The wanton stupidity that comes from the mouths of creationists never ceases to amaze me. I saw a comment from a creatard that natural selection is an oxymoron, as “selection requires a selector”. He was so smug with his faux intellectual argument. Where do you even start with someone like that?
I just wrote a book to this guy in the comment section on a documentary about evolution. I didn't realize this guy was such a pathetic tool or I mightn't have bothered. This guy literally depresses me. He's a prime example of the extreme effects of religious indoctrination. We need to move past this, and the key is education.
Holy shit I'm so glad someone made a video pwning this idiot. What are billions of digits and written directives? I've asked him to explain but he seems unable to.
Seekmosttoprophesy makes a claim that scientists have found the DNA signature of Aaron, Moses's brother. In fact, the study he was referring to didn't say that at all--HE DIDN'T EVEN READ WHAT THE STUDY SAID. The article stated that an ancient jewish priest caste, the kohanim may share common descent with modern jewish populations. I pointed out his error on his page and he deleted my comment. SEEKMOSTTOPROPHESY IS A PATHETIC, IGNORANT LIAR.
They have made this identification from testing males with the tradition of being descendants of Aaron, Moses' brother.
The testing is ongoing.
What we are talking about is Moses' brother who was several generations from Abraham who was nine generations from Noah and his sons who were born before the flood and lived hundreds of years. Noah was still alive when Abraham was born.
Address the issues, if you can, in your own words. Objects do not know how to write the directives that make you what you are. You do not even know how to do that.
"Objects" do in fact know how to write directives. But that has nothing to do with evolution...
I actually do know how to make a human being, in theory at least. I would just need the material and means to do so. The knowledge, I have. It is the material I lack.
What tripe! They choose the dumbest creationist who cannot answer about speciation? Why not conquer the best arguments? Why this pathetic little straw man? This is a wonderful testimony for the creationist movement. I hope instead you will come to rest in the truth of Jesus Christ. Secularists will ultimately lose the culture war of humanism. The wise will be on the side of truth. Jesus said, "Everyone who loves the truth comes to me." See you there!
When Shilo came, Yeshua was having His bar mitzah! The Rabbis said that Shilo came and Messiah had not come but He was there in the Temple at that time!
Thanks for the video, it was fairly well done except for the circular reasoning. The Bible is true because it has been proven to be true time and time again and since there is also evidence that the flood is true, it just makes the case for the historical records all that much more impressive. You do need to be more accurate in your representation but other than that, it was quite flattering.
Don't forget about those observable directives three billion digits long.
Ha!...Wow that is exactly what talking to him is like, completely nonsense. I gave up trying to even talk to Seek, since he came up with the 'animals ran up mountains at different speeds' explanation of how layered fossils occured...which doesn't hold up to any criticism, which i described to him. He then layed out a few points that contradict his own view and said "So much for your layer theory. That never did work out very well anyway"
He has absolutely no idea even what science is. I can only guess that he read the word "nanotechnologies" somewhere and decided to make up his own definition of it. As for "spoken directives," your guess is as good as mine. I asked him several times to clarify what he meant by that, which he ignored over and over again. Why do these creationists insist that science is more than it really is: a collection of observations that attempt to explain a natural phenomena? The concept is simple.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Go ahead and laugh all you want. Objects still do not make the information needed for evolution to be possible. What we see in the fossil record is exactly what happened. Millions of species of animals were buried by the catastrophic flood recorded in the Bible. Do you really believe reptiles can fly as long as other birds??? As the "scientist" that you say you are, you shouldn't scoff at proven historical events.
I'm outnumbered by people supposedly brighter than me and you are still losing!
Seek, face it. You are the only one suggesting that objects had anything to do with evolution. Science says this nowhere. You made that part up. Furthermore, the "flood" never happened. There is no global flood layer in any geological evidence. You have yet to "prove" a single biblical event that you proposed. You provide absolutely no evidence. That is unscientific. And you can't promote unscientific thought in science class.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Good, if objects were not involved in evolution, it means that evolution did not happen because all life forms are made of objects.
History DID happen and you should be teaching real history.
Check out the "expanding earth conspiracy" video on my favorites and tell me what you think of it. It is very strong evidence of the flood and people don't even realize it. Water came from the sky and from the ground and the water scrunched up the continents and formed the mountains.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Keep right on deluding yourselves. You won't even know what happened when for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction and without the covering of the blood of the provision that God provided for us Himself, you will have to pay for everything wrong that you ever did against people and against God. That means every lie, every speculation, every conjecture, every false assumption every misled child every deed done against Creationists, EVERYTHING!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is frightening to consider the facts, I know. That does not make the facts any less real. Information 3 billion digits long does not fall together without a Designer and speaker of every one of those directives that we observe.
Two different courts with two different judges in the pass ruled your "explanation" is not a valid logical or scientific theory. Why? Because there is no logical reason to believe it is true. Why? Because there is no evidence.
Sir, look at the facts and draw conclusions from them, do not look at the "conclusions" and see what facts you can find to support it.
It is very frightening that an individual who presumably is 39 years old seems to not have any proper education and expects to be heard.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That was 49 a while back.
You are so naive to think that any Judge would be willing to stick his neck out for the common belief to execute his career and his position. That is not a basis for any argument of fact. The evidence is that there is nothing in this known universe that is able to make the 3 billion or so digits required for life forms to exist. It is evidence that the information and observable directives came from beyond. Face the facts.
I am facing the facts sir, I am not jumping to conclusions.
Simply because we do not know what is most likely going to be forever unknown - the energy that began all - does not DOES NOT equate or translate to that energy being an ominously omniscient creator who can understand and judge every single thought of every single human at the sametime. It is a gap of logic. What makes you think, if God exists, it is the one you believe in? Because one piece of literature...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Energy" does NOT account for 3 billion or more digits of information and directives that make up each and every unique life form. Oh, you like to change the subject. Observable facts show that God has to be all knowing, all powerful and eternal. That is the same thing that the Bible says. God also has to be forgiving. The Bible says that too. There also has to be a provision for our errors. The Bible accounts for that too. Only God Himself could ever save us from who we are. The Bible agrees.
Observable mathematics can takes us back to around an instant after the Big Bang. Some energy must have started it.
To go from that, to a "ominously omniscient, and all loving, all forgiving being and creator must have been the wielder of this energy" is a gap of logic - from science to fairytale/myth/fable/METAPHORICAL ALLEGORY.
...that was written centuries ago and then later altered by men? And I am the one who is naive? ...You are a child.
Just because The Bible has bee proven to not be accurate, does not necessarily nmean there is not a God. I am agnostic, and you desperately need to understand that.
Evolution, seekmosttoprophesy, is our history - to merely deny that is a practice of the circumvention of logic, reason, knowledge, and understanding.
You are the one circumventing logic, reason, knowledge and understanding because evolution uses none of those things.
The Creation is observable. The thousands of directives are observable. The fact that objects and static forces do not make information is also observable. The fact of the design of all the elements as interchangeable parts in nanotechnology is also observable. The fact that theres no known thing in the entire known universe that is able to make life forms is also observable.
Evolution uses logic, reason, knowledge and most of all understanding. If one comes to your conclusion, then one simply has absolutely no education on the subject.
This your opinion, And two courts seem to not agree. The majority, a massive massive majority, of the scientific community does not agree. You simply are filtering your information through one book.
Sir, our history is Evolution. We are still evolving. To say otherwise to both is to be willfully ignorant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is still no evidence of any evolution yet you believe it as if it was the gospel truth. Everything reproducing after its kind is observable. Evolution is not observable.
The 3 billion digits of directives (commands that had to have been spoken) that made you, are observable.
This computer is evidence of evolution - evolution of the mind, medicine, portions of pathophysiology, genetics, speciation, mutations, Neanderthal DNA, chromosomal fusion, retroviral DNA, etc etc. - the list goes on.
This scientific theory has already been proven. A couple years ago The National Academy of Sciences has named evolution in one of the top five most influential and valuable scientific disciplines.
Would you please elaborate of "3 billion spoken directives"?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's 3 billion DIGITS of thousands of observable spoken directives that make us what we are. That's a lot of digits of information that evolution, objects and static forces do not account for.
A computer is evidence of design. How can an intelligent person even suggest that a computer is a result of evolution? A computer is proof of design because it did not make itself and no object or static force made it either. The same goes with the rest of the examples. Theyre all evidence of design.
Evolution never states that objects are responsible for Evolution, same with static.
