Comments now closed on this thread, as what has been said has been said, and is just being repeated. If you are concerned about your soul see PuritanFellowship dot c o m and on the right-hand side click on "Searchers please stop here"
Once single cell, what Darwin wrongly thought was just 3 or 4 bits of plasma lumped together, is more complexly designed than a 747 aeroplane.
You have to magnify one tiny cell the size of a city to see all of the workings of it.
This is super technology.
It feeds, it repairs, it duplicates.
You can not explain the simple truth away. Where there is a Creation, there must be a Creator. And His Name is Jesus whom you will one day stand before in judgement.
Erag you was never a Christian. A Christian is not just someone who claims they are, or went to church. The Bible says: 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."
Do you look at pornography? Do you lust after women you're not married to? If so then you're a pervert. What do you think God will with perverts?
This is not a game. One day all your thought life and all your wicked deeds will be judged, by the God who, although now He offers you mercy, On that Day He will show no mercy to the wicked.
Your thought life reveals the real, unrestrained you. You see, most people wrongly believe they're good people and God won't send them to Hell, but God has seen every one of your wicked thoughts and actions. He has seen every time you've broken His commandments, lusting over someone you're not married to, lying and stealing (no matter how little); He has heard every time you've used His Holy Name in vain, using the name of the One who gave you life in place of a curse word.
You wouldn't do that with Hitler's name, but you do it with God's name! The "Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain," (Exodus 20:7) and "every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)
Be honest with yourself: when you face God on Judgment Day - keeping in mind that He's seen your every wicked thought and action - will He find you innocent or guilty? If God gives you what you deserve, should He send you to Heaven or Hell? God has written His moral law on your heart so you are "without excuse" (Romans 1:18-32); you know it is wrong to lie, to steal, to lust, and to curse because God gave you a conscience to know right from wrong. Your own conscience demands justice!
Imagine a courtroom scene where a child rapist is coming before the judge for sentencing. But instead of giving him what justice demands, the judge lets him go free because the rapist is a "nice guy" who has given to charity and goes to church every Sunday. You would be outraged, and you should be! Yet most people think the High and Holy God is just like this corrupt judge, and that they can bribe Him with their "good deeds" so that He'll overlook their sin.
Again, what would you think if the judge said to the rapist, "I'm a very loving judge, so I'll just let you go free?" You would not think that the judge was loving at all, but that he was corrupt and not worthy to be a judge! Yet most people expect the Holy God who is "the judge of all the earth" (Genesis 18:25) to be just that corrupt with them, and overlook their sin.
Infinite Love and Goodness demand Infinite Justice. Because God's love and justice are infinite He won't punish only murderers and rapists, but He'll punish ALL sin wherever it's found. That's why "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9) "No thief, no sexually immoral person, no idolater will enter heaven" (1 Corinthians 6:10) and "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone." (Revelation 21:8)
Now the question for you, dear reader, is this: is there any hope for someone like you? Is there any hope for the person who has defied God time and again by rebelling against His will and refusing to love and worship Him? Is there any hope for the criminal who stands guilty in the courtroom of God? Yes there is! There is forgiveness with God! Go to PuritanFellowship c o m and click on "searchers or those unsure, if you are concerned about your soul stop here" Right-hand side
I'll also say again that evolutions is a theory that uses Natural Selection. Artificial or Intelligent Selection existed for thousands of years before anyone thought of Natural Selection.
If Hitler was an social evolutionist, it would have been an arguement against artificial interference, not an arguement for it.
This really is pathetic. Atheists don't refuse to believe in god because they don't see him, it's because his existence has not been proven. We CAN prove Napoleon existed and that evolution happened.
By John Mackay's logic, if a murder is not seen, but there is substantial evidence, should we just let the suspect go?
Sir Arthur Keith, a British anthropologist, was an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he still drew this chilling conclusion: The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
932 comment deleted due to profane language. Despite atheists always telling us how highly moral they are. Yet another atheist who can't refrane from having a mouth like a sewer.
First off this video is a quote mine. something ive come to expect from creationists i might add.
second, evolution is testable. ever heard of micro evolution? if change that increases genetic information (which HAVE been observed) keep happending a population will evolve. (micro happens=FACT. macro happens =logical deduction following micro being true)
evolution is a testable logical deduction, it is NOT absurd.
932, It's a quote in context that shows the absurdity of the evolution fairy-tale. Evolution is not testable science. What you call micro evolution is really devolution, a side ways change or a loss of information, where you end up with something less complex than you began with.
it is a quote that shows the absurdity of belveing in something you CANNOT test. we CAN test evolution just read a science peer review jornal people do it all the time! hence quote mine.
i'll say again, INCREASE IN GENETIC INFORATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED! hence not devolution but evolution. did you even read my comment?
932, evolution has not been observed, otherwise Dawkins would have just told John Mackay so in that clip. But rather Dawkins claimed you wouldn't expect to see it, & so evolution is a faith position. There is still an unclaimed reward, for over 10 years, of £125, for the 1st person who can give scientific proof for evolution.
you can type increase genetic information to google to see examples for yourself. dawkins is not infallible and what he said could be out of date with current science.
the thing with these prove X and get money challenges is that they purposefully place the criteria to meet the goal away from the proofs that we have and will ever have. if i said i will give you a million pounds if you can prove X but i made damn sure to word my criteria properly no one would ever get it!
932, it appears you are willing to accept anything no matter how silly, in order to "supress the truth in unrighteousness." Why don't these ppl claim the £125K? Do you think Dawkins wasn't aware of information evolutionists were in desperation claiming several years ago?
You obviously don't understand things like point/imvertion/insertion etc mutations if you think they gain info. They are a loss & can be devastating.
once again DID YOU NOT READ MY COMMENT!i can make the criteria for proof so ridicules and outside of current knowledge that you couldn't prove it no matter what. its like kent hovids prove that computer came into existance without man thing.
remove the proof from you criteria for proof and you will always win the argument.
strange how the scientists who DO understand it think the same as i do isn't it? we will get nowhere by claiming the other does not understand or is silly.
im assuming you read afew articles about how scientists have observed increased information so that you can actually know what you're talking about btw.
Do you think science is corrupt? if so why haven't creationists exposed this corruption? by corruption i mean ignoring evidence without reason. i read that whole survival of the fakest thing so thats what im on about here.
Evolution is NOT observable repeatable testable science. It is a religion of blind faith. All evolution has done has held back science, and contributed to the progress of racism, eugenics and Nazism. What the "scientists" are doing in those reports, are claiming things as increases that are not and have been refuted, but they do this because there will be some ppl as foolish as you who will accept anything. "The fool in his heart says there is no God"
What is the story with you? Why do you hate God so much?
And please don't tell me you really don't believe He exists, as your actions betray your words.
No-one in their right mind would display such moronic behaviour as to spend all day on the internet, spamming Christian websites and attacking a God IF they didn't really believe in Him.
So come on, what is your real story, why do you have such a hatred for your Creator, who you will one day stand before in judgement? Or perhaps that is the reason.
You see, if you really didn't believe in God, then you wouldn't bother wasting time attacking Him. But even though you try to suppress the obvious truth of Him, you can't escape your conscience which is declaring you GUILTY. GUILTY. GUILTY.
Let me ask you: How would you feel if your thought life was to be shown on National TV tonight? What if someone told you that your every thought from the day you were born had been recorded and will be shown tonight on national TV? And not only that, but a website will flash across the screen during the program, directing all of your friends and family to where they can watch all of your thoughts about them. How many people would be angry with you? Everyone? Would you be angry with yourself?
No Sfly, if you really believed God didn't exist then you wouldn't act like one of those evolutionist internet nerds who spend so much time on the net attacking something you didn't believe in. But you can't escape your conscience convicting you guilty & so you spend all your time attacking God in order to supress the truth in unrighteousness. No matter God "has appointed a Day in which He will Judge the world in righteousness."
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
- Adolf Hitler, 1941
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator"
- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf), 1925
Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image.
Not only that, but farmers and cultivators were selecting for distinct traits for tens of thousands of years before Darwin. Hitler never once based any of his ideas on anything Darwin wrote. Hitler suggested many times that breeding techniques used for animals could and should be used on people.
Science is a tool and so is breeding; neither good or evil, it's the one who uses them that assumes those qualities.
Erag wrote "Hitler suggested many times that breeding techniques used for animals could and should be used on people." --That's because Hitler's relgion of evolution he believed in taught that humans were only animals. If evolution really was scientific then what Hitler did would be scientific. But the reality is that evolution is a fairy tale for racists, which teaches blacks are closer to apes than whites. PuritanFellowship c o m
- Do you eat? Do you breathe? Do you move about of your own volition? Do you NOT photosynthesize? If so, you ARE an animal.
"what Hitler did would be scientific"
- It's scientific, but not very beneficial. Removing large chunks of the gene pool leads to health problems in future generations. We've know this for at least a century.
"evolution is a fairy tale for racists, which teaches blacks are closer to apes than whites."
For something to be scientific it must be observable, testable, and repeatable.
Was what Hitler did observable? Yes.
Was it testable? Yes.
Is it repeatable? Yes.
As I said, it IS scientific, but not very beneficial.
What Hitler did was called "genocide" (the systematic and planned extermination of an entire people) and "eugenics" (hereditary improvement of a race by controlled selective breeding).
Evolution is change in the genetics of a population over successive generations, by selective pressures acting on the genetic variation among individuals.
That being said, genocide and eugenics are forms of selective pressure (not evolution) that greatly reduce genetic variation.
Animal breeders have health problems with their purebreds because they use eugenics to eliminate genetic variation, and stifle evolution. Genocide does this at a much faster rate, but the results are the same.
