ok gravity first remember that 99.99999% of every atom inside youre body is space creating singularity and thus gravity because gravity comes from singularity not god
Don't you have something better to do? Like... attending preschool or someplace else with people who act the same age as yourself? Because obviously you're not mature enough to handle the internet, much less simple sentences.
@MyPaperBleedsInk Not mature enough huh? If I'm not mature enough, who is? No, not you. People who act the same age as myself? Yes, I hang around them. They go on computers, are atheists, play Skyrim, and program. Yeah, those people are really like preschool people.
Existence of a god cannot be quantified scientifically, because if this god did exist it would be in his best interest to show himself to EVERYONE and not some guy in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.
@Straightxuplazzy11 Micro evolution is a fact. Qyou can argue about it till you're blue in the face, but micro evolution is undeniable. Evolution is just micro evolution, but on a much longer timeline. The 5 great apes that currently inhabit the planet all descended from a common ancestor. That common ancestor gradually (micro)evolved over millions of years. And by chance, one of the branches of the tree happened to have extraordinary brains. This branch got smarter and smarter and is still get
We didn't come from apes, we shared a common ancestor.
Origin of language is currently unknown, but one theory suggest a single mutation took place.... eventually our ancestors began to almost mimic sounds they were hearing in nature, basically almost giving names to these things and imitating them to reference to them. If I remember correctly, most of this was the formation of what we know as vowels.
Take a look at evolution, since you don't even know the basics of it.
ok listen honey (sorry if you dont like being called that) posting videos means nothing, you need to find proof if you want to disproove somthing, yes that was a spelling fail, you are trying to fight fact with belief and bullshit, sorry for the language but plz remove this video, your only embarrising yourself
I don't believe it states anywhere that I was disproving these videos. I was shedding light on the idiots that exist, and exposing their ridiculous posts to others.
@MyPaperBleedsInk So somehow the point of this video "Scientific Evidence That God Exists and Evidence That Evolution is False" is not to disprove the evolution is false? Back to LA class kid.
O I forgot, y dont u post a video of 2 rocks hitting each other and making a human, how do all those elements end up making an elemnt that makes sperm and egg, it is just completely random, no GOD MADE US ALL
Two rocks hitting together to form a human? Okay then. Where are you getting this nonsense, your religious leader? Just like they and I'm pretty sure zee bible tells you mud and dust forms humans?
You're so right. There is a lot of chaos in this universe so that disproves that persons statement about how if there were no god there would be no gravity.Your video is so awesome. It was great.
@Rooker2012 LOL! where did the particles come from???
The essential functions of hydrogen working inside of us requires a Maker who is the Maker of all matter derived from hydrogen and the Maker of all matter is not made of the matter that He made Himself and there is no other evidence of any other maker. (repeat 1,000 times or untill you understand it.)
The ordered functions of hydrogen and most of the most common elements obeying a preexising word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have proves that both we and the entire universe have the same Maker because there is no evidence of any other maker.
Your idea of "religion" is a strawman.
The issue is knowing what true teaching is. That is Christian teaching, knowing what the truth is.
@Rooker2012 Tornados do not have any orders and they do not have any useful function. It has no relationship at all with the ordered functions that all work together in life forms.
@BentOnTheCross The proof we have a Maker is the ordered functions that hydrogen and most of the most common elements obey inside of us making us what we are according to a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have and our Maker, the Maker of the universe, is God.
Our very existence proves there is a God because of the ordered functions working inside of us.
@JungleJargon What you are obviously too retarded to understand is that you are not making any points or showing evidence. You're making statements, and I do not need proof to tell you that your baseless statements are not evidence.
@BentOnTheCross You are not engaging or addressing any of the issues and that means there is nothing you cn say because if you had something to say regarding the issues, you would have said it already.
I am not even addressing the kind of functions that hydrogen and most of the most common elements have inside of us that far exceed our intelligence with nano and quantum functions.
@JungleJargon How many times do I have to tell you have no valid evidence.
Here's what you are saying "A banana created the universe because hydrogen atoms, just because hydrogen atoms cannot exist without a creator banana". And I still think you don't have any clue how atoms or molecules work, because for some reason you keep pointing to hydrogen and the "common elements", as though it is completely different from all other atoms.
And that last paragraph made me laugh, it's just wrong.
@BentOnTheCross You have to show me a function that does not have a Maker before you can say I have no valid evidence and you have to tell me how 125 million cubic miles of sediments came to cover all the living things on earth.
Tell me how the lens in our eye is able to focus colors of different wave lengths togeher in the same focal length. It takes three separate lenses to do the same thing because we are not able to duplicate what our eye does.
@JungleJargon Fossils are evidence of evolution, I already told you how sediment is deposited (hint, erosion of rocks, which is then distributed to another place).
Claiming that it requires a "maker" is not proof, it's a baseless statement.
There would be no way to deposit that much sediment if the earth was 6000 years old, however the earth is billions of years old, making it possible.
You lose.
You are seriously so fucking retarded it's infuriating.
@BentOnTheCross You don't know what 125 million cubic miles of sediment is. Erosion does not deposit sediments, it erodes them away and the sediments would all be in the oceans by now if the earth really was billions of years old.
It must be very annoying for you not to really know how the ground you live on with an average of two miles deep got there.
"erosion"? lolol there are places that have never felt "erosion" for a billion years. sediments can be many different things. "washed"? not they wouldn't if they become stable and rock solid.
You have nothing to explain. you are JUST full of shit.
I kinda believe in evolution but u don't have to b all ignorant to the Christian beliefs just cuz u don't believe it I'm not ignorant against atheists were all humans so respect religion and u can believe in one or go rot in hell when Jesus comes back to take us believers to heaven! XD
@AlaskanEskimo88 Ignorance? You talk loud about it yet you just went against your own belief. Wasn't there something Jesus said about being polite, mannered and to speak the teachings instead of hate.
Here, it would be rude to speak the word to ears that do not wish to listen. You did have a choice not to listen or hate yet you did and that is your fault.
science s the system that uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena, it has nothing to do with God. i love science, knowing it s merely trial and error method and so much s yet 2 be discovered and so much to be corrected. the only place you can find the evidence of God,s in the Bible which s a waste of time according to u.B4 surgical operation became to be, God already done it with Adam when he put him to sleep and took out his rib and covered his flesh.
I'm one of those females that thinks the whole "men can't hit women" philosophy is stupid. I mean, sure, it's not right to hit ANYONE..... but you shouldn't base not doing so because of someone's gender. As I tell other guys that bring up the whole chivalry thing dealing with violence ---"You can go ahead and hit me no matter that I'm a woman.... but just know that I have every right to hit you back and it's going to hurt."
What would you consider humiliating a religious person in real life?
Because sure I made a few videos just to offer my views to the weird religious people on here.... but I've been debating various religious people face to face for years. I just made a few random vids on here because I was bored and I couldn't believe some of the crazy videos/people who are on youtube.
@ThomasWinkworth the majpority of them do in islamic nations, but they are worse than you, they dont just beat the shit out of people, they kill people. both of which are wrong.
