There is no such thing as "naturalistic" explanation or "not naturalistic" explanation. Explanation is either based on evidence, or it is not. For example, creationist "explanations" are based only on iron age myths.
When i saw the link to this video i was all "Challenge Accepted." Then i realized so many people beat me to the punch that a monkey could make a more valid argument towards creationalism
That's an outright lie. Archaelogists did not find Jericho exactly as described, and in fact Kathleen Kenyon's findings dated Jericho to have been abandoned by the time of Israelite invasion, debunked the Bible's account almost entirely.
You are complete and utterly wrong. On one point however I have to give you some credit: Unlike retards like PCS/VenomfangX and the equally stupid Kristinalovesjesus, at least you DO allow ratings and comments.... I sense some enlightenment here!
christians should stop denying the truth and just accept that the flying spaghetti monster is the true "god" and the one who created everything fuck sake how can they be so arrogant its so obvious his noodley appendage is the reason for life may the flying spaghetti monster have mercy on your souls r'amen
Uh, Criss was right to show how the god of the gaps fallacy has disappointed creationists over and over again in a historical context. Were you able to perceive teh slightest nuance, you would realize she is asking you to think how you are different from creationists in the past. Also, many creationists still believe that god causes tsunamis and other natural disasters. Some of the most influential creationists in USA still hold to that position.
Amazing how unabashedly you shout your ignorance from the roof tops on the definition of scientific theory. Your ignorance is obviously invincible since Criss provided a very good definition for you. If you could turn your brain on long enough to listen to her, you would have understood. I just don't get the "dumb and proud of it" philosophy.
"wind going about in a circuit"? Wow! what divine insight the authors must have had. No, no, that can't describe virtually ANY atmospheric phenomenon. No, that observation can't come about from just being alive. No, that's not vague, not at all. It's very specific and could ONLY have come directly from God. However, supercomputers, space flight, particle accelerators...those are the insignificant inventions of infallible, small-minded men.
"representing a Muslim as a representative for creationism" what is wrong with that?....they believe in a pretty much the same story as you folks. Ah and you both believe in the same god so theirs no reason why the story should be different. Islam and Christianity are the same bullshit in different wrappers. PEACE!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Valigarmanda1 - There are respected creationists. The fact that you won't prove abiogenesis and think we need to prove God shows a double standard. You prove that naturedunnit by putting it to the scientific test. If you can't forget it.
@AmazingAnswers name one respected creationist who holds weight in the scientific community. name one discovery or application of his or hers creation beliefs that saves lives or helps to further scientific understanding, you know like how evolutionary biology allows us to explain and predict viral strain evolution and create vaccines that save lives when new vaccine resistant strains are born, or allow us to map the human genome and explain biodiversity. ignorance doesn't impress me, grow up.
@roxas12590 Dr. Jason Lisle, discovered a previously unknown polar alignment of supergranules (solar convection cells), and discovered evidence of solar giant cells. And it's not evolutionary biology that makes that possible. It's just biology. The viral strains aren't turning into anything but other viral strains.
@ItssBrian ''Jason Lisle/AiG - God got it right the first time! The Bible is the infallible Word of God. So when it touches on a particular topic, it’s right.'' sorry he is filtering the evidence to fit his conclusions his work is well.... nothing special and as he is also on answers in genesis holds no merit bar from few head turns for the scientific community.
@WilkoPhilip No, he doesn't filter evidence. He considers ALL the evidence in light of his world view. In other words, he interprets the evidence based on his perception of reality. What could you ask differently of him? Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
@ItssBrian does he believe in evolution? does he think that the world has been here for more than 6000 years old does he ignore this evidence? im sorry but the correct world view is to say we only know what we know not i want to know something i cant prove.
@WilkoPhilip What evidence? Just saying the word evolution is not evidence that the theory is correct. And you can't even prove solipsism isn't true. You can only make judgments based on your perception of reality.
@ItssBrian are you a solipsist? if you are none will debate with you at all because you think only your mind exists. yes we cant say if it is incorrect but if you want to debate anything then you have to debate beyond solipsism otherwise everything is in the beholders mind and nothing is true. well we know that the world is at-least 14k years old since that is as far back as recorded history / civilisations. without even mentioning radiometric dating and other such dating techniques
@ItssBrian "What's your point? " the point is that this variation is an example of evolution at work at the micro scale. your talking speciation and that takes much longer. get back to me when you have an adequate understanding of what evolution really says and not the creation bullshit your fed like a dumbass. night
@roxas12590 "micro evolution" is accepted by creationists. But species never become other species. It's never been observed and it never will be. Thousands of years of breeding dogs, with a conscious and deliberate effort of differentiation has produced more dogs, and will always produce more dogs. Also, natural selection =/= evolution. Natural selection is a process of elimination. It removes information from the gene pool. It doesn't create it.
@roxas12590 "micro evolution" is accepted by creationists. But species never become other species. It's never been observed and it never will be. Thousands of years of breeding dogs, with a conscious and deliberate effort of differentiation has produced more dogs, and will always produce more dogs. Also, natural selection =/= evolution. Natural selection is a process of elimination. It removes information from the gene pool. It doesn't create it.
@AmazingAnswers It's not a double standard, actually, because the methodologies of chemical evolution have documented and well understood vehicles for information transcription. Claiming that life started by a coalescence of disparate chemicals is a testable, and more importantly falsifiable, hypothesis. Claiming that a god did it isn't, because you have to propose a mechanism for -how- this god supposedly did it that's testable. And then you'd have to prove it was -your- specific god.
Also, if the biblical god created everything, why didn't he supplant in his book with knowledge that only he would have; such as a unified field theory or the existence of DNA or advanced mathematical principles or, hell, how to make antibiotics? Instead it's a trolling human centric narrative nestled around issues culturally relevant in their respective eras: Issues of finance, property, differences of belief, of race and creed, of religious practice and theistic observance.
"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." - Jesus. Question why would God supply man with keys to life and the universe 100's of years early so we could have oil spills, H-bombs, and nuclear fall out centuries sooner? Have you been watching what happened in Japan this year? The world is messed up enough, God wasn't trying to expedite destruction.
@HarlanLovestone Gonna burst your bubble here, but we've had natural disasters for millions of years. Just because the tsunami and earthquake in Japan is fresh in your memory doesn't make it relevant to some quack religious "end of days" propaganda. That little quake was nothing compared to what our planet has been through before. The Chicxulub Crater is an excellent example; the Permian–Triassic extinction event makes oil spills look like Strawberry Shortcake spilled her tea pot.
@AletheianAeon I'm well aware that there have always been disasters and earthquakes etc on this planet. Some much worst than recent. However, based on recorded history and current media I have never know there to be disasters in the frequency of occurrence that we have been experiencing over the last 20 years. Furthermore as far as evolution, I think it takes a grand leap of faith to entertain that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old when carbon dating deals with estimation
Respond to this video... Plus the calibration of carbon dating is done on a curve. Now maybe my beliefs might sound odd to you but I really can't fathom any artifact being more than a few thousand years old when you have well preserved mummies of egypt that are only a few thousand years old and ready to crumble into dust. On top of that the oldest trees on our plant only date back to around 4000 years which would align with the flood.
Science is not verbatim, many mysteries remain unsolved , debates rage on such as global warming splitting the scientific community in half of those for and against the theory. Science is inapt at explaining all things and leaves out the possibility of anything spiritual. Religion contains some proven history, yet it is not a history book. Religion also allows for some science and has been the inspiration for some inspired science.
@HarlanLovestone Science is a process. No branch of respected, established science claims to know everything, or even most of everything. However, it is the only process by which we can understand the workings of the world around us. Spirituality is a personal experience, however if you think that science excludes spirituality you're mistaken. While it doesn't allow for -supernatural- interpretations of facts, it still encourages us to reflect upon and deeply feel the beauty of reality.
But religion does not contain a lot of detailed scientific explanation. At any rate, I would submit to you that one has the choice of either evolution or religion and each at some point both require the believer to exhibit faith in order to believe one or the other. The choice is yours, but I choose Jesus. Have a great day!
@HarlanLovestone I'm going to pick science because it provides me with clean water, communication networks including the internet, safe food, shelter, medication, and knowledge. Evolution is a theory uniting dozens upon dozens of scientific disciplines that reveal not only where I came from, but how I'm connected to every other living thing on Earth. It doesn't berate or demonize me or try to define my morality for me. It provides a methodology to ascertain truth. Enjoy your night.
@HarlanLovestone There are a lot of problems with your comment. First of all, you don't have to choose between religion and science, you could actually choose neither or even both. Many of the most respected evolutionary biologists, including Kenneth Miller, have chosen both. He is a Catholic and a scientist.
Next, I take issue with your attempt to equate faith in facts and science with faith in religion. Evolution is a proven fact, religion has absolutely no verifiable evidence to support it
@AletheianAeon - information transcription is a process that was already in progress by the time scientists discovered it. The process is much like how computer virus's work but only a much more sophisticated process. It is well known that computer software transcription doesn't prove that the software itself created itself. The process was started by a human inventor.
@AmazingAnswers I'm really not certain what your point is here; because the analogy of a computer virus hinges on a human inventor doesn't lend any credibility what-so-ever to a creator for modern life. At all. Not even a little. Every single step forward in understanding came from the scientific process- hypothesis, testing, recording the results, drawing conclusions, and making predictions based on those conclusions, and the technology and understanding we have today as a result is proof.