The man who designed the original classification system for species before On The Origin of Species was published, was a creationist. It was he that catagorised humans as belonging to the 'Homo' Genus, 'Hominidae' Family, 'Primate' Order, 'Mammal' Class and 'Animal' Kingdom.
I know of no serious evolutionary biologist that claims African-descended people are 'closer to apes' especially as we technically ARE apes(so said the creationist that wrote the system).
Adolf Hitler-"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
Hitler: 9th April, 1942, dinner:
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity"
Google puritanfellowship hitler and you'll find what Hitler really thought about Christians.
Adolf Hitler ""Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ."
- To show you are NOT using the 'No TRUE Scotsman' logical fallacy, please define 'Catholicism' and 'Christianity' and state why Catholicism isn't a type of Christianity. Please cite your sources.
Sure, Galatians 1:8 says "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." the crime here is adding works to salvation which is what Catholicism does. Catholicism teaches you get to God by your own good works. True Christianity of the Bible teaches you can do absolutely nothing to earn your salvation, and salavation is through Grace by faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Er, no mate I explained Catholicism was salvation by works as apposed to Salvation by Grace alone through Faith in Jesus Christ, and I cited Gal 1:8-9, the all book of Romans as well. You can argue all you like against Catholicism, but we Christians don't believe it either.
Neither Catholicism nor Christianity is defined in the bible, therefore your reference isn't relevant. Try using dictionary definitions instead of writing your own.
Atriv, the Book of Romans, Galatians, 1 John & the Gospels all define what true Christianity is as oppose to false religion. Anything that doesn't match up to the Bible is false. Please don't pretend you're an expert in things you obviously don't know about.
Just as gravity (unless you believe in the theory of intelligent falling) is both theory (why gravity is there in the first place) and fact (when you let something go it falls), so is evolution. You are in denial likely do to religious bigotry and as I mentioned before just because you are ignorant does not mean you have a valid argument. All you are doing is putting your fingers in your ears and basically saying "I'm not listening". This is of course childish.
Now about asking for proof (I wanted to cover this earlier but I had to go to work). Proof is an exercise of logic so again you are making an error (think I am losing count on all the mistakes you have made). Examples of proofs would be 1+1=2, the sum of the three angles of a triangle will always equal 180 degrees, Pythagoras theorem etc...What I need to provide is evidence to support the claim and I can do EXACTLY that.
All this done specifically in the name of religion
The crusades, inquisitions, religious wars of the middle ages, Islamic take over the middle east (Muslim Arab empire), Armenian Genocide, 9/11 (or did you forget that one so soon), Arab-Israeli War (1948), the Sudanese Civil Wars, Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia, Hindu/Muslim violence; that is just a START on the evils done specifically in the name of religion.
Believers in the Evolution religion have caused more bloodshed than anything else. Joseph Stalin said murdering 7 million was like mowing the grass, if evolution was true then that would be a scientific statement, as ppl would only be a more evolved form of grass. Hitler and Stalin did it all in the name of the evolution religion
A tiny fraction of what of the number of ppl killed in WW1 & WW2. But when God saved Noah, God is God and has a right to punish sinners, just like He'll punish you, not because you are a nice person, but becaue you are deeply evil. Just look at those Hitler quotes against CHristianity, they sound exactly like all you God hating evolutionists.
"But when God saved Noah, God is God and has a right to punish sinners"
- So when a man kills his citizens because they don't do what he says, it's murder. But when God wipes out almost all life on Earth for the same reason, it's ok?
"just like He'll punish you, not because you are a nice person, but becaue you are deeply evil."
- Yes. The sharks with laser beams attached to their heads are on order.
"Just look at those Hitler quotes against CHristianity"
Sfly, pointing out wars that have been done in other religions is meaningless. Especially when your dangerous fundamentalist blind faith religion of evolution has caused more bloodshed then anything else. But speaking of proof. That is the point, there is no proof for evolution, but there is proof that it is impossible. non-life does not create life.
"The refusal to believe something that you cannot see with your own eyes [and for which there is also NO evidence for] is rational."
Yes,this video employs a vicious abstraction. However is it always rational to not believe something merely because it is no empirically verifiable or subject to experiencing by utilization of the 5 senses? This is the proverbial bone of contention. God cannot be ruled out of court simply because He is immaterial. Neither can the point, numbers, concepts,truth,et..
Yes but, it's impossible to count the number of things you could believe in, that are not verifiable with our senses.
I could postulate an infinite number of supernatural roots of the first cause. One of the infinite number may be for instance, an invisible dragon that that hides in the core of the sun; and that entity seeded life in several parallel universes.
Sounds stupefyingly outlandish right? Yet it also cannot be ruled out of court, and I may also decree by fiat that it's immaterial.
"The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd" quote (Genius of Darwin Part 3) is talking about evidence, and not necessarily being there to witness it first hand, yet still being able to observe and test it afterward. If you remember in part 1, Dawkins used an analogy of a murder case and the use of evidence.
Haeckel's Embryo picture are in the documentary (Genius of Darwin Part 1) because it is 1 piece of evidence that Charles Darwin looked at before he wrote Origin of Species. Origin of Species was first published in 1859, but the first criticism of Haekel's drawings wasn't presented until 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer scrutinizing Haekel's methods, not his findings. It wasn't until 1997 that the drawings themselves came under scrutiny.
Have you ever seen gravity? What color is it? How much does it weigh? Is it hot or cold? What does it taste or smell like? If you cannot answer these simple questions, how can you be sure gravity really exists? Please don't class your fake belief in gravitation LIE as a real God-Created phenomena. it's an insult!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems God has not allowed you evolutionists to know the truth of gravity, but I know. Yu wanna see what colour is Gravity? Ok i'll show you. Just follow me to the top of the tallest building in the block. yep, that tall one! you see it? yep, climb up to the top of the roof. Now, pray your last prayer to your god, mr. darwin, then hold your nose and "JUMP!".
nOW THAT'S GGRAVITY...AND that's it's colour...and that's how heavy you fall.
now, do yu see the difference btw gravity & a Lie?
do yu know the sydney harbour bridge? climb it and do what i told yu to do! yu will see gravity is real (it's all God-created, for your info, dude!)
now, go to a cafe round the corner and have your last supper before yu climb. (hey hey hey, don't do it pls, i'm only joking! i mean it, DON'T JUMP, I'M ONLY JOKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
And another successful test supports the theory that creationists have the inability to answer a simple question, resorting instead to evasive anecdotes.
Well you evolutionists have never been able to answer a simple question like where is the evidence for your fairy tale? But at the end of the day, it's all a front. No would be such a nerd as to spend so much time on the net attacking God if they really didn't believe in Him. It is evident by your actions that you really do believe in God. So why do you hate Him so much? Is it because you know He's going to judge you guilty?
Atriv wrote: "- No ... attacking Evolution if they really didn't believe in it."
--No mate, you're about to spend all eternity, being punished in Hell, because God is just and so He must punish evil ppl. All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire. No thief will enter Heaven. & so we warn ppl. So logically it makes sense for us to spend lots of time. But if evol was true, then you wouldn't even know any diff' when you're dead so it makes no sense for you.
"So why do you hate Him so much? Is it because you know He's going to judge you guilty?"
- Everyone makes their own judgments. Why should God be any different?
What I *really* hate is when people willfully taint the well of knowledge.
Things like the quote mining you practiced in this video, giving a false impression of the original video. Few people would have taken the time to check your quotes, but I did.
Atriv, if you took time to check the quotes, then if you're honest then you'll admit Dawkins quote is not out of context which is John Mackays interview. Of course if you're a liar then you'll claim I gave ppl a "false impression" Rev 21:8 "All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire." "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."
"Dawkins quote is not out of context which is John Mackays interview."
- So if we were to ask Richard Dawkins if he thought Atheism was absurd, he'd say "yes" would he?
Are you using cherry picked quotes to make Dawkins sound like he advocates a position he does not? If you are, this is a form of lying a.k.a. "quote mining".
They better warm that "Lake of Fire" up so it's ready when you get there.
Atriv I've used Dawkins quote in context, and by logic, which evolutionist deny (as logically evolution is impossible),the same logic he uses to claim evolution is true despite there being no observable evidence whatsoever for it, also destory's his claims about God.
Mackay postulated that "What you don't see happening is not science, it's unobservable".
To which Dawkins replies, "If a phenomenon takes millions of years of COURSE you're not going to see it."
After a bit more banter, Dawkins says in voice over, "The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd." He then goes on to give examples of things you "don't see happening" yet can still observe the evidence.
It's all in, "The Genius of Charles Darwin, Part 3"
Atriv "Dawkins replies, "If a phenomenon takes millions of years of COURSE you're not going to see it."
-And so evolution is not science, it is a faith position. A religion of blind faith, which ignores all the evidence that where there is Intelligent Design, logically, there must be an intelliegent designer and no amount of babble and racism by your religion is going to explain that truth away.
There is more solid basis in evidence for Evolution than there is for Gravity: a theory which relies on the assumed existence of the Graviton, a particle we have never been able to detect yet has interactions that are faster than light. It's a Law that nothing moves faster than light, but we rely on the assumption that Gravity does in order to explain it's observed effects.
Please explain why you reject one but not the other?
Inthefades comment deleted due to bad language. It's funny, those atheists despite always telling us how highly moral people they are, can't seem to refrain from having a mouth like a sewer.
What's immoral about the use of a word? While we're at it, why was it moral to kill your best friend for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week? Or to kill your children for acting out? Or to wipe out an entire city (babies included) for having different beliefs? Your god's morals are pretty fascinating... I'm sure you're completely ok with the deaths caused by your god's "morality," and that's what makes your religion dangerous-- morals that make no sense.
This is so stupid. Atheism isn't wrong, it mean's that not only do you not believe in higher power, it mean's your not a slave of something that could possibly be fake. Why take a chance if you don't want to.
