Funny he mentions that "I know God exists" line. At this 12 Step meeting there is always some loser who says, "There are no coincidences, GOD, or my HP, planned everything, like meeting you here" So I say, "So my HP met with your HP & planned out this totally trivial meeting: which in fact is really based on simple probabilities; since you always go to this meeting, there is a good chance I'd run into you here to accomplish/experience NOTHING!"
Compartmentalizing. Indeed, I don't know how they honestly do it.
It's like theist scientists are able to stuff their faith into a box, do some science or maths, come to a scientific conclusion, and then re-open the faith box; and say "Goddunit."
Like Isaac Newton for example... He was able to calculate the motion of the heavens to a relatively accurate degree, and also invented calculus.
These motions contradict the Bible, yet he said "Mathematics was the language of God". WhhaaAAAT?!?!
There is PLEANTY of evidence for the bigbang, you`re just not looking or don`t want to, scared of what you might really understand about the universe, or when presented with evidence you just turn your head and say No i`m not listening, anyway i dont even know which one of the many gods is the one you believe in that is supposed to of created everything.
You all can`t agree WHICH god is THE god, at least scientists AGREE with facts.
There is no such thing as "faith in evolution". Faith in something or someone means believing in it WITHOUT evidence and there is enormous amount of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. In fact over the 150 years since Darwin first introduced this Theory there hasn't been one shred of evidence to come close debunk it.
You should first study Evolution in great detail before you try to debunk it. Remember the saying, "Know your enemy."
Well, of course you didn't. Even though you showed that you knew/know nothing of evolution throughout the video and AronRa had to correct you repeatedly.
If evolution is true, what is the point of it? Why does there need to point a point of life? Is there a point to the life and death of the gazelle? What was the point of the birth of the profoundly deformed child that died minutes after its' birth?
Aron is a lovely guy, I fear for his eternal destiny but you would not understand that.
If you saw a lovely new lexus car, and I told you, that car took billions of yrs to evolve, you would say "dont be silly, it was designed with purpose in mind by people in a factory"
Lol...because a car is a piece of metal that cannot breed with another car and share it's genetic material. Said genetic material which can replicate incorrectly, causing mutations in the breed which can then be passed on.
This would be why we are different...said difference already explained to you by AronRa.
All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 chromosomes. Humans have only 23 chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromereThe evidence for this includes:
So, as AronRa says, though you admit you have NO scientific training to refute anything they might have to say...though you hold NO degree in biology or cosmology or genetics, you feel yourself qualified to reject what they have to say out of hand, right?
Lol...AronRa is a nice guy, he avoids using words that he really should use when dealing with people such as you. That would be RETARD. Anyone who can actually look up what I posted and read can see what REAL science has to say.
As AronRa said, it is YOU that believes your god man wished by the power of his word all of "creation" into being. Before his magic incantation there was nothing, right, then god speaks his magic "word" or incantation and poof there is everything.
Meanwhile, as AronRa explained to some degree, there was nothing before the singularity. It's like asking what is south of the south pole.
everything is vibrations. Everything appear real to you because we live in different time sensations. If we slowed down time everything will seem vanish.
On the "millions of missing links" crap. Once again it is clear that you have no understanding of science or simply have chosen not to look at Arons' very simply explanations of this in his videos where he clearly explains that not EVERY thing that dies becomes a fossil. We have a scant fossil record due to the scant appearence of fossils in general. But the fossils of human ancestors we do have show the clear transition of one being to another through bone/pelvis structures.
Before moving on, AronRa chastised me on calling you a retard. So, my apologies.
First, all species are transitional species as all species are being continually acted upon by their enviroment and other species and are all continuing to evolve. That is evolution. But, of course, you have already had this explained to you by AronRa. As far as transitional fossils, you have already been shown these as well. Once again, although you are not an archaelogist, you reject these.
Secondly, I would like you to explain to me your take on the following:
If the biblical account is correct, then all species on this planet were created AS THEY ARE, without variation, as you reject evolution. Please explain to me the appearence of the Boxer in the 19th century. Remember, if you accept the biblical account of creation then ALL species were created at the same time by god WITHOUT variation. How then did the Boxer come to be in the 19th century?
I chose the Boxer as I note you have them on your channel.
Third, please explain the appearence of the nylon eating bacteria.
Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became collectively known as nylonase. Nylon, of course, being a substance not created until 1935.
Fourth, once again if you accept the biblical account of creation, please explain why we find gradiations in the fossil record? That is, if the biblical account is true, then we should find humans in the current form alongside T-Rex skeletons alongside poodle skeletons alongside modern horse skeletons and so on. Yet, we don't find this. Instead, what you find as you dig deeper in the geologic record is what evolution predicts...lesser and lesser evolved creatures the further you go back. Why?
If, however, everything that is here on earth were created as it is now on the day of creation, you would find modern human skeletons at the same geologic level as trilobites as dinosaur as poodle and so on. You would find this and nothing before it. Instead, you find more evolved species at the highest levels and as you dig down less and less evolved or MORE SIMPLE, if you prefer, at the deeper levels.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If there was a world wide flood, itwouls have destroyed alot of the evidence, as the fountains of the deep broke thru the earth's crust, thats where we get the fault lines from.
All the material would have been displaced, this is why we find fish fossils on top f mountains.
There are no human bones/skeletons with dinosaur skeletons datable to the same time or even found in the same geologic layer.
Strangely, T-Rex and all other creatures on this planet have red blood cells. This means what in answer to any of my questions?
Dinosaurs are as complete as animals today yet as you go back in the geologic record you find less evolved dinosaurs as you go further back. Same with humans, dog/wolves and so on.
nope sorry, no human bones found with dinosaurs (citation please if you want to make bold faced lies)
The ICA (not inca) stones were forged by a farmer who admitted and showed how he did it, not to mention they were painted with MODERN acrylic paints.
No the T-rex DIDNT have red blood cells it had fossilized minerals within the bones that made a cast of the veins...which they had to rehydrate because it fossilized.
Your an idiot...learn science please, instead of that Ph.D in fail.
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the bonobo, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. ]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle. Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.
This as well as those pesky fossils that show the transition of bone/pelvis structures from one to the next shows us the evolution of the species.
@QQOQQ "evolved from monkeys" Evolution does not work this way. Please learn what Evolution is and what we mean when we refer to COMMON ANCESTORS. And Humans are Primates to begin with. You are just showing what a Fraud you are being right here since you are going about things that are just false to start with. Seriously wrong and just shows ignorance of a topic you are talking about.
@mtszabo Interesting... does put new light on the topic. However I think the word you meant was "misinformed" ;). Still if that's the case "evolved from monkeys" would still be horrifically wrong, you don't evolve from something if you are still that thing... so I can still point at that statement with some disdain, then again I accept I was wrong myself on the subject.
@mtszabo ah, that is more understood now, still. QQQQQ's statements will stand as such, because QQQQQ currently will not accept that QQQQQ can be wrong and is refusing to learn from his/her mistakes on the matter. In other words, QQQQQ just won't accept being called an idiot because he/she won't see how far in the wrong/misinformed they are as that would mess up their beliefs, possibly the belief that the bible is literally true, which we all know is demonstratively false.
Athieism, wot a waste of time, to be an atheist means that you believe that there i no God, so why do they go over the top on the subject if their is no God?
