In 1970 I was in the 8th grade&had a teacher that in the summer of 1969 was part of a group of Christians that smuggled a suitcase of Bibles into Moscow His story was amazing how they prayed that the suitcase with the Russian Bibles would not be opened. He said that every other suitcase was opened by the Russian customs workers but the Bible suitcase was the last one&they let it through&some Russian Christians got Bibles This has stayed with me all these yearsGOD ANWESER PRAYER.
Man has 3 parts body/soul/spirit The Bible says aging/disease/death works in the body, mans soul is lost&man is spiritually dead The soul is like am-frequency&the spirit is like fm-frequency Only God can revive the spirit in man through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ Every true "born again" Christian has the spirit in them revived even though it is like turning on a fm part of a am/fm radio but on low now. In the near future of human history this spirit will fully come alive in menFYI
There is another aspect of religion of the Bible than Judaism/Christianity It survived in various cultures into the 20th century First in the Bible In Genesis-Adam thru to Abraham&really to Moses Job in the book of Job lived centuries before Abraham but had the same God Cornelius in the book of Acts was neither Jew/Christian nor was a pagan,heathen, or infidel but "devout". This devout monotheism was the first religion of all peoples in early human history most cultures fell from it some did'nt
In 1949 Mao&the communist came to power in China there were 1 million Christians in China Mao was gung-ho on wiping out all religion in China After 63 years of an iron-fisted policy towards religion now there are 130 million Christians Growing at a rate of 30000 a day Mao wiped out much illiteracy however as literacy increased so did the number of Christians We need some atheist misionaries to try to re-convert these Chinese Christians back to atheism&chairman Mao's little red book Any volunteer
In the former USSR1917-92 atheism/evolution was taught daycare-university The Bible was banned&it was illegal to teach it to kids Within months of the fall of the USSRin 92 the Bible was put back in Russian schools Olga Lutsenko an atheist was the main one behind it Death threats made her to go to Canadain 96&she is a Christian now BTWshe is on youtube&Isupport her work financially putting Bibles in Russian&Ukranian schools The Bible was absent in Russian schools 75 years its been back 20 years.
Many atheist say the Bible is a fairy-tale However if you remove the Jewish people from the Bible you remove most of the Bible Atheist accept the histories of most peoples&nations but the "Jews" They say they have a flawed history What is the first 2000 years of the 4000 year history of the Jews according to atheist? Are there any atheist scholars,professors,archiologist researching the so called ancient history of the Jews since the Bible is a lie&atheist know more than any Jewish scholar ect.
John Wycliffe1330-1385 translated the Bible from Latin to the middle English in 1382 He felt that the Bible should be in the tongue&hands of the masses In 1442 his remains were dug up&a trial was held condemming him His bones were burned to powder&dumped in a river I read his lifestory&have the book 1000 years evil men in high places put the Bible under lock&key Most clergy&all laity had no access to it The road towards the masses having Bibles was a long&bloody road over hundreds of years FYI.
The Bible has been accessible to the masses for less than 500 years William Tyndale1498-1542 was the first to mass publish Bibles using a printing press in 1525 They cost a man's week wage He smuggled them to England from Belguim He was a wanted man betrayed&caught,tried&executed in Brussels1542 He spoke 9 languages It took 10 months to handwrite a Bible I read his lifestory&have the book 1000 years evil men in high places put the Bible under lock&key&many clergy&all laity had no access to itFYI
Marx was influenced by evolution? Um... everyone being equal is completely contradictory to the idea of natural selection, wouldn't you think? Everyone being being equal sounds more like something Jesus would implement, don't you think?
Original sin came about because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, disobeying God and got kicked out of the garden of eden.
So by this reasoning, they did not know about good and evil before they ate the fruit and could not know what was wrong about disobeying God.
Basically, God made his first creations with no moral compass whatsoever and then punished them for doing something wrong. And then punished all of their descendants who hadn't done anything wrong.
I don't think abortion is a crime. And even if it is, it's no way near as bad as violence crimes, murders and rapes.
It is because, if someone is murdered, beaten to a pulp or raped, the number of people suffering is much larger than that of an unborn baby, since the people hurt by abortion are the mother, father and possibly the closest relatives. While an already born human has created bonds, and can feel suffering as anyone else. Thus more people will feel the pain of the target.
@stevehayes13 I understand, after being informed and searching out the subject,have found Hitler was an advocate of the social evolutionary concepts of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. 1744-1829.Hitler made several references in Mein Kampf that would lead the reader to conclude he no doubt was a Theistic- Evolutionist thinking himself destined by God to purify his race by genocide.
@stevehayes13 Jean-Baptiste LaMarck,1731-1802 and Erasmus Darwin 1731-1802 contemporaneously shared some similar theoretical views of their era.Charles R. Darwin was not the "father" of evolution,he was only a promoter. He was under influence of these ideas which were his world view. This is the same type of influence in the formative years when one chooses how they perceive reality based on any religious persuasion. Hitler was not a biological but a social evolutionist. Google it
@stevehayes13 Making vague, empty statements is the process of simple minded denial of the facts, bring forth evidence to back up you conclusions, you can't!
Hitler wasn't influenced by anything Darwinian. Eugenics existed long before Darwin. There's actually a document where Hitler specifically rejects Darwin's ideas.
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
...someone had to tell them about it so it's not impossible to think that ''aliens'' came here and teached us about genetics which they used to ''create'' us. I'm sure it's not a coincidence that Illuminati worship owel (birds) and snake who were ''born'' with humans and even in the Bible snake and birds are one of the first creatures that God made.
...someone had to tell them about it so it's not impossible to think that ''aliens'' came here and teached us about genetics which they used to ''create'' us. I'm sure it's not a coincidence that Illuminati worship owel (birds) and snake who were ''born'' with humans and even in the Bible snake and birds are one of the first creatures that God made.
The biggest problem about Creationism is that people think of a God as some kind of magician with a magic stick but in my opinion someone came down to earth and change something, we call them aliens today but they were probably just humans with much advanced techonology than we every had. The truth is somewhere in between Evolution and Creationisim, there is no doubt that Evolution happened but it happened because someone made it happen, many civilisations trough history knew about genetics....
@MaradonaJr I have to ask, why did the ancient visitors, "gods" or aliens or what not, have to be human? Isn't that egotistical? Hell, they may not have even been humanoid. I know the drawings and rock paintings that we have, I'm just wondering if we should assume they resemble us. The flip side to this, do we resemble them? And if so, is that where the quote in the Bible that states "God created man in his own image" comes from?
Ancient Sumerian text says were were created via gene splice, to (get this) "dig gold for the gods" But that doesn't change the fact that Don Exodus hates God because the bible frowns on homosexuality.
@TheMinistryOfDefense The bible doesnt frown on it,it calls it an abomination.The bible also calls shellfish and abomination and forbids people wearing more than one piece of cloth and says if someone doesnt accept god as their ruler then he should be killed.I love shrimp,i often wear silk and jeans,and i disaprove of murder over religion. i dont hate god. I hate people who write bullshit and claim it to be the word of god. Just because someone disagrees with the bible doesnt mean they hate god
Don, thanks for clarifying Behe's position. I had only heard the Creationist version, which is often used by young earth Creationists to support their literal interpretation of Genesis.
but its not.. its just oppositely charged, and doesnt exist in nature.. i dont know i dont get it, ever since i was a kid all i couold think about the big bang was, "theres no way that people ACTUALLY believe this... lol, everything came from nothing, or a pea sized ball of energy^-^, all i could think is that people must think that it was gods brain, and he decided to do what he did and create shit outward.. wen i learned ppl just thought it was energy, i fucking LAUGHED and thougt ,nope...
haha your right, as soon as ateists get there head out of teir asses, and see that a tree couldnt have come from nothing, or mearly flying particles colliding with eachoter and somehow starting to "work" and self sustain itself, if it wasnt alive at first, i could just come to life and require "food" it would be like a carbon atom and a clcium atom with some suphur attached to it... like wtf evolution is nonsence, then they use this magic word " anti-matter" to describe the opposite of matter..
@666stunts666 You do know that the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution right? And evolution does not remark on where life came from, that is Abiogenesis. And you may want to look more into physics. And if you are so concerned about how silly it is to believe something came from nothing (which I don't hold to) how do you reconcile God creating everything from nothing?
Anyone who says religion/christianity plants hate in children's mind is a Dumb ignorant idiot. Every atheist, and every single person that believes in evolution on here, curse and calls Good loving people awful names, and is nothing short of abusive. You know who you are, you are the lowest scum on the planet. I would not let any kid within a hundred miles of the likes of you. Good christian people feed the poor, and cloth the needy. And never use any of the fowl mess I hear coming from you.
