ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
His comment, "they didn't spend a lot of time in actual science class" is hilarious. Obviously he didn't either. So, by Venn diagram, he shares a significant characteristic with drug dealers. It begs the question, what other overlaps are there?
His comment, "they didn't spend a lot of time in actual science class" is hilarious. Obviously he didn't either. So, by Venn diagram, he shares a significant characteristic with drug dealers. It begs the question, what other overlaps are there?
Strawmen and projection. He's got nothing else, but he masks his feelings of inadequacy with them.
Guitar is extended phenotype. Termite mound is NOT termite; dam is NOT beaver; wax is NOT bee.
And, if bombadier beetle is "fascinating", why didn't he have the interest to study it? He's striking an intellectual pose--but his claim they shoot fire is a misunderstanding that shows he didn't even read Gish's book attentively; it is also a claim of jaw-dropping stupidity and appalling ignorance.
It's not rocket science. It takes FAITH to believe in either Creation (Bible) or Evolution (Man-humanism) as neither has been witnessed by humanity. As for evolution, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "
It's scary to consider there are people this stupid sharing the world with you, driving on the same roads as you, sending their children to the same schools you do.
I think that sicne he is so close to the facts and that he is often getting things backwards only goes to show that he knows the truth, but he is deliberately getting them arse backwards .
He is a dishonest coward... Just like every other creationist.
@FatRakoon Hey Rak? You think he knows that those are the same "fools" that gave him penicillin and extended the only life he'll ever have by forty years? Maybe someone should tell him... NOT IT!!!
I think this preacher doesn't even believe himself what he's saying. Somehow, his body language just repels everything he's spouting out from his mouth.
I always find it funny that creationists try so hard to debunk proven science, but at the same time are not at all adverse to the use of modern conveniences that science has made possible. Lets take away their conveniences and see how they feel about science then.
@csbair im not trying to be ignorant because people can believe what they want but again where did that proto-life come from or self-replicating molecules come from? they have a design too. and i dont know about you but i would rather believe in something that i can be somewhat sure of is valid. to me it seems like you dont even know if evolution is valid because obviously, like you said, it doesnt matter if it is or if it isnt. and when we were created why does the creator need to come up
@mapennisi19 You may not try to be ignorant, but you are. If you're arguing something in science "is just a theory," you're ignorant. It's a clear sign that someone's told you what to think and say, and you haven't properly investigated what you're claiming is wrong.
It's not just you. It's most creationists.
If you want to go down the infinite regress, one can simply ask, "Where did the creator come from?"
@csbair everytime it always seems to end up with poeple who believe in evolution or are atheist, it always seems to end in an attack on the person they are arguing with. im praying for you man. remember God loves you
@mapennisi19 Maybe because you're arguing the same stupid things that so many others have done, that are so ridiculously awful and wrong? Maybe because you tout evolution as "just a theory" without realizing that a theory is the strongest level any idea in science can reach? Perhaps because you're arguing that you want to believe things were created, so it's better than trying to understand reality around you?
Perhaps these people get tired of your stupidity and ignorance? Perhaps...
@csbair He wants an anchor, that's all. He wants to have a young child-level psychological need - that for a constant and consistently affectionate caregiver - met. A lot of religions keep people stuck at this developmental stage - and don't even offer consistently supportive gods! This explains the black-and-white thinking and immovable beliefs of many 'faithful'. If you never develop the balls simply to question your beliefs, how can you expect to approach anything objectively?
@mapennisi19 i stumbled on how the molecules became self replicating as well, but because i have enough understanding of chemistry, it was easy to understand how they do it with a small amount of work. you're not afraid of a little work, are you?
You say you are not trying to be ignorant, but you are I am afraid very much succeeding.
Religion says GOD DID IT.
Biology and abiogenesis dont yet know the exact answers, but its getting close. Its coming up with possible theories then testing them and some are good, some are bad. The good ones they re-test over and over and they are getting closer and closer and closer and maybe one day will have a definitive answer.
But you still just say GOD DID IT. How ignorant can you be?
starting line somewhere and until something can be named that started all the things that live on earth today then you really cant say its true is still just a theory and always will be. ever since the mid 1700s its been a theory, why cant it be proven fact yet?
@mapennisi19 Evolution is both theory and fact. It is because you do not understand what a scientific theory is, obviously, that you cannot comprehend how wrong you are.
Perhaps you should go get an education and stop thumping your Bible. Or else, stop offering your opinion on a subject you know nothing about, unless you enjoy showing off how ridiculously stupid you are?
@csbair and where do the ancestors come from? at least Christians and people who believe in a creator have something to point out as the beginning. whenever you ask someone who believes in the evelution theory its always well that came from an ancestor, that also came from ancestor too who we have no idea what it is. if you dont know what it is then how do you know it exists? theres gotta be a
@mapennisi19 Because you point at fantasy doesn't make it fact. Every living thing on earth has a common ancestor, the first living organism, which arose from proto-life that arose from self-replicating molecules.
We will likely never find out what our original ancestor is. Does it matter to whether evolution is valid? Absolutely not.
We know that it exists because every living organism is related through its structure and genes.
"Just a theory?" Seriously, you want to be that ignorant?
@csbair yeah okay so they use them in different ways but explain to me how the chemicals were put in their make up or how the chemicals got there in the first place enabling them to use and adapt to. where did it come from in the first place? something cant evolve out of nothing. and my point was, like i said before, the creator made the insects up with the chemicals in their system so they could use them in ways that they needed to.
@mapennisi19 Nothing was "put in their make up." Subsequent steps.
Where did it come from? Previous ancestors. Those chemicals are either products or byproducts of the biological functions of the creature.
Nothing has evolved out of nothing.
The "same design, same creator" argument explains nothing. How is it possible that a creator could put the same ingredients together, but arrive at different end results? Makes sense with evolution, not with creationism.
@csbair chemicals are used for a lot more than just what the Bombardier beetle uses them for. ever think that those chemicals could favor the other insects for something else rather than defending off predators?
oh and that whole thing on the Bombardier Beetle that the maker of this video pointed out. you pretty much just summed up how it works then at the end put that it is found commonly through the insect world. whichs kinda proves Ken's point there when he says if it works then keep using it. Which means the CREATOR used it more than once on insect because it works.
to csbair. it has been proven and secular historians and theologians accept 6 minimal facts on the resurrection of Christ, 1. Jesus died of Roman Crucifixion. so i dont even need to go on because you say what evidence of His life is there. well there you go, if you think its dumb and theologians who are qualified and educated in that specific area dont then your probably wrong. you can look up what i just said if you want to.
@mapennisi19 [citation needed] Because you say something is true, doesn't make it true.
The chemicals used with the bombardier beetle are found throughout the insect world. If you want to invoke common design, common creator, then why aren't there more types of insects with such capabilities, since they have the necessary chemicals?
Although this guy loses massive points on logic and scientific accuracy, you do have to give him at least a few points for having his extreme voice on all the time.
this speaker cannot even get the creationist propaganda shit correct, ive watched the entire "amazing creatures that defy evolution" in which this particular beetle is discussed. hell, i could sell this beetle bullshit better than him if i was a dishonest scumbag that wanted to fatten my wallet!
How is it that science which is based on physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics, which are all based on logic, rational thought, and repeatable experiments proposed by a thinking and purposeful mind, come to be evolved from mere atoms such as Carbon, Hidrogen, and Nitrogen, mixed with time and random chance? Silly isn't it?
@Hagiazo It isn't silly. Just not simple. It takes understanding and learning. Something for which you seem to possess no proficiency. You came to my video arguing with extreme ignorance and without any ability to reason in subjects for which you don't think are valid sciences, because they disagree with your faith. You've let your fantasies invade reality and keep you ignorant.
@csbair Still can't get past the time thing can you? I's very, very important to your theory and you cannot give time the attributes required to compliment your theory. Sucks doesn't it. Been a slice. Have a good night.
@Hagiazo Um, you keep bringing it up, and refuse to point out how it's wrong other than saying, "It's not sentient!" Well, no shit, I never said it was. You just keep taking your argument there, and refuse to address what *I* said, rather than what you want me to have said.
So, now that you've thoroughly had your ass handed to you and humiliated, you run away. Hilarious.