I enjoy Matt Dillahunty's erudition, common sense and breadth of knowledge, but in some vids he's also pretty funny. "I had the best dinner ever." "What was it?" "I don't remember."
Does Ken still think CREATION starts with an "e" in the Bible?
:-O
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" (Col 1:16)
I like Ken Miller too, brilliant brilliant man. And I respect him especially since I was Catholic myself too (until of course I... well, grew out of it, lol)
Matt is such an intellegent individual, yet he needs to open his mind. Science and theology aren't always at odds. Take a second look at the bible, how it is meant to be read. Science and biblical text coincide perfectly.
Once again an atheist proves his biblical ignornace.
1.) Speaking from a philosophical point of view, IF god existed wouldn't you imagine he to be able to walk on water. It may not prove his existence or divinity, but if a God existed he would be limited by the laws of nature?
2.) The bible never says bats are birds. Also, if you read it in it's correct original language, it never say all insects have four legs. There are an abundance of occasions within the english bible inaccuarte
If the version of the bible that most everyone reads and accepts as if it is the incontrovertible word of god is so inaccurate, then it cannot be trusted. One would not be able to determine what is fact from what is fiction so one must throw the entire book out. Further, if all one has to do to get, as you say, the correct meaning of the bible, is to read the hebrew words individually and reconstruct them into its true meaning, why hasn't this been done and why is every version mistranslated?
How can it not be trusted just because it has been mistraslated to a certain extent? I do not understand the reasoning behind that. We still know exactly what was written in the original scripture. All the versions base themsleves on one another. Yet there is also another, more complicated reasoning with the actual words. Many hebrew words, unlike english have mutiple, yet different defenitions. The only way we can know how the bible uses it is to look at other passages where it has been used.
"How can it not be trusted just because it has been mistranslated to a certain extent? " If readers of the current bible that is used today are reading the book and it has all of these supposed errors and the reader isn't aware of this then the integrity of the document is compromised. So, as I asked before, if this is the case, why has it not been fixed.
No, that is flawed, unsupported reasoning. The readers of a document, have nothing to do with the validity of the document itself. The bibles "integrity" is not dependent on who reads it. You are assuming a majority consesus of a document determines its validity. About fixing it, the translations are deemed "mostly" or "vastly" correct. Which they are. Among a book of 775,000 words, maybe less than a thousand could be changed to a better translation. Also, like I said one hebrew word can have
Yes, we do. Despite what you may think, the torah in hebrew today is virtually identical the first ones ever written. It is a misconception that that the scripture has changed. The only thing that has changed is when it was translated into what we know read as the english OT.
But... take for instance the dead sea scrolls found in 1947(or so.) Written thousands of years ago, some of the very first scriptures, and they matched almost identically to what we have today. It shows there is phenomally little change in the text over the years.
Then explain, how without divinely influenced writing, could for instance Moses (the writer of Genes) "guess" the exact order of our earth surmise, from both a gelogical standpoint and biological?
"the exact order of our earth surmise, from both a gelogical standpoint and biological?"
Please tell me what astronomy has to do with geology and biology.
The order of the earth sunrise? You mean to tell me the Moses (if he ever existed) was blind? I'd be interested to know why Moses describes himself in 3rd person in his alleged writing.
Surmise, not sunrise. As in a concept being likely, or as in a conjecture. I suppose the way i worded it is off, i was in a hurry. My point was everythinf from the order of land, to water, to life forms is correct in accordance of biological/geological origins. Very unlikely an author 3,000 years ago guessed all of them right. In fact, 13 different aspects are written about. Easy to base a math model on the probability of this arising by guessing.
Let me make it slightly more simple for you. My point or objective I was trying to illustrate to you was the order of biological(life development) and geological (h20, land, etc...) events is dead on correct with what science has discovered. This is would be very difficult to do 3,000 yrs ago without a divine influence supporting/dictating the scripture. Do you understand this?
Hang on, what science has discovered is that the universe as we know it originated from the big bang, suns and planets coelesced from the gases produced, heavier elements were produced by supernovae, abiogenesis occured around 4 Billion years ago and biological evolution has been producing ever changing life forms eversince. If, the Bible had told us all that i might be impressed by it, but I see nothing in the Bible that couldn't have been written by superstitious men of the bronze/iron age.
Well lets see, we have two choices. God exist or he does not. If he does, the bible would therfore contain our earth's and universe's beginning and development in a staggering 31 sentences. Harvard has over 200,000 books on the same subject alone. How specific could Genesis possibly get. The only thing we can know for certainity is if the content the bible gives us is correct. And all of it is, every events order. Again, something very difficult to do for men in the bronze age.
"Well lets see, we have two choices. God exist or he does not. If he does, the bible would therfore contain..."
That is a bizarre assumption. You seem to think that if there is a god, he wrote or dictated the content of the Bible.
"How specific could Genesis possibly get"
Well if it were true it could tell us things that clearly were not available from scientific understanding like details of DNA, quantumn mechanics, electrical theory and thousands of other subjects uncovered by science.
Additionally, there are around 50,000 new tested and peer reviewed scientific papers published each years on the subject of biological evolution, which clealry contradicts the bible myths.
Since our discussion this entire time was BASED ON the Judah God, I figured someone(you) would have the common sense to implement the concept I was talking about "that" God. Here let me help... The Judah God of the bible either exist or he does not. Make more sense?
Obvious huh? Tell that to some of the greatest scientists in the history of mankind, as well as the greatest politicians, activists, and rulers of the world that it is so "obvious." The reason a large portion of scienitsts are atheists relates to their almost non-existent understanding of the bible. They have a preconceived notion evolution, the big bang, 4.5 byo earth, etc... contradict the bible.
So give me a logical explanation how the writer of Genesis without God, could have known our universe is not eternal it had a beginning, the earth was without form before it took shape, water appeared before land, which appeared before plants, which appeared before water dwelling organims, which appeared before birds, which existed before mammals finally leading to man. I imagine 3,000 yrs ago writing about some fake God, he would create everything at once, if not man first.
2.) About the earth not moving, did you do ANY research before posting? Even literal bible readers claim that as a horrible translation. Go to virtually any christain defense website and read about the mishaps of the pasage. One of the few translation inccidents I actually agree w/ them on. Both chronicles 16:30 and and Pslams 96:10 mistranslated the niphal stem.
1.) referring to four corners is often a remark to the directions they described wind blew. north, south, east, west. Don't you think in a book the size of the bible where the earth is mentioned over 100 times, even once they would have actually called it "flat"? Why didn't they?
2.) No, because Moses tells us to read it like a poem on his death bed, thats why.
3.) We know the universe had a beginning through math and observation.
4.) It is more accurately, "and the earth is not to
"Or it could just mean four corners of a square, as it suggests."
Yet it doesn't suggest that at all. So now you think the bible is referencing a square earth? That's a good one. The concept of a square earth has never been widely regarded by any era of people. Why would the bible and bronze age writers suddenly start believing in one? Weak argument. A flat circular earth would be far more valid, but then your four corners attack would have no validity in defending that.
About Moses, fiction has nothing to do with the topic. He suggest we read it as a poem, thus read the scripture for deeper, figurative, metaphoric, non literal concepts hidden within. Those are traits often associated with poetic writing.
"We know the universe had a beginning through math and observation."
