Added: 4 years ago
From: operationmongoose
Views: 36,230
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (440)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Religion is a weakness of the mind. It is for the simple minded and easily manipulated cowards that our species is currently overburdened with. These are the kind of people that are not worth arguing with because they have not the means to create a valid argument. Faith =fearful laziness.

  • @phishthefish..and still the Truth remains..@frokenstein the Koran says Jesus wasnt crucified..Mohammeds bones are in the grave..JESUS IS GOD..HIS TOMB IS EMPTY!!..only Jesus fulfilled so many prophecies written hundreds of years BEFORE HE was born..was that luck?

  • Hitchens is a fool...as he as cursed GOD and surpressed the TRUTH..his pride has led him to sickness and an early grave...ladies and gentlemen u can live how u want..but u Still have to answer to CHRIST..EVERY KNEE WILL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS THAT JESUS IS LORD!.. I pray that he repents before its too late

  • @I21GenieLee Hitchens is a fool... as he as cursed THE GIANT MAN IN THE SKY and surpressed AN IRRELEVANT OPINION.. his pride has led him to sickness and an early grave...ladies and gentlemen u can live how u want..BUT YOU CAN'T because you Still have to answe to CAPITAL LETTERS..EVERY KEY WILL BE LARGER THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE AND EVERY TONGUE WILL SPOUT RUBBISH ON YOUTUBE!.. I pray that he burns in hell because I am a sick deluded individual.

  • @I21GenieLee - WRONG. Those who answer to Christ will all go to HELL. Allah and the prophet Muhammad are the ONLY path to salvation. I implore you to read the Quran and get on the right path before it's TOO LATE for you.

  • i don't think there is any need to abandon our hope in god because we developed science and reasoning. the two can live in total harmony with each other. i believe in god because i choose to believe in god. i choose to believe because without god i will never get to meet up with old departed family members or friends ever again and the wicked who slipped from justice on this earth will never face true justice in the other. so i choose god (and science and reasoning)

  • @atlantichouse Not really....

  • Micro-organisms have dominion over us? Well, some of them do, although I have several T cells that would beg to differ.

  • @SheSaysSoIndeed Your pathetic T-Cells have nothing on Smallpox, Cancer, Aids, Black Plague, Ebola, Flu, the list goes on and on this is why we have doctors and scientific research.

  • look at this white bitch kissing his ass lol

  • I really hate it when they say " where did morality come from if not from God? "

    Its obviously beneficial to work together and respect one another to make society function,you respect me and my property and ill respect yours,trial and error is older than the idea or beleif in a God by far.

  • @DaAlphaOmega You're absolutely correct. The question or problem of "Where did morality come from" is a straw-man fallacy. Morality is a problem that religion creates just to explain it with God. Even monkeys can show empathy and a general understanding of right and wrong.

  • who is this liberal white guilt afflicted twinkletoes mediating? FAIL

  • in sharptons defense.....when does hitchens NOT completely demolish anyone if debates

  • @crackhead2777888 Ya Hitchens always wins debates!! Wait, that's what your using to defend a losing position? That your competitor is always right so its unfair?

  • fuck that fucking jesus lover

  • I have an itch for more Hitch!

  • oh yea... hitchenation...

  • The guy who is hosting this has the most annoying voice I have ever heard.

  • when is someone gonna rival hitchens in an argument fuck. its so boring.

    dawkins is nowhere near as awesome at pwning ppl i wouldn't send him into a word fight. there's gotta be someone out thereeee

  • Rev? are you serious? rev? LOL...muahahaha!

    Shapton is just a joke who would sell his mom for money!

  • Obama is a socialist. He took over the automobile, mortgage, banking, and health care industries via legislation and regulation. Govt is expected to own 70% up from 19% in 2008.

    . He stated that the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the Supreme Court didn’t bring about redistributive change. watch?v=Sj4yIE9Dd90 He told Joe the Plumber in 2008, that he wanted to spread the wealth around. watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o 

  • Al Sharpton believes that a vote for Obama was a vote for socialism. watch?v=KCpINI5aVy0 Al Sharpton wants to share the wealth. “Al Sharpton: We Won't Have True Social Justice Until Everything is Equal in Everybody's House” watch?v=95bcEb1rV18

    .