@Bourtini Wow, i have said some of the most strangest things on youtube which i cannot even remember. But there must of been some reason as to why i said those things. Violence is foolish if you believe morals are objective and i do, so:
@TheFreddy654 Exactly right. Here is a riddle for 'atheists'......name one message which did not come from a mind. So simple is the answer even children understand it yet an 'atheist' cannot answer it.
@xESOTERlC Hello. It has nothing to do with religion. 'Atheists' cannot answer that question......name one message which did not come from a mind. The answer is so simple even a small child can answer it yet an 'atheist' cannot.
@johnthreesixteen316 you could say a message that doesn't come from mind is a message from god--but i dont understand what the point is..? but you said it wasn't religious
you could say you could get a text message or online message or message in the mail.. but those all originated in a mind.. so.. what message doesn't come from a mind?
@johnthreesixteen316 Either tell me if you wish to have a logical exchange(which I doubt from the meaningless drivel you've already exhibited) or I'll just be on my way and discount you as another run-of-the-mill idiot
So, what is this message and how is it at all relevant?
@xESOTERlC How does that mean there is no God? Where did the hundreds of millions of information packed messages come from which are encoded into our DNA? From a mind. A mind bigger than mine and yours. 132 billion miles of DNA in our bodies. To the sun and back over 700 times. That's a lot of info. That's quite the mind. While you were in your mother's womb, she was stitching together 488 million miles of DNA per day on average. Mindless evolution did this? No mind....no messages.
@johnthreesixteen316 your inability to grasp something doesn't make it either infeasible nor incomprehensible.. merely out of YOUR reach
Your simple minded and delusional. The fact that you would pose a riddle as any sort of refutation to ANYTHING is proof of your stupidity of singular grace.
Carry on in your idiocy if you like, I don't mind. However, if you wish to share your stupidity with others, come with something more than your own limited understanding as proof
Let's say I'm a car historian and I have dedicated my entire life to figure out how cars have assembled themselves without any human intervention. I would be considered a fool and would be laughed off the face of the earth. Well, there are people who call themselves scientists who have dedicated their lives to try and figure out how life 'assembled' itself. “.......being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
@johnthreesixteen316 no, actually you didn't. inanimate objects objects have no correlation with abiogenesis
Not to mention, you're using something specific that we know to be created by humans
What of natural landscapes that appear to be designed? They came about by natural circumstances over time, and that's WITHOUT inherent chemical characteristics and attractions that are well understood and documented. Leave a car door next to a doorless car, there is innate attraction between them
@xESOTERlC Hello friend. Let me apologize for not explaining myself properly. If you and I were standing at the base of the Empire State Building and I told you I believe it built itself, you would laugh at me and rightfully so. Lock me up and throw away the keys. Well, when scientists look at DNA which is well beyond the complexity of any building, yet they can stand there and say it built itself. They should be saying 'who built this'?
@johnthreesixteen316 Again, as I already said, there is a difference between inanimate, inorganic objects and elements and living organisms
Are you telling me that your god makes every baby that is inside a woman? Are you saying that it is not naturally created through sexual reproduction, mitosis and meiosis?
@johnthreesixteen316 yes, and science shows that things adhere to a natural set of laws. Science is currently looking into origin of life. Evolution is an entirely separate issue: it is known and understood.
How do I continue to live and grow? Does your god continually add to my size? OBVIOUSLY elements are able to be incorporated into the living organism. Lack of knowledge does not automatically dictate something else as fact. If so, we'd still be in the dark ages
There is evidence of evolution. As much as the anti evolution brigade would like it, facts just don't disappear when you ignore them. Religions disappear when people ignore them. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, a fact is a fact even if no one believes it.
Smart and cute. Personally my favorite is when it says theres no evidence of chimps evolving to man. While were pointing out made up fantasy evolutionary paths- Theres no evidence of crocodiles evolving to ducks, or starfish evolving to rhinos, Bunnies into tigers, hippos into giraffes, rats into pigeons, idiots into jesussavemeplease, or even panda bears into koala bears. Surely these also disprove evolution. Mm MMM, straw men arguments. Youve got to love them.
There is no evidence that concludes beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution exist. it's the same. sure there are stupid postings on the web that cannot prove anything about God.
Ah, to say that just becos there is rain, there has been rainbows, you cant prove it. u can say nowadays, when there is rain, there is a rainbow, but u cant prove shit about the past. U see, you can disagree with the postings, but it doesnt prove anything on the atheist side of things.
My logic is science cant prove shit. really. are u there 200,000 years ago? It takes more faith to believe the Science than to believe in a God. Just saying.
Really? It takes more faith to believe in something that can be proven and eventually is, then to believe in an invisible being people have only talked about and created through words and many years of brainwashing? Wooow.
it shows your maturity when u say stuff like tat, brainwashing? I say b4 and i say again- regarding the origins of life - e.g. evolution, big bang - are just theories created by men through words as well. Science cant prove shit.
And it shows your maturity when you type like an eight year old. Then again, maybe you are one, I don't know.
Yeah, you're right. All those scientific laws that have been proven time and time again aren't actually proof. I mean, gravity doesn't exist, there isn't a speed of light, respiration of plants, photosynthesis.... nope, scientists just made all that up because they can't prove anything.
Yet your average IQ'ed human can somehow prove a magic man lives in the sky. Amazing
@eclecticderby "...evolution, big bang - are just theories created by men"
You do realize that in the scientific world a theory means a concept that is backed by years of research and substancial evidence. It can only be put into law when it is proved that it is true for every species, which will take a while considering there are 1,740,330 species on Earth and and countless more unobservable species scattered on other planets. Religion is an Idea, not based on evidence, but on mans imagination
@eclecticderby "It takes more faith to believe the Science than to believe in a God. Just saying."
I agree. Testable evidence is for the faithless. Who needs "Facts" and "repeatable tests" and "evidence" when weve got a magic sky wizard on our side! AMEN
@eclecticderby the very same science u retard dont believe in repaired your grannys hip, build and fueled your car, heals your illnesses, extended your life and developed your computer just to name a few.
i mean, really? how ridiculously ignorant can you be?
What caused the collapse of the wave into a particle form? Have you ever heard of the Double Slit experiments? Well, they delcared that the presence of an "observer" i.e. a conscious state, actually causes the collapse of the "probable wave" into a particle.
The act of "awareness" seems to alter the "wave" into a physical form. The Quantum Eraser experiment backs up the Double Slit experiment. Therefore, our "awareness" state allows us to create our physical reality.
Therefore, you cannot have "mass" without "first having the "mathematical potential wave" collapse into physical form, by a "conscious" state. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle talks about the uncertainty of the momentum and the position of the wave-function.
As you can clearly see, the "probable wave" cannot exist as "mass" UNTIL something pre-exists it, and causes the "probable wave" to transform into mass.
Could you please stop spreading falsity? Particles do not require wave function collapse in order to exist. In fact, since wave functions mathematically map the probability amplitude of a subatomic particle, wave function presupposes particles.
You are spreading falsity and bastardizing Quantum Mechanics to service your selfish God belief. Wave Functions are just mathematical tools that predict probability.
