"Evolution revolves around survival." Haa! In a universe destined to die, according to science? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense, right?
Not only this, but if the universe (or multiverse) has the ability to create itself from nothing, then why would the matter within it care about surviving?
At least evolution has some evidence. there isn't any good evidence that i know of that god exists. Why dont you make some videos explaining what convinced you there is a god instead of stereotyping atheists and trying to find small loopholes in there theory. A old book filled with bizarre stories without any evidence they happened isn't enough for me to believe in god it seems to me it was used as propaganda for war a long time ago, and now to comfort people so they dont feel bad about death
@TheSquirrel8485 His arguments against evolution are very weak, actually. You don't need to give him any ground at all by saying "at least evolution has some evidence". It does yes, but he doesn't understand what a gap in knowledge means, he doesn't understand what a theory is at all. Read my comments on this page.
I've happenstantially fallen upon your videos. I did comment on an earlier video of yours, but this is probably a good introduction of the Gospel here. This video expresses an "us and them" doctrine. "We Christians" and you. That is not the doctrine of the scriptures. In Genesis 5 we see that all of the "generations" of man (all of us - NO "them") had a name, "and their name was called ADAM". And as in the FIRST ADAM, all died, in the LAST ADAM, all are made alive! Please come up for air!
I want to help you understand what a scientific theory is, as you are clearly confused. A theory is a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
There is no double standard. You just don't understand the scientific method. Religious faith is not based on any kind of empirical evidence that is subject to principles of reasoning. "I don't want your theories", not even the theory of gravity? Theories are used to create the technology that you're sitting there using to make the video. A theory is subject to the highest standards of peer review and testing - scientists go out of their way to prove theories wrong.
When does a Christian say "I don't know" ? A Christian beliefs God exists. A Christian beliefs that this God created the Earth, and created human beings. They state these things as though they are absolute facts.
When humans did not know what lightning was, they made up a God named Zeus to explain it. When a scientist does not know the answer to something, the scientist says "let's find the answer", rather than throwing their hands up and saying "God did it".
Think of it like this. You come across some dung in the middle of a giant field. You don't currently see what could have left the dung there. What's more reasonable? Is it more reasonable to say that the dung likely ended up there from some passing animal, or that God came and put the dung there? It's more reasonable to accept natural laws as we observe them, and hold that scientific theories are correct, until they are proven wrong.
It would be illogical to say, "here is this evidence for evolution, although, we can't find all the fossils, therefore evolution is wrong". That's not how you prove a theory wrong. The scientific method works through investigation, acquiring new knowledge, correcting previous knowledge, using evidence and testing. A gap in knowledge does not prove a theory wrong, otherwise the entire scientific method would be useless because there are gaps in knowledge everywhere.
Scientists use deduction. Much like a detective. A detective doesn't have to witness a crime or have every possible item of data on a suspect to prove their guilt. You're not going to have a complete fossil record of every animal. Of course not. Fossils are notoriously difficult to find. This does not mean that there is not evidence for evolution. Neither does it mean that the theory is flawed.
haha well we christians can't win either way. If we say we don't have the answer to something, we are told our worldview is silly. If we happen to have an answer for every one of their objections, we are labelled ignorant. Yep.....that's VERY fair! lol! XD
I may not be most Atheists, but when I heard your question I said "what do you mean regular bird?" A google search would have given you the information you pretended to want as well as the way you wanted to present his argument from incredulity.
The reason creationists get laughed at is that they're smug while having no information regarding what you're speaking about. Learn evolution from actual scientists, then present any question YOU have, not the creationist websites.
Hahaha. This is funny shit. This guy should really read a book sometime. Hahahaha, worship evolution. HAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAH. Look up the definition of worship sometime. And the ACTUAL definition of transitional fossil. EVERY fossil is a transitional form. There's no jumps to a "half-species" or any such nonsense that you're looking for. There's even some really obvious ones, like Archaeopteryx So are they dinosaurs with feathers, or birds with teeth?