Spoken directives? We evolved from single cell organisms, then to multi cell, to fish, then amphibians, then small mammals, then primates, then we shared a common ancestor with a primate
- proof of that: watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw - umm to say that spoken directives accounted for this makes no sense. It's would be like explaining a sunset to a fetus, it would have no clue. In what language? Examples of digits?
Evolution means that objects and static forces (of objects) are responsible for the billions of digits of directives that make us what we are. That is why evolution is nothing more than reckless speculation and fantasy.
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation cont
@jeckert8888 Wrong, evolution is the result of a mutation that is corrected on several levels and mutations cannot and do not account for all of the variation there is so there is no evolution happening. Evolution suggests that reptiles turn into mammals but that has never been proven. Evolution suggests that everything came from one life form but the truth is that everything just appeared as if from nowhere.
Umm mutations do not solely account for evolution - adaptations to environment, certain processes that introduce variations in traits and processes that make particular variants more common or rare are, in an abysmally concise manner, the prevailing "forces" or what not behind it.
"Evolution suggest that reptiles turn into mammals but that has never been proven."
Well they didn't "turn into" they slowly evolved into over very long, very drawn out periods of time.
@jeckert8888 You can't use a preexisting design as evidence of evolution because the design is already there. The variation is by design. That is speculation. There is no evidence that a reptile turned into a mammal.
Not been proven? Have you even read up on this particular aspect? The transition from reptile to mammal has a straightforward record. The examples I am about to use are just an appetizer, there are many more - but specifically, they map out the transition of one type of jaw into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones int he lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional
SOrry for using my other screen-name. Anyway, let's continue:
Obviously you did not carefully read what I wrote - the mere that that reptiles and mammals both have jaw bones is obviously not what I was portraying - I clearly gave a minuscule fraction of the evidence which does exist in showing the transition from reptile to mammal. The evidence I cited, which I first described, show "transitional jaw-ear **arrangements**"
You haven't provided any logical reasoning to even suggest that evolution in imaginary. However, many people have pointed out the overbearing flaws and misconceptions within your argument - you have no credibility, sir.
So you claim that, in regards to evolution, objects relate to billions of digits of directives that form everything within life - and yet these objects and directives in which you refer to, not evolution, are actually imaginary. cont.
The scientific theory of evolution does not mention objects or directives, you are. This is your terminology, so provide examples to put it in context.
@jeckert8888 You have to credit something for the existence of billions of observable digits of directives and the only thing there is to credit are things, objects.
You have said one correct thing thus far, you are not doing anything useful here. Misrepresentation of any subject should actually be, by your terminology, a "sin."
You have not provided any examples of objects and directives in your perceived evolutionary context - in fact you said they were imaginary.
Just because no one is aware of what exactly commenced everything into existence does not give credit to your baseless accusations.
@jeckert8888 Why can't you respond and say what ordered the billions of digits of directives? The reason is because your answer would be unscientific. It would be speculation, conjecture, imagination and fantasy. The evidence of Creation is there for you to see.
There is no evidence for creation, you haven't even cited any evidence for a Creator so the term "creation" is a blatant logical fallacy of begging the question.
Differential reproductive success in species, through adaptation, results in change - this is demonstrable, you simply seem to avoid the acceptance of it.
I have asked you to provide a context FOR YOUR TERMINOLOGY. As this terminology is not present within any attempted undertaking in evolutionary theory, the responsibility of
Let's say you live in a house that recently got infected with insects. So, you naturally hire an exterminator. The exterminator is new, and only thought to use one extermination solution (object). You keep on using this same exact extermination solution for several decades.You then notice you have yet another insect problem and it's worse. The reason for why this actually does occur is because the insect population being exterminated actually has
like a 1% chance of surviving the extermination. This one person, after the course of being exposed to one extermination solution for several decades (perhaps a little more) will begin to adapt to it's environment (directive) and will become immune to this one solution - this is why exterminators use a mixture/ cocktail.
This actually does occur and is a domestic example of evolution, or an aspect there of.
There was a typo which I clearly corrected. The one percent of insects, when using only one extermination solution, that survive the extermination will and do adapt to the effect of this extermination solution and then eventually become immune to it - this is why exterminators use a mixture of several different kinds.
Things you desperately need to know in regards to my previous example, and with evolution in general:
Evolution is not inevitable. Some animal species, called "living fossils," have survived for millions of years with very little change (example: the Coelacanth). Evolution has no directional process. It does not proceed from simple to complex organisms. It is only change, and adaptation - not "improvement" (example parasitic flatworms developed from their mobile, more complex ancestors). cont.
I am not, and have not, made up any stories - everything I have said has been proven sir.
Again you are providing the overbearing religious connotation and the ludicrously illogical assumption that "a flood over the course of billions of years some how equates to the biblical flood" , not the fossils. You have not provided any reasoning to connect the two besides (pretty much)"well, these fossils must have been caused by a flood so therefore it was the biblical flood that caused them."
@jeckert8888 Nothing about evolution has been proven, it has all been proven to be false. Everything that evolutionists have ever said has been shot down because it is all speculation with no basis other than "we don't think that God did it". That is not a basis and imagination is not fact. There is no other cause of Creation than God. All of the evidence says God did it because there is no other power than God. Denying it does not prove anything. Where is your god that you credit???
Back up your claim with legitimate citations regarding the claims: "nothing about evolution has *ever* been proven, it has *all* been proven to be false," Everything evolutionists *have ever said* (this means everything they have ever said) has been shot down bc it is all speculation with no basis other thn "we don't think God did it" or simply shut the fuck up.
I pointed the demonstrable observation that the environment can contribute to an adaptation within a species that leads to some form of a change - I never stated that an object is what started this cycle. And furthermore the scientific theory of evolution never even attempts to enter into the argument of what started this whole cycle.
@jeckert8888 There is no evolution to demonstrate. The variation of species is not evolution. That variation is by intent so that it responds favorably to the environment. Mutations are not able to provide any significant advantage so mutations are corrected on several levels.
The actual observation of our skeletal structure directly compared, side by side, with that of our actual ancestors demonstrates, explicitly, one aspect of the evolution of mankind. It's too bad that you filter your informational intake of reality through one piece of literature written 2,000 years ago that was past down for at least several generations by means of oral tradition (ever play telephone?), and from one piece of literature that has been severely edited - 40 books were removed. Now,
@jeckert8888 You are not even looking at the evidence. Your only evidence is that you think that we look the same as other creatures. It's too bad that you are unable to address or face the issues. The more copies that were made, the harder it became to change what was said. The evidence of the elements as nanoparts means the Designer of the nanoparts is the Maker of the entire universe.
Yeah, out of the several months, or whatever length of time, that we have conversed I have only stated that "we look the same as other creatures" - either you do not read my comments, or you filter reality, or you forgot what I have mentioned in the past.
You have no evidence that anything was "said".
You are assuming that this designer is a who, it could be a what. Not to mention you are attributing a humanistic characteristic: intelligent (for lack of a better term) consciousness while
@jeckert8888 The Designer has to be a who because He needs to have wisdom, understanding not to mention all knowledge and all power. You may think you look like a rhinoceros or whatever creature but I wouldn't say that. We were made to be different. I do have reason to believe things were said. It is written and what was written became true or was proven to be true some other way.
that's is roughly 40% of the initial amount of information. If there was a piece of literature written titled The Reign of Caesar which claimed to be a historically accurate depiction of the entirety of Julius Caesar's reign but was missing 40% of it's information then this particular book would not be considered a credible source on the subject. The Same Logic applies.
If you weren't clearly delusional perhaps you could bask in the glow of the beauty that actually radiates from this planet,
@jeckert8888 You believe anything you hear. The Bible is a collection of the best books there ever was. Any beauty there is, it is a credit to our Creator.
simultaneously basing this assumption off of the aforementioned false dichotomy/ logical fallacy.
I do not believe anything I hear. I do not believe that a flying Spaghetti Monster in Almighty Noodlyness exists, I do not believe unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, Allah, Xenu, or Lucifer exist. I do not believe that an allegedly omniscient and omni-benevolent being would cast the majority of his own creation into a pulverizing and barbarically carnivorous realm of torture for either: not believing
@jeckert8888 Some things do exist and they have names, descriptions and definitions. Unicorns could have been rhinos. You can't group the Bible with every other book because it is the bestseller of all time. It is not God that makes people go to hell. God is always willing to save us. You also cannot blame God for what we do. Salvation is through sanctification by the Spirit and believing the truth. All we have to do is to tell the truth.
