"Darwin’s idea has been an unmitigated failure from the start. Darwinist biology is perhaps the only major scientific theory which has subsisted in an unbroken state of crisis since its inception. I contend, in fact, that the Darwinian model has proved worthless as a biological paradigm, which is to say that Darwinism is not truly a scientific theory, but indeed an ideological postulate masquerading in scientific garb."
I don't know who sonykroket is but I never used Scripture, anecdotes, or ignorance to affirm anything. Dude, you should work up to a comment like that in a conversation because when you start off w/one like that it kind of leaves us nowhere to go. So, if you were trying to come off angry and biased you did well. Later man.
@pcruze81 You don't understand why an accomplished evolutionary biologist like Dawkins would have discontent with religions? Millions of tax free dollars used to create propaganda against evolution, age of the earth, universe. Billions of dollars spent...just to try and make science fit their creation stories........We do not sneek in hidden messages...we tell you straight up your batshit!
When it comes to disagreeing w/evolution, though, one shouldn't pigeon hold people and base their view on those who disagree off of one's own experience. I've met agnostic/non-religious people who think that the evidence has been distorted. They have no theological/religious convictions yet see holes in the theory.
Here's a link toe some of Dr. Singh's work. I'll go through my library sometime this and find the exact source, but here's a sample of his work. He has a doctorate's from Prune Univ. (India) in applied mathematics. Where I disagree, in general, about the discipline of science itself is that most evolutionist I meet seem to believe that science gives worth to people, but I would argue that its the other way around. It is man who gives worth to science. Does that make sense?
I have to agree w/such mathematicians as Dr. Vikram Singh an applied mathematician scholar from the Univ. of Cardiff at Wales when he finds that for life to have come about by chance the probability would be 1X10 to the power of 40,000. That's roughly 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. I don't have the faith to believe that life emanated by happenstance.
@pcruze81 First, you still have not answered the question of how do you think it happened. You only elude to some designer that may or may not be God. That is not a very well formed idea of origins. I suspect you have more specific ideas, but are afraid that your beliefs would come under some scrutiny. Second, You are simply providing the watchmakers argument. It is obvious you do not understand the mechanisms of evolution. Evolution is NOT random. See "Qualiasoup skewed views of science"
@coolgreyoneabby I'm not avoiding anything I'm just trying to go step by step so you can understand how I've come to my conclusion. From my understaind of logic that's usually how it works. If I tell you right now what I believe and why all you're going to do is throw a label on me like you've done from the beginning, call me ignorant & that I have a skiewed view of science & dismiss all that I have to say. I have no problem w/people that support evolution. Many of my friends, familly &...
@pcruze81 I have called you no names nor disrespected your positions. I have called you a Creationist since that is the alternate to Evolutionist. I have found that almost everyone I speak to that does not accept evolution has a religious upbringing where the idea of evolution was misrepresented and presented as a characture. Most people seek reality but our beliefs are only as good as our information sources. I looked up Dr Singh but couldn't find. Can you supply source?
@coolgreyoneabby I would like you to really think on this fact during the weekend as I am leaving town & will not be able to dialogue with you: the enzyme (which is the building block of the gene) needs at least 250 proteins lining up in exact sequence to function. I wonder what the probability of the enzyme coming about by random causation is? I find that to be somewhat troubling, as I do not have that kind of faith to believe that those conjugated proteins came about by chance.
@pcruze81 That is more specific than my expertise. I don't claim to know precisely how that specific proteins is made, but since proteins are part of life, non random selection could account for the present configuration. Your point is that the protein would be needed for first life and that could not be accounted for by selection. Again, I don't know that proteins but in the very simplest of life or "pre-life" could there have been a simpler agent or form that provided that function?
@coolgreyoneabby Specifically, what do you mean when you use the term "non random selection"? What process has Science shown to be responsible for these intricate proteins without whom life would not be able to function at the most basic levels?
@pcruze81 I only refer to the process of natural selection as being one possible way the PRESENT form of the protein got configured. How do we know there was not a simpler version of it or another molecule that did the same job? or a simpler version that did another job, combined to form the present version? Again, this is out of my expertise, but because we don't know how "X" was done, does not give evidence for God. It is only evidence that we don't know yet. Someone else might know now.
@pcruze81 Complexity usually arrises from simpler forms. Self emergent complex systems are common. Language, economies, world politics, ecosystems & biology are all examples. All are highly complex systems that can give the illusion that the level of complexity could only be accomplished by some master planner, but in reality, there was no master planner. Each level of complexity was a small incremental step to solve a small local problem, but eventually evolved into the complexity we see today.
@coolgreyoneabby That seems a little too simplistic for me. The origin of language, economies, & politics is intelligence, more specifically human intelligence. I could never deem the mind to be a "simpler form" as you have suggested. I know that the idea of a creator is laughed at in atheistic academia, but I just don't understand why. You boldly claim that there is no master planner. What knowledge have you ascertained in your lifetime to make a claim like that? I'm curious.
@pcruze81 You missed the point. It is not about intelligence, it is about very complex systems evolving from simple systems without a master plan or master planner. All complex systems evolve from simpler systems. Did you look up "Hoyles fallacy"? It says the same thing I did, that Hoyle and Chandra made the assumption that the protien poofed into existence in it's modern form without intermediate steps. It is the intermediate steps that is required to get from A to B.
@pcruze81 That is why religion has a problem with evolution. Religion always assumed that the complexity we see today could only be explained by a deity. Science discovered a naturalistic method whereby the complexity of nature can be explained by natural processes. Evidence from many separate fields of investigation independently corroborated that explanation. Today, that evidence fills warehouses and museums. Religion resists that idea since it diminishes the importance of their deity.
@pcruze81 Why is a simpler version of "the mind" so difficult to understand? My dog is a perfect example. She is fully conscious, has emotions, understands many English phrases, gets excited as well as sad, knows how to communicate her needs, but she is incapable of algebra, writing, creating sentence structure and creating art. Seems like a pretty good example of a "simpler form" of "mind" to me.
@coolgreyoneabby What I don't understand about this new breed of atheist like Harris or Dawkins is how they sneek in hidden meaning, purpose, & worth in their worldview. I respect previous atheist like Russell & Flew because they were honest in their approach to debate theists. You say truth is laughable but you claim w/every comment to be dead on w/your perspective of reality. Friend, you claim to be positing truth. I end our conversation w/this. I pray that God Almighty reveals Himself 2u
@pcruze81 You didn't like my dog and her simpler form of mind? My arguments were truthful, logical and respectful, but very frank. I am not dogmatically tied to any belief system. If evidence shows I'm wrong, I'm OK with that and I will learn. If God reveals himself to me, I will accept him, but I still consider religion a pollutant in the quest for understanding reality. I hope you can someday let go of religion and see how wondrous the quest for understanding reality really is.
Why dont you prove some skydaddy is responsible for it first.
All the rest you can look up on talkoriginsdotcom. But you really dont care about science, you're just here to create the illusion of a debate in order to get credit as a reli-muppet.
Look up big bang(expansion), abiogenesis( "nonlife to life"WTF ever that means) and evolution
@sonykroket I am familiar with everything you outlined.... That doesn't answer my question.. For an intellectual, you have a problem focusing... Let's try again...
Here is your original comment: "Prove your skydaddy poofed things into existence or STFU"... I asked you how non living matter created life. In other words, how did science "poof" things into existence? Start at the beginning where nothing created a living cell. Go..
@sonykroket LOL! "Stop copying creationist-websites"???? I didn't copy a thing... I just asked a question that you apparently have a problem answering.... Do I need to ask it for the third time? I... could.....ask... it ....... a ..... little.... slower... if .... you need that. Remember the question? Hint: it's about non living matter... 1-2-3 GO!
@coolgreyoneabby I found that reference for you. Sorry I had butchered the spelling of his name in last comments. Its Chandra Wickramasinghe in his books, "The Origin of Life in the Universe", and if you're curious about him & theological convictions I can assure you that he is not a Christian.
@pcruze81 Thanks for that reference on Chandra. Turns out he worked with Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer. Chandra and Fred both were advocates of panspermia, which does not contradict modern evolutionary theory. They also both advocated the improbable chances of spontaneous generation of a modern protein molecule. Look up "Hoyle's fallacy" in Wikipedia for an explanation of the errors in the calculation.
@pcruze81 But this is another example of the "God of the gaps" argument. Because you or I don't know how "X" happened is not evidence for God. It simply means that we don't know how "X" happened.... yet. Historically, many mysteries were attributed to God, disease, planetary motion, etc, but as the science unlocked those mysteries, new "god of the gaps" arguments had to be found. Maybe it is not chance or God.
@coolgreyoneabby co-workers believe in evolution. The only difference is that they feel comfortable and secure enough to dialogue about it. They don't criticize, point fingers, and view my concepts as threatening. I've grown a little bit bored of our conversations. Take care man, good luck with waiving the evolution flag. Later.
For every evidence-based argument for the existence of evolution there is an evidence-based counter argument as well. I'm surprised by the aggressive and misleading comments on this page. I figured that people who make such broad and bold claims would have studied this subject in a bit more detail. As intelligent human beings we should not try to raise up a caricature of either the existence of evolution or the existence of a creator and then debunk that caricature we ourselves have raised up
@pcruze81 Incorrect. Your argument is much more psychology based than science based. You should read "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Micheal Shermer. Science is the best tool every devised to probe the workings of the universe. Religion is mythology based when mankind yearned for knowledge, but did not have the tools to decipher the physical world. Today, there is no excuse to reject evidence based science in favor of mythology. There is no real evidence that supports creationism.
@coolgreyoneabby You should work up to making a statement like that. When you start off with one like that it kind of leads you nowhere to go. If you and I comment back long enough I think you're gonna have to eat your words. I'm not trying to be cocky, I'm just speaking from having many similar conversations with people that have your worldview. Let's start slow. Name one piece of what you called "evidence" that science has given us to support Darwinism. Look forward to hearing back.
@pcruze81 I've played this game before. I present evidence and the Creationists rejects it or keeps asking questions until the honest answer is: "we don't know....yet" and the Creationists believes he has supported his side. The fact is that the evidence for evolution is so vast, you couldn't review it all in the rest of your lifetime. The evidence for Creationism is nothing more than misunderstandings and cherry picking data to support a pre conceived world view.
@coolgreyoneabby I'm glad you've got me and the whole discipline of science figured out. I'm sure that those two videos along w/the dozens of other ones I was presented in college will really present the only true objective aproach on the theory. I don't believe any heavily foot-noted, aggressive statement will change my mind. If you study the technology and techniques that were available to Charles Darwin at the time he came to his conclusion you'd see the flaws in his theory.
