There are scholars who believe both sides. Science doesn't disprove God(s) nor does it try. This still doesn't prove the existance of God(s). Creationists need to stop trying to fill gaps with God(s), it's embaressing for you.
@maxavail I doubt emailpobox666 will. Believe me I know sfter dealing with him for a long time with such things, that he doesn't really care about whether Craig used any fallacies or not, he just has a deep-seated disgust for WLC beacuse perhaps he sees him as being too effective as an intellectual against other intellectuals who are atheists or agnostics. Don't expect him to give an example, therefore, lest you point it out and he proceed to give circular agruments. I'm talking from experience.
@TruthUnadulterated I do have disgust for a man claiming to use logic and reason and in the end uses superstition ignorance and deception. My example would be the debate between Quentin Smith and Dr Craig in 1996
@TruthUnadulterated WLC"If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion
@TruthUnadulterated WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!
@TruthUnadulterated Craig admitted that the cosmological argument is not a logical argument for the existence of god . It is Craig's common sense ansd intuition with a label of logic slapped on to it. Why would the man use a failed argument ? Please I'm dying to hear the spin
@maxavail As I have said before, . hi cosmological argument is incoherent . He admitted it 15 years ago. Don't you find it strange why this man to this day still uses it?
@emailpobox666 Craig said that there is no definition of causality that would allow a person to discuss (creation) it prior to the universe. The default for Craig was Common Sense and intuition. LOL for a logical argument
@maxavail Craig said that there is no definition of causality that would allow a person to discuss (creation) it prior to the universe. The default for Craig was Common Sense and intuition. LOL for a logical argument
@TruthUnadulterated This is how Inane Craig is able to herd the credulous and the non thinking. By devious word play. Morals don't exist in the truest sense but we still think that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, that slavery is wrong.
Curiously though, god doesn't seem to think so. Read the Bible, he's always endorsing these heinous acts.
Time for you to make your choice. The 'moral' atheists OR the Sky Fairy who exhorts you to murder, rape and enslave other tribes. :)
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . be able to make a square/circle? If you think that this is an in all ways actual impossibility inherent in the meaning of the words then you would say that God CANNOT KNOW how to do this. But one may say that for God to know ALL Things, "limits" His ability to logical possibilties even the most difficult ones so long as it is not inherent logical contradictions such as the circle-square example. I have found that the so-called inconsistencies largely reveal OUR own...
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . Lastly I don't know which version of the ontological argument you have in mind. There are several and all nearly as popular as the other. As for the word play, in what way? Is it with Omniscience? If so I'm interested to know what you think the "limits" of an Omniscient Being would be. Does it mean He knows ALL/EVERYTHING that can be known? Or for you does it mean knowing ANYTHING? There's a subtle difference here. For example would a knowing how to do ANYTHING God. . .
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . a purpose. Finetuning may have that CONNOTATION but it does NOT technically equate anymore than ORDER does; and it is in calling it ORDER where atheists typically place there faith with respect to the appearance of the universe rather than say it was designed. Advice: don't be quick to say I'm wrong when you wont think things through. Craig's argument about morals and God is deductive and only proves God if the premises are correct. All one can say to discount God's...
@TruthUnadulterated His arguments are deductive . the problems lies with their subject a supernatural being which is outside our understanding . It's like a blind man trying to use logic to drive a car.
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . with you on this by the way. As I said, No incoherence here. Your answer to fine-tuning further shows your lack of understanding. Atheists who like to use strawmen put an emphasis on fine-tuning. Fine-tuning (1) may not actually be there or (2) be there and still only be the result of "patterns" or ordering set into motion without a personal cause. The actual is one of design also called the teleological argument. This argument being called such is what presupposes ...
@emailpobox66 Congratulations your answers demonstrated to me that your problem is that you just cant grasp what Im saying. To say that God is a completely voluntary Being or a truly free Being follows logically. He would necessarily be a free Mind/Sprirt, are you not aware of the history of philosophical arguments concerning God? You may not accept that God exists but you cannot rightfully say that should God exist he would exist due to cause and effect. NO atheist philosopher would agree . . .
argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."
I did not see William Lane Craig make the argument that God exists because intelligent people say so. I did not see him make the argument that Dawkins and Hitchens are unintelligent because authorities say so.
He argued against atheists claiming they are correct because they say so.
1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions
William Lane Craig is not using Ad Hominem but Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitches certainly use it. Hitchens said Christians want to die because they want to be in heaven. That is not an intelligent statement based on feelings. It is hateful unintelligence at its finest.
Therefore, this video in truth at minimum doesn't do anything, at BEST is one that makes Craig legitimately look good. I don't know if it was the plan of the poster to secretly make Craig look good, or that the poster is a bad critical thinker. As such, I do not know whether to give this video a thumbs up or not. Advice for the poster: Stop reasoning from your biased emotions and use your head.
@TruthUnadulterated These where my objections to Craig's arguments. Cosmological- causality is incoherent prior to the universes existence Moral- circular reasoning . God gives objective morals objective morals prove god Fine Tuning - begs the question assumes that the universe has a purpose Ontological argument - incoherent concept of a Maximal Great being. Omniscience and omnipotence are inescapable with omni-benevolence.
@emailpobox666 Hi. Glad you at least used reasons, that is, except for Bible comment. But here's why you're wrong. 1. "Cosmological- causality is incoherent prior to the universe's existence." Me: "I agree, and so does Craig, God, however, is the only completely voluntary Being. No incoherence here." 2. "Moral-circular reasoning gives objective morals objective morals prove God." Me: "This shows that you havent thought this all the way through. Morals must either exist objectively and . . .
@TruthUnadulterated . . . absolutely or they do not exist ACTUALLY. To say that they exist in a subjective way means that they are sub-objective to something more comparatively objective. What would that be other than a more objective morals? But since morals deal with rights and wrongs or oughts and ought nots then they can only be comapared to other higher standards of oughts or ought nots. Without a personal being this logic of "oughts" is meaningless but unless the personal Being IS the. . .
@TruthUnadulterated . . . Beginning itself so that it would not be subject to any outside or higher moral standard, then to even speak of morals is meaningless and therefor Nitszches nihilism is the only logical take concerning morals that follows from Atheism. If an atheist disagrees, he is then an inconsistent atheist borrowing this belief in objective or subjective morals from another worldview such as the Judeo-Christian one, perhaps unknowingly. Some have suggested this only serves . . .
@TruthUnadulterated . . . to highlight that deep down all ppl do recognize God's moral law in themselves but have had their consciences scarred through this sinful world with all its rebellious desires." 3. "Fine-tuning-begs the question assumes that the universe has a purpose." Me: "Wrong. I take it you meant to say 'design'. In any case even Dawkins would say that the universe "appears to be designed" but that it does mean it was it could just be a case or ORDER or tuning without a designer...
@TruthUnadulterated . . .still, as an inductive argument taken with everthing else it is a strong cumulative case for a non-physical/spirit Creator who would not be materially complex. To say that it "appears to be designed" means that it is evident or obvious that it is designed but perhaps though it seems obvious and that there is actual evidence for this, it still may not be the case is all the atheist can say about this." 4. "Ontological argument-incoherent concept of a Maximally Great . . .
@TruthUnadulterated . . . Being. Ominiscience and Omnipotence are incompatible." Me: "You likely regurgitated this claim from another atheist. What is certain should God exist between the 2 omnis? Omipotence, because He created, sustains, maintains and upholds the universe. Ominiscience is the only area with debates and this is likely do to OUR own conception of what it means for something to be All-knowing. I wouldn't have the time to get into this here. You may want to look into this further.
@TruthUnadulterated 3 Absolutely wrong the human mind looks for patterns even when there are none . You have to assume that the universe was designed or created or has a purpose to ccome to the conclusion that it is fine tuned
Furthemore, the clip begins with Craig saying, "I would like to come back to an earlier point and that is the notion that atheists are somehow the intelligentsia among us and so forth . . ." He is addressing a point earlier presented by someone (the opponent or the host, perhaps), and saying how this notion, which may very well have been an ad populum or appeal to authority, and CRAIG is the one pointing out that not merely would it be a falacious agrument, but it actually is incorrect.
