Some parts of this video were so incredible (in particular the "no controversy" claim with the straight face :D:D:D) I can only conclude, evolutionists blow politicians and lawyers out of the water. Hmmm, where do the topbankers fit in:
@Uenbg No, they stated there is no controversy in the scientific community. At least not about the central idea of descent with modification, there are arguments about the specifics of how evolution happens. The controversy is in the public forum which is the only hope creationists have to win in, since they are unable and therefore unwilling to go thru the rigorous scientific process necessary for a consensus in the scientific community. Since creationism is NOT science.
@oadnrtyo you mean scientists getting shunned (ex-communicated basicly) by the so-called "scientific community" (official national and international recognized institutions) for even mentioning the possibility of intelligent design is POSITIVE for science?
Stephen Hawking: "The greatest enemy of true knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge"
Very good video. The last guy makes a very important remark regarding the gap between scientists and what people believe. Scientists are there to educate people on scientific matters, it is rather terrifying that people with no knowledge of the area or qualifications are allowed to swat these conclusions that took years to come to because 'it says so in their book'.
You should stick around. I have an open challenge for GuitarGage870. Furthermore, as you state you have (at least a basic) understanding, I'd like you to keep an eye out for fallacies. Of course, this is assuming he accepts.
Our beliefs influence our decisions therefore impact reality & others. Thus, I charge such must be rationally examined. Using divinity as an excuse to not continue the quest for knowledge is a grave insult to us all. To do otherwise invokes intellectual cowardice.
You should stick around. I have an open challenge for GuitarGage870. Let's see if he accepts.
Just want to make sure I understand...so the things you "summize" to know (theory) is MORE IMPORTANT than the things you KNOW to be true (facts) (See 3:50). Guess I have misunderstood science all these years.
Slight correction. A fact is an observation (e.g. things fall down), a law is a generalization about a set of facts that is true in specified instances (e.g. mass attracts mass), and a theory is a thoroughly tested explanation about a collection of facts using established laws (e.g. why mass attacts mass).
The day you say that you literally see dead little rocks in a dead pool, prefiguring it’s own future destination, and somehow spawning intricate life, via 3 billion years of happy accidents, will be the day I jump in the middle of the pacific ocean when it's half frozen.
Disagree. Hard science trumps both atheism, theism, dogma. Let me ask you: how many revisions did it take before Gen 1:27? What model was finally accepted into Eden? On what criteria? What happened to the multiple unused prototypes?
@dictionaryzzz see i can totally see where your coming from with this point with God in the picture everything would make much more sense for a lot of people
Were you there? Millions of years ago I shit a brick. and its proven because now I shit Brown turds. LOOL Evolution is ridiculous and will NEVER be proven fact. Now you try to prove im lying.. and ill try to prove your right. Lets go back a zillion years.. oh wait we cant.. so we both gotta go based on mans opinions.. (SCIENTISTS) SORRY.
@recalibration IDC what u say ull never convince me its a fact. No matter how much scientific evidence u have EVOLUTION makes life have no meaning. God makes it have meaning so therefore u lose. And I gain everything
Yet you'd dare post a video titled "Atheism and Evolution Destroyed By FACT" You don't even understand the science, yet you'd assert you know "fact" & "God".
"Facts be damn! I feel this is Truth, so I'm entitled to it!" No, you're just another madman shouting into the wind. To cling to belief in the face of hard, falsifiable science just shows you're operating under a psychosis.
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x Its not that "@recalibration" would never be able to convince you its fact, Its just that you've afraid of reality and have close your mind to it. If you eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge its a Sin ( the original Sin) haha what a great way to control people, actually what an evil way to control people!
Human's evolution is fact. Full stop. See the presentation by Dr. Ken Miller (Biology), Prof @ Brown, a Catholic, present one of the results of the Human Genome project. [ watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk ] 4m23s running time. This knowledge dates prior to ~2006.
Creationism/Intelligent Design revels in wilful ignorance.
@killakm93 "Finally someone who fucking realizes that evolution is a faith!!!!" => be careful of your wording. There is evolution, and then there is evolution theory. Evolution is simply inherited changes over generations, and that is a fact. Evolution theory is built based on facts of evolution, and that, i will admit, require some faith. But don't say evolution needs faith, it doesn't. ONLY evolution theory does. Know the difference between evolution vs evolution theory.
@killakm93 - another bullship myth by creationist who are experts at dealing in myths. Evolution is based on facts and evidence. Creationism is not. It is a myth. Just like the hundred of other myths primative people used to explain the origins of the universe.
@killakm93 Reality check: scientists aren't big on spending time hammering out the finer details of faith. You don't need faith when you have a preponderance of factual information painting an incredibly clear tableau. Just because you don't understand this vast database of logically consistent evidence does not make it faith. I'm sure it seems like faith when you absolutely refuse to learn any of these facts.
Whereas science continues to explore, evolve & ask questions, it demands proof of assertions before being accepted. Religion, on the other hand, stagnates advancement & insults the rational mind by hiding anything that can't be immed. explained as "I dun nao, must'a dun b Gawd!"
Scientists Invent Results: Times Online (June 4,) headline reports that “One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data.” That figure applies to serious breaches of “acceptable conduct by inventing results.” The article went on to say that “46 percent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in ‘questionable practices‘, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source
ok lets say evolution was true (which its not) then what? if you where right you would be living for NOTHING. even if you are right at least i spent my life looking forward to something (heaven) while you looked forward too nothing. If i turn out to be right i will be living with my Father and you will be in a whole lota hurt. in other words, im comin out on top ether way you look at it.
Then we have a working explanation for the nested hierarchies of biology, the matching of diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, ERV distributions, and so on.
Nope. I'd be living for life, love, happiness, the chance to make a worthwhile contribution to the happiness of those around you and those who come after you. But I suppose you don't care about any of those things?
« at least i spent my life looking forward to something »
You mean wasting real opportunities to make something worthwhile of your life here while awaiting something that may or may not come? Nah, not my thing.
Most of us aren't really busy with contemplating the end of our lives, you know? We're too busy living to think of it often. The fact that it's so much on your mind is, to be frank, a bit freaky.
But even if I turn out to be wrong, there's *still* a very good chance that *you're* wrong *too*. All in all, I like my odds better than yours. But frankly, I don't care much for bets. I simply have to go with what I think is true. And I don't see any evidence for an afterlife, so it doesn't make sense for me to act as if there were one.
@bsdagf Alright I will see so how about this shut the fuck up let people live their lives like they want. If they don't believe in God it doesn't effect you in any way so stop stressing over it...
