Creationism meets the protocell - Abiogenesis

[pmedic063252]

Abiogenisis has not created ONE living cell. It still remains a fairy tale.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

Oh, I see you resort to religion for the why, but my point still stands, evolution is possible, not absolute. Creationists have good points.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

Eg. there has been discovered examples where the speed of light has changed: fact. This brings in to question the ultimate reliability of it and makes dating using light slightly less reliable.

Evolution is possible yes, it has been evidenced in small degrees, yes. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it is the sole source of life as we know it. The extreme speciation requried to make life as we see it is either impossible or near enough to impossible to make creation look reasonable.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

There's nothing wrong with the creationists "trying to get you", maybe you should stop ignoring them just because they're creationists and acknowledge that in many ways, they are the just as skeptical of evolution as you are oft he Bible, and some probably know as much abotu isrealite history and context (that you don't know) as you know about evolution or such.

Both sides make good points, but both sides are also capable of coming to false conclusions.

[pigwigpa]

dr miller's experiment has two flaws. one is scale and the other is time. the earth had a few million years to product the first protocells

[Oddessuss]

Please replace the ? symbols in the chemical equations with -> symbols, or more to the point <--> as they could be equations in equilibrium ;)

[SnotiG]

abiogenesis is far from confirmed.

[01101100d]

I wonder how creationists try to shrug off all the methane on neptune, uranus and titan to start with if it only comes from living things. I think all these creationists belong in a psychiatric hospital, especially if they think they can commune with an invisible friend, i mean, what else would you call having an imaginary friend if you were to forget the word religion lol. Great vids

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

I'm an old unvierse but non-evolutionist creationist. I beleive the unvierse and earth is ancient. but life has only been on from earth 10000 to 6000 years. What do you think of that?

Do I belong in a psychiatric hospital for believing the stars but not the far fetched idea of all life on earth being the result of evolution?

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow "life has only been on from earth 10000 to 6000 years"

There are trees older than that, and remains of civilizations older than that, and chorals reefs, and...

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

Or so it would appear. Maybe I'm off by a few thousand, who knows.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow "..off by a few thousand.."

Some choral reefs are millions of years old... The initial biblical bar set for 'creation' was rejected by the entirety of religious scholarship, but was later incorporated into the evangelic beliefs. The initial value was somewhere around 4,500 (If I remember correctly) and them moved to 6,000, and now 10,000. It's just silly.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

Then I'll look into it, but if the evidence for it is as shifty as the evidence that evolution made life, I won't accept it.

The 4500 bit you may have mis remembered, it mgiht have been 4500 Before Christ.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow If you have observed the evidence - claim to understand it, then reject on grounds that the bible is better, then definately. Think about it mate, you all have this invisible man in the sky who is your friend, who you claim to commune with, that sounds crazy dude.

Far fetched? You mean as compared with an invisible man who magically exists by default that speaks words in a vacuum and hocus pocus here we are. Yeah okay, whatever keeps the bed dry right.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

There's evidence evolution occurs, not evidence that it occured billions of times and made all of life as it is today. Similiar skeletons aren't always related, they're definatly not solid proof.

It takes two to tango, so the idea that completely seperate creatures could have resulted from the same ancestor, without there being multiple hyrids between each stage, is impossible. Where are the mammal hybrids?

Even if the days weren't 24 hour ones, I wont assume evolution did it.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

It makes sense for an omnipotent God to be capable of understanding your thoughts, he's in the particles in your head.

You seem to see God as merely a psychic man who is invisible. He came as a man, but he is not a man. He's a force of nature, like gravity. He is like the gluons of physics, he is a force literally capable of putting facts together (intellect).

If you expect me to believe there's no evidence for a force literally capable of putting facts together, you're lieing.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow "..no evidence for a force.."

That's a silly argument. Even if you were to posit that such a force exists, there's no rational path from 'this force exists' to 'it is self-aware'. It's a bit like saying "gravity loves you"

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

" 'it is self-aware'. It's a bit like saying "gravity loves you""

It's definatly not impossible, we are just as much natural as gravity is, & the presence of 40 to 66 educated people from different periods throughout history all testifying to the same God, definatly supports the idea.

The bible writers were educated, only the educated could read & write in those days, the majority of people couldn't. This is why the idea of a bible conspiracy is daft, the common couldn't read.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

Although some less educated could read atleast to a degree, writing was another issue.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow Right, God is the particles in my head and yet isn't physical, are you trying to insult me sir??? lol.

What do you mean by pulling facts together. You're making assertions and statements that have no basis in reality or proof to support it.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

No proof? Ignoring multiple written testimonies from people throughout history just because they're old and "miraculous" isn't exactly reasonable. In terms of the reliability of the bible, every conclusion I have made (including my belief) about it is based on accepted historical facts.