@EarthEndDays By saying that, you're totally ignoring what most religious people had done in the past and present: The cruzades, slavery, sexual scandals, hipocrisy, using the people's ignorance and gullibility for political and econimic gaining, genocidal rampages (including the Nazi holocaust), and most recently, 9/11. I'm not going to say that there aren't good Christians/Jews/Muslims/Any other religious people, but they're most certainly a very small minority (Possibly lower than 10%).
@EarthEndDays Likewise I would hope no child would be allowed 100 miles near a Catholic priest. One day you will wake up and realise that man created god and not the other way round. Anyway why do you care your going to heaven anyway? I assume you think we are all going to hell which according to the Chinese is the real utopia. So maybe your backing the wrong horse anyway.
@EarthEndDays Plenty of religious people accept evolution because it never contradicts the existance of God, if it condradicts the bible then ask yourself if what's really important to you is God's masterpiece or God's sketchbook. And atheist do plenty of charity as well, as Hindus, as Shinto, as Muslims and Jews. Good people do charity, but sometimes good people is non religious.
@JaguarEscarlata Can't argue with you their, good post. Thanks, makes a lot of sense. I don't enjoy going against evolution, and I don't like stepping on Atheist toes, but I feel God is being thrown out the window with out even a chance. I know the bible may read and appear to be a fairytale to some, but it's real. With Real History of life, and real people who existed. Also the bible/God make many millions happy, and that means a lot. Science will not provide life after death, but God can.
How do you know the Bible is true? How do you know that the people in it really existed? How do you know there will be a life after your death through God? And what relevancy does any of this have with the TRUTH if evolution is right or not?
@EarthEndDays You're assuming any of us actually want life after death. To me, eternal life and immortality would be the worst kind of torture possible.
@cordzion It's not even an argument. It's a provocation, completeyly pointless in any way and just trying to persuade people by appealing to their emotions.
I think its important to view both sides views. Though to give one full acceptance just because a majority supports it. I think you have to come to your own conclussions. As for me I have looked up evolution I noticed evolutionist have more standing evidence then creationist. Also that religion was not started on scientific grounds. So to me evolution is the development of species not creationism.
3:40, Hitler a catholic, if he wasn't a catholic the Vatican wouldn't have forged thousands of passports for SS oficers to send them to Brazil and Argentina
You dont know what your talking about. Hitler was raised a catholic. The catholic church which claims to be Christian, disregard 70% of Gods laws and have perverted the original church with paganism. The swaztica is a pagan symbol that has existed in many pagan cultures. You need to study history. True science will only give you so much information. Why is it that the scientists we regard as being the greats in history believed in a Creator God? Unlike the catholics who worship stone idols.
@journeyquest1 "Why is it that the scientists we regard as being the greats in history believed in a Creator God? " um, because they were brought up in a time when everyone else did? and, it doesn't matter if there's a god or not, what matters is whether or not organisms evolve or are created intact. hundreds of thousands of scientists who believe in god, accept the reality of evolution and use the theory in their work. reality calls, ready to accept it?
Several great scientists were also Catholic- if great scientists believing in a Creator makes creationism right, then great scientists practicing Catholicism makes Catholicism right. What about those pagan idol worshipers who invented geometry & algebra?
This is why scientists don't matter--only their science. Hitler was one man. He needed public support & he got it, which is what made him successful. At the time, Catholics were a minority in Germany.
I believe we should stop teaching gravity in schools. Or, at the very least, teach the alternative: intelligent falling. The Earth is the heart of god and it is his hand guiding us, keeping us on the planet he created for us because he loves us.
@Strikesnake1994 hitler wasnt even an atheist though, he was a roman catholic, so i dont know where they pulled that argument from in the first place :s
It's interesting that he (Dr. Behe) does believe that we have evolved from other primates and not created fully formed, but he then says he also believes our evolution was divinely guided or manipulated? But is it enough just to say that? I'd really like to see what evidence he uses that brings him to the conclusion that Evolution was/is divinely guided.
Please correct me if U think I'm wrong, but isn't his "guided" comment just as incredible as a "direct creation" statement?
the argument you have chosen is circular and pointless. If your base line for truth is a "hypothesis" you must find supporting evidence when u find a half fish half bird let us know
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
WAIT WAIT...you just opened saying theres no reason 4 debate regarding evolution,,,its a hypothesis,,,a theory,,,its not fact and if you read darwin he says scrap the theory if no cross over species were found anyone who says evolution is proven fact is a complete moron
Wait wait, he said theres no debate over evolution in the scientific community. You should have watched the first one, he described what a scientific theory is as opposed to a lay mans theory, gravity is a theory ,,,,germ theory ,,, atomic theory, all scientific theories but we know they work. As for your 1/2 fish 1/2 bird its never going to happen, but there is plenty of evidence showing the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Take arqueopterix (spelling may be wrong) for example.
@candiceevans1 Do you even know the meaning of the words you just said there...
A 'theory', A 'hypothesis' and a 'fact'. Before you continue to make yourself look more of an idiot than I know you are... go off and look up the MEANING of those words... You'll find you just made a total idiot of yourself!
And BTW... I HAVE read 'on origin of species' and 'voyage of the beagle'... and you obviously HAVE NOT since you totally misquoted (or didn't even bother to quote) Darwin... yet 'on origin of species' is available FREE online!
So... stop lying... and arguing from IGNORANCE is in fact lying, nearing false witness... and into hell you will go for your sins!
Good video! These points are good valid points. Truth isn't in perception, and it isn't in guess work or mud slinging. There is still very much we don't know. We do agree though that we are in serious crap when we use the limited amount of gray matter we all use, to deduce we know it all and understand it all to the point in which we are incapable of making a mistake, or a wrong assumption.
Cosmology is fascinating but not my field of research however there is a theory called The electric Universe if I'm not mistaken, its very interesting but as to the science of it, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on, but never the less interesting. I guess theories have to start somewhere.
Actually the debate over the limitation of not just gravity but Newtonian physics in general have been questioned for decades by cosmologist. Not that it doesn't exist or that it is false but the question is, what are its strengths and weaknesses and limitations in explaining the cosmos, and there are clearly limitations. The only difference is, it doesn't come with all the baggage/bullshit that this subject seems to produce and science suffers while every one preaches to there own choir.
When was the last time you heard of scientist having secret meetings? When some one thinks they find something new, the international press is called. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on. I don't necessarily blame the attendees but Massimo Pigliucci can be a sneaky guy.
Check out Suzan Mazur interviews logist Stuart Newman. The new synthesis that is being discussed also has implications that will make a lot of people uncomfortable. I applaud these men for at least realizing the futility of the current synthesis and thinking outside the box. Finally someone is asking the right questions.
cont... For the last couple of years Don has been using 50 years old outdated standard Darwinism. He still has vids that use this obsolete model as a fundamental creative force that make up the theory. The altenberg summit was brought together to change, or to save face, lets say, extend the modern synthesis and talk about the extreme limitations of the theory. This is exactly what the critics have been saying for years about the limits and controversy within the scientific community itself.
I don't think you understand the statement. You read more into it than I wrote. I don't want to discuss epigenetics or self organizational models. I don't have the time and its to new for anyone to understand fully at this point. In the video above Don Exudus makes another of his famous inaccurate claims. Seconds into the video he say's that there is no controversy in the scientific community, if it happens. Now take note of the way he uses the phrase, if it HAPPENS.....next thread.
What? Are you getting scientific falsifiability statements mixed up with total stupidity... Quantum Mechanics is a proven theory... now watch my statement 'Quantum Effect is a reality, if it happens'
Yet QM is proven... and has solid products of that science... how could I say such a thing then? because in context 'if it happens' supports not detracts from the argument'
Evolution theory give you your fucking flu shot... so shut up or refuse the Jab!
I don't know you, and I don't what your talking about. Why don't you ask me a question before you go on a rant. You sound like a crazy person. If you want to have a discussion or debate like a grown person, that's fine, but the BS your spewing doesn't fly with me. If u continue Ill lock you out. Don't have time for nonsense.
@benthemiester 'if it happens is in context' it is used on a daily basis in all fields of science... regardless of the validity of the argument... odds are DonExodus done biology in college... thus his use of the words... you can clarify with him....
Your observation where interesting did not include this. He's tlking from a 'detached' position...