@pcruze81 No one claims there were no flaws in Darwin's original ideas. Modern Evolutionary Theory is a great expansion based on Darwin's original ideas. We have been adding to the knowledge of the basic Darwinian idea for over 100 years. That plus thousands of examples of independent corroborating evidence is what we now call "Evolutionary Theory" not "Darwinism". "Theory" being used in the same context as "Germ Theory", "Atomic Theory" and "Theory of Relativity".
@coolgreyoneabby You know what's funny to me about this dialogue. I never once claimed to be a creationist. You have assumed that from the beginning. I'm just a person who thinks that many people who proport that evolution is a fact have distorted the evidence and have propped up a theory that doesn't fit the geological/fossil record. From my perspective you believing that everyone else's take on this matter is "skiewed" except for those who agree with you is what you just called "fantasy".
@pcruze81 Of course no amount of evidence will change your mind. That is the definition of religious dogma. I don't expect to change your mind, I write these explanations for those who may be reading along and are interested in filtering fantasy from reality. You are helping me do that. If you had watched "Qualiasoup: Skewed views of science" You would not have written what you did.
@coolgreyoneabby Dude, the bottom line is that our two very different worldviews have been formed by our eductations, our upbringings, & our convictions. For you to not admit that everyone's view on this theory is somewhat biased (including your own) this conversation would be a total waste of breath. I am totally willing to admit that I may be incorrect on my take of the theory of evolution, but I don't see you meeting me at that point. Surprise me & let's have some open honest dialogue.
@pcruze81 I ask a very simple question. You say that evolution is false, yet offer no explanation of how it did happen. Instead of name calling and doing the typical "you are wrong" accusation, I simply ask you what you think happened. So I'll ask again. What do you think brought us here and why do you think that. I am perfectly willing to answer those exact questions and my video suggestions give further insight into the evidence for my position. What is your positions?
@coolgreyoneabby I would have to start off the conversation by asking you if you believe in "truth" as a category? Does "truth" actually exist in your view of reality? Because if it doesn't we're just playing word games. I would hope that you do believe in it or else all of your studying and contemplating have been for not. I am strongly convinced that "truth" does exist. I believe that science/philosophy/religion are all seeking truth, but they all go about it in very different ways.
@pcruze81 I trust in the capacity of science to provide and accurate understanding of reality.That is the function of science and it has proved to be very effective. If you want to define truth as a proper understanding of reality, then fine. I'm just not going to be dragged into a red herring of defining some metaphysical meaning of "truth". I focus on an accurate understanding of reality.
@coolgreyoneabby I find that as I view the complexity and detail of the cell, for instance, I come into contact w/mini turbines, propellor-like machines, & what I will call "robots" that cart info around and they all have very specific tasks/jobs to perform within the cell. Logic tells me that turbines, machines, and robots have never come about in my lifetime from small malfunctions/mutations in nature. To me, personally, natural selection doesn't cut it. For something so small & complex...
@coolgreyoneabby ...to have come into being w/o our intelligent brains, as human beings, creating them. I find myself looking elsewhere for their origins.Plusgiven the fact that no matter how you slice down physical reality into it the minutest forms we never find that it explains its origin through scientific inquiry/study. I see purpose within the cell, I see its complexity and my logic tells me it was designed. I'm not claiming that proves that God is the creator, but...
@pcruze81 We can save alot of time with the standard creationist arguments by first watching YouTube: "Qualiasoup Skewed views of science" THEN the series "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism". This series goes down each of the standard creationist arguments and presents the evidence against each. This conversation is as old as astronomy vs astrology, chemistry vs alchemy, science vs magic, evidence vs superstition, fantasy vs reality. It is important to know the difference.
"Why pick on Darwin and evolution?" Um....perhaps because nothing could be more fairy-tale-like than a fish evolving into a bear (as claimed by Dawkins), or believing in some "primordial soup" billions of years ago. Such far-fetched theories require more faith than believing in a god or in Noah's Ark. If evolutionism is so self-evidently true and indisputable, why then does someone of his stature and prestige spend so much time ridiculing and trying to debunk creationism?
1. Evolution does not predict that a fish instantly transforms into a bear... not even in a million years might that line of ancestry end up in a "bear", as you say. Go read more.
2. You are asking the wrong question. Either evolution is true or it is not and you must base that on the evidence presented, testing the theory based on the accuracy of the predictions it makes, and decades of peer review.
The amount of ridicule is irrelevant to the truth of evolution or creationism.
@BachScholar There are tons of evidence for the claims of evolution as a slow gradual process of change by heredity and natural selection. There is none whatsoever for Noah.
And creationism has to be ridiculed as hard as possible and as often as possible. Lest anyone starts taking such crap seriously.
First of all this guy does not know about Quran otherwise he must not says Quran teachs reverse Evolutions you idiot Quran cleary says Allah created human above
all creation go read about you idiot..........hahaahha....Quran give full definitions what
is animals and what is humans how he created the universal and how he created the
@voncello, atheism is not a religion it is a understanding. It is the acceptance of fact over fiction, reality over fantasy,morality over immorality .
@jimmyg4life A religious person could give the same definition of his faith. Unless one studies the evidence he is living in faith, whether an atheist or a blind faith believer. As for your claim that atheism is defined by "morality over immorality" can you back that up? Or is that another faith based belief?
@von cello Just to clarify to you, atheists dont have a belief at all, because we do not believe theists. And that is all there is to it, thousands of gods later not one of them was ever proved. It is most likely there is not just as you do not have the same god as anyone else. Not a 2 people has ever interpreted the holy book of choice the same as the other. That is a good reason not to believe any of you. We simply do not believe you, there is no credibility. Again, it is a lack of belief
@splicedenergy Who is "you"? Already you are engaging in faith based thinking by assuming I am part of a group. You have no idea what I believe and how I think.
An atheist does have a belief - he has a belief that God doesn't exist. An agnostic doesn't have a belief - he admits he doesn't know. To me the agnostic is the more rational. There is so much to know on this topic and when people, atheist or theist, come to conclusions without sufficient knowledge that is faith based thinking.
@voncello Only a faith minded person says "atheism is a belief" If you cannot understand the words there is something weong. It is a lack of belief. If it werent for the burden of proof for theists, they would not be any atheists, because you make the claim. A claim has to have proof. If I say to you "there are pink unicorns out in my stables" you would think I am put of my mind, there is no such thing as unicorns. If I can take you to the stables and you dont see them you wont believe me. LACK
@splicedenergy But what if there really are pink unicorns in your stable and I say that I refuse to look because I "know' they don't exist? Then I would have a "belief" that is not true. The same exists in the God debate. There is evidence out there but most people refuse to look, so as with the pink unicorns, they have a "belief" that God doesn't exist that is unverified. Holding an opinion without examining evidence = belief. Therefore there are atheists who are believers & others who aren't.
@voncello So you dont get context. You nor anyone knows there is gods. I don't believe you because if you knew everyone else would know and be demonstrable. I did not say I know they is a pink unicorn in my stable, I said there is a pink unicorn in my stable. You don't know just like I don't know and if there is nothing demonstrable then there is nothing to believe.
@splicedenergy When I say you, I say you as a generalization. When I say I am telling you, then I am talking to you. The definiton is what you are taking out of context. And you are still doing it
@splicedenergy When you talk to an individual as if he represents a group that is irrational. I do not represent the theists of the world nor do I represent the atheists. Many people talk past other people. If you want to talk to a group go find a group. I am the only one here right now.
@splicedenergy Not everyone knows everything and when it comes to Jewish knowledge very few people know about it. Even most Jews don't study Jewish knowledge in depth. There are about 14 million Jews in the world and if 5% study in depth that would mean a few hundred thousand people. I don't know why there is such a prejudice about this but very few non-Jews study this in any depth. Yet they like to declare that there is no God without checking out the evidence, which is a form of belief.
there is no evidence for god, until there is god dose not exist. its your delusion its up to you to prove your mad claims that there is a god. You might as well believe in fairy's
@assym2006 Until you learn how to spell you will be hard to take seriously. And the consistent use of capital letters are also helpful if you want to present yourself as being intelligent. If someone like you doesn't think there is any evidence for God, that is fine with me.
I know science doesn't have all the answers yet. But i'm in awe that grown people think a book written thousands of years ago by primative, superstitoius savages has all the answers and is the word of God. It's the word of primative man.I guess the religion brainwashing is that strong. Human beings can do better.
@flubno You have also been brainwashed. There are absolutely brilliant men who would strongly disagree with your characterization of the men who wrote the Bible. They have actually put in years of study looking into the Bible, learning Hebrew, reading it in its original language, consulting the thousands of volumes of Jewish commentary, looking into the science, the incredible use of language, the numerology, the prophecy, etc. Who have you studied with? How much time have you spent?
@voncello I'm surprised there are people out there like that. Theology is bizzare to me. They obiously have a bais towards faith. Some parts of the Bible are hard to read. The leet speak is so different, plus it's poorly translated. I just don't see anything special there. I plan on going thru the Bible again with a highlighter & outlining all the barbaric, stone age , wack stuff and then selling them on ebay. Since most people are to lazy to read the Bible anyway. It's truely a retarded book.
@flubno I argue in my book Beyond Faith that Bible translations are so poor that what you are reading is not the real Bible. If you were to talk to an Orthodox rabbi he would tell you that it must be read in Hebrew or if one must read it in English you need a teacher or at least a book of rabbinical commentary that goes word by word explaining the various meanings of each word and each sentence. I agree that what you are reading is "anything but special" but the real Bible is amazing.
@voncello Yes there are mistranslations in the Bible but the very idea that an omnipotent being failed at communication by using what he knew what he knew would become dead languages is absurd. Why not have revelations to the Chinese who had written history at that time?
No matter of translation changes that the God of that book supported slavery, genocide and infanticide. This is of course because the Bible was in fact written by men who knew little about the world and less about morality.
@IamtheMADman24 Hebrew is not a dead language. The Bible predicted 3500 years ago that the Jews would return to Israel after a long exile. In 1948 the Jews came back and Hebrew is the national language of Israel. How could a human know this would happen 3500 years ago? You tell me what is going to happen 3500 years from now.
The Bible doesn't support those things. You are misreading it. Accuracy of the text matters. "To flee or not to flee" is a lot different than "To be or not to be".
@voncello There are areas of the Bible open for interpretation but those that I mentioned are not some of them. It is no less than intellectually dishonest to claim straight forward commands on when to kill whole towns and specifics on how to keep slaves and how badly you can beat them as not supported.
