Science unlike religion has no agenda. It finds only truth. Science isn't emotionally attached to the will of idiots. There is no faith in trusting the laws of science. It's a matter of experience and it's called an inference, not faith. Inference is nothing like following the mythologies of faith based documents and ancient pantheons. The tenets of religion are solely based on faith as there is no empirical data to support them.
In a sense the police still do operate under an assumption, and crime certainly implies more than an endless reprieve. You believe in "infallible proof" and so justice likewise. If seeing is believing shouldn't we allow for people who see flashes of God in the same way you see the earth in a picture? No, alone, the way you see your earth is of no consequence to the scientific method, your eyes are of no consequence alone. It selects aspects from the picture, as do the arts.
@mynottwst Depends what you mean by delusional. You diddn't really see it but you saw it, it only existed to you, or it diddn't because it wasn't falsified by a collective? If one day you fell asleep and people shared your dream, and when you awoke, you found yourself alone; which is the dream, which is the truth? How would you tell the difference? As specific as our experiences are, so only I speak for their consummation.
Of course Science is a worldview. It couldn't escape being that once examined. It is the endless reprieve. There is a method, a system in the same sense one differentiates acting from action. There is no way that truly encapsulates action, no action can ever be arrived at twice, observed by the man standing at the edge of time, when it could well be as nothing. In that sense, science is a form of art too, acting in observance under an inextricable first principle of "intend towards an end."
A society where people falsify absolute knowledge with a probability and act into the dark, every instant, as you say "what other choice do we have?" This, Where the collective takes precedence over the individual. An individual can be wrong, a collective can be wrong, but a collective falsified by a collective into the endless reprieve of conviction is necessary. A human soul both guilty and judicious require it and the answer, an infinite reprieve of judgement, as is natural.
@rocketmagnet I read Nietzsche, Voltaire and other philosophers who were dead and had less stake in today's society to coerce me to their way of thinking is how I'd account for your initial accusation. As to the second, I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY it has everything to do with my being superior to you from birth lol.
LOL, if a crime scene happened billions of years ago, they wouldn't say anything conclusively as it regards who or what is responsible. In fact they wouldn't even know about it. But we do know about existence because we can think about it, we can look at ourselves, be aware of ourselves and know that existence exists.
To conclude with such definitive answers to things so uncertain is foolish. Just beacuse existence is so complex and intertwined with itself doesn't mean it happened by chance.
U know you look very smart and yet so lost at the same time, please forgive me if you do take this as an insult but i do not intend to dishearten or insult but im actually commending. Almost everything you said is smart, even the way you communicate it, it shows how knowledgeable you are of your info.. but its accompanied by an unfortunate lack of understanding that everything humans have come to know and understand leads to the existence of GOD."Jehovah" .
@dropthetate how is that true at all? that "lack of understanding" things leads to the fabrication of a god that we look to, to answer questions. way back when, when religions began, they had poor scientific tools and needed answers through the form of a god to control the masses. nowadays more and more scientific evidence is disproving even the slightest possibility of "god" as we view him. there may be something up there in the sky but it ain't god how we see it...
Red shift= major evidence supporting the big bang theory. We can literally see things move away from a central point in space.
Also we have mapped out radiation levels in space that also supports how the radiation is dispersed in space. Look it up because it supports the Big bang theory.
Thanks to science the gaps god can hide in are getting fewer and smaller all the time. In the future god will be left to reside in mythology and it's believers will become irrelevant and simply an amusing remnant of ignorance.
this is a pretty well done response. I've noticed the recent butt hurt spreading amongst the creationists, but to see the amount of likes among the atheist vids it gives me hope.
I'm sorry Rocketmagnet but you clearly dodged all of his questions. I find it funny that Atheists think they are sitting on the throne of reason yet they block every bit of scientific evidence that points to cause and effect. If a scientists research appears to point towards Intelligent Design then we hear that they werent real scientists and their theories are nonsense. Atheist say this without even looking at the research and concidering the implications. If its junk science disprove it!
@rocketmagnet You have a point. He did just ask blank questions without understanding the science behind his questions. I think hes one of those so-called Black Hebrews anyway. Take care.
@rocketmagnet I just wanted you to know Im a seeker of truth so Im not one of those people trying to debate Atheists. I just have questions and I think all the evidence should be concidered. Thanks.
@skeleton481 Scientists and many atheists know when to say "I don't know", something religious people can't and won't.
If god exists in what we cannot explain (yet), and we've figured out to explain much of the observable in the last few centuries, the further we figure things out, the less existing god becomes?
As for his questions, use da fucking google. Not only are these questions of no importance in the god question, we either don't know yet or google could've given the answers.
@skeleton481 Give me three documented examples of science, and by science I mean peer reviewed theories, that support Intelligent Design and I will give you the counter to them, that show how wrong they are thus disproving them. And anything from a Creationist or I.T. 'scientist' whose theories have NEVER appeared in a scientific study are not valid. So in short..... CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
@skeleton481 Intelligent Design HAS been exposed for the pseudoscience that it is. Several times. In numerous courts of law. Your convenient overlooking of that fact aside, intelligent design breaks down when we begin examining the *ahem* detrimental attributes inherited by organisms. Humans have only one tube to share the tasks of breathing and eating, for example. Our eyes are also incapable of seeing the majority of the light spectrum. Is this evidence that our creator is careless or sloppy?
@skeleton481 cool. show me some of the evidence pointing to intelligent design. There is none. Intelligent Design relies on GAPS in evidence for other theories. You move along the theory of evolution and if you find a gap you scream "HA! God fills that gap. Intelligent design is right!". The questions in the first video were incredibly stupid i would not waste my time answering to them either. They are all based on mistakes in logic and understanding of science.
im agnostic because who the fuck really knows. do i believe in the bible,? no do i believe in god? im not sure. do i believe in evolution? yes. to me its common sense. but the fact that we were born from other organisms, and the validity of the big bang theory doesnt defeat the belief in a creator. because no matter what facts you have, whether you believe it or not it always comes down to the same thing. which came first? the chicken or the egg.
@rocketmagnet Now correct me if i am wrong here which i am a christian but proving big bang wrong here. Now you said the big bang THEORY "happened" 13.7 billion years ago. How do u explain a quarsar in NGC 7319 which is 13.9 billion light years away if i am not mistaken. This meaning that the quarsar is NGC 7319 is older than the big bang itself . 2nd if a stars is say 11.9 billion years old so if thats true then the light is already 11.9billion years old so the galaxy is 23.8 billion years old
@blake352 This is a really good question, and the answer is complicated, so I can give you the basics of it but not everything. The basic answer, the universe is expanding. Space/Time itself is moving outward, and what's really hard to get about it is that it is expanding outward faster than the speed of light. This may seem to go against physical law, it is not. Objects cannot move faster than light, but space/time can expand faster than it. This does not violate universal laws.
iF the big bang happened - it would be a miracle and God would have had to do it. If that is the case - there is no explanation to properly define God. It's completely natural that man Would struggle to measure a mind like Gods
great video... the info on retro viruses is indeed very compelling... if you haven't heard, there is also now nylon eating bacteria, pretty compelling too... evolution, once you have a good grasp on the idea of it, makes near perfect sense. fruit trees have worked it out, handing out seeds, in sugar packets......
If you are not offering up any evidence. Why did you make a video. Its basically off opinion and not evidence. And why not answer the questions completely? Wasn't that why the original was made. That makes your video irrelevant therefore further proving his questions. And what evidence points towards the big bang theory. Its just assumption. You basically just proved every question he made to be true. You tried to beat around the bush. It makes no sense. Not trying to offend you.
@Diachi26 No, what I was saying in the video is that this person clearly doesn't want answers. If he wanted answers, a couple of minutes in Google would have provided them. Instead he went to all the effort of making a YouTube video with the real intention of attacking atheists.
He wasn't attacking Atheists, he was trying to open your minds to the possibility of a Creator. The questions are well formed and capable of answering. Also, MOST evidence through science points towards the Big Bang. Einsteins theorems and formulas have the most evidence backing that theory up, hence the nobel prize being awarded for its validity. You should provide proof for your unsubstantiated claims in order to incline us to your reason.
@xChillDude Believers want atheists to have an open mind about the existance of God and yet the religious don't keep an open mind about the possibility that God may not exist. You ask a theist a question that the answer might have them questioning their beliefs and they get defensive and refuse to even consider the question.
Unfortunately, some religious types are only religious by tradition, not by scholarly pursuits. I was an athiest, but never refuted evidence presented for evolution or the steady state theory, I ate up anything that supported the absence of God - this was mostly the case because my life was going down hill, and I needed something to blame it on. It's a long story, and if you want to hear more message me, but I'll leave you with this: There's two foundations for thought in this world.
@xChillDude You ( and /or anyone genuinely interested in objectively looking at things) should check out a vid here on YT entitled " A Universe From Nothing". It's an hour long lecture by an absolutely brilliant Astrophysicist named Lawrence Krause.
@xChillDude He sets up a straw man within the first few questions to as rocket man said "tease out" the possibility of a creator. But the questions themselves ask us to be illogical, to say Y is impossible without X, where X itself is impossible without Y. Why is the idea that the Big Bang any more implausible than God? You have to attribute a creator with various omnis and place it outside the universe to even make it vaguely possible. Whereas the Big bang just happened and can be observed.
