I made a computer program once, I gave the program artificial intelligence and the ability to make decisions by itself. The computer program was asked questions like where did it come from. It actually thought it made itself. I tried to make an input to show the computer that I created it but it just couldnt understand that there was anything more intelligent then itself. shame. I deleted it.
A big problem is "creationism." It is widely and mistakenly assumed that there are only two possible positions: Either one believes in God and that he created the Earth and everything on it about 6,000 years ago over a six day period; or one believes that the world is an utterly meaningless, mechanical machine. "Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief"
Well, he's doing a good job for the atheists, making science better known and opening the gateway to people exploring God as something other than true, but I think he's a bad scientist for saying that God/religion is false and science is true. He said himself that you can't disprove the existence of God and any good scientist knows that science works in theories that are held as possible if you can't disprove them!
I'm Spiritual and have plenty of personal evidence for Source/God's existence.
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
Richard Dawkins lol... Evolution never happened. You can't serially believe that nothing went bang out poped the universe and the rocks came alive and slowly evolved into every creature we have today? That's far more far fetched then in the beginning an eternal God created the heavens and the earth. After all if a building demands a builder creation certainly demands a creator.
''You can't serially believe that nothing went bang out poped the universe and the rocks came alive and slowly evolved into every creature we have today?''
...''Nothing went bang out''...
...''Rocks came alive''. ... I don't know what you are talking about, but whatever that is it is not evolution or what it claims. Well done, another creationist thinking he maid a point where as in reality demonstrated his ignorance in biology and cosmology.
Science says nothing about the origin of life as it only is restricted to the present time. Unless of course you wish to reintroduce the "Queen of the sciences", Theology back into the sciences.
Science does deal with origins of life. That area of biology is called Abiogenesis. And guess what? Physicists are continuing to tackle the question about the origins of the universe.
@OptimalElement Abiogenesis is not a scientific discipline. Physicists talk about many things, even God, but what they say has nothing to do with what science is. Not all statements made by scientists are statements of science.
Science is a discipline based primary on empirical evidence and any theory outside these strict guidelines are not part of what real science does. It even contradicts materialism when you enter this realm. Science only testable in the here and now.
Abiogenesis IS a scientific discipline. Physicists talk about physics. When scientists makes statements regarding science itself, they ALWAYS back them up with evidence. Otherwise their work won't be published and other scientists in the same discipline will not take them seriously. Origins of life and universe are questions which interest scientists and sitting back and say ''we don't know so god did it'' will freeze our progress in understanding the universe. Religion is an inhibitor
@OptimalElement sitting back and say ''we don't know so god did it''? Seriously? Who are you quoting??? Are you quoting Christian Physicists like Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell Clerk? That is just a strawman statement which any Christian scientist has ever said. When Newton discovered the law of gravity he did not jump to saying since I understand how to measure Gravity, therefore I do not need God anymore. No, he understood that Gods creation a little better.
@OptimalElement As for evidence. You are mistaken if you think that they backup the theory with evidence. That is what happens in legal systems and you can find evidence to suit any situation. In science we first require observable empirical evidence to even being to create a feasible scientific theory. Otherwise you are back to why the Ptolomeic universe of the sun going round the earth where they used evidence after the facts.
@urantivirus Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than science does in its, because religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true, whereas science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing to be be wrong. A genuine truth arrogantly asserted - that is, without so much as a guess at the likelihood of its being false - is a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse than a mere mistake, because it alienates people from it.
The sneering tones of the female in the film clip tells you everything you need to know about these vile people. All we needed to see was Paxman and his stooge vomiting green bile over each other. They are of their father the devil.
Is it illegal to rape in their country? Because that's not a sin in a bible. In fact some part encourage it. What about child abuse? Same story.
You can't say a legal system is based off of Christianity because of two commandments. They are laws that are found in just about every country in the world, regardless of religion. They aren't holy laws passed down through God. They're common sense.
@urantivirus Your comment has demonstrated you have not read the Bible and just cherry picking quotes from some website, who themselves have not taken the time to read the Bible. Rape would come under the 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th commandments.
As for other religions containing the 10 commandments is completely false. Take Roman society for example, killing a someone was considered a manly act, as was sleeping with other mens wives. Or what about human sacrifice by celtic druids? etc
''As for other religions containing the 10 commandments is completely false. Take Roman society for example, killing a someone was considered a manly act, as was sleeping with other mens wives. Or what about human sacrifice by celtic druids? etc''
Read the old testament. You'll find enough justifications there by god himself to commit murder, slavery, sacrifice and rape.
@Surfxeo I said "just about every country in the world" not "every society on earth since the beginning of time" and I never said 10 commandments. I said there are only two commandments that have to do with any laws. Learn how to read. I was referring to countries today, and not even every country. Your whole argument is pathetic. For the record, I went to a Catholic school. So I've read the bible more than once.
Society that has evolution in its science high school course will not self destruct any more than they will self destruct from teaching atomic theory and so on. Evolution does not have any impact on culture, politics, business or morals. Religion does, and a negative one. Just read a history book. And don't start on hitler and stalin. Hitler was a catholic believing he acted in the name of the creator, where as stalin rejected evolution completely.
@tnekkc Funny how you say this, as in our country that is, as you say, "as low as it can get", 60% of people reject evolution. Whereas in European countries, where evolution isn't even questioned, they're doing just fine.
Well the bible accounts have been proven in many ways for example the bible describes the dinosaur bohemoth, archaelogists found a bohemouth in the bibles exact description how could they have known that?
Sorry, the assertions you sent to my inbox are not supported by facts. In other words, you're either making up stories, or you've subscribed to made-up stories that attempt to discredit science and observed facts.
Anyway, the "behemoth" of the Bible was an elephant.
Right back at you: Better read up before twisting your Bible's words and intent to suit your needs.
"He >>>moveth<<< his tail like a cedar" is how the line starts. You misquoted. I've never seen big cedar trees move much at all, AND, dinosaur tails could whip around at the tip!
Anyway, no dinosaurs are younger than 64.8 million years. Their fossils are not found above (later than) a thin worldwide layer of iridium-rich soil laid down because of a massive meteor impact.
It's also physically impossible for the Earth to be 6,000 years old. That would mean the solar system is as well, since it all formed at the same time. We don't see other stars forming in such short a time.
Science isn't absolute truth. Scientific theories should be based on availabe evidence. This is a poor example: If somone discovers a dragon frozen in ice the theory of evolution will have to change to fit the evidence. The only reason I use dragons is because there is no sufficeint evidence for dragons. People should be consantly testing sceintic theories otherwise they will end up in a state of stagnation where nothing new is uncovered.
@MadHighway The only thing we can do with people like this is nod our heads and say "okay. what ever you say". people like this will never understand science and we just have to let them be. if they want to prove us wrong then they can get in the labs and find the evidence... but until then they're full of shit. dont waste your time with intellectually lazy people like this
It's nice to see the Dawkanator challenged on something other than the tired, boring and ignorant questions he is normally faced with. What a lovely man.
@Daracon1010 If only you could hear how ridiculous your god arguments are. I really do feel sorry for people like you and even more sorry for the people you'll infect with your dogma
This whole time debating I didnt even watch the video... Does anyone notice that Dawkins is more lispy than usual?? Must be God's way of smiting him...Fucking heretic pernounce those S's wrong!!!
@rkcraigslist51907 If you guys had actually bothered to read what I've already written, you would know why science isn't possible without God. So let me just copy and paste it for you
@rkcraigslist51907 What you still fail to realise, is that science isn't even possible without God. Because in order for science to be possible, there are preconditions that first must exist, and under the naturalistic worldview, these crucial presuppositions cannot be accounted for. Your brain/memory/senses cannot be considered reliable, you can't account for Laws of Logic, and you can't account for the Uniformity of Nature. Without these, it's impossible to prove anything.
@rkcraigslist51907 I can account for those crucial presuppositions, as a Christian. God has promised us back in Genesis that there would be uniformity. Science studies predictability. You perform a number of experiments under the same conditions... you expect to get the same result. If you didn't, you would assume that something changed in the experiment. The natural laws of the universe must stay the same in order to stay the same. Uniformity of Nature must exist....
