If water levels were that high almost all (if not all) sea life would be dead today because of the sudden introduction of sweet water that would mix with salt water, change the water temperatures and the water pressure
Problem with these creationists is they are always attacking holes at which science has yet to uncover. Of course we don't have all the answers, but that's the point. We use science to find them out. You can't just say "aha! science can't answer this, that means my religion is true!"
@Casshyr You are assuming that science and the Bible are in opposition. Thing is you couldn't know how to do science without God because He is the necessary precondition for all knowledge.
I have a way of explaining the flippin erosion that he's talking about just by being in a high school science class. (now in college mind you) Land used to be one continent and was split over time so wouldn't that explain where all that erosion came from? Floods of water that came and went when the land parted over time? It's like he has not brain... (obviously he does but it really doesn't show)
@dogooda12 Truth, in a spiritual sense has nothing to do with accuracy in a literal sense. And Genesis? Oy. Not accurate, but merely an interpretation by a bronze age peoples to understand the world. Lots of folklore, but really thin on hard data.
@NorthForkFisherman Ah how do you know that?-baseless assertions my friend. You see the evidence according to your worldview, me, through my own worldview. We all start with our own presuppositions. Question is by what standard or basis do you appeal to evaluate anything to be true?
@dogooda12 In this case, math. You are aware that the geology of the Earth is very well known by this point, right? As such there are certain laws that play out in chemistry and physics when examining the geology of the Earth. And these laws have very definite consequences. Now while most YECers seem to try to ignore them, they are nonetheless, true and very much factual. Now if you postulate a local flood growing in the retelling, sure. It's possible. A global one? No way.
@NorthForkFisherman Yes but how do you KNOW that.By what standard or basis do you appeal to evaluate anything to be true? I agree with the laws of science and logic and math but I have a justification for such things-the revelation of God through his revealed word the Bible but what is the transcendant standard or basis you appeal to, to know anything at all? Every fact you have mentioned is an interpreted fact according to your world view. I would do the same thing.
@dogooda12 No, in this case we're talking a law of nature. Tested and examined critically. In this case it comes down to 9 trillion cu meters of salt and the heat that is required for the deposition. In this one formation alone, the Noachian Flood is falsified.
I am talking about how do you know ANYTHING? Are you 100% certain that Noahs flood has been falsified? Once again you are interpreting the evidence according to your own presupps. And possibly committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. I am amazed that you still haven't answered my questions. By what standard or basis do you appeal to evaluate anything to be true? What is the transcendant standard or basis you appeal to, to know anything at all?
@dogooda12 Your base assumption is that there is anything more "transcendant", and without proof of the merest kind, can be dismissed immediately. The data, the mathematics of the heat thermodynamics are quite clear. These processes directly rule out your mythical flood. too much heat, too little time. It's just that simple.
@dogooda12 "How do you know that?" A very open question. Perhaps you should've been more specific? Know the flood was false? Simple, I can do the math and have a passing familiarity with chemistry.Since the subject of this video is that flood, let's stay on that, shall we? As I've already explained what and why in broad strokes, perhaps you should be requiring details?
@SuperBspb You don't understand the question. He has not given me a standard or basis for how he knows anything. He's only telling me what is. But what IS doesn't necessarily make what he said true.
@dogooda12 Well I don't know his credentials, but Kent Hovind has no more credentials than any average person considering he only has a Ph.D in Christian Education, not evolutionary biology or geology or anything that matters. And the college he received it from is shady to say the least.
@SuperBspb So what's your point? How do you account for what matters if we're just evolved pond-scum? If you believe evolution is true then according to that world view nothing matters, including evolutionary biology, geology.
@dogooda12 while i myself believe in a God, i don't need God to know that my family matters to me, as do my friends, my education, my job. I value society, and i like to see myself making a beneficial impact for future generations to enjoy. I don't need God to know to appreciate these things. I know them cuz i have a brain.
@Casshyr You must be very confused then. You can't believe in God and then say you can know things apart from God. Because you need God to know anything because without God you can't know anything for certain. This includes your statement "I know them cuz i have a brain". How do you know THAT without appealing to your own reasoning, senses and memory?
@dogooda12 Nobody is certain about anything if you are going to use the argument "you can't trust your senses". Even you can't trust it, cuz your interpretation of God is still based on your own brain. In fact, i already don't trust you guys cuz you are the one who believe in a 6000 years old Earth! LOL
@dogooda12 you sound just like Eric Hovind's twitter lol. Are you him? I make my conclusions based on the available evidence we have so far, and i have no problem updating my conclusions as new evidence comes along. So yes, i'm certain to a degree that I can make decisions based on my conclusions, and i also have no problem seeing these conclusions refined and updated in the future if new evidence comes along.
@Casshyr Do you use your senses memory and your reasoning to make your conclusions? I am a presuppositionalist . My argument is impervious to any and all types of arguments you present, because unless you can tell me what you know and how you know it for certain without using a fallacious circular argument, you will never be able to defeat my argument. Because evidence demands knowledge and knowledge demands truth which you can't account for apart from the God of the Bible.
@dogooda12 how do i make this clear...you think you can be certain because you trust in God. Well, guess what? There are people who trust in the same God you believe in, yet they also accept evolution theory + rest of science. And these are the same people who generally hold higher scientific degrees, like Francis Collins or Michael Behe. I find it laughable why I should listen to you guys who most don't even hold a bachelors in science, when there are much better educated Christians!
@Casshyr They are ID proponents.They argue for a probable God. I do not, I am defending the God of the Bible who is certain.God is not the conclusion but the necessary starting point of the argument "does God exist".I am still waiting for your justification for knowledge.How do you know anything for certain, and how can you know it without appealing to your senses, memory and reason without arguing in a fallacious circle? You should be able to answer this seeing you're so smart and all.
@dogooda12 I don't know how any clearer I can be....your argument is basically "you cannot trust your own brain + ur senses, so that's why you have to trust in God!". That's wrong! Your interpretation of God still comes from your brain! If I take a screw and stab you in the brain, you'll lose your knowledge of God. It's all in your head! So if your argument is you can't trust your senses..then neither can you!
So my justification for my trust in science is: it is the best tool we have so far.
@Casshyr Once again you are making certainty claims while denying certainty.By saying that my position is wrong you are assuming you are right. By what standard is anything right or wrong. Also you are using the Tu quoque fallacy you aren't answering the question(ie You are using the "you too" fallacy: "So if your argument is you can't trust your senses..then neither can you!") So you are still avoiding the question.
@Casshyr "So my justification for my trust in science is: it is the best tool we have so far." So are you employing your memory senses and reasoning to validate your justification and trust in science? I believe I asked you if you could answer this without using a fallacious and viciously circular argument. You have just proved my point. You are still using your senses memory and reason to validate your senses memory and reason to evaluate your trust in science. My question? Unanswered.
@dogooda12 Scientific method has proven itself to be the best way to get the truth. How do we know DNA is responsible for inheritability? Science. How do we know what causes whopping cough? Science. How do we predict what a protein will function without testing it experimentally? Again, science (via bioinformatics).
And here i ask you: what benefit to science has your belief bring in? How has saying "God did it" help us in developing new drugs?
@Casshyr Dude everything you have mentioned is based on the Christian world view you wouldn't know how to do science with out God because he is the source of all knowledge. That's my point. Science is great and I can account for it. You can't without arguing in a vicious circle. Your world view( are you an atheist or a deist?)basically falls under the naturalistic fallacy-or the "is ought" fallacy-what is does not necessarily show us what should be the case only what is the case.
@dogooda12 thanks for not assuming i'm an atheist. I'm a deist. A lot of creationists/Christians just naturally assume i'm an atheist simply because I don't agree with your view, so thanks for that.
I understand you think God is behind everything, but my emphasis is this is your INTERPRETATION. To a Muslim, Allah is the one behind everything. You get a different answer if you go to a Shintoist, or Hinduist, or any other religion. (cont)
@Casshyr No worries. I remember you said you believe in a god. But to answer your question: the God of the Bible is the necessary starting point-for all knowledge and truth(I am a presuppositionalist-That is my presupposition) so Allah, and the many Hindu deities according to the Bible are not god's they are false god's and those who worship them are not theist or pantheist but are idolaters.
@dogooda12 "the God of the Bible is the necessary starting point-for all knowledge and truth(I am a presuppositionalist-That is my presupposition) " => while i acknowledge this is ur personal belief, i have to say..this isn't helpful cuz all religions will claim this lol. You think a Muslim presuppositionalist won't say the same thing, except just replacing the word Bible with Quran? You guys can debate back and forth, in the end, we get no where. Of course, u can believe whatever u want.