Ever considere that we might just have the billions and billions in finance to discover the real answers to the universe if we weren't ploughing it all into helping the victims of religious wars or other acts of barbarism cause by the belief in some god or another.
I wish it was as simple as sharing knowledge. I don't understand what it is that makes people not want to believe in science. It's right there for everyone to see, but some just choose not to see it. It's a real shame. I guess some people are just born to be illogical thinkers, just as some are born with a logical mind. Evolution doesn't care what you believe, just that you procreate, so I doubt it will stop anytime soon.
What a waist of time. You need to unlock you mind and stop watching the bbc and all the atheist propaganda driven scientists they show you. WHO THE FUCK IS DARWIN????
You're not related to chimps!!! Why do we still have chimps?? Aren't we the new chips on the block??? Evolution is such a weak theory that the NWO is benefiting from.
@HARCHER77 dude actually we did not evolve from "chimps" the apes and shit u see around today took a different route. humans evolving from "chimps" or "apes" is a common misconception. but do yourself a favor and research before you comment and make your self look silly on youtube. LMAO @ NWO
@clikityclankz That's the best answer you can give: "...and shit u see around today took a different route." And what is the root of this route? Where did it all start? Explain please?! You use the word "misconception" against others yet the theory you believe in and dedicate your time to is full of "misconceptions. So this universe full of intelligent design, designed itself?? Wow that's something don't you think??
I'll say it again: WAKE UP and stop being a richard dawkins "whore"
@HARCHER77 gimie a break ur over analyzing what i said, wait maybe i didn't read what u said right (cuz im kinda in a rush) but are u trying to sya the universe didn't design itself,u can use that logic dude, if ur gonna play like that then who designed the designer, its just something that we don't get and maybe there is a creator but who said he has to be divine.. to much contradiction in ur "holy scriptures" and i don't even subscribe to Richard dawkins, i don't know what he does so.... yeah
@clikityclankz Why can't he use that logic? What its not fair because its true. And if you believe that energy always existed and can never be created nor destroyed isn't God the same thing? Energy is eternal and was there before the universe was created so wouldn't God have something to do with energy? Thus proving that God is infinite.
@Diachi26 hey, ur comparison to "god" and infinite energy likely to be same thing is cool. but am saying it doesn't mean "god" was responsible. perhaps there is a creator. but i damn well know it's not the god Christians or any other religious people here on earth believe in. im pretty darn smart myself but im sure allot of people on here will be taking good care of you by teaching u a thing or two. any other questions? feel free to ask
@Diachi26 1 more thing most of the time people believe what they believe because what demographic there in, now im jus gonna make a assumption here, forgive if i'm wrong but i'm guessing your Christian. now if you were born in an Islamic nation you would probably be apart of their religion believing what they believe with no one being able to change your mind but you.
@Diachi26 i used to be like you too, stubborn.. no one could tell me there was no god. about 8 months ago . but i started devloping this addiction for science, thus my knowledge growing and as a result of that.took months and months of my religion being eaten away lik many swipes of sand paper but i got there. and eve after reading this , i know this has no effect on you, afterall .. your faith wouldnt be strong if you did...
Darwinian evolution theory, in my opinion, is wrong. How can a species exist ONLY in the north pole, and then be discovered at the south pole? I think more likely, a cyclic series of hyperevolution happening to all organisms simultaneously through galactic superwaves, or accelerated amounts of radiations from Sol. research David Wilcock's work, and see what you believe. Also the big bang is happening eternally and everywhere at the same time right now. the expanding, and collapsing form reality
I dont care if you believe in the big bang or not. What you have to prove is that the big bang was not a part of the creation process. No evidence presented by atheists would cause the question of whether not God exists to come to mind. In every scientific inquiry, a belief is formed and evidence added later. The question was already there in the atheist mind and every discovery of the imagination is touted as evidence. This belief is probably due to some moral indiscretion such as homosexuality
@yetti14d You have no concept of what the scientific method is if you think science forms a belief first and then finds the evidence for it. Sorry, that's what creationists do. Yes, the question is there "how did life evolve, or what is the origin of the universe", but science, unlike lolreligion, doesn't just make shit up like "oh..a magic man in the sky did it...btw, there was a talking snake involved in there somewhere too and a disproven global flood"
It's not so much that I'm so unsure as it is a matter of wanting a "bullet proof story" so to speak. I have an extensive background in investigation that goes back to the Navy days. One of my instructors told me once, "The devil's in the details". I was the only guy he said that to...LOL...I don't like stories with holes. Remember the Lizzy Smart thing? I did some work for AMW on that and the Smarts were Mormon so I ended up studying the Mormon creation story. I'd never heard it before...cont...
Here's something we might agree on: I think Ray Comfort is a Christians 2nd worst enemy and their 3rd worst has to be Kirk Cameron. But...their 1st worst enemy has to be themselves. I just asked a Christian how God could watch people burn in a pit of fire forever just for believing the wrong religion & consider Himself a loving being. Suddenly he changed his mind and told me that God would just, "uncreate them". (long sigh) My friend ignorance can be cured but for stupidity there's little hope.
You're gonna prove God is or ain't with science. Atheists say that science is the reason there's is no God. Christians say God is the reason for science. Maybe you just have to ask yourself some simple questions. Like: Why is man one of the only creatures that doesn't adapt to his environment. The only one with no natural instincts? The only animal that disobeys nature? And the only one that worries about if there's a God or not? That don't prove God but doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm talking about is simple observation. No man in the arctic can live like a polar bear. No matter how long he's there, he always needs to compensate for nature with clothing. The polar bear or penguin does not need anything but nature. In reference to disobeying nature, man is the only creature that makes a conscience decision to go against his conscience. And BTW I got an "F" in Human relations for insisting that man had natural instincts. Professor was atheist!
Evolution takes a little longer than you might think. Humans would adapt to the Arctic if they lived there long enough, and reproductive success was based on the ability to survive as with as little clothing as possible.
But try taking a snail to the Arctic, see if he survives there.
Either your professor is a fool, or you misunderstood eachother, or that's not the whole story.
An F is not a misunderstanding. The whole story: He said that man had NO natural instincts so I asked, what about fear of falling and fear of loud noises. He claimed that was learned in the womb. I said it was not because a new born baby that had never experienced either in the womb would show the same reaction. Everyone in class agreed but I got an F and he justified it by saying that because of that, I had "refused" to learn the basics of human relations. The university over ruled him to a 2.8
@amzuel420 how can somebody possibly say man has no natural instincts? man IS natural instinct....the two words natural instinct are almost synomous with the word existence...
@amzuel420 The reason why humans aren't suited for the Arctic is that we come from Africa and warmer climates. We moved to colder climates and our evolved brains allowed us to create clothing, etc.
Well it looks like we have the final word. Everything I said was wrong? What arrogance. Animals that can't live in the arctic ....don't try living in the arctic. Man is the only one that tries living in an environment that he is incompatible with. Eventually an animal would adapt. A man would not. Do you really think your word alone, writes it in stone? Why don't you use some of your leftover characters to explain a little further?
You don't have to be offended by my words, or lack of them. I don't speak out of arrogance I speak out of reason. If animals try living in the arctic, and are not fit, they die. Same with man. If a man can build a fire or an igloo, then he is fit to live in the arctic. Birds build nests in trees? Does that mean trees are not their natural environment? There is nothing unnatural about technology. Man HAS adapted. And, It was YOUR ego that insinuated my arrogance.
When you make an open ended statement like "Everything you said here is wrong" that seems a little arrogant. You should probably expect someone to wonder why you feel you need to talk to people like that?
Moving on: After 100s of 1000s of yrs, man still needs to wear protective clothing, animals do not. In fact man is the only one who cares that he's naked, the only one concerned with bettering himself, & the only one that's self aware. Things I wonder about when it comes to evolution.
Man doesn't need clothing in his original environment for protection, but we spread to different climes faster than our bodies could evolve, and we dealt with it naturally. Man cares that he's naked only because no one else is. That happens in any social animal. Lots of animals are concerned with bettering themselves, as we can see by males fighting for alpha status in just about every species. Some apes display self awareness by touching marks put on their own face in the mirror.
That's no way to talk to someone who's trying to help you learn. I've assumed nothing. Take what I say with a grain of salt and go check it out if you think I'm wrong. If you're wondering about these things when it comes to evolution, then study. You don't have to wonder and assume, (yes, YOU are the one assuming things). You're letting your ego and world view get in the way of your education.
Did you read the rest of it, or are you just hellbent on being offended? Look through all my posts here. Not once was I trying to be arrogant or offensive toward you, you are misunderstanding my intentions because YOUR EGO IS TAKING OVER YOUR INTELLECT RIGHT NOW. You are the one throwing the insults around. I'm giving you valid information and you're just getting mad at me instead of explaining yourself. We're not even addressing evolution anymore. What do you think of what I said?
":YOUR EGO IS TAKING OVER YOUR INTELLECT RIGHT NOW"
That is an example of the passive aggressive game as though I can't see through it? 1st you throw the insult then you say..."What did I say?" Look dude, I'm not a 12 year old.