Eat, But you are a slave. You can't stop sinning. You can't stop lusting even if you wanted to. What do you call someone who can't stop lusting? A pervert. What will God do with perverts?
No. There doesn't have to be an intelligent designer. Go and read Evolution by Natural Selection to understand how nature, which looks designed, is not. There are plenty of good books on this. I suggest you read one.
Sorry maglav, but natural selection doesn't create anything new. It can only select from what is already present. And destory stuff. All natural selection gives is sideways and downward changes. Devolution, the exact opposite to evolution.
Anyhow the racists remark comes from the ignorance of people who believe that Darwin used the word race to indicate superiority/inferiority. In an Origin of Species Darwin uses the word race over 100 times and only four times does it refer to humans. The word is used specifically as we now use the word species.
When looking at an Origin of Species it is to be read through the eyes of someone from thew 19th century. Not the view of someone from the 21st century.
It is out of context because it frames the entire thing with a strawman: the existence of the supernatural is not denied because it is unseen, it is denied because of no tangible evidence in support of it. It is non-discriminatory: it isn't just the god of the Bible that is rejected, it is every god and spirit of every faith.
The video sets it up very deliberately to convince a nieve viewer that evidence is of no importance to Atheism, only immediate experience.
Ereg, no wonder you believe in evolution is your so slow at understanding that if I included the context in the video (Mackays interview) then it's in context.
Except that you didn't and I already explained how you didn't. The full scene is shown towards the end of the video after a strawman has already been set up using a quote-mine.
Erag, why not just accept you're wrong. The context of the quote [Mackays interview] is in the video. But then again I suppose this is why you still believe in evolution despite not only their being no evidence for it, but the evidence tells us evolution is impossible. Where there is Intelligent Design there must be and Intelligent Designer. No matter how desperate you try you can't explain that away. This is not a game. You will face God on Judgement Day. He has seen your thought life
How can you not understand the difference between personal experience and understanding the evidence? The god of the Bible is not rejected on the basis of no personal experience, but because a rational understanding of the evidence just doesn't support it.
I can not see gravity or electro-magnetism, but I don't dismiss it because I understand the evidence for it.
I can not see God, fairies or unicorns, I dismiss them because there is no evidence for me to learn of. You made a strawman.
Chaz, no one has ever said they can see God Who is an invisible Spirit. Atheists often try to dismiss God because He is not subject to observation or discovery by the 5 senses. He is non-material and they often believe the only reality is material. Also the process of evolution is non observable. It never happened.Seeing is NOT believing because the 5 senses give us contradictory information. They are needed to function but do not provide a basis for ultimate truth.RLJ
This demonstrates what is wrong with the video. Dawkins even makes the point that evidence is the primary concern, not the senses or personal experience. The supernatural isn't denied because it isn't seen or experienced, but because of there being no credible evidence.
I haven't seen or had any experience of unicorns, but I don't dismiss them because of this, I dismiss them because no one has shown me any evidence. This is the same as Dawkins' view.
Eregeras said: "The supernatural isn't denied because it isn't seen or experienced, but because of their being no credible evidence."
Really? And what type of "credible" evidence do you want for God's existence? Is it to see, hear, smell, touch, or taste Him?Is that what you mean by "credible" evidence?What other sort would you be seeking?Yet these are all empirical evidences.What sort of evidence, to be fair,would you like? Please tell me! God can neither be proven nor disproved logically.RLJ
"God can neither be proven nor disproved logically" in the same way as fairies but if i said i could see faries in my garden i bet u would want proof that they where there, wouldnt u?
Would that be more or less absurd than people seeing the face of Christ or Her Lady of Fatma in a piece of food or about the same? Quite often such nonsense gets cited as 'evidence' when it's nothing of the sort.
At least we seem to agree on the irrational "evidence" of the Roman Catholic "faithful." They never seem to tire of trotting out goofy relics and having pilgrimages to shrines. But they are evidence only of gullibility and NOT god. Absurd is an understatement. Oh BTW I saw Elvis' face in my oatmeal this morning. Does that count? ROFLOL RLJ
It would have to meet the same standard of evidence as anything else that is generally accepted, like gravity, a round Earth, heliocentricism, electro-magnetism, none of which I have seen with my eyes or any of my other external senses. I rely on the evidence for them.
The god of the Bible instead meets the same standard of evidence as any other mythical being. I could not presume that god's existence unless I gave others equal regard.
One of the problems of evidence for things like gravity, photosynthesis, or any other phenomenon is the belief in the sameness or continuity of nature and reality. It must first be proven and not merely asserted to be so. Science has not done so. Are the laws the same everywhere in the universe? To assume them is a petitio principii. RLJ
"Also the process of evolution is non observable. It never happened."
---
You could not be more wrong. It is observed in the laboratory using bacteria. It has been observed using flies. Get your head out of the bible and read some current scientific papers on the matter. You might just learn something.
Not to mention the MILLIONS of fossils and genetic evidence we have for the process of evolution occurring.
Chaz, it is you who needs to be a bit more objective. I stand by what I said. No Christian denies change withing a species. But do these flies suddenly become cockroaches? I am denying evolution dogma that says a dinosaur was the ancestor of the modern day chicken and other nonsense. There is no fossil evidence for this rot. Evolution requires copious amounts of time. How could it be observed? What genetic evidence can be produced? There are many ways to interpret such data.RLJ
Whenever a creationist uses the 'change within a species' it is worth asking what they define as a species. On the rare occassion I even get an answer, it's always rather different from how science catagorises it.
There have been forty speciation events observed in just the last fifteen years. Sometimes, very similiar looking organisms are mistaken for the same species and later found not to be.
How different do two different lines of descendents have to be?
Eregeras, I do not believe they have to be totally different. But I reject a dog and cat being close enough in kind. The Bible says "each after their own kind." When horses and donkeys have off spring they are sterile. I am willing to assert that poodles, chihauuas, etc... all came from a generic dog. Perhaps even coyotes and wolves could be similar enough in kind.RLJ
I'll point out that 'kind' when used in discussion on evolution is called a Hovindism; a term originating from Kent Hovind's rhetoric, he has refused to ever define what he means by 'kind'. It's a case of creationists avoiding difficult questions about species.
The arguement about dogs and cats is repeated often, but it's completely ignorant of what our understanding of evolution is. When species evolve, the descendent is always a more specific version of it's ancestor.
Se, uhhm, evolutionists no longer point to an ancient dinosaur as the distant ancestor of the chicken? Let's not play games. I don't know who Hovind is and don't give a fig about intelligent design or its rhetoric. I believe #1. the Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God. That is the maxim or axiom I deduce all else from. If you believe in evolution and go back far enough you once had amoebas and after much change le voila...Man! How is this a case of the
You're making an appeal to ridicule, it's a fallacy. Modern amoebas are not representive of the ancestor we share with them.
Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Reptiles, as did Mammals. We know this because Mammals do not have any genes linking them with Birds except through Reptiles and vice-versa: Chickens have the genes for full sets of teeth which they don't have because they inherited it from the Reptile ancestor.
(continued) So Birds and Mammals are refined versions of Ancient Reptiles, just as Modern Reptiles are.
Features which Birds and Mammals evolved independently of their Reptile ancestor are extremely unlikely to have evolved in each other. Including Endogenous Retroviruses which mark our common DNA. The chances of two organisms having a single ERV at the exact same place in their DNA and them not being cousins is 3,000,000,000 to 1. But this is repeated hundreds of times: the odds are 10^766
Eregeras, No I am NOT committing a logical fallacy. It is called reducing your opponents argument to absurdity. Perhaps you have it confused with ad ignorantiam which is VERY different. I am pointing out the ludicrous nature of saying chickens and reptiles have a common ancestor. How CAN you say we, man, as descendants of reptiles are "a more advanced representative"? There is NO similarity whatsoever. RLJ
Because of the evidence. I took the very clear example of Edogenous Retroviruses: viruses which infect our reproductive cells and as a result, when those reproductive cells multiply, so does the virus they contain. This means that if an ERV infects my DNA, it will be found in all my children and descendents and it will be found in the exact same place in the DNA I pass to them.
Birds have the same ERV placement as ancient Reptiles. The chances of this is trillions to 1 unless they are related.
(continued) So when creationists use the 'dog doesn't evolve into a cat' type of canard, they are demonstrating their utter ignorance of Common Descent. Cats and dogs are Mammals so we know their common ancestor was a mammal. They belong to the Order Carnivora so we know their common ancestor was a carnivour. Dogs have since evolved into omnivours, cats haven't. They split at the Family: dogs are Canidae, cats are Felidae so we know their common ancestor was neither of these.
This video IS taken out of context because he was refering to things you can't see but have overwhelming evidence for like evolution and napoleon. He is not refering to god of which there isn't a speck of evidence.
By way evolution has got millions of "missing link" fossils because every organism is a transistion, don't knock what you don't understand yet. Read book which isn't bible.
Ckerton, how can it be taken out of context when I inlcude the contest in the video. Dawkins comments on his interview with Mackay. And he uses Napolean as an example in the comment. The missing links are all missing because evolution has never happened. Face reality mate. You can bury your head in the sand all you like, but you will still have to face God on Judgement Day. That's way you spend so much time attacking God, because your conscience is convicting you guility.
Sorry kev when I die I will simply drift of into a sleep; and I won't worry about no god because he won't be there. As for evolution never happening your the one not facing reality; a god would not create 80 different types of bettle on an island unless hes some sort of nutcase. Evolution is the answer; I take more comfort in being a cousin of my pet dog, then being in image of a creator who sees purpose in suffering.
Quote - "Use other evidence apart from that of one mans eyes". Thee is evidence for evolution but not some daft creation. You may of put whole clip there; but have tried to frame it differently as not recognise the content.