Rhinos are rhinos, unicorns are not rhinos. Stop confusing words. It does not matter if it is the bestselling book of all time, what we are talking about here is evidence, rational logical, and proofs for something which actually exists: no book or ideology is immune to such scrutiny.
I was not saying that, according to your faith, God makes people go to hell. What I was saying is that the specific reasons, which I mentioned, he allegedly considers worthy of such a "punishment" are
@jeckert8888 You seem not to understand that Rhinos were not called rhinos thousands of years ago. They were called unicorns. They were used in battle because of their great strength. I suppose it also does not matter to you that the first mention of Christ was to Adam and Eve. The significance of the Bible transcends time and it will continue to be significant. It will never become obsolete. It contains the actual historical records from before the flood.
Yes, but I am saying that the typical definition of a unicorn (a mythically magical *horse-like* creature, (a horse is not like a rhino) with a single horn stretching upward from it's forehead) bears no merit in reality as evidence for such a creature, to my understanding, does not exist.
Provide a citation where Jesus is mentioned to Adam and Eve.
@jeckert8888 The fact is that they were describing a creature that did actually exist. You could say the same thing about the Chinese dragon but you don't know for sure if the dragon also did not exit. The Bible describes a Spinosaurus like creature and a sauropod, two different living creatures that are not living today. When Adam and Eve sinned, word of the provision for sin was given saying that a Savior (God) would be born of a woman.
@jeckert8888 God has to be perfect. He has to be just. He cannot allow any sin or imperfection left unpunished so He picked up the full tab Himself since we have all failed to redeem ourselves. He is still offering to give us eternal life. All we have to do is to be honest and to tell the truth. Only a devil would not do so. Only devils need to go to hell. There is no reason for anyone to be condemned.
that he actually exists, or for simply living in a fraction of the world that has never heard of him. I do not believe that this same being would find it logical to include a ceremonial ritual in the last supper that included forms of vampirinism and cannibalism (whether it be metaphorical or otherwise). Nor do I believe that a deity of the same self-acclaimed stature in morality would have created the beyond laughable Levitical Laws.
There are many, many things that I do not believe so
@jeckert8888 We can't lose touch with reality. That is the reason for the bread and the wine. We kill the truth every time we lie. What we do has serious consequences. God had to take the hit Himself in this world for the things that we have done. We have to remember what we have done to Creation and to our Creator. God could nave nothing to do with us without taking the hit for us. It is because He took the hit that we can live.
I have not. You are continuously proving that you in fact are.
I have not spoken one lie in this conversation.
How does sacrificing himself towards himself a sacrifice? How did that "sacrifice" make us live? We were living, we are continuing to live. We would have lived regardless.
@jeckert8888 No matter how you look at it, our sin is on and against God in this world. You assume, again, that there is no God for our sins to be on. We can't get around that fact. Whatever we do wrong is against our Creator. He took our sins on Himself in this world so that we would have to pay the penalty ourselves. It wouldn't be good enough even if we could pay for our own sins anyway but that is a theological point because we could never pay the full price.
No I do not assume that there is no God. I just mentioned in this conversation that I am not an atheist. Again, I simply accept that there is no valid, rational or logical reasoning to jump to the conclusion that some magical deity created the universe. I simply do not know, and neither do you. You are not claiming "fact" with your religious zealotry, you are claiming what you believe - there is a massive difference. This is why it called faith. If what you claim is actually factual,
@jeckert8888 I do know that there is a Creator/God because I know that no machine works apart from design and the designed nanoparts that are utilized in the nanomachines are the very elements that the entire universe is made of which means the Creator of the elements is greater than the entire universe. I just proved the existence of God in a few words and it has nothing to do with religion as you assume. Evolution is the baseless cult belief.
Again, like I already mentioned you are comparing a non-sentient machine that does not procreate to a living being that does. It is unequivocally fallacious, and I would even go as far to say immoral, for you to do so. Especially after I have already explained why it is fallacious.
Sir, you are expressing what you believe, not fact. You are simply relying on your own personal interpretation - all your explanation means (the one regarding nanoparts and elements)
@jeckert8888 So we are machines and even more than machines. That does not do any good for your argument. We are of a higher technology than what we are able to make ourselves. Simple machines do not work apart from design. Better machines also do not work apart from design. Don't even try to talk about morals. Nothing I said was about any "belief" It is about the observation of designed interchangeable nanoparts. It is a fact they are by design.
You may call is what ever you like. But again, you are assuming who or what this designer is, and where these "nanoparts" come from.
You may say you believe what you are claiming - you mist definitely have that right. I would even fight for that right - but you do not have the right to claim anything more but belief, unless you have empirical evidence that demonstrates the validity of the entirety of your claim.
@jeckert8888 The nanoparts came from design because they work in designed nanomachines. It is logic. You have to prove that billions of digits of directives that command and succeed in building the formations of life forms are not by design. Every other thing built is by design. How is nanotechnology not by design? You are the one with the baseless claim. Snap out of your trance. Stop believing fantasy.
What you have been claiming (that nanoparts came from design because they work in designed nanomachines) is simply masquerading a portion of a fact with your dogma. Yes, some parts of the universe work together with other parts of the universe -but some do not combine well at all, or prove to be abhorrently harmful. Not to mention, the actual design of certain relationships do not convey an intelligent designer, but a rather non-nonsensical one:
@jeckert8888 You failed to follow the reasoning. We consist of interchangeable nanoparts that are by design because they work in nanomachines that work inside of us and the entire universe is made of those same interchangeable designed nanoparts of the nanomachines that work inside of us. The nanoparts are by design, the nanomachines are by design and the entire universe made of the same nanoparts is also by design. It is so simple and obvious.
Have you managed to construct tests on other planets or within objects from different galaxies to prove that every "interchangeable nanopart" has been designed - and the conducted a procedure which directly and explicitly demonstrates that this designer is in fact the one you conveniently believe?
Not all parts are interchangeable. To say so is absurd.
(*nonsensical) "And what comedian configured the region between our legs - an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?" - Neil deGrasse Tysson. And since we can prove mathematically that not only are the planet, stars and pretty much everything else in the outer space continuously moving further and further away from each other, but we also on a direct crash course with the galaxy Andromeda. So our future is destined to be insufferable isolation possibly before our entire cosmic
@jeckert8888 It is futile for you to be mocking or criticizing your own Creator. It is very clear there is evidence of your Creator. We are not going to crash anytime soon. You should be aware that there will be things headed our way that you do need to be concerned with. It is already happening with the earthquakes, flesh eating diseas and plagues etc.
Someone who believes that a guy fathered himself in order to send himself to earth in order to kill himself in order to appease himself for the very sins to which he himself convicted all of mankind (even though his prototypes were to blame) as retribution for having fallen for a trick through the agency of a talking snake does not get to call other people's beliefs/opinions/logic "fantasy" or "futile."
@jeckert8888 "Someone who believes that a guy fathered himself in order to send himself to earth in order to kill himself in order to appease himself for the very sins to which he himself convicted all of mankind as retribution for having fallen for a trick through the agency of a talking snake does not get to call other people's beliefs/opinions/logic "fantasy" or "futile."
Oh, thats not a nutty story..I don't think even Hollywood could make that story work..LOL
@Seekmosttoprophesy "It is very clear there is evidence of your Creator." Really? Please show us an example of some of these very clear pieces of evidence. Pre-LULZ.
@jeckert8888 I have pointed out that nanotechnology is by design with intent and success. You have pointed out nothing. Machine parts do not work without design. your belief in fantasy is the antithesis of sanity.
@jeckert8888 We are made of the same elements that the entire universe is made of. It is a scientific fact. It is hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and sulfur. Those are the elements that the entire universe consists of. The proteins that we are made of are made from the digital information that is copied from information in our cells.
@jeckert8888 Follow the logic. Designed elements that the entire universe is made of has to have beem made by an all knowing, all powerful (eternal) being outside of the time space continuum that has been stretched out. The truth is that simple and it is observable. There are no assumptions, jumping to conclusions or wild and careless assertions as there is with evolution.
@jeckert8888 The evidence of Creation is observable. It has nothing to do with faith even though you still have to believe it no matter how much evidence there is. It is evolution that relies totally on a baseless fantasy belief.
We have already been over this. The fact that we, or that this planet, or whichever, exists is evidence that you exists. You again, are assuming where all the material, which commenced our existence, came from.