What's funny is that the poster probably failed Critical Reasoning in college/university. Neither are ad hominem nor ad populum nor appeal to authority. They woul be if Craig was saying that any of these individuals or groups of people make what is being argued true or likely true or in the case of the ad hominem not true or not likely. He is only addressing a perception NOT attempting to prove the validity, likelihood or truth of anything. This poster "reasons" with his emotions NOT his mind.
Talking about others makes something Ad Hominem? Talk about intellectually dishonest. The Horsemen's writings are for the intellectually and [more specifically] philosophically uneducated. This can be recognized eventually by reading any great philosopher. Ayn Rand has the same type of intellectually unjustified hype as enjoyed by these men [with perhaps the exception of Dennett]. Your understanding of these men couldn't be any more wrong!
hahaha even if u try to make WLC look bad you just cant, i ask u to watch this whole debate and u will see who has the arguments, btw reviews on those book are really much worse than he said while the contents of those book is intellectualy very low
@sototajeri Well at least you admit you are deluded. I appreciate your honesty. However, I am under no delusion. I've seen some of your other posts and you get destroyed every single time with your untenable arguments.
@oO0E I think that your objection on my posts is rather subjective because you have already chosen your side, and btw i never said im deluded. In fact i reckon atheists are under illusion that their view is reasonable, it is no coincidence that atheists constitute small percentage of the worlds population.
@sototajeri Quite the opposite. It is YOU who has decided your position and put up an iron clad curtain that no truth or reason can permeate it. I am nd always will be open to where the evidence leads to. You, now any other theist has ever provided evidence to support your claims.
Your fallacy of appealing to numbers is quite laughable and doesn't even merit a response.
@oO0E There is plenty of evidence for open minded, objective thinkers, and the fact that you claim no theist has never provided evidence to support his claims tells me everything. I can freely and objectively say that I have never heard persuasive and reasonable evidence to support atheism, except a few weak arguments that are repeatedly refuted.
@sototajeri Quote your evidence, link your sources. No argument exists to support atheism, because there does not need to be. The lack of evidence to believe in gods, is the reason people do not.
@sototajeri The fact you are looking for evidence to support atheism shows me just how amateurish you truly are. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. The burden of proof is on YOU, the person making the claim. You should really try and learn the basics before you try debating people.
Also, where is all this evidence you speak of that supports theism?
@oO0E It is you who doesnt understand the basics of positive and negative claim and burden of proof. Besides, the fact that you dont know the definition of atheism is enough of a proof of your ignorance. Evidence that supports theism is all around you but you have to be open minded and objective to realize that.
As the Bible says:
Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes, And the deaf, even though they have ears.
@sototajeri It doesn;t matter how many times you repeat it, you are till 100% wrong. The one making the claim must provide the evidence. Theists claim there is a god. Atheists do not believe them.
Are you going to keep dancing and not provide any evidence or what? I don't have the time or desire to baby you through all of this.
@sototajeri Really? WLC's main argument, his best argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, has been debunked numerous times. Either he is intentionally misleading people, or is incapable of the small amount of critical thinking necessary to understand why it's wrong. Either way, you and the rest of Craig's sheepish followers will no doubt continue to support him merely because he is one of the less incompetent voices on your side of the argument. What a shame.
@sototajeri Do you really need me to? As I already said, it's been refuted a number of times by a number of people. In fact, there are several good responses here on Youtube. I'd recommend "Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fails", to start. It's fairly straight to the point. If you still need me to go more in depth on the argument's problems after you watch the video, I'd be happy to.
@QcatDoesGames Well, i watched the video you suggested, and i would recommend that you watch the video response where dr.Craig explains the incoherences in the quantum vacuum fluctuation model
@sototajeri I've seen it. All it is is a false dichotomy. There is no reason why the primordial vacuum can't be infinite. He also fails to address the fact that if god is timeless, then he could not be a creator, as creation is a causal event. If god is not timeless, then god is not infinite and was at some point created.
@QcatDoesGames There are many philosophical reasons why something cant be infinite, do some research, btw Craig said in the video why primordial vacuum cant be infinite, play it again and actually listen what he has to say.
God is timeless, it means outside of time and space, not limited by time - eternal, and that is the only way to create time and space because before God created it time and space didnt exist and therefore he has to be timeless, btw Craig already explained this.
If god is timeless, then that means the universe has been around for an infinite time. Otherwise, god created the universe at a certain time. The act of creation is directly linked to time. If something is created, it is created at a certain time. Therefore, the creator is not timeless. I don't see how you don't get that.
The human mind doesn't understand infinity. Your "philosophical reasons" don't hold up with reality.
@QcatDoesGames Nonsense. God created time as we know it, therefore time didnt exist before God created it. Since time didnt exist, act of creation couldnt possibly happen at a certain time. Act of creation marks the beginning of time and space. In order to create time and space God has to be outside of time and space because time and space didnt exist before God created it.
@sototajeri You just don't get it. If god created everything, he created it AT A CERTAIN TIME. The only way to avoid this is if god created everything the instant he himself was created. If not, that would mean time had passed before he created things. If so, then that, of course, would lead to the problem of an infinite chain of creators. Creation CAN NOT take place outside of time. I'm sorry you cant grasp that.
@QcatDoesGames I thought all science agrees that Time & Space are two aspects of the same thing really. That the Big Bang created matter (as we know it), and space/time. If so, one explanation is, whatever caused the Big Bang operates outside the confines of both space and time. One causal agent proposed is God. Apparently a quantum field is another. Could it be that "eternal" in this sense just means time did not exist until the moment of the big bang, regardless of its cause?
@oO0E@QcatDoesGames This pointless conversation has gone too far. I guess we will just have to wait till we die to see who was right. Good luck and take care.
@sototajeri I knew you couldn't intelligently defend your position. You could have bowed out much earlier instead of trying to maintain an untenable position.
Overwhelming evidence around you obviously you are willfully blind...no matter what I say you will not be convinced...do you know how they make people doubt in an interrogation? Just Question everything to death..then you will not be certain of anything...Like I said...the evidence is around you..you do not want to see it...well ....only a fool will not see it...so you are a fool...a fools says in his heart there is no God...enough said..
@RunColorado100 Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. the claim is rejected because absolutely no evidence has been provided. Would you have us believe claims for werewolves vampires fairies and leprechauns?
@RunColorado100 Any agrument for the existence of god, begs the question!
Simply because we want a god does not entail that it exist. This is the foundation of a degree of wishful thinking, and the consequence is an illusion.
A posteriori considerations depend on their probability and on their respective explanatory power therefore they are not conclusive evidence
You're confusing an insult with an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem fallacy requires attempting to discredit your opponent's argument, not by attacking the argument, but by attacking them opponent himself. WLC is not attempting to discredit any argument here, therefore, it is not an ad hominem fallacy.
@emailpobox666 Look around you ...look at your eyes .....look at the Universe....look at an atom...it takes intelligence to understand it and it takes intelligence to make it...a fool says in his heart there is no God...fool!!!
@RunColorado100 I never said there is no god. I said that i hae yet to see ANY EVIDENCE for A GOD. Do hyo have any?I will listen. But please don't say the bible or Koran etc
What definition? That it takes intelligence to understand something does NOT lead to the conclusion that it has been created. Stating that it does is a non sequitur.
Really, you theists keep wearing your dishonesty and ignorance as a badge of honor.
@MomoTheBellyDancer WHAT YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT..IF YOU SEE A 747 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT YOU KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT SOMEONE CREATED THAT ...SO OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU SEE COMPLEXITY IN AN ATOM...YOU KNOW THERE IS INTELLIGENCE BEHIND THAT ...BUT ATHEISTS ARE BLIND FOOLS WHY BOTHER...GOOD BY..MONKEY BRAIN...
@MomoTheBellyDancer OBVIOUSLY LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MORE COMPLICATED...AND THEY ARE IMPERFECT? O..SORRY I THOUGHT YOU WHERE GOD..YOU MUST BE ALL KNOWING TO FIND THAT SOMETHING IS IMPERFECT..LOL.WHAT AN ARROGANT FOOL..WHO CREATED HYDROGEN AND HELIUM AND MADE THEM BEHAVE THE WAY THEY DO..OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE WILLFULLY BLIND..LOL..THERE IS NO FOOL LIKE A WILLING FOOL...LOL..
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL..yea like I said willfully blind...Question? If you put sand inside a plastic bag and shake it for a billion years...will it evolve in to a watch..please...living organism evolve up to a point and within their species..but there is no proof one living organism evolved thru billions and billions and billions of years to become men...what a monkey brain...lol..
