuse to argue on Youtube with a zealot. Good luck in all you do and God bless.
mradamlaurie 11 months ago
@Information39 By the way, if you would like to E-mail me to actually discuss philosophy then please do as I am an enthusiast. But, I will no longer respond to your personal insults. I assume that is below both of our intellects.
mradamlaurie 11 months ago
@mradamlaurie The video I sent you to watch was an hour long. But some how you got through it in 6 minutes and responded to me. Quick to respond, not interested in learning.
Information39 11 months ago
@Information39 Again with the insults. I do not think Atheists refuse knowledge and you are representing them very poorly. I think I speak for most of them when I say your accusations of not wanting to learn shows a clear bigotry towards religious people. If you were looking for a comprehensive synopsis of your film then maybe you should E-mail me as you were invited to do so. 200-characters in a forum is hardly the place for true debate. Speak with you soon. :)
mradamlaurie 11 months ago
@mradamlaurie What do you mean send an email? Give some stranger my real email address on the internet...lol..not smart/scary. I think you can friend me on youtube if you would like to write more. I dont see why that is a prerequisite for you to watch and learn something.
Information39 11 months ago
@Information39 That makes sense, I thought private messages on Youtube did not reveal any personal information though like actual E-mail addresses? I will send a friend request though since that probably would be easier. Talk with you soon. Oh, and your caution is wise but unnecessary in this case, I assure you I am very much not scary. Just a hobbyist. :)
mradamlaurie 11 months ago
@Information39 Oh and no, I have not yet watched your film but I plan to as soon as I hear from you. If you are truly invested in sharing your peace then I am sure I will. However, I do not need to see a film to know that without God all the world would be at peace with one another. That is empirically inaccurate, and as I am sure you would agree, very unwarranted castigation. Again, send me an E-mail and this should be a good discussion.
mradamlaurie 11 months ago
Science doesn't comment on the supernatural. Philosophical idealism had room for a god, philosophical materialism had not. However, we shouldn't throw out the baby of idealism with the bathwater of a god. It is misleading to conflate arguments idealism makes, critical of materialism, with a god.
Opposing idealism and materialism comes not from nature but from history and culture. This would require more space than I can devote to it here. Toulmin's "Cosmopolis" is a book you should consult.
Stake2 1 year ago
people create their own transformation.
illusionstateofmind 1 year ago
Really stupid! It seems that anyone & everyone can make a video & put it on YouTube.......
Korona41 1 year ago
8:50 ... Oh yes the negative things did happen, you were convinced there was a magic man in the sky reading your thoughts.
simcult 1 year ago
1 more.
It seems like I am confused about your problem with what Strobel has said. It seems clear to me that he is talking about implications, and what some scientists say. He then looks at alternative theories that don't preclude a transcendant designer.
I don't remember the whole video, but I did not find any faults, which shocked me. I always thought these ID claims were a joke, till I paid attention with an open mind.
Not many of those around.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
I've also seen people start getting disrespectful & sarcastic, using ad hominem attacks that reveal their case is emotional rather than rational.
The evidence is not clear either way. That is why this video needs improvement.
I was told constantly that science did disprove God, and I fond out later they were wrong.
The rest is subjective. In addition, the claims about the Bible being unscientific because those commenting could not imagine the natural laws permitting it to happen.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
Science does not comment on supernatural. That is correct. It is without question outside the scope.
I think that often people get emotional and make their points imperfectly.
There are also large doses of sarcasm not appropriate to the gravity of the topic, and people expect you to respond to it?
But let me say that I think Strobel is in agreement about the scope of science, but in his experiences he interpreted the statements of *scientists* who commented on Darwin etc disproving God.
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
That was a waste of time.
