"Why there can be no god and why we wouldn't want one" Wise words from the great civilization whose biggest achievement is sending a projectile on their natural satellite and back with three people on board.
Who fucking cares? As long as they aren't pushy and aren't hurting anybody let them be. And as for dicks being in related videos - it's fucking youtube. Of course, there is dick related videos. I'm more surprised there aren't tit-related videos.
Well, it actually is different for every woman. It can take anywhere from five minutes to an hour, but the amount of time is almost always long instead of short.
It also usually takes a heck of a lot of playing around to finally figure out what works best for the individual, whether it's G-spot, clitaurus or whatever. Many women have never even figured out what works for them and have not had an orgasm yet.
@TheRiverwolford@TheRiverwolford The Bible wasn't written in Latin. The OT was written in Hebrew (some parts were written in Aramaic), the NT was written in Greek. As for some Biblical authors 'TOTALLY' knowing Latin, I kinda doubt it. The Bible wasn't translated into Latin until the 4th Century AD, a few centuries after all of the original authors had died.
@teddiaustin did you notice that my comment was a reply? I assume you didn't since you decided on giving me a fucking history lesson. I know that. I was being sarcastic. I figured that would be obvious considering the comment it was targeted at. But some people apparently don't do their homework. Oh well, its not the first time someone was stupid on the internet. Trust me dude, I know my shit. The person I was replying to is the idiot.
@teddiaustin Regardless of the history of the Bible it is still the best selling fiction book of all time (and the most shoplifted too, true story, unlike the Bible).
So the 38 second proof that there is no God is that Penn & Teller are shit in bed? I think that would prove there is a God . . . with a wicked sense of humour.
Dr. Lawrence Krauss, I should point out, ACTUALLY CONDUCTED THE RESEARCH *HIMSELF* (legitimately, remember, world's #2 physicist) on the topics he discusses in that pecture. As in, you're *literally* listening THE GUY WHO DISCOVERED ALL THIS SHIT give a lecture about it! I mean, imagine if you could go back to the 1930's and hear Einstein HIMSELF lecture you about Spcial Relativity! Holy shit, right? Yeah. Seriously. No joke. *THAT'S* the caliber of presentation I'm talking abo
Dr. Lawrence Krauss, the world's 2nd leading physicist immediately below Stephen Hawking, actually gives a talk devoted to answering that very question. I think it's called "Something from Nothing," or something like that. Just search YouTube for "Lawrence Krauss Nothing" and it should come up. It's a fascinating hour-long presentation/lecture, WELL worth the watch, that he gave at the AAI conference in 2009. It's posted on the Richard Dawkins Foundation's YouTube channel.
Many people use the analogy: "If we have a building, we have a builder, therefore, the universe must have a creator." Yes, but you skipped the fact that EVERYTHING inside the human world has a maker. Books, buildings, computers, clothes, etc. But what about nature-related things? Do rain has a maker? Waterfalls? Lakes? Plants? They are just a "happy accident" from a series of events that happen. Therefore we cannot state the universe (nature related thing) has a maker.
well first of all . we have to ask , where did the first cell come from . is it possible for nothing to create something ? which is an illogical question . because logically , nothing cant do anything . because nothing is a definition of non existence . take a logic class you guys . learn some logic . please
@chrisvanbeekum Precisely. Evolution can only go so far to explain the origins of man, but in the end it lets us down if we continue to ask "what was there before that?"
Granted the Bible is a simplified version of Gods plan, but lets face it humans are pretty thick and the difference between us 2,000 years ago and today is pretty small potatoes compared to an intelligence that can produce and guide the universe around us. (Just look at some grinning idiot at home masturbating his Wii control.)
@aidan456456 God is not the bible, nor did he even write it. Its merely a book about life and stories that happened during the times of God and Jesus. Just remember that. So to answer your question; yes, its truly possible that a greater being than our selves created the world. Why? Because only fools can deny a true fairy tale. Your elaborate scientific guesses are not impressive. If we came from nothing, then please show me how to create nothing from nothing. without tools.
@Foxerz You know sometimes it's a whole lot more sensible to admit that we don't know some things rather than to blindly come up with far-fetched answers. I'm sure 1000 years ago people would've thought that flying up into space would be impossible, yet we've figured out how to do that. I'm not sure if we'll ever find the answer as to how the universe was created- but I'm comfortable not knowing.