At the very least an omniscient being failed at communicating a simple message: "Thou shall not enslave another human being" Nothing like that is in the bible, anywhere.
@IamtheMADman24 You say there are commands "on when to kill whole towns". Tell me when the Bible says you can do that. As for "slavery" that is highly misinterpreted. Are you aware that the Hebrew word does not mean slave? See my video watch?v=jI65ADdkFgo.
As for anti slavery quotes, how about the very first commandment? "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." The whole point of the Bible is to free men from slavery, mental & physical.
@voncello You are more moral than that book and that's why you deny some of it.
Aramaic is a dead language and even if you count Hebrew as Aramaic, which its not, to suggest that an omniscient being can't, or chose not to, communicate his message in the translations knowing full well Hebrew would remain not very prevalent is absurd.
Also when people are actively working toward the prophecy its not impressive at all. That's like claiming getting what you ordered at a restaurant as prophecy.
@IamtheMADman24 The Bible was written in Hebrew which is alive and spoken in Israel. The Talmud was written in Aramaic. That language isn't spoken today but Orthodox Jews have kept it alive for Talmudic study.
It's more like ordering in a restaurant today and getting served 3500 years from now! Even with people working for a certain goal, if the goal is unbelievably unlikely it is still remarkable. Who during the Holocaust would have dared predict in a few short years the rebirth of Israel?
@voncello@voncello Yes you are right the Bible was largely written in Hebrew but partially in Aramaic but that is really beside the main points...
Call it what you like but to say that the people described as "your money" are slaves. People who you can beat with no punishment if they can stand after a couple days are owned by you and hence are your slaves. People who you pass down to your children when you die are your slaves even if they had more protections than some other slaves.
@IamtheMADman24 The Jewish Bible is 100% Hebrew. Aramaic was the language of the Babylonians. Where did you hear the Bible was in Aramaic?
Is a soldier a slave? Is a prisoner a slave? They can be ordered around and told what to eat, where to sleep, when to speak. Both can be beaten with no punishment depending on the situation. But no, they are not slaves. The same with the Bible. The word translated as slave covers situations from domestic workers to prisoners of war. You are oversimplifying.
@voncello The likely reason some refused to leave was because they didn't want to leave their families not that they loved their masters. And while I could continue to list reasons why they are slaves that would be a waste. You are just so determined not to believe that every action described and commanded in the bible is just that it just has no effect.
Nowhere does it say that non-Hebrew slaves would be freed after getting enslaved and in fact it says the opposite. Lev 25:44-46.
@IamtheMADman24 If you are commenting on my video "Slavery in the Bible... What's Up With That?" please comment on it at its page. People on this page have no idea what you are talking about and it is not related to the Shermer video.
@voncello Your rationalizations are disturbing... It is never justified to own slaves. The way you speak about it being ok under some circumstances makes me wonder if you would defend the actions of Jephtah, 2 Kings 2:23-24, or Deut 13:12-18 (which does say kill whole towns if they don't believe in your god).
You know these things are wrong and it is not the translations that made them this way.
Lastly Christians made that prophecy come true and so it was self-fulfilling.
@IamtheMADman24 If Christians did these things they were wrong. First of all Jewish law doesn't apply to Christians. Also, they didn't understand the law, and neither do you. I just looked up in the Talmud re: Deut 13 "You shall smite the people of THAT city". The rabbis point out the word "that", stating: before punishment can begin scholars must go to the city and try to convince people to stop the idol worship. If they succeed THAT city actually becomes a new kind of city and is spared!
@voncello Even correct prophecy can't prove supernatural knowledge.
And I noticed that you deleted your original comment and backed off your stance that no passages say to kill entire towns. Did you just realize they are there?
As for the passage you claimed against slavery: your joking right? A definitive declaration against slavery would have been easy,as I've already shown, but there is nothing remotely like that and in fact the opposite is communicated. You are in denial.
@IamtheMADman24 I didn't delete anything. Why are you making things up? You must be getting desperate because you are also resorting to insults saying I must be joking and I'm in denial. I'm happy to have reasonable conversations with reasonable people but if you are going to resort to lies and insults it's pointless to continue.
Some people, like yourself, assume that whatever thoughts they have in their heads are the truth. They are too self-righteous to believe that other opinions exist.
@voncello The Book of Daniel was written partially in Aramaic... Your original post was hit my inbox at 3:19 its not here, the next was at 3:24 and is here... I assumed you deleted it because if it failed to post I would not have got the email but perhaps that was just a glitch of sorts.
However to suggest that it would be ok to kill the entire town if they didn't convert is repulsive. By the way I'm not insulting you I'm insulting your rationalizations there is a difference.
@IamtheMADman24 I wasn't aware of Daniel containing Aramaic but there is no doubt that God didn't write that book! The only book Jews claim was actually written by God is the Torah which is in Hebrew.
There is no need to even insult other people's opinions. Even here you call my opinion a rationalization. I could say the same of your opinions but notice - I don't. My ideas are from the Talmud, the official Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Bible. Original sources are better than conjecture.
@strangerlover11 You need to learn about Jews from respected sources and not believe the propaganda you have been fed. The Jewish Bible was written in Hebrew around 1500 BCE. The Christians translated it into Greek 1500 years later (not the other way around). The Talmud is nothing but an explanation of the Torah, so to say that Jews don't give the Torah value is absurd. It is considered to be the oral interpretation of the Torah that was handed down by God at Mount Sinai with the written Torah.
@voncello This is the absolute last thing I'll say: I understand why you are so resistant to the idea that those actions are actually there but that doesn't mean they aren't there. I'm not even suggesting that you don't believe what you have said, what I am saying is that these things are there and no amount of rationalization can get rid of them or make them moral.
I'm very reasonable and open minded but that doesn't mean if you say "x is not x" that I have to agree you have a point.
@IamtheMADman24 It's hard in short bites to explain. You need a Bible with rabbinic interpretation as a start. Studying one on one with a rabbi is best. But let me just say that the Hebrew word "eved" was applied to many situations. Are you aware that Israel had no prisons? Prisoners of war were sent into people's homes! Imagine if you had an Al Qaeda in your home! Wouldn't you need the right to beat him if he threatened you? Still he's not a slave. It's easy to criticize but harder to learn.
@strangerlover11 You claim you have "sense" yet you end your post with "hahhahhahhah". What is that supposed to mean? That if someone doesn't accept the Koran totally by faith they should be laughed at? If that's your view then why shouldn't a Christian laugh at you for not accepting Jesus? Why shouldn't a Buddhist laugh at you for believing in God? I don't believe that laughing at others is a moral behavior and doing so doesn't indicate much "sense" to me.
@strangerlover11 Fine, but you don't accept Jesus as the son of God. So how would you like it if a Christian laughed at you because you don't believe in Jesus? Don't you see that laughing at people with different beliefs than your own is not a constructive thing to do?
@voncello a non belief is not a belief... im sure you would laugh at any homeless guy who believes he has an invisible friend who gives him massages or something..
@Sc0ttPrian I don't laugh at homeless people. I feel sympathy for them. And a non-belief can be a belief when it is based on ignorance. One can say he doesn't believe the world is round. You can say that is a non-belief, but I would say it is a belief because if he looks at the evidence it will become clear that it is round so he really is expressing belief rather than expressing a well considered opinion.
@Sc0ttPrian I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was responding to strangerlover who is a Muslim. He said that he laughs at people who don't accept the Koran and all that Muslim writings say. So he is the one who is laughing at people for expressing non-belief. My point was to ask him how he would feel if Christians laughed at him because he doesn't believe in Jesus. People shouldn't laugh at each other because they don't believe things that are unproven. Seeking evidence is intelligent.
@voncello Shoooot, my fault. there were so many messages, I'm sorry. Personally, I think its funny for any christian to reject Islam, or any Jew to reject Islam. Yes, I have no faith in any of those fairytales, but APPARENTLY mohamed is the latest prophet of the Abrahamic God. Just as Mormons believe in Joseph Smith..
really, in my opinion, its silly to just pick one of these "prophets" and say "THATS THE ONE!"
@Sc0ttPrian To the contrary, Judaism had the original "revelation" (to use the language of religion). The Bible says that God Himself appeared before the whole Jewish nation (millions of people). They saw a fire ball on the mountain and heard a loud voice that shook the earth. Give me one logical reason why a Jew would turn his back on a direct revelation of God to follow a man who claimed he was God or another man who claimed he was a prophet? Unless you can disprove the original why switch?
@voncello EXACTLY! but its simple for people of all nations, their parents, their teachers, law enforcers, friends, neighbors, etc... typically believe in the same god, (stronger with family and the friends of the family) what kind of christian would raise a muslim? If we could have given people a choice of which religion, without hearing their friends or parents choices, things would be much different. though, without religion all together, everyone would be at peace without all the bickering..
@Sc0ttPrian Before you had religion there were tribes that bickered. If it's not whose God is real it's who should have this plot of land, or who should rule who, etc. Stalin and Mao proved that lack of religion doesn't lead to peaceful behavior.
In my book "Beyond Faith" I argue that people should not follow a religion because those around them do. To those who believe that I would ask if a child of a mafioso should follow that too? We must all move beyond faith and make rational decisions.
@voncello well, we have progressed since those times. there will always be evil people, evil people with religious faith like hitler, and evil people without religious faith. I too believe, that it is completely possible to have a fully functioning society free of evils.
we just dont know how. obviously.. side note- look at all the freaking advertisements everywhere, do we really need all that to survive and live happy lives? its impossible to get ANYWHERE without being forced useless info.
@Sc0ttPrian Your observation points out how we are constantly being manipulated by those who seek gain at our expense. One great thing about Sabbath observance is 1 day a week you are not supposed to watch TV, read a newspaper, listen to the radio. For 1/7th of your week you should move away from society's manipulations and reach a deeper, more eternal reality. Buddhists reach for something similar though meditation. These are some of the good things that religion, used properly, brings to life.
@voncello :P i dont do those things anyway. i live in a studio, work in a studio, breath/ eat/ sleep.. though, facebook and youtube are a part of that as well. HOWEVER not a big deal. maybe thats why i see the world the way i do. I grew up away from other kids, i was always an observer. however, i also observed the religious in church and never quite understood why or how they allowed themselves to believe the things they believe.
@Sc0ttPrian I agree. I don't understand how religious people and atheists allow themselves to come to such firm conclusions when there is so much they don't know.