@rkcraigslist51907 Why on earth would you have uniformity of nature, in a random chance universe? You assume uniformity in practice, but you have no basis for it in principle. If you cannot account for uniformity of nature, you cannot prove anything. The same goes for all these scientists. Yes - science is possible... because God exists. You don't need to believe in God in order for science to be possible, but you do need God in order for science to be possible.
@rkcraigslist51907 If you cannot satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility for humans reasoning and experiences, it's impossible for you to prove anything at all. You MUST account for Laws of Logic, human intelligibility, and Uniformity of Nature.
If you cannot do this?... you've already lost. And I already know that there is no possible way for you to account for them. You have already lost, and I urge you to start being intellectually honest and realise that God exists and read the Bible.
retard ! pipe ! truely an atheist aint ye brilliant insults but little in the way of logical argument to put my comments in the shade.. no scientific prove for god ye say huh
well, no intelligent designer just a fluke of nature so why would nature grow food for
something it couldnt possibly know existed as there was no connection between us and the
rest of nature so what would be the purpose of food being brought into existance
call me dumb if ye want but bet ye cant answer that..Q !
I think some atheists are getting out of hand (im not a creationist so save it). Fine if you don't believe in a god. That's one thing but nowadays it's almost like a scientists word means everything and is always 100% true UNCONDITIONALLY.
And some atheists make bullshit claims all the time like "all the wars in history started because of religion" and stupid shit like that and they get away with it without anyone telling them they're full of shit.
@daveywhippet Not as much as a scum as you. Anyone who thinks someone who should die because they do not hold their beliefs are useless, akin to people like Hitler and Stalin.
I love when "Internet Correspondents" comment on YouTube videos that disagree with their ignorant view of reality, and try to argue against what scientist do for a living. It's 2012 and we still have people who believe in Bronze Age myths without scientific evidence. People with no evidence themselves, like to claim that the real evidence is false. Go to a pro-religion video to spew your bullshit to other delusional people because you’re just making yourself look idiotic here. America is doomed.
I made a computer program once, I gave the program artificial intelligence and the ability to make decisions by itself. The computer program was asked questions like where did it come from. It actually thought it made itself. I tried to make an input to show the computer that I created it but it just couldnt understand that there was anything more intelligent then itself. shame. I deleted it.
The "First Awakened Human" In the "Human Race", has to be "Re-engineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING, FEARFUL yet LOVING GOD, If Your Break The Law, You'll be Thrown into the BURNING HELL Literally. Means, There was other "MUCH MORE ADVANCE ENTITY" that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE / Primate As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Don't Tell me, The "First Awakened Human", In the beginning of "Human Race", had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to Fulfil Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Please Explain >>>
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on, We have implemented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, We see Mr Dawkins is SOOOOOOOOOOOO Outdated/Backward/Stupid for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution Of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us ALL "HUMAN" Now.
Oh and the "Big Bang" wasn't plausible at all because of the horizon problem. And not a shred of evidence for evolution even exists. What do we actually observe in nature? Animals and insects producing after their kinds. That's all. No evolutionist could ever rationally say that "this animal came from this other animal" from merely looking at fossils. It's 100% speculation to say "this subject is the ancestor of this subject". Evolution defies Information Science.
@Daracon1010 The evidence is overwhelming. Even the Catholic Church has accepted evolution and the Big Bang. Don't bother posting back because I know what you will say...you have studied all the evidence and because of your scientific background you can dismiss it all. I will stand before your God some day and weep in terror because your loving God hates all those who do not subjugate themselves to His/Her will.
im not a creationist but i would never call myself an atheist either because i believe in a young earth because evolution and the big bang have alot of issues with science in terms of the dynamo theory, carbon14 dating and if the universe is 150 billion light years across, the big bang must have expanded faster than light witch contradicts the theory of relativity(if light allway traveled same speed).
I do not think richard dawkins should be insulting people in what they believe in or teach
@MELegion1 Carbon14 dating is not the preferred dating method in science, there are many others that have much broader time frame and are more accurate. Evolution has never been refuted, along with the big bang. If you want an explanation of the universe just read a science book by an Astronomer, An Astro-physicist, or a Particle-physicist. There is not one single piece of evidence by any credible scientific community supporting creationism or the young earth myth
@rkcraigslist51907 There's no evidence? Of course there is evidence. You merely dismiss it because it doesn't fit your worldview, that's all. C14 found in diamonds and the earth's decaying magnetic field are wonderful pieces of evidence for a young earth. Same goes for Polonium Halos.
@rkcraigslist51907 You can't argue that worldview is right 'because' of the evidence, since it is our worldview's that tell us what to make of that evidence. I look at the amazing complexities of the human brain and say "wow, look what God created". An atheist such as yourself looks at it and says "wow, look what accidental random chance processes created".
Your statement about "credible" evidence is a sheer lie.
@rkcraigslist51907 Perhaps he should read a book by an Astrophysicist.... how about Dr Jason Lisle? He's one of the smartest astrophysicists there is. He's also a young earth creationist because he's intellectually honest and realises that without God, it's impossible to know anything or to even do science because naturalism cannot satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.
@Daracon1010 10% of scientist are believers in God. How about reading a book by one of the other scientist such as Brian Cox, who isn't a believer. I think I'm going to go with the 90% who don't believe over the 10% who do. Polonium Halos, as researched by Robert Gentry, was refuted.. Sorry to burst your evidence bubble. Arguing with people like you is impossible, because you are so narrow minded in your beliefs that its pointless to try and get you to open your eyes. Go get a science education.
@rkcraigslist51907 10%? Did you have fun arbitrarily picking a number that sounds good for your cause?
You'd prefer to go with the majority, because the majority (just like all people) prefer to satisfy their own selfish desires rather than give up their own physical lives for God's purposes. Giving me "10%" doesn't help your cause... it only tells me what I already know - that human beings have rejected God and made themselves their own Gods.
@rkcraigslist51907 Polonium Halos weren't refuted at all. Of course that's what the naturalists and atheists are going to tell you, because it's devastating to their agenda, and they like to think that it's been refuted regardless of the facts. Dr Robert Gentry dealt with every single objection that was made against his research and he still stands unrefuted. Sure they've "attempted" to refute him, but with no success.
@rkcraigslist51907 What you still fail to realise, is that science isn't even possible without God. Because in order for science to be possible, there are preconditions that first must exist, and under the naturalistic worldview, these crucial presuppositions cannot be accounted for. Your brain/memory/senses cannot be considered reliable, you can't account for Laws of Logic, and you can't account for the Uniformity of Nature. Without these, it's impossible to prove anything.
@Daracon1010 You see but the point that YOU fail to realise is that science does not point to a creator. If todays science about our origins pointed to a creator then scientist would admit it. But they dont. If evidence ever points to a creator, i'll happily accept it. But you can twist it anyway you feel like, the evidence shows no creator needed.. and I dont want a god to live for, I live for myself and my family... Fuck God... If you want to be a sheep you can be... Theres no evidence for god
@rkcraigslist51907 "...is that science does not point to a creator. If todays science about our origins pointed to a creator then scientist would admit it..."
Your statement is nothing but your opinion. It's completely arbitrary. More importantly, what you still don't even get it, science isn't even POSSIBLE without God. So for you to say that "science doesn't point to God" is laughable.
@rkcraigslist51907 You're trying to argue using something that doesn't even exist within your own position. You're like a critic of air saying "You don't need air to breathe... I mean look at me, I don't even believe in air, and I can breathe just fine."
ANY argument you use trying to use "science" in any way is irrational and already refuted unless God exists. And no - scientists won't admit it... because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.
@Daracon1010 I love this conversation with you I really do. If you feel so passionatly about this subject of science "needing" God then get out there and prove everyone wrong.
@rkcraigslist51907 And if you're going to say "well we know things will be uniform because it always been in the past". No, it hasn't. If you believe in the Big Bang, then no they cannot have been. Secondly, the past is irrelevant to the future unless you already knew the future. You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove... which is called "circular reasoning". Not all circular reasoning is wrong, but in this instance it is. It's a vicious circle.
@rkcraigslist51907 That was just uniformity... then there are Laws of Logic. These are also required in order for humans to be intelligible. What are Laws of Logic anyway? Laws of Logic are universal, immaterial, invariant abstract entities that govern all possible conceptual relationships.
They're universal because they apply everywhere... it's not like in certain locations contradictions can be true.
