Wow. This is just childish. You attacked a single claim made by one atheist, with the only ridicule of it being that you find it ludicrous, and tried to present it as a flaw with atheism. When he said that, he was speaking hypothetically; he does not believe that is true, but it is much more likely then the christian god. At least what he presents is possible. Even if he was wrong, that does nothing against the atheist position. You have still given no evidence for god.
Is this a parody, because if it's not, it IS more plausible that an alien race or a god created us through natural means than an alien race or a god through paranormal means.
Dawkins stated that if human kind was engineered by some alien space-traveling civilization, we would certainly be able to find their signature. But we haven't!
@TroyIII " But we haven't! And that's final." LOL - thats final huh? By your logic we should abandon evolution because we haven't learned how life began (scientifically) and thats final. The whole joy of science is it can change its mind on everything with one discovery. There is no real 'thats final' in science, so don't dismiss intelligent design so quickly. You could discount the weight of it as a theory, but you can't dismiss it with out proof of evolution, which we still dont really have.
Therefore, even religion and most religious conservative mindsets obey the same Law Of Evolution.
Just have a look at you SC or ID creationists. You are both a living proof of Evolution.
Not only that religious specimen evolved in direct accordance with The Law Of Evolution, but you've also split into two similar but different species regarding the same Law of Nature. The EVOLUTION and this is final too.
@TroyIII :) time will tell... I believe in evolution as far as society goes - and I understand things change over time - the ozone could be seen as evolving in a reaction to our presence here on earth etc etc... but I do not believe species evolve in the grand fashion of one species becoming another.
@christoferL@christoferL The quantity of ozone in atmosphere has no logical connection with evolution. Bronze age ideas cant keep up with our scientific knowledge. Religion is starting to mutate, and it might evolve into a new kind of a beast. [a new specie out of another].
In a difficult environment; affected cells start to reorganize until they reach a balance. Simil.,a specie becomes what it does! Dolphins became better swimmers than sharks. Guess why they will never evolve gills.
@christoferL Me too. That's a major factor. But in one word, we could say "Necessity". Dolphins will most probably never develop gills. Breathing once in up to 1h is more than sufficient to them. Between two breaths, a talented dolphin is capable of hunting over 12kg of fish. That tops the portion they need in a day. This level of evolutionary (professional) perfection buys them a lot of time to play and socialize, making them even more intelligent and happy. Best regards, and stay happy.
@christoferL The response to the environment isn't a conscious, active response. Either a particular mutation allows organisms with it to be more likely to survive and mate, inhibits and organisms likelihood to survive and mate, or provides no significant benefit or detriment. Non-human organisms will not think, "I have a mutation which is a detriment to my/my species' survival and/or likelihood to mate, so I'll choose not to try to create offspring". Humans negate the problem with condom use.
Nope, we say both Space seeding and God Creation are EQUALLY of incredibly incredibly low probability, the god thing being even lower probability.
Even if god-creation in even the tiniest and earliest step is remotely plausible, there is still no getting around how what the REST of Genesis says is not only implausible but impossible.
Maybe the teachings of Christianity should not be taken so literally or prescriptively, but see God as a philosophical concept such a personification of conscience
The funniest thing about how much this video fails is that not only does Richard Dawkins not believe that humans came from space (he was trying to accomodate for Stein's coaching) but the actual explanation he was using was one he heard from William Dembski when Dembski was trying to distance ID from christianity by asserting the designer could well be aliens
this is an ID absurdity and is not a view endorsed by Richard Dawkins.
Firstly you are demonstrably lying about Dawkin's views.
Secondly ProfMTH is able to intellectually and honestly defend his criticism of the various fables, lyrics and letters you regard as sacred. You however operate from that aforementioned bias (and make a bit of money off it on the side through text-a-prayer lol).
@ProcInc Please - go cry somewhere else, ok? By the way - I MAKE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OFF OF TEXT A PRAYER... it is 100% free for all parties involved, no strings attached.
@christoferL I very much find that hard to believe. I'm also interested as to where those texts go (cos it sure aint heaven lol).
But anyway apologies for going off topic. How do you justify lying like this? Isn't there some kind of a passage you regard as a commandment that says something about bearing false witness?
@ProcInc The txt service is from an ipod app called TEXTFREE. They give me a number free of charge and send the texts to me on my ipod. All I have to do is deal with banner ads in the window. Once I receive the text - I pray.
As for justification, please tell me - isn't the bulk of the script isn't based directly from the interview between Stein and Dawkins? This is a spoof of Profmth's series and is listed as comedy. Who is thinking this is even serious?
@christoferL So basically you are reserving yourself with the right to read in on people's private texts? Ah, that is FAR more scrupulous than making money off of it.
And pray tell how much more effective is a prayer from you than a prayer directly from them without the use of smartphone tech?
Who is thinking this is even serious? Creationists are so easily mislead they honestly think Dawkins endorses alien designers, this poorly made video would reinforce that err
@ProcInc "So basically you are reserving yourself with the right to read in on people's private texts?" what do you mean? If someone needs prayer - they send me a txt and I pray for them... I dont get anything but their number (which I do not record) and their message.
Prayer from me is just one more voice crying out to God on a situation...
and if Dawkins fanz are so worried about it, maybe they should tell him not to say the kinds of things he did in the Stein movie?
@christoferL If someone needs a prayer? What does that even mean? Prayers don't do anything. Seinding a stranger your number and a personal detail about your life so they can get on their knees and talk to the ceiling defines a frivoulous exercise.
And by not say the tings he said you mean completely ignore the question that was carefully staged to milk a specific answer? Would that be better?
Perhaps they should simply tell Stein and Mathis not be so deliberately dishonest?
@ProcInc "If someone needs a prayer? What does that even mean?" ok - example - you're driving along and witness a horrible accident. u get out - help all u can, and once the emergency crews show up - u want to pray and have others pray for the victims u can txt us to pray with you... u say prayer doesn't work - but I pray daily and can tell u, it does work. Praying to milk is a funny atheist experiment - but they don't get it - and the experiment fails to include the Lord.
@christoferL INdeed they were, very dishonest. As a sidenote it is impossible to defend creationism honestly.How can you defend their honesty when you know that they emailed Dawkins telling him the movie was called "Crossroads" and about the overlap of science and religion rather than ID propaganda?
Can you give any evidence whatsoever for the efficacy of prayer that is in the slightest way as compelling as the multiple tests that have shown prayer to have no effect?
