Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
He gives me a headache. Six minutes is just too long a time to listen to the man drone on and on about nothing. This is why I couldn't read his books-- I picked up the "God Delusion," read the first few pages, thought of the thousand other things I could be doing, and put it back.
@stfuplz13 This is likely because your brain is under-developed or simply full of shit. I'd guess that the thousand other things you'd rather be doing start with "mastur" and finish with "bation" ? Or praying.
Just using Dawkins example of the "Cambrian Explosion" would indicate he simply is attempting to deflect. He has no good answer for the "why" of the explosion, so includes his quote, among other quotes, as an example of data mining by creationists. In other words, since the idiot creation uses my quote in their "data mining" tactic, this is proof of their idiocy. Notice this straw man tactic fails to address the real problem, namely his explanation for the Cambrian Explosion is baseless.
"It is appointed unto each of us once to die then the judgment !" now Jesus died on the cross for all,so He went through all that and He said this,believe on me and you shall be saved,deny me and you shall be damned ,so do you want to be saved or go to the valley of the damned ,choose now please?
@Cybernator23 Just kidding around mate. Did you know that I was playing? There is always something lost when you try to communicate on youtube, but if you were Australian you would be laughing!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
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
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
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 were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) 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 INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
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 my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
@Mogley52 You should get educated. "Lucy" is highly complete and was obviously from a single individual. But then, I know no amount of facts can ever convince your kind of religion-soaked people, so I don't really care.
@Mogley52 Even if there were absolutely no fossils ever found, evolution would STILL be a proven fact you like it or not. Fossils are only a convienant part of the theory of evolution which complies with other types of evidence, like homologous structures, vestigal organs, genome synteny, gene order, wobble position sequance, intron sequence, pseudogene sequenc, retroviruses (anatomical and genetic similarities with the help of DNA) and also fields like geographical distribution and some others
@Mogley52 the fact that you can't wrap your head around these things and your futile efforts with your fossil strawmen arguments just shows what an utter tool you are
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be 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 living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Dawkins reminds me of the cuttlefish who uses his brilliant color display to mesmerize his prey,like the fish Dawkins dazzles his victims with his brilliance and when he has them hypnotized they are in his grasp and they stay right near his videos on you tube never venturing out to see if God exists again,they are his ,haaaaaaaawww haawww heeehee he!
@richardaberdeen "just as how computers are acutally made has a total bearing on how they function"
ROFL YEAH Because a computer with a computer chip make by the Laser Maker 5000 compared with an IDENTICAL chip made by magic functions COMPLETELY DIFFERENT because... Oh, wait. They WOULDN'T be functionally different. You talk about logic. Using this conclusion, I can accurately deduce you're a moron. You're done. Clean yourself off and take five.
@evolutionisscience Blather, blather, blather. At the bottom-line, you are obviously irrational and, now you resort to blather, blather and more blahter. Computers can't function unless they are first created and, life cannot function unless it is first created. Go back to elementary school and start over.
@richardaberdeen And at the bottom line, it doesn't matter how life comes to exist in relation to how it changes. Its inception could be the result of many different processes, while its function could be related to an entirely different set of processes. Is making a car the same as driving one? No. Is making a computer the same as operating one? No. No need to act butt-hurt. It's not your fault you spent the last week making yourself look stupid. It's just the fact that you ARE stupid.
@richardaberdeen, your argument is that life has to be "created". You cannot prove this argument, and it is logically incorrect. A computer is not living, Computers do not have living cells or an abstract mind. Which is good because if it did it would probably be creating religions (lol). Life does not have to be created to have life, it can FORM. It's like a mountain, mountains dont just appear, they form.
@Cinehancer Sorry, I don't believe in magically appearing universes, magically appearing intelligence from non-intelligence, magically appearing laws of physics, magically appearing processes, magically appearing santa clauses, tooth faires, spaghetti monsters and magically appearing little green men from Mars like Hitchens. Sorry, atheism requires way too much blind faith for me to believe. Atheism = Total Bullshit.
@evolutionisscience Sorry, I don't believe in magically appearing universes, magically appearing intelligence from non-intelligence, magically appearing laws of physics, magically appearing processes, magically appearing santa clauses, tooth faires, spaghetti monsters and magically appearing little green men from Mars like Hitchens. Sorry, atheism requires way too much blind faith for me to believe. Atheism = Total Bullshit.
@evolutionisscience There is something sane rational people call "reality". Modern education artifically divides up reality into categories. This is why Will Durant was highly critical of modern education, which apparenlty is over your head, like the rest of this discussion. Atheism is what a "straw-man" is, by definition. A "straw man" is a human construct that has no basis in evidence. You need to go back to elementary school and start over.
Hey. When I take a class on how to work a computer, can I skip the part where they tell me how each and every single component is made? I would think that would belong in some sort of engineering class. It's like they're TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS OR SOMETHING. ROFL
@evolutionisscience You can skip the part about how computers happen to exist, but then you don't have a rational explanation for the modern phenomena of computers, just like you don't have a rational explanation for the phenomena of life if you can't explain how life exists. This entire discussion is apparently above your education level, which apparently is considerably lower than I previously assumed. You seem to not be able to grasp the most basic concepts of logic, science and evidence.
ROFL "God Theory" Huh. It's like they have an entirely different theory on the phenomena of the existence of everything. Why, look how they have it separate to the Big Bang Theory!
richard's a complete moron. Glad to see him leave. haha At least I'll never see him on the roads, he'll NEVER earn his engineering degree.
@evolutionisscience Scientists do not call it the "God Theory". You seem to have a problem reading basic English, as well as a problem with basic logic. Dawkins publicly stated in a PBS video that the "God Question", not the God Theory, as you misquote me, "is central to all of science". Any moron knows that you can't have a legitimate theory of how life functions if you can't explain how such functionality happens to exist. Processes do not magically exist unto themselves, as you pretend.
@evolutionisscience You can't propose a process of "evolution", if you can't explain how the process exists. In order for origins to not be a question, you would have to explain how evolution exists independently of life itself, which is irrational. Like every atheist, you have a significant problem with basic logic and a very rudimentary grasp of history and science, at best. There is no such thing as a legitimate theory of science that can't explain how a process happens to exist.
@evolutionisscience And either put up or shut up. Let's see you demonstrate by evidence that the process of evolution can exist independently of life itself. This is a basic fundamental fallacy of everything Dawkins pretends is true. Dawkins often resorts to saying "evolution" did it when he runs out of legitimate evidence, as if evolution is God and somehow exists independently all by itself. Dawkins = obvious liar.
@richardaberdeen "Let's see you demonstrate by evidence that the process of evolution can exist independently of life itself."
One comment. One question. Does being unable to explain where gravity comes from mean that we can't explain what gravity is and how it works? Don't bullshit. Don't try to weasel out of the question. Just answer it.
@evolutionisscience That is exactly correct. Newton didn't understand WHY gravity exists and he himself stated because of this, his theories were limited. Einstein on the other hand, demonstrated WHY what we call "gravity" exists and thus, Einstein's theories of gravity replaced Newton, just as Copernicus replaced Ptlomey and just as "Before Abraham was, I AM" demolishes atheism. Atheism can't explain WHY the universe exists, the Bible does and, ONLY the Bible does. "I AM" satisfies origins.
@rich You needed five posts to fail the question. THE ANSWER IS NO, YOU MORON. There are a number of different ways gravity could have come into being! It could be a fifth-dimensional bounce-back effect from the Big Bang, or it could be magical magnet gravity pixies! It doesn't matter because gravity works the same no matter what the origin! Likewise, there are an infinite number of possibilities when it comes to the origins of life, BUT IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE WAY LIFE DIVERSIFIES AS IT DOES.
@evolutionisscience No, I need several posts to try to explain to someone at your level, why Einstein is correct and you are not. Einstein's theories DO explain why gravity exists. There are not "several" explanations but rather, there is only one rational explanation known to science. There may be a better explanation down the road, but for now Einstein's theories stand. You obviously don't understand Einstein's theories of gravity and light, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
@evolutionisscience And, how life came to be has a total bearing how life diversifies, just as how computers are acutally made has a total bearing on how they function. You continue to open mouth and insert contradicting foot. There can't be a "computer science" of how computers function if nobody first creates a computer and, there can't be an "evolutionary science" of how life functions, if nobody first creates life. Like I said, you need to go back to elementary school and start over.
@richardaberdeen "how life came to be has a total bearing how life diversifies, just as how computers are acutally made has a total bearing on how they function"
That is so retarded. Okay, let's say life on Earth came about through panspermia. That would change our observations about evolution... Oh, NOPE. STILL BY NATURAL SELECTION. How about through iron-sulfur world theory. Hey, that would mean evolution by natural selection. I have an idea! Aliens! Nope, natural selection. You. are. DUMB.
@evolutionisscience There is no evidence that "natural" selection causes life. If life didn't first exist, there would be no "natural" or any other selection. Go back to elementary school and start over.
@richardaberdeen "If life didn't first exist, there would be no "natural" or any other selection"
Solve the math problem: 12 one-eye one-horned flying purple people eaters need to eat 8 people in an hour. Roughly how many people will be eaten by the people eaters in half an hour?
Did ya do it? Wow! It's almost as though you can solve the problem even though people eaters don't exist! It's like you took a HYPOTHETICAL of initial conditions! I wonder if we can HYPOTHESIZE in science, too...
@evolutionisscience Sorry, I don't believe in magically appearing universes, magically appearing intelligence from non-intelligence, magically appearing laws of physics, magically appearing processes, magically appearing santa clauses, tooth faires, spaghetti monsters and magically appearing little green men from Mars like Hitchens. Sorry, atheism requires way too much blind faith for me to believe. Atheism = Total Bullshit.
@richard Aw, abandoning the tenuous position that abiogenesis is included under evolution? Such a shame. If you believe a god brought the universe into existence, molded man from dirt, and keeps the laws of physics in motion, etc., you accept that these are mysterious, supernatural powers that you could never understand, i.e., magic. As incredible as it may seem, chemistry, thermodynamics, physics, etc. do not really attempt to squeeze "magic" in as an explanation in any process. Nuts on you.