According to the Double Slit experiments and the Quantum Eraser experiments, a "conscious" state collapses the "mathematical probable wave" into a particle, correct?
Can you have mass within the quantum state? No. Where did the "infinite densed" come from? Remember, the quantum domain is "prior" to the big bang.
And since "density, volume, and spatial dimensions" arose AFTER the big bang, what are you doing with "infinite density" there?
You see, density is actually the ratio of mass per unit volume. Yet, an infinite density basically suggests that there exists an "unlimited" mass within a 'limited volume. Mass =the amount of "stuff" in something.
A conscious state equals matter. Matter breaks down into a probable wave, therefore, if a conscious equals matter, and matter equals a probable wave, then naturally, a "probable wave" equals a consious" state, correct?
Now, get this, "a conscious state" equals "awareness", therefore, an awareness state via a conscious state is still a "probable wave." Now, we both know that a "probable wave" is not "three-dimensional", therefore, I can place a "non-3 dimensional" conscious in the beginning.
Can virtual particles arise without gravity? No. Yet, can gravity exist without virtual particles? No. What came first, gravity or virtual particles? Be careful how you answer, remember, "gravity is the force between two objects", so, you cannot have particles arising from gravity, when in fact gravity "is the force between two existing objects.
Does time exist, or is the motion around the sun simply an illusion of time? Speaking of motion, would motion around the sun exist without gravity? No. So, where would gravity exist if there was no virtual particles prior to gravity? And then, where would your "motion" that you require in order to initiate "kinetic energy" come from without gravity? Also, gravity is the force which gives objects weight, and without gravity, how could anything form?
@youVSmee You sure do like to throw out some big terms. It would help if you UNDERSTOOD the terms, instead of just trying to tie together some big shmancy words. Im sure you feel it makes you look smart- but to anyone who has a fraction of understanding for the terms youre talking about, you look like the fool you are. If you want to debate philosophy hey go for it- But dont fool yourself into thinking that what youre babbling about is science.
What surrounded the singularity prior to expansion? Why is there something instead of nothing? The duality of the wave-particle collapses do to a conscious state, therefore, can a tree fall without a conscious observer?
Gravity is the force between two opposing objects, correct? Now,if particles are "probable wave' then explain what collapsed the wave into a particle form.I suggest you look up "Double-Slit experiment, Quantum Eraser, Copenhagen's Interpretation, Orch OR Theory.
@SidewaysGts Next: The Cambrian explosion clearly displays an "a sudden explosion" of "phyla." Now, why is it that different "phyla" i.e. different classes of speciated species "already existed" within the "initial Cambrian Era?"
I mean, the pre-cambrian era has no links to the Cambrian Era. Therefore, "speciated" species occurred at once, after their "own kind." Instead of having speciea arising and transforming into other species, you instead have "hundredths of phyla" already existing.
Do you have any clue to what youre talking about when discussing the cambrian explosion? Do you realize how BROAD the term "phyla" actually is? Yes there was a mass expansion of phyla as new life forms emerged and started to being the great battle for dominance, whoop-dee-doo. This is a phyla explosion, not a species explosion . There was hardly all types of species around. Where the cambrian Rat/Moose/Rhino/Giraffe/Hippo/Bunny/Eagle? Lets make it easier, find me a SINGLE cambrian MAMMAL
You have already acknowledged that the "beginning" had a "mass expansion of phyla" and in fact, these "phyla" in particular, were all "segregated' from OTHER phyla.
Do you realize what that implies? Do you? Well, within the Cambrian Era, you already had "DIFFERENT" kinds of species SEGREGATED after THEIR OWN KIND.
There was NOT a "progressional" transformational process. Instead of observing a blossoming tree of "tranformational species' creating all varieties, you observe" a SUDDEN mass expansion of phyla.
Where are "all" the transformations which took place from the "pre-cambrian" era which created the "segregated" phyla within the Cambrian Era? Where? Did bacteria create any of the Cambrian phyla? Where is the "intermediate" links?
..came into existence "after" the initial Cambrian explosion. Also, u must realize that the Gelological Columns are not solely created within a slow "uniformed process", but are also created with "major catastrophies."
Recall the Mt. St. Helens eruptions? That catastrophe buried a lot of trees within a lot of 'strata." In short, there are "two methods" of creating geological columns. As a matter a fact, catastrophies "bury" a lot of animals within "different" layers of strata simultaneously.
The beginning fossils declared "no sign" of intermediate transformation from "one phyla" into another. All phyla maintained their "own kind' and "after their own kind" according to the evidence.
When u already have "segregated phyla" after their own kind, then that only proves that "class A" species created "after their own kind, YET, you have "class B" species creating after their own kind too. There is no evidence that "interlinks" segregated phyla whatsoever. End of story.
My god youre right. Those stupid scientists have been doing it wrong all these decades. And to think I just needed someone on youtube and his straw-man argument to clear it up for me. You need to get the word out there, expose this MONSTROUS conspiracy theory!
Lets ignore that the "cambrian explosion" wasnt an instant event & took over tens of MILLIONS of years to our understanding to occur- its painfully obvious you do NOT understand the subject, or are bullshitting to further your fallacies
The "evidence" speaks for itself. If "biased" interpretations suggest that all species branched out from a common ancestor, then I want to see proof of it, correct? The evidence shows "an array of phyla" pre-existing EVEN within the first initial Cambrian Era. Isn't that amazing?
And people believe that the pre-cambrian era produced all these "segregated phyla????" The Cambrian Era is more like a "lawn" with ALL segregated species ALREADY in place. Imagine that.
Think about it. There was a multitude of organisms, therefore, "evolution" occurred?? Really? That is the worst example of evidence for "Evolution."
First of all, according to Biocentric Theory, "Life is the focal point", therefore life ( biogenesis begets beginning of life creatures.
Sure that was a little random, but I needed to add it. Why? Because I could. Anyway, Let me see, you have "organisms" before the Cambrian Era, therefore, PROVE that these "organisms" are the..
.....organisms of species. Alright. What on earth does "organism" existing before the Cambrian Era "segregated species" have to do with Evolution??"
What about the worms, algae, etc., what "Common LINK" do they have with anything at the Cambrian Era? You might as well have said, "Well, there was "dirt" before the Cambrain phyla, therfore "dirt is the common ancestor." Wow.
Abiogenesis ( non-life to life ) is NOT a theory, NOR a law, its simply an idea. However, "Bio-Genesis" is a LAW. Yup.
@youVSmee Wow you really are all over the place. Who is bringing up abiogensis? I know I didnt. Im talking about evolution, the change in diversity of organisms. Nothing at ALL to do with the origins of life. A sky wizard himself could have poofed the first life into existence- this does not discredit evolution in the slightest. What does life being around before the cambrian explosion have to do with it? Everything. The cambrian explosion is a time when organisms started to expand and
Show me the "examples" where the pre-cambrian era "species" ( forget the organisms, worms, algae, etc. Which species within the pre-cambrian era transformed into which "fully developed species?"
You only have "organisms" and that is "life" not "non-life." Show me "fossils" which transformed from the pre-cambrian era into the Cambrian Era.
