Religious people seem to believe whatever they prefer to believe, and ignore the fact that the word 'belief' is incompatible with the word 'fact'. Some religious believers demand that life cannot exist on other planets, whilst other religious believers perceive the discovery of extraterrestrial life as proof of god's work. In other words, religion is merely a comfort to believers.
The polar caps on Mars contain water ice as well as CO2 ice ( "dry ice"). Andromeda also mentions the existence of goethite and opal on Mars - both are formed in aqueous environments
Hey all of you evolutionists. Do you know what you are? You are government sheep. The government indoctrinated you and so you remain. You are just a bunch of government patsies. Can't think on your own and to cowardly too fight.
Seriously, I hate creationists. Why can they not just accept the proper evidence instead of spouting absolutely insane claims based on a book written by Ancient men in tents!!!
I like how that one idiot said that a flood could have happened because there is a lot of water here."
Well, unfortunately he is incredibly wrong. I did a quick estimation that it would take 2 billion cubic Km MORE water than the Earth already has to flood the top of Mt Everest. The Earth right now only has around 1.3 billion cubic Km of water.
Where did the EXTRA 2 billion cubic Km of water go in 4,000 years? I call bullshit.
I wouldn't take NASA to serious, NASA is snake oil salesmen. They have sold a scam that they were on the Moon, and they are selling the story that they have landed parachutes on Mars. You have to prove that to me before I buy it.
@johnsenkenn It has been proven. It's impossible to fake the footage, to fake the rock samples, and to keep the USSR silent on what would be a fantastic propaganda coup that they could very easily prove, as they had the capability to track the missing in its entirety, which they did. It would be far easier to send man to the moon than to fake sending man to the moon. Your call, sparky!
"Idiotic Design: Insane Creator." That's the Creation model of The Church of Kali. There is a God and She's completely CRAZY! (Oh, and She can ONLY be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent ONE AT A TIME: If She were all three at once, She couldn't be BENEVOLENT!)
Thanks for sharing making these vids, I've really enjoyed watching them. Quick question though - Why (specifically) is Cydonia retarded? I'm not an expert, but I gather there is some striking geometrey in the arrangement of the Cydonia structures, which at least merits some discussion, no? I'm not a retard/christian, I'm an open minded guy, just seeking some info (which is why I choose to educate myself with vids like this one).
@TheNeognostic It was convincing enough for Nephilimfree to think it was worth basing a video on it. I was going to call him out on the very thing you mentioned, but alas I am blocked.
This CrAP series is amazing. But I find it hard to believe some people--like that creationist doctor--actually believe that. Do they not research it? Or do they not even think it through?
@luv4drums1 Did you noticed the phone number of the skits of the 'doctor'? That is for donations, and I do not doubt that there are enough idiots to fall for that crap and fund them, after all, if you donate to the church, you buy a piece of heaven, right?
There are some cool videos of an annular eclipse on youtube. They will show that the sun and the moon do not match up perfectly as the creationists suggest. Awesome video series btw.
I have a question. How can creationist who take the bible literally even support the notion of the existence of planets when the bible states that the planets are actually fallen angels (i.e. devils) worshiped by the pagens as false gods? ref. Jude 13:b; I Cor. 10:19-21.
@mjh012363 Jude 1:13 (which I admittedly assumed you meant that by "Jude 13:b" since I couldn't find any reference to a "13:b") isn't talking about devils, or demons. It's talking about people who betray God (I.E. "the way of Cain").
However, you're right that the Cor ref does come to the logical conclusion that the planets are actually demons.
@lagurash First when referencing Epistles with just one chapter the 1 is infered in many text and the b refers to the second half of the verse so Jude 13b is Jude 1:13 second half. Second these "people who betray God" were being compared to wandering stars (ie the planets). Stars however were considered to be the angels by the ancient Hebrews thus the "wandering stars" were considered the rebellious angels or demons that followed Lucifer in rebellion since they refuse to stay in position.
@mjh012363 Thanks on the explanation of the ":b". Something new! :)
All I was trying to point out was that the Jude passage wasn't relevant to the point that you were making about the planets were considered wandering stars which were fallen angels. I Cor. made that argument itself pretty decently, and Jude merely adds on that betrayers of God would suffer the same fate as those fallen angels.
Your point was fine, but I just didn't see the relevance of the Jude and Cor references to said point.
Please tell me Professor Giraffenstein is a joke. Please tell me no one is using that as an educational tool. It is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. And oh yeah, its "an" herbivore.
@Blueisalightbulb People manipulate their religion all the time. I'm sure people say "I believe in God but I'm sure God sent out other humans on different planets for us to find and praise The Bible with!"
@DMFmonster : lol I read this and kind of laughed. The thig is theere is no way it can be edited out in the 15th century if it was discovered in the 19th century lol. And another thing : the codex of the "gospel of Mary" was dated to about 500 years after Jesus died. The "gospel of judas" was also written about 200 years after judas himself died. And many other writings are actually MENTIONED in the old and new testaments. Some were just never found.
All of his theories may indeed be proven correct. However, he points towards theologians that, judging by their words, believe that God is not "all powerful". Still, everything this man states can be proven by biblical writings. He points at the "new earth" creationists in error...
Well that's a bitch of a question, and one that I honestly don't know. There are loads of different models regarding abiogenesis and the formation of the first cell, however the majority of scientists agree that the first official cell was a form of prokaryote. TODAY these include Ribosomes, Cytoplasm, DNA (moves freely in the cell), a cell membrane which include's amino acids and polysaccharides, mesosome, plasma membrane, pili, and sometimes flagella.
I have another abiogenesis question for you to answer. According to the current abiogenesis theory or even older theory, what are believed to be the components of the first cell? Of course this is a loaded question, but I assure you it isnt a trap to point out that Theories arent necessarily a lofty proven hypothesis. A brief list will suffice.
There is in fact very little evidence of Moses outside the Bible. There are mentions of him by Artapanus, Strabo and Tactius, however these are several centuries after Moses was said to exist.
The answer to your question is a spark, resembling lightning. However, it wasnt just a mud puddle and life assembled by chance. Its chemistry. If the right chemicals are there, then theres not much stopping life from occurrin. Also quite recently scientists have managed to create RNA in a laboratory. Abiogenesis, is a theory with a lot of holes, but all the time those holes are being filled.
So why have we failed to produce life in the lab? There is a HUGE difference between ammino acids, and life or RNA and life. A perfect example of a THEORY that even the evolutionist has to admit is a far cry from a proven tested hypothesis. If the right chemicals are there there isn't much stopping life from occuring?? Really? That's just stupid. In terms of chemistry, what is the chemical difference between an animal and a freshly dead animal? Its still the same chemicals.
You havent shown any geological evidence, or physical evidence for that matter. You said the fossil record supports the flood. But thats just false. If you knew anything about geology, youd know that mountain grow. The african plate is moving upwards, effectivly creating mountains, like the himalayas.
And Ive read your previous posts, and no, still cant see you giving any secular historical evidence or physical evidence.
Geological evidence: An earth covered in ancient river beds and waterways. Fossils on the top of mountains. Visible layers of strata that are formed from flooding. There's oil, fossils, salt deposits. Boulders displaced miles from their origin.
Physical evidence: Pieces of the Ark. The Shroud of Turin. Pieces of the original cross. Old testament is physical evidence of it's writer Moses.
Secular historical evidence: Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius. What, U forgot?
You still haven't brought up any evidence to support what you say. You say pieces of the ark have been found 'cos some dude found some wood and claimed it to be from Noah's Ark. You say radiometric dating is completely useless which proves you don't understand much about it. You seem think life began only with lightning striking a mud puddle which shows you don't understand abiogenesis. You also state that dating is circular, it isn't.
I HAVE supplied evidence. I didn't make appeals to the Bible, appeals to the vast majority of people who agree with me (like you do, but it's only evolutionists). Citing your un-Americanness. Not lately at least.
Geological evidence. Secular historical evidence. Physical evidence. YOU use evolutionists opinions as your evidence. There is no ACTUALL evidence for evolution. Yes, there are lots of elaborate theories and stories, but nothing empirical. Its only in the textbook.
One question. In the Uray-Miller experiment, what was fired from electrodes and what was it meant to simulate in a prebiodic reducing atmosphere? A one word answer will be fine.
A scientific theory is a system of ideas or statements held as an explenation or account of a group of facts. A hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for known facts. (Oxford dictionary)
This is the theory of Evolution. If there was no evidence, it wouldnt be called a theory.
