fiding god emplacement or proving god existance is a crime for all believer so athéist stop telling small minded argument and beliver give up on trying to convert or prove anything. Proof aint true belief in god if you need proof to believe you are not believing
Evolution within a species is fine but evolution from species to species is a problem.
and how is it that we have elements the govern evolution without there being grand design? how is the process to evolve or rather acclimate initiated? and how would it know what TO initiate? without prior knowledge of that possibilty?
the evidence in the bible is well documented and its legitmacy has been tested time and time again without fail. if you must look at the bible critically, look at it with the same scientific method as you would darwainism.
one of your major points in the falsity of religion is that there is no evidence. you have ignored the miracles of jesus, the spreading of the red sea, saddam and gamorah, the snake rod, the pillar of fire, the speaking and understanding of other languages through the holy spirit, the conversion of saul, etc. an ignorant person is one who ignores.
@manderson416 all of which you have footage/ carbon dating/etc of, not just some TheOnion-like text as a source. The Bible is a text written by very wise man who understood humanity but did not understand the world and the things that ARE like we do today. So a lot of the "thread" they used to "weave" their stories to things other than humans relied on assumptions for which they also had no evidence for. Thousands of years later their sayings are given extraordinary value, through repetition
This video is action-packed with scientific "facts"--many of which strengthens my faith and reaffirms how much is going on in the universe. The part about humans making dogs the way they are is somewhat true; adaptation will happen and the environment definitely plays a hand. But the first dog was made by God and everything else by its own kind.
apparently you can only pay attention to one sentence in a whole video. good job. im glad youve chosen this one topic that was completely explained, ignored it, and then offered the same initial ignorant question.
some people dont even believe dinosaurs exist but yet thers FUCKING FOSSILS then theres some people who think the stone age never happened same with the ice age and im going wtf are you fucking serious it happened wtf
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheists are the jokes of the universe. They want to become God, think they are God in some cases, but in reality they are just puffed up insignificant tiny helpless beings. They plan and plan and plan, but their plans are always baffled. They claim to be intellectuals but in reality they are just weak minded speculators with no real basis for what they believe.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheists say, can you prove that god exists? yet they cannot prove that God does not exist. They have so much faith in science yet any real scientist will admit the limitations of science and acknowledge the many gross mistakes made by science throughout history. Therefore a neutral intelligent person would never blindly believe what scientists say about god. Only by accepting the absolute can one stay on the intellectual plane, otherwise one must speculate endlessly.
Atheists do not necessarily have faith in science. Atheism has NOTHING to do with science. It is the non-belief in deities.
And as an atheist, I don't believe in a god or gods, not because scientists tell me but because I just don't believe. It's my OWN BRAIN that tells me. I don't need someone else to tell me whether to believe or not. I either do or I don't and I DO NOT.
you're such a fucking idiot. Exactly how much of this rant did you listen to? How many fucking times did he say evolution, big bang, etc has NOTHING to do with atheists. Why don't you go say every single black person in the world listens to Weezy and TuPac? It's the same concept. You do not have to choose God or Science. Just because someone is atheist doesn't mean they have faith in science.
And btw. I think that the lack of proof of God is enough proof that he doesn't exist.
I'm an atheist as well, so naturaly i'm have to agree wit you, your making some good points here. I'm also still learning, as life is a constant learning process...Good work!
The big crunch has virtually been abandoned among physicists because of the somewhat recent discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
It was assumed that the expansion would be slowing down, but it is speeding up, allegedly because of dark energy. If one extrapolates this expansion to infinity, the universe ends not by a big crunch but by becoming a blank void of nothingness.
Excellent point that what a fool grasps is graspable by all. The ideas would be readily graspable if people kept open minds and did not allow their religious beliefs to put up resistance and denial.
I tried, but I couldn't handle the rambling longer than 3 minutes 8 seconds. It's not that I disagree with what I 'think' you are saying. And from your apparent age, you seem to have to given some serious thought about some serious matters, but you are rambling. I'm marking this a a favorite so that I can come back later and view the whole thing.
As a suggestion, have you thought about writing down what you want to say and doing it with a teleprompter kind of thing?
Please look at China! How great they are now as an atheist country who are still trying to destroy religion, especially Tibet, a Buddhist state. They are so good at controlling religions and gradually destroying them. Look at their economy, the number of cars, people wealth, and the Olympics. The new Peking airport finished in no time, and compare that to T5 in Heathrow. Atheism is well presented in China.
They aren't trying to destroy religion in Tibet; your lack of understanding of that issue is glaring. Also, knowing that much of China lacks a religious-based direction in their government does not say anything else about them- being atheistic is much like being a-racist or a-astrologist. That is chasing shadows, and it is an old and failed argument.
"since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
I'd like to see you try and prove the existence of yourself, since you want proof of the existence of god.
Problem is, you cannot. Not without at the same time creating a definition of existence that exactly fits your own experience of existing.
Therefore, you are forever biased and it is impossible to create an objective definition of what exists and what does not and thus impossible to say weather god exists or not.
I agree with your points about evolution not being random. I'm a deist btw.
i think therefore i am. descartes said that to proof his existance (to himself) that's phenomenology.
and by its nature and the one of ontology u can hardly proof anything at all.that doesnt mean nothing exists.
the problem with the existance of god is, that u would have to define the word god first. even though no 2 people can agree exactly on the attributes of god. those who do were indoctrinated, probably as a child thinking god is a bearded man sitting in a cloud watching over us.
Work on your verb tenses if you want to quote famous people. Otherwise,you simply sound silly. Proof versus prove. It's a noun/verb thing. Yes, it can be tough for some people, even if you have problems defining 'god'.
Though people being 'indoctrinated' rings true. Did your parents 'indoctrinate' you to use a noun when a verb is called for.
Now, run away or I shall taunt you yet a second time.
He wants proof of a god in the form of evidence. He uses proof as an everyday type of thing, why do you stop at a red light? because you see proof that it is red, you dont sit there and think "maybe this isnt real". We want some kind of evidence that can be used to show there is a god. Intelligent design is a decent argument except there are very good counter arguments that can explain what it actually happening. A well documented miracle would be good evidence.
Ahh, this proving of my existence is very difficult. If someone was to stand in front of you, and beat you like a red-headed stepchild, you would say they were real or not real? If they simply stood in front of you and said 'Hello', would they exist? Or they simply stood in front of you?
And by 'weather' god exists, you mean that god exists only depending on the weather?
mikeman999 how do u know the world came from explosion.were you there when your coffee table blew up and came out a planet and dinosaur?how can u make the planet with the bomb? maybe if I come to ur house and throw hand grenade in ur back garden maybe they will grow up a tree like them come out a planet.Don't speak so rude to me.because I will grab ur balls and make u go on knee.
The big bang was NOT an explosion. You're talking shit and you know it. Do you have any real criticisms that aren't just unresearched, unjustified ridicule?
Be carefull, no one knows everything and abortedsoul brings forth alot of good things, I think i knows alot, but everyone can be mistaken, science does it all the time ;) Many believe that the Big Bang was an explotion, I just read about it and I don't understand it completely, but does it matter?
