@vlasevmovement They do.play a role in balance, but not the space in between - just the bone/muscle structure. The number of people without arms is very tiny and very few of them learn to control their toes with any dexterity comparable with fingers. Meanwhile that space in between is a fertile place for fungi to grow. It isn't that they are an impediment, but that the design is suboptimal. Not totally stupid, but simply not very intelligent.
I think toes make walking easier and more delicate . I magine if we had no toes walking would be difficult . Have u played soccer before ? there are a lot of nerves in your toes to feel the ground under your feet . I think toes are very important .
You are missing the point. I am not saying toes are useless. I am simply saying that the cavities between them are useless. When you play soccer, you don't play barefoot - you wear socks/shoes that create a layer of "skin" around your toes and fuse them together. What I am saying is we don't use the space in between the toes - and that that space is actually bad: room for athletes foot, etc.
@zolzol7 Simple. Keep the bone structure, keep the flesh, but have the skin that covers the foot just like a sock does. You are still able to do EVERYTHING you do when you do it in socks - which is how you use your feet anyway. Whatever you may loose is outweighed by mitigating the unpleasantness of things like athlete's foot.
@vdizhoor I'm sorry to say this , but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Why are you wasting your life thinking about things like that ?! Don't waste your time replying either , please go outside !
Some people do actually use their toes for typing, grabbing things, and otherwise impractical uses.
But then again, the evidence that toes are useless to us is appearing in a way that completely gets rid of them. We are losing our toes (and pinky fingers apparently) due to micro (which is turning into macro) evolution.
Toes is super design by creator. We can web it be closing together or use it for jumping or hiking up the hills or mts. Toes is most verstile design of all creations's feet. No toes you fall or lose balance.
Well, this video is not actually making any statement to be believed or not believed - its posing a question.
Most importantly, I think you are mistaken that believing something is a matter of preference or choice. Its like saying, if you want to understand the Pythagoras theorem - go ahead. Its not a question of "want". We either get it or we don't. Something either makes sense or it doesn't. Our wishes have nothing to do with it. We can choose to study, but not to learn.
very good, and for that matter toe nails,,, really whats the point,, anyone ever had an ingrown toe nail, if we are an intelligent design, why the hell do we need toe nails? very good,, make some more vids
COOL VID! What I find interesting is that our toes (and fingers) were once fused while in the womb. As our hands and feet develop more fully the webbing between our digits is lost. Other interesting body parts lost during fetal development are our post-anal tails and (here's the kicker) our GILLS. Sky-Daddy sure draws up some funny blueprints!!!
I never wore shoes when I was little , my parents were sick of me coming home with out them ,naturally id prefer not to wear shoes ,and even when i do there sandals, even in winter , I'm not sure about this theory of yours ???
Its not so much about preference as it is about necessity. You may not simply like shoes, but the point is that shoes don't interfere with our mobility. It means that the way toes are constructed is largely useless - they can be used with their divisions masked by clothing/footwear and produce the same (if not) better results - reducing damage and heat loss. The aesthetics is secondary.
I am sure we could be designed anything .about us. Heck, our plumbing is next to the recreational area ;)
tie your digits together and see how well you perform. bare foot is superiour to shoes when wlaking through a forest, ask africans. study kinesioligy and you will understand how important the unfused toes are to us.
That's a good point if and only if you would like to have your toes fused. And even if we assume that evolution is a valid natural process (which I do), that does not argue against the basis of Intelligent Design. My car was made in an automated factory by robots. Does that really explain how it came into being?
Well, its not that I would like them fused, its just that de facto they are fused - most of the time. By shoes. If toes are intelligently design, then we have improved on that design, which begs the question - just how intelligent was it?
And I am not saying that intelligent design isn't part of nature. Plenty of animals design things.
There MAY even have been an intelligent cause of life on Earth. (Although I don't think so) I am only saying that we are a product of evolution, not intelligence
Wow. I skimmed the comments. Did Purushadasa ever say what he is? Is he christian? He said he's a priest but his rude language says otherwise. If he's not a creationist, what is he? How can you say God exists and not be a creationist?
Purushadasa - you come across as a very arrogant person. Someone who's full of themself and is certain that they know what is true and what isn't. Many atheists and theists are just like you. I'm glad I'm not.
Dude, manners and beliefs are poorly correlated. The vast majority of people on either side of the argument are decent. but those with high tempers are simply more vocal.
Actually many atheists don't know what they are talking about either and their unbelief is often driven more by rebellion and amplified by anger so they can't argue as decent people do.
For every Purush there is an angry atheist.
Sadly, Evolution today is being married to atheism. Personally, I have no beef with faith.
Maybe YOU don't grab anything using your feet, but you should speak for yourself. PLUS, if we didn't have any toes, we couldn't wear sandles, STUPID!!!! God, you are sooo ignorant and oblivious!
cont. otherwise humans would have all the traits of all the other creatures... fish, tiger, monkey, dinosaurus, bird (and much much more), would all be in a one perfect creature. and what IS perfect anyway?
cont. forth. if our toes indeed were fused, you would be asking the opposite question, something a la "why didn't god (whoever designed us) separate our toes, it would be much better that way", and then you would find a silly reason for that. fifth. nobody said that humans are a perfect design, they are an INCREDIBLY AND AMAZINGLY GOOD design but FAR from perfect.
cont. the shoes have actually NOTHING to do with fusing our toes. it would be like saying "you are fusing your hair because you put a hat on your head", silly right? thirdly, when we walk in mud, sand or dry earth for that matter in bare feet, i find it much more beneficial to NOT have my toes fused, the grip is just a lot better like this!
cont. a shoe with toes would just be too much effort for little reward because the differance between fused and non-fused toes on a shoe is too insignificant. it would take much longer time to produce and you would be paying much more money for a very small improvement. secondly, our shoes have much more to do with protecting our feet than with fusing our toes...
the point is, that our toes have no purpose, so we can just put shoes on, if they had purpose, we would have to make shoes in which we can use our toes.
you couldn't find a better argument against the id theory? (is it mine turn now to find an argument against the evolution theory? i think i would succeed MUCH better than you ;)). humans are not designed for living in water, we are designed for moving on land. our feet are more flexible like this, you can't see that? the reason why WE "fuse" them with socks and shoes is purely because of producing practicalities.
but we would have to protect them anyway, whether we have toes or fused toes, and again, if we really needed toes we would have to make shoes that way. this is no argument at all, and you spent 2 reaction spaces on it? doh!
fuse ur toes together and see how well you walk. Individual extremities on our feet help to make us more agile and dexterous. which is one attribute that helps to make us more advanced than the land animals. since we were designed to be the superior creatures on the planet it makes sense
but you DO fuse them together anytime you put on socks or shoes. I am not saying fuse the bones, i mean simply have a single covering of skin that covers the distinct bones and muscles. That would be a better design, since it doesn't affect freedom of movement, but does reduce the surface area and keeps things like athlete's foot from dwelling in the folds.
At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.
Actually, I there is nothing in this video about abiogenesis. For all I know God created the ancient microorganisms.
But if Evolution is a sick joke, then so is the Atomic Theory of matter, and so is the General Theory of Relativity - they became mainstream and universally accepted after a lot of initial debate followed by overwhelming corroborating evidence.
there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the environment has the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat.
The atheist cannot provide scientific facts about God, only unscientific speculation, as he has no access to observational data in God's regard.
For scientifically factual answers to any and all questions about God, please visit my channel, "Purushadasa."
All answers given there are guaranteed to be scientific facts, based 100% on observational data, which is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide.
Parush, we had this conversation before a while ago :)
And I have visited your site.
A word of advice, for what its worth:
If you want to convince someone of your position, it is not enough to simply state that you are "100%" correct and anyone not seeing that is simply a fool, or however delicately you put it.
Any time someone is dealing in absolutes, their conclusions are suspect, because their derivation is nonexistent.
Criticism/test of OWN beliefs is the first step to knowledge.
Except that Purushadasa won't give you any answers. He'll just repeat the same empty statements over and over and then get fed up and stop answering. Kind of disappointing really. I'm sure everyone would welcome some interesting scientific evidence for god if it could actually be produced.
Oooh, now you're feeling defeated and bitter due to our recent exchange in which you showed yourself to be a damned fool, and as a result, you're trying to turn the tables and "get my goat." Very transparent! LOL
sorry puru pal, but its true, you can invent all kinds of faith based evidence that YOU may attribute to the existence of god, but as far as the realm of scientific evidence goes, your shit out of luck. and while that may be a damning characteristic of your argument to those of us who consider science to be the only viable source of truth, your going to have to accept it
Life uses whatever is available. Long ago, in our ancestoral past, toes and fingers were merely the bony ends of splayed pectoral fins, useful for shuffling across sand to escape from watery predators, or look for food or seek mates. Those with the best shuffle, and with air bladders that could exchange oxygen became the parents of all land dwelling quadrupeds.
I don't see this video disproving the intelligent design argument at all. This just demonstrates that toes could be evolutionary holdovers. That in itself doesn't mean the designer is incompetent. Maybe in a few thousand years our toes really will fuse together.