@Foxerz Define 'nothing'. Think about it. For e.g. if you empty EVERYTHING out of a box, then the opposite sides of the box must be touching, since there's 'nothing' to separate them. What would that look like? And if there was 'nothing' before the Universe, then what did it expand into? Can 'nothing' possibly exist? It would seem that 'nothing' can only be defined as 'everything' reduced to an infinite point, or in other words... a singularity. So 'everything' couldn't be created. Big Bang ftw.
@rlmguy actually neither nor is easier to beleive. Because with creationism well then who created God an how is he here. But with the big bang what created all that stuff? So your wrong with creationism being rediculous. And if God is all powerful he can do what ever he wants.
Uh... I think this may be proof that there is a God. Evolution alone would have weeded out this little idiosyncrasy in a (relative) hurry. Clearly, this is the work of a higher being. What we seem to be reluctant to admit is that this higher being, be it God or whatever name you want to give it, is a complete asshole.
Our concepts of measurement embrace mountains and men, atoms and stars, gravity, energy, numbers, speed, but never God. We cannot speak of measure or amount or size or weight and at the same time be speaking of God, for these tell of degrees and there are no degrees in God. All that He is He is without growth or addition or development. Nothing in God is less or more, or large or small. He is what He is in Himself, without qualifying thought or word. Aloof to the curious eyes of reason.
Creationism has nothing to do with my statement nor does poetry. See, science is dedicated to the task of proving things and is impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering.
@aidan456456 its not a sin but it isn't natural either seeing as our primary goal in life is to reproduce, kinda can't do that if your taking a dick in the ass or lickin pussy
God doesn't exist. It's all fiction. Yes, evolution is a theory but so is the whole idea of creationism. The big difference is that evolution is actually believable while creationism is just ridiculous. Most bible stories are impossible, but since a lot of us were raised this way, we actually believe a lot of them. COME AT ME CHRISTIANS!
@aidan456456 I have respect for other people's beliefs but on the topic of how the universe was created, how is a giant ball of matter appearing out of nowhere any less unreasonable than an supreme being creating the universe?
@EpicPokejohn actually it would be a tiny ball of matter not giant.2ndly the big bang is how our universe began, it does not really that it came from nothing,science just doesn't know what was there befor (yet) and that is the point of science ,to discover the truths on how things work, or began.3rd ,jumpmig to magic god did it! really is least likely because as far as we know there is no mgic,and god= magic
The Big Bang created massive amounts of energy, that energy cooled, creating galaxies and stars. The universe is is filled with particles from the aftermath of the big bang explosion. Those particles are occasionally formed by gravity into an orb. Instances of that are the planets sun in our solar system.
@SuperScotty97Returns Oh silly, you are seeing it because it's the thumbnail image for a video on penile implants which has similar tags or a identical tag as the video you watched!
You have not convinced me there is no God, but you have covinced me you guys are idiots. And why in the world is there a video with a penis as a suggested video on the side???? lol
@MordieSG THIS! I'm an atheist, and this fact right here is the only proof I need to disprove at least Christianity(I know a lot of other proofs but this one is my favorite). Let's take Egyptian gods into consideration here. It was a religion created about 3,000 years prior to the Holy Roman Empire. Yet we through this religion into the graveyard we call "mythology" so quickly. All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I say! XD
Well...last time I checked... you can fertilize an egg in vitro (outside of the body - and the FEMALE carries the child until its birth. I
Men... so painfully pathetic... Besides, I hope you can live the rest of your life knowing that you never actually satisfied a woman... and odds are, if you think you did, she probably faked it.
If a woman is going to fake an orgasm, rather than have a chat with her guy about needing a little more of this or that to help her, then she deserves to go without. It's not just my personal experience, but also the findings of multiple studies that women who are more secure with themselves are much more likely to achieve orgasm. If I finish off before my wife, she pretty much rapes my head. Damn I'm lucky that my wife is secure enough to tell me I didn't finish the job.
@renfairegeek86 Yes, quite an astute comment. I am glad men do not turn you on and that last time you did have an orgasm, the batteries did not die on you. I am sure there is a huge market in the dating world for women who do not shave their legs, have deep voices, and look a lot like orson welles. I never mentioned what kind of "dating world" that would be anyway. I suppose you are grateful for in vitro, it's probably the only way you'll have children. Take care and stop sexual harrassing me.