FreeMind209707 1 year ago
awesome
patternmachine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is hardly a professional rebuttal. It seems more like a response from a frustrated atheist. Rather than rebut, if it can be called as such, with meaningless statements, try using counter-claims and evidence to support them. Tell me why you decided to include the text you chose at each point. Help me to understand what you mean and how your view is more accurate than Lee's. Otherwise it's very...unscientific.
n2soccer21 1 year ago
This is hardly a professional rebuttal. It seems more like a response from a frustrated atheist. Rather than rebut, if it can be called as such, with meaningless statements, try using counter-claims and evidence to support them. Tell me why you decided to include the text you chose at each point. Help me to understand what you mean and how your view is more accurate than Lee's. Otherwise it's very...unscientific.
n2soccer21 1 year ago
Hardly a professional rebuttal. Seems more like a frustrated atheist was unhappy with the direct science is heading. Perhaps some specific counter-claims would help your point, rather than meaningless text.
n2soccer21 1 year ago
hahah this "critical ananlysis" is sooo poorly done...
sprat123456 1 year ago
More lonely atheist clones ragging on people with a clue. Atheists are zombies as far as I can tell. They are just jiggling soft tissue with no plan or purpose. Even if they say they have a plan or a purpose, they don't.
loonpolice1 1 year ago
@loonpolice1 im an atheist zombie clone??? that actually sounds pretty sweet! Im going to have to disagree with a few points you made in your argument tho. first off, jiggling soft tissue? no way. rigor mortis has already set in looong ago in zombie form. no jiggling here. and no plan or purpose?? are you kidding?? the plan - shamble after the living. the purpose - braaaaaaaaaaaaains btw unless you understand zombie, you wont be hearing us say we have a plan or purpose. graaargh graahh!
aaronski111 1 year ago
@aaronski111
braaaaaaaaaaains, soft tissue, you are what you eat. Remember you are a Zombie and you only think you think.
loonpolice1 1 year ago
I don't know who's responsible for the "critical analysis" but it's embarrassingly bad. They are not making actual counter points (debate 101) but rather restating claims that the original video is challenging (example: the video is challenging the claim that science has to stay neutral or even challenging the idea that scientists really have stayed neutral). To reply with, "science can make no claim about the supernatural" is mute. In debate, this is the equivalent of saying, "huh uh!"
skybouy09 2 years ago
@skybouy09
This isn't about debating, it's about exposing the fallacious arguments and intellectual dishonesty present throughout the entire documentary.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
Umm...come again? In order to expose "fallacious arguments", you have to make a counter argument. Simply restating the original claim that the opposition is arguing against is neither proof of anything nor a counter argument.
skybouy09 1 year ago
@skybouy09
The video constantly tries to explain the supernatural with science. The critical analysis states that science does not comment on the supernatural. This is not a matter of argument. It's a matter of clarity. The supernatural, by definition, cannot be explained by natural law. Science is about explaining through natural law. There is nothing to debate about that. Perhaps I just missed the point of your comment.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
@skybouy09
Oh, I meant to say fallacious logic. There really aren't any arguments presented here.
TheSeventhSon 1 year ago
Why are you all blinded? Why do your prejudgments, and stubbornness blind all of you?
jasminesayegh 2 years ago
thank you for taking the time to refute strobel's arguments using sound logic.
he seems very dishonest -- a rhetorician with a sinister agenda.
StarCreme 2 years ago
@StarCreme very weak refutals. i wonder if i should even watch the rest sigh
shinesthrudarain 2 years ago
@StarCreme "refute"??? it proves that the issue lies at the heart of the person if you feel in any way this was evidence against a creator...
sprat123456 1 year ago
@sprat123456
there is no evidence against the creator.
there is generally no evidence for negative statements. can you prove that rocks don't have feelings? can you prove that aliens don't exist? in the same way, the absence of god can never be proven.
what remains for us to examine the evidence for the creator, which for me is not convincing.
believing in a creator, despite the lack of convincing evidence requires a great deal of faith. there is no faith for me.
StarCreme 1 year ago
@StarCreme It would seem to me that to not believe in a creator would require more faith. For instance, it might be similar proportion to the chance of another inhabitable planet as expressed in the film...some number of trillions, etc.
n2soccer21 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're forgetting that Satan is already defeated, one little word shall fell him... there are no soul eating demons - only people who decide to reject the way of salvation and send themselves to torment... hell wont be a party where you get to do what you want... believing Satans lies means you are the sheep. So glad I have a GREAT SHEPHERD & will be rewarded for my decisions and actions... satan offers no reward b/c he doesnt love anyone but himself & he is in denial about the truth like ur..
springchickn 2 years ago
RobertBaral365 2 years ago
That's pretty funny. God created Satan. You are following a creation and shunning the creator. Who do you think will win this battle? Who will have the greater reward?