Quote: "abiogenesis is a THEORY with a lot of holes" The fact is the theory of abiogenesis changes to something different ever couple of years. Be honest and admit that we have no real proven knowledge of how life formed. Far from it. The evolutionist like to sight the strict definition of the word 'theory'. But when it is used for abiogenesis and evolution it is not the kind of theory that has been proven. Its the kind of theory that is gross speculation.
The book of Mathew and Luke state that Jesus must've been born in Bethlehem. But the Gospel of John specifically remarks how he was surprised Jesus didn't come from Bethlehem.
Also, look up Mithras an google or youtube yourself.
Also, the pieces of the Cross. Pieces of wood that are claimed to be the cross. The problem with religious relics is that no one is willing to give them up for testing.
Oh, and yes. People do die for Myths. 9/11. July attack in London. Crusades, Jihads.
Yes yes. More denial. If your going to bring up 9-11 and the Crusades I'm going to bring up Stalin and Hitler and how atheism is the cause of the holacaust. I know its a cheap shot, but if you want to go there...
Died for our sins, but came back to life the following Sunday. Often depicted with a Halo above his head.
Sound just like Jesus.
The Turin Shroud is a fake you plank! It's dated to be less than 1000 years old, the front of it is longer than the back, his head is way to small in comparisson to the resst of his body and thereis evidence to support the theory that Leonardo Da Vinci made it by using a camera obscura. The catholic church just wont let scientist analyse it further.
That date is not reliable via carbon contamination from fire damage. Besides radiometric dating unreliable, or are you ignoring everything I say. The arguing from most brainwashed evolutionists agree doesnt hold any weight with me. Again no evidence to back up what you say. The only thing (again) that you bring to the table: theories, denial or appeals to authority. By the way even secular experts all agree that even if it wasn't Jesus, it is still legitimately SOMEONE who was crucified.
4. The scientists took 4 sample of the Shroud, cleaned it, removed any foreign materials then dated it.
5. When it comes to appeals to authority, of course I do. These people actually study the subject as part of their job. It would be idiotic and arrogant not to at least listen to what they say.
There is evidence that Jesus existed. But there is no evidence that Jesus performed miracles. The Gospels contradict each other loads of times. The story of Jesus is also hardly original, ever heard of Mithras? Born 600Bc on the 25th of December from a virgin mother. Sent to earth as a saviour and to live as a mortal. His birth was attended by shepherds. Had 12 disciples with whom he shared a last meal before dying, this included the symbolic consuming of his flesh and blood. cont.
Where is your evidence?! You just make claims and your evidence is simply "theorys". If you can use a theory as evidence I'm going to use the Bible as evidence. Like your some expert on world floods. The more you try to look smart the more you get owned.
Much archeological evidence shows the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. The many Egyptian documents that Historians have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus. Any external documents regarding Moses are several centuries after his supposed lifetime. Moses is also a prick (Numbers 31:13-18)
Oh and well done in catching me out, i completly forgot that carbon 14 has a half-life of only around 5,700 years so geologists cant use it to judge the age of fossils. Well done indeed.
We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? We should expect that all mountain ranges (being all formed during or immediately after the Flood) should show similar, near equal amounts of erosion. They don't.
@Red: good points. Also, I think we'd expect to see fossils randomly deposited throughout the sediment - amphibians, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, randomly inter-mixed. Also, re the waters receding - where could they recede to?
LOL I love reading your posts. Throwing your two cents in as if you have any authority in the subject of world floods. Typical atheist. Every subject you bullshit like your an expert but you don't know anything. No offence.
Funny how you're completely ignoring everything I say. Typical close minded theist. Not willing to look to anything other than an old faily tale for answers.
If we where to look at the facts and make a decision based on logic, then please tell me where's the logic behind Noah's Ark which you believe in. The only evidence for that is a very old book and the story has many flaws. And of course yo shouldnt believe in everything a science book tells you, Manoichan's basically finished that answer for me. And you cant go around claiming "Evolution is wrong, therefore Creationsm must be true" unless you have evidence to support your theory, or belief.
Noah's Arc has been PROVEN. Not only are there marine fossils on top of mnt. Ararat in Turkey, proving the flood, but also remains of the Arc. The find has the same dimensions as described in the Bible. This is UNDENIABLE physical, testable evidence. Of course we have the Bible, a historical record from God as evidence as well. As far as flaws from the Bible, there aren't any. Youre just talking out your ass. You obviously havent read the Bible.
So,lets just ignore the fact that it would be impossible to flood the earth, and that there's been more than one claim that people have found the Ark. If there was a flood then we would expect to see certain things. We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. The present day land surface would be expected everywhere to show rounding of the land surfaces in the direction the waters receded.
Hoooooooooooooooooooly shit.. I thought you where just a troll but you believe your bullshit. If any book is 'dictating' here, it's your bronze age plagiarism manual called the bible. Yes, there are hundreds of thing science have gotten wrong but unlike your 'infallible' roadblock, science is constantly being updated by CORRECT information. Unstuff your head from your ass and plant your nose in some fucking knowledge.
Enough with the ad homonyms from brainwashed atheists. It must be INCONCEIVABLE to an atheist for someone to have the GUTS to actually QUESTION Darwinism. The atheist believes what ever science dictates. Life didn't poof into existence after lightning striking a mud puddle. Here on YouTube you can't hide behind the constitution or force your views in textbooks. I have a the most valid position, which no one yet can refute. Saying that YOU dont believe in the Bible doesn't count.
you moron Atheism by definition is lack of belief in god AND NOTHING MORE!
You see science is open to corrections, if the god will truly land on earth then it will destroy all religions but so far nothing like that has ever happened
Science is about the truth and nothing but the truth no matter what you believe
Your so hostile towards atheism that it actually shows how weak religion is at excepting new ideas WICH HAVE EVIDENCE
You shouldn't trust anyone to show you where to walk, or what to think. You should think for you self instead. Look at the FACTS and make a decision based on LOGIC. Christianity is called the thinking mans religion for a reason. Don't believe everything a 'science' book dictates to you. Science can never get it story strait. In a hundred years we will look back and laugh at the crazy stuff science thought. Science doesnt prove ANYTHING.
"Christianity is called the thinking mans religion for a reason" thank you. i thought the glass of water on a marsbar would be my biggest laugh of the day but you topped it. christianity, thinking, religion and reason in the same sentence. nuff said really but you make it even better "dont trust what a book tells you"
"look at the facts"
you sir are a lost soul and i regret YEC got their claws into your naive mind while you never had a chance. but atleast you think your going to heaven :)
And the Salem witch trials concluded that people were witches. Just because a judge dictates his opinion on a subject doesn't make it a fact. "Science" dictating what atheists believe doesn't make something a fact either. The only one who is all-knowing is God and therefore The Bible is the only reliable source of knowledge.
@darthhater100: I'll explain further. Evolutionary theory is supported by a preponderance of evidence in biology, geology, physics, chemistry, molecular biology, developmental embryology, virology etc + the Catholic Church + the courts (who analyzed the data and arguments: Salem trials were based on Religious dogma). ID does not even have a theory; there are no papers, no research. re Bible accuracy: what is your opinion on the Gospel of Mary?
All appeals to authority. It doesn't matter what man supports. Evolution was indoctrinated into them. The Bible is MORE supported. Don't just believe everything dictated by science. LOL you sound like your reading from a script. When one side of a story is repeated often enough people believe it. Check out the other side of the facts and think for yourself. I recommend Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort. You can BELIEVE lightning struck a mudpuddle and life formed by chance, but its not science.
@DarthHater100: The Bible is not supported by science at all. I suggest you read up on Archeology and the Bible. Not to mention that the 6000 docs the Bible is founded on contain 10 000s disagreements. Not to mention that the Bible has been edited on numerous occasions. Once again, what do you think about the gospel of Mary? If you truly knew your Bible, you would be able to reply.
I'm the troll? Right. The Bible IS supported by the evidence. The fact is you obviously just know the side of the story taught by liberals and evolutionists. You make old arguments that only a newby would make, not realizing they have all been refuted ages ago. You are clearly fresh off the boat and should really get your head out of the sand and not just believe everything dictated to you. As far as the supposed Gospel of Mary, my Bible has 4 gospels, hand written by the apostles.
Genesis is supported by the fact that we have ALL OF CREATION. For all the people, there is WAY more documentation than any other figures in history. You probably believe that Julius Cesar, and George Washington existed because we know from historical documents they did. What do want, a photo? Its called special pleading. The Abrahamic people had to have descended from someone. Do you think they just decided not to use that persons name and instead, made up "Abraham" in his place?