Kev what is "dawkins admits atheism is absurd"; that is framing out the context. I know you have the whole clip there that is not the problem. The problem is either you are not paying attention to content or your being dishonest to convert people and that is against Jesus' teachings I believe.
Dude, we can see flies evolving during a short period of time because their lifespan is only a couple of days. We can compare whole generations in a month. Stop taking "evolution never happened" out of your ass.
good video. i dont know why its getting such a low rating.
i know why. angry atheists hate it, so they are giving it the lowest possible rating. Well...ratings and nay saying doesnt negate facts.
When we get down to it, it returns to do this for the atheist....they are very egotistic, whether they mean well or not, they are too proud to submit to a higher power that they have to answer to, a higher power they feel lets so much evil happen and they think that isnt God like, but cruel.
Why the low ratings, oh gee,, I don't know, because its obviously a very bad dishonest editing job? Because it advocates a bronze age myth over science?
certain types of flies have a lifespan of a couple of days; and yes we can and do observe changing and mutations happening. You only need a couple of months for that.
Athiests do not often believe in Evolution. They have admitted that it is their "best option", though it is not true. They will embrace ANYTHING except God as Creator. They know they are lying, therefore they continue to use fraudulent research. Fighting against one's Creator is ALWAYS absurd. Dawkins himself is completely absurd. Good video. Thanks.
I don't believe in evolution. I'm convinced of it. Its only the theist that puts the value in belief. Rational people look at evidence, and decide what is mostly likely to be true.
The source of the video is from the last part of a recent three-part Channel 4(in Britain) series The Genius of Charles Darwin. The series is available in it's entirity on YouTube. The actual context is removed completely, but anyone can go view it.
In the programme, Dawkins was responding to an old creationist canard that because we haven't seen evolution over millenia, there's no evidence for it. What is shown in this clip is a blatant and obvious case of quote-mining.
Eregras, the quote has not been "removed" from its context. As you rightly say Dawkins is responding to a Creationist [John Mackay] and I have included that in the video.
What is the show you pull this from. I will watch it myself in FULL to make sure you did not take it out of context but I am quote sure you have, you are a creationist after all and not to be trusted with the truth.
Anyhow evolutions is witnessed and DOCUMENTED and it was also reproduced in the LAB.
Evolution is FACT as it is observed and it is a THEORY as it is explained.
Dawkins goes on to point out the difference between having multiple sources of corroborating evidence to support historic and/or scientific facts and having little or no supporting evidence for a statement.
Quote mining like this is very weak-minded.
Also, by your logic, you should also believe in unicorns, fairies, ogres, dragons and any number of other propositions you can't directly observe. And yet, you don't.
Brilliant video! The three ring circus that is Evolution - Dawkins - Atheism never ceases to be amusing. The clowns are so busy trying to juggle their supposed "facts" that they always end up dropping them, confused; stumbling over themselves (and others) in contradictions. It's like a trained poodle act - cute for five minutes but then it gets tedious and you worry about the dogs.
Don't read more into my post than is there. I used an analogy. That's a style of writing, not an insult. I find atheism comical, that's why I used a comical analogy. I didn't call anyone a dog. I compared situations. Political Correctness (another word for censorship) has led to people being very thin-skinned today.
For lies and hateful, raging insults, check out most any atheistic response to Christian videos. (Even when the videos weren't directed at atheists in the 1st place.)
No problem, mindwis. My intention was truly just to compare the situations and not the people. It's never my intent to insult anyone. However, I do admit that sometimes I can be a bit blunt so that it might appear that way. It's tough to squeeze some responses into 500 characters!
I undid the Thumbs Down you received. I don't feel it warranted one.
...cont... Yes, death threats go both ways. Reason: Know that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian actually IS a Christian. I can claim to be a Hare Krishna by wearing a robe and spouting the lingo, but unless I'm actually LIVING OUT their beliefs/doctrines, I'm just a fraud full of hot air. It's the same with Christianity. People don't decide what Christianity is for themselves-- that's humanism.
Brilliant? Maybe not. But funny how Dawkins contradicts himself periodically.
mindwis: You have a point about snippets and context. Context is everything when interpreting scripture - as it is with conversations. I can't presume to judge the posters Christianity, however. Only God can do that.
I find the clip amusing because Dawkins scoffs (rudely) at Christians for believing in the God we can't see. But, when it fits HIS purposes, it's a perfectly natural concept. This hypocrisy is the reason I posted any comment at all. My dislike is w/ Dawkins, not atheists.
Comments now closed on this thread, as what has been said has been said, and is just being repeated. If you are concerned about your soul see PuritanFellowship dot c o m and on the right-hand side click on "Searchers please stop here"
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Proof there is a God.
If you see a bird house on a tree.
You don't think, well that bird house is just an accident,
it's the result of random chance mutations over millions of years.
No! you instantly know where something is made, there must be a Maker. Where there is design. Logic says, there must be a Designer.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Yet can that bird box, capture the suns energy and convert it into fuel?
Can that bird box, repair itself when part of it is broken off by strong winds or a storm?
Can that bird box generate copies of itself that produce further copies of itself?
because the tree it is attached to can do all of those things.
Because that tree is super technology, far, far more advance than anything man has ever made.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Once single cell, what Darwin wrongly thought was just 3 or 4 bits of plasma lumped together, is more complexly designed than a 747 aeroplane.
You have to magnify one tiny cell the size of a city to see all of the workings of it.
This is super technology.
It feeds, it repairs, it duplicates.
You can not explain the simple truth away. Where there is a Creation, there must be a Creator. And His Name is Jesus whom you will one day stand before in judgement.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
It appears KWM is no longer interested in discussing the topic at hand and has turned to proslytising as creationists always do.
I'm an ex-Christian. As a Christian I believed lying for the benefit of my own religion was as bad as any other blasphemy. Does KWM believe the same?
Eregeras 3 years ago 143
Erag you was never a Christian. A Christian is not just someone who claims they are, or went to church. The Bible says: 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Do you look at pornography? Do you lust after women you're not married to? If so then you're a pervert. What do you think God will with perverts?
This is not a game. One day all your thought life and all your wicked deeds will be judged, by the God who, although now He offers you mercy, On that Day He will show no mercy to the wicked.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Your thought life reveals the real, unrestrained you. You see, most people wrongly believe they're good people and God won't send them to Hell, but God has seen every one of your wicked thoughts and actions. He has seen every time you've broken His commandments, lusting over someone you're not married to, lying and stealing (no matter how little); He has heard every time you've used His Holy Name in vain, using the name of the One who gave you life in place of a curse word.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
You wouldn't do that with Hitler's name, but you do it with God's name! The "Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain," (Exodus 20:7) and "every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Be honest with yourself: when you face God on Judgment Day - keeping in mind that He's seen your every wicked thought and action - will He find you innocent or guilty? If God gives you what you deserve, should He send you to Heaven or Hell? God has written His moral law on your heart so you are "without excuse" (Romans 1:18-32); you know it is wrong to lie, to steal, to lust, and to curse because God gave you a conscience to know right from wrong. Your own conscience demands justice!
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Imagine a courtroom scene where a child rapist is coming before the judge for sentencing. But instead of giving him what justice demands, the judge lets him go free because the rapist is a "nice guy" who has given to charity and goes to church every Sunday. You would be outraged, and you should be! Yet most people think the High and Holy God is just like this corrupt judge, and that they can bribe Him with their "good deeds" so that He'll overlook their sin.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Again, what would you think if the judge said to the rapist, "I'm a very loving judge, so I'll just let you go free?" You would not think that the judge was loving at all, but that he was corrupt and not worthy to be a judge! Yet most people expect the Holy God who is "the judge of all the earth" (Genesis 18:25) to be just that corrupt with them, and overlook their sin.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Infinite Love and Goodness demand Infinite Justice. Because God's love and justice are infinite He won't punish only murderers and rapists, but He'll punish ALL sin wherever it's found. That's why "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9) "No thief, no sexually immoral person, no idolater will enter heaven" (1 Corinthians 6:10) and "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone." (Revelation 21:8)
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Now the question for you, dear reader, is this: is there any hope for someone like you? Is there any hope for the person who has defied God time and again by rebelling against His will and refusing to love and worship Him? Is there any hope for the criminal who stands guilty in the courtroom of God? Yes there is! There is forgiveness with God! Go to PuritanFellowship c o m and click on "searchers or those unsure, if you are concerned about your soul stop here" Right-hand side
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
I'll also say again that evolutions is a theory that uses Natural Selection. Artificial or Intelligent Selection existed for thousands of years before anyone thought of Natural Selection.
If Hitler was an social evolutionist, it would have been an arguement against artificial interference, not an arguement for it.
Eregeras 3 years ago
Good video!
DawnTransformed 3 years ago
This really is pathetic. Atheists don't refuse to believe in god because they don't see him, it's because his existence has not been proven. We CAN prove Napoleon existed and that evolution happened.
By John Mackay's logic, if a murder is not seen, but there is substantial evidence, should we just let the suspect go?
garamri 3 years ago 7
Sir Arthur Keith, a British anthropologist, was an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he still drew this chilling conclusion: The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 230.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
932 comment deleted due to profane language. Despite atheists always telling us how highly moral they are. Yet another atheist who can't refrane from having a mouth like a sewer.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
WHAT!?!?!?!?!?! what did i say that offended you? im genuinely confused...
932016 3 years ago
First off this video is a quote mine. something ive come to expect from creationists i might add.
second, evolution is testable. ever heard of micro evolution? if change that increases genetic information (which HAVE been observed) keep happending a population will evolve. (micro happens=FACT. macro happens =logical deduction following micro being true)
evolution is a testable logical deduction, it is NOT absurd.