dg11306 2 years ago
RobertBaral365 2 years ago
What a comedian. Do you do standup?
dg11306 2 years ago
RobertBaral365 2 years ago
This ignorant sheep is laughing at you! Please, recite more ignorance (which appears to be a cut and paste job) What compensation did you get for your soul? The inability to think logically and to mimic someone else's fantasies? Jesus Christ destroyed Satan's hold on mankind forever. The only ones going to hell my friend are the ones who WANT TO. Why I am legitimizing you by even responding is a mystery to me. Ah well, it's good fun. God bless!
dg11306 2 years ago
RobertBaral365 2 years ago
2:45 How many copies of his own books does this guy need?
ghanamuscle2000 2 years ago
9:49
There is nothing supernatural about turning to athiesm.
P3tr4W45H3r3 2 years ago
9:38 Is only one definition of faith. All theistic approaches aside, you may look into the context of what was said. In such a case i believe that the correct definition would be:
something that is believed especially with strong conviction
P3tr4W45H3r3 2 years ago
Secondly, the term scriptural metaphor at 7:28 is stated on the basis of interpretation.
P3tr4W45H3r3 2 years ago
Critical analysis of critical analysis: In reference to pope John Paul 2. He is referrenced as being the authority of the "religious" community. This is not true. He was the leader of a particular sect but not of the faith itself. This statement is found to persuade people to "authority" as the analysis had previously accused Illustra media of doing in the first place. By no means is any pope a final auhority in a matter.
P3tr4W45H3r3 2 years ago
Talk about "cheap knock-offs" such is your response.
Most naturalist blindly accept the unproven theory that non-life can produce life. Where is your proof, not speculation?? You have none.
Also, information content (complex instructions) has always been observed to come from intelligent sources. There is no empirical evidence that random, blind, purposeless matter will organize itself into DNA (biological software of complex information content).
WFranklinW 2 years ago
All life is made of non-living material, there is nothing about life that is irreducably 'alive,' therefore it is conceivable that life can come from non-life, you just have to get the right materials together. Furthermore, every cell that ever made up your body started out as non-living matter, you eat non-living material that becomes a part of your living body. Life is a biological machine made of non-living parts.
Staunts 2 years ago
considering we are made up entirely of non-life, I don't think there's much need for more proof.
DyfnalltDH 2 years ago
jeeze how many times r u going to comment on the supernatural? commenting has nothing to do with the prove of eveidence they seek and find thru science , why don't you just say "science can make no comment on family" when he talks about his kids and wife lol!
mrdreamers4u 2 years ago
and also they are not using the supernatural in any means its straight science , its like your trying to tell plp that Dolly Parrtons tits are small when everyone with eyes and red blood running thru their vains can see there huge! Plus there REAL! lol!
mrdreamers4u 2 years ago
your basically saying 2+2=5 and it's not it's a fact it's 4,it is the 21centruy we are learning more :)
mrdreamers4u 2 years ago
"science can make no comment on the supernatural" yeah we get it.. but science is the quest for ultimate truth is it not? if you study all this and don't wonder why it is you're studying it then you're living in ignorance. there are things that cannot be explained in the natural realm that are still claimed to be scientific. so you are an idiot with no case
rockintitz 2 years ago
rockintiz; such as? Besides if it has an effect on the natural world, the effect can be tested.
VisitingXenoc133 2 years ago
I don't happen to agree with Strobel's views on evolution, but 50 seconds into this video was the charge of quote-mining. I'm not sure if the author understands this term, but it seems that the quote is consistant with this scientist's views, as he is a theist. Remember - quote-mining isn't borrowing a quote, but taking the quote out of context!
GiloRocks 2 years ago
I love ExtantDodo! Liars need to be taken down.
curvalecce 2 years ago
I want to punch this ass in the face the way he has such a cheesy smile on his face when he says sarcastic shit. He seems like a total douchebag
ramdillian 2 years ago 6
It's weird, the positive changes he saw in his wife when she became a christian are the exact same as the changes people saw with me when I left the church and became an agnostic. But it has to be god and not a clearing of mental pressure and clutter by eliminating internal contradictions and moving into a more individually fulfilling place (mentally, that is).
CBUEngineer 2 years ago
And now you spend your time raging at Jesus.
It sounds like you REALLY got something out of disgarding Him from your life... but is it good?