We know that Moses wrote the Old Testament with help from God, maybe you didnt know that. I know you simply dismiss evidence that comes from the Bible, but this is different. Its not evidence FROM the Bible, the Bible IS the evidence. We know Noahs Arc is true. Pieces of the Ark have been found. The world is covered in geological evidence of a world flood. Where do you think the fossils came from? Billions and billions and blah blah blah, Ive heard it before. Wheres your evidence?
Jesus denial is the newest fad in atheism these days. The evidence for JC is OVERWELMING. Not only do we have the Gospels written by eye witnesses of Jesus life and resurrection, but there are many extra Biblical records as well. Tacitus. Josephus. Suetonius. We know where Jesus walked to his death in Jerusalem. There are pieces of the cross. There is the Shroud of Turin. Do you think people were willing to die for a Myth? They are all just lying? Do you deny that ancient Rome existed?
@Darthhater: The Gospel of Mary was one of 14 books edited OUT of the King James Bible in 1611: There are 155,683 words and over 5,700 verses contained in 168 chapters now missing from the King James translation of the Bible due to the exclusion. This is just ONE example in which the Bible was edited. Why is it you don't know this, given that your argument rests solely on biblical inerrancy?
ps: I notice on your channel you don't subscribe to any religious channels, nor do you fave their videos. Also, judging from the abusive comments you leave on other videos, I conclude you are a troll.
ps: I notice that when you run out of your liberal atheist worldview brainwashing, you run for the hills. All of my posts are in RESPONSE to atheists. I am simply following 1st Peter 3:15 and defending my beliefs. I conclude don't know what your talking about.
Spike Psarris makes my blood boil. What a smug prick. I almost feel like I'm watching fiction when I watch people like that talk. A part of my mind simply can't accept that human beings can be so stupid. Dear Christianity, please go away!
@DarthHater100: MORON: just because so many people believe that stupidity DOES NOT PROVE IT! Science is NOT voted but PROVED! A LIE is a LIE no matter how many idiots believe it and the TRUTH is the TRUTH even if no one believes it. Go back to school, you are too stupid to argue with adults.
To me this whole debate of creationism versus evolutionism is a tempest in a teapot. If a group of Christians wants to rewrite science in order to support their literal interpretation of the Bible, let them try. I think the scientific establishment is strong enough to withstand such a challenge. To those people who insist on debating creationists, give it a rest. The creationists will just use the Bible as their evidence anyway. Let the 2 theories coexist, even if evolution is better.
@gsco82 You're right to think that science is strong enough, within the scientific community. Believe me, from even limited experience I can tell you this sort of debate doesn't exist in the scientific community. Ask someone active, such as Thunderf00t or cdk007 and they'll elaborate further. The problem is that creationists realise they can't stand up to science and instead try to brainwash the public, and in many cases, school students too. The public understanding is being eroded as a result.
Evolutions is not better, it is CORRECT. It is also a scientific, proven, undeniable, observable, definite FACT. Therefore it is STUPID and IGNORANT to let any other opposing and UNPROVEN stupidity coexist with a proven fact. The story is done, we evolved. Learn it and accept the consequences such as GOD DIDN'T CREATE US!
1:35 You shouldn't say that evidence is irrefutable. Evidence isn't irrefutable. It has to be refutable. As an example, Piltdown Man, a hoax that produced evidence, which was refuted by science. All our evidence has to be in principle refutable to be considered, and if it ever is we throw it out.
Compare to creationists, whose evidence is by their own assessment irrefutable. This makes their position on its face invalid.
Wow good stuff AndromedasWake. Now i know that this question is kinda off topic and probably completly trivial but whats with the the Soviet Red and yellow bar and sickle symble at 03:11? Ty and keep up the good work!
I don't understand why they are so bent on disproving the possibility of water on mars. There's water all over the universe. Do creationists think that earth is the only place where water exists in the universe?
How can you say that water is all over the universe. Have you been all over the universe? No. Yet again, another Darwinist is making claims they can't back up. Atheists claim there's no God, but Christians can ACTUALLY BACK IT UP WITH PROOF. Ever hear of the Bible? If not I pity your wilful ignorance.
Spectrography does not say that water is all over the universe. Yet another broad based assumption from and atheist who knows nothing. If you think it does, prove it, name me one, just ONE time that water was discovered with a spectrometer outside of the earth. Didn't think so. Checkmate.
« Spectrography does not say that water is all over the universe »
True. But we have detected water all over the galaxy. And since hydrogen and oxygen are amongst the most common elements, it stands to reason that it's not just this galaxy in which water is a common substance. So we can say with reasonable certitude that water is a very common substance in the universe.
Do you know what spectrometers are? Water can be detected from here on earth. For example, when a comet impacted Jupiter in the 1990's, astronomers were able to detect water in it's atmosphere. In 1997 water was detected in the Orion Nebula.
Actually, I think water was just recently discovered on the moon too. Europa has ice water, comets have water, Titan has water, there are a few exoplanets with water, etc.
No they didn't. Water cant be detected from earth with a spectrometer because of the water in the atmosphere. Heres how atheists think: Oh, oh I see water when point my spectrometer at a nebula in the sky and since I cant think of any other explanation, therefore it is an absolutely proven fact that there is water in the Orion nebula. Or at least until they come out with something else that says the opposite. Then come the excuses. Science doesn't prove anything.
First you say "Science doesn't prove anything?" Then you say "the flood has been proven." lmao, proven with what? Creation 'science'? Surely not, science can't prove anything right?
So you accept a piece of wood on a mountain as proof for a global flood and an arc full of animals (including dinosaurs)? lmao, you're an idiot.
Now, let's have your evidence for the 'Garden of Eden in Iraq'. I really want to hear it, it will be funny. So be a good boy and entertain me.
With science you'll find a tooth of a pig and construct elaborate theories about how this is proof for evolution. The fact is there is no proof for evolution, only theories. As far as proof of the flood, we have the Bible as proof. Finding the remains of Noah's Arc is simply further proof. There isnt enough space here for all the evidence for the Garden. Youll have to Google it yourself. And at least we dont force kids to learn our religion in school like evolutionists do.
The bible is proof? lol, I'm starting to think that you're just doing a parody like edwardcurrent. You're almost TOO funny to be the real thing.
If there isn't enough space for all the evidence for the Garden, then don't post all of the evidence. Just give me an example. You're so much fun to listen too. So be a good little christian boy and entertain me.
Im sorry that you get your worldview from radical liberal science books and internet atheists. America is Christian nation—In God we Trust. Every American has a choice, either the Bible is the true word of God or the universe is an accident and we all came from monkeys. There is an overwhelming agreement that it is true (USA is 93% Christian). And since it's true, it is perfectly reasonable to use it as scientific evidence. Im sorry you disagree, but if you hate America you can leave.
I'm not wasn't asking you to "teach" anything. You said there is evidence that the garden of eden is in Iraq. So I challenged you to provide an example of this 'evidence.' You still haven't been able to do that.
Excuse me sir, but using the number of people who believe in something to judge weather or not it should be considered true is bullocks. If you agree with me: good. If you don't, then realize that worldwide christianity is a minority group, and conclude that it must be wrong for that reason due to your own statement. Also, evolution and christianity don't exclude each other (catholicism generally accepts it). You're also leaving out the large portion of people who believe neither...
So heres how atheists work. First they say "99% of scientists believe in evolution so it must be right", then turn around and say it doesn't matter how many people believe in the Bible. And by the way I said America, the greatest country in the world agrees with me. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, Christianity is the largest religion in the world by population. But just like a typical atheist, you make unfounded claims without even bothering to check if they are true.
Scientists are people who know what they're talking about on specific areas. If most people think shredding is a guitar-technique you need talent for, but 90% of professional guitarists claim that talent is unimportant with shredding, practice is ALL that matters; then I'd go with the guitarists. And the scientists have an even better position on this, as they've got "evidence"...
Also, claiming that America is the greatest country in the world is highly debatable. Also, you just took EVERY form of christianity. To some people, this goes as far as mormons, catholics, jehovas,... Fundamentalist christianity is the form that believes the bible literally. It's considered a typical American phenomenon. In other words: most christians disagree with it. Your specific view on christianity is a needle in the haystack...
I am so sorry that you could not find any plausible arguments to fight back. At the end of the day, you could just use a poor argument like it is written in the Bible to justify your claims. Get some education.