The theory states that it was a rapid expansion, not an explosion like a bomb. gatsu's comment was unbelievably stupid. He's using a strawman as per usual with a creationist.
Please explain to me the difference between a rapid expansion and an explosion. I won't do your research for you, but you can probably do a Google and find out the estimated rate of expansion following the Big Bang and compare it with something like C4 or a thermonuclear 'explosion'. Then get back to me about this 'rapid expansion'. Once again, I fart in your general direction. Now go away or I shall taunt you yet a second time.
One like sh4wz0r typed the big bang was not an explosion, and the big bang happened 13.7 billion 200 million years ago.
O.K. let me put the lenght of the universe simply if you hold out your arms, straight out so they are parallel to your shoulders, now if someone takes a nail file to your finger nail, you would have shaved off all of human history and probably two thirds of dinosaurs history. ya just thought i would comment because gatsu2005 you sound like a complete idiot.
I am SO impressed. The Big Bang happened 13.7 200 million years ago. That's cutting it pretty close. Did you actually work this number out YOURSELF or are just spouting off a number you read somewhere and therefore trust and/or know nothing about? Add another BILLION years to to your estimate, do the calculations on the percentage change of the age of the universe and get back to me on how silly your 'exact' date sounds. Now go away you silly person or I shall taunt you one more time.
I said my initial reply, yes i admit it i was being a little 'to quick to respond' if someones argument is 'you say theres a God i say prove it' it is a sign of someone really being unsure themselves, as they have no solid evidence that there isn't a God, so they say that, its a kop out. It's not an argument. There is nothing that anyone can say that will stop me believing in God. Call me stupid call me an idiot say what you like.
There is no way possible to claim to have evidence that ANYTHING doesn't exist; there is no way to prove the non-existence of anything, anything at all. Beyond logical, direct arguments against something like a square-circle (such as an all loving, all powerful god not being able to exist in a word with evil) you cannot prove that something does not exist. Not being able to prove that something does not exist is not the same thing as saying it exists.
Ok, I'm going to say this really simply so you don't miss anything.
It is impossible to provide solid evidence of the non-existence of anything that has no predesignated location.
That means that claiming "you can't prove it doesn't exist" holds absolutely no weight in any argument, about anything at all. That claim is both missing the fact that contrary proof cannot exist without a specified location and that the burden of proof is on the person making the wild claim.
That is the stupidest argument I've heard in a long while; there isn't a giant invisible penguin who reads thoughts and controls everyone's bank accounts? Prove it.
Simple there have been people who have experienced God, and. People haven't experienced a giant penguin. If you are that intelligent, then surely you must understand it is very difficult to explain, from my perspective. I'm still learning through my faith, i don't have an answer for everything. So i don't have much i can say back, because i don't understand everything.
so u made an argument you couldnt defend because you didnt see the rebuttal coming, because u cant answer it i think its obvious that you have no clue what u are talking about
The experiential argument for a god is the same as an experiential argument for faeries, aliens or psychic powers.
You probably don't understand everything because there is nothing to understand; you do realize that if the religion that you were converting to were ancient Greek mythology or Islam or something you would be going through the exact same thing?
I find it hard to believe that people can miss the hand right in front of their own faces.
I may not have a clue what im talking about. Just because i can't prove it myself that there is a God, doesn't mean there isn't. I believe there is a God.
I can come up with a list of a thousand things that could excist because there is no prof that it doesn't excist. In fact, as abortedsoul said, this doesn't lead anywhere, everything can exist, but that doens't want you to believe in them.
imtherealjon wow wow hold on there Mary!! im not a atheist im a Christan. but werly i dont belive big bang becors you frow 2 atomic warheads on japan in the world war 2 so thats like 2 big bangs but no life came out of that johnny boy *ggg*
There is absolutely no fucking connection beetween an atomic bomb and the big bang. the theory that the universe used to be condenced into a submircoscopic point, and then, for an unknown reason, just exploded realeasing all the matter which is our universe. an atomic bomb is, simply, a bomb that explodes at the critical mass of and unstable, radioactive element (uranium-235), wich is simply unstable do to isotopes neutron difference.
Okay. one, that made no sense. pluralize atheist, do not start ur sentence with a verb, and explain how "at least 2 of the 3 nothing but useless babble!!!!!" makes sense wen u read it? now i would like you to give one single form of evidence of god... just one if u have a brain.
i think this video was werry funny :-D i didnt understand the scinence things you talk about becoprs i alweys felt scinence wars boring but i thing the video is funne when you talk about people who belive evolution, i also dont belive evolution but i dont even now what its about, somthing about monky and we came from mars and big bang.
not even 2 minutes into the video and you got it wrong. you say there is no evidence for GOD and that evolution happened then you call it a theory and thats all it is you said even a stupid person can understand I have my doubts but i will give you a chance
"One random elephant" okaaay... but no, I find it interesting that, as usual, you disregard abiogenesis, which, lets face it, had to be kind of random. But dude seriously wait for my new vid I think you'll like it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
by the way, you're an idiot. you don't know anything and you sit here swearing at the world.
you religious nuts (yes, atheists are religious nuts because they believe in stuff they can't possibly know; and they go 'fucking nuts' over it because their world falls apart without those beliefs), need to learn some humility. you do not, and will never know the truth. you won't even learn a piece of it, if you keep sitting around yelling at people.
Atheists rely SOLELY on EVIDENCE, Aro2220. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT AN ATHEIST CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW EVIDENCE. ARE YOU THAT MIND WASHED? It's religion that claims to know all. WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I almost feel sorry for you. There is evidence for evolution, big bang, etc. THAT is what we RELY on to draw our conclusions about why the world is the way it is, NOT what we "believe" in.
atheists don't believe in god. theists do. Fundamentalist theists believe in things without understanding, and i've never met an atheist that disbelieves in something through true understanding but rather by dispise.
in my opinion, you're all idiots. the truth is two inches from your nose but neither side wants to open their eyes because they're so sure of their infallibility.
nice to hear someone who can say something intelligent without hunting through a thesaurus to find as many big, useless words as possible so he can look like a smartass to everyone.
I try not to do that, although I do have to admit I love how the English language can be so expressive. I find all of the jargon and fancy words to be a burden when they are not required, although if you are going to approach a technical topic expect to get, well, technical. Anyways, I appreciate your comment and I'm glad I made sense to you.
good job bro, but I generally find it true that the religious will intentionally keep themselves ignorant to these topics to keep those questions at bay, the kind of questions that would put thier faith in jeopardy. Keep up the good work dude.
Evolution is a theory... It's not proven, and anyone who leans toward it knows it's just a theory. Creationists claim to know the absolution truth, without one shred of evidence. Once again, theory vs. claims of fact, yet unproven. However there is much more evidence for evolution than there is for creationism.
Evolution is an incredibly well-supported and elegant theory that very effectively explains phenomenon that have in no other way been as of yet satisfactorily explained. Much like the theories explaining condensation or that lightning is electricity, incredibly well-supported.