Remember - agnosticism means denying God - religiously!!
curvalecce 2 years ago
Wow. That didn't seem "raging" to me. Agnosticism is just when a person seems no evidence. There are agnostic christians and jews who still have faith and attend churches.
Yes actually I would say my life is much better. I have accepted myself and have been able to become a fuller person and develope social skills. I don't get angry as much and have become far less worried about every little thing that happens being some wrath from above for an unknown crime. So, yeah, happiness is great!
CBUEngineer 2 years ago
Only a real idiot would smash something to see how it works. Those of us witha real rational mind toook the train apart and put it back together, because it is in the reassembly that people really lears. He would probably break a clock to find the tick.
CBUEngineer 2 years ago 2
@CBUEngineer yeah, because young children are always completely rational....
mellowsubs 10 months ago
@mellowsubs None of this has to do with young children being completely rational... Most young children are not rational. Few adults are always completely rational.
CBUEngineer 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God is real his finger prints are all over the place. Your blind! Science is good, He created science, and the science implys design.
ninjax010 2 years ago
"Journalists look for facts, they look for data."
Well, Mr. Strobel, I can see now why you favor being a creationist supporter rather than a journalist.
HiveDes 2 years ago 3
OH PLEASE...
for EVERY IDIOT who is buying all the BS from PSEUDO-SCIENTIST (or creationistic scientist making ridiculous claims outside their profession WITH NO EVIDENCE just PLAIN STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS and "I-dont-get-it,-so-GOD -DIT-IT" or "I can make a claim which i cant back up with evidence but you cant disprove it either SO IM RIGHT AND LETS TEACH OUR KIDS CREATIONISM)
please...GO LIVE LIKE THE AMISH DO
and DONT be a &$#*($ HYPOCRITE, ENJOYING ALL SCIENCE HAS BROUGHT....GO!
BYE!
ispaniola 2 years ago
Oh dear, why post such biased nonsense as this? The warning sign was there as soon as i read "rather than speak to actual research scientists, Mr. Strobel chose to become a puppet of the discovery institute" What utter Atheist nonsense this is...
danielhbk01 2 years ago
And just how is it nonsense if it's true?
Orthrus 2 years ago
I am waiting. Tell us one thing that is true about evolution.
kelark 2 years ago
Random genetic variation combined with natural selection can lead to speciation events. This has been observed.
LaVieSansDieu 2 years ago
"Random"?
Could you please define random as many such as Dawkins reject randomness in the evolutionary process.
Also are you saying that new distinct species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestoral species has been observed coming into eistance? Or are you saying new species such as the variety of Galapagos finchs that mate with each other at various times?
(continued)
kelark 2 years ago
I was under the impression that the theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory
kelark 2 years ago
Tell us one thing that is true about evolution.
kelark 2 years ago
Evolution is scary to the religious because it makes it look as if the story about two people in a garden is made up.
soldier4242 2 years ago
DNA evidence now points to the fact that all humans are related and have common ancestry with a single male and a single female they name these "Adam" and "Eve" look it up.
kelark 2 years ago
if you are refering to mitochondrial Eve also known as African eve who is estimated to have lived about 170,000 years ago. This puts her alive 164,000 years before creationists say God created earth. She is simply the MRCA (most recent common ancester)just like the male version they call adam. This does not imply a bottle neck in genetic reproduction since they may have lived at very diffent times and different parts of the african continent.
soldier4242 2 years ago
It does imply that just as the Bible says we are all related to a single man and a single woman.
I am still waiting please tell us one true thing about evolution.
kelark 2 years ago
Have you done any actual reading about this or are you just being stubborn. The idea of african eve does not support the garden at all and that is not the point. Historical scholars have never claimed the garden of eden was in Africa. Did you ever ask any of your preachers to support their postition with facts? I could explain evolution to you but your mind is made up and you don't care about facts if they do not support your faith.
soldier4242 2 years ago
I'd be interested to hear. All the so-called evidence behind evolution that I know of was disproven years ago. The only truth to it is micro-evolution (variations WITHIN the kinds) but to take that and say it proves macro? No. Theres just one of many assumptions in this theory that were never empiracally established. Its why evolution is not science but merely another religion. Now you believers in it can kick up all you want but theres a lot this theory just blindly assumes to make itself work.
laceyllama 2 years ago
I can't watch your childish and bogus repeating that scieence makes no claims as to the supernatural is annoying and crazy. If you can't do any better than quit.