And creationists think that creationists win debates... Nope, they just pounding out stupidity hoping no one notices.
Time does not enable! Enabling is a characteristic that requires, thought, power, choice, intelligence. You are choosing the wrong words... and I'm being difficult because you are claiming the supremacy of science while being unscientific.
@Hagiazo You're simply saying that "enable" requires thought, power, choice, intelligence. Definition 1.b. of "enable" on MW, "to make possible, practical, or easy." There's no sentience needed. Because you want there to be, doesn't mean it is so.
Now refute what I've said and back up the claims that I've pointed out of yours that are wrong, or everyone reading this will just see how completely stupid your entire argument has been. Your choice.
@csbair "Definition 1.b. of "enable" on MW, "to make possible, practical, or easy."" - Time does none of that. Time does nothing. Time is not and yet it is but it is not able or unable. It does not make or unmake (?) That's not a word but you might get what I am getting at.
I will move on and support any statements I have made once we deal with your original, foundational statement about time being a force, having power as an attribute. You misspoke, or just said it wrong... admit it and we'll move on. Or, are you still claiming time contains and releases power?
@Hagiazo Um, no, not how it works. You came to this video, made claims, and couldn't back them up. You can't weasel out of them. I supported my statement, and you haven't bothered refuting the explanation.
Time enables all things physical to act and interact. Therefore, my statement is valid.
The numerous claims you've made, now back them up.
@cbsair As for evidence of God... there's more than enough evidence. If there was as much evidence as there is for God's existence available to a court trying to prove your guilt. You would be without excuse. Oops, you are! The Book of Paul to the Christians and people of Rome - AKA Romans, Chapter 1
@cbsair - I knew someone would speak without thinking. It's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work and bacteria of course. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is a universal law of decay; the subordinate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates within time. Time is the opportunity, not the cause.
@Hagiazo Then you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Typical of creationists. It's not what you think it is, based on what you claim. It also does not invalidate abiogenesis or evolution.
Try thinking for a change. Which requires you to give up and challenge your beliefs.
By your definition of "proof," the Harry Potter series proves that magic and witchcraft are real. People's writings, especially thousands of years ago, aren't reliable as evidence of invisible sky daddies.
@csbair 1st of all the 2nd law of Thermodynamics was brought up to help to show you that time itself embodies no effectual power of it's own with which to act upon any other laws. Which you have not refuted with your ranting and Harry Potter non-sense. And... time has no bearing on whether evidence is credible or not. You really have to learn how to debate a little better.
@Hagiazo You said, "acted upon by the passage of time (which has no power to affect anything)." The passage of time allows everything physical to act and interact. Your statement was asinine.
How does anything "act upon any other laws?" Do you just randomly piece together words, hoping they construct an argument?
I brought up Harry Potter to show that, because someone wrote something in a book, doesn't make it evidence for something.
I debate well. Maybe you should learn how yourself?
@csbair "The passage of time allows everything physical to behave as it does according to the laws governing them." Time does not give permission/allow anything! Things do or do not. Time has no power! Time doesn't heal, doesn't hurt, doesn't live or die. Time is until one day it is not.
@Hagiazo And that invalidates my point how? You haven't shown evidence that your god exists, nor dismissed anything I've said here. And you say I need to learn to debate?
Psst... people are laughing at you, not with you. Perhaps you should learn why...? It's the 21st Century, not the 1st...
@csbair You still haven't supported your original point that time is a cause acting on and/or within nature to produce something from nothing.
Time + chance = life? First remove the time factor, because as I have shown it does not apply and come up with another basis for life.
Evolution's biggest challenge is first cause. You're stuck there. You can try to make some sense of the process after 1st cause but you can't go backwards. You have no theory, fact or evidence to prove something from 0
@Hagiazo Because I never claimed that time acted on anything to produce something from nothing. Who claims that? Oh, right, creationists... The universe poofed into being because an invisible sky daddy wanted it to.
Time + chance + selection + chemistry = life. Yes.
Time does apply. You haven't shown how it doesn't.
Evolution has no big challenge. It's fact and scientific theory. Even if we never understand abiogenesis, evolution is still sound science.
@csbair What is it? Fact or theory? Make up your mind. And, again, you stated that time was a cause. It is not. You should state it this way; chance + selection + chemistry, given enough time, will produce life. Then you can look at "chance + selection + chemistry" objectively. Time for evolutionists is a scapegoat, "just give it time and it sorts itself out" is part of your grand premise... Hog wash. Where does the ability to naturally select come from? Some pond fairy?
@Hagiazo Do you not understand what a scientific theory is? Gravity is both fact and theory. The cell is both fact and theory. And so forth. Theory in science is not guess; it is the highest status any idea can attain.
Natural selection is exactly what it says: Natural phenomena will select for or against certain traits in populations. It's not a sentient force, but just how this world works.
Perhaps you should get an education and stop living in ignorance?
@csbair "Do you not understand what a scientific theory is? Gravity is both fact and theory. The cell is both fact and theory. And so forth." My limited understanding is that once a theory has been proven it is no longer a theory.
@Hagiazo Then your limited understanding is completely wrong. And since it is such a basic definition in every science, it shows that you really have no understanding of any science. You pwned yourself there.
There is no status above a theory. Once an idea meets the criteria for a theory, it's extremely sound and has broad explanatory abilities. The fact that you don't know this proves to anyone reading that you really know nothing about these subjects.
@Hagiazo Theory in science is an explaination of a natural phenomena, supported by evidence, once an hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory. Eg cell theory.
@TheKitch2 Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
@csbair I have a theory... I'll be asleep in about half an hour if I follow through on my intention to go to bed for that purpose and am not acted upon by forces counterproductive to my goal. In time, this theory will proven true or false regardless of what time does or does not do because, guess what? Time can't do, or undo. :-)
I recognise that definition, its from dictionary {dot} com, but tell me why did you ignore the first definition?
1) a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine
@TheKitch2 1) "a coherent group of tested general propositions, [proposed positions] commonly regarded [not proven] as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation [not proof of fact] and prediction [fortune telling?] for a class of phenomena : Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine." Because it says the same thing only longer
@Hagiazo Um, no, your recorrection is wrong. "Proof of fact" is a ridiculous statement in science. Facts are accepted evidence. There's no proof needed. Prediction means that the theory can be used to understand events not yet happened, or to make conclusions based on incomplete data. They're commonly regarded as correct, because they have reached a consensus, those experts in the field, that the theory is sound.
You must be in bliss, because you are so terribly ignorant.
Where does the breath of life or the chemicals that react or the stuff that starts it all or this "chance" thing (oh, that's scientific!) come from? The billion year old rock gnome! You claim science and put out childish self aggrandizing garbage.
This is you, "The passage of time has no power to affect anything? Tell that to the expiration dates in your fridge. " In that sentence you ascribed the attribute of power to time. So, that statement is false. You made a mistake. Either in grammar or your science. Admit it and move on.
@Hagiazo You have yet to admit anything you've erred about, so try not to lecture others on their need to do so?
And what I said is correct. I explained to you how. Time allows everything physical to act and interact. Thus, it perfectly fits the refrigerator retort.
You just don't understand the world around you. You simply wrap yourself in your faith, believe everything that doesn't fit that faith is stupid, and continue into the dark ages. Really pathetic.
You will not accept the validity of the evidence so why bother? You seem to be the self-appointed judge who decides what is valid evidence and what is not. You will not accept that just as a building needs an architect and a builder, that a painting needs an artist and therefore creation, proven over and over again to be an intricate, complex system operating under fixed laws, seemingly self existent ,needs a Creator, then you will not listen to me.
@Hagiazo You haven't provided evidence to begin with. I told you that because something is written in a book doesn't mean it's evidence, and pointed to Harry Potter. If that's all you've ever had for "evidence for god," you've completely deluded yourself.
Give me evidence that I can test and validate. You and every other creationist out there refuse.
We know that buildings have architects and builders and such. We can meet them and we witness these people doing work today...
@Hagiazo However, life self-replicates. We see primitive molecules and simple cells form regularly in controlled environments today. These do not need a builder or creator. So, again, if this is all you have for evidence, you never had any to begin with. You only begged your own loaded question.