Where are your arguments? Wheres your evidence that there is no God? You cant disprove anything, which is proof in and of itself. Sure I need a certain amount of faith sometimes. But it takes a lot more faith to be atheist. You find some bones in the dirt and say oh, oh, this is proof of evolution. No its not. I have an actual historical record, written by God and I simply have the stronger case. Either I agree with God or I agree with man. Sorry, God wins.
You have an actual historical record written by God? lol, I really hope you're just a troll who's here to mess with people. You can't be serious. You sound like you're doing a parody. If so, then you're brilliant.
Ha. Ha. I'm just a big joke to you right? What about you? Heres you: "Oh oh the only things that exist are what I can see because I'm an atheist." But you didn't see the big bang or monkeys birthing people. And by claiming that there is no God it just takes more faith. You don't have absolute knowledge that there is no God. You just have faith so you can do what you want without guilt or repercussions. Admit it, God has written his moral laws on your heart and you are just in denial.
@DarthHater100: You are a big moron. Monkeys do NOT birth people. LEAN SOMETHING BEFORE YOU MAKE STUPID COMMENTS ABOUT IT! Further, it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove a negative! By that logic WHY don't you believe in Amon Ra? Thor? Tooth Fairy? Can you prove these fairytale characters do not exist? The probability of god existing is EQUAL to the probability of any of the other made up characters existing... Start thinking!
"You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can't make him think."
That's the title of ray comfort's book. I'm pretty sure that DarthHater100 is just making fun of creationists, and messing with people. There' s NO WAY he's serious.
This is no parody. Out here in the real world, in REALITY, atheists are the minority and they are the fools. The fact is, Dr. Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort can prove GOD's creation science just as well as any "scientist" can prove atheist science. There is an explanation for every piece of supposed evidence for evolution. There IS no evidence for evolution. There isnt a single peace of evidence for evolution for evolution that I could not easily refute.
Oh dear.....Just shut up, your talking here will make no difference, neither will mine cos obviously your too retarded to even listen or do a research on your own based from this vid and then show us how "right" you were.....
Just go pray or whatever you freaks do,
and dont forget to die while your at it, all you care is about heaven dont you?
Yet again the Bible provides the best answer: The Flood. Noah took the animals on the arch and the remaining animals were covered in sediment. The fossils are proof of the flood and Noah's Arc. If you knew anything about geology or fossils you would know that fossils are dated based on strata, and strata is dated on fossils. Its completely circular. Youre just a brainwashed evolutionist, who believes everything. Maybe you should put some thought into what you believe with blind faith.
Love how you used the flood to explain fossils. Just a few problems with it though. In case you didn't notice people also use radio-isotope dating as well (kinda like carbon dating) to date fossils. Which isn't a completely circular process. And according to your logic, if all the animals died during the flood the all the fossils we find would be of the same age, about 2300 years, And we would see fossils of elephants, lions etc.
Evolutionists love carbon dating. You can easily make it fit what ever timeline you desire. Here's the flaw: even though you can calculate the half-life, you DO NOT know how much of the radioisotope you had to start with. You can pick and chose whatever point you want and CLAIM that half of the isotope in the sample has decayed. Its completely arbitrary.
Correction: sorry I meant radiometric dating not carbon. There is of course, no carbon in fossils. Other isotopes are used. Why didnt anybody catch me on that? I thought atheists knew EVERYTHING.
Another great vid. Do I detect a big beat theme in the backing tracks?
Huttate1 3 days ago
2:43 possibly the worlds hottest scientist
squizill 4 weeks ago
'What should I tell of the multitude of wild animals. So many species could not have entered Noah’s Arc.'
Journal of Amerigo Vespuchi.
gamesbok 7 months ago
That picture which has The Ghostbusters and Jesus in it - pure poetry man, had me laughing hysterically for quite a while...
theanvilcracks 8 months ago
YEAH DEAL WITH IT
mignik01 9 months ago
Ken Ham is irrefutable evidence of the evolution of neckbeards.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
"No plausible physics? What does that EVEN mean?"
lol you're so annoyed.
Awesome videos man. I haven't watched this series in over a year. Good stuff. :)
Dayoldsushy 9 months ago
absolutely awesome ending.
skydome29 10 months ago
Religious people seem to believe whatever they prefer to believe, and ignore the fact that the word 'belief' is incompatible with the word 'fact'. Some religious believers demand that life cannot exist on other planets, whilst other religious believers perceive the discovery of extraterrestrial life as proof of god's work. In other words, religion is merely a comfort to believers.
clemstevenson 11 months ago 2
The polar caps on Mars contain water ice as well as CO2 ice ( "dry ice"). Andromeda also mentions the existence of goethite and opal on Mars - both are formed in aqueous environments
LoopQuantumGravity1 11 months ago
@thechessstick What's the name of the book that you base all of your scientific and philosophical beliefs on because someone told you to again?
GMH524 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey all of you evolutionists. Do you know what you are? You are government sheep. The government indoctrinated you and so you remain. You are just a bunch of government patsies. Can't think on your own and to cowardly too fight.
thechessstick 1 year ago
9:38 made me ROFL.
Hope you make some new CrAP soon. ^.^
thylings 1 year ago 2
Seriously, I hate creationists. Why can they not just accept the proper evidence instead of spouting absolutely insane claims based on a book written by Ancient men in tents!!!
CRISNCHIPS12398 1 year ago
Epic pic at the end lol keep up the good work
blitz3 1 year ago
Lols nice pic at the end.
615Deathdealer 1 year ago
I like how that one idiot said that a flood could have happened because there is a lot of water here."
Well, unfortunately he is incredibly wrong. I did a quick estimation that it would take 2 billion cubic Km MORE water than the Earth already has to flood the top of Mt Everest. The Earth right now only has around 1.3 billion cubic Km of water.
Where did the EXTRA 2 billion cubic Km of water go in 4,000 years? I call bullshit.
66gt40lm 1 year ago 3
c'mon I like Ghosts of Mars
cowboyx1970 1 year ago
Sexy aliens, yes please!
cerealk53 1 year ago
I wouldn't take NASA to serious, NASA is snake oil salesmen. They have sold a scam that they were on the Moon, and they are selling the story that they have landed parachutes on Mars. You have to prove that to me before I buy it.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn There is no reason why you could not repeat the experiment described here with enough training and access to technology. Enjoy.
/watch?v=0dTATMEJSuQ
lhvinny 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn It has been proven. It's impossible to fake the footage, to fake the rock samples, and to keep the USSR silent on what would be a fantastic propaganda coup that they could very easily prove, as they had the capability to track the missing in its entirety, which they did. It would be far easier to send man to the moon than to fake sending man to the moon. Your call, sparky!
blehblehbleh86 1 year ago
man i liek all those movies about mars
stantheman42069 1 year ago
"Idiotic Design: Insane Creator." That's the Creation model of The Church of Kali. There is a God and She's completely CRAZY! (Oh, and She can ONLY be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent ONE AT A TIME: If She were all three at once, She couldn't be BENEVOLENT!)
ChurchOfKali66619 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing making these vids, I've really enjoyed watching them. Quick question though - Why (specifically) is Cydonia retarded? I'm not an expert, but I gather there is some striking geometrey in the arrangement of the Cydonia structures, which at least merits some discussion, no? I'm not a retard/christian, I'm an open minded guy, just seeking some info (which is why I choose to educate myself with vids like this one).
All the best :)
squidfanny 1 year ago
The only good thing about Red Planet was it's death in my bonfire.
didjabringadidjalong 1 year ago
i just keep thinking how we need to send people to mars for so many reasons when i see this vid
kokofan50 1 year ago
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, is 'Professor Giraffenstein' a serious creationist cartoon, or do I smell a Poe?
I mean, Tyrannosaurus' teeth suggest it was a herbivore...not even Hovind would have pulled that shit on us pre-jailtime...
Right?
TheNeognostic 1 year ago
@TheNeognostic It was convincing enough for Nephilimfree to think it was worth basing a video on it. I was going to call him out on the very thing you mentioned, but alas I am blocked.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny Me too!
Funny how old Nephy does that.
DonEx had it right when he described him as VFX on steroids.