For you to say evolutionist's say "evolution did it" is a straw man. For one thing, the scientific community has not identified the evolutionary path of every living organism, that would be logistically impossible, but they have identified the ancestral lineage of many key modern organisms to fossils of extinct relatives. If we can't point to the transitional fossil that shows each step from microbe to man, doesn't mean you get to declare evolution is false.
The genetic evidence alone is enough to prove that man, chimps, dolphins, oak trees, and yeast spores all share a common ancestor.
Further more, this is a classic "moving the goal post" creationist tactic you're employing. If we fill in the gap with the transitional fossil, you'll just say two more gaps have been formed, then four, then eight, and so on, until we have a logistically impossible and unreasonable standard for proof, but what standard of proof do
live up to for "*poof* and then jesus was born of a virgin"? Do you see the double standard? It's actually possible for me to go and look for fossils, it's not possible for me to build a time machine and witness the virgin birth.
why is it so illogical to believe evolution changed the bird? im skeptical of evolution, as it has not been proven but you're acting as if their claims are "outrageous"
@1GodOnlyOne Intelligent design has evidence? When have you seen anything biological designed or created? Or is it just the gap deal? It's so complex, it must've been designed by an intelligent creator.
As you probably got this from a creationist website I did the opposite and googled an evolution website. How about Antillean Piculet (no hammering), wrynecks (lack tailfeathers) and Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers (no long tongue) or Bathoceleus hyphalus (probable ancient woodpecker) as transitional species ?
@scrap222666 I came up with this on my own while I was... you know. Critically thinking. Like Atheists tell me to do. I guess I'm not allowed to think on my own if I question THEM, too.
Those are all living species... Aren't they supposed to be, you know, DEAD and replaced by woodpeckers? Like what humans and chimps did with our "common ancestor"?
If we're using living species as examples, then I could probably show you how chimps COULD evolve into butterflies.
@RocknForJesus They don't have to be dead, just a location change is enough to further branch out a species. The examples I gave you prove that there is variety enough to go from woodpecker to another bird. If you take away tripod tail, hammering and tongue it would not exactly be a woodpecker now would it? They are not transitional in a straight line but branches of a common ancestor. The proof is not there prob cause no one has searched for woodpeckers though (not a priority).
@scrap222666 We're not discussing "branching out a species." We are discussing your fantasy of one species supposedly giving rise to a different species through sexual reproduction, which is a biological impossibility. Woodpeckers only give rise to woodpeckers, and no other species has ever given rise to a woodpecker.
Your silly examples prove absolutely nothing about woodpeckers.
You have failed to provide evidence for your silly personal belief in a so-called "common ancestor."
@1GodOnlyOne My example shows how 3 birds all exhibit similar traits to woodpeckers (that's why they have been categorized into the woodpecker family) but all miss an important trait (tailfeather, long tongue or hammering) that you attribute to woodpeckers normally. All I was showing is there exists birds who all are similar yet not totally woodpeckers (as one does not even peck on wood). It shows woodpeckers are not that unique (part of the argument). Also define species for me.
@scrap222666 Similar traits are conclusive evidence of a common designer, not a common ancestor.
I am not a dictionary manufacturer, and even if I were, I would not define anything for you. Definitions are standardized without regard to you or your ilk.
@1GodOnlyOne True, similar traits can be evidence of a common designer, in this case we would argue if the designer would be the original "common link" and evolution through natural selection or god.
@1GodOnlyOne Yes because out of the thousands of evolutionists, who would zero in to research woodpeckers? Evolution is not a theory, it's a scientific theory. I think atheism is a wonderful dogma of not to believe in god before evidence is shown, what is wrong with that? Otherwise everyone would believe in every personal god story there is without any evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory in it's infancy though. Give it at least 100-500 or more years.
@1GodOnlyOne You calling me stupid or moron is ok, I will not decent to such a level of calling derogatory terms to others who don't agree with me. Scientific theories aren't theories. Scientific theories go through a process of observation, postulation, posing a theory and testing it to see if it holds to the predictions, more or less. A theory is just something you think might happen without gathering any proof or evidence (as you put it).