@voncello Theres this guy in india. hes an atheist working for Responsible Charity. I dont know hes alone but the point is, doing stuff gets more done in this world than prayer. I mean, an atheist, helping people who are dying, sick, or just in need of help. its really a big deal, how many christians say theyre helping by giving their church money, then watch the church remodel or get TVs.. Not that its a bad thing for the people, they pay for it, theyre just not helping anyone else the world..
@Sc0ttPrian I agree. It's interesting that in the Talmud God is quoted as saying that He'd rather have people follow His laws than believe in Him. The emphasis in Judaism is on good deeds. I always found it strange that Christianity and Islam, which both claim to be advancements on Judaism, asserted that belief was more important than deeds. Seems to me that is a retrogression rather than an advance. Now secularists say deeds are all that matters but deeds without a foundation are ephemeral.
@voncello it really is like a digression. People believe because thats their rule. Why do some not have sex before marriage? I havent because I dont need a family. sure thats probably a dumb reason, but some christians are saving those things ONLY because theyre told to, regardless if they want to or not. in fact I know too many christians who either want to or have already while unmarried. they believe, yet dont actually believe, or they would follow, do themselves a favor..
@Sc0ttPrian The idea that you can say something is wrong and do it anyway believing that God will forgive you runs contrary to Judaism which says if you know something is wrong don't do it. Some have speculated that the Christian founders purposely created a religion that would attract the maximum number of followers. How great to think you can do anything and be quickly forgiven! But how can you claim to be a fulfillment of Judaism yet go against its principles? Hence the emphasis on faith.
@voncello exactly, its attractive. evolutionarily, its no wonder its still around. do anything you want practically. the only punishment is jail depending on what it is. but thats not eternal wohooo....
@voncello I remember watching something on ancient people. They said something about a space snake coming out of the sky and biting the earth. Then I was told that it was probably a meteor. Meteors do look like snakes from space when burning up in our atmosphere. Thats the way they talked back them. in the end, to many people look to the ancient people like they have some kind of wisdom. Their life & problems were totaly different than modern people.
@flubno Not sure what you're getting at. What is unique about the Bible is that much of what it said still applies very much to today. Look at all the attention the tiny country of Israel gets. Part of the fascination with Israel is that a 3500 year old book made detailed outlandish prophecies about what would occur there and much of it has occurred. Though some people dismiss it as a bunch of coincidences others find that hard to believe. Fact is there's no other ancient book with such power.
@voncello I always kinda thought that if it wasn't for the Bible, no one would give a shit about israel. It would just be another 3rd world country no one gives a shit about. Religion has the power to brainwash and lead stupid people around by the nose, that's pretty much it.
@flubno Well, even without the Bible Israel is far from 3rd world. A country of 7 million it has won 20% of the Nobel prizes for science! The Pentium chip in your computer was probably made there. I agree that religion has the power to brainwash and lead people around by the nose but so does the secular religion. Whether or not one is religious he can still be brainwashed into following some kind of program whether it comes from a religion, a government, or a social organization hidden or known.
@voncello I think flubno was saying that without the Bible Israel (if it still existed at all) would appear on the world radar as often as any other not very important place. Due to its religious status (for all Abrahamic religions) it has been raised to a status far beyond the value of its land or resources, leading to foreign interest, support, and arguably exploitation.
@ikkoikki You could say that without the New Testament Italy wouldn't be on the world radar because there'd be no Vatican, no statue of David, no Pieta, no Sistine Chapel ceiling. Without the Koran Saudi Arabia wouldn't be on the radar because there'd be no Mecca. Without Beethoven and Brahms what would Germany be? Without Cezanne and Monet what would France be? The Bible is one of the great Jewish achievements for sure but Jews still are leaders in science, business, literature, music, etc.
@voncello voncello says there is simply not enough evidence so it can't be true. sorry to be so sarcastic but who are you? Evolutionary theory is the best explanation of the diversity of life, it makes predictions (confirmed) it explains the fossil record, it is consistant wuth the genome project. What is your problem? I'm tempted to tell you to "get over it" as you lost (failed to address) his/her 1empathy's argument.
@1empathy For the same reason I disagree with mainstream religion. I thought this was a page about Michael Shermer "the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine". Yet you seem to have a problem with my being a skeptic.
@1empathy I'm an independent thinker. I generally don't believe anything unless there is substantial evidence. I don't feel the need to take sides on issues that are not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. What is wrong with keeping an open mind? Isn't that what being a skeptic is all about?
@1empathy It depends what you mean by mainstream science. I don't accept as a matter of faith that one species can become another because there is no actual evidence of this, nor have any experiments been done that prove this. But I do accept much of mainstream science. Where the evidence is extensive and conclusive I accept it. Where it is not I don't. I apply the same standard to religion and other subjects. Why is that so hard for some people to accept?
@voncello Skepticism is not the process of doubting things in spite of overwhelming evidence. It is in fact the opposite - doubting claims that are unsubstantiated.
An excellent lecture by Shermer, ID or Creationism clearly is not a scientiifc idea and so has no place in children's science education. It's a shame to think of the large % of people who will not accept evolution when the evidence is so clear.
Your understanding of Darwinism is a common misunderstanding. Evolutionary theory is the mechanism where more complex life forms have evolved from simpler life forms and shaped through environmental pressures of natural selection. The theory of evolution is silent on how life began in the first place. That is still a mystery but is still being investigated. Where and when you were born is what biases you toward Genesis origins myth as opposed to any of a hundred other religious origin beliefs
The vast difference between religious beliefs should be a big clue that religious doctrines are culturally constructed. You just happen to be born in the 20th century in a western culture. Had you been born Greek 2000 years ago, your belief in origin myths would have reflect those cultural constructs. Genesis is no more valid that any other creation myth. Please give examples of your "many things..." with scientific insight that shows knowledge of our cosmos past iron age technology.
@coolgreyoneabby First of all I don't have a "belief in origin myths" so it wouldn't have mattered when I was born. / You have made a claim that "Genesis is no more valid than any other creation myth". Where is your evidence? Or is this just something you accept on faith (i.e. with little or no research to back up your claim)? / Check out videos by Gerald Schroeder or check out my book Beyond Faith if you want detailed analysis of scientific insight in Genesis. I promote research not faith.
@voncello Science does not need to directly observe phenomena to understand their existence. We know of hundreds of exo-planets by secondary measurements, but non has ever been directly observed. As for providing evidence contrary to Genesis, in science it is not the responsibility of science to disprove a claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide sufficient evidence to stand up to peer review before it is accepted. Anything short of that is just anecdotal. Thats how it works.
@coolgreyoneabby Who said it was the responsibility of science to disprove a claim? All I said is that there have been repected scientists with PhD's who teach at major universities and work at major corporations who have said that they have found incredible scientific insights in the Jewish Bible. You are not obligated to read what they have said but if you don't you will remain ignorant about it. I fail to see how ignorance is a good thing.
Great presentation. Darwins publication of Origin marked the greatest leap of understanding in the biological sciences up until that point in history. it's an area of study that continues to explain natural phenomenon, and improve our understanding of life on earth. Fantastic.
Anyone who wants to know the facts of Evolution that's easy to read should read the short paperback book : YOUR INNER FISH : A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage) [Paperback]
I can't imagine watching this video because I have came to a conclusion: Darwin doesn't matter, but he did exist. For some reason he was alive like all things miraculously. I don't think shear randomness can be intelligent, unless all things living and non-living are just dumb luck. And if that is the case, how is it possible for our intelligence? Crazy!
This has been flagged as spam show
"Darwin’s idea has been an unmitigated failure from the start. Darwinist biology is perhaps the only major scientific theory which has subsisted in an unbroken state of crisis since its inception. I contend, in fact, that the Darwinian model has proved worthless as a biological paradigm, which is to say that Darwinism is not truly a scientific theory, but indeed an ideological postulate masquerading in scientific garb."
Entropy56 3 months ago
I don't know who sonykroket is but I never used Scripture, anecdotes, or ignorance to affirm anything. Dude, you should work up to a comment like that in a conversation because when you start off w/one like that it kind of leaves us nowhere to go. So, if you were trying to come off angry and biased you did well. Later man.
pcruze81 3 months ago
@pcruze81 You don't understand why an accomplished evolutionary biologist like Dawkins would have discontent with religions? Millions of tax free dollars used to create propaganda against evolution, age of the earth, universe. Billions of dollars spent...just to try and make science fit their creation stories........We do not sneek in hidden messages...we tell you straight up your batshit!
Desdenova262 1 month ago
@pcruze81
Haha, no good answer but playing the offendedcard eh
Always the same with you relimuppets, guess your god is nowhere to be found
sonykroket 1 month ago
When it comes to disagreeing w/evolution, though, one shouldn't pigeon hold people and base their view on those who disagree off of one's own experience. I've met agnostic/non-religious people who think that the evidence has been distorted. They have no theological/religious convictions yet see holes in the theory.
pcruze81 6 months ago
Here's a link toe some of Dr. Singh's work. I'll go through my library sometime this and find the exact source, but here's a sample of his work. He has a doctorate's from Prune Univ. (India) in applied mathematics. Where I disagree, in general, about the discipline of science itself is that most evolutionist I meet seem to believe that science gives worth to people, but I would argue that its the other way around. It is man who gives worth to science. Does that make sense?
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 this "next week" I meant to say in that last comment.
pcruze81 6 months ago
I have to agree w/such mathematicians as Dr. Vikram Singh an applied mathematician scholar from the Univ. of Cardiff at Wales when he finds that for life to have come about by chance the probability would be 1X10 to the power of 40,000. That's roughly 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. I don't have the faith to believe that life emanated by happenstance.
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 First, you still have not answered the question of how do you think it happened. You only elude to some designer that may or may not be God. That is not a very well formed idea of origins. I suspect you have more specific ideas, but are afraid that your beliefs would come under some scrutiny. Second, You are simply providing the watchmakers argument. It is obvious you do not understand the mechanisms of evolution. Evolution is NOT random. See "Qualiasoup skewed views of science"
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I'm not avoiding anything I'm just trying to go step by step so you can understand how I've come to my conclusion. From my understaind of logic that's usually how it works. If I tell you right now what I believe and why all you're going to do is throw a label on me like you've done from the beginning, call me ignorant & that I have a skiewed view of science & dismiss all that I have to say. I have no problem w/people that support evolution. Many of my friends, familly &...
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 I have called you no names nor disrespected your positions. I have called you a Creationist since that is the alternate to Evolutionist. I have found that almost everyone I speak to that does not accept evolution has a religious upbringing where the idea of evolution was misrepresented and presented as a characture. Most people seek reality but our beliefs are only as good as our information sources. I looked up Dr Singh but couldn't find. Can you supply source?