@Casshyr I will refer you to my previous statement. And if you want to debate as a Muslim that's fine just make up your mind which world view you are trying defend. Here we have a Deist arguing like an Atheist using the Islamic world view to refute Christianity while using the Christian world view to defend...um what are you defending again?LOL
@dogooda12 How do I know what? How do I know that you need your brain to know God? How about you give it a test? Let me take a knife and stab at ur brain, and u let me know if you still know God! lol
@dogooda12 I'm defending the worldview that is not creationism lol. And btw, i thought i already made it clear any argument that goes "how can you trust your brian" is a moot point. Please, if you going to keep on asserting this, i'm just going to have to call it quit to this debate, and my respect for you guys will go down because you obviously refuse to accept even the basics of biology (i.e. how ur brain works)!
@Casshyr So you are defending nothing then?LOL I'm amazed that you have lasted this long! Most people would have have given up a long time ago. Seems you're a glutton for punishment. You can't even give me a standard or basis for knowledge on which biology or anything else is based. In a debate we bring our respective epistimologies(theory of knowledge) and then debate from there. You haven't given me your epistemic standard or criteria of knowledge or truth yet. This is not a debate:)
@dogooda12 I did give you my criteria for knowledge. It is based on science. If someone wants to mix religious faith with science, that's fine, as long as a scientific evidence isn't discarded simply due to religion. Your problem is you come back with a MOOT point about "how can you trust your brain?". That's retarded.
@Casshyr Nope. I can account for why I can use my brain you can't-You obviously do not understand the argument. Ok what is evidence? I can account for evidence. According to your worldview what evidence do you have that shows we need evidence to prove that evidence is necessary? Without God you couldn't do science because he is the standard for all knowledge. Wait let me guess, you use your brain. LOL
@dogooda12 sorry, but your "logic" of "i can trust my brain because God says so" is false and circular because you need your brain to interpret the Bible in the first place. If you can't trust your brain, you can't trust your interpretation either. So nice try, but your premise cannot be upheld under the assumption of "we can't trust our brain".
@Casshyr You have missed quoted me putting words in my mouth.lol I said "I can account for why I can use my brain you can't" So you know for certain that I need my brain to interpret the Bible? You talk about logic how do account for logic-do you believe in absolute laws of logic?Your assumption is "we can't trust our brain"? My premise is this: You couldn't know anything without the God of the Bible. What is your basis for knowledge? Please don't say "my brain" lol
@dogooda12 "So you know for certain that I need my brain to interpret the Bible?" => again, if you are willing, let me prove it for you by bashing your head, and then put you back in front of a Bible, and see if you can make anything out of it. If you are so confident of your view, why do you seem to be shying away from this challenge?
@Casshyr "i can trust my brain because God says so"- Ok,what I'm saying is God has revealed somethings to us such that we can know them for certain Like logic, mathematics, science, objective morality neither a deist or atheistic world view can account for these things. All issues of ultimacy is circular in nature but mine is a gracious circle because I appeal to God who is transcendent(outside the circle). Yours is viciously circular.
@dogooda12 LOL I FINALLY FOUND THE PROBLEM. You assume appealing to God is outside the circle. That's just your interpretation, not a fact, so you can't say it as if you have proven it or as if you have won the debate based on this interpretation. Sorry to burst your bubble, but without your brain, you would not know God. Seriously, you can do the experiment yourself. Take a hammer and bash your head in, see if you will still remember who Jesus is. Go ahead, i dare you.
@Casshyr LOL What is fact? Gee's dude just answer my questions. My presupposition(I am a pressupositionlist-duh) has always been God is the necessary starting point for all knowledge which you cant account for. Yes we will continue to go around in circle's until you can justify what you know for certain and how you can know it. I have you haven't( you can't)BTW the "debate" hasn't even began. Not until you can justify knowledge according to your worldview.
@dogooda12 a fact is something that is proven to be true, beyond all doubt of knowledge. Such as 1+1=2, or existence of DNA. These are facts. Bible is a book. That's a fact too.
And no, you cannot just say "i'm a presuppositionist so I can rely on God to be the starting point", that's dishonest because you HAVE NOT PROVE THIS POSITION YET.
By your logic, why don't i make up terms too and say "i'm a science-reliar so science is the necessary starting point for all knowledge".
@Casshyr "By your logic, why don't i make up terms too and say "i'm a science-reliar so science is the necessary starting point for all knowledge"". The thing is you've already said you could possibly be wrong-therefore I wouldn't rely on science as being the starting point for all knowledge since you are at a disadvantage of not being able to trust your own premise. God can not be wrong or uncertain:)
@dogooda12 God may not be wrong, but your interpretation can certainly be. In fact, just looking at the diverse viewpoints even within Christianity, your chance to be right is already slim.
@Casshyr Now you just sound stupid. So here we have a deist arguing like an atheist borrowing from Christianity to critique Christianity to defend "not creationism" when you haven't even answered my question about your basis to deem anything right or wrong according to your worldview! LOL
@dogooda12 cuz you haven't either! You can't just say "my basis is from God and God is outside of the circular logic". You haven't prove that yet. You can't just throw out claims without proof lol. I think I'm done here. I understand why even Christians pick on Eric Hovind. You guys make no sense in your argument, and you don't even realize it lol.
@Casshyr Why cant I say that? It's ironic that you make knowledge claims when you can't even account for knowledge. Then you say I'm obligated to provide proof when you can even account for the necessity for proof because you have no basis for knowledge which is necessary for the very proof that you are asking me to provide. I win you lose. Without God you couldn't know anything- I hope you really consider that carefully. Your life depends on it.
@dogooda12 one last time...in order to say "your basis is from God", you need to use your brain in order to interpret God's orders. Now since you brought up the idea of "how do you know you can trust your senses (i.e. ur brain), you cannot say "your basis is from God" until you first prove how you can trust your interpretation in the first place!
@dogooda12 In fact, if we step outside beyond just you and me, I have millions of Christians, many who are biblical scholars with ThD degree, that say evolution is real and earth is old. And they will tell us that this view is from God! So by your logic, you both cannot be right, one of you is interpreting God wrong. You think it's them, so I ask you: can you prove that?
@Casshyr So what. These "christian scholars" do not adhere to the very scripture they claim to believe. That's ridiculous and I don't care what they believe. In fact there approach and interpretation is sinful plan and simple! Still doesn't let you of the hook answer my questions please. Where does knowledge come from? has knowledge always existed before the creation of matter?
@dogooda12 answer me first: where does your knowledge come form? how do you know your knowledge is correct? Why should I trust your interpretation of the Bible more than say...the Pope? He dedicated his entire life to studying the Bible, have you? Do you know ancient Hebrew? No i guess not. So in the end, answer me: why should I put your interpretation higher than other Christians who have demonstrated their Biblical knowledge?
@Casshyr My answer has always been: God has revealed some things to us such that we can KNOW them for CERTAIN!! Are you a Roman Catholic now? So here we have a Deist who argues like an Atheist while using Roman Catholicism to critique Christianity to defend "not creationism" are you kidding me!? You have deflected from giving me a straight answer many times! Give up the absurdity of your lame world view! Believe me I could teach the Pope!
@dogooda12 "Believe me I could teach the Pope!" => i'm giving you the chance to convince me to be a creationist here. Is this the best you can do? I thought your mission here is to make me a creationist, bring me to your view of Christ. I gotta say, using statements like "you know i'm right!" or "i could teach the Pope!" just ain't gonna cut it. If you don't have any actual evidence why only your view is correct, i guess this is good-bye.
@Casshyr No my argument is to show you and anyone else who reads this that your argument is absurd!! Not to make you a creationist! lol. Your unbelieving heart is the problem which is why you would not be convinced even if God was standing in front of you. You cant refute my argument. That is clear!
@dogooda12 "I win you lose" => lets avoid statements like this. I don't know how old you are, but I'm already near my 30s, and i'm not here for the childish "i win!". Nobody wins in debates like this.
@dogooda12 "I thought you were done? Can't help but to try and save face coz you know your argument is absurd!" => lol i feel the same way about you. Answer the post i gave you below. You didn't addressed it btw. You glossed over it, saying 'You don't care". But guess what? I care. I care the fact there are multiple views in Christianity, and until you can convince me why only your view is correct, your claim about relying on God doesn't work.
@Casshyr I don't have to justify anything to you until you can tell me what is your basis and standard for knowledge=I have already given you my justification you just look stupid now! God is the necessary pre-condition for all knowledge. My apoligetic is the biblical one, which is why it is the correct one! You have no standard or reason to care because you deny absolute truth. I don't have to convince you coz you know what i'm saying is true. Saving face much?