TheNeognostic 1 year ago
LOLOL @ the end
Vostoek 1 year ago
This CrAP series is amazing. But I find it hard to believe some people--like that creationist doctor--actually believe that. Do they not research it? Or do they not even think it through?
luv4drums1 1 year ago
@luv4drums1 Did you noticed the phone number of the skits of the 'doctor'? That is for donations, and I do not doubt that there are enough idiots to fall for that crap and fund them, after all, if you donate to the church, you buy a piece of heaven, right?
HeavyPhoton 1 year ago 13
There are some cool videos of an annular eclipse on youtube. They will show that the sun and the moon do not match up perfectly as the creationists suggest. Awesome video series btw.
jay81rd 1 year ago
The glass of water on a mars bar was genius.
MojoPin07 1 year ago 3
I have a question. How can creationist who take the bible literally even support the notion of the existence of planets when the bible states that the planets are actually fallen angels (i.e. devils) worshiped by the pagens as false gods? ref. Jude 13:b; I Cor. 10:19-21.
mjh012363 1 year ago 19
@mjh012363 i think it's, "because shut up"
syth184 1 year ago
@mjh012363 Jude 1:13 (which I admittedly assumed you meant that by "Jude 13:b" since I couldn't find any reference to a "13:b") isn't talking about devils, or demons. It's talking about people who betray God (I.E. "the way of Cain").
However, you're right that the Cor ref does come to the logical conclusion that the planets are actually demons.
lagurash 9 months ago
@lagurash First when referencing Epistles with just one chapter the 1 is infered in many text and the b refers to the second half of the verse so Jude 13b is Jude 1:13 second half. Second these "people who betray God" were being compared to wandering stars (ie the planets). Stars however were considered to be the angels by the ancient Hebrews thus the "wandering stars" were considered the rebellious angels or demons that followed Lucifer in rebellion since they refuse to stay in position.
mjh012363 9 months ago
@mjh012363 Thanks on the explanation of the ":b". Something new! :)
All I was trying to point out was that the Jude passage wasn't relevant to the point that you were making about the planets were considered wandering stars which were fallen angels. I Cor. made that argument itself pretty decently, and Jude merely adds on that betrayers of God would suffer the same fate as those fallen angels.
Your point was fine, but I just didn't see the relevance of the Jude and Cor references to said point.
lagurash 9 months ago
@mjh012363 There's a very simple answer to that argument: almost all creationists have not actually studied or even read the Bible.
myteethareshiny 6 months ago 2
Please tell me Professor Giraffenstein is a joke. Please tell me no one is using that as an educational tool. It is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. And oh yeah, its "an" herbivore.
QuestionMarc 1 year ago
sharp teeth used to shred leaves? you gotta be shittin me !!!!
viking977 1 year ago
FatBoy Slim FTW!!!!!!!!!
stainglassfox 1 year ago
Jennifer Heldmann is hot as!
kirkey99 1 year ago
Can one believe in god and aliens? (I am atheist btw)
Blueisalightbulb 1 year ago
@Blueisalightbulb Sure! (But mostly because people who believe in god make up what ever they want and call it 'spirituality')
stainglassfox 1 year ago
@Blueisalightbulb People manipulate their religion all the time. I'm sure people say "I believe in God but I'm sure God sent out other humans on different planets for us to find and praise The Bible with!"
luv4drums1 1 year ago
"Theologian -- expert of the unknowable." I love it.
pendulousphallus 1 year ago
Loved the water on the mars bar...
TheSaturnalia 1 year ago
The music in the background sounds better than the Creationists talking
Territomauvais 1 year ago
I really liked the ending of Mission to Mars =/
KodierungHerz 1 year ago
You liked Sunshine and not Red Planet? I don't get it.
It was a million times better than Mission to Mars, with it's WORST SCIENTIFIC LINE EVER!!! "that looks like human DNA"
gag me
qtzlctl2012 1 year ago
What is the name of the intro song?
Scotty21x 1 year ago
The giant space duck ate all of the Martians.
:(
patq911 1 year ago
@DMFmonster : lol I read this and kind of laughed. The thig is theere is no way it can be edited out in the 15th century if it was discovered in the 19th century lol. And another thing : the codex of the "gospel of Mary" was dated to about 500 years after Jesus died. The "gospel of judas" was also written about 200 years after judas himself died. And many other writings are actually MENTIONED in the old and new testaments. Some were just never found.
jordankriese 1 year ago
All of his theories may indeed be proven correct. However, he points towards theologians that, judging by their words, believe that God is not "all powerful". Still, everything this man states can be proven by biblical writings. He points at the "new earth" creationists in error...
jordankriese 1 year ago
lol, oxymoron museum and answersinmagic
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
haha... This video is full of shit!!!!!!
jangula343 1 year ago
Carl-Baugh-and-Spike-Psarris-give-eachother-a-handjob debunked. Awesome!
Evilanious 1 year ago
Well that's a bitch of a question, and one that I honestly don't know. There are loads of different models regarding abiogenesis and the formation of the first cell, however the majority of scientists agree that the first official cell was a form of prokaryote. TODAY these include Ribosomes, Cytoplasm, DNA (moves freely in the cell), a cell membrane which include's amino acids and polysaccharides, mesosome, plasma membrane, pili, and sometimes flagella.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Comment removed
DarthHater100 1 year ago
OKAY good answer. Your lucky. I'll be back though
DarthHater100 1 year ago
Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius mention Jesus, but give no indication to his divinity. Josephus work has been argued many times over its authenticity.
Tacticus only mentions Jesus briefly, which is his execution. Its authenticity has also been argued by scholars
Suetonius mentions the word Chrestus, which may or may not be Christ.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
I have another abiogenesis question for you to answer. According to the current abiogenesis theory or even older theory, what are believed to be the components of the first cell? Of course this is a loaded question, but I assure you it isnt a trap to point out that Theories arent necessarily a lofty proven hypothesis. A brief list will suffice.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
There is in fact very little evidence of Moses outside the Bible. There are mentions of him by Artapanus, Strabo and Tactius, however these are several centuries after Moses was said to exist.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
The answer to your question is a spark, resembling lightning. However, it wasnt just a mud puddle and life assembled by chance. Its chemistry. If the right chemicals are there, then theres not much stopping life from occurrin. Also quite recently scientists have managed to create RNA in a laboratory. Abiogenesis, is a theory with a lot of holes, but all the time those holes are being filled.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
So why have we failed to produce life in the lab? There is a HUGE difference between ammino acids, and life or RNA and life. A perfect example of a THEORY that even the evolutionist has to admit is a far cry from a proven tested hypothesis. If the right chemicals are there there isn't much stopping life from occuring?? Really? That's just stupid. In terms of chemistry, what is the chemical difference between an animal and a freshly dead animal? Its still the same chemicals.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
No, you havent won.
You havent shown any geological evidence, or physical evidence for that matter. You said the fossil record supports the flood. But thats just false. If you knew anything about geology, youd know that mountain grow. The african plate is moving upwards, effectivly creating mountains, like the himalayas.
And Ive read your previous posts, and no, still cant see you giving any secular historical evidence or physical evidence.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Just to recap.
Geological evidence: An earth covered in ancient river beds and waterways. Fossils on the top of mountains. Visible layers of strata that are formed from flooding. There's oil, fossils, salt deposits. Boulders displaced miles from their origin.
Physical evidence: Pieces of the Ark. The Shroud of Turin. Pieces of the original cross. Old testament is physical evidence of it's writer Moses.
Secular historical evidence: Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius. What, U forgot?
DarthHater100 1 year ago
Note on your Geological evidence, none of it indicates global flood, some indicates big floods, but none of them global.
Pieces of Ark are CLAIMED to be Pieces of Ark.
Shroud of Turin = fake.
Pieces of the original coss, even if it where true, does not prove anything exept a dude was on a cross 2000 years ago.
Old Testament cannot be taken as evidence due to logical falacies, historic innacuracies and large number of contradictions.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Comment removed
DarthHater100 1 year ago
You still haven't brought up any evidence to support what you say. You say pieces of the ark have been found 'cos some dude found some wood and claimed it to be from Noah's Ark. You say radiometric dating is completely useless which proves you don't understand much about it. You seem think life began only with lightning striking a mud puddle which shows you don't understand abiogenesis. You also state that dating is circular, it isn't.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
I HAVE supplied evidence. I didn't make appeals to the Bible, appeals to the vast majority of people who agree with me (like you do, but it's only evolutionists). Citing your un-Americanness. Not lately at least.