@richardaberdeen Maybe I'm stupid, but I guess I don't entirely understand...how is religion supported by science? Isn't science the study and observation of the naturalistic universe, not the supernatural?
@sparaticus039 God does not equal religion. Human opinion about God doesn't change God one iota. You can disbelieve in God, disbelieve the earth is round or disbelieve the sun will appear in the sky. Your "disbelief" proves nothing, solves nothing, has no value, nor does it change either God, the shape of the earth or the fact the sun will continue to appear in the sky. Atheists aren't fooling anybody but themselves, to "disbelieve" in God proves nothing, is irrational and, has no value.
@richardaberdeen You are a truly angry and clearly misinformed troll. If you had a bad experience talking with an atheist, so be it, but don't be a hypocritical bigot because of it.
"Try actually reading the Bible instead of grossly misrepresenting what it says in a public forum." How can you make this statement while being so clearly ignorant of anything an atheist believes? Ridiculous hypocrisy combined with a double-standard. You demand evidence, while providing none for your own claims.
@richardaberdeen I think you had it a little bit backwards. You can believe in God, believe the earth is round or believe the sun will appear in the sky. Your "belief" proves nothing, solves nothing, has no value, nor does it make a god appear,change the shape of the earth or the fact the sun will continue to appear in the sky. Myth-believers aren't fooling anybody but themselves, to "believe" in god proves nothing, is irrational and, has no value.
@richardaberdeen But anyways, you're clearly intellectually superior to me and all other people for that matter because you know EXACTLY how the universe came into existence. After all, you do speak directly to the all mighty, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of everything and nothing. There's nothing about that that requires ridiculous things like "blind faith." Stupid ignorant atheists.
All hail the righteous and infinitely humble richardaberdeen!
@sparaticus039 Nobody knows "how" God creates. Einstein freely admitted that. The problem with atheists is, they pretend to "know" that nobody created the human brain, as if a microbe could know that no human being exists. Atheists are the most obvious of liars, making claims that have no foundation in evidence, logic, reason or sanity. There is no evidence for magically appearing universes with magically appearing living plants and animals. Grow up and stop believing in magic.
@richardaberdeen atheism does.... oh my. well if you believe god put us here where the hell did god come from and how come there is NO proof of him anywhere... and dont say there is because speaking in tounges is total bullshit according to research, it takes the brain more power to speak in tongues therefore you have to think harder therefore your making bullshit up on the spot. its not god.
@DBPboarding What an obvious bullshitter. Try looking up the definition for "eternal" in the dictionary, then go back to elementary school and start over and, don't come back until you have EVIDENCE for how otherwise the universe happens to exist. What obvious bullshitters atheists are !!!
@richardaberdeen and do you have EVIDENCE for how it got here... NO! its a fucking mystery, all aethists arent scientists you ignorant retard, some dont believe in either because both have not found proof. but logically and morally and if you had a brain that wasnt brainwashed by religion you would know that science is much more logical then religion
@DBPboarding God already gave us the best and ONLY rational explanation for the observable reality: "Before Abraham was, I AM". Science is the best explanation until proven otherwise. When you have a BETTER explanation for the observable reality, you be sure and let God know.
@richardaberdeen because a man who has never been proven who sits in the sky and if you know ANYTHING about the bible is just a man of mistakes and is a huge immoral dick created everything with a snap of his fingers. yes that sound very possible doesnt it -.-. its as fucking stupid and ignorant as saying i own a pink flying invisible magical rainbow unicorn that only i can see and hear and he only ever appears when only im around, its ridiculos and stupid.
@DBPboarding This is a typical atheist sound bite lie. According to the Bible, God inhabits the heavens and what lies beyond the heavens and even that can't contain God and, in God we move and have our breath and being. That is hardly a little man who sits up in the sky. You are such an obvious liar that it is beyond totally pathetic. Try actually reading the Bible instead of grossly misrepresenting what it says in a public forum.
@richardaberdeen I no more wish to engage you in conversation (more like witless ad-hominem attacks) than I do a white supremacist. You have no intention of debating, rather re-posting fundamentalist christian nonsense. I thought you were joking at first, but now I can see you definitely weren't.
@mkrulic517439 According to the Bible, God sits in the heavens, all of the heavens and beyond the heavens and what lies beyond the heavens cannot contain God and in God we move and have our being. This, by the way, is the ONLY ancient concept of God that still fits the current known universal reality. Pretending there is no God, is like a microbe inside of your intestines pretending you don't exist, only infinitely more ignorant.
@richardaberdeen to a microbe I do not exists. and the concept omnipresent is clear:
om·ni·pres·ent [ òmni prézz'nt ] always present everywhere: continuously and simultaneously present throughout the whole of creation found everywhere: present or seemingly present all the time or everywhere.
if you understood this you would understand that nothing is seperate from god. if everyone believed this and acted on this we would be much more compasionate toward each other.
@mkrulic517439 A microbe that lives inside of us is dependent on us for it's survival. And, we can't exist without God, for in God we have move and have our breath and being. Regardless of what we believe about God, this does not change the fact we are dependent on God, just as regardless of what a microbe inside of us perceives or fails to perceive, it remains dependent on us. Without forgiveness, there is no connection to the love of God, other than what we perceive from other people.
@richardaberdeen now you need to research providence. I was where you are. some are content w/ decadence. (a state of non-growth) I needed spiritual growth. you can only go so far if you stay w/ one source. google "godel's incompleteness theorem"
@mkrulic517439 Jesus is God. There is only one source to get to God and, that is God. People who follow other "gods" are following idols that can neither hear, speak or change a single hair on our heads. Jesus can save us from our sins; Buddha can't and neither can Confuscius or science and/or education. If science and education could save us, there wouldn't be educated scientists today creating WMD's and, educated bankers bilking the common people who Jesus loves out of their life savings.
@richardaberdeen so you believe god sacraficed himself, to himself, to create a loophole around a law he created. you are willfully ignorant and no longer worthy of my time.
@mkrulic517439 Human beings have often been quoted as saying, they would gladly take the place of their son or daughter who was killed in a tragic way, who is suffering from cancer, etc. For God to sacrifice his only son for us is the greatest example of love known, by far. Atheists don't understand anything about love, because they don't believe in God who is love and thus, the have no idea what love is.
@richardaberdeen "they would gladly take the place of their son or daughter..."
argument from analogy is a logical fallicy. in one spot they are similar(sacrifice). but in the case of the car accident/cancer is out of their control. the decision to create a loophole around the law that god created was completly in gods control. he could have solved it by not making the immoral act of passing down debt, just for starters. you do not seek enlightenment. you lack the skill of independent thought
@richardaberdeen I don't really want to argue with you about the opinion stuff but for future reference Buddha is not considered a god. As a matter of fact there are no gods within the Buddhist religion.
Also, religious people have taken their fair share of lives too, the crusades come to mind. There are also preachers scamming people into thinking they are performing miracles for money, Benny Hinn is a fine example.
So by your own words that means religion can not save us either.
@pimpymcdougall God, by long held historical definition from Socrates forward and, stretching far back into the mists of historical time through Moses, Abraham, Enoch and Adam, is the Creator of the universe. Nobody I am aware of claims Buddha created the universe, including Buddhists. Your statement has no validity, as neither does a position of atheism, which is far more baseless than all other known human superstitions combined,.
@richardaberdeen What claim did I make that has no validity? Everything I stated is well documented and proven. Buddha is not a god, religious people have done horrible things, and Bunny Hinn is a fraud. These are all facts that can not be disputed.
I never claimed that your god doesn't exist nor did I mention atheism at all. I was just pointing out the main flaw in your argument against science.
I will ignore the rest of what you said because I do not want to go down that road.
@pimpymcdougall I never said Buddha was a god. You brought up Buddha, not me. There is no "flaw" in concluding that the universe is created by God, because that is what ALL of the known evidence demonstrates. Science isn't based on absolutes, there are no scientific absolutes. Science is based on "weight of evidence", the same as history is and, the same as ALL human understanding is. Like the Bible correctly says, for now we see "in part". Your just pretending I'm wrong. Bullshitter.
@richardaberdeen As example, Einstein's theories are based on a grand assumption the speed of light is constant. This is not an assumption that many scientists today believe is wrong. There are several reasons why, among them, light in the quantum world doesn't behave as macro theories predict it should. Science doesn't know what is really true and, neither do you. You claim my view is "flawed"; ALL human views are flawed because we see "in part". You aren't God, thus your view is flawed.
@richardaberdeen And finally, any moron who has studied much of anything knows that ALL human views are flawed. If our views were not flawed, then we could explain EVERYTHING. You are pretending that science "knows", when in fact, the history of science clearly demonstrates science does NOT know and, whatever science "believes" today will be mostly discarded a few years down the road. All of the known evidence demonstrates creation. None of the evidence supports atheism; those are the facts.
@richardaberdeen I will state again, I never said anything about there being or not being a god. I am confused as to why you are even bothering to argue this point.
Actually you did bring up Buddha, that is why I responded to your post in the first place.
The flaw I pointed out was you making a moral distinction between people of religion and people of science when there is none. Once again, I never said anything about a god.
What did I claim that has no validity? How am I 'bullshitting'?
@pimpymcdougall Then I apologize, I must have confused you with another responder. You are assuming I am a person of religion, which I am not. Einstein believed in God and, so did Aristotle and so did a great many other scientists. Atheists often hide behind the term "religion", pretending that everyone who believes in God is a "religious" rather than a "scientific" person. This is a complete lie, as Darwin himself credited the Creator with being behind tohe processes he called "evolution".