@Casshyr Thought you said you were done! You can't account for knowledge can you with out begging the question. Your position is base-less. So give up.
@dogooda12 seriously dude, the sooner you get that fact right, the sooner we can move on to better topic. We're just going back and forth on this issue, and frankly, it's getting boring cuz i'm just repeating myself now (and same for u). Tell you what, if you think you'll still know God, give me your address, and i'll come to you and stab you in the head, and you tell me if you still know God. Deal? I'll even pay for my own plane ticket.
@dogooda12 I think you're wrong to say "since you use your brain to justify ur stand on science, and interpretation of science is based on ur brain, this is circular logic". That's not correct, because everything we do depend on our brain. If we can't trust our brain, then we can't trust anything, including knowledge of God. So your earlier attempt to try to say "brain cannot be trusted" is quite pointless because it serves no purpose! If we can't trust our brain, nothing further can be said.
@Casshyr But how do you know that? That which is observed or created by necessity cannot explain it's own existence there is always an outside source to explain it's reason for being whether you are talking about a building a car a human being. So to say we use our brain to know anything is self refuting it's like saying the sky is blue because it's blue or I use my brain because I have a brain-but that still that does not justify how I come to know anything. It's viciously circular.
@dogooda12 "It's viciously circular." => yes, we've already been over this, and i've explained to you that this argument goes back to you as well. If u have an injury and u injure ur brain so it is no longer functional, you will not be able to know anything as well. You cannot process anything about ur religion if u can't use ur brain, same with me, i can't process science if i cant use my brain. That's why the argument is moot, because if we can't trust our brain, nothing more can be said!
@Casshyr Yes but how do you KNOW that! You are still appealing to using your brain to know anything by using your brain you have not giving me your theory of knowledge! What do you know? And how can you know it for certain? I can know things for certain because I appeal to the God of the Bible who is the necessary precondition for all knowledge. You are still using the "you to" fallacy(tu quoque-look it up) It seems you can not answer my questions without being reduced to absurdity.
@dogooda12 No, you CANNOT appeal to God of the Bible WITHOUT first using your brain! You need your brain to process the Bible, just like anything you do. You cannot do anything without your brain. This is a biological fact. Only reflex functions can bypass the brain. Is reading the Bible a reflex? No. It is a sophisticated piece of literature, filled with metaphors, symbolism, poetic statements...it is filled with complicated passages that need very high brain function to process.
@dogooda12 So this is why if your argument is "you can't trust your brain", then this works for both of us. If we can't trust our brain, you can't trust your interpretation of the Bible, and neither can I trust my interpretation in science. But since this leaves us with nowhere, that's why for the sake of rationality, we assume we can trust our brain. We take it as a prior assumption, a faith, if you will. YOU AND I BOTH DO THIS. NOT JUST ME.
@dogooda12 I believe i did answer your question, but here it is again: no i'm not 100% certain of a lot of things (but not all, for example, i do know DNA exists, and this is with 100% certainty), but for the sake of rationality, i ASSUME i can trust my own brain because if I can't, nothing can be done. If you can't trust your brain, YOU CAN'T TRUST GOD EITHER because YOU USE YOUR BRAIN TO CONNECT TO GOD (if real or not, doesn't matter, ur brain is still involved).
LOL How do you know that for certain? Continuing to use vicious circular reasoning to validate your reasoning and also the tu quoque fallacy. still haven't answered my question. It is absurd to state"no i'm not 100% certain of a lot of things..." then begin to make certainty claims eg"i ASSUME i can trust my own brain because if I can't, nothing can be done. If you can't trust your brain, YOU CAN'T TRUST GOD EITHER because YOU USE YOUR BRAIN TO CONNECT TO GOD..." How do you know that?
@Casshyr Eric is a presuppositionalist too. Which is why we sound the same. We only present one argument. The presuppositional apologetic(transcendental argument for God-TAG) is like an arrow in the Achilles heal of the Atheistic worldview.
Kent's got charisma, Eric's got graphics. It's only Kent can convince us that he TRULY believes in the flood, and that not to believe would be ridiculous. Kent will always be the creationist King, and even Banana-man's closer to being heir to the throne than Eric. Sorry, Eric; get a job in a lab or something.
you forgot that those legends are very similar to the story of the biblical flood. most of them consist of a small family taking all the animals in a boat and surviving a flood and than repopulating the earth, so it those would be only "local floods" why did they take in all the animals?
@InternetDarkLord ooo so you're saying that all those ( over 200 ) legends that are so similar to the story of the biblical flood are all myths, yeah that's believable the Incas and the Chinese had a secret meeting 3.5 thousand years ago and made a "MYTH" about dinosaurs in order to confuse us. I love the logic evolutionists follow.
@ProMajtas No, there are many differences among the stories, like who survived. And you can cherry pick stories about other things, like living ape-men, such as Yeti, Bigfoot, etc, to prove the same thing. They are different myths.
So Eric replaced Kent's power point slides with snazzy graphics. Same old lies, with new tricks. It has to be true the pretty graphics wouldn't lie to me. Would they?
See Balanced Rock in Utah, and others. There they sit -- yet there's no way they'd be upright on their tiny bases if a huge current of water washed over them. Why do so many cultures have flood stories? Look up Lake Agassiz, the glacial meltwater giant that covered much of Canada. When the glacial dam broke, all that water burst into the north sea and sloshed around the coasts, creating huge tsunamis & seiches, eventually raising average sea level by up to 12 meters (estimates vary some).
I want to know where did all that water go? Its like adding another 3 times of all the water from every ocean on earth. Anyone? Oh yeah, silly me, the answer is God works in mysterious ways. I wish all creationsit should just stick to that -cough- reasoning, instead of dreaming up all these other stories about this -cough- evidence -cough choke- xP somehow proving the great world flood. -sigh-
Wow check out all those graphics! That's pretty high tech Eric, you have to know what you're talking about with visuals like that. I'm gonna toss my post secondary knowledge right out the window now. I'm saved!
Don't even try to reason the concept of God to the monkey people, they are lower beings who do not have the cognitive ability to know God. This is only a function of higher beings! You waste your time trying to convince a monkey..."as a man thinketh so is he, says God." Let the evolutionist be monkeys, "made in the image of a monkey" and we will be the "made in the image of God" people. Hopefully God has a zoo in heaven for the monkey people. If not I hope they like hot fires & brimstone.
creationists and debating Christians? if God is not falsifiable and according to you not real then why waste your breath? and last, if I and you're right and we all just came about for no reason and just happen to exist and nothing happens after life, at least I have lived a life I thought was of purpose. On the other hand, if you die and what I believe is right.... I feel sorry the eternity you have waiting for you!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@CommonReason I'm just gonna state a couple things and then I will end this convo. First, I have made a great discovery do to what you have said in this discussion. That is, that evolution isn't a religion however, It seams to me that Science is a religion! You Have a set of believes and code of conduct and ethics and rules that you must follow! Second "If it is not falsifiable/testable then it is not worth another moments consideration" if that's true why do you spend so much time on disproving
"why do you spend so much time on disproving creationists and debating Christians?"
-It's not for you, I get a sense of enjoyment out of it; mainly it's for everyone else so that they can get proper information and be shown with reason and evidence as to why your claims have no merit.
Since you have demonstrated several times that you have no grasp any scientific concepts and your use of Pascal's Wager; this conversation is most certainly over once threats are made.
@dansta93 There is no such thing as a scientific method. It is just a bunch of guys trying to look famous. Scientists all fudge the date, they are all human. That is why everything has to be repeatable and testable, they don't trust each other. That is is scientific method. So no one is accepting anything on faith.
Is Baseball a religion? It has rules and followers and a code of ethics. Is the Army a religion? Is, in fact, everything that hants to the rules of that structure and a code of associated ethics considered a religion? As for why prooving you wrong is important- Some of us in this world believe in truth and honesty. We would like people to be exposed to the truth in contrast to religions unending stream of false information. Information spewed from the mouths of people with no education.
@podoau lets define the word Religion. Religion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices; so in other words religion is a set belief system that one follows. There for anyone that chooses to follow in the belief of evolution is placing it as there religion! Think twice about what it is you worship!
@dansta93 Your definition is lacking/wrong. "body of persons adhering to a set of beliefs"? The group of people following a religion is not the religion itself. Your "in other words" definition is however correct, but lacking. Yes, a set of beliefs, but there are also tenants, rules, dogma, etc. Evolution has no dogma, no tenants, no rules that must be followed. It is not a religion. I have no loyalty to it, however it has the attribute of being correct.