Why do you feel that it's required that we have some divine purpose to exist? I don't know about you, but I'm here because my mother and father screwed without a condom. I choose to remain here because I enjoy life, have people who depend on me and rely on me, and because I can't stop noticing how amazing the world is, was, and can't wait to see what's learned in the future. Need I even mention watching my kids grow up and possibly making me a grandparent?
@litojonny There's also no proof that there's not an invisible guitar hovering over the sky dropping down shit bombs on peoples head. Doesn't give the theory any more credence than the God theory :)
@StigmatiX Actually, I have. Seems like one of the biggest assholes in the planet. What, are you getting offended by me calling him an asshole? Maybe you're him.
@blackpanther6389 I'm no expert and I could be wrong, but I guess in most religions sex is not supposed to be an act of joy, but rather an act of human reproduction. So why would woman feel joy after 20 minutes, if sex in the pure sense of reproduction would be over in 2 minutes?
I have a hard time believing them when they use curse words that further prove they're ability, or lack thereof, to intelligently speak on the matter.
@stargazerrshinexx not everyone views cursing the way you obviously do. and there are actually legal ramifications for some of their cursing. if they call someone a fraud, they can be sued for slander. but since vulgarity is not covered by those laws, they can call that person an asshole and not get sued.
@AsianMajik There is also the fact that the Male Sexual Prime is 18 -mid 20's The Female Sexual Prime starts at 40! However on a more serious note There have been well over 4,000 Gods & Goddesses In Human history. Which Fucking One are you saying is real and What is the Basis for Determining this? If you don't look to EVIDENCE then what EXACTLY are the standards? Tribalism? Well the Norse would say theirs are real. The Muslim's theirs The Greek Theirs And So on! We need Clear Unbiased EVIDENCE
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 Every single thing you just posted is scientifically inaccurate. Einstein did not confirm that time is physical, entropy doesn't work the way you claim it does. I personally have a lot of misguided muscles around my eyes causing me astigmatism that I wear corrective lenses for, but this is better than having no eyes at all so it did evolve. Evolution does not say things happen by chance, it says that natural selection (WHICH IS NON-RANDOM) acts on some random errors that crop up.
@7j8i9m your eye evolved how? you put a lense in it. i dont see how you evolved at all. that being said, i missed the argument you mayor may not have had before, so i might have missed some details here
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! " By this same logic it defutes the idea of the possibility of a God as it would also have to have a beginning...of course, unless you ignore that, which if you do, means you'd have to ignore the same exact point you're trying to make here...You do realize Einstein didn't believe in a religion based God, do you?
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Wait- women can have orgasms?
CRhetoric1 1 hour ago
god is for the uneducated
IdentifiedInfidel 1 week ago 2
Clearly, God just wanted men to get sex over with quickly and move on.
eklera 1 week ago
Could someone explain this video to me?
JOXCY 3 weeks ago
Maybe god just doesn't give a shit ~George Carlin
EMH204 3 weeks ago
Maybe god is just an asshole.
HellerDon 3 weeks ago
Penile implant... topless protesters... Still Beating Heart... yep, I can fap to this
brovwade 3 weeks ago
Revelation 22:11 ..let him who is filthy, be filthy still.
qrh4029 3 weeks ago
@qrh4029 We've got a badass over here
cookiebox339 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why there can be no god and why we wouldn't want one" Wise words from the great civilization whose biggest achievement is sending a projectile on their natural satellite and back with three people on board.
p2eas3 1 month ago
Comment removed
p2eas3 1 month ago
My favorite part about this 38 second video is @0:39
blindman182 1 month ago
@blindman182 I'm assuming you don't like the video? Go pray or something
cookiebox339 3 weeks ago
@cookiebox339 I love the video. Penn is amazing. so as he would say, go fuck yourself.
blindman182 3 weeks ago
Lol.. awesome.
2112starmantemple 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If that dosn't convinse you listen to this, overweight girls hit puberty faster. :)
(im not a atheist i just thought it was a dark and humorous statistic)
Personmr 1 month ago
Who fucking cares? As long as they aren't pushy and aren't hurting anybody let them be. And as for dicks being in related videos - it's fucking youtube. Of course, there is dick related videos. I'm more surprised there aren't tit-related videos.