    Sharpton should start by giving up his $5 million (from celebrity net worth com) It’s also worth noting Hilter was a socialist that seemed to follow the Communist Manifesto.

    .

    Allen West 2012

  • hitchens is an intellect while sharpton is nothing more than a greazy politician. this debate is pointless.

  • @thenewrapstyle yet amusing :D

  • how did al become so famose has he held any form of eleced office?

  • Al Sharpton is a loud, obnoxious jerk who will do anything to get into and stay in the limelight.

  • yucky spear-chucka 

  • I hope Hitchens lives through his cancer. He alone contains about 12% of the human race's articulation.

  • Yeah, Hitch. He owned that asshole like Anal Addicts 10.

  • as soon as I heard the word "reverend" I switched off

  • The most lopsided debate one is apt to come across on You-Tube.Right away,Sharpton proves out of his element,as Hitchens need unsheathe only his most perfunctory rationales for the most elementary question.(The row with Hannity comes close,however!)

  • Al Sharpton is a joke. That little mustache doesn't help either.

  • its obvious that he was brainwashed at a young age

  • Age nine? What the hell? This is crazy.

  • Wow he mentions things being wicked, or wrong or evil. My question is this, where does he get the definitions for those values? My definition might be different than his so if i believe wicked is a cool and fun thing then when it comes to murder is it ok for me but not him? Obviously that wouldn't fly in court. So where does this "value" system come from?

  • Sharpton's as sharp as a watermelon

  • I cant take good old al seriously. He just doesnt know what he's talking about

  • Thumbs up for Atheists!

  • MopDMTBARTL: I agree with your statement, except that God is not here for love, don't romanticize it. If god does exist it; we(humans) are just another small part of existence.

  • @jacob8088

    So? We kind of are. That may be a more difficult proposition than that we are the chosen people of some great creator, but it's the one that's probably true.

    I think for a God to represent love in the presence of hell, it would have to: A) Reveal itself to bad people who are going to hell and give them a chance to change. B) Send people to hell based upon their actions, not their club membership. C) Give it a finite period of time.

  • @47FireKeeper : I am a little perplexed, god hasn't done A,B, or C you mentioned above. Are you agreeing with my statement? Can you expand more... plus what do you mean by "for God to represent love he would have to give it a finite period in time"?, time in hell?

  • @jacob8088

    I suppose I may have confused your meaning and went off on an almost completely different train of thought.

    What I was saying was that for the idea of a loving God that sends people to hell to be consistent with morality (I think, at least) that's what he'd have to do. And, clearly, he doesn't. And, yes, I did mean in hell.

  • @47FireKeeper

    people who don't believe in the judea-

    christian god do not go to hell, of-course.

    It would be wicked/immoral of a supposedely

    moral perfect god to do such a horrendous

    thing. It is inconsistent with morality as much

    of the bible is. morality shouldn't come from

    religion. Good people do good thing, bad people

    are bad, if you want a good person to do bad

    things, that takes religion.

  • @jacob8088 I have a better idea of where you're coming from now, I think. Good talking with you.

  • @jacob8088 -- So my question is this. How does an imperfect man evaluate and make an understanding of a perfect God. Would he automatically do so perfectly or would there be a high chance of fallibility. Take for example (if you have children), When we tell our children "yes beer and wine are a good thing in right proportions, but you cant have any right now." Do you think that child is inherently going to understand why? Not a chance, without many explanations and practical application.

  • @safeguardinvest : wrong & evil, good/bad, wickedness varies per culture and religion, there are a few moral absolutes anthropologist have identified. I believe Hitchens derives his morals from his inner self and reading of past philosophers who have tackled the subject (such as Hume, Kant, etc...) plus his desire for human solidarity. A moral value system doesn't need a supernatural celestial beings endorsement. His lack in a belief in a god does not make him more inclined to act wickedly.

