I’m agnostic and I understand your anger. In fact you tube is full of annoying atheists who behave like religious preachers. My theory is: these people genuinely believe they are one step ahead (despite of an acute lack of evidence) and they desperately want to tell everyone they are ahead. They need attention or sex, I don’t know which of these more.
More generalization and a bunch of hate spewing...I'm starting to see a trend here.
I'm glad to see that you're blind to why you draw so much hate and can't see how dumb you look here. I mean, atheist is a religion? How? and hatred of christians? So I must hate most of my family since there christian right? /facepalm
Anyway, I think you need to look up what religion is and think more on these things since you don't know what you're talking about.
Why the fuck do lots of christian youtubers disable their ratings? I've been noticing this alot. I've never seen an atheist stating his claims whilst disabling his ratings yet.
"OH NO I'VE GOT GOD, BUT, IF MY YOUTUBE VIDEOS IN WHICH I ACT LIKE AN IDIOT RATINGS ARE BAD, THEN I JUST CAN'T GO ON LIVING ANYMORE."
@AtheismKAAD Hah, whining little maggot. What a coincidence, I just a video on this very subject where I explain in great detail why I don't. And if that bothers you, excellent.
Shit. The American dictionaries need to include the word atheism, ...and a lot of other knowledge...I don't think I can listen to another spastic like this.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Religion would require a belief in the supernatural. This "half religion" stuff is nonsense. You might as well say that religion is half a drug addiction with none if the benefits: it makes you stupid but doesn't expand your mind. It turns you into an obnoxious blathering fool, but you don't get any fun out of it.
I am an atheist, but I don't want everyone to be an atheist. Those people who think they would do bad things if they didn't believe in a god, I hope will always be whatever religion they are. For those that find comfort in believing in a god, I also wish those people to believe. I really can't think of a single person that I have wanted to "convert" or convince.
@amberview30 Well you're different than most atheists I encounter, and you're not who I'm thinking of when I speak of the "idiot-atheist." Assuming you're telling the truth of course, which is always a bit of a leap of faith, when one deals with atheists.
@DaMagiCraven I think that generalization is not good. It's something that we instinctually do to protect ourselves, but sometimes it does the opposite. We categorize things, i.e. bad, good, black, white, etc. The thing that unites theists is that they believe in a deity or deities. I really wouldn't be able to say all theists do anything other than that. Did you know that Christians were once called atheists by the Romans, because they did not believe in the same god(s)?
Did you actually say Christians are unified religiously? Wow. Just, wow!
I think if there was one thing that convinced me that there wasn't any truth in christianity, it was the lack of unity. People working toward their own goals, badmouthing other groups. All these people hearing from god, yet god is saying something different and often contradictory each time (yet still supportable by scripture). 30,000 denominations is not unity.
If i was going to be a Poe and make a video criticizing atheism in general terms to show the flaw of making atheistic videos which lump all Christians (or Muslims - or theists, etc) together under one blanket, this is exactly the video I would make.
In case that wasn't clear, yes, I just called this video a Poe.
What you fail to mention is that by far the vast majority of self described atheists on YouTube and out in the real world are former Christians. Just ask some of them, take a count. They have simply seen through the delusion called religion. There are a whole bunch of deconversion videos on YT that you should take the time and check out, you just might learn something about reality. It's understandable that you'd be afraid to do that.
I don't tell people what to believe, I just do my level best to shame and humiliate them enough so that they might consider for a moment that they might be wrong. Is that so wrong of me? I can't imagine what objection you would have to going around insulting people for what they believe (or don't believe), being, as you so clearly are, a bit of an amateur enthusiast yourself.
How does your rant here do anything but incite more hatred? I've never seen, heard or read anything from Jesus about vitriolic hatred for any person. In fact, I'm reasonably sure he said. "Love your enemies," which you have a funny way of showing. The vitriol you display strongly suggests that your faith is questionable, that you are incapable of living to the standards asked of you by your savior. Peace.
No; I don't go around telling other people what to believe. You're flat wrong. Try again. Please be so kind as to explain to me how my disbelief in a God has anything to do with what you are saying here.
@DaMagiCraven What about the main BIG benefit that an atheist gets, like ohhhhh i don't know , no fear of heaven or hell , look at you , full grown man , scared of something he cannot see nor prove.
