@evelsteev Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but amino acids aren't life..and neither is RNA. You don't understand the problem. You don't just need ONE case of a cell developing without intelligence from inert materials. You need MORE evidence than BIOGENESIS has of that to win the scientific case. WHY? Because science follows the views with the MOST evidence, NOT THE LEAST. And there are more problems besides that. Btw, do you know that the Bible and Christianity built modern science?
@TruthIsLife7 No bubble burst, since amino acids refer to the molecular structure consisting of both amine and carboxyl functional groups. Referred to as alpha-amino acids in Biochemistry, typically it is defined with the formula H2NCHRCOOH where R stands for organic substitute. Amino acids can be called as the building blocks of our life. They are what keep us alive.
@TruthIsLife7 Why not just come clean about the whole 'professor' lie? I mean you can't even comprehend that Pasteur's work had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life, do you really think anyone is going to believe you're a professor?
@TruthIsLife7 Answer the man, do you really think anyone believes you're a professor when you can't even understand Pasteur's work from over a century ago?
@PhantomOfChaosSkin You consistently fail to understand how science works.Processes we see operating now are assumed to operate the same in history in general (there are a few exceptions, but not many). Without this, universal common descent has not a shred of basis in science. Neither does the Big Bang and many other things in forensic and historical science. Your delusions are only evidence for me to use in my university classes to demonstrate that atheism makes people stupid about science.
@TruthIsLife7 Even if science rests on the shoulders of chrsitians and the bible, it doesn't anymore. Since apparently biogenesis is the theory with the least amount of evidence - what are the theory with the most and what are the evidence? Biogenesis is still an unprooven hypothesis. However the evidence keep backing up the hypothesis. About christians building science, yes ofcourse they did. Everyone was christian back then - if they had claimed not to be, bad things would have happend to them
@BjornSeverinLarsen Hey Bjorn...long time no chat...sorry for my terrible delay..I've had extremely busy months and many deadlines...but soon will send you the e-mail I promised. Modern science wouldn't exist without many biblical principles and the Christians who followed them&science STILL follows biblical concepts and has confirmed many scientific claims in the Bible.Everyone was Hindu, Buddhist, Zeusian in other parts of the world, yet they didn't invent modern science.
@TruthIsLife7 Biogenesis is not any kind of hypothesis. It's one of the strongest laws of science that exists. Very little in all science has more evidence than biogenesis.
@TruthIsLife7 I actually misunderstood biogenesis, I thought you meant abiogenesis in my last comment. What I meant was, the evidence seem to point towards abiogenesis being possible, however not yet proving it. Pasteur said: "Spontaneous generation is a dream", which is true to a point. Newton also believed in alkymi. All Pasteur could empirically show was the generation of life from life - this is something that abiogenesis potenially can disproove.It hasn't yet, but it might.
@BjornSeverinLarsen You say that christianity has created sciences (I agree) and is still carrying it today (I don't agree). A biblical science that aren't allowed to follow the evidence to the conclusion which is the most rational based on the evidence isn't science. If you have your bible with all it's knowledge, then to have to conform your evidence to the bible - this is not science. However christian scientists doesn't do this, they do science. Thus making them scientists, not christians
Out of 1000s of cultures, it was the Bible, Creation science and Christian scientists laid and built the foundations, it's most important processes and pioneered most of its branches. See this presentation by Dr. Hannam at the Royal Society (Dr. Hannam has a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge and Nature and New Scientist highly recommend his work.) See this link:
@HimesInu Evolution is a very ambiguous term since there are actually 6 kinds of evolution ranging from creationist evolution to chemical evolution to stellar evolution and others. Darwin's universal common descent idea had nothing to do with origin of life, true. That's a crucial point actual. Also, for similar reasons, the act of creation can't be compared to universal common descent and no real scientist should do so. Do you know why?
@TruthIsLife7 Just in case you weren't aware at this point, Pasteur's work had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life. If, from this point on, you ever claim it does I would ask you what the bible says about bearing false witness.
GreatHopeSprings, it is you who doesn't understand science AT ALL. Pasteur's experiments were explicitly directed at refuting the idea that life can come from non-life in any form, including biochemical forms. Others scientists have done numerous experiments&ALL have backed him up.Inferential science (the type the Big Bang is based upon and much other science) shows us that this must have been true in all history. Until you DEMONSTRATE an anomaly to this law, you aren't doing science, PERIOD.
@TruthIsLife7 No I'm clearly the only one who does understand science in this conversation. Pasteur's work had absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis, he debunked spontaneous generation, the notion that MODERN life arose spontaneously
You can't even understand this and you expect people to believe you're a professor?
@HimesInu Youtube comments are NOT for the purpose of listing proof. They are to point to it. I have literally 1000s of articles on just creation science alone plus MUCH other proof for God. But your refusal to investigate anything outside your current view is the death of science and scientific progress, etc. I’ll post only a couple, but you need to go and read and watch for yourself in depth on the other side as I have or else, even according to Darwin, you can’t make an informed judgment.
@HimesInu Um, read what atheism is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. No, atheism is NOT only lack belief (but that atheism loses to even 1 piece of rival evidence). It also agrees with naturalism, assuming falsely a priori that there is no evidence for God and certain other tenets, not to mention that in practice it continually rejects the wait of evidence and falsely claims that testable evidence pointing to God isn’t evidence.
@HimesInu The Cambridge explosion alone destroys universal common descent since even Gould agrees that nearly all phyla and their lower divisions appear in just that small period which is ~1% of earth’s history and almost no new phyla have appeared since. I have so many scientists, including evolutionists, agreeing that this cannot be reconciled with universal common descent.
@HimesInu Keep in mind that that ~95% percent of the fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, ~95% are algae and plant fossils. ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insects. The remaining 0.0125% of fossils include all vertebrates, mostly fish. ~95% percent of the few land vertebrate fossils consist of less than one bone. Keep that in mind.
@HimesInu Dr. Wise, Ph.D. in geology from Harvard says, "I took the 7…strongest arguments for evolution…I satisfied myself in just a few months there that the 7 largest arguments could be easily subsumed within creationism and that there was no further need for concern in those areas...One of those claims, one of the 7 that I thought was most significant, was the claim that the fossil order was explained best by evolution and that the fossil order is thus evidence for evolution...
@HimesInu I'm going to focus on plants. There's a reason for this. When I first did this, I did it for everything. When I did it for everything, I found that there wasn't much order to explain. There was really only 2 groups where there was any order that corresponded between the fossil record and evolution theory and that would be the order of the first appearance of plants, the major groups of plants [the divisions]...and then there would be the vertebrates....
@HimesInu at that point, I deduced that 95% of the fossil record has no correspondence between evolution and the order in the fossil record. So, there's really nothing to explain. At a 5% confidence interval, in statistics we would say there's no order to explain, PERIOD. Let's go home. Nonetheless, the 5% that remained was interesting. The 5% were those 2 groups, the plants and the vertebrates."
@HimesInu The noted palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out that:- "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." (Gould, 1977).
Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University said:-"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Kemp, 1999).
@HimesInu Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History said:- "A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is.
This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin , his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...". Raup, D. (1981). New Scientist, Vol. 90. Vol. 90. p. 832
@HimesInu 1) Yes, Creation science&ID have religious connections, but it is only ignorant or people duped by atheist propaganda that think that religion can't be a part of science. The scientific method says nothing of this. FACT: They are every bit as testable as the Big Bang and more testable than universal common descent & others. Check this seminar for just one creation theory with many testable hypotheses:
watch?v=NqWnziBRTf0
2) Hebrews 1:2 states that the universe was created
@TruthIsLife7 First, we can't test that a higher being created the universe. Second, religion can't be a part of science because religion starts with a product and conforms evidence to match that product, while science starts with a question and the answer comes from the evidence. How can you test Creation/ID? Common Decent is seen all across the fossil record while creationism is not.
@HimesInu We can't test abiogenesis, universal common descent or creation directly. But, ALL 3 can be tested using historical science. Abio & UCD have often been falsified while God has been confirmed.
95% of the fossil record does NOT match what evolution claims. It matches creation FAR better because creation predicts that life forms would be buried mostly by habitat from marine sessile to free swimming to land dwelling &that's exactly what we see.
@TruthIsLife7 Abiogenesis, I'll give to you. Common decent, look at DNA or the genome of animals or even the fossil record and they will all show you common descent. And where the hell has "God" been confirmed?
95% of... That's ridiculous. This statement proves you are ignorant. It shows you have no grasp on reality at all.
That's it, I'm handing you over to someone who is used to dealing with creationists bullshit.
@HimesInu I've watched most of Thunderfoot's series and literally 100s of other videos by the best atheists and evolutionists on youtube as well as reading books such as "Your Inner Fish", etc. Nearly every argument atheists make is based on a fallacy of one sort or another, that if applied consistently would destroy most science and history.