EVERYTHING is a theory. Why your computer screen works is a theory. You cannot absolutely make anything a fact, as there can always be some other possibility. ALWAYS. Even with religious dogmatics, they STILL aren't exactly sure what heaven looks like or what god looks like or what anything so-called "outside the physical realm" is.
Nothing can ever be proven except mathematical relationships within mathematics. You can only have evidence supporting something, or evidence disproving something.
A theory is an explanation of the available evidence. It is not on a scale, it cannot be "promoted" or "demoted" anywhere.
A fact is simply an observation. Also known as evidence.
I wanted to tell you that your theory of intellignet falling to totally connected to the big band theory. See there is no gavity on the Earth and thats why your falling theory is pretty much the same as the athiest one. You see so the evolution of intelligent design is just like the big bang theory of natural selection. So it is you that need to do your homework buddy.
Except the stick up my ass, I totally agree. I get pissed off as well when people assume I follow all these unrelated things just because of my beliefs.
different gods (and space aliens, and Elvis) have been experienced directly throughout the ages. That doesn't constitute reputable or meaningful evidence.
How do you know this? Have you taken ecology? I have. An abundance of species coexist all competing in their own niche for the same or different resources
If you think about it, it's not really natural "selection", it's survival of the fittest. No one selects anything.
A being that can sense light can survive better and the being that can't gets eaten or something. The being better suited for surviving reproduces and passes on its successful genes. Taadah.
"If you think about it, it's not really natural "selection", it's survival of the fittest. No one selects anything."
The problem is that the the phenotypic differences are so small it is doubtful that there is any competitive edge at all. What might give dinosaurs an edge are their wings. But it is doubtful that all the hundreds (who knows how many) of little changes that were needed to produce wings have any competitive value.
"The problem is that the the phenotypic differences are so small it is doubtful that there is any competitive edge at all."
That's speculation. If a creature's body hair is a little bit closer to the surrounding colours, they may be able to sneak up on prey just a little bit more. All you need are tiny successful changes. As the Hobbit said - the longest journey starts with but a single step.
"That's speculation" That's rich... so is evolution. Especially the theory that these tiny changes (the huge numbers of which are needed to produce an 'evolved' charatersistic) gain a competitive edge.
Why would increments of a wing have any survival value. The same question can be asked of any 'evolved' charateristic.
"Why would increments of a wing have any survival value. The same question can be asked of any 'evolved' charateristic."
Slight wing variations could easily make the wings more efficient, thus allowing the creature to fly longer without having to eat, or be able to fly a little faster to be more able to catch prey. Use your imagination.
You realize that this is not an argument against the development of a wing, it just shows how creative or imaginitive I can be. Can you show that it does NOT have value?
"You realize that this is not an argument against the development of a wing," No its an argument against the natural selection of transitional increments to a wing.
The burden of proof is on evolution theory to show that an eloganted and curved phalange
(making it more difficult to perform the task it used to) would have a competitive value.
Being a 'scientific' theory, evidence for the transitional individuals with 'claws-on-the-way-to-being-wings' would be nice. Of course nothing like this has ever been found just the usual promissory note from the Darwinian zealots. We have to fill in the gaping holes with our imagination.
Try not to be so "holier than thou" - at least we can see daily evidence of evolution (see: bacteria becoming drug resistant, mankind's development of household cats & dogs from wild species, the domestication of the banana). We see evolution by natural & artificial selection all the time, and we have a fossil record showing it from the past. Just because we can't show everything YET doesn't mean we're on the wrong track.
I'm not arguing Christian doctrine. That's argumentum ad hominem. My religious background is irrelevant to the inadequacies of evolution theory.
"see: bacteria becoming drug resistant"
This is evidence of adaptation. Nobody questions that individuals adapt. Evolution theory claims that new species are only the result of such adaptations. No evidence of that exists.
No - it's not blind faith if it's an extrapolation of observed effects, backed up by evidence. Darwin knew nothing of genetics when he came up with the theory. In fact, he had a problem with his theory at the beginning because common thought was the world was only 6000 years old (thanks, creationists). It took lyell's theory of an old earth for evolution to work.
"an extrapolation of observed effects, backed up by evidence"
Evolutionary 'effects' are not observered. Their causes are extrapolated from a jig saw of fossils- and a lot of controversy about how the pieces fit. I don't have blind faith in Dawkins or Darwin.
It's amazing how unaccepting Christians are of evidence, when it comes to evolution, and how blindly accepting they are of fantasy when it comes to their bible.
As far as I know, not a single credited biologist actually disagrees with evolution. There are bits and pieces here and there that are under discussion, but everyone agrees (other than Christian pretenders) that Evolution is it.
Do you have another theory that explains all the species & behaviours we see today, that isn't evolution? I'd love to hear it. You should publish a paper, because you have apparently turned the scientific world on its head.
I don't need to become a publish scientist to disagree with an inadequate scientific theory.
"Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota, for example, has called for "the public firing and humiliation of some teachers" because they question Darwin.
It turns out that PZ is the only example of evolution's defenders.
These self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them."
"Why? You can't defend the contents? Do you know how its supports its points."
What on earth are you talking about? Why do I need to defend it's contents? It defends itself. Dawkins makes his point more eloquently than I can, particularly in this silly YT discussion venue.
As I said - read the book. If you have other evidence, or a theory that better describes everything, then by all means publish it, and become famous. Otherwise, you're just being an idiot arguing like this.
I don't need to read a book to learn what I already know about the inadequacies of evolution biology - I have a degree in Science - with a minor in Botany. I've read enough books - and spent hours in the lab.
Darwinian evolution is bunk. There is plasticity to species characteristics which allows them to adapt. If you want to call that evolution - fine. But it's not the explanation of how we got here. Maybe time is cyclic. So maybe all the species pre-existed is some form in other epochs. Such was the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead - a brilliant physicist and mathematician.
As much evidence as scientist have to the contrary. Einstein did away with the 'arrow of time'. Whitehead had an 'epochal' theory of time which was basically cyclic. Neither of these thinkers believed in fairy tales.
Give me a theory that encompasses: Fossils, Vestigial organs & bones, retroviruses, dna matching, etc etc. All the heaps and piles of things that support darwinian evolution, and I'll buy you a beer.
Why should I? Evolution doesn't account for it. If species did not evolve, but the forms were pre-established, what needs to be explained? I'm not obligated to cover the whole science of biology - which has NO dependency on evolution.
You of course ARE a christian, and you're just trying to dance around to avoid saying it.
If you have a better alternative to Evolution, I'd love to hear it. Simply saying "your arguments are wrong" without actually backing them up (which you didn't) is weak.
Wow. Such impressive credentials. I didn't know they gave away degrees in "Science". Amazing! You are obviously far more qualified than Dawkins. He merely holds a chair at Oxford. What does he know? Your baseless arguments are far more compelling than his clear, concise, logical and fact-filled books.
I didn't say he was a biologist. What the hell is a theological mathematician? He was a physicist. As a scientist he certainly had to know about biology. In fact his metaphysics is called the 'theory of the organism'.