So our feet could be in a transition from a past when our toes were opposable and useful, to a future where they will be joined together. That doesn't cast any doubt on intelligent design. Am I wrong?
Visit my channel, "Purushadasa," for answers to any and all questions about God.
Scientific facts, based on observational data, are guaranteed there, and are also something that the atheist cannot possibly provide in reference to God.
Only a few societies traditionally wore clogs (which are more effective protection against constant immersion in water) or sandals (probably to produce a durable sole for use in rocky environments) and it is only in the last century that boots have increased speeds over going barefoot (in the 19th century there are still reports of runners removing their shoes and people going into combat barefoot).
So basically you are relatively wide of the mark on the shoe issue. I enjoyed your other videos though. I once saw a list of 50+ design features in the Banana, all of which I am sure you could find other explanations for (either through domestification or structural limits or natural selection). you might have a bit more luck with this.
I am not saying that toes put us in some sort of disadvantage or that they are a nuisance. And certainly we do the best we can with what we have and we are used to them.
I am just saying that for organs used for walking/running they could have been better designed.
Animals that have been running/walking for a while and that don't use claws have no need for distinct toes and do better without them.
I mean toes are not so bad that we have to ditch the original design plan no matter what! :)
Its just that every culture that designed shoes (for whatever reasons) didn't seem to care for the toes and ignored their individuality by providing soles that support the whole foot as a single entity.
At the same time, gloves did take care of individual fingers.
Fingers - useful, toes - not really.
But yeah, this clip is more of a random thought. :)
When walking over complex surfaces (especially barefoot or in a moccasin) the toes do take different loads. So, there may be an *adaptive* reason to have multiple distinct bones along with their associated muscles and ligaments.
Furthermore, I regularly forget that my big toe isn't opposable (with potentially hilarious maladaptive results)...
Our toes aren't necessarily a major disadvantage for swimming, as the water pressure created during the stroke plugs the gaps fairly well (not having flippers is though).
A lot of human cultures travel barefoot people (eg. India, Bushmen, Aborigines) and many forms of soft soled footwear exist eg. moccasins and traditional Scottish footwear(mainly to act as insulators against cold).
Have you missed the point of Intelligent Design? Toes are a result of evolution. Evolution orchestrated by a designer! (get it? intelligent design)
Better question you should embrace? How did the eye come about on its own? Two blobs of jelly that work as perfect cameras that record picture 18+hours/day. Cameras which focus themselves (even in the mentally impaired!). Explain how our eyes are a result of an accident. Then you'll have me convinced of your "theory."
I am glad that you see (no pun intended) that the toes are an indication of evolution.
Every organ in our bodies is a result of a very long process that began a billion years ago.
There are plenty of videos on youtube that illustrate the evolution of the eye.
Toes in humans developed recently. Eyes have developed millions of years ago when life was still in the sea. Many intermediate stages are found in present day mollusks that kept simpler eyes as they were good enough for their survival.
Firstly, thank you for a logical response (one of the first I have received on youtube so far).
I do not (necesarrily) doubt the evolution of the eye; I only question the speed at which it happened. Even a few hundred million years isn't very long for such complex organic processes to evolve. Not to mention the time it took life to come about just to begin with.
To me, the time it took for life to expand, plus develop these advaned cellular and orgnaic strcutures is remarkably short.
I think that questions are very good in principle.
But they usually have some basis.
So is there a particular REASON that makes you "question the speed at which it happened"?
For instance, I could question that the sun is only 90 million km away from the Earth - it could "seem" to me that it is much too close for comfort and "has" to be further away.
But, if our complex brains could have evolved their complexity over a few million years, why couldn't the eye?
Well the brain leads to even more questions. I'm using the eye as only one example. Looking at the whole human body, even the bodies of simpler creatures, it's a marvel that they could have evolved over such sort time periods.
The main flaw of Darwinism is that it cannot account for the speed at which we have evolved so far.
This is the main purpose I propose a creator involved. Perhaps he didn't only help to guide the process, he also sped it up.
I understand that you are buffled. I just don't understand why is it that you think a few million years (which is already an unimaginably long time) let alone tens or hundreds of millions of years are TOO short in your opinion.
Why is it that evolution "cannot account for the speed"? Do you have any other objection other than your personal feeling for the times involved (which you keep stressing)? And if not, what is that makes it seem to you that those eons are not enough?
Sorry, I accidentally pressed "reomve" instead of "reply" :-/.
You were saying something like:
because it took a billion years for life to develop into simple forms and then a half a billion years to develop thinking and blogging.
A valid point, but the crucial difference is that once evolution got to a point of basic multicellular life the sky was the limit and development turned relatively exponential to what it used to be.
Seemingly Major changes (like whale evolution) take only 10s of MY.
Two blobs of jelly? Right. Evolution doesn't say that blobs of jelly jumped together to form an eye. It states that over millions of years, traits that are favorable become selected for in a process known as Natural Selection. So in other words, it took millions of years of trial and error to produce complex organs with special purposes, such as eyes. Better eyes are favorable, so they are selected for by the process.
Read and learn what evolution is before you spout nonsense, please.
i use my toes to cuddle with my girlfriends toes. i can grab things from the ground when im too lazy to bend over and grab it with my hands. i run faster the front end of my foot by using my toes. i can turn on the tv using my toes. i believe my toes are very useful.
thats funny, the human foot is one of the most highly regarded piece of engineering known today. Whether you believe 'toes' to be what they are or what they were, or how this engineering of the foot came to be is more a posture of the heart. Whatever you look for you will find.
Hungry: I am not a creationist, you are. You are the one who brought up the subject of creation, I didn't.
He indeed said that toes are a sign of design, and he was correct.
You are saying that God designed toes -- I didn't say that. You are incorrect about that particular activity, but you are correct to admit that God has some activity.
Your final paragraph shows you to be without doubt an utter and complete moron.
If you want anyone to believe that you actually think there is no reason why we have toes, then you need to first cut yours off, then get back to us. I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to do that!
Your own ignorance and inability (or unwillingness) to present in your video reasons why we have toes is not evidence that they evolved from ape toes.
On the contrary, the similarities point to the species coming from the same designer, just as various cars also have the same designer.
I've hear this advice from angry creationist like you before, an yes, don't hold your breath :).
You misunderstood - I am not saying they get in our way and should be removed. I am just saying that their design is inefficient and has an element of uselessness to them.
Yes, cars are intelligently designed. The best cars are designed as efficiently as possible.
And if our bodies were designed, then toes are a signature of a second-rate design, that's all. Even WE can detect that flaw.
And your statement about inability and ignorance made no sense at all. You are probably just being angry suggesting I should go mutilate myself :) and thus make little sense.
I am not here to show evidence for evolution. Biologists do that far better. I am merely showing you a problem with "Intelligent" design..err.. Creationism.
You can call the design of toes "Arbitrary" or "Somewhat Intelligent" - it fails the "Intelligent" standard for mortal men who can see ways it could be improved.
You call the design of toes arbitrary or somewhat intelligent. Thank you for admitting again that toes are indeed a product of design.
You have no way to improve on the human toe. Imperfect as it is, your feeble little brain can't even produce fungus from under the nail, what to speak of a whole toe.
All this is provided by a superior intelligence, and you foolishly complain about the imperfections, unable to produce anything but sniveling, ridiculous youtube videos. You are pathetic.
I'm not angry, nor am I a creationist: I did not mention creation: you imagined that.
I did not misunderstand. You asked why we have toes, clumsily attempting to imply that they have no use as flimsy "evidence" that we somehow got toes from apes, which is a foolish and ridiculous argument. I shot it down by pointing out how ignorant the statement was by showing plainly that our toes do indeed have many uses. That is why we don't cut them off, as we do cancers and other useless bodily growths.
lol, you totally ARE a creationist! No need to even mention that word - you are transparent.
And you didn't get it.
vdiz isn't saying toes were designed, he said IF they were designed, they were designed by an entity less intelligent or less caring about his design then people are. Why would God's perfect work be so poorly finished?
If you talk about perfection, then you have to have something to compare with. How do you know God/soul is perfect? Did you ever seen either of these imperfect? :)
All schools of thought accept the human body to be less than perfect, theists and atheists alike. You have shown nothing new to anyone here.
God is perfect, and the soul is perfect. Human toes are imperfect, yes, and the human body is also imperfect. You yourself admit that the toe is a signature of design (second-rate design, to use your exact phrase).
Bravo! I'm glad that you finally understand that the human body is the product of a designer. You are gaining intelligence!
But didn't God supposedly make man in his own image? Shouldn't we be perfect, if he is? And the fact that we are imperfect would suggest that so is he, and so ... why do you worship him again?
Yes, you should be perfect, but your choice to live separately from God has rendered you pitifully imperfect.