FairBlueRose 1 month ago
@FairBlueRose You seem to miss the point. We ask these questions because humanity is due for paradigm shift.
MarcusKiner 1 month ago
@TheRiverwolford. My bad, sarcasm doesn't work so well when written. I just figured you were a misinformed catholic.
teddiaustin 1 month ago
Either that, or it's proof that God is male, which would explain a lot of the other fuck-ups in nature.
ShawnRavenfire 1 month ago
Well, it actually is different for every woman. It can take anywhere from five minutes to an hour, but the amount of time is almost always long instead of short.
It also usually takes a heck of a lot of playing around to finally figure out what works best for the individual, whether it's G-spot, clitaurus or whatever. Many women have never even figured out what works for them and have not had an orgasm yet.
So, yeah. God just hates women, I guess!
thelovelyratkitten 1 month ago
@thelovelyratkitten What in the hell are you talking about? That is, I have to say one of the most random comments I have ever seen! Haha
x30xSabresFan 1 month ago
@x30xSabresFan I think your being a father at the age of 13 is much more random than a discussion on women's orgasms. What do you think?
teddiaustin 1 month ago
@x30xSabresFan I'm making a joke that since it takes so much more work for women to climax, God must hate women. ;D
thelovelyratkitten 1 month ago
@thelovelyratkitten Clitasaurus! RAWR!
someguitarphreak 1 month ago
@someguitarphreak Hahahahahhahahaha! That's really funny! I love your sense of humor. XD
thelovelyratkitten 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aidan456456 Yeah, because the original authors of the Bible TOTALLY knew Latin you fucking idiot.
TheRiverwolford 1 month ago
@aidan456456 Yeah, because the original authors of the Bible TOTALLY knew Latin you fucking idiot.
TheRiverwolford 1 month ago
@TheRiverwolford @TheRiverwolford The Bible wasn't written in Latin. The OT was written in Hebrew (some parts were written in Aramaic), the NT was written in Greek. As for some Biblical authors 'TOTALLY' knowing Latin, I kinda doubt it. The Bible wasn't translated into Latin until the 4th Century AD, a few centuries after all of the original authors had died.
teddiaustin 1 month ago
@teddiaustin did you notice that my comment was a reply? I assume you didn't since you decided on giving me a fucking history lesson. I know that. I was being sarcastic. I figured that would be obvious considering the comment it was targeted at. But some people apparently don't do their homework. Oh well, its not the first time someone was stupid on the internet. Trust me dude, I know my shit. The person I was replying to is the idiot.
TheRiverwolford 1 month ago
@teddiaustin Regardless of the history of the Bible it is still the best selling fiction book of all time (and the most shoplifted too, true story, unlike the Bible).
speebyda 3 weeks ago
So the 38 second proof that there is no God is that Penn & Teller are shit in bed? I think that would prove there is a God . . . with a wicked sense of humour.
TheTruemouse 1 month ago
@chrisvanbeekum
Dr. Lawrence Krauss, I should point out, ACTUALLY CONDUCTED THE RESEARCH *HIMSELF* (legitimately, remember, world's #2 physicist) on the topics he discusses in that pecture. As in, you're *literally* listening THE GUY WHO DISCOVERED ALL THIS SHIT give a lecture about it! I mean, imagine if you could go back to the 1930's and hear Einstein HIMSELF lecture you about Spcial Relativity! Holy shit, right? Yeah. Seriously. No joke. *THAT'S* the caliber of presentation I'm talking abo
macgeek2004 1 month ago
@chrisvanbeekum
Dr. Lawrence Krauss, the world's 2nd leading physicist immediately below Stephen Hawking, actually gives a talk devoted to answering that very question. I think it's called "Something from Nothing," or something like that. Just search YouTube for "Lawrence Krauss Nothing" and it should come up. It's a fascinating hour-long presentation/lecture, WELL worth the watch, that he gave at the AAI conference in 2009. It's posted on the Richard Dawkins Foundation's YouTube channel.
macgeek2004 1 month ago
There is no god
pretearking 1 month ago
Many people use the analogy: "If we have a building, we have a builder, therefore, the universe must have a creator." Yes, but you skipped the fact that EVERYTHING inside the human world has a maker. Books, buildings, computers, clothes, etc. But what about nature-related things? Do rain has a maker? Waterfalls? Lakes? Plants? They are just a "happy accident" from a series of events that happen. Therefore we cannot state the universe (nature related thing) has a maker.