Whatever made everything, created logic, enough said. The miracles are supported by the Bible.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

At best, out of 66 different writings, the chances of them all being scizophrenics is rediculously slim. The writings show no signs of schizophrenia.

The chances of it being some kind of government made-up conspiracy is impossible, the books were wrote seperately over a 1000 year period, so unless you believe in a 1000 year old king or emporer, that theory fails. And even then, half of the writings were AGAINST the leaders of their times.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow The bible is proof of nothing, it's no more than Lord of the rings is proof that hobbits and elves exist.

There are more mental illnesses than just schizophrenia. People in the distant past may have been normal and believed because they simply didn't know any better. Those (today) who continue to ignore scientific evidence for wishful thinking that the bible is real have a problem.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

Ignoring written witness just because you want to is not reasonable. Your point would be reasonable if the Bible was wrote in a twenty year period and sold as fiction, but it was not.

Archaology and history is not an atheists friend. Neither is philosophy.

The 40-66 bible writers were 40-66 times less likely of ALL having seen some wierd extremely long and huge and complex hallucination than you are right now (very slim).

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow The bible contradicts itself. Why do you deny the Koran then?

Witness testimony is the weakest form of evidence within science. Having some experience may only be good enough to generate a hypothesis and it remains only so till you get evidence to substantiate those claims.

You clearly don't understand the importance of evidence. Biologists don't watch things evolve and then call it an experience to be believed, are you daft? Results are based on repeatable data.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

You say the bible contradicts itself, but again, those claims are all or most based off of false assumptions and misinterpretations. And even if it made mistakes, many people make the odd mistake, it doesn't mean the entirety of their claims forfeit. One contradiction in one book from one period of history doesn't count all of them out, or even that one.

"Results are based on repeatable data."

God was repeated for 1000 years through the Bible, that's better than evolution.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow Then you have not read the bible or read it with a very closed mind.

"God was repeated for 1000 years through the Bible, that's better than evolution."

You ignorantly assume to know what repeatability in science really means dont you. When i said repeatable data, i mean something that can be tested now if you went and followed the correct methodology for an experiment. Can you demonstrate magic to me, no you cannot, so you lost the argument.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

"i mean something that can be tested "

Big Bang, anyone? How about evolution actually producing completely seperate species rather than only slight differences?

"before Jesus happened to be born on Christmas day"

This is where you lose the argument, The Bible says nought about the day he was born.

I can tell you're regurgitating the lies you heard somewhere else. The only thing you mentioned that was in any way true was the fact that he was the son of God.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow (comment 2) "Archaology and history is not an atheists friend."

How the hell on earth did you make that conclusion? History goes further back than the bible sir. The very history of the bibles stories can be traced to those of other previous religions. So history is very much my friend and not just for this case.

Philosophy is meaningless, it's just the playing of words to try and make the most absurd things sound as rational as possible by appealing commonly to emotion.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

Philosophy is the science of rational argument... To push it aside is intellectual suicide.

I have heard all this idea of the Bible stories being traced back to other religions and none of it has any basis in truth. Just because another story has a man who dreams the future and gains fame, that doesn't mean they were the same person or inspired by each other.

I wrote a story about a girl who eats an apple, but the story wasn't inspired by Adam and Eve.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow "Philosophy is the science of rational argument"

No, it's really just mental masturbation. You can use it to prove black is white, apples are oranges, and all thought comes from the great turnip.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

You know that's not true. I think you hold that position solely because it supports God mroet han the position that "nothing" (which doesn't exist) did it.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow "You know that's not true"

I already did a video explaining why the kalam cosmological argument variants fail miserably. Or should I summarize - in all of human experience we've never witnessed a single cause. Everything is merely an effect. Until you can establish that a thing can be 'caused' by a non-effect there's no reason to stipulate such a thing can exist.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

That kind of reasoning implies the oscillating unvierse theory, but the problem with that is that either way everything has to come from a point.

Even an "eternal" oscillating universe can't actually last forever when the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to it.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow "everything has to come from a point"

The 2nd law of thermal dynamics applies to closed systems only, thus doesn't apply to the universe.. but regardless of that, the claim that there must be some 'starting point' implies a 'cause', which is in direct violation of all we know about the effect-effect relation in which nothing is an actual cause without itself being the effect of multiple contributing factors. The notion of a "cause" is a human construct.

[13Heathens]

As a footnote to anyone actually reading these comments; I'm only responding for the sake of my own amusement. "ColaGoodfellow" has already shown they're not really worth my time. The clearly don't understand the biblical history, authorship, and have shown that they've never actually read their bible.. but taunting them with philosophy? That's just fun!