Geological evidence. Secular historical evidence. Physical evidence. YOU use evolutionists opinions as your evidence. There is no ACTUALL evidence for evolution. Yes, there are lots of elaborate theories and stories, but nothing empirical. Its only in the textbook.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
One question. In the Uray-Miller experiment, what was fired from electrodes and what was it meant to simulate in a prebiodic reducing atmosphere? A one word answer will be fine.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
I guess thats a checkmate.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
A scientific theory is a system of ideas or statements held as an explenation or account of a group of facts. A hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for known facts. (Oxford dictionary)
This is the theory of Evolution. If there was no evidence, it wouldnt be called a theory.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Quote: "abiogenesis is a THEORY with a lot of holes" The fact is the theory of abiogenesis changes to something different ever couple of years. Be honest and admit that we have no real proven knowledge of how life formed. Far from it. The evolutionist like to sight the strict definition of the word 'theory'. But when it is used for abiogenesis and evolution it is not the kind of theory that has been proven. Its the kind of theory that is gross speculation.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
You shouldn't believe everything you read
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
The book of Mathew and Luke state that Jesus must've been born in Bethlehem. But the Gospel of John specifically remarks how he was surprised Jesus didn't come from Bethlehem.
Also, look up Mithras an google or youtube yourself.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Let me guess, the movie Zietguist. You shouldn't believe everything you see.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
It's not the evidence of a world flood, it's the lack of evidence. The simple fact is thare is none.
You have not brought up a single piece of evidence to support your claims.
Prof. Ze'ev Herzog, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, stated the lack of evidence supporting Moses.
Art historian Nicolas Allen stated that the Turin shroud could be the result of o photographic technique.
Innacuracies of the Bible. Well, the proof os in the pudding
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Also, the pieces of the Cross. Pieces of wood that are claimed to be the cross. The problem with religious relics is that no one is willing to give them up for testing.
Oh, and yes. People do die for Myths. 9/11. July attack in London. Crusades, Jihads.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Yes yes. More denial. If your going to bring up 9-11 and the Crusades I'm going to bring up Stalin and Hitler and how atheism is the cause of the holacaust. I know its a cheap shot, but if you want to go there...
DarthHater100 1 year ago
cont.
Died for our sins, but came back to life the following Sunday. Often depicted with a Halo above his head.
Sound just like Jesus.
The Turin Shroud is a fake you plank! It's dated to be less than 1000 years old, the front of it is longer than the back, his head is way to small in comparisson to the resst of his body and thereis evidence to support the theory that Leonardo Da Vinci made it by using a camera obscura. The catholic church just wont let scientist analyse it further.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
That date is not reliable via carbon contamination from fire damage. Besides radiometric dating unreliable, or are you ignoring everything I say. The arguing from most brainwashed evolutionists agree doesnt hold any weight with me. Again no evidence to back up what you say. The only thing (again) that you bring to the table: theories, denial or appeals to authority. By the way even secular experts all agree that even if it wasn't Jesus, it is still legitimately SOMEONE who was crucified.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
1.Not once did I deny Jesus being on the cross.
2. Never seen the movie Zeitgeist.
3. Radiometric dating is in fact reliable.
4. The scientists took 4 sample of the Shroud, cleaned it, removed any foreign materials then dated it.
5. When it comes to appeals to authority, of course I do. These people actually study the subject as part of their job. It would be idiotic and arrogant not to at least listen to what they say.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is evidence that Jesus existed. But there is no evidence that Jesus performed miracles. The Gospels contradict each other loads of times. The story of Jesus is also hardly original, ever heard of Mithras? Born 600Bc on the 25th of December from a virgin mother. Sent to earth as a saviour and to live as a mortal. His birth was attended by shepherds. Had 12 disciples with whom he shared a last meal before dying, this included the symbolic consuming of his flesh and blood. cont.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago 3
Have you just completely ignored my previous posts?! There is NO geological evidence of a worldwide flood!
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Where is your evidence?! You just make claims and your evidence is simply "theorys". If you can use a theory as evidence I'm going to use the Bible as evidence. Like your some expert on world floods. The more you try to look smart the more you get owned.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
Much archeological evidence shows the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. The many Egyptian documents that Historians have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus. Any external documents regarding Moses are several centuries after his supposed lifetime. Moses is also a prick (Numbers 31:13-18)
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
WATER IS IMPOSSIBLE ON MARS X))))))
Horrendour 2 years ago
Andromeda your Ass kickin" knows no bounds! keep up the good fight, while I build a Monument to Humanity.
gugaberg123 2 years ago 2
Oh and well done in catching me out, i completly forgot that carbon 14 has a half-life of only around 5,700 years so geologists cant use it to judge the age of fossils. Well done indeed.
TheRedneckasswhooper 2 years ago
cont..
We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? We should expect that all mountain ranges (being all formed during or immediately after the Flood) should show similar, near equal amounts of erosion. They don't.
TheRedneckasswhooper 2 years ago
@Red: good points. Also, I think we'd expect to see fossils randomly deposited throughout the sediment - amphibians, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, randomly inter-mixed. Also, re the waters receding - where could they recede to?
DMFmonster 1 year ago
LOL I love reading your posts. Throwing your two cents in as if you have any authority in the subject of world floods. Typical atheist. Every subject you bullshit like your an expert but you don't know anything. No offence.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
Funny how you're completely ignoring everything I say. Typical close minded theist. Not willing to look to anything other than an old faily tale for answers.
No offence.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
If we where to look at the facts and make a decision based on logic, then please tell me where's the logic behind Noah's Ark which you believe in. The only evidence for that is a very old book and the story has many flaws. And of course yo shouldnt believe in everything a science book tells you, Manoichan's basically finished that answer for me. And you cant go around claiming "Evolution is wrong, therefore Creationsm must be true" unless you have evidence to support your theory, or belief.
TheRedneckasswhooper 2 years ago 2
Noah's Arc has been PROVEN. Not only are there marine fossils on top of mnt. Ararat in Turkey, proving the flood, but also remains of the Arc. The find has the same dimensions as described in the Bible. This is UNDENIABLE physical, testable evidence. Of course we have the Bible, a historical record from God as evidence as well. As far as flaws from the Bible, there aren't any. Youre just talking out your ass. You obviously havent read the Bible.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
So,lets just ignore the fact that it would be impossible to flood the earth, and that there's been more than one claim that people have found the Ark. If there was a flood then we would expect to see certain things. We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. The present day land surface would be expected everywhere to show rounding of the land surfaces in the direction the waters receded.
TheRedneckasswhooper 2 years ago
haha no flaws in the bible. i think you are the one who hasn't read it, because the more you read it the more bullshit you find bud.
leusch13 2 years ago 57
Hoooooooooooooooooooly shit.. I thought you where just a troll but you believe your bullshit. If any book is 'dictating' here, it's your bronze age plagiarism manual called the bible. Yes, there are hundreds of thing science have gotten wrong but unlike your 'infallible' roadblock, science is constantly being updated by CORRECT information. Unstuff your head from your ass and plant your nose in some fucking knowledge.
Manoichan 2 years ago
Enough with the ad homonyms from brainwashed atheists. It must be INCONCEIVABLE to an atheist for someone to have the GUTS to actually QUESTION Darwinism. The atheist believes what ever science dictates. Life didn't poof into existence after lightning striking a mud puddle. Here on YouTube you can't hide behind the constitution or force your views in textbooks. I have a the most valid position, which no one yet can refute. Saying that YOU dont believe in the Bible doesn't count.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
you moron Atheism by definition is lack of belief in god AND NOTHING MORE!
You see science is open to corrections, if the god will truly land on earth then it will destroy all religions but so far nothing like that has ever happened
Science is about the truth and nothing but the truth no matter what you believe
Your so hostile towards atheism that it actually shows how weak religion is at excepting new ideas WICH HAVE EVIDENCE
ok im done talking with you, theres no point
Your a troll.
DeaXi69 2 years ago
I don't trust blind men to show me where to walk in a minefield.
P.S. It's 'follow'.
Manoichan 2 years ago
You shouldn't trust anyone to show you where to walk, or what to think. You should think for you self instead. Look at the FACTS and make a decision based on LOGIC. Christianity is called the thinking mans religion for a reason. Don't believe everything a 'science' book dictates to you. Science can never get it story strait. In a hundred years we will look back and laugh at the crazy stuff science thought. Science doesnt prove ANYTHING.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
"Christianity is called the thinking mans religion for a reason" thank you. i thought the glass of water on a marsbar would be my biggest laugh of the day but you topped it. christianity, thinking, religion and reason in the same sentence. nuff said really but you make it even better "dont trust what a book tells you"
"look at the facts"
you sir are a lost soul and i regret YEC got their claws into your naive mind while you never had a chance. but atleast you think your going to heaven :)
ryonalionthunder 2 years ago
@ryonalionthunder don't trust what a book tells you!