Not quite true. We can only trace the universe as we know it back as far as a dense structure. The concept of beginning is meaningless in such structures.
It is basic understanding of both cosmology and physics our universe has not always existed. It is finite. Something that is expanding(as penzias and wilson, along with hubble) discovered had to literally contain a beginning. A small dense structure cannot exist for any amount of time, and then begin to expand. But don't take my word for it, read some reviewed journals by Science, Nature, American Journal of Physics and the hundreds of scientists who came to a consensus on it.
Time has little meaning in something like a singularity, therefore 'before' and 'beginning' also suffer this problem. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read the work of many leading physicists on the subject.
Time is finite, it is dependent on matter. Matter has not always existed. We know this for a fact through quark confinement. Our universe is dated at 13.7 billion yrs of age. Before that, it did not exist, along with time, matter, space, etc. Don't even attempt to think even a minute fraction of physicists, cosmologist or astronomers agree with you. I can upload dozens of peer reviewed journals from the most prestigious scientists in the field who agree with me. You sir, cannot.
Spacetime is the relationship between matter and time. Time needs matter to literally grab hold of, thus it needs space. So yes, time is dependent on matter.
It is interesting watching the mind boggling intellectual gymnastics required to explain away the most obvious meanings of statements from the Bible. This is an act of intellectual desperation to my thinking. I'm sorry but you are unconvincing in light of the most obvious explaination for the works of the bible being evolved fictions and superstitions of bronze age people living in the infancy of human understanding. I see nothing improbable about this.
On the other hand I do find the claim that the bible has some element of divine supernatural authoriship to be extremely improbable and furthermore no honest intellectual could say otherwise.
Sam Harris asks us to imagine how great a book authored by a divine creator of the universe would be, and ask ourselves if the all the barbarism, mysogyny, injustice, genocide and utter ignorance of nature in the bible suggests that it is such a book. I think not.
In 500 chr limits on youtube the discussion, and thus persuasion of the topic is limited to scratching the surface. There are people today with academic credentials you couldn't imagaine who believe in the divinity of the bible. On youtube my goal of convincing anyone is knowingly scarce, I do for the debate more than anything. Or, to read the ignorance of individuals who think they understand far more than they actually do.
To date, there is no reasonable, or accepted standard that can be used in judging the "divinity" of any object, or person. No matter who is making these claims, it will only ever boil down to baseless assertions fueled by personal bias.
Further, for something to be divine, we have to know what made it divine. To date there is not a shred of legitimate evidence to suggest that any sort of "divine being" has ever existed, let alone assisted in the creation of any sort of sacred text.*continued
I disagree; divinty of an object can be both judged and measured. A divinely influenced scripture would for instance, portray unreasonable and/or unexplainable knowing context. We can therfore assume divinty through unlikely odds. In the case of biblical wisdom, the odds do just that.
You can assert that you can measure and judge divinity, but as I said, there is no standard, only personal opinion and assumption. Can you even define what divinity it self is? What are its requirements Where does it come from? How does it differ from any other state of being?
Even if the Bible contained such content(the matter is a heatedly debated topic, even within religious groups) it still wouldn't prove the existence of God, or of divinity. *see next comment*
No absolute standard, I agree. However, what we are working with is reason and probability. After all, every field of science is based on the extremely unlikely never happening. I would therfore define divinty as a divine being. Divine, in the basis of containing attributes that are not known to the natural universe. We can access odds to determine the statsitical likelyhood of an "undivine" power achieving divine, or supernatural acts. Cont*...
Concluding that if the probablity of that act which occured becomes slim enough it is labeled divine. Every field of science, including physics works in the same matter. They assume for everything, including laws and facts that the very unlikely does not occur. As for God of the gaps, I see no relevance to that in our conversation. I have mentioned nothing to do with it.
The "God of the gaps" argument forces a deity into an area where current human knowledge falls short. If it can't be explained, then it MUST be God. In this way, you assert that, because certain texts, in your opinion, contain information they should not have. Instead of exploring the myriad of possibility's that could be the cause, you instead inject the answer you most want to see, then assert that it must be true.
I ask you again, define divinity. Don't side step the question again.
I understand what "God of the gaps" means. Text which reveals knowledge which was not available at the time has NO-THING to do with that agrument. God of the gaps refers to unexplained science becomings, such as abiogenesis, universal origin, etc... Filling God in a science mystery is God of the gaps. Asserting the bible was divinely inspired because of text that is unexplainabley knowing is not the same thing. Not even in the same boat bud. Also, I defined divinty in my last comments.
So, your simply pleadeing ignorance to the other posiblitys, and asserting that it must be divine insperation? Sounds like a gap argument to me.
No, you have not. Again, how does divinity manifest, what is its relation to other states of being, what is required to either attain or earn divinity, and where does divinity come from? If divinity really is as well established in the realm of science as you say, or established at all, these questions should be a cake walk.
A gaps argument is dealing with our natural universe and sections of knowledge we DO NOT know about, or currently do not have an explantion for. YOU, are referencing something such as human knowledge 3,000 yrs ago as a gaps objective? Let me put it this way: filling a gap with knowledge is an increase of information known in that particular principle. (For instance, what everyone thought was accomplished with the miller exp.) In biblical divinty, we would have to be WRONG about hundreds of
of the facts and information we know as to the limits of human intellegence at the time. It is simply foolish. It has nothing to do with filling in a gap of scientifc knowledge with God.
Those questions are nothing more than philosphical ramblings. So your point is as follows; if I claim divinty exist I therefore need to know details about its existence and origin?
Why not be able to conclude its existence through proof of humanly impossible intellegence and stop there?
Philosophical ramblings? Are you out of your mind? If your going to assert that divinity has a standard of observation and measurability , then you should be able to TELL ME WHAT DIVINITY IS. If you can not even do that, then its is oh so painfully clear what this word "divinity" refers to: goddidit.
Lets be honest here, you can no more prove or define divinity, then your can prove or define God. Your arguments are made up of bold assertions, and nothing more.
Like I stated, it is defined by its measurement. To repeat myself, if we can conclude through probablity of statistics (eliminating all other natural possibilities) that it could not have come to happen by anything naturalistic, divinty is then reached. Im not specifying divinity to any God, just a higher non-naturalistic being/presence.
And I'm saying that, not only is there no universally agreed upon standard of judging divinity, but also, that you, and everyone else, haven't any idea what divinity is.
For something to be both measurable and observable, then it must be knowable and definable. If it can not be defined, then it can not be measured, much less known.
You have to know what it is, to measure it. This is simple, common sense.
Again I disagree. We can define something without measuring and/or observing it directly. Why can't we define God as a "triple o" being, which would then (by defenition) make him both unobservable and immeasurable.
Also, you and I both know you have not negated EVERY natural possibility. You have merely settled on the answer you most want to see. You already assume that it MUST be some sort of nondescript "higher" being. Why? What reason could you possibly have to think this? Why not a highly advanced NATURAL being? Give one good reason that a Highly advanced/evolved being of natural origan is any less likely than a "higher" being.
You said it perfectly yourself- "...where current human knowledge falls short." However, our knowledge in the subject of human intellect isn't short by any stretch of the imagination. We know humans 3,000 yrs ago didn't possess science comprehension of today. That is simply undisputed. Today, we don't know a great deal about universal origin, thus sticking God there= gaps argument.