@rkcraigslist51907 They're immaterial... they don't exist in any physical place. This means that the naturalist has a problem - Laws of Logic, is not a part of nature. You can't find or look at a Law of Logic. They transcend the natural universe. So the atheist is trying to use something that doesn't even exist within his own position.They're invariant - meaning that they don't change with time. Y'know what else? Laws of Logic are eternal. Another reason why they transcend the natural universe.
@rkcraigslist51907 And lastly - in the naturalistic evolutionary worldview, human beings are nothing more than chemical accidents. There was no will or intention involved in their rise. So if you're brain, your senses, and your memory are just the result of accidental random chance processes - why on earth would they be considered reliable? They wouldn't.
Now, ALL of these presuppositions have to exist for humans to be intelligible. Atheists cannot account for ANY of them.
@Daracon1010 You may need God in your life but I certaintly don't, nor do I want him in my life. You saying science needs God is your opinion also. We both have different opinons,and thats a beautiful
@Daracon1010 Also, typing that science isn't possible without God, rest on the argument from silence since there's silence in providing evidence for the argument.
@Daracon1010 Hey, delusional kid, you have yet to provide evidence on why science isn't possible without the Hebrew god, and evidence for the existence of that god.
@Rookerfy If you guys had actually bothered to read what I've already written, you would know why science isn't possible without God. So let me just copy and paste it for you
@Rookerfy What you still fail to realise, is that science isn't even possible without God. Because in order for science to be possible, there are preconditions that first must exist, and under the naturalistic worldview, these crucial presuppositions cannot be accounted for. Your brain/memory/senses cannot be considered reliable, you can't account for Laws of Logic, and you can't account for the Uniformity of Nature. Without these, it's impossible to prove anything.
@Rookerfy I can account for those crucial presuppositions, as a Christian. God has promised us back in Genesis that there would be uniformity. Science studies predictability. You perform a number of experiments under the same conditions... you expect to get the same result. If you didn't, you would assume that something changed in the experiment. The natural laws of the universe must stay the same in order to stay the same. Uniformity of Nature must exist.... but there's a problem.
@Rookerfy Why on earth would you have uniformity of nature, in a random chance universe? You assume uniformity in practice, but you have no basis for it in principle. If you cannot account for uniformity of nature, you cannot prove anything. The same goes for all these scientists. Yes - science is possible... because God exists. You don't need to believe in God in order for science to be possible, but you do need God in order for science to be possible.
@Rookerfy And if you're going to say "well we know things will be uniform because it always been in the past". No, it hasn't. If you believe in the Big Bang, then no they cannot have been. Secondly, the past is irrelevant to the future unless you already knew the future. You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove... which is called "circular reasoning". Not all circular reasoning is wrong, but in this instance it is. It's a vicious circle.
@Rookerfy That was just uniformity... then there are Laws of Logic. These are also required in order for humans to be intelligible. What are Laws of Logic anyway? Laws of Logic are universal, immaterial, invariant abstract entities that govern all possible conceptual relationships.
They're universal because they apply everywhere... it's not like in certain locations contradictions can be true.
@Rookerfy They're immaterial... they don't exist in any physical place. This means that the naturalist has a problem - Laws of Logic, is not a part of nature. You can't find or look at a Law of Logic. They transcend the natural universe. So the atheist is trying to use something that doesn't even exist within his own position.
They're invariant - meaning that they don't change with time. Y'know what else? Laws of Logic are eternal. Another reason why they transcend the natural universe.
@Rookerfy And lastly - in the naturalistic evolutionary worldview, human beings are nothing more than chemical accidents. There was no will or intention involved in their rise. So if you're brain, your senses, and your memory are just the result of accidental random chance processes - why on earth would they be considered reliable? They wouldn't.
Now, ALL of these presuppositions have to exist for humans to be intelligible. Atheists cannot account for ANY of them.
@Rookerfy If you cannot satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility for humans reasoning and experiences, it's impossible for you to prove anything at all. You MUST account for Laws of Logic, human intelligibility, and Uniformity of Nature.
If you cannot do this?... you've already lost. And I already know that there is no possible way for you to account for them. You have already lost, and I urge you to start being intellectually honest and realise that God exists and read the Bible.
@Rookerfy You're right - I would get laughed out of a science convention. You know why? Because MOST people - not just scientists, are against God. Narrow is the path to eternal life, and wide is the road to destruction. MOST people are selfish, and seek to satisfy their selfish, evil desires. What do people make their lives about? Themselves. Money, sex, drugs, cars, houses.... Guess what? They will die some day. Everyone dies. Their lives are meaningless.
@Daracon1010 You demographics are wrong. Atheists/science are constantly persecuted, and the vast majority of the world is religious (especially in America)
@Blurtex33 I didn't say that there were more atheists than theists/agnostics/whatever. What I DID say is that the vast majority of people are not Christians.
@Blurtex33 The Bible gives the definition of a "Christian", not people & their opinions. Many like to "think" they're Christians without even knowing the first thing about Christianity
@Moosinat0r Enslaved to God? What's wrong with doing the right thing? And never "enjoy the one shot"? Who said this is the only life we get? Secondly, you'll die anyway.
@Daracon1010 Who says it isn't the only life we get? I have no reason to believe that when I die I'll be coming back. And what's doing the right thing? Stoning your children, condemning others?
@Daracon1010 I'm a good person, I like to think so. I'm charitable, I donate my time to CSH and other organizations instead of trying to profit, I'm respectful and I do so without God's moral compass.
@Daracon1010 And of course I'm going to die. And you should have said, "Thirdly," it was your third point. We're all going to die so I'm going to enjoy life and love and hate based on my own values.
@Daracon1010 Nothing you have said has made any sense what so ever and still does not convince me of a deity. I'm done arguing with you because it’s getting nowhere. And saying I've "lost" is completely childish... grow up. If you want to make people believe that there is a fucked up dictator God in the sky you're going to need an actual science background. And i encourage more people to read the bible because we need more atheists in the world... Good luck and best wishes =)
@Daracon1010 And atheists are actually the most persecuted group. At least here in America at least. try to to run for any kind of office and be outed as a non-believer, it's worse than saying your a white supremacist. The idea of God is a romantic one, people around the world see that. When your religious, people find it difficult to bust your chops on most matters, but atheism is one of defiance, it puts up a strong front, and we are portrayed as a people begging for chastisement.
@Rookerfy Every single person on the planet has rebelled against God. Everyone has sinned.... Including me. I realise this, and I realise that I am in need of saving. That's what Jesus Christ came to earth for. God did for us, what we could not. He became a man and lived a perfect life... he never sinned, and accomplished what he needed to accomplish. Taking the sins of the world onto himself, so that we may be set free from sin and have eternal life.
@MELegion1 If people are teaching rubbish then they should be stopped. Your staggering ignorance shown here proves that.
The universe did go through a period of FTL expansion (Inflationary Theory, read up on it). The BB & Evolution both have an enormous amount of evidence proving them, even if you are too stupid to understand it.
I'd explain more, but given that you are clearly barely literate, I doubt you'd understand so it would be a waste of time. Get back to school.
@Ellie8969 barely literate??? look at my comment and you will see that there was no room left and i had to shorten my words up you arrogant piece of sh**. do you really think that we have figured it out in just 70 years of proper astronomy. you would have to be stupid to say that there is no scientific evidence against the bb because there simply is. i know there's a lot of problems with the young earth theory but i personally prefer it. you have to be open minded a respect
@MELegion1 The only way you could possibly be OK with the Young Earth myth* is if you have never heard of isotope decay and radio astronomy before. The mountain of physical evidence stacked up against young Earth nonsense is simply staggering.
*It's not a theory, a theory must observe a phenomena, hypothesise, test, and be peer reviewed. Starting with a conclusion and wedging in the odd superficially supporting factoid is just made up bullshit.
@MELegion1 You only "have" to die. That's all you "have" to do. As far as "having" to respect someone, I find your obvious ignorance of what respect is. It is defined as a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. Now for your open minded comment. I want to make sure you understand open minded: Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. This does not mean you are to accept their ideas as reality. also...
@MELegion1 ...I think you mean Broad minded, because you mention respect, here is the definition for you: inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own. Respect has to be earned.
@Ellie8969 other peoples opinions. thats why i hate atheists and Christians because you think you are better than other people. the one think is better about Christians is that they wouldn't force you to believe something.