Mike your mumbling again. Can u clarify what your talking about since your addressing me?I don't have the slightest clue to what your referring too. I'm going to go and smoke a big fatty, maybe then you'll make more sense to me. Give me a few minutes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
He says all scientist believe it happens. If he defines evolution as a change through time, of course everybody believes that. If he means molecule to man unguided naturalism, then he is wrong. Many scientist and not just the religious nuts challenge this paradigm. If you like, I can name you several. I left a message on his abiogenesis video an hour or so ago. If you read it, this will explain my distrust of the the kind of errors and switch and bait strategy he employ's.
@MumblingMickey On the subject of evolution, there is no controversy whatsoever...
There may be arguments over how the mechanisms in evolution work, but the actual theory is as close to a fact in science as science can get to a fact...
All of the ignoramuses out there who still deny it, look as silly and ignorant as those who claim that Elvis is still alive, or that the United States never actually went to the moon....
You have every right to your own opinion, but not your own facts...
@badtrunk456 erm... you didn't notice the quotes there... I was quoting a comment from someone else... I don't possess my own facts.....so I couldn't agree more!
For the most part I don't have an opinion on evolution... since it'll continue with or without my opinion, understanding or lack thereof! And processes like evolution or drying paint really couldn't care less what I think of them...lol
The Elvis thing will be upgraded to Michael Jackson soon...just wait!
There is debate on the limitations of Darwinsm. The fact that this guy has been saying there is no debate and yet has posted several videos debating the subject is laughable.The Altenberg 16 summit last year addressed this issue. This summit of some of the top evolutionary biologist in the world was boycotted by the National Academy of Sciences because they were afraid of the implications. That Id'st might use this as a talking point. This is not science. The religion of naturalism.
There is debate on the limitations of Darwinsm. The fact that this guy has been saying there is no debate and yet has posted several videos debating the subject is laughable.The Altenberg 16 summit last year addressed this issue. This summit of some of the top evolutionary biologist in the world was boycotted by the National Academy of Sciences because they were afraid of the implications. That Id'st might use this as a talking point. This is not science. The religion of naturalism.
@benthemiester Okay... a question... I do have one... I'm not a theist.. so questions regarding 'life' in contrast to 'non life' are interesting to me...
So my question is this...
First look at this.. its less than 2 minutes long... -> watch?v=1QPiF4-iu6g
Now... if I take the bell jar containing the cells which constitute this machines brain... and I smash it to pieces...
did I destroy it? or did I 'KILL' it?
And more importantly WHY is it destroyed or killed?
@MumblingMickey You don't have to do neither, all living cells eventually die, regardless of what their electrically interfaced with, I would also including a human brain that controls an electrical mechanical prosthetic device. Interesting video though.
@benthemiester some living cells have been observed to be immortal... hydras for example are multi-celled organisms that are immortal if left to their own environment.. obviously they CAN be destroyed... killed... whatever.
So you'd consider that after a few months this 'creature' (if we can call it that?) dies.. rather than 'breaks down'? it dies?
Are you sure it hasn't just broken down from wear and tear?
Personally I'd go by the biological definition of 'life' but I'm not as biologist!
@MumblingMickey The original question and the way it was phrased, was more of a question on philosophy than biology. Many biologist admit to the importance of a Democratic consensus, or at least examining the relevance of external feedback from the broader community when asking these questions concerning what constitutes life and accepted definitions. There will always be gray areas not easily answered, or answers not acceptable to some. You cant please everyone in this discussion.
@benthemiester it WAS a philosophical question... not one on biology. I asserted that 'I' would go with the biological definition of life...ergo the machine...is a machine... and nothing more.
Even if it were sentient and could have a conversation with you about how it 'felt' about life in general... it is still only a machine if we use the definition of 'alive' currently used by biologists.
That day is fast approaching too... So be prepared to come face to face with the question.
Hitler is a master manipulator, Leaders like him finds religion to be a very useful tool. He has repeatedly expressed his belief in God, so he is no athiest.
@3L3M3NTO not totally true. id confidently say that our exposure to religion, in the form of the parables of jesus, provided VERY strong moral examples and role models,
religion and science themselves i believe are neutral. its the PEOPLE using them for good or bad is what matters, religion and science are tools,
for example, science was, to quote a bad example instrumental in the many things the nazi germans cooked up good AND bad, from their tactics and advanced engineering showng them use science for, good in THEIR favour, fritz haber also used science to creat things for good AND bad uses.
@3L3M3NTO No, what is sad is how we have morons speaking in the name of religion planting hate/fear in children's hearts and poisoning their minds to become racist and ignorant to reality. There's a difference.
Just as Hitler's supposed endorsement of evolution (which didn't exist) would not have discredited evolution as a theory, neither do people speaking nonsense in the name of God discredit God himself.
@cda1117 lol... I think God does all the discrediting himself in his bestselling book...
For sure its certainly never read out loud in churches but there are passages in the bible where god teaches how one should behave in life, war and with family that are anything but a 'credit' to Christianity...
When was the last time you ever heard any priest or pastor read the bible...telling the faithful congregation how god instructed his people to rape and pillage, kill and commit genocide?
@MumblingMickey The reason we don't teach those things is that they were intended for a very specific, foreign context which we do not understand; that's not just me dismissing what I don't want to look at -- that's really how they were intended. Instead, we study God's principles from both Old Testament and New and apply those to our lives.
@cda1117 How do you distinguish WHICH of these scriptural dogmas were intended for you...and which for this 'foreign' audience...
You see from where I stand the punishment for homosexuality... somthing cristians consider very immoral... is death. The punishment for sleeping with another mans wife on the very same page of punishments in Leviticus is also death.
I'm pretty damn Christians are guilty of adultery MORE often than homosexuality...yet seem to apply different judgments to each.
If homosexuality, adultery and boiling calf's in milk are all punishable by death... then that is that... there is no wiggle room.
I DO SEE people carrying signs maintaining the 'evil' of homosexuality... I certainly DO NOT SEE these very same people carrying signs proclaiming 'adultery' is 'equally' as evil.
This is because people have CHOSEN to ignore certain bits in the bible, because they disobey these social rules regularly themselves!
@cda1117 So basically although I am neither christian nor gay... I certainly will not be applying MY moral standards to gay men or women... nor would I apply my morals to Christians.
I wouldn't expect Christians to adopt common sense morals, they can moralize between themselves. I wouldn't expect a gay man or woman to 'force' themselves to be straight even though homosexuality is not a moral issue!
So why do I repeatedly see Christians insisting that everyone should adopt theirs.
@MumblingMickey Well you're right that Christians do apply things unequally, especially when it's not convenient for them. But the Law of the Old Testament is part of what we refer to as the "Old Covenant." Getting into the technical details would probably bore you and be relatively meaningless.
-
To sum it up, though, we are free to do as we see fit under grace, operating strictly to bring people to Christ. We study God's principles simply because they are what help us achieve that goal.
@cda1117 Are you trying to assert that god changed its mind? Well hold on there... can a God change its mind about things? For one thing of all the things eve theists accept a god can and cannot do (create one ended sticks or objects it cannot destroy) then changing its mind about 'rules' would constrict god to a linear time-line.
Anyway...are christians are no longer 'bound' by the commandments? Not wanting to seem like a smart ass... but where do you get your morals from?
@MumblingMickey No, it's not that God changed his mind, but rather that God designed the Law specifically for the Israelites. And I would say that the Law was probably nowhere near stringent and specific enough to bring about absolute perfection in its followers, even if they followed it. Its primary purpose was to bring us to God, but its secondary purpose was to show us the impossibility of perfection. Christ ultimately fulfilled the purpose of the Law through his sacrifice.
@cda1117@cda1117 hmmm... well its those 'views' on the bible that are the problem. when one produces a book of 'truths' and asserts them as 'factual' it is usually common for everyone to agree. Newtons laws of motion and gravity are universally accepted they certainly aren't interpreted differently in Hong Kong than they would be in Berlin!
That said, any book my friend that has 'many' interpretations by definition cannot be accurate. I think the whole bible should be rewritten.
@cda1117 hmmm... well its those 'views' on the bible that are the problem. when one produces a book of 'truths' and asserts them as 'factual' it is usually common for everyone to agree. Newtons laws of motion and gravity are universally accepted they certainly aren't interpreted differently in Hong Kong than they would be in Berlin!
That said, any book my friend that has 'many' interpretations by definition cannot be accurate. I think the whole bible should be rewritten.
@MumblingMickey I'm going over things in a very high-level, abstract manner, because YouTube comments are far too short. I write a lot on various subjects, and I've just today decided to write a book on such things called "The Gospel of X" in order to address what I consider to be a false gospel and reintroduce people to Christ and the order of the universe as described by what I consider to be a more accurate view of the Bible.
