Nasa says, too, a Hiroshima sized bomb dropped in the upper atmosphere above heartland America will cause our entire electrical grid to fail So what was your "poster boy" scientists thinking knowing the danger of unshielded electronics... Our military: less than 5% of hardware used can survive an EMP attack or burst. Within 30 days of total grid failure, millions will start to die (no fuel pump, waterpump, rotted food, no water, riots, mayhem, anarchy..." That's science for you.
Chew on this anti-theists: science could very well have brought mankind into the brink of extinction. The issue is EMP, of which NASA heavily warns is the most likely doomsday scenario... scientists proved a hypothesis Enrico Fermi had that EMP would be the result of a nuclear weapon. We have known about this since 1953. Now, science fails: instead of controlling the frailty of items that use micro electronics, we are set up for a massive upheaval if and WHEN a gamma ray burst hits us AGAIN.
His points are valid enough, but he doesn't really address the question. I'd be very interested to hear what someone with his expertise has to say about potential technological influences on current and future human evolutionary developments.
@PutrydByle I personally believe that we have evolved to a point where manual genetic engineering will take over. I don't particularly like the idea of parents choosing what their children look like, but if it can be used to wipe out defects then I say that is a good thing.
We ARE evolving... through technology. We are becoming cyborgs. We are already dependent upon technology to survive. If you don't believe me, try sleeping naked in a cave, then go find some food to survive until tomorrow.
ALL OTHER mammals can do such things very easily... except we humans find it very difficult. We would have mass extinctions without cars and WalMart. In fact, money itself is a human invention.
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
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
i know how evolution works which is why i have a question for other belivers in evolution so why couldnt this evolutionary split have already happened with our speices and we are the animals as compared to the other thing that evolved from the same animal because along the chain of evolution there are sub spieces how do we know that the gods or what ever they are wernt the other split off and we are the ape to our humanoid or we are the humanoid to thiere whatvever they call them selves
The YouTube videos that Atheists don't want you to see- (Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)
As much as I love Dawkins' work and thought that explanation was fascinating, I'm not sure the question was answered. It would've been nice to hear what he thinks about medical technology affecting the evolutionary process!
@number1drummerman absolutely, the question wasn't answered at all. Though I think the answer is definitly yes. On we are letting bad genes pass over generations by saving young people with genetich disorders, and of course glasses...
Sir . Those genes that "didnt went into the belly of the sabertooth tiger didnt evolve to be "better" but they were less changed and degraded unlike those of other people.
Thus the design itself is making the decision of survival of the most operational designs, and leaving behind the mutated genes for poorer eyesight!
It gets tedious how people work so hard trying to present ridicules suppositions showing how evolution is a hoax? I'm not asking that healthy skepticism be suspended but you should at least open your eyes and allow yourself to see the real evidence. Ones who deny the obvious do not make evolution false but rather bring themselves ignorance.
@nachoseg You missed my point. I take issue with dogmatism only. Einstien was not dogmatic about his atheism (he certainly didnt believe in a personal God, but spoke of some kind of god-like entity that might be the arbiter of the laws that he and others sought to discover through science). Dawkings collects data to support the theory of evolution, then makes what I believe is the massively amateurish leap to claiming that this must mean there cannot be a god. His dataonly disproves creationism.
@purplepidge - Is he even talking about religion in this video? No! I would say it was a good deal more dogmatic and totally redundant to just seek out Dawkins videos and leave irrelevant comments just because you happen to believe in God and feel you need to force that opinion on everyone else.
@WillShakespeare2007 Am I even talking about religion in the post to you replied to? No! My original comment to this video was: did he even answer the question? To which I got a torrent of Dawking bummers like yourself having a go. That is why I tried to explain to the moronic fans of Dawkings that he just represents another form of dogmaticism. But you just assumed I was a creationist hell bent on bringing down the heathens. In fact my real love is science and I dont believe in God.
@purplepidge - I don't believe that for a minute. I can not be bothered reading back as people like you are only here to waste others time. But you said something about him making a leap from evidence of evolution to the fact there is no God. He does no such thing and I do not believe for an instance that someone that has read his work would suggest this other that to be a troll. Back under the bridge just don't take any children with you this time. Troll!
@WillShakespeare2007 Please explain to me how Dawkings comes to the conclusion that there is no God then. The selfish gene contained really great and interesting evidence for a pretty strong theory, evolution. Now anyone who understands science knows what a theory is. A theory is a posited idea based usually on deductive reasoning that falls apart as soon as direct evidence against it becomes apparent through experiment. It speaks nothing of whether god exists.
@purplepidge actually a scientific theory comes about after a hypothes is has been rigorously tested usually through experiment multiple times over many years by many different people. It passes the test of falsification consistently. It is so much more than a 'posited idea'. What you are describing is a hypothesis, not a theory. I call in to question your self-proclaimed understanding and love of science if you don't know what a constitutes scientific theory.
@uknowispeaksense Ok maybe I should have put a theory is based on an idea, then tested. Either way its semantics and you have not added to the debate. Im not sure what you mean by test of falsification, but if something is falsified, it is shown to be false. If a theory is shown to be false, then it should be rejected. I never claimed to understand science and as for love, you can love (which was self proclaimed) something an not fully understand it or make mistakes about it.
@purplepidge it is not semantics. the fundamentals of the scientific method are important as is an understanding of them. i may not have 'added to the debate'. i may even be on your side, but your argument is weakened if you don't understand what you are talking about.
@uknowispeaksense My argument is weakened by making the mistake, yes. I looked up the difference between the two and you are correct, there is more difference between the two than I had thought. Relevant to this perhaps a hypothesis would be "animals that survive long enough to procreate, will pass on their characteristics to their offspring," but the theory would include mutation etc.
@uknowispeaksense Nevertheless, one of the things a theory has to do is make predictions. The theory of evolution is not capable of making the prediction "God doesnt exist." So to use this theory to make this prediction, is bad science. Do you agree?
@purplepidge mate, you still don't get it. a scientific theory does not make predictions. a scientific theory is the result of predictions (hypotheses) that have been thoroughly tested and time and time again fail to be falsified. It's as good as fact, but by convention, scientists are reluctant to use the word 'fact' because leaving things open to falsifiability is the cornerstone of the scientific method. The original hypotheses surrounding evolution never set out to disprove god but to cont..
@purplepidge cont... explain why things appeared to have common descent. The fact that the theory of evolution coupled with other theories like continental drift/plate tectonics and island biogeography etc and their accumulated evidence is so strong it makes the idea of god creating everything as it is and noah's ark etc appear far-fetched at best. Now you might want to put the existence of god into the scientific arena but the onus will be on you providing testable evidence 4 his/her existence
@purplepidge He didn't answer; or if he did, it was truncated when they made the video. But the answer to the question is obvious, of course we're using technology (and science in general) to influence natural selection, and therefore evolution. Medicine, for instance, is a gigantic slap in the face of natural selection. You used to die of smallpox, now you get a vaccine when you're an infant and you never get it in the first place.
Dawkins makes a good point about how bad genes manifest themselves in the elderly, but he didn't address the actual question, he really only addressed what the kid suggested about his eyesight. The kid asked: are we stunting our own evolution with technology? It's a valid question. We have developed ways to work around the natural selective forces that improve us in relation to our environment, and yes, even at the level of young people who haven't yet reproduced (vaccines, for example).
Do you think some people just kind of instinctively know they shouldn't reproduce? I've got several genetic defects and just really never had a desire to reproduce.
@ DCfreak87 please read the writings of Hippocrates regarding the source of disease. All (or most) medical science is based on his work... written BEFORE the bible so I think it's longevity speaks to it's merit. people have not believed that disease is caused by sin, or removed by prayer for THOUSANDS of years. To say your attitudes are archaic is an understatement.
I heard nothing here that isn't just plain common sense! Says alot for the young person asking the question, and even more for the old cunt that gave such a general answer, but in such a way as to imply he knows something nobody else does. The arrogance of dorky is unbelievably sickening!
3. Blasphemies: if anybody will do it, is puniched very soon and anybody is free to try it, even right now! This one can come immediatly or later and it doesn't mean death or going to hospital (but can also happen).
4. In Bible, we find two (2) candidates to be called GOD, but atheists are arguing just with ONE,not with other pretendent.