Laws of Logic and the Uniformity of Nature are two crucial presuppositions that must exist to satisfy the preconditions of the intelligibility of man's reasoning and experiences.
If you can't account for them, then it's literally impossible to prove anything. Atheists, cannot account for these two presuppositions. They have never and they never will.
Richard Dawkins is a fool who tries so hard to deny the obviously existing creator. He will have to account for his actions one day.
@Daracon1010 When religious people decide to stop with the bullshit myths and get real scientific evidence for their beliefs, Richard Dawkins will change his way of thinking... But there is in fact NO evidence for it... so it's still bullshit.
@Daracon1010 What do you mean "account for them"? Every experience any human has ever had confirms the uniformity of nature which provides ample jusification for us to launch science from. And science so clearly works.
And, how very typical - end with a threat, eh? Are we supposed to care what you think your fictitious god will do to us in a fictitious place. Do grow up.
@Ellie8969 Accounting for something means that you're able justify it's existence. What naturalists do is, they'll assume something in practice, but they have absolutely no basis for it in principle.
Actually you're wrong - human experience cannot confirm the uniformity of nature, because in order to confirm it you have to first assume the very thing you're trying to prove. What you gave me is circular reasoning. The fact that science works only proves that God exists.
@Ellie8969 Let me give you an example of a naturalist assuming something in practice but having no basis for it in principle. Take morality. An atheist will try to use a "moral" argument against the Bible, but in reality, they have to assume that the Bible is true in order to argue against it. If the Bible is true, then yes - murder is immoral. But if naturalism is true, why would murder be wrong? After all, human beings are nothing but chemical accidents in the naturalists worldview.
@Ellie8969 So in the naturalistic worldview, murder is nothing more than one chemical accident getting rid of another chemical accident. Humans have no innate dignity. They're just accidental biological blobs that spawned originally from bacteria. Murder would intrinsically be the same as cleaning your bench with antibacterial products.
The fact that atheists inherently know that murder is wrong only proves that the Bible is true. I ended with a threat? What are you talking about?
@Ellie8969 I can assure you, God is very real. And you WILL have to give an account to him one day. You deny his existence so that you can live your life the way you want.
@Daracon1010 You can "assure" me whatever you want - but without evidence, you just sound like a brainwashed nutter. Evolution and the BB are facts. They are accepted as such by virtually every scientist on earth. If you wish to refute the overwhelming & irrefutable evidence proving them then you'll need something rather better than your own ignorance I'm afraid. It's sad that there are still people like you in 2012, it really is. You are completely lost in your delusion, aren't you?
@ekajeht i'm completely agnostic, but you did a good point, in science theory there is not an explanation for all. BB and universe's expansion can't cohexist, that's why they want to impute everything to the dark matter. but that's also why science it's made to be honest, and must be discussed
darkmatter dark energy darkflow it makes little diffrence as nether one can be scientificly proven to exist and if indeed the bbt was verified then surely it would
This has been flagged as spam show
I made a computer program once, I gave the program artificial intelligence and the ability to make decisions by itself. The computer program was asked questions like where did it come from. It actually thought it made itself. I tried to make an input to show the computer that I created it but it just couldnt understand that there was anything more intelligent then itself. shame. I deleted it.
MrFriedolays 6 hours ago
let the record show as of now the new meme for creationists is "stupid people"
nightreaper999 14 hours ago
Last I checked, Europeans were trying to immigrate to the US, and very few Americans immigrate to Europe.
tnekkc 14 hours ago
A big problem is "creationism." It is widely and mistakenly assumed that there are only two possible positions: Either one believes in God and that he created the Earth and everything on it about 6,000 years ago over a six day period; or one believes that the world is an utterly meaningless, mechanical machine. "Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief"
neilmcintosh5150 15 hours ago
Well, he's doing a good job for the atheists, making science better known and opening the gateway to people exploring God as something other than true, but I think he's a bad scientist for saying that God/religion is false and science is true. He said himself that you can't disprove the existence of God and any good scientist knows that science works in theories that are held as possible if you can't disprove them!
I'm Spiritual and have plenty of personal evidence for Source/God's existence.
Sapphire848 17 hours ago
@Sapphire848 Too bad it's not scientific proof, may as well believe in unicorns too.
spareaxe 12 hours ago
how about the pyramids? how about the giants?
cosmingcosma 21 hours ago
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 23 hours ago
@mamainmancj So he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from... Well, himself. How fucking retarded is he?
jonasgrant 21 hours ago
Richard Dawkins lol... Evolution never happened. You can't serially believe that nothing went bang out poped the universe and the rocks came alive and slowly evolved into every creature we have today? That's far more far fetched then in the beginning an eternal God created the heavens and the earth. After all if a building demands a builder creation certainly demands a creator.
mamainmancj 23 hours ago
@mamainmancj
''You can't serially believe that nothing went bang out poped the universe and the rocks came alive and slowly evolved into every creature we have today?''
...''Nothing went bang out''...
...''Rocks came alive''. ... I don't know what you are talking about, but whatever that is it is not evolution or what it claims. Well done, another creationist thinking he maid a point where as in reality demonstrated his ignorance in biology and cosmology.
OptimalElement 20 hours ago
Science says nothing about the origin of life as it only is restricted to the present time. Unless of course you wish to reintroduce the "Queen of the sciences", Theology back into the sciences.
Surfxeo 1 day ago
@Surfxeo
Science does deal with origins of life. That area of biology is called Abiogenesis. And guess what? Physicists are continuing to tackle the question about the origins of the universe.
OptimalElement 20 hours ago
@OptimalElement Abiogenesis is not a scientific discipline. Physicists talk about many things, even God, but what they say has nothing to do with what science is. Not all statements made by scientists are statements of science.
Science is a discipline based primary on empirical evidence and any theory outside these strict guidelines are not part of what real science does. It even contradicts materialism when you enter this realm. Science only testable in the here and now.
Surfxeo 19 hours ago
@Surfxeo
Abiogenesis IS a scientific discipline. Physicists talk about physics. When scientists makes statements regarding science itself, they ALWAYS back them up with evidence. Otherwise their work won't be published and other scientists in the same discipline will not take them seriously. Origins of life and universe are questions which interest scientists and sitting back and say ''we don't know so god did it'' will freeze our progress in understanding the universe. Religion is an inhibitor
OptimalElement 19 hours ago
@OptimalElement sitting back and say ''we don't know so god did it''? Seriously? Who are you quoting??? Are you quoting Christian Physicists like Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell Clerk? That is just a strawman statement which any Christian scientist has ever said. When Newton discovered the law of gravity he did not jump to saying since I understand how to measure Gravity, therefore I do not need God anymore. No, he understood that Gods creation a little better.
Surfxeo 19 hours ago
@OptimalElement As for evidence. You are mistaken if you think that they backup the theory with evidence. That is what happens in legal systems and you can find evidence to suit any situation. In science we first require observable empirical evidence to even being to create a feasible scientific theory. Otherwise you are back to why the Ptolomeic universe of the sun going round the earth where they used evidence after the facts.
Surfxeo 18 hours ago
@Surfxeo "Science says nothing about the origin of life"
Abiogenesis
God damn you're ignorant.
urantivirus 17 hours ago
@urantivirus Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than science does in its, because religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true, whereas science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing to be be wrong. A genuine truth arrogantly asserted - that is, without so much as a guess at the likelihood of its being false - is a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse than a mere mistake, because it alienates people from it.
neilmcintosh5150 15 hours ago
lol "as you describe them", thanks
interactiveandy 1 day ago
The sneering tones of the female in the film clip tells you everything you need to know about these vile people. All we needed to see was Paxman and his stooge vomiting green bile over each other. They are of their father the devil.
timwebb1000 1 day ago
Christianity has affected their legal system?
Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal?
Is it illegal to rape in their country? Because that's not a sin in a bible. In fact some part encourage it. What about child abuse? Same story.
You can't say a legal system is based off of Christianity because of two commandments. They are laws that are found in just about every country in the world, regardless of religion. They aren't holy laws passed down through God. They're common sense.
urantivirus 1 day ago 2
@urantivirus Your comment has demonstrated you have not read the Bible and just cherry picking quotes from some website, who themselves have not taken the time to read the Bible. Rape would come under the 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th commandments.
