Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
oh shut up Fielding! you are a stupid and embarrassing public mouthpiece for Christianity, stay out of politics,and stop boring the Australian public with your puerile ''Family first'' clap-trap.
If you can't make a forceful and half convincing defence of your faith, then just keep your stupid mouth closed. IDIOT!
What a gutless turd. He won't even stand up for his supposedly inalterable faith. Instead, political expediency and rhetorical tap-dancing is more important.. Eat @#$%, you third-rate hack political swine.
I really don't understand how some people can be so stupid. I believe in a God and have no doubt in my mind that evolution is a fact. What creationists need to realise is that the two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
He has time for Australian pollies, but can't debate Dr. Craig. It is sad when people think Dawkins is actually educated when he beats up on people who just hold a faith, not active in the academic side of it.
@SPR4GOD "He has time for Australian pollies, but can't debate Dr. Craig." Completly wrong. He has enough time to debate creationist jumping jack William L. Craig, but seriously, why should he? For Craig it is great for his vita (also I think he is still licking his wounds from Hitchins), but for Dawkins? Think about this: You spend your whole life with studying, you gather more and more information, you get rewards after rewards, and than you should waste your time debating the village idiot?
@Visualiser33 I don't know why you resort to calling Dr. Craig a creationist; I would suggest you familiarize yourself with his work. You may think he is licking his wounds from Hitchens but you are about the only one, when you look at the debate, Dr. Craig smacked Hitchens around like an undergraduate. Not only would it be unfair for Dr. Craig to debate Dr. Dawkins because of the education difference but Dr. Craig already smacked Dr. Dawkins around in Mexico last year.
@SPR4GOD Haha, yes, you are right, everything can be believed if you repeat it often enough.
"Not only would it be unfair for Dr. Craig to debate Dr. Dawkins because of the education difference" Good, I see you agree on this point: When you spend your life gathering knowledge like Dawkins, why should he waste that knowledge in a debate with the village idiot.
"I don't know why you resort to calling Dr. Craig a creationist" Oh, he doesn't belive in creation? Stupid me.
@Visualiser33 I am actually quite amazed at how idiotic you are sounding. Dr. Craig has 2 PhD’s in a relative field while Dr. Dawkins has none. Please answer how a life studying Zoology actually holds any credit in Philosophy or Theology?
"Oh, he doesn't believe in creation? Stupid me." I am now trying to figure out if you swapped the term creation as in the sense "god created" with creation as in creationism. You may want to clear that up.
@SPR4GOD "Please answer how a life studying Zoology actually holds any credit in Philosophy or Theology?" It doesn't. And why should it? Neither of them is testable or verifiable, while a life studying 'Zoology' enables you to have a look on the building blocks of life, something Craig isn't close to be able to. But it gets better: In all his debates Craig talks about Astronomy, geology, physics (my favorite Craig argument:Balance of the universe, hilarious)...where are HIS credits for that?
@Visualiser33 The thing is Dr. Craig doesn't do the research, he only looks at the data that has been collected and works through it. While Dr. Dawkins may be talking about Theology, but it doesn't help him much when he gets the arguments wrong, writes a non-sequitar "centeral argument" and so on. Dr. Dawkins is out of his league when it comes to debating Dr. Craig.
@SPR4GOD "Dr. Dawkins is out of his league when it comes to debating Dr. Craig." Right, I agree. The league of 'common sense' also known as the league of 'verifiable evidence' isn't really a league Craig is familiar with. Reading a book doesn't mean you have proven it.
"YEC doesn't have zero evidence, it has a different understanding of the evidence." Like flat earthers have a different understanding of the evidence? Wjhat exactly is a different understanding of e.g. radiometric dating? ;)
@Visualiser33 I can't remember exactly, I gave up YEC years ago, but from what I remember they consider the dating method inaccurate because of discrepancies found in the dating.
@SPR4GOD "they consider the dating method inaccurate because of discrepancies found in the dating." There is a usual error margin of around 1% in method, that is the reason why different radiometric dating methods are used to determine the age of something. If all of them show the same age, it is pretty stupid to say there are discrepancies. The discrepancies always come from their inability to understand the methods.
@Visualiser33 They give you figures of error margins, but did you know they throw away results that don't agree with their assumptions? Obviously they will all show similar ages when you are looking for values in a specific range for whatever reason.
@semitope "They give you figures of error margins, but did you know they throw away results that don't agree with their assumptions?" No, even to assume that shows you don't know what you are talking about. Even you can verify things like that on your own, you don't need a Ph.D., just some education.
BTW, could you please give me your source where I can verify they are throwing away results? I am looking forward.
@SPR4GOD "I gave up YEC years ago" I appreciate your honesty. May I ask why you gave it up? Cause it is really unusual to find a believer who admits: I was wrong once.
@SPR4GOD "I am now trying to figure out if you swapped the term creation as in the sense "god created" with creation as in creationism. You may want to clear that up." Ok.
"Craig is a Molinist who embraces a reformed epistemology and is inclined towards progressive creationism"
You do now what progressive creationism means, right? Now here comes my question cause it looks you don't understand the term 'creation'
Where is the difference between 'God created' and 'Creationism'?
@Visualiser33God created in the general term would mean all theists are creationist, even those who support the general theory of evolution. Creationism is what I would understand that horrible alternative to evolution as. If you are simple setting aside that theists think god created as irrational, then I am afraid your grounding is next to nothing on that compared to the leverage evolution has over Creationism.
Elected to the Senate at the 2004 federal election on two percent of the Victorian vote, he failed to gain re-election at the 2010 federal election. His term ended 30 June 2011.
@Visualiser33 That’s nice to see democracy at work. However I live on the other side of Australia so it doesn't matter to me who took his place. What would be interesting is, was he not re-elected based on his scientific standings or for something else?