@christoferL You mean to tell me no ill has befallen you life or family that has not been undone by prayer? Well I hope you appreciate that prayer MAY work for you, but billions of people have prayed all over the world as they die young from disease, disaster, war and genocide only nothing saved them.
We all hear stories of people who say "I was dying but I prayed and survived" well you never hear from the ones that prayed and died... they never lived to tell about it!
@Treblaine Prayer working isn't what you might expect... God is not a genie... "you never hear from the ones that prayed and died... they never lived to tell about it!" I expect I will hear from them in the presence of the Lord...
@christoferL I used to pray earnestly as a child and I never felt or perceived any higher power, neither did any of my friends.
Also, how does merely feeling the presence of a higher power confirm to you how many people have prayed in vain. If it did wouldn't that shake your confidence at least in the utility of prayer?
I invite everyone to now look at the actual interview (in full) in this abhorance they call a film. Where Richard Dawkins was bending over backwards to accommodate ben stien. Christoferl, you have banged on about 'out of context' before. Now it is you who is presenting this completely out of context! You are intentionally misleading everyone who has not seen the actual segment from this film. I use the word 'film' very loosely!
You cannot compare the them This video is intentionally misleading & lying. Whereas, 'Bible blunders' is simply stating the irrefutable truth regarding the contradictions / errors in the bible.
@freetheworldof You're wrong - Bible Blunders is as full of deception as anything out there - you're just agreeable to it because it suits your world view.
@christoferL I am sorry to have to tell you, that the video series presents facts. If you wish to debate that I would suggest you got to the video series and leave comments on them.
@freetheworldof don't be sorry - I did comment on them - and made videos refuting them - the fact is - Profmth has zero integrity when it comes to 'Bible' study.
@freetheworldof I've already stated why - lol - Bible Blunders is anything but honest - and when presented with real explanations on the matters - mth turns a blind eye...
@christoferL Creationists always have to resort to lying & misrepresention, because there is not one single piece of evidence for creation & therefore no basis for any form of rational debate. And if lying and misrepresentaion fails, they normally launch into some form of verbal abuse with those who refute their claim.
@freetheworldof lol - yeah - and evolutionists have NEVER lied... should we take a walk down the truthfulness of the claims made by evolutionists over the years?
I figure Dawkins was being sarcastic. His made up example was as good as any.
If there was an Intelligent Designer, why would it be the Judeo-Christian god? Why not any other god or nonsense you could imagine? If you're going to just make up a reason we're here, why settle for the scientific absurdities of the bible?
Maybe the aliens had a simpler biology, and created an irreducibly complex biology(although irreducible complexity is unproven).
This would be an example of quote mining, Dawkins suffers from that a lot unfortunately as Christians tend to be lying obnoxious bigots toward those that don't accept their Nazarene cult.
I don't get the joke, you show that dawkins thinks god is probably not responsible for our existence. Then try to cover up the fact that dawkins also thinks that intelligent design is probably not responsible for our existence by making dawkins look like he thinks aliens creating us is more valid then god. Even though that isn't the case, this is uncannily similar to a strawman and you only make yourself look like an idiot.
@socrstreets I was playing on his consideration that alien life possibly could've had a role in our creation... when you think about it - God is not human therefore He would technically be an alien by our standards... it all seemed funnier to me when I first put it together than it seems at this moment - but oh well - thats YT for u.
Granting your semantics about god it doesn't seem to undermine the point dawkins made. He's saying that assuming the intelligent design argument, different things can fit in as the "intelligent designer". That God isn't a necessary conclusion to it, and their's no reason to believe in god based on that argument. In fact to do so is special pleading and shows favoritism. Unfortunately, your explanation has only made this video make less sense to me.
@socrstreets "He's saying that assuming the intelligent design argument, different things can fit in as the "intelligent designer"." yeah - different things - anything - other than God... despite centuries and centuries of belief - it couldn't possibly be God could it - wait - Dawkins admits it could be God too - but estimates the odds of being less than zero... ug.
Saying that people have believed in god for a long time does nothing to further prove that he exists. Also i never heard dawkins say that the chances of god existing is below zero. If he did then I think you could call him out on making contradictions. Such as admitting it's possible yet saying there's zero chance. Could you give me citations of him saying that though?
@socrstreets forgive me if I sound a bit odd to you, but there are just somethings you always know... the sun will rise... as will the moon... you will wake up every morning until you die... and God is here and He is there.
I would have to disagree with you on those points, at least in my case. I don't know that the sun will rise or the moon or that i will wake up from sleeping. Those are things that I would expect to happen,(or are what they really are) it's still possible that they won't. In fact I think that to say it isn't possible for those things to not happen only shows the poverty of your imagination and affinity to dogmatism.
@socrstreets oh - it surely is possible, yet everyday of your life thus far - have you not woken up? Has the sun not risen? Has the moon not been up there somewhere? If ever a day comes when any of those things can't happen (the sun or moon are gone or u die) then I am certain God will be as obvious as the sun, moon, or your waking breath in the mornings.
You're saying that god will be obvious if the sun is gone? I'm sorry I don't see the connection between that? Also I do think that it's more likely that sun will rise tomorrow than it dissappearing, but it does nothing to eliminate the possibility of it disappearing. So in turn I cannot say that I know the sun will rise again, that's the point that I was making.
@socrstreets Remember my belief my friend... if the world ends here - its starting over there... if there is no sun then its because God has ended it's existence. At that point - His light will light all things, and His glory will be obvious to all... what would you expect to have happen if the sun somehow stopped burning tomorrow... you might think you'd simply find death - but I think we'd meet God - one world to its maker... Amen?
Well if we die because the sun dissappeared, and if your belief is true, then of course, god will be obvious to me at that point. Yet at this point I don't know that it's true, so god isn't a necessary conclusion to the sun disappearing. So what was the point of this response to the point I made about not being able to know that the sun will rise? Or to dawkins point, it seems to be a digression to me. Saying that you believe something doesn't further prove it.
@socrstreets true - I have to say to you - this has been one of the more pleasant and intelligent conversations I've had on YT in a while... thank you!
Technically we did come from space. The chemicals used in chemistry and compose our bodies and brains came from exploded suns. Thats high school level science. The possibility of life on earth being designed by other intelligent beings is there, but very unlikely. Either way Dawkins was not saying this is the case, only that is is possible because it doesn't appeal to the supernatural.