Sand is not organic material, and sand molecules don't self-replicate and/or have metabolisms. Stop spewing this ignorant claptrap.
"living organism evolve up to a point and within their species"
What would be the mechanism that wold prevent species from evolving even further? Why do we find so many organisms that are hard to categorize to which species they belong, when the boundaries are so clear-cut, according to you?
@MomoTheBellyDancer Which animals are you talking about...? Obviously you cannot prove there are transitional species if you could you would win a nobel prize but you are an idiot..also idiots like you belive organic matter became inorganic matter how do you explain the beginning of life..you can't without a Creator..you are not that smart you just think you have ultimate truth..you don't...answering a question with a question...ignorant ..idiot.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Just give me one example of a transitional species...lets make things simple...answering do some research does not answer the question..could you just please give me an example...was is this Tiktaalik nonsense..
@RunColorado100 Every member of every species is "transitional". But again, look up evolution in wikipedia. Look up transitional fossils too, they've probably made an article about that too. : )
@winterstellar Please explain to me the process of finding a bone in the dirt and arriving at the conclusion that it evolved...we do not see this in real life only between animals of the same species...little chihuahua and great Dane...but they are within the same species..please explain to me the process ...step one you find a bone....could you elaborate...just giving me websites or wikkipedia wont do please illuminate me o great one...lol..
@RunColorado100 Look up observed speciation then. Or look up speciation. In wikipedia for instance. There are good videos on YouTube showing various "transitional sstages" too. The comments here can't be longer than 500 letters, and frankly I don't think it's fair to other users here to fill up the page with basic stuff you can learn by looking it up in wiki or finding videos about it. (If you want to debate a subject, you need to learn something about the subject first. :)
@winterstellar if evolution is so simple and obvious you should be able to explain it in 500 words or less..but the reality is you can't...and there my friend is the rub...I already know everything on Macro evolution...or evolution as you might call it...but you obviously don't you can't explain the process to me simply 500 words should be enoughI can explain synthesis of plants in 500 words or less and its more complicated than idiotic evolution..why don't you stop giving excuses
@RunColorado100 Again, look up evolution in wikipedia. And read the chapter called fact of evolution too. Or buy a biology textbook for school. It is quite simple really when you understand how it works.
@winterstellar I don't question peer-reviewed science or nobel laureates work much, no. But I DO question ancient fairy-tales written by completely ignorant ancients, since I know that even I am much more capable of understanding things, explaining things than they were back then.And I do question how those tales can have any relevance on anything today. Cheers, by the way. It's very late here. Cood night:)
@winterstellar What you can't question something...so that means you throw your brain and just have faith...wow...I never thought an atheist believed in anything and which articles which are peer reviewed are you talking about...throwing words around..does not convince me or impress me..first you cant explain how evolution works and then you tell me you don't question it...lol..wow..the dumbing down of America...lol..what a simpleton..can you explain evolution I have asked nicely.
@winterstellar LOL..what you can't back up what you believe..lol...typical evolutionist BS..lol..you can not explain evolution..lol...step one you find a bone in the ground...then..step two..etc..you cannot explain the thought process of how they got to evolution from bones...lol..you are a sorry evolutionist atheist..so much for being intellectual...A fool says in his heart there is no God...there have been atheists since the times of the Bible..nothing new under the sun...lol
@RunColorado100 Please explain your thought process. You take a 2000 year old book and bend twist fold and mutilate and throw out scientific discoveries to fit with the superstitious writings of bronze age sheep herders.
@winterstellar Obviously you are only spewing information not knowledge..because you do not question anything ...this is the dumbing down of America and Britain...so sad..people are this dumb...God is real deal with it...
@MomoTheBellyDancer So you mean to tell me that the Tiktaalik which is a fossil you can derive all that information for bones buried in the sand...lol..wow..obviously you are going to inject billions and billions of years..so evolution...other than within species has never been seen and you do not provide proof except do research..lol..show me real proof not bones...if evolution was true..millions and millions of bones would be found..showing the jump from one species to ano
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL..you can't explained the thought process..they found where they expected it to be..did the bone send them a text message...what a simpleton..please explain the thought process..we find a bone step one...step two..etc..etc..How did they know or where expecting the bone to be? ...lol...wow...talking about being an idiot...
@MomoTheBellyDancer Ok so they found it within a layer..so what ...what does a layer mean and what was the thought process behind establishing what a layer is...if there is a flood obviously the heaviest animal will fossilize at the bottom...so layers mean nothing....so explain to me how they arrived at the layers....please...step by step..if they are assumptions..then the assumptions are taken on faith because there is no way scientifically to test for layers...so please exp
@MomoTheBellyDancer Explain the layer and how they arrived at what a layer means...step by step...Also the flood is not a myth...it is recorded history from ancient people from different parts of the world that had no contact with each other or don't you read history...also the layers and fossils corroborate this...you can see it in the Red Canyon unless you want to be blind to it...but anyway explain the layers and their reasoning...please step by step..
"Explain the layer and how they arrived at what a layer means"
Those layers are more precisely called strata, and a stratum is a layer of sedimentary rock or soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers. You should read up on this material. It's fascinating stuff.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Also the flood is Universally recognized around the world..if you do not want to recognize it well...that is your problem..but overwhelming evidence is there...you cannot dismiss it just by saying its a bible story...because this is a Universal story...and there evidence to corroborate it....so it would be like denying the sun exists by putting a finger in front of your eye..lol..
@RunColorado100 The flood isn't recognized around the world. Please specify the science organization which states that about a flood. please refrain from any creationists source since they are wholly unreliable
@RunColorado100 Even if we did grant you this ridiculous idea of a flood . what does it prove that your god is genocidal . killing indiscriminately man woman child infant and fetus
"the flood is Universally recognized around the world"
In the 19th century, most geologists were Biblical creationists who spent many years trying to find evidence for the Flood. Alas, they had to admit they couldn't find any. Instead, they found loads of evidence that the earth was very old. Yes, it was a shock to them, but being true scientists they had to accept the facts.
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL...The Miao Legend states that a single human couple escaped the deluge in a wooden drum, and then gave birth to the first members of post flood humanity...please ..lol..never mind ..you cannot answer my questions why should I believe anything you say..History is not like science where you can do scientific experiments to prove anything...I guess I m done here I never got an answer from you and you are very misinformed...
"The Miao Legend states that a single human couple escaped the deluge in a wooden drum"
Floods are part of human folklore, since humans tend to settle next to seas, lakes and rivers. That doesn't men there was a worldwide flood. You'll have to do better,
@MomoTheBellyDancer In most ancient civilizations the flood story is mentioned even in Isolated China, civilizations that had no connection state the same thing. ..you just stated that China did not speak about a flood...obviously I was not there at Noah's Flood...neither where you ...but obviously as an atheist you will deny it...no proof will be enough because you cannot go back to yesterday..but all we have are ancient writings from unconnected civilizations...
"civilizations that had no connection state the same thing"
Most civilizations have ample experience with floods, so merely having stories doesn't mean anything. During the story of the Flood China didn't notice a thing. Also think of it: how could the Chinese have a story about the Flood, when they would all have been wiped out by it?
@MomoTheBellyDancer Civilizations speak of a great flood...obviously you probably think people where to dumb to differentiate between a small flood and a Biblical flood...most civilization speak about a great flood..but we will agree to disagree...because I cannot interview people in the past neither can you to see what they where speaking about..Also people who lived in deserts speak about the flood...
@MomoTheBellyDancer Civilizations speak of a great flood...obviously you probably think people where to dumb to differentiate between a small flood and a Biblical flood...most civilization speak about a great flood..but we will agree to disagree...because I cannot interview people in the past neither can you to see what they where speaking about..Also people who lived in deserts speak about the flood...