But let's try this anyway. Here's my question: In your opinion, how would you say the first official living thing happened. Whether it was a microbe, cell, or whatever, what was the 1st living thing and how did it happen? That's a bigger mystery to me than evolution.
Jesus Christ, I'm not trying to play mind games! I'm not insulting you I'm trying to tell you what I think is going on! I said "what do you THINK OF what I said before, because I was trying to get back on topic. I apologize if you are offended, but get over it.
To answer your question though: The chemistry of Early earth formed the first amino acids, which came together to form the first protiens, which came together to make the first prokaryotic cells, and so on.
The theory is much more detailed of course, and there is a lot of chemistry involved, but the conditions have been replicated in labs, and have produced chemicals which could have been the first building blocks of life. If you want to know more, just look online or read studies on abiogenesis. It's interesting and amazing stuff.
How do YOU think the first life formed on Earth? And what is your take on my earlier response regarding human clothing, nudity, self-advancement, and self-awareness vs. animals?
1st "abiogenesis" is the study of how life on Earth "could have" arisen from inanimate matter"
You see..."could have" is the key phrase here. That's what we're trying to get past. To me, separating abiogenesis from evolution is like trying to figure out "pregnancy" without knowing about "conception", and that's what the whole argument is about...where the 1st speck of life came from. Christians have a magic genie. What do you got?...LOL
Pregnancy and conception are also different things, yet related. I pointed out the differences because I wasn't sure you noticed, but then I saw you did, and deleted the comment. Apparently it didn't work. Forgive me. Are you going to address my other statements regarding human clothing, nudity, self-advancement, and self-awareness vs. animals? Also, I'd like your take on what I said about abiogenesis (amino acids and such). Your last post implies that you haven't read them.
Abiogenesis is defined as, the way life "could have" started. The theory is, single cell prokaryotes were the 1st living things that may have evolved from protobionts. The problem is, it's still a "theory". I already know a 1000 ways life "could have" started. Part of the Annunaki/Sitchen story closely resembles the abiogenesis theory "and" very neatly explains the missing link. You see, I have studied "many" creation and origin of life stories, not just 1 or 2. Some weren't worth much...LOL
On the animals being self aware, fighting for supremacy is not bettering yourself, for the long term, it is simply following what nature dictates. What I'm talking about is never wanting to build a better house or educate themselves beyond nature. You can put clothing on 1000 dogs and my dog will never wonder why he's naked, and I seriously doubt that when he sees his reflection in the mirror that he knows it's him. I've trained dogs for several police departments. I know them pretty well...LOL
What about beavers that build dams in rivers to give them clamer waters to store food and live in? Or a bird building a nest? He's manipulating nature for purposes not intended. You're dog might not know himself in the mirror, but what about the apes I mentioned? Many of them use tools as well. As far as nudity goes, if dogs developed language, and someone told it from birth that public nudity is taboo, then it might respond like a human would, feeling different and embarassed.
Beavers never improved their design. Birds don't strive to build better nests. The nests from 1000s of years ago, are same as today. That includes wasps, bees, ants and all other things I've seen. And, no one has to teach them how to do it. A dog doesn't learn words. He learns "sounds". I say "sit" and he sits. I say, "Tank! Sit down!" The dog only heard anger, and the sound, "sit". Question: Since DNA needs protein, and protein needs DNA, how did they both end up in every living cell?
And what do these differences between animals and humans make you wonder about concerning evolution? Every animal has a different way of adapting. The fact that homo sapiens developed in a different way from (e.g.)dogs is just another example of this. We can't smell like dogs, and they can't think like us. And why is it a problem that it's a theory? No one knows for sure, but which of the 1,000's of theories you've heard seemed the most reasonable to you? I'm still ignorant of your view.
Here's one difference in animals that makes me wonder. Take the lowly woodpecker. Look at the way he is constructed compared to other birds which he is supposed to evolved from. To me it would be like the question of the chicken or the egg first. Trees need woodpeckers and woodpeckers need trees. Yet I'm supposed to believe they both happened by accident? These differences are what makes me doubt the idea of chance creation. My view? I don't know how it happened that's why I'm asking questions.
Good questions. I don't know yet how DNA and protiens came into existence without eachother. That's something I've actually been asking very recently. Maybe they didn't always need to coexist.
You're not "SUPPOSED" to believe anything, but you do have to justify what you DO believe. You use the word "wonder" a lot, without really going into what you believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be using unknowns (at least by you) in nature as evidence of creation by intelligence..?
I would guess that protiens came first, because they don't necessarily need DNA to form. DNA is only needed to replicate protiens, along with enzymes and the right conditions, bits of carbon and such. Very simple protiens might have formed from just amino acids bonding. DNA, I have no idea. Woodpeckers and trees, that's natural selection at work. Trees didn't always need birds, and birds didn't always need trees, but when a certain bird discovers a certain tree, they evolve in parallel.
I studied the Mormon story because I wanted to see if I could find a religious thread to the disappearance. To me the Mormon thing is weird, I don't trust them, and thought at least Elizabeth was involved. I thought the creation story was bullshit but it fascinated me. There was a story of "angels" or "gods" (aliens?) who used DNA and genetics, and etc. which led me to some other stuff like ancient astronauts ufo sightings. I really got me interested in solving this puzzle. That's about it.
I feel like sometimes you gotta forget about the math and try to see what a common, but reasonable person would see. When I apply that to life on earth, I see all of nature working together to sustain the earth and each other without having any awareness of who or what they really are. I see design. And then a self aware man seems to have popped in out of no where. Why don't we have written records from a mere 20,000 years ago? Why the sudden leap in intelligence? Those "details" bother me.
Question: It seems like there should be more fossils. And there seem to be times when the earth gets pelted with meteors. Often meteors explode above the ground instantly devouring all oxygen. Do you think it's possible that could be caused by thermal decomposition? No oxygen, and the right heat can turn a body into methanol and ashes faster than oxygen & flame. Instability and the resulting H2 as a catalyst could cause thermal runaway and basically a domino effect explosion. Body after body.
I don't know much about thermal decomposition, but it makes sense. I know fossils are not formed easily. I wish you would respond to some of MY statements, instead of repeatedly posing new questions. You haven't acknowledged much of what I've said. How would you describe self awareness, and why do you think it only exists in humans? Where do you think our "leap in intelligence" comes from?
Thermal decomposition = something burning with no oxygen. Like the old saying, "Being vaporized"? On the self aware thing: I don't believe animals are self aware. IE: A dog never realizes he's a dog. He never questions his state of being, purpose or existence. I've spent a lot of time studying the psyche of animals, especially dogs since I am a trainer. I can teach a dog to open a door but not how it works. It never occurs to an animal to learn another language. They only learn sounds.
A dogs mind works like ready access memory. They learn but never "realize". Unlike humans animals don't have sex for fun. (none I know of). It is strictly a call of nature. When a dog sees himself in the mirror it never occurs to him that it's him. I can prove that. I have a very sweet, & very smart pit bull who brings a treat to "the dog in the mirror" every day and has no clue why it won't eat...LOL...and never will. Why are animals superior to us in nearly every way except in realizing?
The "leap in intelligence": The oldest written record I know of is about 7000 yrs old. How could we go from cavemen to spacemen in such a short amount of time when for 10s of thousands of years before, it never even occurred to us to develop a written language? But I also consider this: For 5 seconds I can clock a car that takes off and know how fast he'll be going in 30 seconds if things don't change. Is it possible our minds were only going "20 mph" then but now they're going 150 mph? Linear?
You see, I'm not making an argument for or against creation or evolution, I'm just asking questions that neither side seems to want. IE: "Believers" love to use verifiable NDEs as proof of their religion. I'm fascinated..but I'm not convinced because the details of most NDEs vary. However, I "am" convinced of the minds ability to operate outside the body for at least a short time. Maybe it's an indication our minds are growing stronger... or evolving? Do you, consider that being objective?
The invention of language catapaulted human society. Being linear is not a necessary element to evolution. Seems to me like you enjoy asking questions rather than seeking answers, and that was my initial response to your first post. I don't think much of your reasearch follows any scientific method, which explains why some of your questions are inherently flawed and/or vague. Science does want your questions, and have answered many of them. To answer your last question: no.
To me your opinion of "objective" is an oxymoron. Flawed questions? I disagree. One of the things we research is hydroponics growing systems. We worked with some folks at Purdue University on a mushroom/yeast project. I asked "why not grow mushrooms hydroponically". They said "If I had researched, I wouldn't have even asked that "flawed question". Guess what? Out of that question we developed a liquid substrate that colonizes and fruits in a 1/4th time. Sometimes it takes a "flawed question".
What is your OBJECTIVE evidence that convinces you that a mind can be disembodied? I don't think you are using the term "objective" OR "oxymoron" correctly. Your mushroom example does not apply to what we are talking about. Also please give me your thoughts on apes displaying self awareness.