Show me that life, this planet, the universe, required a creator, and not by a false dichotomy, but a testable and verifiable method. Else, you're just full of shit.
@Hagiazo You do know that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't say that. The second law states that in a spontaneous process the entropy of the Universe increases. That doesn't necessarily imply that everything degrades over time, it all depends on context. If you have a solution containing only simple molecules, it is entropically favourable for some of those molecules to bond and form more complex molecules. So it's not "silly" to suppose that some biological molecules could self-assemble.
You think that's silly? I've heard of a theory that purports to the state of pre-existing inanimate objects, (no none knows where they came from) acted upon by the passage of time (which has no power to affect anything), becoming living things.
Go figure! People say the strangest things, but only a fool says in his heart, "There is no God"
@Hagiazo The passage of time has no power to affect anything? Tell that to the expiration dates in your fridge.
There is no god. If there were, we'd have evidence for the tens of thousands of different religions out there which claim that there is a god. Funny that.
Ignorance makes one more a fool than dismissing claims of imaginary sky daddies.
@Hagiazo "but only a fool says in his heart there is no god," Yes believe what I say, despite the fact I have no evidence what so ever, I'd have to a right tool to follow that logic. BTW there is no comprehensive theory on how life originated, and just because we have no idea where the "inanimate objects" came from does not mean that you can dismiss everything else and replace it with BS, that's not answering the question honestly. I have no objection to existance or non existance of a deity
@TheKitch2 ."I have no objection to existance or non existance of a deity". Then why do you either 1) Fail to investigate the abundance of evidence supporting the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? or 2) Ignore it?
@Hagiazo What evidence is there for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? If it's just the bible, then it's not evidence. This has been explained to you. What else do you have?
He was using the guitar as a metaphor for evolution. You're stupid if you don't recognize that! He's not actually saying that a tree evolved into a guitar.
Why is it that people who have no understanding of the subject, no schooling on a subject more than (maybe) high school, think they know better than the people who have spent their entire lives on the subject? It's mind boggling. I'm an Airmen and a soccer player and a history buff, I'm not about to go tell Dr. Kaku that M Theory is wrong. It's not my field of expertise.
@HimesInu Because that is the essence of religion. It's not about knowledge, it's about believing insane things for which not a shred of evidence could possibly exist. It's about donning cool-looking robes and pointy hats, talking about gods and demons, convincing sheep to finance your incoherent ramblings, pushing your beliefs on others, and pretending to respect the equally insane, though slightly different, beliefs of others until your god is the last one standing. That's religion.
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
"Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey 'people.' People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war... Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest. C.C. Lewis
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." C. S. Lewis
What a silly man. The argument that because something is really complex means it must have been designed is fool hardy at best, dangerous and harmful to the progress of science at worst. The silly man doesn't understand evolution so he follows Fairy Tails that make him feel less dumb.
Of course he is ignorant of science. He has to be in order to believe in creationist religion, otherwise he would have to be deliberately lying to prove his point and for a christian, that would be breaking the 9th commandment and he surely wouldn't do that.
@JessaMesss Ah yes the sub-text threat of damnation. What a weak argument. If the only reason to believe in creation is out of fear of damnation you have already damned yourself to a weak minded subservient life from which the only escape is a meaningless hope for heaven. We should stand on our feet while we still have them. Rather then let the dictates of some Fairy Story force us to live on our knees.
well I find your fairy tell to be leniency pure retardation, can you tell me what caused energy into the motion that caused it to make the earth and people, I mean come on, retarded, soo you believe in your monkey daddy theory if you want you have that God given choice.
@JessaMesss Why would I bother you've already made up your mind. Oh and if your going to go around suggesting that people are retarded it wouldn't be a bad idea if you improved your grammar and spelling.
I don't believe in anything I understand how science works. Science does not have all the answers yet. Although we keep searching for them rather then just buying in on the easy excuse of it's to complex for my small mind so it must be god. Despite our deference I say what I do out of love.
ah! but I noticed you didn't answer my question. I think your afraid to believe in a God who judges righteously, and I love you to bro but don't worry perfect loves cast out fear, I am covered in the blood of Jesus, I've got my free ticket to heaven and I would love to supply you with one to my earthly brother.
@JessaMesss Oh now it's all I love you brother. Before I was a retard and now I'm your brother. Very interesting. I have not answered your question this much is true, and given that you haven't actually asked may a question that can be answer. Or at least one that uses a strong enough line of grammar to be understood as a question I don't see why I should bother trying? As for the fear of god judging I already covered that. I fear no Fairy Stories nor the Fair Tail magic creatures in them.
@JessaMesss As for going slow, sure. Don't blame it on ADD. That's just more blame throwing. If you can't keep up it is either because you don't fully understand the subject or because you lack enough self control to stay on task. Blaming you flaws on a non-existent mental disorder is no better then looking to a imaginary friend to forgive you for those flaws.The first step to true freedom is to admit that you don't need fairy tails the second is to except the responsibility for your own actions
you know on second thought, your just mean!, I don't think I would like to talk with you at all, and that was my nice way of saying I will not debate someone who is going to threw numerous post at me before I get the chance to even see the first, it was a polite why to get you to descuse properly, but It is quite plan you don't want to discuss you want to insult, and no I do not want to read a 15 min post that covers multiple points, that's not how you should debate! eeessshhh
@JessaMesss I never insulted you. I am never mean just honest. There was no debate to be had give that you had not made any attempt to make a point to be debated so your decline of a debate is needless. I maybe blunt but turning down a conversation because you don't wish to take the time to keep up just demonstrates that you haven't the resolve to stand behind what you claim to believe. So if you wish to bow out because you haven't the ability to keep up that is your chose.
@JessaMesss You do seem very adept at make up excuses for your lack of effort. If it takes you 15 min to read a 500 character post maybe your right.Maybe you are not capable of have an intelligent conversation. I am sorry I wasted our time trying to explain the simple idea that you don't need to believe in fictional stories to live a worthwhile existence.Yet if the idea of thinking about more then one point at a time or having your beliefs challenged is to much for you I shouldn't have bothered
@JessaMesss If ever you want to see past the tip of your own nose let me know. There is a great big world out there and no matter how much others have told you to be afraid of it they were wrong. The world is a beautiful place full of beautiful people. I for one love you regardless of you flaws and fears. No matter what you think I was trying to do, what I was trying to do is open your mind teach you that you don't have to live in fear. Yet it seem that your fear has convinced you to hide.
I have learned a long time ago that just because some one makes a statement that does not make them right! now if you would like to debate this with me that's great, but you have to agree to some rules of etiquette first.
@JessaMesss I have no need to debate anything with you.I only wanted to explain that the world is a lot more complex then the very simple terms that the Y.E.C. like to use.So if you would like to have the finer point of how things really work let me know other wise I won't waist anymore time trying. I only desire to help people free themselves from the cults that enslave them. If the way I do this displease you it is probably because you are used to only hearing what you want to hear.
You are so right the world is very complex that's why I don't think it created itself, I think it would need a designer. thank you for pointing that out.
@JessaMesss That's just another one of the simple minded YEC answers. Who ever said it had to be created at all. Creation is such a bias word. What proof do you have of a designer? Do use the tired old look around you noise. Give me real tangible demonstrated proof. The physical location of said creator would be the best proof. Now if you ever get to the point where you can give a debatable answer (I don't think it created itself) not being one it's just nonsense. If you could you would.
@JessaMesss The world is to complex god musta made and polio is a curse for our sin so we shouldn't try and cure it. Cancer is caused by magic pixies in the blood so we need regular blood lettings to rid ourselves of the pixies. The earth is at the center of universe and resting on the back of a turtle. All simple answer for the simple of mind. You don't think it could have created itself. Neither do I. Neither does anyone in the scientific community. That would be stupid. (More>
@JessaMesss (More> Because there is no need for a creator. Science doesn't claim that the universe just poofed in to being. It is a slow and gradual growth that requires a set of laws that have been demonstrated countless times. I have no need to prove it because the work has been done. Unlike you god done it nonsense that has no backing beyond a lot of people have a strong feeling in their tummies. Which is not anything close to proof. It's just a childish feel good story. Like the tooth fairy.