@AmazingAnswers What you fail to understand is that abiogenesis is a solid scientific proposition because it's falsifiable. It has testable methodologies that can be derived from our understanding of physics, of chemistry, of biology, of geology. If you propose that a supernatural being started life, but fail to propose any verifiable methods in which this could have been done, you've cut off your own legs before leaving the starting line. You have nothing to build on but an assumed conclusion.
@AletheianAeon - The proposition that "nature by itself c a n n o t create life" is, too, a theoretically falsifiable statement. All you have to do is show that something cannot happen. For instance, if I said that a bullet from a certain type of gun cannot pass through 10 ft of concentrated plywood, I could test that proposition. Same with life origin experiments.
@AmazingAnswers It's demonstrated that natural processes -can- account for self replicating proteins. In fact, they'd have to otherwise they couldn't continue to propagate today. Because we don't know the specifics yet about how it occurred doesn't mean it was impossible, nor that a supernatural explanation is automatically right or contains any merit. That would be an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy, respectively.
@AmazingAnswers Also, you would -still- have to suggest a mechanism for how a supernatural force or being outside of time intervened. The moment anything interacts with our spacial medium there would be observable, measurable events. You haven't bypassed naturalistic explanations nor exempted yourself from any physical laws because one can still use those laws to inspect an occurrence within our spacial medium. Invoking a god would make it easier to identify a non-naturalistic occurrence.
@AmazingAnswers so what your are suggesting to Alethian is to state we would have to prove God can't make mankind out of magical mud? Is that honestly the position your taking when you claim your concept of Creation remains falsifiable?
Cuz that would be the way to disprove your theory:
God can't make humans out of magical dirt (according to YOUR book).
To live in a modern age has many advantages; foremost is the ability to have a definable place in the Universe. The Age and Structure of This Universe comes from observing and predicting and working on the next step in a never ending search for a more complete understanding of all this. God has more to do with personal belief and the intimate expressions of hope and existential being... So people who look for a god to control everything end up really with a belief about nothing.
What is a modern creationist? (as opposed to a non-modern creationst)
Are you perhaps referring to the modernized Paley's watchmaker argument named "intelligent design"?
By the way, evolution is both a fact as well as a scientific theory. And, secondly, though NOT conclusive, there are strong indications that the origin of life has a natural cause. However inconclusive there is not a single fact that a natural cause can be excluded. Though IDiots, ID believers not knowing an iota, believe so.
Tell me what an Evolutionist is exactly? Is that a branch of science, or is it a made up term? A Biologist for example would never be called an Evolutionist. I know it's a term added to dictionaries, but it's a bogus term added by Christian Apologists for your agenda. Until you can find evidence for your God's existence Christianity will never be the default position. Using the bible for evidence of your God is like reading Jack and the Beanstalk for evidence of Giants.
"Allowing only naturalistic explanations is to say wind and water formed the sand castle.."
I have seen the forces of nature do much more impressive things than that. Nature can form living creatures with the intellectual capacity to build sand castles. Pretty neat huh?
@DecepticonLeader - is that so? I saw naturalistic explanations produce a couple of geers on rods that actually functioned together. By accident natural forces caused a nearby tree to dump sap onto the newly formed gears to solidify them and the rod so that they are now evenly balanced and move around and around because of this fly that catches the wind.
@AmazingAnswers They are transitional fossils, regardless of the names. As for not understanding the names, maybe you should learn some science before you claim that scientists are out to confuse common folk.
1:57 "Allowing only naturalistic explanations is to say wind and water formed the sand and not allow another reason." Well, no. A naturalistic explanation could very well include human intervention, since they are within nature. God is not (assuming that he exists at all). If he were (that is, to be able to not rule out God's creation of the Universe) then he would be existent and we could find him.
Also you do realize that just as some Ancient Greeks believed in Evolution, a vast Majority of them believed in Creationism? Also you do realize that man has been on the earth longer than 6000 years right? Sadly you seem to assume that the writers of the bible were just idiots who knew nothing of weather, travel, anything and that only by a God could they have known of such. I've read the bible front to back many times, I'm not convinced it was from God.
The reason she brought up things that modern Creations no longer believe is because at one time THEY WERE BELIEVED! Until SCIENCE proved them wrong and creationist realized they could no longer subscribe those events to God(s).
Can I have some evidence to support your statement that Atheists are known for discouraging debates? I will debate someone unless they just keep repeating the same stupid things over and over again. BUT, When I was a Christian I was told not to debate for long periods of time because if the person didn't want to believe me then God wasn't drawing that person to him...But since I have become an Atheist I have never had anyone say such thing to me? Nor have I read it anywhere.
@AmazingAnswers ok, and that means what to me???? I don't know them and I don't know what their reasons for not debating you were, unless you just kept rehashing BS in order to try and "prove" your opinion about a matter. Basically you were lumping everyone into one big group and saying that ALL ATHEIST AVOID DEBATES, when two people avoided debates with you? That's lame.
@AmazingAnswers Because there IS NO debate. All your drop dead stupid fucking arguments have been debunked over and over and over and over and over again... and that INCLUDES ALL your equal drop dead stupid fucking attempts to disprove those debunks. Those peope just don't want to waste any time on futile attempts to steer dumbass people like you in a direction where it might appear that you could eventually be entering a state of mind where logic is involved.
@R20710 - I appreciate at least your depositing an opinion here, however, I also appreciate if you would deposit a dispute against any of my arguments.
It's like trying to teach calculus to a dog... after excessive experiments you just realize.. he's just not mentally capable of grasping what you are saying.
Same with you... you don't understand logic and reason not because you don't want to or because it's hard to understand.. it's because you are physically not able to.
People don't debate you, because they know you ARE NOT ABLE to understand anything they are saying.
@GoodSamaritean4life I laughed..I hope that's the reaction you wanted. Side note: These people are not in any authoritative positions that I know of. I do not even know them. The statement made in the video made it come across as if There is some Higher Authority within the Atheist Groups telling ones not to debate, which from my perspective is a lie. Just because a few people find it pointless to argue this and that doesn't mean as a whole it's a rule. Same for Xians, Right?
@happie2befree You can laugh as much as you like, God's will is what is being done, no matter how much you laugh and mock. The only one suffering is you. Good luck trusting yourself and the other "religions".
You may lose even the second resurrection with this attitude. You probably know what I'm talking about , if not then you weren't a JW
@GoodSamaritean4life I laughed at what I supposed was a joke. But apparently you were not joking and it wasn't meant to be laughed at...touchy touchy. I was laughing at your statement about thunderfoot de-evolving or what not! I didn't know that Thunderfoot was God and I was laughing at him! You're the one who made the statement jackass. I'm not associated with any religion...(con't)
@happie2befree I do not know what you are talking about when you refer to the second resurrection, whatever book you have on Jehovah's Witnesses is using terminology that the Witnesses do not use. Sorry FAIL on your part. If you are talking about the Christ's second coming as in His rule began in 1914 and after Armageddon his 1000 year reign and the Witnesses are going to be the only survivors and they are going to teach the newly resurrected ones all about the "TRUTH" (con't)
@happie2befree then Honey I lost that the day I told the Witnesses I didn't believe what they taught & they made a public announcement telling the world I was no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you want to truly know what someone believes, not all books are honest or are written by those who have been within the walls of that organization. Do not be so stupid as to put your trust in someone else, walk your butt into the building and see for yourself, then you'll have a leg to stand on.
@happie2befree Sorry for that, I didn't understand. There are too many comments. There is even a video of thunderfoot turning into a chicken of you like to watch. I tried to find it for you, but it seems it was DMCA'd making it even more funny.
@GoodSamaritean4life When I speak to others it's not to try and disprove their beliefs, but understand WHY they believe what they believe. I try to be understanding, but If a person cannot reasonably explain WHY they believe a certain way then it seems there is no basis for what they believe other than their emotions. I find a lot of people cannot explain why they believe something, it's a feeling. But a feeling is not evidence & it's not enough proof of something. I don't feel their emotions.
What's funny to me about your video is during your definition of Theory you pick and choose how you want to define it. The great thing about the internet is how quickly one can look up the definition. This to me is your way of being deceitful in order to justify your viewpoint on the matter. Gravity is also a THEORY does that mean it doesn't really exist or should not really be taught? I hope people who watch this are smart enough to look up the actual definition rather than go by here say.
looks like you are not the only one who is "amazed" by Cristina's foul language. I bet she is celebrating Christmas like all of the Romanians now. Such a hypocrite and a national shame. I am a Romanian myself and I know a lot of "atheists"( in fact I can't think of an atheist who doesn't do this) that marry in Christian churches and celebrate Christmas and Easter. Atheism is a front for acting like a dirt-bag.
@GoodSamaritean4life Actually I don't believe she did, but it's good to know what a great Christian you are by making assumptions about others. Way to break stereotypes! Also those who are Atheist & do attend church sometimes do it for family reasons. And BTW you are aware that all your "Christian" Holidays stem from Pagan origins and beliefs right...meaning your the dirt bag who's celebrating things you ought naught. Just because a church slaps a label on it and says it's ok doesn't mean it is
@happie2befree What would I do without you giving your opinion?....
Read Romans 14 and understand that we are permitted to celebrate or not to celebrate all the holidays that we want. I am sure that you didn't learned that with the JW's because those are one of the "ignored" verses.