@MomoTheBellyDancer Also if you have an assumption like evolutionists do ..they will deny there was a flood or if you have an assumption that the flood existed then you will try to things thru those glasses..what I m stating here is that evolutionists assumptions are just that because we need to recognize that we cannot be certain about what happened to the earth...evolution or Macro evolution is faith based ..there are layers in the earth but anything you read in to them
@MomoTheBellyDancer is..not scientific it based on an assumption..unless you can explain the thought process behind how you arrived at what the layer means ...we can only see that there are assumptions..I can show you info where threes go thru 5 layers of which you speak of further proving that a flood happened...threes standing up in thru those layers which supposedly took millions of years...so explain the layers please..I m waiting.for a rational scientific explanation
@MomoTheBellyDancer I have asked you repeatedly to explain the process of how they came up with the information for fossils and layers and you only send me to websites it should be simple ...obviously you can explain what I am asking...because what I am asking you to explain obviously are not facts...so you are believing evolution ..there is no scientific basis for it...you can not explain my simple questions...and China ancient history speaks about the flood..lol..
@MomoTheBellyDancer No give me the step by step process..I have already asked you ...first you find a fossil..second you...etc..etc..etc..please give explanation it should be simple....lol...obviously..you can't....
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL..you can't explain the process from finding a bone in the dirt and how you arrive at your conclusion by saying something is complicated..what...obviously you do not know what you believe....this is not the answer of a rational person if you are trying to prove something..lol..please...obviously if you cannot explain something you don't know what you believe...you just believe it...blind faith..lol..
"you can't explain the process from finding a bone in the dirt"
You determine the age of a fossil of a organism that is an intermediate between two organisms you already have data from, and you dig in the strata of the right age. That's what they did with Tiktaalik, for instance, and they found it where they predicted it.
Now, determining age and organization of strata is a science in itself, and well worth studying.
@MomoTheBellyDancer so explain to me the intellectual process and how you arrive at your conclusions that a fossil evolved it is interesting that atheists evolutionist are certain about evolution but look at the Kennedy assassination even with all the video proof and evidence they can't make up their minds and you mean to tell me with no evidence at all that evolution is right please explain do not give generalities I m waiting will not answer again without explanation.
Of course fossils don't evolve. They're not alive. But they are created out of organisms that have evolved. We see fossils exactly where we expect to find them. The are no bunnies in the Cambrian, for example.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Again how do you obtain the Data from those organisms and How do you explain that a layer a fossil if from a certain era....those organism that you are using as reference how did you obtain that information...that is what you are not explaining..again we take a fossil out from the dirt..step one...
The fossils can be classified by comparing their anatomy to other fossils and species existing today.
"How do you explain that a layer a fossil if from a certain era"
The age of a fossil can be determined by dating the layer it is using radiometric dating. There are many different kinds of radiometric dating methods, and they all agree with each other within very narrow margins of error.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Obviously you have not studied Radiometric dating and they do not agree with each other....that is why they are many but obviously you will say they agree with each other...there are many problems with radiometric dating..you should know that I have studied this in depth...most of them give different times for the same fossil so scientifically radiometric dating is not proven. You need to be honest with yourself..and if radiometric dating is wrong well...
@MomoTheBellyDancer Obviously you have no clue of what you are talking about scientists know that radiometric dating is flawed...but evolutionists use it as fact..we will agree to disagree on this..radiometric dating convinced me that evolution is totally flawed..if you do not believe it...google problems with radiometric dating and these are scientists explaining it...lol...so which radiometric dating did you want to start with..so we can get cracking on..lol
I just gave you the basic flaw..there are times when you need to think for yourself...this is one of them? Obviously evolutionists will say its perfect but its not....creationists will say its flawed...and they give their reasons...and they are rational and scientific ones...
@MomoTheBellyDancer So do evolutionists..because evolution is a belief...if you want to recognize that or not...it is only given the trappings of science...Obviously I cannot prove the creation story because I was not there...but you cannot prove evolution because you where not there either...Radiometric Dating is based on many assumptions : first one...rate of decay is constant...we do not know rate of decay is constant across time..that is a big assumption...
This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed
@MomoTheBellyDancer you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed
If you have any valid objections to it, I will listen. Saying "it's wrong because I don't want to accept" is NOT valid. And of course, proving evolution wrong would not automatically prove creation right anyway.
@MomoTheBellyDancer It is often said that a great many dating methods, used on a single specimen, will agree with each other, thus establishing the accuracy of the date given. In reality, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method (Recall that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon (a gas) is mobile in rock.)
@MomoTheBellyDancer "The construction of this time scale was based on about 380 radioisotope ages that were selected because of their agreement with the presumed fossil and geological sequences found in the rocks. Radioisotope ages that did not meet these requirements were rejected on the basis of presumed chemical and/or physical modifications that made the "ages" unreliable indicators of real time. About
There are scholars who believe both sides. Science doesn't disprove God(s) nor does it try. This still doesn't prove the existance of God(s). Creationists need to stop trying to fill gaps with God(s), it's embaressing for you.
FreeMindedAthiest 4 hours ago
Ad hominem alert ? I see Craig criticizing books and competencies, not moral characters, flag this video for deceptive title.
maxavail 1 day ago
@maxavail Craig does spew fallacies. So the title is appropriate.
emailpobox666 1 day ago
@emailpobox666 Well, he's obviously not making the ad hominem fallacy, so could you name any other ?
maxavail 9 hours ago
@maxavail I doubt emailpobox666 will. Believe me I know sfter dealing with him for a long time with such things, that he doesn't really care about whether Craig used any fallacies or not, he just has a deep-seated disgust for WLC beacuse perhaps he sees him as being too effective as an intellectual against other intellectuals who are atheists or agnostics. Don't expect him to give an example, therefore, lest you point it out and he proceed to give circular agruments. I'm talking from experience.
TruthUnadulterated 7 hours ago
@TruthUnadulterated I do have disgust for a man claiming to use logic and reason and in the end uses superstition ignorance and deception. My example would be the debate between Quentin Smith and Dr Craig in 1996
emailpobox666 4 hours ago
@TruthUnadulterated WLC"If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion
emailpobox666 4 hours ago
@TruthUnadulterated WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!
emailpobox666 4 hours ago
@TruthUnadulterated Craig does ses half truth and commits logical fallacies his arguments are only impressive to true believers
emailpobox666 4 hours ago
@TruthUnadulterated Craig admitted that the cosmological argument is not a logical argument for the existence of god . It is Craig's common sense ansd intuition with a label of logic slapped on to it. Why would the man use a failed argument ? Please I'm dying to hear the spin
emailpobox666 4 hours ago
@maxavail As I have said before, . hi cosmological argument is incoherent . He admitted it 15 years ago. Don't you find it strange why this man to this day still uses it?
emailpobox666 4 hours ago
@emailpobox666 Who admitted what 15 years ago, Craig ? He wouldn't be using it still if he had admitted any incoherence.
maxavail 1 hour ago
@maxavail Google Quentin Smith vs Craig 1996 it's the first result . I posted Craig s rebuttal . Check the posts from 3 hours ago
emailpobox666 1 hour ago
@emailpobox666 Craig said that there is no definition of causality that would allow a person to discuss (creation) it prior to the universe. The default for Craig was Common Sense and intuition. LOL for a logical argument
emailpobox666 1 hour ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maxavail Craig said that there is no definition of causality that would allow a person to discuss (creation) it prior to the universe. The default for Craig was Common Sense and intuition. LOL for a logical argument
emailpobox666 1 hour ago
This is a stupid video...
ATLMastering 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthUnadulterated This is how Inane Craig is able to herd the credulous and the non thinking. By devious word play. Morals don't exist in the truest sense but we still think that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, that slavery is wrong.
Curiously though, god doesn't seem to think so. Read the Bible, he's always endorsing these heinous acts.
Time for you to make your choice. The 'moral' atheists OR the Sky Fairy who exhorts you to murder, rape and enslave other tribes. :)
1878EFC2008 5 days ago
Comment removed
1878EFC2008 5 days ago
This charlatan is an expert at marshalling complete piffle!
jjoneil73 6 days ago
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . flaws in our thinking when considering the full meaning of thesse "omnis."
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . be able to make a square/circle? If you think that this is an in all ways actual impossibility inherent in the meaning of the words then you would say that God CANNOT KNOW how to do this. But one may say that for God to know ALL Things, "limits" His ability to logical possibilties even the most difficult ones so long as it is not inherent logical contradictions such as the circle-square example. I have found that the so-called inconsistencies largely reveal OUR own...
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . Lastly I don't know which version of the ontological argument you have in mind. There are several and all nearly as popular as the other. As for the word play, in what way? Is it with Omniscience? If so I'm interested to know what you think the "limits" of an Omniscient Being would be. Does it mean He knows ALL/EVERYTHING that can be known? Or for you does it mean knowing ANYTHING? There's a subtle difference here. For example would a knowing how to do ANYTHING God. . .
