Science fiction author Arthur C. Clark wrote promoting evolution as well. An entire novel, Childhood's End, relates directly to that topic, and has some truly creepy material inside. The plan to instill this into people's minds is widespread.
Stopped watching after 2:15, when you give one of the most blatantly false explanations of evolution I've ever heard. Evolution is not about continually getting better, it's about continuing to adapt and evolve to "fit" the environment. If it was in our best interest to lose intelligence, strength, speed, or size, we would. It is not a constant accumulation of traits up until godhood. This betrays a fundamental misconception of the theory on your part.
If you don't believe in evolution you are likely either willfully ignorant or have been misinformed by disingenuous people like the maker of this video.
"Most people have a blind faith in evolution simply because it's what they've been told is true." Replace "evolution" with "religion" and that statement will become true. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence, every religion I can think of has no reliable evidence whatsoever.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose........." False premise, false dichotomy, argument from ignorance, straw man....I could go on. This quote is just one giant fallacy.
"Theory of evolution...did not come from scientific observations..." This is just a blatant lie. The amount of evidence in favor of evolution amassed over the past century has left 99.9% of scientists in agreement that evolution is both theory and fact.
"Evolution still has no answer for the origin of life" Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Spontaneous Generation is an obsolete explanation of the origin of life and has since been replaced by abiogenesis. Amino acids(the building blocks of life) have been PROVEN to arise from nonliving matter via natural processes.
WOW! This video is riddled with misinformation, non sequiturs, arguments from ignorance, question begging, false dichotomies etc. etc.
Man cannot attain "perfection" through evolution. Genetic drift alone assures that all living things will be constantly evolving. The theory of evolution never states that man reaches "godhood" as God is supernatural and unscientific.
This segment reminds me of the Bible verse that shows that people are willingly ignorant. They don't want to believe in God so they devise alternative, unbiblical theories.
While I accept Evolution as only a man-made theory, it is not true that it says anything about attaining perfection.
There is no perfection to be attained in any environment because in theory, the environment can also change. So if something has evolved to function maximally in an environment and it changes, the organism is no longer able to survive fully here and must then change to fit the new environment.
@justapearson ummm i dunno what else to say except there is perfection all through nature...in most aspects of and fauna and flora perfection is absolutely obvious...also the universe itself as chaotic as it looks to man is so perfect its not funny....if any part of this universe was in anyway even slightly different ,NONE OF IT WOULD EXIST!
why do so many people blindly follow a Freemason like Darwin who couldn't even make it past the 27nd degree because he lost his mind? as if the system is really concerned with telling us the truth, people follow it like sheep to the point where they actually defend a system that's responsible for all the world's issues.
There was one exhibit at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History called Origins saying, “volcanic gases plus lightning equal DNA equals LIFE." That sounds a lot like abiogenesis.
However, abiogenesis does not have evidence for it because microbes can be destroyed by ultraviolet radiation.
Lord Satan, release us now. The time has come to liberate our rage. The weak will fall as the strong survive. Satan prepares us for this war. We can hear your prayers of emptiness. Why are you are filled with pain? Because you lead your life of false hope. Lives of pallid incompetence hanging in a tree. We will rise together and take this world by storm. We will save you from yourself. We will conquer the feeble and walk away. With the blessings of Satan, the war shall be won!
@Lichtspielhaus234 I like when people use science for it's non bias purpose of truth rather then for their own gain, usually coming to the bias conclusion of "No God" or "God in their own vision". Good indeed.
@Lichtspielhaus234 But you have to justify God created the natural laws to function. How do we know that God created the natural laws but instead a different supernatural thing did? how do we not know that the natural laws were never created, and were just always existent? how do we not know natural laws didn't occure through some understanding we simply don't know yet? You are playing the presupposition game again that functionality must require intellegence, thus god.