  • @safeguardinvestThis 2ndquestion is slightly confusing to me. If our perception of god is of an entity that is flawless then we imagine him as perfect & pure. I think what you're getting at is that god is too great for our limited human minds to comprehend. If he does exist I would agree; god is unknowable, but many claim to know his EXACT will; down to what to eat, when to rest, etc.which is ludicrous. god is too big for just one religion, he isn't up there trying to figure out if he is christi

  • Sharpton is not exactly an 'intellectual'

  • hes an equality racist

  • Good Morals were established long b4 religion or the bible. Man created that, just like the bible & religion. They took good morals we already had & put them in our religion & bible, etc. we dont need religion. God isnt here 4 an explanation of things, thats 4 science. God is here 4 LOVE. Jesus may have lived, may just a story. Its the MESSAGE thats the most imp. Always put out Love-positive energy. I hate religion btw. Beliefs should always be changing, evolve!

    go here:

    truthknowledge. com

  • sharpton didnt defend the bible and says religion and god are not same ...lol xD

  • I'm pretty sure he stole my car

  • I could think of about 100 better choices than Sharpton for this debate.

  • Really, spankula123?

    Because I could think of a 1000.

  • @spankula123 And I could name you 100 better than Hitchens. The God side always loses, regardless.

  • @abaskcasckbackj shows how dumb you are, no offence

  • @spankula123 the thing is, it doesn't matter which person you choose to take the opposing position to Mr. Hitchens. He's packing a logic shooting chain-gun.

  • @Oxyster7 I've rarely seen logic employed by atheists. Mainly because their rarely logical or employed.

  • Don't be a retard.

  • @themooddisorders  ooooohhhh, nice retort. are you a writer?

  • @spankula123 YES

  • @spankula123 Would they be funnier?

  • @spankula123 do tell.

  • a minister at age 9? how could anyone take that church seriously?

  • I thought the same thing. But if you consider the kinds of things that church-goers take seriously, it kind of makes sense.

  • morons?

  • @elea1885 because religion is adults willingly believing in kiddy shit

  • @elea1885 How could you take a minister of any age seriously? ;)

  • @elea1885 in America everything is possible. or should I say, with Americans?

  • @elea1885 All church is absurd, but this is just icing

  • @elea1885

    That explains his delusion. He was simply brainwashed at a very young age. Science provides evidence for childhood abuse and how it effects us in adulthood, ergo old habits are hard to shake off.

  • Al Sharpton is such a puke...

  • i have no idea. its a cultural thing. its the same way for Hispanics and Irish being Catholics

  • This debate was one of my favorites. Quite laid back, the intro music, the humor from the moderator, or as they called him, the "umpire".

    Oh and Hitch dominating some small minded peasant didn't hurt either ;)

  • Maher said it best.....

    this guy was ordained at 9 years of age?

    How credible can that be?

  • who

  • i cant stand shapton for shit ! he's such a phony to me . !

    and im black so ppl wont think only white ppl dont like him . i dont like his messed up hairline ass either !

  • Atheists FTW!!

  • I am a secularist, but I actually think that Sharpton handled himself well here.

    He basically abandoned Christian theology and focused rather on the fact that 1) the universe had a definite beginning point and 2) this is something that secularists have not adequately explained.

    In short, he wasn't a particularly unreasonable theist.

  • LOL so because we cant explain how the universe began, means their is a god? prove it.. oh you cant? must mean their isnt a god... And when you have to abandon your specific beliefs, you prove they arent right.

  • Nonsense. I already said I was a skeptic. That is what "secularist" means.

    You seem to be unclear on the core principle of science. Nothing science asserts can be definitively proven. The best that we have are hypotheses that have not (yet) been falsified.

    While I personally do not think that "God" is likely to be how things got started 14B years ago- intellectual honesty recognizes that alternative hypotheses are no more convincing.

    Well played on Sharpton''s part.

  • I understand you may personally be a secularist, but I am saying that any two hypotheses are not equally valid.... There could be a number of hypotheses but that doesnt make them all the exact same % of being true. And I would disagree w/ you because the hypotheses that their is no god is much more convincing than the hypotheses their is a god. Sharpton is full of shit at best and a liar at worst.

  • Fair enough then. You speak off "two hypotheses." What is the second hypothesis that you are comparing Sharpton's deist argument to?

  • the belief in no god?

  • Cute. But not actually an alternative hypothesis.

    An alternative hypothesis would need to provide an alternative explanation for the available facts. (i.e. the universe apparently began suddenly in an explosive event 14 billion years ago).

  • Wrong! Alternative hypotheses can be more "convincing", they simply can not be CERTAIN. If my sausage link is gone when I return to the table, I could come up with a more convincing argument the dog did it. But I could not be "certain" it wasn't god, even if I watched it myself.

  • What exactly is your alternative hypothesis for the origin of the universe?