Bible fans anyone?
OWNED
Xgya2000 2 years ago
@Darth; um, the Dover trial concluded that Intelligent Design is not science. Can you even tell me what the theory of ID is?
DMFmonster 1 year ago
And the Salem witch trials concluded that people were witches. Just because a judge dictates his opinion on a subject doesn't make it a fact. "Science" dictating what atheists believe doesn't make something a fact either. The only one who is all-knowing is God and therefore The Bible is the only reliable source of knowledge.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
@darthhater100: I'll explain further. Evolutionary theory is supported by a preponderance of evidence in biology, geology, physics, chemistry, molecular biology, developmental embryology, virology etc + the Catholic Church + the courts (who analyzed the data and arguments: Salem trials were based on Religious dogma). ID does not even have a theory; there are no papers, no research. re Bible accuracy: what is your opinion on the Gospel of Mary?
DMFmonster 1 year ago
All appeals to authority. It doesn't matter what man supports. Evolution was indoctrinated into them. The Bible is MORE supported. Don't just believe everything dictated by science. LOL you sound like your reading from a script. When one side of a story is repeated often enough people believe it. Check out the other side of the facts and think for yourself. I recommend Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort. You can BELIEVE lightning struck a mudpuddle and life formed by chance, but its not science.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
@DarthHater100: The Bible is not supported by science at all. I suggest you read up on Archeology and the Bible. Not to mention that the 6000 docs the Bible is founded on contain 10 000s disagreements. Not to mention that the Bible has been edited on numerous occasions. Once again, what do you think about the gospel of Mary? If you truly knew your Bible, you would be able to reply.
DMFmonster 1 year ago
I'm the troll? Right. The Bible IS supported by the evidence. The fact is you obviously just know the side of the story taught by liberals and evolutionists. You make old arguments that only a newby would make, not realizing they have all been refuted ages ago. You are clearly fresh off the boat and should really get your head out of the sand and not just believe everything dictated to you. As far as the supposed Gospel of Mary, my Bible has 4 gospels, hand written by the apostles.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
What evidence? What evidence supports Genesis, Moses, Abraham, Noah, or Jesus?
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
Genesis is supported by the fact that we have ALL OF CREATION. For all the people, there is WAY more documentation than any other figures in history. You probably believe that Julius Cesar, and George Washington existed because we know from historical documents they did. What do want, a photo? Its called special pleading. The Abrahamic people had to have descended from someone. Do you think they just decided not to use that persons name and instead, made up "Abraham" in his place?
DarthHater100 1 year ago
We know that Moses wrote the Old Testament with help from God, maybe you didnt know that. I know you simply dismiss evidence that comes from the Bible, but this is different. Its not evidence FROM the Bible, the Bible IS the evidence. We know Noahs Arc is true. Pieces of the Ark have been found. The world is covered in geological evidence of a world flood. Where do you think the fossils came from? Billions and billions and blah blah blah, Ive heard it before. Wheres your evidence?
DarthHater100 1 year ago
Jesus denial is the newest fad in atheism these days. The evidence for JC is OVERWELMING. Not only do we have the Gospels written by eye witnesses of Jesus life and resurrection, but there are many extra Biblical records as well. Tacitus. Josephus. Suetonius. We know where Jesus walked to his death in Jerusalem. There are pieces of the cross. There is the Shroud of Turin. Do you think people were willing to die for a Myth? They are all just lying? Do you deny that ancient Rome existed?
DarthHater100 1 year ago
OWNED
DarthHater100 1 year ago
The argument of creation is the lamest one out there. Everything exists, therefore a magical man in the sky did it in 6/7 days, 6000 years ago? FAIL.
There is no firm evidence to prove Abraham actually existed. And the Qu'ran and the Bible openly cantradict each other.
TheRedneckasswhooper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darthhater: The Gospel of Mary was one of 14 books edited OUT of the King James Bible in 1611: There are 155,683 words and over 5,700 verses contained in 168 chapters now missing from the King James translation of the Bible due to the exclusion. This is just ONE example in which the Bible was edited. Why is it you don't know this, given that your argument rests solely on biblical inerrancy?
DMFmonster 1 year ago
ps: I notice on your channel you don't subscribe to any religious channels, nor do you fave their videos. Also, judging from the abusive comments you leave on other videos, I conclude you are a troll.
DMFmonster 1 year ago
ps: I notice that when you run out of your liberal atheist worldview brainwashing, you run for the hills. All of my posts are in RESPONSE to atheists. I am simply following 1st Peter 3:15 and defending my beliefs. I conclude don't know what your talking about.
DarthHater100 1 year ago
Spike Psarris makes my blood boil. What a smug prick. I almost feel like I'm watching fiction when I watch people like that talk. A part of my mind simply can't accept that human beings can be so stupid. Dear Christianity, please go away!
giggletronics 2 years ago
9:34, i laughed :p
ThMrksman 2 years ago
@DarthHater100: MORON: just because so many people believe that stupidity DOES NOT PROVE IT! Science is NOT voted but PROVED! A LIE is a LIE no matter how many idiots believe it and the TRUTH is the TRUTH even if no one believes it. Go back to school, you are too stupid to argue with adults.
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
To me this whole debate of creationism versus evolutionism is a tempest in a teapot. If a group of Christians wants to rewrite science in order to support their literal interpretation of the Bible, let them try. I think the scientific establishment is strong enough to withstand such a challenge. To those people who insist on debating creationists, give it a rest. The creationists will just use the Bible as their evidence anyway. Let the 2 theories coexist, even if evolution is better.
gsco82 2 years ago
@gsco82 You're right to think that science is strong enough, within the scientific community. Believe me, from even limited experience I can tell you this sort of debate doesn't exist in the scientific community. Ask someone active, such as Thunderf00t or cdk007 and they'll elaborate further. The problem is that creationists realise they can't stand up to science and instead try to brainwash the public, and in many cases, school students too. The public understanding is being eroded as a result.
AndromedasWake 2 years ago 5
Evolutions is not better, it is CORRECT. It is also a scientific, proven, undeniable, observable, definite FACT. Therefore it is STUPID and IGNORANT to let any other opposing and UNPROVEN stupidity coexist with a proven fact. The story is done, we evolved. Learn it and accept the consequences such as GOD DIDN'T CREATE US!
stojadinovicp 2 years ago
1:35 You shouldn't say that evidence is irrefutable. Evidence isn't irrefutable. It has to be refutable. As an example, Piltdown Man, a hoax that produced evidence, which was refuted by science. All our evidence has to be in principle refutable to be considered, and if it ever is we throw it out.
Compare to creationists, whose evidence is by their own assessment irrefutable. This makes their position on its face invalid.
rkyeun 2 years ago
Yeah, satanic science books.
SimulacronX 2 years ago
"radical liberal science books"
*lol*
vinny142 2 years ago
Wow good stuff AndromedasWake. Now i know that this question is kinda off topic and probably completly trivial but whats with the the Soviet Red and yellow bar and sickle symble at 03:11? Ty and keep up the good work!
SuperFumbles 2 years ago
I actually liked 'Red Planet'. :)
theinsane102 2 years ago
Was that the one with the algae like plants?
patq911 2 years ago
Yeah.
theinsane102 2 years ago
I don't understand why they are so bent on disproving the possibility of water on mars. There's water all over the universe. Do creationists think that earth is the only place where water exists in the universe?
adkinsjr 2 years ago 3
How can you say that water is all over the universe. Have you been all over the universe? No. Yet again, another Darwinist is making claims they can't back up. Atheists claim there's no God, but Christians can ACTUALLY BACK IT UP WITH PROOF. Ever hear of the Bible? If not I pity your wilful ignorance.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
« How can you say that water is all over the universe »
Here's a new word for you: spectrography.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Spectrography does not say that water is all over the universe. Yet another broad based assumption from and atheist who knows nothing. If you think it does, prove it, name me one, just ONE time that water was discovered with a spectrometer outside of the earth. Didn't think so. Checkmate.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
Wait a minute, are you being serious? Your last comment sounded kind of satirical. That sounded like an edwardcurrent.
adkinsjr 2 years ago
« Spectrography does not say that water is all over the universe »
True. But we have detected water all over the galaxy. And since hydrogen and oxygen are amongst the most common elements, it stands to reason that it's not just this galaxy in which water is a common substance. So we can say with reasonable certitude that water is a very common substance in the universe.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Do you know what spectrometers are? Water can be detected from here on earth. For example, when a comet impacted Jupiter in the 1990's, astronomers were able to detect water in it's atmosphere. In 1997 water was detected in the Orion Nebula.
adkinsjr 2 years ago
Actually, I think water was just recently discovered on the moon too. Europa has ice water, comets have water, Titan has water, there are a few exoplanets with water, etc.
adkinsjr 2 years ago
No they didn't. Water cant be detected from earth with a spectrometer because of the water in the atmosphere. Heres how atheists think: Oh, oh I see water when point my spectrometer at a nebula in the sky and since I cant think of any other explanation, therefore it is an absolutely proven fact that there is water in the Orion nebula. Or at least until they come out with something else that says the opposite. Then come the excuses. Science doesn't prove anything.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
First you say "Science doesn't prove anything?" Then you say "the flood has been proven." lmao, proven with what? Creation 'science'? Surely not, science can't prove anything right?