@Lichtspielhaus234 "natural functionality of my car" - except its not a natural functionality, its an unnatural functionality because it was created by humans. All your examples (the key, the automobile), these are all examples of human intention, and we can prove and justify those intentions. However, functionality has existed prior to the period of human intent, thus how can human creation be the point of reference for natural functionality? why does functionality = intellegence?
@Lichtspielhaus234 Therefore, since I am not making the claim that design doesn't occure. Then I am not entitled to provide any evidence at all it does or doesn't. However, you ARE claiming it does! thus you must provide evidence to supply your claim. The only claim i'm making is stars have natural creations, here is X data to support that. However, if there is direct intent behind the natural occuraces? who the hell knows, but there is no evidence to justify such assumptions.
@Lichtspielhaus234 "a presupposition that the things that exist DON'T NEED to be designed" - wrong, I don't make such claims. If i am asked the question: was the development of the stars occuring naturally an actualy designed procedure. Then my simple response is : I don't know. However, I'm entiteled to also say: "without sufficient evidence though why would I assume that the extra step occured?" I have evidence for the natural occurance, but what evidence do I have for the unnatural one?
@Lichtspielhaus234 And you seem to continue to refuse the understanding of my statement on wiki. I never claimed or told you to source wiki. I actually explained not to, I said you could go to wiki for as a reference to your research and then follow the biblographic source of the inforation to an academic journal. I'll explain to you in step by step procedures: continued
@ashunga543 You go to wiki to read about WW2. You read a paragraph, which contains a footnote. You follow that footnote, to the bibliographical information at the bottom of the page. You then take that information to its source, which should exist within a academic journal (ex. The journal of Anthropological Antiquities) and you find the information to the direct source to observe the accuracy of the claim made from wiki. Then you can observe the legitimacy of the information made
@Lichtspielhaus234 yes.....b/c your arguement against wiki was sooo convincing when you source another online source. Common on, you have got to admit their is irony in this.
@Lichtspielhaus234 and here is where your logical fallacy occurs. You place a presupposition that the things that exist must be designed. You must provide evidence for this my friend, presuppositions are fallaciouse by nature. Your anology of a key to a car, is a fallacy b/c keys have been observed in their manufacture. However our understanding of stars and galaxies are explained by nature, no intellegent intent. To apply lack of understand with god, is a simple argument from ignorance.
@Lichtspielhaus234 O yes the favoured wiki criticism. You are right that no professor will tell you to use wiki, however many professors will tell you to go look at wiki for a bases of your research and even perhaps go review the references that are made to the particular page you are observing. But not to source wiki of coarse. The quote I referenced you: McCabe, Joseph (1912). The Story of Evolution. London. You can go look the article up if you wish, but you probably won't lol.
@Lichtspielhaus234 "sigh" I think your biggest problem right now, is you don't know how to read and obsorb information my friend. Ex. "YOU seem to argue that it's useless" - never said that, I said it barely served a practicaly function. Which means it does do somthing, but not for a function that contains great effect or the effect of what it use to. If your read some biological or anthropological journals, they will provide you info on the appendix's previouse use.
"Prove it?? Logic proves it son" - but yet you fail to explain it eh? why so worried? if its so logical then you should be able to explain why its design. ....go ahead, i ain't stoping you. I want to hear this.
"LOLOL, So if your heart stops you die, so logically if you didn't have a heart, it wouldn't stop, hence you would not die. (Using your logic here.)" - actually no, I have no idea where your getting this. All i'm saying, is since the appendix no longer serves a practicall function for us anymore, an appendix bursts and killing you, is more practical than it being a benefit. If this was so called designed, then well.........he did a bad job.
"You know, I don't feel like using my appendix today" - fail, I never said this, and your using your own faulty reasoning not mine. You really need to read some journal articles, but allow me to send you to some references b/c you seem to simply just not get it. Here is a simply copy and paste from wikipedia, you can read it yourself: "The most common explanation for the appendix's existence in humans is that it's a vestigial structure which has lost its original function."