6471917 1 month ago
@6471917
well first of all . we have to ask , where did the first cell come from . is it possible for nothing to create something ? which is an illogical question . because logically , nothing cant do anything . because nothing is a definition of non existence . take a logic class you guys . learn some logic . please
chrisvanbeekum 1 month ago
@chrisvanbeekum Precisely. Evolution can only go so far to explain the origins of man, but in the end it lets us down if we continue to ask "what was there before that?"
Granted the Bible is a simplified version of Gods plan, but lets face it humans are pretty thick and the difference between us 2,000 years ago and today is pretty small potatoes compared to an intelligence that can produce and guide the universe around us. (Just look at some grinning idiot at home masturbating his Wii control.)
TheTruemouse 1 month ago
Bullshit
In
Bookform
Lacking
Evidence
That's your bible!
AnAtheistMetalhead23 1 month ago
@AnAtheistMetalhead23 i approve :) well done!
volvoxmusix 1 month ago
Now that's funny. And a question I have often asked myself.
vomit49894 2 months ago
@aidan456456 God is not the bible, nor did he even write it. Its merely a book about life and stories that happened during the times of God and Jesus. Just remember that. So to answer your question; yes, its truly possible that a greater being than our selves created the world. Why? Because only fools can deny a true fairy tale. Your elaborate scientific guesses are not impressive. If we came from nothing, then please show me how to create nothing from nothing. without tools.
Foxerz 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Foxerz You know sometimes it's a whole lot more sensible to admit that we don't know some things rather than to blindly come up with far-fetched answers. I'm sure 1000 years ago people would've thought that flying up into space would be impossible, yet we've figured out how to do that. I'm not sure if we'll ever find the answer as to how the universe was created- but I'm comfortable not knowing.
Maddolis 2 months ago
@Foxerz Define 'nothing'. Think about it. For e.g. if you empty EVERYTHING out of a box, then the opposite sides of the box must be touching, since there's 'nothing' to separate them. What would that look like? And if there was 'nothing' before the Universe, then what did it expand into? Can 'nothing' possibly exist? It would seem that 'nothing' can only be defined as 'everything' reduced to an infinite point, or in other words... a singularity. So 'everything' couldn't be created. Big Bang ftw.
IamSpydaMic 1 month ago
Fuck you, Youtube. A penile implant is not related to this video.
Rind0Man 2 months ago 82
@Rind0Man my sentiments exactly... well put good sir
nachis04 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rind0Man Sounds like you're worried that you might be gay.
arthuronfacebook 1 month ago
@rlmguy actually neither nor is easier to beleive. Because with creationism well then who created God an how is he here. But with the big bang what created all that stuff? So your wrong with creationism being rediculous. And if God is all powerful he can do what ever he wants.
RoyN1234 2 months ago
Uh... I think this may be proof that there is a God. Evolution alone would have weeded out this little idiosyncrasy in a (relative) hurry. Clearly, this is the work of a higher being. What we seem to be reluctant to admit is that this higher being, be it God or whatever name you want to give it, is a complete asshole.
OfftheRadar9790 2 months ago
@aidan456456 stop ranting! we know your gay! we dont care shut up!
thds699 2 months ago
:D This is the first time I've gotten 100 thumbs. :)
SuperScotty97Returns 2 months ago
Our concepts of measurement embrace mountains and men, atoms and stars, gravity, energy, numbers, speed, but never God. We cannot speak of measure or amount or size or weight and at the same time be speaking of God, for these tell of degrees and there are no degrees in God. All that He is He is without growth or addition or development. Nothing in God is less or more, or large or small. He is what He is in Himself, without qualifying thought or word. Aloof to the curious eyes of reason.
r9670712 2 months ago
@r9670712
Poetic and stupid. And creationists wonder why "god" can't be science.
KajexFiredrake 2 months ago
@KajexFiredrake
Creationism has nothing to do with my statement nor does poetry. See, science is dedicated to the task of proving things and is impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering.
r9670712 2 months ago
That's not even true lol, stupidest thing I've heard. Takes about as long for women as does for men.