@CommonReason good point. I however, never said that the people that follow the beliefs are the religion! nor does the definition(the definition was from a dictionary site). I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. The people them selves just follow the belief system/religion. there for they take it on as there belief system/religion. Here's another definition of the word from the Webster's dictionary: "Any" specific system of belief and/or worship, often including a code of ethics
You said "never said that the people that follow the beliefs are the religion"
-Yet you wrote before: "Religion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"
Regardless, you definition is lacking. Your Webster's definition is of course more acceptable.
You said " therefor if "ANY" set system of beliefs that a number of people follow is addressed as a religion, then evolution is defined as a religion! "
@CommonReason and a philosophy; therefor if "ANY" set system of beliefs that a number of people follow is addressed as a religion, then evolution is defined as a religion! it may be different from most "spiritual" religions but at basic definition Evolution is a religion in which a lot of people willingly adhere to with out realizing it.
Evolution is a fact that is believed. Because I believe in the theory of heliocentrism, does that make it a religion? Does it make the theory of Relativity a religion? No. There are no "code of ethics", dogma, worship, etc.
Again, your simplifying the definition of religion so that it can encompass every belief.
@CommonReason Evolution is NOT a "fact" and nor will it ever be. the true fact is that Evolution is nothing more then a Theory! It will always be a theory because no one will ever disprove God. Even scientist have to agree upon this true fact! The thing is people live there life based on the there system of beliefs. If they believe in Evolution then there life is based on the fact that that's a part of there belief system.
-Thank you for demonstrating your lack of scientific literacy. You do know what "Theory" means in a scientific context right? Is the Theory of heliocentrism "just a theory"? Is the theory of relativity "just a theory"?
"It will always be a theory because no one will ever disprove God"
-Further demonstrating your lack of scientific literacy. I do suggest you look up the concept of falsification, even the wiki page is great.
@CommonReason falsification e.g. Falsifiability does not disprove there is a God who created all things. it merely states that something in this case, the existence of a God can be challenged by an experiment! Scientist cant explain how living organisms emerged from dead chemicals and elements. they cant observe it and they cant prove it and they cant test it! I just challenged Evolution and therefor evolution is also falsifiable! Just like every other "Theory" in science!
"Falsifiability does not disprove there is a God who created all things"
-You fail to understand that the claim must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable/testable then it is not worth another moments consideration. The claim is on par with the claim that unicorns exist.
", the existence of a God can be challenged by an experiment!"
-Can it really? Do you have an experiment to propose that would demonstrate the existence of your yet undefined "god" thing?
"Scientist cant explain how living organisms emerged from dead chemicals and elements."
-The point being? Even if it was something that could never be 100% shown how it was done, it doesn't mean explanation "x" is correct. It simply means we don't know, yet.
" I just challenged Evolution and therefor evolution is also falsifiable! Just like every other "Theory" in science!"
-YES! and that's exactly how science is supposed to work; evolution does make testable claims --->
Here's a great way to falsify evolution; find a bunny in the precambrian layer. Something like that would totally falsify it and make me disbelieve it. HOWEVER, it does not automatically mean your "god" hypothesis is proven. It only means there's a blank space in our knowledge. You would still need to demonstrate your claims to be true.
@CommonReason first, I wish to state that I am in no way trying to argue with you! I quite frankly am tired of all the "ignorant" Christians on youtube. I however am just discussing this certain topic with you! I don't make it a practice to argue with people! more so I see this as opportunity to get you to think and to get you to challenge what you know to be true! If I had completely disproved evolution(which I never said I did) in what way would I need to demonstrate my claims to be true?
" what way would I need to demonstrate my claims to be true?"
-That unfortunately is not my problem.
Typically, however, any definition that need to be explained/defined should be done up front. Then it is up to you to demonstrate that your claim is true. If the claim is not a falsifiable claim then we're done since there's no point in discussing it; remember, if your claim is on par with that of claiming that Unicorns exist, then no thanks.
@CommonReason First, I'm sure the Unicorn bit was Sarcasm but it was funny! ;)
Well let me start with my claim about Abiogenesis. with out a foundation like Abiogenesis Evolution cant stand! because its a Theory! Just that like many other theories in science that are based on more theories. There's the theory of Spontaneous generation. one of the more popular hypothesis of the study of Abiogenesis, life just suddenly happened? hmm? Which Scientist cant Tests or observe.
@CommonReason Observed*. there for Evolutions itself rests on a theory that has no sound standing, as far as evidence goes! Therefore if science cant even explain how life started, via mutation and evolution, then evolution cant be a fact because it cant be proven! there for it is falsifiable.
can't these critics ever come out with a genuine critique against creationists instead of nit picking and name calling , it just shows how flawed evolution accutally is .
@InternetDarkLord im afraid not , unlike you i am a critical thinker , and if you are a Christian , i would rethink your views , and see if evolution is compatible with the bible , you will find they are not , so stop trying to appease secular scientists .
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
@iFingerLiknGood ah, but this is where you are wrong. Evolution has been observed. In the fossil record, in lab experiennts and most importantly in nature in the last few years.
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved. This occured within the past 50-60 years.
If water levels were that high almost all (if not all) sea life would be dead today because of the sudden introduction of sweet water that would mix with salt water, change the water temperatures and the water pressure
najhoant 6 days ago
Ok I'm going to say it: I miss Kent Hovind. He at least had some charisma behind his intellectually bankrupt assertions.
Corbsoup 1 week ago
who ever made this video didn't prove him wrong, if anything, their "facts" are highly unreliable.
Sittinprettyxoxo 2 weeks ago
@Sittinprettyxoxo Why?
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
Problem with these creationists is they are always attacking holes at which science has yet to uncover. Of course we don't have all the answers, but that's the point. We use science to find them out. You can't just say "aha! science can't answer this, that means my religion is true!"
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr You are assuming that science and the Bible are in opposition. Thing is you couldn't know how to do science without God because He is the necessary precondition for all knowledge.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
I have a way of explaining the flippin erosion that he's talking about just by being in a high school science class. (now in college mind you) Land used to be one continent and was split over time so wouldn't that explain where all that erosion came from? Floods of water that came and went when the land parted over time? It's like he has not brain... (obviously he does but it really doesn't show)
Thenewfallingsacred 3 weeks ago
haha i just love the production value eric hovind has put into junk science.
halflifeproductionz 1 month ago
So you use Pangaea?i wish there was more videos about that on the net, i wanna learn more about it. what's out there don't seem enough.
FunnyAnimations 1 month ago
69 dislikes, awriiii
greymatter1984 1 month ago
I'm thankful that the Bible is absolutely true!
dogooda12 2 months ago
@dogooda12 Truth, in a spiritual sense has nothing to do with accuracy in a literal sense. And Genesis? Oy. Not accurate, but merely an interpretation by a bronze age peoples to understand the world. Lots of folklore, but really thin on hard data.
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
@NorthForkFisherman Ah how do you know that?-baseless assertions my friend. You see the evidence according to your worldview, me, through my own worldview. We all start with our own presuppositions. Question is by what standard or basis do you appeal to evaluate anything to be true?
dogooda12 1 month ago
@dogooda12 In this case, math. You are aware that the geology of the Earth is very well known by this point, right? As such there are certain laws that play out in chemistry and physics when examining the geology of the Earth. And these laws have very definite consequences. Now while most YECers seem to try to ignore them, they are nonetheless, true and very much factual. Now if you postulate a local flood growing in the retelling, sure. It's possible. A global one? No way.
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
@NorthForkFisherman Yes but how do you KNOW that.By what standard or basis do you appeal to evaluate anything to be true? I agree with the laws of science and logic and math but I have a justification for such things-the revelation of God through his revealed word the Bible but what is the transcendant standard or basis you appeal to, to know anything at all? Every fact you have mentioned is an interpreted fact according to your world view. I would do the same thing.
dogooda12 1 month ago
@dogooda12 No, in this case we're talking a law of nature. Tested and examined critically. In this case it comes down to 9 trillion cu meters of salt and the heat that is required for the deposition. In this one formation alone, the Noachian Flood is falsified.
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
I am talking about how do you know ANYTHING? Are you 100% certain that Noahs flood has been falsified? Once again you are interpreting the evidence according to your own presupps. And possibly committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. I am amazed that you still haven't answered my questions. By what standard or basis do you appeal to evaluate anything to be true? What is the transcendant standard or basis you appeal to, to know anything at all?
dogooda12 1 month ago
@dogooda12 Your base assumption is that there is anything more "transcendant", and without proof of the merest kind, can be dismissed immediately. The data, the mathematics of the heat thermodynamics are quite clear. These processes directly rule out your mythical flood. too much heat, too little time. It's just that simple.