@GoodSamaritean4life just because I was raised a Jehovah's Witness doesn't mean I haven't visited many churches and learned many interesting things, mainly that no matter how different a religion professes to be, they are all basically the same (at least when they are claiming Christianity). I have read Romans 14, and I have actually used that against the JW's and their argument against Celebrating Holidays. I just find it funny that you make a big deal about who's celebrating what, when & how
@happie2befree If you were an actual JW you would know that the scripture is understood only by the believers and the believers alone. The spiritual man receives understanding, while the carnal man looks at the holy things and perceives them as insanity. That's what you do because you are an unbeliever. And also you can't help yourself from mocking Christianity alone, what does that tell you about yourself? Your actions say a lot
@GoodSamaritean4life I was a JW, born and raised. As an adult I walked away after reading scripture without their silly little publications to "back up the bible". Upon leaving I searched out God in other religions. No matter where I went there were still doubts and questions in the back of my mind. Wonder about God's existence and how he came about, questions I had at 5. The more study and research I've done, the less and less I see God. Please explain how I mocked Christianity?
@GoodSamaritean4life Just because a person says they do not believe in God doesn't mean they are mocking Christianity. I do believe the person who made this video needs to be aware of where the Gaping holes are in their logic in order to do a better job. In order to properly defend any belief you need to have a lot less holes and a better line of reasoning. You also need to be able to see ALL sides of a story, especially if you are going to try make someone else look like the fool.
@happie2befree I'm not trying to make anyone look like a fool. Created things need a creator. if you think otherwise then you are a fool by definition. Humans try to twist things around to suit their sentimentalism but it doesn't change the facts. The computer in front of you was created, the house you live in was created, you were created, animals, plants, planets and galaxies were all created. They can't create themselves. It doesn't get more simple than that
@GoodSamaritean4life Ok, so basically when what someone says doesn't fall in line with your emotional way of thinking then you go off on a tangent and say everything is wrong but the bible. Hey dude if you wanna reason like that that's fine, but I think you're really dumb to not try and see all sides of an issue. If you're gonna use your line of reasoning, "the house was created, you, animals", etc, etc then God was created. No more needed to be worshiped than myself.
@GoodSamaritean4life also this is why many evolutionist stop arguing with Creationist. You don't even care if you have a leg to stand on, you just rant and rave and even if it were proven there was no God, you wouldn't let it go because.....you don't WANT to be wrong. How can someone reason with an unreasonable person?
@happie2befree And I don't have to be a JW in order to know what they teach. 2 of my friends, very good friends are JW's and I know exactly what they believe. They got one thing right: there will be 2 resurrections : the first one is for the saints, the second one is for the heathens. Be careful to not lose your turn in any of those 2. That's the only advice I am giving to you. I really love you as a human being and I don't want this discussion to be a confrontation.
@GoodSamaritean4life Ahh well your terminology, I'm guessing because of the language barrier, is a little different than ours. The JW's have changed their belief on the resurrection on several occasions. At one time they said the anointed ones would be resurrected when they die, and at another time they said that they anointed ones would be resurrected after Armageddon. They change their stance because they can't decide what their doctrine should be. (con't)
@GoodSamaritean4life Also you need to know, unless you are a JW you're two good friends, shouldn't be associating with you. It is looked down upon within the congregation and they will be labeled as Bad Association, UNLESS they are holding a Bible Study with you. Beware, you are a Heathen in their eyes because you are not a JW. Side Note: In their eyes, I will Never be resurrected! I left the ONLY TRUTH and since I'm an APOSTATE of the TRUTH, I have no chance of Resurrection! No matter what!
@happie2befree I know what you are talking about. They do see their Organization as above everything, even the word of God.
Guess that time will decide which one of us gets resurrected and when.
Until then I wish you a happy new year. Sorry if I was a little overzealous. It depends a lot on how I feel at that time. I try to perfect myself, including my temper and I try to learn new things each day, but I am not perfect. Your opinion counts and you are important, I didn't mean to be arrogant
@happie2befree Also sorry for my imperfect English. You sometimes have to read between the lines of what I say. That's because I am not a native speaker.
@GoodSamaritean4life also....DO YOU READ my comments or do you skim them and then respond? I NEVER called you a fool....However your lack of reading a comment all the way through before firing back a response sorta makes you come across as one!
@happie2befree I do read your comments and I do respond to the entirety of your comments with one or a few comments. I responded to the issues I consider important.
@happie2befree You have to understand that you are not the only person on YT that posts messages to me. And I didn't argue because there is nothing to argue about. The facts are undeniable and I am going to state it again: created things need a creator, so when you say there is no God you are speaking insanity. I can't "let go" something that is blatantly obvious and true. I can't be wrong , there is zero chance , if I didn't think like that I wouldn't speak. Should of, could of is not my stile
@GoodSamaritean4life I understand, and once school starts I pretty much never get on YouTube. I just enjoy conversing with people, and it was good speaking with you.
@GoodSamaritean4life sadly most Christians I've met have never been taught anything proper about evolution except what their church teaches, which is skewed since most churches disprove of the teaching. If something is taught it doesn't mean a person has to accept it, but if you learn all sides of a matter it is much easier to make a proper, well educated decision about such matter. And therefore not act like/be an ass.
@GoodSamaritean4life please explain how you find that to be. The definition in the dictionary does not seem to fall in line with your belief. So please explain your reasoning.
@GoodSamaritean4life Your chances of having the TRUE religion is less than 1/1000. You have fun with that. If I ever stand before God I will ask him very simply, Would HE have blindly relied on the word of someone he never met without proper evidence to support whatever statement was being proposed. If He exists, in all his perfection, would HE rely on faith as a means to live his life, or what Facts he had to support his beliefs? I think he would NOT rely on Faith...and he's not imperfect!
@happie2befree My chances of having a true "religion" are 100% out of 100% because I have my bible. That's the only thing that matters. You again go to the sentimentalist reasoning and can't take the truth without associating it with meaningless topics like " what church do I need to go to now that I believe". I believe the bible and apply the teachings found in it to the best of my understanding and my ability. That's my religion
@GoodSamaritean4life I don't care who celebrates what. You can claim to be Xian & celebrate Budda for all I care, & you can tell yourself whatever you want about how you serve God & what you believe he will and won't accept. I've read 3 different translations of the Bible and like I said in another post on this site, it doesn't make me any more apt to believe it's inspired by some invisible being in the sky. And don't complain about someone voicing their opinion when you freely share your own.
Is it your belief that if Evo is wrong, than OT Creation is right by default?
If so, how is your creation myth more correct than say the Hindu, Egyptian, Sioux or any other belief of special creation? What evidence does OT special creation provide?
@sol3a1 - Absolutely not. Sentient being is the default theory. The God of the Bible is proven not by proving evolution or abiogenesis wrong. It's proven by fulfilled prophecy.
1: Creationist: Make the facts fit your preconceived notions. Science: See what the facts are and make testable theories on why they are the way they are.
2: C: Where did the Universe come from, we know, god didit! S: Where did the Universe come from? We don't know yet but if this god thingy did it, where'd this god come from?
3: C: Teach the "controversy"! S: What controversy?
4: C: My god did it? S: Really? Which one and how?
@sol3a1 1. Science is neutral and gives either perspective a fair chance. Evolution is a philosophy that goes back to the Greeks. 2. God doesn't have to come from anywhere. God could always be. It's either the universe has always been (and thermodynamics refutes that) or God has always been. 4. Bible prophecy is where you prove the God of the Bible.
1: Science is neutral but gives the side with the evidence the floor. As Creationism has no evidence, it's shown the door.
2: Special pleading for your god to have always been? Doesn't work. As science never stops looking for what caused what, saying "gogdidit" means squat. Your attempt at the 2nd law is laughable.
3: Evolution is a science and it is a fact. What is in dispute is how evolution works exactly.
4: An the Buy-Bull prophecies have never come true. Name one.
@sol3a1 - Well, let's discuss your ideas. Science is observation. Let's put out the hypothesis that sentient beings can create complex mechanical things. So everyday you leave for work and before that you type a message. The message isn't random because you thought each letter into place. The car you drive was put together by engineers. By the end of the day you have a load-full of evidence that proves that intelligence can do it. Now where is your evidence that chemicals can do it?
@AmazingAnswers: Nice strawman. No "evo" I know of that has an idea what evolution really is says that.
Hint: Cars, PCs, airplanes, etc don't bread and reproduce. Biologic and pre-bio-chemical reactions do
Abiogenesis is not "mix chemicals and life comes into being". Abiogenesis starts with amino acids, then polymer chains and goes into more and more complex bio-biotic chemistry. Those chemicals that self-replicated were the ones selected for and did. No magical micro-manager needed at all
@sol3a1 - Fair enough. By chemicals I covered the entire line of "amino acids" and sofourth. However, you need to dig further back. You need to start from rocks. You need to prove that all of this can occur merely from the gases that be and rocks. Maybe get a bunch of rocks and hammer them down. It's presumed that soil didn't exist back then.
@AmazingAnswers: "start from rocks". Nope. You need area few elements. We know that amino acids form in molecular clouds of gas and dust. These amino acids we know are carried on comets and other snowballs. So there is no "rocks needed".
As for "pounding down rocks", that isn't even close. Go on your favorite search engine and type in "Abiogenesis". If I were you, I'd start with Wikipedia and go from there to learn what science, not Hovind, Hamm, Hinn, Disco 'Toot or other Creation crack pots.
Why have none of you bright people, pointed out that abiogenesis is what creationists think evolution is???? This is shameful, How can you not mention this obvious contradiction in terms???? Evolution = origin of the species (or "kinds" for you creationists) abiogenesis= the collaberation which results in the origin of LIFE. What is so hard to understand?