@JessaMesss Oh and have you read 1Tim 2:9-15 and thought of a reason you shouldn't have to follow it and stop preaching to people? This is not me being mean. It is the word of your god and you claim to obey without question.
@JessaMesss Of course you have repeatedly accused me of being mean yet the first time you messaged me you called me a retard. I mean really how hypocritical can you get.
LOL I am sorry and I do believe I had already asked you to forgive me,, but any way I may have said it once you are continual insulting me, you are very condescending, and saying things like I am silly, and no way God exist, well I am sorry but I don't care for your disregard for what I believe
@JessaMesss Well I don't forgive you based on the fact that you have not given no reason to. I have never called you silly only the ideas that you have presented. Surely you are right I have been condescending. That doesn't make me wrong just condescending. You have repeated claimed that there is no way that the universe could exist without god. Yet it is wrong for me to disregard what you believe. Again you demonstrate a strong level of hypocrisy. Do you think I liked the monkey daddy crack?
I said manky daddy to reply to your ski daddy remark, and I dint say the fat that your being condescending makes you wrong, I said I will not continue to talk with you cause you are being really mean and condescending
@JessaMesss Fine quit when the going gets tough. This is why YEC is seen as such a joke. When things heat up your side turns to the "your mean, your rude, or your condescending so I don't want to talk to you" defense. Yet telling people they will spend an eternity in absolute pain because they simple disagree with you is not condescending. Or that this is the will of god and you know better then me because you've read the same book as me but came to a different conclusion isn't condescending?
look dude I don't even know what were talking about any more, do you have a point or something or are you just wanting to bash me because I'm a creationist?
@JessaMesss Ah now the claim of ignorance. I am not "bashing" you. I'm asking you if you believe that people will, "Sooner or later you will now the truth, hopefully sooner rather then later, for your sake". You are making a thinly veiled threat and you know it. Yet you don't like being told that wishing people ill for disagreeing a bad idea if you can't prove it. You fully understand my point you just don't like it.
@JessaMesss Oh and in a way I do enjoy taunting creationist given that they are so worthy of it.It is a view that demonstrates their ignorance in the terms of science yet they want their nonsensical non-scientific ideas taught as science. Yet none of you can explain in scientific terms how creation made things seem as if they evolved. If you hear hoofs in Colo. do you think zebra? There is micro evolution this a fact. Can you sight one case of micro creation by a god that has ever been observed?
well I am sorry you have not found a creationist who has answers for you, but if you go to answers in genesis or institute for creation research they have scientist on staff to answer you questions it takes awhile for them to get back to you though
@JessaMesss Actually I have read all the information on the answers in genesis site. They can't do it either. I could put my ten year old son on and he could explain to you how evolution works yet the so called experts and the creation whoops I mean design institute (yeah they don't even use the word creation anymore because they know it garbage) can't answer the simplest questions about there idea (not a theory because the haven't used a scientific method). So why can you explain the basics?
@JessaMesss Additionally I don't want to know what they think the answer is because they're not the one's I am talking to. I am talking to you. How can you possibly say that you can see no other way besides creation? Yet not be able to explain the basics of how your idea is supposed to work. Of course you have confuse evolution with abiogenesis and the "Big Bang theory". All of which being independent and separate sciences.
no, they dont have scientists. they have merchandisers who sell stuff to make money. if they were scientists they would be called scientists and not creationists. :)
the creationist side does in fact have degreed scientist, they are called scientist who are creationist, just like there are scientist who are evolutionist
@Kiesel Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
@JessaMesss Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry The list goes on and on
are you kidding me! how silly! go look it up, and also you really thought in the entire scientific comunity there wernt people how one didnt beleive in evolution and two were on the fence, are you for real, think about it, rarly do you get a big group of people who all agree on the same thing thats just logic, for one thing there isnt any proof for evolution and even if you had a bactera tat did manege to atain new genitic information which I have read there is no such thing,
but even if there was a bactera that was witnessed to dain genitic info that also does not prove evolution it just give you something to add to your theory, so seeing as how there really is no complet prove you thought there wernt others that didnt hold to your belif, your more dogmatic then me!
i am not dogmatic because evolution isnt something you can choose to believe in. and for your information: theere are (lots) of bacteria that evolved. e.g. some bacteria near a fabric evolved to be able to digest polyester, giving them an advantage over the other that didnt have that ability. soon, all bacteria could do it (survival of the fittest). polyester wasn there before men, so please dont say they have been doing that for eternity.
@JessaMesss No matter how insulting or condescending I may have been I have never wish anyone the torment of hell for disagree with me. Can you claim the same. All I wish is that you live a long and happy life, without fear of hell. Yet you threaten people with that hell. Oh and how about the 1Tim 2:9-16, you still haven't addressed it yet? Do you think you could come down off you high horse long enough to answer one of my questions given that I've answered all of yours, even after your threats.
you see your being mean, I don't even remember you asking me that, maybe you forgot to qoit it and I didn't see it, I didn't know man! you are high strung! what is your question I will be happy to answer you.
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 3 days ago
Leave your faith in church... let the scientist's handle science.
atheistram 2 weeks ago
This is a really REALLY well done show! just keep them coming.. I am loving this.
aerosmithdreamon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
His comment, "they didn't spend a lot of time in actual science class" is hilarious. Obviously he didn't either. So, by Venn diagram, he shares a significant characteristic with drug dealers. It begs the question, what other overlaps are there?
cbooth2004 1 month ago
His comment, "they didn't spend a lot of time in actual science class" is hilarious. Obviously he didn't either. So, by Venn diagram, he shares a significant characteristic with drug dealers. It begs the question, what other overlaps are there?
cbooth2004 1 month ago
Strawmen and projection. He's got nothing else, but he masks his feelings of inadequacy with them.
Guitar is extended phenotype. Termite mound is NOT termite; dam is NOT beaver; wax is NOT bee.
And, if bombadier beetle is "fascinating", why didn't he have the interest to study it? He's striking an intellectual pose--but his claim they shoot fire is a misunderstanding that shows he didn't even read Gish's book attentively; it is also a claim of jaw-dropping stupidity and appalling ignorance.
cbooth2004 1 month ago
This guy is a perfect example of the adage "If you can't make sense, make noise!"
tbdonnelly67 1 month ago
god i hate this guys voice so much, he tries to yell and sound tough just to get his point across and everything he says is wrong
BarrioAztrologist89 2 months ago
@Nebelwesens - The fableS of creationism have been repeated for THOUSANDS of years.
Evidence for, and the IDEA of evolution has been TOLD for a couple HUNDRED years.
Now if BOTH ARE LIES, by your own argument, which do you DISBELIEVE?
'Tell any lie long enough & loud enough, folk will BELIEVE '
Sounds like Creation/Gods to me.
LOL
psycotria 3 months ago
It's not rocket science. It takes FAITH to believe in either Creation (Bible) or Evolution (Man-humanism) as neither has been witnessed by humanity. As for evolution, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "
Goebbels.
Nebelwesens 4 months ago
People keep your prayers to yourself it is disgusting and insulting and truly showes how stupid you are when you say you will pray for someone.
berrywoke 4 months ago
It's scary to consider there are people this stupid sharing the world with you, driving on the same roads as you, sending their children to the same schools you do.
MunkyDrag0n 4 months ago
I think that sicne he is so close to the facts and that he is often getting things backwards only goes to show that he knows the truth, but he is deliberately getting them arse backwards .
He is a dishonest coward... Just like every other creationist.
FatRakoon 4 months ago
@FatRakoon Hey Rak? You think he knows that those are the same "fools" that gave him penicillin and extended the only life he'll ever have by forty years? Maybe someone should tell him... NOT IT!!!
iagorincon 4 months ago
@iagorincon
;)
FatRakoon 4 months ago
I think this preacher doesn't even believe himself what he's saying. Somehow, his body language just repels everything he's spouting out from his mouth.
juuonse 4 months ago
I always find it funny that creationists try so hard to debunk proven science, but at the same time are not at all adverse to the use of modern conveniences that science has made possible. Lets take away their conveniences and see how they feel about science then.
8698gil 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is an absolute disgrace to science.
Objects never order anything, mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered.