@1GodOnlyOne Well I am nice but calling others stupid and morons is quite harsh and rude. I hope you become more tolerant and not bash others with derogatory terms. It is hurtful if other people call others morons and stupid.
@RocknForJesus haha it's so stupid!! Apparently atheists seem to think you cannot be critically thinking unless you agree with THEM! lol XD!! Yeah right!! and I truly AM a monkey's nephew!! XD
@TimGBone You know. I would, but I've seen enough talk shows to know that A) They'll talk their way out of it, just as I've seen them do before, or B) There'd be no point. I'm not going to revolutionize the "scientific" Atheist community by using this Evolution of the Gaps I discovered them using.
@RocknForJesus A) They don't just talk, they use this nifty cool thing called reason and B) I think the fact that you might learn something about reality constitutes a reasonable point
A god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance: "We do not know how X happened, therefore X was caused by a god." However, ignorance is never an argument for something. It merely means we do not (yet) know the cause of the phenomenon.
To see why this argument is a fallacy, we can consider similar arguments that have been made at different points in human history:
E.g: 500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
@JessikaTheGamer ...have you ever picked up a science text book? Almost all of them are full of "We do not know how X happened, therefore X was caused by [insert phenomenon here]."
@JessikaTheGamer The fact that every single animal trait is attributed to evolutionary adaptions is example enough. Nobody has SEEN it happen, but it's considered a fact, therefore everything else is seen in light of evolution.
How is this any different than God? It's using Evolution of the Gaps. Like the woodpecker.
@RocknForJesus We have seen evolution in the works. Bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin for example, thats because some bacteria evolved a resistance to the drug due to over use.
The difference to god is that we have no reason to believe that god exists at all, no indications, while evolution has given evidence and proof in to a very high extent, in several different scientific disciplines.
@JessikaTheGamerBacteria becoming resistant is not evolution.The bacteria didn't change into something else.We become resistant too,but we are still human.Always have been and you have no proof otherwise.Obviously there is change within a species,and it only takes one generation to achieve that,but there is no proof that species change into another species.None.There's all kinds of proof that God exists. Kalam Cosmological argument for starters. Yes, negatives can be proven.
@1980PintoMan Becoming resistant IS evolution, there is a change in the genetic composition, that is evolution. If you are interested look up nylon digestive bacteria, that is also a good proof of evolution.
I can give you further proof, but I would suggesting PM:ing if that is the case.
Kalams argument is not a good one. At it's absolute best, it only gives you a hint towards a deistic god. (I'm taking my masters in religious philosophy, and have met the argument many times)
True, you have no reason, but we Theists do indeed have reason. We have irrefutable arguments and scientific evidence leading to the conclusion that God's appearance and activities are factual. You have no arguments and no evidence to the contrary, so you lose.
There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in favor of evo THEORY.
@1GodOnlyOne irrefutable arguments? please present one (and as I said before Kalam is not a good choice, but its up to you). Also this evidence, please present.
You know that gravity is "only" a theory as well? I can see that you have no understanding of what the word "theory" means in a scientific sense.
Great one. And I love the end: "You're bad people. But I love you." - Love to whack 'em upside the head with the Truth! : D
Meanwhile there is no gap between an experiencer of God and the God Whom he experiences. Atheists got to realize they're getting nowhere with us on a rational basis. What they got to do is SUBMIT - surrender - to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - and THEN tell us God isn't real.
Atheists do have gods. They worship themselves, in their supposed ability to define Reality.
@MyFriendLeonard1 "What they got to do is SUBMIT - surrender - to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - and THEN tell us God isn't real."
How would that help? People who argue like you tend to reject the idea that there is such a thing as an ex-Christian and will just keep repeating that anyone who doesn't believe have somehow not had proper contact with the Holy Spirit - making the proposition unfalsifiable and meaningless.
@MyFriendLeonard1 I will say this though, all kinds of religions claim they experience evidence of the divine, even though they have absolutely nothing in common with Christianity. This is itself is reason enough to reject your approach as useless, as cultists of all stripes obviously misinterpret natural phenomena as proof of their superstition. If you can't demonstrate that you're different from them somehow, it's not worth more than a shrug to an outside observer.