932016 3 years ago
932, It's a quote in context that shows the absurdity of the evolution fairy-tale. Evolution is not testable science. What you call micro evolution is really devolution, a side ways change or a loss of information, where you end up with something less complex than you began with.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
it is a quote that shows the absurdity of belveing in something you CANNOT test. we CAN test evolution just read a science peer review jornal people do it all the time! hence quote mine.
i'll say again, INCREASE IN GENETIC INFORATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED! hence not devolution but evolution. did you even read my comment?
932016 3 years ago
932, evolution has not been observed, otherwise Dawkins would have just told John Mackay so in that clip. But rather Dawkins claimed you wouldn't expect to see it, & so evolution is a faith position. There is still an unclaimed reward, for over 10 years, of £125, for the 1st person who can give scientific proof for evolution.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
you can type increase genetic information to google to see examples for yourself. dawkins is not infallible and what he said could be out of date with current science.
the thing with these prove X and get money challenges is that they purposefully place the criteria to meet the goal away from the proofs that we have and will ever have. if i said i will give you a million pounds if you can prove X but i made damn sure to word my criteria properly no one would ever get it!
932016 3 years ago
932, it appears you are willing to accept anything no matter how silly, in order to "supress the truth in unrighteousness." Why don't these ppl claim the £125K? Do you think Dawkins wasn't aware of information evolutionists were in desperation claiming several years ago?
You obviously don't understand things like point/imvertion/insertion etc mutations if you think they gain info. They are a loss & can be devastating.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
once again DID YOU NOT READ MY COMMENT!i can make the criteria for proof so ridicules and outside of current knowledge that you couldn't prove it no matter what. its like kent hovids prove that computer came into existance without man thing.
remove the proof from you criteria for proof and you will always win the argument.
strange how the scientists who DO understand it think the same as i do isn't it? we will get nowhere by claiming the other does not understand or is silly.
932016 3 years ago
im assuming you read afew articles about how scientists have observed increased information so that you can actually know what you're talking about btw.
Do you think science is corrupt? if so why haven't creationists exposed this corruption? by corruption i mean ignoring evidence without reason. i read that whole survival of the fakest thing so thats what im on about here.
932016 3 years ago 2
Evolution is NOT observable repeatable testable science. It is a religion of blind faith. All evolution has done has held back science, and contributed to the progress of racism, eugenics and Nazism. What the "scientists" are doing in those reports, are claiming things as increases that are not and have been refuted, but they do this because there will be some ppl as foolish as you who will accept anything. "The fool in his heart says there is no God"
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
WOW! FIVE STARS!
doctorh2005 3 years ago
So all you evolutionist,
What is the story with you? Why do you hate God so much?
And please don't tell me you really don't believe He exists, as your actions betray your words.
No-one in their right mind would display such moronic behaviour as to spend all day on the internet, spamming Christian websites and attacking a God IF they didn't really believe in Him.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
So come on, what is your real story, why do you have such a hatred for your Creator, who you will one day stand before in judgement? Or perhaps that is the reason.
You see, if you really didn't believe in God, then you wouldn't bother wasting time attacking Him. But even though you try to suppress the obvious truth of Him, you can't escape your conscience which is declaring you GUILTY. GUILTY. GUILTY.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Let me ask you: How would you feel if your thought life was to be shown on National TV tonight? What if someone told you that your every thought from the day you were born had been recorded and will be shown tonight on national TV? And not only that, but a website will flash across the screen during the program, directing all of your friends and family to where they can watch all of your thoughts about them. How many people would be angry with you? Everyone? Would you be angry with yourself?
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
You can't hate something that does not exists so you start off with a false premise.
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
No Sfly, if you really believed God didn't exist then you wouldn't act like one of those evolutionist internet nerds who spend so much time on the net attacking something you didn't believe in. But you can't escape your conscience convicting you guilty & so you spend all your time attacking God in order to supress the truth in unrighteousness. No matter God "has appointed a Day in which He will Judge the world in righteousness."
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
PuritanFellowship dot c o m
Darwin And Eugenics. The Racist Fairy Tale that Produced Hitler 9 min video
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Darwin And Eugenics. The Racist Fairy Tale that Produced Hitler. PuritanFellowship dot c o m
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Argumentum ad Hitlerum
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
- Adolf Hitler, 1941
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator"
- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf), 1925
Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image.
- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf), 1925
Atriviality 3 years ago
Not only that, but farmers and cultivators were selecting for distinct traits for tens of thousands of years before Darwin. Hitler never once based any of his ideas on anything Darwin wrote. Hitler suggested many times that breeding techniques used for animals could and should be used on people.
Science is a tool and so is breeding; neither good or evil, it's the one who uses them that assumes those qualities.
Eregeras 3 years ago
Erag wrote "Hitler suggested many times that breeding techniques used for animals could and should be used on people." --That's because Hitler's relgion of evolution he believed in taught that humans were only animals. If evolution really was scientific then what Hitler did would be scientific. But the reality is that evolution is a fairy tale for racists, which teaches blacks are closer to apes than whites. PuritanFellowship c o m
Darwin And Eugenics. 9 min video
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
"taught that humans were only animals."
- Do you eat? Do you breathe? Do you move about of your own volition? Do you NOT photosynthesize? If so, you ARE an animal.
"what Hitler did would be scientific"
- It's scientific, but not very beneficial. Removing large chunks of the gene pool leads to health problems in future generations. We've know this for at least a century.
"evolution is a fairy tale for racists, which teaches blacks are closer to apes than whites."
- cite sources please.
Atriviality 3 years ago
I site your quote as source, you've just admitted you believe what Hitler did murdering Jews and others was scientific.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
For something to be scientific it must be observable, testable, and repeatable.
Was what Hitler did observable? Yes.
Was it testable? Yes.
Is it repeatable? Yes.
As I said, it IS scientific, but not very beneficial.
What Hitler did was called "genocide" (the systematic and planned extermination of an entire people) and "eugenics" (hereditary improvement of a race by controlled selective breeding).
Atriviality 3 years ago
Evolution is change in the genetics of a population over successive generations, by selective pressures acting on the genetic variation among individuals.
That being said, genocide and eugenics are forms of selective pressure (not evolution) that greatly reduce genetic variation.
Animal breeders have health problems with their purebreds because they use eugenics to eliminate genetic variation, and stifle evolution. Genocide does this at a much faster rate, but the results are the same.
Atriviality 3 years ago
The man who designed the original classification system for species before On The Origin of Species was published, was a creationist. It was he that catagorised humans as belonging to the 'Homo' Genus, 'Hominidae' Family, 'Primate' Order, 'Mammal' Class and 'Animal' Kingdom.
I know of no serious evolutionary biologist that claims African-descended people are 'closer to apes' especially as we technically ARE apes(so said the creationist that wrote the system).
Please give some real sources
Eregeras 3 years ago
Atriv, Catholicism IS NOT Christianity.
"10th October, 1941, midday:
Adolf Hitler-"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."
Hitler: 9th April, 1942, dinner:
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity"
Google puritanfellowship hitler and you'll find what Hitler really thought about Christians.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Adolf Hitler ""Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease."
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Adolf Hitler: 27/2/42:
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ."
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
"Atriv, Catholicism IS NOT Christianity."
- To show you are NOT using the 'No TRUE Scotsman' logical fallacy, please define 'Catholicism' and 'Christianity' and state why Catholicism isn't a type of Christianity. Please cite your sources.
Atriviality 3 years ago
Sure, Galatians 1:8 says "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." the crime here is adding works to salvation which is what Catholicism does. Catholicism teaches you get to God by your own good works. True Christianity of the Bible teaches you can do absolutely nothing to earn your salvation, and salavation is through Grace by faith alone in Jesus Christ.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
You are using the "No TRUE Scotsman" logical fallacy.
You have failed to provide a definition of Catholicism, or a definition of Christianity or provide a source from where you found the definitions.
Atriviality 3 years ago
Er, no mate I explained Catholicism was salvation by works as apposed to Salvation by Grace alone through Faith in Jesus Christ, and I cited Gal 1:8-9, the all book of Romans as well. You can argue all you like against Catholicism, but we Christians don't believe it either.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Neither Catholicism nor Christianity is defined in the bible, therefore your reference isn't relevant. Try using dictionary definitions instead of writing your own.
Atriviality 3 years ago
Atriv, the Book of Romans, Galatians, 1 John & the Gospels all define what true Christianity is as oppose to false religion. Anything that doesn't match up to the Bible is false. Please don't pretend you're an expert in things you obviously don't know about.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Just as gravity (unless you believe in the theory of intelligent falling) is both theory (why gravity is there in the first place) and fact (when you let something go it falls), so is evolution. You are in denial likely do to religious bigotry and as I mentioned before just because you are ignorant does not mean you have a valid argument. All you are doing is putting your fingers in your ears and basically saying "I'm not listening". This is of course childish.
PART 4
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
Now about asking for proof (I wanted to cover this earlier but I had to go to work). Proof is an exercise of logic so again you are making an error (think I am losing count on all the mistakes you have made). Examples of proofs would be 1+1=2, the sum of the three angles of a triangle will always equal 180 degrees, Pythagoras theorem etc...What I need to provide is evidence to support the claim and I can do EXACTLY that.
All this done specifically in the name of religion
PART 5
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
The crusades, inquisitions, religious wars of the middle ages, Islamic take over the middle east (Muslim Arab empire), Armenian Genocide, 9/11 (or did you forget that one so soon), Arab-Israeli War (1948), the Sudanese Civil Wars, Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia, Hindu/Muslim violence; that is just a START on the evils done specifically in the name of religion.
PART 6 END
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
Believers in the Evolution religion have caused more bloodshed than anything else. Joseph Stalin said murdering 7 million was like mowing the grass, if evolution was true then that would be a scientific statement, as ppl would only be a more evolved form of grass. Hitler and Stalin did it all in the name of the evolution religion
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
"Believers in the Evolution religion have caused more bloodshed than anything else."