@kyledavidbyron There was a time men thought the earth was flat - and though there was a possibility that you wouldn't fall off the edge, it was very unlikely... man thinks a lot of things are unlikely until they realize -- thats exactly the case...
I'm not here to debate Christianity but I might defend Atheism or fix some theological mistakes here and there.
I find both the God and alien hypothesis are probably equal in possibility. Dawkins stated that alien nonsense as a joke. I doubt he would hop into a such a fallacy so easily and he seems like an honest and earnest chap.
In any case, the civilization of alien gods would be infinitely less complex than God, thus slightly more likely. Not defending the idea, just saying.
actually that event would have been more probable then the sky fairy.(however both are still so unlikely that neither should be believed.) It sounds more like a joke from Dawkens making fun of creationists.(Like using the flying spaghetti monster)
Well the truth is that the event he described is more likely then the god did it argument. Th point still is that though he stated the theory seriously, he doesn't actually believe it. He wanted Ben Stein to try counter that argument. (I have done the same thing with the flying spaghetti monster, and a few people have questioned if I actually believed what I was saying)
Sadly neither funny nor honest.... you'd think that if someone was going to quote mine and then redo the voices anyway, they might have at least made it funny.
Instead fo making stupid, pointless, unfunny videos about RD, why don't you spend more time proving the case for creationism and I.D. Also, have a look at the revues for Steins film, which contains the same level of convincing argument as your video.
Huruhra - lol - this new series is in response to the Brief Bible Blunder series, and it takes the same ignorant approach to the things that it highlights. I don't have to prove anything, I don't care if RD or anyone else believes in creationism... as far as I am concerned - the atheist community closes its eye to the truth - and my goal is simply to poke some fun at them for it. I hope you'll be around for episode 2 - coming soon! :) GBU
In this case, atheists and theists alike are guilty of the same offense. They both produce an amazingly large number of stupid youtube videos. This being one of them.
Actually, my point was that it wasn't funny. I'm all for open debate, but videos labeled 'comedy' could at least have the decency to be funny. Don't you think?
Venom - well... I understand - people have different senses of humor - I didn't think hitting a deer with a car was very funny either... though the xbox achievement was clever... different strokes for different strokes I guess.
Fair point, but I didn't [or at least didn't mean] to imply that everything should be equally funny. I understand that funny means something diff to everybody, [after all, Dane Cook is still around] nor would i want to be "the arbiter of what is funny." That said, I am at a bit of a loss trying to identify what part of this video was humorous... perhaps its just me. And finally, there is a comments section for a reason... comments. Whining or no. But while we are still on comedy: "Destruct!"
Well, in 1990 most mathematicians had no evidence that a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem existed. In fact one did exist and was found a few years later. However, mathematicians, unlike many evolutionists, do not equate unawareness of evidence of existence, with evidence of nonexistence.
Nice try getting off the hook. You said, "there is no evidence of a designer." Either you were just babbling, or you believe that "there is no evidence of a designer" is a scientifically/logically meaningful statement. So either admit you were babbling nonsense, or explain how one can meaningfully say "there is no evidence of a designer."
Here, let me help you. You might factually say "no evidence of a designer has been found." If you say that, I can reasonably ask, what would the characteristics of such evidence be? How could evidence of a designer be recognized as such?
Simply put - men decided so-called evidence didn't support creation - and as intelligent design is brought forth - most are like - no no no way... lol - ok - sure...
the unique thing about hoaxes and science is that atheists act as if science is never wrong - and when it is - they brag about how they made it right - but whose to say they are 'right'? Scientists? Two wrongs wouldn't make it right - thats for sure.
"DNA exists, there is no evidence of a designer, so we can say that DNA does not require a designer."
I would LOVE to know the scientific process by which one could demonstrate that there is no evidence of a designer.
How does one conclude that "there is no evidence of a designer"? Is it because we don't find the Greek letters Alpha and Omega inscribed among the molecules of the DNA strand?
when I use science in that context I am referring to a community of people, not 'science' itself... to be more accurate? that happens over time... to be more credible however, it should not dismiss believers as lesser beings (See Dawkins mocking creationists comparing them to Stork believers to see what I mean)
caff - Whats the point - Christian scientists have tried and are black balled out of the community... in time - I am sure it WILL happen - but that isn't my place or calling.
The bad part is that until it was thoroughly debunked - the uneducated used it to propagate a theory that led everyone down a the wrong road - IMO... its like if I tell you I am making a great movie - and get you to invest - and I tell you the movie will take 10 yrs to produce... I can fool you for quite a while before you figure out I am scamming you- take your $ - and waste your time...
"Can science be wrong? Oh my yes. Can scientists lie? Oh yes. Does the scientific process offer our best way of exposing these two problems? Yes." - I agree on all three points here - but that doesn't mean science WILL NOT lie and it doesn't mean it WILL expose itself.
deception implies motive... and yes - I do believe there are some deliberately deceiving people in order to maintain their theories - believing that eventually - their theories will truly be proven...
caff - nooo - new tech is good - but yesteryears microscope can't debunk what todays can, and the future will have greater abilities that will expose any frauds prevalent today that we don't yet know about... there is also a difference between error and fraud. I do believe we will find there is much fraud in science today... despite the thoughtful peer reviews. Seriously.
"I've said several times that science does not claim truth" You say that, but in the heat of debate, you are surely don't sound like you're presenting theories, possibilities, or even likelihoods, but instead - you sound like you believe you stand on a bedrock of facts.
"Again, you show why science is useful. Yes it takes time to weed out bad ideas, that is because there is no science council declaring what is truth or not, that is not how science works." - religion really isn't that much different... but there are science councils, just as there are religious ones... groups that determine whether or not this or that is to be accepted... science disproves itself, but in the time it takes to do it, it deceives.
"And yet scientists were skeptical as soon as piltdown man was announced. From the very beginning scientists had doubts about it's accuracy." 1912 to 1915... thats as soon as?
"technology like high resolution imaging, XRays, high speed networks were not available. " - there's always a newer better tech down the road - creating gaps for crafty people to exploit.
Caff - of course I don't... but when you comment - you comment as if science is always truth - despite your arguments otherwise... the focus on pointing out this garbage about science is it can happen - it has happened - and it will happen again... so I ask again, how is that global warming and melting ice cap thing working out?