Do a class in evolution. If you still have these concerns. do the class again and take notes. If you still think your points here are valid. Your an idiot. You can understand evolution and still believe in your God. Although why would you want too. The God in the bible isn't very smart, he should send his son now, when we all have video phones
@joshowen88 Why don't you take an English course before you go insulting people without any reasons why you're insulting them? It's you're not very clever after all, not your. "HAHA your a clever we things." I mean that's not even a sentence dude, and the grammar is deplorable(I know that's kind of redundant).
@joshowen88 Actually, I never called you an idiot. You were the one calling people idiots. The comment I replied to said "your an idiot", I was merely pointing out that it's you're not your. I wasn't saying you're an idiot, I was just correcting your grammar. I also found it ironic that you were calling people idiots when you couldn't even use proper grammar. You said "your not very clever", that's like calling someone an idiot in a nice way. Oh it should be "you're not very clever" not your.
@GuitarGage870 Thanks for pointing out my poor grammar skills. I'm working on them but it's always nice to find people who think its a funny joke. I'm curious, Did you bring it to my attention because my grammar upset you? Or did you bring it up because I support evolution and or i don't believe in god?
@joshowen88 Did I say or even imply that I thought your grammar was a funny joke? No, I only found it ironic that you were calling people stupid yet you weren't even using proper grammar. Did I think it was funny? Yes, a little, but I wasn't trying to make a joke out of it. I'm sorry if I offended you. If ANY of my friends told ANYONE they were stupid, I would quote Ephesians 4:29. Look it up, I don't have room to write it. I am not to hate those who hate me, but to love and pray for them.
@GuitarGage870 Your words did imply that it was a joke to you " "Your an idiot" don't you mean You're an idiot? LOL!" But I can accept your apology. Bad grammar and spelling does not make a person and idiot though. The fact that I can spell at all, shows I am not, I missed the basic as life gave me a false start in education. All I am is self taught, but to chose to voice your views on a subject like evolution without understanding the basic when its free to access makes a fool,makes and idiot
uneducated filth that dropped out of high school you want to sit here trying to point out grammar mistakes like this is a research paper of some sort.
Yet you do that to try to distract people from the fact you are uneducated filth working at burger king.
You should check out Russell Davies's "The Second Coming" (2003) starring Christopher Eccleston. There's a torrent kicking around; I think you'd enjoy it.
post thoughts. as a beleiver in creation, my beleif comes from faith, and it is through spiritual, or biochemeical and emotional responses that I gain my testimony. My beleif system doesn't presently require tangible proof, but the evolutionist or in some cases the atheist has the burden of proof, because they have set that standard for themselves.
Final thought. a scientific Rule, law, or standard is- Matter can neither be created or detroyed. How then can the true age of any form of matter be accurately defined. and does our current method of determining the age of matter provide the proper foundation to present the actual age of something that is timeless.
« How then can the true age of any form of matter be accurately defined »
Because we have observed matter to behave according to certain predictable patterns. For instance, certain isotopes are unstable, and decay into various other forms at a set and predictable rate. Such processes allow us to determine how long certain structures have existed.
in dealing with scientists promoting the multi billion year existence of earth, to supprt their calims their weasuring methods DO HAVE TO USE assumptions that ARE NOT KNOWN. to prove their point. and when faced with that reality they just say it is a known fact, when they themselves have not proven many of these facts.
The scientific scolars claim to use hard evidence to "prove" their point. But then why is it called the theory of evolution, and not the law of evolution. In geometry there are proofs, the goal of a proof is to prove. yet the scientists who endorse the scientific process can not fully prove their concept of evolution.many of the "smoking guns" are unmeasurable by modern equipment. and many of the practices that measure the age of matter has been proven not to be completely accurate.
« The scientific scolars claim to use hard evidence to "prove" their point »
Well, not exactly. Science uses physical evidence to *substantiate* (not "prove") the validity of their claims. It's not possible to actually "prove" that a claim about observable reality is true: the best you can really do is to show that it is *likely* to be true.
You are too dimwitted to understand pop-culture's use of "theory" is not the same as scientific theory. Guess what cupcake? Electricity is still considered a "theory"... or did you think it's still Zeus up there throwing those thunderbolts?
Your inability to understand the science does not grant you the right to invoke the fallacy of argumentum ad divintas, you numpty.
the true origins of "creation are still fuzzy, because the documentation is scarce, and it has been manipulated over time. Many of the key factors suppoting evolution are unproveable by modern scientific experimentation and measurements. how does the scholar expect "a man of faith" to prove something that he has little physical evidence to present his case. or doesn't understand that there is tons of evidence, he just doesn't know how to correlate the data.
First of all Evolution didn't have to fight its way into public school doctrines. and according to one of these scientistas facts aren't important. theories are more important. they fail to disclose that a theory is an unproven hypothesis. when evolution goes up against creation it is usually contending against a false perception of creation. they act as though their precious evolution is so sacred and attacked by the majority, when it is endorsed by the state.
« and according to one of these scientistas facts aren't important »
You probably misunderstood him. Facts are *very* important: in fact, they're so important that there's an entire methodology dedicated to finding explanations for them: the scientific method.
« and according to one of these scientistas facts aren't important »
You probably misunderstood him. Facts are *very* important: in fact, they're so important that there's an entire methodology dedicated to finding explanations for them: the scientific method.
Theories are more *useful*. Facts in themselves are just facts. But when facts are explained by theories, that's when we start to understand things about the world we live in.
You really are the epitome of stupidity. Evolution is a FACT. If you do not accept this, then you are an incredibly sad representation of a human being. Evolution is the history of our past and the things you are posting are ridiculous and absurd. You probably sit at home in your own shit because you can not wrap your brain around the TRUTH. Grow up and face what science accepts as true or don't watch videos that lean in the direction of evolution.
@KansasItalianCity not when one side has mountains of evidence on different levels and the ther have nothing but claims without a working theory nor any evidence to support their claims. also what is your evidence that something has to created before it can evolve?
@Aanthanur -mountains of evidence?really,you jsut said that?haha.the elements that cause something to evolve had to be created at some point in time, you have to dig deep and not just stop at scientific research.science cannot explain all supernatural events,such as pyramids, ancient drawings roswell,etc there was intelligent life before us before the flood,and there still is.you dont always have to see it to believe it. keep open minded and all the truth in the world will flood into your brain.
@KansasItalianCity there were no supernatural events ever observed.Pyramids are not supernatural at all. what the heck are you talking about??? andcient drawings are not supernatural either. they are ancient drawings.
i dont know i was jsut trying to say science isnt close at all to revealing the meaning of anything, people will believe anything they see or read when it comes to science, science cant tell u about aliens or in detail what happend in the past. all i know is there is no right or wrong. evolution cant exist without creationism and creationism cant exist without evolution.
@hardcoretam I assume you are talking about when Moses was asking Pharoah to let the Israelites go and showed him miracles to convince him he was sent by God. For example, God turned Moses' staff into a snake. The Egyptian sorcerers also did this "trick" and Moses as dismissed. The Egyptian sorcerers got their power to do this from the Devil.