@SPR4GOD Dawkins is educated. The senator is a fucking muppet who should be forced to return to a state funded school and pay some fucking attention this time. A man who thinks the earth is younger than beer production should not be deciding is young men and women should go to war or how education money is spent.
@Philodiogenes Why is the senator a Muppet, just because he isn't an evolutionist? Your blind hate towards YEC is causing you to overlook the fact, believing in a young earth doesn't make you unable to decide how government money is spent and if we should go to war. I would rather trust a scientific illiterate like that senator than Dr. Dawkins who considers my parents child abusers and write awful books about things he knows nothing about.
@SPR4GOD "Why is the senator a Muppet, just because he isn't an evolutionist?" He was even too embarressed to answer what he believes in! Why is that? I mean, shouldn't he proudly tell the people what he believes in? What can happen, don't forget, he has God in his corner, right?
"Your blind hate towards YEC... " Sorry, but we don't hate them. We pity them.
"´I would rather trust a scientific illiterate like that senator than Dr. Dawkins ..." Really? Good, here comes some Fielding for you.
@SPR4GOD "n February 2009, he told a Senate hearing that he believed divorce added to the impact of global warming because it resulted in people switching to a "resource-inefficient lifestyle"
"He has since voted against the Rudd Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme"
@SPR4GOD Fielding has compared same-sex marriages to incest. "A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right. A woman cannot marry their sister; it is not right. A bloke cannot marry a bloke because it is not right, and a female cannot marry a female because it is not right. I don't support this."
And here is my favorite:
Fielding suggested “some women may rort the scheme by deliberately falling pregnant and then having a late-term abortion”
@Visualiser33 So, that is his opinion, as well as his opposition to the tax system. I could pull the quotes from Dr. Dawkins as well that shows his consonance for activity I do not support, but that in the end gets you no where. Like I said, I would rather that senator to Dr. Dawkins.
@SPR4GOD No. he is a muppet because he has zero evidence to support his beliefs. You know he dodged the question about how old the earth is because he really does believe it is a young earth. He is believing this in country that has 4 billion year old rocks and aboriginals that moved there 45 000 years before the senator believes the planet was created. Your parents denied you your right to freedom of religion. They have set your mind to believe nonsense over evidence based science
@Philodiogenes This is actually what I have a gripe about, YEC doesn't have zero evidence, it has a different understanding of the evidence. So before you compare an evolution explanation compared to a YEC one, please understand that they do not think the world is old and everything happened in the time span given.
Actually they didn't deny me anything, I could of given up, in fact I did, but just being taught is not Child abuse.
@SPR4GOD I'm sorry? It has a different understanding of the evidence? Really? A different understanding to the tune of a factor of 750000? An understanding that needs to change all of the laws of physics to match what we see today? This is not a different understanding this is making crap up on a grand scale. Did your parents teach you all religions equally? did they load one religion up with a more positive spin?
@Philodiogenes I don't know if you have read any books of theirs, but I will admit, the "Greatest hoax on earth" feels more like a scientific book than the "Greatest show on earth". I think you should read those two back to back and see if one is lacking, or if they are equal.
They taught Christianity, but they didn't force me to stay Christian.
@SPR4GOD In many ways that is the thing of ID books. they look scientific but they are mainly attempts to find minor molehills and turn them into mountains. Books like signature in the cell and darwins black box are able to raise doubts but they do not have a positive theory. It is simply life is really complicated therefore it is designed (and the designer is the christian god) or science doesn't know every thing therefore god did it (a massive leap).
@SPR4GOD "They taught Christianity, but they didn't force me to stay Christian" That is exactly the reason why it is so important for beliecers to teach their children religion from the earliest age. You have to install the religious programming before they can think for themselves, so the programming can sink easier into the mind, allowing it later to take control much easier.
THe fact he is so resistant to answer the question speaks volumes. Shouldn't a person of faith feel confident in their position? I mean hell, he's got GOD in his corner apparently..
That Australian politician wasn't saying what he believed because he realised it is preposterous - perhaps like in the USA you can only get on in politics if you believe in god.
@a120068020 He believes it alright - he's a member of a Christian fundamentalist front called "Family First." It was the first time he admitted to his ignorant belief. Our current Prime Minister, Jullia Gillard, is actually an athiest but our previous two talked up their Chistian beliefs. The last one, Kevin Rudd, would hold Sunday press conferences outside his church in order to appeal to the Christian audience.
@thecomedyspot11 Do you even know what the evidence is for a 4.6 billion year old earth? Just because a scientist tells you it is a fact doesn't actually mean it is. The evidence for it is not solid. unfortunately these guys have managed to get the average clueless Joe to think anyone saying the earth is not that old is dumb. There is probably as much evidence for a young earth as there is for an old one.
@semitope Yes I do understand the evidence for a 4.6 billion years old earth and indeed a 13 or so billion years old universe. I am a chemistry teacher and therefore have a degree in science! You are communicating using silicon that was formed in a star that pre-dates our sun and electrons that were formed in the first milliseconds of the universe. I'd suggest you re-enrol in Year 7 science and start again, but of course you have been indoctrinated to reject scientific evidence.
@thecomedyspot11 lol. You know how crazy you sound making those claims? I know its what scientists told you, but COME ON. THink about what you are saying for a second. Damn. Sure it all sounds wonderful, and you can never disprove it because its not actual science but at least realize that it is not actual science.
@semitope Crazy?!!! Mmmn let me see... you believe in supernatural stories that cannot be verified written or more likely spoken by unknown people. Scientific theories which stand cannot be disproven, that's how it works. Try looking up Carl Sagan or Brian Cox or indeed any prominent physicist or astronomer- obviously in your indoctrinated view they're crazy too. Either you didn't actually study science or your teachers were belting their heads against a brick wall.