- I don't think you want to compare body counts. Do you believe the Noah's Ark story? What was the body count on that one again?
Atriviality 3 years ago
A tiny fraction of what of the number of ppl killed in WW1 & WW2. But when God saved Noah, God is God and has a right to punish sinners, just like He'll punish you, not because you are a nice person, but becaue you are deeply evil. Just look at those Hitler quotes against CHristianity, they sound exactly like all you God hating evolutionists.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
"But when God saved Noah, God is God and has a right to punish sinners"
- So when a man kills his citizens because they don't do what he says, it's murder. But when God wipes out almost all life on Earth for the same reason, it's ok?
"just like He'll punish you, not because you are a nice person, but becaue you are deeply evil."
- Yes. The sharks with laser beams attached to their heads are on order.
"Just look at those Hitler quotes against CHristianity"
- I said they were logical fallacies.
Atriviality 3 years ago
Sfly, pointing out wars that have been done in other religions is meaningless. Especially when your dangerous fundamentalist blind faith religion of evolution has caused more bloodshed then anything else. But speaking of proof. That is the point, there is no proof for evolution, but there is proof that it is impossible. non-life does not create life.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Well I can't argue with someone who is willfully ignorant and has no idea when it comes to the history of christianity.. It's pointless.
Anyhow most of what I pointed out was in the name of christianity so again your retort falls flat on its face (as usual)....
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
This is a textbook example of how someone can take someone else's statement out of context, to attempt to make them seem contradictory.
The refusal to believe something that you cannot see with your own eyes [but for which there is still MASSIVE evidence for] is absurd.
The refusal to believe something that you cannot see with your own eyes [and for which there is also NO evidence for] is rational.
Not surprising this came from a creationist.
arich23 3 years ago
"The refusal to believe something that you cannot see with your own eyes [and for which there is also NO evidence for] is rational."
Yes,this video employs a vicious abstraction. However is it always rational to not believe something merely because it is no empirically verifiable or subject to experiencing by utilization of the 5 senses? This is the proverbial bone of contention. God cannot be ruled out of court simply because He is immaterial. Neither can the point, numbers, concepts,truth,et..
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Yes but, it's impossible to count the number of things you could believe in, that are not verifiable with our senses.
I could postulate an infinite number of supernatural roots of the first cause. One of the infinite number may be for instance, an invisible dragon that that hides in the core of the sun; and that entity seeded life in several parallel universes.
Sounds stupefyingly outlandish right? Yet it also cannot be ruled out of court, and I may also decree by fiat that it's immaterial.
arich23 3 years ago
"The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd" quote (Genius of Darwin Part 3) is talking about evidence, and not necessarily being there to witness it first hand, yet still being able to observe and test it afterward. If you remember in part 1, Dawkins used an analogy of a murder case and the use of evidence.
Atriviality 3 years ago
Haeckel's Embryo picture are in the documentary (Genius of Darwin Part 1) because it is 1 piece of evidence that Charles Darwin looked at before he wrote Origin of Species. Origin of Species was first published in 1859, but the first criticism of Haekel's drawings wasn't presented until 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer scrutinizing Haekel's methods, not his findings. It wasn't until 1997 that the drawings themselves came under scrutiny.
Atriviality 3 years ago
evolution of man is a LIE! it is a false misleading religion
sthcrox 3 years ago
gravity of earth is a LIE! it is a false misleading religion
Atriviality 3 years ago
are u joking? pls don't class your fake belief in evolution LIE together with real God-Created phenomena such as Gravity. it's an insult!!!!!!!!!!!!
sthcrox 3 years ago
Have you ever seen gravity? What color is it? How much does it weigh? Is it hot or cold? What does it taste or smell like? If you cannot answer these simple questions, how can you be sure gravity really exists? Please don't class your fake belief in gravitation LIE as a real God-Created phenomena. it's an insult!!!!!!!!!!!!
Atriviality 3 years ago
It seems God has not allowed you evolutionists to know the truth of gravity, but I know. Yu wanna see what colour is Gravity? Ok i'll show you. Just follow me to the top of the tallest building in the block. yep, that tall one! you see it? yep, climb up to the top of the roof. Now, pray your last prayer to your god, mr. darwin, then hold your nose and "JUMP!".
nOW THAT'S GGRAVITY...AND that's it's colour...and that's how heavy you fall.
now, do yu see the difference btw gravity & a Lie?
sthcrox 3 years ago
All I see is that you haven't answered the question.
Have you ever seen gravity?
Atriviality 3 years ago
get over it, dude!
sthcrox 3 years ago
"get over it, dude!"
All you creationists seem to do is dodge questions. 1 more time:
Have you ever seen gravity?
'Yes' or 'No'?
Atriviality 3 years ago
do yu know the sydney harbour bridge? climb it and do what i told yu to do! yu will see gravity is real (it's all God-created, for your info, dude!)
now, go to a cafe round the corner and have your last supper before yu climb. (hey hey hey, don't do it pls, i'm only joking! i mean it, DON'T JUMP, I'M ONLY JOKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
sthcrox 3 years ago
It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' question. Why can't you answer it?
Have you seen gravity?
Atriviality 3 years ago
i have already answered you, friend.
BUT! if you admit that you are 'mentally incapable' of undastanding my given answer, THEN i promise i will answer yu again.
sthcrox 3 years ago
Focus sthcrox. Focus.
It's just a 1 word reply with no more than 3 characters.
Have you seen gravity?
Reply 'Yes'; or reply 'no'.
Atriviality 3 years ago
have yu?
sthcrox 3 years ago
And another successful test supports the theory that creationists have the inability to answer a simple question, resorting instead to evasive anecdotes.
Thank you sthcrox. You have been most helpful.
Atriviality 3 years ago
Well you evolutionists have never been able to answer a simple question like where is the evidence for your fairy tale? But at the end of the day, it's all a front. No would be such a nerd as to spend so much time on the net attacking God if they really didn't believe in Him. It is evident by your actions that you really do believe in God. So why do you hate Him so much? Is it because you know He's going to judge you guilty?
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
"Well you evolutionists have never been able to answer a simple question like where is the evidence for your fairy tale?"
- Actually we tell you all the time, you just refuse to believe it.
"No would be such a nerd as to spend so much time on the net attacking God if they really didn't believe in Him."
- No would be such a nerd as to spend so much time on the net attacking Evolution if they really didn't believe in it.
Atriviality 3 years ago 3
Atriv wrote: "- No ... attacking Evolution if they really didn't believe in it."
--No mate, you're about to spend all eternity, being punished in Hell, because God is just and so He must punish evil ppl. All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire. No thief will enter Heaven. & so we warn ppl. So logically it makes sense for us to spend lots of time. But if evol was true, then you wouldn't even know any diff' when you're dead so it makes no sense for you.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
You keep playing the eternal damnation card, yet it doesn't seem to be working. What else you got?
Atriviality 3 years ago 6
"So why do you hate Him so much? Is it because you know He's going to judge you guilty?"
- Everyone makes their own judgments. Why should God be any different?
What I *really* hate is when people willfully taint the well of knowledge.
Things like the quote mining you practiced in this video, giving a false impression of the original video. Few people would have taken the time to check your quotes, but I did.
Atriviality 3 years ago 3
Atriv, if you took time to check the quotes, then if you're honest then you'll admit Dawkins quote is not out of context which is John Mackays interview. Of course if you're a liar then you'll claim I gave ppl a "false impression" Rev 21:8 "All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire." "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
"Dawkins quote is not out of context which is John Mackays interview."
- So if we were to ask Richard Dawkins if he thought Atheism was absurd, he'd say "yes" would he?
Are you using cherry picked quotes to make Dawkins sound like he advocates a position he does not? If you are, this is a form of lying a.k.a. "quote mining".
They better warm that "Lake of Fire" up so it's ready when you get there.
Atriviality 3 years ago 87
Atriv I've used Dawkins quote in context, and by logic, which evolutionist deny (as logically evolution is impossible),the same logic he uses to claim evolution is true despite there being no observable evidence whatsoever for it, also destory's his claims about God.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Mackay postulated that "What you don't see happening is not science, it's unobservable".
To which Dawkins replies, "If a phenomenon takes millions of years of COURSE you're not going to see it."
After a bit more banter, Dawkins says in voice over, "The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd." He then goes on to give examples of things you "don't see happening" yet can still observe the evidence.
It's all in, "The Genius of Charles Darwin, Part 3"
Atriviality 3 years ago 208
Atriv "Dawkins replies, "If a phenomenon takes millions of years of COURSE you're not going to see it."
-And so evolution is not science, it is a faith position. A religion of blind faith, which ignores all the evidence that where there is Intelligent Design, logically, there must be an intelliegent designer and no amount of babble and racism by your religion is going to explain that truth away.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
There is more solid basis in evidence for Evolution than there is for Gravity: a theory which relies on the assumed existence of the Graviton, a particle we have never been able to detect yet has interactions that are faster than light. It's a Law that nothing moves faster than light, but we rely on the assumption that Gravity does in order to explain it's observed effects.
Please explain why you reject one but not the other?
Eregeras 3 years ago
Could you please put the name of the program you did your quote mining from? It helps the rest of us to put what Dawkins is saying into context.
Atriviality 3 years ago
It's from The Genius of Charles Darwin. The full series can be viewed on Youtube. This was from the final third episode.
Eregeras 3 years ago
Inthefades comment deleted due to bad language. It's funny, those atheists despite always telling us how highly moral people they are, can't seem to refrain from having a mouth like a sewer.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
What's immoral about the use of a word? While we're at it, why was it moral to kill your best friend for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week? Or to kill your children for acting out? Or to wipe out an entire city (babies included) for having different beliefs? Your god's morals are pretty fascinating... I'm sure you're completely ok with the deaths caused by your god's "morality," and that's what makes your religion dangerous-- morals that make no sense.
ssnatcherss 3 years ago
i have been waiting 40 years for my pencil to evolve into a pen. Just kidding. All things must have a creator. God is mine.
vasiliosrigos 3 years ago
LOL
Kujien 3 years ago
"All things must have a creator" whos god creator????
rob0is0god 3 years ago
This is so stupid. Atheism isn't wrong, it mean's that not only do you not believe in higher power, it mean's your not a slave of something that could possibly be fake. Why take a chance if you don't want to.
eatfreshsub 3 years ago
Eat, But you are a slave. You can't stop sinning. You can't stop lusting even if you wanted to. What do you call someone who can't stop lusting? A pervert. What will God do with perverts?
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
There is no evidence for the existence of god. This is the reason why Dawkins and just about every atheist isn't religious.
maglavagna 3 years ago
Mag, Where there is intelligent design, there must be an Intelligent Designer. You can't eaxplain this away with racist fairy-tales.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
No. There doesn't have to be an intelligent designer. Go and read Evolution by Natural Selection to understand how nature, which looks designed, is not. There are plenty of good books on this. I suggest you read one.
What do you mean by racist fairy-tales?
maglavagna 3 years ago
Sorry maglav, but natural selection doesn't create anything new. It can only select from what is already present. And destory stuff. All natural selection gives is sideways and downward changes. Devolution, the exact opposite to evolution.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about or what point you're trying to make.
Evolution by natural selection is a perfect explanation as to how animals that appear as though they have been designed are in fact not designed.
maglavagna 3 years ago
Anyhow the racists remark comes from the ignorance of people who believe that Darwin used the word race to indicate superiority/inferiority. In an Origin of Species Darwin uses the word race over 100 times and only four times does it refer to humans. The word is used specifically as we now use the word species.
When looking at an Origin of Species it is to be read through the eyes of someone from thew 19th century. Not the view of someone from the 21st century.
You are the face of ignorance.
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
what about mutations???
rob0is0god 3 years ago
It is out of context because it frames the entire thing with a strawman: the existence of the supernatural is not denied because it is unseen, it is denied because of no tangible evidence in support of it. It is non-discriminatory: it isn't just the god of the Bible that is rejected, it is every god and spirit of every faith.
The video sets it up very deliberately to convince a nieve viewer that evidence is of no importance to Atheism, only immediate experience.
Eregeras 3 years ago
Ereg, no wonder you believe in evolution is your so slow at understanding that if I included the context in the video (Mackays interview) then it's in context.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Except that you didn't and I already explained how you didn't. The full scene is shown towards the end of the video after a strawman has already been set up using a quote-mine.
Eregeras 3 years ago
Erag, why not just accept you're wrong. The context of the quote [Mackays interview] is in the video. But then again I suppose this is why you still believe in evolution despite not only their being no evidence for it, but the evidence tells us evolution is impossible. Where there is Intelligent Design there must be and Intelligent Designer. No matter how desperate you try you can't explain that away. This is not a game. You will face God on Judgement Day. He has seen your thought life
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
How can you not understand the difference between personal experience and understanding the evidence? The god of the Bible is not rejected on the basis of no personal experience, but because a rational understanding of the evidence just doesn't support it.
I can not see gravity or electro-magnetism, but I don't dismiss it because I understand the evidence for it.
I can not see God, fairies or unicorns, I dismiss them because there is no evidence for me to learn of. You made a strawman.
Eregeras 3 years ago
Great video!
Darwinism is a philosophy and doesn't belong anywhere inside science text books.
fellowservant34 3 years ago
Wow.
sermonfire 3 years ago
Can you SEE Abraham Lincoln? Can you SEE Aristotle? Can you SEE Napoleon? Can you SEE your great-great-great-great grandfather?
No? Well then I guess they never existed.
But you're saying you can SEE God and Jesus?
What an idiotic video. I'd be embarrassed to post this video here on youtube and actually have people think I believed this stuff.
chazcov08 3 years ago
Chaz, no one has ever said they can see God Who is an invisible Spirit. Atheists often try to dismiss God because He is not subject to observation or discovery by the 5 senses. He is non-material and they often believe the only reality is material. Also the process of evolution is non observable. It never happened.Seeing is NOT believing because the 5 senses give us contradictory information. They are needed to function but do not provide a basis for ultimate truth.RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
This demonstrates what is wrong with the video. Dawkins even makes the point that evidence is the primary concern, not the senses or personal experience. The supernatural isn't denied because it isn't seen or experienced, but because of there being no credible evidence.
I haven't seen or had any experience of unicorns, but I don't dismiss them because of this, I dismiss them because no one has shown me any evidence. This is the same as Dawkins' view.
Eregeras 3 years ago 3
Eregeras said: "The supernatural isn't denied because it isn't seen or experienced, but because of their being no credible evidence."
Really? And what type of "credible" evidence do you want for God's existence? Is it to see, hear, smell, touch, or taste Him?Is that what you mean by "credible" evidence?What other sort would you be seeking?Yet these are all empirical evidences.What sort of evidence, to be fair,would you like? Please tell me! God can neither be proven nor disproved logically.RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
"God can neither be proven nor disproved logically" in the same way as fairies but if i said i could see faries in my garden i bet u would want proof that they where there, wouldnt u?
rob0is0god 3 years ago
Rob, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was gullible enough to believe the photos taken of them, heehee! RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Would that be more or less absurd than people seeing the face of Christ or Her Lady of Fatma in a piece of food or about the same? Quite often such nonsense gets cited as 'evidence' when it's nothing of the sort.
Eregeras 3 years ago
At least we seem to agree on the irrational "evidence" of the Roman Catholic "faithful." They never seem to tire of trotting out goofy relics and having pilgrimages to shrines. But they are evidence only of gullibility and NOT god. Absurd is an understatement. Oh BTW I saw Elvis' face in my oatmeal this morning. Does that count? ROFLOL RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
It would have to meet the same standard of evidence as anything else that is generally accepted, like gravity, a round Earth, heliocentricism, electro-magnetism, none of which I have seen with my eyes or any of my other external senses. I rely on the evidence for them.
The god of the Bible instead meets the same standard of evidence as any other mythical being. I could not presume that god's existence unless I gave others equal regard.
Eregeras 3 years ago
One of the problems of evidence for things like gravity, photosynthesis, or any other phenomenon is the belief in the sameness or continuity of nature and reality. It must first be proven and not merely asserted to be so. Science has not done so. Are the laws the same everywhere in the universe? To assume them is a petitio principii. RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Blogrich55 said:
"Also the process of evolution is non observable. It never happened."
---
You could not be more wrong. It is observed in the laboratory using bacteria. It has been observed using flies. Get your head out of the bible and read some current scientific papers on the matter. You might just learn something.
Not to mention the MILLIONS of fossils and genetic evidence we have for the process of evolution occurring.
Ignorance of the FACTS is no excuse to dismiss.
chazcov08 3 years ago
Chaz, it is you who needs to be a bit more objective. I stand by what I said. No Christian denies change withing a species. But do these flies suddenly become cockroaches? I am denying evolution dogma that says a dinosaur was the ancestor of the modern day chicken and other nonsense. There is no fossil evidence for this rot. Evolution requires copious amounts of time. How could it be observed? What genetic evidence can be produced? There are many ways to interpret such data.RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Whenever a creationist uses the 'change within a species' it is worth asking what they define as a species. On the rare occassion I even get an answer, it's always rather different from how science catagorises it.
There have been forty speciation events observed in just the last fifteen years. Sometimes, very similiar looking organisms are mistaken for the same species and later found not to be.
How different do two different lines of descendents have to be?
Eregeras 3 years ago
Eregeras, I do not believe they have to be totally different. But I reject a dog and cat being close enough in kind. The Bible says "each after their own kind." When horses and donkeys have off spring they are sterile. I am willing to assert that poodles, chihauuas, etc... all came from a generic dog. Perhaps even coyotes and wolves could be similar enough in kind.RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
I'll point out that 'kind' when used in discussion on evolution is called a Hovindism; a term originating from Kent Hovind's rhetoric, he has refused to ever define what he means by 'kind'. It's a case of creationists avoiding difficult questions about species.
The arguement about dogs and cats is repeated often, but it's completely ignorant of what our understanding of evolution is. When species evolve, the descendent is always a more specific version of it's ancestor.
Eregeras 3 years ago
Se, uhhm, evolutionists no longer point to an ancient dinosaur as the distant ancestor of the chicken? Let's not play games. I don't know who Hovind is and don't give a fig about intelligent design or its rhetoric. I believe #1. the Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God. That is the maxim or axiom I deduce all else from. If you believe in evolution and go back far enough you once had amoebas and after much change le voila...Man! How is this a case of the
Blogrich55 3 years ago
#2 a case of "the descendant is always a more specific version of the ancestor"? Most people, with a few exceptions are NOT amoebas. RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
You're making an appeal to ridicule, it's a fallacy. Modern amoebas are not representive of the ancestor we share with them.
Chickens are Birds and Birds evolved from Reptiles, as did Mammals. We know this because Mammals do not have any genes linking them with Birds except through Reptiles and vice-versa: Chickens have the genes for full sets of teeth which they don't have because they inherited it from the Reptile ancestor.
Eregeras 3 years ago
(continued) So Birds and Mammals are refined versions of Ancient Reptiles, just as Modern Reptiles are.
Features which Birds and Mammals evolved independently of their Reptile ancestor are extremely unlikely to have evolved in each other. Including Endogenous Retroviruses which mark our common DNA. The chances of two organisms having a single ERV at the exact same place in their DNA and them not being cousins is 3,000,000,000 to 1. But this is repeated hundreds of times: the odds are 10^766
Eregeras 3 years ago
Eregeras, No I am NOT committing a logical fallacy. It is called reducing your opponents argument to absurdity. Perhaps you have it confused with ad ignorantiam which is VERY different. I am pointing out the ludicrous nature of saying chickens and reptiles have a common ancestor. How CAN you say we, man, as descendants of reptiles are "a more advanced representative"? There is NO similarity whatsoever. RLJ
Blogrich55 3 years ago
Because of the evidence. I took the very clear example of Edogenous Retroviruses: viruses which infect our reproductive cells and as a result, when those reproductive cells multiply, so does the virus they contain. This means that if an ERV infects my DNA, it will be found in all my children and descendents and it will be found in the exact same place in the DNA I pass to them.
Birds have the same ERV placement as ancient Reptiles. The chances of this is trillions to 1 unless they are related.
Eregeras 3 years ago
(continued) So when creationists use the 'dog doesn't evolve into a cat' type of canard, they are demonstrating their utter ignorance of Common Descent. Cats and dogs are Mammals so we know their common ancestor was a mammal. They belong to the Order Carnivora so we know their common ancestor was a carnivour. Dogs have since evolved into omnivours, cats haven't. They split at the Family: dogs are Canidae, cats are Felidae so we know their common ancestor was neither of these.
Eregeras 3 years ago
This video IS taken out of context because he was refering to things you can't see but have overwhelming evidence for like evolution and napoleon. He is not refering to god of which there isn't a speck of evidence.
By way evolution has got millions of "missing link" fossils because every organism is a transistion, don't knock what you don't understand yet. Read book which isn't bible.
ckerton1 3 years ago
Ckerton, how can it be taken out of context when I inlcude the contest in the video. Dawkins comments on his interview with Mackay. And he uses Napolean as an example in the comment. The missing links are all missing because evolution has never happened. Face reality mate. You can bury your head in the sand all you like, but you will still have to face God on Judgement Day. That's way you spend so much time attacking God, because your conscience is convicting you guility.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Sorry kev when I die I will simply drift of into a sleep; and I won't worry about no god because he won't be there. As for evolution never happening your the one not facing reality; a god would not create 80 different types of bettle on an island unless hes some sort of nutcase. Evolution is the answer; I take more comfort in being a cousin of my pet dog, then being in image of a creator who sees purpose in suffering.
ckerton1 3 years ago
Quote - "Use other evidence apart from that of one mans eyes". Thee is evidence for evolution but not some daft creation. You may of put whole clip there; but have tried to frame it differently as not recognise the content.
ckerton1 3 years ago
No CK, I even play it in the correct order the MacKay interview and then quote, so everyone gets the context. No differently framing it.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Kev what is "dawkins admits atheism is absurd"; that is framing out the context. I know you have the whole clip there that is not the problem. The problem is either you are not paying attention to content or your being dishonest to convert people and that is against Jesus' teachings I believe.
ckerton1 3 years ago
Dude, we can see flies evolving during a short period of time because their lifespan is only a couple of days. We can compare whole generations in a month. Stop taking "evolution never happened" out of your ass.
alienddd 3 years ago
good video. i dont know why its getting such a low rating.
i know why. angry atheists hate it, so they are giving it the lowest possible rating. Well...ratings and nay saying doesnt negate facts.
When we get down to it, it returns to do this for the atheist....they are very egotistic, whether they mean well or not, they are too proud to submit to a higher power that they have to answer to, a higher power they feel lets so much evil happen and they think that isnt God like, but cruel.
fallenwillrise 3 years ago
Why the low ratings, oh gee,, I don't know, because its obviously a very bad dishonest editing job? Because it advocates a bronze age myth over science?
stevekap8 3 years ago 5
certain types of flies have a lifespan of a couple of days; and yes we can and do observe changing and mutations happening. You only need a couple of months for that.
alienddd 3 years ago
Athiests do not often believe in Evolution. They have admitted that it is their "best option", though it is not true. They will embrace ANYTHING except God as Creator. They know they are lying, therefore they continue to use fraudulent research. Fighting against one's Creator is ALWAYS absurd. Dawkins himself is completely absurd. Good video. Thanks.
offline111 3 years ago
I don't believe in evolution. I'm convinced of it. Its only the theist that puts the value in belief. Rational people look at evidence, and decide what is mostly likely to be true.
stevekap8 3 years ago 2
The source of the video is from the last part of a recent three-part Channel 4(in Britain) series The Genius of Charles Darwin. The series is available in it's entirity on YouTube. The actual context is removed completely, but anyone can go view it.
In the programme, Dawkins was responding to an old creationist canard that because we haven't seen evolution over millenia, there's no evidence for it. What is shown in this clip is a blatant and obvious case of quote-mining.
Eregeras 3 years ago
Eregras, the quote has not been "removed" from its context. As you rightly say Dawkins is responding to a Creationist [John Mackay] and I have included that in the video.
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
What is the show you pull this from. I will watch it myself in FULL to make sure you did not take it out of context but I am quote sure you have, you are a creationist after all and not to be trusted with the truth.
Anyhow evolutions is witnessed and DOCUMENTED and it was also reproduced in the LAB.
Evolution is FACT as it is observed and it is a THEORY as it is explained.
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
LoL! Evolution a fairy tale. Jesus H christ.
What would stop DNA from evolving??
btw. There are several new species that have evolved during the last hundred years that did not exist before.
Google "Observed Instances of Speciation"
CognosSquare 3 years ago
Dawkins goes on to point out the difference between having multiple sources of corroborating evidence to support historic and/or scientific facts and having little or no supporting evidence for a statement.
Quote mining like this is very weak-minded.
Also, by your logic, you should also believe in unicorns, fairies, ogres, dragons and any number of other propositions you can't directly observe. And yet, you don't.
Grundibular 3 years ago
Can you tell me the source of the video? We know creationist can't be trusted with the truth.
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
Finally! He admits the truth!
pbry 3 years ago
Clear quote-mine.
DisturbedbyDeth356 3 years ago 2
Only idiots conflate atheism & evolution
whateverman666 3 years ago 5
Psalm 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart there is no God".
KevWilliamsMusic 3 years ago
Brilliant video! The three ring circus that is Evolution - Dawkins - Atheism never ceases to be amusing. The clowns are so busy trying to juggle their supposed "facts" that they always end up dropping them, confused; stumbling over themselves (and others) in contradictions. It's like a trained poodle act - cute for five minutes but then it gets tedious and you worry about the dogs.
ForGodAlone 3 years ago
"and you worry about the dogs. "
Dogs, canine family, evolved from wolves by means of artificial selection and breeding.
Any point you are making FG-Alone or are you limited to insults and ridicule?
Not too much into the philosophical teaching of Jesus, and you missed the part where god mentions he hates lying in his name i guess.
mindwis3 3 years ago
Don't read more into my post than is there. I used an analogy. That's a style of writing, not an insult. I find atheism comical, that's why I used a comical analogy. I didn't call anyone a dog. I compared situations. Political Correctness (another word for censorship) has led to people being very thin-skinned today.
For lies and hateful, raging insults, check out most any atheistic response to Christian videos. (Even when the videos weren't directed at atheists in the 1st place.)
ForGodAlone 3 years ago
fair enough FGAlone;
okay okay, not really insulting, i admit, but your post did make ridicule, comon ;)
i assure you bad behaviour is not limited to atheists, i can show you some deaththreats i recieved.
Let's distinguish ourselves from them ;)
(i see my first reply was punished -1 ;)
I know you didn't call anyone a dog, but clowns did not actually evolve, so they didn't suit my purpose ;)
Do you really think this vid is brilliant?
If so, why?
Chrs dude, thanks for explaining ;)
mindwis3 3 years ago
No problem, mindwis. My intention was truly just to compare the situations and not the people. It's never my intent to insult anyone. However, I do admit that sometimes I can be a bit blunt so that it might appear that way. It's tough to squeeze some responses into 500 characters!
I undid the Thumbs Down you received. I don't feel it warranted one.
See continuation....
ForGodAlone 3 years ago
...cont... Yes, death threats go both ways. Reason: Know that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian actually IS a Christian. I can claim to be a Hare Krishna by wearing a robe and spouting the lingo, but unless I'm actually LIVING OUT their beliefs/doctrines, I'm just a fraud full of hot air. It's the same with Christianity. People don't decide what Christianity is for themselves-- that's humanism.
Brilliant? Maybe not. But funny how Dawkins contradicts himself periodically.
ForGodAlone 3 years ago
Hi FGA,
tnx for the reply.
I'm sure Dawkins may contradict himself at times, he may even change his mind completely at times, why not.
I fail to recognize how these partial! snippets qualify.
Do you actually think Dawkins means to say that one should believe everything we can't see?
May i suggest the poster of this vid knows all too well he's quoting out of context which is dishonest.
If the above statement is true; does he then -in your view- qualify as a 'real' christian or not?
mindwis3 3 years ago
mindwis: You have a point about snippets and context. Context is everything when interpreting scripture - as it is with conversations. I can't presume to judge the posters Christianity, however. Only God can do that.
I find the clip amusing because Dawkins scoffs (rudely) at Christians for believing in the God we can't see. But, when it fits HIS purposes, it's a perfectly natural concept. This hypocrisy is the reason I posted any comment at all. My dislike is w/ Dawkins, not atheists.
ForGodAlone 3 years ago
Hi FGA,
In context, Dawkins refers to things like molecules or australia, stuff which he may not have seen but for which there is quite some evidence.
I think the only disagreement you have with Dawkins is what you consider (sufficient) evidence.
I can see why from your pov some of what he says seems hypocritical.
(dis)liking is subjective and i'm confident Dawkins has no problem with you disliking him, maybe with the motivation for it.
chrs,
mindwis3 3 years ago