Evolution is so irrational that it should be removed from all classrooms.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 4 months ago
with a trillion different designs? were designed all so closely cause it works, it makes things live. it works why come up with something else
mapennisi19 4 months ago
@csbair im not trying to be ignorant because people can believe what they want but again where did that proto-life come from or self-replicating molecules come from? they have a design too. and i dont know about you but i would rather believe in something that i can be somewhat sure of is valid. to me it seems like you dont even know if evolution is valid because obviously, like you said, it doesnt matter if it is or if it isnt. and when we were created why does the creator need to come up
mapennisi19 4 months ago
@mapennisi19 You may not try to be ignorant, but you are. If you're arguing something in science "is just a theory," you're ignorant. It's a clear sign that someone's told you what to think and say, and you haven't properly investigated what you're claiming is wrong.
It's not just you. It's most creationists.
If you want to go down the infinite regress, one can simply ask, "Where did the creator come from?"
csbair 4 months ago 6
@mapennisi19 "but I would rather believe in something that I can be somewhat sure of is valid..."
That, hands down, is the stupidest thing I've read today, and I read Deepak Chopra's review of Dawkins' book today.
You... want to believe... in something... you can be SOMEWHAT sure of... is valid...? Believe... valid... somewhat sure...
At least one of those words doesn't mean what you think it does.
If you think that human beings were created, you haven't taken an anatomy class.
csbair 4 months ago 7
@csbair everytime it always seems to end up with poeple who believe in evolution or are atheist, it always seems to end in an attack on the person they are arguing with. im praying for you man. remember God loves you
mapennisi19 4 months ago
@mapennisi19 Maybe because you're arguing the same stupid things that so many others have done, that are so ridiculously awful and wrong? Maybe because you tout evolution as "just a theory" without realizing that a theory is the strongest level any idea in science can reach? Perhaps because you're arguing that you want to believe things were created, so it's better than trying to understand reality around you?
Perhaps these people get tired of your stupidity and ignorance? Perhaps...
csbair 4 months ago 7
@csbair He wants an anchor, that's all. He wants to have a young child-level psychological need - that for a constant and consistently affectionate caregiver - met. A lot of religions keep people stuck at this developmental stage - and don't even offer consistently supportive gods! This explains the black-and-white thinking and immovable beliefs of many 'faithful'. If you never develop the balls simply to question your beliefs, how can you expect to approach anything objectively?
arayalrio 1 month ago in playlist Creationists Butcher Science
@mapennisi19 i stumbled on how the molecules became self replicating as well, but because i have enough understanding of chemistry, it was easy to understand how they do it with a small amount of work. you're not afraid of a little work, are you?
felderup 4 months ago
@mapennisi19
You say you are not trying to be ignorant, but you are I am afraid very much succeeding.
Religion says GOD DID IT.
Biology and abiogenesis dont yet know the exact answers, but its getting close. Its coming up with possible theories then testing them and some are good, some are bad. The good ones they re-test over and over and they are getting closer and closer and closer and maybe one day will have a definitive answer.
But you still just say GOD DID IT. How ignorant can you be?
FatRakoon 4 months ago
starting line somewhere and until something can be named that started all the things that live on earth today then you really cant say its true is still just a theory and always will be. ever since the mid 1700s its been a theory, why cant it be proven fact yet?
mapennisi19 4 months ago
@mapennisi19 Evolution is both theory and fact. It is because you do not understand what a scientific theory is, obviously, that you cannot comprehend how wrong you are.
Perhaps you should go get an education and stop thumping your Bible. Or else, stop offering your opinion on a subject you know nothing about, unless you enjoy showing off how ridiculously stupid you are?
csbair 4 months ago 6
@csbair and where do the ancestors come from? at least Christians and people who believe in a creator have something to point out as the beginning. whenever you ask someone who believes in the evelution theory its always well that came from an ancestor, that also came from ancestor too who we have no idea what it is. if you dont know what it is then how do you know it exists? theres gotta be a
mapennisi19 4 months ago
@mapennisi19 Because you point at fantasy doesn't make it fact. Every living thing on earth has a common ancestor, the first living organism, which arose from proto-life that arose from self-replicating molecules.
We will likely never find out what our original ancestor is. Does it matter to whether evolution is valid? Absolutely not.
We know that it exists because every living organism is related through its structure and genes.
"Just a theory?" Seriously, you want to be that ignorant?
csbair 4 months ago
@csbair yeah okay so they use them in different ways but explain to me how the chemicals were put in their make up or how the chemicals got there in the first place enabling them to use and adapt to. where did it come from in the first place? something cant evolve out of nothing. and my point was, like i said before, the creator made the insects up with the chemicals in their system so they could use them in ways that they needed to.
mapennisi19 4 months ago
@mapennisi19 Nothing was "put in their make up." Subsequent steps.
Where did it come from? Previous ancestors. Those chemicals are either products or byproducts of the biological functions of the creature.
Nothing has evolved out of nothing.
The "same design, same creator" argument explains nothing. How is it possible that a creator could put the same ingredients together, but arrive at different end results? Makes sense with evolution, not with creationism.
csbair 4 months ago
@csbair chemicals are used for a lot more than just what the Bombardier beetle uses them for. ever think that those chemicals could favor the other insects for something else rather than defending off predators?
mapennisi19 4 months ago
@mapennisi19 And your point has what to do with defending your position?
Subsequent steps that utilize what is already available for a new trait that enhances survival and enables reproduction to pass on those traits...
Natural selection.
csbair 4 months ago
oh and that whole thing on the Bombardier Beetle that the maker of this video pointed out. you pretty much just summed up how it works then at the end put that it is found commonly through the insect world. whichs kinda proves Ken's point there when he says if it works then keep using it. Which means the CREATOR used it more than once on insect because it works.
mapennisi19 4 months ago
to csbair. it has been proven and secular historians and theologians accept 6 minimal facts on the resurrection of Christ, 1. Jesus died of Roman Crucifixion. so i dont even need to go on because you say what evidence of His life is there. well there you go, if you think its dumb and theologians who are qualified and educated in that specific area dont then your probably wrong. you can look up what i just said if you want to.
mapennisi19 4 months ago
@mapennisi19 [citation needed] Because you say something is true, doesn't make it true.
The chemicals used with the bombardier beetle are found throughout the insect world. If you want to invoke common design, common creator, then why aren't there more types of insects with such capabilities, since they have the necessary chemicals?
"Godidit" isn't a valid explanation. Try again.
csbair 4 months ago
I would have given anything to hear him give that speech to a biologist and watch him get his arse handed to him. Great vid.
pezzamange 5 months ago
Although this guy loses massive points on logic and scientific accuracy, you do have to give him at least a few points for having his extreme voice on all the time.
Bernstein1917 6 months ago
this speaker cannot even get the creationist propaganda shit correct, ive watched the entire "amazing creatures that defy evolution" in which this particular beetle is discussed. hell, i could sell this beetle bullshit better than him if i was a dishonest scumbag that wanted to fatten my wallet!
squizill 6 months ago
Science is for fags.
Clap4meBitch 6 months ago
@Clap4meBitch Then assume the position, because you are science's prison bitch.
fdasherv 6 months ago
How is it that science which is based on physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics, which are all based on logic, rational thought, and repeatable experiments proposed by a thinking and purposeful mind, come to be evolved from mere atoms such as Carbon, Hidrogen, and Nitrogen, mixed with time and random chance? Silly isn't it?
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo That is a gross, petty, simple minded look at evolution and abiogenesis
TheKitch2 6 months ago
@Hagiazo It isn't silly. Just not simple. It takes understanding and learning. Something for which you seem to possess no proficiency. You came to my video arguing with extreme ignorance and without any ability to reason in subjects for which you don't think are valid sciences, because they disagree with your faith. You've let your fantasies invade reality and keep you ignorant.
That really is sad.
csbair 6 months ago
@csbair Still can't get past the time thing can you? I's very, very important to your theory and you cannot give time the attributes required to compliment your theory. Sucks doesn't it. Been a slice. Have a good night.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo Um, you keep bringing it up, and refuse to point out how it's wrong other than saying, "It's not sentient!" Well, no shit, I never said it was. You just keep taking your argument there, and refuse to address what *I* said, rather than what you want me to have said.