@SoCalAries Okay, to be clear, I believe in creationism, but I am trying to show that the Bible is not dependent on the disproval of evolution. The Bible says the universe was made in seven days, but some christians interpret each day to mean some other amount of time. For example the first day could have been billions of years. Basically, all that matters is if you know that God made the universe, and you.
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 "Basically, all that matters is if you know that God made the universe, and you." => you sound open-minded and clearly aware that evolution is not atheism, yet I can't understand why you would choose to believe in creationism (and young earth too, not even old earth!), when majority of Christian scientists don't. What's stopping you? I don't think it's faith, cuz you obviously realize accepting evolution theory is not an attack on your faith.
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 Actually, the Bible says the earth was made in 6 days. Remember? On the 7th day, He rested. The "Christians" that say that 1 day in Genesis could have meant 1 billion years are jokes and clearly do not recognize the authority of Scripture, nor do they know how to interpret the Bible. But yes, believing the earth is millions of years old instead of thousands of years old (like the Bible says) will probably not stop God from saving His elect but it is ridiculous to think so.
@GuitarGage870 I can't imagine an omnipotent deity being anything other than slightly amused by his creation puzzling over how how he pulled off his trick!
He's obviously gone to great lengths to make the Earth appear to be 4 billion years old - can't imagine he'd blame his silly ignorant flock for falling for his deliberate deception.
@fingleur1 Who says the earth appears to be 4 billion years old? And what kind of person can make such an assumption? Also, please work on your grammar.
@fingleur1 Oh no, one of those people who thinks only their view is always right and that any scientist who believes in the Bible can't be a real scientist. Well why don't you look up Ken Ham? He has a bachelor's degree in applied science.
@Aanthanur The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can potentially be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds could contain carbon-14).
@Aanthanur A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process.
@GuitarGage870 the decay rate of C-14 is not an assumption, but was tested and tested and tested and keeps geting tested. it has always the same halflife. you clearly know not what you are talking about.
@Aanthanur So were you there when scientists tested the half life of C-14 600 million years ago? Yeah didn't think so. Also, like I said, C-14 can only be accurate with once living things NOT ROCKS. People that claim that rocks have been dated to be millions of years old are stupid because rocks CANNOT be dated using any kind of dating methods.Again, the AMS 14C dating method is only valid up to about 80,000 years.
@sykeo123 No, that would be impossible now wouldn't it genius? But I have a birth certificate and a video tape of my birth and accurate photos of my growth from a newborn baby till now. You obviously don't know much about donkeys. It also sounds like you need a hug.
@sykeo123 John 15:18-19 says: If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me(Jesus) before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. By using such profanity and hatred, you are showing me that, well, you hate me. You have no reason to hate me yet you do and you are proving the Bible is true, thank you and I forgive you for the things you said to me.
@GuitarGage870 C-14 600 million years ago? C-14 has a halflife of 5,730 ± 40 years, that is why it is only used for datings of up to 60.000 years.
But it is surely not the only radiometric dating method there is. but i am not suprised you didn't know that because your "arguments" are mostly based on ignorance.
@GuitarGage870 can you quote me pls one scinetist that claims the world to be millions of years old based on carbon 14 dating method? just one, i also would accept a scientist that claims the world to be billions of years based on carbon 14 dating methods.
@Aanthanur Honestly, I don't know of any scientist who has given any unrefutable evidence of the earth being 4.5 billion years old because there is no dating method that accurately states that. All I know is, carbon 14 dating IS now thought to be the most reliably dating method out there that I know of and if you throw in the circumstance of a world-wide flood, and the diamonds that were thought to be billions of years old, were only about 5,000 years old. Source: RATE group findings 1997-2005
@GuitarGage870 so you retract that claim "But that's the thing, it is C-14 dating that scientists are claiming shows the world to be millions of years old! lol" ?
and pls, inform yourself about radiometric dating. there is no "most reliably dating method" because it always depends on the age of the sample that has to be tested, dependend on the material and the age a working radiometric dating method has to be choosen.
@GuitarGage870 and again, C-14 dating cannot be used to date anything older than some 50 000 years. so your claim about billions of years old diamonds are not realted to C-14 dating at all. scientists would use a different dating method when something is thought to be older than 50 000 years.
@Aanthanur All dating methods have many assumptions, and have been known to be very inaccurate. In order for evolution to be true the earth MUST be as old as evolution scientists claim it is. I have personally never seen ANY physical evidence (pictures or videos) of anything being tested to be millions or billions of years old(not saying it isn't out there).(no proof by lack of evidence fallacy intended)
@GuitarGage870 then why don't you inform yourself na dlook up such things? instead of claiming your stuff is true while you don't even know the other sides evidences. you have your claims from creationist websites. it the stuff they claim you repeat. its a shame.
@GuitarGage870 also there is no scientific evidence for a global flood as claimed by the bible. just like there was no evidence for plagues or slavery in egypt etc etc.
@Aanthanur It is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000 feet (2,130–2,440 m) above sea level.
@GuitarGage870 It is also beyond dispute among geologists that there is a thing called plate tectonics and that you should look it up before you ake even more claims out of your ignorance.
@Aanthanur 1 Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond).
@Aanthanur Marine fossils are also found high in the Himalayas, the world’s tallest mountain range, reaching up to 29,029 feet (8,848 m) above sea level.3 For example, fossil ammonites (coiled marine cephalopods) are found in limestone beds in the Himalayas of Nepal. All geologists agree that ocean waters must have buried these marine fossils in these limestone beds. So how did these marine limestone beds get high up in the Himalayas?
@Aanthanur There is only one possible explanation for this phenomenon—the ocean waters at some time in the past flooded over the continents. Could the continents have then sunk below today’s sea level, so that the ocean waters flooded over them? No! The continents are made up of lighter rocks that are less dense than the rocks on the ocean floor and rocks in the mantle beneath the continents.
@Aanthanur The continents, in fact, have an automatic tendency to rise, and thus “float” on the mantle rocks beneath, well above the ocean floor rocks. This explains why the continents today have such high elevations compared to the deep ocean floor, and why the ocean basins can hold so much water.
@Aanthanur In addition, it seems historically unlikely that the firstborn son of the relevant Pharoah actually ascended the throne as was normally the case but his place was taken by another. Also, a Pharoah named Merenptah said "Israel is wasted, bare of seed". The last part "bare of seed" seems to indicate Pharaoh's deep interest in Israel, and apparent control over them.
@Aanthanur Since the Israelites were slaves in Egypt one would hardly expect a great mass of information about them. However, an inscription on the great sphinx does mention them. In addition to this, the period in which they were in Egypt is noted for a great deal of building and the Egyptian empire declined after their departure.