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
@NorthForkFisherman Ah How do you know that?
dogooda12 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dogooda12 "How do you know that?" A very open question. Perhaps you should've been more specific? Know the flood was false? Simple, I can do the math and have a passing familiarity with chemistry.Since the subject of this video is that flood, let's stay on that, shall we? As I've already explained what and why in broad strokes, perhaps you should be requiring details?
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
@dogooda12 He just told you.
SuperBspb 1 month ago
@SuperBspb You don't understand the question. He has not given me a standard or basis for how he knows anything. He's only telling me what is. But what IS doesn't necessarily make what he said true.
dogooda12 4 weeks ago
@dogooda12 Well I don't know his credentials, but Kent Hovind has no more credentials than any average person considering he only has a Ph.D in Christian Education, not evolutionary biology or geology or anything that matters. And the college he received it from is shady to say the least.
SuperBspb 4 weeks ago
@SuperBspb So what's your point? How do you account for what matters if we're just evolved pond-scum? If you believe evolution is true then according to that world view nothing matters, including evolutionary biology, geology.
dogooda12 4 weeks ago
@dogooda12 So you need to serve an invisible being to have your life matter, that's pretty sad.
SuperBspb 4 weeks ago
@SuperBspb I can account for why life matters. I have a philosophical and theological reason why life matters. You don't. THAT is what I find sad.
dogooda12 4 weeks ago
@dogooda12 while i myself believe in a God, i don't need God to know that my family matters to me, as do my friends, my education, my job. I value society, and i like to see myself making a beneficial impact for future generations to enjoy. I don't need God to know to appreciate these things. I know them cuz i have a brain.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr You must be very confused then. You can't believe in God and then say you can know things apart from God. Because you need God to know anything because without God you can't know anything for certain. This includes your statement "I know them cuz i have a brain". How do you know THAT without appealing to your own reasoning, senses and memory?
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@dogooda12 Nobody is certain about anything if you are going to use the argument "you can't trust your senses". Even you can't trust it, cuz your interpretation of God is still based on your own brain. In fact, i already don't trust you guys cuz you are the one who believe in a 6000 years old Earth! LOL
Even most theists laugh at you guys. Have fun.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr LOL are you certain about that?
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@dogooda12 you sound just like Eric Hovind's twitter lol. Are you him? I make my conclusions based on the available evidence we have so far, and i have no problem updating my conclusions as new evidence comes along. So yes, i'm certain to a degree that I can make decisions based on my conclusions, and i also have no problem seeing these conclusions refined and updated in the future if new evidence comes along.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr Do you use your senses memory and your reasoning to make your conclusions? I am a presuppositionalist . My argument is impervious to any and all types of arguments you present, because unless you can tell me what you know and how you know it for certain without using a fallacious circular argument, you will never be able to defeat my argument. Because evidence demands knowledge and knowledge demands truth which you can't account for apart from the God of the Bible.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@dogooda12 how do i make this clear...you think you can be certain because you trust in God. Well, guess what? There are people who trust in the same God you believe in, yet they also accept evolution theory + rest of science. And these are the same people who generally hold higher scientific degrees, like Francis Collins or Michael Behe. I find it laughable why I should listen to you guys who most don't even hold a bachelors in science, when there are much better educated Christians!
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr They are ID proponents.They argue for a probable God. I do not, I am defending the God of the Bible who is certain.God is not the conclusion but the necessary starting point of the argument "does God exist".I am still waiting for your justification for knowledge.How do you know anything for certain, and how can you know it without appealing to your senses, memory and reason without arguing in a fallacious circle? You should be able to answer this seeing you're so smart and all.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@dogooda12 I don't know how any clearer I can be....your argument is basically "you cannot trust your own brain + ur senses, so that's why you have to trust in God!". That's wrong! Your interpretation of God still comes from your brain! If I take a screw and stab you in the brain, you'll lose your knowledge of God. It's all in your head! So if your argument is you can't trust your senses..then neither can you!
So my justification for my trust in science is: it is the best tool we have so far.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr Once again you are making certainty claims while denying certainty.By saying that my position is wrong you are assuming you are right. By what standard is anything right or wrong. Also you are using the Tu quoque fallacy you aren't answering the question(ie You are using the "you too" fallacy: "So if your argument is you can't trust your senses..then neither can you!") So you are still avoiding the question.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr "So my justification for my trust in science is: it is the best tool we have so far." So are you employing your memory senses and reasoning to validate your justification and trust in science? I believe I asked you if you could answer this without using a fallacious and viciously circular argument. You have just proved my point. You are still using your senses memory and reason to validate your senses memory and reason to evaluate your trust in science. My question? Unanswered.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@dogooda12 Scientific method has proven itself to be the best way to get the truth. How do we know DNA is responsible for inheritability? Science. How do we know what causes whopping cough? Science. How do we predict what a protein will function without testing it experimentally? Again, science (via bioinformatics).
And here i ask you: what benefit to science has your belief bring in? How has saying "God did it" help us in developing new drugs?
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr Dude everything you have mentioned is based on the Christian world view you wouldn't know how to do science with out God because he is the source of all knowledge. That's my point. Science is great and I can account for it. You can't without arguing in a vicious circle. Your world view( are you an atheist or a deist?)basically falls under the naturalistic fallacy-or the "is ought" fallacy-what is does not necessarily show us what should be the case only what is the case.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@dogooda12 thanks for not assuming i'm an atheist. I'm a deist. A lot of creationists/Christians just naturally assume i'm an atheist simply because I don't agree with your view, so thanks for that.
I understand you think God is behind everything, but my emphasis is this is your INTERPRETATION. To a Muslim, Allah is the one behind everything. You get a different answer if you go to a Shintoist, or Hinduist, or any other religion. (cont)
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr No worries. I remember you said you believe in a god. But to answer your question: the God of the Bible is the necessary starting point-for all knowledge and truth(I am a presuppositionalist-That is my presupposition) so Allah, and the many Hindu deities according to the Bible are not god's they are false god's and those who worship them are not theist or pantheist but are idolaters.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@dogooda12 "the God of the Bible is the necessary starting point-for all knowledge and truth(I am a presuppositionalist-That is my presupposition) " => while i acknowledge this is ur personal belief, i have to say..this isn't helpful cuz all religions will claim this lol. You think a Muslim presuppositionalist won't say the same thing, except just replacing the word Bible with Quran? You guys can debate back and forth, in the end, we get no where. Of course, u can believe whatever u want.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr I will refer you to my previous statement. And if you want to debate as a Muslim that's fine just make up your mind which world view you are trying defend. Here we have a Deist arguing like an Atheist using the Islamic world view to refute Christianity while using the Christian world view to defend...um what are you defending again?LOL
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 How do I know what? How do I know that you need your brain to know God? How about you give it a test? Let me take a knife and stab at ur brain, and u let me know if you still know God! lol
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr How do you know anything? LOL
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 What world view are you defending? LOL
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 I'm defending the worldview that is not creationism lol. And btw, i thought i already made it clear any argument that goes "how can you trust your brian" is a moot point. Please, if you going to keep on asserting this, i'm just going to have to call it quit to this debate, and my respect for you guys will go down because you obviously refuse to accept even the basics of biology (i.e. how ur brain works)!
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr So you are defending nothing then?LOL I'm amazed that you have lasted this long! Most people would have have given up a long time ago. Seems you're a glutton for punishment. You can't even give me a standard or basis for knowledge on which biology or anything else is based. In a debate we bring our respective epistimologies(theory of knowledge) and then debate from there. You haven't given me your epistemic standard or criteria of knowledge or truth yet. This is not a debate:)
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 I did give you my criteria for knowledge. It is based on science. If someone wants to mix religious faith with science, that's fine, as long as a scientific evidence isn't discarded simply due to religion. Your problem is you come back with a MOOT point about "how can you trust your brain?". That's retarded.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Nope. I can account for why I can use my brain you can't-You obviously do not understand the argument. Ok what is evidence? I can account for evidence. According to your worldview what evidence do you have that shows we need evidence to prove that evidence is necessary? Without God you couldn't do science because he is the standard for all knowledge. Wait let me guess, you use your brain. LOL
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 sorry, but your "logic" of "i can trust my brain because God says so" is false and circular because you need your brain to interpret the Bible in the first place. If you can't trust your brain, you can't trust your interpretation either. So nice try, but your premise cannot be upheld under the assumption of "we can't trust our brain".