"Appendix does have a function" - I never said it didn't have a function, I said we barely use it anymore. The appendix holds more of a threat to our biological selfs than it hold benefit. Things like the appendix and hardly does anything in our body as the kidneys a more suffient.
"As per design" - prove it
"Who dominates the planet" - nothing to do with evolution, evolution is the explanation for biological diversity.
"birds do not invent anything" - again, you refuse to remove yourself from your own bias. Brids do invents things, there called nest.
"or create through science" - science is a human construct, can't apply human developments on no one entities.
"DOMINATE RACE on the earth?? " Race huh? well clearly you don't even know what race is as 1. race only exist between humans, and 2. race is a cultural construct. It doesn't actually exist. Read some Anthropology journals.
@Lichtspielhaus234 All you have done, is described characteristics that are unique to humans and said "LOOK! Look how special we are, we are so special and unique!! thus we must be the highest!" Without realising there are so many things that humans are incapable of doing naturaly such as; nocturnal nature, run quickly, fly ect. Also add to this, there are so many problems with us biologicaly too; poor joints, the ease of concussions, and extra body parts we don't use anymore ex: Appendix.
@Lichtspielhaus234 Biologically speaking, no we are not the "highest" evolved of all living things. All living organisms are equally evolved and adaptive to the environment that they were predispossed to, and there mutations compensated to that environment in their own different manner. Humans did this with the increase size of brains (along with other characteristics), and other animals adaptided in other fashions . Ex - (flight, swimming, speed, nocturnal nature ect.). Continued.....
"The evolved goal is for man to reach perfection."
This statement has proven to me that you have never picked a biology textbook and actually read evolution, as you believe evolution is a process of perfection, when instead it is merely a process of adaptation to survival. If you understood evolution, then you would be aware that it techniquelly hold the possibility to change the human species back to something similar to that of what it once was millions of years ago.
2:00 I have a mormon friend who believes that when all people die they will then become gods of their own little universes. I don't know where he would have got this idea from. But the video helps explain how this thought could plant a seed in peoples minds of how this could actually come to be.
Within the context of the question I asked, your answer is unecessary...
You may think it's a straight lie - but WHY? ...because you can't understand it, or you can't find a way to make it compatable with what you read in the Bible? Then you went into some psudeoscience about the origin of the world evolution - not interested.
To clarify, this "evolution" is not trans-species. but adaptation within a species. there are many hypotheses to the origins of man. One says a deity made us out of mud, one says we "evolved" from apes, another says we were engineered by a highly advanced intelligence in the past as a hybrid slave race. Some argue that we dont exist, some say we're a mathematical imperative as a function of infinity. It might be nice to KNOW our origin, we have to settle for Knowing that we're here..for now.
Evolution is real, in that life mutates, changes, evolves as the environment changes, as the nature of all life is change. Evolution is true, but is not our Origin. Evolution, more specifically, cellular mutation, or genetic re sequencing as adaptation requires, is more of an indication of design than an argument against it. We have such a limited comprehension of what life even is, its silly to assume that the origins of man are all one way or another of 2 possibilities.
Would you say that evolution has even a little truth? We know only God can conceive of concepts that don't already exist (though, by conceiving of said concepts, he brings them into existence), and we know that Satan sometimes wields truth for evil or deceptive purposes, so is it not possible that there is some truth in evolution? Humanity CANNOT deny that we are higher apes if we are to classify humans the same way we would classify any other animal on the planet, so what do we make of it?
Science fiction author Arthur C. Clark wrote promoting evolution as well. An entire novel, Childhood's End, relates directly to that topic, and has some truly creepy material inside. The plan to instill this into people's minds is widespread.
LadyGreenEyes964 1 month ago
Stopped watching after 2:15, when you give one of the most blatantly false explanations of evolution I've ever heard. Evolution is not about continually getting better, it's about continuing to adapt and evolve to "fit" the environment. If it was in our best interest to lose intelligence, strength, speed, or size, we would. It is not a constant accumulation of traits up until godhood. This betrays a fundamental misconception of the theory on your part.