@thecomedyspot11 etc etc. its been said. I see faults in your belief, you see faults in mine. Still hold that evolutionists are either dumb, crazy, or misinformed but w/e
@semitope Wait. Are you trolling? You are using the exact argument Atheists make against religious folk against atheists. Here let me show you. "lol. you know how crazy you sound making those claims? I know it's what the Bible tells you, but COME ON. Think about what your saying for a second. Damn. Sure it all sounds wonderful, and you can never disprove it because it's not actual science.." Isn't this the argument that religious people generally ignore? The same argument you use against Atheism
@semitope Wait. Are you trolling? You are using the exact argument Atheists make against religious folk against atheists. Here let me show you. "lol. you know how crazy you sound making those claims? I know it's what the Bible tells you, but COME ON. Think about what your saying for a second. Damn. Sure it all sounds wonderful, and you can never disprove it because it's not actual science.." Isn't this the argument that religious people generally ignore? The same argument you use against Atheism
@filowfulwaffle What is your point? I am capable of realizing the argument goes both ways instead of the typical atheist who thinks he has some sort of fact in his head.
@semitope My point is what I said, and there is overwhelming evidence supporting the age of the universe and the earth. Read a book by just about any Astrophysicist (My favorite is Niel Degrasse Tyson) and they will provide the information you seek. The great thing about science is, It is the same for anyone anywhere. If you do the same calculations they do you receive the same outcome. Dr. Tyson has a great quote about how the very iron in our blood is the same as found in a meteorite...
@semitope that is completely composed in Iron both sharing common origins from a star that exploded billions of years ago. There is empirical evidence backing those claims, you can easily find them if you actually wanted to enlighten yourself.
@2karriizman The channel name is because it contains funny videos, such as Steve Fielding so earnestly thinking his imaginary friend popped the world into existence at 9am on October 24 4004 BC. Try looking at one of the more popular videos - Karen on Airport Security 1 - she's worked it all out! Go on, I know you want to! PS notice I didn't need to resort to insulting you personally but I kind of expect another tirade in return.
@thecomedyspot11 So how do you think the world popped into existence ? Steve Fielding is politician so you wont get a great deal of logic out of him! As a science teacher you should have a good understanding as to the nature and properties of substances and how they react with each other .Have you figured out how inorganic substances came together to produce life ? Watt is the element of life ? Im a devout member of The Order Of The Perpetually Unenlightened (TOOTPU) so im stuffedifeyeno !!
@2karriizman Coming from you, Krazziman, this is really funny. Letting your name be known is irrelevant if you're STILL a moron. Fielding is a deliberate idiot, and anyone who HONESTLY thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is either insane or brainwashed.
@semitope "There is probably as much evidence for a young earth as there is for an old one." That's complete bullshit. All the evidence points toward a very old Earth. And yes, if you look at the evidence (which there is a ton of) it's abundantly clear that the Earth is very, very old. And to state otherwise is to be ignorant or just plain, well... Dumb.
"There is probably as much evidence for a young earth as there is for an old one." That's complete bullshit. All the evidence points toward a very old Earth. And yes, if you look at the evidence (which there is a ton of) it's abundantly clear that the Earth is very, very old. And to state otherwise is to be ignorant or just plain, well... Dumb.
@thecomedyspot11 Dating is done by assumptions. Dates that don't go with those assumptions are thrown out and assumptions guide the experiments from the outset. The earth went from 75,000 years old, to 20-40 million years old to 100 million years old to 4.5 billion years old. In the mix of all that was Darwins theory requiring a long time which they took into consideration. Besides the assumptions, radiometric dating has its own issues. Massive ranges and picking the values you like.
@semitope "In the mix of all that was Darwins theory requiring a long time which they took into consideration." More bullshit. I suggest you educate yourself on these topics before you comment on them.
@pillsareyummy Because the age of the earth is so set in stone. In the past it kept growing and growing. physicists didn't think it was as old as the geologists did because of their evidence from the sun etc. But they eventually caved in like all the other scientific disciplines even though geologists were using circular reasoning and they all took evolution into account to arrive at the current age. How ppl find it so easy to think they have 4+ billion years figured is beyond me.
@semitope Geologists don't use 'circular reasoning', science is empirical ( all science). Also, to state that physicists caved, well, that's another stupid comment. The science that was/is used to discern the age of the Earth is based heavily on physics. So no, 'they' didn't cave. Also, considering the fact that Earth, when it was young, was bombarded with large asteroids (which there is clear evidence of), the Earth would have to be very old (to have the time to recuperate from the damage).
@pillsareyummy "All science" lol. I guess thats why you think evolution is scientific as well. They reasoned that the earth must be at least a certain age because they believed that certain features took a long time to form. I did not say growth of the earth, I meant growth of the age of the earth. It kept going up over years till they figured they had enough time for no-one to question evolution. Not all the data points to an old earth, just all the data you know about.
@semitope I'm done. you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so these will be my last comments to you. ALL the data points to an old Earth, period. "It kept going up over years till they figured they had enough time for no-one to question evolution." That's a non sequitur.
@semitope Evolution is a fact, the genetic data being the last 'nail in the coffin'. Also, you seem to be confusing Natural Selection with Evolution. Natural selection is the 'mechanism' behind Evolution. It isn't fully understood, has been revamped since Darwin, and may not account for all of Evolution. However, Evolution itself is a fact, and the concept predates Darwin, in fact, in can be traced back to the Greeks. Anyway, as I said, Evolution is a fact. Period.