@cda1117 hmmm... well its those 'views' on the bible that are the problem... when one produces a book of 'truths' and asserts them as 'factual' it is usually common for everyone to agree... newtons laws of motion and gravity are universally accepted they certainly aren't interpreted differently in Hong Kong than they would be in Berlin!
That said, any book my friend that has 'many' interpretations by it very nature and definition cannot be accurate. I think the whole bible should be rewritten.
@cda1117 hmmm... well its those 'views' on the bible that are the problem... when one produces a book of 'truths' and asserts them as 'factual' it is usually common for everyone to agree. Newtons laws of motion and gravity are universally accepted they certainly aren't interpreted differently in Hong Kong than they would be in Berlin!
That said, any book my friend that has 'many' interpretations by it very nature and definition cannot be accurate. I think the whole bible should be rewritten.
@cda1117 you do realize that Thomas Jefferson rewrote the gospels? He removed bits which plainly made no sense or were known in the 1780's to simply be untrue. Thus all references to supernatural events are removed. It might be interesting to rewrite the entire bible with the same method... at the very least it would be believable by people who read it. If the body of Christians currently at 1.4 billion or so ever read the bible Christianity is in trouble!
@cda1117 its one of the reasons atheists point out the nasty bits in the bible... and at least once a week I get an astonished christian asserting that I'm lying to them... until I ask them to read the bible. 9 times out of 10 they don't own one!
But since the bible is available online you can imagine the faces of people who read the destruction, wars, genocide and death bits for the first time!
Why aren't the nasty bits in the new testament read in churches?
richtig. it doesn't matter who believed what and did what with who. what matters is we get our heads out of our asses and look at it how it is. and continue to evolve our language so that it isn't poisoned by old belief systems.
So, DonExodus if you're Christian and don't think God is the man behind the curtain, twisting nobs and flipping switches to guide the forces of nature; where do you regard God? Is he the Blind Watchmaker God from Richard Dawkins, or is the uncaring god from the Deists? Or, is he something else entirely? I would really like to know your opinion. I promise that my curiosity is sincere, and I'm not about to flame you.
Possibilities being infinite, of course he could possibly be around somewhere. But it's just as likely that the earth is being held in place by two gigantic blue lobsters named Ezmeralda and Keith. Possible - but is it likely?
@Xeletoph i agree with Don, there is no god. If god was real, its way more complex and unrealistic than evolution and the big bang. That ALONE prove that he is not real
@simsoy55 I agree with Don too. I think that comment was a rebuttal I made against the 'could be' argument. If god could be, then so could thousands of other gods. Maybe aliens on other planets worship gods too, so that makes hundreds of trillions of gods; the possibility of god just diminishes more and more.
I'm of the mind state that religion is dying, & is in its death throws.
How does any beast act when cornered? It bares its teeth ;-)
some really good stuff here
distractionxx 1 day ago
This is a great video
jjclassjj 2 days ago
In 1970 I was in the 8th grade&had a teacher that in the summer of 1969 was part of a group of Christians that smuggled a suitcase of Bibles into Moscow His story was amazing how they prayed that the suitcase with the Russian Bibles would not be opened. He said that every other suitcase was opened by the Russian customs workers but the Bible suitcase was the last one&they let it through&some Russian Christians got Bibles This has stayed with me all these yearsGOD ANWESER PRAYER.
RonSafreed 6 days ago
Man has 3 parts body/soul/spirit The Bible says aging/disease/death works in the body, mans soul is lost&man is spiritually dead The soul is like am-frequency&the spirit is like fm-frequency Only God can revive the spirit in man through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ Every true "born again" Christian has the spirit in them revived even though it is like turning on a fm part of a am/fm radio but on low now. In the near future of human history this spirit will fully come alive in menFYI
RonSafreed 6 days ago
There is another aspect of religion of the Bible than Judaism/Christianity It survived in various cultures into the 20th century First in the Bible In Genesis-Adam thru to Abraham&really to Moses Job in the book of Job lived centuries before Abraham but had the same God Cornelius in the book of Acts was neither Jew/Christian nor was a pagan,heathen, or infidel but "devout". This devout monotheism was the first religion of all peoples in early human history most cultures fell from it some did'nt
RonSafreed 6 days ago
In 1949 Mao&the communist came to power in China there were 1 million Christians in China Mao was gung-ho on wiping out all religion in China After 63 years of an iron-fisted policy towards religion now there are 130 million Christians Growing at a rate of 30000 a day Mao wiped out much illiteracy however as literacy increased so did the number of Christians We need some atheist misionaries to try to re-convert these Chinese Christians back to atheism&chairman Mao's little red book Any volunteer
RonSafreed 6 days ago
In the former USSR1917-92 atheism/evolution was taught daycare-university The Bible was banned&it was illegal to teach it to kids Within months of the fall of the USSRin 92 the Bible was put back in Russian schools Olga Lutsenko an atheist was the main one behind it Death threats made her to go to Canadain 96&she is a Christian now BTWshe is on youtube&Isupport her work financially putting Bibles in Russian&Ukranian schools The Bible was absent in Russian schools 75 years its been back 20 years.
RonSafreed 6 days ago
Many atheist say the Bible is a fairy-tale However if you remove the Jewish people from the Bible you remove most of the Bible Atheist accept the histories of most peoples&nations but the "Jews" They say they have a flawed history What is the first 2000 years of the 4000 year history of the Jews according to atheist? Are there any atheist scholars,professors,archiologist researching the so called ancient history of the Jews since the Bible is a lie&atheist know more than any Jewish scholar ect.
RonSafreed 6 days ago
John Wycliffe1330-1385 translated the Bible from Latin to the middle English in 1382 He felt that the Bible should be in the tongue&hands of the masses In 1442 his remains were dug up&a trial was held condemming him His bones were burned to powder&dumped in a river I read his lifestory&have the book 1000 years evil men in high places put the Bible under lock&key Most clergy&all laity had no access to it The road towards the masses having Bibles was a long&bloody road over hundreds of years FYI.
RonSafreed 6 days ago
The Bible has been accessible to the masses for less than 500 years William Tyndale1498-1542 was the first to mass publish Bibles using a printing press in 1525 They cost a man's week wage He smuggled them to England from Belguim He was a wanted man betrayed&caught,tried&executed in Brussels1542 He spoke 9 languages It took 10 months to handwrite a Bible I read his lifestory&have the book 1000 years evil men in high places put the Bible under lock&key&many clergy&all laity had no access to itFYI
RonSafreed 6 days ago
great video thanks
simysimss 1 week ago
Most athiest are on youtube, athiest are pussies cuz aint noone would say these things in person; ATHIEST ARE PUSSIES!!!!!!
cdemaster1 2 weeks ago
@cdemaster1 LOL GG dude, GG.
KingLeonidaz 2 weeks ago
Marx was influenced by evolution? Um... everyone being equal is completely contradictory to the idea of natural selection, wouldn't you think? Everyone being being equal sounds more like something Jesus would implement, don't you think?
illmusicdood 2 months ago
Making your kids wear "god HATES fags" shirts is just so wrong. Nice job of parenting, teach your 4 year old's to hate other people...sigh..
orangemod 2 months ago
'Cesspool of creationist dishonesty "Answers in Genesis"' yup!
scarletharlot69 4 months ago
Original sin came about because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, disobeying God and got kicked out of the garden of eden.
So by this reasoning, they did not know about good and evil before they ate the fruit and could not know what was wrong about disobeying God.
Basically, God made his first creations with no moral compass whatsoever and then punished them for doing something wrong. And then punished all of their descendants who hadn't done anything wrong.
Dick.
MegaSolipsist 4 months ago 2
I don't think abortion is a crime. And even if it is, it's no way near as bad as violence crimes, murders and rapes.
It is because, if someone is murdered, beaten to a pulp or raped, the number of people suffering is much larger than that of an unborn baby, since the people hurt by abortion are the mother, father and possibly the closest relatives. While an already born human has created bonds, and can feel suffering as anyone else. Thus more people will feel the pain of the target.
ChrysalisMaster 5 months ago 2
Hitler was not influenced by the theory of evolution. Hitler was influenced by Christianity, specifically Martin Luther.
stevehayes13 6 months ago
@stevehayes13 I understand, after being informed and searching out the subject,have found Hitler was an advocate of the social evolutionary concepts of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. 1744-1829.Hitler made several references in Mein Kampf that would lead the reader to conclude he no doubt was a Theistic- Evolutionist thinking himself destined by God to purify his race by genocide.