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated Since god is outside of time and timeless he would know everything.
emailpobox666 1 day ago
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . a purpose. Finetuning may have that CONNOTATION but it does NOT technically equate anymore than ORDER does; and it is in calling it ORDER where atheists typically place there faith with respect to the appearance of the universe rather than say it was designed. Advice: don't be quick to say I'm wrong when you wont think things through. Craig's argument about morals and God is deductive and only proves God if the premises are correct. All one can say to discount God's...
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated His arguments are deductive . the problems lies with their subject a supernatural being which is outside our understanding . It's like a blind man trying to use logic to drive a car.
emailpobox666 1 day ago
. . . @emailpobox66 . . . with you on this by the way. As I said, No incoherence here. Your answer to fine-tuning further shows your lack of understanding. Atheists who like to use strawmen put an emphasis on fine-tuning. Fine-tuning (1) may not actually be there or (2) be there and still only be the result of "patterns" or ordering set into motion without a personal cause. The actual is one of design also called the teleological argument. This argument being called such is what presupposes ...
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@emailpobox66 Congratulations your answers demonstrated to me that your problem is that you just cant grasp what Im saying. To say that God is a completely voluntary Being or a truly free Being follows logically. He would necessarily be a free Mind/Sprirt, are you not aware of the history of philosophical arguments concerning God? You may not accept that God exists but you cannot rightfully say that should God exist he would exist due to cause and effect. NO atheist philosopher would agree . . .
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."
I did not see William Lane Craig make the argument that God exists because intelligent people say so. I did not see him make the argument that Dawkins and Hitchens are unintelligent because authorities say so.
He argued against atheists claiming they are correct because they say so.
MrChristianBeliever 1 week ago
Comment removed
MrChristianBeliever 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ad Hominem:
1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.
2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions
William Lane Craig is not using Ad Hominem but Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitches certainly use it. Hitchens said Christians want to die because they want to be in heaven. That is not an intelligent statement based on feelings. It is hateful unintelligence at its finest.
The author of the video is confused.
MrChristianBeliever 1 week ago
Therefore, this video in truth at minimum doesn't do anything, at BEST is one that makes Craig legitimately look good. I don't know if it was the plan of the poster to secretly make Craig look good, or that the poster is a bad critical thinker. As such, I do not know whether to give this video a thumbs up or not. Advice for the poster: Stop reasoning from your biased emotions and use your head.
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated These where my objections to Craig's arguments. Cosmological- causality is incoherent prior to the universes existence Moral- circular reasoning . God gives objective morals objective morals prove god Fine Tuning - begs the question assumes that the universe has a purpose Ontological argument - incoherent concept of a Maximal Great being. Omniscience and omnipotence are inescapable with omni-benevolence.
The Bible LOL
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated Correction "Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 Hi. Glad you at least used reasons, that is, except for Bible comment. But here's why you're wrong. 1. "Cosmological- causality is incoherent prior to the universe's existence." Me: "I agree, and so does Craig, God, however, is the only completely voluntary Being. No incoherence here." 2. "Moral-circular reasoning gives objective morals objective morals prove God." Me: "This shows that you havent thought this all the way through. Morals must either exist objectively and . . .
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated . . . absolutely or they do not exist ACTUALLY. To say that they exist in a subjective way means that they are sub-objective to something more comparatively objective. What would that be other than a more objective morals? But since morals deal with rights and wrongs or oughts and ought nots then they can only be comapared to other higher standards of oughts or ought nots. Without a personal being this logic of "oughts" is meaningless but unless the personal Being IS the. . .
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated . . . Beginning itself so that it would not be subject to any outside or higher moral standard, then to even speak of morals is meaningless and therefor Nitszches nihilism is the only logical take concerning morals that follows from Atheism. If an atheist disagrees, he is then an inconsistent atheist borrowing this belief in objective or subjective morals from another worldview such as the Judeo-Christian one, perhaps unknowingly. Some have suggested this only serves . . .
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated . . . to highlight that deep down all ppl do recognize God's moral law in themselves but have had their consciences scarred through this sinful world with all its rebellious desires." 3. "Fine-tuning-begs the question assumes that the universe has a purpose." Me: "Wrong. I take it you meant to say 'design'. In any case even Dawkins would say that the universe "appears to be designed" but that it does mean it was it could just be a case or ORDER or tuning without a designer...
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated . . .still, as an inductive argument taken with everthing else it is a strong cumulative case for a non-physical/spirit Creator who would not be materially complex. To say that it "appears to be designed" means that it is evident or obvious that it is designed but perhaps though it seems obvious and that there is actual evidence for this, it still may not be the case is all the atheist can say about this." 4. "Ontological argument-incoherent concept of a Maximally Great . . .
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated . . . Being. Ominiscience and Omnipotence are incompatible." Me: "You likely regurgitated this claim from another atheist. What is certain should God exist between the 2 omnis? Omipotence, because He created, sustains, maintains and upholds the universe. Ominiscience is the only area with debates and this is likely do to OUR own conception of what it means for something to be All-knowing. I wouldn't have the time to get into this here. You may want to look into this further.
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated 4 it is word play . I see you have no problem with words creating a god after that's the BIBLE
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated 3 Absolutely wrong the human mind looks for patterns even when there are none . You have to assume that the universe was designed or created or has a purpose to ccome to the conclusion that it is fine tuned
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated He uses objective morals to prove god.and god to prove objective morals That's circular reasoning
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated "God, however, is the only completely voluntary Being. No incoherence here" HUH?
\2 NON answer
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@TruthUnadulterated 3 No answer 4 no answer
emailpobox666 1 week ago
Furthemore, the clip begins with Craig saying, "I would like to come back to an earlier point and that is the notion that atheists are somehow the intelligentsia among us and so forth . . ." He is addressing a point earlier presented by someone (the opponent or the host, perhaps), and saying how this notion, which may very well have been an ad populum or appeal to authority, and CRAIG is the one pointing out that not merely would it be a falacious agrument, but it actually is incorrect.
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
What's funny is that the poster probably failed Critical Reasoning in college/university. Neither are ad hominem nor ad populum nor appeal to authority. They woul be if Craig was saying that any of these individuals or groups of people make what is being argued true or likely true or in the case of the ad hominem not true or not likely. He is only addressing a perception NOT attempting to prove the validity, likelihood or truth of anything. This poster "reasons" with his emotions NOT his mind.
TruthUnadulterated 1 week ago
Talking about others makes something Ad Hominem? Talk about intellectually dishonest. The Horsemen's writings are for the intellectually and [more specifically] philosophically uneducated. This can be recognized eventually by reading any great philosopher. Ayn Rand has the same type of intellectually unjustified hype as enjoyed by these men [with perhaps the exception of Dennett]. Your understanding of these men couldn't be any more wrong!
koss121 1 week ago
Giving an opinion about a book has never being Ad Hominem, you gotta check the definition. And finally, who said these were arguments :)
babkrani 2 weeks ago
Flag the OP as spam
MrLas74 2 weeks ago
lol, nice scrabble of the truth dummy
MrLas74 2 weeks ago
hahaha even if u try to make WLC look bad you just cant, i ask u to watch this whole debate and u will see who has the arguments, btw reviews on those book are really much worse than he said while the contents of those book is intellectualy very low
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri Hi deluded Christian, how are you today?
oO0E 2 weeks ago
@oO0E Im excellent, thank you. And how is my deluded atheist brother today?
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri Well at least you admit you are deluded. I appreciate your honesty. However, I am under no delusion. I've seen some of your other posts and you get destroyed every single time with your untenable arguments.
oO0E 2 weeks ago
@oO0E I think that your objection on my posts is rather subjective because you have already chosen your side, and btw i never said im deluded. In fact i reckon atheists are under illusion that their view is reasonable, it is no coincidence that atheists constitute small percentage of the worlds population.
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri Quite the opposite. It is YOU who has decided your position and put up an iron clad curtain that no truth or reason can permeate it. I am nd always will be open to where the evidence leads to. You, now any other theist has ever provided evidence to support your claims.