@GuitarGage870 funny, i just googled the begining of your answer, and funnely enough Wiki answers shows up. and that you gave me the second answer that showed up there instead of the first is a very fine example of confirmation bias. you never checked the claims in that post, you just copied it because it confirmed your already held beliefs. :) a shame. why dont you inform yourself about egyptology and read a bit from people that actually study ancient egypt?
@Aanthanur Oh yes, plate tectonics! Well since I'm a Christian and so I'm automatically an ignorant person, go ahead, enlighten me. Funny, I'm reading Unwrapping the pharaohs in school right now. Let me guess, you'll google it, find out it was written by a Christian, and tell me that it is a bad source lol! It's really sad that in your mind the only legitimate source is a source from your belief. That my friend, is sad. The claims in that post were true.
@GuitarGage870 no i think you are ignorant because you have demonstrated your ignorance. There are very well educated and very knowledgable Christians. Even in Science. but you are not. And about the book, no i will not google it. i will ask my sister this weekend if she knows it, she studied Egypotology and Art History.
Some parts of this video were so incredible (in particular the "no controversy" claim with the straight face :D:D:D) I can only conclude, evolutionists blow politicians and lawyers out of the water. Hmmm, where do the topbankers fit in:
evolutionists
politicians
bankers
lawyers
Uenbg 7 hours ago in playlist Can your educational system always be trusted?
@Uenbg No, they stated there is no controversy in the scientific community. At least not about the central idea of descent with modification, there are arguments about the specifics of how evolution happens. The controversy is in the public forum which is the only hope creationists have to win in, since they are unable and therefore unwilling to go thru the rigorous scientific process necessary for a consensus in the scientific community. Since creationism is NOT science.
oadnrtyo 5 hours ago
@oadnrtyo you mean scientists getting shunned (ex-communicated basicly) by the so-called "scientific community" (official national and international recognized institutions) for even mentioning the possibility of intelligent design is POSITIVE for science?
Stephen Hawking: "The greatest enemy of true knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge"
And one last thing:
Haeckel :P
Uenbg 5 hours ago
I believe in evolution , but there is no such thing as an atheist , nobody is that stupid .
mollymu1 8 hours ago
Very good video. The last guy makes a very important remark regarding the gap between scientists and what people believe. Scientists are there to educate people on scientific matters, it is rather terrifying that people with no knowledge of the area or qualifications are allowed to swat these conclusions that took years to come to because 'it says so in their book'.
Znybar 2 days ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuitarGage870
I'm not insinuating, I am overtly stating. I've given my conclusion but am in no way inflexible to changing my position.
For honest discourse, should either of us need clarification we'd use elliptical parentheses. This would not be considered a "move".
No response after 2 wks will be considered capitulation; adjournment w/ terms may be requested.
As the burden of proof is mine, I take first move. Do you accept these & my previous terms? Please clearly state so.
(1/2: A)
recalibration 2 days ago
Comment removed
recalibration 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximusArurealius
You should stick around. I have an open challenge for GuitarGage870. Furthermore, as you state you have (at least a basic) understanding, I'd like you to keep an eye out for fallacies. Of course, this is assuming he accepts.
recalibration 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgibb101
You should stick around. I have an open challenge for GuitarGage870. Let's see if he accepts.
recalibration 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BachScholar
You should stick around. I have an open challenge for GuitarGage870. Let's see if he accepts.
recalibration 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@19jord95
Our beliefs influence our decisions therefore impact reality & others. Thus, I charge such must be rationally examined. Using divinity as an excuse to not continue the quest for knowledge is a grave insult to us all. To do otherwise invokes intellectual cowardice.
You should stick around. I have an open challenge for GuitarGage870. Let's see if he accepts.
recalibration 3 days ago
Why can't you question evolution afraid it might be proven wrong
thatcoolmartian 3 days ago
@thatcoolmartian
Stick around. I have an open challenge for debate w/ GuitarGage870. Let's see if he accepts.
recalibration 3 days ago
Wjy
thatcoolmartian 3 days ago
Just want to make sure I understand...so the things you "summize" to know (theory) is MORE IMPORTANT than the things you KNOW to be true (facts) (See 3:50). Guess I have misunderstood science all these years.
fulgentblade 3 days ago
@fulgentblade
theory in science does not mean what it means in layman language.
Theory in science is related to the word theorem
Theory explains a Law
Law is observation and theory is all the important details of that observation.
sykeo123 3 days ago
@sykeo123
Slight correction. A fact is an observation (e.g. things fall down), a law is a generalization about a set of facts that is true in specified instances (e.g. mass attracts mass), and a theory is a thoroughly tested explanation about a collection of facts using established laws (e.g. why mass attacts mass).
Atriviality 7 hours ago
@fulgentblade
in science the important part is the theory not the law.
it contains all the juicy important facts
sykeo123 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The day you say that you literally see dead little rocks in a dead pool, prefiguring it’s own future destination, and somehow spawning intricate life, via 3 billion years of happy accidents, will be the day I jump in the middle of the pacific ocean when it's half frozen.
MAYNEOFSTEEL 4 days ago
what if evolution is a tool used by God? I think evolution and religion can coexist peacefully.
dictionaryzzz 4 days ago
@dictionaryzzz precisely. People like you need to speak up more. Too many theists out here think evolution is same as atheism, when it's not.
Casshyr 4 days ago
@Casshyr
Disagree. Hard science trumps both atheism, theism, dogma. Let me ask you: how many revisions did it take before Gen 1:27? What model was finally accepted into Eden? On what criteria? What happened to the multiple unused prototypes?
recalibration 3 days ago
@dictionaryzzz see i can totally see where your coming from with this point with God in the picture everything would make much more sense for a lot of people
killakm93 3 days ago
@dictionaryzzz
How many revisions did it take before Gen 1:27? What model was finally accepted into Eden?
recalibration 3 days ago
Wow that Kenneth Miller guy, sure knows how to say it how it is. @4:24
angellicvoices 1 week ago
Were you there? Millions of years ago I shit a brick. and its proven because now I shit Brown turds. LOOL Evolution is ridiculous and will NEVER be proven fact. Now you try to prove im lying.. and ill try to prove your right. Lets go back a zillion years.. oh wait we cant.. so we both gotta go based on mans opinions.. (SCIENTISTS) SORRY.
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 1 week ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x
Evolution is fact. Full stop.
[Jul 2006] news[.]nationalgeographic[.]com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution[.]html
[Apr 2008] news[.]nationalgeographic[.]com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution[.]html
[Jul 2009] time[.]com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1909617,00[.]html
[1/2]
recalibration 1 week ago
@recalibration IDC what u say ull never convince me its a fact. No matter how much scientific evidence u have EVOLUTION makes life have no meaning. God makes it have meaning so therefore u lose. And I gain everything
1xThreeDaysGrace1x 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x
Yet you'd dare post a video titled "Atheism and Evolution Destroyed By FACT" You don't even understand the science, yet you'd assert you know "fact" & "God".
