man does not know himself!!! Man has made for himself a lowly estate. God gave His only Son as a standard for what man can be. Christ creates not through himself but through the Father. We are His children.
It's funny how a song can have the Lord's name in it and every single comment is about "deep youtube theology" and other nonsense. The people on this website are incredibly smart. How many theology degrees can be given? As much as I love all of you, you are so stupid.
You don't know that. No one knows weather or not he does.
I don't believe in god personally but i don't completely rule it out. Because that's stupid. Saying god doesn't exist is just ridiculous. At least say hay PROBABLY doesn't exist
@thetwilightzone100 I don't assert in this video that god doesn't exist. Neither does the song. It simply asserts that the god of bible is, by any sane standards of morality, evil.
That being said, I do not believe in a god. I find the probability of a god like the one mentioned in any of the world's holy texts next to nil. I'm not going to tell people they can't believe in god, gods, whatever. I just want them to acknowledge the truth of what they worship: Evil.
I just got done watching that movie devil at the end it said something a few things 1 was that take responseability 4 your actions be truthful to yourself and others
@seracinfinity he went back on that later, saying he was misconstrued, and people can change their opinion (he famously changed it from pacifist because of how much he saw the Nazi's as a threat.)
Fuck god. God sucks. You know who's awesome? The Sun. The sun never harms us (aside from the occasional skin cancer and sun burns), and gives us all the energy and life on this planet. Do not pray to the sun though, pray to Joe Pesci instead. Joe Pesci is a guy who can GET THINGS DONE! Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around! - Inspired by George Carlin. I'm gonna miss that old fuck :)
@yellow468 There is no evidence to suggest god is even a real thing, same applies to spirits souls heavens and hells. How are you so sure you picked the right god? And even if you could prove he does exist, which you can't, how are you sure that he doesn't hate you with every inch of his intangible body?
@yellow468 The bible is an archaic collection of stolen and rewritten stories thousands of years old. If a comment from three months ago is null, does that mean the bible hasn't been relevant or worth a shit for two thousand years?
@yellow468 Nice grammar! And excellent slander. Very unchristian of you. Have you ever killed a homosexual? If not, you're a bad christian. Disobeying the bible.
@yellow468 You're right, man isn't low to him. Because god no exist. No god exist for man to low to him. So, you see, no god no low man to be low to god because no low god low isn't man low god.... >_> Right?
Actually, Neatherthals are parallel evolution. They existed at the same time as the 'modern' homo-sapiens appeared, but lost the race -- they were here first, actually. We drove them to extinction as homo sapiens spread out across the globe, displacing them with more efficient hunting and probably no small amount of xenophobia on sapiens' part.
In this video there is a lot of animosity to the point of not understanding. Luke 14:26 means, “I am yours first, and then those of your house hold come after me” But he will not have you reject them as we have rejected him. This world has a long way to go before it knows anything about the Truth, and given time even this can change!! may peace be with you or at least may you find it.
@doctorw2 it's not talking about god's love for humans, the 'that's why i love mankind' means he loves mankind the way i love you've been framed, and the way people love reading about celebrity divorces. it's a little thing called schaudenfraude which means 'happiness at the misfortune of others'.
@TheLogicalGod You just never answered a question did you. Theory is an opinion, Hypothesis is an idea built on an opinion, we call it circular reasoning.
Don't worry, this is just Randy's opinion, I think that it's funny and sharp, but TheLogicalGod has as much business telling people that this is what is the truth, as people with faith have telling others that they will go to hell if they don't believe. Don't enforce religion or beliefs, people have a right to think for themselves. So please don't say your opinion of god, say something nice about the video that TheLogicalGod obviously worked hard on, and the nice sound quality.
@wickedcoollike Thanks. As I say in the video description, I believe this song presents a truth that I want to share with people. I also believe that, as you said, people have the right to think for themselves. I don't condemn anyone to hell based on the conclusion I have made. They might live lives of frustration and confusion, and that can be a form of hell, but they can also live good lives. Still, I'm simply presenting an idea and thank you for recognizing that.
Listen, I beleive that religion is just a game, its the faith and lving right that matters. Also, The verse is a little pulled out of context, but not much. It was more metaphorical, by hate he means the Humanistic part of them, and blah blah blah. Of course, I wont try to convince anyone or argue to the death, as science and religion both require some leaps of faith to beleive in, and i Dont beleive Christianity should be shoved down anyones throat. It should be dexided entirely by the person.
If ONLY the average Son Of Abraham (IE Moslems, Jews, Christians.... IE Creationists) had just a tiny,tiny, miniscule amount of FAITH that the Evolutionists did. They would "say to the mountain "move" and the mountain would move". They would say to the dead "rise" and they would. I find it heart breaking that Evolutionists have far more faith that the Theists (and I am One). Believing in a Creator takes great Faith (no doubt), but faith in Evolution... Man that's amazing faith. God bless you.
@alexleitch37 What does science have to do with faith?
From Merriam Webster's dictionary-
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Science endeavors to make claims based experiment and evidence. All the information amassed over the past 200 years points toward evolution being the only credible scientific basis for life on earth. How is that related to faith?
@TheLogicalGod Many would question your statement "All the information amassed.... points towards evolution". Yes there is a great deal of scientific information that supports evolutionary THEORIES. I mention faith in my statement above because to think that everything came from nothing, that life arose from death, to think complexity came from simplicity takes a great deal of faith, more faith than I have in my God and His Church. thus I am impressed at the faith evolutionists have. cheers Al
@alexleitch37 I just need to comment on this whole "complexity from simplicity" thing. If you can't look out into the universe, the little we know of it, and see the staggering complexity that exists, the infinite possibility, and all the many things we have yet to know, and boil it down to such a simple statement, then it is obvious to me that you don't comprehend how science and knowledge in general works. Scientists spend their entire lives working on this...and they get results.
@TheLogicalGod I completely agree with you. But for ages Evolutionists claimed that the basic building blocks were "simple". (Now they know better). They then argued that from this simplicity, complexity developed. Creationists argued that complexity came from complexity , that an Infinite Being (God) created infinite complexity. IE you cannot construct a house from 2 bits of leggo. So for ages it took a great deal of FAITH to believe that with just time and accident complexity just occurred.
@alexleitch37 Well, you got me there. Its pretty funny to look back on what science believed in the past, even the recent past, and compare it to our current knowledge. But, that being said, that is exactly what future generations will say about the current state of scientific theories. That's also why I respect science so much. It builds, and builds, and builds, always working toward a more complete picture. Some theories may start silly, but through hard work truth can be found :)
@alexleitch37 No, thank you! It's so very nice to have someone who can thoughtfully disagree with me and still hold a conversation. I try and be civil and even when I respond to comments, and your responses prove to me you're what my grandad would have called "one of the good ones". Cheers to you as well!
@TheLogicalGod Thank you. "Have you learned lessons only from those who admire you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you?" (Walt Whitman - Leaves Of Grass). After reading many of your replies, I tried to fashion my own after yours, so thank you for that. Keep up the good work and beware of the skin deep folk who enjoy an argument that serves no purpose but egoism. Al
@TheLogicalGod Because Science is based on theory. Theory: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
No one has hard proof of anything. No one has seen a monkey evolve into a man or another world form from a big bang. Neither has none written about it form first hand knowledge. So you my friend have faith, great faith in theory. The same way we Believe in God. You my friend BELIEVE in Darwin. We all walk by faith and not by sight.
@tourneytime Unfortunately your comment proves that you don't understand the scientific theory. I would go as far as to say you don't want to understand. But I can't say that for sure. Science is based on theory, and theories are tested and proven by evidence. Before a theory will be accepted by the scientific community it has to be the best explanation. How can a theory be determined as "the best?" Evidence. If you won't look at the evidence for evolution then I can't help you.
@TheLogicalGod Dude. Never heard this song. Love it. Recommend you look at Bad Religion for classic punk rock in a similar vein (Go find "God Song" or "Sinister Rouge", might not be what you normally listen to but definitely very similar themes). Thanks for posting this and for your lengthy discussions with people that disagree with you. We need more dialogues like this.
@tourneytime I have had this discussion with evolutionists, & am told that a 'scientific theory' is actually a fact! I still conclude that to believe that something came from nothing, life with all it's complexities to have happened by accident, takes more faith than believing in a creator.
@rafhenlow 1)When people in certain areas of science say 'theory', they tend to mean 'hypothesis which, while proven using all available means, could still be disproved'. Thing is, they've had over 2 centuries to come up with something better, which at our current rate of scientific change makes it fairly concrete.
2) Your argument of 'something came from nothing' is a semantics problem. There was plenty of 'something' occupying the oceans when life arose. I'd say more, but I'm out of space.
@warnization There you go, splitting hairs like all scientists. What is the meaning of 'fairly concrete', do you mean it is an opinion that we think could/might/may be true if we continue to look for another 200yrs? Theory & Hypothesis = opinion. Prove it!! They were not there, neither were you or I. Do check out scientific law, 'something cannot come from nothing', nor 'order from chaos'. So where did the water/matter come from???
@rafhenlow ...scientific what? There's no laws in science. There's just observations, results, correlations, and the theories that let us tenuously connect our world together. I believe you're thinking of the so-called 'laws of thermodynamics'. Laws of science in general those are not. Their domain is restricted to, well, thermodynamics.
I'm sorry that I have to double-post, but I'm running out of space here.
@rafhenlow I don't mean that the theory of evolution is opinion, no. I'd say 'opinions' are defined as conclusions proved via some mental faculty. Scientific conclusions must be drawn from and proven via physical evidence, and then argued over perpetually using other physical evidence.Kinda like what we're doing now.
By 'fairly concrete', I mean that it is now used as a cornerstone for various other theories and can be/has been used to construct tools we can use to improve our lives.
@rafhenlow I'm really, really sorry about yet another post.
Where did all the matter/water come from? Most popular theory is Big Bang, the cause of which is currently debated in channels like string/quantum theory (guys please, I'm pathetically misinformed about astrophysics, somebody help me out here). There are some other interesting theories. One removes the need for dark matter in Einstein's equations and proposes no beginning or end to the universe. Not sure about it's reception.
@warnization That is what I am getting at, the 'popular big bang THEORY'. that is the operative word, 'THEORY'. I did check with an english teacher who confirmed what I have said here before, THEORY, an idea unproven by FACT. Stephen Hawking, top scientist, until a few days ago, concluded that there had to be a 'creator' to start things off. Now states that the 'Laws of science mean that it all started accidentaly' (paraphrase). Then again he changed his mind on black holes after 20yrs, so???
@rafhenlow Re the word theory: Next time, go ask a science teacher. While we're at it, I don't see you debating the following:
-Theory of relativity.
-Theory of gravity.
-Green's Theorem.
These are relied upon as fact by engineers and scientists. The use of the word theory, when used by scientists, means 'as yet unproven'. That doesn't mean unproven. I mentioned why in an earlier post.
Sorry, I see another double post coming here. Only 29 characters left.
@warnization Funny you should mention the gravity. I have always been led to believe it as fact, BUT, it has been pointed out to me that it isn't actually fact, we just understand that we are held here somehow. Gravity is the theory put forward, but how does it work??, why does it work? Relativity, isn't that equal & opposite reactions?, Green's I have never heard of, excuse my ignorance please.
Relativity is way, way cooler than that. It's Einstein's major victory: He realized by sheer thought that perceptions of time and space are altered by the speed of the person. As you travel closer to the speed of light, time travels slower and lengths increase--at least relative to the time and lengths someone traveling slower than you is experiencing. Years later, we proved him right.
Green's theorem comes up in multidimensional calculus.
@rafhenlow I'd disagree a little with that statement. Gravity is fact. The cause of gravity isn't quite known, at least not to me. You'd need to talk to a particle physicist with a couple Ph.Ds to get a good answer about the exact hypothesized source, which I'm given to believe is one of the many things they intend to prove with the Large Hadron Collider.
You should know that gravity itself is well-defined. Go ahead and google it and you can get the vector equation for its acceleration field.
@rafhenlow Now. On to Hawking. He's been wrong before (is that 'The Black Hole War' you're referencing there, and the conflict between quantum theory and classical mechanics which Hawking was a part of? I'm impressed). In fact, most humans are wrong way more often than they're right, 'top scientist' or not. The only times they need to be right is when they're building theories on the data they've collected. And those theories can be tested.
@warnization This is my last for tonight, I am going to have my tea. One thing put up for believing in science is that it prepared to change it's mind. Hawking is considered the greatest in his field, yet he has changed his mind twice. If he was crossing the road he would have been knocked down by know (lol). So how long do I wait for him to change his mind again?? The time thing, everyone thinks time is a constant, it isn't as Einstein theorised, proven, no longer theory. Talk to you again.
@rafhenlow Wait, are you saying Einstein was wrong or right? Because right now, the satellites we use for telecommunications are kinda relying on the fact that he's right.
As for Hawking--and any other scientist for that matter--they'll keep changing their minds as new data emerges. What you can trust is what's already been used--Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, the Schrodinger Equation (sorry, I'm using physics examples cause I like physics). See you later, I'll be happy to keep this going.
@warnization No. I pointed out that is no longer a theory if proven. So to keep saying Einstein's 'Theory' is wrong. Same as Faraday's Law etc. Not their law, just discovered by them because what they were looking at was ordered. As you say about satellites, also we could never have gone to the Moon if we didn't know where it would be at any given time. So, order came out of chaos, ie the big bang (theory). Order cannot come from chaos, a purpose is needed, inanimate objects don't have purpose.
@warnization There is no way to test evolution, except that at the moment nothing is evolving. I do not count germs/bacteria changing. From what I have read they are actually getting weaker, but different make up confuses immune system. ALL the claimed scientific missing links have been proven as lies/frauds/mistakes. So evolution remains a 'theory'. Some have been really bad. A tooth was found, passed off as human, artist then drew a whole tribe/houses/dress, from a PIGS tooth. (Blk Hole, yes).
@rafhenlow 1) I was hoping we'd have established by now that 'law' and 'theory' are used seemingly interchangeably in science.
2) Actually, pretty much everything is evolving and there are plenty of new species/additions, especially at the bacterial/viral level. I'd say superbugs, and their increasing commonness and emergence are good evidence for bacterial evolution. Look up 'New Delhi NDM-1' on wikipedia for information on the latest bacterial advancement.
@warnization Never go near WIKI, can add anything you like, & I did ask you not to go into 'germs' as proof of things evolving because as stated. Also, they are still just germs, adapting, which does not mean evolving. Evolutionists seem to pick what words mean to suit themselves. So 'theory' becomes fact, 'adapt' becomes 'evolve'. Still didn't comment on the frauds by the scientific community, including fiddling stem cell data. Follow the money/cuedos.
@rafhenlow I'm not familiar with the frauds or fiddling of stem cell data, and I'd greatly appreciate links to any evidence for what you've said so far.
Scientists in general use 'theory' to mean 'idea that has yet to be disproven', it's not just evolutionists.
'Adaptation' covers what occurs in evolution in many ways, the only difference being speciation occurring in evolution. Speciation occurs in the Daily Science paper I mentioned.
@warnization On the news here a couple of days ago stem cell research scientist in front of the medical board for falsifying data. Also a short while ago it was shown that the use of stem cells wasn't working as well as was originally thought, in fact it had a detrimental effect.
2nd para. ??
No, I have to disagree. Adapt does not mean evolve, what occurs is that the species has in its gene pool what it needs to adapt, straight away or it would succumb to whatever is detrimental.
@warnization To give an example; there is a species of moth that can detect sonar, (let's say 10ft. away), a bats sonar rebounds from objects 8ft. away. So the moth has a 2ft. window to close wings, dive in a spiral & evade the bat. So, if the moth didn't have the sonar detector to start off with it would have been eaten. How long was it before the moth decided it needed to do something, but what?, it has no idea what sonar is. We didn't discover it until, when, 1939/40. Clever moth.
@rafhenlow Also, I've used wikipedia as a source for various science related topics (engineering control theory, quantum physics, classical mechanics topics such as euler-lagrange mechanics, linear algebra, calculus), and I can at least vouch for those as accurate. One study in the journal 'Nature' found it to be roughly as accurate as Britannica (google cnet wikipedia britannica).
@warnization Still won't use Wiki, even had a comedians date/place of birth wrong, in fact most of what was written was wrong. Top firms have been told to stop changing facts on Wiki to suit their firms views/products.
@rafhenlow Yep, heard of that. Even heard that Wiki banned entries on US politicians after smear campaigns started targeting the entries.
It occurs to me that for what I've been looking up, the traffic of people able to correct errors accurately would be very high and the number of people inclined to change accurate information would be low. Information would then have a different amount of accuracy depending on the entry.
@rafhenlow Sorry about the misunderstanding; I thought you meant that you'd seen evidence for bacterial/viral evolution but had discounted it on the grounds that they were actually weakening and the results were phenomena related to that.
What's wrong with bacterial/viral evolution? It's certainly easier for researchers to replicate microbial environments than those of fauna.
@warnization Again, it is not evolving. A bacteria is a bacteria is a bacteria. Open University, showed worms that were living deep in caves. They then showed how, over the centuries they had evolved, into worms. Yes, worms. Slightly different because they were living in different conditions, but still worms. I was supposed to be astonished I think that worms had evolved into worms, I was suitably impressed, NOT! I am not making this up. Still no mention of the missing link frauds I see.
@rafhenlow Another evolution example, this time in a lab: Science Daily: Live Evolution Witnessed In Controlled Environment of Microbial Predator And Prey
@warnization Operative sentence,'Controlled etc etc etc'. Are you telling me that things have to be controlled to operate. Remember, these changes can only happen if the changes are present in the DNA to start with. So an accident then, not a design. Lucky for the moth, & the above that you have mentioned.
@rafhenlow To be clear, I mean that researchers vastly prefer evidence that can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere. Something that can be done in one person's lab can be redone by others, to confirm that it isn't a hoax. Reproductions of this kind are routine, as far as I can tell.
And, not necessarily. The structure of DNA controls cellular reproduction, but it doesn't contain 'hardcoded' information. Sunlight can damage DNA to the point that it is entirely different to the original encoding.
@warnization Well of course they prefer a controlled evnviro., but that means that things aren't 'just happening'. They are controlling 'in-out'. This enviro. could not have been around at the accidental start of life. I have written before that a scientist some time ago 'created the start', what he didn't admit to was keeping oxygen out of the mix, added after. The explosion he would have created was too dangerous otherwise. Aso, too much oxygen kills bacteria, & us. Has to right, NOW.
@rafhenlow Depending on the experiment, scientists wouldn't want to recreate the world's initial conditions. In the experiment I sent you, their intent was to research predator/prey relationships and evolutionary biology. For this, they'd simply want to isolate inside their contained environment a couple species of bacteria, and ensure nothing else entered. From there, things 'just happen', but only for the species they know they put in there in the first place.
@rafhenlow Sorry: 'Controlled conditions': conditions are controlled so that the scientists are aware of the variables entering their project. EG: Controlling the environment they've made for their bacteria by ensuring only sterile water or oxygen enters it, so that they don't introduce something into their experimental environment and end up concluding that, say, extra radiation makes bactera evolve into dead mice.
@warnization But this is not how things were at creation, you have to throw the dirt in & see what happens! They may have ended up with 'dead mice', which would show it could not have worked. Now that is an experiment, you cannot keep changing the conditions to suit as you have no idea what the conditions were!!
@rafhenlow For a report on an experiment that seems to centre on watching new genetic coding develop (ie, the mutation thing I mentioned above occurring in a beneficial way), see the article 'A High Frequency of Beneficial Mutations Across Multiple Fitness Components in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
David W. Hall 1 and Sarah B. Joseph', published online in the journal 'Genetics'. Not that I could get through much of it--thick, bio-major-centric stuff.
@warnization Now you know that that is probably going to leave me numb don't you. I have been sent to some of these web sites before. I normally find a lot of 'we think/believe IF'
I am at work, lunch, but I will try to look this up. But one of the above in the text & I am out of there. Working tomorrow (Sat). Will try Sun. before church. You don't seem interested in explaining the moth evolving before getting eaten, or how it knew it needed to detect something it knew nothing about, scientist?
@rafhenlow All right... Just remember that if you find an evolutionary biologist to question you should probably try them as well. There's probably not much sport in proving a physicist wrong in biology. Here's my perception:
This is a scenario we can see with bacteria as well. Specifically, ones getting hunted down with antibiotics whenever they infect humans. Now, how can bacteria evolve defenses against those if the antibiotics kill them off before they can evolve?
@rafhenlow They can't if you kill them all off. It's why there's so much emphasis on using antibiotics the proper way (at least where I live): You shouldn't use them until you know what you're infected with, then you pick something that can kill 100% of them, then you keep taking it for a little while after you're healthy to make sure every last one of them is dead. Otherwise, the survivors could be the ones with a little resistance to the antibiotics, and next time it'll be tougher to get them.
@rafhenlow To return to the bat: A sonar-deaf moth has some other secondary systems it can probably use to detect a bat. Air pressure on its wings, that sort of thing. And the bats aren't going to kill off all the moths in a population--just the slower ones. Or the ones that don't register it as a problem.
From here, the survivors are the ones better at avoiding bats. The question 'will they develop sonar detection?' now has a lot to do with 'How many mutations?'
@rafhenlow You mentioned earlier that order can't come out of chaos--I'm guessing this has a lot to do with this discussion, now. Let's say that, in order to detect sonar, the moth doesn't have to develop a whole new organ like an ear. It has something that can already detect sound--which are just pressure waves anyway, so I'm pretty sure that the wings can do that--but sonar's out of its frequency range. Now we want to see a mutant moth which CAN detect sonar emerge.
@rafhenlow Oops--when I said 'pressure on its wings', I meant the air the bat could displace near the moth as it swoops in. It's not as good as sonar evasion, but it could work.
Anyway--the 'mutant moth' question depends on variables I know absolutely nothing about. I guess the number of DNA mutations it would require to create that modification would influence the probability of it occurring.
@rafhenlow Sorry, one more thing. That article I sent you--probably not necessary to go through the whole thing. I only read through enough to know that they had found evidence of random mutations which were beneficial to the organism, which I felt proved my point.
@rafhenlow I really, really wish YouTube would increase the number of characters in each message. By now they should know just how many religious/scientific debates occur on their forums.
Something occurred to me today. The number of extinct species--ones vastly different from the ones existent today, I mean--is probably significantly higher than the number of ones that exist presently. How does this correlate with the idea of a static number of existing species?
@rafhenlow Having conversations with people on youtube is getting addicting/fun, but frankly I just got a bunch of work for the next 4/8 months dropped on my lap. This is just too big of a distraction. Sorry, but I'm going to delete this account and focus on other stuff.
For discussions on evolution, Richard Dawkins' channel is always interesting. Good luck having these discussions with others.
@TheLogicalGod You do leave yourself open to come backs. "Credible scientific basis", who said they were right?, it is only a theory not backed up by any facts, theory = idea= opinion.
@TheLogicalGod Well, one requires faith to do science. Albert Einstein, himself, spoke of a faithful science, and said that he couldn't imagine a science without faith. One needs to testify to the rational intelligibility of the universe, and have faith in this fundamental axiom, to practice science at all.
Think about it though, 2000 years ago you wouldnt have gotten away with making up a man and gettin people to believe in it. Think how civilised the Greeks were, how extensive the Romans were, and how even the Egyptians monuments still stand. There is no way a man named 'Jesus' could just be made up and people would just start believing in him as little as 2000 years ago, people must have seen the miracles he performed and this is why there is such a great following because of witnesses to Jesus.
@seandawson000 This argument doesn't hold up I'm afraid. If I use your criteria then I should also believe in Buddha. Well over 1 Billion people currently, in either Buddhism or Hinduism, believe in him and his teachings, incarnations, miracles, etc. Not to mention the Half a Billion people in the world that still practice local folk religions that have nothing to do with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. Your view is very Euro-Centric.
@TheLogicalGod Nah that's a fair point,i'll be honest i cant argue on that. But i do still believe in God and more wayward to Jesus mainly because of the peace he preaches. No one will know the answers till we're dead but all in all I don't understand why people disagree with religion (on the whole) when it brings peace of mind and when times get tough the security you can feel of being watched over by a higher being. Touche though, good comeback, silenced
@seandawson000 I have no problem with people taking comfort from something, anything really. Whether its Jesus, or their favorite blanket. Its the religion I have a problem with. The religion is the problem.
@TheLogicalGod But Bhudda was a real person, lived & died, buried, still there as far as I know. No proof of re-incarnation, a theory, but then according to you a theory is true. There have been hypnotists who have taken people back to a previous life. So you should really be a Bhuddist, it has been proven!
I don't know what all you other people are talking about I just love this song because of its literary elements. Its full or irony almost blaspemously so if looked at very literrally. . . The first time I heard it I was simply taken aback and the beautiful construction of the song. My favorite part is.. . if you won't take care of us, please won't you let us be..THE IRONY! THE NERVE!!. LOL its totally captivating. : D I enjoy this song on so many levels.
This must be the theme song of humanism today. This is a sorry depiction of God. The sad part is that this mythological, Catholic take on God is sweeping the world because it gets good press and air-time thanks to the "enlightened ones" of this era. The true God of the Bible emptied all heaven, holding nothing back to come and rescue this one lost sheep of a planet; we are worth His own life. Let's hear Mr. Newman do a song about Revelation 21 & 22, the King is on His way!
O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge”...
Colossians 2:8 (ESV)
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world [Gaia/pantheism], and not according to Christ.
@saryb4me Double ugh. I wish there was a point in debating you. But you are committed in your beliefs and you won't be persuaded. Especially if you've read all these comments and still haven't thought a little bit more about you unwavering faith.
Spiritual skeptics like to think they know better than God how things ought to be; like they know everything or something. But they obviously have not studied to know the heart of God. "God is light, and in Him is NO DARKNESS AT ALL."
"All these comments" go to show is that people have the same problem today as when Jesus was walking on earth. Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
@saryb4me You say that spiritual skeptics say that "they know everything." It is the opposite. We have the audacity to say that "laws" can change upon new discoveries and that society can have changing values. In other words, nothing is static. Our understanding of the world changes all the time. But it seems that the Bible never changes. Its views never change, its beliefs never change, and it's preaching of doomsday never changes. I just can't believe in a book like that, or a god like that.
You desire gods and books as frail as humanity, NOT the omnipotent God of the Bible. Our understanding may change, but God never changes. The laws do not change rather our own faulty egocentric understanding changes. Einstein made this point clear in defining “K” as the true point to which all else is relative. Skeptics like to call the perceived process of degradation, evolution. You cannot get more from a process that leaves you with less and less. Creation will deplete.
@saryb4me But you see you must understand the theory of evolution before you make baseless claims. Especially claims taken from that of creationists. This is, of course, the problem. It could very well turn out that evolutionary theory changes, and that parts of it that were previously thought sound will be proven otherwise. I'm alright with that. Because that leads to new understanding and knowledge. There is nothing new to be learned from the bible. You can quote it all day long. So what?
Obviously you haven't spent much time in the Bible to have such a shallow view of it and thus of God. What do you do with issues like irreducible complexity? Something coming from nothing? Life coming from non-living matter? Increasing information coming from a lack of information? How does the religion of evolution deal with these? IT DOESN'T! It is a matter of faith. Real science can be tested and observed. NOT EVOLUTION. IT IS FAITH IN HUMAN REASON, INSTEAD OF IN GOD. HUMANISM!
@saryb4me But don't you see that the very fact that you call evolution a religion proves you know nothing about science? It is very easy to simply believe what you are told, or to listen to someone who shares your views. But to made uncomfortable by the truth is the ultimate test. There are thousands of transitional fossils, layers of compacted earth revealing more and more to us, hundreds of years of science backing up the claims that are made. But there is no study to the bible.
Your working on outdated human philosophy. Checkout some of the more current research.
The Genesis Conflict by Walter J. Veith
You have to love Dawkins' sincerity "God almost certainly does not exist." Say you attained to 10% of all the knowledge in the universe. Do you suppose God might exist in the 90% that you do not know? The greatest trump-card is PROPHECY. There is study to the Bible called Eschatology. Read Isaiah 41-46. God declares the future. I know it, do you?
@saryb4me Interpretation of a very old, much copied, text, much of which has no verifiable original proof text, is not prophecy. The Old Testament especially. If the chapters of Isaiah which you sight do not expressly point out some future event then I don't care what it says. It has as much credibility as Nostradamus. What you will find in those verses will be vague passages that could be applied to nearly anything. The same with anything biblical. Show me proof, thats all I ask for.
@saryb4me The bible needs only to make a claim and it is law. The more we know, the less it teaches. It becomes a book of poetry and fantastic tales. Something that we must understand in order to know where we came from, but nothing more. Also, I don't have faith in human reason. Reason simply is. We can choose to reason and understand or we cannot. The true problem with most of the world is that we do not reason. What is wrong with reason? Or Humanism?
@saryb4me Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a proven theory backed by hundreds of repeatable experiments and a complete record of fossils. The creation myth has no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to undo it. You choose to ignore all of the evidence becuase it's either too difficult for y9our tiny childish brain to understand or through wilful ignorance. Either way, denying tyhe history of the planet makes you look very stupid indeed.
@JamPal32 No fossils show evolution. 'Lucy' 'Piltdown' FRAUDS. Neanderthal, a MAN crippled with arthritis, malnutrition, brain cavity bigger than ours!!!
@JamPal32 No! I look these things up for myself. If you do not know that ALL the so called missing links are PROVEN frauds I think you had better get an education. Looking at the construct of your reply I think you most certainly need one.
Neanderthal IS NOT a missing link, thought to practise cannabalism, but who knows.
@MaiaRikae Did you take the time to actually read what I said. Let me write again, 'Neanderthal IS NOT a missing link'. I was pointing out that Neanderthal had been used for years by evolutionists as a missing link. Turns out to be a human with a bigger brain cavity than ours suffering from rickets & arthritis. Hence the stooping, bent back etc. As for cannibalism, I know that there have been tribes found who are of that persuasion, also found in Scottish history of a few hundred years ago.
@saryb4me@saryb4me Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a proven theory backed by hundreds of repeatable experiments and a complete record of fossils. The creation myth has no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to undo it. You choose to ignore all of the evidence becuase it's either too difficult for y9our tiny childish brain to understand or through wilful ignorance. Either way, denying the history of the planet makes you look very stupid indeed.
@saryb4me@saryb4me@saryb4me Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a proven theory backed by hundreds of repeatable experiments and a complete record of fossils. The creation myth has no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to undo it. You choose to ignore all of the evidence becuase it's either too difficult for y9our tiny childish brain to understand or through wilful ignorance. Either way, denying the history of the planet makes you look very stupid indeed.
@saryb4me@saryb4me@saryb4me Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a proven theory backed by hundreds of repeatable experiments and a complete record of fossils. The creation myth has no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to undo it. You choose to ignore all of the evidence becuase it's either too difficult for y9our tiny childish brain to understand or through wilful ignorance. Either way, denying the history of the planet makes you look very stupid indeed.
@saryb4me you are wasting your time. TLG is neither logical nor god. Theory to him is absolute, true, not opinion, same with hypothesis. Doesn't know that 'religion' means to follow something, believe in something, to follow something, ie a football team, or in his case evolution. As I said, neither logical or god.
Isaiah 51:6 (ESV) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, and they who dwell in it will die in like manner; but my salvation will be forever, and my righteousness will never be dismayed.
Psalm 102:25-28 (ESV) Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end. The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you.
Randy Newman struggles with belief - sentencing God in every way personally acceptable. He is no atheist, he just suffers like everyone questioning the suffering of children in Gods plan.
"He" meaning Randy Newman? It's actually impossible to tell what Randy believes by listening to his songs. He writes a lot of songs from perspectives, creating a character to sing it. He may be singing as a deadbeat father, a slave trader, a Hollywood snob, a blue-collar racist, or, in this instance, an unsympathetic God. And then there's times when he sings about friendship and smiles. :)
I think he's atheist, because when he starts his song 'He gives us all his love'' he says: Bob Dylan was converted, but I'm not. I don't believe a word from this song.
Why is it people insist on it being either religion OR science? Our understanding of science is not so great that any of us should dismiss anyone else's views.
To put it simply: we're still learning, as the dominant species on Earth. Every day our understanding of science changes, sometimes wildly. By our current understanding of physics, for example, there's a galaxy too large to exist if the big bang happened when we think it did.
Food for thought: sometimes believing science takes faith too
I should elaborate, so people dont assume things about me: 13 billion lightyears from us is the galaxy in question. Given how long it took the light to reach us, the galaxy in took at least 26 billion years to expand to the point that (by our measurements) it has.
Current popular theory places the big bang at just a hair under 13.5 billion years ago. See what I meant about science taking faith?
People tout the big bang so much: try to remember it isn't direct empirical science. Stay objective.
Religion is irreconcilable with science because of the simple fact that religion is an ever expanding tautology, while science is a reason-based process of inquiry.
Concluded: You are mistaking scientific theories for hypotheses'. It's a common mistake when it comes to people who don't spend the time to research and review what scientific terms mean. And as you being not the only believer out there....so what? There are plenty that believe in Scientology now, does that make it valid? Or racism or sexism or homophobia? Appeal to popularity is just lame.
I love the theory word, It is used so often by people who realy mean "We think, (you fill in the whatever), & if we quote it enough it will become the 'truth'. Another saying sums it up, "Repeat a lie often enough & it becomes the truth." Maybe you should read what TLG has written, "Gasp, sometimes science is wrong".
Yes, sometimes science is wrong which is why we revise it. And you show your idiocy by pretending that a scientific theory is the same as a theory. It's like suggesting a scientific law is the same as a national law. As if one goes to jail for breaking a 'scientific law'. How about you actually show some curiosity and research what a scientific theory is. I'll give you a hint: collection of scientific laws.
You have just repeated what I have been saying. Do you not think about what you are saying! "Yes, sometimes science is wrong which is why we revise it." Exactly the same argument that TLG made. So what you are asking me to do is believe what science says, until it changes it's mind. So I am on the M1 heading to the west country, I get to Manchester when I am told that I should have been on the M4!, never mind, only a theory which we can change when we find we are wrong. Brill.
No, it's just you being difficult in deliberately not trying to understand the terminology. If you are walking around outside you'd say "My, this gravity is lovely". Now some odd event occurs happens and you start to float. You can't discuss gravity in the same fashion since an event occurred to change it. If science weren't open we'd have people still stating that the gravity is the same, but since it's open we can alter it for the phenemena that just happened. A poor example, perhaps?
@CliffM85 What I said was that gravity was fact, you tried to be clever with "do you mean" etc. If we started floating about then science would have to adjust its findings. So when they discover the big bang didn't happen, what, back to the drawing board?, & you will be happy with that will you.
From this point forward I won't respond to Raf about evolution. His points are based on personal belief and no outside verifiable proof. He will respond to this by saying there is no proof. There is proof, evidence, etc. Listen to a Professor, Doctor, scientist, etc. Raf has said he doesn't trust science and so will never trust rational theories. IN this case I cannot continue to debate someone so dead set again listening to reason. Have fun posting, and I hope your New Year goes well.
I have not said that I do not trust science. YOU did. You are the one that said, "GASP- some of it is wrong". Not me. Don't put words in my mouth. When you are losing the argument you send me to sites that don't back up your arguments with FACTS, just the usual hypothesis, or you dodge the question & go off on a tangent. You have no logic in your debating, none. You have no facts or ideas of your own. Before debating, passing unsubstantiated comments do some homework.
See what I mean. You are the one who said that Gasp some are wrong. So what do I believe, & why? Letus take another scientific theory, planets/stars that are either moving towards us or away have a red or blue shift. Cannot remember which way round, anyway, it seems that it doesn't always hold true! So another scientific theory gone down the swanee. I just don't believe all that scientists tell me, that is all, & niether do you unless it gels with what you want to believe.
@TheLogicalGod in such cases you should just accept that raf will probably debate forever. i wanna bring up an old scientists joke by claiming that raf would use the absence of phones in archeological sites as a proof of how good radio communication was developed at that time. give up dont waste your time
maybe rafs beliefs help him to better accept death as a fact (isnt that what religion is about? we talk ourselves out the fact that we will be dying?). no matter whats the truth, it will make his particular life easier. thats why he debates so hard and so without objectiveness, it would ruin his life.
I have given you the truth! and you have moved away from me and not I from you. You'd rather beleve in some raddicel movement and not in what I have said. But sill I will not be far from you if you wish to come back!!! For today the need for forgiveness is more grately needed for tomorrow is to late!! Ask him in and do not turn him away, for the way is narrow but simple. The choice is yours!!
god loves us with all His heart...
man does not know himself!!! Man has made for himself a lowly estate. God gave His only Son as a standard for what man can be. Christ creates not through himself but through the Father. We are His children.
Bardy20101 1 week ago
It's funny how a song can have the Lord's name in it and every single comment is about "deep youtube theology" and other nonsense. The people on this website are incredibly smart. How many theology degrees can be given? As much as I love all of you, you are so stupid.
BradTheMr 1 week ago
all these idiots saying ''god does not exist".
You don't know that. No one knows weather or not he does.
I don't believe in god personally but i don't completely rule it out. Because that's stupid. Saying god doesn't exist is just ridiculous. At least say hay PROBABLY doesn't exist
thetwilightzone100 2 weeks ago
@thetwilightzone100 I don't assert in this video that god doesn't exist. Neither does the song. It simply asserts that the god of bible is, by any sane standards of morality, evil.
That being said, I do not believe in a god. I find the probability of a god like the one mentioned in any of the world's holy texts next to nil. I'm not going to tell people they can't believe in god, gods, whatever. I just want them to acknowledge the truth of what they worship: Evil.
TheLogicalGod 1 week ago
I just got done watching that movie devil at the end it said something a few things 1 was that take responseability 4 your actions be truthful to yourself and others
Emerald1004 3 months ago
@seracinfinity he went back on that later, saying he was misconstrued, and people can change their opinion (he famously changed it from pacifist because of how much he saw the Nazi's as a threat.)
micmac274 3 months ago
"I burn down your cities--how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You must all be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why i love mankind
You really need me
That's why i love mankind"
yourtreat2 3 months ago
OK, thats it. I going to start "The First Antinoch Church of the Yeti".
....please stay away from the evil teachings of "Sasquatch".
porkinwitz 4 months ago
Fuck god. God sucks. You know who's awesome? The Sun. The sun never harms us (aside from the occasional skin cancer and sun burns), and gives us all the energy and life on this planet. Do not pray to the sun though, pray to Joe Pesci instead. Joe Pesci is a guy who can GET THINGS DONE! Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around! - Inspired by George Carlin. I'm gonna miss that old fuck :)
darkmachete 7 months ago 5
@darkmachete I've been missing him ever since he died man. I know what you mean!
TheLogicalGod 7 months ago 3
You're stupid.
jessmae93 1 month ago
THIS IS A LOAD OF BULLSHIT GOD LOVES US AND MAN ISNT LOW TO HIM
yellow468 8 months ago
@yellow468 ~Shrugs~ Just my opinion. Then again, I don't believe in god at all. Sooooo....
TheLogicalGod 7 months ago 2
@yellow468 There is no evidence to suggest god is even a real thing, same applies to spirits souls heavens and hells. How are you so sure you picked the right god? And even if you could prove he does exist, which you can't, how are you sure that he doesn't hate you with every inch of his intangible body?
AMpufnstuf 4 months ago
@AMpufnstuf are you kiding me i posted this comment so long ago .are you stupid or something this was posted long long ago it doesnt matter anymore
yellow468 4 months ago
@yellow468 The bible is an archaic collection of stolen and rewritten stories thousands of years old. If a comment from three months ago is null, does that mean the bible hasn't been relevant or worth a shit for two thousand years?
AMpufnstuf 4 months ago
@AMpufnstuf your not even worth talking to you terrorist
yellow468 4 months ago
@yellow468 Nice grammar! And excellent slander. Very unchristian of you. Have you ever killed a homosexual? If not, you're a bad christian. Disobeying the bible.
AMpufnstuf 4 months ago
@AMpufnstuf HAHAHAHA i am not christian you moron YOU LOSE :P
yellow468 4 months ago
@yellow468 You're right, man isn't low to him. Because god no exist. No god exist for man to low to him. So, you see, no god no low man to be low to god because no low god low isn't man low god.... >_> Right?
TheLogicalGod 4 months ago 3
@TheLogicalGod WRONG because god does exist so man no low god ,god love man cant be low god because god love man he exists .
yellow468 4 months ago
@yellow468 Ah. Thanks so much for clearing that up!
TheLogicalGod 4 months ago 4
@TheLogicalGod ur welcome
yellow468 4 months ago
@yellow468 god does not exist dude
DrDope164 3 weeks ago
@yellow468 Oh cool. Freely cursing in order to voice your love of god.
Matthew 15:11: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."
rdr05300 2 days ago
One of my Favorites
jeffertoya 8 months ago
If you like this please watch The God Delusion Song. I am very proud of it and although I am not Randy Newman, I still get the message across. Peace.
AtheistSongs 9 months ago
I love Randy Newman.
ibwilliamsi 10 months ago
Hey everyone, go to talkorigins and take an evening to read all the articles on the site. Then come back and talk about all this.
TheLogicalGod 10 months ago
Actually, Neatherthals are parallel evolution. They existed at the same time as the 'modern' homo-sapiens appeared, but lost the race -- they were here first, actually. We drove them to extinction as homo sapiens spread out across the globe, displacing them with more efficient hunting and probably no small amount of xenophobia on sapiens' part.
Rarzie 10 months ago
@Rarzie
Not entirely true. Catch up with the latest research - modern humans carry Neanderthal DNA.
MaiaRikae 10 months ago
@MaiaRikae Not Africans
42012jburnna 8 months ago
there is no luke 14:26 IDIOT
timothy10112 1 year ago
@timothy10112 ?
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@timothy10112 yes there is... idiot.
PureScotch66 1 year ago
i beleave its no god just allah & mohammed hes massenger from allah
TheMrsoleman 1 year ago
In this video there is a lot of animosity to the point of not understanding. Luke 14:26 means, “I am yours first, and then those of your house hold come after me” But he will not have you reject them as we have rejected him. This world has a long way to go before it knows anything about the Truth, and given time even this can change!! may peace be with you or at least may you find it.
Idotgotit 1 year ago
don't blame what you did on god, because god is not superman.
look at bill gate, what many people he saved , and look at you .
speak800400 1 year ago
@doctorw2 it's not talking about god's love for humans, the 'that's why i love mankind' means he loves mankind the way i love you've been framed, and the way people love reading about celebrity divorces. it's a little thing called schaudenfraude which means 'happiness at the misfortune of others'.
ShadowHammer321 1 year ago
Wow, I really didn't think Newman did this kind of stuff... I guess it kind of makes sense now. "You've got a friend in me", not God. Bahaha
Alio15 1 year ago
Found this on the radio yesterday, sorry bout the quick/low-res chop:
TmiWSir9Mrc
guitarzeroh 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod You just never answered a question did you. Theory is an opinion, Hypothesis is an idea built on an opinion, we call it circular reasoning.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
what does tis mean
ceegeetv 1 year ago
Don't worry, this is just Randy's opinion, I think that it's funny and sharp, but TheLogicalGod has as much business telling people that this is what is the truth, as people with faith have telling others that they will go to hell if they don't believe. Don't enforce religion or beliefs, people have a right to think for themselves. So please don't say your opinion of god, say something nice about the video that TheLogicalGod obviously worked hard on, and the nice sound quality.
wickedcoollike 1 year ago
@wickedcoollike Thanks. As I say in the video description, I believe this song presents a truth that I want to share with people. I also believe that, as you said, people have the right to think for themselves. I don't condemn anyone to hell based on the conclusion I have made. They might live lives of frustration and confusion, and that can be a form of hell, but they can also live good lives. Still, I'm simply presenting an idea and thank you for recognizing that.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
I believe in God, but that fools a little faggot.
TommyTonic10 1 year ago
@TommyTonic10 I believe pork loin is a delicious dinner, but Ted Turner is a millionaire.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod I dont get it.
TommyTonic10 1 year ago
Listen, I beleive that religion is just a game, its the faith and lving right that matters. Also, The verse is a little pulled out of context, but not much. It was more metaphorical, by hate he means the Humanistic part of them, and blah blah blah. Of course, I wont try to convince anyone or argue to the death, as science and religion both require some leaps of faith to beleive in, and i Dont beleive Christianity should be shoved down anyones throat. It should be dexided entirely by the person.
MrMystery96 1 year ago
If ONLY the average Son Of Abraham (IE Moslems, Jews, Christians.... IE Creationists) had just a tiny,tiny, miniscule amount of FAITH that the Evolutionists did. They would "say to the mountain "move" and the mountain would move". They would say to the dead "rise" and they would. I find it heart breaking that Evolutionists have far more faith that the Theists (and I am One). Believing in a Creator takes great Faith (no doubt), but faith in Evolution... Man that's amazing faith. God bless you.
alexleitch37 1 year ago
@alexleitch37 What does science have to do with faith?
From Merriam Webster's dictionary-
Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Science endeavors to make claims based experiment and evidence. All the information amassed over the past 200 years points toward evolution being the only credible scientific basis for life on earth. How is that related to faith?
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago 8
@TheLogicalGod Many would question your statement "All the information amassed.... points towards evolution". Yes there is a great deal of scientific information that supports evolutionary THEORIES. I mention faith in my statement above because to think that everything came from nothing, that life arose from death, to think complexity came from simplicity takes a great deal of faith, more faith than I have in my God and His Church. thus I am impressed at the faith evolutionists have. cheers Al
alexleitch37 1 year ago
@alexleitch37 I just need to comment on this whole "complexity from simplicity" thing. If you can't look out into the universe, the little we know of it, and see the staggering complexity that exists, the infinite possibility, and all the many things we have yet to know, and boil it down to such a simple statement, then it is obvious to me that you don't comprehend how science and knowledge in general works. Scientists spend their entire lives working on this...and they get results.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod I completely agree with you. But for ages Evolutionists claimed that the basic building blocks were "simple". (Now they know better). They then argued that from this simplicity, complexity developed. Creationists argued that complexity came from complexity , that an Infinite Being (God) created infinite complexity. IE you cannot construct a house from 2 bits of leggo. So for ages it took a great deal of FAITH to believe that with just time and accident complexity just occurred.
alexleitch37 1 year ago
@alexleitch37 Well, you got me there. Its pretty funny to look back on what science believed in the past, even the recent past, and compare it to our current knowledge. But, that being said, that is exactly what future generations will say about the current state of scientific theories. That's also why I respect science so much. It builds, and builds, and builds, always working toward a more complete picture. Some theories may start silly, but through hard work truth can be found :)
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod PS just wanted to say I admire and appreciate your style and intellect. I really enjoy reading your comments. Cheers man alex
alexleitch37 1 year ago
@alexleitch37 No, thank you! It's so very nice to have someone who can thoughtfully disagree with me and still hold a conversation. I try and be civil and even when I respond to comments, and your responses prove to me you're what my grandad would have called "one of the good ones". Cheers to you as well!
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod Thank you. "Have you learned lessons only from those who admire you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you?" (Walt Whitman - Leaves Of Grass). After reading many of your replies, I tried to fashion my own after yours, so thank you for that. Keep up the good work and beware of the skin deep folk who enjoy an argument that serves no purpose but egoism. Al
alexleitch37 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod Because Science is based on theory. Theory: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
No one has hard proof of anything. No one has seen a monkey evolve into a man or another world form from a big bang. Neither has none written about it form first hand knowledge. So you my friend have faith, great faith in theory. The same way we Believe in God. You my friend BELIEVE in Darwin. We all walk by faith and not by sight.
tourneytime 1 year ago
@tourneytime Unfortunately your comment proves that you don't understand the scientific theory. I would go as far as to say you don't want to understand. But I can't say that for sure. Science is based on theory, and theories are tested and proven by evidence. Before a theory will be accepted by the scientific community it has to be the best explanation. How can a theory be determined as "the best?" Evidence. If you won't look at the evidence for evolution then I can't help you.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod Dude. Never heard this song. Love it. Recommend you look at Bad Religion for classic punk rock in a similar vein (Go find "God Song" or "Sinister Rouge", might not be what you normally listen to but definitely very similar themes). Thanks for posting this and for your lengthy discussions with people that disagree with you. We need more dialogues like this.
warnization 1 year ago
@tourneytime I have had this discussion with evolutionists, & am told that a 'scientific theory' is actually a fact! I still conclude that to believe that something came from nothing, life with all it's complexities to have happened by accident, takes more faith than believing in a creator.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow 1)When people in certain areas of science say 'theory', they tend to mean 'hypothesis which, while proven using all available means, could still be disproved'. Thing is, they've had over 2 centuries to come up with something better, which at our current rate of scientific change makes it fairly concrete.
2) Your argument of 'something came from nothing' is a semantics problem. There was plenty of 'something' occupying the oceans when life arose. I'd say more, but I'm out of space.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization There you go, splitting hairs like all scientists. What is the meaning of 'fairly concrete', do you mean it is an opinion that we think could/might/may be true if we continue to look for another 200yrs? Theory & Hypothesis = opinion. Prove it!! They were not there, neither were you or I. Do check out scientific law, 'something cannot come from nothing', nor 'order from chaos'. So where did the water/matter come from???
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow ...scientific what? There's no laws in science. There's just observations, results, correlations, and the theories that let us tenuously connect our world together. I believe you're thinking of the so-called 'laws of thermodynamics'. Laws of science in general those are not. Their domain is restricted to, well, thermodynamics.
I'm sorry that I have to double-post, but I'm running out of space here.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow I don't mean that the theory of evolution is opinion, no. I'd say 'opinions' are defined as conclusions proved via some mental faculty. Scientific conclusions must be drawn from and proven via physical evidence, and then argued over perpetually using other physical evidence.Kinda like what we're doing now.
By 'fairly concrete', I mean that it is now used as a cornerstone for various other theories and can be/has been used to construct tools we can use to improve our lives.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow I'm really, really sorry about yet another post.
Where did all the matter/water come from? Most popular theory is Big Bang, the cause of which is currently debated in channels like string/quantum theory (guys please, I'm pathetically misinformed about astrophysics, somebody help me out here). There are some other interesting theories. One removes the need for dark matter in Einstein's equations and proposes no beginning or end to the universe. Not sure about it's reception.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization That is what I am getting at, the 'popular big bang THEORY'. that is the operative word, 'THEORY'. I did check with an english teacher who confirmed what I have said here before, THEORY, an idea unproven by FACT. Stephen Hawking, top scientist, until a few days ago, concluded that there had to be a 'creator' to start things off. Now states that the 'Laws of science mean that it all started accidentaly' (paraphrase). Then again he changed his mind on black holes after 20yrs, so???
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Re the word theory: Next time, go ask a science teacher. While we're at it, I don't see you debating the following:
-Theory of relativity.
-Theory of gravity.
-Green's Theorem.
These are relied upon as fact by engineers and scientists. The use of the word theory, when used by scientists, means 'as yet unproven'. That doesn't mean unproven. I mentioned why in an earlier post.
Sorry, I see another double post coming here. Only 29 characters left.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization Funny you should mention the gravity. I have always been led to believe it as fact, BUT, it has been pointed out to me that it isn't actually fact, we just understand that we are held here somehow. Gravity is the theory put forward, but how does it work??, why does it work? Relativity, isn't that equal & opposite reactions?, Green's I have never heard of, excuse my ignorance please.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow It's cool, we're all ignorant.
Relativity is way, way cooler than that. It's Einstein's major victory: He realized by sheer thought that perceptions of time and space are altered by the speed of the person. As you travel closer to the speed of light, time travels slower and lengths increase--at least relative to the time and lengths someone traveling slower than you is experiencing. Years later, we proved him right.
Green's theorem comes up in multidimensional calculus.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow I'd disagree a little with that statement. Gravity is fact. The cause of gravity isn't quite known, at least not to me. You'd need to talk to a particle physicist with a couple Ph.Ds to get a good answer about the exact hypothesized source, which I'm given to believe is one of the many things they intend to prove with the Large Hadron Collider.
You should know that gravity itself is well-defined. Go ahead and google it and you can get the vector equation for its acceleration field.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Now. On to Hawking. He's been wrong before (is that 'The Black Hole War' you're referencing there, and the conflict between quantum theory and classical mechanics which Hawking was a part of? I'm impressed). In fact, most humans are wrong way more often than they're right, 'top scientist' or not. The only times they need to be right is when they're building theories on the data they've collected. And those theories can be tested.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization This is my last for tonight, I am going to have my tea. One thing put up for believing in science is that it prepared to change it's mind. Hawking is considered the greatest in his field, yet he has changed his mind twice. If he was crossing the road he would have been knocked down by know (lol). So how long do I wait for him to change his mind again?? The time thing, everyone thinks time is a constant, it isn't as Einstein theorised, proven, no longer theory. Talk to you again.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Wait, are you saying Einstein was wrong or right? Because right now, the satellites we use for telecommunications are kinda relying on the fact that he's right.
As for Hawking--and any other scientist for that matter--they'll keep changing their minds as new data emerges. What you can trust is what's already been used--Newtonian mechanics, Relativity, the Schrodinger Equation (sorry, I'm using physics examples cause I like physics). See you later, I'll be happy to keep this going.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization No. I pointed out that is no longer a theory if proven. So to keep saying Einstein's 'Theory' is wrong. Same as Faraday's Law etc. Not their law, just discovered by them because what they were looking at was ordered. As you say about satellites, also we could never have gone to the Moon if we didn't know where it would be at any given time. So, order came out of chaos, ie the big bang (theory). Order cannot come from chaos, a purpose is needed, inanimate objects don't have purpose.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@warnization There is no way to test evolution, except that at the moment nothing is evolving. I do not count germs/bacteria changing. From what I have read they are actually getting weaker, but different make up confuses immune system. ALL the claimed scientific missing links have been proven as lies/frauds/mistakes. So evolution remains a 'theory'. Some have been really bad. A tooth was found, passed off as human, artist then drew a whole tribe/houses/dress, from a PIGS tooth. (Blk Hole, yes).
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow 1) I was hoping we'd have established by now that 'law' and 'theory' are used seemingly interchangeably in science.
2) Actually, pretty much everything is evolving and there are plenty of new species/additions, especially at the bacterial/viral level. I'd say superbugs, and their increasing commonness and emergence are good evidence for bacterial evolution. Look up 'New Delhi NDM-1' on wikipedia for information on the latest bacterial advancement.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization Never go near WIKI, can add anything you like, & I did ask you not to go into 'germs' as proof of things evolving because as stated. Also, they are still just germs, adapting, which does not mean evolving. Evolutionists seem to pick what words mean to suit themselves. So 'theory' becomes fact, 'adapt' becomes 'evolve'. Still didn't comment on the frauds by the scientific community, including fiddling stem cell data. Follow the money/cuedos.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow I'm not familiar with the frauds or fiddling of stem cell data, and I'd greatly appreciate links to any evidence for what you've said so far.
Scientists in general use 'theory' to mean 'idea that has yet to be disproven', it's not just evolutionists.
'Adaptation' covers what occurs in evolution in many ways, the only difference being speciation occurring in evolution. Speciation occurs in the Daily Science paper I mentioned.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization On the news here a couple of days ago stem cell research scientist in front of the medical board for falsifying data. Also a short while ago it was shown that the use of stem cells wasn't working as well as was originally thought, in fact it had a detrimental effect.
2nd para. ??
No, I have to disagree. Adapt does not mean evolve, what occurs is that the species has in its gene pool what it needs to adapt, straight away or it would succumb to whatever is detrimental.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@warnization To give an example; there is a species of moth that can detect sonar, (let's say 10ft. away), a bats sonar rebounds from objects 8ft. away. So the moth has a 2ft. window to close wings, dive in a spiral & evade the bat. So, if the moth didn't have the sonar detector to start off with it would have been eaten. How long was it before the moth decided it needed to do something, but what?, it has no idea what sonar is. We didn't discover it until, when, 1939/40. Clever moth.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Also, I've used wikipedia as a source for various science related topics (engineering control theory, quantum physics, classical mechanics topics such as euler-lagrange mechanics, linear algebra, calculus), and I can at least vouch for those as accurate. One study in the journal 'Nature' found it to be roughly as accurate as Britannica (google cnet wikipedia britannica).
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization Still won't use Wiki, even had a comedians date/place of birth wrong, in fact most of what was written was wrong. Top firms have been told to stop changing facts on Wiki to suit their firms views/products.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Yep, heard of that. Even heard that Wiki banned entries on US politicians after smear campaigns started targeting the entries.
It occurs to me that for what I've been looking up, the traffic of people able to correct errors accurately would be very high and the number of people inclined to change accurate information would be low. Information would then have a different amount of accuracy depending on the entry.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Sorry about the misunderstanding; I thought you meant that you'd seen evidence for bacterial/viral evolution but had discounted it on the grounds that they were actually weakening and the results were phenomena related to that.
What's wrong with bacterial/viral evolution? It's certainly easier for researchers to replicate microbial environments than those of fauna.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization Again, it is not evolving. A bacteria is a bacteria is a bacteria. Open University, showed worms that were living deep in caves. They then showed how, over the centuries they had evolved, into worms. Yes, worms. Slightly different because they were living in different conditions, but still worms. I was supposed to be astonished I think that worms had evolved into worms, I was suitably impressed, NOT! I am not making this up. Still no mention of the missing link frauds I see.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Another evolution example, this time in a lab: Science Daily: Live Evolution Witnessed In Controlled Environment of Microbial Predator And Prey
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization Operative sentence,'Controlled etc etc etc'. Are you telling me that things have to be controlled to operate. Remember, these changes can only happen if the changes are present in the DNA to start with. So an accident then, not a design. Lucky for the moth, & the above that you have mentioned.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow To be clear, I mean that researchers vastly prefer evidence that can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere. Something that can be done in one person's lab can be redone by others, to confirm that it isn't a hoax. Reproductions of this kind are routine, as far as I can tell.
And, not necessarily. The structure of DNA controls cellular reproduction, but it doesn't contain 'hardcoded' information. Sunlight can damage DNA to the point that it is entirely different to the original encoding.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization Well of course they prefer a controlled evnviro., but that means that things aren't 'just happening'. They are controlling 'in-out'. This enviro. could not have been around at the accidental start of life. I have written before that a scientist some time ago 'created the start', what he didn't admit to was keeping oxygen out of the mix, added after. The explosion he would have created was too dangerous otherwise. Aso, too much oxygen kills bacteria, & us. Has to right, NOW.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Depending on the experiment, scientists wouldn't want to recreate the world's initial conditions. In the experiment I sent you, their intent was to research predator/prey relationships and evolutionary biology. For this, they'd simply want to isolate inside their contained environment a couple species of bacteria, and ensure nothing else entered. From there, things 'just happen', but only for the species they know they put in there in the first place.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Sorry: 'Controlled conditions': conditions are controlled so that the scientists are aware of the variables entering their project. EG: Controlling the environment they've made for their bacteria by ensuring only sterile water or oxygen enters it, so that they don't introduce something into their experimental environment and end up concluding that, say, extra radiation makes bactera evolve into dead mice.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization But this is not how things were at creation, you have to throw the dirt in & see what happens! They may have ended up with 'dead mice', which would show it could not have worked. Now that is an experiment, you cannot keep changing the conditions to suit as you have no idea what the conditions were!!
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow For a report on an experiment that seems to centre on watching new genetic coding develop (ie, the mutation thing I mentioned above occurring in a beneficial way), see the article 'A High Frequency of Beneficial Mutations Across Multiple Fitness Components in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
David W. Hall 1 and Sarah B. Joseph', published online in the journal 'Genetics'. Not that I could get through much of it--thick, bio-major-centric stuff.
I'll see if I can get more along this vein.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization Now you know that that is probably going to leave me numb don't you. I have been sent to some of these web sites before. I normally find a lot of 'we think/believe IF'
I am at work, lunch, but I will try to look this up. But one of the above in the text & I am out of there. Working tomorrow (Sat). Will try Sun. before church. You don't seem interested in explaining the moth evolving before getting eaten, or how it knew it needed to detect something it knew nothing about, scientist?
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow All right... Just remember that if you find an evolutionary biologist to question you should probably try them as well. There's probably not much sport in proving a physicist wrong in biology. Here's my perception:
This is a scenario we can see with bacteria as well. Specifically, ones getting hunted down with antibiotics whenever they infect humans. Now, how can bacteria evolve defenses against those if the antibiotics kill them off before they can evolve?
They can't.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow They can't if you kill them all off. It's why there's so much emphasis on using antibiotics the proper way (at least where I live): You shouldn't use them until you know what you're infected with, then you pick something that can kill 100% of them, then you keep taking it for a little while after you're healthy to make sure every last one of them is dead. Otherwise, the survivors could be the ones with a little resistance to the antibiotics, and next time it'll be tougher to get them.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow To return to the bat: A sonar-deaf moth has some other secondary systems it can probably use to detect a bat. Air pressure on its wings, that sort of thing. And the bats aren't going to kill off all the moths in a population--just the slower ones. Or the ones that don't register it as a problem.
From here, the survivors are the ones better at avoiding bats. The question 'will they develop sonar detection?' now has a lot to do with 'How many mutations?'
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow You mentioned earlier that order can't come out of chaos--I'm guessing this has a lot to do with this discussion, now. Let's say that, in order to detect sonar, the moth doesn't have to develop a whole new organ like an ear. It has something that can already detect sound--which are just pressure waves anyway, so I'm pretty sure that the wings can do that--but sonar's out of its frequency range. Now we want to see a mutant moth which CAN detect sonar emerge.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Oops--when I said 'pressure on its wings', I meant the air the bat could displace near the moth as it swoops in. It's not as good as sonar evasion, but it could work.
Anyway--the 'mutant moth' question depends on variables I know absolutely nothing about. I guess the number of DNA mutations it would require to create that modification would influence the probability of it occurring.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Re the document: yeah. It's not a lot of fun trying to comprehend works outside my field, and that report is definitely one of them.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Sorry, one more thing. That article I sent you--probably not necessary to go through the whole thing. I only read through enough to know that they had found evidence of random mutations which were beneficial to the organism, which I felt proved my point.
Probably some good stuff in there though.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow I really, really wish YouTube would increase the number of characters in each message. By now they should know just how many religious/scientific debates occur on their forums.
Something occurred to me today. The number of extinct species--ones vastly different from the ones existent today, I mean--is probably significantly higher than the number of ones that exist presently. How does this correlate with the idea of a static number of existing species?
See you monday.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Having conversations with people on youtube is getting addicting/fun, but frankly I just got a bunch of work for the next 4/8 months dropped on my lap. This is just too big of a distraction. Sorry, but I'm going to delete this account and focus on other stuff.
For discussions on evolution, Richard Dawkins' channel is always interesting. Good luck having these discussions with others.
warnization 1 year ago
@rafhenlow lol my bad. That post should read 'as yet not unproven'.
warnization 1 year ago
@warnization ...disproven, not unproven. It's past my bedtime, apparently. Sorry.
warnization 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLogicalGod Because you have no proof, just faith in an idea.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod You do leave yourself open to come backs. "Credible scientific basis", who said they were right?, it is only a theory not backed up by any facts, theory = idea= opinion.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod. Evolution is just another tool of Gods. Science and religion have more in common then you might think.
bzdok10 7 months ago
@TheLogicalGod Well, one requires faith to do science. Albert Einstein, himself, spoke of a faithful science, and said that he couldn't imagine a science without faith. One needs to testify to the rational intelligibility of the universe, and have faith in this fundamental axiom, to practice science at all.
Seracinfinity 5 months ago
I just saw Toy Story 3 . I couldn't help thinking of this song when You've Got a Friend In Me came on.
baikinmon 1 year ago 8
well i figure lady lucks the true goddess it needed luck for the universe to beging so she must've been there lol
daflad79 1 year ago
Think about it though, 2000 years ago you wouldnt have gotten away with making up a man and gettin people to believe in it. Think how civilised the Greeks were, how extensive the Romans were, and how even the Egyptians monuments still stand. There is no way a man named 'Jesus' could just be made up and people would just start believing in him as little as 2000 years ago, people must have seen the miracles he performed and this is why there is such a great following because of witnesses to Jesus.
seandawson000 1 year ago
@seandawson000 This argument doesn't hold up I'm afraid. If I use your criteria then I should also believe in Buddha. Well over 1 Billion people currently, in either Buddhism or Hinduism, believe in him and his teachings, incarnations, miracles, etc. Not to mention the Half a Billion people in the world that still practice local folk religions that have nothing to do with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. Your view is very Euro-Centric.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod Nah that's a fair point,i'll be honest i cant argue on that. But i do still believe in God and more wayward to Jesus mainly because of the peace he preaches. No one will know the answers till we're dead but all in all I don't understand why people disagree with religion (on the whole) when it brings peace of mind and when times get tough the security you can feel of being watched over by a higher being. Touche though, good comeback, silenced
seandawson000 1 year ago
@seandawson000 I have no problem with people taking comfort from something, anything really. Whether its Jesus, or their favorite blanket. Its the religion I have a problem with. The religion is the problem.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod But Bhudda was a real person, lived & died, buried, still there as far as I know. No proof of re-incarnation, a theory, but then according to you a theory is true. There have been hypnotists who have taken people back to a previous life. So you should really be a Bhuddist, it has been proven!
rafhenlow 1 year ago
I don't know what all you other people are talking about I just love this song because of its literary elements. Its full or irony almost blaspemously so if looked at very literrally. . . The first time I heard it I was simply taken aback and the beautiful construction of the song. My favorite part is.. . if you won't take care of us, please won't you let us be..THE IRONY! THE NERVE!!. LOL its totally captivating. : D I enjoy this song on so many levels.
roxyisgoofy 1 year ago
This must be the theme song of humanism today. This is a sorry depiction of God. The sad part is that this mythological, Catholic take on God is sweeping the world because it gets good press and air-time thanks to the "enlightened ones" of this era. The true God of the Bible emptied all heaven, holding nothing back to come and rescue this one lost sheep of a planet; we are worth His own life. Let's hear Mr. Newman do a song about Revelation 21 & 22, the King is on His way!
saryb4me 1 year ago
@saryb4me Ugh.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod
1 Timothy 6:20 (ESV)
O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge”...
Colossians 2:8 (ESV)
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world [Gaia/pantheism], and not according to Christ.
saryb4me 1 year ago
@saryb4me Double ugh. I wish there was a point in debating you. But you are committed in your beliefs and you won't be persuaded. Especially if you've read all these comments and still haven't thought a little bit more about you unwavering faith.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod
Spiritual skeptics like to think they know better than God how things ought to be; like they know everything or something. But they obviously have not studied to know the heart of God. "God is light, and in Him is NO DARKNESS AT ALL."
"All these comments" go to show is that people have the same problem today as when Jesus was walking on earth. Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
saryb4me 1 year ago
@saryb4me You say that spiritual skeptics say that "they know everything." It is the opposite. We have the audacity to say that "laws" can change upon new discoveries and that society can have changing values. In other words, nothing is static. Our understanding of the world changes all the time. But it seems that the Bible never changes. Its views never change, its beliefs never change, and it's preaching of doomsday never changes. I just can't believe in a book like that, or a god like that.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod
You desire gods and books as frail as humanity, NOT the omnipotent God of the Bible. Our understanding may change, but God never changes. The laws do not change rather our own faulty egocentric understanding changes. Einstein made this point clear in defining “K” as the true point to which all else is relative. Skeptics like to call the perceived process of degradation, evolution. You cannot get more from a process that leaves you with less and less. Creation will deplete.
saryb4me 1 year ago
@saryb4me But you see you must understand the theory of evolution before you make baseless claims. Especially claims taken from that of creationists. This is, of course, the problem. It could very well turn out that evolutionary theory changes, and that parts of it that were previously thought sound will be proven otherwise. I'm alright with that. Because that leads to new understanding and knowledge. There is nothing new to be learned from the bible. You can quote it all day long. So what?
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod
Obviously you haven't spent much time in the Bible to have such a shallow view of it and thus of God. What do you do with issues like irreducible complexity? Something coming from nothing? Life coming from non-living matter? Increasing information coming from a lack of information? How does the religion of evolution deal with these? IT DOESN'T! It is a matter of faith. Real science can be tested and observed. NOT EVOLUTION. IT IS FAITH IN HUMAN REASON, INSTEAD OF IN GOD. HUMANISM!
saryb4me 1 year ago
@saryb4me But don't you see that the very fact that you call evolution a religion proves you know nothing about science? It is very easy to simply believe what you are told, or to listen to someone who shares your views. But to made uncomfortable by the truth is the ultimate test. There are thousands of transitional fossils, layers of compacted earth revealing more and more to us, hundreds of years of science backing up the claims that are made. But there is no study to the bible.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod @JamPal32
Your working on outdated human philosophy. Checkout some of the more current research.
The Genesis Conflict by Walter J. Veith
You have to love Dawkins' sincerity "God almost certainly does not exist." Say you attained to 10% of all the knowledge in the universe. Do you suppose God might exist in the 90% that you do not know? The greatest trump-card is PROPHECY. There is study to the Bible called Eschatology. Read Isaiah 41-46. God declares the future. I know it, do you?
saryb4me 1 year ago
@saryb4me Interpretation of a very old, much copied, text, much of which has no verifiable original proof text, is not prophecy. The Old Testament especially. If the chapters of Isaiah which you sight do not expressly point out some future event then I don't care what it says. It has as much credibility as Nostradamus. What you will find in those verses will be vague passages that could be applied to nearly anything. The same with anything biblical. Show me proof, thats all I ask for.
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@saryb4me The bible needs only to make a claim and it is law. The more we know, the less it teaches. It becomes a book of poetry and fantastic tales. Something that we must understand in order to know where we came from, but nothing more. Also, I don't have faith in human reason. Reason simply is. We can choose to reason and understand or we cannot. The true problem with most of the world is that we do not reason. What is wrong with reason? Or Humanism?
TheLogicalGod 1 year ago
@saryb4me Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a proven theory backed by hundreds of repeatable experiments and a complete record of fossils. The creation myth has no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to undo it. You choose to ignore all of the evidence becuase it's either too difficult for y9our tiny childish brain to understand or through wilful ignorance. Either way, denying tyhe history of the planet makes you look very stupid indeed.
JamPal32 1 year ago
@JamPal32 No fossils show evolution. 'Lucy' 'Piltdown' FRAUDS. Neanderthal, a MAN crippled with arthritis, malnutrition, brain cavity bigger than ours!!!
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow Did they tell you that at Church?
hahahhahaha! Idiot fucking retard.
JamPal32 1 year ago
@JamPal32 No! I look these things up for myself. If you do not know that ALL the so called missing links are PROVEN frauds I think you had better get an education. Looking at the construct of your reply I think you most certainly need one.
Neanderthal IS NOT a missing link, thought to practise cannabalism, but who knows.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@rafhenlow
Nope, Neanderthal is not a missing link, but is one of our ancestors - something you would know if you did your research.
Something else you should be aware of: humans are KNOWN to practice cannibalism.
MaiaRikae 10 months ago
@MaiaRikae Did you take the time to actually read what I said. Let me write again, 'Neanderthal IS NOT a missing link'. I was pointing out that Neanderthal had been used for years by evolutionists as a missing link. Turns out to be a human with a bigger brain cavity than ours suffering from rickets & arthritis. Hence the stooping, bent back etc. As for cannibalism, I know that there have been tribes found who are of that persuasion, also found in Scottish history of a few hundred years ago.
rafhenlow 10 months ago
@saryb4me @saryb4me Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a proven theory backed by hundreds of repeatable experiments and a complete record of fossils. The creation myth has no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to undo it. You choose to ignore all of the evidence becuase it's either too difficult for y9our tiny childish brain to understand or through wilful ignorance. Either way, denying the history of the planet makes you look very stupid indeed.
JamPal32 1 year ago
@saryb4me @saryb4me @saryb4me Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a proven theory backed by hundreds of repeatable experiments and a complete record of fossils. The creation myth has no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to undo it. You choose to ignore all of the evidence becuase it's either too difficult for y9our tiny childish brain to understand or through wilful ignorance. Either way, denying the history of the planet makes you look very stupid indeed.
JamPal32 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saryb4me @saryb4me @saryb4me Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a proven theory backed by hundreds of repeatable experiments and a complete record of fossils. The creation myth has no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to undo it. You choose to ignore all of the evidence becuase it's either too difficult for y9our tiny childish brain to understand or through wilful ignorance. Either way, denying the history of the planet makes you look very stupid indeed.
JamPal32 1 year ago
@saryb4me you are wasting your time. TLG is neither logical nor god. Theory to him is absolute, true, not opinion, same with hypothesis. Doesn't know that 'religion' means to follow something, believe in something, to follow something, ie a football team, or in his case evolution. As I said, neither logical or god.
rafhenlow 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod
Isaiah 51:6 (ESV) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, and they who dwell in it will die in like manner; but my salvation will be forever, and my righteousness will never be dismayed.
saryb4me 1 year ago
@TheLogicalGod
Psalm 102:25-28 (ESV) Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end. The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you.
saryb4me 1 year ago
Randy Newman struggles with belief - sentencing God in every way personally acceptable. He is no atheist, he just suffers like everyone questioning the suffering of children in Gods plan.
polymike 1 year ago
so is he athiest
philly442 1 year ago
"He" meaning Randy Newman? It's actually impossible to tell what Randy believes by listening to his songs. He writes a lot of songs from perspectives, creating a character to sing it. He may be singing as a deadbeat father, a slave trader, a Hollywood snob, a blue-collar racist, or, in this instance, an unsympathetic God. And then there's times when he sings about friendship and smiles. :)
Gnasche 1 year ago
I think he's atheist, because when he starts his song 'He gives us all his love'' he says: Bob Dylan was converted, but I'm not. I don't believe a word from this song.
renskedj 1 year ago
Who? Randy Newman? yes he is.
josephpowerful 1 year ago
Why is it people insist on it being either religion OR science? Our understanding of science is not so great that any of us should dismiss anyone else's views.
To put it simply: we're still learning, as the dominant species on Earth. Every day our understanding of science changes, sometimes wildly. By our current understanding of physics, for example, there's a galaxy too large to exist if the big bang happened when we think it did.
Food for thought: sometimes believing science takes faith too
TheCmjeter 2 years ago
I should elaborate, so people dont assume things about me: 13 billion lightyears from us is the galaxy in question. Given how long it took the light to reach us, the galaxy in took at least 26 billion years to expand to the point that (by our measurements) it has.
Current popular theory places the big bang at just a hair under 13.5 billion years ago. See what I meant about science taking faith?
People tout the big bang so much: try to remember it isn't direct empirical science. Stay objective.
TheCmjeter 2 years ago
Religion is irreconcilable with science because of the simple fact that religion is an ever expanding tautology, while science is a reason-based process of inquiry.
josephpowerful 1 year ago
Concluded: You are mistaking scientific theories for hypotheses'. It's a common mistake when it comes to people who don't spend the time to research and review what scientific terms mean. And as you being not the only believer out there....so what? There are plenty that believe in Scientology now, does that make it valid? Or racism or sexism or homophobia? Appeal to popularity is just lame.
CliffM85 2 years ago
Just making a comment, don't get so uptight.
rafhenlow 2 years ago
I love the theory word, It is used so often by people who realy mean "We think, (you fill in the whatever), & if we quote it enough it will become the 'truth'. Another saying sums it up, "Repeat a lie often enough & it becomes the truth." Maybe you should read what TLG has written, "Gasp, sometimes science is wrong".
rafhenlow 2 years ago
Yes, sometimes science is wrong which is why we revise it. And you show your idiocy by pretending that a scientific theory is the same as a theory. It's like suggesting a scientific law is the same as a national law. As if one goes to jail for breaking a 'scientific law'. How about you actually show some curiosity and research what a scientific theory is. I'll give you a hint: collection of scientific laws.
CliffM85 2 years ago
You have just repeated what I have been saying. Do you not think about what you are saying! "Yes, sometimes science is wrong which is why we revise it." Exactly the same argument that TLG made. So what you are asking me to do is believe what science says, until it changes it's mind. So I am on the M1 heading to the west country, I get to Manchester when I am told that I should have been on the M4!, never mind, only a theory which we can change when we find we are wrong. Brill.
rafhenlow 2 years ago
No, it's just you being difficult in deliberately not trying to understand the terminology. If you are walking around outside you'd say "My, this gravity is lovely". Now some odd event occurs happens and you start to float. You can't discuss gravity in the same fashion since an event occurred to change it. If science weren't open we'd have people still stating that the gravity is the same, but since it's open we can alter it for the phenemena that just happened. A poor example, perhaps?
CliffM85 2 years ago
@CliffM85 What I said was that gravity was fact, you tried to be clever with "do you mean" etc. If we started floating about then science would have to adjust its findings. So when they discover the big bang didn't happen, what, back to the drawing board?, & you will be happy with that will you.
rafhenlow 2 years ago
From this point forward I won't respond to Raf about evolution. His points are based on personal belief and no outside verifiable proof. He will respond to this by saying there is no proof. There is proof, evidence, etc. Listen to a Professor, Doctor, scientist, etc. Raf has said he doesn't trust science and so will never trust rational theories. IN this case I cannot continue to debate someone so dead set again listening to reason. Have fun posting, and I hope your New Year goes well.
TheLogicalGod 2 years ago
I have not said that I do not trust science. YOU did. You are the one that said, "GASP- some of it is wrong". Not me. Don't put words in my mouth. When you are losing the argument you send me to sites that don't back up your arguments with FACTS, just the usual hypothesis, or you dodge the question & go off on a tangent. You have no logic in your debating, none. You have no facts or ideas of your own. Before debating, passing unsubstantiated comments do some homework.
rafhenlow 2 years ago
As I said, you cannot trust science to be the last word. - - Raf, from 4 days ago. Again I say, doublethink must be fun to use everyday.
TheLogicalGod 2 years ago
See what I mean. You are the one who said that Gasp some are wrong. So what do I believe, & why? Letus take another scientific theory, planets/stars that are either moving towards us or away have a red or blue shift. Cannot remember which way round, anyway, it seems that it doesn't always hold true! So another scientific theory gone down the swanee. I just don't believe all that scientists tell me, that is all, & niether do you unless it gels with what you want to believe.
God bless.
rafhenlow 2 years ago
@TheLogicalGod in such cases you should just accept that raf will probably debate forever. i wanna bring up an old scientists joke by claiming that raf would use the absence of phones in archeological sites as a proof of how good radio communication was developed at that time. give up dont waste your time
mscoen 1 year ago
maybe rafs beliefs help him to better accept death as a fact (isnt that what religion is about? we talk ourselves out the fact that we will be dying?). no matter whats the truth, it will make his particular life easier. thats why he debates so hard and so without objectiveness, it would ruin his life.
mscoen 1 year ago
I have given you the truth! and you have moved away from me and not I from you. You'd rather beleve in some raddicel movement and not in what I have said. But sill I will not be far from you if you wish to come back!!! For today the need for forgiveness is more grately needed for tomorrow is to late!! Ask him in and do not turn him away, for the way is narrow but simple. The choice is yours!!
Idotgotit 2 years ago
Wait I don't get it. Who is this? I don't see that you posted on here ever before >.>
TheLogicalGod 2 years ag