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I would like you to really think on this fact during the weekend as I am leaving town & will not be able to dialogue with you: the enzyme (which is the building block of the gene) needs at least 250 proteins lining up in exact sequence to function. I wonder what the probability of the enzyme coming about by random causation is? I find that to be somewhat troubling, as I do not have that kind of faith to believe that those conjugated proteins came about by chance.
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 That is more specific than my expertise. I don't claim to know precisely how that specific proteins is made, but since proteins are part of life, non random selection could account for the present configuration. Your point is that the protein would be needed for first life and that could not be accounted for by selection. Again, I don't know that proteins but in the very simplest of life or "pre-life" could there have been a simpler agent or form that provided that function?
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby Specifically, what do you mean when you use the term "non random selection"? What process has Science shown to be responsible for these intricate proteins without whom life would not be able to function at the most basic levels?
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 I only refer to the process of natural selection as being one possible way the PRESENT form of the protein got configured. How do we know there was not a simpler version of it or another molecule that did the same job? or a simpler version that did another job, combined to form the present version? Again, this is out of my expertise, but because we don't know how "X" was done, does not give evidence for God. It is only evidence that we don't know yet. Someone else might know now.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby So the most logical thoughts such as "complex systems come from complex origins" is out of the question?
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 Complexity usually arrises from simpler forms. Self emergent complex systems are common. Language, economies, world politics, ecosystems & biology are all examples. All are highly complex systems that can give the illusion that the level of complexity could only be accomplished by some master planner, but in reality, there was no master planner. Each level of complexity was a small incremental step to solve a small local problem, but eventually evolved into the complexity we see today.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby That seems a little too simplistic for me. The origin of language, economies, & politics is intelligence, more specifically human intelligence. I could never deem the mind to be a "simpler form" as you have suggested. I know that the idea of a creator is laughed at in atheistic academia, but I just don't understand why. You boldly claim that there is no master planner. What knowledge have you ascertained in your lifetime to make a claim like that? I'm curious.
pcruze81 5 months ago
@pcruze81 You missed the point. It is not about intelligence, it is about very complex systems evolving from simple systems without a master plan or master planner. All complex systems evolve from simpler systems. Did you look up "Hoyles fallacy"? It says the same thing I did, that Hoyle and Chandra made the assumption that the protien poofed into existence in it's modern form without intermediate steps. It is the intermediate steps that is required to get from A to B.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago
@pcruze81 That is why religion has a problem with evolution. Religion always assumed that the complexity we see today could only be explained by a deity. Science discovered a naturalistic method whereby the complexity of nature can be explained by natural processes. Evidence from many separate fields of investigation independently corroborated that explanation. Today, that evidence fills warehouses and museums. Religion resists that idea since it diminishes the importance of their deity.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago
@pcruze81 Why is a simpler version of "the mind" so difficult to understand? My dog is a perfect example. She is fully conscious, has emotions, understands many English phrases, gets excited as well as sad, knows how to communicate her needs, but she is incapable of algebra, writing, creating sentence structure and creating art. Seems like a pretty good example of a "simpler form" of "mind" to me.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby What I don't understand about this new breed of atheist like Harris or Dawkins is how they sneek in hidden meaning, purpose, & worth in their worldview. I respect previous atheist like Russell & Flew because they were honest in their approach to debate theists. You say truth is laughable but you claim w/every comment to be dead on w/your perspective of reality. Friend, you claim to be positing truth. I end our conversation w/this. I pray that God Almighty reveals Himself 2u
pcruze81 5 months ago
@pcruze81 You didn't like my dog and her simpler form of mind? My arguments were truthful, logical and respectful, but very frank. I am not dogmatically tied to any belief system. If evidence shows I'm wrong, I'm OK with that and I will learn. If God reveals himself to me, I will accept him, but I still consider religion a pollutant in the quest for understanding reality. I hope you can someday let go of religion and see how wondrous the quest for understanding reality really is.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago 9
Comment removed
lhurien 5 months ago
@pcruze81 what! you seem intelligent and articulate yet you believe in this "god", how sad...
filipinoatheist67 5 months ago
@pcruze81
Prove your/a god exists
Scripture, anecdotes and ignorance about the cosmos do not count as evidence
If you can't, STFU then
sonykroket 3 months ago
@sonykroket Prove how non living matter created life. If you can't than do what you said (STFU)...
imax1971 1 month ago
@imax1971
Prove your skydaddy poofed things into existence or STFU
You must be a biblemaggot
sonykroket 1 month ago
@sonykroket The Bible? I asked you to outline how non living matter created life. Focus and answer..
imax1971 1 month ago
@imax1971
Why dont you prove some skydaddy is responsible for it first.
All the rest you can look up on talkoriginsdotcom. But you really dont care about science, you're just here to create the illusion of a debate in order to get credit as a reli-muppet.
Look up big bang(expansion), abiogenesis( "nonlife to life"WTF ever that means) and evolution
Now, after you're done, it's your turn
sonykroket 1 month ago
@sonykroket I am familiar with everything you outlined.... That doesn't answer my question.. For an intellectual, you have a problem focusing... Let's try again...
Here is your original comment: "Prove your skydaddy poofed things into existence or STFU"... I asked you how non living matter created life. In other words, how did science "poof" things into existence? Start at the beginning where nothing created a living cell. Go..
imax1971 1 month ago
@imax1971
I asked you how things can be poofed into existence by some skydorkie. Now that takes faith and has zero evidence going for it
Stop copying creationist-websites, it makes you look silly and we heard it all before
You come with the BS claims, you prove they're true
sonykroket 1 month ago
@sonykroket LOL! "Stop copying creationist-websites"???? I didn't copy a thing... I just asked a question that you apparently have a problem answering.... Do I need to ask it for the third time? I... could.....ask... it ....... a ..... little.... slower... if .... you need that. Remember the question? Hint: it's about non living matter... 1-2-3 GO!
imax1971 1 month ago
@imax1971
1-2-3 You're an idiot, how bout that?
You know exactly where to look for these answers and i'm sure many people explained it to you already
So because you're too lazy too look it up yourself means i have to do it for you?
Get real, cheating clown
sonykroket 1 month ago
@imax1971
well it was done by a sky fairy. Most probable a chemical reaction.
HappyandAtheist 28 minutes ago
@coolgreyoneabby I found that reference for you. Sorry I had butchered the spelling of his name in last comments. Its Chandra Wickramasinghe in his books, "The Origin of Life in the Universe", and if you're curious about him & theological convictions I can assure you that he is not a Christian.
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 Thanks for that reference on Chandra. Turns out he worked with Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer. Chandra and Fred both were advocates of panspermia, which does not contradict modern evolutionary theory. They also both advocated the improbable chances of spontaneous generation of a modern protein molecule. Look up "Hoyle's fallacy" in Wikipedia for an explanation of the errors in the calculation.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@pcruze81 But this is another example of the "God of the gaps" argument. Because you or I don't know how "X" happened is not evidence for God. It simply means that we don't know how "X" happened.... yet. Historically, many mysteries were attributed to God, disease, planetary motion, etc, but as the science unlocked those mysteries, new "god of the gaps" arguments had to be found. Maybe it is not chance or God.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby co-workers believe in evolution. The only difference is that they feel comfortable and secure enough to dialogue about it. They don't criticize, point fingers, and view my concepts as threatening. I've grown a little bit bored of our conversations. Take care man, good luck with waiving the evolution flag. Later.
pcruze81 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pcruze81 Could not find reference to Dr. Vikram Singh from the Univ. of Cardiff at Wales. Please give reference.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
For every evidence-based argument for the existence of evolution there is an evidence-based counter argument as well. I'm surprised by the aggressive and misleading comments on this page. I figured that people who make such broad and bold claims would have studied this subject in a bit more detail. As intelligent human beings we should not try to raise up a caricature of either the existence of evolution or the existence of a creator and then debunk that caricature we ourselves have raised up
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 Incorrect. Your argument is much more psychology based than science based. You should read "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Micheal Shermer. Science is the best tool every devised to probe the workings of the universe. Religion is mythology based when mankind yearned for knowledge, but did not have the tools to decipher the physical world. Today, there is no excuse to reject evidence based science in favor of mythology. There is no real evidence that supports creationism.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby You should work up to making a statement like that. When you start off with one like that it kind of leads you nowhere to go. If you and I comment back long enough I think you're gonna have to eat your words. I'm not trying to be cocky, I'm just speaking from having many similar conversations with people that have your worldview. Let's start slow. Name one piece of what you called "evidence" that science has given us to support Darwinism. Look forward to hearing back.
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 I've played this game before. I present evidence and the Creationists rejects it or keeps asking questions until the honest answer is: "we don't know....yet" and the Creationists believes he has supported his side. The fact is that the evidence for evolution is so vast, you couldn't review it all in the rest of your lifetime. The evidence for Creationism is nothing more than misunderstandings and cherry picking data to support a pre conceived world view.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I'm glad you've got me and the whole discipline of science figured out. I'm sure that those two videos along w/the dozens of other ones I was presented in college will really present the only true objective aproach on the theory. I don't believe any heavily foot-noted, aggressive statement will change my mind. If you study the technology and techniques that were available to Charles Darwin at the time he came to his conclusion you'd see the flaws in his theory.
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 No one claims there were no flaws in Darwin's original ideas. Modern Evolutionary Theory is a great expansion based on Darwin's original ideas. We have been adding to the knowledge of the basic Darwinian idea for over 100 years. That plus thousands of examples of independent corroborating evidence is what we now call "Evolutionary Theory" not "Darwinism". "Theory" being used in the same context as "Germ Theory", "Atomic Theory" and "Theory of Relativity".
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby You know what's funny to me about this dialogue. I never once claimed to be a creationist. You have assumed that from the beginning. I'm just a person who thinks that many people who proport that evolution is a fact have distorted the evidence and have propped up a theory that doesn't fit the geological/fossil record. From my perspective you believing that everyone else's take on this matter is "skiewed" except for those who agree with you is what you just called "fantasy".
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 Of course no amount of evidence will change your mind. That is the definition of religious dogma. I don't expect to change your mind, I write these explanations for those who may be reading along and are interested in filtering fantasy from reality. You are helping me do that. If you had watched "Qualiasoup: Skewed views of science" You would not have written what you did.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby Dude, the bottom line is that our two very different worldviews have been formed by our eductations, our upbringings, & our convictions. For you to not admit that everyone's view on this theory is somewhat biased (including your own) this conversation would be a total waste of breath. I am totally willing to admit that I may be incorrect on my take of the theory of evolution, but I don't see you meeting me at that point. Surprise me & let's have some open honest dialogue.