"...Whitehead was always interested in theology, especially in the 1890s..." - wikipedia. Of course, the entry could be wrong, so I take it with a grain of salt.
A mathematician interested in and working with theology is what I would call a theological mathematician. You could call him an airhead if that makes you feel better.
What you choose to call Whitehead matters little in the balance of things.
And oh right- Wikpedia the defintive authority - and the twit who made this video starts by quoting a book on caculus - Doesn't take much to impress you.
Yeah. Atheism is theology like "bald is a hair colour" or "not collecting stamps is a hobby". Yawn. Give me something new, rather than these old tired Theist slurs.
Atheism is theology because it postulates a theory about the nature of God - that is, his non-existence. Again what you choose to call it matters little..etc..
"Atheism is theology because it postulates a theory about the nature of God - that is, his non-existence."
Now you're getting really stupid. Atheism is the same as a-thorism, a-spaghettimonsterism, etc. It's a neutral state to start from, that says "give me some evidence for your ridiculous claims". It doesn't make any claims other than "we believe what we have EVIDENCE for".
oooh - getting testy. Evidence - for what you have already assumed. Atheism is hardly neutral. In argues red-in-the-face against all the valid criticisms of Darwinism which is getting really old by now.
It pronounces with great authority and absolute certainty that there is no God - that is not a position of indifference.
Atheism != Darwinism. Technically, atheism shouldn't even be called an ism. Even Darwinism shouldn't be an ism. It's the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin.
And it doesn't pronounce there is no god, it just says "Show me the evidence".
The point of science is to gain a better understanding of the world we are in. Not to try to reconcile fantasies. It doesn't single out the Christian god, NO god exists. Not vishnu, or Zeus, or Odin. You obviously don't believe in those either. Or do you?
fiding god emplacement or proving god existance is a crime for all believer so athéist stop telling small minded argument and beliver give up on trying to convert or prove anything. Proof aint true belief in god if you need proof to believe you are not believing
sambucketos 1 year ago
Evolution within a species is fine but evolution from species to species is a problem.
and how is it that we have elements the govern evolution without there being grand design? how is the process to evolve or rather acclimate initiated? and how would it know what TO initiate? without prior knowledge of that possibilty?
the1maver1ck 1 year ago
Militant atheism/theism is for pussies.
Ragedhard 1 year ago
Yes, I created bananas, your welcome, and my Chihuahua fucked a wolf, want one of the puppies?
riotshieldmaster 1 year ago
the evidence in the bible is well documented and its legitmacy has been tested time and time again without fail. if you must look at the bible critically, look at it with the same scientific method as you would darwainism.
manderson416 2 years ago
one of your major points in the falsity of religion is that there is no evidence. you have ignored the miracles of jesus, the spreading of the red sea, saddam and gamorah, the snake rod, the pillar of fire, the speaking and understanding of other languages through the holy spirit, the conversion of saul, etc. an ignorant person is one who ignores.
manderson416 2 years ago
@manderson416 all of which you have footage/ carbon dating/etc of, not just some TheOnion-like text as a source. The Bible is a text written by very wise man who understood humanity but did not understand the world and the things that ARE like we do today. So a lot of the "thread" they used to "weave" their stories to things other than humans relied on assumptions for which they also had no evidence for. Thousands of years later their sayings are given extraordinary value, through repetition
dnm25 10 months ago
This video is action-packed with scientific "facts"--many of which strengthens my faith and reaffirms how much is going on in the universe. The part about humans making dogs the way they are is somewhat true; adaptation will happen and the environment definitely plays a hand. But the first dog was made by God and everything else by its own kind.
lslewis 2 years ago
LOL u mad?
Jacob332me 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a respectful, less confrontational look at Atheism and Christianity, check out "The God Debate" on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
"You are born atheist." that may be the most genius thing i have ever heard. you opened my eyes my friend.
mcdoodlefiend 2 years ago
HAHAHAHA
I KNOW ATHEISTS WHO DONT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
I KNOW ATLEAST ONE
dude u dumbass wtf are u talking about
so just because u know maybe one atheist who doesnt believe in evolution u think that evolution has nothing do with atheism?
pffff
Revilox90 2 years ago
apparently you can only pay attention to one sentence in a whole video. good job. im glad youve chosen this one topic that was completely explained, ignored it, and then offered the same initial ignorant question.
livefreeanddonttread 2 years ago
join my group on my fordiedos yt acc atheists join this group thats wat its called all atheists please join
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
some people dont even believe dinosaurs exist but yet thers FUCKING FOSSILS then theres some people who think the stone age never happened same with the ice age and im going wtf are you fucking serious it happened wtf
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
hey man my camera broke can u help me abortedsoul
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
i dont think the big bang theory is stupid but i think it was always there
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheists are the jokes of the universe. They want to become God, think they are God in some cases, but in reality they are just puffed up insignificant tiny helpless beings. They plan and plan and plan, but their plans are always baffled. They claim to be intellectuals but in reality they are just weak minded speculators with no real basis for what they believe.
Haladhara1 3 years ago
Haladhara, Atheists DO NOT want to become Gods. As abortedsoul said, "Find out about something before you spout on about it."
Secondly, judging by your mail, you are quite hateful towards them. Also, compared to theists, atheists generally have a higher I.Q.
It's been shown in 42 out of 43 studies. I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong but hey, ho, you believe in fairies in the sky so who's the real fool here?
marcluc1988 3 years ago 3
exactly hes fucking stupid
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
im athiest u dumbass so fuck off i dont want to become god im 14 u jackass
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
ok how bout this where dd god come and resuretion is impossible dumbass im an atheist so stfu
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
how mother fucker go to hell haladhara1 im an athesi mother fucker
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
Dude you're a punk ass pussy, you're going to have a most miserable pain stricken life. I hope you wake up and see the light, otherwise.......
Haladhara1 3 years ago
man fuck u
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
real holy to call someone a punk ass pussy. let people believe what they want. the one thing i hate about religion is how it's forced on people.
mcdoodlefiend 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheists say, can you prove that god exists? yet they cannot prove that God does not exist. They have so much faith in science yet any real scientist will admit the limitations of science and acknowledge the many gross mistakes made by science throughout history. Therefore a neutral intelligent person would never blindly believe what scientists say about god. Only by accepting the absolute can one stay on the intellectual plane, otherwise one must speculate endlessly.
Haladhara1 3 years ago
Atheists do not necessarily have faith in science. Atheism has NOTHING to do with science. It is the non-belief in deities.
And as an atheist, I don't believe in a god or gods, not because scientists tell me but because I just don't believe. It's my OWN BRAIN that tells me. I don't need someone else to tell me whether to believe or not. I either do or I don't and I DO NOT.
marcluc1988 3 years ago 2
you're such a fucking idiot. Exactly how much of this rant did you listen to? How many fucking times did he say evolution, big bang, etc has NOTHING to do with atheists. Why don't you go say every single black person in the world listens to Weezy and TuPac? It's the same concept. You do not have to choose God or Science. Just because someone is atheist doesn't mean they have faith in science.
