Atheists need to stop worshipping the invisible "ape-man" that they take a leap of faith in believing the existence of from the Theory of Evolution. Time to wake up and pay attention to 'real' science and how evolution actually works. This world is too finely tuned to simply be a random byproduct. Everything denotes there is a God. Either agree with the Laws of Nature and God, or live in a state of denial where you live rationalizing there is no God to feel better inside.
I didn't "get" the information from a website, or a text book, I get this information from the bible and such, but you just consider that to be a book thrown together a while back; so, ill give you information that your used to. It's based off of scientific information that we get, and its also proven to be true when evolutionary information is proven to be wrong. how old do you think the earth is, and what "facts" do you have to back it up?
@kitkat98139813 In each field, there are experts, people that have studied a subject and learned a great deal about a subject, and work in the field, perform research, publish research, and so on. These are the people that have the information. In the case of the age of the earth, these people are geologists. So, did you ask a geologist about the age of the earth, and what did they say? If it wasn't a geologist, why not? Wildwoodclaire1 is a geologist on youtube. Ask her.
@kitkat98139813 O REALLY so you went through and personally added everything up by your self having never heard that Figure before and came to it completely independently..... no I'm pretty sure your opinions are based of some other reading materials too.
No, I'm not over 18, YET IM STILL SMARTER!!! You don't seem to understand that the fossil record isn't accurate, in fact i would like to hear what your opinion or "facts" are about the fossil record. approximetly how old do you believe the earth is? to you what is evolution itself based off of? i am curious. :)
@kitkat98139813 Slow down there, kiddo. *:-) What is the source you are using that led you to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old? Which person, book, website, etc.
Not really. For starters, the type III secretion is not a precursor system to the flagellum. Secondly, the fact that there are subfunctions buried within the bacterial flagellum doesn't refute the fact that removal of one of its core components results in the *flagellar system to cease function.* Which means that cooption must be invoked to explain its origin, and there are problems with the cooption scenario.
@Genomiques Removal of some core components in the CURRENT system makes it stop functioning perhaps, but that is not the argument that creationists make. They say it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have another function, and that was refuted by showing that it can and almost certainly did. Intelligent design is just another version of god of the gaps. Putting god into the gaps has a zero percent correct track record so far, once we have the tech to fully understand something.
That's true - that creationists make a different argument with regards to IC systems, and that the standard creationist argument is refuted by the type III secretion system. But... "...and that was refuted by showing that it can and almost certainly did." Uh, where is the evidence that the flagellum almost certainly did have a non-motile function?
Just for you to know, I am a proponent of an intelligent design hypothesis in biology, but I wouldn't say all ID notions are god of the gap arguments. The front-loading hypothesis is inherently an intelligent design hypothesis, but it certainly makes testable predictions. Just saying.
@Genomiques One prediction I would say is that there should be exact sections of DNA that should be the same for the same function (like flight), between different types of creatures, and we do not see that.
Also, doesn't it ever give you pause though to realize you are on the "god did it" side of the argument, where that argument has the worst possible track record, from Apollo carrying the sun across the sky, all the way to the present understanding of how we evolved?
"One prediction I would say is that there should be exact sections of DNA that should be the same for the same function (like flight), between different types of creatures, and we do not see that."
Uh, I'm not a creationist. I'm an advocate of the front-loading hypothesis, which is NOT a god-of-the-gaps argument. I'm not on the "goddunnit" side of the argument. And so your statement on predictions isn't really relevant to me.
By the way, exact sections of DNA wouldn't be predicted under any biological hypothesis, because different DNA sequences can code for the same amino acid sequence. Just saying ; )
@Genomiques You'd certainly be close though a lot more often, it seems. Really this entire debate is over. The current research is all about nailing down details. It's still interesting to chat about though. Which religion are you specifically? (Sect as well, if applicable and willing to share.)
Of course, I agree that the debate of evolution vs. creationism was over decades ago particularly with the advent of genomics research. But, at the same time, with the era of genomics and molecular biology, the clues and hints that intelligence may have been involved with the history of life strengthened. The debate over a design hypothesis in biology is far from over - in my humble opinion.
I don't want to sound impolite, but it's up for speculation whether I am a theist, atheist, agnostic, or whether I really don't care if deities and gods exist - the reason I don't want to answer that question is because I want to try to approach the discussion over biological origins in as objective a manner as possible (though we all have biases), and the whole religion stuff seems irrelevant to me.
@Genomiques I can understand that. I ask because as you know, nearly all of the support from any form of creationism, intelligent design, or any other idea that Darwinian evolution did not happen, has religion at its source, and particular sects of those religions especially. It's merely a demographic question. In the US, it is almost entirely from certain sects that are evangelical Protestants.
The vast majority of ID proponents are religious and seem to have at least some religious agenda (much to my annoyance, for example, UncommonDescent continually posts articles on atheism vs. theism, when I really don't see the relevance of theology to an objective discussion over biological origins). However, there are some individuals who are sincerely interested in the possibility that some engineer or engineers may have been responsible for parts of life.
I like the segue from Hoarders to the rest of the content of this video, but have a moral problem in exploiting the mentally ill for fun, profit, and entertainment. Many of them don't have the means to medically deal with their problems and live some of the most miserable lives on this planet. A hoarder died nearby last week. A fire broke out in his house and he couldn't escape it.
I enjoyed the video, you really know your stuff. But i have a question since you mentioned arguing with the evolution of ape to men was the best way to explain it to creationists. As far as i learned there are some quite unfortunate gaps. Eg between homo habilis and homo ergaster and between homo heidelbergensis and homo sapiens. In the evolutionary line between birds and dinosaurs however the fossil evolutionary ladder is quite subsequent. Wouldn't that make it a better argument?
Thanks for the videos they are great and very informative. Creationist can be described in one word, ignorant. Which is funny because they call evolutionist ignorant when we talk about the progress of species throughout time. Everything the creationist say is hypocritical and they should evaluate their understanding of the known universe.
That is such a beautiful analogy. It always boggles my mind when I see people make these arguments that have been debunked hundreds of times in hundreds of places. I always think to myself, have they really never seen why what they say is nonsense, or are they just ignoring it, or are they purposely trying to trick someone else knowing full well that it is nonsense? Your analogy seems to be a pretty good explanation.
I have about had it with these videos, as well as anybody else who believes in this "science" blasphemy. Everybody knows that the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn and the only way to get into invisible pink heaven is to have total faith!
I hope you are arguing from ignorance and not lying. There is evidence since 2007 that there is up to a .5 percent difference in the human genome. "Previous work, based on point mutations estimated that there is a 0.1 percent difference between individuals, while this work points to a level of variation between two- and five-times higher"
Please update your erroneous material.
Sciencedaily Oct.3, 2007. "Individual Differences Caused By Shuffled Chunks Of DNA In The Human Genome"
@mrarphaxad1 Apparently you have no reply to this. Maybe you need to stop using Wikipedia for information. They are not usually encouraged in academia, but you probably already knew that...I hope.
quick thing, recent DNA evidence shows that we interbred with Homo Neandertalensis to create modern man, dont know if this video was made before this discovery but its a good thing to know
I tell you what's funny: atheists / anti-theists love to rail on the Noah's Ark story claiming that there's just not enough water on the planet to entirely flood it but at the same time they are unable to explain how water got here in the first place. The latest hypothesis is that a supernova could have created and propelled a pocket of oxygen into our solar system, turned into water along the way or from our sun, and finding its way to Earth (where in very careful measurements didn't flood us)
if evolution is science then it can be duplicated in a lab, now breeding is not evolving, I can customize my dogs by breeding traits into them from other dogs but they wont evolve into a monkey then to an apetard then to a humanoid then to a human. you cant do it in a lab so your science is only a theory, a theory that is being preached as fact to our childern until they believe it as fact. I am sorry I see no evidence for evolution.
@ddahea You don't see it because you don't know much about it, if your post is any indication of your level of understanding. You'll need to learn how it actually works in order to make some kind of judgment on it. The experts in these matters know how it works. I have read from those experts, and now I understand how it works too, and understand how to evaluate the evidence presented. Do you?
@Zaunstar you say that their is no evidence for our Christian faith, you then dont have an understanding on how faith really works. I know that change happens yes i will agree to that. You will only mock my faith, you will keep going in circle logic, and keep feeling oh so superior,God give me a million dollars right now.-nope didn't get it, does that mean prayer don't work and God never answers, and I am not going to go into an " If it is His will speech" either...
those experts don't KNOW anything. people are always being proved wrong. science isn't about having the greatest knowledge it is about gaining new knowledge . their new theories are proving the previous ones wrong. scientists had proof the earth was flat, they were wrong.
therefore how could the experts know how something works when that something is probably going to be proved wrong in the distant future.
@GarretBj26 re-instating arguments? what do you mean by that? so you are saying(i'm assuming) that once an argument is over it can't be talked abut again? if that's true then i'll just start arguing then stop and complain when someone shows me that i am wrong. even if god were to come down from heaven and greet you, you would blame it on some kind of coincidence like you atheists do about any kind of miracle story.
@ikwhereyoulive00 Ah classic elemental stupidity number 203. You do realize that well in excess of 95% of all changes to the scientific paradigm are literally refinements of theories that already existed at the time of change? Even in the case of flat to sphere it's actually not a big change in curvature. At least when you realize we're literally talking feet on the mile in terms of how drastic the calculated curve was.
@hockeater Further the fact that science is self-correcting, constantly expanding, and challenging its' own theories is the greatest strength it has. Unlike the bat-shit insane morons that even now use the invented fruits of those labors like for example you scientists are the first to admit when they're wrong and correct themselves; they sight the source that proved them wrong and document it for all to see and if applicable recreate the experiment that verified it.
@hockeater you may call it a refinement and yes it is, that's my point. we always act like we KNOW something but it always needs "refinement" because we are never accurate. if you want to call it refinement then go ahead but i'm going to call it being wrong.
and i think that they were WRONG when they said the earth was flat, i don't know where in the hell you live, or what time period, but we have figured out that the earth is round.
here's your slip for classic elemental stupidity number 204
@ikwhereyoulive00 But see that's just it. Science is the strongest form of being close to correct we humans have because it works off of the assumption that the current theory or paradigm is in some way inaccurate or incomplete if not wrong. Therefor it works to correct itself and in effect less wrong. Other organizations throw a dart at a board and keep it there regardless of whether or not they've been proven to be a bunch of chimps with mental diseases. I know who I trust.
@ikwhereyoulive00 You mean you don't understand how a system which allows us to make highly accurate predictions in the evolution of various types of disease causing bacteria and viruses and make changes to various forms of disease treatment has value? Yeah you have FUN with that. You also have fun devaluing the life you have in anticipation for an afterlife on a cloud with your head up the ass of a psychotic, genocidal god of death plagiarized from countless past religions.
@hockeater my god is not a god of death or he wouldn't spend time creating LIFE.
my life is not devalued by following god. i value it more, because i can actually know that i have something to look forward to after i leave this shithole we humans destroyed.
@ikwhereyoulive00 And then repeatedly genociding it for being an exact result of events that with omniscient tendencies he could or at least should by definition be able to predict. What a sadistic douche. At least hittler only killed a few tens of thousands. Further I find it ironic that you find more value in something you're looking forward to getting away from. They programed you well didn't they? How else could any value be explained as wanting to be rid of something? Sad.
@hockeater he could've seen those events coming yes, and he did the fruit on the tree was a test to see if we were loyal to god by CHOICE when we chose Satan, god had to show his other creations the results of sin. Satan had called god corrupt and evil so if god had destroyed Satan on the spot, the other creations would start wondering if Satan was right, god is only waiting to reveal satans true colors.
@ikwhereyoulive00 It's not a test if know with demonstrable certainty beforehand what will happen. Choice can't exist in that environment either because if you can predict it with absolute certainty beforehand the alternative couldn't have happened and thus there was no actual choice involved. In other words he supposedly created an entire species only to put things in front of them and then punish them for reacting just as predicted. Sick little bastard I say.
@hockeater it's hard to put in words, but he knew beforehand because it had already happened, it is like tivo you can record something and then watch it later, he is omnipresent everywhere all the time past and present and future, a human cannot understand this concept we can only feebly attempt to put it in words.
@ikwhereyoulive00 In other hypothetical words he had total knowledge of what would happen, set every factor up that made it happen, made no move to prevent it, and then blamed us for being exactly what he supposedly created and predicted. Further he went on to punish us for this programmed fault by cursing the entire species and then repeatedly genociding it. Oh but you should TOTALLY still worship him for this. After all it's all YOUR fault. See why it doesn't gel with people?
@hockeater he didn't blame us for being what he created, he didn't create us this way, you didn't see the angels going and fucking up like we did, that is out problem, and it doesn't work with people because people are ignorant and self-loving. that is not the bible saying that either that is my own observation. he knew it was going to happen but he didn't make it happen, that was our CHOICE and he is punishing people for OUR choices, we genocide ourselves anyways.
@ikwhereyoulive00 You sick, depraved, ignorant excuse for a maggot. By that logic if I manage to genetically engineer a race of lemmings-stupid humanoid babies that constantly explore and follow one another without any forethought and put a giant blender just off the edge of the table they're on and a safe comfy cushion on the other I can't be blamed for any death that happens because the babies choose it? My scenario is nicer; we don't know for certain the bad thing happens.
@hockeater As for yours it's not just death but eternal punishment, expectancy of worship, full knowledge beforehand, and on top of that ultimate power to stop it from happening. By the scenario you've outlined for me your god is one of the most horrid and undeniably evil things to ever exist in the human culture. You and anyone else who could not only defend and justify that but worship it sicken me right down to the core. Abhorrent mental-fecal sludge on our history.