You cannot use "existing life" and begin from there to "attempt" your theory. In that case, you are talking about the Origins of Life, not Evolution. Forget about the origins of life, since "that" has no evidence either ( non-life to life). It all BEGAN from "life" exactly. Two birds ( Evolution & Abiogenesis ) are being destroyed in this beginning state.
Do not begin with "life" rather begin from "non-life" if you wish to talk about the Origins of LIfe, rather than Evolution.
"Forget about the origins of life, since "that" has no evidence either ( non-life to life). It all BEGAN from "life" exactly. Two birds ( Evolution & Abiogenesis ) are being destroyed in this beginning state."
So because science cant perfectly explain where life came from, it cant explain what it does? This is like someone looking at a car of unknown make/history, and saying since you dont know where it came from- you have no way of knowing what it does. Do we see why this is absurd?
Do you know who else believed in order? Hitler.
joshmccallum16 6 days ago
No we are afraid of hicks and skinheads lynching us.
joshmccallum16 6 days ago
Are you doing this because you're unemployed?
wincedinpain 2 months ago
@wincedinpain
No, why? Are you sitting on youtube constantly because you're unemployed?
MyPaperBleedsInk 2 months ago
Comment removed
wincedinpain 2 months ago
Comment removed
wincedinpain 2 months ago
try something from nassim haramein you might just change youre mind
osirishawkseye 2 months ago
ok gravity first remember that 99.99999% of every atom inside youre body is space creating singularity and thus gravity because gravity comes from singularity not god
osirishawkseye 2 months ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk Don't you have something better to do, like stabbing yourself repeatedly in the arm or inhaling chlorine gas?
Jimmt0 2 months ago
@Jimmt0
Don't you have something better to do? Like... attending preschool or someplace else with people who act the same age as yourself? Because obviously you're not mature enough to handle the internet, much less simple sentences.
MyPaperBleedsInk 2 months ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk Not mature enough huh? If I'm not mature enough, who is? No, not you. People who act the same age as myself? Yes, I hang around them. They go on computers, are atheists, play Skyrim, and program. Yeah, those people are really like preschool people.
Jimmt0 2 months ago
People, look up jesussavemenow's channel. Almost made me throw up. FUCK YOU BITCH
Jimmt0 2 months ago
Are you for real? Lol you didnt actually dissproof it did you lol.
mclane6553 2 months ago
@mclane6553
Dissproof? What the heck is disproof?
This was nothing more than a commentary on an idiotic video I watched.
MyPaperBleedsInk 2 months ago
Existence of a god cannot be quantified scientifically, because if this god did exist it would be in his best interest to show himself to EVERYONE and not some guy in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.
TheDano1947 3 months ago
I can't hear you Sweetheart
TheDano1947 3 months ago
@Straightxuplazzy11 and is still getting smarter to this day. That's about as simple as it gets. So please try to understand it.
jugarnaut40 3 months ago
@Straightxuplazzy11 Micro evolution is a fact. Qyou can argue about it till you're blue in the face, but micro evolution is undeniable. Evolution is just micro evolution, but on a much longer timeline. The 5 great apes that currently inhabit the planet all descended from a common ancestor. That common ancestor gradually (micro)evolved over millions of years. And by chance, one of the branches of the tree happened to have extraordinary brains. This branch got smarter and smarter and is still get
jugarnaut40 3 months ago
evolution is not true, apes cant talk, but no, we came from them and somehow learned to talk, disapprove that
Straightxuplazzy11 4 months ago
@Straightxuplazzy11
We didn't come from apes, we shared a common ancestor.
Origin of language is currently unknown, but one theory suggest a single mutation took place.... eventually our ancestors began to almost mimic sounds they were hearing in nature, basically almost giving names to these things and imitating them to reference to them. If I remember correctly, most of this was the formation of what we know as vowels.
Take a look at evolution, since you don't even know the basics of it.
MyPaperBleedsInk 4 months ago
With the volume all the way up, this is still inaudible.
5jerry1 4 months ago
@5jerry1
1. Your speakers are bad. and 2. I was quiet because the walls are thin and I really wasn't keen on everyone thinking I talk to myself.
MyPaperBleedsInk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyPaperBleedsInk
There's nothing wrong with my speakers. If you don't want people to hear you, don't speak.
5jerry1 4 months ago
ok listen honey (sorry if you dont like being called that) posting videos means nothing, you need to find proof if you want to disproove somthing, yes that was a spelling fail, you are trying to fight fact with belief and bullshit, sorry for the language but plz remove this video, your only embarrising yourself
Anthrax80m8 4 months ago
@Anthrax80m8
I don't believe it states anywhere that I was disproving these videos. I was shedding light on the idiots that exist, and exposing their ridiculous posts to others.
MyPaperBleedsInk 4 months ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk So somehow the point of this video "Scientific Evidence That God Exists and Evidence That Evolution is False" is not to disprove the evolution is false? Back to LA class kid.
Jimmt0 2 months ago
Shouldn't you be in the kitchen?
Haroldludzoo 5 months ago
@Haroldludzoo
Shouldn't you be in school so you can develop even the slightest bit of intelligence?
MyPaperBleedsInk 5 months ago 5
@MyPaperBleedsInk Are you mad?
cjracer1000 4 months ago
@cjracer1000 Perfect question.
Jimmt0 2 months ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk Shouldn't you?
Jimmt0 2 months ago
"the dust of the ground" is a euphemism for matter
sillykidssong 5 months ago
O I forgot, y dont u post a video of 2 rocks hitting each other and making a human, how do all those elements end up making an elemnt that makes sperm and egg, it is just completely random, no GOD MADE US ALL
Straightxuplazzy11 5 months ago
@Straightxuplazzy11
Two rocks hitting together to form a human? Okay then. Where are you getting this nonsense, your religious leader? Just like they and I'm pretty sure zee bible tells you mud and dust forms humans?
MyPaperBleedsInk 5 months ago
You're so right. There is a lot of chaos in this universe so that disproves that persons statement about how if there were no god there would be no gravity.Your video is so awesome. It was great.
HappyArtisian 6 months ago
@Rooker2012 All scientific truth is relative and subject to change.
The Maker of the function of hydrogen is the Maker of all matter in the universe.
All functions have a Maker.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@Rooker2012 LOL! where did the particles come from???
The essential functions of hydrogen working inside of us requires a Maker who is the Maker of all matter derived from hydrogen and the Maker of all matter is not made of the matter that He made Himself and there is no other evidence of any other maker. (repeat 1,000 times or untill you understand it.)
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
Why does it require a maker? Your opinion does is not evidence.
MyPaperBleedsInk 6 months ago
@Rooker2012 You are not addressing the issues.
The ordered functions of hydrogen and most of the most common elements obeying a preexising word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have proves that both we and the entire universe have the same Maker because there is no evidence of any other maker.
Your idea of "religion" is a strawman.
The issue is knowing what true teaching is. That is Christian teaching, knowing what the truth is.
If you only had half a clue...
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@Rooker2012 Evolution doesn't even happen so how can what never happened prove something?