@Gnomefro You have failed to point out a single religion that supposedly has "nothing" in common with Christianity, so you lose.
The mere existence of different religions, even if they contradicted Christianity (which they don't) could not possibly invalidate Christianity at all. Are you actually retarded?
You have misinterpreted natural phenomena as proof of your silly superstition.
Conversely, we Theists have actual knowledge backed by actual scientific evidence.
@1GodOnlyOne If you state that you are backed by evidence you actually have to represent what it is. Otherwise anyone who adds "backed by evidence" at the end of their sentence would be considered to have evidence.
@MyFriendLeonard1 All we can conclude is that humans, for some reason, are superstitious, make up religions, and convince themselves they are true through a wide variety of unscientific means.
"Atheists do have gods. They worship themselves, in their supposed ability to define Reality."
And way to make the word "God" meaningless. I think you would do well to have more respect for the value of beliefs backed by actual manifestations in the real world.
@Gnomefro A 4-part reply? And none of it anything I haven't heard a million times before. And you know that. And you also know it's not going to make a single dent on me. So why do you bother?
Your whole point of view is based on your lack of experience in regard to God. And note that I said God. I didn't say church. I didn't say Bible. I didn't say Christians. I didn't say doctrine. I said God. Now focus your mind on the challenge of seeking out this GOD experience. And THEN come talk to me.
@Gnomefro Or is that a 3-part reply? Whatever - a multi-part reply ... full of the same old sawing away on that worn-out violin - the same old yadda-yadda tune you guys never get tired of hearing. And the reason you never tire of it is that it keeps you from ever having to get really SERIOUS about this Ultimate issue of GOD. The most serious of all issues, and you guys can't get seriously down to business at dealing with it. All you do is express your FEAR - which you grandiosely label "Reason".
"Evolution revolves around survival." Haa! In a universe destined to die, according to science? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense, right?
Not only this, but if the universe (or multiverse) has the ability to create itself from nothing, then why would the matter within it care about surviving?
Cuckoo!
YoBravaFrumAnuvaMuva 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from RocknForJesus
At least evolution has some evidence. there isn't any good evidence that i know of that god exists. Why dont you make some videos explaining what convinced you there is a god instead of stereotyping atheists and trying to find small loopholes in there theory. A old book filled with bizarre stories without any evidence they happened isn't enough for me to believe in god it seems to me it was used as propaganda for war a long time ago, and now to comfort people so they dont feel bad about death
TheSquirrel8485 1 month ago
@TheSquirrel8485 His arguments against evolution are very weak, actually. You don't need to give him any ground at all by saying "at least evolution has some evidence". It does yes, but he doesn't understand what a gap in knowledge means, he doesn't understand what a theory is at all. Read my comments on this page.
kainedamo 1 month ago
I've happenstantially fallen upon your videos. I did comment on an earlier video of yours, but this is probably a good introduction of the Gospel here. This video expresses an "us and them" doctrine. "We Christians" and you. That is not the doctrine of the scriptures. In Genesis 5 we see that all of the "generations" of man (all of us - NO "them") had a name, "and their name was called ADAM". And as in the FIRST ADAM, all died, in the LAST ADAM, all are made alive! Please come up for air!
GospelRevolution1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want to help you understand what a scientific theory is, as you are clearly confused. A theory is a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
kainedamo 1 month ago
Religion is not held to anything even resembling the same standard to what scientific theories are held to.
kainedamo 1 month ago
There is no double standard. You just don't understand the scientific method. Religious faith is not based on any kind of empirical evidence that is subject to principles of reasoning. "I don't want your theories", not even the theory of gravity? Theories are used to create the technology that you're sitting there using to make the video. A theory is subject to the highest standards of peer review and testing - scientists go out of their way to prove theories wrong.
kainedamo 1 month ago
When does a Christian say "I don't know" ? A Christian beliefs God exists. A Christian beliefs that this God created the Earth, and created human beings. They state these things as though they are absolute facts.