@s... I studied some Cosmology, so yes, I do understand somethings about solar system formation (it's you that doesn't). The predictions that have been made, based on theoretical models (and no, 'theory', as the term is used in science, doesn't mean 'best guess') have been confirmed with our observations (using many different types of telescopes). We can see evidence of stars dying, being born, and the tell tale signs of solar system formation. Again, based on predictions that were confirmed.
@pillsareyummy 1. learning what they say about it doesn't mean you or they know. Theories change so how can you even claim what is accepted now is true despite the fact that there is no way for them to know? You see light getting brighter and dimmer. What you assume is happening is up to you. You can't possibly think that all happens in real time for u to see.
2. They all make the same assumptions and have massive discrepancies at times or massive age ranges at other times.
@pillsareyummy anyone with common sense can see the problem with radiometric dating, especially when it is applied to billions of years. No-one in their right mind can claim that their assumptions used to achieve their results are accurate. It requires that nothing in their billions of years could have messed up the values. Within even thousands of years it would be quite easy for those results to be screwed up.
@semitope As I said, science isn't based on faith, they believe what they do because of the EVIDENCE. Our modern world exists because of science (including your computer). Oh, and as far as your 'dating comment is concerned', well, there are many differnet kinds. And they ALL point to a very, very old Earth. You are don't know what you're talking about. I'm done. You have some learning to do...
@pillsareyummy You don't understand solar system formation, formation of stars or formation of planets. You can think you do, but till you observe it actually happening or make one yourself, you are making wild assumptions and creating and interesting but ignorant story. They do not know.
@pillsareyummy of course nobody cares about the assumptions made to arrive at the old earth age since it works with every other thing they need to believe. Scientists are not gods.
@semitope Again, all the data, everything from Geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc all point to a very old Earth. And as far as your comment regarding the 'growth of the Earth' is concerned, you do understand that cosmologists understand how planets form (or 'grow' to use you terminology) right? So to state that physicists 'caved', as I already stated, is ignorant (not to mention silly). Since we understand that solar system formation takes a very, very long time.
@a120068020 no you only get on in politics if you say you believe in god. what they actually believe maybe something else entirely. politics is all about appearance.... both public and behind the scenes, the 2 aren't necessarily the same
Oh my crap!!!! I would kill this aussie motherfucker!! He believes in god! Kill him!! Burn him!! C'mon dawkins punch a good one in his face, cuz he's Christian!!
@medevil13 I'm an atheist and I will advocate ANYONE who rejects religion. You really should use your brain if you can't see that there's a WAR between Christians and non-believers. I simply hate believers because they are another problem in this deluded world. It's not like I don't believe in god, it's like I HATE GOD because god doesn't exist and everyone believes in what does not exist! There should be no faith in the world... People must have faith in themselves, not some useless god.
@medevil13 Religious people simply CAN NOT understand things because they are zombified, they are DELUDED and BRAINWASHED! Can you simply go to a muslim and tell him that his god is fake, when he is ready to explode himself for god? I don't think so... Therefore we HAVE to kill Christians cuz that's the only way we can stop this delusion. And then we have to kill muslims too lol.
Some day Steve Fielding will ask a woman to marry him and she'll respond with, "Look, I think some people would agree to marry you and others wouldn't and ultimately everyone can come to their own conclusions on the matter."
LOL Steve Fielding sounds JUST like the NonStampCollector.
gulbirk 3 weeks ago
Sorry Steve, the prime minister isnt a creationist. Dont try to spread your nonsense on other people.
gulbirk 3 weeks ago
Why would you say you believe in creationism and then be so apologetic about it??? Just shows he really doesn't even believe himself
damplyons 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON ANOTHER PLANET? Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed to make other robots just like themselves from raw materials. Now, imagine an alien scientist visiting the planet and, after studying these robots, comes to the conclusion that because science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe there was an intelligent designer behind them! Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or a cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 4 months ago
oh shut up Fielding! you are a stupid and embarrassing public mouthpiece for Christianity, stay out of politics,and stop boring the Australian public with your puerile ''Family first'' clap-trap.
If you can't make a forceful and half convincing defence of your faith, then just keep your stupid mouth closed. IDIOT!
ChaseTheDub 6 months ago 7
I love how this weasily simpleton got booed when he started to waffle about people coming to their own conclusions a second time.
TheSkunkCat 7 months ago
Proof why secularism is so important, imagine if these dimwits had control of government.
Jatz071 7 months ago
What a gutless turd. He won't even stand up for his supposedly inalterable faith. Instead, political expediency and rhetorical tap-dancing is more important.. Eat @#$%, you third-rate hack political swine.
BillF1967 7 months ago
I really don't understand how some people can be so stupid. I believe in a God and have no doubt in my mind that evolution is a fact. What creationists need to realise is that the two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
FormerlyMrBean667 8 months ago
He has time for Australian pollies, but can't debate Dr. Craig. It is sad when people think Dawkins is actually educated when he beats up on people who just hold a faith, not active in the academic side of it.
SPR4GOD 8 months ago
@SPR4GOD "He has time for Australian pollies, but can't debate Dr. Craig." Completly wrong. He has enough time to debate creationist jumping jack William L. Craig, but seriously, why should he? For Craig it is great for his vita (also I think he is still licking his wounds from Hitchins), but for Dawkins? Think about this: You spend your whole life with studying, you gather more and more information, you get rewards after rewards, and than you should waste your time debating the village idiot?
Visualiser33 8 months ago
@Visualiser33 I don't know why you resort to calling Dr. Craig a creationist; I would suggest you familiarize yourself with his work. You may think he is licking his wounds from Hitchens but you are about the only one, when you look at the debate, Dr. Craig smacked Hitchens around like an undergraduate. Not only would it be unfair for Dr. Craig to debate Dr. Dawkins because of the education difference but Dr. Craig already smacked Dr. Dawkins around in Mexico last year.