[01101100d]

@13Heathens You don't have to explain yourself to anyone for responding to a scientifically illiterate viewer. It's your channel and video, if people have a problem with you arguing with others, then they can go somewhere else can't they :)

Nice argument on what philosophy is lol.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

I'm still trying to figure out where exactly I have discussed science in ways that contradict human knowledge... I'm pretty confident that scientists don't know whether or not the universe is a closed system so that can't be it....

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow .. WTF are you talking about?

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

"The clearly don't understand the biblical history, authorship, and have shown that they've never actually read their bible"

I guess all that time reading up on israelite history (and the bible) was pointless! You have no idea how much of it I've read, roflmao.

Where abouts have I "shown" a lack of understanding of biblical history? I read the bible alot, I've read it loads.

I'm hoping for your sake that you've got me confused with someone else.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow I see you removed the remark that my WTF was pertaining to. and no, I don't have you confused with someone else.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

"I see you removed the remark that my WTF "

I got you mixed up with 01101100d.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

To imply that no cause exists, is to imply that no effect caused it either (that would make it the cause). Thus your point is void.

Things like the laws of physics are infact uncaused and uncalled for. They may occur under certain circumstances, but the reason they occur like they do in those circumstances and not others is unexplainable.

To just say "it's an effect of the circumstances" is to ignore the greater questions that are well answered by an intelligent creator.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow "(that would make it the cause)"

Incorrect. You're trapped within the human devised construct of causality. Any cited "cause" is in fact an effect. Designating it as a cause is attempting to apply a arbitrary stopping point. The entire notion of a "cause" is merely a logical tool used to prune all contributing factors previous to that point.

It's not 'ignoring a greater question', but realizing the limiting scope of the notion of a cause.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow (comment 3) You can't use historical accuracy as a means to assume every word of the bible true. People have had supernatural claims and myths wrapped around their lives even within our generation. Take the religion of Juche North Korea where their leader is the God. Myths had kim jong il highlighted in their history as a demi God, born of a supernatural birth and whose temper could control the weather. Because the guy existed, does that make the myth true?

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow (comment 2) Oh right, so when previous prophets before Jesus happened to be born on Christmas day, be the son of their God, sacraficed and resurrected at easter, had 12 deciples, healed the sick, fed the poor - then that's just coincidence is it... hmmmm. okayyyy.

Philosophy is a form of poetry, it's not a form of scientific reasoning.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

And by that I basically meant, the only statement from what you said that in any way applies to other beliefs is his relationship as son of God. No other religion had a half human son of God that healed the sick, fed the poor, practiced pacifism, & had 12 notable disciples.

It's not mere accuracy that supports the Bible, it's the fact that apparantly people had been experiencing the same God for around 1000 or so years, that's repeatability. Either through miracles or prophecies.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow Your view is based on your unwilling act to go and look up the idea. How about Dionysus? Born 25 of a virgin in a manger. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. Called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods,” “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.”

There are many others which have other Christ like stories (Christ is actually greek for Joshua).

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

Did you get this from Zeitgeist? This all sounds very familiar.

I'll look it up but I'm doubtful of where you're getting your sources. By born 25 I assume you mean 25th of December? Again, Jesus wasn't born on that day, it's just the day we celebrate it, it's not even in the Bible that he was born on that day.

Ultimately the similarities you're mentioning are few. Dionysus was a God of wine and parties, and although Jesus liked parties he wasn't a drunkard or a God of parties.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow A bit on zeitgeist but there's more examples than just the ones shown on that feature or and dionysus.

[13Heathens]

@01101100d "more examples"

Like Mithra from Zoroastrianism, if memory serves me right (circa 600BCE), and Horus as well if I remember correctly. There are so many stories that Judaism and Christianity drew from.. like enuma elish , the epic of gilgamesh.

The tribal god of the Torah came into play circa 730BCE - or at least that's the reference to the nation of Isreal (the record of it's destruction in a single line of an Egyptian tablet)

[01101100d]

@13Heathens Just been reading up on that and it's really facinating stuff to learn about. To see how everything comes together. My main area is genetics rather than history when dealing with creationists. Trying to finish with where i left off from on my education though, but it's hard in my country to do anything at this time. No help for my position unless i want to stay at home doing nothing with myself which seems odd and unfair.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

When non biblical things support the bible, you say it was copied. When they don't you say there's no evidence. You can't be impressed, you can't call that reason.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

There's plenty of reason to believe the Habiru were the early Israelites, Shechem was taken by both of them in the 14th century BCE according to the Bible and the Amarna Letters, and was Israels first capital.