You can say that God made it as it is today, and you may be right, but if you can't explain where God came from, aren't you as good as saying 'Naturedunnit'?
Why would anyone even really WANT to debate a creationist? Like Richard Dawkins said it is akin to debating someone who believes in the Stork over Reproductive Theory for the origin of where babies come from. If you want to debate the nit picky details on evolution that's fine, but you won't win if you debate whether evolution is true or not unless you close your eyes, cover your ears, and say lalalalalala till we get fed up and leave, then keep complaining when we don't want to debate anymore.
I think Newton's Gravitational Theory is wrong because its just a theory. Its really God holding us down because he isn't ready to let us float to heaven. I have millions of facts to back this up but I don't want to publish because the scientific community is sooo close-minded. They wouldn't trust the test results I confirmed in my basement...weight and mass mean the same thing right?
Also you need to accept that being a creationist puts you on the same side in this debate as the Muslims. Europe is currently plagued by Muslims the way America is plagued by Christians. So, it makes sense for a Romanian woman to use a Muslim in her video.
B.T.W. Romania is in Europe. I 'm sure you know that, but I didn't want to rule out the possibility that Christians are now rejecting geography. I can't keep up with this stuff.
Your "naturedunit" argument is fallacious crap. It's pure projection. You can't divorce yourself from the notion that some singular entity is responsible for the creation of all things, so you project that notion on to everyone else. Not all of us feel the need to replace the concept of God with some other magical force. To say something came about by natural occurrence is not the same as saying "naturedunit."
Very creatively done, and dead on target. Basic thesis: Creationists are closed minded, totally void of information, and really good at lying their asses off. Oh, and thinking they can't possibly be wrong at the same time. Talk about annoying!
Yeeeahh...what you cited about the bible being scientific...the first part (jericho) was historical, and the rest (the winds and things like that) if you bothered to read the information in the upper left of the map thing you were showing us with the nutcracker suite in the background it said INFRARED. Infrared is...well heat. You could clearly see that it consistently changed colors in certain parts and certain times (night and day perhaps? or maybe seasons depending on the speed up rate)
0:50 - The muslim guy was making an argument (evolution is a THEORY not a FACT) that christian creationists make all the time. This is in no way a misrepresentation - in fact, it would be a misrepresentation to deny that there are muslim creationists!
You then compound this error by making the exact same argument the muslim guy made - hinging on a misrepresentation of the word theory.
at least atheists have a theory at the very least.
what do creationists have? oh yeah, a book written by their imaginary friend that proves that he's real because it says so in the book, and the book MUST be true because it's written (inspired, whatever) by the imaginary beardy man in the sky, who is real because the book says so.
Ok I'm sleepy and bored, if you ever want to chat feel free to message me and I'll actually explain atheism and evolution. Sorry about the earlier disparaging comment. I like Criss and found your reaction to be silly, I still think your stance is very very lacking but ignorance and idiocy are two different things.
You fail to understand her next point (Where she was talking about lightening) by a wide margin. She was laying out an example of something that people didn't used to understand and used deities to explain away. Thus the point she was making was: "I don't get how we got here or now stuff got to be this way, so god did it".
No one believes in 'spontaneous generation' at least no one I've ever met or heard about (save creationists saying god made stuff poof into being)
She isn't being hypocritical, sure she's over generalizing and making jokes (Its a joke video its not meant to be 100% fer realz taken seriously). If there is a better explanation that comes along Criss will accept it, and so will I. But until then saying "God did it" is, as I stated, a dead end that goes no where.
The 'Naturedunnit' bit is obvious projection. We have no way of proving a divine method for reality forming so yes, it forming naturally is far more logical than assuming that a deity did it, especially since simply claiming a deity did it teaches us absolutely nothing and retards the learning and scientific method. THAT is why its important to find out the whys and hows so we can learn. "God did it" is a dead end.
Part two, ahhhh the classic "Something exists so it must have a creator falicy" this has been debunked so many times this is funny...are you a poe? Are you serious? A painting doesn't grow on a tree, a sand castle doesn't naturally form on its own. If you say for existence to exist there has to be a creator then we come up with, "Who created him" and if you say nothing then why can't that exact same answer suffice for why the universe is here?
I don't say this often but you're an idiot dude. Right off the bat you get things wrong. The first point she was making was about evolution only being a theory, the Muslim is a creationist (Just a muslim one) and Christian creationists OFTEN make the exact same mistake.
You also only use one part of the definition of the word theory, one word can have many meanings depending on context. I'll watch move and see just how much more wrong you can make it.
If you assume nature is capable of growing a tree for example, you can then do science and try to find out HOW nature grows a tree. If you assume that only God can make a tree, you have essentially closed the book on discovering the origin of trees.
That's why "naturedunnit" is a very sensible ASSUMPTION, and "Goddunnit", is a grossly illogical CONCLUSION.
Oh dear, oh dear. This Bible thingy being used to support arguments again. Good comedy this. Oh and check up sarcasm. Krissy is fond of it, but her worst vid is better than this. No, just kidding, please continue "creating" them, ha!
This guy is criticising scientific theory by stating that it is not "absolute fact"? I wish people would open a book before they open their mouths As Richard Leakey said, "some people are so stupid, they don't know they're stupid". Nothing in science is regarded as absolute fact. A well supported theory like evolution is as close to absolute truth one can get in science. Plus, before you go ahead, and say anything about a scientific law, go learn something about the philosopy of science.
Evolution can be tested, and confirmed, predictions can be made and verified. Creation, or ID cannot be tested, or confirmed, because it is supernatural. by definition, outside reality. outside reality= not real, "nothing to test".
There is no such thing as "naturalistic" explanation or "not naturalistic" explanation. Explanation is either based on evidence, or it is not. For example, creationist "explanations" are based only on iron age myths.
TheAbyrwalg 3 weeks ago
When i saw the link to this video i was all "Challenge Accepted." Then i realized so many people beat me to the punch that a monkey could make a more valid argument towards creationalism
xPurpleDrinkx9001 1 month ago
Gravity is a theory.
1peterkim123 1 month ago
That's an outright lie. Archaelogists did not find Jericho exactly as described, and in fact Kathleen Kenyon's findings dated Jericho to have been abandoned by the time of Israelite invasion, debunked the Bible's account almost entirely.
PattMyCat 1 month ago
Nice lightsaber Sith. You can't take Chris down, the force is too strong with that one. :)
caligraphictsuba 1 month ago
Whataloadofshit
aaddaammize 1 month ago
Not sure if creationist...
...or satirical athiest
MasterYangLi 2 months ago
@AmazingAnswers Sand castles do not reproduce with variation.
foxlake02 3 months ago
SEXY SATIRICAL ATHEIST! YAY!
SpidermanInLondon 4 months ago
You are complete and utterly wrong. On one point however I have to give you some credit: Unlike retards like PCS/VenomfangX and the equally stupid Kristinalovesjesus, at least you DO allow ratings and comments.... I sense some enlightenment here!
hakareach 5 months ago
christians should stop denying the truth and just accept that the flying spaghetti monster is the true "god" and the one who created everything fuck sake how can they be so arrogant its so obvious his noodley appendage is the reason for life may the flying spaghetti monster have mercy on your souls r'amen
MrPhantompants 5 months ago
Rewriting the old "watch on the beach" to "sandcastles" is not and has never been an argument that works.
And no, she is not saying "nature did it", she is saying that there are things we can prove and there are things we cannot.
She is using lightning as a historical reference to show what science has managed to explain where religion has failed.
She doesn't say that's what creationists believe now.
Thou shall not misrepresent.
auritone 6 months ago
Uh, Criss was right to show how the god of the gaps fallacy has disappointed creationists over and over again in a historical context. Were you able to perceive teh slightest nuance, you would realize she is asking you to think how you are different from creationists in the past. Also, many creationists still believe that god causes tsunamis and other natural disasters. Some of the most influential creationists in USA still hold to that position.
SammyHales 7 months ago
Amazing how unabashedly you shout your ignorance from the roof tops on the definition of scientific theory. Your ignorance is obviously invincible since Criss provided a very good definition for you. If you could turn your brain on long enough to listen to her, you would have understood. I just don't get the "dumb and proud of it" philosophy.
SammyHales 7 months ago
"wind going about in a circuit"? Wow! what divine insight the authors must have had. No, no, that can't describe virtually ANY atmospheric phenomenon. No, that observation can't come about from just being alive. No, that's not vague, not at all. It's very specific and could ONLY have come directly from God. However, supercomputers, space flight, particle accelerators...those are the insignificant inventions of infallible, small-minded men.
HS225 8 months ago
"representing a Muslim as a representative for creationism" what is wrong with that?....they believe in a pretty much the same story as you folks. Ah and you both believe in the same god so theirs no reason why the story should be different. Islam and Christianity are the same bullshit in different wrappers. PEACE!
SardarDholi 8 months ago
We don't know where sandcastles came from? This has to be a parody.
alphaenemy 11 months ago
this video is gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FAIL!!!
Thunderf00tFungus 1 year ago
@Thunderf00tFungus - no, this video is not gay. Do you see any men with men? Women with women? Your statement about my video is gay.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers uuuhhhh okay... sure that makes sense. Typical creationist babble. Sssshhhh, its best if you sit in the corner and stay silent.