SPR4GOD 8 months ago
@SPR4GOD Haha, yes, you are right, everything can be believed if you repeat it often enough.
"Not only would it be unfair for Dr. Craig to debate Dr. Dawkins because of the education difference" Good, I see you agree on this point: When you spend your life gathering knowledge like Dawkins, why should he waste that knowledge in a debate with the village idiot.
"I don't know why you resort to calling Dr. Craig a creationist" Oh, he doesn't belive in creation? Stupid me.
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@Visualiser33 I am actually quite amazed at how idiotic you are sounding. Dr. Craig has 2 PhD’s in a relative field while Dr. Dawkins has none. Please answer how a life studying Zoology actually holds any credit in Philosophy or Theology?
"Oh, he doesn't believe in creation? Stupid me." I am now trying to figure out if you swapped the term creation as in the sense "god created" with creation as in creationism. You may want to clear that up.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD "Please answer how a life studying Zoology actually holds any credit in Philosophy or Theology?" It doesn't. And why should it? Neither of them is testable or verifiable, while a life studying 'Zoology' enables you to have a look on the building blocks of life, something Craig isn't close to be able to. But it gets better: In all his debates Craig talks about Astronomy, geology, physics (my favorite Craig argument:Balance of the universe, hilarious)...where are HIS credits for that?
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@Visualiser33 The thing is Dr. Craig doesn't do the research, he only looks at the data that has been collected and works through it. While Dr. Dawkins may be talking about Theology, but it doesn't help him much when he gets the arguments wrong, writes a non-sequitar "centeral argument" and so on. Dr. Dawkins is out of his league when it comes to debating Dr. Craig.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD "Dr. Dawkins is out of his league when it comes to debating Dr. Craig." Right, I agree. The league of 'common sense' also known as the league of 'verifiable evidence' isn't really a league Craig is familiar with. Reading a book doesn't mean you have proven it.
"YEC doesn't have zero evidence, it has a different understanding of the evidence." Like flat earthers have a different understanding of the evidence? Wjhat exactly is a different understanding of e.g. radiometric dating? ;)
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@Visualiser33 I can't remember exactly, I gave up YEC years ago, but from what I remember they consider the dating method inaccurate because of discrepancies found in the dating.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD "they consider the dating method inaccurate because of discrepancies found in the dating." There is a usual error margin of around 1% in method, that is the reason why different radiometric dating methods are used to determine the age of something. If all of them show the same age, it is pretty stupid to say there are discrepancies. The discrepancies always come from their inability to understand the methods.
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@Visualiser33 They give you figures of error margins, but did you know they throw away results that don't agree with their assumptions? Obviously they will all show similar ages when you are looking for values in a specific range for whatever reason.
icr.org / rate
semitope 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@semitope "They give you figures of error margins, but did you know they throw away results that don't agree with their assumptions?" No, even to assume that shows you don't know what you are talking about. Even you can verify things like that on your own, you don't need a Ph.D., just some education.
BTW, could you please give me your source where I can verify they are throwing away results? I am looking forward.
Visualiser33 6 months ago
@SPR4GOD "I gave up YEC years ago" I appreciate your honesty. May I ask why you gave it up? Cause it is really unusual to find a believer who admits: I was wrong once.
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD "I am now trying to figure out if you swapped the term creation as in the sense "god created" with creation as in creationism. You may want to clear that up." Ok.
"Craig is a Molinist who embraces a reformed epistemology and is inclined towards progressive creationism"
You do now what progressive creationism means, right? Now here comes my question cause it looks you don't understand the term 'creation'
Where is the difference between 'God created' and 'Creationism'?
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@Visualiser33God created in the general term would mean all theists are creationist, even those who support the general theory of evolution. Creationism is what I would understand that horrible alternative to evolution as. If you are simple setting aside that theists think god created as irrational, then I am afraid your grounding is next to nothing on that compared to the leverage evolution has over Creationism.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD But here comes the good news.
Elected to the Senate at the 2004 federal election on two percent of the Victorian vote, he failed to gain re-election at the 2010 federal election. His term ended 30 June 2011.
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@Visualiser33 That’s nice to see democracy at work. However I live on the other side of Australia so it doesn't matter to me who took his place. What would be interesting is, was he not re-elected based on his scientific standings or for something else?
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD Dawkins is educated. The senator is a fucking muppet who should be forced to return to a state funded school and pay some fucking attention this time. A man who thinks the earth is younger than beer production should not be deciding is young men and women should go to war or how education money is spent.
Philodiogenes 7 months ago
@Philodiogenes Why is the senator a Muppet, just because he isn't an evolutionist? Your blind hate towards YEC is causing you to overlook the fact, believing in a young earth doesn't make you unable to decide how government money is spent and if we should go to war. I would rather trust a scientific illiterate like that senator than Dr. Dawkins who considers my parents child abusers and write awful books about things he knows nothing about.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD "Why is the senator a Muppet, just because he isn't an evolutionist?" He was even too embarressed to answer what he believes in! Why is that? I mean, shouldn't he proudly tell the people what he believes in? What can happen, don't forget, he has God in his corner, right?
"Your blind hate towards YEC... " Sorry, but we don't hate them. We pity them.
"´I would rather trust a scientific illiterate like that senator than Dr. Dawkins ..." Really? Good, here comes some Fielding for you.
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD "n February 2009, he told a Senate hearing that he believed divorce added to the impact of global warming because it resulted in people switching to a "resource-inefficient lifestyle"
"He has since voted against the Rudd Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme"
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@Visualiser33 I don't support the carbon tax; it is more unfair treatment for high earners.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD Fielding has compared same-sex marriages to incest. "A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right. A woman cannot marry their sister; it is not right. A bloke cannot marry a bloke because it is not right, and a female cannot marry a female because it is not right. I don't support this."