The function of hydrogen alone proves that both we and the entire universe have the same Maker because there is no other evidence of any other Maker.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@Rooker2012 Tornados do not have any orders and they do not have any useful function. It has no relationship at all with the ordered functions that all work together in life forms.
A tornado is not an example of a function.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
you are awesome
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist
Why thank you. You're pretty awesome for saying so.
MyPaperBleedsInk 6 months ago
The ordered functions that hydrogen has in life forms proves there is a Maker of the universe and that Maker is the only one who could have made us.
Tell that to your science teacher.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon
Oh, really? So what you're saying is that everyone believes in a creator since what you're saying is "proof"? I don't think soooooo.
MyPaperBleedsInk 7 months ago
@JungleJargon You still haven't proved there's a god.
BentOnTheCross 6 months ago
@BentOnTheCross Yes, the Maker of all matter in the universe is God.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Baseless statement with no proof.
Try harder, please.
BentOnTheCross 6 months ago
@BentOnTheCross The proof we have a Maker is the ordered functions that hydrogen and most of the most common elements obey inside of us making us what we are according to a preexisting word written in and with the function that the elements were made to have and our Maker, the Maker of the universe, is God.
Our very existence proves there is a God because of the ordered functions working inside of us.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
ALL ordered functions are proof that there is no maker. you are just making stuff up. doing post hoc fallacies. you MUST be retarded.
"Preexisting word"? where the heck did you read that crap? lolol you are JUST full of shit.
"God"? evidence?
OUR existence is proven to be the result of evolution., NO god at all anywhere. you have NO evidence for god. you are JUST making stuff up.
transtlantic 6 months ago
@JungleJargon 1. You do not give any explanation why the "ordered functions" require a maker. AKA, baseless statement.
2. Logical fallacy.
BentOnTheCross 6 months ago
@BentOnTheCross You did not show me another lesser function that does not have a maker. Functions always have a maker.
Of course an ordered function is even more obvious that it has a maker, not unlike the maker of a computerized function.
All of our motor functions, energy, intelligence etc. are the result of a preexisting word that ordered everything we are.
So the observable evidence is that we have a Maker who is the Maker of all matter in the universe.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon What you are obviously too retarded to understand is that you are not making any points or showing evidence. You're making statements, and I do not need proof to tell you that your baseless statements are not evidence.
BentOnTheCross 6 months ago
@BentOnTheCross You are not engaging or addressing any of the issues and that means there is nothing you cn say because if you had something to say regarding the issues, you would have said it already.
I am not even addressing the kind of functions that hydrogen and most of the most common elements have inside of us that far exceed our intelligence with nano and quantum functions.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon How many times do I have to tell you have no valid evidence.
Here's what you are saying "A banana created the universe because hydrogen atoms, just because hydrogen atoms cannot exist without a creator banana". And I still think you don't have any clue how atoms or molecules work, because for some reason you keep pointing to hydrogen and the "common elements", as though it is completely different from all other atoms.
And that last paragraph made me laugh, it's just wrong.
BentOnTheCross 6 months ago
@BentOnTheCross You have to show me a function that does not have a Maker before you can say I have no valid evidence and you have to tell me how 125 million cubic miles of sediments came to cover all the living things on earth.
Tell me how the lens in our eye is able to focus colors of different wave lengths togeher in the same focal length. It takes three separate lenses to do the same thing because we are not able to duplicate what our eye does.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Show me how hydrogen requires a higher power or seriously, get on your fucking knees and suck my cock.
And I'm not your fucking science teacher, I recall explaining to you how sediments work, you're apparently ignored it.
Again, not your fucking science teacher.
You are seriously wasting my time by being a huge cock sucking faggot.
I refuse to spend time explaining things which you will ignore.
In before "fossil records are a test of faith".
BentOnTheCross 6 months ago
@BentOnTheCross Fossils are evidence of the flood and so is the 125 million cubic miles of sediments that covered all living things on earth.
The function of hydrogen requires a Maker.
125 million cubic miles of uniform consecutive layers of sediments are deposited by a flood. There is no other way to deposit that much sediment.
You lose.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Fossils are evidence of evolution, I already told you how sediment is deposited (hint, erosion of rocks, which is then distributed to another place).
Claiming that it requires a "maker" is not proof, it's a baseless statement.
There would be no way to deposit that much sediment if the earth was 6000 years old, however the earth is billions of years old, making it possible.
You lose.
You are seriously so fucking retarded it's infuriating.
BentOnTheCross 6 months ago
@BentOnTheCross You don't know what 125 million cubic miles of sediment is. Erosion does not deposit sediments, it erodes them away and the sediments would all be in the oceans by now if the earth really was billions of years old.
It must be very annoying for you not to really know how the ground you live on with an average of two miles deep got there.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
now it's 125 miles? LOLOLOL you are so full of shit! lolololol
"would all be in the oceans"? fucking why? Reality proves you wrong. sediments are made all from the same materials, you tard.
you are JUST full of shit.
transtlantic 6 months ago
@transtlantic Erosion over billions of years would have put all the sediments into the oceans by now.
Do I have to explain that to you?
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
"erosion"? lolol there are places that have never felt "erosion" for a billion years. sediments can be many different things. "washed"? not they wouldn't if they become stable and rock solid.
You have nothing to explain. you are JUST full of shit.
transtlantic 6 months ago
(Srry I couldn't resist)
No God? Being on Earth would be like being on the moon, God is gravity to some people, gravity is awesome enough to worship.
Rainbows are created by unicorns every time a baby smiles.
More fossils makes me happy, I just like looking at them.
When I say they look like chimp bones it is because I like the idea that they are chimp bones.
So mythology is not true? That is nonsense.
Irrefutable argument = one in town. Yay!
I'm going to go eat some paint chips now.
Bourtini 7 months ago
Sheesh you're annoying.
DiseasedBagel 8 months ago
@DiseasedBagel So are you. What's your point?
MyPaperBleedsInk 8 months ago
I kinda believe in evolution but u don't have to b all ignorant to the Christian beliefs just cuz u don't believe it I'm not ignorant against atheists were all humans so respect religion and u can believe in one or go rot in hell when Jesus comes back to take us believers to heaven! XD
AlaskanEskimo88 10 months ago
@AlaskanEskimo88 It's a fact, it's undeniable. I suggest reading the book 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins.
Ostrasize 8 months ago
@AlaskanEskimo88 Ignorance? You talk loud about it yet you just went against your own belief. Wasn't there something Jesus said about being polite, mannered and to speak the teachings instead of hate.
Here, it would be rude to speak the word to ears that do not wish to listen. You did have a choice not to listen or hate yet you did and that is your fault.
Bourtini 7 months ago
your face is cute and you are smart, but what does your body type like ? LOL
Perseiden2 11 months ago
@Perseiden2
What does that have to do with anything? And why should it matter?
MyPaperBleedsInk 11 months ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk
I meant "what is your body type like" What is your shape / dimensions ? And why are you up so late ?
Perseiden2 11 months ago
@Perseiden2
I know what you meant, and as I still stay- why does it matter?
11:45 p.m. is not late. Especially not when it's a Saturday.