As for other religions containing the 10 commandments is completely false. Take Roman society for example, killing a someone was considered a manly act, as was sleeping with other mens wives. Or what about human sacrifice by celtic druids? etc
Surfxeo 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Surfxeo
''As for other religions containing the 10 commandments is completely false. Take Roman society for example, killing a someone was considered a manly act, as was sleeping with other mens wives. Or what about human sacrifice by celtic druids? etc''
Read the old testament. You'll find enough justifications there by god himself to commit murder, slavery, sacrifice and rape.
OptimalElement 20 hours ago
@Surfxeo That's the most pathetic reply I've ever received. Never mind the bible, do you even know the commandments?
6 shall not murder
7 shall not commit adultery
8 shall not steal
10 shall not covet your neighbor's house/wife/etc
Those have absolutely nothing to do with rape. You can't even combine those to come to the conclusion to not rape.
urantivirus 17 hours ago
@Surfxeo I said "just about every country in the world" not "every society on earth since the beginning of time" and I never said 10 commandments. I said there are only two commandments that have to do with any laws. Learn how to read. I was referring to countries today, and not even every country. Your whole argument is pathetic. For the record, I went to a Catholic school. So I've read the bible more than once.
urantivirus 17 hours ago
A society that teaches evolution as a fact will self destruct.
It is Darwinian.
tnekkc 1 day ago
@tnekkc
Explain how.
MadHighway 1 day ago
@tnekkc
Society that has evolution in its science high school course will not self destruct any more than they will self destruct from teaching atomic theory and so on. Evolution does not have any impact on culture, politics, business or morals. Religion does, and a negative one. Just read a history book. And don't start on hitler and stalin. Hitler was a catholic believing he acted in the name of the creator, where as stalin rejected evolution completely.
OptimalElement 1 day ago
@OptimalElement
We have been teaching evolution in schools for 40 or 50 years and now Obama is Pres.
How much lower can we get?
tnekkc 1 day ago
@tnekkc Funny how you say this, as in our country that is, as you say, "as low as it can get", 60% of people reject evolution. Whereas in European countries, where evolution isn't even questioned, they're doing just fine.
EPICsliceOFcake 1 day ago
@tnekkc Go read your baaable and pray to magical jeebus. Be a good christian you cunt.
cfc19900 1 day ago
@tnekkc
''Obama is president because they teach evolution.''
You do know that makes no sense whatsoever.
OptimalElement 20 hours ago
@tnekkc Fuck, you're dumb. lol
Your brain is so washed there's nothing left.
urantivirus 1 day ago
@tnekkc Yea why? How do you know? Are you getting this from the sources you get about the existence of God? Show them to me!
monglold 1 day ago
Better focus on how life ends with suicidal liberal fundamentalism.
Liberals in Europe are being conquered by Islamic immigrants.
Liberals in the US are being conquered by Catholic immigrants.
tnekkc 1 day ago
@tnekkc
I suppose you also think men have one fewer rib than women.
MadHighway 1 day ago
Well the bible accounts have been proven in many ways for example the bible describes the dinosaur bohemoth, archaelogists found a bohemouth in the bibles exact description how could they have known that?
lewisfaldo 1 day ago
@lewisfaldo
Not all dinosaurs were "behemoths," and the "behemoths" died out about 65 million years ago. The Bible was invented LONG after that.
MadHighway 1 day ago
@lewisfaldo
Sorry, the assertions you sent to my inbox are not supported by facts. In other words, you're either making up stories, or you've subscribed to made-up stories that attempt to discredit science and observed facts.
Anyway, the "behemoth" of the Bible was an elephant.
MadHighway 1 day ago
@MadHighway says=" the behemoth of the bible was an elephant"
-------------
Better read up before showing how little you know what you are talking about.
The "behemoth" was desciibed as having a tail like a cedar!
I never seen a tail as big and strong as a tree on any elephant!
ekajeht 1 day ago
@ekajeht
Right back at you: Better read up before twisting your Bible's words and intent to suit your needs.
"He >>>moveth<<< his tail like a cedar" is how the line starts. You misquoted. I've never seen big cedar trees move much at all, AND, dinosaur tails could whip around at the tip!
Anyway, no dinosaurs are younger than 64.8 million years. Their fossils are not found above (later than) a thin worldwide layer of iridium-rich soil laid down because of a massive meteor impact.
MadHighway 1 day ago
@MadHighway If you never seen cedar trees much at all , then the discription must be referring to the size of the tail!
ekajeht 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ekajeht said "If you never seen cedar trees much at all , then the discription must be referring to the size of the tail!"
I said, "I've never seen big cedar trees >>>move much at all<<<<, AND, dinosaur tails could whip around at the tip!"
So now you're misquoting ME and twisting MY words and intent. That's twice you've done that.
MadHighway 1 day ago
@lewisfaldo
It's also physically impossible for the Earth to be 6,000 years old. That would mean the solar system is as well, since it all formed at the same time. We don't see other stars forming in such short a time.
MadHighway 1 day ago
Science isn't absolute truth. Scientific theories should be based on availabe evidence. This is a poor example: If somone discovers a dragon frozen in ice the theory of evolution will have to change to fit the evidence. The only reason I use dragons is because there is no sufficeint evidence for dragons. People should be consantly testing sceintic theories otherwise they will end up in a state of stagnation where nothing new is uncovered.
stalkingcat123 1 day ago
I think you mean Creationism vs. Truth.
JOverton1992 1 day ago
@MadHighway The only thing we can do with people like this is nod our heads and say "okay. what ever you say". people like this will never understand science and we just have to let them be. if they want to prove us wrong then they can get in the labs and find the evidence... but until then they're full of shit. dont waste your time with intellectually lazy people like this
rkcraigslist51907 1 day ago
they want to brainwash you,to not belive,its freemasonry thing,belive that,praise to Allah :)
13ludjak 1 day ago
It's nice to see the Dawkanator challenged on something other than the tired, boring and ignorant questions he is normally faced with. What a lovely man.
TweedEchidna 2 days ago
"Nobody believes that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt".
Sadly, Jeremy, 40% of the American public believes just that.
lewisner 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 If only you could hear how ridiculous your god arguments are. I really do feel sorry for people like you and even more sorry for the people you'll infect with your dogma
nefmot 2 days ago
This whole time debating I didnt even watch the video... Does anyone notice that Dawkins is more lispy than usual?? Must be God's way of smiting him...Fucking heretic pernounce those S's wrong!!!
rkcraigslist51907 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkcraigslist51907 If you guys had actually bothered to read what I've already written, you would know why science isn't possible without God. So let me just copy and paste it for you
Daracon1010 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkcraigslist51907 What you still fail to realise, is that science isn't even possible without God. Because in order for science to be possible, there are preconditions that first must exist, and under the naturalistic worldview, these crucial presuppositions cannot be accounted for. Your brain/memory/senses cannot be considered reliable, you can't account for Laws of Logic, and you can't account for the Uniformity of Nature. Without these, it's impossible to prove anything.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkcraigslist51907 I can account for those crucial presuppositions, as a Christian. God has promised us back in Genesis that there would be uniformity. Science studies predictability. You perform a number of experiments under the same conditions... you expect to get the same result. If you didn't, you would assume that something changed in the experiment. The natural laws of the universe must stay the same in order to stay the same. Uniformity of Nature must exist....
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 Why on earth would you have uniformity of nature, in a random chance universe? You assume uniformity in practice, but you have no basis for it in principle. If you cannot account for uniformity of nature, you cannot prove anything. The same goes for all these scientists. Yes - science is possible... because God exists. You don't need to believe in God in order for science to be possible, but you do need God in order for science to be possible.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 If you cannot satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility for humans reasoning and experiences, it's impossible for you to prove anything at all. You MUST account for Laws of Logic, human intelligibility, and Uniformity of Nature.
If you cannot do this?... you've already lost. And I already know that there is no possible way for you to account for them. You have already lost, and I urge you to start being intellectually honest and realise that God exists and read the Bible.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
Richard Dawkins, enjoyed your book 'The Greatest show on Earth". You are much wiser than most!
Thecreamcloud 2 days ago
retard ! pipe ! truely an atheist aint ye brilliant insults but little in the way of logical argument to put my comments in the shade.. no scientific prove for god ye say huh
well, no intelligent designer just a fluke of nature so why would nature grow food for
something it couldnt possibly know existed as there was no connection between us and the
rest of nature so what would be the purpose of food being brought into existance
call me dumb if ye want but bet ye cant answer that..Q !
crazydj59 2 days ago
@crazydj59 haha, assuming that you are trolling :D
MaesMust 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no "God". Silly Sheep, Deities are for Kidz.
shiftyways1987 2 days ago
and the bigbang ``theory``,,why is it that darkmatter is so essential to explain
the workings of the universe yet its existence is unprovable .we evolved so explain food why it came to be here !
crazydj59 2 days ago
ignorent and stupid adults as youve described them ``he said with a wry smile`` guess
it saved him using those words huh ! not that he`s unused to saying such things that coz
arguments in here Ahh
crazydj59 2 days ago
I think some atheists are getting out of hand (im not a creationist so save it). Fine if you don't believe in a god. That's one thing but nowadays it's almost like a scientists word means everything and is always 100% true UNCONDITIONALLY.
And some atheists make bullshit claims all the time like "all the wars in history started because of religion" and stupid shit like that and they get away with it without anyone telling them they're full of shit.
Alba12349 2 days ago
5:08 the former is alarming, the latter is exciting
dieseluk2k 3 days ago
You can't educate a willfully ignorant person.
PoWBlackOPS4 3 days ago
I'm from a single-mom family with no uncles, so I never believed in Santa Claus :)
MrWrof 3 days ago
I think the interviewer is doing a good job here, playing the devil's advocate.
MrWrof 3 days ago
Hey, I'm not stupid the bible says so!
Cocotte123321 3 days ago
See Richard Dawkins, click on video
chronicfc2 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
everyone whos not a christian should fuck off and die athiests are scum
daveywhippet 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daveywhippet Not as much as a scum as you. Anyone who thinks someone who should die because they do not hold their beliefs are useless, akin to people like Hitler and Stalin.
Aviatorsmith 3 days ago
I love when "Internet Correspondents" comment on YouTube videos that disagree with their ignorant view of reality, and try to argue against what scientist do for a living. It's 2012 and we still have people who believe in Bronze Age myths without scientific evidence. People with no evidence themselves, like to claim that the real evidence is false. Go to a pro-religion video to spew your bullshit to other delusional people because you’re just making yourself look idiotic here. America is doomed.
rkcraigslist51907 3 days ago
I want to shake this man's hand.
The interviewer was fantastic, touching on really strong points, without coming on at all strongly or over-biased.
mycheesedguitar 4 days ago
"One is false and one is true."
Great response.
sccitylhh 4 days ago
Religion: It's not faith if its brainwashing.
TurtlesinParadise 4 days ago 12
Athiest will have a seat next to god, if there is such a thing
William81Edge10 4 days ago
I made a computer program once, I gave the program artificial intelligence and the ability to make decisions by itself. The computer program was asked questions like where did it come from. It actually thought it made itself. I tried to make an input to show the computer that I created it but it just couldnt understand that there was anything more intelligent then itself. shame. I deleted it.
MrFriedolays 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The "First Awakened Human" In the "Human Race", has to be "Re-engineered" To Have A Proper Biological Mechanism To Enforce The First Law: STRICTLY NO SEX BETWEEN CLOSEST FAMILY MEMBER, There is All SEEING, FEARFUL yet LOVING GOD, If Your Break The Law, You'll be Thrown into the BURNING HELL Literally. Means, There was other "MUCH MORE ADVANCE ENTITY" that GUIDED this The First Awakened Human To Understand the BAD RESULT of Being Forever APE / Primate As "THEY" Want Human..Right?
Ordeal1000 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't Tell me, The "First Awakened Human", In the beginning of "Human Race", had a knowledge in Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, made some experiment in Genetic Engineering, Finally, discovered that if SEXUAL ACTIVITY kept on going between closest family member, You all Forever PRIMATE / Monkey. Instead of Obeying The Order of Natural Selection, This Awakened Human made a Revolutionary Movement to Fulfil Natural Selection of The Evolution ??? Please Explain >>>
Ordeal1000 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Info: Neutrally and Without Political Border, We Studied Various Disciplinary such as Physics, Cosmology, Chemistry, Evolutionary/Revolutionary Biology, Recorded History, Geography and so on, We have implemented the same "Repeatable Proven System" as required by Science, We see Mr Dawkins is SOOOOOOOOOOOO Outdated/Backward/Stupid for Ignoring the ULTIMATE Role of Evolution Of Languages and Evolution of Religions in The Evolution Of Mankind. For Both That Make Us ALL "HUMAN" Now.
Ordeal1000 4 days ago
@MrFriedolays You did no such thing. And, if it's an analogy is a really silly one.
Ellie8969 4 days ago
@MrFriedolays Sounds like you made an atheist!
icabodcranium 4 days ago
Oh and the "Big Bang" wasn't plausible at all because of the horizon problem. And not a shred of evidence for evolution even exists. What do we actually observe in nature? Animals and insects producing after their kinds. That's all. No evolutionist could ever rationally say that "this animal came from this other animal" from merely looking at fossils. It's 100% speculation to say "this subject is the ancestor of this subject". Evolution defies Information Science.
Daracon1010 4 days ago
@Daracon1010 The evidence is overwhelming. Even the Catholic Church has accepted evolution and the Big Bang. Don't bother posting back because I know what you will say...you have studied all the evidence and because of your scientific background you can dismiss it all. I will stand before your God some day and weep in terror because your loving God hates all those who do not subjugate themselves to His/Her will.
cf80to01 4 days ago
@Daracon1010 ...nature. You scary.
phizerbabies250 4 days ago
Listen to Carl Sagan talk about science, THEN say that religion has better tunes.
no2religions 4 days ago
Atheism: it's not arrogance if you're right.
dkthg 4 days ago 42
@dkthg So in this case its arrogance.
icabodcranium 4 days ago
Paxman is completely wrong. Unfortunately, plenty of people believe Lots wife was turned into a block of salt.
mikelheron20 4 days ago
im not a creationist but i would never call myself an atheist either because i believe in a young earth because evolution and the big bang have alot of issues with science in terms of the dynamo theory, carbon14 dating and if the universe is 150 billion light years across, the big bang must have expanded faster than light witch contradicts the theory of relativity(if light allway traveled same speed).
I do not think richard dawkins should be insulting people in what they believe in or teach
MELegion1 5 days ago
@MELegion1 Carbon14 dating is not the preferred dating method in science, there are many others that have much broader time frame and are more accurate. Evolution has never been refuted, along with the big bang. If you want an explanation of the universe just read a science book by an Astronomer, An Astro-physicist, or a Particle-physicist. There is not one single piece of evidence by any credible scientific community supporting creationism or the young earth myth
rkcraigslist51907 4 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 There's no evidence? Of course there is evidence. You merely dismiss it because it doesn't fit your worldview, that's all. C14 found in diamonds and the earth's decaying magnetic field are wonderful pieces of evidence for a young earth. Same goes for Polonium Halos.
You fail to understand the nature of evidence...
Daracon1010 4 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 You can't argue that worldview is right 'because' of the evidence, since it is our worldview's that tell us what to make of that evidence. I look at the amazing complexities of the human brain and say "wow, look what God created". An atheist such as yourself looks at it and says "wow, look what accidental random chance processes created".
Your statement about "credible" evidence is a sheer lie.
Daracon1010 4 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 Perhaps he should read a book by an Astrophysicist.... how about Dr Jason Lisle? He's one of the smartest astrophysicists there is. He's also a young earth creationist because he's intellectually honest and realises that without God, it's impossible to know anything or to even do science because naturalism cannot satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.
Daracon1010 4 days ago
@Daracon1010 10% of scientist are believers in God. How about reading a book by one of the other scientist such as Brian Cox, who isn't a believer. I think I'm going to go with the 90% who don't believe over the 10% who do. Polonium Halos, as researched by Robert Gentry, was refuted.. Sorry to burst your evidence bubble. Arguing with people like you is impossible, because you are so narrow minded in your beliefs that its pointless to try and get you to open your eyes. Go get a science education.
rkcraigslist51907 3 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 10%? Did you have fun arbitrarily picking a number that sounds good for your cause?
You'd prefer to go with the majority, because the majority (just like all people) prefer to satisfy their own selfish desires rather than give up their own physical lives for God's purposes. Giving me "10%" doesn't help your cause... it only tells me what I already know - that human beings have rejected God and made themselves their own Gods.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 Polonium Halos weren't refuted at all. Of course that's what the naturalists and atheists are going to tell you, because it's devastating to their agenda, and they like to think that it's been refuted regardless of the facts. Dr Robert Gentry dealt with every single objection that was made against his research and he still stands unrefuted. Sure they've "attempted" to refute him, but with no success.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 What you still fail to realise, is that science isn't even possible without God. Because in order for science to be possible, there are preconditions that first must exist, and under the naturalistic worldview, these crucial presuppositions cannot be accounted for. Your brain/memory/senses cannot be considered reliable, you can't account for Laws of Logic, and you can't account for the Uniformity of Nature. Without these, it's impossible to prove anything.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 You see but the point that YOU fail to realise is that science does not point to a creator. If todays science about our origins pointed to a creator then scientist would admit it. But they dont. If evidence ever points to a creator, i'll happily accept it. But you can twist it anyway you feel like, the evidence shows no creator needed.. and I dont want a god to live for, I live for myself and my family... Fuck God... If you want to be a sheep you can be... Theres no evidence for god
rkcraigslist51907 2 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 "...is that science does not point to a creator. If todays science about our origins pointed to a creator then scientist would admit it..."
Your statement is nothing but your opinion. It's completely arbitrary. More importantly, what you still don't even get it, science isn't even POSSIBLE without God. So for you to say that "science doesn't point to God" is laughable.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@rkcraigslist51907 You're trying to argue using something that doesn't even exist within your own position. You're like a critic of air saying "You don't need air to breathe... I mean look at me, I don't even believe in air, and I can breathe just fine."
ANY argument you use trying to use "science" in any way is irrational and already refuted unless God exists. And no - scientists won't admit it... because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 I love this conversation with you I really do. If you feel so passionatly about this subject of science "needing" God then get out there and prove everyone wrong.
rkcraigslist51907 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkcraigslist51907 And if you're going to say "well we know things will be uniform because it always been in the past". No, it hasn't. If you believe in the Big Bang, then no they cannot have been. Secondly, the past is irrelevant to the future unless you already knew the future. You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove... which is called "circular reasoning". Not all circular reasoning is wrong, but in this instance it is. It's a vicious circle.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkcraigslist51907 That was just uniformity... then there are Laws of Logic. These are also required in order for humans to be intelligible. What are Laws of Logic anyway? Laws of Logic are universal, immaterial, invariant abstract entities that govern all possible conceptual relationships.
They're universal because they apply everywhere... it's not like in certain locations contradictions can be true.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkcraigslist51907 They're immaterial... they don't exist in any physical place. This means that the naturalist has a problem - Laws of Logic, is not a part of nature. You can't find or look at a Law of Logic. They transcend the natural universe. So the atheist is trying to use something that doesn't even exist within his own position.They're invariant - meaning that they don't change with time. Y'know what else? Laws of Logic are eternal. Another reason why they transcend the natural universe.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rkcraigslist51907 And lastly - in the naturalistic evolutionary worldview, human beings are nothing more than chemical accidents. There was no will or intention involved in their rise. So if you're brain, your senses, and your memory are just the result of accidental random chance processes - why on earth would they be considered reliable? They wouldn't.
Now, ALL of these presuppositions have to exist for humans to be intelligible. Atheists cannot account for ANY of them.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 You may need God in your life but I certaintly don't, nor do I want him in my life. You saying science needs God is your opinion also. We both have different opinons,and thats a beautiful
rkcraigslist51907 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 There's no scientific evidence for a god; therefore, science is possible without a god.
Rookerfy 2 days ago
@Rookerfy worse is their is no theological evidence for a god to be honest
hypnotiq171 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 Also, typing that science isn't possible without God, rest on the argument from silence since there's silence in providing evidence for the argument.
Rookerfy 2 days ago
@Rookerfy What on earth are you talking about? Learn to speak coherently, please. You're not making any sense.
Science is not possible without God. Would you like me to explain why?
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 You, ma'am, sound dumb. How can someone talk through a typed comment?
"Science is not possible without God. Would you like me to explain why?"
Good luck with that.
Rookerfy 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 What's embarrassing is you mentioning someone's comments are opinions, when your comments are opinions.
Rookerfy 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 Hey, delusional kid, you have yet to provide evidence on why science isn't possible without the Hebrew god, and evidence for the existence of that god.
Rookerfy 2 days ago
@Rookerfy If you guys had actually bothered to read what I've already written, you would know why science isn't possible without God. So let me just copy and paste it for you
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 You'd get laughed out of a science convention, saying that science isn't possible without a god.
Rookerfy 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rookerfy What you still fail to realise, is that science isn't even possible without God. Because in order for science to be possible, there are preconditions that first must exist, and under the naturalistic worldview, these crucial presuppositions cannot be accounted for. Your brain/memory/senses cannot be considered reliable, you can't account for Laws of Logic, and you can't account for the Uniformity of Nature. Without these, it's impossible to prove anything.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Rookerfy I can account for those crucial presuppositions, as a Christian. God has promised us back in Genesis that there would be uniformity. Science studies predictability. You perform a number of experiments under the same conditions... you expect to get the same result. If you didn't, you would assume that something changed in the experiment. The natural laws of the universe must stay the same in order to stay the same. Uniformity of Nature must exist.... but there's a problem.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Rookerfy Why on earth would you have uniformity of nature, in a random chance universe? You assume uniformity in practice, but you have no basis for it in principle. If you cannot account for uniformity of nature, you cannot prove anything. The same goes for all these scientists. Yes - science is possible... because God exists. You don't need to believe in God in order for science to be possible, but you do need God in order for science to be possible.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Rookerfy And if you're going to say "well we know things will be uniform because it always been in the past". No, it hasn't. If you believe in the Big Bang, then no they cannot have been. Secondly, the past is irrelevant to the future unless you already knew the future. You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove... which is called "circular reasoning". Not all circular reasoning is wrong, but in this instance it is. It's a vicious circle.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Rookerfy That was just uniformity... then there are Laws of Logic. These are also required in order for humans to be intelligible. What are Laws of Logic anyway? Laws of Logic are universal, immaterial, invariant abstract entities that govern all possible conceptual relationships.
They're universal because they apply everywhere... it's not like in certain locations contradictions can be true.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Rookerfy They're immaterial... they don't exist in any physical place. This means that the naturalist has a problem - Laws of Logic, is not a part of nature. You can't find or look at a Law of Logic. They transcend the natural universe. So the atheist is trying to use something that doesn't even exist within his own position.
They're invariant - meaning that they don't change with time. Y'know what else? Laws of Logic are eternal. Another reason why they transcend the natural universe.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Rookerfy And lastly - in the naturalistic evolutionary worldview, human beings are nothing more than chemical accidents. There was no will or intention involved in their rise. So if you're brain, your senses, and your memory are just the result of accidental random chance processes - why on earth would they be considered reliable? They wouldn't.
Now, ALL of these presuppositions have to exist for humans to be intelligible. Atheists cannot account for ANY of them.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rookerfy If you cannot satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility for humans reasoning and experiences, it's impossible for you to prove anything at all. You MUST account for Laws of Logic, human intelligibility, and Uniformity of Nature.
If you cannot do this?... you've already lost. And I already know that there is no possible way for you to account for them. You have already lost, and I urge you to start being intellectually honest and realise that God exists and read the Bible.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Rookerfy You're right - I would get laughed out of a science convention. You know why? Because MOST people - not just scientists, are against God. Narrow is the path to eternal life, and wide is the road to destruction. MOST people are selfish, and seek to satisfy their selfish, evil desires. What do people make their lives about? Themselves. Money, sex, drugs, cars, houses.... Guess what? They will die some day. Everyone dies. Their lives are meaningless.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 You demographics are wrong. Atheists/science are constantly persecuted, and the vast majority of the world is religious (especially in America)
Blurtex33 2 days ago
@Blurtex33 My demographics are perfect. I never said that atheists don't get persecuted. This probably happens in islamic countries reasonably often.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Blurtex33 I didn't say that there were more atheists than theists/agnostics/whatever. What I DID say is that the vast majority of people are not Christians.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Blurtex33 This is without a doubt true. The Bible says that "by their fruits you will know them". America is a not a Christian nation.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Blurtex33 The Bible gives the definition of a "Christian", not people & their opinions. Many like to "think" they're Christians without even knowing the first thing about Christianity
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 Yeah so you know, live it to the fullest. If you live your life enslaved to your God, you'll never enjoy the one shot you have at life.
Moosinat0r 2 days ago
@Moosinat0r Enslaved to God? What's wrong with doing the right thing? And never "enjoy the one shot"? Who said this is the only life we get? Secondly, you'll die anyway.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 Who says it isn't the only life we get? I have no reason to believe that when I die I'll be coming back. And what's doing the right thing? Stoning your children, condemning others?
Moosinat0r 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 I'm a good person, I like to think so. I'm charitable, I donate my time to CSH and other organizations instead of trying to profit, I'm respectful and I do so without God's moral compass.
Moosinat0r 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 And of course I'm going to die. And you should have said, "Thirdly," it was your third point. We're all going to die so I'm going to enjoy life and love and hate based on my own values.
Moosinat0r 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daracon1010 You = deluded.
Rookerfy 2 days ago
Comment removed
rkcraigslist51907 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 Nothing you have said has made any sense what so ever and still does not convince me of a deity. I'm done arguing with you because it’s getting nowhere. And saying I've "lost" is completely childish... grow up. If you want to make people believe that there is a fucked up dictator God in the sky you're going to need an actual science background. And i encourage more people to read the bible because we need more atheists in the world... Good luck and best wishes =)
rkcraigslist51907 2 days ago
@Daracon1010 And atheists are actually the most persecuted group. At least here in America at least. try to to run for any kind of office and be outed as a non-believer, it's worse than saying your a white supremacist. The idea of God is a romantic one, people around the world see that. When your religious, people find it difficult to bust your chops on most matters, but atheism is one of defiance, it puts up a strong front, and we are portrayed as a people begging for chastisement.
Moosinat0r 2 days ago
@Rookerfy Every single person on the planet has rebelled against God. Everyone has sinned.... Including me. I realise this, and I realise that I am in need of saving. That's what Jesus Christ came to earth for. God did for us, what we could not. He became a man and lived a perfect life... he never sinned, and accomplished what he needed to accomplish. Taking the sins of the world onto himself, so that we may be set free from sin and have eternal life.
Daracon1010 2 days ago
@MELegion1 If people are teaching rubbish then they should be stopped. Your staggering ignorance shown here proves that.
The universe did go through a period of FTL expansion (Inflationary Theory, read up on it). The BB & Evolution both have an enormous amount of evidence proving them, even if you are too stupid to understand it.
I'd explain more, but given that you are clearly barely literate, I doubt you'd understand so it would be a waste of time. Get back to school.
Ellie8969 4 days ago
@Ellie8969 barely literate??? look at my comment and you will see that there was no room left and i had to shorten my words up you arrogant piece of sh**. do you really think that we have figured it out in just 70 years of proper astronomy. you would have to be stupid to say that there is no scientific evidence against the bb because there simply is. i know there's a lot of problems with the young earth theory but i personally prefer it. you have to be open minded a respect
MELegion1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MELegion1 "i know there's a lot of problems with the young earth theory"
Now there's the understatement of the century.
Problems?!?!
Yeah, one big problem is ofc the facts.
anonymousSWE 4 days ago
@MELegion1 The only way you could possibly be OK with the Young Earth myth* is if you have never heard of isotope decay and radio astronomy before. The mountain of physical evidence stacked up against young Earth nonsense is simply staggering.
*It's not a theory, a theory must observe a phenomena, hypothesise, test, and be peer reviewed. Starting with a conclusion and wedging in the odd superficially supporting factoid is just made up bullshit.
aidanjt 4 days ago
@MELegion1 You only "have" to die. That's all you "have" to do. As far as "having" to respect someone, I find your obvious ignorance of what respect is. It is defined as a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. Now for your open minded comment. I want to make sure you understand open minded: Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. This does not mean you are to accept their ideas as reality. also...
csbarnett1975 4 days ago
@MELegion1 ...I think you mean Broad minded, because you mention respect, here is the definition for you: inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own. Respect has to be earned.
csbarnett1975 4 days ago
@Ellie8969 other peoples opinions. thats why i hate atheists and Christians because you think you are better than other people. the one think is better about Christians is that they wouldn't force you to believe something.
MELegion1 4 days ago
Laws of Logic and the Uniformity of Nature are two crucial presuppositions that must exist to satisfy the preconditions of the intelligibility of man's reasoning and experiences.
If you can't account for them, then it's literally impossible to prove anything. Atheists, cannot account for these two presuppositions. They have never and they never will.
Richard Dawkins is a fool who tries so hard to deny the obviously existing creator. He will have to account for his actions one day.
Daracon1010 5 days ago
@Daracon1010 When religious people decide to stop with the bullshit myths and get real scientific evidence for their beliefs, Richard Dawkins will change his way of thinking... But there is in fact NO evidence for it... so it's still bullshit.
rkcraigslist51907 4 days ago
@Daracon1010 What do you mean "account for them"? Every experience any human has ever had confirms the uniformity of nature which provides ample jusification for us to launch science from. And science so clearly works.
And, how very typical - end with a threat, eh? Are we supposed to care what you think your fictitious god will do to us in a fictitious place. Do grow up.
Ellie8969 4 days ago
@Ellie8969 Accounting for something means that you're able justify it's existence. What naturalists do is, they'll assume something in practice, but they have absolutely no basis for it in principle.
Actually you're wrong - human experience cannot confirm the uniformity of nature, because in order to confirm it you have to first assume the very thing you're trying to prove. What you gave me is circular reasoning. The fact that science works only proves that God exists.
Daracon1010 4 days ago
@Ellie8969 Let me give you an example of a naturalist assuming something in practice but having no basis for it in principle. Take morality. An atheist will try to use a "moral" argument against the Bible, but in reality, they have to assume that the Bible is true in order to argue against it. If the Bible is true, then yes - murder is immoral. But if naturalism is true, why would murder be wrong? After all, human beings are nothing but chemical accidents in the naturalists worldview.
Daracon1010 4 days ago
@Ellie8969 So in the naturalistic worldview, murder is nothing more than one chemical accident getting rid of another chemical accident. Humans have no innate dignity. They're just accidental biological blobs that spawned originally from bacteria. Murder would intrinsically be the same as cleaning your bench with antibacterial products.
The fact that atheists inherently know that murder is wrong only proves that the Bible is true. I ended with a threat? What are you talking about?
Daracon1010 4 days ago
@Ellie8969 I can assure you, God is very real. And you WILL have to give an account to him one day. You deny his existence so that you can live your life the way you want.
Daracon1010 4 days ago
@Daracon1010 You can "assure" me whatever you want - but without evidence, you just sound like a brainwashed nutter. Evolution and the BB are facts. They are accepted as such by virtually every scientist on earth. If you wish to refute the overwhelming & irrefutable evidence proving them then you'll need something rather better than your own ignorance I'm afraid. It's sad that there are still people like you in 2012, it really is. You are completely lost in your delusion, aren't you?
Ellie8969 4 days ago
@Ellie8969 SAYS="BB are facts "
------------
Really?
Science shows the BB theory fails.
Did you ever here the scienetific fact that( MATTER can not create itself=matter can not be created from nothing.)
If the BB is true ,then prove where it started and from what it started.
Where did the matter and enegery that caused the BB come from?
ekajeht 3 days ago
@ekajeht i'm completely agnostic, but you did a good point, in science theory there is not an explanation for all. BB and universe's expansion can't cohexist, that's why they want to impute everything to the dark matter. but that's also why science it's made to be honest, and must be discussed
woshushe 3 days ago
@woshushe
No, an expanding universe was observed well before Big Bang theory was developed. Fred Hoyle had the competing Steady State Theory.
The find of 3K background radiation confirmed the BBT.
What's been discovered recently is that the universe's expansion is _accelerating_. Dark energy (not dark matter) is used to explain this problem.
MadHighway 3 days ago
darkmatter dark energy darkflow it makes little diffrence as nether one can be scientificly proven to exist and if indeed the bbt was verified then surely it would
no longer be refered as bbt !
crazydj59 2 days ago