TheAgateman1 1 month ago
@TheAgateman1 You are funny. Hitler was ignorant of the theory of evolution and opposed to it.
stevehayes13 1 month ago
@stevehayes13 Jean-Baptiste LaMarck,1731-1802 and Erasmus Darwin 1731-1802 contemporaneously shared some similar theoretical views of their era.Charles R. Darwin was not the "father" of evolution,he was only a promoter. He was under influence of these ideas which were his world view. This is the same type of influence in the formative years when one chooses how they perceive reality based on any religious persuasion. Hitler was not a biological but a social evolutionist. Google it
TheAgateman1 1 month ago
@TheAgateman1 Google it. There speaks the modern day ignoramus.
stevehayes13 1 month ago
@stevehayes13 Making vague, empty statements is the process of simple minded denial of the facts, bring forth evidence to back up you conclusions, you can't!
TheAgateman1 1 month ago
I thought that Hilter wasn't influenced by Darwin's evolution theory, but by his eugenics theory. Ah, but what do I know?
AvoidThePendulum 6 months ago
@AvoidThePendulum
Hitler wasn't influenced by anything Darwinian. Eugenics existed long before Darwin. There's actually a document where Hitler specifically rejects Darwin's ideas.
TheZooCrew 6 months ago
Just do debunk you a bit here. Dawkins actually id going out saying christianity is responsible for allot of harm, but that doesnt matter either.
gulbirk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is not science vs religion as the brain-dead media portrays it. This is Information science vs Neo-Darwinian mythology. Good science vs bad science. Darwinism has to assume itself true to survive, intelligent design relies on empirical investigation in real-time.
fashklash 7 months ago
Busy intersections: let the children decide.
dhicks3 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...someone had to tell them about it so it's not impossible to think that ''aliens'' came here and teached us about genetics which they used to ''create'' us. I'm sure it's not a coincidence that Illuminati worship owel (birds) and snake who were ''born'' with humans and even in the Bible snake and birds are one of the first creatures that God made.
MaradonaJr 11 months ago
...someone had to tell them about it so it's not impossible to think that ''aliens'' came here and teached us about genetics which they used to ''create'' us. I'm sure it's not a coincidence that Illuminati worship owel (birds) and snake who were ''born'' with humans and even in the Bible snake and birds are one of the first creatures that God made.
MaradonaJr 11 months ago
The biggest problem about Creationism is that people think of a God as some kind of magician with a magic stick but in my opinion someone came down to earth and change something, we call them aliens today but they were probably just humans with much advanced techonology than we every had. The truth is somewhere in between Evolution and Creationisim, there is no doubt that Evolution happened but it happened because someone made it happen, many civilisations trough history knew about genetics....
MaradonaJr 11 months ago
@MaradonaJr I have to ask, why did the ancient visitors, "gods" or aliens or what not, have to be human? Isn't that egotistical? Hell, they may not have even been humanoid. I know the drawings and rock paintings that we have, I'm just wondering if we should assume they resemble us. The flip side to this, do we resemble them? And if so, is that where the quote in the Bible that states "God created man in his own image" comes from?
HimesInu 7 months ago
you are completly right except for one sentence: "that's not christian" at around 5:30
daggerGforcefahrer 1 year ago
Ancient Sumerian text says were were created via gene splice, to (get this) "dig gold for the gods" But that doesn't change the fact that Don Exodus hates God because the bible frowns on homosexuality.
TheMinistryOfDefense 1 year ago
@TheMinistryOfDefense The Bible also frowns on liars, slanderers, and sowers of discord, so you best not cast the first stone.
dhicks3 11 months ago
@TheMinistryOfDefense The bible doesnt frown on it,it calls it an abomination.The bible also calls shellfish and abomination and forbids people wearing more than one piece of cloth and says if someone doesnt accept god as their ruler then he should be killed.I love shrimp,i often wear silk and jeans,and i disaprove of murder over religion. i dont hate god. I hate people who write bullshit and claim it to be the word of god. Just because someone disagrees with the bible doesnt mean they hate god
lambofreak55 6 months ago
1:40 That is old earth creationism. A little less retarded than young earth creationism.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL Only slightly :P
Sweddude 1 year ago
Don, thanks for clarifying Behe's position. I had only heard the Creationist version, which is often used by young earth Creationists to support their literal interpretation of Genesis.
CoyoteAussie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is technical knowledge -it isn't for everyone: watch?v=xiwMdNPaxcg
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
I love that closing statement, simple, but true.
Swordsquire 1 year ago
but its not.. its just oppositely charged, and doesnt exist in nature.. i dont know i dont get it, ever since i was a kid all i couold think about the big bang was, "theres no way that people ACTUALLY believe this... lol, everything came from nothing, or a pea sized ball of energy^-^, all i could think is that people must think that it was gods brain, and he decided to do what he did and create shit outward.. wen i learned ppl just thought it was energy, i fucking LAUGHED and thougt ,nope...
666stunts666 1 year ago
haha your right, as soon as ateists get there head out of teir asses, and see that a tree couldnt have come from nothing, or mearly flying particles colliding with eachoter and somehow starting to "work" and self sustain itself, if it wasnt alive at first, i could just come to life and require "food" it would be like a carbon atom and a clcium atom with some suphur attached to it... like wtf evolution is nonsence, then they use this magic word " anti-matter" to describe the opposite of matter..
666stunts666 1 year ago
@666stunts666 You do know that the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution right? And evolution does not remark on where life came from, that is Abiogenesis. And you may want to look more into physics. And if you are so concerned about how silly it is to believe something came from nothing (which I don't hold to) how do you reconcile God creating everything from nothing?
Swidhelm 1 year ago
2 thumbs up
doctorwilly 1 year ago
Anyone who says religion/christianity plants hate in children's mind is a Dumb ignorant idiot. Every atheist, and every single person that believes in evolution on here, curse and calls Good loving people awful names, and is nothing short of abusive. You know who you are, you are the lowest scum on the planet. I would not let any kid within a hundred miles of the likes of you. Good christian people feed the poor, and cloth the needy. And never use any of the fowl mess I hear coming from you.
EarthEndDays 1 year ago
@EarthEndDays By saying that, you're totally ignoring what most religious people had done in the past and present: The cruzades, slavery, sexual scandals, hipocrisy, using the people's ignorance and gullibility for political and econimic gaining, genocidal rampages (including the Nazi holocaust), and most recently, 9/11. I'm not going to say that there aren't good Christians/Jews/Muslims/Any other religious people, but they're most certainly a very small minority (Possibly lower than 10%).
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
@EarthEndDays Likewise I would hope no child would be allowed 100 miles near a Catholic priest. One day you will wake up and realise that man created god and not the other way round. Anyway why do you care your going to heaven anyway? I assume you think we are all going to hell which according to the Chinese is the real utopia. So maybe your backing the wrong horse anyway.
hkpho0ey 1 year ago
@EarthEndDays Godammit your naive as hell!
chilldaddy81 1 year ago
@chilldaddy81 *you're
chilldaddy81 1 year ago
@EarthEndDays Plenty of religious people accept evolution because it never contradicts the existance of God, if it condradicts the bible then ask yourself if what's really important to you is God's masterpiece or God's sketchbook. And atheist do plenty of charity as well, as Hindus, as Shinto, as Muslims and Jews. Good people do charity, but sometimes good people is non religious.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
@JaguarEscarlata Can't argue with you their, good post. Thanks, makes a lot of sense. I don't enjoy going against evolution, and I don't like stepping on Atheist toes, but I feel God is being thrown out the window with out even a chance. I know the bible may read and appear to be a fairytale to some, but it's real. With Real History of life, and real people who existed. Also the bible/God make many millions happy, and that means a lot. Science will not provide life after death, but God can.
EarthEndDays 1 year ago
@EarthEndDays
How do you know the Bible is true? How do you know that the people in it really existed? How do you know there will be a life after your death through God? And what relevancy does any of this have with the TRUTH if evolution is right or not?
coreygames 1 year ago
@EarthEndDays "Science will not provide life after death, but God can." prove it you lying thug.
SDX2000 1 year ago
@EarthEndDays You're assuming any of us actually want life after death. To me, eternal life and immortality would be the worst kind of torture possible.
syn010110 1 year ago
In terms of Hitler believing in evolution, I've always wondered if the people making that claim were confusing evolution with eugenics.
cordzion 1 year ago
@cordzion It's not even an argument. It's a provocation, completeyly pointless in any way and just trying to persuade people by appealing to their emotions.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
I think its important to view both sides views. Though to give one full acceptance just because a majority supports it. I think you have to come to your own conclussions. As for me I have looked up evolution I noticed evolutionist have more standing evidence then creationist. Also that religion was not started on scientific grounds. So to me evolution is the development of species not creationism.