And btw. I think that the lack of proof of God is enough proof that he doesn't exist.
theatlasturtle 3 years ago 2
(!) Neh. That was a reply to three comments down by Haladhara1.
theatlasturtle 3 years ago
I still love this video.
:D
RabidApe 3 years ago
I'm an atheist as well, so naturaly i'm have to agree wit you, your making some good points here. I'm also still learning, as life is a constant learning process...Good work!
cain825 3 years ago 4
OK God probably doesnt exist. There's something fucken weird going on though isnt there
fishybishbash 3 years ago 2
You're into the big crunch theory, too?
TomConger 3 years ago
The big crunch has virtually been abandoned among physicists because of the somewhat recent discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
It was assumed that the expansion would be slowing down, but it is speeding up, allegedly because of dark energy. If one extrapolates this expansion to infinity, the universe ends not by a big crunch but by becoming a blank void of nothingness.
TanAustin 3 years ago
Excellent point that what a fool grasps is graspable by all. The ideas would be readily graspable if people kept open minds and did not allow their religious beliefs to put up resistance and denial.
Cimbolic 3 years ago
I tried, but I couldn't handle the rambling longer than 3 minutes 8 seconds. It's not that I disagree with what I 'think' you are saying. And from your apparent age, you seem to have to given some serious thought about some serious matters, but you are rambling. I'm marking this a a favorite so that I can come back later and view the whole thing.
As a suggestion, have you thought about writing down what you want to say and doing it with a teleprompter kind of thing?
Passionate but rambling.
mikubozu 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please look at China! How great they are now as an atheist country who are still trying to destroy religion, especially Tibet, a Buddhist state. They are so good at controlling religions and gradually destroying them. Look at their economy, the number of cars, people wealth, and the Olympics. The new Peking airport finished in no time, and compare that to T5 in Heathrow. Atheism is well presented in China.
scarp1234567 3 years ago
They aren't trying to destroy religion in Tibet; your lack of understanding of that issue is glaring. Also, knowing that much of China lacks a religious-based direction in their government does not say anything else about them- being atheistic is much like being a-racist or a-astrologist. That is chasing shadows, and it is an old and failed argument.
abortedsoul 3 years ago
Bless you. You said what I've been wanting to say.
Gidanocitiahisyt 3 years ago
AnimalWorldCookie you say im an idiot!! you cume here to denmark i will wook your ass boy!!
gatsu2005 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20
matt3i6 4 years ago
Intelligent falling !!! lol
kram35 4 years ago
I'd like to see you try and prove the existence of yourself, since you want proof of the existence of god.
Problem is, you cannot. Not without at the same time creating a definition of existence that exactly fits your own experience of existing.
Therefore, you are forever biased and it is impossible to create an objective definition of what exists and what does not and thus impossible to say weather god exists or not.
I agree with your points about evolution not being random. I'm a deist btw.
Greenleaf30 4 years ago
i think therefore i am. descartes said that to proof his existance (to himself) that's phenomenology.
and by its nature and the one of ontology u can hardly proof anything at all.that doesnt mean nothing exists.
the problem with the existance of god is, that u would have to define the word god first. even though no 2 people can agree exactly on the attributes of god. those who do were indoctrinated, probably as a child thinking god is a bearded man sitting in a cloud watching over us.
utuf85 4 years ago
Work on your verb tenses if you want to quote famous people. Otherwise,you simply sound silly. Proof versus prove. It's a noun/verb thing. Yes, it can be tough for some people, even if you have problems defining 'god'.
Though people being 'indoctrinated' rings true. Did your parents 'indoctrinate' you to use a noun when a verb is called for.
Now, run away or I shall taunt you yet a second time.
mikubozu 3 years ago
He wants proof of a god in the form of evidence. He uses proof as an everyday type of thing, why do you stop at a red light? because you see proof that it is red, you dont sit there and think "maybe this isnt real". We want some kind of evidence that can be used to show there is a god. Intelligent design is a decent argument except there are very good counter arguments that can explain what it actually happening. A well documented miracle would be good evidence.
heatmourning33 4 years ago
Ahh, this proving of my existence is very difficult. If someone was to stand in front of you, and beat you like a red-headed stepchild, you would say they were real or not real? If they simply stood in front of you and said 'Hello', would they exist? Or they simply stood in front of you?
And by 'weather' god exists, you mean that god exists only depending on the weather?
mikubozu 3 years ago
mikeman999 how do u know the world came from explosion.were you there when your coffee table blew up and came out a planet and dinosaur?how can u make the planet with the bomb? maybe if I come to ur house and throw hand grenade in ur back garden maybe they will grow up a tree like them come out a planet.Don't speak so rude to me.because I will grab ur balls and make u go on knee.
gatsu2005 4 years ago
The big bang was NOT an explosion. You're talking shit and you know it. Do you have any real criticisms that aren't just unresearched, unjustified ridicule?
sh4wz0r 4 years ago
Be carefull, no one knows everything and abortedsoul brings forth alot of good things, I think i knows alot, but everyone can be mistaken, science does it all the time ;) Many believe that the Big Bang was an explotion, I just read about it and I don't understand it completely, but does it matter?
plecto1234 4 years ago
The theory states that it was a rapid expansion, not an explosion like a bomb. gatsu's comment was unbelievably stupid. He's using a strawman as per usual with a creationist.
sh4wz0r 4 years ago
Please explain to me the difference between a rapid expansion and an explosion. I won't do your research for you, but you can probably do a Google and find out the estimated rate of expansion following the Big Bang and compare it with something like C4 or a thermonuclear 'explosion'. Then get back to me about this 'rapid expansion'. Once again, I fart in your general direction. Now go away or I shall taunt you yet a second time.
mikubozu 3 years ago
One like sh4wz0r typed the big bang was not an explosion, and the big bang happened 13.7 billion 200 million years ago.
O.K. let me put the lenght of the universe simply if you hold out your arms, straight out so they are parallel to your shoulders, now if someone takes a nail file to your finger nail, you would have shaved off all of human history and probably two thirds of dinosaurs history. ya just thought i would comment because gatsu2005 you sound like a complete idiot.
AnimalWorldCookie 4 years ago
I am SO impressed. The Big Bang happened 13.7 200 million years ago. That's cutting it pretty close. Did you actually work this number out YOURSELF or are just spouting off a number you read somewhere and therefore trust and/or know nothing about? Add another BILLION years to to your estimate, do the calculations on the percentage change of the age of the universe and get back to me on how silly your 'exact' date sounds. Now go away you silly person or I shall taunt you one more time.
mikubozu 3 years ago
I said my initial reply, yes i admit it i was being a little 'to quick to respond' if someones argument is 'you say theres a God i say prove it' it is a sign of someone really being unsure themselves, as they have no solid evidence that there isn't a God, so they say that, its a kop out. It's not an argument. There is nothing that anyone can say that will stop me believing in God. Call me stupid call me an idiot say what you like.
flyzapper1989 4 years ago
Let me say this, nice and clear for you.