@pimpymcdougall Thus, this is why I said you are bullshitting. A bullshitter is somebody who pretends just like I stated, that belief in God is somehow different than belief in black holes, invisible light or anything else that is based on evidence of things not seen. The Bible clearly teaches that faith is based on "evidence of things not seen" and, that the visible Creation is evidence for the invisible Creator. People who pretend otherwise are obvious bullshitters. Religion does not = God
@pimpymcdougall And finally, because I have better things to do with my time, there is overwhelming historical evidence that war is caused by human greed that arises from within us all. If religion was the "cause" of war, then modern scientists wouldn't be creating WMDs, educated bankers wouldn't be financing wars and, the American, French, Russian, Chinese revolutions would never have occured, as neither would have WWI, WWII and countless other wars. Richard Dawkins = obvious bullshitter.
@pimpymcdougall There is no such thing as "religious" people as opposed to some other kind of people. ALL people, according to both Jesus and modern science, are capable of doing incredibly bad things. I have never said, as you pretend, that "religious" people are more moral than atheists. The Bible says no such thing but rather, it agrees with the modern science evidence, that greed, hatred, prejudice, murder, rape, theft, false witness and other human oppression, arises from within us all.
@pimpymcdougall And again, I did NOT say "religious" people are more moral than atheists. I do not belong to any religion, I hate all religions more or less equally. God remains the same, regardless of what we believe, something entirely over the head of most atheists. Any time someone tries to equate God with religion, they are announcing to educated people like myself, that they poorly educated. Jesus hated fundamentalism and is not the founder of Christianity or any other religion.
@pimpymcdougall I might add, I totally agree with you that Benny Hinn is a fraud, as is any man or woman who charges for what God gives away for free. The problem with atheists and apparently you as well, is that you don't understand the difference between God and religion. God does not need a religion; creation and the words of God's son Jesus speak for God. You can stack up the teachings of Jesus with any other known human and they are way, way, way more accurate and profound.
@richardaberdeen I can not knock you for your beliefs and thank you for the clear responses.
I must apologize for my first response which I took down because Youtube only likes to throw one into my email box and I didn't see the rest of these.
Yes I am an atheist but please do not assume you know anything about me because of this fact. This is why I talk to people and ask questions, to learn. Everyone is different and has their own beliefs, I just want to know more about them.
@evolutionissci How a computer exists and the functioning capability of a computer are part of the same "phenomena", as you try to deny. They are not two "separate" phenomena". There is no such thing as functionality without reality; there is no computer functionality without a computer and there is no evolution without life This is precisely WHY atheism is a big fucking like. You can't "begin" with evolution "after" life already exists and then pretend nobody created life. BULLSHITTER !!!
@evolutionisscience You have a most definite "chicken and egg" problem, which is precisely WHY atheism is an obvious lie. Atheists try to pretend "evolution" did it, yet they have no rational explanation for how or why such a process exists. If life came first, where did life come from and how does it exist without evolution? And, if evolution came first, how does such a process magically exist all by itself. Einstein was correct about God and gravity as far as we know. You are full of shit.
@evolutionisscience Again, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. If you can't explain how or why life exists apart from Creator, then you admit you & Dawkins are just bullshitters, pretending the universe is not created. "Before Abraham was, I AM" satisfies origins; an Eternal Creator has always existed; this explains the universal reality we can observe. You can't replace Eternal Creator with "evolution" and then claim to have a legitimate theory; the Greeks and Einstein would utterly scorn your claim as do I.
@evolutionisscience And to explain Einstein, who you and Dawkins obviously completely fail to understand. According to Einstein, God created the universe and space itself is not empty but consists of a "fabric". And according to Einstein, objects in motion in space create a warp in the fabric of space and thus, we observe a phenomena we call "gravity" created by such warps. Einstein's theories explain gravity, while "evolution" without Creator doesn't rationally explain anything at all.
@evolutionisscience And finally, you need to go back to elementary school and start over. Newton was an honest scientist who admitted his theories were not entirely accurate, as they did not adequately explain why gravity exists. Einstein's theories do explain why gravity exists, because Einstein believed in God. If there is no Eternal Creator, then there is no rational explanation for the observable universal reality. Any moron knows that, which is WHY you and Dawkins are obvious liars.
@evolutionisscience Atheism pretends there is no Creator, which is irrational. Eternal Creator explains WHY the universe exists, atheism and evolution do not. If there is no motion, energy and no "space/time" continuum, then there can rationally be no gravity or evolution or science. You can't begin in the middle after life already exists and pretend evolution did it. Atheism is an obvious grade-school lie, repeatedly debunked by Socrates, Jesus, Paul, Einstein and others throughout history.
Darwin, in his final revision of "On the Origin of Species", says in the introduction the Creator is behind the process of evolution. However wrong or right Darwin may be, he in no way, shape or form, agrees with Dawkins. Dawkins himself is highly guilty of quote mining, ignoring what Darwin clearly states in his own published revisions. Darwin also said shortly before his death, "One can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist". This is not quote mining, this is what Darwin actually said.
@richardaberdeen In the 130 years since Darwin the world of science has moved on. We now have electricity, the motor car, the aeroplane, atomic power, microchips, penicillin, cures and treatments for many diseases. We have modified the theories of gravity, evolution & electromagnetism, developed theories in quantum physics and cosmology, backed up by testing and observation. So you will excuse rational people if they do not hang on every word of the undoubtably brilliant Charles Darwin's.
@Huttate1 We also have weapons of mass destruction, global mass pollution and many if not most historians believe more people died from war and related violence in the 20th Century then all prevous centuries combined. Atheists are fond of pointing out the gizmos, gadgets and medicines that science brings, while completely ignorning the significant downside of WMDs and looming planetary disaster left in the wake of modern science and education and a so-called age of enlightenment. Yeah, sure.
I would disagree with an assertion made without reference or context.
For a start you might like to consider how many people (as a percentage of world population) have been killed in any century by the lovely diseases that god gave us. I would look up black death, small pox and the cleansing of the north and south american natives.
If you want to move on to the flood, crusades, conquistadors and inquisition. Feel free.
@Huttate1 There is no evidence that God gave us disease. Disease is not at all understood at root levels, which are much smaller than virus level, which anyone who has studied disease knows is very poorly understood. The origins and persistence of disease are extremely complex and involve individual human choices, as well as individual animal and even microbe choices. You very obviously have never studied disease origins. Try Britannica under heading "virus" & various disease headings.
@Huttate1 Talk about your "quote mining", the Bible also says, "we are not under the law, but under grace". Your response definitively proves that A) You are guilty of the "quote mining" Dawkins is complaing about and B) You have zero understanding of the Bible taken as a whole. I have read the whole Bible, you can't understand where the Bible is coming from by taking one isolated sentence, any more than you can understand quantum physics by reading one sentence and disregarding the rest.
@Huttate1 I never said I believe in the Bible. I go by the evidence. According to the Bible, God can send plagues on people if he is angry with them. According to the Bible, God can punish people by allowing the forces of evil to visit them (book of Job, among others). Thus, God can cause leprosy among a population by allowing the forces of evil to prevail, while God himself does not cause leprosy. You have no idea who God is, clearly evidenced by your response; God does whatever God wants.
@richardaberdeen You contradict yourself. Do you believe the bible or not? If so, do you believe every word of it? If you do not beloeve the bible, where did you hear about god?
@Huttate1 You seem to have a problem with history and reality. I quote the Bible when I believe it matches the evidence. Apparenlty like most atheists, you're a victim of religion. Someone who doesn't believe in God because of what religions claims is a victim of religion. The Bible tends to be very accurate; however, there are several known language and copyist errors, thus one needs to go by evidence. Placing truth as the goal and going by the evidence, as Jesus taught, wins every time.
@richardaberdeen You are lying. Believing the bible matches evidence is worthless. You have to know that it does - and I know it does not. And the bible tends to be very accurate is a simple falsehood.
There are some historical events detailed in the bible. Some of them are distorted to fit desired chronologies. But there is no evidence that key biblical figures existed and absolutely no evidence that any key biblical events occurred. To say anything else is a misrepresentation of the facts.
@Huttate1 Evidence is evidence. Regardless of what you pretend, evidence is evidence. You are obviously full of shit. There are thousands of historical events, places, names and dates detailed in the Bible, the vast majority of them have been verified by archeologists and scientsts. NONE of them have been proven to be untrue. You didn't provide a single example where the Bible claims a name, date or place existed that has been proven to be false, because there aren't any. LIAR.
@richardaberdeen Oh dear, panicking are we? I stated that there historical events detailed in the bible.
Again you ask for a false positive, religious chicanery. You prove unicorns don't exist and I'll prove anything you want does not exist, including you.
Now try to use grown up arguments.
And show me the peer reviewed evidence of solomon and david's existence.
@Huttate1 Most historians believe either Moses or a leader like Moses probably did exist - Source Britannica article "Moses". Most modern historians believe Solomon and King David existed - sources, recent PBS documentaries, Britannica. Like most atheists, you deny the known historical reality and otherwise, just make it up as you go. There are several hundred tribes, city names, battles and other historical events noted in the Bible documented in other outside sources. Who are you kidding?
@Huttate1 This makes no rational sense at all. There are several video documentaries detailing the gates of Solomon, which foundations have been excavated. There is a pottery fragment with a Psalm dedicated to King David carbon-dating to the time of King David. It is irrational to pretend somebody living in Palestine would dedicate a Psalm to a mythical king supposedly living at the time of the dedication. That would be like someone claiming MLK existed in 1963 if there was no such person.
@richardaberdeen There are several videos detailing excavations of gates that would tie in with dates for Solomon. Nothing more.
There is a pottery fragment dating to c10cBC with writing on. Nothing more.
If you have links to information that unequivocally shows the gates to belong to Solomon or the pottery to refer to King David please let me have them as I have obviously missed them
@Huttate1 According to two different videos I saw on the subject, there have been gate foundations excavated that match descriptions of the gates of Solomon in the Bible at the locations given; I'll take their word for it over yours, as I've seen the photographic evidence. According to a published report, recently a pottery fragment containing part of a Psalm dedicated to King David was unearthed that carbon dates to the time of King David; again, I'll take their word for it over yours.
@richardaberdeen This explains your readyness to accept the stone age myth I suppose.
People with more self respect than you do not take any one person's word for anything. They will do a little research and that will quickly show them that no Solomon and no David have yet been found.
If you continue to rely on the tabloid headlines of enthusiasts then I am sure you are still awaiting cold fusion to come on line and wondering where you can catch a bus to the moon.
@Huttate1 Several major historians and archeologists consider you to be wrong. Of course, you may be right and all of them may be wrong, who can say for sure?
@richardaberdeen Name them. Stop quoting coming out with these statements unless you can back them up with verifiabe detail. Here is where creationists and rational people differ. The creationist hears something and repeats it. The rational mind does research. And guess what; every time it does it uncovers another creationist lie.
@Huttate1 Rational people who want to be taken seriously by other rational people, rely on reliable sources like the Britannica and actual writings by actual scientists, which is where I get my information. I have no idea where you get your information, but it doesn't even remotely agree with Richard Dawkins or any other practicing scientist I am aware of. Any legitimate scientist will confirm my definition of evolution, while none of them would agree with you.
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form
The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
@Huttate1 That is a dictionary definition of "evolution". If you look up "universe", you will also find that a dictionary definition is the the same as how scientists view the term "universe". Your answers continue to demonstrate a severe lack of basic scientific and historical knowledge.
@Huttate1 If you actually studied the evidence, instead of talking out your ass, you could look up "Solomon" in Britannica and Wikipedia. Britannica, written by global expert scholars, claims evidence for Solomon is highly reliable; Wikipedia, a far less reliable source, contains various contradictory claims by different scholars. This conclusively proves what I said to you previously, that historians, archeologists and scientists often DO NOT agree with each other at fundamental levels.
@Huttate1 If you actually studied the evidence, instead of talking out your ass, you could look up "Solomon" in Britannica and Wikipedia. Britannica, written by global expert scholars, claims evidence for Solomon is highly reliable; Wikipedia, a far less reliable source, contains various contradictory claims by different scholars. This conclusively proves what I said to you previously, that historians, archeologists and scientists often DO NOT agree with each other at fundamental levels.
@Huttate1 For example, a Psalm fragment dedicated to King David has been carbon dated to the time of King David. That is absolute proof to any legitimate historian that King David existed as nobody dedicates a Psalm to a mythical king who is supposedly living in their own area at the time. Several gates and other things described in the story of Solomon have been excavated. You are just completely lying; no legitimate historian believes the biblical charaters were all myths as you pretend.
@Huttate1 The reason atheism is full of shit, is that it doesn't place truth as the goal and then go by the evidence. Rather, it begins with "disbelief" in God, which is neither rational, logical or scientific. Beginning from a non-evidenced based position is nothing but superstition, which is what all atheism ever has been or every will be. To "disbelieve" in God proves nothing, solves nothing, nor does it add anything of value to the human race. To just "disbelieve" has no value or merit.
@richardaberdeen Science starts only with a desire to understand. And to suggest that belief that a supernatural being is responsible for anything we are yet to understand is the only rational course of action simply shows what a religious nut you are. As you sink into rabid responses you need to remember that true athiests do not believe anything; they think about things. No athiest starts from the point that their is no god. They arrive at that point because of logic and reason.
@Huttate1 Bullshit. Science always has and always will begin with an assumption. The following are all assumptions of science, some of them now disproven: 1) The sun revolves around the earth; 2) Disease spontaneously arises out of piles of garbage 3) The universe is static and eternal 4) The speed of light is constant. Science has ALWAYS been based on assumptions. You are full of shit.
@richardaberdeen Sorry but it you that again display your ignorance. Thinking something is not science. Science and the scientific method is what has dispelled most of the superstitious stone age myths your forebears followed. Science will never be able to shine a light on everything and so your descendants can continue to follow the bronze age book if they choose.
@Huttate1 Bullshit. What science believes today is gone with the historical winds tomorrow. That is very clearly what all of the known historical evidence demonstrates. Some secular non-creationist biologists have publicly stated on PBS that Darwinism is on it's way out the historical door, along with the sun revolving the earth, sponaneous generation of disease and other shallow notions once overwhelmingly believed by the vast majority of scientists. Your position is clearly debunked.
@evolutionisscience When I watch videos, I don't write down names. A recent PBS documentary on the latest evolutionary findings, interviewed many different biologists, including Dawkins. A molecular biologist in that film said life is so overwhelmingly irreducibly complex at micro and quantum root levels, that it is irrational to pretend science can every have a legitimate theory of how life arises or functions. Another one stated evolution will likely be gone as a theory within 50 years.
@evolutionisscience It doesn't matter what you doubt. This was a secular video on the latest evolutionary evidence. The video did not mention God or creation and every biologist interviewed was a secular biologist. There is significant disagreement among biologists today over various aspects of evolutionary theory; there really is no such thing as a "theory of evolution" in terms of a generally agreed upon theory. Rather, there are hundreds if not thousands of often conflicting opinions.
@richardaberdeen You are in denial. Evolution is a completely accepted theory just as gravity is.
No we don't yet know how life evolved.
But we don't yet know how gravity works. There are many competing ideas on that. So, do we throw out gravity and go back to the beardy man putting stars in the heavens? Of course not. We work to expand our knowledge and build on the solid theories we already have.
@Huttate1 That's a lie. The term "evolution" by scientific definition, is a mythical norm consensus of what scientists on a global level believe, which changes over time as new evidence arises. Thus, the definition itself has evolved significantly over time. It used to be called the "synthetic theory of evolution", as it represents a global synthesis of various ideas. There is no such thing as an agreed to theory of evolution, like theories of gravity, light or any other theory of science.
@Huttate1 I might add, as you seem to be completely clueless about what actual scientists believe. There is a global body of ongoing research under a general heading "evolutionary theory". It contains many thousands of volumes of often conflicting ideas, theories and conclusions. The general public continues to naively believe like you, that evolution is some kind of simple globaly accepted theory, like E=MC2, when in fact the term doesn't mean that at all to any learned scholar.
@richardaberdeen Where do you get this crap? That was rhetorical. I know exactly where you get that crap. It is the normal horsepiss spouted by creationists who lie and deliberately distort the facts.
Evolution is accepted as a scientific theory. You may not like it. The creationist websites to which you subscribe may not like it. Your bible may fall apart in light of it. But before you defend your bible too much you should read the ninth commandment.
@Huttate1 "Evolution" to a scientist, is the global opinion sythensis of the moment, which constantly changes. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you try writing to Dakwins and ask him. I am certain he is well aware that what you call "evolution" is in reality, a scientific consensus "norm" of the moment. What this means, as you apparently fail to grasp what I am talking about, is combined current global opinion represents what is called "evolutionary science".
@richardaberdeen Don't make up your own definitions and then pass them off as fact - that is lying.
Evolution to scientists is change over time due to natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. All mechanisms are well understood and well documented.
There is a complete consensus and no dispute. Only creationists lie that there is by deliberately misrepresenting the facts and deliberately distorting the process of scientific discussion.
@Huttate1 "Evolution" to a legitimate scientist, is defined as the current scientific global consensus norm. This is different than dictionary defintions and in most textbooks. It has been defined in this manner for a long time and, it will continue to be defined as such, regardless of how often you try to deny it. Terms to scientits are often defined differently than to the general public; for example, "universe" to a scientist, means as far as can be detected, not the entire universe.
@Huttate1 The term is "universe", which means as far as can be detected in any direction, both inward and outward. As such, the "universe" by scientific definition, has grown significantly over time, while the actual universe has remained essentially the same size (it has expanded some, but only slightly compared to relative size and length of human science history). The "visible universe" references as far as can be optically detected. There is much that can detected that is not "visible".
@Huttate1 As for example, some scientists agree with Dawkins, that life began in the ocean, others believe it began in dirt, in or near fresh water, in caves, underground and more and more are now ascribing to a once scorned idea that life or some uknown thing known as "pre-life" was carried in on space rocks. As such, life may well have sprung up from all over the earth, which is what the Bible says is true. You are absolutely clueless as to what actual scientists strongly disagree concerning
@Huttate1 A theory that begins in the middle of an observed reality has no hope of being accurate. This is why liars like Dawkins go to great lengths and waste countless often taxpayer supported hours and forests of trees desperately trying to somehow prove that life can arise all by itself. Every major scientist in history including Darwin has addressed origins and as such, your statement has no historical or scientific validity.
@richardaberdeen Oh it does. You see you are confusing Darwin's origin of species with the origin of life. The two things are vastly different and you must get your creationist head around that before you can start to debate the science.
@Delra12 typical Christian. Read one page of a book and write it off. I'm so sick of Christians.
paramattic70 2 days ago
brilliant video
shoppittsburghnow 2 days ago
I think Dawkins may be the most quote mined guy out there. I'm not blaming him, but his writing style seems especially prone to it.
Golkarian 2 months ago
Who uses Yahoo's search engine?
overman926 3 months ago 11
@overman926, I do. I've been using it for over 15 years. Fuck Google.
geezerbill 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
He gives me a headache. Six minutes is just too long a time to listen to the man drone on and on about nothing. This is why I couldn't read his books-- I picked up the "God Delusion," read the first few pages, thought of the thousand other things I could be doing, and put it back.
stfuplz13 4 months ago
@stfuplz13 This is likely because your brain is under-developed or simply full of shit. I'd guess that the thousand other things you'd rather be doing start with "mastur" and finish with "bation" ? Or praying.
allieron 4 months ago 4
@allieron all of the above
stfuplz13 4 months ago
@allieron God, I'm sick of atheists...
Delra12 1 month ago
Just using Dawkins example of the "Cambrian Explosion" would indicate he simply is attempting to deflect. He has no good answer for the "why" of the explosion, so includes his quote, among other quotes, as an example of data mining by creationists. In other words, since the idiot creation uses my quote in their "data mining" tactic, this is proof of their idiocy. Notice this straw man tactic fails to address the real problem, namely his explanation for the Cambrian Explosion is baseless.
WSGAC 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It is appointed unto each of us once to die then the judgment !" now Jesus died on the cross for all,so He went through all that and He said this,believe on me and you shall be saved,deny me and you shall be damned ,so do you want to be saved or go to the valley of the damned ,choose now please?
majorl311 4 months ago
Does anyone know where the full thing is?
Cybernator23 4 months ago
@Cybernator23 It's up your bum and around the corner.... do some research ffs! LoL
Pigroota 4 months ago
@Pigroota Whoa that's a little harsh.
Cybernator23 4 months ago
@Cybernator23 Just kidding around mate. Did you know that I was playing? There is always something lost when you try to communicate on youtube, but if you were Australian you would be laughing!
Pigroota 4 months ago
@Pigroota I was laughing I was joking (Yeah Theres always something lost)
Cybernator23 4 months ago
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) 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 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 5 months ago
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creatures. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 You should get educated. "Lucy" is highly complete and was obviously from a single individual. But then, I know no amount of facts can ever convince your kind of religion-soaked people, so I don't really care.
RolandMaurer 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Even if there were absolutely no fossils ever found, evolution would STILL be a proven fact you like it or not. Fossils are only a convienant part of the theory of evolution which complies with other types of evidence, like homologous structures, vestigal organs, genome synteny, gene order, wobble position sequance, intron sequence, pseudogene sequenc, retroviruses (anatomical and genetic similarities with the help of DNA) and also fields like geographical distribution and some others
wHisperis001 4 months ago 5
@Mogley52 the fact that you can't wrap your head around these things and your futile efforts with your fossil strawmen arguments just shows what an utter tool you are
wHisperis001 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be 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 living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52
You're dumb. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the first origins of life, that's abiogenisis.
ThirdRAILKink 4 months ago
like a boss
Moppy1988 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins reminds me of the cuttlefish who uses his brilliant color display to mesmerize his prey,like the fish Dawkins dazzles his victims with his brilliance and when he has them hypnotized they are in his grasp and they stay right near his videos on you tube never venturing out to see if God exists again,they are his ,haaaaaaaawww haawww heeehee he!
majorl311 5 months ago
Richard Dawkins is AWESOME!!!!
gupsphoo 5 months ago
Google search is better!
dragonfiremalus 6 months ago
This shows plain as day - christians are deceptive, disingenuous, and delusional fuck-heads.
BlameRepublicans 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Would you like to see something interesting? I'm the guy who discovered the real Garden of Eden. Check out my videos and see for yourself.
I really did find it.
downyourtube 7 months ago
love you richard dawkins
managarm1349 7 months ago
Nice :)
diabl2master 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen "just as how computers are acutally made has a total bearing on how they function"
ROFL YEAH Because a computer with a computer chip make by the Laser Maker 5000 compared with an IDENTICAL chip made by magic functions COMPLETELY DIFFERENT because... Oh, wait. They WOULDN'T be functionally different. You talk about logic. Using this conclusion, I can accurately deduce you're a moron. You're done. Clean yourself off and take five.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience Blather, blather, blather. At the bottom-line, you are obviously irrational and, now you resort to blather, blather and more blahter. Computers can't function unless they are first created and, life cannot function unless it is first created. Go back to elementary school and start over.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen And at the bottom line, it doesn't matter how life comes to exist in relation to how it changes. Its inception could be the result of many different processes, while its function could be related to an entirely different set of processes. Is making a car the same as driving one? No. Is making a computer the same as operating one? No. No need to act butt-hurt. It's not your fault you spent the last week making yourself look stupid. It's just the fact that you ARE stupid.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen, your argument is that life has to be "created". You cannot prove this argument, and it is logically incorrect. A computer is not living, Computers do not have living cells or an abstract mind. Which is good because if it did it would probably be creating religions (lol). Life does not have to be created to have life, it can FORM. It's like a mountain, mountains dont just appear, they form.
Cinehancer 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cinehancer Sorry, I don't believe in magically appearing universes, magically appearing intelligence from non-intelligence, magically appearing laws of physics, magically appearing processes, magically appearing santa clauses, tooth faires, spaghetti monsters and magically appearing little green men from Mars like Hitchens. Sorry, atheism requires way too much blind faith for me to believe. Atheism = Total Bullshit.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience Sorry, I don't believe in magically appearing universes, magically appearing intelligence from non-intelligence, magically appearing laws of physics, magically appearing processes, magically appearing santa clauses, tooth faires, spaghetti monsters and magically appearing little green men from Mars like Hitchens. Sorry, atheism requires way too much blind faith for me to believe. Atheism = Total Bullshit.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
And then you talk about atheism. A grade-A straw man if ever I saw one.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience There is something sane rational people call "reality". Modern education artifically divides up reality into categories. This is why Will Durant was highly critical of modern education, which apparenlty is over your head, like the rest of this discussion. Atheism is what a "straw-man" is, by definition. A "straw man" is a human construct that has no basis in evidence. You need to go back to elementary school and start over.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
Hey. When I take a class on how to work a computer, can I skip the part where they tell me how each and every single component is made? I would think that would belong in some sort of engineering class. It's like they're TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS OR SOMETHING. ROFL
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience You can skip the part about how computers happen to exist, but then you don't have a rational explanation for the modern phenomena of computers, just like you don't have a rational explanation for the phenomena of life if you can't explain how life exists. This entire discussion is apparently above your education level, which apparently is considerably lower than I previously assumed. You seem to not be able to grasp the most basic concepts of logic, science and evidence.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
Teehee.
DeadlyGrim 7 months ago
ROFL "God Theory" Huh. It's like they have an entirely different theory on the phenomena of the existence of everything. Why, look how they have it separate to the Big Bang Theory!
richard's a complete moron. Glad to see him leave. haha At least I'll never see him on the roads, he'll NEVER earn his engineering degree.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience Scientists do not call it the "God Theory". You seem to have a problem reading basic English, as well as a problem with basic logic. Dawkins publicly stated in a PBS video that the "God Question", not the God Theory, as you misquote me, "is central to all of science". Any moron knows that you can't have a legitimate theory of how life functions if you can't explain how such functionality happens to exist. Processes do not magically exist unto themselves, as you pretend.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience You can't propose a process of "evolution", if you can't explain how the process exists. In order for origins to not be a question, you would have to explain how evolution exists independently of life itself, which is irrational. Like every atheist, you have a significant problem with basic logic and a very rudimentary grasp of history and science, at best. There is no such thing as a legitimate theory of science that can't explain how a process happens to exist.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience And either put up or shut up. Let's see you demonstrate by evidence that the process of evolution can exist independently of life itself. This is a basic fundamental fallacy of everything Dawkins pretends is true. Dawkins often resorts to saying "evolution" did it when he runs out of legitimate evidence, as if evolution is God and somehow exists independently all by itself. Dawkins = obvious liar.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen "Let's see you demonstrate by evidence that the process of evolution can exist independently of life itself."
One comment. One question. Does being unable to explain where gravity comes from mean that we can't explain what gravity is and how it works? Don't bullshit. Don't try to weasel out of the question. Just answer it.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience That is exactly correct. Newton didn't understand WHY gravity exists and he himself stated because of this, his theories were limited. Einstein on the other hand, demonstrated WHY what we call "gravity" exists and thus, Einstein's theories of gravity replaced Newton, just as Copernicus replaced Ptlomey and just as "Before Abraham was, I AM" demolishes atheism. Atheism can't explain WHY the universe exists, the Bible does and, ONLY the Bible does. "I AM" satisfies origins.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@rich You needed five posts to fail the question. THE ANSWER IS NO, YOU MORON. There are a number of different ways gravity could have come into being! It could be a fifth-dimensional bounce-back effect from the Big Bang, or it could be magical magnet gravity pixies! It doesn't matter because gravity works the same no matter what the origin! Likewise, there are an infinite number of possibilities when it comes to the origins of life, BUT IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE WAY LIFE DIVERSIFIES AS IT DOES.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience No, I need several posts to try to explain to someone at your level, why Einstein is correct and you are not. Einstein's theories DO explain why gravity exists. There are not "several" explanations but rather, there is only one rational explanation known to science. There may be a better explanation down the road, but for now Einstein's theories stand. You obviously don't understand Einstein's theories of gravity and light, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience And, how life came to be has a total bearing how life diversifies, just as how computers are acutally made has a total bearing on how they function. You continue to open mouth and insert contradicting foot. There can't be a "computer science" of how computers function if nobody first creates a computer and, there can't be an "evolutionary science" of how life functions, if nobody first creates life. Like I said, you need to go back to elementary school and start over.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen "how life came to be has a total bearing how life diversifies, just as how computers are acutally made has a total bearing on how they function"
That is so retarded. Okay, let's say life on Earth came about through panspermia. That would change our observations about evolution... Oh, NOPE. STILL BY NATURAL SELECTION. How about through iron-sulfur world theory. Hey, that would mean evolution by natural selection. I have an idea! Aliens! Nope, natural selection. You. are. DUMB.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience There is no evidence that "natural" selection causes life. If life didn't first exist, there would be no "natural" or any other selection. Go back to elementary school and start over.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen "If life didn't first exist, there would be no "natural" or any other selection"
Solve the math problem: 12 one-eye one-horned flying purple people eaters need to eat 8 people in an hour. Roughly how many people will be eaten by the people eaters in half an hour?
Did ya do it? Wow! It's almost as though you can solve the problem even though people eaters don't exist! It's like you took a HYPOTHETICAL of initial conditions! I wonder if we can HYPOTHESIZE in science, too...
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience Sorry, I don't believe in magically appearing universes, magically appearing intelligence from non-intelligence, magically appearing laws of physics, magically appearing processes, magically appearing santa clauses, tooth faires, spaghetti monsters and magically appearing little green men from Mars like Hitchens. Sorry, atheism requires way too much blind faith for me to believe. Atheism = Total Bullshit.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richard Aw, abandoning the tenuous position that abiogenesis is included under evolution? Such a shame. If you believe a god brought the universe into existence, molded man from dirt, and keeps the laws of physics in motion, etc., you accept that these are mysterious, supernatural powers that you could never understand, i.e., magic. As incredible as it may seem, chemistry, thermodynamics, physics, etc. do not really attempt to squeeze "magic" in as an explanation in any process. Nuts on you.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen Oh wow...I almost thought you were serious for a second. Such a hypocritical statement it must be a joke.
sparaticus039 7 months ago
@sparaticus039 There is no question that mixing atheism with science is a joke. Atheism is the biggest joke in the universe, bar none.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen Maybe I'm stupid, but I guess I don't entirely understand...how is religion supported by science? Isn't science the study and observation of the naturalistic universe, not the supernatural?
sparaticus039 6 months ago
@sparaticus039 God does not equal religion. Human opinion about God doesn't change God one iota. You can disbelieve in God, disbelieve the earth is round or disbelieve the sun will appear in the sky. Your "disbelief" proves nothing, solves nothing, has no value, nor does it change either God, the shape of the earth or the fact the sun will continue to appear in the sky. Atheists aren't fooling anybody but themselves, to "disbelieve" in God proves nothing, is irrational and, has no value.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen You are a truly angry and clearly misinformed troll. If you had a bad experience talking with an atheist, so be it, but don't be a hypocritical bigot because of it.
"Try actually reading the Bible instead of grossly misrepresenting what it says in a public forum." How can you make this statement while being so clearly ignorant of anything an atheist believes? Ridiculous hypocrisy combined with a double-standard. You demand evidence, while providing none for your own claims.
sparaticus039 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen I think you had it a little bit backwards. You can believe in God, believe the earth is round or believe the sun will appear in the sky. Your "belief" proves nothing, solves nothing, has no value, nor does it make a god appear,change the shape of the earth or the fact the sun will continue to appear in the sky. Myth-believers aren't fooling anybody but themselves, to "believe" in god proves nothing, is irrational and, has no value.
There, that's better.
donfishmaster 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen But anyways, you're clearly intellectually superior to me and all other people for that matter because you know EXACTLY how the universe came into existence. After all, you do speak directly to the all mighty, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of everything and nothing. There's nothing about that that requires ridiculous things like "blind faith." Stupid ignorant atheists.
All hail the righteous and infinitely humble richardaberdeen!
sparaticus039 6 months ago
@sparaticus039 Nobody knows "how" God creates. Einstein freely admitted that. The problem with atheists is, they pretend to "know" that nobody created the human brain, as if a microbe could know that no human being exists. Atheists are the most obvious of liars, making claims that have no foundation in evidence, logic, reason or sanity. There is no evidence for magically appearing universes with magically appearing living plants and animals. Grow up and stop believing in magic.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen atheism does.... oh my. well if you believe god put us here where the hell did god come from and how come there is NO proof of him anywhere... and dont say there is because speaking in tounges is total bullshit according to research, it takes the brain more power to speak in tongues therefore you have to think harder therefore your making bullshit up on the spot. its not god.
DBPboarding 6 months ago
@DBPboarding What an obvious bullshitter. Try looking up the definition for "eternal" in the dictionary, then go back to elementary school and start over and, don't come back until you have EVIDENCE for how otherwise the universe happens to exist. What obvious bullshitters atheists are !!!
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen and do you have EVIDENCE for how it got here... NO! its a fucking mystery, all aethists arent scientists you ignorant retard, some dont believe in either because both have not found proof. but logically and morally and if you had a brain that wasnt brainwashed by religion you would know that science is much more logical then religion
DBPboarding 6 months ago
@DBPboarding God already gave us the best and ONLY rational explanation for the observable reality: "Before Abraham was, I AM". Science is the best explanation until proven otherwise. When you have a BETTER explanation for the observable reality, you be sure and let God know.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen because a man who has never been proven who sits in the sky and if you know ANYTHING about the bible is just a man of mistakes and is a huge immoral dick created everything with a snap of his fingers. yes that sound very possible doesnt it -.-. its as fucking stupid and ignorant as saying i own a pink flying invisible magical rainbow unicorn that only i can see and hear and he only ever appears when only im around, its ridiculos and stupid.
DBPboarding 6 months ago
@DBPboarding This is a typical atheist sound bite lie. According to the Bible, God inhabits the heavens and what lies beyond the heavens and even that can't contain God and, in God we move and have our breath and being. That is hardly a little man who sits up in the sky. You are such an obvious liar that it is beyond totally pathetic. Try actually reading the Bible instead of grossly misrepresenting what it says in a public forum.
richardaberdeen 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen I no more wish to engage you in conversation (more like witless ad-hominem attacks) than I do a white supremacist. You have no intention of debating, rather re-posting fundamentalist christian nonsense. I thought you were joking at first, but now I can see you definitely weren't.
Good day sir.
sparaticus039 6 months ago
@richardaberdeen thought god was omnipresent. everywhere. if christians believed this the world would be a better place.
mkrulic517439 5 months ago
@mkrulic517439 According to the Bible, God sits in the heavens, all of the heavens and beyond the heavens and what lies beyond the heavens cannot contain God and in God we move and have our being. This, by the way, is the ONLY ancient concept of God that still fits the current known universal reality. Pretending there is no God, is like a microbe inside of your intestines pretending you don't exist, only infinitely more ignorant.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen to a microbe I do not exists. and the concept omnipresent is clear:
om·ni·pres·ent [ òmni prézz'nt ] always present everywhere: continuously and simultaneously present throughout the whole of creation found everywhere: present or seemingly present all the time or everywhere.
if you understood this you would understand that nothing is seperate from god. if everyone believed this and acted on this we would be much more compasionate toward each other.
mkrulic517439 5 months ago
@mkrulic517439 A microbe that lives inside of us is dependent on us for it's survival. And, we can't exist without God, for in God we have move and have our breath and being. Regardless of what we believe about God, this does not change the fact we are dependent on God, just as regardless of what a microbe inside of us perceives or fails to perceive, it remains dependent on us. Without forgiveness, there is no connection to the love of God, other than what we perceive from other people.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen now you need to research providence. I was where you are. some are content w/ decadence. (a state of non-growth) I needed spiritual growth. you can only go so far if you stay w/ one source. google "godel's incompleteness theorem"
mkrulic517439 5 months ago
@mkrulic517439 Jesus is God. There is only one source to get to God and, that is God. People who follow other "gods" are following idols that can neither hear, speak or change a single hair on our heads. Jesus can save us from our sins; Buddha can't and neither can Confuscius or science and/or education. If science and education could save us, there wouldn't be educated scientists today creating WMD's and, educated bankers bilking the common people who Jesus loves out of their life savings.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen so you believe god sacraficed himself, to himself, to create a loophole around a law he created. you are willfully ignorant and no longer worthy of my time.
mkrulic517439 5 months ago
@mkrulic517439 Human beings have often been quoted as saying, they would gladly take the place of their son or daughter who was killed in a tragic way, who is suffering from cancer, etc. For God to sacrifice his only son for us is the greatest example of love known, by far. Atheists don't understand anything about love, because they don't believe in God who is love and thus, the have no idea what love is.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen "they would gladly take the place of their son or daughter..."
argument from analogy is a logical fallicy. in one spot they are similar(sacrifice). but in the case of the car accident/cancer is out of their control. the decision to create a loophole around the law that god created was completly in gods control. he could have solved it by not making the immoral act of passing down debt, just for starters. you do not seek enlightenment. you lack the skill of independent thought
mkrulic517439 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen I don't really want to argue with you about the opinion stuff but for future reference Buddha is not considered a god. As a matter of fact there are no gods within the Buddhist religion.
Also, religious people have taken their fair share of lives too, the crusades come to mind. There are also preachers scamming people into thinking they are performing miracles for money, Benny Hinn is a fine example.
So by your own words that means religion can not save us either.
pimpymcdougall 5 months ago
@pimpymcdougall God, by long held historical definition from Socrates forward and, stretching far back into the mists of historical time through Moses, Abraham, Enoch and Adam, is the Creator of the universe. Nobody I am aware of claims Buddha created the universe, including Buddhists. Your statement has no validity, as neither does a position of atheism, which is far more baseless than all other known human superstitions combined,.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen What claim did I make that has no validity? Everything I stated is well documented and proven. Buddha is not a god, religious people have done horrible things, and Bunny Hinn is a fraud. These are all facts that can not be disputed.
I never claimed that your god doesn't exist nor did I mention atheism at all. I was just pointing out the main flaw in your argument against science.
I will ignore the rest of what you said because I do not want to go down that road.
pimpymcdougall 5 months ago
@pimpymcdougall I never said Buddha was a god. You brought up Buddha, not me. There is no "flaw" in concluding that the universe is created by God, because that is what ALL of the known evidence demonstrates. Science isn't based on absolutes, there are no scientific absolutes. Science is based on "weight of evidence", the same as history is and, the same as ALL human understanding is. Like the Bible correctly says, for now we see "in part". Your just pretending I'm wrong. Bullshitter.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen As example, Einstein's theories are based on a grand assumption the speed of light is constant. This is not an assumption that many scientists today believe is wrong. There are several reasons why, among them, light in the quantum world doesn't behave as macro theories predict it should. Science doesn't know what is really true and, neither do you. You claim my view is "flawed"; ALL human views are flawed because we see "in part". You aren't God, thus your view is flawed.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen And finally, any moron who has studied much of anything knows that ALL human views are flawed. If our views were not flawed, then we could explain EVERYTHING. You are pretending that science "knows", when in fact, the history of science clearly demonstrates science does NOT know and, whatever science "believes" today will be mostly discarded a few years down the road. All of the known evidence demonstrates creation. None of the evidence supports atheism; those are the facts.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen Utter Babble !
JohnS1704 5 months ago
@JohnS1704 Atheism = confusion.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen Only for you clowns !
JohnS1704 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen I will state again, I never said anything about there being or not being a god. I am confused as to why you are even bothering to argue this point.
Actually you did bring up Buddha, that is why I responded to your post in the first place.
The flaw I pointed out was you making a moral distinction between people of religion and people of science when there is none. Once again, I never said anything about a god.
What did I claim that has no validity? How am I 'bullshitting'?
pimpymcdougall 5 months ago
@pimpymcdougall Then I apologize, I must have confused you with another responder. You are assuming I am a person of religion, which I am not. Einstein believed in God and, so did Aristotle and so did a great many other scientists. Atheists often hide behind the term "religion", pretending that everyone who believes in God is a "religious" rather than a "scientific" person. This is a complete lie, as Darwin himself credited the Creator with being behind tohe processes he called "evolution".
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@pimpymcdougall Thus, this is why I said you are bullshitting. A bullshitter is somebody who pretends just like I stated, that belief in God is somehow different than belief in black holes, invisible light or anything else that is based on evidence of things not seen. The Bible clearly teaches that faith is based on "evidence of things not seen" and, that the visible Creation is evidence for the invisible Creator. People who pretend otherwise are obvious bullshitters. Religion does not = God
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@pimpymcdougall And finally, because I have better things to do with my time, there is overwhelming historical evidence that war is caused by human greed that arises from within us all. If religion was the "cause" of war, then modern scientists wouldn't be creating WMDs, educated bankers wouldn't be financing wars and, the American, French, Russian, Chinese revolutions would never have occured, as neither would have WWI, WWII and countless other wars. Richard Dawkins = obvious bullshitter.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
Comment removed
pimpymcdougall 5 months ago
@pimpymcdougall There is no such thing as "religious" people as opposed to some other kind of people. ALL people, according to both Jesus and modern science, are capable of doing incredibly bad things. I have never said, as you pretend, that "religious" people are more moral than atheists. The Bible says no such thing but rather, it agrees with the modern science evidence, that greed, hatred, prejudice, murder, rape, theft, false witness and other human oppression, arises from within us all.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@pimpymcdougall And again, I did NOT say "religious" people are more moral than atheists. I do not belong to any religion, I hate all religions more or less equally. God remains the same, regardless of what we believe, something entirely over the head of most atheists. Any time someone tries to equate God with religion, they are announcing to educated people like myself, that they poorly educated. Jesus hated fundamentalism and is not the founder of Christianity or any other religion.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@pimpymcdougall I might add, I totally agree with you that Benny Hinn is a fraud, as is any man or woman who charges for what God gives away for free. The problem with atheists and apparently you as well, is that you don't understand the difference between God and religion. God does not need a religion; creation and the words of God's son Jesus speak for God. You can stack up the teachings of Jesus with any other known human and they are way, way, way more accurate and profound.
richardaberdeen 5 months ago
@richardaberdeen I can not knock you for your beliefs and thank you for the clear responses.
I must apologize for my first response which I took down because Youtube only likes to throw one into my email box and I didn't see the rest of these.
Yes I am an atheist but please do not assume you know anything about me because of this fact. This is why I talk to people and ask questions, to learn. Everyone is different and has their own beliefs, I just want to know more about them.
pimpymcdougall 5 months ago
@evolutionissci How a computer exists and the functioning capability of a computer are part of the same "phenomena", as you try to deny. They are not two "separate" phenomena". There is no such thing as functionality without reality; there is no computer functionality without a computer and there is no evolution without life This is precisely WHY atheism is a big fucking like. You can't "begin" with evolution "after" life already exists and then pretend nobody created life. BULLSHITTER !!!
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience You have a most definite "chicken and egg" problem, which is precisely WHY atheism is an obvious lie. Atheists try to pretend "evolution" did it, yet they have no rational explanation for how or why such a process exists. If life came first, where did life come from and how does it exist without evolution? And, if evolution came first, how does such a process magically exist all by itself. Einstein was correct about God and gravity as far as we know. You are full of shit.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience Again, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. If you can't explain how or why life exists apart from Creator, then you admit you & Dawkins are just bullshitters, pretending the universe is not created. "Before Abraham was, I AM" satisfies origins; an Eternal Creator has always existed; this explains the universal reality we can observe. You can't replace Eternal Creator with "evolution" and then claim to have a legitimate theory; the Greeks and Einstein would utterly scorn your claim as do I.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience And to explain Einstein, who you and Dawkins obviously completely fail to understand. According to Einstein, God created the universe and space itself is not empty but consists of a "fabric". And according to Einstein, objects in motion in space create a warp in the fabric of space and thus, we observe a phenomena we call "gravity" created by such warps. Einstein's theories explain gravity, while "evolution" without Creator doesn't rationally explain anything at all.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience And finally, you need to go back to elementary school and start over. Newton was an honest scientist who admitted his theories were not entirely accurate, as they did not adequately explain why gravity exists. Einstein's theories do explain why gravity exists, because Einstein believed in God. If there is no Eternal Creator, then there is no rational explanation for the observable universal reality. Any moron knows that, which is WHY you and Dawkins are obvious liars.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience Atheism pretends there is no Creator, which is irrational. Eternal Creator explains WHY the universe exists, atheism and evolution do not. If there is no motion, energy and no "space/time" continuum, then there can rationally be no gravity or evolution or science. You can't begin in the middle after life already exists and pretend evolution did it. Atheism is an obvious grade-school lie, repeatedly debunked by Socrates, Jesus, Paul, Einstein and others throughout history.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen "One can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist"
RD doesn't oppose this view. He even admits to it in his recent debate in Australia. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
Darwin, in his final revision of "On the Origin of Species", says in the introduction the Creator is behind the process of evolution. However wrong or right Darwin may be, he in no way, shape or form, agrees with Dawkins. Dawkins himself is highly guilty of quote mining, ignoring what Darwin clearly states in his own published revisions. Darwin also said shortly before his death, "One can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist". This is not quote mining, this is what Darwin actually said.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen In the 130 years since Darwin the world of science has moved on. We now have electricity, the motor car, the aeroplane, atomic power, microchips, penicillin, cures and treatments for many diseases. We have modified the theories of gravity, evolution & electromagnetism, developed theories in quantum physics and cosmology, backed up by testing and observation. So you will excuse rational people if they do not hang on every word of the undoubtably brilliant Charles Darwin's.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 We also have weapons of mass destruction, global mass pollution and many if not most historians believe more people died from war and related violence in the 20th Century then all prevous centuries combined. Atheists are fond of pointing out the gizmos, gadgets and medicines that science brings, while completely ignorning the significant downside of WMDs and looming planetary disaster left in the wake of modern science and education and a so-called age of enlightenment. Yeah, sure.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen SO we have changed the subject, oh well:
I would disagree with an assertion made without reference or context.
For a start you might like to consider how many people (as a percentage of world population) have been killed in any century by the lovely diseases that god gave us. I would look up black death, small pox and the cleansing of the north and south american natives.
If you want to move on to the flood, crusades, conquistadors and inquisition. Feel free.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 There is no evidence that God gave us disease. Disease is not at all understood at root levels, which are much smaller than virus level, which anyone who has studied disease knows is very poorly understood. The origins and persistence of disease are extremely complex and involve individual human choices, as well as individual animal and even microbe choices. You very obviously have never studied disease origins. Try Britannica under heading "virus" & various disease headings.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen You very obviously have never studied your bible.
Leviticus 14:33
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 Talk about your "quote mining", the Bible also says, "we are not under the law, but under grace". Your response definitively proves that A) You are guilty of the "quote mining" Dawkins is complaing about and B) You have zero understanding of the Bible taken as a whole. I have read the whole Bible, you can't understand where the Bible is coming from by taking one isolated sentence, any more than you can understand quantum physics by reading one sentence and disregarding the rest.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen
You stated "There is no evidence that God gave us disease".
You believe your bible - you could not believe in your god without it.
Your bible states that god said he created leprosy.
That is not quote mining. It is proving the inconsistency in your logic.
Well done for reading the whole bible. I study comparitive mythology.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 I never said I believe in the Bible. I go by the evidence. According to the Bible, God can send plagues on people if he is angry with them. According to the Bible, God can punish people by allowing the forces of evil to visit them (book of Job, among others). Thus, God can cause leprosy among a population by allowing the forces of evil to prevail, while God himself does not cause leprosy. You have no idea who God is, clearly evidenced by your response; God does whatever God wants.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen You contradict yourself. Do you believe the bible or not? If so, do you believe every word of it? If you do not beloeve the bible, where did you hear about god?
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 You seem to have a problem with history and reality. I quote the Bible when I believe it matches the evidence. Apparenlty like most atheists, you're a victim of religion. Someone who doesn't believe in God because of what religions claims is a victim of religion. The Bible tends to be very accurate; however, there are several known language and copyist errors, thus one needs to go by evidence. Placing truth as the goal and going by the evidence, as Jesus taught, wins every time.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen You are lying. Believing the bible matches evidence is worthless. You have to know that it does - and I know it does not. And the bible tends to be very accurate is a simple falsehood.
There are some historical events detailed in the bible. Some of them are distorted to fit desired chronologies. But there is no evidence that key biblical figures existed and absolutely no evidence that any key biblical events occurred. To say anything else is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 Evidence is evidence. Regardless of what you pretend, evidence is evidence. You are obviously full of shit. There are thousands of historical events, places, names and dates detailed in the Bible, the vast majority of them have been verified by archeologists and scientsts. NONE of them have been proven to be untrue. You didn't provide a single example where the Bible claims a name, date or place existed that has been proven to be false, because there aren't any. LIAR.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen Oh dear, panicking are we? I stated that there historical events detailed in the bible.
Again you ask for a false positive, religious chicanery. You prove unicorns don't exist and I'll prove anything you want does not exist, including you.
Now try to use grown up arguments.
And show me the peer reviewed evidence of solomon and david's existence.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 Most historians believe either Moses or a leader like Moses probably did exist - Source Britannica article "Moses". Most modern historians believe Solomon and King David existed - sources, recent PBS documentaries, Britannica. Like most atheists, you deny the known historical reality and otherwise, just make it up as you go. There are several hundred tribes, city names, battles and other historical events noted in the Bible documented in other outside sources. Who are you kidding?
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@Huttate1 This makes no rational sense at all. There are several video documentaries detailing the gates of Solomon, which foundations have been excavated. There is a pottery fragment with a Psalm dedicated to King David carbon-dating to the time of King David. It is irrational to pretend somebody living in Palestine would dedicate a Psalm to a mythical king supposedly living at the time of the dedication. That would be like someone claiming MLK existed in 1963 if there was no such person.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen There are several videos detailing excavations of gates that would tie in with dates for Solomon. Nothing more.
There is a pottery fragment dating to c10cBC with writing on. Nothing more.
If you have links to information that unequivocally shows the gates to belong to Solomon or the pottery to refer to King David please let me have them as I have obviously missed them
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 According to two different videos I saw on the subject, there have been gate foundations excavated that match descriptions of the gates of Solomon in the Bible at the locations given; I'll take their word for it over yours, as I've seen the photographic evidence. According to a published report, recently a pottery fragment containing part of a Psalm dedicated to King David was unearthed that carbon dates to the time of King David; again, I'll take their word for it over yours.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen This explains your readyness to accept the stone age myth I suppose.
People with more self respect than you do not take any one person's word for anything. They will do a little research and that will quickly show them that no Solomon and no David have yet been found.
If you continue to rely on the tabloid headlines of enthusiasts then I am sure you are still awaiting cold fusion to come on line and wondering where you can catch a bus to the moon.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 Several major historians and archeologists consider you to be wrong. Of course, you may be right and all of them may be wrong, who can say for sure?
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen Name them. Stop quoting coming out with these statements unless you can back them up with verifiabe detail. Here is where creationists and rational people differ. The creationist hears something and repeats it. The rational mind does research. And guess what; every time it does it uncovers another creationist lie.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 Rational people who want to be taken seriously by other rational people, rely on reliable sources like the Britannica and actual writings by actual scientists, which is where I get my information. I have no idea where you get your information, but it doesn't even remotely agree with Richard Dawkins or any other practicing scientist I am aware of. Any legitimate scientist will confirm my definition of evolution, while none of them would agree with you.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen You are full of horse shit.
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form
The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 That is a dictionary definition of "evolution". If you look up "universe", you will also find that a dictionary definition is the the same as how scientists view the term "universe". Your answers continue to demonstrate a severe lack of basic scientific and historical knowledge.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Huttate1 If you actually studied the evidence, instead of talking out your ass, you could look up "Solomon" in Britannica and Wikipedia. Britannica, written by global expert scholars, claims evidence for Solomon is highly reliable; Wikipedia, a far less reliable source, contains various contradictory claims by different scholars. This conclusively proves what I said to you previously, that historians, archeologists and scientists often DO NOT agree with each other at fundamental levels.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@Huttate1 If you actually studied the evidence, instead of talking out your ass, you could look up "Solomon" in Britannica and Wikipedia. Britannica, written by global expert scholars, claims evidence for Solomon is highly reliable; Wikipedia, a far less reliable source, contains various contradictory claims by different scholars. This conclusively proves what I said to you previously, that historians, archeologists and scientists often DO NOT agree with each other at fundamental levels.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@Huttate1 For example, a Psalm fragment dedicated to King David has been carbon dated to the time of King David. That is absolute proof to any legitimate historian that King David existed as nobody dedicates a Psalm to a mythical king who is supposedly living in their own area at the time. Several gates and other things described in the story of Solomon have been excavated. You are just completely lying; no legitimate historian believes the biblical charaters were all myths as you pretend.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@Huttate1 The reason atheism is full of shit, is that it doesn't place truth as the goal and then go by the evidence. Rather, it begins with "disbelief" in God, which is neither rational, logical or scientific. Beginning from a non-evidenced based position is nothing but superstition, which is what all atheism ever has been or every will be. To "disbelieve" in God proves nothing, solves nothing, nor does it add anything of value to the human race. To just "disbelieve" has no value or merit.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen Science starts only with a desire to understand. And to suggest that belief that a supernatural being is responsible for anything we are yet to understand is the only rational course of action simply shows what a religious nut you are. As you sink into rabid responses you need to remember that true athiests do not believe anything; they think about things. No athiest starts from the point that their is no god. They arrive at that point because of logic and reason.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 Bullshit. Science always has and always will begin with an assumption. The following are all assumptions of science, some of them now disproven: 1) The sun revolves around the earth; 2) Disease spontaneously arises out of piles of garbage 3) The universe is static and eternal 4) The speed of light is constant. Science has ALWAYS been based on assumptions. You are full of shit.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen Sorry but it you that again display your ignorance. Thinking something is not science. Science and the scientific method is what has dispelled most of the superstitious stone age myths your forebears followed. Science will never be able to shine a light on everything and so your descendants can continue to follow the bronze age book if they choose.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 Bullshit. What science believes today is gone with the historical winds tomorrow. That is very clearly what all of the known historical evidence demonstrates. Some secular non-creationist biologists have publicly stated on PBS that Darwinism is on it's way out the historical door, along with the sun revolving the earth, sponaneous generation of disease and other shallow notions once overwhelmingly believed by the vast majority of scientists. Your position is clearly debunked.
richardaberdeen 8 months ago
@richardaberdeen "Some secular non-creationist biologists have publicly stated on PBS"
Names, plz.
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience When I watch videos, I don't write down names. A recent PBS documentary on the latest evolutionary findings, interviewed many different biologists, including Dawkins. A molecular biologist in that film said life is so overwhelmingly irreducibly complex at micro and quantum root levels, that it is irrational to pretend science can every have a legitimate theory of how life arises or functions. Another one stated evolution will likely be gone as a theory within 50 years.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen I sincerely doubt that they were molecular biologists. You don't know the name of the program?
evolutionisscience 7 months ago
@evolutionisscience It doesn't matter what you doubt. This was a secular video on the latest evolutionary evidence. The video did not mention God or creation and every biologist interviewed was a secular biologist. There is significant disagreement among biologists today over various aspects of evolutionary theory; there really is no such thing as a "theory of evolution" in terms of a generally agreed upon theory. Rather, there are hundreds if not thousands of often conflicting opinions.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen You are in denial. Evolution is a completely accepted theory just as gravity is.
No we don't yet know how life evolved.
But we don't yet know how gravity works. There are many competing ideas on that. So, do we throw out gravity and go back to the beardy man putting stars in the heavens? Of course not. We work to expand our knowledge and build on the solid theories we already have.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 That's a lie. The term "evolution" by scientific definition, is a mythical norm consensus of what scientists on a global level believe, which changes over time as new evidence arises. Thus, the definition itself has evolved significantly over time. It used to be called the "synthetic theory of evolution", as it represents a global synthesis of various ideas. There is no such thing as an agreed to theory of evolution, like theories of gravity, light or any other theory of science.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@Huttate1 I might add, as you seem to be completely clueless about what actual scientists believe. There is a global body of ongoing research under a general heading "evolutionary theory". It contains many thousands of volumes of often conflicting ideas, theories and conclusions. The general public continues to naively believe like you, that evolution is some kind of simple globaly accepted theory, like E=MC2, when in fact the term doesn't mean that at all to any learned scholar.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen Where do you get this crap? That was rhetorical. I know exactly where you get that crap. It is the normal horsepiss spouted by creationists who lie and deliberately distort the facts.
Evolution is accepted as a scientific theory. You may not like it. The creationist websites to which you subscribe may not like it. Your bible may fall apart in light of it. But before you defend your bible too much you should read the ninth commandment.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 "Evolution" to a scientist, is the global opinion sythensis of the moment, which constantly changes. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you try writing to Dakwins and ask him. I am certain he is well aware that what you call "evolution" is in reality, a scientific consensus "norm" of the moment. What this means, as you apparently fail to grasp what I am talking about, is combined current global opinion represents what is called "evolutionary science".
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen Don't make up your own definitions and then pass them off as fact - that is lying.
Evolution to scientists is change over time due to natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. All mechanisms are well understood and well documented.
There is a complete consensus and no dispute. Only creationists lie that there is by deliberately misrepresenting the facts and deliberately distorting the process of scientific discussion.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 "Evolution" to a legitimate scientist, is defined as the current scientific global consensus norm. This is different than dictionary defintions and in most textbooks. It has been defined in this manner for a long time and, it will continue to be defined as such, regardless of how often you try to deny it. Terms to scientits are often defined differently than to the general public; for example, "universe" to a scientist, means as far as can be detected, not the entire universe.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen Only in your mind and those of your creationist friends. You are making it up as you go along.
The scientific term is Visible Universe. Try to at least get the basics right.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 The term is "universe", which means as far as can be detected in any direction, both inward and outward. As such, the "universe" by scientific definition, has grown significantly over time, while the actual universe has remained essentially the same size (it has expanded some, but only slightly compared to relative size and length of human science history). The "visible universe" references as far as can be optically detected. There is much that can detected that is not "visible".
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@Huttate1 As for example, some scientists agree with Dawkins, that life began in the ocean, others believe it began in dirt, in or near fresh water, in caves, underground and more and more are now ascribing to a once scorned idea that life or some uknown thing known as "pre-life" was carried in on space rocks. As such, life may well have sprung up from all over the earth, which is what the Bible says is true. You are absolutely clueless as to what actual scientists strongly disagree concerning
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen How life started has nothing to do with evolution. Try to learn the topic from reliable sources. Ken Hovind is not your friend.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 A theory that begins in the middle of an observed reality has no hope of being accurate. This is why liars like Dawkins go to great lengths and waste countless often taxpayer supported hours and forests of trees desperately trying to somehow prove that life can arise all by itself. Every major scientist in history including Darwin has addressed origins and as such, your statement has no historical or scientific validity.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen Oh it does. You see you are confusing Darwin's origin of species with the origin of life. The two things are vastly different and you must get your creationist head around that before you can start to debate the science.