Yeah, there is an idea! Have God(oh my bad, the one described in the bible) talk about future scientific descriptions in a 3,300 yr old text. That would make sense to everyone, from about the last 200 years! Now I'm not an advocate of blind faith, but God stills requires "diligence" for believing in him. How much of that do you think he would get if he talked about undeniable details that would take zero research to realize God had to dictate the bible's content? hmmm... none.
"God stills requires "diligence" for believing in him"
Well it seems to me that a god that makes himself so well hidden that intelligent rational people are unable to find him is either devious or does not exist. I have to say no existence and a god that is unavailable to scientific enquiry look suspiciously like the same thing.
"Yeah, there is an idea! Have God(oh my bad, the one described in the bible) talk about future scientific descriptions in a 3,300 yr old text. That would make sense to everyone, from about the last 200 years"
Well if your god were real then he could explain it so that it could be understood. He could have at least explained a simple concept of germ theory so that people with fevers would not be treated as demon possessed souls.
Funny he mentions that "I know God exists" line. At this 12 Step meeting there is always some loser who says, "There are no coincidences, GOD, or my HP, planned everything, like meeting you here" So I say, "So my HP met with your HP & planned out this totally trivial meeting: which in fact is really based on simple probabilities; since you always go to this meeting, there is a good chance I'd run into you here to accomplish/experience NOTHING!"
DawnOfTheDead991 7 months ago
Don's got one of the best laughs on this show : )
fourtywpm 8 months ago
Praise Jesus right in his ass!
Zentz29 1 year ago 5
having cancer.......and then not having cancer......is not a miracle....
DAMN
people forget that if there is a supreme being cancer must be one of its creation......and if that were true....
he gave it too you....
flawed logic.........
azmanabdula 1 year ago 4
Nice choice of music!!
philylennon 1 year ago
146 sheep have visited this video
drche420 1 year ago 2
Compartmentalizing. Indeed, I don't know how they honestly do it.
It's like theist scientists are able to stuff their faith into a box, do some science or maths, come to a scientific conclusion, and then re-open the faith box; and say "Goddunit."
Like Isaac Newton for example... He was able to calculate the motion of the heavens to a relatively accurate degree, and also invented calculus.
These motions contradict the Bible, yet he said "Mathematics was the language of God". WhhaaAAAT?!?!
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
As Stephen Fry has pointed out, what would really be weird is if, when the 'phone rang, it was NEVER someone you were just thinking about.
djhalling 1 year ago 2
What they are talking about is cognitive dissonance, a very interesting concept.
Snipe4261 1 year ago
"They want to stick their god somewhere." So do I.
Kailoa36 1 year ago
HA! I love Matt!
"You keep tempting me in where to jam God"
hypnotoad000 1 year ago
Nice to see a caller from up here in my hometown of Winnipeg calling in :).
Entertainmentwf 2 years ago
@Entertainmentwf i second that (:
holdenbane 1 year ago
I'm going to make you all Christians!
LOL!!
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Notice creationists only make theorys with what science has already explained. NOT BEFORE!
peteq1972 2 years ago
Notice evolutionists do not have any answers to the question.
Its one of many they cannot answer...
CAN YOU!
QQOQQ 2 years ago
There is PLEANTY of evidence for the bigbang, you`re just not looking or don`t want to, scared of what you might really understand about the universe, or when presented with evidence you just turn your head and say No i`m not listening, anyway i dont even know which one of the many gods is the one you believe in that is supposed to of created everything.
You all can`t agree WHICH god is THE god, at least scientists AGREE with facts.
You know why? Experimentation!
peteq1972 2 years ago
Im going down the pub now and when I get back I will answer your question.
Problem is I might be a little bit pissed. (drunk)
When I get back I am going to destroy your faith in evolution, I hope you have got your answers redy, coz im going 2 blow you away!
Are you up 4 it?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
lol not really.
peteq1972 2 years ago
@QQQQQ
There is no such thing as "faith in evolution". Faith in something or someone means believing in it WITHOUT evidence and there is enormous amount of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. In fact over the 150 years since Darwin first introduced this Theory there hasn't been one shred of evidence to come close debunk it.
You should first study Evolution in great detail before you try to debunk it. Remember the saying, "Know your enemy."
critic4101 2 years ago
Yes their is.
Their is no evidence we evolved from monkeys or any othe primate.
If you believe but dont have evidence it becomes a faith.
Please can you give me the missing links and I will show you that they are frauds.
Stick with me. you might learn something.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
lol...says the guy who just got schooled about evolution by AronRa.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Did not get schooled. lol!
Obviously you cannot see the fact that evolution is mans way of doing away with God.
If evolution is true, then what is the point of it.
Whats the end game in the thinking of an evolutionist?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Well, of course you didn't. Even though you showed that you knew/know nothing of evolution throughout the video and AronRa had to correct you repeatedly.
If evolution is true, what is the point of it? Why does there need to point a point of life? Is there a point to the life and death of the gazelle? What was the point of the birth of the profoundly deformed child that died minutes after its' birth?
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Aron is a lovely guy, I fear for his eternal destiny but you would not understand that.
If you saw a lovely new lexus car, and I told you, that car took billions of yrs to evolve, you would say "dont be silly, it was designed with purpose in mind by people in a factory"
Why are we any different?
Everything has a maker including you and I.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Lol...because a car is a piece of metal that cannot breed with another car and share it's genetic material. Said genetic material which can replicate incorrectly, causing mutations in the breed which can then be passed on.
This would be why we are different...said difference already explained to you by AronRa.
Oh, and my "maker" was my father and mother.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
By the way, you didn't answer my questions.
What is the purpose of the life of the gazelle?
What is the purpose of the profoundly deformed child that dies moments after it's birth?
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Also, on the evidence of man coming from a common primate ancestor. That would come from the mapping of the human genome and chromosone 2.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Then we should see millions of missing links?
Where are they? There have been no transitions found of monkey to man.
Plenty of men acting as monkeys though! lol..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
@QQOQQ EVERYTHING has a maker, does it? Then, what/who made god?
PageofLegend 1 year ago
All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 chromosomes. Humans have only 23 chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromereThe evidence for this includes:
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Siad who?
Did you do your own counting.
People believe most things that comes out of a scientists mouth.
Time and time again they get things wrong, we must all look at evidence and not take other peoples word for it, but study it ourselves...
I did this with the Bible, and what it says about creation lt alone prophesy rings true..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
So, as AronRa says, though you admit you have NO scientific training to refute anything they might have to say...though you hold NO degree in biology or cosmology or genetics, you feel yourself qualified to reject what they have to say out of hand, right?
Lol...AronRa is a nice guy, he avoids using words that he really should use when dealing with people such as you. That would be RETARD. Anyone who can actually look up what I posted and read can see what REAL science has to say.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
No, I am just a Taxi Driver with a question and a faith.
I have no phd or zxz or kje or any fancy letters behind or infront of my name, I have a important question and a level head.
It's not that I reject his answer, I cannot accept that everything came from nothing.
Even space itself had to be there, I think this Q is far bigger than any brain on the planet can answer.
A siglarity is an entity, how did that evolve?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
As AronRa said, it is YOU that believes your god man wished by the power of his word all of "creation" into being. Before his magic incantation there was nothing, right, then god speaks his magic "word" or incantation and poof there is everything.