  • I guess by being so pointless, Sharpton did seem less silly than most. I would say he made a good argument for agnosticism. He also came across as someone profoundly odd in a belief in his "personal" god unrelated to anyone's particular version. It is the "buffet style" religion common to the US and a good reason it still is present these days. If god fits to us instead we to him, how can you argue with that? Hitchens tends to resort to the tried and true instead of thinking on his feet IMO.

  • I think Al Sharpton would be better serving himself and society at large if he were in charge of the fryolator at a rural McDonald's.

    A VERY rural McDonald's.

  • If there is a hell, which I very much doubt, I think that would be a good description of it. Even thinking about what it would be like to have that job makes me depressed.

  • Hitchens rules Sharpton is a lazy piece of garbage that has made millions from Race Baiting just look at tawanna brawley case

  • Hitchens is awesome! More people like him! Let's start with ourselves!

  • Huzzah!

  • I don't think he wants to kill innocent people in the liberation of Iraq. Are you aware of how many Kurds, women and children were deliberately slaughtered by Saddam? Do you realise that most of the deaths in Iraq are the result of warring factions of Islam?

  • Please cite where he states that he wants to kill innocent people in Iraq. That's right, you can't. Moron.

  • a minister at the age of 9?

  • really says something about their church don't it lol

  • About the whole ordaining a child at nine, its not really a major point against religion that is not already apparent. In that of course a nine year old can be a preacher because all it involves is reading a script. It requires no thought or reasoning of any kind, and the fact that it can be "taught" by a nine year old shows how immature and childish the whole thing is. All you do is read something. And just as with actors, the most charismatic and outlandish often do the best.

  • I'm surprised you didn't quote some some nonsense from the bible. The bible has no more credibility than Dr. Suess' Cat in the Hat.

  • The cat in the hat was awe inspiring.

  • Sharpton pisses me off so much in this debate. He NEVER defends the Bible (the reason he's even a reverand).  He dodges every valid punk out and should be embarassed for it. WIMP

  • That's because he can't even comprehend what Hitchens is saying, he's not smart enough. Sharpton tries to make up for his low IQ with being angry and loudmouthed.

  • holy fuck his mouth doesn't move when he talks.

  • LMFAO I liked how the moderator kept listing 100s of public offices that Al Sharpton ran for...notice he NEVER WON any of them? I guess failure is in his blood...Al Sharpton is an asshole and it's a shame that after Martin Luther King Jr. there has NOT been a single Civil Rights activist that has inspired people to make a positive difference like he has. Anyhow...on the issue of religion he's an idiot also....I'll give him 100% for effort but 0% for success...

  • why do u keep bringing up MLK everytime you talk about current civil rights activist? Its not fair 2 continue 2 compare others 2 him. No one is trying 2 be like MLK so stop bringing him up. Do I believe Al Sharpton did everything right? No, but who the hell are you to question ones motives? Do you know whats in their hearts.

  • I keep bringing up MLK? I just made one comment on this video and you got all worked up over it? Relax buddy. I'm not the only person who thinks Al Sharpton is a nobody compared to MLK, Jr. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it...instead of telling me what to do and attacking me you should intelligently try to express your viewpoint.

  • alright now u went 2 far there

  • lol. I hate Al Sharpton. He's not a defender of rights, he's a clown whose career depends on racial hostility much like Lou Dobbs.

  • well idk bout that but he certainly no MLK

  • bwahah heath got a lithp

  • Sharpton like his buddy Jackson is no more than a charlatan and a gangster.

  • "ordained" at 9 years old...doesn't his standing, or atleast the standing of those who "ordained" him, take a pretty big hit on that? by that i mean that if your going to "ordain" a child, your cult isn't really serious or adult.

  • Still waiting for Sharpton to apologize for the Tawanna Brawley debacle, the Duke University lacrosse player witch hunt and the fact that he is a total moron. Anyone with any sense of self and an iota of intelligence knows that this man is a buffoon.

  • Why doesn't he mention that Sharpton doesn't pay taxes?

  • Hitchens wouldn't even need Kryptonite to kill Superman.

  • thanks for posting, the fora link is broken :(

  • Hitchens kills Sharpton.

    I like Sharpton though. I was reading up on him. His stance on equal rights is really good. Being Atheist doesn't mean we HATE religion....why hate myths.