MyPaperBleedsInk 11 months ago
science s the system that uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena, it has nothing to do with God. i love science, knowing it s merely trial and error method and so much s yet 2 be discovered and so much to be corrected. the only place you can find the evidence of God,s in the Bible which s a waste of time according to u.B4 surgical operation became to be, God already done it with Adam when he put him to sleep and took out his rib and covered his flesh.
justmusicify 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThomasWinkworth 1 year ago
@ThomasWinkworth
? Mind explaining that?
MyPaperBleedsInk 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThomasWinkworth 1 year ago
@ThomasWinkworth
Interesting.
Going off on what you said---
I'm one of those females that thinks the whole "men can't hit women" philosophy is stupid. I mean, sure, it's not right to hit ANYONE..... but you shouldn't base not doing so because of someone's gender. As I tell other guys that bring up the whole chivalry thing dealing with violence ---"You can go ahead and hit me no matter that I'm a woman.... but just know that I have every right to hit you back and it's going to hurt."
MyPaperBleedsInk 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThomasWinkworth 1 year ago
@ThomasWinkworth
What would you consider humiliating a religious person in real life?
Because sure I made a few videos just to offer my views to the weird religious people on here.... but I've been debating various religious people face to face for years. I just made a few random vids on here because I was bored and I couldn't believe some of the crazy videos/people who are on youtube.
MyPaperBleedsInk 1 year ago
Comment removed
ThomasWinkworth 1 year ago
@ThomasWinkworth the majpority of them do in islamic nations, but they are worse than you, they dont just beat the shit out of people, they kill people. both of which are wrong.
errskin 1 year ago
@errskin I am just a man. I do not represent a religion. I represent a man.
ThomasWinkworth 1 year ago
@ThomasWinkworth Doesn't that mean you are a fool? Last time I checked, violence is uncivilized and idiotic.
You sound insecure and (with all due respect) you probably need to get some medicine for a mood disorder.
Bourtini 7 months ago
@Bourtini Wow, i have said some of the most strangest things on youtube which i cannot even remember. But there must of been some reason as to why i said those things. Violence is foolish if you believe morals are objective and i do, so:
I was a fool.
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth I very much appreciate and respect your humility,
It would be fitting and honorable now for you to apologize to MyPaperBleedsink
Bourtini 7 months ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk Cheers to you. This guy sounds like an idiot.
raydredX 11 months ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk Ah, I see. You couldn't believe yourself on Youtube, turned maniacal, and started posting videos.
Jimmt0 2 months ago
@TheFreddy654 Exactly right. Here is a riddle for 'atheists'......name one message which did not come from a mind. So simple is the answer even children understand it yet an 'atheist' cannot answer it.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@TheFreddy654 Hello friend. Here is a riddle atheists cannot answer....."Name one MESSAGE which did not come from a mind."
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 and why would atheists be incapable of answering?
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC Hello friend. I haven't met one who can answer that question.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 and if you walk up to some random religious person, they can?
I'm going to assume you mean some sort of message from god?
What's the point?
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC Hello. It has nothing to do with religion. 'Atheists' cannot answer that question......name one message which did not come from a mind. The answer is so simple even a small child can answer it yet an 'atheist' cannot.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 o.O then what is it? Please, enlighten me and share its relevance
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC You tell me the answer. It's very simple. Name one message which did not come from a mind. Children usually get it right away.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 well, i apparently didn't get it right away. so you tell me the answer.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC You're overlooking the obvious.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 you could say a message that doesn't come from mind is a message from god--but i dont understand what the point is..? but you said it wasn't religious
you could say you could get a text message or online message or message in the mail.. but those all originated in a mind.. so.. what message doesn't come from a mind?
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC Exactly my friend! What message doesn't come from a mind? You've almost got it! Keep thinking!
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316
Ahahaha.... the stupid riddle that people like to hide behind.
The answer proves not a damn thing, by the way.
MyPaperBleedsInk 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Either tell me if you wish to have a logical exchange(which I doubt from the meaningless drivel you've already exhibited) or I'll just be on my way and discount you as another run-of-the-mill idiot
So, what is this message and how is it at all relevant?
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC "run-of-the-mill idiot"? Thanks.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 I'm not to thank for your blissful ignorance. You can show gratitude to your own self-delusions and blind eye to rationale
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC Here is the answer.....NONE. There are NO messages which did not come from a mind. Not one. Simple isn't it.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Guess there isn't a god then. If you wanted to come out of the atheist closet you should have just said so
Anyway, carry on with your stupidity. make sure to put on your helmet before you go outside
might I recommend some charms and a gold pyramid hat to protect you from negative neurological influences?
cheerio
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC How does that mean there is no God? Where did the hundreds of millions of information packed messages come from which are encoded into our DNA? From a mind. A mind bigger than mine and yours. 132 billion miles of DNA in our bodies. To the sun and back over 700 times. That's a lot of info. That's quite the mind. While you were in your mother's womb, she was stitching together 488 million miles of DNA per day on average. Mindless evolution did this? No mind....no messages.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 your inability to grasp something doesn't make it either infeasible nor incomprehensible.. merely out of YOUR reach
Your simple minded and delusional. The fact that you would pose a riddle as any sort of refutation to ANYTHING is proof of your stupidity of singular grace.
Carry on in your idiocy if you like, I don't mind. However, if you wish to share your stupidity with others, come with something more than your own limited understanding as proof
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
Let's say I'm a car historian and I have dedicated my entire life to figure out how cars have assembled themselves without any human intervention. I would be considered a fool and would be laughed off the face of the earth. Well, there are people who call themselves scientists who have dedicated their lives to try and figure out how life 'assembled' itself. “.......being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 if you wish to refute something, try using logic and something relevant
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC I just did.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 no, actually you didn't. inanimate objects objects have no correlation with abiogenesis
Not to mention, you're using something specific that we know to be created by humans
What of natural landscapes that appear to be designed? They came about by natural circumstances over time, and that's WITHOUT inherent chemical characteristics and attractions that are well understood and documented. Leave a car door next to a doorless car, there is innate attraction between them
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC Hello friend. Let me apologize for not explaining myself properly. If you and I were standing at the base of the Empire State Building and I told you I believe it built itself, you would laugh at me and rightfully so. Lock me up and throw away the keys. Well, when scientists look at DNA which is well beyond the complexity of any building, yet they can stand there and say it built itself. They should be saying 'who built this'?
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Again, as I already said, there is a difference between inanimate, inorganic objects and elements and living organisms
Are you telling me that your god makes every baby that is inside a woman? Are you saying that it is not naturally created through sexual reproduction, mitosis and meiosis?
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC Hello friend. I understand the differences between living and non-living. Science shows that life only comes from life.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 yes, and science shows that things adhere to a natural set of laws. Science is currently looking into origin of life. Evolution is an entirely separate issue: it is known and understood.
How do I continue to live and grow? Does your god continually add to my size? OBVIOUSLY elements are able to be incorporated into the living organism. Lack of knowledge does not automatically dictate something else as fact. If so, we'd still be in the dark ages
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Did Nothing Make Everything?" (No.)