The faith that science puts in unobserved and unrepeatable events is a plea to the supernatural. Hawking has said that the laws of nature did not apply at the singularity. That certainly sounds supernatural to me. Life has only been observed orininating from other life and yet science says that life sprang into being from non life.
kelark 2 years ago
Well, most of the evolutionist say that they think that we
ClayCAT966f 2 years ago
Also, evolution has no direction because it is based on RANDOM variations through natural selecton, self orginization, and so forth. You are not stupid, you knew what he was saying. Having good debate skills dosn't mean your correct.
insanejoe9 2 years ago
Your critque on this film is stupid so far! I have researched this for three years, both sides of the issue and you are just trying to twist words, Miller was trying to "demonstrate the spontaneous formation of simple organic compounds," but he was doing to show how life could have been created! So far your showing a bias, and NOT trying to be scientific.
insanejoe9 2 years ago
i am a devoted catholic and i believe in evolution '
the bible contridicts itself all the time!
its not a textbook!
argh!!!!!!
its not hard to imagine! they say "oh how could fish that have gills suddenly have lungs"
some fish have both lungs and gills retard! look at the lungfish or the mudskipper!
toolismyfavband 3 years ago 3
to the disingenuous supposed devoted catholic "toolismyfavband" who claims to believe in evolution & a bible that allegedly contradicts itself:
That is an oxymoronic position. I expected that you are deluded about what the Bible says and that you are ill informed about the pseudo-scientific pseudo-intellectual metaphysical fantastic notions of Evolutionism/Darwinism. The Pope is no different than you.
Did you know Jesus was a Creationist? That would make him an anti-Darwinist/EVIL-utionist
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 years ago
ExtantD0d0, I take it you've completed your freshman-level logic and critical thinking course. Now you should take one in the philosophy of religion and another in the philosophy of science.
Pardon my snarkiness.
Seriously, do you rule out Dawkins's arguments in *The Blind Watchmaker* (subtitle = "How the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design) and *The God Delusion* on the basis that "science makes no claims about the supernatural"?
feetofshadows 3 years ago
Actually, as my channel clearly states, I am from the UK. We do not have 'freshmen' years and do not study logic or critical thinking- completely different educational systems.
As I have stated numerous times in the comments (and my channels says) this is a mirror channel- these are not my videos.
I do not feel in a position to argue against your claims.
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
Dawkins claim was that there is no need for a belief in god when you have evolution. This is Mr Dawkin's personal response to the evidence provided by science. Science it's self is not commenting on the supernatural. Evolution says things change over time- it is opinionative and out of the realms of science when that is extended to mean that as the process no God then there is no God or likely no God.
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
"I am from the UK. We do not...study logic or critical thinking- completely different educational systems."
That *is* completely different! And just when I thought Brits were so smart! (j/k; I assume you didn't mean to say what you said there)
It appears that you are assuming that there are two and only two kinds of claims: "scientific" claims and (merely) "opinionative" claims. Is that right? And if so, do you have any good *reason* to believe it, or is it merely your opinion? :-)
feetofshadows 3 years ago
" I assume you didn't mean to say what you said there"-? I assumed you study logic/critical thinking as whole subjects, we do not. Anyway, isn't that a little off topic?
I guess appearances can be deceptive, I said it was an opinion which he based on evidence or facts or science, w/e you want to call it- therefore I implied that opinion and fact can be mixed...
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
to the feetofshadows:
Richard Dawkins is a complete MORON, a KING of FOOLS.
Why didn't he wait for his books of pure piffle to assemble themselves?
Science is a human endeavour using intellect which is God given, and senses which are also God designed. Human science is full of error. Humans are fallible, biased, and have limited abilities & life spans.
You should STOP elevating science to a demigod status. Human science does not equal truth when it should only reveal truth. EVO is a LIE
HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 years ago
So by your own words God gave us a limited ability to understand him. We also know He can predict the future with 100% accuracy so he knew we would mess it up and because of that mess up many of his creations would burn in eternal hell. He created us all anyways in full knowlege of out fate because nothing can suprise God for he can do anything and knows all always.
soldier4242 2 years ago
Whats your point?