1. In Bible we find a lot of prophecies which happened and are happening, examples: vatican, midle east, united states, new order etc.
2. If anybody will follow what God asks (ex: praying), everybody will have whatever they want (ask). Note:Praying in a right form,following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible (keeping the 10 commandments - including keeping the Saturday as the 7th day etc.).
ok all these atheists are idiots! darwins evolution was a fuckkin theory!!! a theory doesnt mean its true so evolution is still not proven we were never primates if we were we would be like scratching our asses and throwing shit like south park if evolution was real then god would tell us what stupid atheists fags
@k8k8k8er uh since when? it wasnt only the church that thought that the world was flat most of te people at the time believed that including atheists but that was years i mean like centuries ago that was different
@k8k8k8er well you didnt realise that in the bible, the ark was at sea for 40 days and 40 nights, killing any human left except for noah and his family. after the storm he let all the animals free because the water dried up and the animals were probably mating during the time and they all left God can do whatever he wants but dont think that if you pray for a new xbox or car it will happen. pray for miracles or healing keep doing it he should answer but the main key of it to work is have faith
@k8k8k8er That's a good point... if all of the animals came off of Noah's Ark just as they are now... where are the bones of the kangaroos that died on their mass pilgrimage to Australia? Shouldn't we see a distinct bone trail of kangaroos from Australia all the way back to Mt. Ararat?
@k8k8k8er Careful - I get your point but marsupials can also be found in South America and (I think) at least one species in South East Asia. However, of course, there are no marsupial fossils in North America which date to before the collision of North and South American continents, none in Antarctica, and none in Africa or Europe. So your point still stands, it's just a bit more complicated than that! :-)
@Gazzar pls do elaberate. there r elephants in india & africa & mamoths were in north pole. never said animals didnt migrate. in fact ill give u a perfect example, HUMANS.
however to claim that a polar bear walked from north pole to mideast & kangaro came from australia & panda came from east asian & millions of other species & then they all went back with no fossil evidence is not scientific.
so if its ok for a "creationist" to ask for proof , i beleive its ok for me to ask for proof too
@k8k8k8er My only point was that the migratory patterns of pre-historic animals, in this case marsupials, was a little more complex. I am in full agreement with you that no convincing evidence for creationism has ever been presented.
In any case, the distribution of marsupials is still a good example to bring up but you just need to make sure the information is accurate. That you can find marsupials in SA and Australia is proof both of plate tectonics and evolution.
@Gazzar yes thats correct, but theres a PATTERN of migration, in case of other animals just as the polar bear, kangaro....there no pattern or indication of migration.
theres a difference between knowing theres the same(or almost) same spicies in 2 different areas, than to claim there used to be a species in an area, but i have absolutely no evidence from present or the past to support it.
i hope u can see the difference, i know u agree with me but i want u to see that there also a difference.
@Patience1138 sorry i have no idea what u r refering to?
if u r refering to the supposet migration of kangaros from mideast to austrailia or the polar bear from mideast to north pole. then i have to say that is just rediculous, a there is no evidence of their existance in mideast or their migration from there. i hope this answer ur question. just imagining a polar bear in mideast is ridiculous enough. lol
@Patience1138 this is from the assumpsion that if according to the bible, torah or quaran the world was covered completely by water and only noah was able to gather EVERY animal onto his boat. and if he landed somewhere in mideast, then there should be an evidence of ALL animals living or migrating from mideast to their various location that they occupy today. and theres aboslutely no evidence of a polar bear or kangaro being in mideast or the route from mideast to north pole or australia.
@k8k8k8er Okay, I remember this now. Wow, it HAS been a while! As I have yet to do my own research on this particular scenario, I choose to refrain from answering at this time. I hope that you understand.
@johnedwards1968 theres lots of proof that He exists. do you believe miracles? lots of people have the power to heal. ive known people who were diagnosed with cancer or diabetes. theyve prayed and even had priests heal them properly with faith, prayers and more cancer doesnt just naturally go awayit goes away by miracles you just gotta believe and have faith all the time
Better truth would be that our eye sight is purely triggered by emotions within us, which are passed on from generation to generation-unresolved. Maybe look into self-judgment ?
Humans have the capacity of reason and logic and we can use it to advance ourselfs regardless of evolution. Although there is some truth to social darwinism.
I just realized after watching this that having longer reproductive periods also prolongs the period that genes have to be selected against. For this reason, quality of life may be doubly suited to the health of the species, besides that of the individual.
The idea of a working cell...that the processes of a krebs cycle, homeostasis, and self-replication coming into being at the same time in one organism reached the intellectual breaking point for me years ago. I find it much more sane to accept a designer. I love the study of form and function. How things work. Being a creationist does not hinder me from studying life and its function.
@Deets1989 I think he answered the question indirectly. Think: back then, if you had some good genes, but had bad eyesight, you were dead and those good genes didn't matter. So, the answer to the question is no.
Even if a Jesus did exist it isn't proof of a god or an afterlife existing even if you arbitrarily assumed all of the miracles claimed for Jesus even happened which is a stretch to begin with. There are similar reports of other mundane people both in history and with actual contemporary evidence which I doubt you actually believe despite having better evidence of the events.
Look I do think the life of Christ is a terribly interesting subject
because if he did turn water into wine and all that stuff then we should say hey are we interested? But most are not interested because the idea of God and Jesus Christ makes them feel unimportant, or small, or silly, or foolish, or just plain dumb and all this sort of stuff creates a bias of not being interested in the first place.
1) I simply find the evidence for the claims unconvincing
2) If conjurers perform similar acts as they have does that automatically mean they are god?
3) Do you believe any of the other claims of other gods or other mythical claims in historical or non historical texts or even claims made by people we can interview today in person?
5) If I claimed that I flapped my arms and flew around my house would me saying so or others claiming I did be sufficient or would you require more evidence than that, or are you "not interested" because it would "make you feel unimportant, small, silly, foolish or plain dumb". =P
So you believe god sacrificed himself to himself for a punishment he designed for a law he knew that we would break because that's the way he designed us...if such a god does exist he's very sadistic. =P
6) I'm always interested, but I ask questions to see why you actually believe such a claim to begin with since I actually care about what's most likely true.
@garith21 Well I don't think you are interested but to be fair I'm not interested in atheism. But if we were to have a real heart to heart I think you would be confiding in me that if you had a choice you would prefer for God to not exist.I don't need the obviousness of God to be proved to me but I see that you do or you say that you do. But do you really. The idea of the existence of God is messing so much with your sence of importance that you can't buy into it.
2) Of course I want proof, proof is the validation for a belief of the existence of something claimed to exist external of the subjective. You know kinda like how people use to use Zeus to explain lightning bolts =P
3) Or it naturally formed
4) Ooh a rhyme I must be convinced, oh wait, that's still not evidence.
@paulwilfridhunt i like how you leave as soon as garith points out something that makes god sound stupid, and you cant explain. :P typical religious person.
@Neylonx The guy chose to not respond to what I said and instead starts raving on about zeus and knocks my iddy biddy rhyme. He yells and screams that he wants evidence but he does'nt. I know that and he knows that. In his deperation for God to not exist he is a closed book with a made up mind.Guys like this were in their element at the local lynching parties. Guity or not they wanted him to be guilty.
1) Point being that the assertion that a god exists doesn't say which god nor does the ignorance of how a phenomenon happens suddenly equates to belief in a supernatural being such as Zeus.
2) Your rhyme wasn't evidence so it wasn't convincing.
3) I do want evidence, but pointing to nature and saying it exists is merely evidence nature exists.
4) The guilty/not guilty bit is you actually saying guilty and me saying not guilty because I'm unconvinced.
@garith21 I supose quite some time ago I realised the futility of talking to people such as yourself, no disrespect intended, but nevertheless in a brainless sort of way I somehow think that this one will be different to all the rest. I refer to those in your catagory as the passionate disbelievers. The way you dismiss the amazing design found in nature as not being enough worthy enough to go into the considering pot as a possibility for the existence of God is too lynchman like for me.
@paulwilfridhunt I used to think "design" did imply a god. But of course, if gods are the explanation for such things, then we haven't explained anything at all, we've simply replaced the question with a much much bigger one: What is the explanation for the gods?
So I find the design argument for gods to be philosophically unconvincing. And that's before we even touch on the overwhelmingly convincing science.
Also, Dawkins explained how evolution is congruent with glasses. How is design?
@angelwhite I invite you talk about this subject of design and nothing else, And if we an do that, then, we will have indeed thrashed one topic, Instead of the shotgun approach, where we try covering too many bases. I am not here to win an arguement or a debate. I am here to hopefully get us all thinking more deeply .
1) Yet there's nothing passionate in my disbelief, I merely don't believe, vs you who passionately believes but won't state why, just like the murder example you have a conclusion and assert it's believable, I point out why it isn't and you still want to say guilty.
2) Any argument from design would result in stating that the creator needs a designer since the creator is far more complex than what is claimed that he created.
@garith21 I am happy to make you the same offer as angelwhite, And that is to discuss only one subject at a time beginning with design.After we have finished with this we can move onto another topic.On the assumption that you wanna play ball I'll start it off. But lets reason together as if our lives depended upon it. No winners or loosers. Just a sharing of each others views. Nothing heated.
On my dressing table in the bedroom I have a pine cone and the reason why I have it there is that I find that I contantly marvel at its amazing design. In the bathroom I have three absolutely exquisite sea shell that are as marvellous in their design as they are beautiful. As complex as they are they are nothing compared to the design of the whale or of course ourselves.
@garith21 I notice that you have chosen to state that its silly to say that God must have designed the design. I don't think you would say that if you were to take a neutral position like that of a just and fair judge. Its more appropriate to firstly say " is it plausible" and we have to say this this because we are not in a position to say its impossible.
All of that text and you never answered the simple question of how you infer design in any meaningful way.
If your response is complexity then the designer which is far more complex than the universe must also be designed.
When I also say meaningful it must also be something which cannot be applied to something that isn't designed, but when you say everything is designed then that's impossible is it not?
@garith21 Look I haven't been to university and I have no degrees. If you wanna talk to a professor or some educated person then you will have to talk to another guy. I don't really understand what you want because I think I have already answered it. There is obviously design in nature. Do we have to make it more complicated than that.The question is who designed it. Or what should we call whatever it was that designed it. Was it Oh Be One Can No Be.
It's a simple question, how do you discern design in a meaningful way, asserting "it's obvious" is as meaningless as saying the rock in my back yard is designed and is equal to a watch in design.
@garith21 In my book design is design is design. You seem to be implying that the obvious design in nature that happens to be more sophisticated than what man can create is not actually design. Us country boys don't and can't get that.
That's not listing the criteria by which you determine design, at the moment you're basically saying that finding a rock on a beach is the same as finding a watch on the beach and declaring both are equal in the realm of being designed.
Basically I'm asking you how you determine whether something is or isn't designed and you're responding "designed is designed". =P
@garith21 No no no I am not saying that and you know I'm not. I'm not talking about rocks on the beach, I'm talking about whales and tigers that are truly amazing.You are being cute.You have to deny the obviousness of the design in nature because you have decided you don't want God but His handiwork you can't get rid of so you say hey its not design. Is it wise to fight against god huh.
@garith21 I think we have been around this mulberry bush a few times already have'nt we.
People like me don't understand people like you that say there there can be design without a designer. But you say so because you want it to be so, but it does'nt make it so and it never will.I am old you are young. if you change your mind then put flowers on my grave.
Lol, you can't even define what you mean by design in the first place, being old doesn't make you immune to irrational beliefs any more than it made it so newton didn't believe in alchemy, which he did.
@garith21 Well this time we have really done our dash.
Am I becoming boring because I can tell you that you certainly are.
If there is a time for everything then there is a time to say good bye.
I have to spend some time talking to my wife.
I think we have covered all the bases haven't we. In this case i will not say that parting is such sweet sorrow but I am sure I will miss you. Don't forget the flowers if you change your mind.
Frankly you haven't covered much of anything, you preached, I asked you basic questions and pointed out other things you should believe if you believe based on certain criteria and you ignore it and say "I must believe in my fantasy I must".
For someone bragging about their age you haven't even reached a teenager's range of reasoning.
@garith21 Why don't you admit it. You are missing me already.
If I was you I would miss me too. I am the only thinker you know.
But you are now starting to look a bit pathetic which I am sorry to say is a look I wasn't expecting to come from you and if you could have just kept your nerve you wouldn't have had to resort to telling me that I have the reasoning of a teenager. What does that then make you because its entirely obvious that you are not in my league.
Right, yet you still failed to respond to anything that was addressed nor supplied any evidence for your claims.
I care little for your mindless preaching as much as I care about why you believe what you believe. As far as stating that you have a reasoning of a teenage is only in response to the issue that you continually use evasive techniques rather than actually addressing the arguments or answering basic questions.
@garith21 You obviously want to have the last say and hey I'm happy about that. I have said all I want to say. My records are there. Let them speak for me. All your disrespectful comments cannot and will not erase what I have said.If you cannot get what I have said then there is always the possibility that some bystander might who is on the sidelines wearing the garb of common sense. This is my last goodbye.
Then they can you say "lets talk about design" followed by me asking you how you determine design, to which you basically say "I don't know" and preach, then I respond to your preaching with questions, then you assert "I answered your questions and have said all I want to say" and cry about me calling you an intellectual child because you use such tactics.
If you're happy with that representation, by all means be happy.
After several posts I am tempted to say that you are only a troll, if you would please actually address anything that's been stated without constantly preaching to prove me wrong, if you continue to refuse as you have been constantly doing I will continue to address you as a teenager or a mindless preacher rather than anyone of intellect.
@garith21 I am going to have to get some shut eye. Its nearly midnight in my neck of the woods.Bumpkinitis is starting to set in with those oh be one can no be remarks. Sorry about that.I came from a place called Hicksville although I didn't know it at the time because they came up with a name change before I got there. But it still had that odd look to it and now that I know the aweful truth I am not one bit surprised. Believe me it gives a completely new meaning to the word hick. .
The simple fact that you want to apply it to nature which we do know actually exists vs something that we don't know exists so you can justify your preconceived beliefs.
Even if I arbitrarily assumed a god exists based on the argument from design silly as it is it doesn't mean it's your god or any god conceived of already, it could be multiple gods or any number of other explanations. =P
@garith21 Obviously to you it does not seem plausible hence your expresssion of silly, But I think for the sake of getting on well with one another, we should, with your permission, change the word silly to "this seems implausible". I now ask us to detail the reasons why this seems implausible and lets be honest about it.If we are polite and courteous we will have fun and enjoy our time.
As an example of the court analogy, you want to assert that a particular person is guilty because you found a corpse. You have no finger prints or DNA of a particular person nor do you have evidence it was an actual homicide or the actual person committing the homicide and you want to yell guilty, guilty guilty. I state "I'm not convinced of the evidence" so I have to vote not guilty till you provide ample evidence.
no, he's just pointing out that u believe in something as certainly as the ancient greeks did, for similar reasons; you dont understand how something happens, so you invent your own way
the only point you have made really, when you condense all your paragraphs, is that you cant understand how something as complex as the universe could arise without a designer. just because something seems unlikely to begin with, doesnt make it not true. especially as its actually quite logical
@Neylonx I believe in God and Jesus Christ because I am not a rebel fighting God on the pretext that He ain't there. Thats what you are doing but you don't know that you are doing it because for you its on a sub concious level. Therefore its my word against yours. You hope you are right whereas I know I am right.
1) Technically you're a rebel fighting against every other god conceived by man no matter which religion you pick, we're just going one god more, or 3 or a dozen if you include the many demigods.
2) It's you asserting that a god exists, and not only does a god exist but your particular god exists while many of us are going, "I don't believe your claim show me more evidence".
@garith21 Part of my gig is to warn people such as yourself and I do so that your blood won't be on my hands.Your pathway leads to hell. You will not be able to use the excuse that you didn't know any better.Because on that great day of judgement you will not plead ignorance as you will see that you are quite clearly pointing the finger at God and saying no I will not obey you.
@paulwilfridhunt You might as well be threatening us with Zeus. Do you not get that threatening atheists with something we don't believe exists is foolish? Stop pretending to be on a mission of God, what I believe or don't believe is not your concern.. I'd rather spend an eternity in hell than worship a God that permits such horrible things and created us sick then commanded us to be well. Save your threats, they're useless here.
@CrimsonDeathBed Well I am not threatening you but I have warned you. By the way hell is not eternal happening. How can you perish in hell forever. The pain of perishing in hell will not compare to the dissapointment of knowing that you have dipping out on everlasting life. Hence the terms weeping and gnashing of teeth is used by God to express your remorce. No threat just a warning.
I think the point was that warning people of something for which there is no evidence for is the same as saying "I'm warning you of the boogie man or that you won't get a present on christmas from santa if you don't listen to me". You would think either is a silly warning, from the perspective of people that don't believe your particular myth this is exactly what you are doing.
@garith21 Well Jesus Christ warned people of hell and with all due respect to you I am going to believe him 100 times out of 100. I like his credentials yeah. Walks on water. Turns water into wine. Feeds 5000 with a few loaves and fishes. Raises the dead. Heals the sick. Was a good guy and a great teacher.He predicts that he will rise from the dead in 3 days and thats just what happens.
1) Ironically there's no evidence he did any of that and there's other contemporary accounts of similar feats for other people in history but do you believe them? No
2) We can find videos on youtube of magicians performing similar feats but do you think they're illusion or they actually did those feats?
3) There are actually no contemporary first hand accounts of anything in the life of Jesus, but even if there were is does it suddenly mean that any miracle happened by default even if they're written? We have many accounts from otherwise historically accurate documents that are actually contemporary of other gods, miracles attributed to those gods and other such feats but does it mean they automatically happened?
4) We can interview people right now that claim to have been abducted by aliens, we can talk with people right now that believe a certain person is the messiah because they have performed feats that they cannot explain, do you believe them as well with the same uncritical mind?
Sorry but you may as well threaten me with any other made up god and you'd get the exact same response, are you going to plead ignorance to their gods and your path leads to other religion's hells as well your argument isn't sound since you're threatening me with several things I don't believe to exist.
@Neylonx You know you just knock my socks off with the stuff you say.
Lets be clear. I say that its impossible for amazing incredible stupendous awe inspiring design to have come into being without a designer. Impossible. Get it .
There you are trying to trick yourself that it all happened by itself and by accident.
The bible says that you will not be excused for pulling the wool over your eyes like this. You chose to fight God and guess who wins huh.
@garith21 I don't think you want proof. As a matter of fact I think that is the last thing you want. The amazingness of design in nature far superceeds any design that man could make but you choose to believe that it was made by itself or by no one.
Am I allowed to say thats as crazy as crazy as crazy can be. Look I might win the war but you are still going to be sore. So what's the point of fighting.
2) Evolution is the observation that populations change over time, the theory of evolution is how populations change over time via successful reproduction with random mutations selected by natural selection and varying in rates from various other natural factors.
3) Watches or watch parts can't successfully reproduce to become a watch.
1) Accepting evolution has nothing to do with whether a god does or doesn't exist
2) What's your evidence that a god does exist, much less that he created reality or the separate claim of an afterlife which also doesn't depend on a god existing or not existing.
3) I'm just telling you what evolution is vs what you think it is which are two entirelly different things.
It could even be that surviving too well past reproductive years can cause one to become a burden on one's offspring. Diminishing vision seems to be the perfect channel for natural selection to cull the old, at least in pre-toolmaking times. It wouldn't cause much debilitation until it causes death by predation. I could be wrong about this, but I thought I'd sure my thoughts.
Nasa says, too, a Hiroshima sized bomb dropped in the upper atmosphere above heartland America will cause our entire electrical grid to fail So what was your "poster boy" scientists thinking knowing the danger of unshielded electronics... Our military: less than 5% of hardware used can survive an EMP attack or burst. Within 30 days of total grid failure, millions will start to die (no fuel pump, waterpump, rotted food, no water, riots, mayhem, anarchy..." That's science for you.
billroscoe76 2 months ago
Chew on this anti-theists: science could very well have brought mankind into the brink of extinction. The issue is EMP, of which NASA heavily warns is the most likely doomsday scenario... scientists proved a hypothesis Enrico Fermi had that EMP would be the result of a nuclear weapon. We have known about this since 1953. Now, science fails: instead of controlling the frailty of items that use micro electronics, we are set up for a massive upheaval if and WHEN a gamma ray burst hits us AGAIN.
billroscoe76 2 months ago
His points are valid enough, but he doesn't really address the question. I'd be very interested to hear what someone with his expertise has to say about potential technological influences on current and future human evolutionary developments.
PutrydByle 3 months ago 5
@PutrydByle I personally believe that we have evolved to a point where manual genetic engineering will take over. I don't particularly like the idea of parents choosing what their children look like, but if it can be used to wipe out defects then I say that is a good thing.
ec123456789able 2 months ago
We ARE evolving... through technology. We are becoming cyborgs. We are already dependent upon technology to survive. If you don't believe me, try sleeping naked in a cave, then go find some food to survive until tomorrow.
ALL OTHER mammals can do such things very easily... except we humans find it very difficult. We would have mass extinctions without cars and WalMart. In fact, money itself is a human invention.
pburto 3 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
Is that a blue-footed boobie on his tie?
wojovox 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
technology might ultimately fix bad genes & become part of evolution in a way
unamaxify 7 months ago
i know how evolution works which is why i have a question for other belivers in evolution so why couldnt this evolutionary split have already happened with our speices and we are the animals as compared to the other thing that evolved from the same animal because along the chain of evolution there are sub spieces how do we know that the gods or what ever they are wernt the other split off and we are the ape to our humanoid or we are the humanoid to thiere whatvever they call them selves
awsomemotherfucker 7 months ago
I loved it when he said he was already 68 - and the camera pans back and he is one of the youngest ones in the room!
mvanroy 8 months ago
@purplepidge
Hence, if a theory sticks around for as long as, say, evolution has - it's definitely on to something.
taicleis 8 months ago
@rockstoper
Your arrogance is apparent through only a YouTube comment.
taicleis 8 months ago
i can see that arrogance on him eyes and face .
he is know god but cannot accepted for personal reasons .
rockstoper 8 months ago
Could he be the doctor?
nirualos 9 months ago
The YouTube videos that Atheists don't want you to see- (Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)
Mossinator5000Deluxe 9 months ago
As much as I love Dawkins' work and thought that explanation was fascinating, I'm not sure the question was answered. It would've been nice to hear what he thinks about medical technology affecting the evolutionary process!
number1drummerman 9 months ago
@number1drummerman absolutely, the question wasn't answered at all. Though I think the answer is definitly yes. On we are letting bad genes pass over generations by saving young people with genetich disorders, and of course glasses...
atheist1904 9 months ago
I love how he manages to combine clarity and humour around this subject.
jankendorf 9 months ago
68?? damn i thought he was 55
nickloks 9 months ago
Sir . Those genes that "didnt went into the belly of the sabertooth tiger didnt evolve to be "better" but they were less changed and degraded unlike those of other people.
Thus the design itself is making the decision of survival of the most operational designs, and leaving behind the mutated genes for poorer eyesight!
soundofpurpose 11 months ago
Show me a rabbit fossil from the Jurassic period.
cxflyer 11 months ago
The answer is, Yes
waiotahi52 11 months ago
It gets tedious how people work so hard trying to present ridicules suppositions showing how evolution is a hoax? I'm not asking that healthy skepticism be suspended but you should at least open your eyes and allow yourself to see the real evidence. Ones who deny the obvious do not make evolution false but rather bring themselves ignorance.
b991228 11 months ago 9
The true intellectual giants would turn in their graves at dawkins amateurish dogmatism.
purplepidge 1 year ago
@purplepidge puff, Sagan, Feynman, Dirac, Einstein, all athiest, with the same kind of ideology.
nachoseg 10 months ago
@nachoseg You missed my point. I take issue with dogmatism only. Einstien was not dogmatic about his atheism (he certainly didnt believe in a personal God, but spoke of some kind of god-like entity that might be the arbiter of the laws that he and others sought to discover through science). Dawkings collects data to support the theory of evolution, then makes what I believe is the massively amateurish leap to claiming that this must mean there cannot be a god. His dataonly disproves creationism.
purplepidge 10 months ago
@purplepidge Don't bother, you're an idiot.
Arkantos117 9 months ago
@purplepidge - Is he even talking about religion in this video? No! I would say it was a good deal more dogmatic and totally redundant to just seek out Dawkins videos and leave irrelevant comments just because you happen to believe in God and feel you need to force that opinion on everyone else.
WillShakespeare2007 9 months ago
Comment removed
purplepidge 9 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007 Am I even talking about religion in the post to you replied to? No! My original comment to this video was: did he even answer the question? To which I got a torrent of Dawking bummers like yourself having a go. That is why I tried to explain to the moronic fans of Dawkings that he just represents another form of dogmaticism. But you just assumed I was a creationist hell bent on bringing down the heathens. In fact my real love is science and I dont believe in God.
purplepidge 9 months ago
@purplepidge - I don't believe that for a minute. I can not be bothered reading back as people like you are only here to waste others time. But you said something about him making a leap from evidence of evolution to the fact there is no God. He does no such thing and I do not believe for an instance that someone that has read his work would suggest this other that to be a troll. Back under the bridge just don't take any children with you this time. Troll!
WillShakespeare2007 9 months ago
@WillShakespeare2007 Please explain to me how Dawkings comes to the conclusion that there is no God then. The selfish gene contained really great and interesting evidence for a pretty strong theory, evolution. Now anyone who understands science knows what a theory is. A theory is a posited idea based usually on deductive reasoning that falls apart as soon as direct evidence against it becomes apparent through experiment. It speaks nothing of whether god exists.
purplepidge 9 months ago
@purplepidge actually a scientific theory comes about after a hypothes is has been rigorously tested usually through experiment multiple times over many years by many different people. It passes the test of falsification consistently. It is so much more than a 'posited idea'. What you are describing is a hypothesis, not a theory. I call in to question your self-proclaimed understanding and love of science if you don't know what a constitutes scientific theory.
uknowispeaksense 7 months ago
@uknowispeaksense Ok maybe I should have put a theory is based on an idea, then tested. Either way its semantics and you have not added to the debate. Im not sure what you mean by test of falsification, but if something is falsified, it is shown to be false. If a theory is shown to be false, then it should be rejected. I never claimed to understand science and as for love, you can love (which was self proclaimed) something an not fully understand it or make mistakes about it.
purplepidge 7 months ago
@purplepidge it is not semantics. the fundamentals of the scientific method are important as is an understanding of them. i may not have 'added to the debate'. i may even be on your side, but your argument is weakened if you don't understand what you are talking about.
uknowispeaksense 7 months ago
@uknowispeaksense My argument is weakened by making the mistake, yes. I looked up the difference between the two and you are correct, there is more difference between the two than I had thought. Relevant to this perhaps a hypothesis would be "animals that survive long enough to procreate, will pass on their characteristics to their offspring," but the theory would include mutation etc.
purplepidge 7 months ago
@uknowispeaksense Nevertheless, one of the things a theory has to do is make predictions. The theory of evolution is not capable of making the prediction "God doesnt exist." So to use this theory to make this prediction, is bad science. Do you agree?
purplepidge 7 months ago
@purplepidge mate, you still don't get it. a scientific theory does not make predictions. a scientific theory is the result of predictions (hypotheses) that have been thoroughly tested and time and time again fail to be falsified. It's as good as fact, but by convention, scientists are reluctant to use the word 'fact' because leaving things open to falsifiability is the cornerstone of the scientific method. The original hypotheses surrounding evolution never set out to disprove god but to cont..
uknowispeaksense 7 months ago
@purplepidge cont... explain why things appeared to have common descent. The fact that the theory of evolution coupled with other theories like continental drift/plate tectonics and island biogeography etc and their accumulated evidence is so strong it makes the idea of god creating everything as it is and noah's ark etc appear far-fetched at best. Now you might want to put the existence of god into the scientific arena but the onus will be on you providing testable evidence 4 his/her existence
uknowispeaksense 7 months ago
Did he actually answer the question?
purplepidge 1 year ago 2
@purplepidge He didn't answer; or if he did, it was truncated when they made the video. But the answer to the question is obvious, of course we're using technology (and science in general) to influence natural selection, and therefore evolution. Medicine, for instance, is a gigantic slap in the face of natural selection. You used to die of smallpox, now you get a vaccine when you're an infant and you never get it in the first place.
StrikaAmaru 1 year ago 2
Dawkins makes a good point about how bad genes manifest themselves in the elderly, but he didn't address the actual question, he really only addressed what the kid suggested about his eyesight. The kid asked: are we stunting our own evolution with technology? It's a valid question. We have developed ways to work around the natural selective forces that improve us in relation to our environment, and yes, even at the level of young people who haven't yet reproduced (vaccines, for example).
instereovideos 1 year ago
RİCHARD İS A KİNG OF LOSERS.
MONKEY FUKER :))))
rockstoper 1 year ago
why did they get yodas grand parents to be the audience here ?
british123able 1 year ago
@british123able lol oh come on
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
Woah, he's 68?
MikeEmery9 1 year ago 54
@MikeEmery9 no hes 900 years old. seriously. thats how he is so intelligent because he has read google 2000 times.
british123able 1 year ago
@british123able Right, which of course he started doing 900 years ago.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@MikeEmery9 69 now!
archiemedes42 1 year ago
@MikeEmery9 He's nearly 71 now.
nickrohn93 6 months ago
@nickrohn93 he still looks 50 something!
JZZ31 6 months ago
Do you think some people just kind of instinctively know they shouldn't reproduce? I've got several genetic defects and just really never had a desire to reproduce.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
@Skydancer365 Don't reproduce man, your making things worst.
nctrls2 1 year ago
@ DCfreak87 please read the writings of Hippocrates regarding the source of disease. All (or most) medical science is based on his work... written BEFORE the bible so I think it's longevity speaks to it's merit. people have not believed that disease is caused by sin, or removed by prayer for THOUSANDS of years. To say your attitudes are archaic is an understatement.
katertots87 1 year ago
I heard nothing here that isn't just plain common sense! Says alot for the young person asking the question, and even more for the old cunt that gave such a general answer, but in such a way as to imply he knows something nobody else does. The arrogance of dorky is unbelievably sickening!
kryckeestrooff 1 year ago
That didn't really answer the question
jackmcflea 1 year ago
well, he did say things like him wearing glasses. guy who asked the question wasnt the brightest.
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pelonetillo "he did say things like him wearing glasses" Things is right, that's exactly what he is a THING! an EVIL THING AT THAT!
kryckeestrooff 1 year ago
5. Mostly atheist, are against GOD's morality and justice but never refer the same to other candidate: satan.
6. Bible maintans evolution after creation, earth have billions of years etc.
Atheism is a dead concept.
CMVD777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3. Blasphemies: if anybody will do it, is puniched very soon and anybody is free to try it, even right now! This one can come immediatly or later and it doesn't mean death or going to hospital (but can also happen).
4. In Bible, we find two (2) candidates to be called GOD, but atheists are arguing just with ONE,not with other pretendent.
CMVD777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God exist! evidences:
1. In Bible we find a lot of prophecies which happened and are happening, examples: vatican, midle east, united states, new order etc.
2. If anybody will follow what God asks (ex: praying), everybody will have whatever they want (ask). Note:Praying in a right form,following the INSTRUCTIONS in the Bible (keeping the 10 commandments - including keeping the Saturday as the 7th day etc.).
CMVD777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok all these atheists are idiots! darwins evolution was a fuckkin theory!!! a theory doesnt mean its true so evolution is still not proven we were never primates if we were we would be like scratching our asses and throwing shit like south park if evolution was real then god would tell us what stupid atheists fags
DCfreak87 1 year ago
@DCfreak87 so is the theory of gravity and if u dont think its true then i suggest u test it out.
Also lets assume that science is wrong, i dont see relgions really offering answers that can be backed up with evidence.
As far as i can remeber it was the church that beleive the earth was flat,...
so Pls
k8k8k8er 1 year ago
@k8k8k8er uh since when? it wasnt only the church that thought that the world was flat most of te people at the time believed that including atheists but that was years i mean like centuries ago that was different
DCfreak87 1 year ago
@DCfreak87 Ok im an open minded person lets assume that evolution is inccorect, wheres ur proof that "adam and eve" r true?
if evolution is inccorect how did some spicies get to australia without having a single 1 of them left behind in asia, europe...?
according to all 3 abrahamic religions Noah kept ALL the animals on his arc, so then how come their so spread out?
how come the kangoro decided to go to australia, jumping over water i might add, and none of them stayed in any other continent?
k8k8k8er 1 year ago
@k8k8k8er Noah's arc is taken from babylonian mythology.
Mattysmyth0593 1 year ago
@Mattysmyth0593 i know from gilgamesh, so then the 3 abrahamic relgions lied?
then what makes u think their telling the truth about adam and eve?
k8k8k8er 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@k8k8k8er "how come the kangoro decided to go to australia, jumping over water i might add, and none of them stayed in any other continent?"
Can you explain Tasmanian Kangaroos, or Koala's on Kangaroo Island? Neither of these places are part of the continent!
kryckeestrooff 1 year ago
@k8k8k8er well you didnt realise that in the bible, the ark was at sea for 40 days and 40 nights, killing any human left except for noah and his family. after the storm he let all the animals free because the water dried up and the animals were probably mating during the time and they all left God can do whatever he wants but dont think that if you pray for a new xbox or car it will happen. pray for miracles or healing keep doing it he should answer but the main key of it to work is have faith
DCfreak87 1 year ago
@DCfreak87 sorry i have no idea what ur comment means
k8k8k8er 1 year ago
@DCfreak87 and since u creationist guys keep asking for missing links fossils, show me just 1 kangaro fossil in any other continent but austrialia.
Show me the missing link. LOL
k8k8k8er 1 year ago 26
@k8k8k8er That's a good point... if all of the animals came off of Noah's Ark just as they are now... where are the bones of the kangaroos that died on their mass pilgrimage to Australia? Shouldn't we see a distinct bone trail of kangaroos from Australia all the way back to Mt. Ararat?
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos EXACTLY my friend, at least their fossilize POO.
wouldnt u say?
k8k8k8er 1 year ago
@k8k8k8er Careful - I get your point but marsupials can also be found in South America and (I think) at least one species in South East Asia. However, of course, there are no marsupial fossils in North America which date to before the collision of North and South American continents, none in Antarctica, and none in Africa or Europe. So your point still stands, it's just a bit more complicated than that! :-)
Gazzar 1 year ago
@Gazzar pls do elaberate. there r elephants in india & africa & mamoths were in north pole. never said animals didnt migrate. in fact ill give u a perfect example, HUMANS.
however to claim that a polar bear walked from north pole to mideast & kangaro came from australia & panda came from east asian & millions of other species & then they all went back with no fossil evidence is not scientific.
so if its ok for a "creationist" to ask for proof , i beleive its ok for me to ask for proof too
k8k8k8er 1 year ago
@k8k8k8er My only point was that the migratory patterns of pre-historic animals, in this case marsupials, was a little more complex. I am in full agreement with you that no convincing evidence for creationism has ever been presented.
In any case, the distribution of marsupials is still a good example to bring up but you just need to make sure the information is accurate. That you can find marsupials in SA and Australia is proof both of plate tectonics and evolution.
Gazzar 1 year ago
@Gazzar yes thats correct, but theres a PATTERN of migration, in case of other animals just as the polar bear, kangaro....there no pattern or indication of migration.
theres a difference between knowing theres the same(or almost) same spicies in 2 different areas, than to claim there used to be a species in an area, but i have absolutely no evidence from present or the past to support it.
i hope u can see the difference, i know u agree with me but i want u to see that there also a difference.
k8k8k8er 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@k8k8k8er anyone asking that doesn't understand evolution and probably isn't even worth your time. :P
ThorTheOdinSon 7 months ago
@k8k8k8er Come again?
Patience1138 5 months ago
@Patience1138 sorry i have no idea what u r refering to?
if u r refering to the supposet migration of kangaros from mideast to austrailia or the polar bear from mideast to north pole. then i have to say that is just rediculous, a there is no evidence of their existance in mideast or their migration from there. i hope this answer ur question. just imagining a polar bear in mideast is ridiculous enough. lol
k8k8k8er 4 months ago
@k8k8k8er lol I don't even remember what this is from.
Patience1138 4 months ago
@Patience1138 this is from the assumpsion that if according to the bible, torah or quaran the world was covered completely by water and only noah was able to gather EVERY animal onto his boat. and if he landed somewhere in mideast, then there should be an evidence of ALL animals living or migrating from mideast to their various location that they occupy today. and theres aboslutely no evidence of a polar bear or kangaro being in mideast or the route from mideast to north pole or australia.
k8k8k8er 3 months ago
@k8k8k8er Okay, I remember this now. Wow, it HAS been a while! As I have yet to do my own research on this particular scenario, I choose to refrain from answering at this time. I hope that you understand.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@DCfreak87 You do realize that the idea of God is also a theory by your definition?
johnedwards1968 1 year ago
@johnedwards1968 theres lots of proof that He exists. do you believe miracles? lots of people have the power to heal. ive known people who were diagnosed with cancer or diabetes. theyve prayed and even had priests heal them properly with faith, prayers and more cancer doesnt just naturally go awayit goes away by miracles you just gotta believe and have faith all the time
DCfreak87 1 year ago
This is bull shit explaination!
Better truth would be that our eye sight is purely triggered by emotions within us, which are passed on from generation to generation-unresolved. Maybe look into self-judgment ?
lenchinka 1 year ago
@lenchinka Your eyesight is based on emotions? This sounds like a Scientology argument to me, do you have any evdience to support this hypothesis?
wendighoul 1 year ago
Humans have the capacity of reason and logic and we can use it to advance ourselfs regardless of evolution. Although there is some truth to social darwinism.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
I have been using glasses since I was 8, but I'm quite sure genetic engineering will help future generations to get rid of those kinds of handicaps.
Red0100 1 year ago
I just realized after watching this that having longer reproductive periods also prolongs the period that genes have to be selected against. For this reason, quality of life may be doubly suited to the health of the species, besides that of the individual.
LokiClock 1 year ago
The idea of a working cell...that the processes of a krebs cycle, homeostasis, and self-replication coming into being at the same time in one organism reached the intellectual breaking point for me years ago. I find it much more sane to accept a designer. I love the study of form and function. How things work. Being a creationist does not hinder me from studying life and its function.
rubantin 1 year ago
to bad, i didn't feel that he really adressed the question there, kind of went off on a tangent.
Deets1989 1 year ago
@Deets1989 I think he answered the question indirectly. Think: back then, if you had some good genes, but had bad eyesight, you were dead and those good genes didn't matter. So, the answer to the question is no.
frankjohnson123 1 year ago
Although interesting, he does go off on a bit of a tangent.
Experiment47 1 year ago
uh. he didnt answer the question. still <3
marianiiina 1 year ago
Why didn't Jesus know any better preaching to the letter on heaven and hell,
Why oh why wasn't he a scientist oh why please tell.
How can he be right even though he walked on water,
With a penchant for calling the females daughter.
What about coming back from the grave oh whoa what about that,
He wasn't a scientist now you are being quite boring old chap.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
If only Jesus Christ had been a scientist,
He wouldn't have led us all amiss.
He would have known that God was just a figment of our imagination,
And all that rot about hell and damnation.
Well well well why didn't he go get his degrees,
He would have been such a wonderful pharasee.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
Even if a Jesus did exist it isn't proof of a god or an afterlife existing even if you arbitrarily assumed all of the miracles claimed for Jesus even happened which is a stretch to begin with. There are similar reports of other mundane people both in history and with actual contemporary evidence which I doubt you actually believe despite having better evidence of the events.
garith21 1 year ago
Look I do think the life of Christ is a terribly interesting subject
because if he did turn water into wine and all that stuff then we should say hey are we interested? But most are not interested because the idea of God and Jesus Christ makes them feel unimportant, or small, or silly, or foolish, or just plain dumb and all this sort of stuff creates a bias of not being interested in the first place.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) I simply find the evidence for the claims unconvincing
2) If conjurers perform similar acts as they have does that automatically mean they are god?
3) Do you believe any of the other claims of other gods or other mythical claims in historical or non historical texts or even claims made by people we can interview today in person?
4) my only bias is reality based =P
garith21 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
5) If I claimed that I flapped my arms and flew around my house would me saying so or others claiming I did be sufficient or would you require more evidence than that, or are you "not interested" because it would "make you feel unimportant, small, silly, foolish or plain dumb". =P
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Beneath the waves I spied for me a sea school of flying fish,
Oh to have that energetic life, if only I wish.
And I marvelled at the way that they all moved as one man,
So pristine like, they flashed on by, a marine life silver band.
Jesus Christ said that God was He who made these silver creatures,
But Mr.Dawkins and his cohorts say that they are better teachers.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
"Jesus Christ said that God was He"
So you believe god sacrificed himself to himself for a punishment he designed for a law he knew that we would break because that's the way he designed us...if such a god does exist he's very sadistic. =P
garith21 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
6) I'm always interested, but I ask questions to see why you actually believe such a claim to begin with since I actually care about what's most likely true.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Well I don't think you are interested but to be fair I'm not interested in atheism. But if we were to have a real heart to heart I think you would be confiding in me that if you had a choice you would prefer for God to not exist.I don't need the obviousness of God to be proved to me but I see that you do or you say that you do. But do you really. The idea of the existence of God is messing so much with your sence of importance that you can't buy into it.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) All hail Zeus?
2) Of course I want proof, proof is the validation for a belief of the existence of something claimed to exist external of the subjective. You know kinda like how people use to use Zeus to explain lightning bolts =P
3) Or it naturally formed
4) Ooh a rhyme I must be convinced, oh wait, that's still not evidence.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Well well well its time to go
Nice knowing you
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt i like how you leave as soon as garith points out something that makes god sound stupid, and you cant explain. :P typical religious person.
Neylonx 1 year ago
@Neylonx The guy chose to not respond to what I said and instead starts raving on about zeus and knocks my iddy biddy rhyme. He yells and screams that he wants evidence but he does'nt. I know that and he knows that. In his deperation for God to not exist he is a closed book with a made up mind.Guys like this were in their element at the local lynching parties. Guity or not they wanted him to be guilty.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) Point being that the assertion that a god exists doesn't say which god nor does the ignorance of how a phenomenon happens suddenly equates to belief in a supernatural being such as Zeus.
2) Your rhyme wasn't evidence so it wasn't convincing.
3) I do want evidence, but pointing to nature and saying it exists is merely evidence nature exists.
4) The guilty/not guilty bit is you actually saying guilty and me saying not guilty because I'm unconvinced.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I supose quite some time ago I realised the futility of talking to people such as yourself, no disrespect intended, but nevertheless in a brainless sort of way I somehow think that this one will be different to all the rest. I refer to those in your catagory as the passionate disbelievers. The way you dismiss the amazing design found in nature as not being enough worthy enough to go into the considering pot as a possibility for the existence of God is too lynchman like for me.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt I used to think "design" did imply a god. But of course, if gods are the explanation for such things, then we haven't explained anything at all, we've simply replaced the question with a much much bigger one: What is the explanation for the gods?
So I find the design argument for gods to be philosophically unconvincing. And that's before we even touch on the overwhelmingly convincing science.
Also, Dawkins explained how evolution is congruent with glasses. How is design?
angelwhite 1 year ago
@angelwhite I invite you talk about this subject of design and nothing else, And if we an do that, then, we will have indeed thrashed one topic, Instead of the shotgun approach, where we try covering too many bases. I am not here to win an arguement or a debate. I am here to hopefully get us all thinking more deeply .
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) Yet there's nothing passionate in my disbelief, I merely don't believe, vs you who passionately believes but won't state why, just like the murder example you have a conclusion and assert it's believable, I point out why it isn't and you still want to say guilty.
2) Any argument from design would result in stating that the creator needs a designer since the creator is far more complex than what is claimed that he created.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I am happy to make you the same offer as angelwhite, And that is to discuss only one subject at a time beginning with design.After we have finished with this we can move onto another topic.On the assumption that you wanna play ball I'll start it off. But lets reason together as if our lives depended upon it. No winners or loosers. Just a sharing of each others views. Nothing heated.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
Go for it
First of all define how you infer design in any meaningful way.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21
On my dressing table in the bedroom I have a pine cone and the reason why I have it there is that I find that I contantly marvel at its amazing design. In the bathroom I have three absolutely exquisite sea shell that are as marvellous in their design as they are beautiful. As complex as they are they are nothing compared to the design of the whale or of course ourselves.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@garith21 I notice that you have chosen to state that its silly to say that God must have designed the design. I don't think you would say that if you were to take a neutral position like that of a just and fair judge. Its more appropriate to firstly say " is it plausible" and we have to say this this because we are not in a position to say its impossible.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
All of that text and you never answered the simple question of how you infer design in any meaningful way.
If your response is complexity then the designer which is far more complex than the universe must also be designed.
When I also say meaningful it must also be something which cannot be applied to something that isn't designed, but when you say everything is designed then that's impossible is it not?
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Look I haven't been to university and I have no degrees. If you wanna talk to a professor or some educated person then you will have to talk to another guy. I don't really understand what you want because I think I have already answered it. There is obviously design in nature. Do we have to make it more complicated than that.The question is who designed it. Or what should we call whatever it was that designed it. Was it Oh Be One Can No Be.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
It's a simple question, how do you discern design in a meaningful way, asserting "it's obvious" is as meaningless as saying the rock in my back yard is designed and is equal to a watch in design.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 In my book design is design is design. You seem to be implying that the obvious design in nature that happens to be more sophisticated than what man can create is not actually design. Us country boys don't and can't get that.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
That's not listing the criteria by which you determine design, at the moment you're basically saying that finding a rock on a beach is the same as finding a watch on the beach and declaring both are equal in the realm of being designed.
Basically I'm asking you how you determine whether something is or isn't designed and you're responding "designed is designed". =P
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 No no no I am not saying that and you know I'm not. I'm not talking about rocks on the beach, I'm talking about whales and tigers that are truly amazing.You are being cute.You have to deny the obviousness of the design in nature because you have decided you don't want God but His handiwork you can't get rid of so you say hey its not design. Is it wise to fight against god huh.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) Yet you are because you say everything is designed.
2) As far as the design in living organisms we know that's via evolution
3) How can I fight against something I don't even believe exists, I no more believe that a god exists any more than santa or the boogie monster.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I think we have been around this mulberry bush a few times already have'nt we.
People like me don't understand people like you that say there there can be design without a designer. But you say so because you want it to be so, but it does'nt make it so and it never will.I am old you are young. if you change your mind then put flowers on my grave.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
Lol, you can't even define what you mean by design in the first place, being old doesn't make you immune to irrational beliefs any more than it made it so newton didn't believe in alchemy, which he did.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Well this time we have really done our dash.
Am I becoming boring because I can tell you that you certainly are.
If there is a time for everything then there is a time to say good bye.
I have to spend some time talking to my wife.
I think we have covered all the bases haven't we. In this case i will not say that parting is such sweet sorrow but I am sure I will miss you. Don't forget the flowers if you change your mind.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
Frankly you haven't covered much of anything, you preached, I asked you basic questions and pointed out other things you should believe if you believe based on certain criteria and you ignore it and say "I must believe in my fantasy I must".
For someone bragging about their age you haven't even reached a teenager's range of reasoning.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Why don't you admit it. You are missing me already.
If I was you I would miss me too. I am the only thinker you know.
But you are now starting to look a bit pathetic which I am sorry to say is a look I wasn't expecting to come from you and if you could have just kept your nerve you wouldn't have had to resort to telling me that I have the reasoning of a teenager. What does that then make you because its entirely obvious that you are not in my league.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
Right, yet you still failed to respond to anything that was addressed nor supplied any evidence for your claims.
I care little for your mindless preaching as much as I care about why you believe what you believe. As far as stating that you have a reasoning of a teenage is only in response to the issue that you continually use evasive techniques rather than actually addressing the arguments or answering basic questions.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 You obviously want to have the last say and hey I'm happy about that. I have said all I want to say. My records are there. Let them speak for me. All your disrespectful comments cannot and will not erase what I have said.If you cannot get what I have said then there is always the possibility that some bystander might who is on the sidelines wearing the garb of common sense. This is my last goodbye.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
Then they can you say "lets talk about design" followed by me asking you how you determine design, to which you basically say "I don't know" and preach, then I respond to your preaching with questions, then you assert "I answered your questions and have said all I want to say" and cry about me calling you an intellectual child because you use such tactics.
If you're happy with that representation, by all means be happy.
garith21 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
After several posts I am tempted to say that you are only a troll, if you would please actually address anything that's been stated without constantly preaching to prove me wrong, if you continue to refuse as you have been constantly doing I will continue to address you as a teenager or a mindless preacher rather than anyone of intellect.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I am going to have to get some shut eye. Its nearly midnight in my neck of the woods.Bumpkinitis is starting to set in with those oh be one can no be remarks. Sorry about that.I came from a place called Hicksville although I didn't know it at the time because they came up with a name change before I got there. But it still had that odd look to it and now that I know the aweful truth I am not one bit surprised. Believe me it gives a completely new meaning to the word hick. .
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
The simple fact that you want to apply it to nature which we do know actually exists vs something that we don't know exists so you can justify your preconceived beliefs.
Even if I arbitrarily assumed a god exists based on the argument from design silly as it is it doesn't mean it's your god or any god conceived of already, it could be multiple gods or any number of other explanations. =P
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Obviously to you it does not seem plausible hence your expresssion of silly, But I think for the sake of getting on well with one another, we should, with your permission, change the word silly to "this seems implausible". I now ask us to detail the reasons why this seems implausible and lets be honest about it.If we are polite and courteous we will have fun and enjoy our time.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
As an example of the court analogy, you want to assert that a particular person is guilty because you found a corpse. You have no finger prints or DNA of a particular person nor do you have evidence it was an actual homicide or the actual person committing the homicide and you want to yell guilty, guilty guilty. I state "I'm not convinced of the evidence" so I have to vote not guilty till you provide ample evidence.
garith21 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
no, he's just pointing out that u believe in something as certainly as the ancient greeks did, for similar reasons; you dont understand how something happens, so you invent your own way
the only point you have made really, when you condense all your paragraphs, is that you cant understand how something as complex as the universe could arise without a designer. just because something seems unlikely to begin with, doesnt make it not true. especially as its actually quite logical
Neylonx 1 year ago
@Neylonx I believe in God and Jesus Christ because I am not a rebel fighting God on the pretext that He ain't there. Thats what you are doing but you don't know that you are doing it because for you its on a sub concious level. Therefore its my word against yours. You hope you are right whereas I know I am right.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) Technically you're a rebel fighting against every other god conceived by man no matter which religion you pick, we're just going one god more, or 3 or a dozen if you include the many demigods.
2) It's you asserting that a god exists, and not only does a god exist but your particular god exists while many of us are going, "I don't believe your claim show me more evidence".
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Part of my gig is to warn people such as yourself and I do so that your blood won't be on my hands.Your pathway leads to hell. You will not be able to use the excuse that you didn't know any better.Because on that great day of judgement you will not plead ignorance as you will see that you are quite clearly pointing the finger at God and saying no I will not obey you.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt You might as well be threatening us with Zeus. Do you not get that threatening atheists with something we don't believe exists is foolish? Stop pretending to be on a mission of God, what I believe or don't believe is not your concern.. I'd rather spend an eternity in hell than worship a God that permits such horrible things and created us sick then commanded us to be well. Save your threats, they're useless here.
CrimsonDeathBed 1 year ago
@CrimsonDeathBed Well I am not threatening you but I have warned you. By the way hell is not eternal happening. How can you perish in hell forever. The pain of perishing in hell will not compare to the dissapointment of knowing that you have dipping out on everlasting life. Hence the terms weeping and gnashing of teeth is used by God to express your remorce. No threat just a warning.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
I think the point was that warning people of something for which there is no evidence for is the same as saying "I'm warning you of the boogie man or that you won't get a present on christmas from santa if you don't listen to me". You would think either is a silly warning, from the perspective of people that don't believe your particular myth this is exactly what you are doing.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 Well Jesus Christ warned people of hell and with all due respect to you I am going to believe him 100 times out of 100. I like his credentials yeah. Walks on water. Turns water into wine. Feeds 5000 with a few loaves and fishes. Raises the dead. Heals the sick. Was a good guy and a great teacher.He predicts that he will rise from the dead in 3 days and thats just what happens.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) Ironically there's no evidence he did any of that and there's other contemporary accounts of similar feats for other people in history but do you believe them? No
2) We can find videos on youtube of magicians performing similar feats but do you think they're illusion or they actually did those feats?
garith21 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
3) There are actually no contemporary first hand accounts of anything in the life of Jesus, but even if there were is does it suddenly mean that any miracle happened by default even if they're written? We have many accounts from otherwise historically accurate documents that are actually contemporary of other gods, miracles attributed to those gods and other such feats but does it mean they automatically happened?
garith21 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
4) We can interview people right now that claim to have been abducted by aliens, we can talk with people right now that believe a certain person is the messiah because they have performed feats that they cannot explain, do you believe them as well with the same uncritical mind?
garith21 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
Sorry but you may as well threaten me with any other made up god and you'd get the exact same response, are you going to plead ignorance to their gods and your path leads to other religion's hells as well your argument isn't sound since you're threatening me with several things I don't believe to exist.
garith21 1 year ago
@Neylonx You know you just knock my socks off with the stuff you say.
Lets be clear. I say that its impossible for amazing incredible stupendous awe inspiring design to have come into being without a designer. Impossible. Get it .
There you are trying to trick yourself that it all happened by itself and by accident.
The bible says that you will not be excused for pulling the wool over your eyes like this. You chose to fight God and guess who wins huh.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@garith21 I don't think you want proof. As a matter of fact I think that is the last thing you want. The amazingness of design in nature far superceeds any design that man could make but you choose to believe that it was made by itself or by no one.
Am I allowed to say thats as crazy as crazy as crazy can be. Look I might win the war but you are still going to be sore. So what's the point of fighting.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
Lets talk odds you know the law of chance and all that stuff,
But lets play fair by avoiding being rough.
Remember that great whale someone called Moby Dick?,
Well its more complicated than a watch that goes tik tok tik.
Therefore there is more chance of a timepiece coming into being by evolution,
Than Moby Dick's bad breath or stinking atomic fusion.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) no one says evolution is chance.
2) Evolution is the observation that populations change over time, the theory of evolution is how populations change over time via successful reproduction with random mutations selected by natural selection and varying in rates from various other natural factors.
3) Watches or watch parts can't successfully reproduce to become a watch.
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 If you wanna be a fair dinkum,dinkie die atheist then I am not talking to you,
I wanna talk to someone on the fence maybe the red white and blue.
God didn't do it huh yeah I get it who could,
It must have been nobody goody goody good.
How stupid is that come on fellah try getting real,
Design comes from God hear my appeal.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@garith21 I get up bit fed up hearing all this can't face the truth kinda jive,
Why don't you be honest and say you don't actually want God to be alive.
The idea of God makes you feel sick in the guts,
God forbid that you should become one of those muts.
But babe you have made a boo boo cause it didn't come outa thin air,
God made the stuff yeah thats right but are you way too proud to care.
paulwilfridhunt 1 year ago
@paulwilfridhunt
1) Accepting evolution has nothing to do with whether a god does or doesn't exist
2) What's your evidence that a god does exist, much less that he created reality or the separate claim of an afterlife which also doesn't depend on a god existing or not existing.
3) I'm just telling you what evolution is vs what you think it is which are two entirelly different things.
garith21 1 year ago
This comports with the opinion of some scientists that aging is a result of evolutionary neglect.
eswyatt 1 year ago
It could even be that surviving too well past reproductive years can cause one to become a burden on one's offspring. Diminishing vision seems to be the perfect channel for natural selection to cull the old, at least in pre-toolmaking times. It wouldn't cause much debilitation until it causes death by predation. I could be wrong about this, but I thought I'd sure my thoughts.
ArcaneKarma 1 year ago
What came first DNA or Proteins?
rubantin 1 year ago
@rubantin - information
TodaysThought 1 year ago