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr You have missed quoted me putting words in my mouth.lol I said "I can account for why I can use my brain you can't" So you know for certain that I need my brain to interpret the Bible? You talk about logic how do account for logic-do you believe in absolute laws of logic?Your assumption is "we can't trust our brain"? My premise is this: You couldn't know anything without the God of the Bible. What is your basis for knowledge? Please don't say "my brain" lol
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 "So you know for certain that I need my brain to interpret the Bible?" => again, if you are willing, let me prove it for you by bashing your head, and then put you back in front of a Bible, and see if you can make anything out of it. If you are so confident of your view, why do you seem to be shying away from this challenge?
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr "i can trust my brain because God says so"- Ok,what I'm saying is God has revealed somethings to us such that we can know them for certain Like logic, mathematics, science, objective morality neither a deist or atheistic world view can account for these things. All issues of ultimacy is circular in nature but mine is a gracious circle because I appeal to God who is transcendent(outside the circle). Yours is viciously circular.
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 LOL I FINALLY FOUND THE PROBLEM. You assume appealing to God is outside the circle. That's just your interpretation, not a fact, so you can't say it as if you have proven it or as if you have won the debate based on this interpretation. Sorry to burst your bubble, but without your brain, you would not know God. Seriously, you can do the experiment yourself. Take a hammer and bash your head in, see if you will still remember who Jesus is. Go ahead, i dare you.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr LOL What is fact? Gee's dude just answer my questions. My presupposition(I am a pressupositionlist-duh) has always been God is the necessary starting point for all knowledge which you cant account for. Yes we will continue to go around in circle's until you can justify what you know for certain and how you can know it. I have you haven't( you can't)BTW the "debate" hasn't even began. Not until you can justify knowledge according to your worldview.
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 a fact is something that is proven to be true, beyond all doubt of knowledge. Such as 1+1=2, or existence of DNA. These are facts. Bible is a book. That's a fact too.
And no, you cannot just say "i'm a presuppositionist so I can rely on God to be the starting point", that's dishonest because you HAVE NOT PROVE THIS POSITION YET.
By your logic, why don't i make up terms too and say "i'm a science-reliar so science is the necessary starting point for all knowledge".
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr "By your logic, why don't i make up terms too and say "i'm a science-reliar so science is the necessary starting point for all knowledge"". The thing is you've already said you could possibly be wrong-therefore I wouldn't rely on science as being the starting point for all knowledge since you are at a disadvantage of not being able to trust your own premise. God can not be wrong or uncertain:)
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 God may not be wrong, but your interpretation can certainly be. In fact, just looking at the diverse viewpoints even within Christianity, your chance to be right is already slim.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Now you just sound stupid. So here we have a deist arguing like an atheist borrowing from Christianity to critique Christianity to defend "not creationism" when you haven't even answered my question about your basis to deem anything right or wrong according to your worldview! LOL
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 cuz you haven't either! You can't just say "my basis is from God and God is outside of the circular logic". You haven't prove that yet. You can't just throw out claims without proof lol. I think I'm done here. I understand why even Christians pick on Eric Hovind. You guys make no sense in your argument, and you don't even realize it lol.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Why cant I say that? It's ironic that you make knowledge claims when you can't even account for knowledge. Then you say I'm obligated to provide proof when you can even account for the necessity for proof because you have no basis for knowledge which is necessary for the very proof that you are asking me to provide. I win you lose. Without God you couldn't know anything- I hope you really consider that carefully. Your life depends on it.
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
*"you CANT even account for the necessity..."(correction) :)
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 one last time...in order to say "your basis is from God", you need to use your brain in order to interpret God's orders. Now since you brought up the idea of "how do you know you can trust your senses (i.e. ur brain), you cannot say "your basis is from God" until you first prove how you can trust your interpretation in the first place!
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr How do you KNOW that?!
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 In fact, if we step outside beyond just you and me, I have millions of Christians, many who are biblical scholars with ThD degree, that say evolution is real and earth is old. And they will tell us that this view is from God! So by your logic, you both cannot be right, one of you is interpreting God wrong. You think it's them, so I ask you: can you prove that?
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr So what. These "christian scholars" do not adhere to the very scripture they claim to believe. That's ridiculous and I don't care what they believe. In fact there approach and interpretation is sinful plan and simple! Still doesn't let you of the hook answer my questions please. Where does knowledge come from? has knowledge always existed before the creation of matter?
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 answer me first: where does your knowledge come form? how do you know your knowledge is correct? Why should I trust your interpretation of the Bible more than say...the Pope? He dedicated his entire life to studying the Bible, have you? Do you know ancient Hebrew? No i guess not. So in the end, answer me: why should I put your interpretation higher than other Christians who have demonstrated their Biblical knowledge?
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr My answer has always been: God has revealed some things to us such that we can KNOW them for CERTAIN!! Are you a Roman Catholic now? So here we have a Deist who argues like an Atheist while using Roman Catholicism to critique Christianity to defend "not creationism" are you kidding me!? You have deflected from giving me a straight answer many times! Give up the absurdity of your lame world view! Believe me I could teach the Pope!
dogooda12 1 week ago
@dogooda12 "Believe me I could teach the Pope!" => i'm giving you the chance to convince me to be a creationist here. Is this the best you can do? I thought your mission here is to make me a creationist, bring me to your view of Christ. I gotta say, using statements like "you know i'm right!" or "i could teach the Pope!" just ain't gonna cut it. If you don't have any actual evidence why only your view is correct, i guess this is good-bye.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr No my argument is to show you and anyone else who reads this that your argument is absurd!! Not to make you a creationist! lol. Your unbelieving heart is the problem which is why you would not be convinced even if God was standing in front of you. You cant refute my argument. That is clear!
dogooda12 1 week ago
@dogooda12 "I win you lose" => lets avoid statements like this. I don't know how old you are, but I'm already near my 30s, and i'm not here for the childish "i win!". Nobody wins in debates like this.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr LOL This is not a debate yet! I thought you were done? Can't help but to try and save face coz you know your argument is absurd!
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dogooda12 "I thought you were done? Can't help but to try and save face coz you know your argument is absurd!" => lol i feel the same way about you. Answer the post i gave you below. You didn't addressed it btw. You glossed over it, saying 'You don't care". But guess what? I care. I care the fact there are multiple views in Christianity, and until you can convince me why only your view is correct, your claim about relying on God doesn't work.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr I don't have to justify anything to you until you can tell me what is your basis and standard for knowledge=I have already given you my justification you just look stupid now! God is the necessary pre-condition for all knowledge. My apoligetic is the biblical one, which is why it is the correct one! You have no standard or reason to care because you deny absolute truth. I don't have to convince you coz you know what i'm saying is true. Saving face much?
dogooda12 1 week ago
@dogooda12 "I don't have to convince you coz you know what i'm saying is true. " => LOL WTF?? NO I DON'T.
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr Thought you said you were done! You can't account for knowledge can you with out begging the question. Your position is base-less. So give up.
dogooda12 1 week ago
@dogooda12 btw how did you get past the 200 word limit? I would have made a longer reply but i'm limit to only 200 words lol
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr Pure awesome-ness!
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 seriously dude, the sooner you get that fact right, the sooner we can move on to better topic. We're just going back and forth on this issue, and frankly, it's getting boring cuz i'm just repeating myself now (and same for u). Tell you what, if you think you'll still know God, give me your address, and i'll come to you and stab you in the head, and you tell me if you still know God. Deal? I'll even pay for my own plane ticket.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr LOL
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 I think you're wrong to say "since you use your brain to justify ur stand on science, and interpretation of science is based on ur brain, this is circular logic". That's not correct, because everything we do depend on our brain. If we can't trust our brain, then we can't trust anything, including knowledge of God. So your earlier attempt to try to say "brain cannot be trusted" is quite pointless because it serves no purpose! If we can't trust our brain, nothing further can be said.
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr But how do you know that? That which is observed or created by necessity cannot explain it's own existence there is always an outside source to explain it's reason for being whether you are talking about a building a car a human being. So to say we use our brain to know anything is self refuting it's like saying the sky is blue because it's blue or I use my brain because I have a brain-but that still that does not justify how I come to know anything. It's viciously circular.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@dogooda12 "It's viciously circular." => yes, we've already been over this, and i've explained to you that this argument goes back to you as well. If u have an injury and u injure ur brain so it is no longer functional, you will not be able to know anything as well. You cannot process anything about ur religion if u can't use ur brain, same with me, i can't process science if i cant use my brain. That's why the argument is moot, because if we can't trust our brain, nothing more can be said!
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr Yes but how do you KNOW that! You are still appealing to using your brain to know anything by using your brain you have not giving me your theory of knowledge! What do you know? And how can you know it for certain? I can know things for certain because I appeal to the God of the Bible who is the necessary precondition for all knowledge. You are still using the "you to" fallacy(tu quoque-look it up) It seems you can not answer my questions without being reduced to absurdity.