Piltdown was excepted by the majority of scientists at the time... starting in 1912 - was first debunked in 1915 - but it remained a fixture in science until 1953... as science gets more and more complicated... it will become more and more difficult to discover these frauds... and its likely some of your most beloved beliefs are based on fraud, but how would you know? U don't examine what they say, you take it as fact - trusting these 'peers' have done their work and not been scammed themselves.
Caff - yeah - like I said - people are people... that doesn't changed the fact that science (as a group, not as a concept) has mislead the population before (and they surely will again).
Caff - Great answer - except you sound just like a Christian who argues against the falsehoods added to the religion... hmmmm... could it be people are people and that you have decided that science will NOT lie despite a peppered past? Don't tell me conspiracies can't/won't/ don't happen in science - lol
Caff - ohhh - you're right - because science has ALWAYS been known to be honest with us concerning evolution! From Haeckel's work of ART to the Piltdown man! Its completely baseless to even suggest that science might hide any facts that would challenge their ridiculous claims... what was I thinking? Anyone seen the Nebraska Man lately?
@CaffeinatedThinking Very well put.... there has never even been a shred of evidence that has shook the evolutionary theory despite 200 yrs of dedicated attempts to do so. In fact all the evidence that has been gathered falls brilliantly were you would expect if evolution were fact.
Any reel evidence that even remotely disproves evolution would defiantly be inline for a Nobel prize. though I seriously doubt it will ever happen.
"Any reel evidence that even remotely disproves evolution would defiantly be inline for a Nobel prize. though I seriously doubt it will ever happen." - yeah - isn't it like that
global warming and melting ice cap thing? Evolutionist scientists will ultimately bury any evidence opposing evolution... gotta love the power of 'peer review'... I see it all the time in Christian theology arguments... that wolf pack mentality... yes sir - I doubt it will ever happen too.
"Indeed and what is the most reasonable explanation? #1 obviously."
Bullshit. YOU may think #1 is most reasonable, but it is obvious that not everyone agrees with you. There is no objective measure of "reasonableness" of a theory, so you are just blowing smoke.
I don't have to prove evolution is not correct. All I have to do is point out hard evidence that evolution might not be in accord with. You breezily wave away my questions about missing fossils as though they don't matter. They do. The missing fossils may, as you say, be due to fossils being "rarely found." Or they may be missing because the transitional species never existed in the first place. It is up to the evolutionists to explain why their theory should get the benefit of the doubt.
@CaffeinatedThinker: "Again, should you open some text books I think you will find a better understanding of evolution as well as the lack of evidence for any kind of designer.'
Those same textbooks will tell YOU that evolution is a defective theory that, among other things, cannot explain why the fossil record has huge gaps where the fossils of transitional species ought to be. In other words, a lack of evidence for evolution.
ahahah poor dawkins
christopheergin 7 months ago
Wow. This is just childish. You attacked a single claim made by one atheist, with the only ridicule of it being that you find it ludicrous, and tried to present it as a flaw with atheism. When he said that, he was speaking hypothetically; he does not believe that is true, but it is much more likely then the christian god. At least what he presents is possible. Even if he was wrong, that does nothing against the atheist position. You have still given no evidence for god.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
Is this a parody, because if it's not, it IS more plausible that an alien race or a god created us through natural means than an alien race or a god through paranormal means.
TheCopaceticMan 1 year ago
Dawkins stated that if human kind was engineered by some alien space-traveling civilization, we would certainly be able to find their signature. But we haven't!
And that's final.
TroyIII 1 year ago
@TroyIII " But we haven't! And that's final." LOL - thats final huh? By your logic we should abandon evolution because we haven't learned how life began (scientifically) and thats final. The whole joy of science is it can change its mind on everything with one discovery. There is no real 'thats final' in science, so don't dismiss intelligent design so quickly. You could discount the weight of it as a theory, but you can't dismiss it with out proof of evolution, which we still dont really have.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL Thanks for being so kind sir, but:
The Evolution is a Law Of Nature.
Therefore, even religion and most religious conservative mindsets obey the same Law Of Evolution.
Just have a look at you SC or ID creationists. You are both a living proof of Evolution.
Not only that religious specimen evolved in direct accordance with The Law Of Evolution, but you've also split into two similar but different species regarding the same Law of Nature. The EVOLUTION and this is final too.
TroyIII 1 year ago
@TroyIII :) time will tell... I believe in evolution as far as society goes - and I understand things change over time - the ozone could be seen as evolving in a reaction to our presence here on earth etc etc... but I do not believe species evolve in the grand fashion of one species becoming another.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL @christoferL The quantity of ozone in atmosphere has no logical connection with evolution. Bronze age ideas cant keep up with our scientific knowledge. Religion is starting to mutate, and it might evolve into a new kind of a beast. [a new specie out of another].
In a difficult environment; affected cells start to reorganize until they reach a balance. Simil.,a specie becomes what it does! Dolphins became better swimmers than sharks. Guess why they will never evolve gills.
TroyIII 1 year ago
@TroyIII really? I thought evolution was a form of adaptation - where changes happen in response to environment...
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL Me too. That's a major factor. But in one word, we could say "Necessity". Dolphins will most probably never develop gills. Breathing once in up to 1h is more than sufficient to them. Between two breaths, a talented dolphin is capable of hunting over 12kg of fish. That tops the portion they need in a day. This level of evolutionary (professional) perfection buys them a lot of time to play and socialize, making them even more intelligent and happy. Best regards, and stay happy.
TroyIII 1 year ago
@christoferL The response to the environment isn't a conscious, active response. Either a particular mutation allows organisms with it to be more likely to survive and mate, inhibits and organisms likelihood to survive and mate, or provides no significant benefit or detriment. Non-human organisms will not think, "I have a mutation which is a detriment to my/my species' survival and/or likelihood to mate, so I'll choose not to try to create offspring". Humans negate the problem with condom use.
jjmblue7 1 year ago
God is Santa Claus for adults.
ColoradoMikeyS2 1 year ago
@ColoradoMikeyS2 IS that so? Tell me - have you received your blessings from God?
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL
How can one receive anything from your imaginary friend gawd?
ColoradoMikeyS2 1 year ago
@CartesianTheist LOL - yeah - in this vid I discovered I am not nearly as talented as I want to be...
christoferL 1 year ago
Nope, we say both Space seeding and God Creation are EQUALLY of incredibly incredibly low probability, the god thing being even lower probability.
Even if god-creation in even the tiniest and earliest step is remotely plausible, there is still no getting around how what the REST of Genesis says is not only implausible but impossible.
Maybe the teachings of Christianity should not be taken so literally or prescriptively, but see God as a philosophical concept such a personification of conscience
Treblaine 1 year ago
@Treblaine maybe you don't yet understand - nothing (as in not one thing) is impossible with God...
christoferL 1 year ago
Typical ignorant close minded moronic religious nutjobs.
twistedfool420 1 year ago
The funniest thing about how much this video fails is that not only does Richard Dawkins not believe that humans came from space (he was trying to accomodate for Stein's coaching) but the actual explanation he was using was one he heard from William Dembski when Dembski was trying to distance ID from christianity by asserting the designer could well be aliens
this is an ID absurdity and is not a view endorsed by Richard Dawkins.
You Chris, are a liar
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Its about as absurd as the series this was spoofing - Brief Bible Blunders b y ProfMTH...
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL Its nowhere near as absurd as that.
Firstly you are demonstrably lying about Dawkin's views.
Secondly ProfMTH is able to intellectually and honestly defend his criticism of the various fables, lyrics and letters you regard as sacred. You however operate from that aforementioned bias (and make a bit of money off it on the side through text-a-prayer lol).
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Please - go cry somewhere else, ok? By the way - I MAKE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OFF OF TEXT A PRAYER... it is 100% free for all parties involved, no strings attached.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL I very much find that hard to believe. I'm also interested as to where those texts go (cos it sure aint heaven lol).
But anyway apologies for going off topic. How do you justify lying like this? Isn't there some kind of a passage you regard as a commandment that says something about bearing false witness?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc The txt service is from an ipod app called TEXTFREE. They give me a number free of charge and send the texts to me on my ipod. All I have to do is deal with banner ads in the window. Once I receive the text - I pray.
As for justification, please tell me - isn't the bulk of the script isn't based directly from the interview between Stein and Dawkins? This is a spoof of Profmth's series and is listed as comedy. Who is thinking this is even serious?
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL So basically you are reserving yourself with the right to read in on people's private texts? Ah, that is FAR more scrupulous than making money off of it.
And pray tell how much more effective is a prayer from you than a prayer directly from them without the use of smartphone tech?
Who is thinking this is even serious? Creationists are so easily mislead they honestly think Dawkins endorses alien designers, this poorly made video would reinforce that err
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "So basically you are reserving yourself with the right to read in on people's private texts?" what do you mean? If someone needs prayer - they send me a txt and I pray for them... I dont get anything but their number (which I do not record) and their message.
Prayer from me is just one more voice crying out to God on a situation...
and if Dawkins fanz are so worried about it, maybe they should tell him not to say the kinds of things he did in the Stein movie?
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL If someone needs a prayer? What does that even mean? Prayers don't do anything. Seinding a stranger your number and a personal detail about your life so they can get on their knees and talk to the ceiling defines a frivoulous exercise.
And by not say the tings he said you mean completely ignore the question that was carefully staged to milk a specific answer? Would that be better?
Perhaps they should simply tell Stein and Mathis not be so deliberately dishonest?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc "If someone needs a prayer? What does that even mean?" ok - example - you're driving along and witness a horrible accident. u get out - help all u can, and once the emergency crews show up - u want to pray and have others pray for the victims u can txt us to pray with you... u say prayer doesn't work - but I pray daily and can tell u, it does work. Praying to milk is a funny atheist experiment - but they don't get it - and the experiment fails to include the Lord.
Were they dishonest?
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL INdeed they were, very dishonest. As a sidenote it is impossible to defend creationism honestly.How can you defend their honesty when you know that they emailed Dawkins telling him the movie was called "Crossroads" and about the overlap of science and religion rather than ID propaganda?
Can you give any evidence whatsoever for the efficacy of prayer that is in the slightest way as compelling as the multiple tests that have shown prayer to have no effect?
ProcInc 1 year ago
@christoferL You mean to tell me no ill has befallen you life or family that has not been undone by prayer? Well I hope you appreciate that prayer MAY work for you, but billions of people have prayed all over the world as they die young from disease, disaster, war and genocide only nothing saved them.
We all hear stories of people who say "I was dying but I prayed and survived" well you never hear from the ones that prayed and died... they never lived to tell about it!
Treblaine 1 year ago
@Treblaine Prayer working isn't what you might expect... God is not a genie... "you never hear from the ones that prayed and died... they never lived to tell about it!" I expect I will hear from them in the presence of the Lord...
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL I used to pray earnestly as a child and I never felt or perceived any higher power, neither did any of my friends.
Also, how does merely feeling the presence of a higher power confirm to you how many people have prayed in vain. If it did wouldn't that shake your confidence at least in the utility of prayer?
Treblaine 1 year ago
I invite everyone to now look at the actual interview (in full) in this abhorance they call a film. Where Richard Dawkins was bending over backwards to accommodate ben stien. Christoferl, you have banged on about 'out of context' before. Now it is you who is presenting this completely out of context! You are intentionally misleading everyone who has not seen the actual segment from this film. I use the word 'film' very loosely!
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof funny - I feel the same way about the series this was spoofing, Brief Bible Blunders by ProfMTH
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL
You cannot compare the them This video is intentionally misleading & lying. Whereas, 'Bible blunders' is simply stating the irrefutable truth regarding the contradictions / errors in the bible.
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof You're wrong - Bible Blunders is as full of deception as anything out there - you're just agreeable to it because it suits your world view.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL I am sorry to have to tell you, that the video series presents facts. If you wish to debate that I would suggest you got to the video series and leave comments on them.
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof don't be sorry - I did comment on them - and made videos refuting them - the fact is - Profmth has zero integrity when it comes to 'Bible' study.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL "zero integrity " and your reason for saying this is?
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof I've already stated why - lol - Bible Blunders is anything but honest - and when presented with real explanations on the matters - mth turns a blind eye...
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL Rather than debating bible blunders here (it would be out of context with this video), I may head over to the videos and debate it there.
I also responded below asking for an example of an Evolutionists lie
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@christoferL Creationists always have to resort to lying & misrepresention, because there is not one single piece of evidence for creation & therefore no basis for any form of rational debate. And if lying and misrepresentaion fails, they normally launch into some form of verbal abuse with those who refute their claim.
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof lol - yeah - and evolutionists have NEVER lied... should we take a walk down the truthfulness of the claims made by evolutionists over the years?
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL Please do!
freetheworldof 1 year ago
@freetheworldof I have a video I was working on before on this stuff - I'll pull it up and finish it up and post soon...
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL Even if you have not finished the video, surely you are still able to give one example.
freetheworldof 1 year ago
This video fails.
gamingsoul11 1 year ago
@gamingsoul11 indeed... lol
christoferL 1 year ago
I figure Dawkins was being sarcastic. His made up example was as good as any.
If there was an Intelligent Designer, why would it be the Judeo-Christian god? Why not any other god or nonsense you could imagine? If you're going to just make up a reason we're here, why settle for the scientific absurdities of the bible?
Maybe the aliens had a simpler biology, and created an irreducibly complex biology(although irreducible complexity is unproven).
OptimisticCynic715 1 year ago
This would be an example of quote mining, Dawkins suffers from that a lot unfortunately as Christians tend to be lying obnoxious bigots toward those that don't accept their Nazarene cult.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 1 year ago
@GaiusIuliusTaberna This was my attempt at humor... there's a reason I'm on YT and not network TV ya know - lol.
christoferL 1 year ago
I don't get the joke, you show that dawkins thinks god is probably not responsible for our existence. Then try to cover up the fact that dawkins also thinks that intelligent design is probably not responsible for our existence by making dawkins look like he thinks aliens creating us is more valid then god. Even though that isn't the case, this is uncannily similar to a strawman and you only make yourself look like an idiot.
socrstreets 1 year ago
@socrstreets
Gringosmasher 1 year ago
@Gringosmasher
Exactly.
Gringosmasher 1 year ago
@socrstreets I was playing on his consideration that alien life possibly could've had a role in our creation... when you think about it - God is not human therefore He would technically be an alien by our standards... it all seemed funnier to me when I first put it together than it seems at this moment - but oh well - thats YT for u.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL
Granting your semantics about god it doesn't seem to undermine the point dawkins made. He's saying that assuming the intelligent design argument, different things can fit in as the "intelligent designer". That God isn't a necessary conclusion to it, and their's no reason to believe in god based on that argument. In fact to do so is special pleading and shows favoritism. Unfortunately, your explanation has only made this video make less sense to me.
socrstreets 1 year ago
@socrstreets "He's saying that assuming the intelligent design argument, different things can fit in as the "intelligent designer"." yeah - different things - anything - other than God... despite centuries and centuries of belief - it couldn't possibly be God could it - wait - Dawkins admits it could be God too - but estimates the odds of being less than zero... ug.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL
Saying that people have believed in god for a long time does nothing to further prove that he exists. Also i never heard dawkins say that the chances of god existing is below zero. If he did then I think you could call him out on making contradictions. Such as admitting it's possible yet saying there's zero chance. Could you give me citations of him saying that though?
socrstreets 1 year ago
@socrstreets forgive me if I sound a bit odd to you, but there are just somethings you always know... the sun will rise... as will the moon... you will wake up every morning until you die... and God is here and He is there.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL
I would have to disagree with you on those points, at least in my case. I don't know that the sun will rise or the moon or that i will wake up from sleeping. Those are things that I would expect to happen,(or are what they really are) it's still possible that they won't. In fact I think that to say it isn't possible for those things to not happen only shows the poverty of your imagination and affinity to dogmatism.
socrstreets 1 year ago
@socrstreets oh - it surely is possible, yet everyday of your life thus far - have you not woken up? Has the sun not risen? Has the moon not been up there somewhere? If ever a day comes when any of those things can't happen (the sun or moon are gone or u die) then I am certain God will be as obvious as the sun, moon, or your waking breath in the mornings.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL
You're saying that god will be obvious if the sun is gone? I'm sorry I don't see the connection between that? Also I do think that it's more likely that sun will rise tomorrow than it dissappearing, but it does nothing to eliminate the possibility of it disappearing. So in turn I cannot say that I know the sun will rise again, that's the point that I was making.
socrstreets 1 year ago
@socrstreets Remember my belief my friend... if the world ends here - its starting over there... if there is no sun then its because God has ended it's existence. At that point - His light will light all things, and His glory will be obvious to all... what would you expect to have happen if the sun somehow stopped burning tomorrow... you might think you'd simply find death - but I think we'd meet God - one world to its maker... Amen?
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL
Well if we die because the sun dissappeared, and if your belief is true, then of course, god will be obvious to me at that point. Yet at this point I don't know that it's true, so god isn't a necessary conclusion to the sun disappearing. So what was the point of this response to the point I made about not being able to know that the sun will rise? Or to dawkins point, it seems to be a digression to me. Saying that you believe something doesn't further prove it.
socrstreets 1 year ago
@socrstreets true - I have to say to you - this has been one of the more pleasant and intelligent conversations I've had on YT in a while... thank you!
christoferL 1 year ago
Technically we did come from space. The chemicals used in chemistry and compose our bodies and brains came from exploded suns. Thats high school level science. The possibility of life on earth being designed by other intelligent beings is there, but very unlikely. Either way Dawkins was not saying this is the case, only that is is possible because it doesn't appeal to the supernatural.
kyledavidbyron 1 year ago
@kyledavidbyron There was a time men thought the earth was flat - and though there was a possibility that you wouldn't fall off the edge, it was very unlikely... man thinks a lot of things are unlikely until they realize -- thats exactly the case...
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL No, it's not the case... Because we have a verifiable explanation for life. Evolution. Your analogy fails.
kyledavidbyron 1 year ago
@kyledavidbyron no, we don't have a verifiable explanation.
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL Yes we do
Alexc3217 1 year ago
@kyledavidbyron ...lol.
kyledavidbyron 1 year ago
@kyledavidbyron I agree with you to an extent here... Dawkins was not saying this is the case but that it was a possibility.
christoferL 1 year ago
@swcowboy08 Its ok, Im sure your lord will forgive you despite your self righteous attitude.
manchester26m 1 year ago
@swcowboy08 You spelt 'loser' wrong.
manchester26m 1 year ago
I'm not here to debate Christianity but I might defend Atheism or fix some theological mistakes here and there.
I find both the God and alien hypothesis are probably equal in possibility. Dawkins stated that alien nonsense as a joke. I doubt he would hop into a such a fallacy so easily and he seems like an honest and earnest chap.
In any case, the civilization of alien gods would be infinitely less complex than God, thus slightly more likely. Not defending the idea, just saying.
Gunriffun9mm 1 year ago
What a Quote mining peice of shit.
Horrible video
RhetoricalBullshit 1 year ago
@RhetoricalBullshit Definitely agreed.
Mirror4u2 1 year ago
actually that event would have been more probable then the sky fairy.(however both are still so unlikely that neither should be believed.) It sounds more like a joke from Dawkens making fun of creationists.(Like using the flying spaghetti monster)
TheGunslingr 2 years ago
gun - the clip is on YT - he seems quite serious, and even excited by the possibility - offering up much more than was asked of him.
christoferL 2 years ago
Well the truth is that the event he described is more likely then the god did it argument. Th point still is that though he stated the theory seriously, he doesn't actually believe it. He wanted Ben Stein to try counter that argument. (I have done the same thing with the flying spaghetti monster, and a few people have questioned if I actually believed what I was saying)
TheGunslingr 2 years ago
Sadly neither funny nor honest.... you'd think that if someone was going to quote mine and then redo the voices anyway, they might have at least made it funny.
adamredwine 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
i find Dawkin's lack of faith disturbing
TrannyAcid 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Instead fo making stupid, pointless, unfunny videos about RD, why don't you spend more time proving the case for creationism and I.D. Also, have a look at the revues for Steins film, which contains the same level of convincing argument as your video.
HURUHRA 2 years ago
Huruhra - lol - this new series is in response to the Brief Bible Blunder series, and it takes the same ignorant approach to the things that it highlights. I don't have to prove anything, I don't care if RD or anyone else believes in creationism... as far as I am concerned - the atheist community closes its eye to the truth - and my goal is simply to poke some fun at them for it. I hope you'll be around for episode 2 - coming soon! :) GBU
christoferL 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
In this case, atheists and theists alike are guilty of the same offense. They both produce an amazingly large number of stupid youtube videos. This being one of them.
VenomOXP 2 years ago
VOXP - thats why its labeled 'comedy' - glad you caught it though... thanks!
christoferL 2 years ago
Actually, my point was that it wasn't funny. I'm all for open debate, but videos labeled 'comedy' could at least have the decency to be funny. Don't you think?
VenomOXP 2 years ago
Venom - well... I understand - people have different senses of humor - I didn't think hitting a deer with a car was very funny either... though the xbox achievement was clever... different strokes for different strokes I guess.
christoferL 2 years ago
Haha, point well taken. It is nice to stand corrected from time to time. I suppose I too possess my fair share of stupid and unfunny videos. Cheers.
VenomOXP 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Fair point, but I didn't [or at least didn't mean] to imply that everything should be equally funny. I understand that funny means something diff to everybody, [after all, Dane Cook is still around] nor would i want to be "the arbiter of what is funny." That said, I am at a bit of a loss trying to identify what part of this video was humorous... perhaps its just me. And finally, there is a comments section for a reason... comments. Whining or no. But while we are still on comedy: "Destruct!"
VenomOXP 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Indeed, those would be good indicators of design. Thanks for an enjoyable exchange of views!
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
"I would think there would be some if a designer did exist."
Purely your opinion, not scientifically based, now is it? Not admissible in a debate about the existence of a designer.
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Well, in 1990 most mathematicians had no evidence that a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem existed. In fact one did exist and was found a few years later. However, mathematicians, unlike many evolutionists, do not equate unawareness of evidence of existence, with evidence of nonexistence.
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Nice try getting off the hook. You said, "there is no evidence of a designer." Either you were just babbling, or you believe that "there is no evidence of a designer" is a scientifically/logically meaningful statement. So either admit you were babbling nonsense, or explain how one can meaningfully say "there is no evidence of a designer."
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Here, let me help you. You might factually say "no evidence of a designer has been found." If you say that, I can reasonably ask, what would the characteristics of such evidence be? How could evidence of a designer be recognized as such?
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Caff - its the same reason I am suspicious of organized religion (ie: churches) - i see and agenda
christoferL 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
what the heck does 'esteemed' MEAN? Thats the kind of black balling I was talking about...
christoferL 2 years ago
Simply put - men decided so-called evidence didn't support creation - and as intelligent design is brought forth - most are like - no no no way... lol - ok - sure...
christoferL 2 years ago
"I have no problem mocking creationists. " ?!?! And you wonder why I look at these hoaxes so hard? LOL.
christoferL 2 years ago
"the frauds mentioned here do not undermine evolution as a theory" Maybe not in your opinion, but in mine they are red flags to the whole theory...
christoferL 2 years ago
the unique thing about hoaxes and science is that atheists act as if science is never wrong - and when it is - they brag about how they made it right - but whose to say they are 'right'? Scientists? Two wrongs wouldn't make it right - thats for sure.
christoferL 2 years ago
"DNA exists, there is no evidence of a designer, so we can say that DNA does not require a designer."
I would LOVE to know the scientific process by which one could demonstrate that there is no evidence of a designer.
How does one conclude that "there is no evidence of a designer"? Is it because we don't find the Greek letters Alpha and Omega inscribed among the molecules of the DNA strand?
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Kmso - they determine that by their sheer determination to deny it...
christoferL 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
when I use science in that context I am referring to a community of people, not 'science' itself... to be more accurate? that happens over time... to be more credible however, it should not dismiss believers as lesser beings (See Dawkins mocking creationists comparing them to Stork believers to see what I mean)
christoferL 2 years ago
caff - Whats the point - Christian scientists have tried and are black balled out of the community... in time - I am sure it WILL happen - but that isn't my place or calling.
christoferL 2 years ago
The bad part is that until it was thoroughly debunked - the uneducated used it to propagate a theory that led everyone down a the wrong road - IMO... its like if I tell you I am making a great movie - and get you to invest - and I tell you the movie will take 10 yrs to produce... I can fool you for quite a while before you figure out I am scamming you- take your $ - and waste your time...
christoferL 2 years ago
"Can science be wrong? Oh my yes. Can scientists lie? Oh yes. Does the scientific process offer our best way of exposing these two problems? Yes." - I agree on all three points here - but that doesn't mean science WILL NOT lie and it doesn't mean it WILL expose itself.
christoferL 2 years ago
deception implies motive... and yes - I do believe there are some deliberately deceiving people in order to maintain their theories - believing that eventually - their theories will truly be proven...
christoferL 2 years ago
caff - nooo - new tech is good - but yesteryears microscope can't debunk what todays can, and the future will have greater abilities that will expose any frauds prevalent today that we don't yet know about... there is also a difference between error and fraud. I do believe we will find there is much fraud in science today... despite the thoughtful peer reviews. Seriously.
christoferL 2 years ago
"even a false premise can lead to a correct conclusion. " = we see what you want to see regardless of how we get there
christoferL 2 years ago
"I've said several times that science does not claim truth" You say that, but in the heat of debate, you are surely don't sound like you're presenting theories, possibilities, or even likelihoods, but instead - you sound like you believe you stand on a bedrock of facts.
christoferL 2 years ago
"I think you meant "accepted"." I did - thanks...