Correction. Atheism offers no benefits, only death for all, consistent opposition to science/evidence, less life on this earth and ultimate injustice.
@TruthIsLife7 Atheism doesn't talk about anything outside the lack of belief of deities, so it can't do any of the things you said. Just as evolution only gives evidence for species diversity and not the origins of life.
@TruthIsLife7 No, I'm skeptical, as ALL scientists are. And I also don't see the point of putting "God" in the mix, like true scientists. Also, no real scientist takes stock in "creation" science. In fact, most "creationists" aren't scientists at all. And if they are, none of them are biologists. As for youtube comments not for listing proof, that just shows you don't have proof that will stand up to the test of actual science and you're afraid to put it up.
@HimesInu Oh my stars...you think religious texts can't be evidence? Don't be duped so easily.If that's true than no Roman historians can be used as evidence for Romans,no evolutionist books can be used as evidence for evolution&on and on...you just destroyed most of civilization with that foolishness.
Why are you so biased that you won't even check evidence? Do you have a death wish?All atheist gives you is death, death for the universe, hindering science&permanent injustice for billions.
@TruthIsLife7 No, I don't believe we can use religious text as proof of the validity of a religious text alone. It's called circular reasoning. Now, if we have physical evidence outside of the religious text, I'm willing to look at the evidence, but I'm going to be skeptical on whether it proves the religious text. And we don't use biology books to prove biology. We use biology books to tell people what's already been proven true.
@TruthIsLife7 As for atheism giving death; you're exaggerating and is desperate on all levels. Atheism does nothing of the such. Atheism merely states the lack of belief in deities. Nothing about atheism brings death. Unless you equate skepticism of deities to death. And if that's the case, I think you need to get in touch with reality.
@TruthIsLife7 "1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;" And what scientific proof do we have that "God", or any "gods", created the "worlds" outside of religious texts? None. Absolutely none.
@HimesInu Your stance is clear. Your ignorance is clearer. But, it's not your fault. The evidence for the Christian God has been banned from education and much of academia for decades for POLITICAL reasons. This violates even Darwin's own principles.
500+ people personally saw Jesus after his resurrection. Specific prophecies covering millennia have been fulfilled.
There are 1000s of lines of evidence for God with billions of confirmations. Atheism (esp. modern atheism) has no evidence precisely because it makes no claims. The Bible makes many specific claims and has found countless confirmations of them. See these 2 playlists for starters:
Why Be A Christian? Incredibly short overview of some evidence. user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/21AEF61B66D954E1
@TruthIsLife7 Even if there are places told of in the Bible, it's not evidence for the Bible more than the authors wrote of real places. Hell, when I write my fiction I always use real places. Even if the events of the Exodus are true, there are natural reasons for it. Watch the History Channel show The Exodus Decoded. There is no evidence for the Biblical Jesus. The first outside reference comes from a man who was born four years after Jesus was supposedly crucified.
@HimesInu In history, when a writer is found to be accurate in case after case after case that we can check, we trust him in cases we can't check. If we didn't do this, we would emasculate the most important aspects of history, such as people's thoughts and motives, etc. So too with the Bible, accuracy in things we can check (and there are MANY) gives us confidence in those we can't check (a few).
Exodus Decoded doesn't follow occam's razor which atheists say is so important to follow.
@TruthIsLife7 The only thing we can be certain about with the Bible are the Kings, most of the places (there is no proof of a town called Nazareth anywhere in Israel),and a few of the Romans, ie Pilate and a few of the Roman consulates.
I I use The Exodus Decode because they don't try to prove the bible, just that it was possible for the Ten Plagues actually happened and how, how the "water was parted", and where the possible Mt Sinai is. Nowhere do they state that this is proof of the Bible.
@ggpUtuber Um, if you read, I was just applying the standard of someone who doesn't understand science to their own faith to make a point. Next time read the context and don't jump to false conclusions. Science does NOT demand observable proof for all things. That is the most direct and credible kinds...but it also has other methods. that can help to find truth. One of your atheist friends was demanding video proof of me for God...so just applied the same standard to his evidenceless faith.
@DonExodus2 Wow! The straw men are piling up fast...nipples in non-mammals??? Creation doesn't predict that either.
ID is like saying if my car is not red, it's blue...why do "I" have to explain this fallacy to you???
A) Life is either uncreated or created.In binary choices,proving A is wrong is STRONG evidence for B.
B) ID uses the same scientific processes,inferences&logic that scientists the world over do.It's inferences are far stronger than the ones make up the foundation of evolution.
@evelsteev How many ways or in which fields do you want it proven? I have 500 videos on my channel doing just that and please do NOT ask me to list the evidence in comments...that's just way way naive and it won't even begin to fit OR convince you because it is so limited. More importantly, science and rational thinking follow the WEIGHT of evidence..and Christianity has that more than any other view in most fields and esp. so overall. I've studied 1000s of hours on many views..nothing compares.
@TruthIsLife7 Most of your videos feature men on a podium, talking about their belief in god. Now show me a video of god, that actually shows him. Otherwise, you're full of crap.
Btw,why judge my videos without even watching any? Some do have scientists presenting the evidence they've found,some are actual experiments being done or actual physical evidence that resulted from God's actions in history,some are slides or pictures or videos of the evidence &a whole range of things that in ANY other field is always accepted as evidence.
Btw, if God did appear in front of you,you would instantly die. But,we have evidence of the supernatural from other senses&fields.
@TruthIsLife7 I've watched some, but "god" never appeared. So much talk, and yet he never showed up. Not a good case for his "existence." Name one time, in recent history, where god appeared before someone, and they "instantly" died, right in front of them. So far....nothing. More nonsense, and more bodiless traits and ascriptions.
@evelsteev Even Dawkins says it's absurd for people to refuse to believe in things they can not see. Your standard if applied to other fields, would destroy nearly all of history as well as many fields&aspects of science. I don't think you really want to do that. You also seem to not be comprehending how science works in even an elementary sense. It works by collecting evidence from all sorts of fields...and presenting that for people to consider and then following the weight of evidence.
@evelsteev When you show me observable video proof of abiogenesis (as in inert chemicals transforming themselves into a fully functional cell) & universal common descent from a cell to man & of the builders of the Easter Island statues building them, only then will your standard be even remotely intelligent, rational or scientific. Your standards are the death of science and rational thinking.
@evelsteev Yep, I know of it and it's been totally debunked as far as something that can produce a living cell. You can't be so naive that you don't know that, I would hope.
u say abiogenesis has been debunked, lol..by who?..your preacher?..a website constructed by religious people?..point me in the direction of an accredited scientific article that says abiogenesis has been debunked. NOT some video of a creationist wearing a lab coat.
@itzahazylife Every experiment in history in abiogenesis has either failed or been debunked ranging from spontaneous generation to all modern efforts to create a cell without intelligence intervening. That falsifies abiogenesis conclusively until you can find examples where it happens. Very few of my videos on these topics are by pastors. I have scientists with top notch degrees, including some former atheists and evolutionists presenting vast evidence for the Bible and creation on my channel.
are u gonna start learning science from scientists, or are u gonna keep up with this shit?..u have no idea what u are talking about..we find amino acids on asteroids for christs sake!..the building blocks to proteins already exist in the universe!
@itzahazylife Finding amino acids does nothing to prove that cellular life can originate from inert chemicals. It's sort of like finding water and dirt mix into mud and assuming that that proves a city can develop from scratch without intelligence or finding legos and assuming they became a castle on their own.Biogenesis is a LAW of science. Do you know what that means? Not even ONE exception has ever been found. NOT ONE. Until that is done, you are the one who is outside of science.
does NOTHING!?..are u out of your mind?..amino acids are the building blocks to proteins, which are the building blocks to LIFE..that means NOTHING to u?..the building blocks to life NATURALLY form in the universe..every element in our bodies form in the cores of stars, NATURALLY..mountains form NATURALLY. planets form NATURALLY. why the hell do u need to invoke magic when it comes to life? it's because it causes u to devalue yourself, that's why..but it shouldn't!..it's amazing!
@evelsteev Sorry, didn't see this. Of course I've heard of that experiment. It does almost nothing to help abiogenesis. It's like saying that because earth and water can combine to make mud, that proves a whole city can build itself up without intelligence. Furthermore they got the atmosphere wrong and other things.
@TruthIsLife7 Sure it does, it doesn't necessarily prove how life started on earth, but it does prove life can come from non-life. Earth and water combining, is NOT on the same level as life being formed from non-organic elements. Hardly the same thing. Earth and water, combing together, will not eventually reveal a self-replicating pattern such as DNA. The atmosphere, however, was "right" enough to produce amino acids. Those also exist in THIS atmosphere, as well.