There is no way possible to claim to have evidence that ANYTHING doesn't exist; there is no way to prove the non-existence of anything, anything at all. Beyond logical, direct arguments against something like a square-circle (such as an all loving, all powerful god not being able to exist in a word with evil) you cannot prove that something does not exist. Not being able to prove that something does not exist is not the same thing as saying it exists.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
Ok, I'm going to say this really simply so you don't miss anything.
It is impossible to provide solid evidence of the non-existence of anything that has no predesignated location.
That means that claiming "you can't prove it doesn't exist" holds absolutely no weight in any argument, about anything at all. That claim is both missing the fact that contrary proof cannot exist without a specified location and that the burden of proof is on the person making the wild claim.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
for flyzapper1989... i dont have to prove that there aren't any invisible faeries in the garden the one who sais there are must prove it.
h3llshadow 4 years ago
You say there isn't a God. I say prove it.
flyzapper1989 4 years ago
That is the stupidest argument I've heard in a long while; there isn't a giant invisible penguin who reads thoughts and controls everyone's bank accounts? Prove it.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
Simple there have been people who have experienced God, and. People haven't experienced a giant penguin. If you are that intelligent, then surely you must understand it is very difficult to explain, from my perspective. I'm still learning through my faith, i don't have an answer for everything. So i don't have much i can say back, because i don't understand everything.
flyzapper1989 4 years ago
so u made an argument you couldnt defend because you didnt see the rebuttal coming, because u cant answer it i think its obvious that you have no clue what u are talking about
guitarfishy529 4 years ago
The experiential argument for a god is the same as an experiential argument for faeries, aliens or psychic powers.
You probably don't understand everything because there is nothing to understand; you do realize that if the religion that you were converting to were ancient Greek mythology or Islam or something you would be going through the exact same thing?
I find it hard to believe that people can miss the hand right in front of their own faces.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
I may not have a clue what im talking about. Just because i can't prove it myself that there is a God, doesn't mean there isn't. I believe there is a God.
flyzapper1989 4 years ago
I can come up with a list of a thousand things that could excist because there is no prof that it doesn't excist. In fact, as abortedsoul said, this doesn't lead anywhere, everything can exist, but that doens't want you to believe in them.
plecto1234 4 years ago
they already did motherfucker
dragonknight123455 3 years ago
imtherealjon wow wow hold on there Mary!! im not a atheist im a Christan. but werly i dont belive big bang becors you frow 2 atomic warheads on japan in the world war 2 so thats like 2 big bangs but no life came out of that johnny boy *ggg*
gatsu2005 4 years ago
There is absolutely no fucking connection beetween an atomic bomb and the big bang. the theory that the universe used to be condenced into a submircoscopic point, and then, for an unknown reason, just exploded realeasing all the matter which is our universe. an atomic bomb is, simply, a bomb that explodes at the critical mass of and unstable, radioactive element (uranium-235), wich is simply unstable do to isotopes neutron difference.
SO FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT BASTARD!
mikeman999 4 years ago
sounds like you like most atheist believe in at least 2 of the 3 nothing but useless babble!!!!!
imtherealjon 4 years ago
Okay. one, that made no sense. pluralize atheist, do not start ur sentence with a verb, and explain how "at least 2 of the 3 nothing but useless babble!!!!!" makes sense wen u read it? now i would like you to give one single form of evidence of god... just one if u have a brain.
mikeman999 4 years ago
i think this video was werry funny :-D i didnt understand the scinence things you talk about becoprs i alweys felt scinence wars boring but i thing the video is funne when you talk about people who belive evolution, i also dont belive evolution but i dont even now what its about, somthing about monky and we came from mars and big bang.
gatsu2005 4 years ago
not even 2 minutes into the video and you got it wrong. you say there is no evidence for GOD and that evolution happened then you call it a theory and thats all it is you said even a stupid person can understand I have my doubts but i will give you a chance
imtherealjon 4 years ago
"One random elephant" okaaay... but no, I find it interesting that, as usual, you disregard abiogenesis, which, lets face it, had to be kind of random. But dude seriously wait for my new vid I think you'll like it.
Lebowsk1 4 years ago
Good video
mattb521 4 years ago
aro i dont even know what to say to your retarded fucking punk ass
sfgox10 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
by the way, you're an idiot. you don't know anything and you sit here swearing at the world.
you religious nuts (yes, atheists are religious nuts because they believe in stuff they can't possibly know; and they go 'fucking nuts' over it because their world falls apart without those beliefs), need to learn some humility. you do not, and will never know the truth. you won't even learn a piece of it, if you keep sitting around yelling at people.
Aro2220 4 years ago
athiest is not a relgion. Check the defn for religion
aka hint. The belief in a supernatural... u see, athiests dont, because its a lack of belief in the supernatural.
lordbyrne 4 years ago
then whats he truth?
ptxpatrol 4 years ago
Atheists rely SOLELY on EVIDENCE, Aro2220. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT AN ATHEIST CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW EVIDENCE. ARE YOU THAT MIND WASHED? It's religion that claims to know all. WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I almost feel sorry for you. There is evidence for evolution, big bang, etc. THAT is what we RELY on to draw our conclusions about why the world is the way it is, NOT what we "believe" in.
mattb521 4 years ago
atheists don't believe in god. theists do. Fundamentalist theists believe in things without understanding, and i've never met an atheist that disbelieves in something through true understanding but rather by dispise.
in my opinion, you're all idiots. the truth is two inches from your nose but neither side wants to open their eyes because they're so sure of their infallibility.
Aro2220 4 years ago
Research my site for the proof you seek from the link on my profile.
prffsrx 4 years ago
nice to hear someone who can say something intelligent without hunting through a thesaurus to find as many big, useless words as possible so he can look like a smartass to everyone.
neomp5 4 years ago
I try not to do that, although I do have to admit I love how the English language can be so expressive. I find all of the jargon and fancy words to be a burden when they are not required, although if you are going to approach a technical topic expect to get, well, technical. Anyways, I appreciate your comment and I'm glad I made sense to you.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
i guess what i mean to say is you come across as honestly meaning what you say instead of putting on a performance.
neomp5 4 years ago
ah. thanks!
abortedsoul 4 years ago
good job bro, but I generally find it true that the religious will intentionally keep themselves ignorant to these topics to keep those questions at bay, the kind of questions that would put thier faith in jeopardy. Keep up the good work dude.
vegassilenttype 4 years ago
i share your anger towards these wilfully ignorant fuckwads.
YourSuperiorSays 4 years ago
Evolution is a theory... It's not proven, and anyone who leans toward it knows it's just a theory. Creationists claim to know the absolution truth, without one shred of evidence. Once again, theory vs. claims of fact, yet unproven. However there is much more evidence for evolution than there is for creationism.
quicksiliva 4 years ago
Evolution is an incredibly well-supported and elegant theory that very effectively explains phenomenon that have in no other way been as of yet satisfactorily explained. Much like the theories explaining condensation or that lightning is electricity, incredibly well-supported.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
EVERYTHING is a theory. Why your computer screen works is a theory. You cannot absolutely make anything a fact, as there can always be some other possibility. ALWAYS. Even with religious dogmatics, they STILL aren't exactly sure what heaven looks like or what god looks like or what anything so-called "outside the physical realm" is.