Aralith1 4 months ago
If you don't believe in evolution you are likely either willfully ignorant or have been misinformed by disingenuous people like the maker of this video.
"Most people have a blind faith in evolution simply because it's what they've been told is true." Replace "evolution" with "religion" and that statement will become true. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence, every religion I can think of has no reliable evidence whatsoever.
thewetflarp 5 months ago
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose........." False premise, false dichotomy, argument from ignorance, straw man....I could go on. This quote is just one giant fallacy.
"Theory of evolution...did not come from scientific observations..." This is just a blatant lie. The amount of evidence in favor of evolution amassed over the past century has left 99.9% of scientists in agreement that evolution is both theory and fact.
CONTINUED
thewetflarp 5 months ago 2
"Evolution still has no answer for the origin of life" Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Spontaneous Generation is an obsolete explanation of the origin of life and has since been replaced by abiogenesis. Amino acids(the building blocks of life) have been PROVEN to arise from nonliving matter via natural processes.
CONTINUED
thewetflarp 5 months ago 2
@thewetflarp Wow,I can imagine the prison cell being built for you in Hell right now... wait,no I can't
flairfan101 1 month ago
WOW! This video is riddled with misinformation, non sequiturs, arguments from ignorance, question begging, false dichotomies etc. etc.
Man cannot attain "perfection" through evolution. Genetic drift alone assures that all living things will be constantly evolving. The theory of evolution never states that man reaches "godhood" as God is supernatural and unscientific.
CONTINUED
thewetflarp 5 months ago 2
This segment reminds me of the Bible verse that shows that people are willingly ignorant. They don't want to believe in God so they devise alternative, unbiblical theories.
transitionalphase 5 months ago
While I accept Evolution as only a man-made theory, it is not true that it says anything about attaining perfection.
There is no perfection to be attained in any environment because in theory, the environment can also change. So if something has evolved to function maximally in an environment and it changes, the organism is no longer able to survive fully here and must then change to fit the new environment.
justapearson 6 months ago 2
@justapearson ummm i dunno what else to say except there is perfection all through nature...in most aspects of and fauna and flora perfection is absolutely obvious...also the universe itself as chaotic as it looks to man is so perfect its not funny....if any part of this universe was in anyway even slightly different ,NONE OF IT WOULD EXIST!
desktopspoon 6 months ago
why do so many people blindly follow a Freemason like Darwin who couldn't even make it past the 27nd degree because he lost his mind? as if the system is really concerned with telling us the truth, people follow it like sheep to the point where they actually defend a system that's responsible for all the world's issues.
blattt188 7 months ago
There was one exhibit at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History called Origins saying, “volcanic gases plus lightning equal DNA equals LIFE." That sounds a lot like abiogenesis.
However, abiogenesis does not have evidence for it because microbes can be destroyed by ultraviolet radiation.
Kyouryuu5000 8 months ago
The theory of evolution is just pragmatism passed off a science.
Kyouryuu5000 8 months ago
Yahuwah is going to give satan a complete pounding.
shedendpussys 9 months ago
TheDarkLordLucifer 9 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 I like when people use science for it's non bias purpose of truth rather then for their own gain, usually coming to the bias conclusion of "No God" or "God in their own vision". Good indeed.
Shadowlooker12 9 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Nice argument
Shadowlooker12 9 months ago
i can't fathom why these video's don't have more view's
hiddenpilgrum 10 months ago
@hiddenpilgrum
Then spread the link to part 1, on a bulletin to your subs and friends :)
soniclady89 9 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 But you have to justify God created the natural laws to function. How do we know that God created the natural laws but instead a different supernatural thing did? how do we not know that the natural laws were never created, and were just always existent? how do we not know natural laws didn't occure through some understanding we simply don't know yet? You are playing the presupposition game again that functionality must require intellegence, thus god.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 "natural functionality of my car" - except its not a natural functionality, its an unnatural functionality because it was created by humans. All your examples (the key, the automobile), these are all examples of human intention, and we can prove and justify those intentions. However, functionality has existed prior to the period of human intent, thus how can human creation be the point of reference for natural functionality? why does functionality = intellegence?