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dogooda12 No, you CANNOT appeal to God of the Bible WITHOUT first using your brain! You need your brain to process the Bible, just like anything you do. You cannot do anything without your brain. This is a biological fact. Only reflex functions can bypass the brain. Is reading the Bible a reflex? No. It is a sophisticated piece of literature, filled with metaphors, symbolism, poetic statements...it is filled with complicated passages that need very high brain function to process.
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr How do you know that?
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dogooda12 So this is why if your argument is "you can't trust your brain", then this works for both of us. If we can't trust our brain, you can't trust your interpretation of the Bible, and neither can I trust my interpretation in science. But since this leaves us with nowhere, that's why for the sake of rationality, we assume we can trust our brain. We take it as a prior assumption, a faith, if you will. YOU AND I BOTH DO THIS. NOT JUST ME.
I can't make this any clearer!! lol....
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
@Casshyr How do you know that?
dogooda12 2 weeks ago
@dogooda12 I believe i did answer your question, but here it is again: no i'm not 100% certain of a lot of things (but not all, for example, i do know DNA exists, and this is with 100% certainty), but for the sake of rationality, i ASSUME i can trust my own brain because if I can't, nothing can be done. If you can't trust your brain, YOU CAN'T TRUST GOD EITHER because YOU USE YOUR BRAIN TO CONNECT TO GOD (if real or not, doesn't matter, ur brain is still involved).
Casshyr 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL How do you know that for certain? Continuing to use vicious circular reasoning to validate your reasoning and also the tu quoque fallacy. still haven't answered my question. It is absurd to state"no i'm not 100% certain of a lot of things..." then begin to make certainty claims eg"i ASSUME i can trust my own brain because if I can't, nothing can be done. If you can't trust your brain, YOU CAN'T TRUST GOD EITHER because YOU USE YOUR BRAIN TO CONNECT TO GOD..." How do you know that?
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
@Casshyr Eric is a presuppositionalist too. Which is why we sound the same. We only present one argument. The presuppositional apologetic(transcendental argument for God-TAG) is like an arrow in the Achilles heal of the Atheistic worldview.
dogooda12 3 weeks ago
Kent's got charisma, Eric's got graphics. It's only Kent can convince us that he TRULY believes in the flood, and that not to believe would be ridiculous. Kent will always be the creationist King, and even Banana-man's closer to being heir to the throne than Eric. Sorry, Eric; get a job in a lab or something.
bobinhk1 2 months ago
you forgot that those legends are very similar to the story of the biblical flood. most of them consist of a small family taking all the animals in a boat and surviving a flood and than repopulating the earth, so it those would be only "local floods" why did they take in all the animals?
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas Because they are myths!
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@InternetDarkLord ooo so you're saying that all those ( over 200 ) legends that are so similar to the story of the biblical flood are all myths, yeah that's believable the Incas and the Chinese had a secret meeting 3.5 thousand years ago and made a "MYTH" about dinosaurs in order to confuse us. I love the logic evolutionists follow.
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas No, there are many differences among the stories, like who survived. And you can cherry pick stories about other things, like living ape-men, such as Yeti, Bigfoot, etc, to prove the same thing. They are different myths.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
@InternetDarkLord read some of the myths than interpret them
ProMajtas 2 months ago
@ProMajtas I have read some myths, they are different.
And ape-men myths are supported by living eyewitnesses, with photos and even videos. That myth would trump a flood myth any day in court.
InternetDarkLord 2 months ago
So Eric replaced Kent's power point slides with snazzy graphics. Same old lies, with new tricks. It has to be true the pretty graphics wouldn't lie to me. Would they?
Varix22 2 months ago
See Balanced Rock in Utah, and others. There they sit -- yet there's no way they'd be upright on their tiny bases if a huge current of water washed over them. Why do so many cultures have flood stories? Look up Lake Agassiz, the glacial meltwater giant that covered much of Canada. When the glacial dam broke, all that water burst into the north sea and sloshed around the coasts, creating huge tsunamis & seiches, eventually raising average sea level by up to 12 meters (estimates vary some).
rendilkraesin 2 months ago
Love your videos .Subscribed.
TheJimmax 2 months ago
I want to know where did all that water go? Its like adding another 3 times of all the water from every ocean on earth. Anyone? Oh yeah, silly me, the answer is God works in mysterious ways. I wish all creationsit should just stick to that -cough- reasoning, instead of dreaming up all these other stories about this -cough- evidence -cough choke- xP somehow proving the great world flood. -sigh-
IonianGarden 2 months ago
wait a minute!! that is your best you are an idiot
mendezfocus 3 months ago
What is amazing to me is that Eric has never heard of a clam shovel. How do clams open when they die if they live under sand, basically underground?
gregrutz 3 months ago
beautifully done, your logic is flawless
poweratheist 4 months ago
Wow check out all those graphics! That's pretty high tech Eric, you have to know what you're talking about with visuals like that. I'm gonna toss my post secondary knowledge right out the window now. I'm saved!
BigMrSox 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't even try to reason the concept of God to the monkey people, they are lower beings who do not have the cognitive ability to know God. This is only a function of higher beings! You waste your time trying to convince a monkey..."as a man thinketh so is he, says God." Let the evolutionist be monkeys, "made in the image of a monkey" and we will be the "made in the image of God" people. Hopefully God has a zoo in heaven for the monkey people. If not I hope they like hot fires & brimstone.
tot792 5 months ago
creationists and debating Christians? if God is not falsifiable and according to you not real then why waste your breath? and last, if I and you're right and we all just came about for no reason and just happen to exist and nothing happens after life, at least I have lived a life I thought was of purpose. On the other hand, if you die and what I believe is right.... I feel sorry the eternity you have waiting for you!!!
dansta93 6 months ago
@dansta93 But if you choose the wrong religion, you will go to hell for not believing in Zeus.
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@dansta93 ""On the other hand, if you die and what I believe is right.... I feel sorry the eternity you have waiting for you!!! ""
Pascals wager.. Your beleif system is based on hedging your bets. Dont you think your god would see through that ?
podoau 6 months ago 3
@dansta93 Don't worry, you're wrong.
GoaHead80 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@CommonReason I'm just gonna state a couple things and then I will end this convo. First, I have made a great discovery do to what you have said in this discussion. That is, that evolution isn't a religion however, It seams to me that Science is a religion! You Have a set of believes and code of conduct and ethics and rules that you must follow! Second "If it is not falsifiable/testable then it is not worth another moments consideration" if that's true why do you spend so much time on disproving
dansta93 6 months ago
@dansta93
"Science is a religion!"
-Again, using your very loosely defined terms...
"why do you spend so much time on disproving creationists and debating Christians?"
-It's not for you, I get a sense of enjoyment out of it; mainly it's for everyone else so that they can get proper information and be shown with reason and evidence as to why your claims have no merit.
CommonReason 6 months ago 6
Since you have demonstrated several times that you have no grasp any scientific concepts and your use of Pascal's Wager; this conversation is most certainly over once threats are made.
CommonReason 6 months ago 2
@dansta93 There is no such thing as a scientific method. It is just a bunch of guys trying to look famous. Scientists all fudge the date, they are all human. That is why everything has to be repeatable and testable, they don't trust each other. That is is scientific method. So no one is accepting anything on faith.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@dansta93 Science is almost as bad as a Religion? THAT bad? Oh dear.
tommiatkins 3 months ago
Is Baseball a religion? It has rules and followers and a code of ethics. Is the Army a religion? Is, in fact, everything that hants to the rules of that structure and a code of associated ethics considered a religion? As for why prooving you wrong is important- Some of us in this world believe in truth and honesty. We would like people to be exposed to the truth in contrast to religions unending stream of false information. Information spewed from the mouths of people with no education.
mucephi1 3 months ago 2
@podoau lets define the word Religion. Religion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices; so in other words religion is a set belief system that one follows. There for anyone that chooses to follow in the belief of evolution is placing it as there religion! Think twice about what it is you worship!
dansta93 6 months ago
@dansta93 Your definition is lacking/wrong. "body of persons adhering to a set of beliefs"? The group of people following a religion is not the religion itself. Your "in other words" definition is however correct, but lacking. Yes, a set of beliefs, but there are also tenants, rules, dogma, etc. Evolution has no dogma, no tenants, no rules that must be followed. It is not a religion. I have no loyalty to it, however it has the attribute of being correct.