AnarchoSyndicalistt 1 year ago
3:40, Hitler a catholic, if he wasn't a catholic the Vatican wouldn't have forged thousands of passports for SS oficers to send them to Brazil and Argentina
Evolvedprimate 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Eric Hovind's fairly half hearted response here drdino.com/creationism-dishonesty/
BathTubNZ 1 year ago
Comment removed
trebob27 1 year ago
You dont know what your talking about. Hitler was raised a catholic. The catholic church which claims to be Christian, disregard 70% of Gods laws and have perverted the original church with paganism. The swaztica is a pagan symbol that has existed in many pagan cultures. You need to study history. True science will only give you so much information. Why is it that the scientists we regard as being the greats in history believed in a Creator God? Unlike the catholics who worship stone idols.
journeyquest1 1 year ago
@journeyquest1 Sometimes I come across hilarious posts like these, so stupid.
iLiempt 1 year ago
@journeyquest1 "Why is it that the scientists we regard as being the greats in history believed in a Creator God? " um, because they were brought up in a time when everyone else did? and, it doesn't matter if there's a god or not, what matters is whether or not organisms evolve or are created intact. hundreds of thousands of scientists who believe in god, accept the reality of evolution and use the theory in their work. reality calls, ready to accept it?
BillKiernan 1 year ago 3
@journeyquest1
Several great scientists were also Catholic- if great scientists believing in a Creator makes creationism right, then great scientists practicing Catholicism makes Catholicism right. What about those pagan idol worshipers who invented geometry & algebra?
This is why scientists don't matter--only their science. Hitler was one man. He needed public support & he got it, which is what made him successful. At the time, Catholics were a minority in Germany.
SpeaksofRivers 1 year ago
I believe we should stop teaching gravity in schools. Or, at the very least, teach the alternative: intelligent falling. The Earth is the heart of god and it is his hand guiding us, keeping us on the planet he created for us because he loves us.
Let the children decide!
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago 41
".. or did god .. cause .. the mutations?"
This is probably the most pathetic thing I have ever heard. You could not give a finer example of an argument from ignorance.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
Oh comon, that shooter actually DID PROVED natural selecton works - being a complete psyco he was unfit, so he is now "out of the game".
SwineNahNah 1 year ago
1:49 - is that a lyraf? Krikey! danger, danger, danger.
5:40 - Pride father ted!
TheCaptainLulz 1 year ago
i like to say that if hitler disproves evolution, the crusades disprove christianity.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago 59
@Strikesnake1994 And the inquisition, and ethnic cleansing of america, and slavery of african people, etc.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
@Strikesnake1994 hitler wasnt even an atheist though, he was a roman catholic, so i dont know where they pulled that argument from in the first place :s
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
Debating creationists is useless. Too much cognitive dissonance.
Ramshobraja 1 year ago
Oh fuck are christians using Finnish school shooting as means to spread their nonsense? Damn I hate those fuckers more all the time..
bary1234 1 year ago
It's interesting that he (Dr. Behe) does believe that we have evolved from other primates and not created fully formed, but he then says he also believes our evolution was divinely guided or manipulated? But is it enough just to say that? I'd really like to see what evidence he uses that brings him to the conclusion that Evolution was/is divinely guided.
Please correct me if U think I'm wrong, but isn't his "guided" comment just as incredible as a "direct creation" statement?
Cootabux 1 year ago
The day is fast approaching too? Sounds scary, Ill bite, what is it that's fast approaching?
benthemiester 1 year ago
Nice video.
NeedsEvidence 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a question.
If life cannot exist in the vacuums of space.
And everything started with the big bang.
How do you explain that something living came from something non-living?
See if you can do this without derogatory remarks, or answering with a diversive question.
switchftable 2 years ago
LOL @
Answers in Genesis = AIG
puppetMattster 2 years ago
hitlar was a eugenicist and at the time that was the popular thing for church goers aswell as the leader of the church of England.
majikninja07 2 years ago
That picture of those little girls with the "god hates fags" T-Shirts is UNBELIEVABLY sick!!
Skydancer365 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your belief in darwinism is not superior to those who believe GOD created everything,,,both require faith and both lack the critical smopking gun
candiceevans1 2 years ago
the argument you have chosen is circular and pointless. If your base line for truth is a "hypothesis" you must find supporting evidence when u find a half fish half bird let us know
candiceevans1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WAIT WAIT...you just opened saying theres no reason 4 debate regarding evolution,,,its a hypothesis,,,a theory,,,its not fact and if you read darwin he says scrap the theory if no cross over species were found anyone who says evolution is proven fact is a complete moron
candiceevans1 2 years ago
Wait wait, he said theres no debate over evolution in the scientific community. You should have watched the first one, he described what a scientific theory is as opposed to a lay mans theory, gravity is a theory ,,,,germ theory ,,, atomic theory, all scientific theories but we know they work. As for your 1/2 fish 1/2 bird its never going to happen, but there is plenty of evidence showing the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Take arqueopterix (spelling may be wrong) for example.
ridgetownpimp 2 years ago 2
lmao..another one....
ignorant much?
Sciborg09 2 years ago
@candiceevans1 Do you even know the meaning of the words you just said there...
A 'theory', A 'hypothesis' and a 'fact'. Before you continue to make yourself look more of an idiot than I know you are... go off and look up the MEANING of those words... You'll find you just made a total idiot of yourself!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@candiceevans1
And BTW... I HAVE read 'on origin of species' and 'voyage of the beagle'... and you obviously HAVE NOT since you totally misquoted (or didn't even bother to quote) Darwin... yet 'on origin of species' is available FREE online!
So... stop lying... and arguing from IGNORANCE is in fact lying, nearing false witness... and into hell you will go for your sins!
Burn baby!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@candiceevans1 Half fish half bird? where does it state in any paper or book on evolution that such a creature is possible...let alone probable?
Please quote from the book or paper or website (source) you read that informed you of this!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they like a flower that soon will fade away ^_^
juliaheartz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh what a fool!! i thought they brave!!
but what a fool?
they say they belong to monkey? oh shit!! i thought what the fuck the fucker we belong to monkey? or a Dog? or A cat?
oh fool!!
juliaheartz 2 years ago
I actually find it amusing when creationists celebrate their ignorance :) nice vid!
MetaphysicalReality 2 years ago 31
@MetaphysicalReality They should bring out a T-Shirt with 'Yes I'm an idiot...so what?'
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MetaphysicalReality But these morons are our politicians and they are an intellectual disgrace to the developed world.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Good video! These points are good valid points. Truth isn't in perception, and it isn't in guess work or mud slinging. There is still very much we don't know. We do agree though that we are in serious crap when we use the limited amount of gray matter we all use, to deduce we know it all and understand it all to the point in which we are incapable of making a mistake, or a wrong assumption.
mc6872 2 years ago
That bill o reilly pic is a win
Sagesparten007 2 years ago 2
Cosmology is fascinating but not my field of research however there is a theory called The electric Universe if I'm not mistaken, its very interesting but as to the science of it, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on, but never the less interesting. I guess theories have to start somewhere.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Actually the debate over the limitation of not just gravity but Newtonian physics in general have been questioned for decades by cosmologist. Not that it doesn't exist or that it is false but the question is, what are its strengths and weaknesses and limitations in explaining the cosmos, and there are clearly limitations. The only difference is, it doesn't come with all the baggage/bullshit that this subject seems to produce and science suffers while every one preaches to there own choir.
benthemiester 2 years ago
When was the last time you heard of scientist having secret meetings? When some one thinks they find something new, the international press is called. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on. I don't necessarily blame the attendees but Massimo Pigliucci can be a sneaky guy.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Check out Suzan Mazur interviews logist Stuart Newman. The new synthesis that is being discussed also has implications that will make a lot of people uncomfortable. I applaud these men for at least realizing the futility of the current synthesis and thinking outside the box. Finally someone is asking the right questions.
benthemiester 2 years ago
cont... For the last couple of years Don has been using 50 years old outdated standard Darwinism. He still has vids that use this obsolete model as a fundamental creative force that make up the theory. The altenberg summit was brought together to change, or to save face, lets say, extend the modern synthesis and talk about the extreme limitations of the theory. This is exactly what the critics have been saying for years about the limits and controversy within the scientific community itself.
benthemiester 2 years ago
I don't think you understand the statement. You read more into it than I wrote. I don't want to discuss epigenetics or self organizational models. I don't have the time and its to new for anyone to understand fully at this point. In the video above Don Exudus makes another of his famous inaccurate claims. Seconds into the video he say's that there is no controversy in the scientific community, if it happens. Now take note of the way he uses the phrase, if it HAPPENS.....next thread.
benthemiester 2 years ago
@benthemiester
What? Are you getting scientific falsifiability statements mixed up with total stupidity... Quantum Mechanics is a proven theory... now watch my statement 'Quantum Effect is a reality, if it happens'
Yet QM is proven... and has solid products of that science... how could I say such a thing then? because in context 'if it happens' supports not detracts from the argument'
Evolution theory give you your fucking flu shot... so shut up or refuse the Jab!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
I don't know you, and I don't what your talking about. Why don't you ask me a question before you go on a rant. You sound like a crazy person. If you want to have a discussion or debate like a grown person, that's fine, but the BS your spewing doesn't fly with me. If u continue Ill lock you out. Don't have time for nonsense.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester 'if it happens is in context' it is used on a daily basis in all fields of science... regardless of the validity of the argument... odds are DonExodus done biology in college... thus his use of the words... you can clarify with him....