Your theories are all unproven, BTW. Until you provide irrefutable proof for your following four beliefs, the point you're impotently attempting to make also remains unproven:
Here are four of your unproven and unscientific beliefs (there may well be others). Until you prove these four points, your attempt to make any kind of point in this regard fails miserably:
You haven't proven your beliefs that God is a perfect designer, that every part should be perfectly designed in such a case, that having toes is suboptimal, that we ignore distinctiveness, that the designer generates imperfect designs, that there is no designer, or that natural processes have generated suboptimal designs.
You have merely stated all those beliefs and failed to provide proof for any of them, and so any point you attempt to make fails miserably.
You've failed to prove your beliefs that perfection is perspectival [sic], that God is loving, that God is merciful, and that God is moral. Until you prove all these beliefs, your attempted point, whatever it may have been, also fails.
You also failed to prove your belief that God is mine. Your belief in this regard is incorrect: in reality, we all belong to Him.
I actually didn't fail at proving that perfection is perspectival. I gave viable examples.
And I KNOW I failed to prove that God is loving, merciful, and moral. Because the God of the Bible is NONE of those things! At least you grasped that part.
So, snakes, worms, and other living things without toes have a different designer? Let me guess, satan.
And comparing cars to living things, saying they have a designer is stupid really. I mean cars don't evolve, they don't reproduce, a living thing can't evolve without reproducing.
You say that those animals have a different designer, not me. You admit a designer by that statement. Congratulations!
You see stupidity where it does not exist, because it exists in abundance in your brain. Just as a kindergartener would say that quantum physics is "stupid," you use that word to refer to concepts way beyond your meager level of comprehension.
Living beings don't evolve either. Identical cars are reproduced daily.
No, you claimed, they have toes do to having a common designer, I asked, not stated, asked, reread the post for the question mark, that if so snakes, worms and other living things that don't have toes, have a different designer?
Cars are made in factors, they are not born through sexual reproduction. You compared a car to a living thing saying, cars look the same do to having a common designer.
Listen man, nobody is talking about souls here. I was talking about nonliving things, non organic things, not terminators, or whatev your talking about. A robot cannot reproduce like a living thing.
And you still haven't showed how they have a common designer, because of the similarities(toes), and how non toes things have a different designer.
What evidence do you have for your personal belief that God is somehow invisible?
Is this odd belief of yours based on observation, or is it based on a poisoned and overly fertile imagination, completely divorced from scientific observation? It is surely the latter.
In contrast, the factual knowledge that I have on God's appearance is scientifically based on observation.
For answers to any and all questions about God, visit my channel, "Purushadasa."
Purushadasa? How come you grew an "a" at the end of your name? Or is "Purushadas" someone else? Which one is the real you?
I visited your channel, btw. If you knew what science means, then you would recognize that the "100% guarantee of a scientific answer" is a bit meaningless. Sort of like a 300% accurate mathematical proof. :).
I suggest don't compensate with colorful descriptions of your channel - instead get some real data to back you up.
"God's factual existence is more certain than your own. His qualities, characteristics, activities, and energies are infinite and purely spiritual."
It may well be that God exists but to say that his existence is MORE certain than ours is not 100% scientific. Our existence is, to use your terms, is 100% verifiable - you are not debating our existence.
God's existence is a matter of debate and disagreement between cultures and philosophies - that existence is far less certain.
Either spelling is acceptable, as the word exists in several languages.
I know what real science means, but you do not. You are incorrect: 100% is possible, 300% is not. That is a very impotent comparison you made.
All of the answers about God that I provide are backed up by scientific data based on observation of God. This is something with which the atheist simply cannot compete.
Parush, i DID visit your channel - I guess you skipped over that part. You are mistaken as to what science is. Scientific method rests crucially on falsifiability and repeatability.
You are also very much mistaken on what unbelief is. Atheists simply maintains that there is no compelling evidence of God's existence: no one verifiable saw, touched or smelled any deity. While claims of that evidence exist - the evidence itself does not.
i.e. its up to YOU to show evidence for the God hypothesis.
The trouble with defining what God is - i.e. the "observational" data is a major hurdle that believers must first overcome.
For instance, your video plays Christian music in the background as you display Hindu iconography. Both of these religions have a vastly different "observation" of God.
If you wish to demonstrate the existence of God, first establish what God is, then show evidence that ONLY makes sense in light of your definition.
There's only one God, just as the same state provides curricula for first grade and high school, the one and only God provides various scriptures according to the understanding of His devotees. Perfect harmony exists between the various revealed scriptures, just as 1 + 1 still equals two in college, just as much as the day we first learned it.
First grade truths and high school truths are all truths, even if they are different truths. Same with God's scriptures.
OK, parush, then what is the image at 1:14 into your video? If it is not Hindu, than I stand corrected. My point is that it is not Christian, while a Hallelujah by Handel (a Christian theme) is playing in the background.
This is why I invite you to define what God is, before demonstrating observational evidence of his/hers/theirs existence.
Not so fast Purush - you smell blood where there is none :). My standing corrected is conditional ONLY on you DEMONSTRATING that I am wrong - not merely CLIMING that I am wrong.
If you demonstrate that it is not a Hindu image at 1:14, ONLY then I will stand corrected on THAT point alone.
You did NOT answer - what is the image at 1:14 of your video? The one with one body and many heads.
That is an artist's rendering of a description of a manifestation of the Lord that took place before the advent of Hinduism, by an non-Hindu, to another non-Hindu. The description was recorded in a non-Hindu scripture, by yet another non-Hindu, also before the advent of Hinduism.
The words "India," "Hindu," and any and all linguistically related terms appear nowhere in this particular scripture.
CONCLUSION: There is no "Hindu" iconography in any of my videos. I produced them, and I am an accomplished expert on iconography: I know better than anyone what's there and what is not, and under which category any given icon stands.
Last time I checked, the Maha Mantra is definitely part of the Hindu tradition. No matter how much you want to dissociate from Hinduism, the fact remains that your own video mixes Krishna/Hindu related imagery with Christian hymns that aspire to contradictory description of God.
If both Handel and the painter of Krishna WERE devotees, than the nature of God revealed to them was CONTRADICTORY (hence not 100% scientific, as you like to put it)
Nope. You cannot name any scripture of Hindu origin wherein the mahamantra can be found. You are a layman; I am a priest. You are quite simply incorrect.
There is no Hindu imagery whatsoever in any of my videos, nor are there any Christian hymns, nor do they contain any contradictory description of God.
The only contradiction here exists in your consciousness, but you have failed at your attempt to project it into my videos.
Purush, the POINT is that your image is that of Krishna, while the backround music is written by Handel - a devout Christian. So even both the artist and musicians were devotees of God, they wouldn't be able to agree on what God is.
But I am wasting my time with you - you will just deny everything, declare I failed and how you are "100% right scientifically", give yourself priestly titles and belittle your debaters.
Whatever gives you your sense of self-importance, man.
You are unable to agree, because you have no idea who or what God is. That is the nature of the layman, the nature of the atheist. You attempt to project your own personal ignorance and confusion on others, such as Handel, the painter, and me.
There is only one God, and His ability to reconcile concepts that you are unable to reconcile is simply part of His nature. There is no disharmony in Him, only in your consciousness.
You are the only one seeking a sense of self-importance. Remember, I am glorifying God, while you are attempting to glorify only yourself.
The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 does not negate the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, even though they are two different truths. Similarly, the different truths in God's various scriptures do not contradict or negate each other.
The only contradiction is in your conflicted and shattered mind. You are unable to project it, however.
This is your personal philosophy, one that many agree with, but it is not evidence - its your interpretation. There is nothing to observe - only to contemplate. There is nothing to repeat, or test or experiment. There is nothing to falsify.
Where does God define who he is? How do you know it wasn't Man that defined him? What is that definition for us?
IF existence of God was AS evident as 1+1 = 2 then belief in God would AS wide spread. It is NOT.
No. I am relating scientific facts, all based on observational data, not opinion. Your statements about God, positive or negative, are 100% unscientific opinion, as you have no access to observational data in His regard.
Your personal lack of access to observational data is insufficient proof of your statement that "there is nothing to observe." That statement is abysmally unscientific.
God defines His characteristics primarily by revealing them directly to the senses of His devotees and personal associates, secondarily by linguistic expression in sound vibrations produced by Himself and those eyewitnesses, thirdly by disciplic succession, fourthly by the factual conclusions of countless saints, and lastly, by scriptural record.
You have attempted to define Him, but you are incorrect, unscientific, and 100% trumped in your effort by the above superior methods.
"Belief" in God is your purview; mine is factual knowledge.
Only very immature people don't know that 1 + 1 = 2, and their ignorance does not change the fact. The immature also fail to possess accurate knowledge about God, (as you fail), but your failure and theirs also does not change the facts about God and His infinite characteristics and energies.
You have no access to observational data on God, and so any statements that you may produce about Him, positive or negative, are discounted as 100% unscientific nonsense.
Conversely, theists have access to ample scientific data on God, via the methods I mention above.
Visit my channel for factual answers to any and all questions about God. All answers provided there are 100% guaranteed to be scientific fact, based on observational data, which the atheist can never provide.