BboyMindless 4 years ago
Nothing can ever be proven except mathematical relationships within mathematics. You can only have evidence supporting something, or evidence disproving something.
A theory is an explanation of the available evidence. It is not on a scale, it cannot be "promoted" or "demoted" anywhere.
A fact is simply an observation. Also known as evidence.
BulletMagnetOWI 4 years ago
I wanted to tell you that your theory of intellignet falling to totally connected to the big band theory. See there is no gavity on the Earth and thats why your falling theory is pretty much the same as the athiest one. You see so the evolution of intelligent design is just like the big bang theory of natural selection. So it is you that need to do your homework buddy.
erockbrox 4 years ago
I think we need to teach intelligent attraction along with gravity..
SleepySkeptic 4 years ago
heh, thanks.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
Hissy fit much?
Except the stick up my ass, I totally agree. I get pissed off as well when people assume I follow all these unrelated things just because of my beliefs.
themanwhoknew 4 years ago
lol, he closed his account. Verdict? Owned.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
you idiot, god can be experienced directly.
sivko23 4 years ago
different gods (and space aliens, and Elvis) have been experienced directly throughout the ages. That doesn't constitute reputable or meaningful evidence.
abortedsoul 4 years ago
only if you qualify for that experience. that would not be pretentious gizmo here who did the video.
thethikboy 4 years ago
How do you explain the existence of mitochondria and chloroplasts without evolution?
mattsten7287 4 years ago
Why do organelles like mitochondria need evolution as an explanation? Darwin knew nothing about them.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Correction:
How do you know this? Have you taken ecology? I have. An abundance of species coexist all competing in their own niche for the same or different resources
thethikboy 4 years ago
If you think about it, it's not really natural "selection", it's survival of the fittest. No one selects anything.
A being that can sense light can survive better and the being that can't gets eaten or something. The being better suited for surviving reproduces and passes on its successful genes. Taadah.
RandomtutoR 4 years ago
"If you think about it, it's not really natural "selection", it's survival of the fittest. No one selects anything."
The problem is that the the phenotypic differences are so small it is doubtful that there is any competitive edge at all. What might give dinosaurs an edge are their wings. But it is doubtful that all the hundreds (who knows how many) of little changes that were needed to produce wings have any competitive value.
thethikboy 4 years ago
"The problem is that the the phenotypic differences are so small it is doubtful that there is any competitive edge at all."
That's speculation. If a creature's body hair is a little bit closer to the surrounding colours, they may be able to sneak up on prey just a little bit more. All you need are tiny successful changes. As the Hobbit said - the longest journey starts with but a single step.
OccamKant 4 years ago
You qutoed out of context.
"That's speculation" That's rich... so is evolution. Especially the theory that these tiny changes (the huge numbers of which are needed to produce an 'evolved' charatersistic) gain a competitive edge.
Why would increments of a wing have any survival value. The same question can be asked of any 'evolved' charateristic.
thethikboy 4 years ago
"Why would increments of a wing have any survival value. The same question can be asked of any 'evolved' charateristic."
Slight wing variations could easily make the wings more efficient, thus allowing the creature to fly longer without having to eat, or be able to fly a little faster to be more able to catch prey. Use your imagination.
OccamKant 4 years ago
"Slight wing variations could easily make the wings more efficient"
Right - if it's already a wing - that can fly... But the transitions of oh so many proto-wings what value would they have?
thethikboy 4 years ago
You realize that this is not an argument against the development of a wing, it just shows how creative or imaginitive I can be. Can you show that it does NOT have value?
OccamKant 4 years ago
"You realize that this is not an argument against the development of a wing," No its an argument against the natural selection of transitional increments to a wing.
The burden of proof is on evolution theory to show that an eloganted and curved phalange
(making it more difficult to perform the task it used to) would have a competitive value.
thethikboy 4 years ago
What would you accept as evidence or proof? Simply a compelling argument, or do you want to see something physical?
OccamKant 4 years ago
Being a 'scientific' theory, evidence for the transitional individuals with 'claws-on-the-way-to-being-wings' would be nice. Of course nothing like this has ever been found just the usual promissory note from the Darwinian zealots. We have to fill in the gaping holes with our imagination.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Try not to be so "holier than thou" - at least we can see daily evidence of evolution (see: bacteria becoming drug resistant, mankind's development of household cats & dogs from wild species, the domestication of the banana). We see evolution by natural & artificial selection all the time, and we have a fossil record showing it from the past. Just because we can't show everything YET doesn't mean we're on the wrong track.
OccamKant 4 years ago
I'm not arguing Christian doctrine. That's argumentum ad hominem. My religious background is irrelevant to the inadequacies of evolution theory.
"see: bacteria becoming drug resistant"
This is evidence of adaptation. Nobody questions that individuals adapt. Evolution theory claims that new species are only the result of such adaptations. No evidence of that exists.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Adaptation IS evolution. Speciation is adaptation over millions of years.
So, hang around a while and you'll see it.
OccamKant 4 years ago
"So, hang around a while and you'll see it." I know you're not that ancient. What kind of science is this? Promissory notes again. Blind faith.
thethikboy 4 years ago
No - it's not blind faith if it's an extrapolation of observed effects, backed up by evidence. Darwin knew nothing of genetics when he came up with the theory. In fact, he had a problem with his theory at the beginning because common thought was the world was only 6000 years old (thanks, creationists). It took lyell's theory of an old earth for evolution to work.
OccamKant 4 years ago
"an extrapolation of observed effects, backed up by evidence"
Evolutionary 'effects' are not observered. Their causes are extrapolated from a jig saw of fossils- and a lot of controversy about how the pieces fit. I don't have blind faith in Dawkins or Darwin.
thethikboy 4 years ago
"...promissory note from the Darwinian zealots" - that's not an ad hominem?
Try not to call the kettle black.
OccamKant 4 years ago
No it's a description of the irrational strategy of atheists in the name of science. Very relevant.
thethikboy 4 years ago
It's amazing how unaccepting Christians are of evidence, when it comes to evolution, and how blindly accepting they are of fantasy when it comes to their bible.
OccamKant 4 years ago
It's amazing how accepting atheists are of the lack of evidence for their favorite creed.
thethikboy 4 years ago
There is mountains of evidence. Open your eyes.
OccamKant 4 years ago
There are mole hills of fragmentary fossils reconstructed by imaginative and disagreeing paleontologists. - be honest.
thethikboy 4 years ago
As far as I know, not a single credited biologist actually disagrees with evolution. There are bits and pieces here and there that are under discussion, but everyone agrees (other than Christian pretenders) that Evolution is it.
Do you have another theory that explains all the species & behaviours we see today, that isn't evolution? I'd love to hear it. You should publish a paper, because you have apparently turned the scientific world on its head.
OccamKant 4 years ago
I don't need to become a publish scientist to disagree with an inadequate scientific theory.
"Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota, for example, has called for "the public firing and humiliation of some teachers" because they question Darwin.