@LogicalStatements1 I'm a Christian, tough guy. Having accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I have NO fear of hell. You... well that's a whole other story. Even if I were to accept the atheist 'lie, that you don't know the truth in your heart, the atheists beliefs on the subject of the after life cannot be seen or proven either. You believe in oblivion, which is far scarier than our beliefs, and a far more useless belief as well. Christian live in hope, atheists live in darkness.
I consider the fact that you ignored every point made in this video to be your admission that you KNOW I'm right. But I'm curious, what part of this video are you pretending is a lie? The fact that atheists (like Bill Maher and Thunderf00t) claim Christians will drop nukes and destroy the world? The fact that atheists (like straightd0pe) use discrimination of Christians as a rallying cry? The fact that atheists (like TAA and jordan owen42) believe in abortion of healthy pregnancies?
@DaMagiCraven You didn't make points, you sprouted stereotypes. You even contradict yourself. First, we all loyally listen to people like thunderfoot without question, then you mention a large disagreement involving thunderfoot. Which one is it? You're not trying to make any points, you're just trying to speak to lowest common denominator of your religion.
It's both. You blindly follow your leaders. The only time you disagree is if a 2nd leader tells you to. The case with islam sparked a divide only because coughlan disagreed with thunderf00t. If he hadn't, idiot atheists like you would continue to blindly soak up everything thunderf00t told you to. And yeah I did make points. And no, you failed to prove that I lied at all. So you're a liar, and an intolerant bigot, and a sheep, and I think it's time you left.
@DaMagiCraven ok so just to let you know i don't folloow anyone like Thunderf00t or Bill Maher or anyone like that so i have no idea what your problem is and again stop stereotyping atheists like their all the same because we are not. also, mate, i think you have got some serious issues
@DaMagiCraven so are you pretending it's a lie the youtubers such as the shockofgod claim that athiests are arogant and stupid? you say athiests are intolerant to other religions, take a look at your own god damn videos, in all the ones to do with athiest you show intolerance of us. you are ignorant, intolerant and just so downrightt stupid.
You obviously didn't get the point (what a surprise). Everything in this entire video is based on public statements by leading atheists like thunderf00t and TAA. I don't have to lie to expose the idiocy of your average atheist, the truth works just fine. Atheists show their own close mindedness by refusing to face their own flaws and instead denying their flaws exist. So yeah, when a guy like shockofgod claims atheists are arrogant and stupid, I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Or my claim that atheists are NOT open minded and tolerant. A statement you yourself have just proven to be true? Tell me, my butthurt "friend," what part of this video are you pretending is a lie? You made your accusation, now BACK IT UP! And if you can't, you have proven that it is YOU who is the liar, not me.
@DaMagiCraven Pointing out your intolerance isn't intolerance. Trust me, no atheist is butthurt over you. You're an easy target. But lets pretend we don't know you're not trying to do anything but get attention and e-fame. And I was one of the 70 something people who gave it to you. You're welcome.
@indignant99 No, YOUR "religion" has no benefits, as I just proved in this video. As usual the idiot atheist doesn't listen to an extremely simple argument. And your crack about my disability just earned you the banhammer. I get asked sometimes why I dislike atheists so much. Maybe your hateful discrimination of something I was born with will be a tiny clue. No, I joke, idiot atheists will never get a clue.
@RationalConclusion Yes it does. You have all the negative parts of a religion, with none of the benefits. Again, I just said that. It helps to actually listen to the video before you spam my comments section with your verbal diarrhea.
@DaMagiCraven Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. It therefore does not quality as a religion, half a religion, a quarter religion or whatever fraction of a religion that you choose to call it.
No, under your pseudo religious leaders it has become far more than that. Although you have a new name for yourselves on an almost weekly basis. Now you're pearls, now you're rationalists, now you're the "new atheists." Regardless, your little cult movement has evolved beyond the simple dictionary definition of the word "atheist" and you know it. But your statement is a common idiot atheist technique of nitpicking in order to dance around whatever issue is being discussed, and you know it.
@DaMagiCraven Atheism isn't a religion or a cult. Even if atheism had leaders, which it doesn't, it still wouldn't qualify as such. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in god.
@robtbo Yeah yeah, keep with the delusions and double think. Call yourselves whatever you want: pearls, skeptics, rationalists, poster children for atheist stupidity. A skunk by any other name smells just as bad. My argument is exactly as apt no matter what label you've slapped on yourselves this week.
Atheism had its chance to dominate the ideological landscape of Humanity with the Soviet Union, and look how well that turned out? Forever they shall be an angry chihuahua, yipping like they think they're a Rottweiler.
I’m agnostic and I understand your anger. In fact you tube is full of annoying atheists who behave like religious preachers. My theory is: these people genuinely believe they are one step ahead (despite of an acute lack of evidence) and they desperately want to tell everyone they are ahead. They need attention or sex, I don’t know which of these more.
duubamg 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
More generalization and a bunch of hate spewing...I'm starting to see a trend here.
I'm glad to see that you're blind to why you draw so much hate and can't see how dumb you look here. I mean, atheist is a religion? How? and hatred of christians? So I must hate most of my family since there christian right? /facepalm
Anyway, I think you need to look up what religion is and think more on these things since you don't know what you're talking about.
Krensharpaw 1 month ago in playlist More videos from DaMagiCraven
This has been flagged as spam show
Why the fuck do lots of christian youtubers disable their ratings? I've been noticing this alot. I've never seen an atheist stating his claims whilst disabling his ratings yet.
"OH NO I'VE GOT GOD, BUT, IF MY YOUTUBE VIDEOS IN WHICH I ACT LIKE AN IDIOT RATINGS ARE BAD, THEN I JUST CAN'T GO ON LIVING ANYMORE."
AtheismKAAD 1 month ago
@AtheismKAAD Hah, whining little maggot. What a coincidence, I just a video on this very subject where I explain in great detail why I don't. And if that bothers you, excellent.
DaMagiCraven 1 month ago
Comment removed
AtheismKAAD 1 month ago
I have made a response to this video. Please check it out in my channel if you are interested.
IFUCKINGLOVEYOUTOO 2 months ago in playlist More videos from DaMagiCraven
Nice speech impediment.
IFUCKINGLOVEYOUTOO 2 months ago
Shit. The American dictionaries need to include the word atheism, ...and a lot of other knowledge...I don't think I can listen to another spastic like this.
Al1981X 3 months ago
Well I think Poe's law is at work here
JahJah920 4 months ago
@JahJah920 Oh fuck I hope so. I don't want to live in a world where this level of stupidity is real.
Al1981X 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 4 months ago
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
Cool! A new Theotard to destroy!
calmreason 5 months ago
Two words herp and derp.
Pil0sake 5 months ago
Well that was five minutes I could've spent watching porn or something...
lulle103 5 months ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från DaMagiCraven
@lulle103 Oh goodness gracious me. Five WHOLE minutes? Back up the waaaambulance! You poor thing. I can't tell you how I weep for your suffering.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
Strawman.
Pil0sake 5 months ago
@Pil0sake Hah! Called it. Fail, as usual.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
Religion would require a belief in the supernatural. This "half religion" stuff is nonsense. You might as well say that religion is half a drug addiction with none if the benefits: it makes you stupid but doesn't expand your mind. It turns you into an obnoxious blathering fool, but you don't get any fun out of it.
JohannMint 5 months ago
I am an atheist, but I don't want everyone to be an atheist. Those people who think they would do bad things if they didn't believe in a god, I hope will always be whatever religion they are. For those that find comfort in believing in a god, I also wish those people to believe. I really can't think of a single person that I have wanted to "convert" or convince.
amberview30 5 months ago
@amberview30 Well you're different than most atheists I encounter, and you're not who I'm thinking of when I speak of the "idiot-atheist." Assuming you're telling the truth of course, which is always a bit of a leap of faith, when one deals with atheists.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven I think that generalization is not good. It's something that we instinctually do to protect ourselves, but sometimes it does the opposite. We categorize things, i.e. bad, good, black, white, etc. The thing that unites theists is that they believe in a deity or deities. I really wouldn't be able to say all theists do anything other than that. Did you know that Christians were once called atheists by the Romans, because they did not believe in the same god(s)?
amberview30 5 months ago
?? what benifits has any religion ever had? No one has ever sarted a war or commited genocide in the cause of a dissbelief in gods.
you like to make very sweeping statements , my deluded friend. trying to up your subscriberbase by creating drama? Yep that sounds about right
TheEnglishAthiest 5 months ago
Did you actually say Christians are unified religiously? Wow. Just, wow!
I think if there was one thing that convinced me that there wasn't any truth in christianity, it was the lack of unity. People working toward their own goals, badmouthing other groups. All these people hearing from god, yet god is saying something different and often contradictory each time (yet still supportable by scripture). 30,000 denominations is not unity.
ralph17p 5 months ago
If i was going to be a Poe and make a video criticizing atheism in general terms to show the flaw of making atheistic videos which lump all Christians (or Muslims - or theists, etc) together under one blanket, this is exactly the video I would make.
In case that wasn't clear, yes, I just called this video a Poe.
gamutman 5 months ago
What you fail to mention is that by far the vast majority of self described atheists on YouTube and out in the real world are former Christians. Just ask some of them, take a count. They have simply seen through the delusion called religion. There are a whole bunch of deconversion videos on YT that you should take the time and check out, you just might learn something about reality. It's understandable that you'd be afraid to do that.
deepashtray 5 months ago
I don't tell people what to believe, I just do my level best to shame and humiliate them enough so that they might consider for a moment that they might be wrong. Is that so wrong of me? I can't imagine what objection you would have to going around insulting people for what they believe (or don't believe), being, as you so clearly are, a bit of an amateur enthusiast yourself.
InvincibleIronyMan 5 months ago
How does your rant here do anything but incite more hatred? I've never seen, heard or read anything from Jesus about vitriolic hatred for any person. In fact, I'm reasonably sure he said. "Love your enemies," which you have a funny way of showing. The vitriol you display strongly suggests that your faith is questionable, that you are incapable of living to the standards asked of you by your savior. Peace.
deepashtray 5 months ago
No; I don't go around telling other people what to believe. You're flat wrong. Try again. Please be so kind as to explain to me how my disbelief in a God has anything to do with what you are saying here.
SuperSoylent2 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion "ARE TOO!" Yeah... obvious troll is getting pretty obvious. I think it's time you spammed someone else's channel.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
*shakes head*
LogicalStatements1 5 months ago
@LogicalStatements1 *nods head*
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven What about the main BIG benefit that an atheist gets, like ohhhhh i don't know , no fear of heaven or hell , look at you , full grown man , scared of something he cannot see nor prove.
LogicalStatements1 5 months ago
@LogicalStatements1 I'm a Christian, tough guy. Having accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I have NO fear of hell. You... well that's a whole other story. Even if I were to accept the atheist 'lie, that you don't know the truth in your heart, the atheists beliefs on the subject of the after life cannot be seen or proven either. You believe in oblivion, which is far scarier than our beliefs, and a far more useless belief as well. Christian live in hope, atheists live in darkness.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
Youtube Christians: So dishonest and hateful, you won't miss religion.
DarkEmergence 5 months ago
I consider the fact that you ignored every point made in this video to be your admission that you KNOW I'm right. But I'm curious, what part of this video are you pretending is a lie? The fact that atheists (like Bill Maher and Thunderf00t) claim Christians will drop nukes and destroy the world? The fact that atheists (like straightd0pe) use discrimination of Christians as a rallying cry? The fact that atheists (like TAA and jordan owen42) believe in abortion of healthy pregnancies?
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven You didn't make points, you sprouted stereotypes. You even contradict yourself. First, we all loyally listen to people like thunderfoot without question, then you mention a large disagreement involving thunderfoot. Which one is it? You're not trying to make any points, you're just trying to speak to lowest common denominator of your religion.
DarkEmergence 5 months ago
It's both. You blindly follow your leaders. The only time you disagree is if a 2nd leader tells you to. The case with islam sparked a divide only because coughlan disagreed with thunderf00t. If he hadn't, idiot atheists like you would continue to blindly soak up everything thunderf00t told you to. And yeah I did make points. And no, you failed to prove that I lied at all. So you're a liar, and an intolerant bigot, and a sheep, and I think it's time you left.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven sorry, is this directed at me?
87idk 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven ok so just to let you know i don't folloow anyone like Thunderf00t or Bill Maher or anyone like that so i have no idea what your problem is and again stop stereotyping atheists like their all the same because we are not. also, mate, i think you have got some serious issues
87idk 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven so are you pretending it's a lie the youtubers such as the shockofgod claim that athiests are arogant and stupid? you say athiests are intolerant to other religions, take a look at your own god damn videos, in all the ones to do with athiest you show intolerance of us. you are ignorant, intolerant and just so downrightt stupid.
87idk 5 months ago
You obviously didn't get the point (what a surprise). Everything in this entire video is based on public statements by leading atheists like thunderf00t and TAA. I don't have to lie to expose the idiocy of your average atheist, the truth works just fine. Atheists show their own close mindedness by refusing to face their own flaws and instead denying their flaws exist. So yeah, when a guy like shockofgod claims atheists are arrogant and stupid, I agree with him wholeheartedly.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
Or my claim that atheists are NOT open minded and tolerant. A statement you yourself have just proven to be true? Tell me, my butthurt "friend," what part of this video are you pretending is a lie? You made your accusation, now BACK IT UP! And if you can't, you have proven that it is YOU who is the liar, not me.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven Pointing out your intolerance isn't intolerance. Trust me, no atheist is butthurt over you. You're an easy target. But lets pretend we don't know you're not trying to do anything but get attention and e-fame. And I was one of the 70 something people who gave it to you. You're welcome.
DarkEmergence 5 months ago
why is it that you seem to hate atheists so much?
i don't hate christians, i have many friends that are. it's the bible bashers that i can't stand.
and why is it that you pretty much stereotype all athiests? not all atheists are the same just like not all christians are the same
87idk 5 months ago
Speaker is Half a Wit.
indignant99 5 months ago
Your religion has no benefits... only drawbacks. (You realize that a speech impediment is a symptom of a brain impediment.)
indignant99 5 months ago
@indignant99 No, YOUR "religion" has no benefits, as I just proved in this video. As usual the idiot atheist doesn't listen to an extremely simple argument. And your crack about my disability just earned you the banhammer. I get asked sometimes why I dislike atheists so much. Maybe your hateful discrimination of something I was born with will be a tiny clue. No, I joke, idiot atheists will never get a clue.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
Atheism is not at all a religion.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion It is half a religion, I just said that. Open your damn ears.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven It's not half a religion. That makes no sense.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
@RationalConclusion Yes it does. You have all the negative parts of a religion, with none of the benefits. Again, I just said that. It helps to actually listen to the video before you spam my comments section with your verbal diarrhea.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. It therefore does not quality as a religion, half a religion, a quarter religion or whatever fraction of a religion that you choose to call it.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
No, under your pseudo religious leaders it has become far more than that. Although you have a new name for yourselves on an almost weekly basis. Now you're pearls, now you're rationalists, now you're the "new atheists." Regardless, your little cult movement has evolved beyond the simple dictionary definition of the word "atheist" and you know it. But your statement is a common idiot atheist technique of nitpicking in order to dance around whatever issue is being discussed, and you know it.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven Atheism isn't a religion or a cult. Even if atheism had leaders, which it doesn't, it still wouldn't qualify as such. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in god.
RationalConclusion 5 months ago
I don't think atheist means what you think it means.
robtbo 5 months ago
@robtbo Yeah yeah, keep with the delusions and double think. Call yourselves whatever you want: pearls, skeptics, rationalists, poster children for atheist stupidity. A skunk by any other name smells just as bad. My argument is exactly as apt no matter what label you've slapped on yourselves this week.
DaMagiCraven 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven When I state that I don't believe in gods, you know virtually nothing about me.
Why so aggressive?
robtbo 5 months ago
@DaMagiCraven "My argument is exactly as apt no matter what label you've slapped on yourselves this week."
That's true. It misses the mark in all possible worlds.
Gnomefro 5 months ago
Atheism had its chance to dominate the ideological landscape of Humanity with the Soviet Union, and look how well that turned out? Forever they shall be an angry chihuahua, yipping like they think they're a Rottweiler.
GDIgenGT 5 months ago
Oh noooo! Not a Nuclear Apocalypse. lol I have something to show you. Check this video and channel out.
watch?v=mHuHse9fbT8
Atheists caught in major lies about religion. (What else is new?)
TheStigmadeign 5 months ago