  • We also HATE ignorant, stubborn people, well I do...

  • "we"

    Are you referring your Atheism?

  • yes

  • Sharpton is a fucking MORON, simply put. His religious perspective aside, I still have little to no respect for him.

  • I hate sharpton not for his religious beliefs but the insane racist acts he's done. He was a very amazing man at one point in his life, he's now changed.

  • I am an atheist, but science proved where the "sea" parted. It was actually a lake not a sea and it didnt part, but they know where a tsunami came through and left an area in the middle to cross. The bible is historic in some parts but almost all of it is metephor.

  • Too bad there's absolutely no archeological evidence that the Jews even roamed the desert for 40 years.

  • Especially in a journey where it only takes 10 days!

  • The bible is in no way metaphorical. That's absurd. It's straight up story telling, and the only messages it attempts to pass on are straight, so I don't see why the part's that have been proven incorrect would suddenly become metaphorical. What exactly is metaphorical about a man giving his virgin daughter up instead of a stranger, because it's immoral to harm men, but not women? There's no metaphor, and definetly no message from God explaining which parts to pick and choose.

  • AsG1989, absolutely false. The best anyone's ever done is say it could have happened. That's pretty far from proof. Where are you getting this stuff? And how is the bible historic on this point if the wandering of the desert, for which we have exactly no evidence, ever happened? Even if it did happen, you'd still need someone there to see it for it to get into the bible, no?

  • The people who wrote the bible obviously witness certain events, but ofcoarse at the time they thought it was miracles. Like it or not, the bible has historic parts. The fact that it was written a long time ago makes it historic.

  • Normally things are established when seen by 2 or 3 witnesses. Even the bible says that. Why aren't there more books supporting the "history" of the bible? Other people outside the bible wrote about Jesus so I can accept that he most likely lived. Now, about people like Moses.... that's another story. You'd think that after the miraculous escape from Egypt to wonder in the desert for 40 years, that some body outside the bible may have written about them. but there's nothing about 'em

  • i wonder why no outside source thought it worthwhile to interview lazarus. it would have made interesting reading if it was true.

  • "He ran for bla, and bla, and bla, and bla, and apparently can't even get elected dogcatcher."

  • He ran for the "campaign" contributions from the flock (and has been battling the IRS ever since); disgusting.

  • Wow, listen to the moderator. You can tell by the lisp and the effeminate tone that he likes it up the ass.

  • people that belive that the earth is 6000 years old cant be taken serious on anything

  • Don't confuse life on earth with the age of the earth.

    The age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant to the age of life on earth.

  • What if in my confusion I had a religion and it would say life is 500 years old? what then? Then your religion would be really confused about Jesus and stuff! Wicked!

  • It doesn't work that way. Things are established as fact by what has been written, not by what someone believes. Christianity has always been based on historical documents and evidence of intelligent design.

  • But there lies your folly :/ "historical documents and evidence of intelligent design"

    Those are all but interprets of individuals or societies. Your quasi stance on age of earth and life is admitting defeat.

    The age of life on earth is irrelevant to the age of the universe.

  • Evolution has no basis at all and you criticise actual historical accounts, genealogies and information in the Bible.

  • Did i say anything about evolution? You did. Even evolution is a theory, based partially on empirical studies. So it too is just "a best guess". Like the bible was for so long, just another guess.

  • Historical accounts are actual records of what happened. There are many such records so there is no need to guess.

    Evolution depends on guessing, supposition and conjecture.

  • Al Sharpton is a divisive, racist, shamelessly self-promoting fraud; truly a national disgrace.

    Congratulations to Christopher Hitchens on his new American citizenship. A brave voice of reason.

    Now if only we could convince Al to go for British citizenship, we would be all set.

  • Al Sharpton is irrelevant and Hitchens believes silly things. That makes Al Sharpton the better of the two because at least even Al Sharpton doesn't believe that objects make information like Hitchens does!

    When Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens stand before God, they will be asked if they lied about God. Which one do you think has a better chance of getting into heaven?

    'nough said.

  • Al Sharpton SHOULD be irrelevant (and is to my mind), although the fact that he was asked to sit on this stage (and spout off on cable news programs) would sadly seem to suggest otherwise.