So, now that you've thoroughly had your ass handed to you and humiliated, you run away. Hilarious.
And creationists think that creationists win debates... Nope, they just pounding out stupidity hoping no one notices.
csbair 6 months ago
Time does not enable! Enabling is a characteristic that requires, thought, power, choice, intelligence. You are choosing the wrong words... and I'm being difficult because you are claiming the supremacy of science while being unscientific.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo You're simply saying that "enable" requires thought, power, choice, intelligence. Definition 1.b. of "enable" on MW, "to make possible, practical, or easy." There's no sentience needed. Because you want there to be, doesn't mean it is so.
Now refute what I've said and back up the claims that I've pointed out of yours that are wrong, or everyone reading this will just see how completely stupid your entire argument has been. Your choice.
csbair 6 months ago
@csbair "Definition 1.b. of "enable" on MW, "to make possible, practical, or easy."" - Time does none of that. Time does nothing. Time is not and yet it is but it is not able or unable. It does not make or unmake (?) That's not a word but you might get what I am getting at.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
I will move on and support any statements I have made once we deal with your original, foundational statement about time being a force, having power as an attribute. You misspoke, or just said it wrong... admit it and we'll move on. Or, are you still claiming time contains and releases power?
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo Um, no, not how it works. You came to this video, made claims, and couldn't back them up. You can't weasel out of them. I supported my statement, and you haven't bothered refuting the explanation.
Time enables all things physical to act and interact. Therefore, my statement is valid.
The numerous claims you've made, now back them up.
Or, really, are you just scared of an atheist?
csbair 6 months ago
@cbsair As for evidence of God... there's more than enough evidence. If there was as much evidence as there is for God's existence available to a court trying to prove your guilt. You would be without excuse. Oops, you are! The Book of Paul to the Christians and people of Rome - AKA Romans, Chapter 1
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@cbsair - I knew someone would speak without thinking. It's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work and bacteria of course. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is a universal law of decay; the subordinate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates within time. Time is the opportunity, not the cause.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo Then you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Typical of creationists. It's not what you think it is, based on what you claim. It also does not invalidate abiogenesis or evolution.
Try thinking for a change. Which requires you to give up and challenge your beliefs.
By your definition of "proof," the Harry Potter series proves that magic and witchcraft are real. People's writings, especially thousands of years ago, aren't reliable as evidence of invisible sky daddies.
csbair 6 months ago
@csbair 1st of all the 2nd law of Thermodynamics was brought up to help to show you that time itself embodies no effectual power of it's own with which to act upon any other laws. Which you have not refuted with your ranting and Harry Potter non-sense. And... time has no bearing on whether evidence is credible or not. You really have to learn how to debate a little better.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo You said, "acted upon by the passage of time (which has no power to affect anything)." The passage of time allows everything physical to act and interact. Your statement was asinine.
How does anything "act upon any other laws?" Do you just randomly piece together words, hoping they construct an argument?
I brought up Harry Potter to show that, because someone wrote something in a book, doesn't make it evidence for something.
I debate well. Maybe you should learn how yourself?
csbair 6 months ago
@csbair "The passage of time allows everything physical to behave as it does according to the laws governing them." Time does not give permission/allow anything! Things do or do not. Time has no power! Time doesn't heal, doesn't hurt, doesn't live or die. Time is until one day it is not.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo And that invalidates my point how? You haven't shown evidence that your god exists, nor dismissed anything I've said here. And you say I need to learn to debate?
Psst... people are laughing at you, not with you. Perhaps you should learn why...? It's the 21st Century, not the 1st...
csbair 6 months ago
@csbair You still haven't supported your original point that time is a cause acting on and/or within nature to produce something from nothing.
Time + chance = life? First remove the time factor, because as I have shown it does not apply and come up with another basis for life.
Evolution's biggest challenge is first cause. You're stuck there. You can try to make some sense of the process after 1st cause but you can't go backwards. You have no theory, fact or evidence to prove something from 0
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo Because I never claimed that time acted on anything to produce something from nothing. Who claims that? Oh, right, creationists... The universe poofed into being because an invisible sky daddy wanted it to.
Time + chance + selection + chemistry = life. Yes.
Time does apply. You haven't shown how it doesn't.
Evolution has no big challenge. It's fact and scientific theory. Even if we never understand abiogenesis, evolution is still sound science.
Want to try again?
csbair 6 months ago
@csbair What is it? Fact or theory? Make up your mind. And, again, you stated that time was a cause. It is not. You should state it this way; chance + selection + chemistry, given enough time, will produce life. Then you can look at "chance + selection + chemistry" objectively. Time for evolutionists is a scapegoat, "just give it time and it sorts itself out" is part of your grand premise... Hog wash. Where does the ability to naturally select come from? Some pond fairy?
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo Do you not understand what a scientific theory is? Gravity is both fact and theory. The cell is both fact and theory. And so forth. Theory in science is not guess; it is the highest status any idea can attain.
Natural selection is exactly what it says: Natural phenomena will select for or against certain traits in populations. It's not a sentient force, but just how this world works.
Perhaps you should get an education and stop living in ignorance?
csbair 6 months ago
@csbair "Do you not understand what a scientific theory is? Gravity is both fact and theory. The cell is both fact and theory. And so forth." My limited understanding is that once a theory has been proven it is no longer a theory.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo Then your limited understanding is completely wrong. And since it is such a basic definition in every science, it shows that you really have no understanding of any science. You pwned yourself there.
There is no status above a theory. Once an idea meets the criteria for a theory, it's extremely sound and has broad explanatory abilities. The fact that you don't know this proves to anyone reading that you really know nothing about these subjects.
So why bother arguing about them?
csbair 6 months ago
@Hagiazo Theory in science is an explaination of a natural phenomena, supported by evidence, once an hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory. Eg cell theory.
TheKitch2 6 months ago
@TheKitch2 Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo That's not the scientific definition of theory. That's the colloquial definition. Try again.
csbair 6 months ago
@csbair I have a theory... I'll be asleep in about half an hour if I follow through on my intention to go to bed for that purpose and am not acted upon by forces counterproductive to my goal. In time, this theory will proven true or false regardless of what time does or does not do because, guess what? Time can't do, or undo. :-)
Hagiazo 6 months ago
I recognise that definition, its from dictionary {dot} com, but tell me why did you ignore the first definition?
1) a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine
TheKitch2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheKitch2 1) "a coherent group of tested general propositions, [proposed positions] commonly regarded [not proven] as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation [not proof of fact] and prediction [fortune telling?] for a class of phenomena : Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine." Because it says the same thing only longer
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo Um, no, your recorrection is wrong. "Proof of fact" is a ridiculous statement in science. Facts are accepted evidence. There's no proof needed. Prediction means that the theory can be used to understand events not yet happened, or to make conclusions based on incomplete data. They're commonly regarded as correct, because they have reached a consensus, those experts in the field, that the theory is sound.
You must be in bliss, because you are so terribly ignorant.
csbair 6 months ago
Where does the breath of life or the chemicals that react or the stuff that starts it all or this "chance" thing (oh, that's scientific!) come from? The billion year old rock gnome! You claim science and put out childish self aggrandizing garbage.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo How do you define "life" so that it includes all living things and does not include non-living things? Let's start there.
Then, while you're continuing to post your ignorance online, try researching the RNA World Hypothesis.
And one who doesn't even know the definition of scientific theory shouldn't refer to others as putting out childish garbage. Food for thought.
csbair 6 months ago
This is you, "The passage of time has no power to affect anything? Tell that to the expiration dates in your fridge. " In that sentence you ascribed the attribute of power to time. So, that statement is false. You made a mistake. Either in grammar or your science. Admit it and move on.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo You have yet to admit anything you've erred about, so try not to lecture others on their need to do so?
And what I said is correct. I explained to you how. Time allows everything physical to act and interact. Thus, it perfectly fits the refrigerator retort.
You just don't understand the world around you. You simply wrap yourself in your faith, believe everything that doesn't fit that faith is stupid, and continue into the dark ages. Really pathetic.
csbair 6 months ago
You will not accept the validity of the evidence so why bother? You seem to be the self-appointed judge who decides what is valid evidence and what is not. You will not accept that just as a building needs an architect and a builder, that a painting needs an artist and therefore creation, proven over and over again to be an intricate, complex system operating under fixed laws, seemingly self existent ,needs a Creator, then you will not listen to me.