Your fallacy of appealing to numbers is quite laughable and doesn't even merit a response.
oO0E 2 weeks ago
@oO0E There is plenty of evidence for open minded, objective thinkers, and the fact that you claim no theist has never provided evidence to support his claims tells me everything. I can freely and objectively say that I have never heard persuasive and reasonable evidence to support atheism, except a few weak arguments that are repeatedly refuted.
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri really like what?I don't see any evidence for a god or gods= im an atheist.Can you now show me evidence that would sway me?
alltiedup217 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri Quote your evidence, link your sources. No argument exists to support atheism, because there does not need to be. The lack of evidence to believe in gods, is the reason people do not.
mrgejwaites 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri The fact you are looking for evidence to support atheism shows me just how amateurish you truly are. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. The burden of proof is on YOU, the person making the claim. You should really try and learn the basics before you try debating people.
Also, where is all this evidence you speak of that supports theism?
oO0E 2 weeks ago
@oO0E It is you who doesnt understand the basics of positive and negative claim and burden of proof. Besides, the fact that you dont know the definition of atheism is enough of a proof of your ignorance. Evidence that supports theism is all around you but you have to be open minded and objective to realize that.
As the Bible says:
Bring out the people who are blind, even though they have eyes, And the deaf, even though they have ears.
Open your eyes and look around you.
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri It doesn;t matter how many times you repeat it, you are till 100% wrong. The one making the claim must provide the evidence. Theists claim there is a god. Atheists do not believe them.
Are you going to keep dancing and not provide any evidence or what? I don't have the time or desire to baby you through all of this.
oO0E 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri Really? WLC's main argument, his best argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, has been debunked numerous times. Either he is intentionally misleading people, or is incapable of the small amount of critical thinking necessary to understand why it's wrong. Either way, you and the rest of Craig's sheepish followers will no doubt continue to support him merely because he is one of the less incompetent voices on your side of the argument. What a shame.
QcatDoesGames 2 weeks ago
@QcatDoesGames then write down the premises of your refutation
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri Do you really need me to? As I already said, it's been refuted a number of times by a number of people. In fact, there are several good responses here on Youtube. I'd recommend "Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument Fails", to start. It's fairly straight to the point. If you still need me to go more in depth on the argument's problems after you watch the video, I'd be happy to.
QcatDoesGames 2 weeks ago
@QcatDoesGames Well, i watched the video you suggested, and i would recommend that you watch the video response where dr.Craig explains the incoherences in the quantum vacuum fluctuation model
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri I've seen it. All it is is a false dichotomy. There is no reason why the primordial vacuum can't be infinite. He also fails to address the fact that if god is timeless, then he could not be a creator, as creation is a causal event. If god is not timeless, then god is not infinite and was at some point created.
QcatDoesGames 2 weeks ago
@QcatDoesGames There are many philosophical reasons why something cant be infinite, do some research, btw Craig said in the video why primordial vacuum cant be infinite, play it again and actually listen what he has to say.
God is timeless, it means outside of time and space, not limited by time - eternal, and that is the only way to create time and space because before God created it time and space didnt exist and therefore he has to be timeless, btw Craig already explained this.
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri *Sigh
If god is timeless, then that means the universe has been around for an infinite time. Otherwise, god created the universe at a certain time. The act of creation is directly linked to time. If something is created, it is created at a certain time. Therefore, the creator is not timeless. I don't see how you don't get that.
The human mind doesn't understand infinity. Your "philosophical reasons" don't hold up with reality.
QcatDoesGames 2 weeks ago
@QcatDoesGames Nonsense. God created time as we know it, therefore time didnt exist before God created it. Since time didnt exist, act of creation couldnt possibly happen at a certain time. Act of creation marks the beginning of time and space. In order to create time and space God has to be outside of time and space because time and space didnt exist before God created it.
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri You just don't get it. If god created everything, he created it AT A CERTAIN TIME. The only way to avoid this is if god created everything the instant he himself was created. If not, that would mean time had passed before he created things. If so, then that, of course, would lead to the problem of an infinite chain of creators. Creation CAN NOT take place outside of time. I'm sorry you cant grasp that.
QcatDoesGames 2 weeks ago
@QcatDoesGames I thought all science agrees that Time & Space are two aspects of the same thing really. That the Big Bang created matter (as we know it), and space/time. If so, one explanation is, whatever caused the Big Bang operates outside the confines of both space and time. One causal agent proposed is God. Apparently a quantum field is another. Could it be that "eternal" in this sense just means time did not exist until the moment of the big bang, regardless of its cause?
randytate 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri Why on Earth are you trusting arguments from "Dr." Craig about matters of physics, quantum physics, etc.?
Your arguments are just flat out stupid. They constantly contradict themselves, yet you don;t even see it.
"God is timeless, it means outside of time and space, not limited by time - eternal"
And you know all of this how? Please provide evidence to substantiate this claim. Your philosophical platitudes are absolutely useless.
oO0E 2 weeks ago
@oO0E @QcatDoesGames This pointless conversation has gone too far. I guess we will just have to wait till we die to see who was right. Good luck and take care.
sototajeri 2 weeks ago
@sototajeri I knew you couldn't intelligently defend your position. You could have bowed out much earlier instead of trying to maintain an untenable position.
oO0E 2 weeks ago
MUST SEE: "3.3.3 A History of God", on YouTube
bryanttillman 2 weeks ago
ATHEISTS...IDIOTS WHO THINK THE KNOW IT ALL..LOL....
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RunColorado100 Christians are superstitious cretin who know nothing
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
this video is stupid it's 3 mins long hardly conclusive evidence that he "sucks"
lekkerBOki 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from neotropic9
Overwhelming evidence around you obviously you are willfully blind...no matter what I say you will not be convinced...do you know how they make people doubt in an interrogation? Just Question everything to death..then you will not be certain of anything...Like I said...the evidence is around you..you do not want to see it...well ....only a fool will not see it...so you are a fool...a fools says in his heart there is no God...enough said..
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 >Evidence is all around you
>doesn't provide any evidence
NOPE
Niemtol2 3 weeks ago
@Niemtol2 Ok provide proof and evidence that atheism is true....as I have provided mind...
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RunColorado100 Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. the claim is rejected because absolutely no evidence has been provided. Would you have us believe claims for werewolves vampires fairies and leprechauns?
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 Go away, you moron.
Niemtol2 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 Any agrument for the existence of god, begs the question!
Simply because we want a god does not entail that it exist. This is the foundation of a degree of wishful thinking, and the consequence is an illusion.
A posteriori considerations depend on their probability and on their respective explanatory power therefore they are not conclusive evidence
buffalowycowboy 3 weeks ago
You're confusing an insult with an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem fallacy requires attempting to discredit your opponent's argument, not by attacking the argument, but by attacking them opponent himself. WLC is not attempting to discredit any argument here, therefore, it is not an ad hominem fallacy.
fhbradley344 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't like this guy
ThieleM 3 weeks ago
Atheists= Liars who will say anything to prove a point..please get a life..God is real..deal with it..
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 god is not real you deal with it.
SuperSkepticism 3 weeks ago
@SuperSkepticism ... There is only 1 God! God exists!
xtremeownage2 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 You actually have evidence for god? If not he's as real as vampire werewolves fairies and leprechauns
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Look around you ...look at your eyes .....look at the Universe....look at an atom...it takes intelligence to understand it and it takes intelligence to make it...a fool says in his heart there is no God...fool!!!
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 I never said there is no god. I said that i hae yet to see ANY EVIDENCE for A GOD. Do hyo have any?I will listen. But please don't say the bible or Koran etc
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 There is no God. check out vid...3.3.3 A History of God
bryanttillman 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"it takes intelligence to understand it and it takes intelligence to make it"
Thank you for this wonderful example of a non sequitur.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer OBVIOUSLY YOU DONOT KNOW THE DEFINITION...MONKEY BRAIN..LOL..
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"OBVIOUSLY YOU DONOT KNOW THE DEFINITION."
What definition? That it takes intelligence to understand something does NOT lead to the conclusion that it has been created. Stating that it does is a non sequitur.
Really, you theists keep wearing your dishonesty and ignorance as a badge of honor.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer WHAT YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT..IF YOU SEE A 747 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT YOU KNOW IMMEDIATELY THAT SOMEONE CREATED THAT ...SO OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU SEE COMPLEXITY IN AN ATOM...YOU KNOW THERE IS INTELLIGENCE BEHIND THAT ...BUT ATHEISTS ARE BLIND FOOLS WHY BOTHER...GOOD BY..MONKEY BRAIN...