The Bible for says that God created some for glory and some for destruction. I would think that even you could understand that Omnipotent God is not subject to your distorted morals but rather does whatever he wants.
If he wants to make you knowing that he will destroy you so what. It does not diminish him in any way it just show that he is sovereign.
If this God exists then how could you presume to know his reasons or purpose for doing such, as if he needs a reason.
kelark 2 years ago
Its not a distorted moral its the same morals i learned when i grew up in a christian house hold. If you honestly believe that he creates some people for destruction and you still think he is good then you are the one with distorted morals.
soldier4242 2 years ago
Whoever creates everything from nothing and holds it together with his word gets to make the rules. If he says something is good and right it is, it is not your place to tell God he did not do it right.
You are a like a spoiled child that has been told by his mom that he can not have a cookie "waaah! it just isn't fair".
God created us for his pleasure, we live under the laws of nature and morality that he declares he is not subject to you or your morals it is the other way around.
kelark 2 years ago
I would say that you have committed your life to something that does not stack up to logic. When the contradiction is pointed out to you, you start your name calling and turn a blind eye to the same logic you expect from everything else in your life. If you believe God creates some people intending to send them to hell then he stops been completely good. If God does not know that people will go to hell he is not all powerful. He was made up by man and there is a flaw in the logic.
soldier4242 2 years ago
Says you. Because you cannot fully understand God you decide to dictate to him what is right. I am saying that he created some knowing that they would not believe and because of that foreknowlege used them to acheive his purposes.
God hardened the heart of Pharoah and used his unbelief to free his people.
You seem to have a good moral compass for an evolved bag of bacteria with no mind only an electro chemically controlled brain. So much so that you presumed to tell God what to do.
kelark 2 years ago
From your persepective it might seem i am trying to tell God what to do but from my perspective there is no God to tell what to do and if there is a God my opinion would not even be a blip on his radar. If you sincerely believe that unbelievers were created by God to be unbelievers to achieve his purposes then there really isn't any purpose in preaching to me because God made me to knowing i would suffer for eternity. My perspective should not think of him as "good" for that reason.
soldier4242 2 years ago
Only if you choose that.
kelark 2 years ago
Well how much choice do i really have? In the mind of God that choice was already known before my creation.
soldier4242 2 years ago
God exercised his choice to let you live and make the choices that you do. Even knowing what your ultimate decision would be.
kelark 2 years ago
Your last statement sounds like you agree with me. God exercised HIS choice even knowing what my choices would be. So in his mind he knew my life would be a one way trip to eternal suffering but as a way of demonstrating his sovereignty he knowingly made me for dishonor. How much choice do i really have in all this? It seems i am barely a factor at all.
soldier4242 2 years ago
Conversly if you choose him you would not suffer and he would have made you knowing you would have chosen him.
Your destiny is not set in stone from your perspective choose him and live.
It is only because God is outside of time that he knows the decision you will make in time.
Still the decision to live is up to you. If you choose not to choose God pehaps your life will influence someone else to choose him even if you never do. God only knows
kelark 2 years ago
Is your belief something you can turn on and off like a light switch? I could say i believe in God and win the approval of believers. With my knowledge of the bible i could pull it off convincingly too, but if there is a God he would know my heart and i would still go to hell. I honestly don't see any merit in the magical faerie tales of the bible. if there is a God he built me knowing i would not believe. If there is a God i would rather he just not make me then make me for hell. Thats evil
soldier4242 2 years ago 2
@feetofshadows
"Pardon my snarkiness"
If you recognize the problem, why not just use backspace? With such little space you might focus on elevating your stance rather than falling down to the level of your target?
chris2002Rocklin 1 year ago
This is disappointingly weak. Assertion after assertion that science makes no claim about the supernatural... Um, is there a defense of that to be offered? Maybe somebody should tell Richard Dawkins-- and quickly, before he keeps going around embarrassing himself by saying the contrary!
feetofshadows 3 years ago
you mean assertion in response to a claim with a source after assertion in response to a claim with a source?
you are ignoring a lot of the video, extantdodo includes this to be intellectually honest- instead of editing out parts of the creationist video. afterall, this is a point by point refutation...
"Um, is there a defense of that to be offered?"- There is a source....