"...the privilege of knowing your Creator and living forever" (from your profile)...do u know what will allow us to live forever?..SCIENCE..one day science will figure out the key to cellular decay, and stop it completely..they are already making huge leaps in this..then what? lol
life is NO different than anything else that forms naturally..we are merely more complex,but NOT separate! we are one with nature..we ARE nature. we are a collection of chemical elements,the same way the earth is, and the ocean is, and stars are..every heavy element in the universe is fused in the cores of stars, and after the star explodes, these elements get spread out into space, where they form planets, and eventually life..this is SO MUCH more beautiful AND evident, than any religious myth.
@itzahazylife You are asserting abiogenesis and certain other things that do not have even the slightest bit of evidence from science. Atheism is a religion based almost entirely on faith and fallacies and the refusal to follow the weight of evidence from science. Btw, you do know that it was Christians who invented and pioneered modern science right. See this presentation at the Royal Society by Dr. James Hannam, Ph.D in the history of science from Cambridge:
@itzahazylife Sorry, but there is nothing beautiful about atheism or random explosions or speculations. If you are a father and spent much love and time taking care of your son..and then he rejects you and claims you did nothing to help Him and that you don't even exist..then you'll understand a little bit of how God feels about atheists who deny the massive evidence for his many gifts to us.
@TruthIsLife7 No, it just proves that either you weren't a very good father or that he's a brat. More than likely, it's the former. But the difference is that there is physical proof of you and nothing for "God."
@HimesInu You completely missed the point of the post. But, it is absolutely and categorically untrue that there is no proof for God. Furthermore even Dawkins says that it's absurd to think that things you can't see, etc. can't be real. And there are quite a few cases where people have had no physical proof of their fathers for one reason or another, yet they existed (such as soldiers fathering kids and leaving to go back home and the mother has nothing from the father).
@TruthIsLife7 Let me make my stance more clear; There is no evidence for the CHRISTIAN god. And that's the same thing Dawkins thinks. The proof is the fact that they have half of his bloody DNA. If that's not proof, I don't know what is.
God's health principles given when 70% of Egyptian medicine included dung, beer or both, NOW produce 10+ years extra life. Christians built most of modern science. This and much more is undeniable evidence.
Dawkins is an idiot, an incomparable and incorrigible liar and the origin of countless fallacies that if applied consistently would destroy almost all science.
@TruthIsLife7 God's health principles? What? And whether the scientists were Christian, Muslim, white, black, it doesn't matter. The fact is, none of them used religious principles to build modern science.
And that's just an out right lie, in of itself. If you want a liar, look at O'Reilly, Beck, Cameron, Comfort, and Stein. These people know that ID is both creationism and complete bullshit that has no shreds of evidence. They wouldn't even testify in the Dover case.
@HimesInu If you're not going to even investigate anything, then don't call yourself rational, scientific or interested in truth. What you say is a fact is a lie and even New Scientist and Nature and nearly all historians of science agree. The Royal Society is the 1st science society in history. Watch the presentation if you have even a tiny bit of integrity.
I can't stand O'Reilly or Beck &yes they lie. The others are not liars, but can make mistakes. But, they aren't scientists of any sort.
@HimesInu If even the Big Bang and biogenesis are scientific, then so is creation science by any rational standard and there is MUCH more beyond this. ~95% of the fossil record can't match evolution and matches far better the claims of creation science. See my creation-evidence for the flood playlist, videos 1-10 for some very hard science on this.Creationists years ago predicted that most junkDNA would be found to have function. Now, almost every day papers are being published confirming this.
@HimesInu The Dover case was severely biased from the start. The judge is on record saying that he agrees that science can't point to God. That's an a priori insanely biased position which atheists also hold. How would you like it if we defined science as something that can't point to atheism or Darwinism and then banned all atheist and Darwinian ideas from all academia and public education. That would be no different from what has been done to Christianity.
@TruthIsLife7 The judge was a Republican that was appointed by Bush. And he only said that after the fact. And atheism and science aren't mutually exclusive. Nor is science defined as something that can't point to religion. It is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. And the reason religion is banned from schools is based on the First Amendment.
@HimesInu Oh, the other reason why ID failed was due to the fact that creationism, which ID is directly ripped from, was deemed to be unconstitutional to teach in schools.
@HimesInu Creation science and ID have made many predictions and found solid confirmations of them. In fact EVERYONE believes in ~1/2-2/3rds of creation science, including you...that would be that the universe had a beginning, predicted in Hebrews 1:2 and the law of biogenesis. There's MUCH more beyond that as well. So you are already ~1/2 creationist, LOL :). Btw, do you not see any problem with politics telling science what it can and can't teach? If not, your education failed you.
@TruthIsLife7 Creationism and ID are not science. They're religion. They are both based on the Christian story of how the universe began, and that's the problem. As for Hebrew 1:2, it says nothing about the how the universe began or abiogenesis. I am not a Creationist because I don't believe the religious creation stories, and that is what a creationist is. And yes, I have a problem with politics getting into science. But Creationism/ID is NOT science. It has no hypothesis nor is testable.
&thus had a beginning (it has nothing to do with abiogenesis).
This has been confirmed by science. So has biogenesis. Science doesn't have to understand how something was done (but creation science explains much of that too & better than UCD). It can do that and that's one part of science, but science does NOT require that you understand the process to be part of science. EX: For centuries, gravity has been a part of science even though people didn't know how it worked.
@TruthIsLife7 No creation science says that "God" created the universe, not by actual scientific evidence but because a book says so. That's not science And yes, science has to know the how, that what science is.
you know what, you are doing exactly as every IDiot does, and that's mold the evidence to fit predetermined outcomes. And that is not science. You will be laughed out of ever scientific institution, and you won't know why until you learn just how ridiculous ID is.
@HimesInu Sorry, but you don't understand what science or evidence is. Many atheists don't. It may be because it was creationists who invented falsifiability, the peer review process, the modern scientific method and most branches of science as well, often DIRECTLY based on the Bible. ANY fulfillment of a prediction is EVIDENCE and it IS science PERIOD. If you don't know that ALL have bias, your education failed you BADLY.
There are no ground rules of science excluding God from science, let alone centuries old ones. Modern science owes it's existence almost entirely to those who studied it directly due to creationist philosophy and other 100% confirmed statements about science in the Bible that ALL agree are confirmed. ALL. Again, see:
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
Religion is banned from schools based on a PERVERSION of the 1st amendment..but thanks for having the integrity to agree it's banned.
@HimesInu It doesn't matter if Bush appointed the judge or that he was a republican (by the way, I couldn't stand Bush,opposed him from the start&campaigned a lot for Obama). The judge did NOT say that after the fact. That bias was the foundation of his judgment! He said “We find that ID fails…{because} ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation” The problem is that the scientific method says NOTHING about banning the supernatural.
u don't want truth..u wanna feel all warm and fuzzy inside..and it's as simple as that. everything i am telling u is what science has revealed to us..by denying it, u are denying reality..u don't like what science has uncovered, so, u close your eyes, and believe in fantasies..it scares u that there isn't some magical sky daddy loving u..u think because life occurred via unguided processes, that somehow there is no value to life. but, we are valuable and special no matter what.
@itzahazylife No, YOU don't want truth. Please stop lying to yourselves. There are MANY Christians who used to be atheists and only became Christians because that's where the weight of evidence pointed. Many did NOT want to become Christians...but they like I choose to follow the weight of evidence.
Science keeps on uncovering more and more in favor of the Bible. You have been deprived of this knowledge for political reasons and due to secularists/atheists banning it from education.
why don't u go live in a cave if all u need is the bible, huh?..u wouldn't even be typing to me right now if it wasn't for the TRUTH that science reveals about how nature works..science is an INVESTIGATION. reading a book written thousands of years ago is NOT an investigation..if u wanna know who a murderer is, u INVESTIGATE, u don't open the bible!..if u wanna know how life originated, u INVESTIGATE, u don't open the bible!..it's as simple as that. u want comfort, NOT truth!
@itzahazylife You wouldn't have ANY modern science without Christians and they pioneered it directly based on the Bible in many specific aspects. You believe myths. See this presentation at the Royal Society by Dr. James Hannam, Ph.D in the history of science from Cambridge:
@itzahazylife The Bible led directly to numerous scientific discoveries, esp. in health and people who follow Bible health principles NOW, live 10+ years more than the average according to secular science organizations like National Geographic, Blue Zones and others. See evidence here.
user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/DF491C31BC08BEE4 (videos 1-3 are confirmations from secular science organizations See esp. 11:30+. Videos 4-6 are a basic intro to God’s health principles in the Bible.)
the same science that u call speculation, is the same science that has given us modern medicine..do u know what u should do instead of going to the hospital? u should just pray to god.. the vaccines u and your kids take, were developed according evolutionary theory!!..we have to upgrade our vaccines because viruses and bacteria evolve..do u know why they evolve?..because dna evolves, and every life form on earth is composed of dna!
Universal common descent DOES make predictions...hosts of them...and many have been falsified...some confirmed (the ones that are confirmed are almost always in the areas of natural selection and speciation that creationists were publishing on LONG before Darwin published his book). But, these confirmations do not directly confirm the claims of universal common descent. They are extremely indirect and highly speculative&of the type that has been found to be pseudoscience MANY times in the past.
@DonExodus2 A) Why do most atheists ONLY straw man creation science with amateurs & TEENAGERS for crying out loud. Are you afraid to be fair & fight on a level playing field with creationists like Dr. Wise, Ph.D. from Harvard in geology, Dr. Veith with a Ph.D. in zoology, one of the top scientists in South Africa or the 1000s of other creationists with science degrees? See Dr. Wise’s flood theory which scientifically explains MUCH more than evolution:
C) I suppose it will fall on deaf ears that Karl Popper, pioneer of falsifiability stated that Darwinism wasn't falsifiable&was only a “metaphysical research program”. One reason why is that evolution keeps on hiding all the many times it’s been falsified under the rug: Lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation (Haeckel’s "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"), orthogenesis, xenogenesis and you can find many others by googling darwinspredictions.
Venomfangx doesnt get any point for the simple reason he has not started using his brain. He is just an automaton, repeating any creationist nonsense he finds in the web. poor stupid kid, the sad part is that he is popular amongst other christians.
You know what's your problem Shawn? that you chose the wrong role model: kent hovind. if you follow his steps you'll pretty much end up being, like AronRa said: a convicted fraud, seudoscience charlatan. Shawn, feel free to be a creationist, but at least try, try to get some other role model, i dont know, maybe Behe? but Hovind, the king of fools?
Don's replying to venom is a perfect example of the nature of this 'controversy': on one hand, an educated individual, probably with a science degree from a serious institution; on the other, a gigantic ignoramus buffoon that doesnt know squad about anything, and thinks he has some arguments or 'evidence' on his side, and that is recieving status from being given consideration. But someone has to stop the spread of ignorance. Well done Don.
OMG if only all creationists could watch this video, id luv to see their response to that aussie wall lizard evidence, if anyone watching this video know a creationist, SEND THEM THIS LINK!!!
@ooloogooloo they don't listen, it doesn't matter how much evidence they are shown for evolution, they just close their eyes, block their ears and say "is not, is not, is not!"
I'm sorry, did you say island of Croatia? Despite your obvious knowledge on the theory of evolution and probably biology in general you show once again that christians, whether creationist or vehemently anti-creationist such as yourself, are absolutely incapable of lacking profound ignorance.
Your assesment of VFX is spot on. If you view the various videso out there of Shawn's 'evolution', I think you will see distinct characteristics of an NPD. His Paypal Donation/Charity scam was, in my opinion, the point at which he became truly self destructive. It's sad and he still seems to be in denial. It makes me wonder if he truly believes the stuff he says, or is it all for dramatic effect.
im christian, and I hate christians. the catholics make us looks like puritans and the protestants make us look like fanatics. anyway, yeah I would agree with you that the creationist theory is a load of crap. just because you're christian, doesn't mean you have to have complete disregard for science.
This is what i call a perfect debate video response, it's absolutely flawless. If there wasn't a obvious cultural-national-age-etc gap between us, then I would definitely try to introduce you "good-looking" intelligent guy to my "good-looking" intelligent sexy sister. :))) (this is a joke of course)
The evolution of the Creationist argument has nothing to do with the development of scientific theory, specifically Evolutionary Theory. It has to do with having just enough bs to satisfy idiots.
I heard the story differently. There was this guy named Bernie. Bernie was a good and pious man. Every night Bernie prayed to win the lottery. One day Bernie dies and goes before God. Bernie says, "God, All I ever wished for was to win the lottery; Why did you find it not to be so?" God replies, "Bernie, you've got to buy a fucking ticket."
Arguing against evolution with a competent scientist such as Don is like trying to out calculate a Supercomputer with nothing but a piece of paper, a blunt pencil and half a packet of Mentos. Your just not going to win
VenomFangX was a hoax, and you bought into it hook line and sinker. You got all riled up for something you already knew, so I would say he really got the best of you in the end.
Those shadows below his eyes show that he's been up a while trying to master his degree in medicine. Take a break dude; we're all on you're side!! It's time for some R&R!! HAIL AND KILL
I'm not sure what people mean when they say "creationism/t". It's a pretty nebulous term. Does it refer to young earth creationism? Old earth creationism? Somebody who just believes God created the universe? What?
I have a view about you which you have brought me to the conclsion of because of the way you chose to say what you said about Walter Vieth.
But for diplomacy's sake and good relations I will not share this with you at least not now.
I could say all sorts of cute things such as reminding you that the mouth does not receive the foot well and that it is hard to find an uglier sight than five hairy toes between teeth.
@gregrutz OK so I have now read about this guy Kent and yeah he's an out there kind of guy isn't he. Doesn't like paying taxes. Well well well I don't know what can I say He's not all wrong You have to do your own reseach but it appears that you have prejudged Walt thinking that he's another Kent Look Pal I am an uneducated old hillbilly Ok I am a simple guy with simple questions that wants simple answers Is there a designer for the design in nature yes no maybe could be Your'e up
Does God make snowflakes, or did he just make the laws of nature the make snow flakes.
Walt is just like all creationist, they have to say it was all done by a flood. No looking or thinking, look for way to prove the bible is not wrong, again.
great video.. but im pretty sure croatia is not an island :)
squizill 4 months ago in playlist More videos from DonExodus2
Yup, Mr venom be a dummby:
sstan1337 4 months ago 2
@evelsteev Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but amino acids aren't life..and neither is RNA. You don't understand the problem. You don't just need ONE case of a cell developing without intelligence from inert materials. You need MORE evidence than BIOGENESIS has of that to win the scientific case. WHY? Because science follows the views with the MOST evidence, NOT THE LEAST. And there are more problems besides that. Btw, do you know that the Bible and Christianity built modern science?
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 No bubble burst, since amino acids refer to the molecular structure consisting of both amine and carboxyl functional groups. Referred to as alpha-amino acids in Biochemistry, typically it is defined with the formula H2NCHRCOOH where R stands for organic substitute. Amino acids can be called as the building blocks of our life. They are what keep us alive.
evelsteev 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Why not just come clean about the whole 'professor' lie? I mean you can't even comprehend that Pasteur's work had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life, do you really think anyone is going to believe you're a professor?
CreationistsLOST 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Answer the man, do you really think anyone believes you're a professor when you can't even understand Pasteur's work from over a century ago?
PhantomOfChaosSkin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhantomOfChaosSkin You consistently fail to understand how science works.Processes we see operating now are assumed to operate the same in history in general (there are a few exceptions, but not many). Without this, universal common descent has not a shred of basis in science. Neither does the Big Bang and many other things in forensic and historical science. Your delusions are only evidence for me to use in my university classes to demonstrate that atheism makes people stupid about science.
TruthIsLife7 2 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Even if science rests on the shoulders of chrsitians and the bible, it doesn't anymore. Since apparently biogenesis is the theory with the least amount of evidence - what are the theory with the most and what are the evidence? Biogenesis is still an unprooven hypothesis. However the evidence keep backing up the hypothesis. About christians building science, yes ofcourse they did. Everyone was christian back then - if they had claimed not to be, bad things would have happend to them
BjornSeverinLarsen 4 weeks ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen Hey Bjorn...long time no chat...sorry for my terrible delay..I've had extremely busy months and many deadlines...but soon will send you the e-mail I promised. Modern science wouldn't exist without many biblical principles and the Christians who followed them&science STILL follows biblical concepts and has confirmed many scientific claims in the Bible.Everyone was Hindu, Buddhist, Zeusian in other parts of the world, yet they didn't invent modern science.
TruthIsLife7 4 weeks ago
@TruthIsLife7 Biogenesis is not any kind of hypothesis. It's one of the strongest laws of science that exists. Very little in all science has more evidence than biogenesis.
TruthIsLife7 4 weeks ago
@TruthIsLife7 I actually misunderstood biogenesis, I thought you meant abiogenesis in my last comment. What I meant was, the evidence seem to point towards abiogenesis being possible, however not yet proving it. Pasteur said: "Spontaneous generation is a dream", which is true to a point. Newton also believed in alkymi. All Pasteur could empirically show was the generation of life from life - this is something that abiogenesis potenially can disproove.It hasn't yet, but it might.
BjornSeverinLarsen 4 weeks ago
@BjornSeverinLarsen You say that christianity has created sciences (I agree) and is still carrying it today (I don't agree). A biblical science that aren't allowed to follow the evidence to the conclusion which is the most rational based on the evidence isn't science. If you have your bible with all it's knowledge, then to have to conform your evidence to the bible - this is not science. However christian scientists doesn't do this, they do science. Thus making them scientists, not christians
BjornSeverinLarsen 4 weeks ago
Out of 1000s of cultures, it was the Bible, Creation science and Christian scientists laid and built the foundations, it's most important processes and pioneered most of its branches. See this presentation by Dr. Hannam at the Royal Society (Dr. Hannam has a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge and Nature and New Scientist highly recommend his work.) See this link:
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Again, name one scientific theory that includes Christianity, or any other religious claim?
evelsteev 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HimesInu Evolution is a very ambiguous term since there are actually 6 kinds of evolution ranging from creationist evolution to chemical evolution to stellar evolution and others. Darwin's universal common descent idea had nothing to do with origin of life, true. That's a crucial point actual. Also, for similar reasons, the act of creation can't be compared to universal common descent and no real scientist should do so. Do you know why?
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Just in case you weren't aware at this point, Pasteur's work had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life. If, from this point on, you ever claim it does I would ask you what the bible says about bearing false witness.
GreatHopeSprings 5 months ago
GreatHopeSprings, it is you who doesn't understand science AT ALL. Pasteur's experiments were explicitly directed at refuting the idea that life can come from non-life in any form, including biochemical forms. Others scientists have done numerous experiments&ALL have backed him up.Inferential science (the type the Big Bang is based upon and much other science) shows us that this must have been true in all history. Until you DEMONSTRATE an anomaly to this law, you aren't doing science, PERIOD.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7 No I'm clearly the only one who does understand science in this conversation. Pasteur's work had absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis, he debunked spontaneous generation, the notion that MODERN life arose spontaneously
You can't even understand this and you expect people to believe you're a professor?
GreatHopeSprings 5 months ago
@HimesInu Youtube comments are NOT for the purpose of listing proof. They are to point to it. I have literally 1000s of articles on just creation science alone plus MUCH other proof for God. But your refusal to investigate anything outside your current view is the death of science and scientific progress, etc. I’ll post only a couple, but you need to go and read and watch for yourself in depth on the other side as I have or else, even according to Darwin, you can’t make an informed judgment.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu Um, read what atheism is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. No, atheism is NOT only lack belief (but that atheism loses to even 1 piece of rival evidence). It also agrees with naturalism, assuming falsely a priori that there is no evidence for God and certain other tenets, not to mention that in practice it continually rejects the wait of evidence and falsely claims that testable evidence pointing to God isn’t evidence.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu The Cambridge explosion alone destroys universal common descent since even Gould agrees that nearly all phyla and their lower divisions appear in just that small period which is ~1% of earth’s history and almost no new phyla have appeared since. I have so many scientists, including evolutionists, agreeing that this cannot be reconciled with universal common descent.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu Keep in mind that that ~95% percent of the fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, ~95% are algae and plant fossils. ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insects. The remaining 0.0125% of fossils include all vertebrates, mostly fish. ~95% percent of the few land vertebrate fossils consist of less than one bone. Keep that in mind.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu Dr. Wise, Ph.D. in geology from Harvard says, "I took the 7…strongest arguments for evolution…I satisfied myself in just a few months there that the 7 largest arguments could be easily subsumed within creationism and that there was no further need for concern in those areas...One of those claims, one of the 7 that I thought was most significant, was the claim that the fossil order was explained best by evolution and that the fossil order is thus evidence for evolution...
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu I'm going to focus on plants. There's a reason for this. When I first did this, I did it for everything. When I did it for everything, I found that there wasn't much order to explain. There was really only 2 groups where there was any order that corresponded between the fossil record and evolution theory and that would be the order of the first appearance of plants, the major groups of plants [the divisions]...and then there would be the vertebrates....
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu at that point, I deduced that 95% of the fossil record has no correspondence between evolution and the order in the fossil record. So, there's really nothing to explain. At a 5% confidence interval, in statistics we would say there's no order to explain, PERIOD. Let's go home. Nonetheless, the 5% that remained was interesting. The 5% were those 2 groups, the plants and the vertebrates."
watch?v=NqWnziBRTf0
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu The noted palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out that:- "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." (Gould, 1977).
Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University said:-"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Kemp, 1999).
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History said:- "A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin , his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...". Raup, D. (1981). New Scientist, Vol. 90. Vol. 90. p. 832
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu 1) Yes, Creation science&ID have religious connections, but it is only ignorant or people duped by atheist propaganda that think that religion can't be a part of science. The scientific method says nothing of this. FACT: They are every bit as testable as the Big Bang and more testable than universal common descent & others. Check this seminar for just one creation theory with many testable hypotheses:
watch?v=NqWnziBRTf0
2) Hebrews 1:2 states that the universe was created
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 First, we can't test that a higher being created the universe. Second, religion can't be a part of science because religion starts with a product and conforms evidence to match that product, while science starts with a question and the answer comes from the evidence. How can you test Creation/ID? Common Decent is seen all across the fossil record while creationism is not.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu We can't test abiogenesis, universal common descent or creation directly. But, ALL 3 can be tested using historical science. Abio & UCD have often been falsified while God has been confirmed.
95% of the fossil record does NOT match what evolution claims. It matches creation FAR better because creation predicts that life forms would be buried mostly by habitat from marine sessile to free swimming to land dwelling &that's exactly what we see.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Abiogenesis, I'll give to you. Common decent, look at DNA or the genome of animals or even the fossil record and they will all show you common descent. And where the hell has "God" been confirmed?
95% of... That's ridiculous. This statement proves you are ignorant. It shows you have no grasp on reality at all.
That's it, I'm handing you over to someone who is used to dealing with creationists bullshit.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu I've watched most of Thunderfoot's series and literally 100s of other videos by the best atheists and evolutionists on youtube as well as reading books such as "Your Inner Fish", etc. Nearly every argument atheists make is based on a fallacy of one sort or another, that if applied consistently would destroy most science and history.
Correction. Atheism offers no benefits, only death for all, consistent opposition to science/evidence, less life on this earth and ultimate injustice.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Atheism doesn't talk about anything outside the lack of belief of deities, so it can't do any of the things you said. Just as evolution only gives evidence for species diversity and not the origins of life.
HimesInu 5 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 No, I'm skeptical, as ALL scientists are. And I also don't see the point of putting "God" in the mix, like true scientists. Also, no real scientist takes stock in "creation" science. In fact, most "creationists" aren't scientists at all. And if they are, none of them are biologists. As for youtube comments not for listing proof, that just shows you don't have proof that will stand up to the test of actual science and you're afraid to put it up.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu Oh my stars...you think religious texts can't be evidence? Don't be duped so easily.If that's true than no Roman historians can be used as evidence for Romans,no evolutionist books can be used as evidence for evolution&on and on...you just destroyed most of civilization with that foolishness.
Why are you so biased that you won't even check evidence? Do you have a death wish?All atheist gives you is death, death for the universe, hindering science&permanent injustice for billions.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 No, I don't believe we can use religious text as proof of the validity of a religious text alone. It's called circular reasoning. Now, if we have physical evidence outside of the religious text, I'm willing to look at the evidence, but I'm going to be skeptical on whether it proves the religious text. And we don't use biology books to prove biology. We use biology books to tell people what's already been proven true.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 As for atheism giving death; you're exaggerating and is desperate on all levels. Atheism does nothing of the such. Atheism merely states the lack of belief in deities. Nothing about atheism brings death. Unless you equate skepticism of deities to death. And if that's the case, I think you need to get in touch with reality.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 "1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;" And what scientific proof do we have that "God", or any "gods", created the "worlds" outside of religious texts? None. Absolutely none.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I suggest you watch the "Why do People Laugh at Creationists" videos by Thunderfoot.
HimesInu 5 months ago
If the link on health below doesn't work, go to my channel and click on the Bible health science playlist.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu Your stance is clear. Your ignorance is clearer. But, it's not your fault. The evidence for the Christian God has been banned from education and much of academia for decades for POLITICAL reasons. This violates even Darwin's own principles.
500+ people personally saw Jesus after his resurrection. Specific prophecies covering millennia have been fulfilled.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
There are 1000s of lines of evidence for God with billions of confirmations. Atheism (esp. modern atheism) has no evidence precisely because it makes no claims. The Bible makes many specific claims and has found countless confirmations of them. See these 2 playlists for starters:
Why Be A Christian? Incredibly short overview of some evidence. user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/21AEF61B66D954E1
Creation evidence playlist?p=PL0F4C0511B7DFC4C7 view_play_list?p=14FDE276E5C97E24
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Even if there are places told of in the Bible, it's not evidence for the Bible more than the authors wrote of real places. Hell, when I write my fiction I always use real places. Even if the events of the Exodus are true, there are natural reasons for it. Watch the History Channel show The Exodus Decoded. There is no evidence for the Biblical Jesus. The first outside reference comes from a man who was born four years after Jesus was supposedly crucified.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@HimesInu In history, when a writer is found to be accurate in case after case after case that we can check, we trust him in cases we can't check. If we didn't do this, we would emasculate the most important aspects of history, such as people's thoughts and motives, etc. So too with the Bible, accuracy in things we can check (and there are MANY) gives us confidence in those we can't check (a few).
Exodus Decoded doesn't follow occam's razor which atheists say is so important to follow.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 The only thing we can be certain about with the Bible are the Kings, most of the places (there is no proof of a town called Nazareth anywhere in Israel),and a few of the Romans, ie Pilate and a few of the Roman consulates.
I I use The Exodus Decode because they don't try to prove the bible, just that it was possible for the Ten Plagues actually happened and how, how the "water was parted", and where the possible Mt Sinai is. Nowhere do they state that this is proof of the Bible.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@ggpUtuber Um, if you read, I was just applying the standard of someone who doesn't understand science to their own faith to make a point. Next time read the context and don't jump to false conclusions. Science does NOT demand observable proof for all things. That is the most direct and credible kinds...but it also has other methods. that can help to find truth. One of your atheist friends was demanding video proof of me for God...so just applied the same standard to his evidenceless faith.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@DonExodus2 Wow! The straw men are piling up fast...nipples in non-mammals??? Creation doesn't predict that either.
ID is like saying if my car is not red, it's blue...why do "I" have to explain this fallacy to you???
A) Life is either uncreated or created.In binary choices,proving A is wrong is STRONG evidence for B.
B) ID uses the same scientific processes,inferences&logic that scientists the world over do.It's inferences are far stronger than the ones make up the foundation of evolution.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 hey, that's great, now prove god exists. :)
evelsteev 7 months ago
@evelsteev How many ways or in which fields do you want it proven? I have 500 videos on my channel doing just that and please do NOT ask me to list the evidence in comments...that's just way way naive and it won't even begin to fit OR convince you because it is so limited. More importantly, science and rational thinking follow the WEIGHT of evidence..and Christianity has that more than any other view in most fields and esp. so overall. I've studied 1000s of hours on many views..nothing compares.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 most of your videos feature men on a podium. Show me one that shows god, otherwise, you're pretty much full crap.
evelsteev 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Most of your videos feature men on a podium, talking about their belief in god. Now show me a video of god, that actually shows him. Otherwise, you're full of crap.
evelsteev 7 months ago
Btw,why judge my videos without even watching any? Some do have scientists presenting the evidence they've found,some are actual experiments being done or actual physical evidence that resulted from God's actions in history,some are slides or pictures or videos of the evidence &a whole range of things that in ANY other field is always accepted as evidence.
Btw, if God did appear in front of you,you would instantly die. But,we have evidence of the supernatural from other senses&fields.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I've watched some, but "god" never appeared. So much talk, and yet he never showed up. Not a good case for his "existence." Name one time, in recent history, where god appeared before someone, and they "instantly" died, right in front of them. So far....nothing. More nonsense, and more bodiless traits and ascriptions.
evelsteev 7 months ago
@evelsteev Even Dawkins says it's absurd for people to refuse to believe in things they can not see. Your standard if applied to other fields, would destroy nearly all of history as well as many fields&aspects of science. I don't think you really want to do that. You also seem to not be comprehending how science works in even an elementary sense. It works by collecting evidence from all sorts of fields...and presenting that for people to consider and then following the weight of evidence.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 However there's STILL no "evidence" for this god you swear exists, just more talk,conjecture and contemplation.
evelsteev 7 months ago
@evelsteev When you show me observable video proof of abiogenesis (as in inert chemicals transforming themselves into a fully functional cell) & universal common descent from a cell to man & of the builders of the Easter Island statues building them, only then will your standard be even remotely intelligent, rational or scientific. Your standards are the death of science and rational thinking.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Don't tell me you've never heard of the Miller–Urey experiment. You can't be that naive.
evelsteev 7 months ago
@evelsteev Yep, I know of it and it's been totally debunked as far as something that can produce a living cell. You can't be so naive that you don't know that, I would hope.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 scientific evidence is hardly considered "naive," LOL!
evelsteev 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
u say abiogenesis has been debunked, lol..by who?..your preacher?..a website constructed by religious people?..point me in the direction of an accredited scientific article that says abiogenesis has been debunked. NOT some video of a creationist wearing a lab coat.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Every experiment in history in abiogenesis has either failed or been debunked ranging from spontaneous generation to all modern efforts to create a cell without intelligence intervening. That falsifies abiogenesis conclusively until you can find examples where it happens. Very few of my videos on these topics are by pastors. I have scientists with top notch degrees, including some former atheists and evolutionists presenting vast evidence for the Bible and creation on my channel.
TruthIsLife7 6 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
are u gonna start learning science from scientists, or are u gonna keep up with this shit?..u have no idea what u are talking about..we find amino acids on asteroids for christs sake!..the building blocks to proteins already exist in the universe!
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife Finding amino acids does nothing to prove that cellular life can originate from inert chemicals. It's sort of like finding water and dirt mix into mud and assuming that that proves a city can develop from scratch without intelligence or finding legos and assuming they became a castle on their own.Biogenesis is a LAW of science. Do you know what that means? Not even ONE exception has ever been found. NOT ONE. Until that is done, you are the one who is outside of science.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
does NOTHING!?..are u out of your mind?..amino acids are the building blocks to proteins, which are the building blocks to LIFE..that means NOTHING to u?..the building blocks to life NATURALLY form in the universe..every element in our bodies form in the cores of stars, NATURALLY..mountains form NATURALLY. planets form NATURALLY. why the hell do u need to invoke magic when it comes to life? it's because it causes u to devalue yourself, that's why..but it shouldn't!..it's amazing!
itzahazylife 5 months ago
@evelsteev Sorry, didn't see this. Of course I've heard of that experiment. It does almost nothing to help abiogenesis. It's like saying that because earth and water can combine to make mud, that proves a whole city can build itself up without intelligence. Furthermore they got the atmosphere wrong and other things.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Sure it does, it doesn't necessarily prove how life started on earth, but it does prove life can come from non-life. Earth and water combining, is NOT on the same level as life being formed from non-organic elements. Hardly the same thing. Earth and water, combing together, will not eventually reveal a self-replicating pattern such as DNA. The atmosphere, however, was "right" enough to produce amino acids. Those also exist in THIS atmosphere, as well.
evelsteev 5 months ago
Modern atheistic science is a facade built on a Christian superstructure. Without Christianity, you wouldn't have modern science, period.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Where in the scientific method does it mention Christianity?
evelsteev 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
"...the privilege of knowing your Creator and living forever" (from your profile)...do u know what will allow us to live forever?..SCIENCE..one day science will figure out the key to cellular decay, and stop it completely..they are already making huge leaps in this..then what? lol
itzahazylife 5 months ago
life is NO different than anything else that forms naturally..we are merely more complex,but NOT separate! we are one with nature..we ARE nature. we are a collection of chemical elements,the same way the earth is, and the ocean is, and stars are..every heavy element in the universe is fused in the cores of stars, and after the star explodes, these elements get spread out into space, where they form planets, and eventually life..this is SO MUCH more beautiful AND evident, than any religious myth.
itzahazylife 5 months ago
@itzahazylife You are asserting abiogenesis and certain other things that do not have even the slightest bit of evidence from science. Atheism is a religion based almost entirely on faith and fallacies and the refusal to follow the weight of evidence from science. Btw, you do know that it was Christians who invented and pioneered modern science right. See this presentation at the Royal Society by Dr. James Hannam, Ph.D in the history of science from Cambridge:
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@itzahazylife Sorry, but there is nothing beautiful about atheism or random explosions or speculations. If you are a father and spent much love and time taking care of your son..and then he rejects you and claims you did nothing to help Him and that you don't even exist..then you'll understand a little bit of how God feels about atheists who deny the massive evidence for his many gifts to us.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 No, it just proves that either you weren't a very good father or that he's a brat. More than likely, it's the former. But the difference is that there is physical proof of you and nothing for "God."
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu You completely missed the point of the post. But, it is absolutely and categorically untrue that there is no proof for God. Furthermore even Dawkins says that it's absurd to think that things you can't see, etc. can't be real. And there are quite a few cases where people have had no physical proof of their fathers for one reason or another, yet they existed (such as soldiers fathering kids and leaving to go back home and the mother has nothing from the father).
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Let me make my stance more clear; There is no evidence for the CHRISTIAN god. And that's the same thing Dawkins thinks. The proof is the fact that they have half of his bloody DNA. If that's not proof, I don't know what is.
HimesInu 5 months ago
God's health principles given when 70% of Egyptian medicine included dung, beer or both, NOW produce 10+ years extra life. Christians built most of modern science. This and much more is undeniable evidence.
Dawkins is an idiot, an incomparable and incorrigible liar and the origin of countless fallacies that if applied consistently would destroy almost all science.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 God's health principles? What? And whether the scientists were Christian, Muslim, white, black, it doesn't matter. The fact is, none of them used religious principles to build modern science.
And that's just an out right lie, in of itself. If you want a liar, look at O'Reilly, Beck, Cameron, Comfort, and Stein. These people know that ID is both creationism and complete bullshit that has no shreds of evidence. They wouldn't even testify in the Dover case.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu If you're not going to even investigate anything, then don't call yourself rational, scientific or interested in truth. What you say is a fact is a lie and even New Scientist and Nature and nearly all historians of science agree. The Royal Society is the 1st science society in history. Watch the presentation if you have even a tiny bit of integrity.
I can't stand O'Reilly or Beck &yes they lie. The others are not liars, but can make mistakes. But, they aren't scientists of any sort.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu If even the Big Bang and biogenesis are scientific, then so is creation science by any rational standard and there is MUCH more beyond this. ~95% of the fossil record can't match evolution and matches far better the claims of creation science. See my creation-evidence for the flood playlist, videos 1-10 for some very hard science on this.Creationists years ago predicted that most junkDNA would be found to have function. Now, almost every day papers are being published confirming this.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu The Dover case was severely biased from the start. The judge is on record saying that he agrees that science can't point to God. That's an a priori insanely biased position which atheists also hold. How would you like it if we defined science as something that can't point to atheism or Darwinism and then banned all atheist and Darwinian ideas from all academia and public education. That would be no different from what has been done to Christianity.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 The judge was a Republican that was appointed by Bush. And he only said that after the fact. And atheism and science aren't mutually exclusive. Nor is science defined as something that can't point to religion. It is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. And the reason religion is banned from schools is based on the First Amendment.
HimesInu 5 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu Oh, the other reason why ID failed was due to the fact that creationism, which ID is directly ripped from, was deemed to be unconstitutional to teach in schools.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu Creation science and ID have made many predictions and found solid confirmations of them. In fact EVERYONE believes in ~1/2-2/3rds of creation science, including you...that would be that the universe had a beginning, predicted in Hebrews 1:2 and the law of biogenesis. There's MUCH more beyond that as well. So you are already ~1/2 creationist, LOL :). Btw, do you not see any problem with politics telling science what it can and can't teach? If not, your education failed you.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Creationism and ID are not science. They're religion. They are both based on the Christian story of how the universe began, and that's the problem. As for Hebrew 1:2, it says nothing about the how the universe began or abiogenesis. I am not a Creationist because I don't believe the religious creation stories, and that is what a creationist is. And yes, I have a problem with politics getting into science. But Creationism/ID is NOT science. It has no hypothesis nor is testable.
HimesInu 5 months ago
&thus had a beginning (it has nothing to do with abiogenesis).
This has been confirmed by science. So has biogenesis. Science doesn't have to understand how something was done (but creation science explains much of that too & better than UCD). It can do that and that's one part of science, but science does NOT require that you understand the process to be part of science. EX: For centuries, gravity has been a part of science even though people didn't know how it worked.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 No creation science says that "God" created the universe, not by actual scientific evidence but because a book says so. That's not science And yes, science has to know the how, that what science is.
you know what, you are doing exactly as every IDiot does, and that's mold the evidence to fit predetermined outcomes. And that is not science. You will be laughed out of ever scientific institution, and you won't know why until you learn just how ridiculous ID is.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@HimesInu Sorry, but you don't understand what science or evidence is. Many atheists don't. It may be because it was creationists who invented falsifiability, the peer review process, the modern scientific method and most branches of science as well, often DIRECTLY based on the Bible. ANY fulfillment of a prediction is EVIDENCE and it IS science PERIOD. If you don't know that ALL have bias, your education failed you BADLY.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
There are no ground rules of science excluding God from science, let alone centuries old ones. Modern science owes it's existence almost entirely to those who studied it directly due to creationist philosophy and other 100% confirmed statements about science in the Bible that ALL agree are confirmed. ALL. Again, see:
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
Religion is banned from schools based on a PERVERSION of the 1st amendment..but thanks for having the integrity to agree it's banned.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@HimesInu It doesn't matter if Bush appointed the judge or that he was a republican (by the way, I couldn't stand Bush,opposed him from the start&campaigned a lot for Obama). The judge did NOT say that after the fact. That bias was the foundation of his judgment! He said “We find that ID fails…{because} ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation” The problem is that the scientific method says NOTHING about banning the supernatural.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
u don't want truth..u wanna feel all warm and fuzzy inside..and it's as simple as that. everything i am telling u is what science has revealed to us..by denying it, u are denying reality..u don't like what science has uncovered, so, u close your eyes, and believe in fantasies..it scares u that there isn't some magical sky daddy loving u..u think because life occurred via unguided processes, that somehow there is no value to life. but, we are valuable and special no matter what.
itzahazylife 5 months ago
@itzahazylife No, YOU don't want truth. Please stop lying to yourselves. There are MANY Christians who used to be atheists and only became Christians because that's where the weight of evidence pointed. Many did NOT want to become Christians...but they like I choose to follow the weight of evidence.
Science keeps on uncovering more and more in favor of the Bible. You have been deprived of this knowledge for political reasons and due to secularists/atheists banning it from education.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
why don't u go live in a cave if all u need is the bible, huh?..u wouldn't even be typing to me right now if it wasn't for the TRUTH that science reveals about how nature works..science is an INVESTIGATION. reading a book written thousands of years ago is NOT an investigation..if u wanna know who a murderer is, u INVESTIGATE, u don't open the bible!..if u wanna know how life originated, u INVESTIGATE, u don't open the bible!..it's as simple as that. u want comfort, NOT truth!
itzahazylife 5 months ago
@itzahazylife You wouldn't have ANY modern science without Christians and they pioneered it directly based on the Bible in many specific aspects. You believe myths. See this presentation at the Royal Society by Dr. James Hannam, Ph.D in the history of science from Cambridge:
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
Nowhere did I call science speculation.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@itzahazylife The Bible led directly to numerous scientific discoveries, esp. in health and people who follow Bible health principles NOW, live 10+ years more than the average according to secular science organizations like National Geographic, Blue Zones and others. See evidence here.
user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/DF491C31BC08BEE4 (videos 1-3 are confirmations from secular science organizations See esp. 11:30+. Videos 4-6 are a basic intro to God’s health principles in the Bible.)
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
the same science that u call speculation, is the same science that has given us modern medicine..do u know what u should do instead of going to the hospital? u should just pray to god.. the vaccines u and your kids take, were developed according evolutionary theory!!..we have to upgrade our vaccines because viruses and bacteria evolve..do u know why they evolve?..because dna evolves, and every life form on earth is composed of dna!
itzahazylife 5 months ago
Universal common descent DOES make predictions...hosts of them...and many have been falsified...some confirmed (the ones that are confirmed are almost always in the areas of natural selection and speciation that creationists were publishing on LONG before Darwin published his book). But, these confirmations do not directly confirm the claims of universal common descent. They are extremely indirect and highly speculative&of the type that has been found to be pseudoscience MANY times in the past.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@DonExodus2 A) Why do most atheists ONLY straw man creation science with amateurs & TEENAGERS for crying out loud. Are you afraid to be fair & fight on a level playing field with creationists like Dr. Wise, Ph.D. from Harvard in geology, Dr. Veith with a Ph.D. in zoology, one of the top scientists in South Africa or the 1000s of other creationists with science degrees? See Dr. Wise’s flood theory which scientifically explains MUCH more than evolution:
view_play_list?p=PL14FDE276E5C97E24
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
C) I suppose it will fall on deaf ears that Karl Popper, pioneer of falsifiability stated that Darwinism wasn't falsifiable&was only a “metaphysical research program”. One reason why is that evolution keeps on hiding all the many times it’s been falsified under the rug: Lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation (Haeckel’s "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"), orthogenesis, xenogenesis and you can find many others by googling darwinspredictions.
Atheism is making you foolish.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
great video. thanks. It's a shame these idiots still will never be able to get how brainwashed they really are.
JBeezie428 8 months ago
You realize that what you're doing is akin to teaching a golden retriever algebra, right?
TheStompboxer 8 months ago
LMFAO!YOUR GOING TO HAVE THAT VENOMFANGX BLOW HIS BRAINS OUT!!!!!!
tiamat1296 8 months ago
Venomfangx doesnt get any point for the simple reason he has not started using his brain. He is just an automaton, repeating any creationist nonsense he finds in the web. poor stupid kid, the sad part is that he is popular amongst other christians.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
You know what's your problem Shawn? that you chose the wrong role model: kent hovind. if you follow his steps you'll pretty much end up being, like AronRa said: a convicted fraud, seudoscience charlatan. Shawn, feel free to be a creationist, but at least try, try to get some other role model, i dont know, maybe Behe? but Hovind, the king of fools?
sirdelrio 9 months ago 4
Don's replying to venom is a perfect example of the nature of this 'controversy': on one hand, an educated individual, probably with a science degree from a serious institution; on the other, a gigantic ignoramus buffoon that doesnt know squad about anything, and thinks he has some arguments or 'evidence' on his side, and that is recieving status from being given consideration. But someone has to stop the spread of ignorance. Well done Don.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
OMG if only all creationists could watch this video, id luv to see their response to that aussie wall lizard evidence, if anyone watching this video know a creationist, SEND THEM THIS LINK!!!
ooloogooloo 10 months ago
@ooloogooloo they don't listen, it doesn't matter how much evidence they are shown for evolution, they just close their eyes, block their ears and say "is not, is not, is not!"
rememberthename33 8 months ago
I'm sorry, did you say island of Croatia? Despite your obvious knowledge on the theory of evolution and probably biology in general you show once again that christians, whether creationist or vehemently anti-creationist such as yourself, are absolutely incapable of lacking profound ignorance.
fudrick43 11 months ago
@fudrick43 I have yet to meet an American that knows anything about geography.:-)
mghills 9 months ago
@mghills You clearly haven't met many Americans then. I'm American and I can name every country in the world.
fudrick43 9 months ago
@fudrick43
Having lived in the USA for 5 years, I find that unlikely.
However please excuse my flippancy. No offence was intended.
mghills 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mghills "Having lived in the USA for 5 years, I find that unlikely."
You find it unlikely that you haven't met many Americans, that I'm American, or that I can indeed name every country?
fudrick43 9 months ago
@fudrick43,
Every country ... are you sure?
How often have you been tested?
JanJiska 8 months ago
4:40 "Civil war breaks out. Whatever"
haha Don't let a Civil War phase you, man.
Skindoggiedog 11 months ago
lol subbed XD
Tijnas617 11 months ago
Awesome. Can we have a beer together?
Your assesment of VFX is spot on. If you view the various videso out there of Shawn's 'evolution', I think you will see distinct characteristics of an NPD. His Paypal Donation/Charity scam was, in my opinion, the point at which he became truly self destructive. It's sad and he still seems to be in denial. It makes me wonder if he truly believes the stuff he says, or is it all for dramatic effect.
light2see 11 months ago
Well done DE!
pchtermino 11 months ago
im christian, and I hate christians. the catholics make us looks like puritans and the protestants make us look like fanatics. anyway, yeah I would agree with you that the creationist theory is a load of crap. just because you're christian, doesn't mean you have to have complete disregard for science.
bubbzipp 1 year ago
This is what i call a perfect debate video response, it's absolutely flawless. If there wasn't a obvious cultural-national-age-etc gap between us, then I would definitely try to introduce you "good-looking" intelligent guy to my "good-looking" intelligent sexy sister. :))) (this is a joke of course)
aditzzaaa 1 year ago
Don, you are far too gracious, but bravo.
Seeing you in scrubs makes me miss me being in scrubs.
JenOnSketch 1 year ago
that robe is bitchin!!
OpiatedBliss 1 year ago
You make VFX your pont? So you have a homosexual fantasy about him?
Creasock 1 year ago
@Creasock Projecting much?
InfiniteTurtles 1 year ago
i wish venomfangx was still on youtube. he was always good for a laugh.
polycera 1 year ago
@polycera VFX is back.
light2see 11 months ago
Venomfangx is quite ignorant of evidence. I'm glad he's no longer on YouTube.
oldblubblub 1 year ago
@oldblubblub VFX is back
light2see 11 months ago
This is still one of my fav. youtube videos
"there's really no excuse for your ignorance, have a nice night" kills me everytime haha
rossomeara 1 year ago
So full of win.
Smokatronic 1 year ago
If PWND became a video, this would be it =3
TAz69x 1 year ago
The evolution of the Creationist argument has nothing to do with the development of scientific theory, specifically Evolutionary Theory. It has to do with having just enough bs to satisfy idiots.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
well schooled
JohnMUTDMazzawi 1 year ago
"You're making arguments you know nothing about"
This video isn't just for PCS. It can equally apply to pretty much every fundie out there.
Classic.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
I heard the story differently. There was this guy named Bernie. Bernie was a good and pious man. Every night Bernie prayed to win the lottery. One day Bernie dies and goes before God. Bernie says, "God, All I ever wished for was to win the lottery; Why did you find it not to be so?" God replies, "Bernie, you've got to buy a fucking ticket."
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
mistaking your ignorance of the evidence for there not being any, nice!
91jgphonecall 1 year ago
"if i have to explain why this is wrong...."lmao
limeinthekwokwonut 1 year ago
Arguing against evolution with a competent scientist such as Don is like trying to out calculate a Supercomputer with nothing but a piece of paper, a blunt pencil and half a packet of Mentos. Your just not going to win
Snazzydog333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want to fuck your tight ass hole so bad. Fuck
wantstofuckkids 1 year ago
Right on!
Giash4 1 year ago
VenomFangX was a hoax, and you bought into it hook line and sinker. You got all riled up for something you already knew, so I would say he really got the best of you in the end.
DopeJedi 1 year ago
Those shadows below his eyes show that he's been up a while trying to master his degree in medicine. Take a break dude; we're all on you're side!! It's time for some R&R!! HAIL AND KILL
VitalSigns1 1 year ago
Nice video ;) Got here from Thunderf00t's channel. It's so nice to hear highly educated people talk, well about anything!
checkcall123 1 year ago
holy shit, i like this videos until the strand off in to heavy duty biology and makes it hard for me to follow.
GODofthePURPLEgrapes 1 year ago
This guy is my hero
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
I suspect creationism to have been created for political reasons, particulary to counter ecology...
Acrimonator 1 year ago
Wow impressive.
You should explain how PCR isn't magic too :)
A5Hellcat 2 years ago
You misspelled Edumacation.
TheSoSoAgnostic 2 years ago 3
This is one of my favourite videos in the whole Evolution v Creationism debate.
Bosco239 2 years ago
I'm not sure what people mean when they say "creationism/t". It's a pretty nebulous term. Does it refer to young earth creationism? Old earth creationism? Somebody who just believes God created the universe? What?
hawke123 2 years ago
Have no clue what he is saying just know he is smacking Venomfangx and i like that
moreaujeremy2116 2 years ago 2
Putting VenomFang X in his place!!!
Good Job!!!
Edsmack 2 years ago 4
Could you provide a link to more info about the lizard you were talking about in this video? I can't seem to find anything.
Doliath 2 years ago
Comment removed
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
Walter is almost as screwed up as Kent.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz Whom may I ask is Kent?
Is it Clark Kent?
I have a view about you which you have brought me to the conclsion of because of the way you chose to say what you said about Walter Vieth.
But for diplomacy's sake and good relations I will not share this with you at least not now.
I could say all sorts of cute things such as reminding you that the mouth does not receive the foot well and that it is hard to find an uglier sight than five hairy toes between teeth.
Lets be nice huh
OK Bud
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
Kent Hovind, first winner of the Golden Crocoduck Award.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz Thanks for your reply
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
Does God make snowflakes, or did he just make the laws of nature the make snow flakes.
Walt is just like all creationist, they have to say it was all done by a flood. No looking or thinking, look for way to prove the bible is not wrong, again.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz good question
about the snow flakes
Did God make you or did the laws that he put in place make you or did your father and mother make you?
But coming back to your question about the snow flakes.
The answer is that I don't know the answer but I am going to think about it okay.
My study has been the complicated machinery called mankind.
I have studied well.
Hearken to me when I say to you that you have bias.
Thats where you and I are different.
You have dismissed Walt already.
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
@gregrutz Just to talk about bias some more let me say this
I know that most christians would be shocked to realise that they have bias.
This bias is not actually over the issue of God's existence.
For instance I keep the sabbath on Saturdays and the majority of christians don't because of their bias.
They desperately do not want to keep the sabbath like me because of deep seated motives that they are not aware of.
You too don't want God to exist for very similar reasons hidden view.
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
I have no problem with God and evolution since I don't believe in the old testament stories.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz do you mean that you do believe in God but you don't believe in the old testament and you do believe in evolution?
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
Finally a creationist who understands what I just said. Thank you. There is hope for your kind. [whatever a kind is]
gregrutz 2 years ago