Meanwhile, as AronRa explained to some degree, there was nothing before the singularity. It's like asking what is south of the south pole.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago 2
@QQOQQ
everything is vibrations. Everything appear real to you because we live in different time sensations. If we slowed down time everything will seem vanish.
symmetry08 2 years ago
Comment removed
Paradoxical003 2 years ago
@Paradoxical003
i am not talking about string theory. If it got butchered then its not my free thinking fault. String theory is not perfect.
symmetry08 2 years ago
im sry ill take it down now.
Paradoxical003 2 years ago
On the "millions of missing links" crap. Once again it is clear that you have no understanding of science or simply have chosen not to look at Arons' very simply explanations of this in his videos where he clearly explains that not EVERY thing that dies becomes a fossil. We have a scant fossil record due to the scant appearence of fossils in general. But the fossils of human ancestors we do have show the clear transition of one being to another through bone/pelvis structures.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Please do me a favour...
Not one bonefide missing link transitonal fossil of any species has been found.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Just google transitional fossils, cabbie r-tard, you'll find an eye full.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago 26
Yes, I could google all kinds of stuff, I have probably seen it b4.
I used 2 believe in evolution but 2 me it did not ad up.
What the Bible says way b4 man's ideas of random events is accurate, and more believable.
I do not believe everything I am told, I am a free thinker, I have heard one side, and the other side, I happen to agree on the Biblical account.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
You agree with the biblical account and completely disregard evolution, yes?
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Yes,
I see no evidence for evolution in the case of transitional fact.
I agree with diversity within a species, that happens and is obseveable.
I like that..
But in my thinking the evolutionist has taken it a step 2 far with transitionals..
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Before moving on, AronRa chastised me on calling you a retard. So, my apologies.
First, all species are transitional species as all species are being continually acted upon by their enviroment and other species and are all continuing to evolve. That is evolution. But, of course, you have already had this explained to you by AronRa. As far as transitional fossils, you have already been shown these as well. Once again, although you are not an archaelogist, you reject these.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Secondly, I would like you to explain to me your take on the following:
If the biblical account is correct, then all species on this planet were created AS THEY ARE, without variation, as you reject evolution. Please explain to me the appearence of the Boxer in the 19th century. Remember, if you accept the biblical account of creation then ALL species were created at the same time by god WITHOUT variation. How then did the Boxer come to be in the 19th century?
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
I chose the Boxer as I note you have them on your channel.
Third, please explain the appearence of the nylon eating bacteria.
Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became collectively known as nylonase. Nylon, of course, being a substance not created until 1935.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Fourth, once again if you accept the biblical account of creation, please explain why we find gradiations in the fossil record? That is, if the biblical account is true, then we should find humans in the current form alongside T-Rex skeletons alongside poodle skeletons alongside modern horse skeletons and so on. Yet, we don't find this. Instead, what you find as you dig deeper in the geologic record is what evolution predicts...lesser and lesser evolved creatures the further you go back. Why?
Godshoulddie 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have a tax icompany to run and a job from gatwick to pick up. got 2 dash!
We do find Human bnes with dinosaurs, we also see acient potery with men with dinosaurs.
Also on cave walls, the inca stones.
There was a discovery of a T.rex in Montana a while back where they found T,Re leg bone, with red blood cells in it.
Now that 2 me is interesting, they could get dna from that!
Dinosaurs were as comple as many animals around today, why would they not be?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
Sorry, spelling awful, rushing!
QQOQQ 2 years ago
If, however, everything that is here on earth were created as it is now on the day of creation, you would find modern human skeletons at the same geologic level as trilobites as dinosaur as poodle and so on. You would find this and nothing before it. Instead, you find more evolved species at the highest levels and as you dig down less and less evolved or MORE SIMPLE, if you prefer, at the deeper levels.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It all depends where you get your information from.
I can search certain sites and it tells me one story, search other sites and a different story.
We know that important finds HAVE been covered up by the smithsonian museum.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If there was a world wide flood, itwouls have destroyed alot of the evidence, as the fountains of the deep broke thru the earth's crust, thats where we get the fault lines from.
All the material would have been displaced, this is why we find fish fossils on top f mountains.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
@QQOQQ if there was a world wide flood we would have had a signature of that flood in the geological record....guess what....we dont!
YourGodIsDeaD311 2 years ago
@QQOQQ ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahaha!
chilleffect 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QQOQQ "All the material would have been displaced, this is why we find fish fossils on top f mountains."
And which is why we find ancestral kangaroo fossils outside Australia, right?
TuucciZ 1 year ago
If your going to go to conspiracy theories I have nothing more to say to you.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
There are no human bones/skeletons with dinosaur skeletons datable to the same time or even found in the same geologic layer.
Strangely, T-Rex and all other creatures on this planet have red blood cells. This means what in answer to any of my questions?
Dinosaurs are as complete as animals today yet as you go back in the geologic record you find less evolved dinosaurs as you go further back. Same with humans, dog/wolves and so on.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
nope sorry, no human bones found with dinosaurs (citation please if you want to make bold faced lies)
The ICA (not inca) stones were forged by a farmer who admitted and showed how he did it, not to mention they were painted with MODERN acrylic paints.
No the T-rex DIDNT have red blood cells it had fossilized minerals within the bones that made a cast of the veins...which they had to rehydrate because it fossilized.
Your an idiot...learn science please, instead of that Ph.D in fail.
boorens18 2 years ago 43
@boorens18
Perfect delivery of your pwnage.
Keep it up
drche420 1 year ago
@QQOQQ Well, I did my own counting and read the book, and it sounded made up and fake to me.
PageofLegend 1 year ago
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the bonobo, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. ]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle. Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.
This as well as those pesky fossils that show the transition of bone/pelvis structures from one to the next shows us the evolution of the species.
Still want to school me on evolution?
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
@QQOQQ "evolved from monkeys" Evolution does not work this way. Please learn what Evolution is and what we mean when we refer to COMMON ANCESTORS. And Humans are Primates to begin with. You are just showing what a Fraud you are being right here since you are going about things that are just false to start with. Seriously wrong and just shows ignorance of a topic you are talking about.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance
Excellent link for future idiotic statements regarding evolution: watch?v=qJuNY8FH9WA
mtszabo 1 year ago
@mtszabo Interesting... does put new light on the topic. However I think the word you meant was "misinformed" ;). Still if that's the case "evolved from monkeys" would still be horrifically wrong, you don't evolve from something if you are still that thing... so I can still point at that statement with some disdain, then again I accept I was wrong myself on the subject.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance
Yes, I suppose "idiotic" is a bit harsh, although, I was referring to QQQQQ's statement and offering my opinion thereof.
mtszabo 1 year ago
@mtszabo ah, that is more understood now, still. QQQQQ's statements will stand as such, because QQQQQ currently will not accept that QQQQQ can be wrong and is refusing to learn from his/her mistakes on the matter. In other words, QQQQQ just won't accept being called an idiot because he/she won't see how far in the wrong/misinformed they are as that would mess up their beliefs, possibly the belief that the bible is literally true, which we all know is demonstratively false.
DoomsdayR3sistance 1 year ago 3
@DoomsdayR3sistance
My sentiments, exactly.
mtszabo 1 year ago
lol it's a creationist.