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"IF YOU SEE A 747 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT"
Idiot. Airplanes are not living organisms that reproduce imperfectly.
"OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU SEE COMPLEXITY IN AN ATOM...YOU KNOW THERE IS INTELLIGENCE? BEHIND THAT"
Hydrogen and helium atoms spontaneously form because of the properties of the parts that constitute them. You don't need any intelligence for that.
And stop writing in all caps, you nincompoop. It's retarded.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer OBVIOUSLY LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MORE COMPLICATED...AND THEY ARE IMPERFECT? O..SORRY I THOUGHT YOU WHERE GOD..YOU MUST BE ALL KNOWING TO FIND THAT SOMETHING IS IMPERFECT..LOL.WHAT AN ARROGANT FOOL..WHO CREATED HYDROGEN AND HELIUM AND MADE THEM BEHAVE THE WAY THEY DO..OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE WILLFULLY BLIND..LOL..THERE IS NO FOOL LIKE A WILLING FOOL...LOL..
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"BVIOUSLY LIVING ORGANISMS ARE MORE COMPLICATED."
Who cares? They live, have some form of metabolism and reproduce imperfectly. That's basically all you need for evolution to occur.
"YOU MUST BE ALL KNOWING TO FIND THAT SOMETHING IS IMPERFECT"
Are you claiming that you are a perfect clone of your parents then?
"WHO CREATED HYDROGEN AND HELIUM "
Asking "who" did it is nothing but begging the question.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL..yea like I said willfully blind...Question? If you put sand inside a plastic bag and shake it for a billion years...will it evolve in to a watch..please...living organism evolve up to a point and within their species..but there is no proof one living organism evolved thru billions and billions and billions of years to become men...what a monkey brain...lol..
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"If you put sand inside a plastic bag"
Sand is not organic material, and sand molecules don't self-replicate and/or have metabolisms. Stop spewing this ignorant claptrap.
"living organism evolve up to a point and within their species"
What would be the mechanism that wold prevent species from evolving even further? Why do we find so many organisms that are hard to categorize to which species they belong, when the boundaries are so clear-cut, according to you?
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Which animals are you talking about...? Obviously you cannot prove there are transitional species if you could you would win a nobel prize but you are an idiot..also idiots like you belive organic matter became inorganic matter how do you explain the beginning of life..you can't without a Creator..you are not that smart you just think you have ultimate truth..you don't...answering a question with a question...ignorant ..idiot.
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"you cannot prove there are transitional species"
Tiktaalik is a nice example, but of course there are many more. Do some research.
"organic matter became inorganic matter"
This makes me wonder what do you think organic matter is.
"you just think you have ultimate truth"
Wherever did I claim I have ultimate truth? If there is someone who claims to have it, it's YOU. But of course you have no evidence to back it up.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Just give me one example of a transitional species...lets make things simple...answering do some research does not answer the question..could you just please give me an example...was is this Tiktaalik nonsense..
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 Every member of every species is "transitional". But again, look up evolution in wikipedia. Look up transitional fossils too, they've probably made an article about that too. : )
winterstellar 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar Please explain to me the process of finding a bone in the dirt and arriving at the conclusion that it evolved...we do not see this in real life only between animals of the same species...little chihuahua and great Dane...but they are within the same species..please explain to me the process ...step one you find a bone....could you elaborate...just giving me websites or wikkipedia wont do please illuminate me o great one...lol..
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 Look up observed speciation then. Or look up speciation. In wikipedia for instance. There are good videos on YouTube showing various "transitional sstages" too. The comments here can't be longer than 500 letters, and frankly I don't think it's fair to other users here to fill up the page with basic stuff you can learn by looking it up in wiki or finding videos about it. (If you want to debate a subject, you need to learn something about the subject first. :)
winterstellar 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar if evolution is so simple and obvious you should be able to explain it in 500 words or less..but the reality is you can't...and there my friend is the rub...I already know everything on Macro evolution...or evolution as you might call it...but you obviously don't you can't explain the process to me simply 500 words should be enoughI can explain synthesis of plants in 500 words or less and its more complicated than idiotic evolution..why don't you stop giving excuses
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 Again, look up evolution in wikipedia. And read the chapter called fact of evolution too. Or buy a biology textbook for school. It is quite simple really when you understand how it works.
winterstellar 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar I don't question peer-reviewed science or nobel laureates work much, no. But I DO question ancient fairy-tales written by completely ignorant ancients, since I know that even I am much more capable of understanding things, explaining things than they were back then.And I do question how those tales can have any relevance on anything today. Cheers, by the way. It's very late here. Cood night:)
winterstellar 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar What you can't question something...so that means you throw your brain and just have faith...wow...I never thought an atheist believed in anything and which articles which are peer reviewed are you talking about...throwing words around..does not convince me or impress me..first you cant explain how evolution works and then you tell me you don't question it...lol..wow..the dumbing down of America...lol..what a simpleton..can you explain evolution I have asked nicely.
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar LOL..what you can't back up what you believe..lol...typical evolutionist BS..lol..you can not explain evolution..lol...step one you find a bone in the ground...then..step two..etc..you cannot explain the thought process of how they got to evolution from bones...lol..you are a sorry evolutionist atheist..so much for being intellectual...A fool says in his heart there is no God...there have been atheists since the times of the Bible..nothing new under the sun...lol
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RunColorado100 Please explain your thought process. You take a 2000 year old book and bend twist fold and mutilate and throw out scientific discoveries to fit with the superstitious writings of bronze age sheep herders.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar Obviously you are only spewing information not knowledge..because you do not question anything ...this is the dumbing down of America and Britain...so sad..people are this dumb...God is real deal with it...
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer So you mean to tell me that the Tiktaalik which is a fossil you can derive all that information for bones buried in the sand...lol..wow..obviously you are going to inject billions and billions of years..so evolution...other than within species has never been seen and you do not provide proof except do research..lol..show me real proof not bones...if evolution was true..millions and millions of bones would be found..showing the jump from one species to ano
RunColorado100 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 Wiki fossil record, wiki evolution if you know this little. Learn the basics: )
winterstellar 3 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"Tiktaalik "
Scientists purposefully looked for a fossil like Tiktaalik, and fount it exactly they where they expected it to be.
"you can derive all that information for bones "
You sure can. I don't see what the problem would be with any of that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL..you can't explained the thought process..they found where they expected it to be..did the bone send them a text message...what a simpleton..please explain the thought process..we find a bone step one...step two..etc..etc..How did they know or where expecting the bone to be? ...lol...wow...talking about being an idiot...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"did the bone send them a text message"
No. They predicted what kind of fossil to expect in what layer. They dug for it and found it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Ok so they found it within a layer..so what ...what does a layer mean and what was the thought process behind establishing what a layer is...if there is a flood obviously the heaviest animal will fossilize at the bottom...so layers mean nothing....so explain to me how they arrived at the layers....please...step by step..if they are assumptions..then the assumptions are taken on faith because there is no way scientifically to test for layers...so please exp
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"so they found it within a layer."
Not "A" layer, but the exact layer where they expected it to be.
"if there is a flood obviously the heaviest animal will fossilize at the bottom"
Of course, this is not at all what we see happening in the fossil record. The Flood is a myth, with no geological evidence whatsoever.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Explain the layer and how they arrived at what a layer means...step by step...Also the flood is not a myth...it is recorded history from ancient people from different parts of the world that had no contact with each other or don't you read history...also the layers and fossils corroborate this...you can see it in the Red Canyon unless you want to be blind to it...but anyway explain the layers and their reasoning...please step by step..
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"Explain the layer and how they arrived at what a layer means"
Those layers are more precisely called strata, and a stratum is a layer of sedimentary rock or soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers. You should read up on this material. It's fascinating stuff.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Also the flood is Universally recognized around the world..if you do not want to recognize it well...that is your problem..but overwhelming evidence is there...you cannot dismiss it just by saying its a bible story...because this is a Universal story...and there evidence to corroborate it....so it would be like denying the sun exists by putting a finger in front of your eye..lol..