    Hitchens makes the excellent point that it's amazing what one can get away with saying and doing when they have the word "reverend" in front of their name. Wouldn't you agree?

    "Objects make information?"

    If heaven exists (which it does not), I like Hitchens's chances over Al's. (Pascal's Wager)

  • Hitchens does not confess the truth.

    At least Al Sharpton does not give the credit for everything that we see - to objects.

  • Prophesy - "Hitchens does not confess the truth." What do you mean he doesn't "confess" the truth? "Confess" what? "Confess" to whom?

    Sharpton doesn't even have the courage to defend his own "faith" in Christian dogmas.

    What do you find admirable about a person claiming to know something that he manifestly cannot know?

    You're a fool.

  • Hitchens does not speak truth.

    At least Sharpton can tell there is wind by looking at the trees move and he knows there is a Designer/Creator/God by looking at God's Creation.

  • Prophesy - You mean Hitchens does not speak to YOUR "truth." I'm pretty sure Christopher has observed the effect of wind moving through trees. Why this natural phenomena of nature should be taken as evidence of a supernatural god in your mind is beyond me.

    If you're really interested in wind (which it sounds like you are), you might borrow a high school science textbook and read about it instead of leaping to irrational conclusions.

    What's a deadly tsunami say to you?

    You're a fool.

  • No, the trees moving is evidence of the wind and intelligent design is evidence of a Designer/Creator/God who is greater than every known thing in the entire universe.

  • No, he's a dicktard.

  • It sounds like you're judging Hitchens's chance of getting into heaven...isn't that a "no no" for you?

    And if believing that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noahs ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the earth, and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God isn't silly, I just don't know what is.

    'nough said.

  • Go by the observable evidence of intelligent design and the fact that there is nothing in the entire known universe that is able to repeat what we see. If you can't explain that, don't knock the talking serpent (Dragon). Many dinosaurs were also sea monsters that did not have to go on the ark. Also, the age of the universe is irrelevant to the age of life on earth.

    Evolution has no evidence.

  • Hitchens was deprived of a real decent education. He cannot say what happened in a time that he did not see. David and others spoke of hell as they also spoke of heaven. Yeshua (Jesus) explained what heaven and hell is. Hitchens describing the Bible is describing a Bible that I did not read. Read the Bible for yourself and you will see that God is good. Objects do not make information. The evidence of ID is that there is a Designer/Creator/God and He happens to be very good.

  • you're deeply mistaken.

    you must have been deprived of decent education and brains.

  • At least I don't say that objects produce information. Static only results in static.

    The most any information can do is to reproduce itself and the most that we can do ourselves is to observe the information that there is that is already there.

  • what are you talking about? what is this static you are talking about? a strawman arguement surely will follow.

  • Static is static. Objects do nothing. Evolution does not happen. Life forms reproduce after their kind from preexisting designs. The variations of species are a part of the preexisting designs. Rare, random, seldom useful, accidental mutations are overridden by the variations of the preexisting designs.

  • LOL someone has been reading licking too much hovind heiney. you should actually research evolution from non-biased creationist sites. watch AronRa's videos and don exodus. it'll save you reading.

  • Speak to the issues (in your own words)... if you can.

  • "speak to the issues" what? If you mean you want me to refute your claims, then you set them up and i'll knock them down to the best of my ability.

  • The facts are evident, they have already been set up and you can't shoot them down because there are too many of them and there are too many copies of them. That is the reason why no one has ever been able to refute the Bible. Many people have come and gone and the Bible still remains true as it will forever.

  • LOLOLOL there is no evidence for the old testament. pretty funny how egypt and china were already flourishing as countries before the old testament. so instant fail for you. all creationist myths have been refuted. please provide the evidence.

  • There is DNA evidence that proves Moses brother Aaron was a real person. This means the history of Israel is authentic and there are many more proofs other than DNA. We also have Jews and Arabs today that were both descended from Abraham.

  • Provide reference or STFU. There is no validity in your claims. Your usage of ID is laughable. The designer must have failed school, There is more extinct species than there is extant. VERDICT: you're emotionally attached to you myths and will lie to protect it. Repeating the same nonsence doesn't make it real.

  • There is a lot of material about Aaron's Y chromosome. Learn civility.

    Extinct species are a warning to us who remain. Christianity is based on history and science. Intelligent design is an observable scientific fact (no matter what any court says)