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo You haven't provided evidence to begin with. I told you that because something is written in a book doesn't mean it's evidence, and pointed to Harry Potter. If that's all you've ever had for "evidence for god," you've completely deluded yourself.
Give me evidence that I can test and validate. You and every other creationist out there refuse.
We know that buildings have architects and builders and such. We can meet them and we witness these people doing work today...
csbair 6 months ago
@Hagiazo However, life self-replicates. We see primitive molecules and simple cells form regularly in controlled environments today. These do not need a builder or creator. So, again, if this is all you have for evidence, you never had any to begin with. You only begged your own loaded question.
Show me that life, this planet, the universe, required a creator, and not by a false dichotomy, but a testable and verifiable method. Else, you're just full of shit.
csbair 6 months ago
@Hagiazo You do know that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't say that. The second law states that in a spontaneous process the entropy of the Universe increases. That doesn't necessarily imply that everything degrades over time, it all depends on context. If you have a solution containing only simple molecules, it is entropically favourable for some of those molecules to bond and form more complex molecules. So it's not "silly" to suppose that some biological molecules could self-assemble.
SoundOfScilence 6 months ago
You think that's silly? I've heard of a theory that purports to the state of pre-existing inanimate objects, (no none knows where they came from) acted upon by the passage of time (which has no power to affect anything), becoming living things.
Go figure! People say the strangest things, but only a fool says in his heart, "There is no God"
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo The passage of time has no power to affect anything? Tell that to the expiration dates in your fridge.
There is no god. If there were, we'd have evidence for the tens of thousands of different religions out there which claim that there is a god. Funny that.
Ignorance makes one more a fool than dismissing claims of imaginary sky daddies.
csbair 6 months ago
@Hagiazo "but only a fool says in his heart there is no god," Yes believe what I say, despite the fact I have no evidence what so ever, I'd have to a right tool to follow that logic. BTW there is no comprehensive theory on how life originated, and just because we have no idea where the "inanimate objects" came from does not mean that you can dismiss everything else and replace it with BS, that's not answering the question honestly. I have no objection to existance or non existance of a deity
TheKitch2 6 months ago
@TheKitch2 ."I have no objection to existance or non existance of a deity". Then why do you either 1) Fail to investigate the abundance of evidence supporting the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? or 2) Ignore it?
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo I have, and the evidence doesn't hold up to honest open skepticisim
TheKitch2 6 months ago
@TheKitch2 Your sources? Peer review? Thesis? Anything????
Hagiazo 6 months ago
@Hagiazo What evidence is there for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? If it's just the bible, then it's not evidence. This has been explained to you. What else do you have?
csbair 6 months ago
He was using the guitar as a metaphor for evolution. You're stupid if you don't recognize that! He's not actually saying that a tree evolved into a guitar.
MrStirter 8 months ago
@MrStirter I fully understand the metaphor. Problem is, it's a bad metaphor.
The video clearly shows why.
If you couldn't read or understand it, perhaps you are too stupid to have recognized it?
csbair 8 months ago 3
Why is it that people who have no understanding of the subject, no schooling on a subject more than (maybe) high school, think they know better than the people who have spent their entire lives on the subject? It's mind boggling. I'm an Airmen and a soccer player and a history buff, I'm not about to go tell Dr. Kaku that M Theory is wrong. It's not my field of expertise.
HimesInu 8 months ago
@HimesInu Because that is the essence of religion. It's not about knowledge, it's about believing insane things for which not a shred of evidence could possibly exist. It's about donning cool-looking robes and pointy hats, talking about gods and demons, convincing sheep to finance your incoherent ramblings, pushing your beliefs on others, and pretending to respect the equally insane, though slightly different, beliefs of others until your god is the last one standing. That's religion.
morgaffi 8 months ago
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
"Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey 'people.' People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war... Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest. C.C. Lewis
CoachEnriquez 8 months ago
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." "A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." C. S. Lewis
CoachEnriquez 8 months ago
Graves has a great style - "I yell a lot so it doesn't matter that I don't know what I'm talking about"
jcgadfly 9 months ago
What a silly man. The argument that because something is really complex means it must have been designed is fool hardy at best, dangerous and harmful to the progress of science at worst. The silly man doesn't understand evolution so he follows Fairy Tails that make him feel less dumb.
Richardisdorky 9 months ago
Of course he is ignorant of science. He has to be in order to believe in creationist religion, otherwise he would have to be deliberately lying to prove his point and for a christian, that would be breaking the 9th commandment and he surely wouldn't do that.
Would he?
HonestMan395 9 months ago
Comment removed
JessaMesss 9 months ago
@JessaMesss Poe.
csbair 9 months ago 2
@csbair
I wish I knew what this meant but I don't
JessaMesss 9 months ago
@JessaMesss Ah yes the sub-text threat of damnation. What a weak argument. If the only reason to believe in creation is out of fear of damnation you have already damned yourself to a weak minded subservient life from which the only escape is a meaningless hope for heaven. We should stand on our feet while we still have them. Rather then let the dictates of some Fairy Story force us to live on our knees.
Richardisdorky 9 months ago
@Richardisdorky
well I find your fairy tell to be leniency pure retardation, can you tell me what caused energy into the motion that caused it to make the earth and people, I mean come on, retarded, soo you believe in your monkey daddy theory if you want you have that God given choice.
JessaMesss 9 months ago
@JessaMesss Why would I bother you've already made up your mind. Oh and if your going to go around suggesting that people are retarded it wouldn't be a bad idea if you improved your grammar and spelling.
I don't believe in anything I understand how science works. Science does not have all the answers yet. Although we keep searching for them rather then just buying in on the easy excuse of it's to complex for my small mind so it must be god. Despite our deference I say what I do out of love.
Richardisdorky 9 months ago
Comment removed
Richardisdorky 9 months ago
@Richardisdorky
ah! but I noticed you didn't answer my question. I think your afraid to believe in a God who judges righteously, and I love you to bro but don't worry perfect loves cast out fear, I am covered in the blood of Jesus, I've got my free ticket to heaven and I would love to supply you with one to my earthly brother.
JessaMesss 9 months ago
@JessaMesss Oh now it's all I love you brother. Before I was a retard and now I'm your brother. Very interesting. I have not answered your question this much is true, and given that you haven't actually asked may a question that can be answer. Or at least one that uses a strong enough line of grammar to be understood as a question I don't see why I should bother trying? As for the fear of god judging I already covered that. I fear no Fairy Stories nor the Fair Tail magic creatures in them.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
did I call you that? I'm sorry, I really am learning to be nicer, sorry
JessaMesss 8 months ago
@JessaMesss As for going slow, sure. Don't blame it on ADD. That's just more blame throwing. If you can't keep up it is either because you don't fully understand the subject or because you lack enough self control to stay on task. Blaming you flaws on a non-existent mental disorder is no better then looking to a imaginary friend to forgive you for those flaws.The first step to true freedom is to admit that you don't need fairy tails the second is to except the responsibility for your own actions
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
you know on second thought, your just mean!, I don't think I would like to talk with you at all, and that was my nice way of saying I will not debate someone who is going to threw numerous post at me before I get the chance to even see the first, it was a polite why to get you to descuse properly, but It is quite plan you don't want to discuss you want to insult, and no I do not want to read a 15 min post that covers multiple points, that's not how you should debate! eeessshhh
JessaMesss 8 months ago
@JessaMesss I never insulted you. I am never mean just honest. There was no debate to be had give that you had not made any attempt to make a point to be debated so your decline of a debate is needless. I maybe blunt but turning down a conversation because you don't wish to take the time to keep up just demonstrates that you haven't the resolve to stand behind what you claim to believe. So if you wish to bow out because you haven't the ability to keep up that is your chose.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss You do seem very adept at make up excuses for your lack of effort. If it takes you 15 min to read a 500 character post maybe your right.Maybe you are not capable of have an intelligent conversation. I am sorry I wasted our time trying to explain the simple idea that you don't need to believe in fictional stories to live a worthwhile existence.Yet if the idea of thinking about more then one point at a time or having your beliefs challenged is to much for you I shouldn't have bothered
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss If ever you want to see past the tip of your own nose let me know. There is a great big world out there and no matter how much others have told you to be afraid of it they were wrong. The world is a beautiful place full of beautiful people. I for one love you regardless of you flaws and fears. No matter what you think I was trying to do, what I was trying to do is open your mind teach you that you don't have to live in fear. Yet it seem that your fear has convinced you to hide.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
I have learned a long time ago that just because some one makes a statement that does not make them right! now if you would like to debate this with me that's great, but you have to agree to some rules of etiquette first.