They began without a king as semi-nomads, just like the Habiru.

If such comparisons as yours between the Flood and teh epic of Glilgamesh have any value, these especially do.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

I correct myself. Although Shechem did play a big part in israelite history, the exact date of it being taken is unsure in the Bible. But it did play a big part as the first capital.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow I was referencing the first recorded reference to the nation of Israel, which was recorded on an Egyptian tablet which after detailing several substantial battles included text saying (in essence) "and we destroyed the people Isreal" The mention was more as a footnote than anything else. There's no 3rd party reference to the nation prior to that.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow BTW, if you don't celebrate Jesus's birthday on the 25th, then i assume you're a Jehovah witness?

Here's a video with Michael Shermer talking of another Christ like figure. /watch?v=SitA-qvTmoo

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

My church isn't JW and none of us claim to know for sure when Jesus was born. The same for most churches I've been to.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow There no way a church could claim to know when he was born. Attempting to establish the actual year is impossible due to the contradictions within the scriptural texts. Then there's the sticky matter of Nazareth not existing until around 300CE, the Census fabrication.. it's a mess really.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

"Nazareth not existing until around 300CE"

There's multiple options, it may have began very small which is why it wasn't mentioned by many historians of the time.

Also, they discovered tombs... If nobody lived there, who was buried in them?

Plus, the gospels are (also) dated by scholars as having been wrote before 300CE... So the Bible actually stands as evidence for the existance of a pre 300CE Nazareth.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow The date the gospel was written can hardly be used as evidence. Let's be honest here. You know how much they were modified by the scribes, I assume. The earliest scrap (P52 is it? (it's been a while)) was dated to around 70CE which would be well after the death of any of the apostles. Then there's a matter of the unknown authorship. No, you really can't cite that either. Double check the dating of the artifacts found in those tombs b4 claiming that.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

Then multiple questions come up, like why would the scribes alter the text to say Nazereth? And even with the date you've given, 70CE is still before 300CE.

You seem to know a few things more than me about Abraham. I've not heard of any solid later additions to that story. Although I presume the almost sacrifice was still there.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow No, no. 70CE is the proposed dating on one small fragment it's a tiny scrap from a page. It doesn't contain the word nazareth, so isn't relevant to the scribe comment, merely to the timeline references.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

It still doesn't explain why they would even put Nazereth in. Before 300CE, there would have been a fair few copies in circulation already, I think the people would have noticed if there was an addition or a change to the first few chapters, they were told to study the scriptures.

Whoever wrote the Gospels knew so many other real places and people that they evidently had good source material, your claim that they just so happened to not know that Nazereth didn't exist is weak.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow BTW; there are some great sites which talk about the Jewish take on the Abraham story. Doing research to the differences from the north and south kingdoms, as reflected in the dead sea scrolls will reveal that the Abraham story is actually the fusion of two different accounts - the earliest in which he did kill his son (as punishment for his treatment of Ishmael). The later account modified the story to make it acceptable to later audiences.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

I've yet to find these websites so far, feel free to send me links if you have any with you.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow I recommend starting with searching for sites which deal with Jewish interpretations of the texts of the torah.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow It was just a guess dude as to whether you were a JW or not. Then why do Christians (most) celebrate so called Jesus's birthday on 25th of december then if they know it's not the true date, sounds kinda lame. It just goes to exemplify that these religious takes are pure guess work and fairytale mumbo jumbo.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

We have to celebrate his birth some day. You can't blame us for wanting a day to celebrate his birth, when we don't know his actual date. If we knew it, we would celebrate it then.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow Fair enough, but why that date? Do you accept then that it's because it was implemented into the religion from other religions?

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

Yes, well sort of atleast, it's a fact that christmas began as a pagan festival celebrating another Gods birthday (whose it was I don't remember) to make it easier for nonbelievers to accept Christianity.

But I wouldn't call it a part of the religion, because the Bible doesn't command it. It's just something believers choose to do.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

I must admit, I don't agree with the early churches decision to put it on another Gods birthday. But nowadays it doesn't really matter, nobody believes in the other God anymore.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow Even so, many stories and morals have been carried forwards. Some passages changed from Hate your neighbour to love your neighbour etc. They're complete oxymorons of each other. Is the bible the word or inspiration of God or not, or did God change his mind after a while?

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

The only time hate your enemy (Although I'm not sure if that was a command or meant to be a kind of rhetorical statement) to love your enemy was after Jesus died on the cross.