When humans did not know what lightning was, they made up a God named Zeus to explain it. When a scientist does not know the answer to something, the scientist says "let's find the answer", rather than throwing their hands up and saying "God did it".
kainedamo 1 month ago
You must present a viable alternative explanation based on evidence.
kainedamo 1 month ago
Think of it like this. You come across some dung in the middle of a giant field. You don't currently see what could have left the dung there. What's more reasonable? Is it more reasonable to say that the dung likely ended up there from some passing animal, or that God came and put the dung there? It's more reasonable to accept natural laws as we observe them, and hold that scientific theories are correct, until they are proven wrong.
kainedamo 1 month ago
It would be illogical to say, "here is this evidence for evolution, although, we can't find all the fossils, therefore evolution is wrong". That's not how you prove a theory wrong. The scientific method works through investigation, acquiring new knowledge, correcting previous knowledge, using evidence and testing. A gap in knowledge does not prove a theory wrong, otherwise the entire scientific method would be useless because there are gaps in knowledge everywhere.
kainedamo 1 month ago
Scientists use deduction. Much like a detective. A detective doesn't have to witness a crime or have every possible item of data on a suspect to prove their guilt. You're not going to have a complete fossil record of every animal. Of course not. Fossils are notoriously difficult to find. This does not mean that there is not evidence for evolution. Neither does it mean that the theory is flawed.
kainedamo 1 month ago
haha well we christians can't win either way. If we say we don't have the answer to something, we are told our worldview is silly. If we happen to have an answer for every one of their objections, we are labelled ignorant. Yep.....that's VERY fair! lol! XD
Sophiethefembot 1 month ago
@Sophiethefembot oops I meant arrogant not ignorant hahah XD
Sophiethefembot 1 month ago
I may not be most Atheists, but when I heard your question I said "what do you mean regular bird?" A google search would have given you the information you pretended to want as well as the way you wanted to present his argument from incredulity.
The reason creationists get laughed at is that they're smug while having no information regarding what you're speaking about. Learn evolution from actual scientists, then present any question YOU have, not the creationist websites.
DarkEmergence 1 month ago
Hahaha. This is funny shit. This guy should really read a book sometime. Hahahaha, worship evolution. HAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAH. Look up the definition of worship sometime. And the ACTUAL definition of transitional fossil. EVERY fossil is a transitional form. There's no jumps to a "half-species" or any such nonsense that you're looking for. There's even some really obvious ones, like Archaeopteryx So are they dinosaurs with feathers, or birds with teeth?
sithbane33 1 month ago
For you to say evolutionist's say "evolution did it" is a straw man. For one thing, the scientific community has not identified the evolutionary path of every living organism, that would be logistically impossible, but they have identified the ancestral lineage of many key modern organisms to fossils of extinct relatives. If we can't point to the transitional fossil that shows each step from microbe to man, doesn't mean you get to declare evolution is false.
DeimosSaturn 1 month ago
The genetic evidence alone is enough to prove that man, chimps, dolphins, oak trees, and yeast spores all share a common ancestor.
Further more, this is a classic "moving the goal post" creationist tactic you're employing. If we fill in the gap with the transitional fossil, you'll just say two more gaps have been formed, then four, then eight, and so on, until we have a logistically impossible and unreasonable standard for proof, but what standard of proof do
DeimosSaturn 1 month ago
live up to for "*poof* and then jesus was born of a virgin"? Do you see the double standard? It's actually possible for me to go and look for fossils, it's not possible for me to build a time machine and witness the virgin birth.
DeimosSaturn 1 month ago
why is it so illogical to believe evolution changed the bird? im skeptical of evolution, as it has not been proven but you're acting as if their claims are "outrageous"
seems ignorant if you ask me
MrGunsrFun 1 month ago
Which is more likely: magic or natural processes?
WatchBigBri 1 month ago
@WatchBigBri Magic, aka evo THEORY, has no evidence, so it is 100% unlikely.
Natural processes, such as intelligent design, do have evidence, so they are 100% likely.
Thanks for asking!
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne Intelligent design has evidence? When have you seen anything biological designed or created? Or is it just the gap deal? It's so complex, it must've been designed by an intelligent creator.