And here is my favorite:
Fielding suggested “some women may rort the scheme by deliberately falling pregnant and then having a late-term abortion”
Visualiser33 7 months ago
@Visualiser33 So, that is his opinion, as well as his opposition to the tax system. I could pull the quotes from Dr. Dawkins as well that shows his consonance for activity I do not support, but that in the end gets you no where. Like I said, I would rather that senator to Dr. Dawkins.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD No. he is a muppet because he has zero evidence to support his beliefs. You know he dodged the question about how old the earth is because he really does believe it is a young earth. He is believing this in country that has 4 billion year old rocks and aboriginals that moved there 45 000 years before the senator believes the planet was created. Your parents denied you your right to freedom of religion. They have set your mind to believe nonsense over evidence based science
Philodiogenes 7 months ago
@Philodiogenes This is actually what I have a gripe about, YEC doesn't have zero evidence, it has a different understanding of the evidence. So before you compare an evolution explanation compared to a YEC one, please understand that they do not think the world is old and everything happened in the time span given.
Actually they didn't deny me anything, I could of given up, in fact I did, but just being taught is not Child abuse.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD I'm sorry? It has a different understanding of the evidence? Really? A different understanding to the tune of a factor of 750000? An understanding that needs to change all of the laws of physics to match what we see today? This is not a different understanding this is making crap up on a grand scale. Did your parents teach you all religions equally? did they load one religion up with a more positive spin?
Philodiogenes 7 months ago
@Philodiogenes I don't know if you have read any books of theirs, but I will admit, the "Greatest hoax on earth" feels more like a scientific book than the "Greatest show on earth". I think you should read those two back to back and see if one is lacking, or if they are equal.
They taught Christianity, but they didn't force me to stay Christian.
SPR4GOD 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD In many ways that is the thing of ID books. they look scientific but they are mainly attempts to find minor molehills and turn them into mountains. Books like signature in the cell and darwins black box are able to raise doubts but they do not have a positive theory. It is simply life is really complicated therefore it is designed (and the designer is the christian god) or science doesn't know every thing therefore god did it (a massive leap).
Philodiogenes 7 months ago
@SPR4GOD "They taught Christianity, but they didn't force me to stay Christian" That is exactly the reason why it is so important for beliecers to teach their children religion from the earliest age. You have to install the religious programming before they can think for themselves, so the programming can sink easier into the mind, allowing it later to take control much easier.
Visualiser33 7 months ago
What a clown...
StayAWhileAndListen5 8 months ago
THe fact he is so resistant to answer the question speaks volumes. Shouldn't a person of faith feel confident in their position? I mean hell, he's got GOD in his corner apparently..
WelcometoVideoCity 8 months ago
No, some people dont believe that. Its a fact, the people who dont believe it simply dont get it.
gulbirk 8 months ago
Steven Fielding, what a tool. Dawkins didn't ask what he thought about Aussies making up their own minds. He asked what Fielding thought.
elpeetwa 9 months ago
What a squirming git. All the worst qualities from religious people and politicians.
Kia044 9 months ago 5
What a silthering bastard. He pulls that horse shit politicians do where they completely avoid the question, smile, and pretend its ok
Narzedie7001 9 months ago 2
Religitards make me laugh.
godnotfound 9 months ago 4
its funny how when ou ask a chirstian about there views publically in front of free thinkers, they seems ashmed and go around the question lol
live4pce 10 months ago 3
stephen fielding is also the dick that supported the big brother internet plan devised by stephen conroy.
halflifeproductionz 10 months ago
Oy, Aussie, how did your kangaroos get in your backyard from Mount Ararat?
StrikaAmaru 11 months ago
That Australian politician wasn't saying what he believed because he realised it is preposterous - perhaps like in the USA you can only get on in politics if you believe in god.
a120068020 11 months ago 6
@a120068020 He believes it alright - he's a member of a Christian fundamentalist front called "Family First." It was the first time he admitted to his ignorant belief. Our current Prime Minister, Jullia Gillard, is actually an athiest but our previous two talked up their Chistian beliefs. The last one, Kevin Rudd, would hold Sunday press conferences outside his church in order to appeal to the Christian audience.
thecomedyspot11 11 months ago 3
@thecomedyspot11 Do you even know what the evidence is for a 4.6 billion year old earth? Just because a scientist tells you it is a fact doesn't actually mean it is. The evidence for it is not solid. unfortunately these guys have managed to get the average clueless Joe to think anyone saying the earth is not that old is dumb. There is probably as much evidence for a young earth as there is for an old one.
semitope 6 months ago
@semitope Yes I do understand the evidence for a 4.6 billion years old earth and indeed a 13 or so billion years old universe. I am a chemistry teacher and therefore have a degree in science! You are communicating using silicon that was formed in a star that pre-dates our sun and electrons that were formed in the first milliseconds of the universe. I'd suggest you re-enrol in Year 7 science and start again, but of course you have been indoctrinated to reject scientific evidence.
thecomedyspot11 6 months ago 11
@thecomedyspot11 lol. You know how crazy you sound making those claims? I know its what scientists told you, but COME ON. THink about what you are saying for a second. Damn. Sure it all sounds wonderful, and you can never disprove it because its not actual science but at least realize that it is not actual science.
semitope 6 months ago
@semitope Crazy?!!! Mmmn let me see... you believe in supernatural stories that cannot be verified written or more likely spoken by unknown people. Scientific theories which stand cannot be disproven, that's how it works. Try looking up Carl Sagan or Brian Cox or indeed any prominent physicist or astronomer- obviously in your indoctrinated view they're crazy too. Either you didn't actually study science or your teachers were belting their heads against a brick wall.