CommonReason 6 months ago
@CommonReason good point. I however, never said that the people that follow the beliefs are the religion! nor does the definition(the definition was from a dictionary site). I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. The people them selves just follow the belief system/religion. there for they take it on as there belief system/religion. Here's another definition of the word from the Webster's dictionary: "Any" specific system of belief and/or worship, often including a code of ethics
dansta93 6 months ago
@dansta93
You said "never said that the people that follow the beliefs are the religion"
-Yet you wrote before: "Religion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"
Regardless, you definition is lacking. Your Webster's definition is of course more acceptable.
You said " therefor if "ANY" set system of beliefs that a number of people follow is addressed as a religion, then evolution is defined as a religion! "
-If you exclude "worship", code of ethics, dogma
CommonReason 6 months ago
@CommonReason and a philosophy; therefor if "ANY" set system of beliefs that a number of people follow is addressed as a religion, then evolution is defined as a religion! it may be different from most "spiritual" religions but at basic definition Evolution is a religion in which a lot of people willingly adhere to with out realizing it.
dansta93 6 months ago
@dansta93
Evolution is a fact that is believed. Because I believe in the theory of heliocentrism, does that make it a religion? Does it make the theory of Relativity a religion? No. There are no "code of ethics", dogma, worship, etc.
Again, your simplifying the definition of religion so that it can encompass every belief.
CommonReason 6 months ago
@CommonReason Evolution is NOT a "fact" and nor will it ever be. the true fact is that Evolution is nothing more then a Theory! It will always be a theory because no one will ever disprove God. Even scientist have to agree upon this true fact! The thing is people live there life based on the there system of beliefs. If they believe in Evolution then there life is based on the fact that that's a part of there belief system.
dansta93 6 months ago
@dansta93
"Evolution is nothing more then a Theory"
-Thank you for demonstrating your lack of scientific literacy. You do know what "Theory" means in a scientific context right? Is the Theory of heliocentrism "just a theory"? Is the theory of relativity "just a theory"?
"It will always be a theory because no one will ever disprove God"
-Further demonstrating your lack of scientific literacy. I do suggest you look up the concept of falsification, even the wiki page is great.
CommonReason 6 months ago
" Even scientist have to agree upon this true fact! "
-Which fact is this? That you cannot disprove a god? Again, you need to look up what falsification.
CommonReason 6 months ago
@CommonReason falsification e.g. Falsifiability does not disprove there is a God who created all things. it merely states that something in this case, the existence of a God can be challenged by an experiment! Scientist cant explain how living organisms emerged from dead chemicals and elements. they cant observe it and they cant prove it and they cant test it! I just challenged Evolution and therefor evolution is also falsifiable! Just like every other "Theory" in science!
dansta93 6 months ago
@dansta93
"Falsifiability does not disprove there is a God who created all things"
-You fail to understand that the claim must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable/testable then it is not worth another moments consideration. The claim is on par with the claim that unicorns exist.
", the existence of a God can be challenged by an experiment!"
-Can it really? Do you have an experiment to propose that would demonstrate the existence of your yet undefined "god" thing?
CommonReason 6 months ago
@dansta93
"Scientist cant explain how living organisms emerged from dead chemicals and elements."
-The point being? Even if it was something that could never be 100% shown how it was done, it doesn't mean explanation "x" is correct. It simply means we don't know, yet.
" I just challenged Evolution and therefor evolution is also falsifiable! Just like every other "Theory" in science!"
-YES! and that's exactly how science is supposed to work; evolution does make testable claims --->
CommonReason 6 months ago
Here's a great way to falsify evolution; find a bunny in the precambrian layer. Something like that would totally falsify it and make me disbelieve it. HOWEVER, it does not automatically mean your "god" hypothesis is proven. It only means there's a blank space in our knowledge. You would still need to demonstrate your claims to be true.
CommonReason 6 months ago
So, here's what I propose. Lets say for the sake of argument that you have completely disproven evolution. Demonstrate your claims to be true.
CommonReason 6 months ago
@CommonReason first, I wish to state that I am in no way trying to argue with you! I quite frankly am tired of all the "ignorant" Christians on youtube. I however am just discussing this certain topic with you! I don't make it a practice to argue with people! more so I see this as opportunity to get you to think and to get you to challenge what you know to be true! If I had completely disproved evolution(which I never said I did) in what way would I need to demonstrate my claims to be true?
dansta93 6 months ago
@dansta93
" what way would I need to demonstrate my claims to be true?"
-That unfortunately is not my problem.
Typically, however, any definition that need to be explained/defined should be done up front. Then it is up to you to demonstrate that your claim is true. If the claim is not a falsifiable claim then we're done since there's no point in discussing it; remember, if your claim is on par with that of claiming that Unicorns exist, then no thanks.
CommonReason 6 months ago
@CommonReason First, I'm sure the Unicorn bit was Sarcasm but it was funny! ;)
Well let me start with my claim about Abiogenesis. with out a foundation like Abiogenesis Evolution cant stand! because its a Theory! Just that like many other theories in science that are based on more theories. There's the theory of Spontaneous generation. one of the more popular hypothesis of the study of Abiogenesis, life just suddenly happened? hmm? Which Scientist cant Tests or observe.
dansta93 6 months ago
@CommonReason Observed*. there for Evolutions itself rests on a theory that has no sound standing, as far as evidence goes! Therefore if science cant even explain how life started, via mutation and evolution, then evolution cant be a fact because it cant be proven! there for it is falsifiable.
dansta93 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dansta93 if you want a good laugh look up Job 39:9-12 (King James Version)
fabersheski 4 months ago
these nutters are completly mad
Its raining at my place right now and the creek is in flood. oopps.. Better go looking for an ark
podoau 6 months ago
The ark was 167 meters long, 28 meters wide, 17 meter high, according to the bible. How on earth would that fit 2 of each kind of animal?
GoaHead80 6 months ago
@GoaHead80 that would depend the definition of kinds , and how old the animals were [ or young rather ]
SuperPatrick777 6 months ago
can't these critics ever come out with a genuine critique against creationists instead of nit picking and name calling , it just shows how flawed evolution accutally is .
SuperPatrick777 7 months ago
@SuperPatrick777 READ a biology book.
InternetDarkLord 7 months ago
@InternetDarkLord not an evolutionary one i won't , my religion is Christanity not evolution .
SuperPatrick777 6 months ago
@SuperPatrick777 In other words, you are willfully ignorant.
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@InternetDarkLord im afraid not , unlike you i am a critical thinker , and if you are a Christian , i would rethink your views , and see if evolution is compatible with the bible , you will find they are not , so stop trying to appease secular scientists .
SuperPatrick777 6 months ago
@SuperPatrick777 LOL! You are a critical thinker because you refuse to believe something not compatible with the Bible?
Man, you can't write this stuff as satire if you tried!
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@InternetDarkLord take your blinkers off and start to think more seriously about life , you have too much to loose .
SuperPatrick777 6 months ago
@SuperPatrick777 OK, explain why God needs a flood. Such a powerful being can solve any problem without killing anyone. Why have a flood?
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@InternetDarkLord love and justice does not allow for that , God is a holy God remember .
SuperPatrick777 6 months ago
@SuperPatrick777 If that is not allowed, why believe it happened? Are you saying the flood never happened?
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago
@InternetDarkLord please , read what i responded to again , your previous post .
SuperPatrick777 6 months ago
@SuperPatrick777 I asked why God flooded the earth, you said "love and justice does not allow for that." So the flood never happened at all.
InternetDarkLord 6 months ago 3
@SuperPatrick777 ""my religion is Christanity not evolution .""
Evolution is not a religion
podoau 6 months ago 9
@podoau a philosophy then , it's certainly no science .
SuperPatrick777 6 months ago
@SuperPatrick777 ""it's certainly no science .""
Science; def.
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms
Which is exactly what evolutionary theory does
podoau 6 months ago
@podoau stop mixing evolution with real science , please learn to disern
SuperPatrick777 6 months ago
@SuperPatrick777 Please learn to read. I gave you the dictonary definition of science, and showed that evolution meets these requirements.
Evolution is science, unlike religion
podoau 6 months ago 5
YOU can't observe evolution because it did not happen.
iFingerLiknGood 4 months ago
@iFingerLiknGood ah, but this is where you are wrong. Evolution has been observed. In the fossil record, in lab experiennts and most importantly in nature in the last few years.
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved. This occured within the past 50-60 years.
podoau 4 months ago 6
@iFingerLiknGood
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA good 1
Kindred1a1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperPatrick777 ""can't these critics ever come out with a genuine critique against creationists ""
Have stupid unfounded beleifs,,expect to get laughed at
"" it just shows how flawed evolution accutally is ""
So people who laugh at stupid unfounded beleifs somehow proves evolution is flawed.... right
Now Im laughing.
podoau 6 months ago