It seems like whatever evidence you give me, I consider it and even research it if I'm not familiar. You just say you're not familiar, and don't even consider it. I've studied 18 different "origins" stories, you've studied maybe 2...And in all this, I'm the one who's not objective. Are you seriously not familiar with "thermal decomposition"? That's 1st year physics. Woodpeckers? 1st year Biology. Apes are high school. I appreciate your time but this is getting monotonous...Gotta run...Peace
I addressed thermal decomposition, and even agreed with you, but you didn't make a point. I addresed woodpeckers, and you didn't acknowledge it. Only now you finally respond to the ape thing with "that's so high school", and nothing more. You are an absent minded bumbling buffoon with no direction in your debate as you ignore my side of the conversation. You jump from topic to topic only dwelling long enough to ask vague, inane questions. I can't judge you're credentials, but this was lame.
I was simply trying to get you to clarify your positions so we could chat about it, and you refused to do so, right up to the time you decided to quit. I am willing to carry on if we can actually bounce ideas and try to get to some pointed discussion.
"You are an absent minded bumbling buffoon with no direction in your debate as you ignore my side of the conversation"
You don't know enough about science to even have a debate. And on top of it all, you're an arrogant prick with nothing to be arrogant about. You don't know the first standards of investigation and research. You can't even define the word, "Objective".
Here's the definition:
"Better to be a wise man acting like a fool, than a fool acting like a wise man".
Every point you've made I've attempted to respond to the best I can. You cannot say you've done the same. You're still doing the same thing and you know it. Are you just fucking with me? How do you expect to have a conversation? Unless you don't want one. You should be walking all over me with your scientific prowess, but you don't present anything substantial, I guess because either you can't or you don't care. Arrogance is not my intention, I'm honestly sorry that is how you perceive me
I know you're reading this! Apes are self aware! They can learn languages, and use them to communicate! They use tools to perform complex tasks, clear evidence of planning for the future, not just doing what nature dictates in the moment! They are bettering themselves and their existence! Beavers are constantly improving the designs of their dams! Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", won a pulitzer! Answers a lot of questions you presented to me! I know you're reading this!
It's true. When there's a leak, they plug it. They include compartments for long term food storage, and redirect the flow of water when the levels drop, or the current shifts. They are incredibly smart, rational, forward thinking animals, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them building more sophisticated structures in a few million years. We all will most likely be extinct in a few hundred BILLION years, however.
No doubt. They started with just a few splinters but ended up getting drowned for millions of years. Then they evolved short walls on their dams. Now look at them! Wow!
No, not really. Beavers obviously can swim. However, almost all of the evolutionary stages of animals that are stated would require that they would die out and hence leave no offspring to 'evolve' in the first place (giraffes, fish going onto land, etc.).
Something else to think about......did fruits and vegetables evolve so that humans and animals could eat and be nourished by them?
What, just because the Bible says that people might notice it's all bollocks, that means that as soon as someone notices it's all bollocks, that proves it's true?
Using your logic, because 1 is true, 2 and 3 must also be true, being part of the same 'true' document. Oh, the following things to the logical conclusion.
@YourDarkAccomplice That doesn't make sense because every religion is different if thats what the other Gods said wouldn't all of our religions be the same? Theres more evidence that Christianity is right more than any other religion because time after time bible prophecy has been fulfilled with 100% accuracy and absolute truth. No other religious book was able to do that. So what makes your atheistic religion right? yes I said religion because you have to have faith that there isn't a God also
@Diachi26 - I'm sorry, I really don't want to be rude, I'll try to say this as kindly as I can: You just spoke straight lies out of your rear. Christianity has been disproven on so many levels, it's ridiculous to even make such a blatant claim such as yours.
If you want more information, PM me. In the mean time, try not to lie, OK?
And if you're not lying on purpose, then wow, I you're heavily brainwashed and cannot be taken seriously by any intellectual even the Israelite don't buy into it.
@HatedChristian Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is a circullar arguement. The only proof outside of the Bible that proves that the Bible is in any way factual is the archalogical(?) evidence that the places actually existed and that some of the people actually existed. There is no way to prove that the things that Jesus was said to have done actually happened. There is no proof from historians of the day those things happened.
Have you ever thought that both of u all may be right? Does a Big bang mean that there is no God, or does it simply show us the method that God choose to create the universe? If all creation was just a result of an explosion billions of years ago then why does everything have its own law that it is govern by. If we weren't designed by a supreme being then some of us would be able to breathe water, bears wouldn't know to hibernate, death might skip some of us. But that never happens.<
"Go and have a look at the evidence yourself, it's easy to find, I'm sure you'll be convinced".
Absolutely Brilliant! though not true, these people have been blinded from birth.
Immakinglovetomusic 1 month ago
Love this response.
moldybakedbeans 2 months ago
@biggypimp
Science unlike religion has no agenda. It finds only truth. Science isn't emotionally attached to the will of idiots. There is no faith in trusting the laws of science. It's a matter of experience and it's called an inference, not faith. Inference is nothing like following the mythologies of faith based documents and ancient pantheons. The tenets of religion are solely based on faith as there is no empirical data to support them.
scotttebben 3 months ago
In a sense the police still do operate under an assumption, and crime certainly implies more than an endless reprieve. You believe in "infallible proof" and so justice likewise. If seeing is believing shouldn't we allow for people who see flashes of God in the same way you see the earth in a picture? No, alone, the way you see your earth is of no consequence to the scientific method, your eyes are of no consequence alone. It selects aspects from the picture, as do the arts.
fredbloggs02 4 months ago
@fredbloggs02 i saw a 5 legged dwarf in my dream last night. Was i delusional or have i seen god?
mynottwst 4 months ago
@mynottwst Depends what you mean by delusional. You diddn't really see it but you saw it, it only existed to you, or it diddn't because it wasn't falsified by a collective? If one day you fell asleep and people shared your dream, and when you awoke, you found yourself alone; which is the dream, which is the truth? How would you tell the difference? As specific as our experiences are, so only I speak for their consummation.
fredbloggs02 4 months ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 4 months ago
Of course Science is a worldview. It couldn't escape being that once examined. It is the endless reprieve. There is a method, a system in the same sense one differentiates acting from action. There is no way that truly encapsulates action, no action can ever be arrived at twice, observed by the man standing at the edge of time, when it could well be as nothing. In that sense, science is a form of art too, acting in observance under an inextricable first principle of "intend towards an end."
fredbloggs02 4 months ago
Comment removed
fredbloggs02 4 months ago
A society where people falsify absolute knowledge with a probability and act into the dark, every instant, as you say "what other choice do we have?" This, Where the collective takes precedence over the individual. An individual can be wrong, a collective can be wrong, but a collective falsified by a collective into the endless reprieve of conviction is necessary. A human soul both guilty and judicious require it and the answer, an infinite reprieve of judgement, as is natural.
fredbloggs02 4 months ago
@fredbloggs02 Oh dear. Did you learn to write like that at art school? Or did you use one of those random bullshit generators?
rocketmagnet 4 months ago
@rocketmagnet I read Nietzsche, Voltaire and other philosophers who were dead and had less stake in today's society to coerce me to their way of thinking is how I'd account for your initial accusation. As to the second, I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY it has everything to do with my being superior to you from birth lol.
fredbloggs02 4 months ago
youtube needed this video.. tnx!
loffaboy 4 months ago
LOL, if a crime scene happened billions of years ago, they wouldn't say anything conclusively as it regards who or what is responsible. In fact they wouldn't even know about it. But we do know about existence because we can think about it, we can look at ourselves, be aware of ourselves and know that existence exists.
To conclude with such definitive answers to things so uncertain is foolish. Just beacuse existence is so complex and intertwined with itself doesn't mean it happened by chance.
NewnotesJR 4 months ago
There is a wonderful Hadron Collider in Europe where scientists are working on simulating the big bang. I HIGHLY recommend you read up on it.
CaptainAwesomeoh13 4 months ago
U know you look very smart and yet so lost at the same time, please forgive me if you do take this as an insult but i do not intend to dishearten or insult but im actually commending. Almost everything you said is smart, even the way you communicate it, it shows how knowledgeable you are of your info.. but its accompanied by an unfortunate lack of understanding that everything humans have come to know and understand leads to the existence of GOD."Jehovah" .
dropthetate 5 months ago
@dropthetate how is that true at all? that "lack of understanding" things leads to the fabrication of a god that we look to, to answer questions. way back when, when religions began, they had poor scientific tools and needed answers through the form of a god to control the masses. nowadays more and more scientific evidence is disproving even the slightest possibility of "god" as we view him. there may be something up there in the sky but it ain't god how we see it...
xXTCM13Xx 5 months ago 2
It be funny if you people learned the big bang was just another way to explain how God created everything
muntu1221 6 months ago
@muntu1221 But that still doesn't explain what created god.
rocketmagnet 6 months ago
@rocketmagnet God is a timeless being. As for matter creating itself makes no since
muntu1221 6 months ago
@muntu1221 God being timeless makes no more SENSE that matter creating itself.
rocketmagnet 6 months ago
@rocketmagnet Yes it does
muntu1221 6 months ago
@muntu1221 No, because neither you nor anyone else has ever seen god. So saying god is timeless is like saying unicorn fart glitter.
rocketmagnet 6 months ago 2
@rocketmagnet How can you say what I've seen? You don't know me at all
muntu1221 6 months ago
@rocketmagnet neither you not anyone has seen the big bang. so saying the big bang happened is like saying unicorn fart glitter.