It turns out that PZ is the only example of evolution's defenders.
These self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them."
thethikboy 4 years ago
Go read "The Blind Watchmaker" and tell me there's no evidence.
OccamKant 4 years ago
"Go read "The Blind Watchmaker" and tell me there's no evidence"
Why? You can't defend the contents? Do you know how its supports its points.
thethikboy 4 years ago
"Why? You can't defend the contents? Do you know how its supports its points."
What on earth are you talking about? Why do I need to defend it's contents? It defends itself. Dawkins makes his point more eloquently than I can, particularly in this silly YT discussion venue.
OccamKant 4 years ago
"Why do I need to defend it's contents? It defends itself."
Says who?
thethikboy 4 years ago
Can you refute it? Give me page numbers & refutations please. If not, then you've made my point.
OccamKant 4 years ago
Refute what? No proof has been offered. Just a bunch of empty pronouncements.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Have you read the book?
OccamKant 4 years ago
As I said - read the book. If you have other evidence, or a theory that better describes everything, then by all means publish it, and become famous. Otherwise, you're just being an idiot arguing like this.
OccamKant 4 years ago
I don't need to read a book to learn what I already know about the inadequacies of evolution biology - I have a degree in Science - with a minor in Botany. I've read enough books - and spent hours in the lab.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Ok, well then you win! Evolution is bunk!
OccamKant 4 years ago
Darwinian evolution is bunk. There is plasticity to species characteristics which allows them to adapt. If you want to call that evolution - fine. But it's not the explanation of how we got here. Maybe time is cyclic. So maybe all the species pre-existed is some form in other epochs. Such was the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead - a brilliant physicist and mathematician.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Time is cyclic?
Do you have any evidence of what you're suggesting?
OccamKant 4 years ago
As much evidence as scientist have to the contrary. Einstein did away with the 'arrow of time'. Whitehead had an 'epochal' theory of time which was basically cyclic. Neither of these thinkers believed in fairy tales.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Counter theory please, that takes into account all the evidence I mentioned.
OccamKant 4 years ago
You want this on you tube? I gave you the foundation already but I guess it whizzed over your head.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Still waiting...
OccamKant 4 years ago
You're right! And maybe magical fairies created us! Or aliens! Or Vishnu, or Jupiter!
Sorry to sound sarcastic, but you're offering less in the way of evidence and argument than the evolutionists.
OccamKant 4 years ago
Give me a theory that encompasses: Fossils, Vestigial organs & bones, retroviruses, dna matching, etc etc. All the heaps and piles of things that support darwinian evolution, and I'll buy you a beer.
OccamKant 4 years ago
Why should I? Evolution doesn't account for it. If species did not evolve, but the forms were pre-established, what needs to be explained? I'm not obligated to cover the whole science of biology - which has NO dependency on evolution.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Well, of course species DID evolve, and your christian fantasies are just so much smoke.
OccamKant 4 years ago
Of course. Ah - dogma - just like religion. I didn't bring up Christianity once - that's your obsession.
thethikboy 4 years ago
You of course ARE a christian, and you're just trying to dance around to avoid saying it.
If you have a better alternative to Evolution, I'd love to hear it. Simply saying "your arguments are wrong" without actually backing them up (which you didn't) is weak.
OccamKant 4 years ago
"...degree in Science - with a minor in Botany."
Wow. Such impressive credentials. I didn't know they gave away degrees in "Science". Amazing! You are obviously far more qualified than Dawkins. He merely holds a chair at Oxford. What does he know? Your baseless arguments are far more compelling than his clear, concise, logical and fact-filled books.
OccamKant 4 years ago
They dont' give them away. You earn them. The major is Math if the word science confuses you.
My arguments are based on authorities such as A.N. Whitehead with even more impressive credentials than the spotlight-monger Dawkins.
thethikboy 4 years ago
AN Whitehead is a theological mathematician, not a biologist.
Pick a relevant source please.
OccamKant 4 years ago
I didn't say he was a biologist. What the hell is a theological mathematician? He was a physicist. As a scientist he certainly had to know about biology. In fact his metaphysics is called the 'theory of the organism'.
thethikboy 4 years ago
And how is he more credible on the theory of Evolution than the world's leading evolutionary biologist? Particularly when he's DEAD.
OccamKant 4 years ago
So is Darwin DEAD.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Yes, but Dawkins is ALIVE.
OccamKant 4 years ago
Spouting theories based on what a DEAD person said.
thethikboy 4 years ago
"...Whitehead was always interested in theology, especially in the 1890s..." - wikipedia. Of course, the entry could be wrong, so I take it with a grain of salt.
A mathematician interested in and working with theology is what I would call a theological mathematician. You could call him an airhead if that makes you feel better.
OccamKant 4 years ago
What you choose to call Whitehead matters little in the balance of things.
And oh right- Wikpedia the defintive authority - and the twit who made this video starts by quoting a book on caculus - Doesn't take much to impress you.
thethikboy 4 years ago
So is it wrong then? He isn't interested in theology?
Because if he IS interested in theology, then you can perhaps see how it colors his objectivity.
Or maybe not. Where did you get your degree from? A box of crackerjack?
OccamKant 4 years ago
Where did you get your degree?
Atheism is theology. What kind of non sequitur are you trying to conjur up here - you desperate thing you.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Yeah. Atheism is theology like "bald is a hair colour" or "not collecting stamps is a hobby". Yawn. Give me something new, rather than these old tired Theist slurs.
OccamKant 4 years ago
Atheism is theology because it postulates a theory about the nature of God - that is, his non-existence. Again what you choose to call it matters little..etc..
thethikboy 4 years ago
"Atheism is theology because it postulates a theory about the nature of God - that is, his non-existence."
Now you're getting really stupid. Atheism is the same as a-thorism, a-spaghettimonsterism, etc. It's a neutral state to start from, that says "give me some evidence for your ridiculous claims". It doesn't make any claims other than "we believe what we have EVIDENCE for".
OccamKant 4 years ago
oooh - getting testy. Evidence - for what you have already assumed. Atheism is hardly neutral. In argues red-in-the-face against all the valid criticisms of Darwinism which is getting really old by now.
It pronounces with great authority and absolute certainty that there is no God - that is not a position of indifference.
thethikboy 4 years ago
Atheism != Darwinism. Technically, atheism shouldn't even be called an ism. Even Darwinism shouldn't be an ism. It's the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin.
And it doesn't pronounce there is no god, it just says "Show me the evidence".
The point of science is to gain a better understanding of the world we are in. Not to try to reconcile fantasies. It doesn't single out the Christian god, NO god exists. Not vishnu, or Zeus, or Odin. You obviously don't believe in those either. Or do you?
OccamKant 4 years ago
"Atheism != Darwinism. " Never said it did - you're the one that keeps bringing up religion and Theism.
thethikboy 4 years ago
No - "Darwinism", as you call it, doesn't talk about God AT ALL.
So by you saying that "Atheism is hardly neutral. In argues red-in-the-face against all the valid criticisms of Darwinism" YOU brought it up.
OccamKant 4 years ago