"Maybe somebody should tell Richard Dawkins"- red herring, appeal to authority and possibly a 'guilt by association'.
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
Anyways, you seem like a decent enough person, promoting your views. That's noble enough. I myself am an theistic evolutionist, and not a creationist in the 10,000 year old earth sense(that always makes me laugh, like the big bang model of the Universe doesn't have an enormous body of evidence). But, anyways. I'm done here. Just remember, no one deserves ridicule for their beliefs. You can, ABSOLUTELY SLAM them, with logical reasoning, and with a superior hypothesis, and, or theory, however.
JLuck88 3 years ago
My objectivity, and aggression towards uncovering truth, are great qualities, for studying science. It's probably why I have a 4.0 GPA =). That includes those pesky logic/reason classes in philosophy.
JLuck88 3 years ago
Surely, such an agression would mean you would find the quickest way to discover truth- i.e. reading my channel, realising it is a mirror channel then searching 'extantdodo' BEFORE making a personal attack against the messenger.
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
I'm not well versed on youtube... I didn't even realize I could do that.
JLuck88 3 years ago
"I didn't even realize I could do that."- you didn't notice the search bar? I assume reading isn't a new skill to you. I think you are making excuses...
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
That's so weird, the dumb guy is getting attitude with me. lol
Anyways, I'm still getting used to Youtube. I've had an account for a long time, but only recently started using it. You don't need to get hostile with me, I'll verbally spank ya, and send you back to yo moma.
JLuck88 3 years ago
I'd prefer, for future reference, you address me point by point, instead of spewing you stupidity.
And, no, actually, basic research wouldn't. I engage in basic research lol. PHD students should be able to utilize logic better, and cover up their bias in a better way. YOU, clearly, are the one unwilling to seek the truth. You seem as dogmatic as the people you purport to dislike.
JLuck88 3 years ago
"I'd prefer, for future reference, you address me point by point, instead of spewing you stupidity."- what if, hypothetically, i agreed with you on everything except that point?
Not to mention, i have other persuits... but sure
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
What would that matter? I didn't ask you to agree with anything. Rather, to be scientific in your approach to a scientific discussion ; )
And, you might do well to spell pursuits, correctly.
You're the only one? lol. This comment is laughable.
JLuck88 3 years ago
for a scientific discussion you seemed to include a large number of insults...
it would matter that you asked me to respond 'point by point'- if i agree with you on all but one point it is idiotic to spend time responding to them...
Ooo, correcting me on my spelling, how mature, you really showed me to be a complete idiot. really, resorting to semantics. why don't you present some 'scientific' arguments in this "scientific discussion"?
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
if i am not the only one then you should have some empathy? Why criticise me for not having time to respond point by point?
You're right, your comment was laughable ;) But, ofcourse, that would be resorting to semantics...
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
No, you're not a complete idiot. An idiot, maybe, but not complete.
Actually, I just like to bust you up... it's been fun. If I spelled something wrong, I'd expect it thrown in my face. That part, is just messin with ya.
JLuck88 3 years ago
My point was not whether or not the argument was compelling. Please, pull your head out of your butt, just long enough to read what I wrote. Then, you may re-insert it.
And, when bias shows, then, there is a problem. I addressed them point, by point. I didn't make anything up. I seek the truth in all I do, and always reach for objectivity. Do I accomplish it 100% of the time, no. No one does. But I at least TRY. This video(I haven't looked at the others) was fairly poor.
JLuck88 3 years ago
9. *sigh* Incorrect!(What else is new?).
'Confidence or trust in a person or thing'. That's the definition of faith. There is, indeed blind faith, however, faith is not inherently so.
Do you have any scientific training? I'm not even saying I agree with you, only that you don't appear to be educated, or unbiased.
(I'm a biology-chemistry double major).
JLuck88 3 years ago
If the creationist's arguement was compelling, it would not matter whether extantdodo was bias or not, it is obvious he is intelligent enough to base his beliefs on evidence.
"you don't appear to be educated"- in which case you have a bad judge of character, the dodos are PhD students, basic research would answer your retoric. To me, this shows complete unwillingness to seek truth, not a great quality when studying science.
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
5. Sorry, Zippy, you're not stating the information correctly. Don't call the scripture metaphor, if that has not been established. That, is merely your interpretation.