You are filtering reality through one single piece of literature.
What you are claiming has everything to do with your aforementioned fallacious logic and reasoning. You have not observed God, you have observed what you *believe" is the effects of his creation. The fact that a universe, elements, or "nanoparts" exist is evidence that said things exist - you are making a gap of logic to "these things must have been created by the god I believe in" whilst, again, failing to conceptualize that there are a vast myriad of
@jeckert8888 Learning is one step at a time. You need to read the Gospel of John, BTW. We can know there is a God by the things that are made. We don't have to see Him to know He exists just like we don't have to see the wind to know there is wind. There is only One God that could stretch out the entire universe (it can't be many gods or nothing would work).
@jeckert8888 In order for something to be true, it has to be true from the very beginning. The only One there from the very beginning telling us about Christ being the "seed of the woman" (born of a woman) is God. The evidence of Creation is the evidence of intent and purpose. We know that no "force or law of nature" has intent or purpose and there would be no success at speeds nearing the speed of light.
@jeckert8888 Everything that we say and do is based on what we believe. Evolution is a belief. It is baseless but it is a belief. No matter how much evidence there is, you still have to believe the evidence. The evidence is that there is a Designer/Creator/God. Believe it.
You are saying a God exists because certain parts of the universe work with other parts of the universe, while other parts of the universe do not work with other parts, but because some or perhaps most do, therefore, an intelligent designer created all the parts:
"This present-day version of God of the gaps goes by a fresh name: intelligent design. The term suggests that some entity, endowed with a mental capacity far greater than the human mind can muster, created or enabled all the things in
the physical world that we cannot explain through scientific methods. An interesting hypothesis. But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence? And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built
around a sewage system? Stupid design could fuel a movement unto itself. It may not be nature's default, but it's ubiquitous. Yet people seem to enjoy thinking that our bodies, our minds, and even our universe represent pinnacles of form and reason. Maybe it's a good antidepressant to think so. But it's not science-not now, not in the past, not ever. ~Neil Tyson
I have provided evidence for evolution. You, again, are engaging in intentional ignorance.
By using the argument of a fine tuned universe (or whichever), all you can logically attempt to prove is that there is a fine-tuned universe (which, however, it is not: lightning striking, species extinction, the colliding of asteroids, birth defects, cancer, childhood cancer, diseases, developmental disorders, mental diseases, genetic deformities, black holes, etc, etc. You are only looking at the parts which seem compatible with others, not the one's which are not)
logic from "we exist, therefore God exists" (this doesn't prove God exists, you are only proving that we exist) to "parts within us, and other portions of existence, work with other portions of existence, therefore God exists (this does not prove God exists, it can't even attempt to - this proves that portions of existence can and do work compatibly with others.)
Both of these claims are arguments from ignorance as your self-acclaimed scientific claim is unsupported, and uncorroborated by
your accusation that I believe anything I hear is most decidedly bullshit.
If you actually believe that the Bible is the collection of the best books ever penned than you unequivocally need to read more. That is just pathetically depressing.
Oh, and by the way, I never mentioned that I am an atheist - bc I am not.
@jeckert8888 Are you anti-Christ? Do you believe that Yeshua (God) came in the flesh and was born of a woman just like God had told Adam and Eve? If not, it matters little what you do believe.
People do not have to belief that something existed in order to accept or attempt to radiate what that something symbolized.
Love (for lack of a better term), "do onto others as you would have them do onto you," help, shelter and comfort the poor or less fortunate, etc. are sentimentally positive methods which can in fact be discovered logically and rationally - even to people who have never heard of Jesus, btw. Buddhism is a prime example of this, and it formed 500 yrs before Christianity was
@jeckert8888 You have to speak the truth of Yeshua (God) coming in the flesh and being born of a woman. If you do not teach that, you are teaching the false teaching of Anti-Christ. The first mention of Christ was 6,000 years ago to Adam and Eve. True love speaks the truth just like my name says, Seek most to speak God's truth. The more truth a false teaching has, the more deceptive it is. You have to say Jesus (God) came in the flesh.
The point is you are masquerading your faith as "fact" whilst failing to conceptualize that it comes down to faith. True Love understands the importance and visceral radiation of tolerance. Apparently you believe that anyone on this planet who does believe what you believe is literally going to be horribly punished for doing so - even if one is utilizing the very rationality that is God given to reach such a conclusion.
I am saying that a omniscient and omni benevolent deity
@jeckert8888 The first mention of Christ being born of a woman was to Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago. Notice the consistency of the message of a Savior being the seed of the woman and crushing the dragon's head from the very beginning. No other teaching has that consistency because no other teaching is true.
@jeckert8888 You are the one who has been fed a line and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Evolution is a false cult teaching. It sends its followers out into the desert looking for bone fragments in the belief that it will somehow disprove all of the evidence there is of a Creator. That would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
You have not provided any evidence for God, or any evidence that a God is the only plausible possibility regarding this issue. Really> A Magic Man in the Sky is the only possible option as to what began everything. When gazing that the awesomely extravagant, and wonderfully complex machinery that is contained within life: a cell, a human being, a plant, a planet, a star, a galaxy it is just simply absurd that one suspiciously mythical being perpetuated everything and the very notion is actually
@jeckert8888 Nothing mythical perpetuated life. Something real perpetuated life. That is the observable evidence of a Creator that is all knowing, all powerful and outside of the time space continuum (eternal).
funny:DDDD
csete1 8 months ago
The wanton stupidity that comes from the mouths of creationists never ceases to amaze me. I saw a comment from a creatard that natural selection is an oxymoron, as “selection requires a selector”. He was so smug with his faux intellectual argument. Where do you even start with someone like that?
WildcardHatesYou 10 months ago
@WildcardHatesYou "Where do you even start with someone like that?"
you ask him why a god doesn't require a god-maker?
and then when he answers with a god of the gaps argument, ask him why the universe couldn't have always existed
lennyhipp 9 months ago
Aaah ... so Kermit the Frog is a creationist!
RipleyXander 10 months ago
@RipleyXander Bwahahahaha! Nice.
Azakhiel 9 months ago
@RipleyXander I KNEW IT!
100CommonCents 9 months ago
I just wrote a book to this guy in the comment section on a documentary about evolution. I didn't realize this guy was such a pathetic tool or I mightn't have bothered. This guy literally depresses me. He's a prime example of the extreme effects of religious indoctrination. We need to move past this, and the key is education.
Klazzt 1 year ago
@Klazzt: The stick figure?
EddieTheFishReturns 1 year ago
The bible thumper sounds like Kermit the Frog!
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
Hilarious video!!!
xoy71 1 year ago
You beat me to it! I also made vids titled "discussions with a creationist." I just published my 6th and last video on this topic. Check them out.
eproulx 1 year ago
I also have a series about "discussions with a creationist".
That's pretty funny!
eproulx 1 year ago
My web browser crashed when I tried opening this video the first time round. I can see why now :(
LostSubsForever 1 year ago
this is so badly done
shintosungod 1 year ago
sounds like Ray Romano.
DSAhmed 2 years ago
Holy shit I'm so glad someone made a video pwning this idiot. What are billions of digits and written directives? I've asked him to explain but he seems unable to.
jesuriah 2 years ago
Seekmosttoprophesy makes a claim that scientists have found the DNA signature of Aaron, Moses's brother. In fact, the study he was referring to didn't say that at all--HE DIDN'T EVEN READ WHAT THE STUDY SAID. The article stated that an ancient jewish priest caste, the kohanim may share common descent with modern jewish populations. I pointed out his error on his page and he deleted my comment. SEEKMOSTTOPROPHESY IS A PATHETIC, IGNORANT LIAR.
johnd94 2 years ago 3
Look up "Cohen Modal Haplotype".
They have made this identification from testing males with the tradition of being descendants of Aaron, Moses' brother.
The testing is ongoing.
What we are talking about is Moses' brother who was several generations from Abraham who was nine generations from Noah and his sons who were born before the flood and lived hundreds of years. Noah was still alive when Abraham was born.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ahh give me back my 3:27 ..what a waste of life
MOCHOMAN 2 years ago
When I see an uninteresting video, I click the CLOSE button at the top right of the screen.
Wow! What a concept, it saves me time!
rawwqq 2 years ago 6
hahaha. I love stupid people.
david3newman 2 years ago
Address the issues, if you can, in your own words. Objects do not know how to write the directives that make you what you are. You do not even know how to do that.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You are providing a non-sequitor. Evolution never claimed the "objects know how to write the directives that make you what you are."