Your observation where interesting did not include this. He's tlking from a 'detached' position...
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Mike your mumbling again. Can u clarify what your talking about since your addressing me?I don't have the slightest clue to what your referring too. I'm going to go and smoke a big fatty, maybe then you'll make more sense to me. Give me a few minutes.
benthemiester 1 year ago
"Don Exudus makes another of his famous inaccurate claims. Seconds into the video he say's that there is no controversy in the scientific community,"
... if it happens I use all day long!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He says all scientist believe it happens. If he defines evolution as a change through time, of course everybody believes that. If he means molecule to man unguided naturalism, then he is wrong. Many scientist and not just the religious nuts challenge this paradigm. If you like, I can name you several. I left a message on his abiogenesis video an hour or so ago. If you read it, this will explain my distrust of the the kind of errors and switch and bait strategy he employ's.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey On the subject of evolution, there is no controversy whatsoever...
There may be arguments over how the mechanisms in evolution work, but the actual theory is as close to a fact in science as science can get to a fact...
All of the ignoramuses out there who still deny it, look as silly and ignorant as those who claim that Elvis is still alive, or that the United States never actually went to the moon....
You have every right to your own opinion, but not your own facts...
badtrunk456 1 year ago
@badtrunk456 erm... you didn't notice the quotes there... I was quoting a comment from someone else... I don't possess my own facts.....so I couldn't agree more!
For the most part I don't have an opinion on evolution... since it'll continue with or without my opinion, understanding or lack thereof! And processes like evolution or drying paint really couldn't care less what I think of them...lol
The Elvis thing will be upgraded to Michael Jackson soon...just wait!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@badtrunk456 btw.. what I meant by
If it happens I use all day long...
Should read "If it happens" as a suggestion of things that are possible but for which there is no conclusive evidence, I use on a daily basis...
I probably should have phrased it like that...
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is debate on the limitations of Darwinsm. The fact that this guy has been saying there is no debate and yet has posted several videos debating the subject is laughable.The Altenberg 16 summit last year addressed this issue. This summit of some of the top evolutionary biologist in the world was boycotted by the National Academy of Sciences because they were afraid of the implications. That Id'st might use this as a talking point. This is not science. The religion of naturalism.
benthemiester 2 years ago
There is debate on the limitations of Darwinsm. The fact that this guy has been saying there is no debate and yet has posted several videos debating the subject is laughable.The Altenberg 16 summit last year addressed this issue. This summit of some of the top evolutionary biologist in the world was boycotted by the National Academy of Sciences because they were afraid of the implications. That Id'st might use this as a talking point. This is not science. The religion of naturalism.
benthemiester 2 years ago
the only people that are trying to make a debate about evolution. are the dumb ass people! who know fuck all about evolution!
franktastikart 2 years ago 6
Don't be so hard on yourself. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Yea the smart one duh
npf2135 2 years ago
if you were a smart person, then you wouldn't be debating against evolution. you would except it knowing that it is a fact!
franktastikart 2 years ago 3
@benthemiester Okay... a question... I do have one... I'm not a theist.. so questions regarding 'life' in contrast to 'non life' are interesting to me...
So my question is this...
First look at this.. its less than 2 minutes long... -> watch?v=1QPiF4-iu6g
Now... if I take the bell jar containing the cells which constitute this machines brain... and I smash it to pieces...
did I destroy it? or did I 'KILL' it?
And more importantly WHY is it destroyed or killed?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey You don't have to do neither, all living cells eventually die, regardless of what their electrically interfaced with, I would also including a human brain that controls an electrical mechanical prosthetic device. Interesting video though.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester some living cells have been observed to be immortal... hydras for example are multi-celled organisms that are immortal if left to their own environment.. obviously they CAN be destroyed... killed... whatever.
So you'd consider that after a few months this 'creature' (if we can call it that?) dies.. rather than 'breaks down'? it dies?
Are you sure it hasn't just broken down from wear and tear?
Personally I'd go by the biological definition of 'life' but I'm not as biologist!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey The original question and the way it was phrased, was more of a question on philosophy than biology. Many biologist admit to the importance of a Democratic consensus, or at least examining the relevance of external feedback from the broader community when asking these questions concerning what constitutes life and accepted definitions. There will always be gray areas not easily answered, or answers not acceptable to some. You cant please everyone in this discussion.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester it WAS a philosophical question... not one on biology. I asserted that 'I' would go with the biological definition of life...ergo the machine...is a machine... and nothing more.
Even if it were sentient and could have a conversation with you about how it 'felt' about life in general... it is still only a machine if we use the definition of 'alive' currently used by biologists.
That day is fast approaching too... So be prepared to come face to face with the question.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Hitler can't really be classified as a Christian or an atheist. He wanted to use religion to further his goals.
tifforo1 2 years ago
Hitler is a master manipulator, Leaders like him finds religion to be a very useful tool. He has repeatedly expressed his belief in God, so he is no athiest.
emancoy 2 years ago 4
sad how religion plants hate/fear in children's heart and poisoning their mind becoming racist and ignorant to reality :(
3L3M3NTO 2 years ago 30
@3L3M3NTO not totally true. id confidently say that our exposure to religion, in the form of the parables of jesus, provided VERY strong moral examples and role models,
religion and science themselves i believe are neutral. its the PEOPLE using them for good or bad is what matters, religion and science are tools,
elgostine 1 year ago
for example, science was, to quote a bad example instrumental in the many things the nazi germans cooked up good AND bad, from their tactics and advanced engineering showng them use science for, good in THEIR favour, fritz haber also used science to creat things for good AND bad uses.
elgostine 1 year ago
@3L3M3NTO No, what is sad is how we have morons speaking in the name of religion planting hate/fear in children's hearts and poisoning their minds to become racist and ignorant to reality. There's a difference.
Just as Hitler's supposed endorsement of evolution (which didn't exist) would not have discredited evolution as a theory, neither do people speaking nonsense in the name of God discredit God himself.
cda1117 1 year ago
@cda1117 lol... I think God does all the discrediting himself in his bestselling book...
For sure its certainly never read out loud in churches but there are passages in the bible where god teaches how one should behave in life, war and with family that are anything but a 'credit' to Christianity...
When was the last time you ever heard any priest or pastor read the bible...telling the faithful congregation how god instructed his people to rape and pillage, kill and commit genocide?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey The reason we don't teach those things is that they were intended for a very specific, foreign context which we do not understand; that's not just me dismissing what I don't want to look at -- that's really how they were intended. Instead, we study God's principles from both Old Testament and New and apply those to our lives.
cda1117 1 year ago
@cda1117 How do you distinguish WHICH of these scriptural dogmas were intended for you...and which for this 'foreign' audience...
You see from where I stand the punishment for homosexuality... somthing cristians consider very immoral... is death. The punishment for sleeping with another mans wife on the very same page of punishments in Leviticus is also death.
I'm pretty damn Christians are guilty of adultery MORE often than homosexuality...yet seem to apply different judgments to each.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@cda1117 the problem is consistency...
If homosexuality, adultery and boiling calf's in milk are all punishable by death... then that is that... there is no wiggle room.
I DO SEE people carrying signs maintaining the 'evil' of homosexuality... I certainly DO NOT SEE these very same people carrying signs proclaiming 'adultery' is 'equally' as evil.
This is because people have CHOSEN to ignore certain bits in the bible, because they disobey these social rules regularly themselves!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@cda1117 So basically although I am neither christian nor gay... I certainly will not be applying MY moral standards to gay men or women... nor would I apply my morals to Christians.
