@csnowutube Objective moral values are like the Holocaust. Compare that to breaking the speed limit. Both are wrong but one is universally objectively wrong. If evolution were true then the Holocaust is not more wrong than someone breaking the speed limit. Things like child rape, murder, are not really morally wrong it just depends on who you talk to if evolution is true. If creationism is true those kinds of thing are objectively wrong and there is nothing subjective about them.
@MaximusMcc You and I agree the Holocaust was wrong. I think it is wrong to kill anyone unless they are attempting to kill someone else. But not everyone agrees, so I don't understand how it is objective.
For instance, if a god killed a lot of people, someone could say it is not wrong, since it was a god and gods can not do wrong. Then it would be ok for the god to kill a large group of people, and would not be objectively wrong. peace
@csnowutube Objective Moral Values means it doesn't matter what you believe it is still wrong to do these atrocities. If its a subjective moral value then that means we cant really blame Hitler for what he did it was part of his evolutionary makeup that made him come to these conclusions. Therefore if we admit there are things that are really wrong and not just because we believe they are. I'll tackle the subject of god killing in the next response....
@MaximusMcc The first part I agree with... objective morality would not be influenced by the beliefs of any individual.
What I don't agree with is that subjective means "we cant really blame Hitler...." -We-, you and I as subjective humans -can- blame Hitler and anyone who oversteps the rules of their current society.
@csnowutube You can blame me "subjectively" for anything this has nothing to do with right and wrong. Sometimes the majority would agree with you and sometimes they wont. "Objectively" you cannot blame me if I am a product of natural causes. I would naturally be reacting to to world around me as I see it. However if there is really right and wrong which does not depend on whether you agree with it or not and if Objective Moral Values exist we are condemned if we violate them values.
@MaximusMcc We agree that "subjective" is not perfect. There is still a subjective right and wrong, it varies between individuals, cultures, etc. It overlaps with most religions which require or advise, Do not kill, Do not steal.
It is "objective" morality I want to learn about. I have some strong feelings which make me feel that everyone would agree with me. To me they at least -seem- objective. I have to admit I am one subjective mind. How would we know what -is- objective? thanks
@MaximusMcc I can only offer my subjective opinion as an individual human: Rape, in my subjective opinion is always wrong. I hope and wish it to be "objective" and ask you,
"Do we as humans agree that rape is always wrong?" I say yes. I do not know anyone who disagrees. It is still subjective until you explain "Objective" thanks.
@csnowutube What do you mean "We as humans" you suggest there is something else? On the subject of rape, it does not matter what "we humans" {yes I admit there is something else} believe it is always wrong to rape. Its objective not subjective. If it were subjective it would be open to interpretation and it is not just your view that rape is wrong, it is really wrong.
@MaximusMcc We as humans who can think about morals. Not gods. You and I agree that it is wrong to rape. A rapist might argue that it is not. How can we objectively know it is wrong? Nothing which goes through a human mind is objective. Part of the definition of "subjective" is that it is influenced by the mind.
@csnowutube Well thinking they way you do he is Objectively not wrong, In fact thinking like you do he is Objectively justified in rape, murder of the innocent, lying, stealing, etc. There fore Hitler, Stalin, etc are totally justified objectively in what they did. I am going to argue here that there are really things that are right and wrong objectively no matter what time, place or circumstance there is. If you can find justification then I would put you in my sisters class etc...
@MaximusMcc I think "subjectively", just as you do. The rapist is still wrong in both our opinions. All I'm asking about is where does this "objective" you talk about come from? I have asked several times and instead of answering, you tell me what a bad person I am. Where does one learn about this "objective morality?" Please.
@csnowutube I was using "personification technique" I don't know you at all. However assuming that you too are using the "personification technique" to acquire understanding I would have to say several things regarding your arguments. Basically your presuppositions is the main culprit that is confusing you and that is the main reason. Given the assumption that you make no room in your world view for anything other than a natural explanation seems to indicate a handicap.
@MaximusMcc My presupposition is that I know a good bit about the natural world and that my views are subjective. I gave room to Jesus from the age of 9 to the age of 49. There is still room in my life to learn and understand. Thus my interest in asking people. thanks.
Subjective morality can be explained by evolution. We can talk more about that if you want. I'm interested in where "objective morality" comes from.
Sorry, I didn't understand this sentence: "Therefore if we admit there are things that are really wrong and not just because we believe they are." thanks.
@csnowutube I think I elaborated on my former comment and I think your right that if evolution were true we could explain subjective moral values in that pretense. Acting as a society and being apart of it requires certain kinds of conduct and rules. We can make those rules up all day long and even base games and activities off of them. Yet, are these a refection of something greater? I think the evidence points to such a cause.
A reflection of something greater? Yes. A society is greater than an individual. Of course, that is my subjective opinion. The individual may be right about something, even though the society is against them. As I see it, subjective is what we have to work with.
Please, let the subjective rest and tell me about the "objective." Where is it and how do we know? peace
@csnowutube Maybe you missed my comment: Maybe we can start with this. When is it right to rape someone, past present and future? Objective or subjective?
@MaximusMcc I answered this above: ""Do we as humans agree that rape is always wrong?" I say yes. I do not know anyone who disagrees. It is still subjective until you explain "Objective" thanks. "
@csnowutube Again I am going to argue here that is not your opinion. In fact I am going to argue that it is a law similar to gravity, motion, but the naturalistic explanation would not be enough to satisfy the most skeptics of skeptics. I have seen them squirm in debated when faced with this issue. The argument here is obvious but denial is oh so sweet.
@MaximusMcc If it were obvious, everyone would see it. I don't. So I am asking. I'm not denying anything, I'm asking someone who claims to know to explain it to me. thanks.
@csnowutube Actually the obvious actually escapes the attention of most that's why Hitler, Stalin, political and religions leaders get away with what they do. I would have to say that your argument there about the obvious it flawed. However what I mean by obvious is that we have a book with these OMV written out in the form of commandments or laws.This is what obliges me on this particular argument to accept a supernatural explanation because of the fact that it was written down etc.
@csnowutube I am under the impression that you might be atheist but just bear with me a min.God is in spirit and does not believe in death like we do.We see it as an end he sees it as a transition.One everlasting blessing the other punishment.We will all meet that transition sooner or later.So God as you say kills everyone even you and me there is no escape this is the sentence for all of us.The meaning of death to us is very different compared to a transition which there is evidence
@MaximusMcc Yes sir. Forty years a believing Christian (Methodist), 10 years as an agnostic atheist.
Yes, if there is a god he kills all of us. I thought we were taking about how things look through the eyes of society (subjective) as opposed to objective morality. If god can kill and be a great guy, that is your subjective opinion. There is nothing objective about that. You realize that "objective" means something not influenced by a mind, right?
@csnowutube I think that you have not gotten the meaning of my words. Sorry about that. Just so we are speaking of the same meaning here is what I get Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: Moral: pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. Values: relative worth, merit, or importance. Assuming that these are the correct definitions to you......
@csnowutube This totally helps my position on OMV. For instance we are talking about "rape" in the above discussion. This is not just wrong because its a "personal feeling" that it is wrong. It is wrong because it is really "Objectively Morally" wrong.
@MaximusMcc I guess I'm just dense. It sounds like you are saying it is wrong because you know it is wrong. I want to know how you know. Sorry if I'm bugging you. It is a fascinating question.
@csnowutube Well I don't really see the mystery here because I am a person that can be content with a supernatural explanation as well as a natural explanation. Lending all the credit to natural causes just because I have a gut feeling it has to be that way is sheer stupidity I think. If the evidence leads you to a natural or supernatural explanation then what is wrong with that? Follow it unless you find out different later.
@MaximusMcc I might be content with a supernatural explanation too, but so far, none has been offered. I see evidence for subjective morality. I do not see evidence for objective. That is why I am asking someone to explain it to me.I can not follow what I don't see.
@csnowutube Well I think that you have missed the point of supernatural explanations. Just because you cannot connect the dots does not mean that the supernatural explanation is not intelligible. Making a mockery of the supernatural will definitely hinder your ability to accept given the fact you rejected it already I think it would be very difficult for you to accept such explanations. Mission impossible is more adequate explanation for what I feel towards you regarding this subject
@csnowutube I think that perception is key here. You and I have a perception of what it means to be in a physical body governed by physical laws. This is our perception. We differ on conception apparently. I can conceive that there is someone that has a different perception than you and me that is not in the same state as we that would not see death as an end. Especially if he were outside time, space etc. I can also conceive that such an individual can perceive the need for OMV 4 us
cs - Humans need moral values. g-d would have no "needs". a perception of ... a ...body. Jesus. "conceive" ing a different perception is easy enough. It is the difference between objective and subjective in which I am interested. How can a human mind can be anything but subjective? The human perception is more interesting to me. That is all I know.
"outside time"
That is out of my comprehension.
Do you or I have knowledge of Objective moral values? thanks.
@csnowutube I am sure that I answered this question if it was not satisfactory then I have to question your mental state. I have a sister that is on medication and in the psyche ward at the hospital many times. She believes that murder, rape etc is ok if she is mad at the time. So you are telling me that subjectively we can blame her but objectively she is not wrong?
@MaximusMcc This is a complex subject. Thanks for sticking with me. I just read an article which my lead to a meeting of the minds.Sorry to hear about your sister and I wish the best for her.
I think now that subjective is what any individual thinks. (And I think we agree on that). "Objectively", I had been considering impossible for humans. The article seemed to be saying that a society could be objective. But if they were a society of cannibals, you and I would think their thoughts were wrong. If you can agree that a society could make objective rules, we can leave it at that. If not, my one question is, Where do find this objectiveness? thanks.
@csnowutube I agree with the first argument no question we can make rules for ourselves and others subjectively. Objectively its obvious to me that humans are not the only ones that set limits for humans and nature is not the only one that set limits for nature and nature is not the only one that set limits for humans. Therefore that is why I believe in supernatural causes.
@csnowutube Now I can only come to this conclusion because I actually believe in right and wrong as OMV and not subjective to any interpretation. It also indicates that there can be no room for disbelief which some value as their stance to make everything subjective. However the consequences of believing that these thing are subjective have evil consequences. Conscience is self knowledge, where does it come from? Its a constant battle that leads to the supernatural explanations.
@MaximusMcc "believe in right and wrong as OMV and not subjective"
cs - Yes, I understand. I also have a belief that some things are always (objectively) wrong. What I am asking is how can I know what is "objectively" wrong when I only have a subjective human brain?
Conscience? It is easily explained. The hard question is "objective morality".
Supernatural is not an acceptable explanation. I want to know: As a human being, how can I do the most good?
@csnowutube Well at least we both agree on there are things that are objectively wrong. As a human being that believes in only the natural world I cannot answer the question of Objective Morality and that is why I entertain alternative explanations of the subject. The fact that we have a record of one claiming to be God and setting the OMV standard I think is compelling reason when the OMV argument matches that of a laid out law on the subject.
@MaximusMcc Sorry, my "beliefs" are subjective. I worded that badly. Instead of "I also have a belief that some..." I should have said "I also have a (subjective) belief... " I want for there to be "objective moral values", I just don't see them.
@csnowutube The spaghetti monster god of course. You see he is a big piece of spaghetti and his tentacles have magic in them and whatever he touches turns to gold. The people then want the gold so they develop a conscience naturally from the meat balls that fall on their heads. < of course I am joking because I have not once shred of evidence for this hypothesis but I am sure that is what you were going to liken my Christian God to so I figured I would get this out of the way first.
@csnowutube well I am sure you see it that way but if we think further on this subject if we have true freedom as the Bible claims you can see why evil exist other wise we would not be able to make such decisions that are contrary to objective moral values. This is the center of my argument and I would be willing to explore it further with you if you like.
@gregrutz Breeding populations go extinct that's what the fossil record teaches us. It also shows us that in the past there were more species of things than there are today. Would you like me to use the term "evolving into an ape" instead? At what point in time did you become an ape sir? That is a rhetorical question of course but I think its a silly one too and what makes it even more silly is that you actually believe it.
I mean I could take a dump and kill 99.9% of bacteria with Lysol, yet I am suppose to believe I evolved from bacteria. We could all wait a billion years to find out, but I'll just believe in God.
According to evolution, all life derives from single celled bacteria over the course of billions of years. I mean it doesn't take a rocket science to be alarmed by this kind of thinking. The Bible says God created man from the dust of the Earth. Is it some kind of coincidence that when we die (or any living thing) we decompose in the ground? Evolutionist still cannot explain night and day. Moon and the Stars. etc Did bacteria evolve this things as well?
So where are your scientific question you claim need answering? My perception of your video is that you are just another one of so many who are using a bully-pulpit to push there own personal agenda. Evolution easy? It's hard and that makes it easy to bamboozle people with 7 minute personal rants. No it's difficult and requires time, effort, research, and thought to comprehend. You've done your research but where, some biased website? Try cracking open an actual science book.
@astrogeoteach I use to be an evolutionist and an atheist but I really had to let the evidence lead me. I was just appealing to peoples intellectual common sense to initiate some open dialog on the subject. Maybe you can tell me your best evidence for you stand or tell me particularly the point(s) that you disagree with and we can go from there.
@gregrutz Created creatures just like the rest of us. I would say the same if there existed a cows head on a lions body. I don't understand the difficulty that you are proposing here.
Yes, the skull is of an extinct species, an ape. Most of the species that ever lived are extinct. These extinct species are what scientists are trying to expalin.
So creationists say ''You don't know if he had kids'' so the can ingore the evidence. Breeding population evolve, no one person.
@gregrutz Its true that we do not know if a certain fossilized creature had kids and maybe Creationist use it too much to try to communicate the point. However I really like your point about the extinct species and I think that is a stronger argument. What the fossil record shows us is that there are a lot of extinct species and that is all.
They can tell how mature a fossil was when it died by x-raying the skull& seeing at what point the adult teeth were in development. These people aren't stupid.
If everything needs a creator, then wouldn't God need a creator? It is more scientific to say that the universe just exists than to say that God just exists and made the Universe out of nothing.
Your Bible tells me I can sell my daughter to slavery.
You have made it clear through this that you know nothing about what you speak against.
@imsocool7222 Its interesting that you bring up Richard Dawkins central argument in his book "The God Delusion" "If there is a creator then, who created the creator?" The point is you DO NOT need an explanation for the explanation when it is the "best" explanation. I recommend that you view William Lane Craigs arguments in this field you may learn something.
I like your modest tone, but your understanding of the science behind evolution is pretty far off. Actually really way of base. Scientist do alot more research to draw conclusions than look at pictures of ape skulls on their computers
@newbeats4 Well I am sure that real scientist without an agenda are doing that but I have to question the motive of scientist in macro evolutionary theory. Basically I am opposition to a TOA Theory of Everything and I think that is what these enthusiast of evolution are trying to impose. It would be nice that before we die we can actually believe in some truth don't you think? Maybe evolution says it all to you but I have some real problems with it. Thanks for the comment
Judging by your video, you have no concept of evolution at all. Creation is a theory which religious people want to hang on to because they don't like the truth !
@ikinmoore I guess you dont realize it but people like you prove my point every time. you know evolution is not rocket science all it takes is "imagination" so before I go into your "imagination land" again and I do mean "again" I want some real answers to some real questions. I really dont mean to hurt your feelings but the problem is I do understand and you dont. Making remarks like you just made proves my point every time and the pity of it all is that you just dont see it. I am religious?lol
The fact about Creation is that it is a fable written by men who knew nothing about science. If you require answers to the age of the earth, how humans came to live on the planet, there is plenty of stuff on the internet.There are plenty of transitions only you are blind to see them. How do I prove your point when you are not even looking for the truth. You make no sense !
@ikinmoore It is interesting that you call creation a fable written by men. Are fables written by anyone else? I am not blind, I can read what you are writing just fine but it is interesting that you can quote scripture verses to try an insult me, lol. Matthew 15:14 I guess the fables were good for something huh?
@ikinmoore How do you explain my position then? I am not religious, I dont go to church and I am totally against organized religion. I don't believe that my learning ability is dysfunctional. I am an ordinary average guy weighing the evidence now for 40 years now and I think it falls short.
You have not seen the evidence which Scientists have tested over and over again. It is very interesting that you claim you don't like organized religion yet you want to believe in a fable called Creation. If you really don't believe in Evolution then what do you believe in if religion is not your agenda !
Why don't you study science with those who know what they are talking about rather then assuming that Evolution is false. Go to a Natural History museum to see those hundreds of transitions and find out about DNA. That is where the truth is.....
@ikinmoore Well actually I have studied with those you propose i study with and I have been to museums thousands of times, studied evolutionary literature and even was an Atheist at one time. You see when things don't add up you tend to look elsewhere for the truth and that is what I did.
~ The start of the big bang was the implosion of a blue giant within another dimension that burst energy, life, and substance into our universe, this formed galaxies, and provided the basic building blocks for our spiritual life. we are not independent of God, but and cell within his body, you grow with the production of new cells right, well so does god. physical reality is the product of our spiritual mind deciphering light and energy, which is life at its purest form of consciousness.
@2012DarkKnight For sure I believe that there is an extraordinary explanation that fails our understanding in so many ways. There are things that can only be explained by super natural means of speculation. Of course I believe that naturalist will obviously have a problem with this concept but their problems still remain without a supernatural explanation. Obviously you believe in the big bang but I am sure you could not explain to satisfaction what your implications are to a skeptic like me.
~ The questions of evolution or Gods creation seem to be an issue for people, this is a question of simple logic and science, We exist because of evolution with some divine interventions. We are constantly evolving in life through time, but every once in a while we get a burst of conscious divine intervention that elevates our spiritual evolution within the spiral dynamics and cycles of eternities time.
Go to your local supermarket. Go to the fruit, vegetable, and meat sections of the store. Unless it says "wild" and possibly if it says "organic" you're looking at what a large chunk of evolutionary science goes into, and where it gets a lot of revenue from (food).
Also go to a hospital and look at all the medicines they use to fight diseases, germs and bacteria. Evolutionary science helps make those too. The stuff they used 50 years ago won't work anymore.
@Atriviality Wow, where can I start from that? Are you claiming that there are no creationist that have ever come up with scientific cures for disease or that they do not believe in adaptation?
@Atriviality Evolutionary science is used to make "better foods" and "medicine" but did it make the actual FOOD and MEDICINE? By the way I believe "evolutionary science" is absurd. I predict that every human male is going to have a penis or have had a penis that we dig up in the fossil record. Wow that was easy and you know what, my theory is right! Give me a break!
- Why yes it does, because if it didn't, we wouldn't USE IT to make food and medicine.
"I believe "evolutionary science" is absurd"
- Then stop using the products produced by it. Only use foods and medicines that are spoken into existance.
I wonder if you will be different to most creationists and actually answer my questions? What is CreationISM used for? What does CreationISM produce? How does CreationISM make money?
@Atriviality So you are telling me that life comes from non-life? Why can't you grasp this well proven scientific fact?" Cause and Effect" Creationism is used for everything, creationism produced everything and creationism made more money than evolution will ever dream of making. Are your questions for real? Are you telling me that those questions prove evolution? Really why do you have to resort to this type of method? Once again you prove nothing Sherlock!
@MaximusMcc "So you are telling me that life comes from non-life?" - When did I say this? "Creationism is used for everything," - How is it used? "creationism produced everything" - Your evidence for this is? "and creationism made more money than evolution will ever dream of making." - How does it make money? "Are you telling me that those questions prove evolution?" - No. They're meant to get you to investigate the creationism movement, but apparently you don't want to do that.
@Atriviality Sorry its been a while and I am trying to get to all my comments and from your comment here you are quoting me and asking questions. May be to sum it all up is to tell you that I believe that a supernatural cause is the best explanation for some things and that the natural explanations suffice for the majority of what we observe. Is that fair?
@MaximusMcc Scientists don't know how life started. That has nothing to do with how live evolved [change and diversified] So if scientists found out God made the first life, THEN you would 'believe' in evolution?
@gregrutz Like I said before I would have no problem believing in evolution and there are some things that evolution explains very well like adaptation. So as far as believing in evolution this is the extent to where the evidence leads. My problem is the TOE Theory Of Everything which evolution claims to explain and there are so many problems with it that even entertaining such a discussion is ludicrous.
@MaximusMcc Creationists always get it backwards. ''evolution explains very well like adaptation'' Adaptation explains why things change [evolve]. It is part of Natural Selection.
Remember 'Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection'' by C. Darwin?
Evolution is not the Theory of Everything. The Theory of Everything is a term used by scientists studying the forces of nature and looking for the Higgs Particle.
@gregrutz Yes and I believe in adaptation, its a fact of course. I have read Charles book a few times and regard him as a brilliant mind to be reckoned with. However you hit the nail on the head when you said that evolution is not a TOA and it is to this end that I oppose the other embraces of the evolutionary theory.
I don't think I need to continue, because you're probably going to censor these comments. You claim to be honestly looking for truth, yet you demonstrate clear bias towards creationism. You claim evolution's explanation's aren't scientific enough for you, yet you believe a story that involves someone thinking the universe into existence. Your arguments are taken almost verbatim from creationist websites, and you definitely haven't looked at the evolutionist responses.
well your comment is not censored and of course I am biased toward creationism because that is what I am convinced of. I take it that you are convinced of the evolution argument and that is what you are convinced of. I believe that there are logical fallacies in the evolution model and yes I have researched it. I was raised believing in evolution and common decent as well.
@MaximusMcc Yet you think everything being thought into existence is a satisfactory answer. How can that be more scientific than evolution?
Unlike you I'm not biased towards evolution. I place the same standards to evidence to evolution and creationism. If you had the same standards you would also reject creationism for its logical fallacies and dishonest methodologies.
@Impaler1815 I do reject certain parts of what some people claim as creationist arguments. I am getting pounded with a lot of comments here but I am really agnostic about a lot of things when it comes to creationism. However outright lies whether they are an evolutionist argument or a creationist argument makes me totally question their motives. I not believe that the end justifies the means on either side of the argument.
@MaximusMcc Isn't that the entire mechanism for creationism: That everything was thought into existence one day from nothing? So are you saying you don't believe in creationism?
On the other hand that leaves the big bang on the table, because it does not say everything came from nothing.
@Impaler1815 I think the evidence leads us to a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe. Natural explanations for everything are ridiculous.
@Impaler1815 Ok just because you missed the point. i will clarify. The point here is that we can all use our imaginations, creationist and evolutionist alike. It does not make your sculpture and more believable than mine. I hope that clarifies things.
@Impaler1815 Slowly morphing is still as much as a misrepresentation as mid-life morphing no matter how you slice the cheese. Really? Do what proof do you have that Mitochondrial eve lived 200,000 years ago. and Y-adam lived 60,000 years ago? Let me see it I am all eyes and ears! You got to be kidding with your 6th question!
@MaximusMcc Evolution doesn't involve morphing at all. How do you think evolution works? The ages of Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondiral Eve are based on observable mutation rates. Are you saying that's unreliable?
So do you have an example of a scientist basing their arguments on an artists interpretation or not? Put up or shut up.
Also, what does your collection of photoshopped hybrids have to do with anything?
@Impaler1815 Now your changing your story. Morphing, changing, mutations? Do I have to spell it out for you? Come on man all I want is a good reliable answer. You are saying that scientist do not base their interpretations on artist rendering, yes you are correct. They pay the artist to fabricate what they imagined such creatures to be. I think I already answered your last question here.
@MaximusMcc No that's been the story all along: Evolution requires no morphing. Changing, yes, mutations, yes, but no morphing, this isn't X-Men.
So you're saying scientists deliberately fabricate non-existant, or false data, and uses that in their arguments? In that case, do you have any examples of scientists' arguments being based on false or non-existant data? Also, why are you bringing up the artists at all if scientists don't base their arguments on artist's interpretations?
@MaximusMcc Data is biased? So every dating method is wrong, Every fossil is wrong. DNA is wrong. It is all wrong just so your bible stories can be right.
@gregrutz Well those are your words not mine. I actually believe in the dating methods "scientifically". The numbers do add up in just about every case. I will not deny that scientifically that the dating methods currently all harmonize and this earth and universe "appear" to be very old. However because I believe that there are supernatural causes and a supernatural beginning there would have to have had been a fully grown earth and universe and is a solution to the chicken and egg...
1. "It's all just interpretations" Any crackpot idea can be supported as being a certain interpretation of the evidence. Just look at the Flat Earth Society. To be scientific it has to be the best explanation for the evidence, it has to fulfil predictions, be consistent, and be falsifiable.
2. "Fossils can only tell you something lived and died" If that's what you think you're wilfully ignorant. What about morphology and the time it lived? Are they not something evolution predicts?
@Impaler1815 can evolution predict what your species are going to turn into 1,000 year from now? Adaptation is a fact and it is proven science and YES i believe in it. Yes proven science, no question about that here! The question is as far as common decent goes, "Are species morphing into a completely new different species?"
@MaximusMcc New species have been observed to evolve, but not morph, because that's not how evolution works. If you say that's not enough, why don't you answer the question that no creationist has honestly answered: What is the mechanism that prevents "microevolution" from building up into "macroevolution? Without one macroevolution is an inevitability.
Science doesn't need to be able to predict the future, that's not what a scientific prediction is.
@Impaler1815 New species have been observed to adapt to their surrounding and needs. For instance if I had a manual job like splitting wood with an ax my hands would be more callused. Your question has a wrong premise. It should be what proof do we have of macro evolution. Dont you hate it when someone tells you to disprove God? I cant disprove your imagination pal, please ask relevant questions!
@MaximusMcc Would you pass on callused hands to your children? No, that would be Lamarckian evolution, and few, if any, accept that.
Do you realise without a barrier to microevolution, microevolution will continue to occur and eventually build up to what you call macroevolution? Of course there are better evidences for macroevolution, like the nested hierarchy, but the lack of barrier to microevolution still makes macroevolution an inevitability.
Religious, pseudoscientific psychobabble. Instead of arguing against strawman definitions of evolution, perhaps you might read a paper on the subject, or even a book? Or is that too much to ask?
@TheGamanic I was raised in evolutionary theory, studied it in school and got straight A+ 's all the way. I know a pig closer is related to a bear than a cow is according to common decent. Did I give it a fair shake? hell yeah. Did I ever believe it? Yeah at one time that is all I believed and that is what I was taught. Do I have problems with it now? Damn right. Yes I have questions about evolution and every time I ask them I get the typical responses, I too am looking for something new!
@MaximusMcc At school level, they only teach you very basic facts about evolution , but even then you should know enough to refute many of the common creationist claims you espouse. For example, even a small child would realise that the theory of evolution says nothing about the beginning of the universe.
"Yes I have questions about evolution and every time I ask them I get the typical responses"- what's your problem with the "typical responses" if they are logical and backed by evidence?
@TheGamanic My problem is that they are falsified unproven BS, that my problem. Didn't you watch the video? By looking at that skull you are going to tell me that homo-hibilis was grandaddy? He looks like an extinct species to me and there is not ANY and I mean ANY proof that his ancestors evolved, morphed, changed, or mutated into humans.
@MaximusMcc Well he wasn't granddaddy was he, no biologist states this, that is strawman. Proof that that fossil is hominid can be seen by the cranial size, bone structure etc. Homo habilis is around 2 million years old, whilst as fossils get more recent, the cranial size and shape changes to that closer of homo sapiens, our species. Clear patterns can be seen through the fossil record. The changes are between many hominid fossils are so small they almost defy classification
@TheGamanic Strawman? May be, the point is I really don't believe the evidence leads us that way. Interpretations are interesting because you have to make a connection with something in order to interpret it. You see I believe that the fossil record shows a bunch of extinct species not evolved species and I can prove my interpretation using the scientific method.
@MaximusMcc cont. Furthermore evidence of the very close genetic design we and apes have is very convincing aswell. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, apes have 24, with 22 of those being the same as that of humans. It is now known that two ape chromosomes joined together. Also humans and apes share some pseudogenes such as material from ERVs which again points to a close connection between the two
@TheGamanic Chromosomes do not matter neither do the fact that we share dna with a banana that proves nothing in the way of evolution and matches the creation model perfectly pointing to a common designer.
@TheGamanic That is such a fallacious argument. I would think that even the very basic of Atheist enthusiast can see this. He is explaining a comprehensive design though the genome understood by letters. What he is claiming is that a designer cannot use different attributes in his designs and that it would be undetected by humans. His point is NULL totally.
@MaximusMcc I think your problem is that you are unwilling to actually accept supernatural explanations, however implausible, over simpler, less assuming naturalistic ones because of faith, not reason. You do not deal with the evidence in an objective manner
@TheGamanic I would have to say that I disagree with you terribly. Take for instance "Objective Moral Values" For example everyone would agree the raping children is wrong but why do we believe that? How does a naturalistic view explain such concepts?
@MaximusMcc "Take for instance "Objective Moral Values""- I don't believe there are such things, merely subjective moral values that are taken to be objective because they are thought to be seen as better. Most people would agree that raping children is wrong because the children is being hurt against its will. There is no consent from the child and the relationship between abuser and victim, by its very nature, is unequal and unfair.
@MaximusMcc "So its not really objectively wrong to you its just subjectively wrong?"- Why would it make a difference, it's still wrong. Does it make me disgusting for following reason, something you purport but fail to do?
@TheGamanic If you are not willing to admit that Raping and killing children are not Objectively Morally Wrong then I must say that you are beyond help. You say its still wrong? Whats the difference? Check out the people in the jungles of Brazil, they will kill a child that is born with a defect. You may say that is not wrong for them because that is their culture but is wrong for us because we made it that way? Give me a break, yes your disgusting!
@MaximusMcc "You may say that is not wrong for them because that is their culture but is wrong for us because we made it that way"- Deal with the issue at hand and don't put things into my mouth. I never said this. You still need to explain why exactly you think objective morals exist and are not really just subjective. Saying, "your disgusting", which is wrong on two fronts, is not suffice.
@TheGamanic You know what pal, I really dont care what you believe OK. The point is there ARE Objective Moral Values whether you like it or not. There are real things that are really wrong and really bad and not just because you say it is or not or if anyone does. There are thing that are "OBJECTIVELY MORALLY WRONG" that point to a higher form of intelligence.
@TheGamanic Objective moral values exist like gravity exist. My argument is there is really evil out there that are objectively wrong. if you cant see it you are a very disturbed person and I would question every presupposition that you have. My argument is not a fallacy but is built on a solid foundation that there actually is right and wrong.
@MaximusMcc "Objective moral values exist like gravity exist"- Prove it. That is something you are reluctant to do, you simply assert that something is true without evidence. But if you don't like thinking for yourself, fair enough
@TheGamanic Go to the prisons and you will see all the people that violate objective moral values. There is some very elementary proof. If you dont believe that there are things that are objectively morally wrong and you need proof they are just let someone rape and murder someone you love, or steal from you so that you are homeless. What are you looking for scientific proof? Your pathetic!
@MaximusMcc "Go to the prisons and you will see all the people that violate objective moral values"- So the law equals moral objective values? If so, how do laws of different countries work? I'm sure you don't mean this but just to clarify.
"just let someone rape and murder someone you love, or steal from you so that you are homeless."- This is just pathetic
@TheGamanic I think the only thing that is pathetic is your not believing that objective moral values don't exist. Think and I mean really think about it, you don't need any science experiment to tell you that there are objective moral values. We base our laws off of them that is true and may be a start for a challenged mind like your to grasp that there are actually objective moral values.
@MaximusMcc "We base our laws off of them that is true". So let's take one example. Laws in some places advocate the death penalties, others don't. You claim laws are based on moral objective values which are unchanging but nonetheless true and just. Therefore, is the death penalty objectively a bad thing or not?
@TheGamanic That is a great example and I am surprised that you chose that one. Of course the death penalty is a great way to display objective moral values and is ultimately the greatest of all punishments for compromising these objective moral values. But where is the science in that huh? non existent because it don't deal with right and wrong it only deals with evidence and facts but right and wrong still exist reguardless
@MaximusMcc ''Killing innocent children '' I don't mean to butt in on your other conversation but were you talking about the global flood when God killed everyone including Killing innocent children ?
Nice video, Evolution is actually ridiculous, if only people would start to use their own brains sometimes..
Proteched 3 weeks ago
"objective moral values" - I would love to learn more about those. Thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Objective moral values are like the Holocaust. Compare that to breaking the speed limit. Both are wrong but one is universally objectively wrong. If evolution were true then the Holocaust is not more wrong than someone breaking the speed limit. Things like child rape, murder, are not really morally wrong it just depends on who you talk to if evolution is true. If creationism is true those kinds of thing are objectively wrong and there is nothing subjective about them.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc You and I agree the Holocaust was wrong. I think it is wrong to kill anyone unless they are attempting to kill someone else. But not everyone agrees, so I don't understand how it is objective.
For instance, if a god killed a lot of people, someone could say it is not wrong, since it was a god and gods can not do wrong. Then it would be ok for the god to kill a large group of people, and would not be objectively wrong. peace
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Objective Moral Values means it doesn't matter what you believe it is still wrong to do these atrocities. If its a subjective moral value then that means we cant really blame Hitler for what he did it was part of his evolutionary makeup that made him come to these conclusions. Therefore if we admit there are things that are really wrong and not just because we believe they are. I'll tackle the subject of god killing in the next response....
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc The first part I agree with... objective morality would not be influenced by the beliefs of any individual.
What I don't agree with is that subjective means "we cant really blame Hitler...." -We-, you and I as subjective humans -can- blame Hitler and anyone who oversteps the rules of their current society.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube You can blame me "subjectively" for anything this has nothing to do with right and wrong. Sometimes the majority would agree with you and sometimes they wont. "Objectively" you cannot blame me if I am a product of natural causes. I would naturally be reacting to to world around me as I see it. However if there is really right and wrong which does not depend on whether you agree with it or not and if Objective Moral Values exist we are condemned if we violate them values.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc We agree that "subjective" is not perfect. There is still a subjective right and wrong, it varies between individuals, cultures, etc. It overlaps with most religions which require or advise, Do not kill, Do not steal.
It is "objective" morality I want to learn about. I have some strong feelings which make me feel that everyone would agree with me. To me they at least -seem- objective. I have to admit I am one subjective mind. How would we know what -is- objective? thanks
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Maybe we can start with this. When is it right to rape someone, past present and future? Objective or subjective?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc I can only offer my subjective opinion as an individual human: Rape, in my subjective opinion is always wrong. I hope and wish it to be "objective" and ask you,
"Do we as humans agree that rape is always wrong?" I say yes. I do not know anyone who disagrees. It is still subjective until you explain "Objective" thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube What do you mean "We as humans" you suggest there is something else? On the subject of rape, it does not matter what "we humans" {yes I admit there is something else} believe it is always wrong to rape. Its objective not subjective. If it were subjective it would be open to interpretation and it is not just your view that rape is wrong, it is really wrong.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc We as humans who can think about morals. Not gods. You and I agree that it is wrong to rape. A rapist might argue that it is not. How can we objectively know it is wrong? Nothing which goes through a human mind is objective. Part of the definition of "subjective" is that it is influenced by the mind.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Well thinking they way you do he is Objectively not wrong, In fact thinking like you do he is Objectively justified in rape, murder of the innocent, lying, stealing, etc. There fore Hitler, Stalin, etc are totally justified objectively in what they did. I am going to argue here that there are really things that are right and wrong objectively no matter what time, place or circumstance there is. If you can find justification then I would put you in my sisters class etc...
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc I think "subjectively", just as you do. The rapist is still wrong in both our opinions. All I'm asking about is where does this "objective" you talk about come from? I have asked several times and instead of answering, you tell me what a bad person I am. Where does one learn about this "objective morality?" Please.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube I was using "personification technique" I don't know you at all. However assuming that you too are using the "personification technique" to acquire understanding I would have to say several things regarding your arguments. Basically your presuppositions is the main culprit that is confusing you and that is the main reason. Given the assumption that you make no room in your world view for anything other than a natural explanation seems to indicate a handicap.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc My presupposition is that I know a good bit about the natural world and that my views are subjective. I gave room to Jesus from the age of 9 to the age of 49. There is still room in my life to learn and understand. Thus my interest in asking people. thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc continued:
Subjective morality can be explained by evolution. We can talk more about that if you want. I'm interested in where "objective morality" comes from.
Sorry, I didn't understand this sentence: "Therefore if we admit there are things that are really wrong and not just because we believe they are." thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube I think I elaborated on my former comment and I think your right that if evolution were true we could explain subjective moral values in that pretense. Acting as a society and being apart of it requires certain kinds of conduct and rules. We can make those rules up all day long and even base games and activities off of them. Yet, are these a refection of something greater? I think the evidence points to such a cause.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc
A reflection of something greater? Yes. A society is greater than an individual. Of course, that is my subjective opinion. The individual may be right about something, even though the society is against them. As I see it, subjective is what we have to work with.
Please, let the subjective rest and tell me about the "objective." Where is it and how do we know? peace
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Maybe you missed my comment: Maybe we can start with this. When is it right to rape someone, past present and future? Objective or subjective?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc I answered this above: ""Do we as humans agree that rape is always wrong?" I say yes. I do not know anyone who disagrees. It is still subjective until you explain "Objective" thanks. "
IMO, rape is always wrong.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Again I am going to argue here that is not your opinion. In fact I am going to argue that it is a law similar to gravity, motion, but the naturalistic explanation would not be enough to satisfy the most skeptics of skeptics. I have seen them squirm in debated when faced with this issue. The argument here is obvious but denial is oh so sweet.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc If it were obvious, everyone would see it. I don't. So I am asking. I'm not denying anything, I'm asking someone who claims to know to explain it to me. thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Actually the obvious actually escapes the attention of most that's why Hitler, Stalin, political and religions leaders get away with what they do. I would have to say that your argument there about the obvious it flawed. However what I mean by obvious is that we have a book with these OMV written out in the form of commandments or laws.This is what obliges me on this particular argument to accept a supernatural explanation because of the fact that it was written down etc.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@csnowutube I am under the impression that you might be atheist but just bear with me a min.God is in spirit and does not believe in death like we do.We see it as an end he sees it as a transition.One everlasting blessing the other punishment.We will all meet that transition sooner or later.So God as you say kills everyone even you and me there is no escape this is the sentence for all of us.The meaning of death to us is very different compared to a transition which there is evidence
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc Yes sir. Forty years a believing Christian (Methodist), 10 years as an agnostic atheist.
Yes, if there is a god he kills all of us. I thought we were taking about how things look through the eyes of society (subjective) as opposed to objective morality. If god can kill and be a great guy, that is your subjective opinion. There is nothing objective about that. You realize that "objective" means something not influenced by a mind, right?
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube I think that you have not gotten the meaning of my words. Sorry about that. Just so we are speaking of the same meaning here is what I get Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: Moral: pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. Values: relative worth, merit, or importance. Assuming that these are the correct definitions to you......
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc
cs - MaximusMcc said - "Objective: not influenced by personal feelings,etc...."
cs - check, I agree.
M - "Moral: pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct"
cs - yes.
M - "Values: relative worth, merit, or importance."
cs - I agree with this but I don't see how it helps your position. "relative" would be subjective. thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube This totally helps my position on OMV. For instance we are talking about "rape" in the above discussion. This is not just wrong because its a "personal feeling" that it is wrong. It is wrong because it is really "Objectively Morally" wrong.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc I guess I'm just dense. It sounds like you are saying it is wrong because you know it is wrong. I want to know how you know. Sorry if I'm bugging you. It is a fascinating question.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Well I don't really see the mystery here because I am a person that can be content with a supernatural explanation as well as a natural explanation. Lending all the credit to natural causes just because I have a gut feeling it has to be that way is sheer stupidity I think. If the evidence leads you to a natural or supernatural explanation then what is wrong with that? Follow it unless you find out different later.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc I might be content with a supernatural explanation too, but so far, none has been offered. I see evidence for subjective morality. I do not see evidence for objective. That is why I am asking someone to explain it to me.I can not follow what I don't see.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Well I think that you have missed the point of supernatural explanations. Just because you cannot connect the dots does not mean that the supernatural explanation is not intelligible. Making a mockery of the supernatural will definitely hinder your ability to accept given the fact you rejected it already I think it would be very difficult for you to accept such explanations. Mission impossible is more adequate explanation for what I feel towards you regarding this subject
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@csnowutube I think that perception is key here. You and I have a perception of what it means to be in a physical body governed by physical laws. This is our perception. We differ on conception apparently. I can conceive that there is someone that has a different perception than you and me that is not in the same state as we that would not see death as an end. Especially if he were outside time, space etc. I can also conceive that such an individual can perceive the need for OMV 4 us
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
cs - Humans need moral values. g-d would have no "needs". a perception of ... a ...body. Jesus. "conceive" ing a different perception is easy enough. It is the difference between objective and subjective in which I am interested. How can a human mind can be anything but subjective? The human perception is more interesting to me. That is all I know.
"outside time"
That is out of my comprehension.
Do you or I have knowledge of Objective moral values? thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube I am sure that I answered this question if it was not satisfactory then I have to question your mental state. I have a sister that is on medication and in the psyche ward at the hospital many times. She believes that murder, rape etc is ok if she is mad at the time. So you are telling me that subjectively we can blame her but objectively she is not wrong?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc This is a complex subject. Thanks for sticking with me. I just read an article which my lead to a meeting of the minds.Sorry to hear about your sister and I wish the best for her.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc
I think now that subjective is what any individual thinks. (And I think we agree on that). "Objectively", I had been considering impossible for humans. The article seemed to be saying that a society could be objective. But if they were a society of cannibals, you and I would think their thoughts were wrong. If you can agree that a society could make objective rules, we can leave it at that. If not, my one question is, Where do find this objectiveness? thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube I agree with the first argument no question we can make rules for ourselves and others subjectively. Objectively its obvious to me that humans are not the only ones that set limits for humans and nature is not the only one that set limits for nature and nature is not the only one that set limits for humans. Therefore that is why I believe in supernatural causes.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@csnowutube Now I can only come to this conclusion because I actually believe in right and wrong as OMV and not subjective to any interpretation. It also indicates that there can be no room for disbelief which some value as their stance to make everything subjective. However the consequences of believing that these thing are subjective have evil consequences. Conscience is self knowledge, where does it come from? Its a constant battle that leads to the supernatural explanations.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "believe in right and wrong as OMV and not subjective"
cs - Yes, I understand. I also have a belief that some things are always (objectively) wrong. What I am asking is how can I know what is "objectively" wrong when I only have a subjective human brain?
Conscience? It is easily explained. The hard question is "objective morality".
Supernatural is not an acceptable explanation. I want to know: As a human being, how can I do the most good?
peace
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube Well at least we both agree on there are things that are objectively wrong. As a human being that believes in only the natural world I cannot answer the question of Objective Morality and that is why I entertain alternative explanations of the subject. The fact that we have a record of one claiming to be God and setting the OMV standard I think is compelling reason when the OMV argument matches that of a laid out law on the subject.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc Sorry, my "beliefs" are subjective. I worded that badly. Instead of "I also have a belief that some..." I should have said "I also have a (subjective) belief... " I want for there to be "objective moral values", I just don't see them.
Which God laid out which law? thanks.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube The spaghetti monster god of course. You see he is a big piece of spaghetti and his tentacles have magic in them and whatever he touches turns to gold. The people then want the gold so they develop a conscience naturally from the meat balls that fall on their heads. < of course I am joking because I have not once shred of evidence for this hypothesis but I am sure that is what you were going to liken my Christian God to so I figured I would get this out of the way first.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc Where does one learn about this "objective morality?" Please.
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube A source outside the human compass, everything within is subjective.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc We agree on the subjective. Where, "outside the human compass," can we find objective?
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube What is objective to you? Did we already establish this?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
"Not to be confused with versus"
"visit me at thenightwatchman(dot)biz"
cs - Is this thenightwatchman the same as MaximusMcc? They don't sound the same. thanks
csnowutube 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MaximusMcc
@csnowutube I made another site called evolutionscamdotcom I think it sounds better for the subject I am addressing.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc
Pain and suffering are ancient arguments -against- god. Nice echo.
.rorrim dnAAnd mirror.
peace
csnowutube 1 month ago
@csnowutube well I am sure you see it that way but if we think further on this subject if we have true freedom as the Bible claims you can see why evil exist other wise we would not be able to make such decisions that are contrary to objective moral values. This is the center of my argument and I would be willing to explore it further with you if you like.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
Artists interpretation are for the really slow people with no imagination.
You can't get rich being a Paleontologist.
DNA shows how we are all related.
Evolution has been around for thousans of years, Darwin discovered how it happens.
''Evolutionists teach that everything started from Nothing. NO THEY DON'T.
Evolution is not the big bang theory. Get an education.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Obviously you have not heard of cosmic evolution. Education you may be lacking sir!
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
''Did this guy have kids'' Breeding population evolve, it does not matter if this guy had kids.
No, he didn't have to carry a ''cave man bat''. ''Morphing into an ape''
Being silly does not prove anything.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Breeding populations go extinct that's what the fossil record teaches us. It also shows us that in the past there were more species of things than there are today. Would you like me to use the term "evolving into an ape" instead? At what point in time did you become an ape sir? That is a rhetorical question of course but I think its a silly one too and what makes it even more silly is that you actually believe it.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
I mean I could take a dump and kill 99.9% of bacteria with Lysol, yet I am suppose to believe I evolved from bacteria. We could all wait a billion years to find out, but I'll just believe in God.
cbenji07 2 months ago
According to evolution, all life derives from single celled bacteria over the course of billions of years. I mean it doesn't take a rocket science to be alarmed by this kind of thinking. The Bible says God created man from the dust of the Earth. Is it some kind of coincidence that when we die (or any living thing) we decompose in the ground? Evolutionist still cannot explain night and day. Moon and the Stars. etc Did bacteria evolve this things as well?
cbenji07 2 months ago
So where are your scientific question you claim need answering? My perception of your video is that you are just another one of so many who are using a bully-pulpit to push there own personal agenda. Evolution easy? It's hard and that makes it easy to bamboozle people with 7 minute personal rants. No it's difficult and requires time, effort, research, and thought to comprehend. You've done your research but where, some biased website? Try cracking open an actual science book.
astrogeoteach 2 months ago
@astrogeoteach I use to be an evolutionist and an atheist but I really had to let the evidence lead me. I was just appealing to peoples intellectual common sense to initiate some open dialog on the subject. Maybe you can tell me your best evidence for you stand or tell me particularly the point(s) that you disagree with and we can go from there.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
Explain dinosaurs with feathers.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz Created creatures just like the rest of us. I would say the same if there existed a cows head on a lions body. I don't understand the difficulty that you are proposing here.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
Evolution was obvious to the Greeks.
Yes, the skull is of an extinct species, an ape. Most of the species that ever lived are extinct. These extinct species are what scientists are trying to expalin.
So creationists say ''You don't know if he had kids'' so the can ingore the evidence. Breeding population evolve, no one person.
gregrutz 3 months ago in playlist More videos from MaximusMcc
@gregrutz Its true that we do not know if a certain fossilized creature had kids and maybe Creationist use it too much to try to communicate the point. However I really like your point about the extinct species and I think that is a stronger argument. What the fossil record shows us is that there are a lot of extinct species and that is all.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
They can tell how mature a fossil was when it died by x-raying the skull& seeing at what point the adult teeth were in development. These people aren't stupid.
If everything needs a creator, then wouldn't God need a creator? It is more scientific to say that the universe just exists than to say that God just exists and made the Universe out of nothing.
Your Bible tells me I can sell my daughter to slavery.
You have made it clear through this that you know nothing about what you speak against.
imsocool7222 3 months ago
@imsocool7222 Its interesting that you bring up Richard Dawkins central argument in his book "The God Delusion" "If there is a creator then, who created the creator?" The point is you DO NOT need an explanation for the explanation when it is the "best" explanation. I recommend that you view William Lane Craigs arguments in this field you may learn something.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
Is this guy trolling? This isn't for real... is it? :/
no2religions 4 months ago
@no2religions Maybe you can be a little more clear in your comment. Trolling?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
I like your modest tone, but your understanding of the science behind evolution is pretty far off. Actually really way of base. Scientist do alot more research to draw conclusions than look at pictures of ape skulls on their computers
newbeats4 4 months ago
@newbeats4 Well I am sure that real scientist without an agenda are doing that but I have to question the motive of scientist in macro evolutionary theory. Basically I am opposition to a TOA Theory of Everything and I think that is what these enthusiast of evolution are trying to impose. It would be nice that before we die we can actually believe in some truth don't you think? Maybe evolution says it all to you but I have some real problems with it. Thanks for the comment
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
Judging by your video, you have no concept of evolution at all. Creation is a theory which religious people want to hang on to because they don't like the truth !
ikinmoore 6 months ago
@ikinmoore I guess you dont realize it but people like you prove my point every time. you know evolution is not rocket science all it takes is "imagination" so before I go into your "imagination land" again and I do mean "again" I want some real answers to some real questions. I really dont mean to hurt your feelings but the problem is I do understand and you dont. Making remarks like you just made proves my point every time and the pity of it all is that you just dont see it. I am religious?lol
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc
The fact about Creation is that it is a fable written by men who knew nothing about science. If you require answers to the age of the earth, how humans came to live on the planet, there is plenty of stuff on the internet.There are plenty of transitions only you are blind to see them. How do I prove your point when you are not even looking for the truth. You make no sense !
ikinmoore 6 months ago
@ikinmoore It is interesting that you call creation a fable written by men. Are fables written by anyone else? I am not blind, I can read what you are writing just fine but it is interesting that you can quote scripture verses to try an insult me, lol. Matthew 15:14 I guess the fables were good for something huh?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@ikinmoore How do you explain my position then? I am not religious, I dont go to church and I am totally against organized religion. I don't believe that my learning ability is dysfunctional. I am an ordinary average guy weighing the evidence now for 40 years now and I think it falls short.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc
You have not seen the evidence which Scientists have tested over and over again. It is very interesting that you claim you don't like organized religion yet you want to believe in a fable called Creation. If you really don't believe in Evolution then what do you believe in if religion is not your agenda !
ikinmoore 1 month ago
@ikinmoore Truth is my agenda plain and simple.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc
Why don't you study science with those who know what they are talking about rather then assuming that Evolution is false. Go to a Natural History museum to see those hundreds of transitions and find out about DNA. That is where the truth is.....
ikinmoore 1 month ago
@ikinmoore Well actually I have studied with those you propose i study with and I have been to museums thousands of times, studied evolutionary literature and even was an Atheist at one time. You see when things don't add up you tend to look elsewhere for the truth and that is what I did.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
~ The start of the big bang was the implosion of a blue giant within another dimension that burst energy, life, and substance into our universe, this formed galaxies, and provided the basic building blocks for our spiritual life. we are not independent of God, but and cell within his body, you grow with the production of new cells right, well so does god. physical reality is the product of our spiritual mind deciphering light and energy, which is life at its purest form of consciousness.
2012DarkKnight 6 months ago
@2012DarkKnight For sure I believe that there is an extraordinary explanation that fails our understanding in so many ways. There are things that can only be explained by super natural means of speculation. Of course I believe that naturalist will obviously have a problem with this concept but their problems still remain without a supernatural explanation. Obviously you believe in the big bang but I am sure you could not explain to satisfaction what your implications are to a skeptic like me.
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
~ The questions of evolution or Gods creation seem to be an issue for people, this is a question of simple logic and science, We exist because of evolution with some divine interventions. We are constantly evolving in life through time, but every once in a while we get a burst of conscious divine intervention that elevates our spiritual evolution within the spiral dynamics and cycles of eternities time.
2012DarkKnight 6 months ago
Go to your local supermarket. Go to the fruit, vegetable, and meat sections of the store. Unless it says "wild" and possibly if it says "organic" you're looking at what a large chunk of evolutionary science goes into, and where it gets a lot of revenue from (food).
Also go to a hospital and look at all the medicines they use to fight diseases, germs and bacteria. Evolutionary science helps make those too. The stuff they used 50 years ago won't work anymore.
What does Creationism do?
Atriviality 6 months ago
@Atriviality Wow, where can I start from that? Are you claiming that there are no creationist that have ever come up with scientific cures for disease or that they do not believe in adaptation?
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc
I didn't say "creationist", I said "Creationism". What is CreationISM used for? What does CreationISM produce? How does CreationISM make money?
Evolutionary science is used to make better food and medicine. This is why it is a multi-billion dollar industry. It produces results.
Atriviality 6 months ago
@Atriviality Evolutionary science is used to make "better foods" and "medicine" but did it make the actual FOOD and MEDICINE? By the way I believe "evolutionary science" is absurd. I predict that every human male is going to have a penis or have had a penis that we dig up in the fossil record. Wow that was easy and you know what, my theory is right! Give me a break!
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc
"did it make the actual FOOD and MEDICINE?"
- Why yes it does, because if it didn't, we wouldn't USE IT to make food and medicine.
"I believe "evolutionary science" is absurd"
- Then stop using the products produced by it. Only use foods and medicines that are spoken into existance.
I wonder if you will be different to most creationists and actually answer my questions? What is CreationISM used for? What does CreationISM produce? How does CreationISM make money?
Atriviality 6 months ago
@Atriviality So you are telling me that life comes from non-life? Why can't you grasp this well proven scientific fact?" Cause and Effect" Creationism is used for everything, creationism produced everything and creationism made more money than evolution will ever dream of making. Are your questions for real? Are you telling me that those questions prove evolution? Really why do you have to resort to this type of method? Once again you prove nothing Sherlock!
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
Atriviality 6 months ago
@Atriviality Sorry its been a while and I am trying to get to all my comments and from your comment here you are quoting me and asking questions. May be to sum it all up is to tell you that I believe that a supernatural cause is the best explanation for some things and that the natural explanations suffice for the majority of what we observe. Is that fair?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc Scientists don't know how life started. That has nothing to do with how live evolved [change and diversified] So if scientists found out God made the first life, THEN you would 'believe' in evolution?
gregrutz 3 months ago in playlist More videos from MaximusMcc
@gregrutz Like I said before I would have no problem believing in evolution and there are some things that evolution explains very well like adaptation. So as far as believing in evolution this is the extent to where the evidence leads. My problem is the TOE Theory Of Everything which evolution claims to explain and there are so many problems with it that even entertaining such a discussion is ludicrous.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc Creationists always get it backwards. ''evolution explains very well like adaptation'' Adaptation explains why things change [evolve]. It is part of Natural Selection.
Remember 'Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection'' by C. Darwin?
Evolution is not the Theory of Everything. The Theory of Everything is a term used by scientists studying the forces of nature and looking for the Higgs Particle.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Yes and I believe in adaptation, its a fact of course. I have read Charles book a few times and regard him as a brilliant mind to be reckoned with. However you hit the nail on the head when you said that evolution is not a TOA and it is to this end that I oppose the other embraces of the evolutionary theory.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
The tide goes in; the tide goes out. Nobody can explain it.
TheFallibleFiend 6 months ago
I don't think I need to continue, because you're probably going to censor these comments. You claim to be honestly looking for truth, yet you demonstrate clear bias towards creationism. You claim evolution's explanation's aren't scientific enough for you, yet you believe a story that involves someone thinking the universe into existence. Your arguments are taken almost verbatim from creationist websites, and you definitely haven't looked at the evolutionist responses.
Impaler1815 6 months ago
well your comment is not censored and of course I am biased toward creationism because that is what I am convinced of. I take it that you are convinced of the evolution argument and that is what you are convinced of. I believe that there are logical fallacies in the evolution model and yes I have researched it. I was raised believing in evolution and common decent as well.
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
My claim is that they are not providing satisfactory answers They present polluted evidence it makes me question their motives
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc Yet you think everything being thought into existence is a satisfactory answer. How can that be more scientific than evolution?
Unlike you I'm not biased towards evolution. I place the same standards to evidence to evolution and creationism. If you had the same standards you would also reject creationism for its logical fallacies and dishonest methodologies.
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 I do reject certain parts of what some people claim as creationist arguments. I am getting pounded with a lot of comments here but I am really agnostic about a lot of things when it comes to creationism. However outright lies whether they are an evolutionist argument or a creationist argument makes me totally question their motives. I not believe that the end justifies the means on either side of the argument.
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc So you don't believe everything was thought into existence? Isn't that necessary for creationism?
Are you aware agnosticism isn't a belief, it's a stance on knowledge.
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 I dont believe that everything was banged into existence from nothing!
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc Isn't that the entire mechanism for creationism: That everything was thought into existence one day from nothing? So are you saying you don't believe in creationism?
On the other hand that leaves the big bang on the table, because it does not say everything came from nothing.
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 I think the evidence leads us to a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe. Natural explanations for everything are ridiculous.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc You came back after 4 months to say "I disagree"? I could have assumed that on my own.
Impaler1815 1 month ago
@Impaler1815 Sorry about that but like Richard Dawkins "I'm Busy!" lol, No sincerely I apologize now what were we talking about? lol.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
3. What does your collection of photoshopped animal hybrids have to do with anything?
4. Evolution = werewolves. Is that how you think evolution works? Animals occasionally turn into other animals mid-life?
5. Mitochondrial eve lived 200,000 years ago. Y-adam lived 60,000 years ago. That doesn't exactly match up to the biblical account.
6. When has a scientist ever based their arguments on an artists interpretation?
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 Ok just because you missed the point. i will clarify. The point here is that we can all use our imaginations, creationist and evolutionist alike. It does not make your sculpture and more believable than mine. I hope that clarifies things.
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 Slowly morphing is still as much as a misrepresentation as mid-life morphing no matter how you slice the cheese. Really? Do what proof do you have that Mitochondrial eve lived 200,000 years ago. and Y-adam lived 60,000 years ago? Let me see it I am all eyes and ears! You got to be kidding with your 6th question!
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc Evolution doesn't involve morphing at all. How do you think evolution works? The ages of Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondiral Eve are based on observable mutation rates. Are you saying that's unreliable?
So do you have an example of a scientist basing their arguments on an artists interpretation or not? Put up or shut up.
Also, what does your collection of photoshopped hybrids have to do with anything?
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 Now your changing your story. Morphing, changing, mutations? Do I have to spell it out for you? Come on man all I want is a good reliable answer. You are saying that scientist do not base their interpretations on artist rendering, yes you are correct. They pay the artist to fabricate what they imagined such creatures to be. I think I already answered your last question here.
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc No that's been the story all along: Evolution requires no morphing. Changing, yes, mutations, yes, but no morphing, this isn't X-Men.
So you're saying scientists deliberately fabricate non-existant, or false data, and uses that in their arguments? In that case, do you have any examples of scientists' arguments being based on false or non-existant data? Also, why are you bringing up the artists at all if scientists don't base their arguments on artist's interpretations?
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 What I am saying is that their interpretations of the data are biased. Does that make it clear enough? Data is data plain and simple.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc Data is biased? So every dating method is wrong, Every fossil is wrong. DNA is wrong. It is all wrong just so your bible stories can be right.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Well those are your words not mine. I actually believe in the dating methods "scientifically". The numbers do add up in just about every case. I will not deny that scientifically that the dating methods currently all harmonize and this earth and universe "appear" to be very old. However because I believe that there are supernatural causes and a supernatural beginning there would have to have had been a fully grown earth and universe and is a solution to the chicken and egg...
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc Evolution solves the chicken or the egg problem, it explains the fossil record and explains why everything is related.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz How?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
1. "It's all just interpretations" Any crackpot idea can be supported as being a certain interpretation of the evidence. Just look at the Flat Earth Society. To be scientific it has to be the best explanation for the evidence, it has to fulfil predictions, be consistent, and be falsifiable.
2. "Fossils can only tell you something lived and died" If that's what you think you're wilfully ignorant. What about morphology and the time it lived? Are they not something evolution predicts?
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 can evolution predict what your species are going to turn into 1,000 year from now? Adaptation is a fact and it is proven science and YES i believe in it. Yes proven science, no question about that here! The question is as far as common decent goes, "Are species morphing into a completely new different species?"
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc New species have been observed to evolve, but not morph, because that's not how evolution works. If you say that's not enough, why don't you answer the question that no creationist has honestly answered: What is the mechanism that prevents "microevolution" from building up into "macroevolution? Without one macroevolution is an inevitability.
Science doesn't need to be able to predict the future, that's not what a scientific prediction is.
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 New species have been observed to adapt to their surrounding and needs. For instance if I had a manual job like splitting wood with an ax my hands would be more callused. Your question has a wrong premise. It should be what proof do we have of macro evolution. Dont you hate it when someone tells you to disprove God? I cant disprove your imagination pal, please ask relevant questions!
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc Would you pass on callused hands to your children? No, that would be Lamarckian evolution, and few, if any, accept that.
Do you realise without a barrier to microevolution, microevolution will continue to occur and eventually build up to what you call macroevolution? Of course there are better evidences for macroevolution, like the nested hierarchy, but the lack of barrier to microevolution still makes macroevolution an inevitability.
Impaler1815 6 months ago
@Impaler1815 I disagree sorry
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
Lol... excellent parody, sir, I tip my hat to you. It's funny because I've heard Creationists actually use some of these arguments.
FiverBeyond 6 months ago
@FiverBeyond Thanks
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
Religious, pseudoscientific psychobabble. Instead of arguing against strawman definitions of evolution, perhaps you might read a paper on the subject, or even a book? Or is that too much to ask?
TheGamanic 6 months ago
@TheGamanic I was raised in evolutionary theory, studied it in school and got straight A+ 's all the way. I know a pig closer is related to a bear than a cow is according to common decent. Did I give it a fair shake? hell yeah. Did I ever believe it? Yeah at one time that is all I believed and that is what I was taught. Do I have problems with it now? Damn right. Yes I have questions about evolution and every time I ask them I get the typical responses, I too am looking for something new!
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc At school level, they only teach you very basic facts about evolution , but even then you should know enough to refute many of the common creationist claims you espouse. For example, even a small child would realise that the theory of evolution says nothing about the beginning of the universe.
"Yes I have questions about evolution and every time I ask them I get the typical responses"- what's your problem with the "typical responses" if they are logical and backed by evidence?
TheGamanic 6 months ago
@TheGamanic My problem is that they are falsified unproven BS, that my problem. Didn't you watch the video? By looking at that skull you are going to tell me that homo-hibilis was grandaddy? He looks like an extinct species to me and there is not ANY and I mean ANY proof that his ancestors evolved, morphed, changed, or mutated into humans.
MaximusMcc 6 months ago
@MaximusMcc Well he wasn't granddaddy was he, no biologist states this, that is strawman. Proof that that fossil is hominid can be seen by the cranial size, bone structure etc. Homo habilis is around 2 million years old, whilst as fossils get more recent, the cranial size and shape changes to that closer of homo sapiens, our species. Clear patterns can be seen through the fossil record. The changes are between many hominid fossils are so small they almost defy classification
TheGamanic 6 months ago
@TheGamanic Strawman? May be, the point is I really don't believe the evidence leads us that way. Interpretations are interesting because you have to make a connection with something in order to interpret it. You see I believe that the fossil record shows a bunch of extinct species not evolved species and I can prove my interpretation using the scientific method.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc cont. Furthermore evidence of the very close genetic design we and apes have is very convincing aswell. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, apes have 24, with 22 of those being the same as that of humans. It is now known that two ape chromosomes joined together. Also humans and apes share some pseudogenes such as material from ERVs which again points to a close connection between the two
TheGamanic 6 months ago
@TheGamanic a fern has over 400 chromosomes, so what does that mean?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc That they have 400 chromosomes...
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic Chromosomes do not matter neither do the fact that we share dna with a banana that proves nothing in the way of evolution and matches the creation model perfectly pointing to a common designer.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc That's where you are wrong, and a point where no credible scientist agrees with you on.
What do you make of this? /watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic That is such a fallacious argument. I would think that even the very basic of Atheist enthusiast can see this. He is explaining a comprehensive design though the genome understood by letters. What he is claiming is that a designer cannot use different attributes in his designs and that it would be undetected by humans. His point is NULL totally.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc I think your problem is that you are unwilling to actually accept supernatural explanations, however implausible, over simpler, less assuming naturalistic ones because of faith, not reason. You do not deal with the evidence in an objective manner
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic I would have to say that I disagree with you terribly. Take for instance "Objective Moral Values" For example everyone would agree the raping children is wrong but why do we believe that? How does a naturalistic view explain such concepts?
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "Take for instance "Objective Moral Values""- I don't believe there are such things, merely subjective moral values that are taken to be objective because they are thought to be seen as better. Most people would agree that raping children is wrong because the children is being hurt against its will. There is no consent from the child and the relationship between abuser and victim, by its very nature, is unequal and unfair.
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic So its not really objectively wrong to you its just subjectively wrong? Your disgusting!
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "So its not really objectively wrong to you its just subjectively wrong?"- Why would it make a difference, it's still wrong. Does it make me disgusting for following reason, something you purport but fail to do?
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic If you are not willing to admit that Raping and killing children are not Objectively Morally Wrong then I must say that you are beyond help. You say its still wrong? Whats the difference? Check out the people in the jungles of Brazil, they will kill a child that is born with a defect. You may say that is not wrong for them because that is their culture but is wrong for us because we made it that way? Give me a break, yes your disgusting!
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "You may say that is not wrong for them because that is their culture but is wrong for us because we made it that way"- Deal with the issue at hand and don't put things into my mouth. I never said this. You still need to explain why exactly you think objective morals exist and are not really just subjective. Saying, "your disgusting", which is wrong on two fronts, is not suffice.
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic You know what pal, I really dont care what you believe OK. The point is there ARE Objective Moral Values whether you like it or not. There are real things that are really wrong and really bad and not just because you say it is or not or if anyone does. There are thing that are "OBJECTIVELY MORALLY WRONG" that point to a higher form of intelligence.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "The point is there ARE Objective Moral Values whether you like it or not". Argument by assertion=HORRENDER FALLACY!
"There are real things that are really wrong and really bad"- On what basis do you establish them as being bad or good?
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic Objective moral values exist like gravity exist. My argument is there is really evil out there that are objectively wrong. if you cant see it you are a very disturbed person and I would question every presupposition that you have. My argument is not a fallacy but is built on a solid foundation that there actually is right and wrong.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "Objective moral values exist like gravity exist"- Prove it. That is something you are reluctant to do, you simply assert that something is true without evidence. But if you don't like thinking for yourself, fair enough
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic Go to the prisons and you will see all the people that violate objective moral values. There is some very elementary proof. If you dont believe that there are things that are objectively morally wrong and you need proof they are just let someone rape and murder someone you love, or steal from you so that you are homeless. What are you looking for scientific proof? Your pathetic!
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "Go to the prisons and you will see all the people that violate objective moral values"- So the law equals moral objective values? If so, how do laws of different countries work? I'm sure you don't mean this but just to clarify.
"just let someone rape and murder someone you love, or steal from you so that you are homeless."- This is just pathetic
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic I think the only thing that is pathetic is your not believing that objective moral values don't exist. Think and I mean really think about it, you don't need any science experiment to tell you that there are objective moral values. We base our laws off of them that is true and may be a start for a challenged mind like your to grasp that there are actually objective moral values.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "We base our laws off of them that is true". So let's take one example. Laws in some places advocate the death penalties, others don't. You claim laws are based on moral objective values which are unchanging but nonetheless true and just. Therefore, is the death penalty objectively a bad thing or not?
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic That is a great example and I am surprised that you chose that one. Of course the death penalty is a great way to display objective moral values and is ultimately the greatest of all punishments for compromising these objective moral values. But where is the science in that huh? non existent because it don't deal with right and wrong it only deals with evidence and facts but right and wrong still exist reguardless
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc "Of course the death penalty is a great way to display objective moral values"- So is it good or bad?
"But where is the science in that huh?"- Have I brought up science at any point? I think not
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic It is a good deterrent for people like you who feel that raping and murdering innocent children are subjective moral values.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc I'll leave you in ignorance for a bit..
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic that so gracious of you.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc Prove objective moral values exist
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic Killing innocent children <- a violation of an objective moral value. Take that one and make your case against objective moral values.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago
@MaximusMcc ''Killing innocent children '' I don't mean to butt in on your other conversation but were you talking about the global flood when God killed everyone including Killing innocent children ?
Everyone buy 8 people and of course the Chinese.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz God took the children to heaven.
MaximusMcc 1 month ago