F3udF1st 2 months ago
@F3udF1st My girl usually manages to crank out 2 or 3 before I've even reached 1.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred My point exactly ;)
F3udF1st 2 months ago
@aidan456456 its not a sin but it isn't natural either seeing as our primary goal in life is to reproduce, kinda can't do that if your taking a dick in the ass or lickin pussy
Xarai 2 months ago
God doesn't exist. It's all fiction. Yes, evolution is a theory but so is the whole idea of creationism. The big difference is that evolution is actually believable while creationism is just ridiculous. Most bible stories are impossible, but since a lot of us were raised this way, we actually believe a lot of them. COME AT ME CHRISTIANS!
rlmguy 2 months ago
Wow fail on Penn / tellers part
Trolleatingpankakes 2 months ago
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" (and thus, exists)
--Benjamin Franklin.
True'er words were never spoken.
arivas713 2 months ago
@arivas713 So why don't everyone like it?
F00REX 3 weeks ago
@aidan456456 I have respect for other people's beliefs but on the topic of how the universe was created, how is a giant ball of matter appearing out of nowhere any less unreasonable than an supreme being creating the universe?
EpicPokejohn 2 months ago 5
@EpicPokejohn The theory is not that the universe simply "appeared out of nowhere"
LaCerca 3 weeks ago
@LaCerca It is that a giant ball of matter appeared out of knowwhere exploded and created the universe.
EpicPokejohn 3 weeks ago
@EpicPokejohn Maybe the universe has just always been here
Yamazaki742 1 week ago
@EpicPokejohn actually it would be a tiny ball of matter not giant.2ndly the big bang is how our universe began, it does not really that it came from nothing,science just doesn't know what was there befor (yet) and that is the point of science ,to discover the truths on how things work, or began.3rd ,jumpmig to magic god did it! really is least likely because as far as we know there is no mgic,and god= magic
mandrillx 1 week ago
@EpicPokejohn did the supreme being appear out of nowhere? Is it turtles all the way down?
alejandroUT 3 weeks ago
@alejandroUT Honestly, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with atheists. Been there done that.
EpicPokejohn 3 weeks ago
@EpicPokejohn
The Big Bang created massive amounts of energy, that energy cooled, creating galaxies and stars. The universe is is filled with particles from the aftermath of the big bang explosion. Those particles are occasionally formed by gravity into an orb. Instances of that are the planets sun in our solar system.
This in no way disproves god. But it is a fact.
SUBDUCTIONxZERO 1 week ago
haha hilarious! love penn and teller talking trash on religion
Marzattacz 2 months ago
I think they're wrong there. That could only be a cruel joke.
Retardretroguy 2 months ago
@Retardretroguy THERE IS NO GOD OK BECAUSE IT TAKE A WOMAN 20 MINUTES TO ORGASM AND A MAN ONLY 2 OK R WE GOOD?!?!?!?!
SHARKATTACK1212 2 months ago
@SHARKATTACK1212 No because, it's still two hilarious to be accident
Retardretroguy 2 months ago
That doesn't refute the idea of a god, only of a benevolent one. o.o
HiddenFacedMatt 2 months ago
wat the hell!!!!!!!
RoVredRALF 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Forgive them Lord, they know not what they are doing
Michael117american 2 months ago
seems plausable
SnookiandJwowwHD 2 months ago
Why in the fuck am I seeing a motherfuckin' dick on the related videos?!
SuperScotty97Returns 2 months ago 285
@SuperScotty97Returns Oh silly, you are seeing it because it's the thumbnail image for a video on penile implants which has similar tags or a identical tag as the video you watched!
2011JuneCleaver 2 months ago
@2011JuneCleaver Still.... IT'S A FUCKING DICK!
SuperScotty97Returns 2 months ago
@SuperScotty97Returns Why not? I'm seeing two dicks in this video.
TheTruemouse 1 month ago
@SuperScotty97Returns It's proof that there really is no god.
konithomimo 1 month ago
@SuperScotty97Returns Sounds like you're worried you might be gay.
arthuronfacebook 1 month ago
wtf is up with the related videos?
OddmusicNmore 2 months ago
I love how people actually take this seriously. You all are so easy to manipulate.
Microsoftfan6124 2 months ago
You have not convinced me there is no God, but you have covinced me you guys are idiots. And why in the world is there a video with a penis as a suggested video on the side???? lol
GallopGirl40 2 months ago
@GallopGirl40
dear god your stupid.
candehmachine 2 months ago
@GallopGirl40 oh oh they're the idiots?