Thunderf00tFungus 1 year ago
@Thunderf00tFungus - no, it's an unusual remark to your gayish babble.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers (sigh).... ssshhhhhhh i know thinking makes your brain hurt, just stop doing it. Your getting pathetic.
Thunderf00tFungus 1 year ago
@Thunderf00tFungus - that shhhh sound. Was that Desonex?
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
lol respected creationists.
It's an oxymoron,
I see what you did there.
Valigarmanda1 1 year ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Valigarmanda1 - There are respected creationists. The fact that you won't prove abiogenesis and think we need to prove God shows a double standard. You prove that naturedunnit by putting it to the scientific test. If you can't forget it.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers name one respected creationist who holds weight in the scientific community. name one discovery or application of his or hers creation beliefs that saves lives or helps to further scientific understanding, you know like how evolutionary biology allows us to explain and predict viral strain evolution and create vaccines that save lives when new vaccine resistant strains are born, or allow us to map the human genome and explain biodiversity. ignorance doesn't impress me, grow up.
roxas12590 11 months ago 16
@roxas12590 Dr. Jason Lisle, discovered a previously unknown polar alignment of supergranules (solar convection cells), and discovered evidence of solar giant cells. And it's not evolutionary biology that makes that possible. It's just biology. The viral strains aren't turning into anything but other viral strains.
ItssBrian 1 month ago
@ItssBrian ''Jason Lisle/AiG - God got it right the first time! The Bible is the infallible Word of God. So when it touches on a particular topic, it’s right.'' sorry he is filtering the evidence to fit his conclusions his work is well.... nothing special and as he is also on answers in genesis holds no merit bar from few head turns for the scientific community.
WilkoPhilip 1 month ago
@WilkoPhilip No, he doesn't filter evidence. He considers ALL the evidence in light of his world view. In other words, he interprets the evidence based on his perception of reality. What could you ask differently of him? Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
ItssBrian 1 month ago
@ItssBrian does he believe in evolution? does he think that the world has been here for more than 6000 years old does he ignore this evidence? im sorry but the correct world view is to say we only know what we know not i want to know something i cant prove.
WilkoPhilip 1 month ago
@WilkoPhilip What evidence? Just saying the word evolution is not evidence that the theory is correct. And you can't even prove solipsism isn't true. You can only make judgments based on your perception of reality.
ItssBrian 1 month ago
@ItssBrian are you a solipsist? if you are none will debate with you at all because you think only your mind exists. yes we cant say if it is incorrect but if you want to debate anything then you have to debate beyond solipsism otherwise everything is in the beholders mind and nothing is true. well we know that the world is at-least 14k years old since that is as far back as recorded history / civilisations. without even mentioning radiometric dating and other such dating techniques
WilkoPhilip 1 month ago
@ItssBrian the pressure put on them to adapt or die is an example of natural selection.
roxas12590 1 month ago
@roxas12590 That's nice. What's your point? Get back to me when they become something other than viral strains.
ItssBrian 1 month ago
@ItssBrian "What's your point? " the point is that this variation is an example of evolution at work at the micro scale. your talking speciation and that takes much longer. get back to me when you have an adequate understanding of what evolution really says and not the creation bullshit your fed like a dumbass. night
roxas12590 1 month ago
@roxas12590 "micro evolution" is accepted by creationists. But species never become other species. It's never been observed and it never will be. Thousands of years of breeding dogs, with a conscious and deliberate effort of differentiation has produced more dogs, and will always produce more dogs. Also, natural selection =/= evolution. Natural selection is a process of elimination. It removes information from the gene pool. It doesn't create it.
ItssBrian 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roxas12590 "micro evolution" is accepted by creationists. But species never become other species. It's never been observed and it never will be. Thousands of years of breeding dogs, with a conscious and deliberate effort of differentiation has produced more dogs, and will always produce more dogs. Also, natural selection =/= evolution. Natural selection is a process of elimination. It removes information from the gene pool. It doesn't create it.
ItssBrian 1 month ago
@AmazingAnswers You're shite at this whole arguing thing...
TheOmniscientSpanner 11 months ago
@AmazingAnswers It's not a double standard, actually, because the methodologies of chemical evolution have documented and well understood vehicles for information transcription. Claiming that life started by a coalescence of disparate chemicals is a testable, and more importantly falsifiable, hypothesis. Claiming that a god did it isn't, because you have to propose a mechanism for -how- this god supposedly did it that's testable. And then you'd have to prove it was -your- specific god.
AletheianAeon 11 months ago
Also, if the biblical god created everything, why didn't he supplant in his book with knowledge that only he would have; such as a unified field theory or the existence of DNA or advanced mathematical principles or, hell, how to make antibiotics? Instead it's a trolling human centric narrative nestled around issues culturally relevant in their respective eras: Issues of finance, property, differences of belief, of race and creed, of religious practice and theistic observance.
AletheianAeon 11 months ago
"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." - Jesus. Question why would God supply man with keys to life and the universe 100's of years early so we could have oil spills, H-bombs, and nuclear fall out centuries sooner? Have you been watching what happened in Japan this year? The world is messed up enough, God wasn't trying to expedite destruction.
HarlanLovestone 8 months ago
@HarlanLovestone Gonna burst your bubble here, but we've had natural disasters for millions of years. Just because the tsunami and earthquake in Japan is fresh in your memory doesn't make it relevant to some quack religious "end of days" propaganda. That little quake was nothing compared to what our planet has been through before. The Chicxulub Crater is an excellent example; the Permian–Triassic extinction event makes oil spills look like Strawberry Shortcake spilled her tea pot.
AletheianAeon 7 months ago
@AletheianAeon I'm well aware that there have always been disasters and earthquakes etc on this planet. Some much worst than recent. However, based on recorded history and current media I have never know there to be disasters in the frequency of occurrence that we have been experiencing over the last 20 years. Furthermore as far as evolution, I think it takes a grand leap of faith to entertain that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old when carbon dating deals with estimation
HarlanLovestone 7 months ago
Respond to this video... Plus the calibration of carbon dating is done on a curve. Now maybe my beliefs might sound odd to you but I really can't fathom any artifact being more than a few thousand years old when you have well preserved mummies of egypt that are only a few thousand years old and ready to crumble into dust. On top of that the oldest trees on our plant only date back to around 4000 years which would align with the flood.
HarlanLovestone 7 months ago
Science is not verbatim, many mysteries remain unsolved , debates rage on such as global warming splitting the scientific community in half of those for and against the theory. Science is inapt at explaining all things and leaves out the possibility of anything spiritual. Religion contains some proven history, yet it is not a history book. Religion also allows for some science and has been the inspiration for some inspired science.
HarlanLovestone 7 months ago
@HarlanLovestone Science is a process. No branch of respected, established science claims to know everything, or even most of everything. However, it is the only process by which we can understand the workings of the world around us. Spirituality is a personal experience, however if you think that science excludes spirituality you're mistaken. While it doesn't allow for -supernatural- interpretations of facts, it still encourages us to reflect upon and deeply feel the beauty of reality.
AletheianAeon 7 months ago
But religion does not contain a lot of detailed scientific explanation. At any rate, I would submit to you that one has the choice of either evolution or religion and each at some point both require the believer to exhibit faith in order to believe one or the other. The choice is yours, but I choose Jesus. Have a great day!
HarlanLovestone 7 months ago
@HarlanLovestone I'm going to pick science because it provides me with clean water, communication networks including the internet, safe food, shelter, medication, and knowledge. Evolution is a theory uniting dozens upon dozens of scientific disciplines that reveal not only where I came from, but how I'm connected to every other living thing on Earth. It doesn't berate or demonize me or try to define my morality for me. It provides a methodology to ascertain truth. Enjoy your night.
AletheianAeon 7 months ago
@HarlanLovestone There are a lot of problems with your comment. First of all, you don't have to choose between religion and science, you could actually choose neither or even both. Many of the most respected evolutionary biologists, including Kenneth Miller, have chosen both. He is a Catholic and a scientist.
Next, I take issue with your attempt to equate faith in facts and science with faith in religion. Evolution is a proven fact, religion has absolutely no verifiable evidence to support it
SammyHales 7 months ago
@AletheianAeon - information transcription is a process that was already in progress by the time scientists discovered it. The process is much like how computer virus's work but only a much more sophisticated process. It is well known that computer software transcription doesn't prove that the software itself created itself. The process was started by a human inventor.
AmazingAnswers 7 months ago
@AmazingAnswers I'm really not certain what your point is here; because the analogy of a computer virus hinges on a human inventor doesn't lend any credibility what-so-ever to a creator for modern life. At all. Not even a little. Every single step forward in understanding came from the scientific process- hypothesis, testing, recording the results, drawing conclusions, and making predictions based on those conclusions, and the technology and understanding we have today as a result is proof.
AletheianAeon 7 months ago
@AmazingAnswers What you fail to understand is that abiogenesis is a solid scientific proposition because it's falsifiable. It has testable methodologies that can be derived from our understanding of physics, of chemistry, of biology, of geology. If you propose that a supernatural being started life, but fail to propose any verifiable methods in which this could have been done, you've cut off your own legs before leaving the starting line. You have nothing to build on but an assumed conclusion.
AletheianAeon 7 months ago
@AletheianAeon - The proposition that "nature by itself c a n n o t create life" is, too, a theoretically falsifiable statement. All you have to do is show that something cannot happen. For instance, if I said that a bullet from a certain type of gun cannot pass through 10 ft of concentrated plywood, I could test that proposition. Same with life origin experiments.
AmazingAnswers 7 months ago
@AmazingAnswers It's demonstrated that natural processes -can- account for self replicating proteins. In fact, they'd have to otherwise they couldn't continue to propagate today. Because we don't know the specifics yet about how it occurred doesn't mean it was impossible, nor that a supernatural explanation is automatically right or contains any merit. That would be an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy, respectively.
AletheianAeon 4 months ago
@AmazingAnswers Also, you would -still- have to suggest a mechanism for how a supernatural force or being outside of time intervened. The moment anything interacts with our spacial medium there would be observable, measurable events. You haven't bypassed naturalistic explanations nor exempted yourself from any physical laws because one can still use those laws to inspect an occurrence within our spacial medium. Invoking a god would make it easier to identify a non-naturalistic occurrence.
AletheianAeon 4 months ago
@AmazingAnswers so what your are suggesting to Alethian is to state we would have to prove God can't make mankind out of magical mud? Is that honestly the position your taking when you claim your concept of Creation remains falsifiable?
Cuz that would be the way to disprove your theory:
God can't make humans out of magical dirt (according to YOUR book).
How would you go about proving that?
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
To live in a modern age has many advantages; foremost is the ability to have a definable place in the Universe. The Age and Structure of This Universe comes from observing and predicting and working on the next step in a never ending search for a more complete understanding of all this. God has more to do with personal belief and the intimate expressions of hope and existential being... So people who look for a god to control everything end up really with a belief about nothing.
granddad2002 1 year ago
What is a modern creationist? (as opposed to a non-modern creationst)
Are you perhaps referring to the modernized Paley's watchmaker argument named "intelligent design"?
By the way, evolution is both a fact as well as a scientific theory. And, secondly, though NOT conclusive, there are strong indications that the origin of life has a natural cause. However inconclusive there is not a single fact that a natural cause can be excluded. Though IDiots, ID believers not knowing an iota, believe so.
wimahlers 1 year ago
Tell me what an Evolutionist is exactly? Is that a branch of science, or is it a made up term? A Biologist for example would never be called an Evolutionist. I know it's a term added to dictionaries, but it's a bogus term added by Christian Apologists for your agenda. Until you can find evidence for your God's existence Christianity will never be the default position. Using the bible for evidence of your God is like reading Jack and the Beanstalk for evidence of Giants.
bigboy45454545 1 year ago
@bigboy45454545 - an evolutionist is a man or woman who denies he or she is an evolutionist.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
"Allowing only naturalistic explanations is to say wind and water formed the sand castle.."
I have seen the forces of nature do much more impressive things than that. Nature can form living creatures with the intellectual capacity to build sand castles. Pretty neat huh?
DecepticonLeader 1 year ago
@DecepticonLeader - is that so? I saw naturalistic explanations produce a couple of geers on rods that actually functioned together. By accident natural forces caused a nearby tree to dump sap onto the newly formed gears to solidify them and the rod so that they are now evenly balanced and move around and around because of this fly that catches the wind.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
Wait, your refuting a satire? da fuck?
Omircoid 1 year ago
Ahh sandcastles, nice one. We have fossils. We win.
Omircoid 1 year ago
@Omircoid any transitional fossils in the bunch that you can post here?
YhwhKhai 1 year ago
@YhwhKhai Eusthenopteron Panderichthys Tiktaalik Elginerpeton Obruchevichthys Ventastega Acanthostega Ichthyostega Hynerpeton Tulerpeton Pederpes Eryops Pedopenna Anchiornis Archaeopteryx Confuciusornis Eoalulavis Ichthyornis Protoclepsydrops Protoclepsydrops Clepsydrops Dimetrodon Procynosuchus Thrinaxodon Morganucodon Yanoconodon Kollikodon Sinodelphys Djarthia Eomaia Eritherium Miacis Heteroprox Eotragus Protylopus Hyrachyus Heptodon Hesperocyon Eurymylus Onychonycteris Pakicetus Ambulocetus
Omircoid 1 year ago
@Omircoid - these aren't transitional forms. These are merely fossils given names that the common folk wouldn't understand.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers They are transitional fossils, regardless of the names. As for not understanding the names, maybe you should learn some science before you claim that scientists are out to confuse common folk.
Omircoid 1 year ago 2
@YhwhKhai - Thrinaxodon appears to be a dog.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
stereotype*
FreeThinking3141 1 year ago
This video makes me very sad. They should seriously redesign computers to make them harder to use.
Spherical3 1 year ago
1:57 "Allowing only naturalistic explanations is to say wind and water formed the sand and not allow another reason." Well, no. A naturalistic explanation could very well include human intervention, since they are within nature. God is not (assuming that he exists at all). If he were (that is, to be able to not rule out God's creation of the Universe) then he would be existent and we could find him.
PhobicOne 1 year ago
Also you do realize that just as some Ancient Greeks believed in Evolution, a vast Majority of them believed in Creationism? Also you do realize that man has been on the earth longer than 6000 years right? Sadly you seem to assume that the writers of the bible were just idiots who knew nothing of weather, travel, anything and that only by a God could they have known of such. I've read the bible front to back many times, I'm not convinced it was from God.
happie2befree 1 year ago
The reason she brought up things that modern Creations no longer believe is because at one time THEY WERE BELIEVED! Until SCIENCE proved them wrong and creationist realized they could no longer subscribe those events to God(s).
happie2befree 1 year ago
Can I have some evidence to support your statement that Atheists are known for discouraging debates? I will debate someone unless they just keep repeating the same stupid things over and over again. BUT, When I was a Christian I was told not to debate for long periods of time because if the person didn't want to believe me then God wasn't drawing that person to him...But since I have become an Atheist I have never had anyone say such thing to me? Nor have I read it anywhere.
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree - Thunderf00t, AmazingAtheist. etc. All turned down debates.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers ok, and that means what to me???? I don't know them and I don't know what their reasons for not debating you were, unless you just kept rehashing BS in order to try and "prove" your opinion about a matter. Basically you were lumping everyone into one big group and saying that ALL ATHEIST AVOID DEBATES, when two people avoided debates with you? That's lame.
happie2befree 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers
maybe because they don't think it is worth their time ;)
FreeThinking3141 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers Because there IS NO debate. All your drop dead stupid fucking arguments have been debunked over and over and over and over and over again... and that INCLUDES ALL your equal drop dead stupid fucking attempts to disprove those debunks. Those peope just don't want to waste any time on futile attempts to steer dumbass people like you in a direction where it might appear that you could eventually be entering a state of mind where logic is involved.
R20710 1 year ago
@R20710 - I appreciate at least your depositing an opinion here, however, I also appreciate if you would deposit a dispute against any of my arguments.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
It's like trying to teach calculus to a dog... after excessive experiments you just realize.. he's just not mentally capable of grasping what you are saying.
Same with you... you don't understand logic and reason not because you don't want to or because it's hard to understand.. it's because you are physically not able to.
People don't debate you, because they know you ARE NOT ABLE to understand anything they are saying.
Or in other words: you are just... stupid.
R20710 1 year ago
@happie2befree Thunderfoot even evolved into a chicken when he refused NephilimFree. In fact my faith was shaken when I saw him "devolve" so much.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life I laughed..I hope that's the reaction you wanted. Side note: These people are not in any authoritative positions that I know of. I do not even know them. The statement made in the video made it come across as if There is some Higher Authority within the Atheist Groups telling ones not to debate, which from my perspective is a lie. Just because a few people find it pointless to argue this and that doesn't mean as a whole it's a rule. Same for Xians, Right?
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree You can laugh as much as you like, God's will is what is being done, no matter how much you laugh and mock. The only one suffering is you. Good luck trusting yourself and the other "religions".
You may lose even the second resurrection with this attitude. You probably know what I'm talking about , if not then you weren't a JW
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life I laughed at what I supposed was a joke. But apparently you were not joking and it wasn't meant to be laughed at...touchy touchy. I was laughing at your statement about thunderfoot de-evolving or what not! I didn't know that Thunderfoot was God and I was laughing at him! You're the one who made the statement jackass. I'm not associated with any religion...(con't)
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree I do not know what you are talking about when you refer to the second resurrection, whatever book you have on Jehovah's Witnesses is using terminology that the Witnesses do not use. Sorry FAIL on your part. If you are talking about the Christ's second coming as in His rule began in 1914 and after Armageddon his 1000 year reign and the Witnesses are going to be the only survivors and they are going to teach the newly resurrected ones all about the "TRUTH" (con't)
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree then Honey I lost that the day I told the Witnesses I didn't believe what they taught & they made a public announcement telling the world I was no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you want to truly know what someone believes, not all books are honest or are written by those who have been within the walls of that organization. Do not be so stupid as to put your trust in someone else, walk your butt into the building and see for yourself, then you'll have a leg to stand on.
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree Sorry for that, I didn't understand. There are too many comments. There is even a video of thunderfoot turning into a chicken of you like to watch. I tried to find it for you, but it seems it was DMCA'd making it even more funny.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life When I speak to others it's not to try and disprove their beliefs, but understand WHY they believe what they believe. I try to be understanding, but If a person cannot reasonably explain WHY they believe a certain way then it seems there is no basis for what they believe other than their emotions. I find a lot of people cannot explain why they believe something, it's a feeling. But a feeling is not evidence & it's not enough proof of something. I don't feel their emotions.
happie2befree 1 year ago
What's funny to me about your video is during your definition of Theory you pick and choose how you want to define it. The great thing about the internet is how quickly one can look up the definition. This to me is your way of being deceitful in order to justify your viewpoint on the matter. Gravity is also a THEORY does that mean it doesn't really exist or should not really be taught? I hope people who watch this are smart enough to look up the actual definition rather than go by here say.
happie2befree 1 year ago
Looks like someone got knocked back by a blonde and never got over it!
johnnystratman1 1 year ago
looks like you are not the only one who is "amazed" by Cristina's foul language. I bet she is celebrating Christmas like all of the Romanians now. Such a hypocrite and a national shame. I am a Romanian myself and I know a lot of "atheists"( in fact I can't think of an atheist who doesn't do this) that marry in Christian churches and celebrate Christmas and Easter. Atheism is a front for acting like a dirt-bag.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life Actually I don't believe she did, but it's good to know what a great Christian you are by making assumptions about others. Way to break stereotypes! Also those who are Atheist & do attend church sometimes do it for family reasons. And BTW you are aware that all your "Christian" Holidays stem from Pagan origins and beliefs right...meaning your the dirt bag who's celebrating things you ought naught. Just because a church slaps a label on it and says it's ok doesn't mean it is
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree What would I do without you giving your opinion?....
Read Romans 14 and understand that we are permitted to celebrate or not to celebrate all the holidays that we want. I am sure that you didn't learned that with the JW's because those are one of the "ignored" verses.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life just because I was raised a Jehovah's Witness doesn't mean I haven't visited many churches and learned many interesting things, mainly that no matter how different a religion professes to be, they are all basically the same (at least when they are claiming Christianity). I have read Romans 14, and I have actually used that against the JW's and their argument against Celebrating Holidays. I just find it funny that you make a big deal about who's celebrating what, when & how
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree If you were an actual JW you would know that the scripture is understood only by the believers and the believers alone. The spiritual man receives understanding, while the carnal man looks at the holy things and perceives them as insanity. That's what you do because you are an unbeliever. And also you can't help yourself from mocking Christianity alone, what does that tell you about yourself? Your actions say a lot
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life I was a JW, born and raised. As an adult I walked away after reading scripture without their silly little publications to "back up the bible". Upon leaving I searched out God in other religions. No matter where I went there were still doubts and questions in the back of my mind. Wonder about God's existence and how he came about, questions I had at 5. The more study and research I've done, the less and less I see God. Please explain how I mocked Christianity?
happie2befree 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life Just because a person says they do not believe in God doesn't mean they are mocking Christianity. I do believe the person who made this video needs to be aware of where the Gaping holes are in their logic in order to do a better job. In order to properly defend any belief you need to have a lot less holes and a better line of reasoning. You also need to be able to see ALL sides of a story, especially if you are going to try make someone else look like the fool.
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree I'm not trying to make anyone look like a fool. Created things need a creator. if you think otherwise then you are a fool by definition. Humans try to twist things around to suit their sentimentalism but it doesn't change the facts. The computer in front of you was created, the house you live in was created, you were created, animals, plants, planets and galaxies were all created. They can't create themselves. It doesn't get more simple than that
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life Ok, so basically when what someone says doesn't fall in line with your emotional way of thinking then you go off on a tangent and say everything is wrong but the bible. Hey dude if you wanna reason like that that's fine, but I think you're really dumb to not try and see all sides of an issue. If you're gonna use your line of reasoning, "the house was created, you, animals", etc, etc then God was created. No more needed to be worshiped than myself.
happie2befree 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life also this is why many evolutionist stop arguing with Creationist. You don't even care if you have a leg to stand on, you just rant and rave and even if it were proven there was no God, you wouldn't let it go because.....you don't WANT to be wrong. How can someone reason with an unreasonable person?
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree evolutionists* creationists*
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree And I don't have to be a JW in order to know what they teach. 2 of my friends, very good friends are JW's and I know exactly what they believe. They got one thing right: there will be 2 resurrections : the first one is for the saints, the second one is for the heathens. Be careful to not lose your turn in any of those 2. That's the only advice I am giving to you. I really love you as a human being and I don't want this discussion to be a confrontation.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life Ahh well your terminology, I'm guessing because of the language barrier, is a little different than ours. The JW's have changed their belief on the resurrection on several occasions. At one time they said the anointed ones would be resurrected when they die, and at another time they said that they anointed ones would be resurrected after Armageddon. They change their stance because they can't decide what their doctrine should be. (con't)
happie2befree 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life Also you need to know, unless you are a JW you're two good friends, shouldn't be associating with you. It is looked down upon within the congregation and they will be labeled as Bad Association, UNLESS they are holding a Bible Study with you. Beware, you are a Heathen in their eyes because you are not a JW. Side Note: In their eyes, I will Never be resurrected! I left the ONLY TRUTH and since I'm an APOSTATE of the TRUTH, I have no chance of Resurrection! No matter what!
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree I know what you are talking about. They do see their Organization as above everything, even the word of God.
Guess that time will decide which one of us gets resurrected and when.
Until then I wish you a happy new year. Sorry if I was a little overzealous. It depends a lot on how I feel at that time. I try to perfect myself, including my temper and I try to learn new things each day, but I am not perfect. Your opinion counts and you are important, I didn't mean to be arrogant
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@happie2befree Also sorry for my imperfect English. You sometimes have to read between the lines of what I say. That's because I am not a native speaker.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life also....DO YOU READ my comments or do you skim them and then respond? I NEVER called you a fool....However your lack of reading a comment all the way through before firing back a response sorta makes you come across as one!
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree I do read your comments and I do respond to the entirety of your comments with one or a few comments. I responded to the issues I consider important.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@happie2befree You have to understand that you are not the only person on YT that posts messages to me. And I didn't argue because there is nothing to argue about. The facts are undeniable and I am going to state it again: created things need a creator, so when you say there is no God you are speaking insanity. I can't "let go" something that is blatantly obvious and true. I can't be wrong , there is zero chance , if I didn't think like that I wouldn't speak. Should of, could of is not my stile
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life I understand, and once school starts I pretty much never get on YouTube. I just enjoy conversing with people, and it was good speaking with you.
happie2befree 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life sadly most Christians I've met have never been taught anything proper about evolution except what their church teaches, which is skewed since most churches disprove of the teaching. If something is taught it doesn't mean a person has to accept it, but if you learn all sides of a matter it is much easier to make a proper, well educated decision about such matter. And therefore not act like/be an ass.
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree Evolution is heathenism . Is as simple as that.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life please explain how you find that to be. The definition in the dictionary does not seem to fall in line with your belief. So please explain your reasoning.
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree The bible is my dictionary.
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life Your chances of having the TRUE religion is less than 1/1000. You have fun with that. If I ever stand before God I will ask him very simply, Would HE have blindly relied on the word of someone he never met without proper evidence to support whatever statement was being proposed. If He exists, in all his perfection, would HE rely on faith as a means to live his life, or what Facts he had to support his beliefs? I think he would NOT rely on Faith...and he's not imperfect!
happie2befree 1 year ago
@happie2befree My chances of having a true "religion" are 100% out of 100% because I have my bible. That's the only thing that matters. You again go to the sentimentalist reasoning and can't take the truth without associating it with meaningless topics like " what church do I need to go to now that I believe". I believe the bible and apply the teachings found in it to the best of my understanding and my ability. That's my religion
GoodSamaritean4life 1 year ago
@GoodSamaritean4life I don't care who celebrates what. You can claim to be Xian & celebrate Budda for all I care, & you can tell yourself whatever you want about how you serve God & what you believe he will and won't accept. I've read 3 different translations of the Bible and like I said in another post on this site, it doesn't make me any more apt to believe it's inspired by some invisible being in the sky. And don't complain about someone voicing their opinion when you freely share your own.
happie2befree 1 year ago
I can only hope you are a poe, otherwise you should be embarrassed by your astounding stupidity.
RevJerryFalwell 1 year ago
Another thing there AmazingAnswers:
Is it your belief that if Evo is wrong, than OT Creation is right by default?
If so, how is your creation myth more correct than say the Hindu, Egyptian, Sioux or any other belief of special creation? What evidence does OT special creation provide?
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 - Absolutely not. Sentient being is the default theory. The God of the Bible is proven not by proving evolution or abiogenesis wrong. It's proven by fulfilled prophecy.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers: "Fulfilled Prophecy"? Again, name one.
sol3a1 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers so if i guess the lotto numbers to and eventual lotto does that mean i am always right?
and when "infallible word" contradicts itself doesn't that prove it wrong?
FreeThinking3141 1 year ago
Laughing at you "AmazingAnswers". ZOMGitsCriss is absolutely right and spot on.
You, well you breath too much of your own methane.
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 - If ZomGitsCriss is spot on, please inform me as to how. I always like to discuss the merits of things. Thankyou for your comments.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers: Love to, where to begin.
1: Creationist: Make the facts fit your preconceived notions. Science: See what the facts are and make testable theories on why they are the way they are.
2: C: Where did the Universe come from, we know, god didit! S: Where did the Universe come from? We don't know yet but if this god thingy did it, where'd this god come from?
3: C: Teach the "controversy"! S: What controversy?
4: C: My god did it? S: Really? Which one and how?
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 1. Science is neutral and gives either perspective a fair chance. Evolution is a philosophy that goes back to the Greeks. 2. God doesn't have to come from anywhere. God could always be. It's either the universe has always been (and thermodynamics refutes that) or God has always been. 4. Bible prophecy is where you prove the God of the Bible.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers:
1: Science is neutral but gives the side with the evidence the floor. As Creationism has no evidence, it's shown the door.
2: Special pleading for your god to have always been? Doesn't work. As science never stops looking for what caused what, saying "gogdidit" means squat. Your attempt at the 2nd law is laughable.
3: Evolution is a science and it is a fact. What is in dispute is how evolution works exactly.
4: An the Buy-Bull prophecies have never come true. Name one.
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 - Well, let's discuss your ideas. Science is observation. Let's put out the hypothesis that sentient beings can create complex mechanical things. So everyday you leave for work and before that you type a message. The message isn't random because you thought each letter into place. The car you drive was put together by engineers. By the end of the day you have a load-full of evidence that proves that intelligence can do it. Now where is your evidence that chemicals can do it?
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers: Nice strawman. No "evo" I know of that has an idea what evolution really is says that.
Hint: Cars, PCs, airplanes, etc don't bread and reproduce. Biologic and pre-bio-chemical reactions do
Abiogenesis is not "mix chemicals and life comes into being". Abiogenesis starts with amino acids, then polymer chains and goes into more and more complex bio-biotic chemistry. Those chemicals that self-replicated were the ones selected for and did. No magical micro-manager needed at all
sol3a1 1 year ago
@sol3a1 - Fair enough. By chemicals I covered the entire line of "amino acids" and sofourth. However, you need to dig further back. You need to start from rocks. You need to prove that all of this can occur merely from the gases that be and rocks. Maybe get a bunch of rocks and hammer them down. It's presumed that soil didn't exist back then.
AmazingAnswers 1 year ago
@AmazingAnswers: "start from rocks". Nope. You need area few elements. We know that amino acids form in molecular clouds of gas and dust. These amino acids we know are carried on comets and other snowballs. So there is no "rocks needed".
As for "pounding down rocks", that isn't even close. Go on your favorite search engine and type in "Abiogenesis". If I were you, I'd start with Wikipedia and go from there to learn what science, not Hovind, Hamm, Hinn, Disco 'Toot or other Creation crack pots.
sol3a1 1 year ago
OMG you used Tupac - All Eyes on Me!
DanMickie 1 year ago
u mad?
adolphbot 1 year ago
Why have none of you bright people, pointed out that abiogenesis is what creationists think evolution is???? This is shameful, How can you not mention this obvious contradiction in terms???? Evolution = origin of the species (or "kinds" for you creationists) abiogenesis= the collaberation which results in the origin of LIFE. What is so hard to understand?
splicedenergy 1 year ago 2
evolution is a theory, but so is religion. the difference is that evolution has A LOT MORE evidence, whereas religion just has an old book.
Religion and drugs are the same thing.
chrisstorvik 1 year ago 2
Who created the creator?
You can say that God made it as it is today, and you may be right, but if you can't explain where God came from, aren't you as good as saying 'Naturedunnit'?
MegaTimmyc 1 year ago
Why would anyone even really WANT to debate a creationist? Like Richard Dawkins said it is akin to debating someone who believes in the Stork over Reproductive Theory for the origin of where babies come from. If you want to debate the nit picky details on evolution that's fine, but you won't win if you debate whether evolution is true or not unless you close your eyes, cover your ears, and say lalalalalala till we get fed up and leave, then keep complaining when we don't want to debate anymore.
shldflght 1 year ago
I think Newton's Gravitational Theory is wrong because its just a theory. Its really God holding us down because he isn't ready to let us float to heaven. I have millions of facts to back this up but I don't want to publish because the scientific community is sooo close-minded. They wouldn't trust the test results I confirmed in my basement...weight and mass mean the same thing right?
theviolator23 1 year ago 2
Also you need to accept that being a creationist puts you on the same side in this debate as the Muslims. Europe is currently plagued by Muslims the way America is plagued by Christians. So, it makes sense for a Romanian woman to use a Muslim in her video.
B.T.W. Romania is in Europe. I 'm sure you know that, but I didn't want to rule out the possibility that Christians are now rejecting geography. I can't keep up with this stuff.
Neweddy24 1 year ago
Your "naturedunit" argument is fallacious crap. It's pure projection. You can't divorce yourself from the notion that some singular entity is responsible for the creation of all things, so you project that notion on to everyone else. Not all of us feel the need to replace the concept of God with some other magical force. To say something came about by natural occurrence is not the same as saying "naturedunit."
Neweddy24 1 year ago
Very creatively done, and dead on target. Basic thesis: Creationists are closed minded, totally void of information, and really good at lying their asses off. Oh, and thinking they can't possibly be wrong at the same time. Talk about annoying!
garywedlund 1 year ago
Epic fail!
nc66uky 1 year ago
Yeeeahh...what you cited about the bible being scientific...the first part (jericho) was historical, and the rest (the winds and things like that) if you bothered to read the information in the upper left of the map thing you were showing us with the nutcracker suite in the background it said INFRARED. Infrared is...well heat. You could clearly see that it consistently changed colors in certain parts and certain times (night and day perhaps? or maybe seasons depending on the speed up rate)
ARKAtheist 1 year ago
i...dont...get...it
adamkyler 1 year ago
She did not own you bad enough the first time? You had to make a video in order to own yourself too? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
trueleroix 1 year ago
Gravity is also a theory.
But no debates that.
MasonicEyes 1 year ago
0:50 - The muslim guy was making an argument (evolution is a THEORY not a FACT) that christian creationists make all the time. This is in no way a misrepresentation - in fact, it would be a misrepresentation to deny that there are muslim creationists!
You then compound this error by making the exact same argument the muslim guy made - hinging on a misrepresentation of the word theory.
Telamnar 1 year ago
You FAILED hard. But youre still hot.
SouthJerseyMatt 1 year ago
"Go to hell" is what creationist say all the time...are you emotionalizing the debate?
drudger6666 1 year ago
at least atheists have a theory at the very least.
what do creationists have? oh yeah, a book written by their imaginary friend that proves that he's real because it says so in the book, and the book MUST be true because it's written (inspired, whatever) by the imaginary beardy man in the sky, who is real because the book says so.
Circular much?
OpinionatedAussie 1 year ago
Ok I'm sleepy and bored, if you ever want to chat feel free to message me and I'll actually explain atheism and evolution. Sorry about the earlier disparaging comment. I like Criss and found your reaction to be silly, I still think your stance is very very lacking but ignorance and idiocy are two different things.
Otokogoroshi 1 year ago
You fail to understand her next point (Where she was talking about lightening) by a wide margin. She was laying out an example of something that people didn't used to understand and used deities to explain away. Thus the point she was making was: "I don't get how we got here or now stuff got to be this way, so god did it".
No one believes in 'spontaneous generation' at least no one I've ever met or heard about (save creationists saying god made stuff poof into being)
Otokogoroshi 1 year ago
She isn't being hypocritical, sure she's over generalizing and making jokes (Its a joke video its not meant to be 100% fer realz taken seriously). If there is a better explanation that comes along Criss will accept it, and so will I. But until then saying "God did it" is, as I stated, a dead end that goes no where.
Otokogoroshi 1 year ago
The 'Naturedunnit' bit is obvious projection. We have no way of proving a divine method for reality forming so yes, it forming naturally is far more logical than assuming that a deity did it, especially since simply claiming a deity did it teaches us absolutely nothing and retards the learning and scientific method. THAT is why its important to find out the whys and hows so we can learn. "God did it" is a dead end.
Otokogoroshi 1 year ago
Part two, ahhhh the classic "Something exists so it must have a creator falicy" this has been debunked so many times this is funny...are you a poe? Are you serious? A painting doesn't grow on a tree, a sand castle doesn't naturally form on its own. If you say for existence to exist there has to be a creator then we come up with, "Who created him" and if you say nothing then why can't that exact same answer suffice for why the universe is here?
Otokogoroshi 1 year ago
I don't say this often but you're an idiot dude. Right off the bat you get things wrong. The first point she was making was about evolution only being a theory, the Muslim is a creationist (Just a muslim one) and Christian creationists OFTEN make the exact same mistake.
You also only use one part of the definition of the word theory, one word can have many meanings depending on context. I'll watch move and see just how much more wrong you can make it.
Otokogoroshi 1 year ago
"Naturedunnit"
If you assume nature is capable of growing a tree for example, you can then do science and try to find out HOW nature grows a tree. If you assume that only God can make a tree, you have essentially closed the book on discovering the origin of trees.
That's why "naturedunnit" is a very sensible ASSUMPTION, and "Goddunnit", is a grossly illogical CONCLUSION.
DickJohnson3434 1 year ago
Oh dear, oh dear. This Bible thingy being used to support arguments again. Good comedy this. Oh and check up sarcasm. Krissy is fond of it, but her worst vid is better than this. No, just kidding, please continue "creating" them, ha!
TheRobster2007 1 year ago
This guy is criticising scientific theory by stating that it is not "absolute fact"? I wish people would open a book before they open their mouths As Richard Leakey said, "some people are so stupid, they don't know they're stupid". Nothing in science is regarded as absolute fact. A well supported theory like evolution is as close to absolute truth one can get in science. Plus, before you go ahead, and say anything about a scientific law, go learn something about the philosopy of science.
chansetwo 1 year ago
Evolution can be tested, and confirmed, predictions can be made and verified. Creation, or ID cannot be tested, or confirmed, because it is supernatural. by definition, outside reality. outside reality= not real, "nothing to test".
groovyengineer 2 years ago