RoryLavelleRules 2 years ago
You have no evidence for a big bang!
Where did all the mater come from that made all thing's?
QQOQQ 2 years ago
The red shift is evidence for the big bang. Look it up.
Grymyrk 2 years ago
Athieism, wot a waste of time, to be an atheist means that you believe that there i no God, so why do they go over the top on the subject if their is no God?
Go do smething else, you are wasting your time.
QQOQQ 2 years ago
I think Ken wrote a book, Finding Darwin's God.
ajuk1 2 years ago
Great excerpt from the show.
OneStonedBastard 2 years ago
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 2
Can you explain how you use atheists to win?
CirnoPreacher94040 2 years ago
I enjoy Matt Dillahunty's erudition, common sense and breadth of knowledge, but in some vids he's also pretty funny. "I had the best dinner ever." "What was it?" "I don't remember."
Bfdidc 2 years ago 3
I agree, he's definitely the best. My favorite Atheist experience line of all time came from Matt:
Matt: Do you realize that the bananas you eat are cultivated products that can't grow on their own? God didn't make the bananas you eat we did.
Caller Eve: Oh whatever so you can make a banana appear in your hand?
Matt: No, but I can make something that looks like a banana appear in my hand.
AHPMB 2 years ago 3
eater,
Does Ken still think CREATION starts with an "e" in the Bible?
:-O
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" (Col 1:16)
trac4yt 2 years ago
I like Ken Miller too, brilliant brilliant man. And I respect him especially since I was Catholic myself too (until of course I... well, grew out of it, lol)
eater0fput0 2 years ago
skep,
The living cell is a miraculous wonder.
You're just used to it.
Why doubt other possibilities?..
"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth." (Joh 11:43)
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
Exactly, that's why I am a devout Pastafarian. May His Noodly Appendage toucheth you as well. Ramen.
Gerafix 2 years ago
skep,
Fallen-sinners dream up all kinds of new fangled categories and then call it "truth".
It's like college professors calling men, apes..
..ridiculous.
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mr 10:6)
:-)
trac4yt 2 years ago
Matt is such an intellegent individual, yet he needs to open his mind. Science and theology aren't always at odds. Take a second look at the bible, how it is meant to be read. Science and biblical text coincide perfectly.
cagefite007 2 years ago
Except they don't actually.
SkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
Except they do actually.
cagefite007 2 years ago
Because men walk on water and come back to life all the time, right?
Oh and bats are birds, and all insects have only four legs, right?
SkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
Once again an atheist proves his biblical ignornace.
1.) Speaking from a philosophical point of view, IF god existed wouldn't you imagine he to be able to walk on water. It may not prove his existence or divinity, but if a God existed he would be limited by the laws of nature?
2.) The bible never says bats are birds. Also, if you read it in it's correct original language, it never say all insects have four legs. There are an abundance of occasions within the english bible inaccuarte
cagefite007 2 years ago
Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:18
SkepticalAtheist 2 years ago
If the version of the bible that most everyone reads and accepts as if it is the incontrovertible word of god is so inaccurate, then it cannot be trusted. One would not be able to determine what is fact from what is fiction so one must throw the entire book out. Further, if all one has to do to get, as you say, the correct meaning of the bible, is to read the hebrew words individually and reconstruct them into its true meaning, why hasn't this been done and why is every version mistranslated?
r00tcause 2 years ago
How can it not be trusted just because it has been mistraslated to a certain extent? I do not understand the reasoning behind that. We still know exactly what was written in the original scripture. All the versions base themsleves on one another. Yet there is also another, more complicated reasoning with the actual words. Many hebrew words, unlike english have mutiple, yet different defenitions. The only way we can know how the bible uses it is to look at other passages where it has been used.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"How can it not be trusted just because it has been mistranslated to a certain extent? " If readers of the current bible that is used today are reading the book and it has all of these supposed errors and the reader isn't aware of this then the integrity of the document is compromised. So, as I asked before, if this is the case, why has it not been fixed.
r00tcause 2 years ago
No, that is flawed, unsupported reasoning. The readers of a document, have nothing to do with the validity of the document itself. The bibles "integrity" is not dependent on who reads it. You are assuming a majority consesus of a document determines its validity. About fixing it, the translations are deemed "mostly" or "vastly" correct. Which they are. Among a book of 775,000 words, maybe less than a thousand could be changed to a better translation. Also, like I said one hebrew word can have
cagefite007 2 years ago
"We still know exactly what was written in the original scripture"
We do?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Yes, we do. Despite what you may think, the torah in hebrew today is virtually identical the first ones ever written. It is a misconception that that the scripture has changed. The only thing that has changed is when it was translated into what we know read as the english OT.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"Despite what you may think, the torah in hebrew today is virtually identical the first ones ever written"
It is? So you have have seen the first ones ever written?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Have I? Nope.
But... take for instance the dead sea scrolls found in 1947(or so.) Written thousands of years ago, some of the very first scriptures, and they matched almost identically to what we have today. It shows there is phenomally little change in the text over the years.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"the dead sea scrolls found in 1947... matched almost identically to what we have today"
Almost? how different are they?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Not very. Do a search and find out for yourself. If you wish I'll send you a number of links that elaborate on the accuaracy of the scrolls.
cagefite007 2 years ago
I tell you what, I'll accept the claim that they are very similar. Perhaps you can explain to me how that make the content of them true.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Never stated the similar context made them true. Other aspects of the bible however can reveal the content of them are true however.
cagefite007 2 years ago
Like what?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Biblical prophecies, especially OT.
Genesis accurate account of origin of earth and universe, archeology accuracies, etc...
cagefite007 2 years ago
Oh dear.
Farewell.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Then explain, how without divinely influenced writing, could for instance Moses (the writer of Genes) "guess" the exact order of our earth surmise, from both a gelogical standpoint and biological?
cagefite007 2 years ago
"the exact order of our earth surmise, from both a gelogical standpoint and biological?"
Please tell me what astronomy has to do with geology and biology.
The order of the earth sunrise? You mean to tell me the Moses (if he ever existed) was blind? I'd be interested to know why Moses describes himself in 3rd person in his alleged writing.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Surmise, not sunrise. As in a concept being likely, or as in a conjecture. I suppose the way i worded it is off, i was in a hurry. My point was everythinf from the order of land, to water, to life forms is correct in accordance of biological/geological origins. Very unlikely an author 3,000 years ago guessed all of them right. In fact, 13 different aspects are written about. Easy to base a math model on the probability of this arising by guessing.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"My point was everythinf from the order of land, to water, to life forms is correct in accordance of biological/geological origins"
WTF?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Let me make it slightly more simple for you. My point or objective I was trying to illustrate to you was the order of biological(life development) and geological (h20, land, etc...) events is dead on correct with what science has discovered. This is would be very difficult to do 3,000 yrs ago without a divine influence supporting/dictating the scripture. Do you understand this?
cagefite007 2 years ago
Hang on, what science has discovered is that the universe as we know it originated from the big bang, suns and planets coelesced from the gases produced, heavier elements were produced by supernovae, abiogenesis occured around 4 Billion years ago and biological evolution has been producing ever changing life forms eversince. If, the Bible had told us all that i might be impressed by it, but I see nothing in the Bible that couldn't have been written by superstitious men of the bronze/iron age.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Well lets see, we have two choices. God exist or he does not. If he does, the bible would therfore contain our earth's and universe's beginning and development in a staggering 31 sentences. Harvard has over 200,000 books on the same subject alone. How specific could Genesis possibly get. The only thing we can know for certainity is if the content the bible gives us is correct. And all of it is, every events order. Again, something very difficult to do for men in the bronze age.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"Well lets see, we have two choices. God exist or he does not. If he does, the bible would therfore contain..."