One Heartbeat Away by Mark Cahill
Get a FREE copy of the book at 222.oneheartbeataway.
org
SwordofSpirit1 1 year ago
Homo Sapiens, the weirdest species yet!
Videos4USArmy 1 year ago
There is evidence of evolution. As much as the anti evolution brigade would like it, facts just don't disappear when you ignore them. Religions disappear when people ignore them. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, a fact is a fact even if no one believes it.
Controversialize 1 year ago 2
@electricderby, sorry I meant to put @mypaperbleedsink
Controversialize 1 year ago
Smart and cute. Personally my favorite is when it says theres no evidence of chimps evolving to man. While were pointing out made up fantasy evolutionary paths- Theres no evidence of crocodiles evolving to ducks, or starfish evolving to rhinos, Bunnies into tigers, hippos into giraffes, rats into pigeons, idiots into jesussavemeplease, or even panda bears into koala bears. Surely these also disprove evolution. Mm MMM, straw men arguments. Youve got to love them.
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
Excellent fap material :D
unknownclips 1 year ago
There is no evidence that concludes beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution exist. it's the same. sure there are stupid postings on the web that cannot prove anything about God.
Ah, to say that just becos there is rain, there has been rainbows, you cant prove it. u can say nowadays, when there is rain, there is a rainbow, but u cant prove shit about the past. U see, you can disagree with the postings, but it doesnt prove anything on the atheist side of things.
eclecticderby 1 year ago
@eclecticderby
So by your logic did gravity fail to exist at some point? Like let's just throw out 200,000 years ago gravity just stopped working?
MyPaperBleedsInk 1 year ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk
My logic is science cant prove shit. really. are u there 200,000 years ago? It takes more faith to believe the Science than to believe in a God. Just saying.
eclecticderby 1 year ago
@eclecticderby
Really? It takes more faith to believe in something that can be proven and eventually is, then to believe in an invisible being people have only talked about and created through words and many years of brainwashing? Wooow.
MyPaperBleedsInk 1 year ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk
it shows your maturity when u say stuff like tat, brainwashing? I say b4 and i say again- regarding the origins of life - e.g. evolution, big bang - are just theories created by men through words as well. Science cant prove shit.
eclecticderby 1 year ago
@eclecticderby
And it shows your maturity when you type like an eight year old. Then again, maybe you are one, I don't know.
Yeah, you're right. All those scientific laws that have been proven time and time again aren't actually proof. I mean, gravity doesn't exist, there isn't a speed of light, respiration of plants, photosynthesis.... nope, scientists just made all that up because they can't prove anything.
Yet your average IQ'ed human can somehow prove a magic man lives in the sky. Amazing
MyPaperBleedsInk 1 year ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk
haha alrite i LET u win. go and drink from ur milk bottle now in celebration!
eclecticderby 1 year ago
@eclecticderby
You're such a child. I'm sure your parents must be proud of your education level.
MyPaperBleedsInk 1 year ago
@MyPaperBleedsInk
my Dad died when I was 7.
eclecticderby 1 year ago
@eclecticderby "...evolution, big bang - are just theories created by men"
You do realize that in the scientific world a theory means a concept that is backed by years of research and substancial evidence. It can only be put into law when it is proved that it is true for every species, which will take a while considering there are 1,740,330 species on Earth and and countless more unobservable species scattered on other planets. Religion is an Idea, not based on evidence, but on mans imagination
Controversialize 1 year ago
@Controversialize
you do know that the Big Bang underlying principle is that the Universe has a beginning?
eclecticderby 1 year ago
@eclecticderby "It takes more faith to believe the Science than to believe in a God. Just saying."
I agree. Testable evidence is for the faithless. Who needs "Facts" and "repeatable tests" and "evidence" when weve got a magic sky wizard on our side! AMEN
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@eclecticderby the very same science u retard dont believe in repaired your grannys hip, build and fueled your car, heals your illnesses, extended your life and developed your computer just to name a few.
i mean, really? how ridiculously ignorant can you be?
monkee333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@monkee333
you can call me ignorant, but calling me a retard simply shows how arrogant u are.
eclecticderby 1 year ago
What caused the collapse of the wave into a particle form? Have you ever heard of the Double Slit experiments? Well, they delcared that the presence of an "observer" i.e. a conscious state, actually causes the collapse of the "probable wave" into a particle.
The act of "awareness" seems to alter the "wave" into a physical form. The Quantum Eraser experiment backs up the Double Slit experiment. Therefore, our "awareness" state allows us to create our physical reality.
Look up Biocentric Theory.
youVSmee 1 year ago
Therefore, you cannot have "mass" without "first having the "mathematical potential wave" collapse into physical form, by a "conscious" state. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle talks about the uncertainty of the momentum and the position of the wave-function.
As you can clearly see, the "probable wave" cannot exist as "mass" UNTIL something pre-exists it, and causes the "probable wave" to transform into mass.
youVSmee 1 year ago
@youVSmee
Could you please stop spreading falsity? Particles do not require wave function collapse in order to exist. In fact, since wave functions mathematically map the probability amplitude of a subatomic particle, wave function presupposes particles.
You are spreading falsity and bastardizing Quantum Mechanics to service your selfish God belief. Wave Functions are just mathematical tools that predict probability.
None of those experiments do anything for you.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan
According to the Double Slit experiments and the Quantum Eraser experiments, a "conscious" state collapses the "mathematical probable wave" into a particle, correct?
youVSmee 1 year ago
@Dh
Can you have mass within the quantum state? No. Where did the "infinite densed" come from? Remember, the quantum domain is "prior" to the big bang.
And since "density, volume, and spatial dimensions" arose AFTER the big bang, what are you doing with "infinite density" there?
You see, density is actually the ratio of mass per unit volume. Yet, an infinite density basically suggests that there exists an "unlimited" mass within a 'limited volume. Mass =the amount of "stuff" in something.
youVSmee 1 year ago
A conscious state equals matter. Matter breaks down into a probable wave, therefore, if a conscious equals matter, and matter equals a probable wave, then naturally, a "probable wave" equals a consious" state, correct?
Now, get this, "a conscious state" equals "awareness", therefore, an awareness state via a conscious state is still a "probable wave." Now, we both know that a "probable wave" is not "three-dimensional", therefore, I can place a "non-3 dimensional" conscious in the beginning.
youVSmee 1 year ago
Dh,
Can virtual particles arise without gravity? No. Yet, can gravity exist without virtual particles? No. What came first, gravity or virtual particles? Be careful how you answer, remember, "gravity is the force between two objects", so, you cannot have particles arising from gravity, when in fact gravity "is the force between two existing objects.
youVSmee 1 year ago
Dh,
Does time exist, or is the motion around the sun simply an illusion of time? Speaking of motion, would motion around the sun exist without gravity? No. So, where would gravity exist if there was no virtual particles prior to gravity? And then, where would your "motion" that you require in order to initiate "kinetic energy" come from without gravity? Also, gravity is the force which gives objects weight, and without gravity, how could anything form?
youVSmee 1 year ago
@youVSmee You sure do like to throw out some big terms. It would help if you UNDERSTOOD the terms, instead of just trying to tie together some big shmancy words. Im sure you feel it makes you look smart- but to anyone who has a fraction of understanding for the terms youre talking about, you look like the fool you are. If you want to debate philosophy hey go for it- But dont fool yourself into thinking that what youre babbling about is science.