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Therefore, since I am not making the claim that design doesn't occure. Then I am not entitled to provide any evidence at all it does or doesn't. However, you ARE claiming it does! thus you must provide evidence to supply your claim. The only claim i'm making is stars have natural creations, here is X data to support that. However, if there is direct intent behind the natural occuraces? who the hell knows, but there is no evidence to justify such assumptions.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 "a presupposition that the things that exist DON'T NEED to be designed" - wrong, I don't make such claims. If i am asked the question: was the development of the stars occuring naturally an actualy designed procedure. Then my simple response is : I don't know. However, I'm entiteled to also say: "without sufficient evidence though why would I assume that the extra step occured?" I have evidence for the natural occurance, but what evidence do I have for the unnatural one?
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 And you seem to continue to refuse the understanding of my statement on wiki. I never claimed or told you to source wiki. I actually explained not to, I said you could go to wiki for as a reference to your research and then follow the biblographic source of the inforation to an academic journal. I'll explain to you in step by step procedures: continued
ashunga543 10 months ago
@ashunga543 You go to wiki to read about WW2. You read a paragraph, which contains a footnote. You follow that footnote, to the bibliographical information at the bottom of the page. You then take that information to its source, which should exist within a academic journal (ex. The journal of Anthropological Antiquities) and you find the information to the direct source to observe the accuracy of the claim made from wiki. Then you can observe the legitimacy of the information made
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 yes.....b/c your arguement against wiki was sooo convincing when you source another online source. Common on, you have got to admit their is irony in this.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 and here is where your logical fallacy occurs. You place a presupposition that the things that exist must be designed. You must provide evidence for this my friend, presuppositions are fallaciouse by nature. Your anology of a key to a car, is a fallacy b/c keys have been observed in their manufacture. However our understanding of stars and galaxies are explained by nature, no intellegent intent. To apply lack of understand with god, is a simple argument from ignorance.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 O yes the favoured wiki criticism. You are right that no professor will tell you to use wiki, however many professors will tell you to go look at wiki for a bases of your research and even perhaps go review the references that are made to the particular page you are observing. But not to source wiki of coarse. The quote I referenced you: McCabe, Joseph (1912). The Story of Evolution. London. You can go look the article up if you wish, but you probably won't lol.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 "sigh" I think your biggest problem right now, is you don't know how to read and obsorb information my friend. Ex. "YOU seem to argue that it's useless" - never said that, I said it barely served a practicaly function. Which means it does do somthing, but not for a function that contains great effect or the effect of what it use to. If your read some biological or anthropological journals, they will provide you info on the appendix's previouse use.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
"Prove it?? Logic proves it son" - but yet you fail to explain it eh? why so worried? if its so logical then you should be able to explain why its design. ....go ahead, i ain't stoping you. I want to hear this.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
"LOLOL, So if your heart stops you die, so logically if you didn't have a heart, it wouldn't stop, hence you would not die. (Using your logic here.)" - actually no, I have no idea where your getting this. All i'm saying, is since the appendix no longer serves a practicall function for us anymore, an appendix bursts and killing you, is more practical than it being a benefit. If this was so called designed, then well.........he did a bad job.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
"You know, I don't feel like using my appendix today" - fail, I never said this, and your using your own faulty reasoning not mine. You really need to read some journal articles, but allow me to send you to some references b/c you seem to simply just not get it. Here is a simply copy and paste from wikipedia, you can read it yourself: "The most common explanation for the appendix's existence in humans is that it's a vestigial structure which has lost its original function."