Dude, You have NO answers on your channel, no question and "ample scientific data". Provide bring them forth and please stop spamming this channel with endless advertising - we ALL know you made videos - we've seen them.
Purush, what knowledge do you posses (that 100% guaranteed scientific knowledge based on your senses that you speak of all the time) of God that I lack?
What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God smell and taste like?
Feel free to share your data and enlighten your ignorant debaters.
So one must be devoted to God in order to observe him? But before devotion you have to know that the object of your devotion at least exists. Its a catch-22, man. It makes no sense to grant evidence to those that are already devoted. Isn't the point to convince those that do not yet believe?
No, your theory that devotion is necessary to observe God is stemming from your own overly fertile imagination, not from observational data, and is therefore unscientific, and it is also definitely incorrect. It is not what I said at all.
Many non-devotees have also seen Him, heard His voice, and touched His body.
Your consciousness has produced your catch-22, but it is your error, not God's, and not mine. Divorce it from your mind and move on.
And dude, you didn't "teach" me anything. You only demonstrated your affinity for circular reasoning, dismissing opposing points of view without reason and praisingly evaluating the veracity of your own unsupported claims.
Teaching requires a receptive and intelligent student.
You are the only one using circular reasoning, dismissing opposing points of view without reason, and praisingly evaluating the veracity of your own unsupported claims, not me.
I have access to observational data on God, and you do not. I have stated facts about Him, and you alone have stated unsupported claims about Him.
"You are the only one using circular reasoning, dismissing opposing points of view without reason, and praisingly evaluating the veracity of your own unsupported claims, not me."
Well thats a blatant lie.
Theists all use circular logic. You just told a lie. You are in violation of your own rules.
Yes, you said that I set rules, and you were wrong on that, just as you have been wrong on everything else.
You are the one who solely refers to your "magic man," and also to "belief," not me, and so it is you, not me, who believes in that, whatever it may be.
I rely on scientific facts, and I leave all unscientific belief and disbelief to you.
"Yes, you said that I set rules, and you were wrong on that, just as you have been wrong on everything else."
You set your rules by accepting a religion and the laws set down by that god. You didn't create the rules but you accepted responsibility for them by taking sides with that faith.
What is so hard to understand? Your hesitation just proves how foolish you are.
You are the only one who has accepted the religion of atheism. I am not a member of any religion.
There is only one God.
I am sorry to see that your chosen path has made you so susceptible to being controlled by anger. Your arguments will get nowhere unless you learn to control your consuming anger.
"I am sorry to see that your chosen path has made you so susceptible to being controlled by anger."
Wrong again. I'm blunt because I know for a fact that you believe in fairy tales. People like you have no argument other than the sickeningly arrogant attitude you have displayed here.
Your belief in this fairy tale is so strong you cant see how wrong you are.
yet another point presented for the dysteleological argument.
daemonowner 1 year ago
If you wanna know what toes are for ask a person without arms.
Anyway, toes play an important role in balance.
vlasevmovement 1 year ago
@vlasevmovement They do.play a role in balance, but not the space in between - just the bone/muscle structure. The number of people without arms is very tiny and very few of them learn to control their toes with any dexterity comparable with fingers. Meanwhile that space in between is a fertile place for fungi to grow. It isn't that they are an impediment, but that the design is suboptimal. Not totally stupid, but simply not very intelligent.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
Ты кто?
iambehindthemirror 1 year ago
I think toes make walking easier and more delicate . I magine if we had no toes walking would be difficult . Have u played soccer before ? there are a lot of nerves in your toes to feel the ground under your feet . I think toes are very important .
zolzol7 1 year ago
@zolzol7
You are missing the point. I am not saying toes are useless. I am simply saying that the cavities between them are useless. When you play soccer, you don't play barefoot - you wear socks/shoes that create a layer of "skin" around your toes and fuse them together. What I am saying is we don't use the space in between the toes - and that that space is actually bad: room for athletes foot, etc.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor well, how would you have toes, if you don't have the space between them ?! I think , that's missing the point .
zolzol7 1 year ago
@zolzol7 Simple. Keep the bone structure, keep the flesh, but have the skin that covers the foot just like a sock does. You are still able to do EVERYTHING you do when you do it in socks - which is how you use your feet anyway. Whatever you may loose is outweighed by mitigating the unpleasantness of things like athlete's foot.
vdizhoor 1 year ago
@vdizhoor I'm sorry to say this , but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Why are you wasting your life thinking about things like that ?! Don't waste your time replying either , please go outside !
zolzol7 1 year ago
@zolzol7 :)
vdizhoor 1 year ago
Some people do actually use their toes for typing, grabbing things, and otherwise impractical uses.
But then again, the evidence that toes are useless to us is appearing in a way that completely gets rid of them. We are losing our toes (and pinky fingers apparently) due to micro (which is turning into macro) evolution.
Ryanowning 1 year ago
this always stops at 1:28 and doesnt continue ... -.-
roecla 1 year ago
Toes are actaully helping you to get up from sleeping paralysis.
Horoe 1 year ago
Did you ever hear about Jessica Cox? Now there is a girl who is happy to have distinct digits on her feet.
TOB8907 2 years ago
there is a reason for toes, exactly like hands, just less able.
ZachariasClub 2 years ago
There is no designer. Because God is too much a contradiction.
All powerful and good, yet he creates us to worship him and feed his arrogance.
All knowing, yet he creates the Devil.
All knowing, yet he leaves Adam and Eve to commit sin in the Garden.
ckher777 2 years ago
Intriguing concept.
Just throwing it out there but i use toes to itch the lower half of my body.
Zlangbartels 2 years ago
:) Fare enough, although I doubt you use the space between the toes to do it.
I am only saying that space between the toes is fairly useless while at the same time costing us potential fungal outbreaks and other inconveniences.
Basically you could still scratch with your socks on.
vdizhoor 2 years ago
Toes is super design by creator. We can web it be closing together or use it for jumping or hiking up the hills or mts. Toes is most verstile design of all creations's feet. No toes you fall or lose balance.
JesusChristisSaviour 2 years ago
HEY toes are useful when trying to sneak up on people.......
TimesNuRoman 2 years ago
And men have breasts and nipples. So.. yeah. there yas go. We be animals and reality is OK.
humanman65 2 years ago
This is an excellent video, but keep in mind that there are people that actually use their toes to grab things, type sentences, etc.
Onodera1980 2 years ago
if you want to believe this video go ahead it is your right
Jesusgospel 2 years ago
Well, this video is not actually making any statement to be believed or not believed - its posing a question.
Most importantly, I think you are mistaken that believing something is a matter of preference or choice. Its like saying, if you want to understand the Pythagoras theorem - go ahead. Its not a question of "want". We either get it or we don't. Something either makes sense or it doesn't. Our wishes have nothing to do with it. We can choose to study, but not to learn.
Same with belief.
vdizhoor 2 years ago
very good, and for that matter toe nails,,, really whats the point,, anyone ever had an ingrown toe nail, if we are an intelligent design, why the hell do we need toe nails? very good,, make some more vids
xd1rtx 2 years ago
COOL VID! What I find interesting is that our toes (and fingers) were once fused while in the womb. As our hands and feet develop more fully the webbing between our digits is lost. Other interesting body parts lost during fetal development are our post-anal tails and (here's the kicker) our GILLS. Sky-Daddy sure draws up some funny blueprints!!!
houtexflex 2 years ago
I grab stuff with my feet :P
kaichi23 2 years ago
hey, leave some bananas for us walkers too :)
vdizhoor 2 years ago
Stupid argument for evolution!
acrmcndc 2 years ago
Actually it isn't an argument for evolution.
Its an argument against the design being maximally "intelligent". :)
And it isn't very serious either ;)
vdizhoor 2 years ago
I'm going to super glue my toes together on one foot and spend time walking around and see if there is any noticeable impediment !!
tonythatjesusloves 2 years ago
:) dude, lets not get radical here :).
Just put on shoes and see if you are better off.
Besides, you might get stuck to the floor.
vdizhoor 2 years ago
I never wore shoes when I was little , my parents were sick of me coming home with out them ,naturally id prefer not to wear shoes ,and even when i do there sandals, even in winter , I'm not sure about this theory of yours ???
tonythatjesusloves 2 years ago
Its not so much about preference as it is about necessity. You may not simply like shoes, but the point is that shoes don't interfere with our mobility. It means that the way toes are constructed is largely useless - they can be used with their divisions masked by clothing/footwear and produce the same (if not) better results - reducing damage and heat loss. The aesthetics is secondary.
I am sure we could be designed anything .about us. Heck, our plumbing is next to the recreational area ;)
vdizhoor 2 years ago
I believe the creationists will argue that the fall of man caused toes to appear.
mtanti87 2 years ago
tie your digits together and see how well you perform. bare foot is superiour to shoes when wlaking through a forest, ask africans. study kinesioligy and you will understand how important the unfused toes are to us.
yogaloga 2 years ago
That's a good point if and only if you would like to have your toes fused. And even if we assume that evolution is a valid natural process (which I do), that does not argue against the basis of Intelligent Design. My car was made in an automated factory by robots. Does that really explain how it came into being?
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
Well, its not that I would like them fused, its just that de facto they are fused - most of the time. By shoes. If toes are intelligently design, then we have improved on that design, which begs the question - just how intelligent was it?
And I am not saying that intelligent design isn't part of nature. Plenty of animals design things.
There MAY even have been an intelligent cause of life on Earth. (Although I don't think so) I am only saying that we are a product of evolution, not intelligence
vdizhoor 2 years ago
I wonder the same thing about the vestigial tail and wisdom teeth.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Wow. I skimmed the comments. Did Purushadasa ever say what he is? Is he christian? He said he's a priest but his rude language says otherwise. If he's not a creationist, what is he? How can you say God exists and not be a creationist?
Purushadasa - you come across as a very arrogant person. Someone who's full of themself and is certain that they know what is true and what isn't. Many atheists and theists are just like you. I'm glad I'm not.
Dude - interesting video about toes
Lightmane321 2 years ago
Dude, manners and beliefs are poorly correlated. The vast majority of people on either side of the argument are decent. but those with high tempers are simply more vocal.
Actually many atheists don't know what they are talking about either and their unbelief is often driven more by rebellion and amplified by anger so they can't argue as decent people do.
For every Purush there is an angry atheist.
Sadly, Evolution today is being married to atheism. Personally, I have no beef with faith.
vdizhoor 2 years ago
Maybe YOU don't grab anything using your feet, but you should speak for yourself. PLUS, if we didn't have any toes, we couldn't wear sandles, STUPID!!!! God, you are sooo ignorant and oblivious!
KatRocks333 2 years ago
cont. otherwise humans would have all the traits of all the other creatures... fish, tiger, monkey, dinosaurus, bird (and much much more), would all be in a one perfect creature. and what IS perfect anyway?
urbanguru 2 years ago
cont. forth. if our toes indeed were fused, you would be asking the opposite question, something a la "why didn't god (whoever designed us) separate our toes, it would be much better that way", and then you would find a silly reason for that. fifth. nobody said that humans are a perfect design, they are an INCREDIBLY AND AMAZINGLY GOOD design but FAR from perfect.
urbanguru 2 years ago
But if god is omnipotent, allmighty and allknowing, then why didn't he create us perfect? And he created us in his image? then is god perfect?
bkjbs762 2 years ago
cont. the shoes have actually NOTHING to do with fusing our toes. it would be like saying "you are fusing your hair because you put a hat on your head", silly right? thirdly, when we walk in mud, sand or dry earth for that matter in bare feet, i find it much more beneficial to NOT have my toes fused, the grip is just a lot better like this!
urbanguru 2 years ago
cont. a shoe with toes would just be too much effort for little reward because the differance between fused and non-fused toes on a shoe is too insignificant. it would take much longer time to produce and you would be paying much more money for a very small improvement. secondly, our shoes have much more to do with protecting our feet than with fusing our toes...
urbanguru 2 years ago
the point is, that our toes have no purpose, so we can just put shoes on, if they had purpose, we would have to make shoes in which we can use our toes.
bkjbs762 2 years ago
you couldn't find a better argument against the id theory? (is it mine turn now to find an argument against the evolution theory? i think i would succeed MUCH better than you ;)). humans are not designed for living in water, we are designed for moving on land. our feet are more flexible like this, you can't see that? the reason why WE "fuse" them with socks and shoes is purely because of producing practicalities.
urbanguru 2 years ago
but we would have to protect them anyway, whether we have toes or fused toes, and again, if we really needed toes we would have to make shoes that way. this is no argument at all, and you spent 2 reaction spaces on it? doh!
bkjbs762 2 years ago
this is why toes are shorter and less flexible than fingers. when we were closer related to our primate cousins, we had better adapted feet.
EricZombie 2 years ago
fuse ur toes together and see how well you walk. Individual extremities on our feet help to make us more agile and dexterous. which is one attribute that helps to make us more advanced than the land animals. since we were designed to be the superior creatures on the planet it makes sense
kingblake87 2 years ago
but you DO fuse them together anytime you put on socks or shoes. I am not saying fuse the bones, i mean simply have a single covering of skin that covers the distinct bones and muscles. That would be a better design, since it doesn't affect freedom of movement, but does reduce the surface area and keeps things like athlete's foot from dwelling in the folds.
vdizhoor 2 years ago
At a molecular level, no organism is "ancestral" or "primitive" or "advanced" compared with its relatives There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available a century ago the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.
onBEYONDzero 3 years ago
what did the atheist fish say when it hit an abio-evolutionary wall?................DAMN !!
a dead end is the punch line!of evolution which is a sick joke!
abio-evolution is the idea(atheist religion) of human life reproducing from non living matter!
onBEYONDzero 3 years ago
Actually, I there is nothing in this video about abiogenesis. For all I know God created the ancient microorganisms.
But if Evolution is a sick joke, then so is the Atomic Theory of matter, and so is the General Theory of Relativity - they became mainstream and universally accepted after a lot of initial debate followed by overwhelming corroborating evidence.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the environment has the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat.
onBEYONDzero 3 years ago
The argument isnt that a supreme intelligence designed the perfect being its that he designed a being in his likeness.
If he wanted to design a perfect being we would all have super strength and agility with thick skin and guns fused to our hands.
ScrollMenu 3 years ago
Toes are useful by themselves and I can flex at least two of them individually.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
PS sorry about the tests -- I was having some difficulty getting text to upload.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
The atheist cannot provide scientific facts about God, only unscientific speculation, as he has no access to observational data in God's regard.
For scientifically factual answers to any and all questions about God, please visit my channel, "Purushadasa."
All answers given there are guaranteed to be scientific facts, based 100% on observational data, which is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Parush, we had this conversation before a while ago :)
And I have visited your site.
A word of advice, for what its worth:
If you want to convince someone of your position, it is not enough to simply state that you are "100%" correct and anyone not seeing that is simply a fool, or however delicately you put it.
Any time someone is dealing in absolutes, their conclusions are suspect, because their derivation is nonexistent.
Criticism/test of OWN beliefs is the first step to knowledge.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
"...to simply state that you are 100% correct...."
That's fine, except that I didn't state that. That is your statement, not mine.
Here's another of yours:
"Any time someone is dealing in absolutes...."
The above statement is itself an absolute, so according to you, your own conclusions are suspect. Mine are not, only yours are.
You are the expert on belief here, as you deal 100% in belief; I am the expert on knowledge, as I deal in 100% factual knowledge.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Except that Purushadasa won't give you any answers. He'll just repeat the same empty statements over and over and then get fed up and stop answering. Kind of disappointing really. I'm sure everyone would welcome some interesting scientific evidence for god if it could actually be produced.
Gremlin 3 years ago
Oooh, now you're feeling defeated and bitter due to our recent exchange in which you showed yourself to be a damned fool, and as a result, you're trying to turn the tables and "get my goat." Very transparent! LOL
Fortunately, it's not working!
:::twinkle:::
Purushadasa 3 years ago
sorry puru pal, but its true, you can invent all kinds of faith based evidence that YOU may attribute to the existence of god, but as far as the realm of scientific evidence goes, your shit out of luck. and while that may be a damning characteristic of your argument to those of us who consider science to be the only viable source of truth, your going to have to accept it
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
No.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
no, hm? ah yes i see, thats a very insightful position youve taken. i am now thoroughly convinced that really know what youre talking about
GnomesAmok 2 years ago
Life uses whatever is available. Long ago, in our ancestoral past, toes and fingers were merely the bony ends of splayed pectoral fins, useful for shuffling across sand to escape from watery predators, or look for food or seek mates. Those with the best shuffle, and with air bladders that could exchange oxygen became the parents of all land dwelling quadrupeds.
CHAS1422 3 years ago
Well presented clip. Good work.
mp9yq9tx 3 years ago
funny in its simplicity yet 100% right
good job
solaronzim 3 years ago
I propose an experiment lol.
We need to cut off one's toes, and observe the results.
any volunteers?
Leiflton 3 years ago
For doing the cutting or being cut? :)
vdizhoor 3 years ago
I don't see this video disproving the intelligent design argument at all. This just demonstrates that toes could be evolutionary holdovers. That in itself doesn't mean the designer is incompetent. Maybe in a few thousand years our toes really will fuse together.
So our feet could be in a transition from a past when our toes were opposable and useful, to a future where they will be joined together. That doesn't cast any doubt on intelligent design. Am I wrong?
Taroi1 3 years ago
Boys! Boys! Such name calling is very unbecoming below such a clever video!!
wordavee 3 years ago
Visit my channel, "Purushadasa," for answers to any and all questions about God.
Scientific facts, based on observational data, are guaranteed there, and are also something that the atheist cannot possibly provide in reference to God.
God bless you!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
By the way, Intelligent Design has been dead for years.
watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
If anyone wants to know more, research the Dover Trial.