That is a bizarre assumption. You seem to think that if there is a god, he wrote or dictated the content of the Bible.
"How specific could Genesis possibly get"
Well if it were true it could tell us things that clearly were not available from scientific understanding like details of DNA, quantumn mechanics, electrical theory and thousands of other subjects uncovered by science.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Additionally, there are around 50,000 new tested and peer reviewed scientific papers published each years on the subject of biological evolution, which clealry contradicts the bible myths.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Since our discussion this entire time was BASED ON the Judah God, I figured someone(you) would have the common sense to implement the concept I was talking about "that" God. Here let me help... The Judah God of the bible either exist or he does not. Make more sense?
cagefite007 2 years ago
" I was talking about ... The Judah God of the bible"
In that case it seems pretty obvious that the god of the bible doesn't exist.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Obvious huh? Tell that to some of the greatest scientists in the history of mankind, as well as the greatest politicians, activists, and rulers of the world that it is so "obvious." The reason a large portion of scienitsts are atheists relates to their almost non-existent understanding of the bible. They have a preconceived notion evolution, the big bang, 4.5 byo earth, etc... contradict the bible.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"The reason a large portion of scienitsts are atheists relates to their almost non-existent understanding of the bible"
Really? LOL
artyfarty2 2 years ago
So give me a logical explanation how the writer of Genesis without God, could have known our universe is not eternal it had a beginning, the earth was without form before it took shape, water appeared before land, which appeared before plants, which appeared before water dwelling organims, which appeared before birds, which existed before mammals finally leading to man. I imagine 3,000 yrs ago writing about some fake God, he would create everything at once, if not man first.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"So give me a logical explanation how the writer of Genesis without God, could have known our universe is not eternal it had a beginning"
It is either eternal or not. the Chances of getting it right are 50/50.
Water appeared before land?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Agreed, the bible guessed the right half. There is one down. And yes, H20 was present before land/soil/dirt/earth.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"And yes, H20 was present before land/soil/dirt/earth. "
Where did you get that from?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
1.) Haven't studied earth's formation much?
2.) About the earth not moving, did you do ANY research before posting? Even literal bible readers claim that as a horrible translation. Go to virtually any christain defense website and read about the mishaps of the pasage. One of the few translation inccidents I actually agree w/ them on. Both chronicles 16:30 and and Pslams 96:10 mistranslated the niphal stem.
cagefite007 2 years ago
It is either eternal or not. the Chances of getting it right are 50/50
"Agreed, the bible guessed the right half."
How do you know it is not eternal?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Another example of the Bible being wrong:
"He has fixed the earth firm and immovable"
1 Chronicles 16:30
I would say that contradicts scientific understanding of the earth's mobility, wouldn't you?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
How about Revelations 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angles standing on four corners of the earth"
artyfarty2 2 years ago
3.) Four corners has nothing to do with flatness, especially at the time that was written. Stop reading the bible literally.
4.) The world "earth" as in the entire world is not mentioned in matthew, and even in Genesis when pertaining to the flood.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"Four corners has nothing to do with flatness"
Really? how many corners does the earth have? an what kind of shapes have that many corners?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
"Stop reading the bible literally"
Why? because you say so?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
"Even literal bible readers claim that as a horrible translation"
OK, tell me what those passages should say.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
1.) referring to four corners is often a remark to the directions they described wind blew. north, south, east, west. Don't you think in a book the size of the bible where the earth is mentioned over 100 times, even once they would have actually called it "flat"? Why didn't they?
2.) No, because Moses tells us to read it like a poem on his death bed, thats why.
3.) We know the universe had a beginning through math and observation.
4.) It is more accurately, "and the earth is not to
cagefite007 2 years ago
"referring to four corners is often a remark to the directions "
Or it could just mean four corners of a square, as it suggests.
"they would have actually called it "flat"?"
Probably because the land scape is not flat and the assumptiont that the earth was on a flat plane was taken as a given.
"Moses tells us". Fine, then we can regard everything he is alleged to have said as fiction, or is that just the things that I point out?
artyfarty2 2 years ago
"Or it could just mean four corners of a square, as it suggests."
Yet it doesn't suggest that at all. So now you think the bible is referencing a square earth? That's a good one. The concept of a square earth has never been widely regarded by any era of people. Why would the bible and bronze age writers suddenly start believing in one? Weak argument. A flat circular earth would be far more valid, but then your four corners attack would have no validity in defending that.
cagefite007 2 years ago
About Moses, fiction has nothing to do with the topic. He suggest we read it as a poem, thus read the scripture for deeper, figurative, metaphoric, non literal concepts hidden within. Those are traits often associated with poetic writing.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"We know the universe had a beginning through math and observation."
Not quite true. We can only trace the universe as we know it back as far as a dense structure. The concept of beginning is meaningless in such structures.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Incorrect.
It is basic understanding of both cosmology and physics our universe has not always existed. It is finite. Something that is expanding(as penzias and wilson, along with hubble) discovered had to literally contain a beginning. A small dense structure cannot exist for any amount of time, and then begin to expand. But don't take my word for it, read some reviewed journals by Science, Nature, American Journal of Physics and the hundreds of scientists who came to a consensus on it.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"Incorrect.
It is basic understanding of both cosmology ..."
I disagree.
Time has little meaning in something like a singularity, therefore 'before' and 'beginning' also suffer this problem. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read the work of many leading physicists on the subject.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
Time is finite, it is dependent on matter. Matter has not always existed. We know this for a fact through quark confinement. Our universe is dated at 13.7 billion yrs of age. Before that, it did not exist, along with time, matter, space, etc. Don't even attempt to think even a minute fraction of physicists, cosmologist or astronomers agree with you. I can upload dozens of peer reviewed journals from the most prestigious scientists in the field who agree with me. You sir, cannot.
cagefite007 2 years ago
Your on the right track, but time is dependent on space. They are two in teh same. Not time and matter. Matter is affected by SpaceTime,
seeingglass86 2 years ago
Space is matter.
Empty space is made up of matter.
Spacetime is the relationship between matter and time. Time needs matter to literally grab hold of, thus it needs space. So yes, time is dependent on matter.
cagefite007 2 years ago
be moved." Referring to an external agent bringing change to the earths movement. It says nothing about the earth not being in motion.
cagefite007 2 years ago
It is interesting watching the mind boggling intellectual gymnastics required to explain away the most obvious meanings of statements from the Bible. This is an act of intellectual desperation to my thinking. I'm sorry but you are unconvincing in light of the most obvious explaination for the works of the bible being evolved fictions and superstitions of bronze age people living in the infancy of human understanding. I see nothing improbable about this.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
On the other hand I do find the claim that the bible has some element of divine supernatural authoriship to be extremely improbable and furthermore no honest intellectual could say otherwise.