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
"Appendix does have a function" - I never said it didn't have a function, I said we barely use it anymore. The appendix holds more of a threat to our biological selfs than it hold benefit. Things like the appendix and hardly does anything in our body as the kidneys a more suffient.
"As per design" - prove it
"Who dominates the planet" - nothing to do with evolution, evolution is the explanation for biological diversity.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234
"birds do not invent anything" - again, you refuse to remove yourself from your own bias. Brids do invents things, there called nest.
"or create through science" - science is a human construct, can't apply human developments on no one entities.
"DOMINATE RACE on the earth?? " Race huh? well clearly you don't even know what race is as 1. race only exist between humans, and 2. race is a cultural construct. It doesn't actually exist. Read some Anthropology journals.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 All you have done, is described characteristics that are unique to humans and said "LOOK! Look how special we are, we are so special and unique!! thus we must be the highest!" Without realising there are so many things that humans are incapable of doing naturaly such as; nocturnal nature, run quickly, fly ect. Also add to this, there are so many problems with us biologicaly too; poor joints, the ease of concussions, and extra body parts we don't use anymore ex: Appendix.
ashunga543 10 months ago
@Lichtspielhaus234 Biologically speaking, no we are not the "highest" evolved of all living things. All living organisms are equally evolved and adaptive to the environment that they were predispossed to, and there mutations compensated to that environment in their own different manner. Humans did this with the increase size of brains (along with other characteristics), and other animals adaptided in other fashions . Ex - (flight, swimming, speed, nocturnal nature ect.). Continued.....
ashunga543 10 months ago
"The evolved goal is for man to reach perfection."
This statement has proven to me that you have never picked a biology textbook and actually read evolution, as you believe evolution is a process of perfection, when instead it is merely a process of adaptation to survival. If you understood evolution, then you would be aware that it techniquelly hold the possibility to change the human species back to something similar to that of what it once was millions of years ago.
ashunga543 10 months ago
2:00 I have a mormon friend who believes that when all people die they will then become gods of their own little universes. I don't know where he would have got this idea from. But the video helps explain how this thought could plant a seed in peoples minds of how this could actually come to be.
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
@stsinbad89
Within the context of the question I asked, your answer is unecessary...
You may think it's a straight lie - but WHY? ...because you can't understand it, or you can't find a way to make it compatable with what you read in the Bible? Then you went into some psudeoscience about the origin of the world evolution - not interested.
aveyowyns 10 months ago
To clarify, this "evolution" is not trans-species. but adaptation within a species. there are many hypotheses to the origins of man. One says a deity made us out of mud, one says we "evolved" from apes, another says we were engineered by a highly advanced intelligence in the past as a hybrid slave race. Some argue that we dont exist, some say we're a mathematical imperative as a function of infinity. It might be nice to KNOW our origin, we have to settle for Knowing that we're here..for now.
N2DFlood 10 months ago
Evolution is real, in that life mutates, changes, evolves as the environment changes, as the nature of all life is change. Evolution is true, but is not our Origin. Evolution, more specifically, cellular mutation, or genetic re sequencing as adaptation requires, is more of an indication of design than an argument against it. We have such a limited comprehension of what life even is, its silly to assume that the origins of man are all one way or another of 2 possibilities.
N2DFlood 10 months ago
@stsinbad89
Neither does this answer my question.
aveyowyns 10 months ago
Would you say that evolution has even a little truth? We know only God can conceive of concepts that don't already exist (though, by conceiving of said concepts, he brings them into existence), and we know that Satan sometimes wields truth for evil or deceptive purposes, so is it not possible that there is some truth in evolution? Humanity CANNOT deny that we are higher apes if we are to classify humans the same way we would classify any other animal on the planet, so what do we make of it?
aveyowyns 10 months ago
Comment removed
rehzon 10 months ago
@rehzon
Thanks for the rant, but this doesn't answer my question...
aveyowyns 10 months ago