I, simply, have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Define what you mean by "objects" and what you mean by "directives."
jeckert8888 2 years ago
"Objects" do in fact know how to write directives. But that has nothing to do with evolution...
I actually do know how to make a human being, in theory at least. I would just need the material and means to do so. The knowledge, I have. It is the material I lack.
david3newman 2 years ago
typo: never claimed that*
jeckert8888 2 years ago
What tripe! They choose the dumbest creationist who cannot answer about speciation? Why not conquer the best arguments? Why this pathetic little straw man? This is a wonderful testimony for the creationist movement. I hope instead you will come to rest in the truth of Jesus Christ. Secularists will ultimately lose the culture war of humanism. The wise will be on the side of truth. Jesus said, "Everyone who loves the truth comes to me." See you there!
shilohrenovation 2 years ago
Hail Xenu!
glassbrain 2 years ago 2
When Shilo came, Yeshua was having His bar mitzah! The Rabbis said that Shilo came and Messiah had not come but He was there in the Temple at that time!
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Thanks for the video, it was fairly well done except for the circular reasoning. The Bible is true because it has been proven to be true time and time again and since there is also evidence that the flood is true, it just makes the case for the historical records all that much more impressive. You do need to be more accurate in your representation but other than that, it was quite flattering.
Don't forget about those observable directives three billion digits long.
It was NOT an accident!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
LOL.
Um, the circular reasoning was all your contribution. In fact, that's the point of the video.
PHLSyndicate 3 years ago
Ha!...Wow that is exactly what talking to him is like, completely nonsense. I gave up trying to even talk to Seek, since he came up with the 'animals ran up mountains at different speeds' explanation of how layered fossils occured...which doesn't hold up to any criticism, which i described to him. He then layed out a few points that contradict his own view and said "So much for your layer theory. That never did work out very well anyway"
I never did figure out what his directives were.
myclamish 3 years ago
He has absolutely no idea even what science is. I can only guess that he read the word "nanotechnologies" somewhere and decided to make up his own definition of it. As for "spoken directives," your guess is as good as mine. I asked him several times to clarify what he meant by that, which he ignored over and over again. Why do these creationists insist that science is more than it really is: a collection of observations that attempt to explain a natural phenomena? The concept is simple.
PHLSyndicate 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Go ahead and laugh all you want. Objects still do not make the information needed for evolution to be possible. What we see in the fossil record is exactly what happened. Millions of species of animals were buried by the catastrophic flood recorded in the Bible. Do you really believe reptiles can fly as long as other birds??? As the "scientist" that you say you are, you shouldn't scoff at proven historical events.
I'm outnumbered by people supposedly brighter than me and you are still losing!
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Seek, face it. You are the only one suggesting that objects had anything to do with evolution. Science says this nowhere. You made that part up. Furthermore, the "flood" never happened. There is no global flood layer in any geological evidence. You have yet to "prove" a single biblical event that you proposed. You provide absolutely no evidence. That is unscientific. And you can't promote unscientific thought in science class.
I'm trying to help you.
PHLSyndicate 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good, if objects were not involved in evolution, it means that evolution did not happen because all life forms are made of objects.
History DID happen and you should be teaching real history.
Check out the "expanding earth conspiracy" video on my favorites and tell me what you think of it. It is very strong evidence of the flood and people don't even realize it. Water came from the sky and from the ground and the water scrunched up the continents and formed the mountains.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
That's a good representation of that tard.... good vid.
Mnementh2230 3 years ago
Thanks. I couldn't stand his irrational bullshit anymore. His arguments made no sense, had no evidence, etc.
PHLSyndicate 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Keep right on deluding yourselves. You won't even know what happened when for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction and without the covering of the blood of the provision that God provided for us Himself, you will have to pay for everything wrong that you ever did against people and against God. That means every lie, every speculation, every conjecture, every false assumption every misled child every deed done against Creationists, EVERYTHING!
I am trying to help you.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
Sir, you desperately, desperately, for the sanctity of the progression of your offspring, need to go to go to college.
I am not trying to be mean or angry or come off as that way, but you sir are simply ignorant.
There is no evidence for what you speak. There is for the counter contention.
Change is nature and nature is change - you need to fathom that.
And I am also trying to help you. But notice, I didn't fear-monger while doing so.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is frightening to consider the facts, I know. That does not make the facts any less real. Information 3 billion digits long does not fall together without a Designer and speaker of every one of those directives that we observe.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Two different courts with two different judges in the pass ruled your "explanation" is not a valid logical or scientific theory. Why? Because there is no logical reason to believe it is true. Why? Because there is no evidence.
Sir, look at the facts and draw conclusions from them, do not look at the "conclusions" and see what facts you can find to support it.
It is very frightening that an individual who presumably is 39 years old seems to not have any proper education and expects to be heard.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That was 49 a while back.
You are so naive to think that any Judge would be willing to stick his neck out for the common belief to execute his career and his position. That is not a basis for any argument of fact. The evidence is that there is nothing in this known universe that is able to make the 3 billion or so digits required for life forms to exist. It is evidence that the information and observable directives came from beyond. Face the facts.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I am facing the facts sir, I am not jumping to conclusions.
Simply because we do not know what is most likely going to be forever unknown - the energy that began all - does not DOES NOT equate or translate to that energy being an ominously omniscient creator who can understand and judge every single thought of every single human at the sametime. It is a gap of logic. What makes you think, if God exists, it is the one you believe in? Because one piece of literature...
jeckert8888 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Energy" does NOT account for 3 billion or more digits of information and directives that make up each and every unique life form. Oh, you like to change the subject. Observable facts show that God has to be all knowing, all powerful and eternal. That is the same thing that the Bible says. God also has to be forgiving. The Bible says that too. There also has to be a provision for our errors. The Bible accounts for that too. Only God Himself could ever save us from who we are. The Bible agrees.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Observable facts show that one cannot prove or disprove God, I however think your definition of God is outrageously absurd.
The Bible has no validity - you need to do research - one cannot obtain the "truth" from one piece of literature. What created God?
Sir, we cannot say to a certainty if God exists - it is impossible. However it is very, very unlikely that yours does not.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
typo: very *likely* that yours does not.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
Observable mathematics can takes us back to around an instant after the Big Bang. Some energy must have started it.
To go from that, to a "ominously omniscient, and all loving, all forgiving being and creator must have been the wielder of this energy" is a gap of logic - from science to fairytale/myth/fable/METAPHORICAL ALLEGORY.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
...that was written centuries ago and then later altered by men? And I am the one who is naive? ...You are a child.
Just because The Bible has bee proven to not be accurate, does not necessarily nmean there is not a God. I am agnostic, and you desperately need to understand that.
Evolution, seekmosttoprophesy, is our history - to merely deny that is a practice of the circumvention of logic, reason, knowledge, and understanding.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
You are the one circumventing logic, reason, knowledge and understanding because evolution uses none of those things.
The Creation is observable. The thousands of directives are observable. The fact that objects and static forces do not make information is also observable. The fact of the design of all the elements as interchangeable parts in nanotechnology is also observable. The fact that theres no known thing in the entire known universe that is able to make life forms is also observable.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Evolution uses logic, reason, knowledge and most of all understanding. If one comes to your conclusion, then one simply has absolutely no education on the subject.
This your opinion, And two courts seem to not agree. The majority, a massive massive majority, of the scientific community does not agree. You simply are filtering your information through one book.
Sir, our history is Evolution. We are still evolving. To say otherwise to both is to be willfully ignorant.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is still no evidence of any evolution yet you believe it as if it was the gospel truth. Everything reproducing after its kind is observable. Evolution is not observable.
The 3 billion digits of directives (commands that had to have been spoken) that made you, are observable.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
No evidence?
This computer is evidence of evolution - evolution of the mind, medicine, portions of pathophysiology, genetics, speciation, mutations, Neanderthal DNA, chromosomal fusion, retroviral DNA, etc etc. - the list goes on.
This scientific theory has already been proven. A couple years ago The National Academy of Sciences has named evolution in one of the top five most influential and valuable scientific disciplines.
Would you please elaborate of "3 billion spoken directives"?
jeckert8888 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's 3 billion DIGITS of thousands of observable spoken directives that make us what we are. That's a lot of digits of information that evolution, objects and static forces do not account for.
A computer is evidence of design. How can an intelligent person even suggest that a computer is a result of evolution? A computer is proof of design because it did not make itself and no object or static force made it either. The same goes with the rest of the examples. Theyre all evidence of design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Evolution never states that objects are responsible for Evolution, same with static.
Spoken directives? We evolved from single cell organisms, then to multi cell, to fish, then amphibians, then small mammals, then primates, then we shared a common ancestor with a primate
- proof of that: watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw - umm to say that spoken directives accounted for this makes no sense. It's would be like explaining a sunset to a fetus, it would have no clue. In what language? Examples of digits?
jeckert8888 2 years ago 2
Evolution means that objects and static forces (of objects) are responsible for the billions of digits of directives that make us what we are. That is why evolution is nothing more than reckless speculation and fantasy.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation cont
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 Wrong, evolution is the result of a mutation that is corrected on several levels and mutations cannot and do not account for all of the variation there is so there is no evolution happening. Evolution suggests that reptiles turn into mammals but that has never been proven. Evolution suggests that everything came from one life form but the truth is that everything just appeared as if from nowhere.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy
Umm mutations do not solely account for evolution - adaptations to environment, certain processes that introduce variations in traits and processes that make particular variants more common or rare are, in an abysmally concise manner, the prevailing "forces" or what not behind it.
"Evolution suggest that reptiles turn into mammals but that has never been proven."
Well they didn't "turn into" they slowly evolved into over very long, very drawn out periods of time.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888
*are the prevailing forces
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 You can't use a preexisting design as evidence of evolution because the design is already there. The variation is by design. That is speculation. There is no evidence that a reptile turned into a mammal.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy
Not been proven? Have you even read up on this particular aspect? The transition from reptile to mammal has a straightforward record. The examples I am about to use are just an appetizer, there are many more - but specifically, they map out the transition of one type of jaw into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones int he lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 That is a flat out assumption with not evidence at all. That is not evidence. Because both have jaw bones proves nothing.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
SOrry for using my other screen-name. Anyway, let's continue:
Obviously you did not carefully read what I wrote - the mere that that reptiles and mammals both have jaw bones is obviously not what I was portraying - I clearly gave a minuscule fraction of the evidence which does exist in showing the transition from reptile to mammal. The evidence I cited, which I first described, show "transitional jaw-ear **arrangements**"
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 Similar function does not prove common descent.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
@Seekmosttoprophesy
Do more research regarding transitional fossils.
The other factor you are needing are met.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 I can't research imaginary things because they don't exist.
Snap out of your trance.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You haven't provided any logical reasoning to even suggest that evolution in imaginary. However, many people have pointed out the overbearing flaws and misconceptions within your argument - you have no credibility, sir.
So you claim that, in regards to evolution, objects relate to billions of digits of directives that form everything within life - and yet these objects and directives in which you refer to, not evolution, are actually imaginary. cont.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 Objects have nothing to do with ordering the billions of observable digits of directives that make life forms what they are.
Objects can do nothing!
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
The scientific theory of evolution does not mention objects or directives, you are. This is your terminology, so provide examples to put it in context.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 You have to credit something for the existence of billions of observable digits of directives and the only thing there is to credit are things, objects.
I have to go do something useful.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
You have said one correct thing thus far, you are not doing anything useful here. Misrepresentation of any subject should actually be, by your terminology, a "sin."
You have not provided any examples of objects and directives in your perceived evolutionary context - in fact you said they were imaginary.
Just because no one is aware of what exactly commenced everything into existence does not give credit to your baseless accusations.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 Why can't you respond and say what ordered the billions of digits of directives? The reason is because your answer would be unscientific. It would be speculation, conjecture, imagination and fantasy. The evidence of Creation is there for you to see.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
There is no evidence for creation, you haven't even cited any evidence for a Creator so the term "creation" is a blatant logical fallacy of begging the question.
Differential reproductive success in species, through adaptation, results in change - this is demonstrable, you simply seem to avoid the acceptance of it.
I have asked you to provide a context FOR YOUR TERMINOLOGY. As this terminology is not present within any attempted undertaking in evolutionary theory, the responsibility of
jeckert8888 2 years ago
defining what you are talking about is on you.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
Proper example of objects and directives:
Let's say you live in a house that recently got infected with insects. So, you naturally hire an exterminator. The exterminator is new, and only thought to use one extermination solution (object). You keep on using this same exact extermination solution for several decades.You then notice you have yet another insect problem and it's worse. The reason for why this actually does occur is because the insect population being exterminated actually has
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 Pesticides do not make any life forms. The directives make the life forms.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
like a 1% chance of surviving the extermination. This one person, after the course of being exposed to one extermination solution for several decades (perhaps a little more) will begin to adapt to it's environment (directive) and will become immune to this one solution - this is why exterminators use a mixture/ cocktail.
This actually does occur and is a domestic example of evolution, or an aspect there of.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 The environment is the objects, not the directives. Objects do not make life forms.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
The objects, i guess now you mean environment, unquestionable **influence** the lifeforms - my example is a proof of that.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
***This one insect**, after being exposed*
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 The moral of the story is not to use pesticides because you might turn into an insect.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Wow, no.
There was a typo which I clearly corrected. The one percent of insects, when using only one extermination solution, that survive the extermination will and do adapt to the effect of this extermination solution and then eventually become immune to it - this is why exterminators use a mixture of several different kinds.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
Things you desperately need to know in regards to my previous example, and with evolution in general:
Evolution is not inevitable. Some animal species, called "living fossils," have survived for millions of years with very little change (example: the Coelacanth). Evolution has no directional process. It does not proceed from simple to complex organisms. It is only change, and adaptation - not "improvement" (example parasitic flatworms developed from their mobile, more complex ancestors). cont.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 You are making up stories now. You have not been around for millions of years. A fossil is what died at the time of the flood.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I am not, and have not, made up any stories - everything I have said has been proven sir.
Again you are providing the overbearing religious connotation and the ludicrously illogical assumption that "a flood over the course of billions of years some how equates to the biblical flood" , not the fossils. You have not provided any reasoning to connect the two besides (pretty much)"well, these fossils must have been caused by a flood so therefore it was the biblical flood that caused them."
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 Nothing about evolution has been proven, it has all been proven to be false. Everything that evolutionists have ever said has been shot down because it is all speculation with no basis other than "we don't think that God did it". That is not a basis and imagination is not fact. There is no other cause of Creation than God. All of the evidence says God did it because there is no other power than God. Denying it does not prove anything. Where is your god that you credit???
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
Back up your claim with legitimate citations regarding the claims: "nothing about evolution has *ever* been proven, it has *all* been proven to be false," Everything evolutionists *have ever said* (this means everything they have ever said) has been shot down bc it is all speculation with no basis other thn "we don't think God did it" or simply shut the fuck up.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 Objects don't do anything. You have made objects your god that you credit.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I never said that I worship objects.
I pointed the demonstrable observation that the environment can contribute to an adaptation within a species that leads to some form of a change - I never stated that an object is what started this cycle. And furthermore the scientific theory of evolution never even attempts to enter into the argument of what started this whole cycle.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 You do give credit to objects for our existence and you take credit away from the Creator who is responsible for everything that we see.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
I am merely conveying that which is demonstrably observable, you are claiming that which is not demonstrably observable exists.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 There is no evolution to demonstrate. The variation of species is not evolution. That variation is by intent so that it responds favorably to the environment. Mutations are not able to provide any significant advantage so mutations are corrected on several levels.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
The actual observation of our skeletal structure directly compared, side by side, with that of our actual ancestors demonstrates, explicitly, one aspect of the evolution of mankind. It's too bad that you filter your informational intake of reality through one piece of literature written 2,000 years ago that was past down for at least several generations by means of oral tradition (ever play telephone?), and from one piece of literature that has been severely edited - 40 books were removed. Now,
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 You are not even looking at the evidence. Your only evidence is that you think that we look the same as other creatures. It's too bad that you are unable to address or face the issues. The more copies that were made, the harder it became to change what was said. The evidence of the elements as nanoparts means the Designer of the nanoparts is the Maker of the entire universe.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
Yeah, out of the several months, or whatever length of time, that we have conversed I have only stated that "we look the same as other creatures" - either you do not read my comments, or you filter reality, or you forgot what I have mentioned in the past.
You have no evidence that anything was "said".
You are assuming that this designer is a who, it could be a what. Not to mention you are attributing a humanistic characteristic: intelligent (for lack of a better term) consciousness while
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 The Designer has to be a who because He needs to have wisdom, understanding not to mention all knowledge and all power. You may think you look like a rhinoceros or whatever creature but I wouldn't say that. We were made to be different. I do have reason to believe things were said. It is written and what was written became true or was proven to be true some other way.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
that's is roughly 40% of the initial amount of information. If there was a piece of literature written titled The Reign of Caesar which claimed to be a historically accurate depiction of the entirety of Julius Caesar's reign but was missing 40% of it's information then this particular book would not be considered a credible source on the subject. The Same Logic applies.
If you weren't clearly delusional perhaps you could bask in the glow of the beauty that actually radiates from this planet,
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 You believe anything you hear. The Bible is a collection of the best books there ever was. Any beauty there is, it is a credit to our Creator.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
simultaneously basing this assumption off of the aforementioned false dichotomy/ logical fallacy.
I do not believe anything I hear. I do not believe that a flying Spaghetti Monster in Almighty Noodlyness exists, I do not believe unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, Allah, Xenu, or Lucifer exist. I do not believe that an allegedly omniscient and omni-benevolent being would cast the majority of his own creation into a pulverizing and barbarically carnivorous realm of torture for either: not believing
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 Some things do exist and they have names, descriptions and definitions. Unicorns could have been rhinos. You can't group the Bible with every other book because it is the bestseller of all time. It is not God that makes people go to hell. God is always willing to save us. You also cannot blame God for what we do. Salvation is through sanctification by the Spirit and believing the truth. All we have to do is to tell the truth.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
Rhinos are rhinos, unicorns are not rhinos. Stop confusing words. It does not matter if it is the bestselling book of all time, what we are talking about here is evidence, rational logical, and proofs for something which actually exists: no book or ideology is immune to such scrutiny.
I was not saying that, according to your faith, God makes people go to hell. What I was saying is that the specific reasons, which I mentioned, he allegedly considers worthy of such a "punishment" are
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 You seem not to understand that Rhinos were not called rhinos thousands of years ago. They were called unicorns. They were used in battle because of their great strength. I suppose it also does not matter to you that the first mention of Christ was to Adam and Eve. The significance of the Bible transcends time and it will continue to be significant. It will never become obsolete. It contains the actual historical records from before the flood.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
Yes, but I am saying that the typical definition of a unicorn (a mythically magical *horse-like* creature, (a horse is not like a rhino) with a single horn stretching upward from it's forehead) bears no merit in reality as evidence for such a creature, to my understanding, does not exist.
Provide a citation where Jesus is mentioned to Adam and Eve.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 The fact is that they were describing a creature that did actually exist. You could say the same thing about the Chinese dragon but you don't know for sure if the dragon also did not exit. The Bible describes a Spinosaurus like creature and a sauropod, two different living creatures that are not living today. When Adam and Eve sinned, word of the provision for sin was given saying that a Savior (God) would be born of a woman.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
typo: is evidence that you/ this planet/whichever exists
jeckert8888 1 year ago
are not in keeping with the terms omni-benevolent or omniscient.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 God has to be perfect. He has to be just. He cannot allow any sin or imperfection left unpunished so He picked up the full tab Himself since we have all failed to redeem ourselves. He is still offering to give us eternal life. All we have to do is to be honest and to tell the truth. Only a devil would not do so. Only devils need to go to hell. There is no reason for anyone to be condemned.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
would not act in such a petty, and immaturely vain manner. I simply accept that such a deity would need to be more than that.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
that he actually exists, or for simply living in a fraction of the world that has never heard of him. I do not believe that this same being would find it logical to include a ceremonial ritual in the last supper that included forms of vampirinism and cannibalism (whether it be metaphorical or otherwise). Nor do I believe that a deity of the same self-acclaimed stature in morality would have created the beyond laughable Levitical Laws.
There are many, many things that I do not believe so
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 We can't lose touch with reality. That is the reason for the bread and the wine. We kill the truth every time we lie. What we do has serious consequences. God had to take the hit Himself in this world for the things that we have done. We have to remember what we have done to Creation and to our Creator. God could nave nothing to do with us without taking the hit for us. It is because He took the hit that we can live.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
I have not. You are continuously proving that you in fact are.
I have not spoken one lie in this conversation.
How does sacrificing himself towards himself a sacrifice? How did that "sacrifice" make us live? We were living, we are continuing to live. We would have lived regardless.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 No matter how you look at it, our sin is on and against God in this world. You assume, again, that there is no God for our sins to be on. We can't get around that fact. Whatever we do wrong is against our Creator. He took our sins on Himself in this world so that we would have to pay the penalty ourselves. It wouldn't be good enough even if we could pay for our own sins anyway but that is a theological point because we could never pay the full price.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
No I do not assume that there is no God. I just mentioned in this conversation that I am not an atheist. Again, I simply accept that there is no valid, rational or logical reasoning to jump to the conclusion that some magical deity created the universe. I simply do not know, and neither do you. You are not claiming "fact" with your religious zealotry, you are claiming what you believe - there is a massive difference. This is why it called faith. If what you claim is actually factual,
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 I do know that there is a Creator/God because I know that no machine works apart from design and the designed nanoparts that are utilized in the nanomachines are the very elements that the entire universe is made of which means the Creator of the elements is greater than the entire universe. I just proved the existence of God in a few words and it has nothing to do with religion as you assume. Evolution is the baseless cult belief.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
Again, like I already mentioned you are comparing a non-sentient machine that does not procreate to a living being that does. It is unequivocally fallacious, and I would even go as far to say immoral, for you to do so. Especially after I have already explained why it is fallacious.
Sir, you are expressing what you believe, not fact. You are simply relying on your own personal interpretation - all your explanation means (the one regarding nanoparts and elements)
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 So we are machines and even more than machines. That does not do any good for your argument. We are of a higher technology than what we are able to make ourselves. Simple machines do not work apart from design. Better machines also do not work apart from design. Don't even try to talk about morals. Nothing I said was about any "belief" It is about the observation of designed interchangeable nanoparts. It is a fact they are by design.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
You may call is what ever you like. But again, you are assuming who or what this designer is, and where these "nanoparts" come from.
You may say you believe what you are claiming - you mist definitely have that right. I would even fight for that right - but you do not have the right to claim anything more but belief, unless you have empirical evidence that demonstrates the validity of the entirety of your claim.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 The nanoparts came from design because they work in designed nanomachines. It is logic. You have to prove that billions of digits of directives that command and succeed in building the formations of life forms are not by design. Every other thing built is by design. How is nanotechnology not by design? You are the one with the baseless claim. Snap out of your trance. Stop believing fantasy.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
What you have been claiming (that nanoparts came from design because they work in designed nanomachines) is simply masquerading a portion of a fact with your dogma. Yes, some parts of the universe work together with other parts of the universe -but some do not combine well at all, or prove to be abhorrently harmful. Not to mention, the actual design of certain relationships do not convey an intelligent designer, but a rather non-nonsensical one:
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 You failed to follow the reasoning. We consist of interchangeable nanoparts that are by design because they work in nanomachines that work inside of us and the entire universe is made of those same interchangeable designed nanoparts of the nanomachines that work inside of us. The nanoparts are by design, the nanomachines are by design and the entire universe made of the same nanoparts is also by design. It is so simple and obvious.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
Have you managed to construct tests on other planets or within objects from different galaxies to prove that every "interchangeable nanopart" has been designed - and the conducted a procedure which directly and explicitly demonstrates that this designer is in fact the one you conveniently believe?
Not all parts are interchangeable. To say so is absurd.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
(*nonsensical) "And what comedian configured the region between our legs - an entertainment complex built around a sewage system?" - Neil deGrasse Tysson. And since we can prove mathematically that not only are the planet, stars and pretty much everything else in the outer space continuously moving further and further away from each other, but we also on a direct crash course with the galaxy Andromeda. So our future is destined to be insufferable isolation possibly before our entire cosmic
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 It is futile for you to be mocking or criticizing your own Creator. It is very clear there is evidence of your Creator. We are not going to crash anytime soon. You should be aware that there will be things headed our way that you do need to be concerned with. It is already happening with the earthquakes, flesh eating diseas and plagues etc.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
Someone who believes that a guy fathered himself in order to send himself to earth in order to kill himself in order to appease himself for the very sins to which he himself convicted all of mankind (even though his prototypes were to blame) as retribution for having fallen for a trick through the agency of a talking snake does not get to call other people's beliefs/opinions/logic "fantasy" or "futile."
jeckert8888 1 year ago 29
@jeckert8888 "Someone who believes that a guy fathered himself in order to send himself to earth in order to kill himself in order to appease himself for the very sins to which he himself convicted all of mankind as retribution for having fallen for a trick through the agency of a talking snake does not get to call other people's beliefs/opinions/logic "fantasy" or "futile."