"Facts be damn! I feel this is Truth, so I'm entitled to it!" No, you're just another madman shouting into the wind. To cling to belief in the face of hard, falsifiable science just shows you're operating under a psychosis.
Grow up.
recalibration 3 days ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x Its not that "@recalibration" would never be able to convince you its fact, Its just that you've afraid of reality and have close your mind to it. If you eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge its a Sin ( the original Sin) haha what a great way to control people, actually what an evil way to control people!
joshowen88 2 days ago
@joshowen88
Damn. That's a burn if I've ever seen one. Your comment reminds me of Happiness In Slavery -- Broken, 1992, NIN ( watch?v=4RWTV1iL0bw )
... mind your volume level before playing...
recalibration 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x
Human's evolution is fact. Full stop. See the presentation by Dr. Ken Miller (Biology), Prof @ Brown, a Catholic, present one of the results of the Human Genome project. [ watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk ] 4m23s running time. This knowledge dates prior to ~2006.
Creationism/Intelligent Design revels in wilful ignorance.
[2/2]
recalibration 1 week ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x
were you there when jesus was sent to insane asylum? No? than how do you know he exists o thats right you are uneducated filth troll
sykeo123 6 days ago
@sykeo123 Were you?
killakm93 3 days ago
@killakm93
were I what?
sykeo123 3 days ago
@1xThreeDaysGrace1x Finally someone who fucking realizes that evolution is a faith!!!!
killakm93 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@killakm93
"Finally someone who fucking realizes that evolution is a faith!!!!"
Says the uneducated filth 12 year old.
sykeo123 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@killakm93 "Finally someone who fucking realizes that evolution is a faith!!!!" => be careful of your wording. There is evolution, and then there is evolution theory. Evolution is simply inherited changes over generations, and that is a fact. Evolution theory is built based on facts of evolution, and that, i will admit, require some faith. But don't say evolution needs faith, it doesn't. ONLY evolution theory does. Know the difference between evolution vs evolution theory.
Casshyr 3 days ago
Comment removed
recalibration 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Casshyr
I would also like to follow up your comment by stating both electricity & gravity are, IIRC, still considered theories.
Pop culture's defination of "theory" is *not* the same as scientific theory.
recalibration 3 days ago
@killakm93 - another bullship myth by creationist who are experts at dealing in myths. Evolution is based on facts and evidence. Creationism is not. It is a myth. Just like the hundred of other myths primative people used to explain the origins of the universe.
CyeOutsider 3 days ago
@killakm93 Reality check: scientists aren't big on spending time hammering out the finer details of faith. You don't need faith when you have a preponderance of factual information painting an incredibly clear tableau. Just because you don't understand this vast database of logically consistent evidence does not make it faith. I'm sure it seems like faith when you absolutely refuse to learn any of these facts.
Snakepliskinist 3 days ago 5
@Snakepliskinist Nice!
scottmds 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@killakm93
Whereas science continues to explore, evolve & ask questions, it demands proof of assertions before being accepted. Religion, on the other hand, stagnates advancement & insults the rational mind by hiding anything that can't be immed. explained as "I dun nao, must'a dun b Gawd!"
You revel in intellectual cowardice.
recalibration 3 days ago
Scientists Invent Results: Times Online (June 4,) headline reports that “One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data.” That figure applies to serious breaches of “acceptable conduct by inventing results.” The article went on to say that “46 percent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in ‘questionable practices‘, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source
what suprise lol
robertfusion 1 week ago
@robertfusion
& whom do you supposed uncovered, analysed, the evidence to support that claim?
recalibration 3 days ago
I see your beautiful design everywhere YHWH. They can too! Foolishness dressed up at its best will only get those who choose blindness.
YochananMat 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok lets say evolution was true (which its not) then what? if you where right you would be living for NOTHING. even if you are right at least i spent my life looking forward to something (heaven) while you looked forward too nothing. If i turn out to be right i will be living with my Father and you will be in a whole lota hurt. in other words, im comin out on top ether way you look at it.
ToxiicOkie 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToxiicOkie
« then what? »
Then we have a working explanation for the nested hierarchies of biology, the matching of diverging progressions of traits in palaeontology, ERV distributions, and so on.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToxiicOkie
« you would be living for NOTHING »
Nope. I'd be living for life, love, happiness, the chance to make a worthwhile contribution to the happiness of those around you and those who come after you. But I suppose you don't care about any of those things?
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToxiicOkie
« at least i spent my life looking forward to something »
You mean wasting real opportunities to make something worthwhile of your life here while awaiting something that may or may not come? Nah, not my thing.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToxiicOkie
« while you looked forward too nothing »
Most of us aren't really busy with contemplating the end of our lives, you know? We're too busy living to think of it often. The fact that it's so much on your mind is, to be frank, a bit freaky.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToxiicOkie
« If i turn out to be right »
But even if I turn out to be wrong, there's *still* a very good chance that *you're* wrong *too*. All in all, I like my odds better than yours. But frankly, I don't care much for bets. I simply have to go with what I think is true. And I don't see any evidence for an afterlife, so it doesn't make sense for me to act as if there were one.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
one video every Evolutionist needs to watch /watch?v=fDYxUHtYB4g
Gods0n1 1 week ago
no creationist talking? so why is it evolution vs creation? stupid really
hzqueen1 1 week ago 2
@hzqueen1 Yeah I know right? HAHA
GuitarGage870 1 week ago
stupid lady in red at the begging so stupid
bsdagf 1 week ago
@bsdagf Right I'm sure someone like you, who doesn't even know basic grammar, has a higher IQ.
HeadSHOT604 1 week ago
Comment removed
bsdagf 1 week ago
@HeadSHOT604 How about a counter arguement to all the evience and proof against the lie of evolution
funny how you only defend something someone tricked you into believing ha one day youll see
bsdagf 1 week ago
@bsdagf Alright I will see so how about this shut the fuck up let people live their lives like they want. If they don't believe in God it doesn't effect you in any way so stop stressing over it...
HeadSHOT604 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bsdagf
1.) The philosophical burden of proof is on those asserting their claims, not those questioning it.
2.) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- C. Sagan
3.) "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- C. Hitchens
4.) The complexity of a system does not imply divinity (imply such = argumentum ad divintas fallacy).
5.) Accepting someone's belief purely w/ out falsifiability is naive & makes you susceptible to manipulation.
recalibration 3 days ago
Do a class in evolution. If you still have these concerns. do the class again and take notes. If you still think your points here are valid. Your an idiot. You can understand evolution and still believe in your God. Although why would you want too. The God in the bible isn't very smart, he should send his son now, when we all have video phones
joshowen88 1 week ago
@joshowen88 "Your an idiot" don't you mean You're an idiot? LOL!
GuitarGage870 1 week ago
@GuitarGage870 HAHA your a clever we things. go bounce a ball. red one if you like! clever child!
joshowen88 1 week ago
@joshowen88 What???
GuitarGage870 1 week ago
@GuitarGage870 your not very clever after all. funny that!
joshowen88 1 week ago
@joshowen88 Why don't you take an English course before you go insulting people without any reasons why you're insulting them? It's you're not very clever after all, not your. "HAHA your a clever we things." I mean that's not even a sentence dude, and the grammar is deplorable(I know that's kind of redundant).
GuitarGage870 1 week ago
@GuitarGage870 Oh your right. Would you look at that, 10 points to you. I'll make sure I reread my insults in future
I might just send them to you first to spell check, If you don't mind?
Cheers
joshowen88 1 week ago
@GuitarGage870 oh and you were the one calling me an idiot!
joshowen88 1 week ago
@joshowen88 Actually, I never called you an idiot. You were the one calling people idiots. The comment I replied to said "your an idiot", I was merely pointing out that it's you're not your. I wasn't saying you're an idiot, I was just correcting your grammar. I also found it ironic that you were calling people idiots when you couldn't even use proper grammar. You said "your not very clever", that's like calling someone an idiot in a nice way. Oh it should be "you're not very clever" not your.
GuitarGage870 1 week ago
@GuitarGage870 Thanks for pointing out my poor grammar skills. I'm working on them but it's always nice to find people who think its a funny joke. I'm curious, Did you bring it to my attention because my grammar upset you? Or did you bring it up because I support evolution and or i don't believe in god?
joshowen88 1 week ago
@joshowen88 Did I say or even imply that I thought your grammar was a funny joke? No, I only found it ironic that you were calling people stupid yet you weren't even using proper grammar. Did I think it was funny? Yes, a little, but I wasn't trying to make a joke out of it. I'm sorry if I offended you. If ANY of my friends told ANYONE they were stupid, I would quote Ephesians 4:29. Look it up, I don't have room to write it. I am not to hate those who hate me, but to love and pray for them.
GuitarGage870 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuitarGage870 Your words did imply that it was a joke to you " "Your an idiot" don't you mean You're an idiot? LOL!" But I can accept your apology. Bad grammar and spelling does not make a person and idiot though. The fact that I can spell at all, shows I am not, I missed the basic as life gave me a false start in education. All I am is self taught, but to chose to voice your views on a subject like evolution without understanding the basic when its free to access makes a fool,makes and idiot
joshowen88 1 week ago
@joshowen88 does not make an idiot though*. Makes an Idiot* Saved you the trouble and corrected it myself.
joshowen88 1 week ago
@GuitarGage870
typical trash theist... is all you are
uneducated filth that dropped out of high school you want to sit here trying to point out grammar mistakes like this is a research paper of some sort.
Yet you do that to try to distract people from the fact you are uneducated filth working at burger king.
sykeo123 6 days ago
@joshowen88
Great comment.
You should check out Russell Davies's "The Second Coming" (2003) starring Christopher Eccleston. There's a torrent kicking around; I think you'd enjoy it.
recalibration 3 days ago
@recalibration Thanks i'll check it out.
joshowen88 2 days ago
post thoughts. as a beleiver in creation, my beleif comes from faith, and it is through spiritual, or biochemeical and emotional responses that I gain my testimony. My beleif system doesn't presently require tangible proof, but the evolutionist or in some cases the atheist has the burden of proof, because they have set that standard for themselves.
TheSleepingbandit 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« but the evolutionist or in some cases the atheist has the burden of proof, because they have set that standard for themselves. »
So you're basically saying that you're perfectly okay with the fact that your beliefs are indistinguishable from pure fantasy?
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
Final thought. a scientific Rule, law, or standard is- Matter can neither be created or detroyed. How then can the true age of any form of matter be accurately defined. and does our current method of determining the age of matter provide the proper foundation to present the actual age of something that is timeless.
TheSleepingbandit 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« How then can the true age of any form of matter be accurately defined »
Because we have observed matter to behave according to certain predictable patterns. For instance, certain isotopes are unstable, and decay into various other forms at a set and predictable rate. Such processes allow us to determine how long certain structures have existed.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
in dealing with scientists promoting the multi billion year existence of earth, to supprt their calims their weasuring methods DO HAVE TO USE assumptions that ARE NOT KNOWN. to prove their point. and when faced with that reality they just say it is a known fact, when they themselves have not proven many of these facts.
TheSleepingbandit 1 week ago
The scientific scolars claim to use hard evidence to "prove" their point. But then why is it called the theory of evolution, and not the law of evolution. In geometry there are proofs, the goal of a proof is to prove. yet the scientists who endorse the scientific process can not fully prove their concept of evolution.many of the "smoking guns" are unmeasurable by modern equipment. and many of the practices that measure the age of matter has been proven not to be completely accurate.
TheSleepingbandit 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit "But then why is it called the theory of evolution, and not the law of evolution."
Theory is an explanation made up of laws, facts and tested hypothesis.
fingleur1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« and not the law of evolution »
Do you want to know some of the laws of evolution? If you're interested, I'll provide a short summary.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@TheSleepingbandit
« The scientific scolars claim to use hard evidence to "prove" their point »
Well, not exactly. Science uses physical evidence to *substantiate* (not "prove") the validity of their claims. It's not possible to actually "prove" that a claim about observable reality is true: the best you can really do is to show that it is *likely* to be true.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
Comment removed
recalibration 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
You are too dimwitted to understand pop-culture's use of "theory" is not the same as scientific theory. Guess what cupcake? Electricity is still considered a "theory"... or did you think it's still Zeus up there throwing those thunderbolts?
Your inability to understand the science does not grant you the right to invoke the fallacy of argumentum ad divintas, you numpty.
recalibration 3 days ago
the true origins of "creation are still fuzzy, because the documentation is scarce, and it has been manipulated over time. Many of the key factors suppoting evolution are unproveable by modern scientific experimentation and measurements. how does the scholar expect "a man of faith" to prove something that he has little physical evidence to present his case. or doesn't understand that there is tons of evidence, he just doesn't know how to correlate the data.
TheSleepingbandit 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit "Many of the key factors suppoting evolution are unproveable by modern scientific experimentation and measurements. "
Oops. Wrong Again
fingleur1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« Many of the key factors suppoting evolution are unproveable by modern scientific experimentation »
Really? Can you name an example?
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
First of all Evolution didn't have to fight its way into public school doctrines. and according to one of these scientistas facts aren't important. theories are more important. they fail to disclose that a theory is an unproven hypothesis. when evolution goes up against creation it is usually contending against a false perception of creation. they act as though their precious evolution is so sacred and attacked by the majority, when it is endorsed by the state.