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 I ask a very simple question. You say that evolution is false, yet offer no explanation of how it did happen. Instead of name calling and doing the typical "you are wrong" accusation, I simply ask you what you think happened. So I'll ask again. What do you think brought us here and why do you think that. I am perfectly willing to answer those exact questions and my video suggestions give further insight into the evidence for my position. What is your positions?
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I would have to start off the conversation by asking you if you believe in "truth" as a category? Does "truth" actually exist in your view of reality? Because if it doesn't we're just playing word games. I would hope that you do believe in it or else all of your studying and contemplating have been for not. I am strongly convinced that "truth" does exist. I believe that science/philosophy/religion are all seeking truth, but they all go about it in very different ways.
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 I trust in the capacity of science to provide and accurate understanding of reality.That is the function of science and it has proved to be very effective. If you want to define truth as a proper understanding of reality, then fine. I'm just not going to be dragged into a red herring of defining some metaphysical meaning of "truth". I focus on an accurate understanding of reality.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I find that as I view the complexity and detail of the cell, for instance, I come into contact w/mini turbines, propellor-like machines, & what I will call "robots" that cart info around and they all have very specific tasks/jobs to perform within the cell. Logic tells me that turbines, machines, and robots have never come about in my lifetime from small malfunctions/mutations in nature. To me, personally, natural selection doesn't cut it. For something so small & complex...
pcruze81 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby ...to have come into being w/o our intelligent brains, as human beings, creating them. I find myself looking elsewhere for their origins.Plusgiven the fact that no matter how you slice down physical reality into it the minutest forms we never find that it explains its origin through scientific inquiry/study. I see purpose within the cell, I see its complexity and my logic tells me it was designed. I'm not claiming that proves that God is the creator, but...
pcruze81 6 months ago
@pcruze81 We can save alot of time with the standard creationist arguments by first watching YouTube: "Qualiasoup Skewed views of science" THEN the series "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism". This series goes down each of the standard creationist arguments and presents the evidence against each. This conversation is as old as astronomy vs astrology, chemistry vs alchemy, science vs magic, evidence vs superstition, fantasy vs reality. It is important to know the difference.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
"Why pick on Darwin and evolution?" Um....perhaps because nothing could be more fairy-tale-like than a fish evolving into a bear (as claimed by Dawkins), or believing in some "primordial soup" billions of years ago. Such far-fetched theories require more faith than believing in a god or in Noah's Ark. If evolutionism is so self-evidently true and indisputable, why then does someone of his stature and prestige spend so much time ridiculing and trying to debunk creationism?
BachScholar 7 months ago
@BachScholar
1. Evolution does not predict that a fish instantly transforms into a bear... not even in a million years might that line of ancestry end up in a "bear", as you say. Go read more.
2. You are asking the wrong question. Either evolution is true or it is not and you must base that on the evidence presented, testing the theory based on the accuracy of the predictions it makes, and decades of peer review.
The amount of ridicule is irrelevant to the truth of evolution or creationism.
krautinator 7 months ago
@BachScholar
how much evidence for evolution ? tons
How much evidence for god ? NONE , zip , nothing
god does not exist , its like believing in fairy´s
assym2006 7 months ago
@BachScholar There are tons of evidence for the claims of evolution as a slow gradual process of change by heredity and natural selection. There is none whatsoever for Noah.
And creationism has to be ridiculed as hard as possible and as often as possible. Lest anyone starts taking such crap seriously.
TomFynn 6 months ago
Novel about an alternative theory of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 9 months ago
First of all this guy does not know about Quran otherwise he must not says Quran teachs reverse Evolutions you idiot Quran cleary says Allah created human above
all creation go read about you idiot..........hahaahha....Quran give full definitions what
is animals and what is humans how he created the universal and how he created the
human.........
strangerlover11 9 months ago
@strangerlover11 Quran also seems very supportive of Evolution... Many Muslim scientists before Darwin have supported the similar ideas...
daradaniyal 9 months ago
@strangerlover11 Also Shermer is not saying that Quran teaches reverse evolution. He was just referring to an image from a religious commentary...
daradaniyal 9 months ago
Quran talk about longer than the Science that how the all planets lie in straight...
which even did't explained in the bible or in the Tora.......
strangerlover11 9 months ago
humans are the first intelligent breeders. we now defy evolution. there is no survival of the fittest with humans. we. are. special.
masonhosey 10 months ago
Novel about alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@voncello, atheism is not a religion it is a understanding. It is the acceptance of fact over fiction, reality over fantasy,morality over immorality .
jimmyg4life 11 months ago 2
@jimmyg4life A religious person could give the same definition of his faith. Unless one studies the evidence he is living in faith, whether an atheist or a blind faith believer. As for your claim that atheism is defined by "morality over immorality" can you back that up? Or is that another faith based belief?
voncello 9 months ago
@von cello Just to clarify to you, atheists dont have a belief at all, because we do not believe theists. And that is all there is to it, thousands of gods later not one of them was ever proved. It is most likely there is not just as you do not have the same god as anyone else. Not a 2 people has ever interpreted the holy book of choice the same as the other. That is a good reason not to believe any of you. We simply do not believe you, there is no credibility. Again, it is a lack of belief
splicedenergy 9 months ago
@splicedenergy Who is "you"? Already you are engaging in faith based thinking by assuming I am part of a group. You have no idea what I believe and how I think.
An atheist does have a belief - he has a belief that God doesn't exist. An agnostic doesn't have a belief - he admits he doesn't know. To me the agnostic is the more rational. There is so much to know on this topic and when people, atheist or theist, come to conclusions without sufficient knowledge that is faith based thinking.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello Only a faith minded person says "atheism is a belief" If you cannot understand the words there is something weong. It is a lack of belief. If it werent for the burden of proof for theists, they would not be any atheists, because you make the claim. A claim has to have proof. If I say to you "there are pink unicorns out in my stables" you would think I am put of my mind, there is no such thing as unicorns. If I can take you to the stables and you dont see them you wont believe me. LACK
splicedenergy 9 months ago
@splicedenergy But what if there really are pink unicorns in your stable and I say that I refuse to look because I "know' they don't exist? Then I would have a "belief" that is not true. The same exists in the God debate. There is evidence out there but most people refuse to look, so as with the pink unicorns, they have a "belief" that God doesn't exist that is unverified. Holding an opinion without examining evidence = belief. Therefore there are atheists who are believers & others who aren't.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello So you dont get context. You nor anyone knows there is gods. I don't believe you because if you knew everyone else would know and be demonstrable. I did not say I know they is a pink unicorn in my stable, I said there is a pink unicorn in my stable. You don't know just like I don't know and if there is nothing demonstrable then there is nothing to believe.
splicedenergy 9 months ago
@splicedenergy When I say you, I say you as a generalization. When I say I am telling you, then I am talking to you. The definiton is what you are taking out of context. And you are still doing it
splicedenergy 9 months ago
@splicedenergy When you talk to an individual as if he represents a group that is irrational. I do not represent the theists of the world nor do I represent the atheists. Many people talk past other people. If you want to talk to a group go find a group. I am the only one here right now.
voncello 9 months ago
@splicedenergy Not everyone knows everything and when it comes to Jewish knowledge very few people know about it. Even most Jews don't study Jewish knowledge in depth. There are about 14 million Jews in the world and if 5% study in depth that would mean a few hundred thousand people. I don't know why there is such a prejudice about this but very few non-Jews study this in any depth. Yet they like to declare that there is no God without checking out the evidence, which is a form of belief.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello
there is no evidence for god, until there is god dose not exist. its your delusion its up to you to prove your mad claims that there is a god. You might as well believe in fairy's
assym2006 7 months ago
@assym2006 Until you learn how to spell you will be hard to take seriously. And the consistent use of capital letters are also helpful if you want to present yourself as being intelligent. If someone like you doesn't think there is any evidence for God, that is fine with me.
voncello 7 months ago
@voncello
the word god does not deserve a capital letter. Only people and this worthy of respect get a capital. god does not exist.
assym2006 7 months ago
@assym2006 Okay, if you say so.
voncello 7 months ago
Comment removed
jimmyg4life 11 months ago
I know science doesn't have all the answers yet. But i'm in awe that grown people think a book written thousands of years ago by primative, superstitoius savages has all the answers and is the word of God. It's the word of primative man.I guess the religion brainwashing is that strong. Human beings can do better.
flubno 1 year ago
@flubno You have also been brainwashed. There are absolutely brilliant men who would strongly disagree with your characterization of the men who wrote the Bible. They have actually put in years of study looking into the Bible, learning Hebrew, reading it in its original language, consulting the thousands of volumes of Jewish commentary, looking into the science, the incredible use of language, the numerology, the prophecy, etc. Who have you studied with? How much time have you spent?
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello I'm surprised there are people out there like that. Theology is bizzare to me. They obiously have a bais towards faith. Some parts of the Bible are hard to read. The leet speak is so different, plus it's poorly translated. I just don't see anything special there. I plan on going thru the Bible again with a highlighter & outlining all the barbaric, stone age , wack stuff and then selling them on ebay. Since most people are to lazy to read the Bible anyway. It's truely a retarded book.
flubno 1 year ago
@flubno I argue in my book Beyond Faith that Bible translations are so poor that what you are reading is not the real Bible. If you were to talk to an Orthodox rabbi he would tell you that it must be read in Hebrew or if one must read it in English you need a teacher or at least a book of rabbinical commentary that goes word by word explaining the various meanings of each word and each sentence. I agree that what you are reading is "anything but special" but the real Bible is amazing.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello Yes there are mistranslations in the Bible but the very idea that an omnipotent being failed at communication by using what he knew what he knew would become dead languages is absurd. Why not have revelations to the Chinese who had written history at that time?
No matter of translation changes that the God of that book supported slavery, genocide and infanticide. This is of course because the Bible was in fact written by men who knew little about the world and less about morality.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 Hebrew is not a dead language. The Bible predicted 3500 years ago that the Jews would return to Israel after a long exile. In 1948 the Jews came back and Hebrew is the national language of Israel. How could a human know this would happen 3500 years ago? You tell me what is going to happen 3500 years from now.
The Bible doesn't support those things. You are misreading it. Accuracy of the text matters. "To flee or not to flee" is a lot different than "To be or not to be".
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello There are areas of the Bible open for interpretation but those that I mentioned are not some of them. It is no less than intellectually dishonest to claim straight forward commands on when to kill whole towns and specifics on how to keep slaves and how badly you can beat them as not supported.