Zargogo 5 months ago
@Zargogo Actually, you can see the afterglow of the BB in the cosmic microwave background radiation.
rocketmagnet 5 months ago 2
@rocketmagnet nope, that's what happened after the unicorn farted glitter.
Zargogo 5 months ago
you look like prince william
lolfeg 6 months ago
@lolfeg You can't prove that I'm not.
rocketmagnet 5 months ago
Red shift= major evidence supporting the big bang theory. We can literally see things move away from a central point in space.
Also we have mapped out radiation levels in space that also supports how the radiation is dispersed in space. Look it up because it supports the Big bang theory.
Edyledyl 6 months ago
Great Response bro, really paitent and non judgemental
shandcunt 6 months ago
@shandcunt Thanks!
rocketmagnet 6 months ago
great vid
good answer but you know he's not going to listen.
i learned something though.
thanks
T2469 6 months ago
Thanks to science the gaps god can hide in are getting fewer and smaller all the time. In the future god will be left to reside in mythology and it's believers will become irrelevant and simply an amusing remnant of ignorance.
scotttebben 7 months ago 12
@scotttebben We can only hope.
rocketmagnet 7 months ago
He sort of looks like an anime cartoon, in a good way, cool!
chevon1920 8 months ago
this is a pretty well done response. I've noticed the recent butt hurt spreading amongst the creationists, but to see the amount of likes among the atheist vids it gives me hope.
Sativameister 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DNA is the strongest evidence of Evolution.
rubberbaby00 9 months ago
this is what the idea of god does to people, it makes them un appretiate all the effort it took to get all that amazing information.
loganVt 10 months ago
I'm sorry Rocketmagnet but you clearly dodged all of his questions. I find it funny that Atheists think they are sitting on the throne of reason yet they block every bit of scientific evidence that points to cause and effect. If a scientists research appears to point towards Intelligent Design then we hear that they werent real scientists and their theories are nonsense. Atheist say this without even looking at the research and concidering the implications. If its junk science disprove it!
skeleton481 10 months ago
@skeleton481 I didn't answer his questions because he didn't bother doing the most basic of research.
rocketmagnet 10 months ago 19
@rocketmagnet You have a point. He did just ask blank questions without understanding the science behind his questions. I think hes one of those so-called Black Hebrews anyway. Take care.
skeleton481 10 months ago
@rocketmagnet I just wanted you to know Im a seeker of truth so Im not one of those people trying to debate Atheists. I just have questions and I think all the evidence should be concidered. Thanks.
skeleton481 10 months ago
@skeleton481 Scientists and many atheists know when to say "I don't know", something religious people can't and won't.
If god exists in what we cannot explain (yet), and we've figured out to explain much of the observable in the last few centuries, the further we figure things out, the less existing god becomes?
As for his questions, use da fucking google. Not only are these questions of no importance in the god question, we either don't know yet or google could've given the answers.
enlightendbel 10 months ago
@skeleton481 Give me three documented examples of science, and by science I mean peer reviewed theories, that support Intelligent Design and I will give you the counter to them, that show how wrong they are thus disproving them. And anything from a Creationist or I.T. 'scientist' whose theories have NEVER appeared in a scientific study are not valid. So in short..... CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
redwolf602 9 months ago
@skeleton481 Intelligent Design HAS been exposed for the pseudoscience that it is. Several times. In numerous courts of law. Your convenient overlooking of that fact aside, intelligent design breaks down when we begin examining the *ahem* detrimental attributes inherited by organisms. Humans have only one tube to share the tasks of breathing and eating, for example. Our eyes are also incapable of seeing the majority of the light spectrum. Is this evidence that our creator is careless or sloppy?
TrevorBlack79 9 months ago
@skeleton481 cool. show me some of the evidence pointing to intelligent design. There is none. Intelligent Design relies on GAPS in evidence for other theories. You move along the theory of evolution and if you find a gap you scream "HA! God fills that gap. Intelligent design is right!". The questions in the first video were incredibly stupid i would not waste my time answering to them either. They are all based on mistakes in logic and understanding of science.
muresandani 7 months ago
WHAT A DUMB ASS!
carmel350 10 months ago
I LOL'd
lelouch503 10 months ago
im agnostic because who the fuck really knows. do i believe in the bible,? no do i believe in god? im not sure. do i believe in evolution? yes. to me its common sense. but the fact that we were born from other organisms, and the validity of the big bang theory doesnt defeat the belief in a creator. because no matter what facts you have, whether you believe it or not it always comes down to the same thing. which came first? the chicken or the egg.
DamnSkippyDatPimp 11 months ago
@rocketmagnet Now correct me if i am wrong here which i am a christian but proving big bang wrong here. Now you said the big bang THEORY "happened" 13.7 billion years ago. How do u explain a quarsar in NGC 7319 which is 13.9 billion light years away if i am not mistaken. This meaning that the quarsar is NGC 7319 is older than the big bang itself . 2nd if a stars is say 11.9 billion years old so if thats true then the light is already 11.9billion years old so the galaxy is 23.8 billion years old
blake352 11 months ago
@blake352 This is a really good question, and the answer is complicated, so I can give you the basics of it but not everything. The basic answer, the universe is expanding. Space/Time itself is moving outward, and what's really hard to get about it is that it is expanding outward faster than the speed of light. This may seem to go against physical law, it is not. Objects cannot move faster than light, but space/time can expand faster than it. This does not violate universal laws.
thequixoticman 10 months ago
@thequixoticman Thanks for the explanation
blake352 10 months ago
keyword: theories theories theories theory theory theory.........
Matt2steppinMcGee 1 year ago
iF the big bang happened - it would be a miracle and God would have had to do it. If that is the case - there is no explanation to properly define God. It's completely natural that man Would struggle to measure a mind like Gods
whiteliketar 1 year ago
Awesome video, that stuff about retrovirus's was very well explained. Good job.
EloraSmith 1 year ago
4:24 made me shit my pants! anyways Good argument
Bese3538 1 year ago
@Bese3538 Same, he was quiet so I cranked up my volume and fell off my chair. Owchies :/
ElLiamoDiablo 1 year ago
great video... the info on retro viruses is indeed very compelling... if you haven't heard, there is also now nylon eating bacteria, pretty compelling too... evolution, once you have a good grasp on the idea of it, makes near perfect sense. fruit trees have worked it out, handing out seeds, in sugar packets......
sorry for rambling, and thanks again..
frackcha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
jesus loves you
MissKatRob 1 year ago
If you are not offering up any evidence. Why did you make a video. Its basically off opinion and not evidence. And why not answer the questions completely? Wasn't that why the original was made. That makes your video irrelevant therefore further proving his questions. And what evidence points towards the big bang theory. Its just assumption. You basically just proved every question he made to be true. You tried to beat around the bush. It makes no sense. Not trying to offend you.
Diachi26 1 year ago
@Diachi26 No, what I was saying in the video is that this person clearly doesn't want answers. If he wanted answers, a couple of minutes in Google would have provided them. Instead he went to all the effort of making a YouTube video with the real intention of attacking atheists.
rocketmagnet 1 year ago 4
@rocketmagnet
He wasn't attacking Atheists, he was trying to open your minds to the possibility of a Creator. The questions are well formed and capable of answering. Also, MOST evidence through science points towards the Big Bang. Einsteins theorems and formulas have the most evidence backing that theory up, hence the nobel prize being awarded for its validity. You should provide proof for your unsubstantiated claims in order to incline us to your reason.
xChillDude 1 year ago
@xChillDude Believers want atheists to have an open mind about the existance of God and yet the religious don't keep an open mind about the possibility that God may not exist. You ask a theist a question that the answer might have them questioning their beliefs and they get defensive and refuse to even consider the question.
lautz73 1 year ago
@lautz73
Unfortunately, some religious types are only religious by tradition, not by scholarly pursuits. I was an athiest, but never refuted evidence presented for evolution or the steady state theory, I ate up anything that supported the absence of God - this was mostly the case because my life was going down hill, and I needed something to blame it on. It's a long story, and if you want to hear more message me, but I'll leave you with this: There's two foundations for thought in this world.
xChillDude 1 year ago
@xChillDude You ( and /or anyone genuinely interested in objectively looking at things) should check out a vid here on YT entitled " A Universe From Nothing". It's an hour long lecture by an absolutely brilliant Astrophysicist named Lawrence Krause.
ProtoCosmos 1 year ago
@ProtoCosmos
Thank you ProtoCosmos, I'll take a look at the video.
xChillDude 1 year ago
@xChillDude He sets up a straw man within the first few questions to as rocket man said "tease out" the possibility of a creator. But the questions themselves ask us to be illogical, to say Y is impossible without X, where X itself is impossible without Y. Why is the idea that the Big Bang any more implausible than God? You have to attribute a creator with various omnis and place it outside the universe to even make it vaguely possible. Whereas the Big bang just happened and can be observed.
tty23 11 months ago
@Diachi26 I concur
Matt2steppinMcGee 1 year ago
Good video. I liked your answers.
philnoll 1 year ago
Richard dawkins
thisntchicken 1 year ago
Topic link please cracker.
cosmikz 1 year ago
Ever considere that we might just have the billions and billions in finance to discover the real answers to the universe if we weren't ploughing it all into helping the victims of religious wars or other acts of barbarism cause by the belief in some god or another.
sum1otosh1 1 year ago
I wish it was as simple as sharing knowledge. I don't understand what it is that makes people not want to believe in science. It's right there for everyone to see, but some just choose not to see it. It's a real shame. I guess some people are just born to be illogical thinkers, just as some are born with a logical mind. Evolution doesn't care what you believe, just that you procreate, so I doubt it will stop anytime soon.
thisntchicken 1 year ago
What a waist of time. You need to unlock you mind and stop watching the bbc and all the atheist propaganda driven scientists they show you. WHO THE FUCK IS DARWIN????
You're not related to chimps!!! Why do we still have chimps?? Aren't we the new chips on the block??? Evolution is such a weak theory that the NWO is benefiting from.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
HARCHER77 1 year ago
@HARCHER77 dude actually we did not evolve from "chimps" the apes and shit u see around today took a different route. humans evolving from "chimps" or "apes" is a common misconception. but do yourself a favor and research before you comment and make your self look silly on youtube. LMAO @ NWO
clikityclankz 1 year ago
@clikityclankz That's the best answer you can give: "...and shit u see around today took a different route." And what is the root of this route? Where did it all start? Explain please?! You use the word "misconception" against others yet the theory you believe in and dedicate your time to is full of "misconceptions. So this universe full of intelligent design, designed itself?? Wow that's something don't you think??
I'll say it again: WAKE UP and stop being a richard dawkins "whore"
HARCHER77 1 year ago
@HARCHER77 gimie a break ur over analyzing what i said, wait maybe i didn't read what u said right (cuz im kinda in a rush) but are u trying to sya the universe didn't design itself,u can use that logic dude, if ur gonna play like that then who designed the designer, its just something that we don't get and maybe there is a creator but who said he has to be divine.. to much contradiction in ur "holy scriptures" and i don't even subscribe to Richard dawkins, i don't know what he does so.... yeah
clikityclankz 1 year ago
@clikityclankz You don't know what Dawkins does? Really? And you think I need to research? LMAO at you.
Do yourself a favor and youtube search "who designed the designer by William Lane Craig"
HARCHER77 1 year ago
@clikityclankz Why can't he use that logic? What its not fair because its true. And if you believe that energy always existed and can never be created nor destroyed isn't God the same thing? Energy is eternal and was there before the universe was created so wouldn't God have something to do with energy? Thus proving that God is infinite.
Diachi26 1 year ago
@Diachi26 hey, ur comparison to "god" and infinite energy likely to be same thing is cool. but am saying it doesn't mean "god" was responsible. perhaps there is a creator. but i damn well know it's not the god Christians or any other religious people here on earth believe in. im pretty darn smart myself but im sure allot of people on here will be taking good care of you by teaching u a thing or two. any other questions? feel free to ask
have a good day
clikityclankz 1 year ago
@Diachi26 1 more thing most of the time people believe what they believe because what demographic there in, now im jus gonna make a assumption here, forgive if i'm wrong but i'm guessing your Christian. now if you were born in an Islamic nation you would probably be apart of their religion believing what they believe with no one being able to change your mind but you.
clikityclankz 1 year ago
@Diachi26 i used to be like you too, stubborn.. no one could tell me there was no god. about 8 months ago . but i started devloping this addiction for science, thus my knowledge growing and as a result of that.took months and months of my religion being eaten away lik many swipes of sand paper but i got there. and eve after reading this , i know this has no effect on you, afterall .. your faith wouldnt be strong if you did...
clikityclankz 1 year ago
Darwinian evolution theory, in my opinion, is wrong. How can a species exist ONLY in the north pole, and then be discovered at the south pole? I think more likely, a cyclic series of hyperevolution happening to all organisms simultaneously through galactic superwaves, or accelerated amounts of radiations from Sol. research David Wilcock's work, and see what you believe. Also the big bang is happening eternally and everywhere at the same time right now. the expanding, and collapsing form reality
9innail 1 year ago
What did I miss?
rocketmagnet 1 year ago
ALL of the evidence point towards the big bang? I don't think so.
dogpoop1244 1 year ago
I dont care if you believe in the big bang or not. What you have to prove is that the big bang was not a part of the creation process. No evidence presented by atheists would cause the question of whether not God exists to come to mind. In every scientific inquiry, a belief is formed and evidence added later. The question was already there in the atheist mind and every discovery of the imagination is touted as evidence. This belief is probably due to some moral indiscretion such as homosexuality
yetti14d 1 year ago
@yetti14d You have no concept of what the scientific method is if you think science forms a belief first and then finds the evidence for it. Sorry, that's what creationists do. Yes, the question is there "how did life evolve, or what is the origin of the universe", but science, unlike lolreligion, doesn't just make shit up like "oh..a magic man in the sky did it...btw, there was a talking snake involved in there somewhere too and a disproven global flood"
RockBanned 1 year ago
No fair you have a british accent, that automatically makes what you're saying sound smarter!
RockBanned 1 year ago
It's not so much that I'm so unsure as it is a matter of wanting a "bullet proof story" so to speak. I have an extensive background in investigation that goes back to the Navy days. One of my instructors told me once, "The devil's in the details". I was the only guy he said that to...LOL...I don't like stories with holes. Remember the Lizzy Smart thing? I did some work for AMW on that and the Smarts were Mormon so I ended up studying the Mormon creation story. I'd never heard it before...cont...
amzuel420 2 years ago
Here's something we might agree on: I think Ray Comfort is a Christians 2nd worst enemy and their 3rd worst has to be Kirk Cameron. But...their 1st worst enemy has to be themselves. I just asked a Christian how God could watch people burn in a pit of fire forever just for believing the wrong religion & consider Himself a loving being. Suddenly he changed his mind and told me that God would just, "uncreate them". (long sigh) My friend ignorance can be cured but for stupidity there's little hope.
amzuel420 2 years ago
You're gonna prove God is or ain't with science. Atheists say that science is the reason there's is no God. Christians say God is the reason for science. Maybe you just have to ask yourself some simple questions. Like: Why is man one of the only creatures that doesn't adapt to his environment. The only one with no natural instincts? The only animal that disobeys nature? And the only one that worries about if there's a God or not? That don't prove God but doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
amzuel420 2 years ago
No, science answers those questions that used to be answered "God did it". The more questions we answer, the less we need a god.
Man *does* adapt to his environment. It's just that he's become so good at adapting the environment.
Man *does* have natural instincts. Look at babies for example, they know plenty of tricks straight out of the womb.
What do you mean that "Man disobeys nature" ?
rocketmagnet 2 years ago
Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm talking about is simple observation. No man in the arctic can live like a polar bear. No matter how long he's there, he always needs to compensate for nature with clothing. The polar bear or penguin does not need anything but nature. In reference to disobeying nature, man is the only creature that makes a conscience decision to go against his conscience. And BTW I got an "F" in Human relations for insisting that man had natural instincts. Professor was atheist!
amzuel420 2 years ago
Evolution takes a little longer than you might think. Humans would adapt to the Arctic if they lived there long enough, and reproductive success was based on the ability to survive as with as little clothing as possible.
But try taking a snail to the Arctic, see if he survives there.
Either your professor is a fool, or you misunderstood eachother, or that's not the whole story.
rocketmagnet 2 years ago
An F is not a misunderstanding. The whole story: He said that man had NO natural instincts so I asked, what about fear of falling and fear of loud noises. He claimed that was learned in the womb. I said it was not because a new born baby that had never experienced either in the womb would show the same reaction. Everyone in class agreed but I got an F and he justified it by saying that because of that, I had "refused" to learn the basics of human relations. The university over ruled him to a 2.8
amzuel420 2 years ago
Well then, he's a twat.
rocketmagnet 2 years ago
@amzuel420 how can somebody possibly say man has no natural instincts? man IS natural instinct....the two words natural instinct are almost synomous with the word existence...
glass509 1 year ago
@amzuel420 The reason why humans aren't suited for the Arctic is that we come from Africa and warmer climates. We moved to colder climates and our evolved brains allowed us to create clothing, etc.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned Which came first, the Inuits or the Vikings?
yetti14d 1 year ago
@amzuel420 LOTS of animals can't live in the arctic. Everything you said here is wrong. You have some studying to do.
Visda58 2 years ago
Well it looks like we have the final word. Everything I said was wrong? What arrogance. Animals that can't live in the arctic ....don't try living in the arctic. Man is the only one that tries living in an environment that he is incompatible with. Eventually an animal would adapt. A man would not. Do you really think your word alone, writes it in stone? Why don't you use some of your leftover characters to explain a little further?
amzuel420 2 years ago
You don't have to be offended by my words, or lack of them. I don't speak out of arrogance I speak out of reason. If animals try living in the arctic, and are not fit, they die. Same with man. If a man can build a fire or an igloo, then he is fit to live in the arctic. Birds build nests in trees? Does that mean trees are not their natural environment? There is nothing unnatural about technology. Man HAS adapted. And, It was YOUR ego that insinuated my arrogance.
Visda58 2 years ago
When you make an open ended statement like "Everything you said here is wrong" that seems a little arrogant. You should probably expect someone to wonder why you feel you need to talk to people like that?
Moving on: After 100s of 1000s of yrs, man still needs to wear protective clothing, animals do not. In fact man is the only one who cares that he's naked, the only one concerned with bettering himself, & the only one that's self aware. Things I wonder about when it comes to evolution.
amzuel420 2 years ago
Man doesn't need clothing in his original environment for protection, but we spread to different climes faster than our bodies could evolve, and we dealt with it naturally. Man cares that he's naked only because no one else is. That happens in any social animal. Lots of animals are concerned with bettering themselves, as we can see by males fighting for alpha status in just about every species. Some apes display self awareness by touching marks put on their own face in the mirror.
Visda58 2 years ago
Comment removed
Visda58 2 years ago
So, to sum up: stop wondering and start studying.
Visda58 2 years ago
Funny I was gonna say the same thing to you. To just assume so many things make me think you're not too smart.
amzuel420 2 years ago
That's no way to talk to someone who's trying to help you learn. I've assumed nothing. Take what I say with a grain of salt and go check it out if you think I'm wrong. If you're wondering about these things when it comes to evolution, then study. You don't have to wonder and assume, (yes, YOU are the one assuming things). You're letting your ego and world view get in the way of your education.
Visda58 2 years ago
"That's no way to talk to someone who's trying to help you learn"
Help me learn?...You people never stop do you? What a joke....LOL
amzuel420 2 years ago
Did you read the rest of it, or are you just hellbent on being offended? Look through all my posts here. Not once was I trying to be arrogant or offensive toward you, you are misunderstanding my intentions because YOUR EGO IS TAKING OVER YOUR INTELLECT RIGHT NOW. You are the one throwing the insults around. I'm giving you valid information and you're just getting mad at me instead of explaining yourself. We're not even addressing evolution anymore. What do you think of what I said?
Visda58 2 years ago
":YOUR EGO IS TAKING OVER YOUR INTELLECT RIGHT NOW"
That is an example of the passive aggressive game as though I can't see through it? 1st you throw the insult then you say..."What did I say?" Look dude, I'm not a 12 year old.
But let's try this anyway. Here's my question: In your opinion, how would you say the first official living thing happened. Whether it was a microbe, cell, or whatever, what was the 1st living thing and how did it happen? That's a bigger mystery to me than evolution.
amzuel420 2 years ago
Jesus Christ, I'm not trying to play mind games! I'm not insulting you I'm trying to tell you what I think is going on! I said "what do you THINK OF what I said before, because I was trying to get back on topic. I apologize if you are offended, but get over it.
To answer your question though: The chemistry of Early earth formed the first amino acids, which came together to form the first protiens, which came together to make the first prokaryotic cells, and so on.
Visda58 2 years ago
The theory is much more detailed of course, and there is a lot of chemistry involved, but the conditions have been replicated in labs, and have produced chemicals which could have been the first building blocks of life. If you want to know more, just look online or read studies on abiogenesis. It's interesting and amazing stuff.
Visda58 2 years ago
How do YOU think the first life formed on Earth? And what is your take on my earlier response regarding human clothing, nudity, self-advancement, and self-awareness vs. animals?
Visda58 2 years ago
Comment removed
Visda58 2 years ago
"don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution"
1st "abiogenesis" is the study of how life on Earth "could have" arisen from inanimate matter"
You see..."could have" is the key phrase here. That's what we're trying to get past. To me, separating abiogenesis from evolution is like trying to figure out "pregnancy" without knowing about "conception", and that's what the whole argument is about...where the 1st speck of life came from. Christians have a magic genie. What do you got?...LOL
amzuel420 2 years ago
Pregnancy and conception are also different things, yet related. I pointed out the differences because I wasn't sure you noticed, but then I saw you did, and deleted the comment. Apparently it didn't work. Forgive me. Are you going to address my other statements regarding human clothing, nudity, self-advancement, and self-awareness vs. animals? Also, I'd like your take on what I said about abiogenesis (amino acids and such). Your last post implies that you haven't read them.
Visda58 2 years ago
Abiogenesis is defined as, the way life "could have" started. The theory is, single cell prokaryotes were the 1st living things that may have evolved from protobionts. The problem is, it's still a "theory". I already know a 1000 ways life "could have" started. Part of the Annunaki/Sitchen story closely resembles the abiogenesis theory "and" very neatly explains the missing link. You see, I have studied "many" creation and origin of life stories, not just 1 or 2. Some weren't worth much...LOL
amzuel420 2 years ago
On the animals being self aware, fighting for supremacy is not bettering yourself, for the long term, it is simply following what nature dictates. What I'm talking about is never wanting to build a better house or educate themselves beyond nature. You can put clothing on 1000 dogs and my dog will never wonder why he's naked, and I seriously doubt that when he sees his reflection in the mirror that he knows it's him. I've trained dogs for several police departments. I know them pretty well...LOL
amzuel420 2 years ago
What about beavers that build dams in rivers to give them clamer waters to store food and live in? Or a bird building a nest? He's manipulating nature for purposes not intended. You're dog might not know himself in the mirror, but what about the apes I mentioned? Many of them use tools as well. As far as nudity goes, if dogs developed language, and someone told it from birth that public nudity is taboo, then it might respond like a human would, feeling different and embarassed.
Visda58 2 years ago
Beavers never improved their design. Birds don't strive to build better nests. The nests from 1000s of years ago, are same as today. That includes wasps, bees, ants and all other things I've seen. And, no one has to teach them how to do it. A dog doesn't learn words. He learns "sounds". I say "sit" and he sits. I say, "Tank! Sit down!" The dog only heard anger, and the sound, "sit". Question: Since DNA needs protein, and protein needs DNA, how did they both end up in every living cell?
amzuel420 2 years ago
And what do these differences between animals and humans make you wonder about concerning evolution? Every animal has a different way of adapting. The fact that homo sapiens developed in a different way from (e.g.)dogs is just another example of this. We can't smell like dogs, and they can't think like us. And why is it a problem that it's a theory? No one knows for sure, but which of the 1,000's of theories you've heard seemed the most reasonable to you? I'm still ignorant of your view.
Visda58 2 years ago
Here's one difference in animals that makes me wonder. Take the lowly woodpecker. Look at the way he is constructed compared to other birds which he is supposed to evolved from. To me it would be like the question of the chicken or the egg first. Trees need woodpeckers and woodpeckers need trees. Yet I'm supposed to believe they both happened by accident? These differences are what makes me doubt the idea of chance creation. My view? I don't know how it happened that's why I'm asking questions.
amzuel420 2 years ago
Good questions. I don't know yet how DNA and protiens came into existence without eachother. That's something I've actually been asking very recently. Maybe they didn't always need to coexist.
You're not "SUPPOSED" to believe anything, but you do have to justify what you DO believe. You use the word "wonder" a lot, without really going into what you believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be using unknowns (at least by you) in nature as evidence of creation by intelligence..?
Visda58 2 years ago
I would guess that protiens came first, because they don't necessarily need DNA to form. DNA is only needed to replicate protiens, along with enzymes and the right conditions, bits of carbon and such. Very simple protiens might have formed from just amino acids bonding. DNA, I have no idea. Woodpeckers and trees, that's natural selection at work. Trees didn't always need birds, and birds didn't always need trees, but when a certain bird discovers a certain tree, they evolve in parallel.
Visda58 2 years ago
I studied the Mormon story because I wanted to see if I could find a religious thread to the disappearance. To me the Mormon thing is weird, I don't trust them, and thought at least Elizabeth was involved. I thought the creation story was bullshit but it fascinated me. There was a story of "angels" or "gods" (aliens?) who used DNA and genetics, and etc. which led me to some other stuff like ancient astronauts ufo sightings. I really got me interested in solving this puzzle. That's about it.
amzuel420 2 years ago
I feel like sometimes you gotta forget about the math and try to see what a common, but reasonable person would see. When I apply that to life on earth, I see all of nature working together to sustain the earth and each other without having any awareness of who or what they really are. I see design. And then a self aware man seems to have popped in out of no where. Why don't we have written records from a mere 20,000 years ago? Why the sudden leap in intelligence? Those "details" bother me.
amzuel420 2 years ago
Question: It seems like there should be more fossils. And there seem to be times when the earth gets pelted with meteors. Often meteors explode above the ground instantly devouring all oxygen. Do you think it's possible that could be caused by thermal decomposition? No oxygen, and the right heat can turn a body into methanol and ashes faster than oxygen & flame. Instability and the resulting H2 as a catalyst could cause thermal runaway and basically a domino effect explosion. Body after body.
amzuel420 2 years ago
I don't know much about thermal decomposition, but it makes sense. I know fossils are not formed easily. I wish you would respond to some of MY statements, instead of repeatedly posing new questions. You haven't acknowledged much of what I've said. How would you describe self awareness, and why do you think it only exists in humans? Where do you think our "leap in intelligence" comes from?