Sam Harris asks us to imagine how great a book authored by a divine creator of the universe would be, and ask ourselves if the all the barbarism, mysogyny, injustice, genocide and utter ignorance of nature in the bible suggests that it is such a book. I think not.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
In 500 chr limits on youtube the discussion, and thus persuasion of the topic is limited to scratching the surface. There are people today with academic credentials you couldn't imagaine who believe in the divinity of the bible. On youtube my goal of convincing anyone is knowingly scarce, I do for the debate more than anything. Or, to read the ignorance of individuals who think they understand far more than they actually do.
cagefite007 2 years ago
To date, there is no reasonable, or accepted standard that can be used in judging the "divinity" of any object, or person. No matter who is making these claims, it will only ever boil down to baseless assertions fueled by personal bias.
Further, for something to be divine, we have to know what made it divine. To date there is not a shred of legitimate evidence to suggest that any sort of "divine being" has ever existed, let alone assisted in the creation of any sort of sacred text.*continued
ChainX 2 years ago
I disagree; divinty of an object can be both judged and measured. A divinely influenced scripture would for instance, portray unreasonable and/or unexplainable knowing context. We can therfore assume divinty through unlikely odds. In the case of biblical wisdom, the odds do just that.
cagefite007 2 years ago
You can assert that you can measure and judge divinity, but as I said, there is no standard, only personal opinion and assumption. Can you even define what divinity it self is? What are its requirements Where does it come from? How does it differ from any other state of being?
Even if the Bible contained such content(the matter is a heatedly debated topic, even within religious groups) it still wouldn't prove the existence of God, or of divinity. *see next comment*
ChainX 2 years ago
I'm sure you know what a "God of the gaps" argument is, right? I should think so, as that is all your doing, here.
ChainX 2 years ago
No absolute standard, I agree. However, what we are working with is reason and probability. After all, every field of science is based on the extremely unlikely never happening. I would therfore define divinty as a divine being. Divine, in the basis of containing attributes that are not known to the natural universe. We can access odds to determine the statsitical likelyhood of an "undivine" power achieving divine, or supernatural acts. Cont*...
cagefite007 2 years ago
Concluding that if the probablity of that act which occured becomes slim enough it is labeled divine. Every field of science, including physics works in the same matter. They assume for everything, including laws and facts that the very unlikely does not occur. As for God of the gaps, I see no relevance to that in our conversation. I have mentioned nothing to do with it.
cagefite007 2 years ago
The "God of the gaps" argument forces a deity into an area where current human knowledge falls short. If it can't be explained, then it MUST be God. In this way, you assert that, because certain texts, in your opinion, contain information they should not have. Instead of exploring the myriad of possibility's that could be the cause, you instead inject the answer you most want to see, then assert that it must be true.
I ask you again, define divinity. Don't side step the question again.
ChainX 2 years ago
I understand what "God of the gaps" means. Text which reveals knowledge which was not available at the time has NO-THING to do with that agrument. God of the gaps refers to unexplained science becomings, such as abiogenesis, universal origin, etc... Filling God in a science mystery is God of the gaps. Asserting the bible was divinely inspired because of text that is unexplainabley knowing is not the same thing. Not even in the same boat bud. Also, I defined divinty in my last comments.
cagefite007 2 years ago
So, your simply pleadeing ignorance to the other posiblitys, and asserting that it must be divine insperation? Sounds like a gap argument to me.
No, you have not. Again, how does divinity manifest, what is its relation to other states of being, what is required to either attain or earn divinity, and where does divinity come from? If divinity really is as well established in the realm of science as you say, or established at all, these questions should be a cake walk.
ChainX 2 years ago
A gaps argument is dealing with our natural universe and sections of knowledge we DO NOT know about, or currently do not have an explantion for. YOU, are referencing something such as human knowledge 3,000 yrs ago as a gaps objective? Let me put it this way: filling a gap with knowledge is an increase of information known in that particular principle. (For instance, what everyone thought was accomplished with the miller exp.) In biblical divinty, we would have to be WRONG about hundreds of
cagefite007 2 years ago
of the facts and information we know as to the limits of human intellegence at the time. It is simply foolish. It has nothing to do with filling in a gap of scientifc knowledge with God.
Those questions are nothing more than philosphical ramblings. So your point is as follows; if I claim divinty exist I therefore need to know details about its existence and origin?
Why not be able to conclude its existence through proof of humanly impossible intellegence and stop there?
cagefite007 2 years ago
Philosophical ramblings? Are you out of your mind? If your going to assert that divinity has a standard of observation and measurability , then you should be able to TELL ME WHAT DIVINITY IS. If you can not even do that, then its is oh so painfully clear what this word "divinity" refers to: goddidit.
Lets be honest here, you can no more prove or define divinity, then your can prove or define God. Your arguments are made up of bold assertions, and nothing more.
ChainX 2 years ago 2
Like I stated, it is defined by its measurement. To repeat myself, if we can conclude through probablity of statistics (eliminating all other natural possibilities) that it could not have come to happen by anything naturalistic, divinty is then reached. Im not specifying divinity to any God, just a higher non-naturalistic being/presence.
cagefite007 2 years ago
And I'm saying that, not only is there no universally agreed upon standard of judging divinity, but also, that you, and everyone else, haven't any idea what divinity is.
For something to be both measurable and observable, then it must be knowable and definable. If it can not be defined, then it can not be measured, much less known.
You have to know what it is, to measure it. This is simple, common sense.
ChainX 2 years ago
Again I disagree. We can define something without measuring and/or observing it directly. Why can't we define God as a "triple o" being, which would then (by defenition) make him both unobservable and immeasurable.
cagefite007 2 years ago
Also, you and I both know you have not negated EVERY natural possibility. You have merely settled on the answer you most want to see. You already assume that it MUST be some sort of nondescript "higher" being. Why? What reason could you possibly have to think this? Why not a highly advanced NATURAL being? Give one good reason that a Highly advanced/evolved being of natural origan is any less likely than a "higher" being.
ChainX 2 years ago
You said it perfectly yourself- "...where current human knowledge falls short." However, our knowledge in the subject of human intellect isn't short by any stretch of the imagination. We know humans 3,000 yrs ago didn't possess science comprehension of today. That is simply undisputed. Today, we don't know a great deal about universal origin, thus sticking God there= gaps argument.
cagefite007 2 years ago
Yeah, there is an idea! Have God(oh my bad, the one described in the bible) talk about future scientific descriptions in a 3,300 yr old text. That would make sense to everyone, from about the last 200 years! Now I'm not an advocate of blind faith, but God stills requires "diligence" for believing in him. How much of that do you think he would get if he talked about undeniable details that would take zero research to realize God had to dictate the bible's content? hmmm... none.
cagefite007 2 years ago
"God stills requires "diligence" for believing in him"
Well it seems to me that a god that makes himself so well hidden that intelligent rational people are unable to find him is either devious or does not exist. I have to say no existence and a god that is unavailable to scientific enquiry look suspiciously like the same thing.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
"Yeah, there is an idea! Have God(oh my bad, the one described in the bible) talk about future scientific descriptions in a 3,300 yr old text. That would make sense to everyone, from about the last 200 years"
Well if your god were real then he could explain it so that it could be understood. He could have at least explained a simple concept of germ theory so that people with fevers would not be treated as demon possessed souls.
artyfarty2 2 years ago