WatchBigBri 1 month ago
Grrreat Job!!!
MegaSage007 1 month ago
As you probably got this from a creationist website I did the opposite and googled an evolution website. How about Antillean Piculet (no hammering), wrynecks (lack tailfeathers) and Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers (no long tongue) or Bathoceleus hyphalus (probable ancient woodpecker) as transitional species ?
scrap222666 1 month ago
@scrap222666 I came up with this on my own while I was... you know. Critically thinking. Like Atheists tell me to do. I guess I'm not allowed to think on my own if I question THEM, too.
Those are all living species... Aren't they supposed to be, you know, DEAD and replaced by woodpeckers? Like what humans and chimps did with our "common ancestor"?
If we're using living species as examples, then I could probably show you how chimps COULD evolve into butterflies.
RocknForJesus 1 month ago
@RocknForJesus They don't have to be dead, just a location change is enough to further branch out a species. The examples I gave you prove that there is variety enough to go from woodpecker to another bird. If you take away tripod tail, hammering and tongue it would not exactly be a woodpecker now would it? They are not transitional in a straight line but branches of a common ancestor. The proof is not there prob cause no one has searched for woodpeckers though (not a priority).
scrap222666 1 month ago
@scrap222666 We're not discussing "branching out a species." We are discussing your fantasy of one species supposedly giving rise to a different species through sexual reproduction, which is a biological impossibility. Woodpeckers only give rise to woodpeckers, and no other species has ever given rise to a woodpecker.
Your silly examples prove absolutely nothing about woodpeckers.
You have failed to provide evidence for your silly personal belief in a so-called "common ancestor."
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne My example shows how 3 birds all exhibit similar traits to woodpeckers (that's why they have been categorized into the woodpecker family) but all miss an important trait (tailfeather, long tongue or hammering) that you attribute to woodpeckers normally. All I was showing is there exists birds who all are similar yet not totally woodpeckers (as one does not even peck on wood). It shows woodpeckers are not that unique (part of the argument). Also define species for me.
scrap222666 1 month ago
@scrap222666 Similar traits are conclusive evidence of a common designer, not a common ancestor.
I am not a dictionary manufacturer, and even if I were, I would not define anything for you. Definitions are standardized without regard to you or your ilk.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne True, similar traits can be evidence of a common designer, in this case we would argue if the designer would be the original "common link" and evolution through natural selection or god.
scrap222666 1 month ago
@scrap222666 You wrote: "The proof is not there...."
That is the only true thing that you've said here. There is no proof or evidence in favor of evo THEORY or of atheist Dogma.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne Yes because out of the thousands of evolutionists, who would zero in to research woodpeckers? Evolution is not a theory, it's a scientific theory. I think atheism is a wonderful dogma of not to believe in god before evidence is shown, what is wrong with that? Otherwise everyone would believe in every personal god story there is without any evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory in it's infancy though. Give it at least 100-500 or more years.
scrap222666 1 month ago
@scrap222666 All scientific theories are theories. Are you on drugs, or just extremely stupid?
You believe that God somehow doesn't exist, but you have no evidence for that silly personal belief. You are ridiculous.
I don't believe in any of your silly God stories because there is no evidence for them.
However, there is ample scientific evidence in favor of Theism.
You moron, how can I give evo Theory 500 more years? How old do you think I'm going to be when I die? 600?
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne You calling me stupid or moron is ok, I will not decent to such a level of calling derogatory terms to others who don't agree with me. Scientific theories aren't theories. Scientific theories go through a process of observation, postulation, posing a theory and testing it to see if it holds to the predictions, more or less. A theory is just something you think might happen without gathering any proof or evidence (as you put it).
scrap222666 1 month ago
@scrap222666 I am done with you because I am not in the habit of engaging in lengthy conversations with full-throttle morons.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne Well I am nice but calling others stupid and morons is quite harsh and rude. I hope you become more tolerant and not bash others with derogatory terms. It is hurtful if other people call others morons and stupid.
scrap222666 1 month ago
@RocknForJesus haha it's so stupid!! Apparently atheists seem to think you cannot be critically thinking unless you agree with THEM! lol XD!! Yeah right!! and I truly AM a monkey's nephew!! XD
Sophiethefembot 1 month ago
@scrap222666 You have failed to present evidence for your personal belief that those species could somehow be related to woodpeckers, so you lose.
Also, you failed to state which extinct species could supposedly be a common ancestor to all those species, so you lose again.
You also failed to explain how different species that have never been observed mating with each other could somehow be related by blood.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@scrap222666 You evo-heads just make up unscientific nonsense and have no evidence whatsoever to back it up -- you are pathetic.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PS -- atheist Experience Clown Show are nothing but a bunch of ignorant pussies.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
Comment removed
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
The evolution THEORY done did it -- herp-a-derp! LOL
I LOVE this video -- subscribed!
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
You should call into the Atheist Experience, really. And present them with this 'argument.' It'd be fun to watch...
TimGBone 1 month ago
@TimGBone You know. I would, but I've seen enough talk shows to know that A) They'll talk their way out of it, just as I've seen them do before, or B) There'd be no point. I'm not going to revolutionize the "scientific" Atheist community by using this Evolution of the Gaps I discovered them using.
RocknForJesus 1 month ago
@RocknForJesus A) They don't just talk, they use this nifty cool thing called reason and B) I think the fact that you might learn something about reality constitutes a reasonable point
TheAnimeAtheist 3 weeks ago
A god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance: "We do not know how X happened, therefore X was caused by a god." However, ignorance is never an argument for something. It merely means we do not (yet) know the cause of the phenomenon.
To see why this argument is a fallacy, we can consider similar arguments that have been made at different points in human history:
E.g: 500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
JessikaTheGamer 1 month ago
@JessikaTheGamer ...have you ever picked up a science text book? Almost all of them are full of "We do not know how X happened, therefore X was caused by [insert phenomenon here]."
RocknForJesus 1 month ago
@RocknForJesus I have no idea what kind of science books are used in the states, but in Sweden we seem to have better science books then that.
If you wish to give me a concrete example I would be interested in hearing it.
JessikaTheGamer 1 month ago
@JessikaTheGamer The fact that every single animal trait is attributed to evolutionary adaptions is example enough. Nobody has SEEN it happen, but it's considered a fact, therefore everything else is seen in light of evolution.
How is this any different than God? It's using Evolution of the Gaps. Like the woodpecker.
RocknForJesus 1 month ago
@RocknForJesus We have seen evolution in the works. Bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin for example, thats because some bacteria evolved a resistance to the drug due to over use.
The difference to god is that we have no reason to believe that god exists at all, no indications, while evolution has given evidence and proof in to a very high extent, in several different scientific disciplines.
JessikaTheGamer 1 month ago
@JessikaTheGamerBacteria becoming resistant is not evolution.The bacteria didn't change into something else.We become resistant too,but we are still human.Always have been and you have no proof otherwise.Obviously there is change within a species,and it only takes one generation to achieve that,but there is no proof that species change into another species.None.There's all kinds of proof that God exists. Kalam Cosmological argument for starters. Yes, negatives can be proven.
1980PintoMan 1 month ago
@1980PintoMan Becoming resistant IS evolution, there is a change in the genetic composition, that is evolution. If you are interested look up nylon digestive bacteria, that is also a good proof of evolution.
I can give you further proof, but I would suggesting PM:ing if that is the case.
Kalams argument is not a good one. At it's absolute best, it only gives you a hint towards a deistic god. (I'm taking my masters in religious philosophy, and have met the argument many times)
JessikaTheGamer 1 month ago
@JessikaTheGamer If evolution is defined simply as "change," then no problem.
However, the fantasy of one species giving rise to a different species is a biological impossibility that has never happened.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne Define species.
scrap222666 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne It's not "simply" change, it is much more complicated then that. I would suggest reading up a bit about what evolution is.
JessikaTheGamer 1 month ago
@JessikaTheGamer You wrote: "...we have no reason...."
True, you have no reason, but we Theists do indeed have reason. We have irrefutable arguments and scientific evidence leading to the conclusion that God's appearance and activities are factual. You have no arguments and no evidence to the contrary, so you lose.
There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in favor of evo THEORY.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne irrefutable arguments? please present one (and as I said before Kalam is not a good choice, but its up to you). Also this evidence, please present.
You know that gravity is "only" a theory as well? I can see that you have no understanding of what the word "theory" means in a scientific sense.
JessikaTheGamer 1 month ago
Call the Atheist Experience with that tone of yours and get shot down
baltusd 1 month ago
Great one. And I love the end: "You're bad people. But I love you." - Love to whack 'em upside the head with the Truth! : D
Meanwhile there is no gap between an experiencer of God and the God Whom he experiences. Atheists got to realize they're getting nowhere with us on a rational basis. What they got to do is SUBMIT - surrender - to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - and THEN tell us God isn't real.
Atheists do have gods. They worship themselves, in their supposed ability to define Reality.
MyFriendLeonard1 1 month ago
@MyFriendLeonard1 Amen, brother. They are so afraid of being brainwashed, they've become brainwashed in themselves.
RocknForJesus 1 month ago
@RocknForJesus Great way to put it!
MyFriendLeonard1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyFriendLeonard1 "What they got to do is SUBMIT - surrender - to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit - and THEN tell us God isn't real."
How would that help? People who argue like you tend to reject the idea that there is such a thing as an ex-Christian and will just keep repeating that anyone who doesn't believe have somehow not had proper contact with the Holy Spirit - making the proposition unfalsifiable and meaningless.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@MyFriendLeonard1 I will say this though, all kinds of religions claim they experience evidence of the divine, even though they have absolutely nothing in common with Christianity. This is itself is reason enough to reject your approach as useless, as cultists of all stripes obviously misinterpret natural phenomena as proof of their superstition. If you can't demonstrate that you're different from them somehow, it's not worth more than a shrug to an outside observer.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro You have failed to point out a single religion that supposedly has "nothing" in common with Christianity, so you lose.
The mere existence of different religions, even if they contradicted Christianity (which they don't) could not possibly invalidate Christianity at all. Are you actually retarded?
You have misinterpreted natural phenomena as proof of your silly superstition.
Conversely, we Theists have actual knowledge backed by actual scientific evidence.
You fail.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne If you state that you are backed by evidence you actually have to represent what it is. Otherwise anyone who adds "backed by evidence" at the end of their sentence would be considered to have evidence.
scrap222666 1 month ago
@MyFriendLeonard1 All we can conclude is that humans, for some reason, are superstitious, make up religions, and convince themselves they are true through a wide variety of unscientific means.
"Atheists do have gods. They worship themselves, in their supposed ability to define Reality."
And way to make the word "God" meaningless. I think you would do well to have more respect for the value of beliefs backed by actual manifestations in the real world.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro Your superstitious religion is called atheist Dogma, and it has no evidence.
Conversely, there is ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities.
The word "God" could only be "meaningless" to an individual too stupid to be able to derive meaning from it. That is you.
Thank you also for admitting that your silly worldview is your "belief." Your belief has no evidence.
Conversely, we have solid knowledge backed by ample scientific evidence for Theism.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@Gnomefro A 4-part reply? And none of it anything I haven't heard a million times before. And you know that. And you also know it's not going to make a single dent on me. So why do you bother?
Your whole point of view is based on your lack of experience in regard to God. And note that I said God. I didn't say church. I didn't say Bible. I didn't say Christians. I didn't say doctrine. I said God. Now focus your mind on the challenge of seeking out this GOD experience. And THEN come talk to me.
MyFriendLeonard1 1 month ago
@Gnomefro Or is that a 3-part reply? Whatever - a multi-part reply ... full of the same old sawing away on that worn-out violin - the same old yadda-yadda tune you guys never get tired of hearing. And the reason you never tire of it is that it keeps you from ever having to get really SERIOUS about this Ultimate issue of GOD. The most serious of all issues, and you guys can't get seriously down to business at dealing with it. All you do is express your FEAR - which you grandiosely label "Reason".
MyFriendLeonard1 1 month ago