TheSleepingbandit 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit "a theory is an unproven hypothesis"
You're wrong.
fingleur1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« Evolution didn't have to fight its way into public school doctrines »
On the contrary; after Darwin first formulated his version of evolutionary theory, it took many decades before anything like it was taught in school.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« and according to one of these scientistas facts aren't important »
You probably misunderstood him. Facts are *very* important: in fact, they're so important that there's an entire methodology dedicated to finding explanations for them: the scientific method.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« and according to one of these scientistas facts aren't important »
You probably misunderstood him. Facts are *very* important: in fact, they're so important that there's an entire methodology dedicated to finding explanations for them: the scientific method.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« theories are more important »
Theories are more *useful*. Facts in themselves are just facts. But when facts are explained by theories, that's when we start to understand things about the world we live in.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« a theory is an unproven hypothesis »
Again you misunderstood. Hypotheses and theories are *never* "proven". They're *substantiated*, *confirmed*, *verified* - not "proven".
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSleepingbandit
« when evolution goes up against creation it is usually contending against a false perception of creation »
What a coincidence. The reverse is also invariably the case.
Perhaps you'd care to provide a summary of the "true perception of creation", and explain how we can establish the accuracy of that perception?
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
They aren't mutually exclusive! boom bam, roasted!
12907hogan 1 week ago
@sykeo123
You really are the epitome of stupidity. Evolution is a FACT. If you do not accept this, then you are an incredibly sad representation of a human being. Evolution is the history of our past and the things you are posting are ridiculous and absurd. You probably sit at home in your own shit because you can not wrap your brain around the TRUTH. Grow up and face what science accepts as true or don't watch videos that lean in the direction of evolution.
TreyDawson122192 2 weeks ago
something has to be created before it can evolve. they go hand in hand, to argue one is more right that the other is completely moronic and absurd.
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
@KansasItalianCity not when one side has mountains of evidence on different levels and the ther have nothing but claims without a working theory nor any evidence to support their claims. also what is your evidence that something has to created before it can evolve?
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur -mountains of evidence?really,you jsut said that?haha.the elements that cause something to evolve had to be created at some point in time, you have to dig deep and not just stop at scientific research.science cannot explain all supernatural events,such as pyramids, ancient drawings roswell,etc there was intelligent life before us before the flood,and there still is.you dont always have to see it to believe it. keep open minded and all the truth in the world will flood into your brain.
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
@KansasItalianCity there were no supernatural events ever observed.Pyramids are not supernatural at all. what the heck are you talking about??? andcient drawings are not supernatural either. they are ancient drawings.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur
i dont know i was jsut trying to say science isnt close at all to revealing the meaning of anything, people will believe anything they see or read when it comes to science, science cant tell u about aliens or in detail what happend in the past. all i know is there is no right or wrong. evolution cant exist without creationism and creationism cant exist without evolution.
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
@KansasItalianCity
"evolution cant exist without creationism and creationism cant exist without evolution."
False premise and completely illogical
it is actually a logical fallacy
sykeo123 2 weeks ago
@sykeo123
very easy. open your mind and youll understand.
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
@KansasItalianCity that makes no sence.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur
its not easy for everyone to understand things.
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
@KansasItalianCity especially for rational and logical thinking people.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur
especially
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
@XPurpleDrinkx9001 What? Just tell me any apparent contradiction, I can get you an answer.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 2 weeks ago
Pull your head out of your brainwashed Christian ass creationist.
ThinkPortals 2 weeks ago
@ThinkPortals
spoken liek a true simpleton
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
@KansasItalianCity
KansasItalianCity, "open your mind and youll understand."
Understand what that you are a high school drop out?
I am sorry but "open mind" doesn't mean being illogical ignoring logical fallacies and spewing stupidity like you are doing.
sykeo123 2 weeks ago
@sykeo123
your acting like someone who didnt pass their GED. you seem very angry and confused.
dont let these faults destroy you.
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
I am a Christuian and VERY interested in developing evidence - please continue your good science work.
fastteddyb 2 weeks ago
@fastteddyb
You should stick around. I have an open challenge for GuitarGage870. Let's see if he accepts.
recalibration 3 days ago
Many "contradictions" in the Bible can be explained.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 2 weeks ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 Yes, theyre called "cop outs"
xPurpleDrinkx9001 2 weeks ago
@xPurpleDrinkx9001
moronic simpleton
KansasItalianCity 2 weeks ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 All "contradictions" in the Bible can be explained because there are none.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@hardcoretam I assume you are talking about when Moses was asking Pharoah to let the Israelites go and showed him miracles to convince him he was sent by God. For example, God turned Moses' staff into a snake. The Egyptian sorcerers also did this "trick" and Moses as dismissed. The Egyptian sorcerers got their power to do this from the Devil.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 2 weeks ago
@hauhau72 Of course it says that.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 2 weeks ago
@SoCalAries Okay, to be clear, I believe in creationism, but I am trying to show that the Bible is not dependent on the disproval of evolution. The Bible says the universe was made in seven days, but some christians interpret each day to mean some other amount of time. For example the first day could have been billions of years. Basically, all that matters is if you know that God made the universe, and you.
TheFlyingmonkeyman7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 "Basically, all that matters is if you know that God made the universe, and you." => you sound open-minded and clearly aware that evolution is not atheism, yet I can't understand why you would choose to believe in creationism (and young earth too, not even old earth!), when majority of Christian scientists don't. What's stopping you? I don't think it's faith, cuz you obviously realize accepting evolution theory is not an attack on your faith.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@TheFlyingmonkeyman7 Actually, the Bible says the earth was made in 6 days. Remember? On the 7th day, He rested. The "Christians" that say that 1 day in Genesis could have meant 1 billion years are jokes and clearly do not recognize the authority of Scripture, nor do they know how to interpret the Bible. But yes, believing the earth is millions of years old instead of thousands of years old (like the Bible says) will probably not stop God from saving His elect but it is ridiculous to think so.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 I can't imagine an omnipotent deity being anything other than slightly amused by his creation puzzling over how how he pulled off his trick!
He's obviously gone to great lengths to make the Earth appear to be 4 billion years old - can't imagine he'd blame his silly ignorant flock for falling for his deliberate deception.
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@fingleur1 Who says the earth appears to be 4 billion years old? And what kind of person can make such an assumption? Also, please work on your grammar.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 Who says the Earth (nb. capital E please next time - it's a real noun) appears to be 4 billion years old?
Every qualified scientist.
fingleur1 2 weeks ago
@fingleur1 Oh no, one of those people who thinks only their view is always right and that any scientist who believes in the Bible can't be a real scientist. Well why don't you look up Ken Ham? He has a bachelor's degree in applied science.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 ever heard of radioactive decay?