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RunColorado100 The flood isn't recognized around the world. Please specify the science organization which states that about a flood. please refrain from any creationists source since they are wholly unreliable
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RunColorado100 Even if we did grant you this ridiculous idea of a flood . what does it prove that your god is genocidal . killing indiscriminately man woman child infant and fetus
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"the flood is Universally recognized around the world"
In the 19th century, most geologists were Biblical creationists who spent many years trying to find evidence for the Flood. Alas, they had to admit they couldn't find any. Instead, they found loads of evidence that the earth was very old. Yes, it was a shock to them, but being true scientists they had to accept the facts.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"this is a Universal story"
It's curious how the Chinese totally missed this event. The Flood clearly had no influence whatsoever on their civilization.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL...The Miao Legend states that a single human couple escaped the deluge in a wooden drum, and then gave birth to the first members of post flood humanity...please ..lol..never mind ..you cannot answer my questions why should I believe anything you say..History is not like science where you can do scientific experiments to prove anything...I guess I m done here I never got an answer from you and you are very misinformed...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"The Miao Legend states that a single human couple escaped the deluge in a wooden drum"
Floods are part of human folklore, since humans tend to settle next to seas, lakes and rivers. That doesn't men there was a worldwide flood. You'll have to do better,
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer In most ancient civilizations the flood story is mentioned even in Isolated China, civilizations that had no connection state the same thing. ..you just stated that China did not speak about a flood...obviously I was not there at Noah's Flood...neither where you ...but obviously as an atheist you will deny it...no proof will be enough because you cannot go back to yesterday..but all we have are ancient writings from unconnected civilizations...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"civilizations that had no connection state the same thing"
Most civilizations have ample experience with floods, so merely having stories doesn't mean anything. During the story of the Flood China didn't notice a thing. Also think of it: how could the Chinese have a story about the Flood, when they would all have been wiped out by it?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Civilizations speak of a great flood...obviously you probably think people where to dumb to differentiate between a small flood and a Biblical flood...most civilization speak about a great flood..but we will agree to disagree...because I cannot interview people in the past neither can you to see what they where speaking about..Also people who lived in deserts speak about the flood...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer Civilizations speak of a great flood...obviously you probably think people where to dumb to differentiate between a small flood and a Biblical flood...most civilization speak about a great flood..but we will agree to disagree...because I cannot interview people in the past neither can you to see what they where speaking about..Also people who lived in deserts speak about the flood...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Also if you have an assumption like evolutionists do ..they will deny there was a flood or if you have an assumption that the flood existed then you will try to things thru those glasses..what I m stating here is that evolutionists assumptions are just that because we need to recognize that we cannot be certain about what happened to the earth...evolution or Macro evolution is faith based ..there are layers in the earth but anything you read in to them
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"they will deny there was a flood"
There simply is no evidence for one, so denial is not needed.
"evolution or Macro evolution is faith based"
How can actually observed facts be faith-based?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer is..not scientific it based on an assumption..unless you can explain the thought process behind how you arrived at what the layer means ...we can only see that there are assumptions..I can show you info where threes go thru 5 layers of which you speak of further proving that a flood happened...threes standing up in thru those layers which supposedly took millions of years...so explain the layers please..I m waiting.for a rational scientific explanation
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"threes go thru 5 layers"
There is a very good explanation for that. Look up "polystrate fossils" and learn something.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I have asked you repeatedly to explain the process of how they came up with the information for fossils and layers and you only send me to websites it should be simple ...obviously you can explain what I am asking...because what I am asking you to explain obviously are not facts...so you are believing evolution ..there is no scientific basis for it...you can not explain my simple questions...and China ancient history speaks about the flood..lol..
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"explain the process of how they came up with the information for fossils"
Observation, induction, construction theories and bolstering them with more observations. You know: science.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer No give me the step by step process..I have already asked you ...first you find a fossil..second you...etc..etc..etc..please give explanation it should be simple....lol...obviously..you can't....
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"give me the step by step process"
Geology is a complicated field, and you want me to give you a simple step-by-step process? What prevents you from doing some research yourself?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer LOL..you can't explain the process from finding a bone in the dirt and how you arrive at your conclusion by saying something is complicated..what...obviously you do not know what you believe....this is not the answer of a rational person if you are trying to prove something..lol..please...obviously if you cannot explain something you don't know what you believe...you just believe it...blind faith..lol..
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"you can't explain the process from finding a bone in the dirt"
You determine the age of a fossil of a organism that is an intermediate between two organisms you already have data from, and you dig in the strata of the right age. That's what they did with Tiktaalik, for instance, and they found it where they predicted it.
Now, determining age and organization of strata is a science in itself, and well worth studying.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer so explain to me the intellectual process and how you arrive at your conclusions that a fossil evolved it is interesting that atheists evolutionist are certain about evolution but look at the Kennedy assassination even with all the video proof and evidence they can't make up their minds and you mean to tell me with no evidence at all that evolution is right please explain do not give generalities I m waiting will not answer again without explanation.
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"your conclusions that a fossil evolved"
Of course fossils don't evolve. They're not alive. But they are created out of organisms that have evolved. We see fossils exactly where we expect to find them. The are no bunnies in the Cambrian, for example.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Again how do you obtain the Data from those organisms and How do you explain that a layer a fossil if from a certain era....those organism that you are using as reference how did you obtain that information...that is what you are not explaining..again we take a fossil out from the dirt..step one...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"how do you obtain the Data from those organisms"
The fossils can be classified by comparing their anatomy to other fossils and species existing today.
"How do you explain that a layer a fossil if from a certain era"
The age of a fossil can be determined by dating the layer it is using radiometric dating. There are many different kinds of radiometric dating methods, and they all agree with each other within very narrow margins of error.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Obviously you have not studied Radiometric dating and they do not agree with each other....that is why they are many but obviously you will say they agree with each other...there are many problems with radiometric dating..you should know that I have studied this in depth...most of them give different times for the same fossil so scientifically radiometric dating is not proven. You need to be honest with yourself..and if radiometric dating is wrong well...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"they do not agree with each other"
They sure do. That's why they are so reliable. Whoever told you that they don't is a liar.
"scientifically radiometric dating is not proven."
You surely have no clue what you're talking about.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Obviously you have no clue of what you are talking about scientists know that radiometric dating is flawed...but evolutionists use it as fact..we will agree to disagree on this..radiometric dating convinced me that evolution is totally flawed..if you do not believe it...google problems with radiometric dating and these are scientists explaining it...lol...so which radiometric dating did you want to start with..so we can get cracking on..lol
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"scientists know that radiometric dating is flawed"
What scientists know that how? Be precise. You have to take care that you don't have contaminated samples, but that is a given.
"google problems with radiometric dating"
I only get creationist sites when I do that, or sites refuting the creationist ones.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
I just gave you the basic flaw..there are times when you need to think for yourself...this is one of them? Obviously evolutionists will say its perfect but its not....creationists will say its flawed...and they give their reasons...and they are rational and scientific ones...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"creationists will say its flawed"
They reject the methods purely because they contradict their beliefs. There's nothing scientific about it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer So do evolutionists..because evolution is a belief...if you want to recognize that or not...it is only given the trappings of science...Obviously I cannot prove the creation story because I was not there...but you cannot prove evolution because you where not there either...Radiometric Dating is based on many assumptions : first one...rate of decay is constant...we do not know rate of decay is constant across time..that is a big assumption...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed"
That's just stupid. Do you honestly expect me to take this seriously?
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You will not question anything about evolution you obviously believe it blindly..
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
"You will not question anything about evolution"
If you have any valid objections to it, I will listen. Saying "it's wrong because I don't want to accept" is NOT valid. And of course, proving evolution wrong would not automatically prove creation right anyway.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer It is often said that a great many dating methods, used on a single specimen, will agree with each other, thus establishing the accuracy of the date given. In reality, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method (Recall that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon (a gas) is mobile in rock.)
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "The construction of this time scale was based on about 380 radioisotope ages that were selected because of their agreement with the presumed fossil and geological sequences found in the rocks. Radioisotope ages that did not meet these requirements were rejected on the basis of presumed chemical and/or physical modifications that made the "ages" unreliable indicators of real time. About
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer 85% of the selections were K-Ar date s, 8% rubidium-strontium dates, and 4% uranium-lead dates."
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100
My advice: stop getting your information from creationist websites. Read what real scientists say about those matters.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 weeks ago