I wouldn't expect Christians to adopt common sense morals, they can moralize between themselves. I wouldn't expect a gay man or woman to 'force' themselves to be straight even though homosexuality is not a moral issue!
So why do I repeatedly see Christians insisting that everyone should adopt theirs.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Also, I completely agree that we should not be forcing our morals on others. Not much more to say there.
cda1117 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Well you're right that Christians do apply things unequally, especially when it's not convenient for them. But the Law of the Old Testament is part of what we refer to as the "Old Covenant." Getting into the technical details would probably bore you and be relatively meaningless.
-
To sum it up, though, we are free to do as we see fit under grace, operating strictly to bring people to Christ. We study God's principles simply because they are what help us achieve that goal.
cda1117 1 year ago
@cda1117 Are you trying to assert that god changed its mind? Well hold on there... can a God change its mind about things? For one thing of all the things eve theists accept a god can and cannot do (create one ended sticks or objects it cannot destroy) then changing its mind about 'rules' would constrict god to a linear time-line.
Anyway...are christians are no longer 'bound' by the commandments? Not wanting to seem like a smart ass... but where do you get your morals from?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey No, it's not that God changed his mind, but rather that God designed the Law specifically for the Israelites. And I would say that the Law was probably nowhere near stringent and specific enough to bring about absolute perfection in its followers, even if they followed it. Its primary purpose was to bring us to God, but its secondary purpose was to show us the impossibility of perfection. Christ ultimately fulfilled the purpose of the Law through his sacrifice.
cda1117 1 year ago
@cda1117 @cda1117 hmmm... well its those 'views' on the bible that are the problem. when one produces a book of 'truths' and asserts them as 'factual' it is usually common for everyone to agree. Newtons laws of motion and gravity are universally accepted they certainly aren't interpreted differently in Hong Kong than they would be in Berlin!
That said, any book my friend that has 'many' interpretations by definition cannot be accurate. I think the whole bible should be rewritten.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cda1117 hmmm... well its those 'views' on the bible that are the problem. when one produces a book of 'truths' and asserts them as 'factual' it is usually common for everyone to agree. Newtons laws of motion and gravity are universally accepted they certainly aren't interpreted differently in Hong Kong than they would be in Berlin!
That said, any book my friend that has 'many' interpretations by definition cannot be accurate. I think the whole bible should be rewritten.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey I'm going over things in a very high-level, abstract manner, because YouTube comments are far too short. I write a lot on various subjects, and I've just today decided to write a book on such things called "The Gospel of X" in order to address what I consider to be a false gospel and reintroduce people to Christ and the order of the universe as described by what I consider to be a more accurate view of the Bible.
cda1117 1 year ago
@cda1117 hmmm... well its those 'views' on the bible that are the problem... when one produces a book of 'truths' and asserts them as 'factual' it is usually common for everyone to agree... newtons laws of motion and gravity are universally accepted they certainly aren't interpreted differently in Hong Kong than they would be in Berlin!
That said, any book my friend that has 'many' interpretations by it very nature and definition cannot be accurate. I think the whole bible should be rewritten.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@cda1117 hmmm... well its those 'views' on the bible that are the problem... when one produces a book of 'truths' and asserts them as 'factual' it is usually common for everyone to agree. Newtons laws of motion and gravity are universally accepted they certainly aren't interpreted differently in Hong Kong than they would be in Berlin!
That said, any book my friend that has 'many' interpretations by it very nature and definition cannot be accurate. I think the whole bible should be rewritten.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@cda1117 you do realize that Thomas Jefferson rewrote the gospels? He removed bits which plainly made no sense or were known in the 1780's to simply be untrue. Thus all references to supernatural events are removed. It might be interesting to rewrite the entire bible with the same method... at the very least it would be believable by people who read it. If the body of Christians currently at 1.4 billion or so ever read the bible Christianity is in trouble!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago 2
@cda1117 its one of the reasons atheists point out the nasty bits in the bible... and at least once a week I get an astonished christian asserting that I'm lying to them... until I ask them to read the bible. 9 times out of 10 they don't own one!
But since the bible is available online you can imagine the faces of people who read the destruction, wars, genocide and death bits for the first time!
Why aren't the nasty bits in the new testament read in churches?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@3L3M3NTO And they have the nerve to say Science does it!
GohanLSSJ2 1 year ago
If Jesus were alive today, he probably might commit suicide.
litetheory 2 years ago 12
the bible teaches you that it is alright to kill, rape, have slaves, be a racists and to ignore reality! it should be band!
franktastikart 2 years ago 11
Where does the Bible sanction rape? I've never heard of such a verse.
tifforo1 2 years ago
look these up! Judges 21:10-24 Numbers 31:7-18 Deuteronomy 20:10-14 2 Samuel 12:11-14 Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Judges 5:30 Exodus 21:7-11 Zechariah 14:1-2 EXODUS 35:2 DEUTERONOMY 21:18-21 LEVITICUS 20:13 DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 EXODUS 21:20-21 COLOSSI 3:22-24 EPHESTIANS 6:5 1PETER 2:18 LEVITICUS 11-7 11:6 1:9 DEUTERONOMY 23:5 DEUTERONOMY 23:11 9:22 EXODUS 21:11 EXODUS 32:26-29 MATTHEW 5:17 2KINGS 16:15 NUMBERS 31:17-18 1PETERB 3:17
franktastikart 2 years ago
richtig. it doesn't matter who believed what and did what with who. what matters is we get our heads out of our asses and look at it how it is. and continue to evolve our language so that it isn't poisoned by old belief systems.
rave on.
peace
anamatatalents 2 years ago 3
The "God Hates Fags" shirts on those two little girls made me want to puke.
deathadder32 2 years ago 43
"God Hates Fags"
when I first saw that picture, I find it shocking.
emancoy 2 years ago 3
@deathadder32 Greek god of war Ares thought otherwise :p
FreeeeS 1 year ago
So, DonExodus if you're Christian and don't think God is the man behind the curtain, twisting nobs and flipping switches to guide the forces of nature; where do you regard God? Is he the Blind Watchmaker God from Richard Dawkins, or is the uncaring god from the Deists? Or, is he something else entirely? I would really like to know your opinion. I promise that my curiosity is sincere, and I'm not about to flame you.
Xeletoph 2 years ago
I dont believe in God any longer, but I never said I didnt feel he was possibly behind the curtains in some way.
DonExodus2 2 years ago
Possibilities being infinite, of course he could possibly be around somewhere. But it's just as likely that the earth is being held in place by two gigantic blue lobsters named Ezmeralda and Keith. Possible - but is it likely?
Xeletoph 2 years ago 9
I agree.
DonExodus2 2 years ago
How do you know about Ezmeralda and Keith?
baraqiyal 2 years ago 3
Because I read good books. That's how :P lol. The concept is covered in Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion. ;)
Xeletoph 2 years ago
Blasphemy! Get your facts straight! It's Ezmerelda (with an "e") and Kenny.
Leehofooks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DonExodus I find that the best way to cope with this comes from Zeno.
Extrapolate from claims.
If God is infinite and perfect, then God is everything, else God is finite.
If God is everything then how can any part be unworthy?
Religion lifts one part up and sits on a thrown beside it, it is sin in it's own terms.
It puts God on a stick for it's authority.
Religion attempts to divide the indivisible identity of God.
Everything is all made of the same stuff whatever one calls it
Religion is pride.
marsCubed 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think Jesus was deist; If he believed everything was God.
The reason people do harm to each other would be because they do not know this.
Saying God is everything exposes authority, property, religion, racism, and all the other forms of pride for what they are.
He would have believed God was torturing him when he died. yet he forgave.
That is the resurrection; it is knowing the garden.
Knowing why to forgive everything IS the knowledge of the tree; required to be a gardener.
marsCubed 2 years ago
Comment removed
marsCubed 2 years ago
@DonExodus2 i heard you became atheist
patrickledford420 1 year ago
@Xeletoph i agree with Don, there is no god. If god was real, its way more complex and unrealistic than evolution and the big bang. That ALONE prove that he is not real
simsoy55 1 year ago
@simsoy55 I agree with Don too. I think that comment was a rebuttal I made against the 'could be' argument. If god could be, then so could thousands of other gods. Maybe aliens on other planets worship gods too, so that makes hundreds of trillions of gods; the possibility of god just diminishes more and more.
I'm of the mind state that religion is dying, & is in its death throws.
How does any beast act when cornered? It bares its teeth ;-)
Xeletoph 1 year ago
Valu777's ignorance is unparalleled.
nolobede 2 years ago 5