At the very least an omniscient being failed at communicating a simple message: "Thou shall not enslave another human being" Nothing like that is in the bible, anywhere.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 You say there are commands "on when to kill whole towns". Tell me when the Bible says you can do that. As for "slavery" that is highly misinterpreted. Are you aware that the Hebrew word does not mean slave? See my video watch?v=jI65ADdkFgo.
As for anti slavery quotes, how about the very first commandment? "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." The whole point of the Bible is to free men from slavery, mental & physical.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello You are more moral than that book and that's why you deny some of it.
Aramaic is a dead language and even if you count Hebrew as Aramaic, which its not, to suggest that an omniscient being can't, or chose not to, communicate his message in the translations knowing full well Hebrew would remain not very prevalent is absurd.
Also when people are actively working toward the prophecy its not impressive at all. That's like claiming getting what you ordered at a restaurant as prophecy.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 The Bible was written in Hebrew which is alive and spoken in Israel. The Talmud was written in Aramaic. That language isn't spoken today but Orthodox Jews have kept it alive for Talmudic study.
It's more like ordering in a restaurant today and getting served 3500 years from now! Even with people working for a certain goal, if the goal is unbelievably unlikely it is still remarkable. Who during the Holocaust would have dared predict in a few short years the rebirth of Israel?
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello @voncello Yes you are right the Bible was largely written in Hebrew but partially in Aramaic but that is really beside the main points...
Call it what you like but to say that the people described as "your money" are slaves. People who you can beat with no punishment if they can stand after a couple days are owned by you and hence are your slaves. People who you pass down to your children when you die are your slaves even if they had more protections than some other slaves.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 The Jewish Bible is 100% Hebrew. Aramaic was the language of the Babylonians. Where did you hear the Bible was in Aramaic?
Is a soldier a slave? Is a prisoner a slave? They can be ordered around and told what to eat, where to sleep, when to speak. Both can be beaten with no punishment depending on the situation. But no, they are not slaves. The same with the Bible. The word translated as slave covers situations from domestic workers to prisoners of war. You are oversimplifying.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello The likely reason some refused to leave was because they didn't want to leave their families not that they loved their masters. And while I could continue to list reasons why they are slaves that would be a waste. You are just so determined not to believe that every action described and commanded in the bible is just that it just has no effect.
Nowhere does it say that non-Hebrew slaves would be freed after getting enslaved and in fact it says the opposite. Lev 25:44-46.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 If you are commenting on my video "Slavery in the Bible... What's Up With That?" please comment on it at its page. People on this page have no idea what you are talking about and it is not related to the Shermer video.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello Your rationalizations are disturbing... It is never justified to own slaves. The way you speak about it being ok under some circumstances makes me wonder if you would defend the actions of Jephtah, 2 Kings 2:23-24, or Deut 13:12-18 (which does say kill whole towns if they don't believe in your god).
You know these things are wrong and it is not the translations that made them this way.
Lastly Christians made that prophecy come true and so it was self-fulfilling.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 If Christians did these things they were wrong. First of all Jewish law doesn't apply to Christians. Also, they didn't understand the law, and neither do you. I just looked up in the Talmud re: Deut 13 "You shall smite the people of THAT city". The rabbis point out the word "that", stating: before punishment can begin scholars must go to the city and try to convince people to stop the idol worship. If they succeed THAT city actually becomes a new kind of city and is spared!
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello Even correct prophecy can't prove supernatural knowledge.
And I noticed that you deleted your original comment and backed off your stance that no passages say to kill entire towns. Did you just realize they are there?
As for the passage you claimed against slavery: your joking right? A definitive declaration against slavery would have been easy,as I've already shown, but there is nothing remotely like that and in fact the opposite is communicated. You are in denial.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 I didn't delete anything. Why are you making things up? You must be getting desperate because you are also resorting to insults saying I must be joking and I'm in denial. I'm happy to have reasonable conversations with reasonable people but if you are going to resort to lies and insults it's pointless to continue.
Some people, like yourself, assume that whatever thoughts they have in their heads are the truth. They are too self-righteous to believe that other opinions exist.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello The Book of Daniel was written partially in Aramaic... Your original post was hit my inbox at 3:19 its not here, the next was at 3:24 and is here... I assumed you deleted it because if it failed to post I would not have got the email but perhaps that was just a glitch of sorts.
However to suggest that it would be ok to kill the entire town if they didn't convert is repulsive. By the way I'm not insulting you I'm insulting your rationalizations there is a difference.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 I wasn't aware of Daniel containing Aramaic but there is no doubt that God didn't write that book! The only book Jews claim was actually written by God is the Torah which is in Hebrew.
There is no need to even insult other people's opinions. Even here you call my opinion a rationalization. I could say the same of your opinions but notice - I don't. My ideas are from the Talmud, the official Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Bible. Original sources are better than conjecture.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello ....First of all the jews no longer give value to Tora becaue they only believer of Talmud and Talmud
is not the word of God but the word of babyllnians when jews salved the second time in babylonians in Iraq they
inspired by them pagon rituals and they produced Talmud...Second even the Tora today the jews have its even not
original because it been translated from Greec to hebrew exactly same like foooolish bible...hahahhaa
strangerlover11 9 months ago
@strangerlover11 You need to learn about Jews from respected sources and not believe the propaganda you have been fed. The Jewish Bible was written in Hebrew around 1500 BCE. The Christians translated it into Greek 1500 years later (not the other way around). The Talmud is nothing but an explanation of the Torah, so to say that Jews don't give the Torah value is absurd. It is considered to be the oral interpretation of the Torah that was handed down by God at Mount Sinai with the written Torah.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello This is the absolute last thing I'll say: I understand why you are so resistant to the idea that those actions are actually there but that doesn't mean they aren't there. I'm not even suggesting that you don't believe what you have said, what I am saying is that these things are there and no amount of rationalization can get rid of them or make them moral.
I'm very reasonable and open minded but that doesn't mean if you say "x is not x" that I have to agree you have a point.
IamtheMADman24 1 year ago
@IamtheMADman24 It's hard in short bites to explain. You need a Bible with rabbinic interpretation as a start. Studying one on one with a rabbi is best. But let me just say that the Hebrew word "eved" was applied to many situations. Are you aware that Israel had no prisons? Prisoners of war were sent into people's homes! Imagine if you had an Al Qaeda in your home! Wouldn't you need the right to beat him if he threatened you? Still he's not a slave. It's easy to criticize but harder to learn.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello ...As a Muslims I know what is Tora and Bible ...as i told before when the jews slaved again in the
hand of babylonians to iraq they distroyed all of the jews library and there books for long time they don't know
nothings about there religion the jews only inspired by them and made there own book talmud and today no
original Tora or bible intact both have been translated from Greec but if you read the Arabic Bible than you will
found from Genesis 1 to 31 Allah name not ..G..O..D.
strangerlover11 9 months ago
@strangerlover11 Where do you get your information? And how do you know it is true?
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello ...Go read by yourself the Arabic bible and you will found the name of Allah about the jews story
go to any islamic website or google it you will found with details..........
strangerlover11 9 months ago
@strangerlover11 How do you know it's true?
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello .........How do I know that Its true or not I do use my sense if you have use it ...hahhahahaah
strangerlover11 9 months ago
@strangerlover11 You claim you have "sense" yet you end your post with "hahhahhahhah". What is that supposed to mean? That if someone doesn't accept the Koran totally by faith they should be laughed at? If that's your view then why shouldn't a Christian laugh at you for not accepting Jesus? Why shouldn't a Buddhist laugh at you for believing in God? I don't believe that laughing at others is a moral behavior and doing so doesn't indicate much "sense" to me.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello I don't think that the Hindu are budhist do not believeing in God but they have made by there
own hand the statues which they think that is the form of God and as Muslms we do not believing in any form
or image about the christians Jesus if you read Quran there is about 27 times the name of Jesus mentioned
and you saying that we do not accepting Jesus yes we do accept him but as a mighty prophet of god not son
of god and if any one accept islam or not no problems we just convince them.
strangerlover11 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@strangerlover11 Fine, but you don't accept Jesus as the son of God. So how would you like it if a Christian laughed at you because you don't believe in Jesus? Don't you see that laughing at people with different beliefs than your own is not a constructive thing to do?
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello a non belief is not a belief... im sure you would laugh at any homeless guy who believes he has an invisible friend who gives him massages or something..
Sc0ttPrian 9 months ago
@Sc0ttPrian I don't laugh at homeless people. I feel sympathy for them. And a non-belief can be a belief when it is based on ignorance. One can say he doesn't believe the world is round. You can say that is a non-belief, but I would say it is a belief because if he looks at the evidence it will become clear that it is round so he really is expressing belief rather than expressing a well considered opinion.
voncello 9 months ago
@Sc0ttPrian I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was responding to strangerlover who is a Muslim. He said that he laughs at people who don't accept the Koran and all that Muslim writings say. So he is the one who is laughing at people for expressing non-belief. My point was to ask him how he would feel if Christians laughed at him because he doesn't believe in Jesus. People shouldn't laugh at each other because they don't believe things that are unproven. Seeking evidence is intelligent.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello Shoooot, my fault. there were so many messages, I'm sorry. Personally, I think its funny for any christian to reject Islam, or any Jew to reject Islam. Yes, I have no faith in any of those fairytales, but APPARENTLY mohamed is the latest prophet of the Abrahamic God. Just as Mormons believe in Joseph Smith..
really, in my opinion, its silly to just pick one of these "prophets" and say "THATS THE ONE!"
my two cents :P
Sc0ttPrian 9 months ago
@Sc0ttPrian To the contrary, Judaism had the original "revelation" (to use the language of religion). The Bible says that God Himself appeared before the whole Jewish nation (millions of people). They saw a fire ball on the mountain and heard a loud voice that shook the earth. Give me one logical reason why a Jew would turn his back on a direct revelation of God to follow a man who claimed he was God or another man who claimed he was a prophet? Unless you can disprove the original why switch?
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello EXACTLY! but its simple for people of all nations, their parents, their teachers, law enforcers, friends, neighbors, etc... typically believe in the same god, (stronger with family and the friends of the family) what kind of christian would raise a muslim? If we could have given people a choice of which religion, without hearing their friends or parents choices, things would be much different. though, without religion all together, everyone would be at peace without all the bickering..
Sc0ttPrian 9 months ago
@Sc0ttPrian Before you had religion there were tribes that bickered. If it's not whose God is real it's who should have this plot of land, or who should rule who, etc. Stalin and Mao proved that lack of religion doesn't lead to peaceful behavior.