JessaMesss 8 months ago
@JessaMesss I have no need to debate anything with you.I only wanted to explain that the world is a lot more complex then the very simple terms that the Y.E.C. like to use.So if you would like to have the finer point of how things really work let me know other wise I won't waist anymore time trying. I only desire to help people free themselves from the cults that enslave them. If the way I do this displease you it is probably because you are used to only hearing what you want to hear.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
You are so right the world is very complex that's why I don't think it created itself, I think it would need a designer. thank you for pointing that out.
JessaMesss 8 months ago
@JessaMesss That's just another one of the simple minded YEC answers. Who ever said it had to be created at all. Creation is such a bias word. What proof do you have of a designer? Do use the tired old look around you noise. Give me real tangible demonstrated proof. The physical location of said creator would be the best proof. Now if you ever get to the point where you can give a debatable answer (I don't think it created itself) not being one it's just nonsense. If you could you would.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss The world is to complex god musta made and polio is a curse for our sin so we shouldn't try and cure it. Cancer is caused by magic pixies in the blood so we need regular blood lettings to rid ourselves of the pixies. The earth is at the center of universe and resting on the back of a turtle. All simple answer for the simple of mind. You don't think it could have created itself. Neither do I. Neither does anyone in the scientific community. That would be stupid. (More>
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss (More> Because there is no need for a creator. Science doesn't claim that the universe just poofed in to being. It is a slow and gradual growth that requires a set of laws that have been demonstrated countless times. I have no need to prove it because the work has been done. Unlike you god done it nonsense that has no backing beyond a lot of people have a strong feeling in their tummies. Which is not anything close to proof. It's just a childish feel good story. Like the tooth fairy.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss Oh and have you read 1Tim 2:9-15 and thought of a reason you shouldn't have to follow it and stop preaching to people? This is not me being mean. It is the word of your god and you claim to obey without question.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss Of course you have repeatedly accused me of being mean yet the first time you messaged me you called me a retard. I mean really how hypocritical can you get.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
LOL I am sorry and I do believe I had already asked you to forgive me,, but any way I may have said it once you are continual insulting me, you are very condescending, and saying things like I am silly, and no way God exist, well I am sorry but I don't care for your disregard for what I believe
JessaMesss 8 months ago
@JessaMesss Well I don't forgive you based on the fact that you have not given no reason to. I have never called you silly only the ideas that you have presented. Surely you are right I have been condescending. That doesn't make me wrong just condescending. You have repeated claimed that there is no way that the universe could exist without god. Yet it is wrong for me to disregard what you believe. Again you demonstrate a strong level of hypocrisy. Do you think I liked the monkey daddy crack?
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
I said manky daddy to reply to your ski daddy remark, and I dint say the fat that your being condescending makes you wrong, I said I will not continue to talk with you cause you are being really mean and condescending
JessaMesss 8 months ago
@JessaMesss Fine quit when the going gets tough. This is why YEC is seen as such a joke. When things heat up your side turns to the "your mean, your rude, or your condescending so I don't want to talk to you" defense. Yet telling people they will spend an eternity in absolute pain because they simple disagree with you is not condescending. Or that this is the will of god and you know better then me because you've read the same book as me but came to a different conclusion isn't condescending?
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss So again why should I be held to a higher standard then you?
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
look dude I don't even know what were talking about any more, do you have a point or something or are you just wanting to bash me because I'm a creationist?
JessaMesss 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JessaMesss Ah now the claim of ignorance. I am not "bashing" you. I'm asking you if you believe that people will, "Sooner or later you will now the truth, hopefully sooner rather then later, for your sake". You are making a thinly veiled threat and you know it. Yet you don't like being told that wishing people ill for disagreeing a bad idea if you can't prove it. You fully understand my point you just don't like it.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss Oh and in a way I do enjoy taunting creationist given that they are so worthy of it.It is a view that demonstrates their ignorance in the terms of science yet they want their nonsensical non-scientific ideas taught as science. Yet none of you can explain in scientific terms how creation made things seem as if they evolved. If you hear hoofs in Colo. do you think zebra? There is micro evolution this a fact. Can you sight one case of micro creation by a god that has ever been observed?
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
well I am sorry you have not found a creationist who has answers for you, but if you go to answers in genesis or institute for creation research they have scientist on staff to answer you questions it takes awhile for them to get back to you though
JessaMesss 8 months ago
@JessaMesss Actually I have read all the information on the answers in genesis site. They can't do it either. I could put my ten year old son on and he could explain to you how evolution works yet the so called experts and the creation whoops I mean design institute (yeah they don't even use the word creation anymore because they know it garbage) can't answer the simplest questions about there idea (not a theory because the haven't used a scientific method). So why can you explain the basics?
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss Additionally I don't want to know what they think the answer is because they're not the one's I am talking to. I am talking to you. How can you possibly say that you can see no other way besides creation? Yet not be able to explain the basics of how your idea is supposed to work. Of course you have confuse evolution with abiogenesis and the "Big Bang theory". All of which being independent and separate sciences.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@JessaMesss
no, they dont have scientists. they have merchandisers who sell stuff to make money. if they were scientists they would be called scientists and not creationists. :)
Kiesel 7 months ago
@Kiesel
the creationist side does in fact have degreed scientist, they are called scientist who are creationist, just like there are scientist who are evolutionist
JessaMesss 7 months ago
@JessaMesss
name one and where did he get his degree from. diploma mills like the one kent hovind got his degree from are not valid.
Kiesel 7 months ago
@Kiesel
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
JessaMesss 7 months ago
JessaMesss 7 months ago
JessaMesss 7 months ago
@JessaMesss
and yet i havent seen a single line "and he/she got his/her degree from...."
Kiesel 7 months ago
@Kiesel
are you kidding me! how silly! go look it up, and also you really thought in the entire scientific comunity there wernt people how one didnt beleive in evolution and two were on the fence, are you for real, think about it, rarly do you get a big group of people who all agree on the same thing thats just logic, for one thing there isnt any proof for evolution and even if you had a bactera tat did manege to atain new genitic information which I have read there is no such thing,
JessaMesss 7 months ago
@Kiesel
but even if there was a bactera that was witnessed to dain genitic info that also does not prove evolution it just give you something to add to your theory, so seeing as how there really is no complet prove you thought there wernt others that didnt hold to your belif, your more dogmatic then me!
JessaMesss 7 months ago
@JessaMesss
i am not dogmatic because evolution isnt something you can choose to believe in. and for your information: theere are (lots) of bacteria that evolved. e.g. some bacteria near a fabric evolved to be able to digest polyester, giving them an advantage over the other that didnt have that ability. soon, all bacteria could do it (survival of the fittest). polyester wasn there before men, so please dont say they have been doing that for eternity.
Kiesel 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JessaMesss
and that you say there is no proof just shows how little you know about the topic, yet you are trying to argue.
Kiesel 7 months ago
@JessaMesss
sry, i made a mistake: it was nylon.
Kiesel 7 months ago
@JessaMesss No matter how insulting or condescending I may have been I have never wish anyone the torment of hell for disagree with me. Can you claim the same. All I wish is that you live a long and happy life, without fear of hell. Yet you threaten people with that hell. Oh and how about the 1Tim 2:9-16, you still haven't addressed it yet? Do you think you could come down off you high horse long enough to answer one of my questions given that I've answered all of yours, even after your threats.
Richardisdorky 8 months ago
@Richardisdorky
you see your being mean, I don't even remember you asking me that, maybe you forgot to qoit it and I didn't see it, I didn't know man! you are high strung! what is your question I will be happy to answer you.
also I have in no way wished hell on any on