Although even the Old Testament says you shouldn't seek revenge and often puts emphasis on mercy, any form of vengeance that did occur was meant to by Gods command alone.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow "love your enemy was after Jesus died"

As apposed to when he was alive and said "if tho doth not hate thine mother and thine father and thine sister and thine brethren, tho shalt not be my disciple."

Then again that's the problem with scriptural texts, isn't it? You can always take what you want from it and disregard the rest. Very dangerous books.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

"if tho doth not hate thine mother and thine father and thine sister and thine brethren, tho shalt not be my disciple."

Again, same as before.

If they were altering scriptures, there wouldn't be any sign of a "contradiction". if the scribes were dishonest such things wouldn't exist, unless there truly was an explanation for it being there.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

"if tho doth not hate thine mother and thine father and thine sister and thine brethren, tho shalt not be my disciple."

And the explanation for this is that in greek it would be more "If you love them (compared to me) you can not be my disciple."

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow Part of Matthew 10:34-39 reads: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find me."

I find lots of instances that are rather hateful in both old and new testaments. Have you read the bible?

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth"

Jesus' teachings were going to cause a lot of controversy. That's what he was saying here. Believing in Jesus set a man against all of his Jewish parents that didn't agree.

To say it's a contradiction isn't really a very fair or reasonable opinion. If scribes were on purposely altering scriptures then surely such a glaring problem would have been altered atleast once over the course of the thousands of copies that were made....

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow Well that depends on your translations and what you want it to say. I take things at face value mate. The first sentence can't be translated in the way you've put, so why the rest?

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

"“King of Kings” and “God of Gods,” “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.”"

The only of these that are true would have been "Savior", because he is apparantly saving people from the wrath of Pentheus, not from their sins or damnation. He definatly wouldn't have been called King of Kings or God of Gods because the king of the greek Gods was Zeus...

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow I'd recommend that you stop wasting your time referencing the Greco-Roman pantheon. While 'Christmas' was indeed moved to correspond with pagan celebrations, the varied savior mythologies which were rolled into the Jesus character predate that pantheon by centuries.

And for the record; The movie Zeitgeist is the biggest load of crap I've seen in years.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

I'm not going to start on the greek pantheon. If you read your bible you'd know that Jesus' death was meant to be Gods reaction to Abraham almost sacrificing his son. So even from a nonbelief POV it makes more sense to say it was taken from that.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow Abraham, really? Please tell me you're not going to attempt to reference that. Do I need to start talking about the combination of the tales from the north and south kingdoms, the later additions to the story, or the views of that segment of text from Jewish scholars - keep in mind it's IS their book. A little dogma free honesty, that's all I'm asking here.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

If scientists took your approach, science would never improve.They'd just say everyone who sees something different to their current understanding is hallucinating.

I could deny written documentation of speciation, & call what they saw a result of extended madness or hallucination, it would require less a jump of faith to assume that than to assume Jesus and his apostles and their believers all saw super hallucinations that lasted 3 years of Jesus life and the rest of theirs.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

And all of the prophets and the writers of the scriptures before, let's not forget the 40-66-100 or so of them.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow (comment 3) "let's not forget the 40-66-100 or so of them."

So which is it? 44 or 66 or 100? You're trying to come across to me as someone who knows what you're talking about and yet you can't hold your own claims straight. So how do you brush aside the claims where thousands attest to seeing magic by their prophets or and deities? Do you really think you're the only guys with a nutthouse magic show membership club?

Come back when you've thought through your arguments.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying that there was any more than 40 of them (which is ironic, because the more writers there was, the less likely it is that they were all bonkers).

Traditional views have around 40 writers, if I took your seemingly anti-biblical position into account each book would need atleast one writer (that's where 66 comes from). And in many cases scholars either don't know, or agree with the traditional view, such as with James or Paul.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

The 100 comes from the fact that scholars often have the position that the books of the Torah began as multiple other documents. And those documents may have been wrote themselves by multiple people.

Either way, the point is that alot of people have apparantly seen a lot of big stuff, I don't know about you but I'm not willing to push aside witness like that withotu a decent motive.

[truvelocity]

Yellow Stone National Park is a great example.

[rametarin]

Been a long time, fellow. Welcome back.

[Cinthorc]

Very interesting. Good Video!

[Fangs1978]

The squirrel legion will kill us all one day.

Mark my words

[Samakain]

I...love your voice. I need to steal your head futurama style so you can introduce me whenever i enter a room :P

Nice informative vid man :D keep it up

[webkilla]

i recall reading or hearing something a while ago that the 10 base amino acids out of the 20 human DNA is made of, are made in accord to the laws of thermodynamics - that is, that they're the most likely acid compounds to be made out of the base elements they are made of.