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Yes and it is often unreliable because there are way to many assumptions in radioactive dating.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 no it is not. it is one of the best methods to determine the age, you have a better way to determine the age of something?
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can potentially be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds could contain carbon-14).
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 the decay rate of C-14 is not an assumption, but was tested and tested and tested and keeps geting tested. it has always the same halflife. you clearly know not what you are talking about.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur So were you there when scientists tested the half life of C-14 600 million years ago? Yeah didn't think so. Also, like I said, C-14 can only be accurate with once living things NOT ROCKS. People that claim that rocks have been dated to be millions of years old are stupid because rocks CANNOT be dated using any kind of dating methods.Again, the AMS 14C dating method is only valid up to about 80,000 years.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870
were you there when your mom was fucked in the ass by your dad?
NO?? than how do you know you weren't hatched out of a donkeys ass
sykeo123 2 weeks ago
@sykeo123 No, that would be impossible now wouldn't it genius? But I have a birth certificate and a video tape of my birth and accurate photos of my growth from a newborn baby till now. You obviously don't know much about donkeys. It also sounds like you need a hug.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuitarGage870
"No, that would be impossible now wouldn't it genius? But I have a birth certificate and a video tape of my birth"
lol
you don't get it dumb shit i was expecting you to reply like that
We were not there when C-14 but we have evidence in form of scientific papers.
Dipshit,
good job showing how stupid you are
sykeo123 2 weeks ago
@sykeo123 John 15:18-19 says: If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me(Jesus) before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. By using such profanity and hatred, you are showing me that, well, you hate me. You have no reason to hate me yet you do and you are proving the Bible is true, thank you and I forgive you for the things you said to me.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870
bob dole 25:14 says you are uneducated trash
sykeo123 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 C-14 600 million years ago? C-14 has a halflife of 5,730 ± 40 years, that is why it is only used for datings of up to 60.000 years.
But it is surely not the only radiometric dating method there is. but i am not suprised you didn't know that because your "arguments" are mostly based on ignorance.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Would you mind giving me the other dating methods used that have shown the earth to be millions of years old?
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 one example would be Uranium-lead dating
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur But that's the thing, it is C-14 dating that scientists are claiming shows the world to be millions of years old! lol
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 can you quote me pls one scinetist that claims the world to be millions of years old based on carbon 14 dating method? just one, i also would accept a scientist that claims the world to be billions of years based on carbon 14 dating methods.
pls just one.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Honestly, I don't know of any scientist who has given any unrefutable evidence of the earth being 4.5 billion years old because there is no dating method that accurately states that. All I know is, carbon 14 dating IS now thought to be the most reliably dating method out there that I know of and if you throw in the circumstance of a world-wide flood, and the diamonds that were thought to be billions of years old, were only about 5,000 years old. Source: RATE group findings 1997-2005
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuitarGage870 so you retract that claim "But that's the thing, it is C-14 dating that scientists are claiming shows the world to be millions of years old! lol" ?
and pls, inform yourself about radiometric dating. there is no "most reliably dating method" because it always depends on the age of the sample that has to be tested, dependend on the material and the age a working radiometric dating method has to be choosen.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 and again, C-14 dating cannot be used to date anything older than some 50 000 years. so your claim about billions of years old diamonds are not realted to C-14 dating at all. scientists would use a different dating method when something is thought to be older than 50 000 years.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur All dating methods have many assumptions, and have been known to be very inaccurate. In order for evolution to be true the earth MUST be as old as evolution scientists claim it is. I have personally never seen ANY physical evidence (pictures or videos) of anything being tested to be millions or billions of years old(not saying it isn't out there).(no proof by lack of evidence fallacy intended)
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 then why don't you inform yourself na dlook up such things? instead of claiming your stuff is true while you don't even know the other sides evidences. you have your claims from creationist websites. it the stuff they claim you repeat. its a shame.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 also there is no scientific evidence for a global flood as claimed by the bible. just like there was no evidence for plagues or slavery in egypt etc etc.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur It is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000 feet (2,130–2,440 m) above sea level.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 It is also beyond dispute among geologists that there is a thing called plate tectonics and that you should look it up before you ake even more claims out of your ignorance.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur 1 Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond).
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Marine fossils are also found high in the Himalayas, the world’s tallest mountain range, reaching up to 29,029 feet (8,848 m) above sea level.3 For example, fossil ammonites (coiled marine cephalopods) are found in limestone beds in the Himalayas of Nepal. All geologists agree that ocean waters must have buried these marine fossils in these limestone beds. So how did these marine limestone beds get high up in the Himalayas?
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur There is only one possible explanation for this phenomenon—the ocean waters at some time in the past flooded over the continents. Could the continents have then sunk below today’s sea level, so that the ocean waters flooded over them? No! The continents are made up of lighter rocks that are less dense than the rocks on the ocean floor and rocks in the mantle beneath the continents.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur The continents, in fact, have an automatic tendency to rise, and thus “float” on the mantle rocks beneath, well above the ocean floor rocks. This explains why the continents today have such high elevations compared to the deep ocean floor, and why the ocean basins can hold so much water.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 have you never learned about plate tectonics in school? we had that in geology class.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur In addition, it seems historically unlikely that the firstborn son of the relevant Pharoah actually ascended the throne as was normally the case but his place was taken by another. Also, a Pharoah named Merenptah said "Israel is wasted, bare of seed". The last part "bare of seed" seems to indicate Pharaoh's deep interest in Israel, and apparent control over them.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Since the Israelites were slaves in Egypt one would hardly expect a great mass of information about them. However, an inscription on the great sphinx does mention them. In addition to this, the period in which they were in Egypt is noted for a great deal of building and the Egyptian empire declined after their departure.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 funny, i just googled the begining of your answer, and funnely enough Wiki answers shows up. and that you gave me the second answer that showed up there instead of the first is a very fine example of confirmation bias. you never checked the claims in that post, you just copied it because it confirmed your already held beliefs. :) a shame. why dont you inform yourself about egyptology and read a bit from people that actually study ancient egypt?
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Oh yes, plate tectonics! Well since I'm a Christian and so I'm automatically an ignorant person, go ahead, enlighten me. Funny, I'm reading Unwrapping the pharaohs in school right now. Let me guess, you'll google it, find out it was written by a Christian, and tell me that it is a bad source lol! It's really sad that in your mind the only legitimate source is a source from your belief. That my friend, is sad. The claims in that post were true.
GuitarGage870 2 weeks ago
@GuitarGage870 no i think you are ignorant because you have demonstrated your ignorance. There are very well educated and very knowledgable Christians. Even in Science. but you are not. And about the book, no i will not google it. i will ask my sister this weekend if she knows it, she studied Egypotology and Art History.
Aantha