Lol you are a modern day christian you belief is 1/400
of the fail religions that came after the roman empire.
You a dumb motherfucker.
MordieSG 2 months ago
@MordieSG THIS! I'm an atheist, and this fact right here is the only proof I need to disprove at least Christianity(I know a lot of other proofs but this one is my favorite). Let's take Egyptian gods into consideration here. It was a religion created about 3,000 years prior to the Holy Roman Empire. Yet we through this religion into the graveyard we call "mythology" so quickly. All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I say! XD
BeatlesRoxx13579 2 months ago
@BeatlesRoxx13579 Lol man i know exactly what you are saying and they have the NERVE to call us idiots?
Remember we are all BORN atheist. We are taught religion. ahahhahaha.
MordieSG 2 months ago
@BeatlesRoxx13579 all hail the flying spaghetti monster!!! All Hail!!
Marzattacz 2 months ago
I hope u swim in a lake of fire for eternity ass hole
littlegino10 2 months ago
Every single story in the bible has been proven by science. They are just stories now. Kinda like the Greeks and their mythology
chrishm27 2 months ago
just lost all respect fr these guys
splatcat135 2 months ago
This doesn't prove there's no god. This just proves that god doesn't like women.
CaptainSmallFoot 2 months ago 2
Well last time I checked, a female orgasm is not necessary for procreation. Thank God for that, atheists!
PassengersMusic777 2 months ago
@PassengersMusic777
Well...last time I checked... you can fertilize an egg in vitro (outside of the body - and the FEMALE carries the child until its birth. I
Men... so painfully pathetic... Besides, I hope you can live the rest of your life knowing that you never actually satisfied a woman... and odds are, if you think you did, she probably faked it.
renfairegeek86 2 months ago
@renfairegeek86
If a woman is going to fake an orgasm, rather than have a chat with her guy about needing a little more of this or that to help her, then she deserves to go without. It's not just my personal experience, but also the findings of multiple studies that women who are more secure with themselves are much more likely to achieve orgasm. If I finish off before my wife, she pretty much rapes my head. Damn I'm lucky that my wife is secure enough to tell me I didn't finish the job.
CaptainSmallFoot 2 months ago
@renfairegeek86 Yes, quite an astute comment. I am glad men do not turn you on and that last time you did have an orgasm, the batteries did not die on you. I am sure there is a huge market in the dating world for women who do not shave their legs, have deep voices, and look a lot like orson welles. I never mentioned what kind of "dating world" that would be anyway. I suppose you are grateful for in vitro, it's probably the only way you'll have children. Take care and stop sexual harrassing me.
PassengersMusic777 2 months ago 2
it"s 39 sec not 38!
TheMagic4people 2 months ago
dawkins, hitchens, intelligent: cmon you disappoint me - most respectable atheist distance themself from these clowns
wildhias 2 months ago
God is real why are we here then
hahahaufunnydoe 2 months ago
@hahahaufunnydoe natural selection and evolution
Stevesk0011 2 months ago
@hahahaufunnydoe
Why do you feel that it's required that we have some divine purpose to exist? I don't know about you, but I'm here because my mother and father screwed without a condom. I choose to remain here because I enjoy life, have people who depend on me and rely on me, and because I can't stop noticing how amazing the world is, was, and can't wait to see what's learned in the future. Need I even mention watching my kids grow up and possibly making me a grandparent?
CaptainSmallFoot 2 months ago
lol this proved nothing but they're funny
Geddylee2000 2 months ago
You fuckin basterds yes there is!!! Read the bible
zombietown100 2 months ago
@zombietown100 The bible is a piece of literature written by man. how is that proof of a god?
randomizer666 2 months ago 2
Amen !
test123ok 2 months ago
@DXSXDXSXD And you guys say that religious people are dumb......
omare009 2 months ago
@DXSXDXSXD How do you do that?
0Letten0 2 months ago
Check mate.
dummychaos 2 months ago
@FamineIsAwesome i don't know if you're talking about me, but i didn't get pissed off.
rsn00b4life 2 months ago
i kind of expected something like this judging by the title, so why am i bothering to comment.