"Again, you show why science is useful. Yes it takes time to weed out bad ideas, that is because there is no science council declaring what is truth or not, that is not how science works." - religion really isn't that much different... but there are science councils, just as there are religious ones... groups that determine whether or not this or that is to be accepted... science disproves itself, but in the time it takes to do it, it deceives.
christoferL 2 years ago
"And yet scientists were skeptical as soon as piltdown man was announced. From the very beginning scientists had doubts about it's accuracy." 1912 to 1915... thats as soon as?
"technology like high resolution imaging, XRays, high speed networks were not available. " - there's always a newer better tech down the road - creating gaps for crafty people to exploit.
christoferL 2 years ago
and piltdown was used to support all sorts of theories until it was finally recanted... revisionism... it does (the) science good.
christoferL 2 years ago
Caff - of course I don't... but when you comment - you comment as if science is always truth - despite your arguments otherwise... the focus on pointing out this garbage about science is it can happen - it has happened - and it will happen again... so I ask again, how is that global warming and melting ice cap thing working out?
christoferL 2 years ago
Piltdown was excepted by the majority of scientists at the time... starting in 1912 - was first debunked in 1915 - but it remained a fixture in science until 1953... as science gets more and more complicated... it will become more and more difficult to discover these frauds... and its likely some of your most beloved beliefs are based on fraud, but how would you know? U don't examine what they say, you take it as fact - trusting these 'peers' have done their work and not been scammed themselves.
christoferL 2 years ago
Yeah - another prime example is the piltdown man (1912) who went what, 40 years before being fully exposed and denounced by science?(the Times, 1953)
christoferL 2 years ago
Caff - yeah - like I said - people are people... that doesn't changed the fact that science (as a group, not as a concept) has mislead the population before (and they surely will again).
christoferL 2 years ago
Caff - Great answer - except you sound just like a Christian who argues against the falsehoods added to the religion... hmmmm... could it be people are people and that you have decided that science will NOT lie despite a peppered past? Don't tell me conspiracies can't/won't/ don't happen in science - lol
christoferL 2 years ago
Caff - ohhh - you're right - because science has ALWAYS been known to be honest with us concerning evolution! From Haeckel's work of ART to the Piltdown man! Its completely baseless to even suggest that science might hide any facts that would challenge their ridiculous claims... what was I thinking? Anyone seen the Nebraska Man lately?
christoferL 2 years ago
I enjoyed it!
Punisher. 5 STARS!
PunisherSlayer 2 years ago
@CaffeinatedThinking Very well put.... there has never even been a shred of evidence that has shook the evolutionary theory despite 200 yrs of dedicated attempts to do so. In fact all the evidence that has been gathered falls brilliantly were you would expect if evolution were fact.
Any reel evidence that even remotely disproves evolution would defiantly be inline for a Nobel prize. though I seriously doubt it will ever happen.
RedlineMMA 2 years ago
"Any reel evidence that even remotely disproves evolution would defiantly be inline for a Nobel prize. though I seriously doubt it will ever happen." - yeah - isn't it like that
global warming and melting ice cap thing? Evolutionist scientists will ultimately bury any evidence opposing evolution... gotta love the power of 'peer review'... I see it all the time in Christian theology arguments... that wolf pack mentality... yes sir - I doubt it will ever happen too.
christoferL 2 years ago
My issue is not that evolutionary theory is not perfect. My issue is that it is blatantly oversold as having been "proved" true. In fact it has not.
kmsoileau 2 years ago
"Indeed and what is the most reasonable explanation? #1 obviously."
Bullshit. YOU may think #1 is most reasonable, but it is obvious that not everyone agrees with you. There is no objective measure of "reasonableness" of a theory, so you are just blowing smoke.
kmsoileau 2 years ago
It's up to evolutionists to perform experiments which conclusively distinguish between these possibilities.
Have they? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
kmsoileau 2 years ago
"It's not a benefit of the doubt. We know fossilization rarely happens because we know how it happens."
That's not the point. We observe the fact that a complete set of fossils are not available. There are at least two possible reasons for this:
1. The transitional species predicted by evolution occurred, but for some reason their fossils were not preserved.
2. The transitional species predicted by evolution never occurred and so of course these transitional fossils were not found.
kmsoileau 2 years ago
@kmsoileau
Are you serious...? try reading a book on evolution or typing transitional fossils into a Google search.
Scientists have found literally thousand of transitional fossils for many species including humans.
EG whales and snakes with legs dozens of hominid species that aren't quite human and when dated fall perfectly inline as becoming more human.
RedlineMMA 2 years ago
Cute. I'm assuming that you know that Dawkins doesn't believe human beings are the result of space aliens.
cldstrcrft 2 years ago
I don't have to prove evolution is not correct. All I have to do is point out hard evidence that evolution might not be in accord with. You breezily wave away my questions about missing fossils as though they don't matter. They do. The missing fossils may, as you say, be due to fossils being "rarely found." Or they may be missing because the transitional species never existed in the first place. It is up to the evolutionists to explain why their theory should get the benefit of the doubt.
kmsoileau 2 years ago
1) Cite a textbook that states evolution is a defenctive theory.
>Defenctive isn't a word. If you mean defective, do your own homework.
2) Fossils occur vary rarely. There will always be gaps due to this. However, evolution has predicted what kind of transitional fossils we ...
>Total, laughable bullshit. But just for fun, "cite a textbook" that supports this.
3) Evolution has more then enough evidence...
>More laughable bullshit. But just for fun, "cite a textbook" that supports this, too.
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
@CaffeinatedThinker: "Again, should you open some text books I think you will find a better understanding of evolution as well as the lack of evidence for any kind of designer.'
Those same textbooks will tell YOU that evolution is a defective theory that, among other things, cannot explain why the fossil record has huge gaps where the fossils of transitional species ought to be. In other words, a lack of evidence for evolution.
Drop the smug act...
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
"Part of understanding the language of cells lies in identifying promoters - the DNA regions at the start of genes that regulate their activity"
-Science daily
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago
Comment removed
DestructSequence 2 years ago