Visda58 2 years ago
Thermal decomposition = something burning with no oxygen. Like the old saying, "Being vaporized"? On the self aware thing: I don't believe animals are self aware. IE: A dog never realizes he's a dog. He never questions his state of being, purpose or existence. I've spent a lot of time studying the psyche of animals, especially dogs since I am a trainer. I can teach a dog to open a door but not how it works. It never occurs to an animal to learn another language. They only learn sounds.
amzuel420 2 years ago
A dogs mind works like ready access memory. They learn but never "realize". Unlike humans animals don't have sex for fun. (none I know of). It is strictly a call of nature. When a dog sees himself in the mirror it never occurs to him that it's him. I can prove that. I have a very sweet, & very smart pit bull who brings a treat to "the dog in the mirror" every day and has no clue why it won't eat...LOL...and never will. Why are animals superior to us in nearly every way except in realizing?
amzuel420 2 years ago
The "leap in intelligence": The oldest written record I know of is about 7000 yrs old. How could we go from cavemen to spacemen in such a short amount of time when for 10s of thousands of years before, it never even occurred to us to develop a written language? But I also consider this: For 5 seconds I can clock a car that takes off and know how fast he'll be going in 30 seconds if things don't change. Is it possible our minds were only going "20 mph" then but now they're going 150 mph? Linear?
amzuel420 2 years ago
You see, I'm not making an argument for or against creation or evolution, I'm just asking questions that neither side seems to want. IE: "Believers" love to use verifiable NDEs as proof of their religion. I'm fascinated..but I'm not convinced because the details of most NDEs vary. However, I "am" convinced of the minds ability to operate outside the body for at least a short time. Maybe it's an indication our minds are growing stronger... or evolving? Do you, consider that being objective?
amzuel420 2 years ago
The invention of language catapaulted human society. Being linear is not a necessary element to evolution. Seems to me like you enjoy asking questions rather than seeking answers, and that was my initial response to your first post. I don't think much of your reasearch follows any scientific method, which explains why some of your questions are inherently flawed and/or vague. Science does want your questions, and have answered many of them. To answer your last question: no.
Visda58 2 years ago
To me your opinion of "objective" is an oxymoron. Flawed questions? I disagree. One of the things we research is hydroponics growing systems. We worked with some folks at Purdue University on a mushroom/yeast project. I asked "why not grow mushrooms hydroponically". They said "If I had researched, I wouldn't have even asked that "flawed question". Guess what? Out of that question we developed a liquid substrate that colonizes and fruits in a 1/4th time. Sometimes it takes a "flawed question".
amzuel420 2 years ago
What is your OBJECTIVE evidence that convinces you that a mind can be disembodied? I don't think you are using the term "objective" OR "oxymoron" correctly. Your mushroom example does not apply to what we are talking about. Also please give me your thoughts on apes displaying self awareness.
Visda58 2 years ago
It seems like whatever evidence you give me, I consider it and even research it if I'm not familiar. You just say you're not familiar, and don't even consider it. I've studied 18 different "origins" stories, you've studied maybe 2...And in all this, I'm the one who's not objective. Are you seriously not familiar with "thermal decomposition"? That's 1st year physics. Woodpeckers? 1st year Biology. Apes are high school. I appreciate your time but this is getting monotonous...Gotta run...Peace
amzuel420 2 years ago
I addressed thermal decomposition, and even agreed with you, but you didn't make a point. I addresed woodpeckers, and you didn't acknowledge it. Only now you finally respond to the ape thing with "that's so high school", and nothing more. You are an absent minded bumbling buffoon with no direction in your debate as you ignore my side of the conversation. You jump from topic to topic only dwelling long enough to ask vague, inane questions. I can't judge you're credentials, but this was lame.
Visda58 2 years ago
I was simply trying to get you to clarify your positions so we could chat about it, and you refused to do so, right up to the time you decided to quit. I am willing to carry on if we can actually bounce ideas and try to get to some pointed discussion.
Visda58 2 years ago
"You are an absent minded bumbling buffoon with no direction in your debate as you ignore my side of the conversation"
You don't know enough about science to even have a debate. And on top of it all, you're an arrogant prick with nothing to be arrogant about. You don't know the first standards of investigation and research. You can't even define the word, "Objective".
Here's the definition:
"Better to be a wise man acting like a fool, than a fool acting like a wise man".
Have a nice day.
amzuel420 2 years ago
I'm still willing to talk about it if you are.
Visda58 2 years ago
Every point you've made I've attempted to respond to the best I can. You cannot say you've done the same. You're still doing the same thing and you know it. Are you just fucking with me? How do you expect to have a conversation? Unless you don't want one. You should be walking all over me with your scientific prowess, but you don't present anything substantial, I guess because either you can't or you don't care. Arrogance is not my intention, I'm honestly sorry that is how you perceive me
Visda58 2 years ago
"Better to be a wise man acting like a fool, than a fool acting like a wise man".
If this is not a gross display of arrogance, then I will admit to my own.
Visda58 2 years ago
I'd like to hear about the evidence collected in your objective investigation and research which convinced you that a mind can be disembodied.
Visda58 2 years ago
@Visda58
Yes, me too!
bettySwollox 2 years ago
I don't think we'll be hearing it, but the third party validation is appreciated! At least I got something out of this conversation.
Visda58 2 years ago
I think you are a closet creationist who won't admit it.
Visda58 2 years ago
I know you're reading this! Apes are self aware! They can learn languages, and use them to communicate! They use tools to perform complex tasks, clear evidence of planning for the future, not just doing what nature dictates in the moment! They are bettering themselves and their existence! Beavers are constantly improving the designs of their dams! Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", won a pulitzer! Answers a lot of questions you presented to me! I know you're reading this!
Visda58 2 years ago
"Beavers are constantly improving the designs of their dams!"
Yea, soon they'll be building pyramids! Just give it a few hundred billion years and it will all be possible.
DouglasFresh8181 1 year ago
It's true. When there's a leak, they plug it. They include compartments for long term food storage, and redirect the flow of water when the levels drop, or the current shifts. They are incredibly smart, rational, forward thinking animals, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them building more sophisticated structures in a few million years. We all will most likely be extinct in a few hundred BILLION years, however.
Visda58 1 year ago
No doubt. They started with just a few splinters but ended up getting drowned for millions of years. Then they evolved short walls on their dams. Now look at them! Wow!
DouglasFresh8181 1 year ago
Are you implying that beavers build dams to keep from drowning?
If you have something to say, stop beating around the bush and get to the beaver. Topical pun! ba-DUM crash!
Visda58 1 year ago
No, not really. Beavers obviously can swim. However, almost all of the evolutionary stages of animals that are stated would require that they would die out and hence leave no offspring to 'evolve' in the first place (giraffes, fish going onto land, etc.).
Something else to think about......did fruits and vegetables evolve so that humans and animals could eat and be nourished by them?
DouglasFresh8181 1 year ago
You prove the Bible is TRUE. I find it very Ironic.
Psalm 10:4
The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.
HatedChristian 2 years ago
What, just because the Bible says that people might notice it's all bollocks, that means that as soon as someone notices it's all bollocks, that proves it's true?
rocketmagnet 2 years ago 14
@HatedChristian Just another point. Read this list:
1: A = A
2: Jewish people are evil
3: 2+2 = 7.3
Using your logic, because 1 is true, 2 and 3 must also be true, being part of the same 'true' document. Oh, the following things to the logical conclusion.
stuartp2006 1 year ago
@HatedChristian - Funny. That's exactly what the other True God said... in another country. Why aren't YOU following HIM?! Coward!
Too prideful and too wicked to see the TRUE HUMBLE GOD of another country, eh?
If you think this is not true, then STFU and let others live their lives, too. :P
YourDarkAccomplice 1 year ago
@YourDarkAccomplice That doesn't make sense because every religion is different if thats what the other Gods said wouldn't all of our religions be the same? Theres more evidence that Christianity is right more than any other religion because time after time bible prophecy has been fulfilled with 100% accuracy and absolute truth. No other religious book was able to do that. So what makes your atheistic religion right? yes I said religion because you have to have faith that there isn't a God also
Diachi26 1 year ago
@Diachi26 - I'm sorry, I really don't want to be rude, I'll try to say this as kindly as I can: You just spoke straight lies out of your rear. Christianity has been disproven on so many levels, it's ridiculous to even make such a blatant claim such as yours.
If you want more information, PM me. In the mean time, try not to lie, OK?
And if you're not lying on purpose, then wow, I you're heavily brainwashed and cannot be taken seriously by any intellectual even the Israelite don't buy into it.
YourDarkAccomplice 1 year ago
@HatedChristian then god seems weak. otherwise, he would MAKE everyone think about him. Ridiculous.
MacoutesGabber 1 year ago
@HatedChristian Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is a circullar arguement. The only proof outside of the Bible that proves that the Bible is in any way factual is the archalogical(?) evidence that the places actually existed and that some of the people actually existed. There is no way to prove that the things that Jesus was said to have done actually happened. There is no proof from historians of the day those things happened.
lautz73 1 year ago
crime scenes didnt happen 13.7 billion years ago... lol you sounded smart up until you said that....
Gearsofsnipe44 2 years ago
Have you ever thought that both of u all may be right? Does a Big bang mean that there is no God, or does it simply show us the method that God choose to create the universe? If all creation was just a result of an explosion billions of years ago then why does everything have its own law that it is govern by. If we weren't designed by a supreme being then some of us would be able to breathe water, bears wouldn't know to hibernate, death might skip some of us. But that never happens.<