PFguitarmate83 2 months ago
Who says it only takes women twenty minutes to reach an orgasm?
chelseagle 2 months ago
What does men and women cumming have to do with the existance of God? I'm a man and it sometimes takes me hours... Oh yeah ;)
QBALL85 3 months ago
ok bash religion but theres still no proof that god doesnt exist
litojonny 3 months ago
@litojonny There's also no proof that there's not an invisible guitar hovering over the sky dropping down shit bombs on peoples head. Doesn't give the theory any more credence than the God theory :)
macunfraidh 3 months ago
that mute guy needs to GOD DAMN talk.
kjdjsiujekjjs 3 months ago
@kjdjsiujekjjs wtf is up with that lol?
GovnaBuckingham 3 months ago in playlist GovnaBuckingham's favorites
@kjdjsiujekjjs LOL
xtreme666bio 2 months ago
Shouldn't the title rather be "5-second Proof that there is no God (Penn & Teller Bullshit!)"? the rest is just talk about other books... :P
bjarte2511 3 months ago
As much as I love P & T. That's not proof, they're just trying to be funny.
Fredo5227 3 months ago
I always thought that it was God's worst joke; sexual timing of men and women. If I were God I would want to screw with people, too.
owlandtree 3 months ago
go to hell bitch
XgraveZ 3 months ago
XD LMFAOROTFLOLLAROCBTWSF!!!!!!!!!
cheddercheese99 3 months ago
Richard Dawkins is an asshole.
Kikyogirl 3 months ago
@Kikyogirl You're an idiot.
StigmatiX 3 months ago
@StigmatiX You're a cocksucking moron.
Kikyogirl 3 months ago
@Kikyogirl If you think Richard Dawkins is an asshole you obviously have never seen him do one interview.
StigmatiX 3 months ago
@StigmatiX Actually, I have. Seems like one of the biggest assholes in the planet. What, are you getting offended by me calling him an asshole? Maybe you're him.
Kikyogirl 3 months ago
@Kikyogirl lol Arguing with fundamentalists is hilarious. Use logic for once in your life.
StigmatiX 3 months ago
@StigmatiX What the fuck, I'm not even religious. Try again, dumbass.
Kikyogirl 2 months ago
Someone please explain what he meant to someone who sometimes takes forever to understand shit lol xD.
blackpanther6389 3 months ago
@blackpanther6389 Be patient. You'll understand in 20 minutes. :P
SpareSimian 3 months ago
@blackpanther6389 I'm no expert and I could be wrong, but I guess in most religions sex is not supposed to be an act of joy, but rather an act of human reproduction. So why would woman feel joy after 20 minutes, if sex in the pure sense of reproduction would be over in 2 minutes?
Again, I could be wrong.
Stuffinathor 3 months ago
I have a hard time believing them when they use curse words that further prove they're ability, or lack thereof, to intelligently speak on the matter.
stargazerrshinexx 3 months ago
@stargazerrshinexx not everyone views cursing the way you obviously do. and there are actually legal ramifications for some of their cursing. if they call someone a fraud, they can be sued for slander. but since vulgarity is not covered by those laws, they can call that person an asshole and not get sued.
adgato75 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, being a thiest, I really do not care...
JITTERdUdEepic 3 months ago
sorry but this isnt even proof...
AsianMajik 3 months ago
MrGoodNKinky 3 months ago
@AsianMajik
he didnt get the joke
schmelzstinkekaese 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 months ago
@Mogley52 Every single thing you just posted is scientifically inaccurate. Einstein did not confirm that time is physical, entropy doesn't work the way you claim it does. I personally have a lot of misguided muscles around my eyes causing me astigmatism that I wear corrective lenses for, but this is better than having no eyes at all so it did evolve. Evolution does not say things happen by chance, it says that natural selection (WHICH IS NON-RANDOM) acts on some random errors that crop up.
7j8i9m 3 months ago 20
@7j8i9m your eye evolved how? you put a lense in it. i dont see how you evolved at all. that being said, i missed the argument you mayor may not have had before, so i might have missed some details here
RESTxINxPIECEZ 2 months ago
@Mogley52 "Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! " By this same logic it defutes the idea of the possibility of a God as it would also have to have a beginning...of course, unless you ignore that, which if you do, means you'd have to ignore the same exact point you're trying to make here...You do realize Einstein didn't believe in a religion based God, do you?
BROSxICINGxBROS 3 months ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 months ago
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago