Added: 4 years ago
From: TheCuriousSkeptic
Views: 28,151
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (2,015)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @gamesbok  Did you really just say that all of mathematics is false? Have you ever read anything by Lee Strobel? I don't think any of that science supports evolution. I don't know where you got the figure "6", but you may want to check its credibility.

  • Skepticism; the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics. Skepticism is the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain. You my friend "TheCuriousSkeptic" are the opposite of a Skeptic IS. You do not suspend judgment nor claim that true knowledge is uncertain, you do the very opposite! Change your name before someone rightfully calls you dishonest by your very claim in your self-named.

  • I don't care much about Hovind museum but you must admit that Darwinian Cathedrals where Saint Lucy is being hailed as the mother ape of humanity and where the holy relics of fossils said to be transitional to land mammals magically altering organs and limbs and turning into whales are quite monuments to asininity.

  • WE have fossils dated at 3.4 billion years.

  • @gamesbok But how do you know it's really that old? Was there some encyclopedia that was around that said how to determine the age of fossils? How can you determine something is really a bajillion years old? (slight exaggeration :-) ).

  • @bf9142ftw If I was as ignorant as you I wouldn't advertise the fact on a public web site.

  • Why can't people just believe in what they want to believe?

  • @literaturechick12 When people disseminate information as fact or scientific when it's not, then that's a problem.

  • @literaturechick12 because retards try to teach their retarded beliefs in schools.

  • yes i will correct you, how do you know that the earth was millions of years old? where you here millions of years ago? all the dating methods have been proven inaccurate. your say the ignorance of Christianity? what about the ignorance evoltuion theorists? evolution is not science it is SCIENCE FICTION!! evoltuion is just an excuse for people to be ignorant of God and act like animals, enough said.

  • @davidmas0 "all the dating methods have been proven inaccurate"??

    By who? You do realise that radioactive dating methods are based on the branch of physics that deals with particle decay rates. We have to know what these are or you wouldn't need to have an earthquake to make your reactors go critical.

  • @ptango101

    Carbon dating and potassium argon are the dating methods by which your so called evolution theorists base their evidence that the world is millions of years old and they have been proved inaccurate by other scientists who did tests on things that where still alive but showed readings of it being thousands of years old, also on a dead seal that was 30 years old, came up as being thousands of years old. its inaccurate and been proven.

  • @davidmas0 Why don't you actually look into all these so called failures of rad. dating methods. It's easy to research because creationists always use the same ones. You have to be wary of dating animals that consume carbon in the food chain. This is a classic example of you lot picking the results you want and ignoring FACTS that show your foolishness. So how old is the earth? What methods do you use to date it?

  • @davidmas0 Yes you can get odd results but LOL that is why REAL scientists preform tests more than once and try to use a variety of experiments.

  • @davidmas0 WOW you're fucking ignorant. Retard.

  • well we cannot disprove god but we can disprove d god of d bible,quran or any other religion

  • @thescorpionking2020

    prove to me that the God of the Bible doesnt exist?

  • @davidmas0 very simple

    the god of d bible is supposed 2 have created d world in 6 days-dat has been disproved,the universe is 13.7 billion years old

    god of d bible created d first humans adam from dirt and eve from his rib-that has been disproved we r not created but evolved primates,there was no first man or women,means no fall of man no original sin therefore no need for humans to be redeemed

    god of d bible is supposed to have sent a universal flood in wich only 8 people survived..contd.....

  • @davidmas0 well no such flood ever took place dats a myth,noah's ark is a mythical story

    the exodus' historicity has already been disporved by israeli archaelogists and abraham and moses never existed they r mythical superheroes created by bronze age jews,old testament is myth and stories nuthing else,most of d acts supposedly attributed to god of d bible have been disproved,therefore god of d bible,quran is fake,doesnt exist

  • @davidmas0 ,Whether there was sum intelligence behind the universe is otherwise a scientific hypotheisis wich needs to be studied but we hav more than sufficient evidence to throw d biblical god in d graveyard we call mythology,dat god is a myth,most of d things attributed to him are all false and myths,they never happened

  • one cannot be a christian and believe in evolution coz jesus himself was a young earth creationist(lol....) and referred to adam and eve,six day creation,noah's ark,jonah being swallowed by a whale and all dat bullshit as historic facts in d new testament,for a person to believe in jesus he has to believe in thiese bullshit myths and has to reject evolution,coz if evolution is true wich it is dat means thr was no original sin,and jesus supposedly died for it....contd.......

  • @thescorpionking2020 u cannot have a human sacrifice for a metaphorical sin simple as dat christianity,judaism,islam are all false all based on retarded myths

  • @SeekingTruth1234 MMM, yes I see. The truth hey. So were Adam and Eve created with their immune systems fully formed or did they just get one after the fall?

  • @ptango101 adam and eve never existed they r mythological patriarchs of human race invented by bronze age jews,withous adam and eve thr is no judaism,christianity and islam they r all false

  • @SeekingTruth1234 That's funny, because creationism doesn't have a single thing to its name. All you creationists ever do is mock evolution, not prove ID OR EVEN ATTEMPT TO FIND SOLID PROOF OF IT. When asked for evidence, all you can EVER hope to say is "god did it" but then when SHOWN differently, you try to play the whole "science" game and try to prove it wrong. Don't play with science, that's why EVERY creationist falls flat on their face.

  • @SeekingTruth1234 Im not going to bother to read all of your posts if you dont bother to sum it up in one post, so youre just wasting your time typing.

    "the only way to educate yourself."

    -I have a SCIENCE degree in chemical engineering. What degree do you have again? You can say any ridiculous crap you want but the statistics from the Gallup poll shows over 95% acceptance from the scientific community. They teach evolution in all major univ, including mine OSU, but not creationism/ID.

  • Comment removed

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    No, you have shown yourself to be willfully ignorant and you twist facts and repeat untruths, (lie). You have shown your character and the shame is on you.

    That you seem to take pleasure in what you project as pain in others is in keeping with religiosity and a person that knowingly spreads lies. Religion poisons everything and you are one of it's agents. Put down your superstition.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    "No No No. The problem is you misunderstand it. Its not my fault that almost all evolutionist's misunderstand their own religion."

    " A killer whale has breed with a dolphin, tiger and lion, wolves and dogs."

    You are a Poe. This is gibberish and bullshit. Evolution does not need faith for it to be true and you know that. You are simply throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. Go home and take your god with you.

  • @SeekingTruth1234 "DNA destroys it and rips it into shreds"

    -Its amazing how creationists are so full of themselves to think they know science better than scientists. With no science degree or training whatsoever, creationists claim they know the answer & all of these scientists /w their fancy PhDs are just morons to them.

    Try doing research & experiments & then writing peer reviews if you truly think all of these scientists are wrong. But good luck, its like trying to prove the earth is flat.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    Ok I see why you disbelieve evoulution, you misunderstand it. The incremental changes in time are represented in the fossil record, google it. You are one of the crocaduck people, that idea is just wrong.  Think of a donkey and a horse, different but similar, able to reproduce but not able to reproduce a fully viable offspring. A donkey and a horse (or a zebra) is a good example of how incremental changes end up with different species. You don't understand evolution.

  • @SeekingTruth1234 "why aren't we alloud to question evolution?"

    -Creationists question it all the time, what are you talking about?

    "why when some one questions it they usually get abused and made fun off?"

    -Because at this day and age, if you question things like the earth being round or the gravitational theory, etc. it makes you seem like you are still living in the Dark Ages, or just plain ignorant.

    -Over 95% of scientists accepts evolution theory; its creationists that are antiscience.

  • @ChemEBeaver

    "Over 95% of scientists accepts evolution theory; its creationists that are antiscience."

    The percentage is higher than that, among scientists.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    'Big bloody deal. I can jump 1 metre, i can jump 1 million metre's. This is the blood comparision, this is what is needed for evolution to be true. "

    What are you talking about? What is it you are trying to say must happen for evolution to be true? Are you a crocaduck guy? Are you saying that there is no evidence for a croc turning into a duck? (The evolution model doesn't call for that by the way.) Tell me what YOU think evolution is.

  • @SeekingTruth1234 "No new information"??? Is this the "New DNA" argument? Do ANY of you creationists READ ANYTHING about Evolution? New species are born nowadays, species that did not exist back then. That ALONE disproves your biblical interpretation. Hell, you might wanna read up on something called "Ring Species", try to educate yourself.

  • @SeekingTruth1234 " Somthing you morons can't seem to understand is what your theory actually suggests"

    Oh please, tell me what my theory actually suggests.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    Hmm, ever hear of this animal called a "mule?" Or maybe a Liger? Your bible does not teach education, it teaches one to ignore truth. It teaches that all the answers are contained in one book and not to look elsewhere.

  • @B2dmfG We HAVE seen gods created out of thin air.

  • Life can't come from non-life? Gods can apparently come from non-gods. ;)

  • Really a great point. I should have thought of it. Congratulations. This monument may bring down the edifice of Abraham's Trio.

  • shroomFun: Your last 3 comments contained very compelling arguments. Ad hominem attacks are always so convincing. Just like all the "evidence" for abiogenesis is so very compelling. ;-)

    Personally, I don't care if evolution is true. That does not matter that much to me or my faith. Evolution just seems like such a stretch. Particularly abiogenesis is very hard to swallow.

    Peace to you

  • Good luck trying to kill Christianity. Like the imprisoned bishop said to Napoleon: (loose paraphrase) "If 10,000 bad bishops couldnt kill it, I don't think you will." Unfortunately the church is supernatural and cannot be destroyed. We are like a virus that grows when you try to kill us. (ask Diocletian)

    You seem to think evolution is a just so fact. google abiogenesis and read the "science" that is at the base of YOU creation myth. Yours is WAY harder to believe than mine.

    Peace to you sir

  • @PhineasTouch You are fucking retarded? lmao wow.  Just wow.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    You haven't provided this "designer", so its all speculation, isn't it?

    What do we know for certain about this "designer", if there is one?

    S/he designed organisms that EVOLVE.

    That fact is unavoidable.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    You don't think organisms have existed as male and female forms?

    

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    Why do paleontologists disagree with you and agree with me aobuut the fossil record?

    Why can't you provide a specific example of how the fossil record disproves evolution, "without a doubt".

    Seems like all you do is make assertions, but you never proved any evidence.

    Why?

  • Good point :)

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    Its so simple, then, and all you have to do is do what you claimed you can do, which is provide facts.

    Give us the facts.

    Spell it out for us.

    Its really that simple.

  • @SeekingTruth1234 HAHAHAHA.

    EPIC. First, I didnt understand your reaction, that was stupid for an evolutionist (I mean an intelligent people)but you told me that :

    " I know what you believe, and you believe you are an animal, its not my fucken fault you believe this. I believe i was created by an all powerful god, you bleieve you were created from a rock."

    Which set things clear, you do not even deserve attention, creationist.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    Plus, I never told I was smart, simply that I LEARNED evolution. What's your problem ? Are you frustrated of being a studies-less militant ? Yes, your word is cheap, because starting a debate by insulting people typically set you as "the troll", and discredite every next word. Yes, you're that idiot.

  • @SeekingTruth1234 Maybe not american but you seem to spend alot of time on this stupid controverse that is senseless for us, scientists. I made a mistake posting here cause I didnt know there would be such idiot people, that flame like that, but that was obvious, after giving it a thought.

  • @SeekingTruth1234 BY THE WAY I M NOT RELIGIOUS I DONT BELIEVE IN GOD. I'm evolutionist.

    In france, this controverse doesnt exist in France, we all know that evolution exists and we're not retards like you americans. So dont start insulting me like you did. motherfucker.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    So DNA does not provide a record of an organisms parentage?

  • @SeekingTruth1234 O M G.

    Man, you really annoy me. I got a bachelor's degree in biology so fuck you.

  • Not only are you not a scienctist--you aren't even a student.

    You simply reject what you can't understand based on your political feelings.

    That's a fail.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    When was the last time you checked.

    You obviously haven't checked a Biology textbook recently.

    Organisms have heritable traits.

    They pass those traits on differentially.Phenotypes, and corresponding genotypes--change over time in populations of organisms.

    This is science.

    Paleontology describes these changes.

    This is science.

    Simply rejecting science based on your personal religious gut feelings does not negate said science.

    Sorry.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    Don't get all lippy with me.

    You are the idiot who claimed that "no species can breed with another."

    You can make claims til the cows come home.

    I would suggest you research those claims first.

    It's called "science", and it works.

    Sorry.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    Obviously you've never heard of a MULE.

    Or a Liger.

    Or the term "hybrid".

    You must be a Creationist.

  • I"d love to go to this museum just to have a good laugh.

  • I have yet to see life come from non-life. Neither has any other person.

    If you have some evidence of this having happened or that it can be reproduced, then we'll have a good discussion. Until then, why not just accept the rational deduction that to disbelieve that there is a creator requires no logic, no rational thought; it requires only emotion. "But, I don't wanna..." reminds me of a child in his 'terrible twos'. Does that describe anyone here? If you believe in evolution, then GROW UP.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw

    FYI: the reason we have to create new vaccines is because of evolution.

    It takes no believe at all, it can be empirically observed.

    And you're telling me to grow up? From someone who shuns logic and rational thought in favour of emotion?

    That's rich.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic Hey bud, I don't think evolution created vaccines. There are various methods of creating vaccines, including destroying the bacteria, breaking it to pieces and weakening it. How can that be evolution?

    Bacteria can be genetically engineered to produce insulin and so does vaccines. Bacteria also pick up extra DNA from other bacteria and viruses, so that is not evolution either.

  • @compgrad1

    "Hey bud, I don't think evolution created vaccines."

    I didn't say that. The point was that new vaccines are required because the viruses evolve. That's evolution. I don't think you understand what evolution is.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic Yeah bud, you did. Evolution is responsible for nothing but confusion and chaos. Actually, you don't know what evolution is, because virus are not thought of as living organism, a basic requirement for evolution as per evolutionists belief. Evolution would be a monkey becoming a person.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic Bud, thanks for the links. I knew that the vatican accepts evolution, but I'm not catholic, I am an evangelical born again. In general, we reject evolution to the fullest. See, if we accept evolution, then we have to ignore Genesis chpt 1to11, which ain't gon' happen. However, viruses, are not living things and therefore can't evolve. It needs organism to reproduce and change. I personally would cite more responsible cites, since wikipedia anyone can edit the info.

  • @compgrad1

    "I personally would cite more responsible cites, since wikipedia anyone can edit the info."

    Wait.. wait... this coming from a guy who cites a paper but then doesn't read it? An EIGHT page paper that you couldn't be bothered to read? It's even on ICRs website... with a huge "CLICK HERE FOR PDF" link...

    "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano"

    by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.

  • @A0DBOB No, not really. I read it, however dating just isn't my forte. It's Ok, right? You're right, there's arguments out there up the nose for evolutionary supporters, we Creation proponents on the other hand are a minority and don't have 1% of the funding available for your movement.

    But, yes, you are right-- I think I actually sent you the wrong article. I meant to send Mt St helens, and I think I sent Grand Canyon. My position however stands- wikipedia is not something I'd cite.

  • @compgrad1

    "wikipedia is not something I'd cite.

    Sadly I find that getting most creationists to AT LEAST use wikipedia is worse than going to the dentist.

    You do realize that the paper I cited, the Mt St Helens one, was by the ICR right? It was a creationist paper.

  • @A0DBOB One more time, then we're off the subject. I do not cite wiki. Someone told me they refer to the papers in the citation, I find that acceptable, but I do not glean from wiki and base my arguments by it. It's a good tool, sure it is, but I want to make sure that the scientist behind it has credentials with decades of experience and not just anyone like you or I. You're 24, probably still in school, right? So if you edit wiki, how can someone know the information they have is reliable.

  • @compgrad1

    Yep 24, and no I am not in school anymore. I graduated and am now working as a systems engineer.

    Wikipedia is a great place to find citations. Look for what wikipedia says and follow that source to its location, THAT is the correct way to use that resource.

  • @compgrad1

    "Dating just isn't my forte"

    Guess what? I've haven't taken an Earth Science course in over 10 years, and that was Intro to ES in my freshman year of HS.

    The one thing I CAN do it read. I have good reading comprehension skills and I bother to take the time to actually READ the paper.

    .

    .

    Now if he made an error in his method I would probably not be able to point it out.

    All I did was read the paper and take what HE said was the results.

  • @A0DBOB Guess what? I haven't taken any Earth Science at all, I chose to take Life Science. I pick up a bit here and there about Earth Science, but it's not my interest. Good for you if you're a good reader, but winning arguments doesn't prove you're right, it might make you a good debater or lawyer of whatever,but only that.

    Ok, one more time, you beat me on the dating. I am not up to parr on dating methods.

  • @compgrad1

    "Creation proponents on the other hand are a minority and don't have 1% of the funding available for your movement."

    Wait wait wait.. what happened to being "the largest religion in the world"? What happened to all those statistics I hear on fox about the US being like 85-90% Christian?

    .

    .

    I guess the vast majority of those are "fake" Christians (ie: Catholics et al)?

  • @A0DBOB Good question! Where are they?

    Are you saying that we do have funding? Try to get a grant as a Creation Scientist and see what happens. Now go to gov't as an evolutionist and do the same you'll get millions of dollars. And that's not counting the thousands of enemies you'll make. Look at ICR and AnswersInGenesis. All the criticism they get.

    Whether they're fake or not, is their problem. I am not and can't wait to go to Heaven. I hope it's in the rapture soon.

  • @compgrad1 lmfao wow man. A book. Read one. 

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw

    I have yet to see you finish first grade you uneducated troll.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw I have yet to see god. Neither has any other person. I guess that's enough proof right there that god doesn't exist.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw Straw-man alert. Evolution does not claim that life comes from non-life. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origins. (Origins of species is not the same as origins of life). A rational deduction requires a set of premises. What are your premises when you're drawing that conclusion?

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw To disbelieve there is a creator is just as rational as disbelieving that vampires, fairies, leprechauns or elves exist. It is irrational to believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence, only on the basis of personal inclinations(moral comfort, visions,etc.) that cannot be shared with one's peers.Children believe in fairies,adults believe in god. You should do the growing up.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw Well, you name child people that don't want to believe.

    But what kind of people are those that believe in something they did not see ? Don't we trick childrens with Christmas etc... ? Who's the ignorant ?

    I'm a scientist, and I spit on you. May you burn in your ignorance hell, since you love it so much.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw

    You have also not seen a star form from a cloud of hydrogen.

    You have never witnessed a Black Hole.

    You probably haven't seen a dinosaur, or a quark.

    Neither has any other person.

    Yet we know they exist.

    Science makes inferences. Science works.

    GROW UP.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw

    "I have yet to see life come from non-life."

    So you don't eat?

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw Are you retarded? Serious question.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw The theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life, it explains how life evolves. So please stop the "life can´t come from non-life" argument, or at least discuss that under the right topic, which would be abiogenesis.

    If you think that non of the current models and theories regarding abiogenesis can give a good explanation, feel free to critic that - but please stop to use it as a argument against evolution, because that makes you look quite stupid.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw Evolution is a process of how things develop?. It shall continue. Religious people try to equate it with their religion. It is not. Atheism is freedom from religions.Creationists tend to look at Evolution as an enemy of religion. Miller's experiment proved Oparin/Haldane hypothesis, that conditions existed on primitive Earth to transform inorganic substances into organic. Whether it means Life, has yet to be proven? Religious people are afraid to look out lest they.

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw Well said Stephen Bradshaw. Well said my friend

  • @StephenPaulBradshaw Although there are still scientific debates about what actually happened on the early Earth, Abiogenesis, as defined as life coming from non-life, has been achieved. I quote Eckard Wimmer's group who synththesyzed an RNA virus, the recent work of Craig Ventor who created Mycoplasma laboratorium from non-living components, and , of course, the wonderful pioneering work of Dr. Frankinstein.

    Evolution is inevitable, a priori true, logically necessary, inescapable.

  • @gamesbok

    Tell me, what "non-living" mater did Eckard Wimmer's group use to "synthesize" RNA? The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 101 to the 13 power and thousands of different proteins are needed to form even very simple life. Showing that RNA can be intelligently human designed from pre-existing protein is an argument for ID, not one for random evolution. Math does not lie, math is empirical unlike the evidence used for theory of evolution.

  • @WILLTHEWGMAN I know you're not too bright, but I thought even you could get a Frankenstein joke. In 1960 John Oro showed that the production of proteins in a primitive Earth is not only possible, but inevitable. How many proteins do we need for an evolving system? 6. Maths, yours is unjustifiable, is a branch of logic, not emperical science. In fact all Maths is tautology. Emperical science, all of it, supports evolution, and none of it contradicts evolution.

  • @gamesbok

    Intelligently designing something in a lab only proves that something can be intelligently designed. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 101 to the 13 power. Even if only 6 simple protein molecules are needed to form even very simple life that still means that it just will not happen by chance!

  • @WILLTHEWGMAN Well, a quick glance at the scientific literature, like for instance, 'Fox, S. W. and K. Dose (1977). Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Marcel Dekker, Inc. ' would seem to indicate you are either painfully ignorant or deliberately dishonest. It appears not only that it will happen, but that it must happen.

  • @gamesbok

    The concept of a primitive "thick soup"... is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support... the primitive ocean was steadily irradiated with a relatively high dose of solar ultraviolet light.. A steady irradiation of a rather homogeneous solution results in degradative rather than synthetic reactions"

    Fox/Dose Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life.

  • @WILLTHEWGMAN Your problem is to show that every possible situation was subject to ultravilot, and we both know you can't do that. Fox, who wasn't looking at open ocean exposed to radiation, did have experimental evidence. You don't like soup, and I can appreciate that, but everyone likes a mineral spa. Perhaps that will help you.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    Catholics, Jews, Muslims, all claim that their book is THE TRUTH yet each commands very different behaviour from it's followers. In Canada same sex marriage and abortion are legal, stoning adulterers to death is not, in complete contradiction to your bible, as specific examples of where the bible does not teach us how to live. You believe the bible is the word of god only because of regional popularity.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic Have you ever read the bible? The bible does not tell us to stone adulterers. It might say this in the Old Testament, but we christians live more by the New Testament. And honestly I believe the bible, because I have faith.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic Thank you for the video and for your thoughtful responses to trollish posts. I am now one of your subscribers. I have begun watching your favorites. I particularly liked NonStampCollector. Some people you just can't reach, but take heart. BTW, I am an atheist.

  • @SeekingTruth1234

    "NO WHERE in the bible does it say the earth is 6 thousand years old..."

    You'll get no argument from me on that statement. Bring that up with Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort et al. Why does the Creation Museum say that it is so?

  • Actually, the Catholic church is the intellectual ancestor of modern, mainstream "science." "Bible-believing Christians who know their history know this.

    "Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt"?By a belief system called the geological column (doesn't exist) and uniformitarianism(faith-based belief system).Check out Hovind's work and see what you can "debunk."

    The monument to the ignorance of atheism-posing-as-science is a towering structure blotting out the sun of REAL scientific inquiry. Thank you.

  • I say we errect about another 50 monuments in America!

  • monument to insanity

  • Evolution does not claim that everything came from nothing. It also doesn't claim to explain gravity, thermodynamics, quantum-physics, how to build a 700 h.p. small-block Chevy or why Uncle Stan stinks so much. This is such a common misunderstanding that it needs revisited. BTW, there are many of us here in USA who don't buy what religion is selling. Until the internet, we weren't allowed to debate without being ostracized. Not any more..that is why the web is where religion comes to die.

  • I am a passionate atheist, but I do not fully support your view of the "destruction of Christianity." I totally disagree with the ideas presented by such ridiculous right wing super churches, but I don't think Christianity itself is evil. I don't believe in god, but some people do, and they don't necessarily try to please him. The Catholic church has many faults. I think there are intelligent Christians out there too. I just want to know your view on why they should be "torn down."

  • Glad there're at least some inteligent Americans around, they're a dying breed it seems.

  • @Londron Sorry to disappoint, but I'm Canadian.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic

    It was to good to be true, sigh.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic "Canadian"?

    How can I get "across the border" and get a Maple Leaf card?

    You guys got all the good stuff, hockey, puck bunnies, snow without the bad stuff, GOP, Tea Buggerers, Bush, Cheney, Rush, Faux Noise er Fox News

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic Whenever I meet a decent American they always turn out to be Canadian.

  • @cakeisnotanumber - Hey we're around it is just that the ones that make the news are the idiots

  • @sol3a1 I'm so glad people like you exist in the US. The media should stop making America look so bad... but then it's probably asking too much for balanced reporting ;) Nice to meet you anyway. Have a good one.

  • @cakeisnotanumber - Thanks we're trying to restore our government to sanity

    Hopefully the Tea-Buggerers/GOPricks are on their last legs as a force and will go away soon

  • @sol3a1 I hope for your sake they fall by the way side. Good luck!

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic I could tell when you said "about" lol ;)

  • @Londron Come on, man. Why the jab?

  • @Londron Intelligent American here.

    Funny enough I used to believe creationism.

  • You don't want to have any apprehension or be in fear on your death bed whether this "Jesus" stuff is real, because it is, and if you wait till then it may just be to late. This world is tooo PERFECT to just happen on its own.

  • @mike7ace Thanks for your concern. I realize you're saying it because you believe it.

    However, I'm absolutely confident that I understand the issue to the point where I have no fear that the "Jesus stuff" is real. It may seem like things are "tooo PERFECT" to you but it makes sense to me and I understand why things are the way they are. I hope that one day you discover the true nature of religion.

  • @mike7ace This world is magnificent, but too perfect it isn't. Why, for example, do we have a tailbone? Or wisdom teeth that don't fit in our jaw? Or an appendix? Why would God make an organ to serve no purpose but to randomly explode and kill you?

    As for your deathbed argument, you could say the same about any god. Why not fear the ire of Zeus or Odin as well? They could just as easily be real. I'd hate to see you banished to Tartarus because you didn't make hekatombs to the blessed Olympians.

  • @mike7ace .........there is nothing to it. There is no bonus round. When you die, that is it, you die. If the afterlife is so grand, why do all the religion figures want so much in this life ? No answer to prayer, no miracles for hundred of years.  Why does commitment to your faith always involve your time or money ? You are basing your life on the edited writings of some pretty uneducated humans from 2000 years ago. Would you take life advice from a present day high school drop out ?

  • I find it laughable that you so casually pronounce the age of the earth and various fossils as if you could actually know such a thing. Because some scientist says "the earth is 4.5 billion years old" it now becomes a fact? There is no scientific process that can date anything that age.

  • @karnoch I find it laughable that you missed the point. 4.5 billion isn't an exact date, even if you give or take a billion years the point is that it's not 6000 years old as creationists claim. Tell you what, try googling "age of the earth." If you have any searching skills whatsoever you'll discover that it's not just "some scientist" making a claim. You also might learn what "scientific process[es]" are used to date it. Go ahead, I dare you.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic the point is, you nor any scientist has the slightest clue how old the earth is. Give or take a billion years, or ten, or whatever you like, you don't know how old it is therefore you can't say with any validity that it ISN'T 6000. The only reason you reject that is that it doesn't jive with your paradigm. I thought we were using science here, not personal bias. And "some scientist" can be dozens of scientists, but the consensus of numerous people does not a fact make.

  • @karnoch "...you nor any scientist has the slightest clue how old the earth is."

    Wrong. The age of the earth is 4.54 billion ± 1% based on scientific evidence.

    "your own ignorance of scientific processes is clearly inferred by your apparent belief that there are ways to measure or date million/billion year old rocks."

    Wrong again. I'm aware of radiometric dating, life cycle of stars, geological formations, etc. These things aren't secrets or conspiracies.

    You were home schooled, right?

  • Comment removed

  • @karnoch "We're done here."

    Well that's a relief. I could explain or show you mountains of proof and you'll just dismiss it because you've made up your mind that the bible is the only thing you believe. It's sad, really.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic Let me explain something to you. Saying the earth is 4.5 million years old does not make it so. The scientific evidence you refer to consists of opinions, not evidence. And the fact that you are aware of radiometric dating clearly does not mean you actually understand radiometric dating. Also, all beliefs concerning the geologic column are guesses on top of assumptions and that doesn't count as a scientific fact either. YOU my friend are the real "monument to ignorance"....

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic Furthermore, your own ignorance of scientific processes is clearly inferred by your apparent belief that there are ways to measure or date million/billion year old rocks. Perhaps you should do some research of your own.

  • The Amerians(bless them) tend to go to Moronic level when it comes to religion. Evolution is a fact. Just like the earth is round. That is a fact. When you get a bunch a morons (not all Americans are morons) who build a creation museum and educate children then that to me is child abuse. You are not teaching children facts.

  • "SOURY ABOOT DAT!" He's a damn Canadian!!!! ;)

  • Religion is like 'The Matrix' (most belief systems are) and people who can spot the bull shit are like 'Neo' living alternate allias names on a unknown network looking for others who understand what they feel. I hate religion, well until I can free myself from this dogmatic lifestyle.

  • Just as God created Adam as a fully mature man rather than a baby, he created the universe in a fully mature state.

  • @FiberMania

    There exists, of course, such a possibility and this is why, in my opinion, there will never be a "final proof" - be it to the favour of creationists or evolutionists. Simply because we have virtually no way to tell whether the world has been developing over the course of billions of years, or was created "in an instant" in mature state. But there is still a question: "Why then, are there still so many facts that suggest like evolution has really been taking place?"

  • Evolution is an unproven theory men use to get rid of God so they can then enjoy their sin without that nagging thought that they will be held to account for their life choices by a holy and perfect creator when they die. At they judgement seat of Christ these men will be weeping and begging for forgiveness for calling God a myth, fraud and liar. Unfortunately it will be too late. Only Jesus Christ can save you from eternal torment in Hell. Receive him today and be forgiven!

  • @FiberMania Evolution is scientifically proven fact. Even the Vatican acknowledges it. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. :)

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic

    The Roman Catholic Church is probably one of the most corrupt and powerful institutions in the history of mankind. They do not obey the Bible, but they follow their own traditions which often contradict the Bible and are mere teachings of men. Turn to God's Word, the Holy Bible for the truth. You will never find peace as long as you allow science to be your "god". Allow your curiosity to consider the possibility that the almighty creator made you for a purpose. Peace ;)

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic

    I don't believe in straight up evolution, I believe in evolution with intelligent design. Using Occam's Razor, intelligent design is correct. For example, science says that the world was created from nothing with no cause or purpose, then, from what was created, complex environments and species have evolved by random.

    Or, God caused it to happen. I think scientifically, Christianity wins. In fact, this is why the oscillating universe theory was designed (which is stupid).

  • @Frogsterking I think you may be misinformed about what "science says." The evidence points to the world being formed gradually from the dust, gas, rock and ice created by stars long dead over millions of years. Not from nothing. Evolution is also not simply random. It occurs through the variability of reproduction, natural and caused mutations, coupled with environmental survival pressure whereby those that live to reproduce pass their genes on in an evolving manner over a long, long time.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic

    So where did the dust, rock and ice come from? Evidence suggests the world had a starting point. What?

    Your saying that all living life forms are descended from dust, gas, rock and ice. Through variability of reproduction, mutations, and environmental pressure, this dust, gas, rock and ice created animals and a living environment, and has resulted in us, very complex beings, in fact; much much more intelligent than any other species, which evolution also does not explain.

  • @Frogsterking "So where did the dust, rock and ice come from? Evidence suggests the world had a starting point. What?"

    Yes, it had a starting point. I'm assuming when you say "world" you mean Earth. As I explained it was formed from the material of exploded stars, interstellar material.

    "Your saying that... has resulted in us, very complex beings,"

    Yeah, that is what I'm saying.

    "...which evolution also does not explain."

    Evolution explains it as being a trait that was selected for.

  • @TheCuriousSkeptic

    1) You understand what I'm saying by now right? What did you start with? How does science say we got something from nothing?

    2) So let me get this straight--your saying that over billions of years, everything we see today (even us) came from dust, gas, rock and ice. This doesn't seem odd to you?

    3) And yet if it was just a trait that was selected for, why are we humans, and only us humans, so far above every other single animal if we started from the same place?

  • @Frogsterking miller urey experiment, look it up

  • @myco578

    I am familiar with that experiment, and it's flaws (failure to produce a relevant atmosphere, failure to produce relevant conditions, wrong amino acids, problem of building the proteins, etc.)

  • @Frogsterking your missing the point of the experiment. it proved that life CAN be be generated from non living material, earth like conditions or not.

  • @myco578

    It proved that some simple forms of life can be generated from very non-earth like conditions in a laboratory. Far from the complex environments and creatures we see today, which apparently evolved from dirt and rocks which evolved from nothing.

  • @Frogsterking your forgeting the fact this took billions of years. you make it sound as if it just happened, and millions of educated scientests are lying. if not, you should publish your theory and make millions of dollars. you can stay here and read the bible while i go explore GLIESE 581, which also probably has life on it.

  • @myco578

    How am I forgetting the fact that this took billions of years? Something that can not happen can happen if enough time is elapsed? Your theory is incomplete. You can be an atheist and rely on science, but your belief system is incomplete. Christianity is the only religion (including atheists) which can explain the origin and purpose of life in logical way. Publishing my own theory would not make any difference, everything I'm saying is common knowledge. Atheists can sing lala forever.

  • @Frogsterking oh, common knowledge NOT to the 93% of scientests who are atheist? something CAN happen if enough time is elapsed, which is why creationists are infuriating because they cannot comprehend scale and complexity, so they run to there safety blanket that is the bible. atheism is not a religion. and how the is Christianity the only religion that attempts to explains this? not the 4,200 other religions that have existed over the course of human history? there is no purpose of life.

  • @myco578

    Any why is Atheism not a religion? You because you say it is? You believe the earth was created by an unknown cause, evolved for an unknown reason, and the scale and complexity you speak of is all the result of chance (as I'm sure you know how very unlikely life as we know it is to have developed by random.) Christianity is the only religion which presents a logical worldview, an ancient religion at that (before everything we know about the world now was discovered.)

  • @Frogsterking atheism is not a religion just like not stamp collecting is hobby, or not smoking is a bad habit. the earth was created by the big bang, life came about through abiogenises, and the scale and complexity of which i speak is a result of 3 billion years of life evolving, through observable provable evidence, not magic and fairy tales. and evolution does not happen by chance, the form and function of a creature is delegated by its enviroment. btw there have been 4,200 religions.

  • @myco578

    "the earth was created by the big bang"

    I believe God created earth. You believe earth created itself (with no cause, of course.)

    "life came about through abiogenises"

    I believe God created life, the same way you describe. Yet you believe life created itself, but what caused life to create itself?

    "complexity...evolution...long time...etc."

    The parameters required for life are very high. Very, very high.

  • @Frogsterking the parameters for simple life are not. this simple life became complex through evolution. life did not create itself. if this is what you think abiogenesis is i would implore to read a biology book on the matter because you clearly have no idea. as for prior to the big bang at least science will admit it does not know, not make up story's. i would ask how did your god come into exsistance and you would give me the same answer that science has for the same question. "i don't know"

  • @myco578

    Wrong. Thank you for trying to argue both sides of the argument. According to 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, and Jude 1:25, God existed before time, meaning he created cause and effect when he created earth. That means there was no "before God", and unlike the universe, God did not have to be created,nor would it be possible. Seeing as he is an omnipotent and omnipowerful being, it makes sense he is not restricted by time and exists outside our time controlled dimension.

  • @Frogsterking i will not take seriously anything the bible has to say because it was written by MEN 2000 years ago. i could quote L Ron Hubbards best selling scientology works and it would hold just as much validity as your bible, none. it is not possible to exsist outside of our exsistance. if you can solve 0+0=1 you may have validity. and he did have to be created. the higgs boson particle is a very sound explanation with almost all of the smartest people in the world agreeing in unison.

  • @myco578

    Way to make no sense. First you say Christianity offers no explanation for who created God, then I give you an answer from the Bible (the only source for Christianity), which you decline even though you are asking for an answer which could only come from the Bible.

  • @Frogsterking no it couldn't. the bible is best selling work of fiction. just like every other religious doctrine. the bible offers no explanation for anything. what is presented is a hypothesis. the bibles "explanation" is untested, unproven, unfounded guess written by simple men. i want an answer, not a guess. to further clarify, an answer must be proven or have significant evidence to validate it. a guess requires non of these.

  • @myco578

    I just told you that the Bible says God exists outside time, and created time when he created the universe. Hence why no cause is necessary for God. Additionally, God is all-powerful, and no greater force can exist. So it makes no sense that God be created. You are asking a question about the Bible, and I gave you an answer straight from the Bible. It's like me asking you a science question, but then saying your answer is circular reasoning because you answered with scientific facts.

  • @Frogsterking science is backed up by evidence, if not it's not science. you say the "bible says". i keep telling you the bible is not a legitimate source of information because it does not follow the scientific method. disregarding that overwhelming detriment to your argument i think i will actually attempt to explain how creating your self cannot work. you cannot exist outside of existence. existence is all encompassing.nothing cannot come from nothing. time is a human creation.

  • @myco578

    And yet, if there was nothing before the world formed, doesn't it make sense that the laws of physics, time, math, etc. also would not exist, since nothing else did? When were these natural laws formed? I'm not saying the absence of things like time can be comprehended, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

  • @Frogsterking physics, time, and math are are human epithets for observable laws. we didn't "create" them, and neither did any other sentient being for that matter. they aren't formed, they are delegated.

  • @Frogsterking physics, time, and math are all human epithets for observable laws. they were never "formed". if your god created these laws, that would mean that he would have to exist before them meaning he would bypass the laws that would necessitate his exis