Great points in this vid, Vdizhoor.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Only a few societies traditionally wore clogs (which are more effective protection against constant immersion in water) or sandals (probably to produce a durable sole for use in rocky environments) and it is only in the last century that boots have increased speeds over going barefoot (in the 19th century there are still reports of runners removing their shoes and people going into combat barefoot).
psilotum10000 3 years ago
So basically you are relatively wide of the mark on the shoe issue. I enjoyed your other videos though. I once saw a list of 50+ design features in the Banana, all of which I am sure you could find other explanations for (either through domestification or structural limits or natural selection). you might have a bit more luck with this.
psilotum10000 3 years ago
OK, point well taken.
I am not saying that toes put us in some sort of disadvantage or that they are a nuisance. And certainly we do the best we can with what we have and we are used to them.
I am just saying that for organs used for walking/running they could have been better designed.
Animals that have been running/walking for a while and that don't use claws have no need for distinct toes and do better without them.
Also, soft soled shoes/sandals don't accommodate individual toes.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Its true that many people walk barefoot.
I mean toes are not so bad that we have to ditch the original design plan no matter what! :)
Its just that every culture that designed shoes (for whatever reasons) didn't seem to care for the toes and ignored their individuality by providing soles that support the whole foot as a single entity.
At the same time, gloves did take care of individual fingers.
Fingers - useful, toes - not really.
But yeah, this clip is more of a random thought. :)
vdizhoor 3 years ago
When walking over complex surfaces (especially barefoot or in a moccasin) the toes do take different loads. So, there may be an *adaptive* reason to have multiple distinct bones along with their associated muscles and ligaments.
Furthermore, I regularly forget that my big toe isn't opposable (with potentially hilarious maladaptive results)...
psilotum10000 3 years ago
Our toes aren't necessarily a major disadvantage for swimming, as the water pressure created during the stroke plugs the gaps fairly well (not having flippers is though).
A lot of human cultures travel barefoot people (eg. India, Bushmen, Aborigines) and many forms of soft soled footwear exist eg. moccasins and traditional Scottish footwear(mainly to act as insulators against cold).
psilotum10000 3 years ago
Have you missed the point of Intelligent Design? Toes are a result of evolution. Evolution orchestrated by a designer! (get it? intelligent design)
Better question you should embrace? How did the eye come about on its own? Two blobs of jelly that work as perfect cameras that record picture 18+hours/day. Cameras which focus themselves (even in the mentally impaired!). Explain how our eyes are a result of an accident. Then you'll have me convinced of your "theory."
mnpwnage 3 years ago
I am glad that you see (no pun intended) that the toes are an indication of evolution.
Every organ in our bodies is a result of a very long process that began a billion years ago.
There are plenty of videos on youtube that illustrate the evolution of the eye.
Toes in humans developed recently. Eyes have developed millions of years ago when life was still in the sea. Many intermediate stages are found in present day mollusks that kept simpler eyes as they were good enough for their survival.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Firstly, thank you for a logical response (one of the first I have received on youtube so far).
I do not (necesarrily) doubt the evolution of the eye; I only question the speed at which it happened. Even a few hundred million years isn't very long for such complex organic processes to evolve. Not to mention the time it took life to come about just to begin with.
To me, the time it took for life to expand, plus develop these advaned cellular and orgnaic strcutures is remarkably short.
mnpwnage 3 years ago
OK, no prob, dude!
I think that questions are very good in principle.
But they usually have some basis.
So is there a particular REASON that makes you "question the speed at which it happened"?
For instance, I could question that the sun is only 90 million km away from the Earth - it could "seem" to me that it is much too close for comfort and "has" to be further away.
But, if our complex brains could have evolved their complexity over a few million years, why couldn't the eye?
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Well the brain leads to even more questions. I'm using the eye as only one example. Looking at the whole human body, even the bodies of simpler creatures, it's a marvel that they could have evolved over such sort time periods.
The main flaw of Darwinism is that it cannot account for the speed at which we have evolved so far.
This is the main purpose I propose a creator involved. Perhaps he didn't only help to guide the process, he also sped it up.
mnpwnage 3 years ago
I understand that you are buffled. I just don't understand why is it that you think a few million years (which is already an unimaginably long time) let alone tens or hundreds of millions of years are TOO short in your opinion.
Why is it that evolution "cannot account for the speed"? Do you have any other objection other than your personal feeling for the times involved (which you keep stressing)? And if not, what is that makes it seem to you that those eons are not enough?
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Sorry, I accidentally pressed "reomve" instead of "reply" :-/.
You were saying something like:
because it took a billion years for life to develop into simple forms and then a half a billion years to develop thinking and blogging.
A valid point, but the crucial difference is that once evolution got to a point of basic multicellular life the sky was the limit and development turned relatively exponential to what it used to be.
Seemingly Major changes (like whale evolution) take only 10s of MY.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Two blobs of jelly? Right. Evolution doesn't say that blobs of jelly jumped together to form an eye. It states that over millions of years, traits that are favorable become selected for in a process known as Natural Selection. So in other words, it took millions of years of trial and error to produce complex organs with special purposes, such as eyes. Better eyes are favorable, so they are selected for by the process.
Read and learn what evolution is before you spout nonsense, please.
Longsday 3 years ago
i use my toes to cuddle with my girlfriends toes. i can grab things from the ground when im too lazy to bend over and grab it with my hands. i run faster the front end of my foot by using my toes. i can turn on the tv using my toes. i believe my toes are very useful.
spapuchi07 3 years ago
thats funny, the human foot is one of the most highly regarded piece of engineering known today. Whether you believe 'toes' to be what they are or what they were, or how this engineering of the foot came to be is more a posture of the heart. Whatever you look for you will find.
djbro16 3 years ago
Hungry: I am not a creationist, you are. You are the one who brought up the subject of creation, I didn't.
He indeed said that toes are a sign of design, and he was correct.
You are saying that God designed toes -- I didn't say that. You are incorrect about that particular activity, but you are correct to admit that God has some activity.
Your final paragraph shows you to be without doubt an utter and complete moron.
Purushadas 3 years ago
Parush, just because you never said "I am a Creationist" doesn't mean you are not one.
And its OK that you are one - this video was made for the likes of you.
You said that it is correct that toes are a sign of design. This means you are a proponent of ID, i.e. a Creationist.
And I never claimed that toes are designed. I only said IF they were THEN that design was not very intelligent. Its a conditional statement.
Misconstruing your opponent's statements is not a useful debate tactic.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
lol
spapuchi07 3 years ago
If you want anyone to believe that you actually think there is no reason why we have toes, then you need to first cut yours off, then get back to us. I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to do that!
Your own ignorance and inability (or unwillingness) to present in your video reasons why we have toes is not evidence that they evolved from ape toes.
On the contrary, the similarities point to the species coming from the same designer, just as various cars also have the same designer.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Haha :)
I've hear this advice from angry creationist like you before, an yes, don't hold your breath :).
You misunderstood - I am not saying they get in our way and should be removed. I am just saying that their design is inefficient and has an element of uselessness to them.
Yes, cars are intelligently designed. The best cars are designed as efficiently as possible.
And if our bodies were designed, then toes are a signature of a second-rate design, that's all. Even WE can detect that flaw.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
And your statement about inability and ignorance made no sense at all. You are probably just being angry suggesting I should go mutilate myself :) and thus make little sense.
I am not here to show evidence for evolution. Biologists do that far better. I am merely showing you a problem with "Intelligent" design..err.. Creationism.
You can call the design of toes "Arbitrary" or "Somewhat Intelligent" - it fails the "Intelligent" standard for mortal men who can see ways it could be improved.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
You call the design of toes arbitrary or somewhat intelligent. Thank you for admitting again that toes are indeed a product of design.
You have no way to improve on the human toe. Imperfect as it is, your feeble little brain can't even produce fungus from under the nail, what to speak of a whole toe.
All this is provided by a superior intelligence, and you foolishly complain about the imperfections, unable to produce anything but sniveling, ridiculous youtube videos. You are pathetic.
Purushadas 3 years ago
I'm not angry, nor am I a creationist: I did not mention creation: you imagined that.
I did not misunderstand. You asked why we have toes, clumsily attempting to imply that they have no use as flimsy "evidence" that we somehow got toes from apes, which is a foolish and ridiculous argument. I shot it down by pointing out how ignorant the statement was by showing plainly that our toes do indeed have many uses. That is why we don't cut them off, as we do cancers and other useless bodily growths.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
lol, you totally ARE a creationist! No need to even mention that word - you are transparent.
And you didn't get it.
vdiz isn't saying toes were designed, he said IF they were designed, they were designed by an entity less intelligent or less caring about his design then people are. Why would God's perfect work be so poorly finished?
If you talk about perfection, then you have to have something to compare with. How do you know God/soul is perfect? Did you ever seen either of these imperfect? :)
HungryCromagnon 3 years ago
All schools of thought accept the human body to be less than perfect, theists and atheists alike. You have shown nothing new to anyone here.
God is perfect, and the soul is perfect. Human toes are imperfect, yes, and the human body is also imperfect. You yourself admit that the toe is a signature of design (second-rate design, to use your exact phrase).
Bravo! I'm glad that you finally understand that the human body is the product of a designer. You are gaining intelligence!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
But didn't God supposedly make man in his own image? Shouldn't we be perfect, if he is? And the fact that we are imperfect would suggest that so is he, and so ... why do you worship him again?
PunkCabaretFTW 3 years ago
Yes, you should be perfect, but your choice to live separately from God has rendered you pitifully imperfect.
Your theories are all unproven, BTW. Until you provide irrefutable proof for your following four beliefs, the point you're impotently attempting to make also remains unproven:
Purushadasa 3 years ago 2
Here are four of your unproven and unscientific beliefs (there may well be others). Until you prove these four points, your attempt to make any kind of point in this regard fails miserably:
Purushadasa 3 years ago 2
1. You haven't proven that God created us in His image; you merely stated your belief that He did.
2. You haven't proven that God is perfect; you merely stated your belief that He is.
3. You haven't proven that the creator of an imperfection is necessarily imperfect also; this remains yet another of your many unproven beliefs.
4. You haven't proven that I "worship" God. I never stated that I do, and you don't know me, so proving that will be an impossible task for you.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Hey again, Parush.
The argument is a conditional one:
IF the creator is a perfect designer of physical bodies, THEN every part of our bodies should be perfectly designed.
I argue that having toes is a suboptimal design, since we ignore the distinctness of toes by wearing socks/shoes.
Thus, either the designer generates imperfect designs or there is no designer,
since natural processes have generated suboptimal designs (i.e. language evolution,
urban sprawl)
vdizhoor 3 years ago
You haven't proven your beliefs that God is a perfect designer, that every part should be perfectly designed in such a case, that having toes is suboptimal, that we ignore distinctiveness, that the designer generates imperfect designs, that there is no designer, or that natural processes have generated suboptimal designs.
You have merely stated all those beliefs and failed to provide proof for any of them, and so any point you attempt to make fails miserably.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
No, no, no.
Perfection is perspectival.
For instance, I may think my husband is the perfect man, but you probably don't.
I think Alan Cumming is a perfect actor. You probably have a different opinion.
I think the perfect God would ACTUALLY be loving, would ACTUALLY be merciful, and would ACTUALLY be moral. But you prefer your God. Ah, well.
PunkCabaretFTW 3 years ago
You've failed to prove your beliefs that perfection is perspectival [sic], that God is loving, that God is merciful, and that God is moral. Until you prove all these beliefs, your attempted point, whatever it may have been, also fails.
You also failed to prove your belief that God is mine. Your belief in this regard is incorrect: in reality, we all belong to Him.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
I actually didn't fail at proving that perfection is perspectival. I gave viable examples.
And I KNOW I failed to prove that God is loving, merciful, and moral. Because the God of the Bible is NONE of those things! At least you grasped that part.
PunkCabaretFTW 3 years ago
Your examples dealt not with perfection, only with your pre-conceived opinion of what perfection entails, and thus proved nothing.
You also failed to prove your belief that God is "of the Bible."
You failed to prove that God is not loving, merciful, and moral. You failed miserably at proving any and all of your silly beliefs in God's regard.
You have only proven yourself 100% ignorant of any and all facts about God, and that your beliefs are all unscientific nonsense. Congratulations!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
So, snakes, worms, and other living things without toes have a different designer? Let me guess, satan.
And comparing cars to living things, saying they have a designer is stupid really. I mean cars don't evolve, they don't reproduce, a living thing can't evolve without reproducing.
overide1234 3 years ago
You say that those animals have a different designer, not me. You admit a designer by that statement. Congratulations!
You see stupidity where it does not exist, because it exists in abundance in your brain. Just as a kindergartener would say that quantum physics is "stupid," you use that word to refer to concepts way beyond your meager level of comprehension.
Living beings don't evolve either. Identical cars are reproduced daily.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
No, you claimed, they have toes do to having a common designer, I asked, not stated, asked, reread the post for the question mark, that if so snakes, worms and other living things that don't have toes, have a different designer?
Cars are made in factors, they are not born through sexual reproduction. You compared a car to a living thing saying, cars look the same do to having a common designer.
overide1234 3 years ago
Cars do look similar (not "the same") due (not "do") to having a common designer. It is the same in the case of living entities.
I never claimed that anyone had toes because of a common designer; that is your claim, not mine.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Sorry, you said the similaries, in those living things is because of them having the same desinger.
You can't compare a living thing to a mechanical object.
overide1234 3 years ago
The body is also a mechanical object, and we are discussing the body, not the living soul.
I am not arguing that the soul is a product of design, so get your mind back on track, if possible.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Who's talking about souls here. I'm talking about living things and mechanical things, which don't reproduce, or mutate.
overide1234 3 years ago
The soul is the only living thing in the body. The body itself has no life independent of the soul.
The body IS what we are discussing, not the soul, and the body IS a mechanical object.
The comparison is not coming from my consciousness; it is intrinsic to the nature of the body.
You are very, very confused.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Listen man, nobody is talking about souls here. I was talking about nonliving things, non organic things, not terminators, or whatev your talking about. A robot cannot reproduce like a living thing.
And you still haven't showed how they have a common designer, because of the similarities(toes), and how non toes things have a different designer.
overide1234 3 years ago
From the first word to the last, your above post makes not so much as a lick of sense.
It seems that conversations with you begin at middling and dwindle down to zero value from there.
Nice chatting, and goodbye.
Scientific facts about God: YT channel "Purushadasa."
Any and all questions submitted there about God will receive scientific answers that are 100% factual and based on observational data.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"observational data."
hahah, that's funny. Seeing has god is invisible.
overide1234 3 years ago
What evidence do you have for your personal belief that God is somehow invisible?
Is this odd belief of yours based on observation, or is it based on a poisoned and overly fertile imagination, completely divorced from scientific observation? It is surely the latter.
In contrast, the factual knowledge that I have on God's appearance is scientifically based on observation.
For answers to any and all questions about God, visit my channel, "Purushadasa."
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Lol, observation? What using our five senses. I mean an atheist can't talk about that would mean, it exists, right?
What are your thoughts on fairies?
overide1234 3 years ago
The above post is 100% nonsensical gibberish.
For factual answers to any and all questions about God, visit my channel, "Purushadasa."
All answers provided there are guaranteed to be 100% scientific, based on observational data.
God bless you!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa? How come you grew an "a" at the end of your name? Or is "Purushadas" someone else? Which one is the real you?
I visited your channel, btw. If you knew what science means, then you would recognize that the "100% guarantee of a scientific answer" is a bit meaningless. Sort of like a 300% accurate mathematical proof. :).
I suggest don't compensate with colorful descriptions of your channel - instead get some real data to back you up.
Good luck!
vdizhoor 3 years ago
You write that
"God's factual existence is more certain than your own. His qualities, characteristics, activities, and energies are infinite and purely spiritual."
It may well be that God exists but to say that his existence is MORE certain than ours is not 100% scientific. Our existence is, to use your terms, is 100% verifiable - you are not debating our existence.
God's existence is a matter of debate and disagreement between cultures and philosophies - that existence is far less certain.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Dear VD:
In fact, God's existence is more certain than your own, as you are 100% existentially dependent on Him, and He is existentially independent.
Since you have no formal education in God's factual qualities, your above posted errors are understandable.
For factual answers to any and all questions about God, please visit me channel, "Purushadasa."
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Either spelling is acceptable, as the word exists in several languages.
I know what real science means, but you do not. You are incorrect: 100% is possible, 300% is not. That is a very impotent comparison you made.
All of the answers about God that I provide are backed up by scientific data based on observation of God. This is something with which the atheist simply cannot compete.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Parush, i DID visit your channel - I guess you skipped over that part. You are mistaken as to what science is. Scientific method rests crucially on falsifiability and repeatability.
You are also very much mistaken on what unbelief is. Atheists simply maintains that there is no compelling evidence of God's existence: no one verifiable saw, touched or smelled any deity. While claims of that evidence exist - the evidence itself does not.
i.e. its up to YOU to show evidence for the God hypothesis.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
The trouble with defining what God is - i.e. the "observational" data is a major hurdle that believers must first overcome.
For instance, your video plays Christian music in the background as you display Hindu iconography. Both of these religions have a vastly different "observation" of God.
If you wish to demonstrate the existence of God, first establish what God is, then show evidence that ONLY makes sense in light of your definition.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
God defines Who He is, not me.
There's only one God, just as the same state provides curricula for first grade and high school, the one and only God provides various scriptures according to the understanding of His devotees. Perfect harmony exists between the various revealed scriptures, just as 1 + 1 still equals two in college, just as much as the day we first learned it.
First grade truths and high school truths are all truths, even if they are different truths. Same with God's scriptures.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
There is no "Hindu" iconography in any of my videos.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
OK, parush, then what is the image at 1:14 into your video? If it is not Hindu, than I stand corrected. My point is that it is not Christian, while a Hallelujah by Handel (a Christian theme) is playing in the background.
This is why I invite you to define what God is, before demonstrating observational evidence of his/hers/theirs existence.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Yes, you stand corrected on many points.
I told you, God defines Who He is, not me.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Not so fast Purush - you smell blood where there is none :). My standing corrected is conditional ONLY on you DEMONSTRATING that I am wrong - not merely CLIMING that I am wrong.
If you demonstrate that it is not a Hindu image at 1:14, ONLY then I will stand corrected on THAT point alone.
You did NOT answer - what is the image at 1:14 of your video? The one with one body and many heads.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
That is an artist's rendering of a description of a manifestation of the Lord that took place before the advent of Hinduism, by an non-Hindu, to another non-Hindu. The description was recorded in a non-Hindu scripture, by yet another non-Hindu, also before the advent of Hinduism.
The words "India," "Hindu," and any and all linguistically related terms appear nowhere in this particular scripture.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
CONCLUSION: There is no "Hindu" iconography in any of my videos. I produced them, and I am an accomplished expert on iconography: I know better than anyone what's there and what is not, and under which category any given icon stands.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Dude.
Last time I checked, the Maha Mantra is definitely part of the Hindu tradition. No matter how much you want to dissociate from Hinduism, the fact remains that your own video mixes Krishna/Hindu related imagery with Christian hymns that aspire to contradictory description of God.
If both Handel and the painter of Krishna WERE devotees, than the nature of God revealed to them was CONTRADICTORY (hence not 100% scientific, as you like to put it)
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Nope. You cannot name any scripture of Hindu origin wherein the mahamantra can be found. You are a layman; I am a priest. You are quite simply incorrect.
There is no Hindu imagery whatsoever in any of my videos, nor are there any Christian hymns, nor do they contain any contradictory description of God.
The only contradiction here exists in your consciousness, but you have failed at your attempt to project it into my videos.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purush, the POINT is that your image is that of Krishna, while the backround music is written by Handel - a devout Christian. So even both the artist and musicians were devotees of God, they wouldn't be able to agree on what God is.
But I am wasting my time with you - you will just deny everything, declare I failed and how you are "100% right scientifically", give yourself priestly titles and belittle your debaters.
Whatever gives you your sense of self-importance, man.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
You are unable to agree, because you have no idea who or what God is. That is the nature of the layman, the nature of the atheist. You attempt to project your own personal ignorance and confusion on others, such as Handel, the painter, and me.
There is only one God, and His ability to reconcile concepts that you are unable to reconcile is simply part of His nature. There is no disharmony in Him, only in your consciousness.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 2
You are the only one seeking a sense of self-importance. Remember, I am glorifying God, while you are attempting to glorify only yourself.
The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 does not negate the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, even though they are two different truths. Similarly, the different truths in God's various scriptures do not contradict or negate each other.
The only contradiction is in your conflicted and shattered mind. You are unable to project it, however.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 does not negate the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, even though they are two different truths"
Someone sounds stoned.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Were you unable to comprehend my post?
Purushadasa 3 years ago
This is your personal philosophy, one that many agree with, but it is not evidence - its your interpretation. There is nothing to observe - only to contemplate. There is nothing to repeat, or test or experiment. There is nothing to falsify.
Where does God define who he is? How do you know it wasn't Man that defined him? What is that definition for us?
IF existence of God was AS evident as 1+1 = 2 then belief in God would AS wide spread. It is NOT.
"God" is not an observation. Its a view.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
No. I am relating scientific facts, all based on observational data, not opinion. Your statements about God, positive or negative, are 100% unscientific opinion, as you have no access to observational data in His regard.
Your personal lack of access to observational data is insufficient proof of your statement that "there is nothing to observe." That statement is abysmally unscientific.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
God defines His characteristics primarily by revealing them directly to the senses of His devotees and personal associates, secondarily by linguistic expression in sound vibrations produced by Himself and those eyewitnesses, thirdly by disciplic succession, fourthly by the factual conclusions of countless saints, and lastly, by scriptural record.
You have attempted to define Him, but you are incorrect, unscientific, and 100% trumped in your effort by the above superior methods.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"Belief" in God is your purview; mine is factual knowledge.
Only very immature people don't know that 1 + 1 = 2, and their ignorance does not change the fact. The immature also fail to possess accurate knowledge about God, (as you fail), but your failure and theirs also does not change the facts about God and His infinite characteristics and energies.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
You have no access to observational data on God, and so any statements that you may produce about Him, positive or negative, are discounted as 100% unscientific nonsense.
Conversely, theists have access to ample scientific data on God, via the methods I mention above.
Visit my channel for factual answers to any and all questions about God. All answers provided there are 100% guaranteed to be scientific fact, based on observational data, which the atheist can never provide.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Dude, You have NO answers on your channel, no question and "ample scientific data". Provide bring them forth and please stop spamming this channel with endless advertising - we ALL know you made videos - we've seen them.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
You are incorrect.
The many questions and many scientifically factual answers are there on my channel, and plain to see.
Are you blind?
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purush, what knowledge do you posses (that 100% guaranteed scientific knowledge based on your senses that you speak of all the time) of God that I lack?
What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God smell and taste like?
Feel free to share your data and enlighten your ignorant debaters.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
You will submit your questions on my channel, "Purushadasa."
Thank you very much.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
So one must be devoted to God in order to observe him? But before devotion you have to know that the object of your devotion at least exists. Its a catch-22, man. It makes no sense to grant evidence to those that are already devoted. Isn't the point to convince those that do not yet believe?
I think you know this.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
No, your theory that devotion is necessary to observe God is stemming from your own overly fertile imagination, not from observational data, and is therefore unscientific, and it is also definitely incorrect. It is not what I said at all.
Many non-devotees have also seen Him, heard His voice, and touched His body.
Your consciousness has produced your catch-22, but it is your error, not God's, and not mine. Divorce it from your mind and move on.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Yes, your counterfeit theory makes no sense, I grant you that. Now reject it and accept the facts in its stead, as I have done.
Unscientific belief in God is your specialty; factual scientific knowledge is mine.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Look, you YOURSELF said:
"God defines His characteristics primarily by revealing them directly to the senses of His devotees and personal associates"
This is YOUR claim, not mine.
But if you NOW assert that your earlier claim is wrong, than, please present the observational data that defines God and demonstrates his existence.
Your channel does not contain it!
If it does - then what video? At what time?
Be specific.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
That is not "my claim," it is a scientific fact.
Your claim is indeed wrong.
You need to re-read my post wherein I taught you how God reveals His characteristics.
Ask your questions about God on my channel, not here.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
What's wrong with this channel Purush?
And dude, you didn't "teach" me anything. You only demonstrated your affinity for circular reasoning, dismissing opposing points of view without reason and praisingly evaluating the veracity of your own unsupported claims.
vdizhoor 3 years ago
Teaching requires a receptive and intelligent student.
You are the only one using circular reasoning, dismissing opposing points of view without reason, and praisingly evaluating the veracity of your own unsupported claims, not me.
I have access to observational data on God, and you do not. I have stated facts about Him, and you alone have stated unsupported claims about Him.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"You are the only one using circular reasoning, dismissing opposing points of view without reason, and praisingly evaluating the veracity of your own unsupported claims, not me."
Well thats a blatant lie.
Theists all use circular logic. You just told a lie. You are in violation of your own rules.
What a hypocrite.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
First of all, you have not interacted with "all theists," so claiming that they all use circular logic is 100% unscientific.
I have used no circular logic, I told no lies, and I have set no rules. You are quite confused on many points.
You are the hypocrite here, not me.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"God's factual existence is more certain than your own. "
Your videos are laughable, Purushadasa, your theme is a joke, and you lie to my face.
You are a failure.
"I have used no circular logic"
You believe in your god, and you use ancient books to do it. You lie again.
"I told no lies"
You just did it again.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
"and I have set no rules. "
I didn't say you did, but you believe in your Magic Man, and its that Magic Man that set the rules for you.
Dont play dumb, hillbilly.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
Yes, you said that I set rules, and you were wrong on that, just as you have been wrong on everything else.
You are the one who solely refers to your "magic man," and also to "belief," not me, and so it is you, not me, who believes in that, whatever it may be.
I rely on scientific facts, and I leave all unscientific belief and disbelief to you.
I will pray for you!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"Yes, you said that I set rules, and you were wrong on that, just as you have been wrong on everything else."
You set your rules by accepting a religion and the laws set down by that god. You didn't create the rules but you accepted responsibility for them by taking sides with that faith.
What is so hard to understand? Your hesitation just proves how foolish you are.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago
You are the only one who has accepted the religion of atheism. I am not a member of any religion.
There is only one God.
I am sorry to see that your chosen path has made you so susceptible to being controlled by anger. Your arguments will get nowhere unless you learn to control your consuming anger.
God bless you!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"I am sorry to see that your chosen path has made you so susceptible to being controlled by anger."
Wrong again. I'm blunt because I know for a fact that you believe in fairy tales. People like you have no argument other than the sickeningly arrogant attitude you have displayed here.
Your belief in this fairy tale is so strong you cant see how wrong you are.
You are quite deluded.
ThatOneQ 3 years ago