So you accept a piece of wood on a mountain as proof for a global flood and an arc full of animals (including dinosaurs)? lmao, you're an idiot.
Now, let's have your evidence for the 'Garden of Eden in Iraq'. I really want to hear it, it will be funny. So be a good boy and entertain me.
JohnEdwardIAF 2 years ago
With science you'll find a tooth of a pig and construct elaborate theories about how this is proof for evolution. The fact is there is no proof for evolution, only theories. As far as proof of the flood, we have the Bible as proof. Finding the remains of Noah's Arc is simply further proof. There isnt enough space here for all the evidence for the Garden. Youll have to Google it yourself. And at least we dont force kids to learn our religion in school like evolutionists do.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
The bible is proof? lol, I'm starting to think that you're just doing a parody like edwardcurrent. You're almost TOO funny to be the real thing.
If there isn't enough space for all the evidence for the Garden, then don't post all of the evidence. Just give me an example. You're so much fun to listen too. So be a good little christian boy and entertain me.
JohnEdwardIAF 2 years ago
Im sorry that you get your worldview from radical liberal science books and internet atheists. America is Christian nation—In God we Trust. Every American has a choice, either the Bible is the true word of God or the universe is an accident and we all came from monkeys. There is an overwhelming agreement that it is true (USA is 93% Christian). And since it's true, it is perfectly reasonable to use it as scientific evidence. Im sorry you disagree, but if you hate America you can leave.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
Evidence for Garden of Eden in Iraq? Don't evade the question. Just give me an example.
JohnEdwardIAF 2 years ago
It is not my job to hold your hand and teach you everything. Read a book.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
I'm not wasn't asking you to "teach" anything. You said there is evidence that the garden of eden is in Iraq. So I challenged you to provide an example of this 'evidence.' You still haven't been able to do that.
JohnEdwardIAF 2 years ago
Here is a challange for you. GO. LOOK. IT. UP. YOUR. SELF.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
Excuse me sir, but using the number of people who believe in something to judge weather or not it should be considered true is bullocks. If you agree with me: good. If you don't, then realize that worldwide christianity is a minority group, and conclude that it must be wrong for that reason due to your own statement. Also, evolution and christianity don't exclude each other (catholicism generally accepts it). You're also leaving out the large portion of people who believe neither...
TakesTwoToTango 2 years ago
So heres how atheists work. First they say "99% of scientists believe in evolution so it must be right", then turn around and say it doesn't matter how many people believe in the Bible. And by the way I said America, the greatest country in the world agrees with me. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, Christianity is the largest religion in the world by population. But just like a typical atheist, you make unfounded claims without even bothering to check if they are true.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
Scientists are people who know what they're talking about on specific areas. If most people think shredding is a guitar-technique you need talent for, but 90% of professional guitarists claim that talent is unimportant with shredding, practice is ALL that matters; then I'd go with the guitarists. And the scientists have an even better position on this, as they've got "evidence"...
TakesTwoToTango 2 years ago
Also, claiming that America is the greatest country in the world is highly debatable. Also, you just took EVERY form of christianity. To some people, this goes as far as mormons, catholics, jehovas,... Fundamentalist christianity is the form that believes the bible literally. It's considered a typical American phenomenon. In other words: most christians disagree with it. Your specific view on christianity is a needle in the haystack...
TakesTwoToTango 2 years ago
And finally, last time I checked, making claims without checking if they're true is a religious thing. "It's a matter of faith!" bullocks...
TakesTwoToTango 2 years ago
I am so sorry that you could not find any plausible arguments to fight back. At the end of the day, you could just use a poor argument like it is written in the Bible to justify your claims. Get some education.
hhhcce 2 years ago
Where are your arguments? Wheres your evidence that there is no God? You cant disprove anything, which is proof in and of itself. Sure I need a certain amount of faith sometimes. But it takes a lot more faith to be atheist. You find some bones in the dirt and say oh, oh, this is proof of evolution. No its not. I have an actual historical record, written by God and I simply have the stronger case. Either I agree with God or I agree with man. Sorry, God wins.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
You have an actual historical record written by God? lol, I really hope you're just a troll who's here to mess with people. You can't be serious. You sound like you're doing a parody. If so, then you're brilliant.
JohnEdwardIAF 2 years ago
Ha. Ha. I'm just a big joke to you right? What about you? Heres you: "Oh oh the only things that exist are what I can see because I'm an atheist." But you didn't see the big bang or monkeys birthing people. And by claiming that there is no God it just takes more faith. You don't have absolute knowledge that there is no God. You just have faith so you can do what you want without guilt or repercussions. Admit it, God has written his moral laws on your heart and you are just in denial.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
@DarthHater100: You are a big moron. Monkeys do NOT birth people. LEAN SOMETHING BEFORE YOU MAKE STUPID COMMENTS ABOUT IT! Further, it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove a negative! By that logic WHY don't you believe in Amon Ra? Thor? Tooth Fairy? Can you prove these fairytale characters do not exist? The probability of god existing is EQUAL to the probability of any of the other made up characters existing... Start thinking!
stojadinovicp 2 years ago 2
@stojadinovicp
He's doing a parody.
"You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you can't make him think."
That's the title of ray comfort's book. I'm pretty sure that DarthHater100 is just making fun of creationists, and messing with people. There' s NO WAY he's serious.
JohnEdwardIAF 2 years ago
This is no parody. Out here in the real world, in REALITY, atheists are the minority and they are the fools. The fact is, Dr. Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort can prove GOD's creation science just as well as any "scientist" can prove atheist science. There is an explanation for every piece of supposed evidence for evolution. There IS no evidence for evolution. There isnt a single peace of evidence for evolution for evolution that I could not easily refute.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
@DarthHater100
Explain fossils then.......can you?
I can bet on 100$ you cant.
Oh dear.....Just shut up, your talking here will make no difference, neither will mine cos obviously your too retarded to even listen or do a research on your own based from this vid and then show us how "right" you were.....
Just go pray or whatever you freaks do,
and dont forget to die while your at it, all you care is about heaven dont you?
DeaXi69 2 years ago
Yet again the Bible provides the best answer: The Flood. Noah took the animals on the arch and the remaining animals were covered in sediment. The fossils are proof of the flood and Noah's Arc. If you knew anything about geology or fossils you would know that fossils are dated based on strata, and strata is dated on fossils. Its completely circular. Youre just a brainwashed evolutionist, who believes everything. Maybe you should put some thought into what you believe with blind faith.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
@DarthHater100
Love how you used the flood to explain fossils. Just a few problems with it though. In case you didn't notice people also use radio-isotope dating as well (kinda like carbon dating) to date fossils. Which isn't a completely circular process. And according to your logic, if all the animals died during the flood the all the fossils we find would be of the same age, about 2300 years, And we would see fossils of elephants, lions etc.
Please explain these faults in your answer.
TheRedneckasswhooper 2 years ago
Evolutionists love carbon dating. You can easily make it fit what ever timeline you desire. Here's the flaw: even though you can calculate the half-life, you DO NOT know how much of the radioisotope you had to start with. You can pick and chose whatever point you want and CLAIM that half of the isotope in the sample has decayed. Its completely arbitrary.
DarthHater100 2 years ago
Correction: sorry I meant radiometric dating not carbon. There is of course, no carbon in fossils. Other isotopes are used. Why didnt anybody catch me on that? I thought atheists knew EVERYTHING.
DarthHater100 2 years ago