6.*sigh* Science can make an argument against teleological argument... Ask Myers and Dawkins... *sigh* silly zippy...
7. It is not an argument from personal incredulity. He had a premise and supporting nodes.*sigh* Again, see Myers, and Dawkins.
8. They are not red herrings, he's stating experience. The audience can discern.
JLuck88 3 years ago
6. appeal to authority?
time links would be helpful- this isn't my video so i am not entirely sure what you are referencing to
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
No. That argument incurs scientific thought. It says that the world is so complex that it had to be created by a supernatural power. The general premise can be tested, or the probability can be.
JLuck88 3 years ago
4. Most American Christians are not Catholic. One clearly(silly you) would not have to live in a hole to find that out, later in life. Much MORE(common sense) prominent were battles between evolution, and creationism.
JLuck88 3 years ago
could you elaborate?
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
1. Yes, science can. When the supernatural interferes with the natural, then, science can comment on the supernatural directly, and also, on the probability.
So, indeed, you are wrong.
2. Essentially, they are correct about Millers experiment. The direct point of the experiment was to create organic compounds. The broader point was to understand how life formed. Common sense. You're over analyzing.
3. He didn't say evolutionary biology was bound to either. Again, you are making things up.
JLuck88 3 years ago
wouldn't it be indirectly?
science (freeonlinedictionary)- Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Science would only comment on the hypothetical effect the supernatural has on the natural not on the supernatural itself and one would never know when the natural was being influenced by the supernatural. So, in useful terms, science cannot comment on the supernatural.
On the probability of what, exactly?
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
"So, indeed, you are wrong." - i never stated these positions are mine, it is a repost. i didn't think my audience would require a disclaimer- meh, i would rather overestimate the intelligence of the audience than underestimate it. So, i would guess that the veracity of positions i never endorced would have no effect on me being 'wrong'
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
'endorsed'
Hmmm... by promoting a whole host of the videos, and agreeing with the content... you did NOT endorse them.
I'm going to mail you some texts on formal and informal logic. Then you come talk to me.
JLuck88 3 years ago
Promoting? You mean reposting. This is a mirror channel- the whole point is to repost a whole host of videos by that user. I am doing this so that creationists cannot censor people who disagree with them.
Yet again, if you had read my channel you would see that this channel is pro-free speech and anti-censorship more than anything.
I could crucify you for I have not received these 'texts', but I have empathy for my fellow humans- I am sure you have other pursuits...
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
Reading your channel means nothing. What you CLAIM, means nothing. Your observed behavior and language is far more important than your claims. Your integrity has not been established.
Lol. You have not the capability to even make me sweat. Never mind crucifying. Notice I said, 'mail'. Not e-mail. I was quite obviously kidding. You're so foolish, that I was making a joke at your expense. Ad Hominem. I commited it, but, it was worth it =)
JLuck88 3 years ago
"Your observed behavior and language is far more important than your claims."- It is arguable that this is a false dichotomy. Arguing against you must mean arguing in favour of extantdodo.
"I committed it, but, it was worth it" lol, I like the way you pretend that it was intentional just because you know that I cannot falsify such a claim, kind of petty, really.
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
One more thing....
"Quote-mining... In addition to using a cheap knockoff of the Harry Potter theme track, this presentation opens with quote-mining. This never bodes well...sigh."
It's a tactic also employed in the much-loved Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum movies, isn't it? Except these quotes, unlike the one from Addendum about Bush having plans on September 9th for a full-on invasion of Afghanistan, his quotes are real.
chibiq 3 years ago
"It's a tactic also employed in the much-loved Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum movies, isn't it?"- I wouldn't know- I haven't watched either.
Provide evidence for the claim "his quotes are real."
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago
It is a close-minded stance that science is limited and can't comment on an issue. This is your best argument against this video. Please leave the scientific argument to actual scientists.
Just because you claim to follow the scientific method doesn't give you any sort of credentials.
chibiq 3 years ago
Unfortuneately, definitions do, infact, limit the use of a word. saying that science can comment on the supernatural violates it's definition...
"a.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena."
- the free online dictionary
"actual scientists"- the dodo's are graduate students, you ignorant moron.
"credentials" like Hovind's?
ExtantD0d0 3 years ago