thecomedyspot11 6 months ago
@thecomedyspot11 etc etc. its been said. I see faults in your belief, you see faults in mine. Still hold that evolutionists are either dumb, crazy, or misinformed but w/e
semitope 6 months ago
@semitope Wait. Are you trolling? You are using the exact argument Atheists make against religious folk against atheists. Here let me show you. "lol. you know how crazy you sound making those claims? I know it's what the Bible tells you, but COME ON. Think about what your saying for a second. Damn. Sure it all sounds wonderful, and you can never disprove it because it's not actual science.." Isn't this the argument that religious people generally ignore? The same argument you use against Atheism
filowfulwaffle 5 months ago
@semitope Wait. Are you trolling? You are using the exact argument Atheists make against religious folk against atheists. Here let me show you. "lol. you know how crazy you sound making those claims? I know it's what the Bible tells you, but COME ON. Think about what your saying for a second. Damn. Sure it all sounds wonderful, and you can never disprove it because it's not actual science.." Isn't this the argument that religious people generally ignore? The same argument you use against Atheism
filowfulwaffle 5 months ago
@filowfulwaffle What is your point? I am capable of realizing the argument goes both ways instead of the typical atheist who thinks he has some sort of fact in his head.
semitope 5 months ago
@semitope My point is what I said, and there is overwhelming evidence supporting the age of the universe and the earth. Read a book by just about any Astrophysicist (My favorite is Niel Degrasse Tyson) and they will provide the information you seek. The great thing about science is, It is the same for anyone anywhere. If you do the same calculations they do you receive the same outcome. Dr. Tyson has a great quote about how the very iron in our blood is the same as found in a meteorite...
filowfulwaffle 5 months ago
@semitope that is completely composed in Iron both sharing common origins from a star that exploded billions of years ago. There is empirical evidence backing those claims, you can easily find them if you actually wanted to enlighten yourself.
filowfulwaffle 5 months ago
@thecomedyspot11 ." I am a chemistry teacher and therefore have a degree in science! "
You are anonymous and considering your pseudonym and ignorant comments you are not a teachers arsehole you have been duped by a lie you are a joke !
2karriizman 4 months ago
@2karriizman The channel name is because it contains funny videos, such as Steve Fielding so earnestly thinking his imaginary friend popped the world into existence at 9am on October 24 4004 BC. Try looking at one of the more popular videos - Karen on Airport Security 1 - she's worked it all out! Go on, I know you want to! PS notice I didn't need to resort to insulting you personally but I kind of expect another tirade in return.
thecomedyspot11 4 months ago
@thecomedyspot11 So how do you think the world popped into existence ? Steve Fielding is politician so you wont get a great deal of logic out of him! As a science teacher you should have a good understanding as to the nature and properties of substances and how they react with each other .Have you figured out how inorganic substances came together to produce life ? Watt is the element of life ? Im a devout member of The Order Of The Perpetually Unenlightened (TOOTPU) so im stuffedifeyeno !!
2karriizman 4 months ago
@2karriizman Coming from you, Krazziman, this is really funny. Letting your name be known is irrelevant if you're STILL a moron. Fielding is a deliberate idiot, and anyone who HONESTLY thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is either insane or brainwashed.
allieron 4 months ago
@thecomedyspot11 ZING!
brendanraymond 1 month ago
@semitope "There is probably as much evidence for a young earth as there is for an old one." That's complete bullshit. All the evidence points toward a very old Earth. And yes, if you look at the evidence (which there is a ton of) it's abundantly clear that the Earth is very, very old. And to state otherwise is to be ignorant or just plain, well... Dumb.
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is probably as much evidence for a young earth as there is for an old one." That's complete bullshit. All the evidence points toward a very old Earth. And yes, if you look at the evidence (which there is a ton of) it's abundantly clear that the Earth is very, very old. And to state otherwise is to be ignorant or just plain, well... Dumb.
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@thecomedyspot11 Dating is done by assumptions. Dates that don't go with those assumptions are thrown out and assumptions guide the experiments from the outset. The earth went from 75,000 years old, to 20-40 million years old to 100 million years old to 4.5 billion years old. In the mix of all that was Darwins theory requiring a long time which they took into consideration. Besides the assumptions, radiometric dating has its own issues. Massive ranges and picking the values you like.
semitope 6 months ago
@semitope "In the mix of all that was Darwins theory requiring a long time which they took into consideration." More bullshit. I suggest you educate yourself on these topics before you comment on them.
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@pillsareyummy Because the age of the earth is so set in stone. In the past it kept growing and growing. physicists didn't think it was as old as the geologists did because of their evidence from the sun etc. But they eventually caved in like all the other scientific disciplines even though geologists were using circular reasoning and they all took evolution into account to arrive at the current age. How ppl find it so easy to think they have 4+ billion years figured is beyond me.
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope Geologists don't use 'circular reasoning', science is empirical ( all science). Also, to state that physicists caved, well, that's another stupid comment. The science that was/is used to discern the age of the Earth is based heavily on physics. So no, 'they' didn't cave. Also, considering the fact that Earth, when it was young, was bombarded with large asteroids (which there is clear evidence of), the Earth would have to be very old (to have the time to recuperate from the damage).
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@pillsareyummy "All science" lol. I guess thats why you think evolution is scientific as well. They reasoned that the earth must be at least a certain age because they believed that certain features took a long time to form. I did not say growth of the earth, I meant growth of the age of the earth. It kept going up over years till they figured they had enough time for no-one to question evolution. Not all the data points to an old earth, just all the data you know about.
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope I'm done. you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so these will be my last comments to you. ALL the data points to an old Earth, period. "It kept going up over years till they figured they had enough time for no-one to question evolution." That's a non sequitur.
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@semitope Evolution is a fact, the genetic data being the last 'nail in the coffin'. Also, you seem to be confusing Natural Selection with Evolution. Natural selection is the 'mechanism' behind Evolution. It isn't fully understood, has been revamped since Darwin, and may not account for all of Evolution. However, Evolution itself is a fact, and the concept predates Darwin, in fact, in can be traced back to the Greeks. Anyway, as I said, Evolution is a fact. Period.
pillsareyummy 4 months ago 2
@s... I studied some Cosmology, so yes, I do understand somethings about solar system formation (it's you that doesn't). The predictions that have been made, based on theoretical models (and no, 'theory', as the term is used in science, doesn't mean 'best guess') have been confirmed with our observations (using many different types of telescopes). We can see evidence of stars dying, being born, and the tell tale signs of solar system formation. Again, based on predictions that were confirmed.
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@pillsareyummy 1. learning what they say about it doesn't mean you or they know. Theories change so how can you even claim what is accepted now is true despite the fact that there is no way for them to know? You see light getting brighter and dimmer. What you assume is happening is up to you. You can't possibly think that all happens in real time for u to see.
2. They all make the same assumptions and have massive discrepancies at times or massive age ranges at other times.
semitope 4 months ago
@pillsareyummy anyone with common sense can see the problem with radiometric dating, especially when it is applied to billions of years. No-one in their right mind can claim that their assumptions used to achieve their results are accurate. It requires that nothing in their billions of years could have messed up the values. Within even thousands of years it would be quite easy for those results to be screwed up.
bit.ly / nTktwG
looks at a few of the assumptions.
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope As I said, science isn't based on faith, they believe what they do because of the EVIDENCE. Our modern world exists because of science (including your computer). Oh, and as far as your 'dating comment is concerned', well, there are many differnet kinds. And they ALL point to a very, very old Earth. You are don't know what you're talking about. I'm done. You have some learning to do...
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@pillsareyummy You don't understand solar system formation, formation of stars or formation of planets. You can think you do, but till you observe it actually happening or make one yourself, you are making wild assumptions and creating and interesting but ignorant story. They do not know.
semitope 4 months ago
@pillsareyummy of course nobody cares about the assumptions made to arrive at the old earth age since it works with every other thing they need to believe. Scientists are not gods.
semitope 4 months ago
@semitope Again, all the data, everything from Geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology, etc all point to a very old Earth. And as far as your comment regarding the 'growth of the Earth' is concerned, you do understand that cosmologists understand how planets form (or 'grow' to use you terminology) right? So to state that physicists 'caved', as I already stated, is ignorant (not to mention silly). Since we understand that solar system formation takes a very, very long time.
pillsareyummy 4 months ago
@thecomedyspot11 it is in no way a solid irrefutable science and there is evidence on both sides
icr.org / rate
To look down on someone claiming the opposing position when your own position is not absolute fact is silly
semitope 6 months ago
@a120068020 no you only get on in politics if you say you believe in god. what they actually believe maybe something else entirely. politics is all about appearance.... both public and behind the scenes, the 2 aren't necessarily the same
lookin4junk 6 months ago
Respond to this video... besides it's hard to win against dawkins, he gets the whole audience laughing at his opponent, who wants that humiliation?
lookin4junk 6 months ago
It strikes me with fear to think that such men (or women) wield power.
faithisfiction 11 months ago
I think you all need to take a chill pill and enjoy the Outnumbered videos I have posted - some religious humour there too!
thecomedyspot11 11 months ago
Oh my crap!!!! I would kill this aussie motherfucker!! He believes in god! Kill him!! Burn him!! C'mon dawkins punch a good one in his face, cuz he's Christian!!
Leofox94 11 months ago
@Leofox94 you seem so follow some crap other than christian
please use your brain ,Richard does want to kill people which is opposite of what is written in the book.
What he wants is that people must understand things and not believe in crap made up by some one
medevil13 11 months ago
@medevil13 I'm an atheist and I will advocate ANYONE who rejects religion. You really should use your brain if you can't see that there's a WAR between Christians and non-believers. I simply hate believers because they are another problem in this deluded world. It's not like I don't believe in god, it's like I HATE GOD because god doesn't exist and everyone believes in what does not exist! There should be no faith in the world... People must have faith in themselves, not some useless god.
Leofox94 11 months ago
@medevil13 Religious people simply CAN NOT understand things because they are zombified, they are DELUDED and BRAINWASHED! Can you simply go to a muslim and tell him that his god is fake, when he is ready to explode himself for god? I don't think so... Therefore we HAVE to kill Christians cuz that's the only way we can stop this delusion. And then we have to kill muslims too lol.
Leofox94 11 months ago
@medevil13 isnt that what i said without the violence
medevil13 11 months ago
Some day Steve Fielding will ask a woman to marry him and she'll respond with, "Look, I think some people would agree to marry you and others wouldn't and ultimately everyone can come to their own conclusions on the matter."
JQisAwesome 11 months ago 20
@JQisAwesome Nice................ top response!
5anthonys 11 months ago
@JQisAwesome What an outrageous comment. No woman would stick around long enough to answer.
ianchard 8 months ago
never never trust a politician, never
fsxmantra 11 months ago
Tragically, members of the Australian public have actually elected this knucklehead into the Federal senate.
AtheistEutopia 11 months ago
Who cares, these people aren't American and are insignificant to the world.
HardBodyNyC 11 months ago
@HardBodyNyC Most people in the world aren't American and many believe Americans are insignificant.
AtheistEutopia 11 months ago 2
@HardBodyNyC The world would be better off if it wasn't for America and it's policies.
2009OLP 11 months ago
@HardBodyNyC Let me guess, you flunked Geography at school and think Sarah Palin should be the next president?
thecomedyspot11 11 months ago