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@SidewaysGts
What surrounded the singularity prior to expansion? Why is there something instead of nothing? The duality of the wave-particle collapses do to a conscious state, therefore, can a tree fall without a conscious observer?
Gravity is the force between two opposing objects, correct? Now,if particles are "probable wave' then explain what collapsed the wave into a particle form.I suggest you look up "Double-Slit experiment, Quantum Eraser, Copenhagen's Interpretation, Orch OR Theory.
youVSmee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What surrounded the singularity prior to expansion? Why is there something instead of nothing?"
Brilliant questions. We do not know. Savvy?
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@SidewaysGts Next: The Cambrian explosion clearly displays an "a sudden explosion" of "phyla." Now, why is it that different "phyla" i.e. different classes of speciated species "already existed" within the "initial Cambrian Era?"
I mean, the pre-cambrian era has no links to the Cambrian Era. Therefore, "speciated" species occurred at once, after their "own kind." Instead of having speciea arising and transforming into other species, you instead have "hundredths of phyla" already existing.
youVSmee 1 year ago
Do you have any clue to what youre talking about when discussing the cambrian explosion? Do you realize how BROAD the term "phyla" actually is? Yes there was a mass expansion of phyla as new life forms emerged and started to being the great battle for dominance, whoop-dee-doo. This is a phyla explosion, not a species explosion . There was hardly all types of species around. Where the cambrian Rat/Moose/Rhino/Giraffe/Hippo/Bunny/Eagle? Lets make it easier, find me a SINGLE cambrian MAMMAL
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@SidewaysGts
You have already acknowledged that the "beginning" had a "mass expansion of phyla" and in fact, these "phyla" in particular, were all "segregated' from OTHER phyla.
Do you realize what that implies? Do you? Well, within the Cambrian Era, you already had "DIFFERENT" kinds of species SEGREGATED after THEIR OWN KIND.
youVSmee 1 year ago
@Sideways
There was NOT a "progressional" transformational process. Instead of observing a blossoming tree of "tranformational species' creating all varieties, you observe" a SUDDEN mass expansion of phyla.
Where are "all" the transformations which took place from the "pre-cambrian" era which created the "segregated" phyla within the Cambrian Era? Where? Did bacteria create any of the Cambrian phyla? Where is the "intermediate" links?
Btw, the "mammals" that you are looking for....
youVSmee 1 year ago
..came into existence "after" the initial Cambrian explosion. Also, u must realize that the Gelological Columns are not solely created within a slow "uniformed process", but are also created with "major catastrophies."
Recall the Mt. St. Helens eruptions? That catastrophe buried a lot of trees within a lot of 'strata." In short, there are "two methods" of creating geological columns. As a matter a fact, catastrophies "bury" a lot of animals within "different" layers of strata simultaneously.
youVSmee 1 year ago
correction:catastrophes.
youVSmee 1 year ago
@youVSmee Your getting spread thin here sport so lets make this simple. Whats your overall POINT about the cambrian explosion?
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@SidewaysGts
The beginning fossils declared "no sign" of intermediate transformation from "one phyla" into another. All phyla maintained their "own kind' and "after their own kind" according to the evidence.
When u already have "segregated phyla" after their own kind, then that only proves that "class A" species created "after their own kind, YET, you have "class B" species creating after their own kind too. There is no evidence that "interlinks" segregated phyla whatsoever. End of story.
youVSmee 1 year ago
My god youre right. Those stupid scientists have been doing it wrong all these decades. And to think I just needed someone on youtube and his straw-man argument to clear it up for me. You need to get the word out there, expose this MONSTROUS conspiracy theory!
Lets ignore that the "cambrian explosion" wasnt an instant event & took over tens of MILLIONS of years to our understanding to occur- its painfully obvious you do NOT understand the subject, or are bullshitting to further your fallacies
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@SidewaysGts
The "evidence" speaks for itself. If "biased" interpretations suggest that all species branched out from a common ancestor, then I want to see proof of it, correct? The evidence shows "an array of phyla" pre-existing EVEN within the first initial Cambrian Era. Isn't that amazing?
And people believe that the pre-cambrian era produced all these "segregated phyla????" The Cambrian Era is more like a "lawn" with ALL segregated species ALREADY in place. Imagine that.
youVSmee 1 year ago
Comment removed
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@SidewaysGts
Think about it. There was a multitude of organisms, therefore, "evolution" occurred?? Really? That is the worst example of evidence for "Evolution."
First of all, according to Biocentric Theory, "Life is the focal point", therefore life ( biogenesis begets beginning of life creatures.
Sure that was a little random, but I needed to add it. Why? Because I could. Anyway, Let me see, you have "organisms" before the Cambrian Era, therefore, PROVE that these "organisms" are the..
youVSmee 1 year ago
.....organisms of species. Alright. What on earth does "organism" existing before the Cambrian Era "segregated species" have to do with Evolution??"
What about the worms, algae, etc., what "Common LINK" do they have with anything at the Cambrian Era? You might as well have said, "Well, there was "dirt" before the Cambrain phyla, therfore "dirt is the common ancestor." Wow.
Abiogenesis ( non-life to life ) is NOT a theory, NOR a law, its simply an idea. However, "Bio-Genesis" is a LAW. Yup.
youVSmee 1 year ago
@youVSmee Wow you really are all over the place. Who is bringing up abiogensis? I know I didnt. Im talking about evolution, the change in diversity of organisms. Nothing at ALL to do with the origins of life. A sky wizard himself could have poofed the first life into existence- this does not discredit evolution in the slightest. What does life being around before the cambrian explosion have to do with it? Everything. The cambrian explosion is a time when organisms started to expand and
SidewaysGts 1 year ago
@SidewaysGts
Show me the "examples" where the pre-cambrian era "species" ( forget the organisms, worms, algae, etc. Which species within the pre-cambrian era transformed into which "fully developed species?"
You only have "organisms" and that is "life" not "non-life." Show me "fossils" which transformed from the pre-cambrian era into the Cambrian Era.
Which species?
youVSmee 1 year ago
@Side
You cannot use "existing life" and begin from there to "attempt" your theory. In that case, you are talking about the Origins of Life, not Evolution. Forget about the origins of life, since "that" has no evidence either ( non-life to life). It all BEGAN from "life" exactly. Two birds ( Evolution & Abiogenesis ) are being destroyed in this beginning state.
Do not begin with "life" rather begin from "non-life" if you wish to talk about the Origins of LIfe, rather than Evolution.
youVSmee 1 year ago
"Forget about the origins of life, since "that" has no evidence either ( non-life to life). It all BEGAN from "life" exactly. Two birds ( Evolution & Abiogenesis ) are being destroyed in this beginning state."
So because science cant perfectly explain where life came from, it cant explain what it does? This is like someone looking at a car of unknown make/history, and saying since you dont know where it came from- you have no way of knowing what it does. Do we see why this is absurd?
SidewaysGts 1 year ago