Oh, thats not a nutty story..I don't think even Hollywood could make that story work..LOL
orangemod 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 Hey, a good summary of the story. :P
Azakhiel 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seekmosttoprophesy "It is very clear there is evidence of your Creator." Really? Please show us an example of some of these very clear pieces of evidence. Pre-LULZ.
trueleroix 1 year ago
habitat is annihilated? Some design.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
I, as well as many others, have pointed out the specific and explicit flaws within your "reasoning" regarding your claim(s).
Intentional ignorance is the anti-thesis of morals, sir.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 I have pointed out that nanotechnology is by design with intent and success. You have pointed out nothing. Machine parts do not work without design. your belief in fantasy is the antithesis of sanity.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
is that we are all, relatively, made of the same material. Nothing more.
You are assuming where that material came from.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 We are made of the same elements that the entire universe is made of. It is a scientific fact. It is hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and sulfur. Those are the elements that the entire universe consists of. The proteins that we are made of are made from the digital information that is copied from information in our cells.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
I never argued against that fact.
I am arguing against you fallaciously making a leap towards the assumption of who, what, or where these "nanoparts" or elements came from.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 Follow the logic. Designed elements that the entire universe is made of has to have beem made by an all knowing, all powerful (eternal) being outside of the time space continuum that has been stretched out. The truth is that simple and it is observable. There are no assumptions, jumping to conclusions or wild and careless assertions as there is with evolution.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
faith would not be involved.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 The evidence of Creation is observable. It has nothing to do with faith even though you still have to believe it no matter how much evidence there is. It is evolution that relies totally on a baseless fantasy belief.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
We have already been over this. The fact that we, or that this planet, or whichever, exists is evidence that you exists. You again, are assuming where all the material, which commenced our existence, came from.
You are filtering reality through one single piece of literature.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 You need to study some more science. It has nothing to do with literature. It has to do with observable science.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
We all need to study more science.
What you are claiming has everything to do with your aforementioned fallacious logic and reasoning. You have not observed God, you have observed what you *believe" is the effects of his creation. The fact that a universe, elements, or "nanoparts" exist is evidence that said things exist - you are making a gap of logic to "these things must have been created by the god I believe in" whilst, again, failing to conceptualize that there are a vast myriad of
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 Learning is one step at a time. You need to read the Gospel of John, BTW. We can know there is a God by the things that are made. We don't have to see Him to know He exists just like we don't have to see the wind to know there is wind. There is only One God that could stretch out the entire universe (it can't be many gods or nothing would work).
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
possible solutions/answers (whether it be divine from other religions, or simply an unknown or unconscious force' law of nature)
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 In order for something to be true, it has to be true from the very beginning. The only One there from the very beginning telling us about Christ being the "seed of the woman" (born of a woman) is God. The evidence of Creation is the evidence of intent and purpose. We know that no "force or law of nature" has intent or purpose and there would be no success at speeds nearing the speed of light.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 Everything that we say and do is based on what we believe. Evolution is a belief. It is baseless but it is a belief. No matter how much evidence there is, you still have to believe the evidence. The evidence is that there is a Designer/Creator/God. Believe it.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
You are saying a God exists because certain parts of the universe work with other parts of the universe, while other parts of the universe do not work with other parts, but because some or perhaps most do, therefore, an intelligent designer created all the parts:
"This present-day version of God of the gaps goes by a fresh name: intelligent design. The term suggests that some entity, endowed with a mental capacity far greater than the human mind can muster, created or enabled all the things in
jeckert8888 1 year ago
the physical world that we cannot explain through scientific methods. An interesting hypothesis. But why confine ourselves to things too wondrous or intricate for us to understand, whose existence and attributes we then credit to a superintelligence? Instead, why not tally all those things whose design is so clunky, goofy, impractical, or unworkable that they reflect the absence of intelligence? And what comedian designer configured the region between our legs-an entertainment complex built
jeckert8888 1 year ago
around a sewage system? Stupid design could fuel a movement unto itself. It may not be nature's default, but it's ubiquitous. Yet people seem to enjoy thinking that our bodies, our minds, and even our universe represent pinnacles of form and reason. Maybe it's a good antidepressant to think so. But it's not science-not now, not in the past, not ever. ~Neil Tyson
I have provided evidence for evolution. You, again, are engaging in intentional ignorance.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
By using the argument of a fine tuned universe (or whichever), all you can logically attempt to prove is that there is a fine-tuned universe (which, however, it is not: lightning striking, species extinction, the colliding of asteroids, birth defects, cancer, childhood cancer, diseases, developmental disorders, mental diseases, genetic deformities, black holes, etc, etc. You are only looking at the parts which seem compatible with others, not the one's which are not)
You are making the gap of
jeckert8888 1 year ago
logic from "we exist, therefore God exists" (this doesn't prove God exists, you are only proving that we exist) to "parts within us, and other portions of existence, work with other portions of existence, therefore God exists (this does not prove God exists, it can't even attempt to - this proves that portions of existence can and do work compatibly with others.)
Both of these claims are arguments from ignorance as your self-acclaimed scientific claim is unsupported, and uncorroborated by
jeckert8888 1 year ago
I thought I clicked "post" after I was finished with my continuing reply. Apparently I did not, my mistake)
the field of science itself.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
your accusation that I believe anything I hear is most decidedly bullshit.
If you actually believe that the Bible is the collection of the best books ever penned than you unequivocally need to read more. That is just pathetically depressing.
Oh, and by the way, I never mentioned that I am an atheist - bc I am not.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 Are you anti-Christ? Do you believe that Yeshua (God) came in the flesh and was born of a woman just like God had told Adam and Eve? If not, it matters little what you do believe.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
Excuse me? I never mentioned anything directly negative towards Jesus Christ.
You have to prove that actually took place, otherwise it hold just as much validity as Scientology.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
People do not have to belief that something existed in order to accept or attempt to radiate what that something symbolized.
Love (for lack of a better term), "do onto others as you would have them do onto you," help, shelter and comfort the poor or less fortunate, etc. are sentimentally positive methods which can in fact be discovered logically and rationally - even to people who have never heard of Jesus, btw. Buddhism is a prime example of this, and it formed 500 yrs before Christianity was
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 You have to speak the truth of Yeshua (God) coming in the flesh and being born of a woman. If you do not teach that, you are teaching the false teaching of Anti-Christ. The first mention of Christ was 6,000 years ago to Adam and Eve. True love speaks the truth just like my name says, Seek most to speak God's truth. The more truth a false teaching has, the more deceptive it is. You have to say Jesus (God) came in the flesh.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
The point is you are masquerading your faith as "fact" whilst failing to conceptualize that it comes down to faith. True Love understands the importance and visceral radiation of tolerance. Apparently you believe that anyone on this planet who does believe what you believe is literally going to be horribly punished for doing so - even if one is utilizing the very rationality that is God given to reach such a conclusion.
I am saying that a omniscient and omni benevolent deity
jeckert8888 1 year ago
ever conceived.
jeckert8888 1 year ago
@jeckert8888 The first mention of Christ being born of a woman was to Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago. Notice the consistency of the message of a Savior being the seed of the woman and crushing the dragon's head from the very beginning. No other teaching has that consistency because no other teaching is true.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
typo: Who does *not* believe hat you believe
jeckert8888 1 year ago
instead of insulting it by your indoctrination that you can't even provide legitimate evidence for.
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 You are the one who has been fed a line and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Evolution is a false cult teaching. It sends its followers out into the desert looking for bone fragments in the belief that it will somehow disprove all of the evidence there is of a Creator. That would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
Seekmosttoprophesy 1 year ago
You have not provided any evidence for God, or any evidence that a God is the only plausible possibility regarding this issue. Really> A Magic Man in the Sky is the only possible option as to what began everything. When gazing that the awesomely extravagant, and wonderfully complex machinery that is contained within life: a cell, a human being, a plant, a planet, a star, a galaxy it is just simply absurd that one suspiciously mythical being perpetuated everything and the very notion is actually
jeckert8888 2 years ago
@jeckert8888 Nothing mythical perpetuated life. Something real perpetuated life. That is the observable evidence of a Creator that is all knowing, all powerful and outside of the time space continuum (eternal).
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago