Was it evolutionary scientists that created modern science? NOT
Hello,evolution has not been proven as fact.It is still being taught as a unproven theory! Every one knows this. How many times has it imploded on itself when they did try to prove it in the labs through testing?You put up one part of evolution that hasn't been disproven. Make sure you Google the counter argument. Do you realize the evidence you'd need to prove we came from a single self replicating organism?
"God of the gaps" argument. What a load of shit! Science doesn't enhance the human condition in any moral way? Christianity would make the world perfect? What about Buddhism or Jaininsm? Science classes should teach us about things that can be observed. The origin of life has no bearing on evolutionary theory.
" Science doesn't enhance the human condition in any moral way? "
That's not true. Think about all the advancements science has brought us and how it is being positively used. No other faiths have more truth in them than Christianity and science can prove this. Yes, science classes should teach us about things that can be observed, like the millions of transitional species that are severely lacking in the theory of evolution. The origin of life influenced Darwin's theory.
Evolutionaunts do force their belief system on everyone else because they are taking legal action in the courts.Evolution is a theory, an unproven one at that because it fails the scientific method. Creationist are not asking that the bible be taught in biology classes, just to have an alternative that an antiquated theory. I think many people are confused in the differences of each theory. Historically & factually, Christianity is any thing but stagnant. It created modern science!
@icimblind ooooo...yeah i think you'r right...didn't daniel invent the lightbulb...moses had some newtonian tendancies ....
honestly- i cannot see any evidence that any of the authors of the bible used scientific methods to prove/disprove any of the questions concerning their religion...
the "necessary" action, in those days, was dictated by the head of the clan, you might say...and his notions came in dreams/visions and from talking animals or plants.(very scientific hey).
Hey, no problem, you've just revealed your ignorance. It happens all the time. Please research who started colleges, universities, & the disciplines of modern science. Who created the scientific method? Yup. & if you were able to read the posts instead of acting like an evolved jackass you'd know that there were many scientific facts revealed in the bible thousands of yrs before scientists discovered them. Yes sir, evolutionaunts believe they evolved from a rock, & they R right!
@ruandanj Biblical Creationism was taught in our public schools up and until the 1960's. Therefore, it was taught when the framers of the constitution were alive and well who did not see any issue with teaching creationism in the public school. I am not forcing any particular view but when atheists deny the opportunity to teach a competing view they are guilty of the very thing you accuse creationists.
There is no basis to claim that because Christians have contributed to scientific advances over the centuries, Christians own the Scientific Method, and thus Creation Science is more valid than godless evidence-based science! That's like making a stone chisel for Bernini and then laying claim to every sculpture he used it on. Creation science has as much right to be taught in science class as every other religion on the planet. That would make for even dumber science students.
Your logic fails! Never said science isn't true, but not all things claimed to be "science" are true. Of course evolution is not science. It is an antiquated theory that has never been proven, and therefore it is Not fact. Every one knows this. I have no problem allowing it to be taught in an English class as fictional reading,or a history class on how it shaped the minds of atheistic dictators in justifying the slaughter of millions.
And you do realize modern science was developed by Christian men, not the fairy tale of evolution.
Father of modern chemistry, Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier. Nicolaus Copernicus credited with the development of modern Astronomy. Father of Modern Oceanography, Matthew Fontaine Maury, all Christians! And there are many more Christians who are responsible for the development of modern science.
Btw, learn how to spell. Creationism, chemistry, vehemently, disprove, and superstitious!
"Monkeys go in, proto-humans come out. No mis-communication."
LoL, you're an evolutionaunt
What is your empirical evidence for this? Remember to read all the posts before you post. This was already answered. 40 yrs ago comparative anatomy was proven false, as was anbiogenesis (by evolutionists), as were many "human" transitional fossils. Don't forget to look at the 240 million different nucleotides we don't share with primates, different blood and genes. Try again!
the story of genesis is mostly right as far as the order of things in the universe went, science is just human genius filling in the gaps. One cant say a day for an immortal being is 24 hours it could be billions of years for all we know.
@brianz1214 The Gospels clearly state that the world was 6000 years old & Islam exactly states that a day for angels is 55,000 Years for humans. So going by these estimates, You aren't supposed to go around guessing what a day could have been since the Answer already lies the Scriptures themselves or you would be committing Sin transgressing God's word.
Surely, you can't believe in either 6000 Years or few 100,000 years...
Religion has only caused stupidity not wisdom to humans.
The bible is a collection of books, and not every thing is to be interpreted literally. Symbolically what does it mean? Or what does it mean at the time it was written? For example, if we say it is raining cats and dogs outside do you think it is literally raining cats and dogs? Now go forward 2,000 years and someone reads a passage from many yrs ago, are they to interpret it literally? It is generally understood that 6K in the O.T. means very old, that's it.
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7,
The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted: For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777. Kepler claimed 1,005. Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed:
"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky"
The Bible stated the existence of valleys and springs in the seas: Only until the past few hundred years did people have the technology to discover that there are deep valleys and fresh water springs in the oceans.
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord. . . " (2 Samuel 22:16, NIV).
ecc. 1:6, "the wind goes toward the south and turns around to the north, the wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit."
Morons.... Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life started from inorganic matter.
Evolution is the theory that explains how life grew to be complex.
Science class should only teach science. Period.
Science class should never teach something from a book written by goat herders. A book that spells out how the world is flat no less. That's a recipe for fail.
Hey Moron, show me one science text that doesn't teach Miller's primordial soup, lifeless mud? And then begins with the "theory" of evolution??? They all teach it! The only reason you stooges are trying to separate the two is because abiogenesis has been disproven in a lab. My God man, evolution hasn't proven itself either, so get a grip! It is NOT science and it should never have been taught as such. Modern Science was created by Christians, psydo-science Evolution by atheists!!
Oh look, You have a sock account, how nice and convenient! Coward can't put up a real account! Too embarrassed of evolution and to reveal who you are, no doubt!
If you know how to read then you wouldn't have replied with such a correct answer. You are right, I can't fail. Abiogenesis has been disproven by evolutionist a long time ago. Evolution hasn't explained the origin of anything. The bible is one of the first books to explain the the earth was Round and suspended on nothing. Idiot never read the bible of course. Evolution is an assumption fairy tale, and it fails the scientific method. You have failed, try again!
"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.
His book on oceanography is still used by Universities today!
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!
Well actually Abiogenesis was part of evolution for yrs, but when it wasn't proven as fact they dropped it as being part of evolution. But what is so amazing is the morons still put it in the biology text and teach it as fact. Show me one biology book that doesn't teach the lifeless mud turning into life? You are right, evolution is an unproven theory and shouldn't be taught in science. Bible always taught the earth was round, but you don't read. Science is a Christian invention!
Science, as in the scientific method of observation and conclusion, is known from the time of the egyptians who used it to predict the floods of the nile based on the position of the stars. It is actuualy even older then that, but this should be enough.
Or, should we perhaps mention Aristotle? 384-322 BC - the guy who ran in the streets yelling "Eureka!" Try reading some of his works, you might find it enlightening.
There were some parallels but they didn't create it. Source: From How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Dr. Thomas Woods, page 94 and following:
"Roger Bacon, a Franciscan who taught at Oxford, was admired for his work in mathematics and optics, and is considered to be a forerunner of modern scientific method."
Perhaps you were unaware, that the various disciplines of modern science were developed Christians.Try a little Wikipedia, you might find it enlightening!
You realize that Ancient Greek Philosophers, Christians, Muslims, and who knows how many other people all played a part in the development of the Scientific Method, right? And besides, it wasn't a concept that arose out of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.
The scientific method came about as a verifiable way of coming to understand the world around us. Religion is to the Scientific Method as Cancer is to a living organism. It is at best, benign, and at worst, completely malignant.
You do realize that Modern Science came from Christian men who without their contributions there would be no disciplines. This is an undeniable fact! Get over it.
"The scientific method came about as a verifiable way of coming to understand the world around us". And the Christians get full credit for this too, sorry. You can't be that historically challenged.
Atheists contribution to creating modern science is equivalent to frogs leaping over elephants, it never happened!
@icimblind You do realize that astronomy came from astrology and chemestry came from alchemy, these fore-runner were disprooved as superstisious claptrap, just as creationsim is. The foundations of biology came from creationism; then creationism was found to be as false as astrology and alchemy.
There are still people who belive and will vehemotly argue for the valididty of astrology alchemy and creationism.
we r so limited in our knowledge tht we cant say nething for sure. i would like to have a scientific reason for everything but i get stuck in one question: when did the universe begin? from what energy source did it begin? how did that energy come to exist in the first place? what was before it? when did time begin...did it have a starting point or is it timeless? how can science prove something which is timeless?
How do you get lifeless mud to evolve RNA and Lipids? You can't divorce yourself from abiogenesis when it is now proven false? the 2 are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible.
The christian scientists created modern science, fact! Also, look up all those evolutionary frauds that your lot created.
Carbon dating on Mount St. Helens Lava Dome 20 yrs after it erupted it had a reading of 350
K-to-2.8 million yrs old. ha! How do you explain petrified vertical trees in the different geological columns if the columns are of different ages? The index fossils become a joke at this point, but that's the circular reasoning of an evolutionists.LoL
@icimblind carbon dating places the earth at 4.6 billion years old, its elementary biology. Watson and Crick were the founders of the discovery of DNA structure and both were atheists. Their discoveries were based on principles of evolution.
I don't understand why creationists don't realize this, but accepting evolution =/= disbelief in a deity. I know several chrisitan/jewish biologist colleagues, and they fully accept evolution. This is as pointless as the geocentric 1500's beliefs.
Rosalind Franklin also played a large role in discovery the structures of DNA, and she was Jewish. Hmmm funny how that is always missed by the atheists. And if you look up the Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present you will find that most of them, over 90% believed in God. CARBON 14 AND POTSSIUM-ARGON DATING has its problems, on Mt. St. Helens dome was 350,000 to 2.8 million yrs old. Assumption science is pointless & I am not a YEC!
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just 3 widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth @ 4.6 billion yrs.Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods. He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques.He shows that the few good dates left after the bad dates R filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was “dated” by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was “dated” by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!
@icimblind You're wrong, evolution can act on any self replicating system, it does not need to be considered "alive" for natural selection, and therefore evolution, to take place. A simple protein that formed spontaneously in early earth conditions could (very crudely) "read" a string of aromatic compounds and synthesize a copy of itself. Any slight improvements in this system would lead to more of the products, fundamental evolution.
Sorry, you are wrong and evolution is only occurring in your head.RNA & Lipids can NOT come from lifeless mud.They are only found in living organisms. The smallest known living organism, mycoplasma genitalium with 468 genes could only be reduced to 397 genes on paper by evolutionists.In trying to prove that evolution is a real, they managed to prove that it is not. Abiogenesis has also been false in a laboratory by evolutionists. All the thumbs up batrider proves ppl are dumb!
@icimblind Show me one scientist that claims a modern bacteria arose from "lifeless mud." All organisms alive today have been evolving for billions of years. Of course it is ridiculous to expect a modern organism to arise from organic matter, that's not what any of us is claiming. Like I explained before, a much simpler "pre-organism" would still be subject to natural selection.
Quite ironic you claim others are dumb when you can't even grasp the simplest concepts of evolution and abiogenesis.
My God man, why don't you please educate yourself before bloviating your ignorance! What the hell is a pre-organism?? You are correct in saying, "Show me one scientist that claims a modern bacteria arose from 'lifeless mud'". Only evolutionists believe in this concept, not scientists. You can't separate yourself from abiogenesis, just like you can't separate yourself from Chemical evolution and Cosmic Evolution. If you believe in 1 fairy tale you have to believe it all of it!
Evolutionists make the odd claim that the first strand of DNA arose by natural selection. And some times they claim that the first cell arose by natural selection. This is Not science! There's absolutely no empirical proof this ever happened! Evolutionauts take trips in their minds and expect the rest of us to blindly follow them. Dawkins got rich over his empirical fraud. Why would you follow a fool like that is beyond me. Think for yourselves. Look for the truth.
Id rather believe in god,die and live with him for the rest of my afterlife in heaven than not believe and end up in hell after death bc he is real. Even if you dont want to believe,follow the book and i garantee you will live a happy,fearless,stress free life.
@TheTrojanabuser So, you'd rather believe in God simply because you might go to hell if you don't? You have hundreds of variations of "hell" you're going to then.
@icimblind What makes you think "Creation science" can just skip that out and be taught in science class because a few nutjobs believe it's true? Submit it to scientific and methodological testing and analysis, hold it up to the same torch that Evolution has been over the past 150 odd years. See if it stands up to attempts at falsification that evolutionary theory has.
You won't do that, will you? You only want it taught in science class to brainwash people into your religion.
Umm, bc evolution fails the scientific method big time. & just bc a few egg heads say we are related to a fish 350 million yrs ago, doesn't make it so. The fact is, evolution is over rated, Dr Seuss, theory. Modern science was created by Christians, nut job.. Falsification-->All those missing links of evolution proven false by real scientist, starting w/ the Piltdown man... lol! Btw, evolution is older than 150yrs. Dawin is not its creator. The universe had a beginning, enuff said!
And what makes you think evolution has passed the scrutiny of the scientific method? It hasn't ! Peer review has given us many evolutionary frauds throughout time! Talk about falsification. That's a fact, also why is this theory still being taught as an unproven theory for the last 150yrs?
Evolution implodes on itself every time it tries to prove itself. What empirical evidence do you have that we all come from a single celled self replicating organism? LOL !
@Vehementi Its amazing just how stupid the kids get every year. Such arrogance in stupidity. Evolution was disproven scientifically long ago.Its still around because gays have fought hard to keep anything pseudo-scientific outside of religion so they can justify their perversions. Homosexuality was called a mental disease until gays threatened the lives of the heads of Medical Association to take it out of the book of psychotic disorders. Look it up. There's no science involved in evolution.
@icimblind Creation "science"?That's not science. Anything that's not willing to change it's position in face of evidence , isn't called science.It's called religion , and that's what you should be calling it as well.And if you have any evidence , at all , against the theory of evolution , please proceed.
What flaming evidence do you have for evolution? You people (atheists) are all the same, mindless drones. Don't say the fossil records, dna, missing link, I want your empirical proof. All of these have been proven FALSE. Any one with any intelligence knows there's none and the facts prove this. So make your case or leave the party. Please present something that is going to turn the science world upside down. I know you got nothing!
@icimblind ...All of these have been proven false? What has been proven false , and for what reason?There's really nothing for me to explain , it should be obvious by now.Why do whales have hands? What? They used it to eat politely in the sea? Why do you have a tail which in your embryonic state , is excluded , because it's not necessary anymore?Why are mitochondria and chloroplasts very very similar to generic type bacteria?Why do some genes are stable between the species , while others aren't?
@Hiibashiri Did you just ask why we have tails? haha "Why do you have a tail which in your embryonic state , is excluded , because it's not necessary anymore?" That is my buttbone/tailbone (coccyx) it has a lot more usefulness than you think it does it is the anchor for the muscles of rectum control, childbirth, abdominal organ support, and the lower back. We also need it to sit down. So if none of those things are considered "necessary" anymore then go ahead have surgery to get yours removed.
You've just revealed your ignorance. 1st of all, who do you think developed the major branches of modern day science? That's right, Christians. So science is nothing without Christianity. Galileo was a Christian. The Scientific Method was developed by, that's right, a Christian. Heck, even Darwin believed in God. If you want circular reasoning, continue on with your fairy tale of evolution. The empirical fraud w/ no "links" to reality! lol
I made no claims regarding the faith of the scientists you've already stated are wrong. You have totally avoided my point in favor of an incoherent strawman attack on early scientists. What on Earth does that have to do with anything? Also learn your history, these men were mostly persecuted and hampered by the church, and where does a belief in God automatically make you a creationist?
You claim evolution is circular reasoning but offer zero support for your statement. Grow up.
"Zero support for my argument", are you for real? Are you too lazy to read the posts I've made on this video? To remain willfully ignorant doesn't exempt you from the truth. & learn your history, there was very little persecution of scientists, exaggerated like your claim evolution is a science. Please supply your empirical evidence? Science owes everything to Christians. Abiogenesis, Minimum Gene Set Theory, Missing Link, All Proven False By Science! It is you who needs to Grow Up!
Yes Galileo accepted a legal contract to teach it as theory and not fact.He was put under house arrest in a beautiful villa with lots of land. This is hardly a dungeon that most atheists like yourself like to claim. He never lost his faith over it. The period of cultural and economic deterioration and disruption that occurred in Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire was known as the dark ages. Please go educate yourself. And Yes, I have several degrees, but you don't!
@icimblind yes you're right.. the decline of the roman empire (paganism) led to the rise of christianity and the dark ages! while chrsitianity unquestionably ruled Europe for hundreds of years, this period was called the Dark Ages... as soon as reason and science were allowed to have a voice, this was called the Renassiance followed by the age of enlightenment. When the United States was formed it was formed on the basis of preventing the church from dictating peoples lives- allowing freedom
Christianity caused the world to come out of the Dark Ages by preserving literature & providing the philosophical framework for modern science which had been stillborn in other cultures. Christianity founded the major universities of the world like Oxford, Cambridge, Geneva, Harvard and Yale, keeping peasents from becoming illiterate. Separation of Church & state was to keep the state out of the Church & not the other way around.You are factually challenged, but I set you straight!
I just saw one of your ignorant old posts. The appendage you refer to is not vestigail tail. It is caused by the disease Spina Biffeda. During embryonic development, the human spine "zips" together from top to botton. If this zipping goes wrong, Spina Biffeda is rthe result, and the zipping goes too far, creating this skin covering fat. It has no bones nor spinal chord, and is not vestigial of tails. It is produced by a disease. The mud skipper is not transitional proof.
Wow I must say, you have an impressive array of atheists videos, NOT! You small pathetic people are so boring. Not willing to look outside of your little box. What has your lot contributed to society besides war and mass genocide? Do you really think any of your atheists leader gives a rip about you? They are all self absorbed. The blind leading the blind.
Once again for slow individuals, the professed faith of early scientists, who like it or not were persecuted by the church in cases their findings didn't match dogma, has. Nothing. To. Do. With. The. Argument. You call an idea based on and backed by empirical logic a fairy tale while offering no support for your point but emphatics. You're a coward for not allowing the other things I wrote to be posted, and are a fool to boot. This is the last time I will grace you with a response.
I posted every reply you made, so stop playing victim, Mr Pathetic! & the mere fact that you can't produce 1 piece of empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution proves it. By refuting through science that the following are false: missing links, abiogenesis, minimum gene set concept, evolution has secured itself to be a fairy tale bc it fails the scientific method All of this supports intelligent design.
UR empircal empty strawman has disappeared in the flames of truth! Bam!
I couldn't help notice you favored a Bearforce1 video on your channel.I didn't know what it was until I clicked on it and got the education of my life.I now know why you are against anything to do with God. That video was just disgusting.They have proven homosexuality is not genetic,there is No gene passed on to produce said condition.Yet another example of why evolution is false. Come on man, at some point you're going to have to face the truth & take responsibility for ur actions!
I'm not up for the government intruding on public churches and making their delegates explain the theory of evolution to their particular congregation. A private church on the other hand could preach whatever they wanted to. Similarly, because the curriculum in public schools is a government-selected monopoly, there should be as little points of subjectivity as possible. As Dawkins said, we don't know how the universe began, so that is exactly what should be taught; no non-scientific guesswork.
There are no public churches. They are all privately owned in North America, but you are right, public schools are funded by private citizens who pay public taxes. Public schools do force private churches and its people to learn something they have no choice in. It is time for private citizens to demand their voices be heard on what they want their children to learn. Evolution is a fairytale with no beginning, no facts, no proof. It was based on scientific observation, it's fiction!
@icimblind Would you then support creation science, as it's called, being excluded from public school curriculum, having them staying away from the subject all together, while private schools can teach whatever version they'd like to? Also, if you don't deny the observation itself, then what name do you propose we assign to whatever it is that is taking place when species change over time?
It is already being excluded from public schools that are being supported by tax payers money. Private or public, they are both being paid by its citizens. The citizens should be able to choose.
I don't deny the observation is fiction. There is nothing observable or repeatable in the fossil record. Heck they haven't even found the "missing link" yet.
@icimblind Private schools are paid for by citizens voluntarily. You can choose to go to whichever private school teaches the curriculum you'd like. But everyone's forced to fund public schools, which is why people want them to remain impartial.
While we don't know the order that things evolved in specifically to get to where we are today, I truly don't understand how one can dismiss the function of evolution itself. Not the fossil record, but the idea that species adapt to their environment.
@icimblind You should really study evolution and under what it is before arguing against it. Evolution doesn't seek to explain the origins of life only it's variety, If you don't know that then you know nothing.
Intelligent design is not science. This is easily understood with a basic understanding of the scientific method.
watch?v=C-ne7UFSTYo
By the way claiming evolution is something it isn't is bearing false witness, You're breaking the 9th commandment.
Oh yeah, well then why do evolutionist teach abiogenesis then? It's pure fiction and fails the scientific method. Give me the origins of anything, of a human eye, nail, internal organ? Sorry evolution fails again. It fails the scientific method, which by the way was created by a Christian scientist. Why don't you learn something about evolution before you bloviate on what you don't know. Assumption science!
In the past,evolutionists claimed that there were approximately 180 vestigial organs in humans, including the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal gland and the thymus. Now we know that:
The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content.
The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the pharynx.
The same thing for the pineal gland. You Fail! Science is making you look foolish!
Evolution does make faith based assumptions and is therefore a religion! Abiogenesis is a prime example, as is your claw statement on the human finger nail. (rolls eyes) Is any of this observable and repeatable? NO! Evolution is a religion based on assumptions and lies. There is no truth in it. Science is proving this every day, and it keeps piling on the evidence more and more.
should the development period of science, taken as a whole, be compared to the development of religion, taken as a whole?
By your logic, that we haven't always known what we know now; I lump your claims regarding creation in with the long-time pervasive religious dogma that the universe orbited the Earth.
Oblique argument and circular logic are only good for convincing yourself friend. You ask for hard proof, and receive an incomplete work. I ask you for hard evidence, so?
@bobmarleyisgod1 Juan Diego's tilma is made out of cactus. When they tried to recreate these images using the same material to debunk the story, 15 years later they all rotted. They were placed next to the original that has lasted over 475 yrs. This proves it is not man made, but so do many other aspects of the image. Religion was started by God, and Jesus only started one church, the RCC. Every thing I listed proves God is real & science has no answers for. There is only FREEDOM IN GOD!
The Incorruptible bodies of the saints and the image of Our Lady at Guadeloupe are not sacraments, Rolls eyes. And they're hundreds of years old! Science has no answer for them, but they do witness to the One True God. Bc of the laws of nature it is impossible for a piece of unleavened bread to be incorruptible from mildew, bacteria, etc. for hundreds of years, but this is Not the case for a Eucharist.
YOU'VE PROVEN YOU ARE A COMPLETE IGNORANT FOOL! Another Evo Fail!
The incorruptible bodies of saints, incorruptible Eucharists that are hundreds of yrs old, the image of our Lady of Guadeloupe. Science has no explanations for any of these, and there are many more.
Evolution has never proven itself and is pure speculation. When one species is changing into another, that's origins and circular reasoning, a created myth! Comparative anatomy has been proven wrong. Adding information to the genome has never created anything positive except disease or genetic defects. Modern science was created and shape in a large part to Christians. Every thing is science points to intelligent design. You lack intelligence by choice! You fail big time!!
I don't know how O'Reilly could even suggest that creationism be "presented" as an option. It was only two years ago that I took biology and nothing about the start of life was ever mentioned. If teachers were attempting to explain via science how the universe and life began, then it would be appropriate for creationism to also be "presented." However, Darwinian evolution was only ever taught as the proven science of how organisms change over time. Yay, gene mutations and natural selection!
.........."nothing about the start of life was ever mentioned".
They stopped the lifeless mud talk now they are calling it abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. These are faith based & Unscientific. And finally, there has been nothing observed positive from gene mutation, only genetic defects.
You took biology when you were 25? OK. Your profile says your 27.
@icimblind Actually there's been tons of experiments observed to show abiogenesis as FACT. Creationists won't accept this because they're too busy believing fairy tales and for the most part are some of the dumbest people in the world.
I love posting comments like yours. You just prove how Ignorant evos really are. Having a plausible environment and not an actual environment to observe is Not science. I guess when you believe you're related to a fish 350 million years ago you'd believe anything. Evolution is the biggest fairy tale ever created, and a perfect marriage for the simple minded. You insisted on making yourself look foolish. I had nothing to do with it...
@batrider No, they were attempted, but have so far failed. If you are going to argue for our (evolution) get all of your facts. Do you really believe that Richard Dawkins would not know about a successful abiogenesis experiment. They have failed, but it has opened up new possibilities.
@batrider Do we all have to be uniform? Is everyone who thinks different that you dumb? Are you the standard for dumb? It is simply pathetic that what a person believes about something that happened years before our time, and cannot be proven one way or annother, determines how we treat them. Even if abiogenesis is proven as fact, which it is not, it could still be said that that is HOW God did it. An it harm none, people should be free to believe as they will
@batrider Believe me I'm on your side here... but although the evidence strongly suggests abiogenesis DID happen, the mechanism is not actually known (ie. not a "fact"). Fortunately, there have been many experiments showing ways it *could have* taken place, all of them really interesting. However, barring the invention of time travel to observe it firsthand in the Hadean eon, abiogenesis and its mechanism(s) will always be theory (in the proper scientific sense) rather than "fact".
Who wants to teach religion? Creationist are concerned with science. They follow what is observable and repeatable unlike that fairy tale, faith based, pseudo-science, known as evolution. What has been observed? A common ancestor with a fish 350 million yrs ago? lol Sorry, this is origins talk, and the fossil records do Not prove this. Comparative anatomy is not science! No missing link, boo-hoo. Evolutionist statements are religious, not science. The Dawkins Delusion!
Chimps are claimed to be our nearest relative, yet the locations of DNA swapping between chromosomes, known as recombination hotspots, are almost entirely different. This proves apes and humans have a genetic difference so great that our DNA cannot be related.
Explosions create chaos. The balance of the forces is so perfect that if any one were different by one billionth of one billionth, the universe as we know it would not exist, and life would be impossible. That's order, design, and purpose. The "big bang" is a big dud. It's not science. it's a fairytale for adults!
Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Grahan Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia has been nominated for the Nobel prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. Dr. Schaefer states in regard to the resistance to the idea of a beginning of the universe and subsequently a belief that God is the author and origin of that beginning,
If there were no First Cause, then time and distance would be infinite. This causes unsovable contradiction. For example, if the universe were infinitely existing, any delineation of spaces, such as 0, 1, 2, 3.. would be eaqual to all others, such as 10, 20, 30, 40.... This is impossible, since one is 1/10 of the other yet both would be infinate, and therefore equal. Therefore the universe is finite and had a First Cause.
First of all why can't I say mub skipper, it is a perfectly good example.
second we've got E. coli.
E. coli cannot grow on citrate. But in 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.
Mudskippers are unchanged in the fossil reocrd of life. They are living fossils. If evolution were true, living fossils could not exist since evolutionists believe, falsely, that random mutations are the base mechanism for the morphological change which causes evolution
You said he created them. Yes, that's right, he conducted an example of human intelligent engineering to cause the bacteria to change biochemically. That's not evidence of evolution, it's evidence of intelligent design. Secondly, biochemical changes to life forms do not support evolutionism because they have no power to change the species' morphology, and therefore cannot cause an animal to change morphologically one bit towards becoming a new kind of life.
Amen! and this is the reason the vatican has its own scientists, only we should create an office to refute people like mr. dawkins personally, but I have to say O'reilly did pretty well.
No I did not say God came from nothing, I said as below that God does not need to be created because he is an infinate being that is eternal, however "creatures" do have to come from something!
big bang, well my point is this without an eternal being "GOD" how did it all get here, and that is a question you atheist have to account for and answer.
Yes some humans are not literate granted, but yet they can become literate monkeys cant.
"without an eternal being "GOD" how did it all get here"
- well since nobody has EVER observed ANYTHING created out of nothing, or magic, or "GOD", and nobody has EVER observed ANYTHING reduced to nothing by magic or "GOD", yet we know of a multitude of ways that matter and energy can be transformed between various states. That is why the prevailing scientific consensus is that the universe always existed in one form or another, changing as physics allows.
"some humans are not literate granted, but yet they can become literate monkeys cant"
- Actually people with certain severe forms of dyslexia (known as "Alexia") cannot learn to read or write at all. The words become a blurry mess when they try.
Chimpanzees at the CHCI at Central Washington University have been taught sign language and have used it to communicate with their trainers and each other.
Also the Orangutan Language Project (OLP) at the National Zoo is teaching orangutans to type.
It doesn't matter if God is the creator not the created. By your standards of "everything must be created", God must have been made by something else too. You can't just make up rules that only apply to the things that you want it to. Rules for everything apply to EVERYTHING. You're making what's called a "special pleading argument".
Also, a car or computer is no evidence that an anthropomorphic being must have created everything.
Well the same goes to you as an atheist, without showing or proving how it all got started I find it highly unlikely that it all just "happened" for no reason at all. hence GOD and theism.
second part, again has any animal monkey, fish, etc.. ever produced a useful peice of engineering beyond a tool for survival which is just instinct based? No.
can you have rational conversation with a monkey? see the seperation here.
Every Monkey has certain features that define it as a monkey. There is no Ape that lacks those features. As such all Apes are monkeys which is to be expected if Apes evolved from monkeys.
But all Apes share features that no Monkey has which is why Apes are monkeys but monkeys are not apes.
By the same understanding all Humans retain the same characteristics that define Apes. Humans are Apes and Humans are Monkeys.
So really, everything created by Man, was created by a Monkey.
Wow you have alot of gaps to fill to prove what you are saying is true.
one being evidence of such claims beyond physical similarities.
two you have to produce the also elusive missing link to make the connection between us and them.
third like I asked the last person, can you show me a monkey that has the ability to write, build and engineer something beyond a sharp rock spear, or that can speak/read/learn a language, etc...
fourth show me proof that they are evolving into us.
Physical similarities is evidence of such claims, and is evidence enough for Darwin to have published a book describing a Theory that after 150 years has yet to be defeated. But you want more evidence? Sure, check out the human genome and compare it to apes. Check out the fossil record. Theres enough evidence in any one of those areas that people can spend lifetimes studying them to the exclusion of others.
The fossil record contains not only one missing link, but 57 and the number grows!
As I said, every Human is an Ape, and every Ape is a Monkey. I can produce a monkey that has the ability to write simply by pointing you to a mirror. Humans are monkeys, and those monkeys have produced all the modern wonders of today.
and your final point is a straw man. Monkeys and Apes are not evolving into us and no one claims they are. They are following their own evolution through natural selection, which is why they didn't evolve along our path.
@chaossource Humans are not apes. Of the over 200,000 protiens in the human body, 80% of them are not present in apes, proving that our biochemistry is so radically different that ancestry between man and ape is perposterous. We should have 80% or more protiens identical, not different, if we are so closely related. There is no way that we can be related if the vast majority of our protiens are different and all of the other cell factors which interact with and depend upon them are different.
@NephilimFree And what makes you think there are "200,000 protiens(sic)" to be found in the human body to begin with? Your pulling statistics out of your ass (which isn't surprising) and your presenting yourself with false authority. Do you even know what a protein is? Are you actually counting the specific number of proteins, or are you trying to approximate the various types of proteins? And where did you even get your information? Do you even know what it means to be an Ape?
I don't have to prove how it all started. Because you're making the claim that God created the universe, you MUST put forth evidence that He did. It's called the burden of proof. Before you put forth the evidence and it is NOT refuted, then I (or any other defendant) may challenge your claim. But until then, we have nothing to challenge.
You make it sound like if the world wasn't created by the Big Bang, that it HAS to be God. This is definitely not true.
@PillsC2E The evidence that God created it all is overwhelming times overwhelming times overwhelming. The perfect balance of the atomic forces alone is proof that it did not come from chaor or random process. Furthermore, before time, space, energy and matter there could be nothing material, so your idea as a materialist evolutionist that it all came to be by material cause is discredited. If you accept reality, you cannot believe in evolutionism without being merely a denialist.
Here's another comment because I was reaching the character limit in my other response:
How does the fact that other animals have not created tools prove that God exists? Also, I may be mistaken but I believe I've heard of some monkeys making tools to aid them.
@PillsC2E Other animals can make and use tools, such as birds. But this does not help the discredited evolution idea at all. It only demonstrates the intelligence of God's creations.
The scientific community is slowly becoming polarized over the issue, partly because of the unscientific nature of the claims of evolutionists, whereby they put forth assumptions as if they were facts of science, even when science has already discredited it.
"Within the scientific community there are virtually no arguments when it comes to"
False. There is a great and heated debate over evolution and creation because of what modern science has revealed. This debate has been going on since before Darwin, and in since the discovery of DNA it has become heated.
The only real debate is between people who follow the evidence without coming to a conclusion and those who have already decided God did it and are trying to make holes where there are none. According to a survey sent to 158 research universities, in the Biology department 97.3% responded "Yes" to understanding and accepting biological Evolution. So disregarding creationists and looking at the people who have no agenda, where is the heat?
You're telling me Dawkins hasn't come to a conclusions?? He's saying man has a common ancestor with a primate. There is no proof of this. That has all been refuted. Artists renditions don't count. The DNA for humans is distinctly different. I wonder did you look at ANY of the videos I sent you?? Is all your information from evolution sites?
I'm sorry but there is evidence for it you are just happy repeating what other creationists say to massage your own beliefs. In fact I was going to name the categories of evidence that we have but I've just realised I've already done that. This is such a waste of my time, you amaze me because one of the primary reasons I dropped my religious beliefs was because I realised how much of a conflict there was between what I was asked to take on faith and what actual evidence was pointing to...
... Even when I was religious I was able to think impartially, and without meaning to be big headed it is quite clear that many of the people on YouTube. including yourself, are unable to. I personally don't care if Evolution is true or false, honestly I really don't. If it's not true it still doesn't make God a more plausible hypothesis, and if ever there was evidence for a God then I would embrace it. But the truth is I accept Evolution BECAUSE there is good reason to, BECAUSE it is...
I don't think you are impartial at all, you haven't responded to any of the information in the videos I sent you. I've taken biology, anatomy and physiology I &II, kinesiology, chemistry, exercise physiology, and on and on. I haven't taken any creationists courses. I think it is you who is trying to make your faith based science fit into science. Creationists use science to explain their findings. They have a lot of scientific evidence to back their findings.
Does natural selection work on chemicals like lipids? No, it works on living things that can keep track of information, reproduce, and pass the information on to their offspring.Notice that lipids are not produced in nature except by already living cells. Therefore, the story that lipid coacervates produced or helped produce the first cell is simply not true. Since this also applies to nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA, the story in Biology, Visualizing Life is false in this point also.
... Backed by a lot of evidence, if it wasn't then I would not have an interest in it. You on the other hand have made your decision before investigating it, you want your religious beliefs to be correct and so you dismiss anything that contradicts even in the face of evidence and argument to the contrary. After me responding countless times to you, you are still coming back with the same arguments you started with. At the end of the say Evolution either occurs or it does not...
Interesting, however until it can be replicated, evolution can't claim it. "Fused" chromosomes may still be the result of intelligent design. Think of all the primates we have in captivity and observed in nature. Our best scientists can't recreate this artificially.
Was it evolutionary scientists that created modern science? NOT
Hello,evolution has not been proven as fact.It is still being taught as a unproven theory! Every one knows this. How many times has it imploded on itself when they did try to prove it in the labs through testing?You put up one part of evolution that hasn't been disproven. Make sure you Google the counter argument. Do you realize the evidence you'd need to prove we came from a single self replicating organism?
Thetruuth1 5 days ago
"God of the gaps" argument. What a load of shit! Science doesn't enhance the human condition in any moral way? Christianity would make the world perfect? What about Buddhism or Jaininsm? Science classes should teach us about things that can be observed. The origin of life has no bearing on evolutionary theory.
dragonfan1981 2 months ago
@dragonfan1981
" Science doesn't enhance the human condition in any moral way? "
That's not true. Think about all the advancements science has brought us and how it is being positively used. No other faiths have more truth in them than Christianity and science can prove this. Yes, science classes should teach us about things that can be observed, like the millions of transitional species that are severely lacking in the theory of evolution. The origin of life influenced Darwin's theory.
icimblind 2 months ago
just a quick question to creationists : why do creationists try force public school systems to teach "creationism" in schools?
evolutionists don't go to theistic institutions and try to force them into teaching evolution...
the two concepts are different in origin, nature and in practice.
the major difference is - religion is stagnant and science is not.
ruandanj 4 months ago
@ruandanj
Evolutionaunts do force their belief system on everyone else because they are taking legal action in the courts.Evolution is a theory, an unproven one at that because it fails the scientific method. Creationist are not asking that the bible be taught in biology classes, just to have an alternative that an antiquated theory. I think many people are confused in the differences of each theory. Historically & factually, Christianity is any thing but stagnant. It created modern science!
icimblind 4 months ago
@icimblind ooooo...yeah i think you'r right...didn't daniel invent the lightbulb...moses had some newtonian tendancies ....
honestly- i cannot see any evidence that any of the authors of the bible used scientific methods to prove/disprove any of the questions concerning their religion...
the "necessary" action, in those days, was dictated by the head of the clan, you might say...and his notions came in dreams/visions and from talking animals or plants.(very scientific hey).
ruandanj 4 months ago
@ruandanj
Hey, no problem, you've just revealed your ignorance. It happens all the time. Please research who started colleges, universities, & the disciplines of modern science. Who created the scientific method? Yup. & if you were able to read the posts instead of acting like an evolved jackass you'd know that there were many scientific facts revealed in the bible thousands of yrs before scientists discovered them. Yes sir, evolutionaunts believe they evolved from a rock, & they R right!
icimblind 4 months ago
@ruandanj Biblical Creationism was taught in our public schools up and until the 1960's. Therefore, it was taught when the framers of the constitution were alive and well who did not see any issue with teaching creationism in the public school. I am not forcing any particular view but when atheists deny the opportunity to teach a competing view they are guilty of the very thing you accuse creationists.
stauguastine 2 months ago
There is no basis to claim that because Christians have contributed to scientific advances over the centuries, Christians own the Scientific Method, and thus Creation Science is more valid than godless evidence-based science! That's like making a stone chisel for Bernini and then laying claim to every sculpture he used it on. Creation science has as much right to be taught in science class as every other religion on the planet. That would make for even dumber science students.
yarmantc 4 months ago
@yarmantc
Your logic fails! Never said science isn't true, but not all things claimed to be "science" are true. Of course evolution is not science. It is an antiquated theory that has never been proven, and therefore it is Not fact. Every one knows this. I have no problem allowing it to be taught in an English class as fictional reading,or a history class on how it shaped the minds of atheistic dictators in justifying the slaughter of millions.
Evolutionaunts are like Harry Potter readers!
icimblind 4 months ago
@phookadude
And you do realize modern science was developed by Christian men, not the fairy tale of evolution.
Father of modern chemistry, Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier. Nicolaus Copernicus credited with the development of modern Astronomy. Father of Modern Oceanography, Matthew Fontaine Maury, all Christians! And there are many more Christians who are responsible for the development of modern science.
Btw, learn how to spell. Creationism, chemistry, vehemently, disprove, and superstitious!
icimblind 5 months ago
"Monkeys go in, proto-humans come out. No mis-communication."
abmackay 6 months ago
@abmackay Wrote:
"Monkeys go in, proto-humans come out. No mis-communication."
LoL, you're an evolutionaunt
What is your empirical evidence for this? Remember to read all the posts before you post. This was already answered. 40 yrs ago comparative anatomy was proven false, as was anbiogenesis (by evolutionists), as were many "human" transitional fossils. Don't forget to look at the 240 million different nucleotides we don't share with primates, different blood and genes. Try again!
icimblind 6 months ago
Not enough yelling.
sickel101 6 months ago
the story of genesis is mostly right as far as the order of things in the universe went, science is just human genius filling in the gaps. One cant say a day for an immortal being is 24 hours it could be billions of years for all we know.
brianz1214 7 months ago
@brianz1214 The Gospels clearly state that the world was 6000 years old & Islam exactly states that a day for angels is 55,000 Years for humans. So going by these estimates, You aren't supposed to go around guessing what a day could have been since the Answer already lies the Scriptures themselves or you would be committing Sin transgressing God's word.
Surely, you can't believe in either 6000 Years or few 100,000 years...
Religion has only caused stupidity not wisdom to humans.
forgottenmemories63 7 months ago
@forgottenmemories63
The bible is a collection of books, and not every thing is to be interpreted literally. Symbolically what does it mean? Or what does it mean at the time it was written? For example, if we say it is raining cats and dogs outside do you think it is literally raining cats and dogs? Now go forward 2,000 years and someone reads a passage from many yrs ago, are they to interpret it literally? It is generally understood that 6K in the O.T. means very old, that's it.
icimblind 7 months ago
@xdassinx
I love shutting up a big mouth!
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7,
EZlogic1 8 months ago
The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted: For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777. Kepler claimed 1,005. Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed:
"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky"
EZlogic1 8 months ago
The Bible stated the existence of valleys and springs in the seas: Only until the past few hundred years did people have the technology to discover that there are deep valleys and fresh water springs in the oceans.
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the Lord. . . " (2 Samuel 22:16, NIV).
ecc. 1:6, "the wind goes toward the south and turns around to the north, the wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit."
EZlogic1 8 months ago
The bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:
job 28:25, "to establish the weight for a wind and apportion the waters by measure."
lev.17:11 describes the value of blood, "for the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
EZlogic1 8 months ago
Morons.... Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life started from inorganic matter.
Evolution is the theory that explains how life grew to be complex.
Science class should only teach science. Period.
Science class should never teach something from a book written by goat herders. A book that spells out how the world is flat no less. That's a recipe for fail.
xdassinx 8 months ago 7
@xdassinx
Hey Moron, show me one science text that doesn't teach Miller's primordial soup, lifeless mud? And then begins with the "theory" of evolution??? They all teach it! The only reason you stooges are trying to separate the two is because abiogenesis has been disproven in a lab. My God man, evolution hasn't proven itself either, so get a grip! It is NOT science and it should never have been taught as such. Modern Science was created by Christians, psydo-science Evolution by atheists!!
icimblind 8 months ago
@xdassinx
Oh look, You have a sock account, how nice and convenient! Coward can't put up a real account! Too embarrassed of evolution and to reveal who you are, no doubt!
icimblind 8 months ago
@icimblind You didn't respond to his arguments, because you can't. Fail.
theyliedaboutiraq 6 months ago
@theyliedaboutiraq
If you know how to read then you wouldn't have replied with such a correct answer. You are right, I can't fail. Abiogenesis has been disproven by evolutionist a long time ago. Evolution hasn't explained the origin of anything. The bible is one of the first books to explain the the earth was Round and suspended on nothing. Idiot never read the bible of course. Evolution is an assumption fairy tale, and it fails the scientific method. You have failed, try again!
icimblind 6 months ago
@theyliedaboutiraq
Hmmm... it looks like he answered you.
Looks like you failed! lol!
Thetruuth1 6 months ago
@xdassinx
@xdassinx
The bible is clear that the earth is round, Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth"
Isaiah 40:22. By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for circle.
"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" Job 26:7.
EZlogic1 8 months ago
"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.
His book on oceanography is still used by Universities today!
EZlogic1 8 months ago
@xdassinx
The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!
EZlogic1 8 months ago
@xdassinx
Well actually Abiogenesis was part of evolution for yrs, but when it wasn't proven as fact they dropped it as being part of evolution. But what is so amazing is the morons still put it in the biology text and teach it as fact. Show me one biology book that doesn't teach the lifeless mud turning into life? You are right, evolution is an unproven theory and shouldn't be taught in science. Bible always taught the earth was round, but you don't read. Science is a Christian invention!
EZlogic1 6 months ago 4
@EZlogic1
Science, as in the scientific method of observation and conclusion, is known from the time of the egyptians who used it to predict the floods of the nile based on the position of the stars. It is actuualy even older then that, but this should be enough.
Or, should we perhaps mention Aristotle? 384-322 BC - the guy who ran in the streets yelling "Eureka!" Try reading some of his works, you might find it enlightening.
morelbel 6 months ago 2
@morelbel
There were some parallels but they didn't create it. Source: From How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Dr. Thomas Woods, page 94 and following:
"Roger Bacon, a Franciscan who taught at Oxford, was admired for his work in mathematics and optics, and is considered to be a forerunner of modern scientific method."
Perhaps you were unaware, that the various disciplines of modern science were developed Christians.Try a little Wikipedia, you might find it enlightening!
FREEDOM14U 6 months ago
You realize that Ancient Greek Philosophers, Christians, Muslims, and who knows how many other people all played a part in the development of the Scientific Method, right? And besides, it wasn't a concept that arose out of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.
The scientific method came about as a verifiable way of coming to understand the world around us. Religion is to the Scientific Method as Cancer is to a living organism. It is at best, benign, and at worst, completely malignant.
Jinxerz010792 6 months ago
@Jinxerz010792
You do realize that Modern Science came from Christian men who without their contributions there would be no disciplines. This is an undeniable fact! Get over it.
"The scientific method came about as a verifiable way of coming to understand the world around us". And the Christians get full credit for this too, sorry. You can't be that historically challenged.
Atheists contribution to creating modern science is equivalent to frogs leaping over elephants, it never happened!
icimblind 6 months ago
@icimblind You do realize that astronomy came from astrology and chemestry came from alchemy, these fore-runner were disprooved as superstisious claptrap, just as creationsim is. The foundations of biology came from creationism; then creationism was found to be as false as astrology and alchemy.
There are still people who belive and will vehemotly argue for the valididty of astrology alchemy and creationism.
phookadude 5 months ago
we r so limited in our knowledge tht we cant say nething for sure. i would like to have a scientific reason for everything but i get stuck in one question: when did the universe begin? from what energy source did it begin? how did that energy come to exist in the first place? what was before it? when did time begin...did it have a starting point or is it timeless? how can science prove something which is timeless?
garizable 8 months ago
Dawkin is clear on 2 things,there is no God and he really hates Him.
CBALLEN 9 months ago
How do you get lifeless mud to evolve RNA and Lipids? You can't divorce yourself from abiogenesis when it is now proven false? the 2 are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible.
icimblind 9 months ago
@3rkid2
You're an idiot.
The christian scientists created modern science, fact! Also, look up all those evolutionary frauds that your lot created.
Carbon dating on Mount St. Helens Lava Dome 20 yrs after it erupted it had a reading of 350
K-to-2.8 million yrs old. ha! How do you explain petrified vertical trees in the different geological columns if the columns are of different ages? The index fossils become a joke at this point, but that's the circular reasoning of an evolutionists.LoL
icimblind 9 months ago
@icimblind carbon dating places the earth at 4.6 billion years old, its elementary biology. Watson and Crick were the founders of the discovery of DNA structure and both were atheists. Their discoveries were based on principles of evolution.
I don't understand why creationists don't realize this, but accepting evolution =/= disbelief in a deity. I know several chrisitan/jewish biologist colleagues, and they fully accept evolution. This is as pointless as the geocentric 1500's beliefs.
Andy180084 8 months ago 2
@Andy180084
Rosalind Franklin also played a large role in discovery the structures of DNA, and she was Jewish. Hmmm funny how that is always missed by the atheists. And if you look up the Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present you will find that most of them, over 90% believed in God. CARBON 14 AND POTSSIUM-ARGON DATING has its problems, on Mt. St. Helens dome was 350,000 to 2.8 million yrs old. Assumption science is pointless & I am not a YEC!
icimblind 8 months ago
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just 3 widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth @ 4.6 billion yrs.Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods. He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques.He shows that the few good dates left after the bad dates R filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
icimblind 8 months ago
@Andy180084
In Australia, some wood found the Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was “dated” by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was “dated” by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!
icimblind 8 months ago
@icimblind You're wrong, evolution can act on any self replicating system, it does not need to be considered "alive" for natural selection, and therefore evolution, to take place. A simple protein that formed spontaneously in early earth conditions could (very crudely) "read" a string of aromatic compounds and synthesize a copy of itself. Any slight improvements in this system would lead to more of the products, fundamental evolution.
wooferpoofer 8 months ago
@wooferpoofer
Sorry, you are wrong and evolution is only occurring in your head.RNA & Lipids can NOT come from lifeless mud.They are only found in living organisms. The smallest known living organism, mycoplasma genitalium with 468 genes could only be reduced to 397 genes on paper by evolutionists.In trying to prove that evolution is a real, they managed to prove that it is not. Abiogenesis has also been false in a laboratory by evolutionists. All the thumbs up batrider proves ppl are dumb!
icimblind 8 months ago
@icimblind Show me one scientist that claims a modern bacteria arose from "lifeless mud." All organisms alive today have been evolving for billions of years. Of course it is ridiculous to expect a modern organism to arise from organic matter, that's not what any of us is claiming. Like I explained before, a much simpler "pre-organism" would still be subject to natural selection.
Quite ironic you claim others are dumb when you can't even grasp the simplest concepts of evolution and abiogenesis.
wooferpoofer 8 months ago
@wooferpoofer
My God man, why don't you please educate yourself before bloviating your ignorance! What the hell is a pre-organism?? You are correct in saying, "Show me one scientist that claims a modern bacteria arose from 'lifeless mud'". Only evolutionists believe in this concept, not scientists. You can't separate yourself from abiogenesis, just like you can't separate yourself from Chemical evolution and Cosmic Evolution. If you believe in 1 fairy tale you have to believe it all of it!
icimblind 8 months ago
@wooferpoofer
Evolutionists make the odd claim that the first strand of DNA arose by natural selection. And some times they claim that the first cell arose by natural selection. This is Not science! There's absolutely no empirical proof this ever happened! Evolutionauts take trips in their minds and expect the rest of us to blindly follow them. Dawkins got rich over his empirical fraud. Why would you follow a fool like that is beyond me. Think for yourselves. Look for the truth.
icimblind 8 months ago
Well, since i don't know all the answers i'm just going to believe in Santa! I don't care what you say, i have faith!
fredwreck11 9 months ago
@fredwreck11
fredwreck wrote: "Well, since i don't know all the answers i'm just going to believe in Santa! I don't care what you say, i have faith!"
That's ok, satan understands. He has faith in you even if you are dyslexic...............lol
icimblind 9 months ago
Id rather believe in god,die and live with him for the rest of my afterlife in heaven than not believe and end up in hell after death bc he is real. Even if you dont want to believe,follow the book and i garantee you will live a happy,fearless,stress free life.
TheTrojanabuser 9 months ago
@TheTrojanabuser So, you'd rather believe in God simply because you might go to hell if you don't? You have hundreds of variations of "hell" you're going to then.
AgowTisro 9 months ago
Sic him Bill. I hate dawkins attitude. He looks down on everyone, including people like him.
BaronNate 10 months ago
creation science = oxymoron
Tychoxi 10 months ago 2
@Tychoxi
Creation Science = True Pure Science void of assumptions. Atheism + psychosis +Dr. Seuss + Harry Potter = Evolutionary Fairy Tale
icimblind 10 months ago
@icimblind What makes you think "Creation science" can just skip that out and be taught in science class because a few nutjobs believe it's true? Submit it to scientific and methodological testing and analysis, hold it up to the same torch that Evolution has been over the past 150 odd years. See if it stands up to attempts at falsification that evolutionary theory has.
You won't do that, will you? You only want it taught in science class to brainwash people into your religion.
Vehementi 10 months ago 22
@Vehementi
Umm, bc evolution fails the scientific method big time. & just bc a few egg heads say we are related to a fish 350 million yrs ago, doesn't make it so. The fact is, evolution is over rated, Dr Seuss, theory. Modern science was created by Christians, nut job.. Falsification-->All those missing links of evolution proven false by real scientist, starting w/ the Piltdown man... lol! Btw, evolution is older than 150yrs. Dawin is not its creator. The universe had a beginning, enuff said!
icimblind 10 months ago
@Vehementi
And what makes you think evolution has passed the scrutiny of the scientific method? It hasn't ! Peer review has given us many evolutionary frauds throughout time! Talk about falsification. That's a fact, also why is this theory still being taught as an unproven theory for the last 150yrs?
Evolution implodes on itself every time it tries to prove itself. What empirical evidence do you have that we all come from a single celled self replicating organism? LOL !
You're DeLuSiOnAL !
Thetruuth1 5 days ago
@Vehementi Its amazing just how stupid the kids get every year. Such arrogance in stupidity. Evolution was disproven scientifically long ago.Its still around because gays have fought hard to keep anything pseudo-scientific outside of religion so they can justify their perversions. Homosexuality was called a mental disease until gays threatened the lives of the heads of Medical Association to take it out of the book of psychotic disorders. Look it up. There's no science involved in evolution.
hakeem0436 3 days ago
....Sometimes I have to wonder...I'm a biologist , right? So...what kind of class would they do?It''s like this in my mind:
*Professor enters*: OK KIDS , GODDIDIT.
*Professor leaves*.
Hiibashiri 10 months ago
@Hiibashiri
Well evolution didn't do it. Why propagate a lie?
It's obvious you haven't looked at any other sources of science. If you think Creation science is bible study, you'd be dead wrong.
icimblind 10 months ago
@icimblind Creation "science"?That's not science. Anything that's not willing to change it's position in face of evidence , isn't called science.It's called religion , and that's what you should be calling it as well.And if you have any evidence , at all , against the theory of evolution , please proceed.
Hiibashiri 10 months ago
@Hiibashiri
What flaming evidence do you have for evolution? You people (atheists) are all the same, mindless drones. Don't say the fossil records, dna, missing link, I want your empirical proof. All of these have been proven FALSE. Any one with any intelligence knows there's none and the facts prove this. So make your case or leave the party. Please present something that is going to turn the science world upside down. I know you got nothing!
icimblind 10 months ago
@icimblind ...All of these have been proven false? What has been proven false , and for what reason?There's really nothing for me to explain , it should be obvious by now.Why do whales have hands? What? They used it to eat politely in the sea? Why do you have a tail which in your embryonic state , is excluded , because it's not necessary anymore?Why are mitochondria and chloroplasts very very similar to generic type bacteria?Why do some genes are stable between the species , while others aren't?
Hiibashiri 10 months ago
@Hiibashiri Did you just ask why we have tails? haha "Why do you have a tail which in your embryonic state , is excluded , because it's not necessary anymore?" That is my buttbone/tailbone (coccyx) it has a lot more usefulness than you think it does it is the anchor for the muscles of rectum control, childbirth, abdominal organ support, and the lower back. We also need it to sit down. So if none of those things are considered "necessary" anymore then go ahead have surgery to get yours removed.
GreatAfricanLion 10 months ago
@lan220
You've just revealed your ignorance. 1st of all, who do you think developed the major branches of modern day science? That's right, Christians. So science is nothing without Christianity. Galileo was a Christian. The Scientific Method was developed by, that's right, a Christian. Heck, even Darwin believed in God. If you want circular reasoning, continue on with your fairy tale of evolution. The empirical fraud w/ no "links" to reality! lol
icimblind 11 months ago
@icimblind
I made no claims regarding the faith of the scientists you've already stated are wrong. You have totally avoided my point in favor of an incoherent strawman attack on early scientists. What on Earth does that have to do with anything? Also learn your history, these men were mostly persecuted and hampered by the church, and where does a belief in God automatically make you a creationist?
You claim evolution is circular reasoning but offer zero support for your statement. Grow up.
lan220 11 months ago
@lan220
"Zero support for my argument", are you for real? Are you too lazy to read the posts I've made on this video? To remain willfully ignorant doesn't exempt you from the truth. & learn your history, there was very little persecution of scientists, exaggerated like your claim evolution is a science. Please supply your empirical evidence? Science owes everything to Christians. Abiogenesis, Minimum Gene Set Theory, Missing Link, All Proven False By Science! It is you who needs to Grow Up!
icimblind 11 months ago
@icimblind "Galileo was a Christian..there was very little persecution of scientists"
-Wasnt Galileo placed under house arrest by the church because his blasphemy idea of the earth revolving around the sun?
I suppose youve never heard of the "Dark Ages" and how greatly christianity attributed to it.
So I am guessing you have some sort of degree in science to talk as if to be so learned in such topics, correct?
ChemEBeaver 11 months ago
@ChemEBeaver
Yes Galileo accepted a legal contract to teach it as theory and not fact.He was put under house arrest in a beautiful villa with lots of land. This is hardly a dungeon that most atheists like yourself like to claim. He never lost his faith over it. The period of cultural and economic deterioration and disruption that occurred in Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire was known as the dark ages. Please go educate yourself. And Yes, I have several degrees, but you don't!
icimblind 11 months ago
@icimblind yes you're right.. the decline of the roman empire (paganism) led to the rise of christianity and the dark ages! while chrsitianity unquestionably ruled Europe for hundreds of years, this period was called the Dark Ages... as soon as reason and science were allowed to have a voice, this was called the Renassiance followed by the age of enlightenment. When the United States was formed it was formed on the basis of preventing the church from dictating peoples lives- allowing freedom
mbglosser 10 months ago
@mbglosser
Christianity caused the world to come out of the Dark Ages by preserving literature & providing the philosophical framework for modern science which had been stillborn in other cultures. Christianity founded the major universities of the world like Oxford, Cambridge, Geneva, Harvard and Yale, keeping peasents from becoming illiterate. Separation of Church & state was to keep the state out of the Church & not the other way around.You are factually challenged, but I set you straight!
icimblind 10 months ago
@mbglosser
I just saw one of your ignorant old posts. The appendage you refer to is not vestigail tail. It is caused by the disease Spina Biffeda. During embryonic development, the human spine "zips" together from top to botton. If this zipping goes wrong, Spina Biffeda is rthe result, and the zipping goes too far, creating this skin covering fat. It has no bones nor spinal chord, and is not vestigial of tails. It is produced by a disease. The mud skipper is not transitional proof.
icimblind 9 months ago
@ChemEBeaver
Wow I must say, you have an impressive array of atheists videos, NOT! You small pathetic people are so boring. Not willing to look outside of your little box. What has your lot contributed to society besides war and mass genocide? Do you really think any of your atheists leader gives a rip about you? They are all self absorbed. The blind leading the blind.
icimblind 11 months ago
@icimblind
Once again for slow individuals, the professed faith of early scientists, who like it or not were persecuted by the church in cases their findings didn't match dogma, has. Nothing. To. Do. With. The. Argument. You call an idea based on and backed by empirical logic a fairy tale while offering no support for your point but emphatics. You're a coward for not allowing the other things I wrote to be posted, and are a fool to boot. This is the last time I will grace you with a response.
lan220 11 months ago
@lan220
I posted every reply you made, so stop playing victim, Mr Pathetic! & the mere fact that you can't produce 1 piece of empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution proves it. By refuting through science that the following are false: missing links, abiogenesis, minimum gene set concept, evolution has secured itself to be a fairy tale bc it fails the scientific method All of this supports intelligent design.
UR empircal empty strawman has disappeared in the flames of truth! Bam!
icimblind 11 months ago
@Ian220,
I couldn't help notice you favored a Bearforce1 video on your channel.I didn't know what it was until I clicked on it and got the education of my life.I now know why you are against anything to do with God. That video was just disgusting.They have proven homosexuality is not genetic,there is No gene passed on to produce said condition.Yet another example of why evolution is false. Come on man, at some point you're going to have to face the truth & take responsibility for ur actions!
icimblind 11 months ago
@bobmarleyisgod1 Fail. Religion doesn't involve any fairies. I became religious because I have a mind of my own, I'm not spoon fed by the majority.
BeakyRed 11 months ago
@sabin97 Creation science is science. That's why it's called creation science.
BeakyRed 11 months ago
I'm not up for the government intruding on public churches and making their delegates explain the theory of evolution to their particular congregation. A private church on the other hand could preach whatever they wanted to. Similarly, because the curriculum in public schools is a government-selected monopoly, there should be as little points of subjectivity as possible. As Dawkins said, we don't know how the universe began, so that is exactly what should be taught; no non-scientific guesswork.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim
There are no public churches. They are all privately owned in North America, but you are right, public schools are funded by private citizens who pay public taxes. Public schools do force private churches and its people to learn something they have no choice in. It is time for private citizens to demand their voices be heard on what they want their children to learn. Evolution is a fairytale with no beginning, no facts, no proof. It was based on scientific observation, it's fiction!
icimblind 11 months ago
@icimblind Would you then support creation science, as it's called, being excluded from public school curriculum, having them staying away from the subject all together, while private schools can teach whatever version they'd like to? Also, if you don't deny the observation itself, then what name do you propose we assign to whatever it is that is taking place when species change over time?
Qvoim 11 months ago
@Qvoim
It is already being excluded from public schools that are being supported by tax payers money. Private or public, they are both being paid by its citizens. The citizens should be able to choose.
I don't deny the observation is fiction. There is nothing observable or repeatable in the fossil record. Heck they haven't even found the "missing link" yet.
icimblind 11 months ago
@icimblind Private schools are paid for by citizens voluntarily. You can choose to go to whichever private school teaches the curriculum you'd like. But everyone's forced to fund public schools, which is why people want them to remain impartial.
While we don't know the order that things evolved in specifically to get to where we are today, I truly don't understand how one can dismiss the function of evolution itself. Not the fossil record, but the idea that species adapt to their environment.
Qvoim 11 months ago
@icimblind You should really study evolution and under what it is before arguing against it. Evolution doesn't seek to explain the origins of life only it's variety, If you don't know that then you know nothing.
Intelligent design is not science. This is easily understood with a basic understanding of the scientific method.
watch?v=C-ne7UFSTYo
By the way claiming evolution is something it isn't is bearing false witness, You're breaking the 9th commandment.
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202
Oh yeah, well then why do evolutionist teach abiogenesis then? It's pure fiction and fails the scientific method. Give me the origins of anything, of a human eye, nail, internal organ? Sorry evolution fails again. It fails the scientific method, which by the way was created by a Christian scientist. Why don't you learn something about evolution before you bloviate on what you don't know. Assumption science!
icimblind 11 months ago
In the past,evolutionists claimed that there were approximately 180 vestigial organs in humans, including the appendix, the tonsils, the pineal gland and the thymus. Now we know that:
The appendix is part of the immune system, strategically located at the entrance of the almost sterile ileum from the colon with its normally high bacterial content.
The tonsils have a similar function in the entrance to the pharynx.
The same thing for the pineal gland. You Fail! Science is making you look foolish!
icimblind 11 months ago
@deepfreeze202
Evolution does make faith based assumptions and is therefore a religion! Abiogenesis is a prime example, as is your claw statement on the human finger nail. (rolls eyes) Is any of this observable and repeatable? NO! Evolution is a religion based on assumptions and lies. There is no truth in it. Science is proving this every day, and it keeps piling on the evidence more and more.
icimblind 11 months ago
@icimblind
should the development period of science, taken as a whole, be compared to the development of religion, taken as a whole?
By your logic, that we haven't always known what we know now; I lump your claims regarding creation in with the long-time pervasive religious dogma that the universe orbited the Earth.
Oblique argument and circular logic are only good for convincing yourself friend. You ask for hard proof, and receive an incomplete work. I ask you for hard evidence, so?
lan220 11 months ago
@bobmarleyisgod1 Juan Diego's tilma is made out of cactus. When they tried to recreate these images using the same material to debunk the story, 15 years later they all rotted. They were placed next to the original that has lasted over 475 yrs. This proves it is not man made, but so do many other aspects of the image. Religion was started by God, and Jesus only started one church, the RCC. Every thing I listed proves God is real & science has no answers for. There is only FREEDOM IN GOD!
icimblind 11 months ago
@bobmarleyisgod1
The Incorruptible bodies of the saints and the image of Our Lady at Guadeloupe are not sacraments, Rolls eyes. And they're hundreds of years old! Science has no answer for them, but they do witness to the One True God. Bc of the laws of nature it is impossible for a piece of unleavened bread to be incorruptible from mildew, bacteria, etc. for hundreds of years, but this is Not the case for a Eucharist.
YOU'VE PROVEN YOU ARE A COMPLETE IGNORANT FOOL! Another Evo Fail!
icimblind 11 months ago
@bobmarleyisgod1
The incorruptible bodies of saints, incorruptible Eucharists that are hundreds of yrs old, the image of our Lady of Guadeloupe. Science has no explanations for any of these, and there are many more.
icimblind 11 months ago
i kinda believe in both but when i watch on tv evolution looks kinda more fun :P
OnTheLine35 1 year ago
@wjavier316,
Evolution has never proven itself and is pure speculation. When one species is changing into another, that's origins and circular reasoning, a created myth! Comparative anatomy has been proven wrong. Adding information to the genome has never created anything positive except disease or genetic defects. Modern science was created and shape in a large part to Christians. Every thing is science points to intelligent design. You lack intelligence by choice! You fail big time!!
icimblind 1 year ago
I don't know how O'Reilly could even suggest that creationism be "presented" as an option. It was only two years ago that I took biology and nothing about the start of life was ever mentioned. If teachers were attempting to explain via science how the universe and life began, then it would be appropriate for creationism to also be "presented." However, Darwinian evolution was only ever taught as the proven science of how organisms change over time. Yay, gene mutations and natural selection!
ameliamlu12 1 year ago
@ameliamlu12,
.........."nothing about the start of life was ever mentioned".
They stopped the lifeless mud talk now they are calling it abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes. These are faith based & Unscientific. And finally, there has been nothing observed positive from gene mutation, only genetic defects.
You took biology when you were 25? OK. Your profile says your 27.
icimblind 1 year ago
@icimblind Actually there's been tons of experiments observed to show abiogenesis as FACT. Creationists won't accept this because they're too busy believing fairy tales and for the most part are some of the dumbest people in the world.
batrider 1 year ago 35
@batrider,
I love posting comments like yours. You just prove how Ignorant evos really are. Having a plausible environment and not an actual environment to observe is Not science. I guess when you believe you're related to a fish 350 million years ago you'd believe anything. Evolution is the biggest fairy tale ever created, and a perfect marriage for the simple minded. You insisted on making yourself look foolish. I had nothing to do with it...
icimblind 1 year ago
@batrider No, they were attempted, but have so far failed. If you are going to argue for our (evolution) get all of your facts. Do you really believe that Richard Dawkins would not know about a successful abiogenesis experiment. They have failed, but it has opened up new possibilities.
griffithomi 9 months ago 2
@batrider Do we all have to be uniform? Is everyone who thinks different that you dumb? Are you the standard for dumb? It is simply pathetic that what a person believes about something that happened years before our time, and cannot be proven one way or annother, determines how we treat them. Even if abiogenesis is proven as fact, which it is not, it could still be said that that is HOW God did it. An it harm none, people should be free to believe as they will
XHaroldXI 8 months ago
@batrider Believe me I'm on your side here... but although the evidence strongly suggests abiogenesis DID happen, the mechanism is not actually known (ie. not a "fact"). Fortunately, there have been many experiments showing ways it *could have* taken place, all of them really interesting. However, barring the invention of time travel to observe it firsthand in the Hadean eon, abiogenesis and its mechanism(s) will always be theory (in the proper scientific sense) rather than "fact".
abmackay 6 months ago 10
This was on TV xD?
MrBipBipp 1 year ago
Is that the Trollface that Dawkins does in the photo around 0:05 ?
PericlesGR 1 year ago
orielly doesn't even deserve to interview dawkins. dawkins is on a WAY higher level. its like michael jordan playing ball against a 5 year old
ShaolinViolin 1 year ago 2
@ShaolinViolin,
You are right, Dawkins is WAY higher than O'Reilly. After all, he's a talking ape that has a common ancestor with a fish 350 million years ago! HA!
What a joke!! Where's the science???
Thetruuth1 1 year ago
God bless you. Jesus is Lord.
amd7787 1 year ago
@sabin97,
Who wants to teach religion? Creationist are concerned with science. They follow what is observable and repeatable unlike that fairy tale, faith based, pseudo-science, known as evolution. What has been observed? A common ancestor with a fish 350 million yrs ago? lol Sorry, this is origins talk, and the fossil records do Not prove this. Comparative anatomy is not science! No missing link, boo-hoo. Evolutionist statements are religious, not science. The Dawkins Delusion!
icimblind 1 year ago
Chimps are claimed to be our nearest relative, yet the locations of DNA swapping between chromosomes, known as recombination hotspots, are almost entirely different. This proves apes and humans have a genetic difference so great that our DNA cannot be related.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
Explosions create chaos. The balance of the forces is so perfect that if any one were different by one billionth of one billionth, the universe as we know it would not exist, and life would be impossible. That's order, design, and purpose. The "big bang" is a big dud. It's not science. it's a fairytale for adults!
NephilimFree 1 year ago
Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Grahan Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia has been nominated for the Nobel prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. Dr. Schaefer states in regard to the resistance to the idea of a beginning of the universe and subsequently a belief that God is the author and origin of that beginning,
NephilimFree 1 year ago
If there were no First Cause, then time and distance would be infinite. This causes unsovable contradiction. For example, if the universe were infinitely existing, any delineation of spaces, such as 0, 1, 2, 3.. would be eaqual to all others, such as 10, 20, 30, 40.... This is impossible, since one is 1/10 of the other yet both would be infinate, and therefore equal. Therefore the universe is finite and had a First Cause.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
Sicence class is for science, religion call is for religion.
what is it people don't understand about it??
ImperiousViking 1 year ago
@ImperiousViking,
And Evolution class for creative writing, because it is unobservable and non-repeatable. Glad we got that straight!
icimblind 1 year ago
@icimblind
it has been observed...
ImperiousViking 1 year ago
@ImperiousViking,
Show me where Macro-Evolution has been observed and is repeatable? If you say the Mud Skipper or the Italian Wall Lizards, you're wrong!
icimblind 1 year ago
@icimblind
First of all why can't I say mub skipper, it is a perfectly good example.
second we've got E. coli.
E. coli cannot grow on citrate. But in 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.
ImperiousViking 1 year ago
@ImperiousViking,
Mudskippers are unchanged in the fossil reocrd of life. They are living fossils. If evolution were true, living fossils could not exist since evolutionists believe, falsely, that random mutations are the base mechanism for the morphological change which causes evolution
icimblind 1 year ago
@ImperiousViking,
You said he created them. Yes, that's right, he conducted an example of human intelligent engineering to cause the bacteria to change biochemically. That's not evidence of evolution, it's evidence of intelligent design. Secondly, biochemical changes to life forms do not support evolutionism because they have no power to change the species' morphology, and therefore cannot cause an animal to change morphologically one bit towards becoming a new kind of life.
icimblind 1 year ago
teach both sides of the story ? whats the problem?
as long as u point out dat we will neverrrrrr know .. at least in our in our lifetime what actually happened
...
socachild1 2 years ago
Why is it always an arrogant British know it all that tries to explain away the things of God and of religion.
Nothing can come from nothing!
and last I checked monkeys were not evolving into a more advanced being, and fish were not growing legs either.
templar2980 2 years ago
"Nothing can come from nothing"
- So where did your deity of choice come from?
"monkeys were not evolving into a more advanced being"
- "For First Time, Chimps Seen Making Weapons for Hunting"
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post; February 23, 2007
"fish were not growing legs either"
- Ever hear of a mud skipper?
Atriviality 2 years ago
God is begotten not made, he is the creator not the created,
can a car or computer be made without
an intelligent creator? No!
monkeys have instinctive intelligence based on survival instincts, that doesnt make them equal to us.
can they do calculas,poetry, or ask how,when,where, or why? No!
mudskippers have pectoral fins not legs if you want to get technical, look it up. they are fish nothing more.
templar2980 2 years ago
Agreed, transformers are not evolution, I just saw his (Atriviality) profile.--- lol!
Evolution is a fairy tale science! There are more facts in the Catholic Faith, miracles, incorruptible saints, Hosts, and historical fact!
Thetruuth1 2 years ago
Amen! and this is the reason the vatican has its own scientists, only we should create an office to refute people like mr. dawkins personally, but I have to say O'reilly did pretty well.
templar2980 2 years ago
@templar2980
O'Reilly did pretty well?
Are you fucking kidding me?
PillsC2E 2 years ago
The question still remains, if nothing can come from nothing, who created the creator?
So monkeys making spears is just a survival instinct?
"Basic Math in Monkeys and College Students"
by Jessica F. Cantlon, Elizabeth M. Brannon.
How do you know that monkeys don't compose epic sonnets about the greater meaning of existence? Do you speak Macaque?
Mudskippers are fish that can walk on land for days at a time. What do you think constitutes a leg?
Atriviality 2 years ago
Atriviality:
First off something eternal had to be present to begin the process of creation. God has no begining or end, nor does an eternal being need a creator.
Q: how did the big bang happen from nothing?
spears: yes survival based instinct like I said before, they are not us.
just because a monkey can distinguish between shapes/items hardly constitutes for human intelligence.
Well monkeys cant write/read can they?
do you have a book written by a monkey?
FISH=FINS!!
templar2980 2 years ago
First you said nothing can come from nothing and now you say the creator came from nothing and created everything? Make up your mind!
"how did the big bang happen from nothing?"
- Who says it did?
So spears are a survival based instinct inherit in all animals or just simians?
You didn't actually read the study did you.
Well some humans can't write/read can they?
do you have a book written by an illiterate?
"FISH=FINS"
- Doesn't answer the question.
Atriviality 2 years ago
circular arguments, Atriviality.
No I did not say God came from nothing, I said as below that God does not need to be created because he is an infinate being that is eternal, however "creatures" do have to come from something!
big bang, well my point is this without an eternal being "GOD" how did it all get here, and that is a question you atheist have to account for and answer.
Yes some humans are not literate granted, but yet they can become literate monkeys cant.
continued....
templar2980 2 years ago
"without an eternal being "GOD" how did it all get here"
- well since nobody has EVER observed ANYTHING created out of nothing, or magic, or "GOD", and nobody has EVER observed ANYTHING reduced to nothing by magic or "GOD", yet we know of a multitude of ways that matter and energy can be transformed between various states. That is why the prevailing scientific consensus is that the universe always existed in one form or another, changing as physics allows.
Atriviality 2 years ago
"some humans are not literate granted, but yet they can become literate monkeys cant"
- Actually people with certain severe forms of dyslexia (known as "Alexia") cannot learn to read or write at all. The words become a blurry mess when they try.
Chimpanzees at the CHCI at Central Washington University have been taught sign language and have used it to communicate with their trainers and each other.
Also the Orangutan Language Project (OLP) at the National Zoo is teaching orangutans to type.
Atriviality 2 years ago
@templar2980
It doesn't matter if God is the creator not the created. By your standards of "everything must be created", God must have been made by something else too. You can't just make up rules that only apply to the things that you want it to. Rules for everything apply to EVERYTHING. You're making what's called a "special pleading argument".
Also, a car or computer is no evidence that an anthropomorphic being must have created everything.
PillsC2E 2 years ago
to Pillsc2e:
Well the same goes to you as an atheist, without showing or proving how it all got started I find it highly unlikely that it all just "happened" for no reason at all. hence GOD and theism.
second part, again has any animal monkey, fish, etc.. ever produced a useful peice of engineering beyond a tool for survival which is just instinct based? No.
can you have rational conversation with a monkey? see the seperation here.
templar2980 2 years ago
@templar2980
Every Monkey has certain features that define it as a monkey. There is no Ape that lacks those features. As such all Apes are monkeys which is to be expected if Apes evolved from monkeys.
But all Apes share features that no Monkey has which is why Apes are monkeys but monkeys are not apes.
By the same understanding all Humans retain the same characteristics that define Apes. Humans are Apes and Humans are Monkeys.
So really, everything created by Man, was created by a Monkey.
chaossource 2 years ago
Wow you have alot of gaps to fill to prove what you are saying is true.
one being evidence of such claims beyond physical similarities.
two you have to produce the also elusive missing link to make the connection between us and them.
third like I asked the last person, can you show me a monkey that has the ability to write, build and engineer something beyond a sharp rock spear, or that can speak/read/learn a language, etc...
fourth show me proof that they are evolving into us.
templar2980 2 years ago
Physical similarities is evidence of such claims, and is evidence enough for Darwin to have published a book describing a Theory that after 150 years has yet to be defeated. But you want more evidence? Sure, check out the human genome and compare it to apes. Check out the fossil record. Theres enough evidence in any one of those areas that people can spend lifetimes studying them to the exclusion of others.
The fossil record contains not only one missing link, but 57 and the number grows!
chaossource 2 years ago
As I said, every Human is an Ape, and every Ape is a Monkey. I can produce a monkey that has the ability to write simply by pointing you to a mirror. Humans are monkeys, and those monkeys have produced all the modern wonders of today.
and your final point is a straw man. Monkeys and Apes are not evolving into us and no one claims they are. They are following their own evolution through natural selection, which is why they didn't evolve along our path.
chaossource 2 years ago
@chaossource Humans are not apes. Of the over 200,000 protiens in the human body, 80% of them are not present in apes, proving that our biochemistry is so radically different that ancestry between man and ape is perposterous. We should have 80% or more protiens identical, not different, if we are so closely related. There is no way that we can be related if the vast majority of our protiens are different and all of the other cell factors which interact with and depend upon them are different.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
@NephilimFree And what makes you think there are "200,000 protiens(sic)" to be found in the human body to begin with? Your pulling statistics out of your ass (which isn't surprising) and your presenting yourself with false authority. Do you even know what a protein is? Are you actually counting the specific number of proteins, or are you trying to approximate the various types of proteins? And where did you even get your information? Do you even know what it means to be an Ape?
chaossource 1 year ago
I don't have to prove how it all started. Because you're making the claim that God created the universe, you MUST put forth evidence that He did. It's called the burden of proof. Before you put forth the evidence and it is NOT refuted, then I (or any other defendant) may challenge your claim. But until then, we have nothing to challenge.
You make it sound like if the world wasn't created by the Big Bang, that it HAS to be God. This is definitely not true.
PillsC2E 2 years ago
@PillsC2E The evidence that God created it all is overwhelming times overwhelming times overwhelming. The perfect balance of the atomic forces alone is proof that it did not come from chaor or random process. Furthermore, before time, space, energy and matter there could be nothing material, so your idea as a materialist evolutionist that it all came to be by material cause is discredited. If you accept reality, you cannot believe in evolutionism without being merely a denialist.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
Here's another comment because I was reaching the character limit in my other response:
How does the fact that other animals have not created tools prove that God exists? Also, I may be mistaken but I believe I've heard of some monkeys making tools to aid them.
PillsC2E 2 years ago
@PillsC2E Other animals can make and use tools, such as birds. But this does not help the discredited evolution idea at all. It only demonstrates the intelligence of God's creations.
NephilimFree 1 year ago
The scientific community is slowly becoming polarized over the issue, partly because of the unscientific nature of the claims of evolutionists, whereby they put forth assumptions as if they were facts of science, even when science has already discredited it.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I wonder, does all your information come from creationist sites?
jazANDbase 2 years ago
No, Quite a bit of it he just makes up.
Atriviality 2 years ago
"Within the scientific community there are virtually no arguments when it comes to"
False. There is a great and heated debate over evolution and creation because of what modern science has revealed. This debate has been going on since before Darwin, and in since the discovery of DNA it has become heated.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The only real debate is between people who follow the evidence without coming to a conclusion and those who have already decided God did it and are trying to make holes where there are none. According to a survey sent to 158 research universities, in the Biology department 97.3% responded "Yes" to understanding and accepting biological Evolution. So disregarding creationists and looking at the people who have no agenda, where is the heat?
jazANDbase 2 years ago
You're telling me Dawkins hasn't come to a conclusions?? He's saying man has a common ancestor with a primate. There is no proof of this. That has all been refuted. Artists renditions don't count. The DNA for humans is distinctly different. I wonder did you look at ANY of the videos I sent you?? Is all your information from evolution sites?
icimblind 2 years ago
I'm sorry but there is evidence for it you are just happy repeating what other creationists say to massage your own beliefs. In fact I was going to name the categories of evidence that we have but I've just realised I've already done that. This is such a waste of my time, you amaze me because one of the primary reasons I dropped my religious beliefs was because I realised how much of a conflict there was between what I was asked to take on faith and what actual evidence was pointing to...
jazANDbase 2 years ago
... Even when I was religious I was able to think impartially, and without meaning to be big headed it is quite clear that many of the people on YouTube. including yourself, are unable to. I personally don't care if Evolution is true or false, honestly I really don't. If it's not true it still doesn't make God a more plausible hypothesis, and if ever there was evidence for a God then I would embrace it. But the truth is I accept Evolution BECAUSE there is good reason to, BECAUSE it is...
jazANDbase 2 years ago
I don't think you are impartial at all, you haven't responded to any of the information in the videos I sent you. I've taken biology, anatomy and physiology I &II, kinesiology, chemistry, exercise physiology, and on and on. I haven't taken any creationists courses. I think it is you who is trying to make your faith based science fit into science. Creationists use science to explain their findings. They have a lot of scientific evidence to back their findings.
icimblind 2 years ago
Does natural selection work on chemicals like lipids? No, it works on living things that can keep track of information, reproduce, and pass the information on to their offspring.Notice that lipids are not produced in nature except by already living cells. Therefore, the story that lipid coacervates produced or helped produce the first cell is simply not true. Since this also applies to nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA, the story in Biology, Visualizing Life is false in this point also.
icimblind 2 years ago
... Backed by a lot of evidence, if it wasn't then I would not have an interest in it. You on the other hand have made your decision before investigating it, you want your religious beliefs to be correct and so you dismiss anything that contradicts even in the face of evidence and argument to the contrary. After me responding countless times to you, you are still coming back with the same arguments you started with. At the end of the say Evolution either occurs or it does not...
jazANDbase 2 years ago
*Day
jazANDbase 2 years ago
watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Atriviality 2 years ago
Interesting, however until it can be replicated, evolution can't claim it. "Fused" chromosomes may still be the result of intelligent design. Think of all the primates we have in captivity and observed in nature. Our best scientists can't recreate this artificially.
icimblind 2 years ago