In my book "Beyond Faith" I argue that people should not follow a religion because those around them do. To those who believe that I would ask if a child of a mafioso should follow that too? We must all move beyond faith and make rational decisions.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello well, we have progressed since those times. there will always be evil people, evil people with religious faith like hitler, and evil people without religious faith. I too believe, that it is completely possible to have a fully functioning society free of evils.
we just dont know how. obviously.. side note- look at all the freaking advertisements everywhere, do we really need all that to survive and live happy lives? its impossible to get ANYWHERE without being forced useless info.
Sc0ttPrian 9 months ago
@Sc0ttPrian Your observation points out how we are constantly being manipulated by those who seek gain at our expense. One great thing about Sabbath observance is 1 day a week you are not supposed to watch TV, read a newspaper, listen to the radio. For 1/7th of your week you should move away from society's manipulations and reach a deeper, more eternal reality. Buddhists reach for something similar though meditation. These are some of the good things that religion, used properly, brings to life.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello :P i dont do those things anyway. i live in a studio, work in a studio, breath/ eat/ sleep.. though, facebook and youtube are a part of that as well. HOWEVER not a big deal. maybe thats why i see the world the way i do. I grew up away from other kids, i was always an observer. however, i also observed the religious in church and never quite understood why or how they allowed themselves to believe the things they believe.
Sc0ttPrian 9 months ago
@Sc0ttPrian I agree. I don't understand how religious people and atheists allow themselves to come to such firm conclusions when there is so much they don't know.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello Theres this guy in india. hes an atheist working for Responsible Charity. I dont know hes alone but the point is, doing stuff gets more done in this world than prayer. I mean, an atheist, helping people who are dying, sick, or just in need of help. its really a big deal, how many christians say theyre helping by giving their church money, then watch the church remodel or get TVs.. Not that its a bad thing for the people, they pay for it, theyre just not helping anyone else the world..
Sc0ttPrian 9 months ago
@Sc0ttPrian I agree. It's interesting that in the Talmud God is quoted as saying that He'd rather have people follow His laws than believe in Him. The emphasis in Judaism is on good deeds. I always found it strange that Christianity and Islam, which both claim to be advancements on Judaism, asserted that belief was more important than deeds. Seems to me that is a retrogression rather than an advance. Now secularists say deeds are all that matters but deeds without a foundation are ephemeral.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello it really is like a digression. People believe because thats their rule. Why do some not have sex before marriage? I havent because I dont need a family. sure thats probably a dumb reason, but some christians are saving those things ONLY because theyre told to, regardless if they want to or not. in fact I know too many christians who either want to or have already while unmarried. they believe, yet dont actually believe, or they would follow, do themselves a favor..
Sc0ttPrian 9 months ago
@Sc0ttPrian The idea that you can say something is wrong and do it anyway believing that God will forgive you runs contrary to Judaism which says if you know something is wrong don't do it. Some have speculated that the Christian founders purposely created a religion that would attract the maximum number of followers. How great to think you can do anything and be quickly forgiven! But how can you claim to be a fulfillment of Judaism yet go against its principles? Hence the emphasis on faith.
voncello 9 months ago
@voncello exactly, its attractive. evolutionarily, its no wonder its still around. do anything you want practically. the only punishment is jail depending on what it is. but thats not eternal wohooo....
Sc0ttPrian 9 months ago
@strangerlover11
there is no god. your religion is fake as is all religion.
assym2006 7 months ago
@assym2006 hummmmmmmm there is no God I totally agree with but you have to convince me and proof
to me that there is no God these every things run automatically .....hahahhahahahhahahah
strangerlover11 7 months ago
@voncello I remember watching something on ancient people. They said something about a space snake coming out of the sky and biting the earth. Then I was told that it was probably a meteor. Meteors do look like snakes from space when burning up in our atmosphere. Thats the way they talked back them. in the end, to many people look to the ancient people like they have some kind of wisdom. Their life & problems were totaly different than modern people.
flubno 1 year ago
@flubno Not sure what you're getting at. What is unique about the Bible is that much of what it said still applies very much to today. Look at all the attention the tiny country of Israel gets. Part of the fascination with Israel is that a 3500 year old book made detailed outlandish prophecies about what would occur there and much of it has occurred. Though some people dismiss it as a bunch of coincidences others find that hard to believe. Fact is there's no other ancient book with such power.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello I always kinda thought that if it wasn't for the Bible, no one would give a shit about israel. It would just be another 3rd world country no one gives a shit about. Religion has the power to brainwash and lead stupid people around by the nose, that's pretty much it.
flubno 1 year ago
@flubno Well, even without the Bible Israel is far from 3rd world. A country of 7 million it has won 20% of the Nobel prizes for science! The Pentium chip in your computer was probably made there. I agree that religion has the power to brainwash and lead people around by the nose but so does the secular religion. Whether or not one is religious he can still be brainwashed into following some kind of program whether it comes from a religion, a government, or a social organization hidden or known.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello I think flubno was saying that without the Bible Israel (if it still existed at all) would appear on the world radar as often as any other not very important place. Due to its religious status (for all Abrahamic religions) it has been raised to a status far beyond the value of its land or resources, leading to foreign interest, support, and arguably exploitation.
ikkoikki 10 months ago
@ikkoikki You could say that without the New Testament Italy wouldn't be on the world radar because there'd be no Vatican, no statue of David, no Pieta, no Sistine Chapel ceiling. Without the Koran Saudi Arabia wouldn't be on the radar because there'd be no Mecca. Without Beethoven and Brahms what would Germany be? Without Cezanne and Monet what would France be? The Bible is one of the great Jewish achievements for sure but Jews still are leaders in science, business, literature, music, etc.
voncello 10 months ago
Answer this one question. Can you, explain the diversity of life without natural selection acting on genetic mutation?
timrice666 1 year ago
@timrice666 I can't explain the diversity of life with or without natural selection. There is simply not enough evidence.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello voncello says there is simply not enough evidence so it can't be true. sorry to be so sarcastic but who are you? Evolutionary theory is the best explanation of the diversity of life, it makes predictions (confirmed) it explains the fossil record, it is consistant wuth the genome project. What is your problem? I'm tempted to tell you to "get over it" as you lost (failed to address) his/her 1empathy's argument.
timrice666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timrice666 I didn't say " there is simply not enough evidence so it can't be true". Read what I said again.
voncello 1 year ago
Oh no you didn't
1empathy 1 year ago
@1empathy Oh yes I did. Yada yada.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello Oh no you didn't Happy Xmas
timrice666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timrice666 What question did I not answer? Yada yada...
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello I don't have your book. do you want to explain for free why you disagree with mainstream science?
1empathy 1 year ago
@1empathy For the same reason I disagree with mainstream religion. I thought this was a page about Michael Shermer "the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine". Yet you seem to have a problem with my being a skeptic.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello you win. What non mainstream (that may not be a word) are you for?
1empathy 1 year ago
@1empathy I'm an independent thinker. I generally don't believe anything unless there is substantial evidence. I don't feel the need to take sides on issues that are not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. What is wrong with keeping an open mind? Isn't that what being a skeptic is all about?
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello I said you win. You don't accept mainstream science, well done.
1empathy 1 year ago
@1empathy It depends what you mean by mainstream science. I don't accept as a matter of faith that one species can become another because there is no actual evidence of this, nor have any experiments been done that prove this. But I do accept much of mainstream science. Where the evidence is extensive and conclusive I accept it. Where it is not I don't. I apply the same standard to religion and other subjects. Why is that so hard for some people to accept?
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello Skepticism is not the process of doubting things in spite of overwhelming evidence. It is in fact the opposite - doubting claims that are unsubstantiated.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 I totally agree.
voncello 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online dating brides **busizz4me.info**
bolgendolki 1 year ago
An excellent lecture by Shermer, ID or Creationism clearly is not a scientiifc idea and so has no place in children's science education. It's a shame to think of the large % of people who will not accept evolution when the evidence is so clear.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Just thought I would show you a picture of me, which is what Darwins look like.
darwinisatwink 1 year ago
Your understanding of Darwinism is a common misunderstanding. Evolutionary theory is the mechanism where more complex life forms have evolved from simpler life forms and shaped through environmental pressures of natural selection. The theory of evolution is silent on how life began in the first place. That is still a mystery but is still being investigated. Where and when you were born is what biases you toward Genesis origins myth as opposed to any of a hundred other religious origin beliefs
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
The vast difference between religious beliefs should be a big clue that religious doctrines are culturally constructed. You just happen to be born in the 20th century in a western culture. Had you been born Greek 2000 years ago, your belief in origin myths would have reflect those cultural constructs. Genesis is no more valid that any other creation myth. Please give examples of your "many things..." with scientific insight that shows knowledge of our cosmos past iron age technology.
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
@coolgreyoneabby First of all I don't have a "belief in origin myths" so it wouldn't have mattered when I was born. / You have made a claim that "Genesis is no more valid than any other creation myth". Where is your evidence? Or is this just something you accept on faith (i.e. with little or no research to back up your claim)? / Check out videos by Gerald Schroeder or check out my book Beyond Faith if you want detailed analysis of scientific insight in Genesis. I promote research not faith.
voncello 1 year ago
@voncello Science does not need to directly observe phenomena to understand their existence. We know of hundreds of exo-planets by secondary measurements, but non has ever been directly observed. As for providing evidence contrary to Genesis, in science it is not the responsibility of science to disprove a claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide sufficient evidence to stand up to peer review before it is accepted. Anything short of that is just anecdotal. Thats how it works.
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
@coolgreyoneabby Who said it was the responsibility of science to disprove a claim? All I said is that there have been repected scientists with PhD's who teach at major universities and work at major corporations who have said that they have found incredible scientific insights in the Jewish Bible. You are not obligated to read what they have said but if you don't you will remain ignorant about it. I fail to see how ignorance is a good thing.
voncello 1 year ago
Great presentation. Darwins publication of Origin marked the greatest leap of understanding in the biological sciences up until that point in history. it's an area of study that continues to explain natural phenomenon, and improve our understanding of life on earth. Fantastic.
chansetwo 1 year ago
Anyone who wants to know the facts of Evolution that's easy to read should read the short paperback book : YOUR INNER FISH : A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage) [Paperback]
Author is Niel Shubin.
MrRedthief 1 year ago
I can't imagine watching this video because I have came to a conclusion: Darwin doesn't matter, but he did exist. For some reason he was alive like all things miraculously. I don't think shear randomness can be intelligent, unless all things living and non-living are just dumb luck. And if that is the case, how is it possible for our intelligence? Crazy!
DanceTrance100 1 year ago