@hockeater whether or not you know thebad things happen doesn't mean they aren't going to happen, it is the world we live in, it is the world we make for ourselves, god made us to be perfect in a perfect home and we threw that away, even now we have a freedom to choose and we had the choice then, and we ruined it for ourselves. there comes a point when you have to accept responsibility for your own faults, and that goes for anyone who ever passes the blame onto god.
@ikwhereyoulive00 I'm so glad you deem feeding babies to blenders okay you morally repugnant little troglodyte. I've already explained why choice is invalid in this scenario so your response has already been dealt with. I've had my rant about why your position is worthless and as you're repeating yourself with the same weak argument I'm done here. Goodbye.
@hockeater running away eh? that's fine, we all know you weren't winning anyways, you were just spewing out your rhetoric, and no i don't think it's okay to put babies in blenders, not sure where in the hell that came from. but evolutionists never learn. it's fine, in the end i'll be fine.
@hockeater and know i wasn't programmed and insults aren't going to change that either. so leave the failed immature insults behind when you are in a debate.
@ikwhereyoulive00 Actually that was an objective observation considering that you seem to attribute words with meanings that are the precise opposite of their definitions. I'd say the same if you started ranting on about a bullet to the face at high velocity being healthy.
@ikwhereyoulive00 Unless you can rationalize it not being the exact opposite of healthy for the recipient any point you make would really have no bearing on my point. I'd have made the same remark if say... You said bacteria were the largest lifeforms on the planet. It's a simple matter of the definition you ascribe something being completely opposite reality. Now back on topic because frankly this is a tangent. By the common definition of value your statement devalued life.
@Zaunstar i could ask you the same thing about the bible, i'm sure you lack knowledge about the bible as well, and in order to say how to argue with a cretionist then maybe you should learn a little about creationism?
@ddahea you do realize evolution happens over hundres of millions and in some cases billions of years right ?and not all science cn be done in a lab. you ever try to breakdown helium atoms and make a star ???? i would recommend not trying to
@ddahea i would recomend the video "65 million years with a creationist"
it talks about a simply understood fact, evolution takes such a long time that even if you were to watch it you would never notice, its that gradual, kind of like watching a child growing, by the time you realize its happend you never notice the change
Evolution is a religion, time is it's dogma, billions of trillions of years, this is pounded into the heads of childern from the start of there education. 6000 or so years ago God created everything, 4000 years ago or so there was a flood, now tell me can any of you prove that no one has every had a prayer answerd from a higher power? 150 years of telling our childern that there is no right or wrong and that they came from apes has lead to the decay of our society. NOBAMA 2012
@ddahea LOL I just find it hilarious how you threw in "NOBAMA 2012" at the end. What the hell are you talking about, "Evolution is a religion." What? What? "150 years of telling our children there is no right or wrong." WHAT??? You are getting extremely off topic, and making no sense. And evolution was certainly not "pounded" into my head, and I'm only 16. If the flood that supposedly happened had occurred as described in the bible, humanity would not have survived.
@topgunz23 they will tell you it doesnt need to be recreated after telling you that you are ignorant to how it really works, they will talk about study and theory and peer testing, never once admitting that the same peer review will take any findings against their dogma's of billions of years , slow evolution , and climate change. Some will go as far as hiding data that may go against the theory. teach the theory if you want but teach it as a theory not as fact. They are a religion
@ddahea You are clearly mistaken. I hope you'll do some reading (not from Kirk Cameron and those of his ilk) and actually begin to understand a little about this. The way it goes is that an observation is first made. Anyone can see this observation and it becomes and observed fact. Then, based on evidence compiled, an explanation for how this happened is given. If the explanation can predict future patterns, doesn't violate any other known laws, etc. it becomes a "Theory."
@ddahea So you see, in order to have a scientific Theory of evolution, you must first have the observed fact of evolution. It works like that for everything. Gravity is the same way. You have an observed fact and a Theory explaining it. Yet, I never hear anyone really complain that gravity is "only a theory" in which they would be every bi correct as saying evolution is only a theory. Teach facts, not fairy tales of a man in the sky.
oh my science, what are you credentials if you don't mind me asking, or are you just repeating the Richard Dawkins argument you saw on Discovery?
Darwin didn't know how life began, and he didn't even try. We still don't know, so why rule something out? why? why must the we way began fit your model? what are you gonna do, when in future evidence, if we find that the evidence actually points in one direction, what and its not the direction you want?
@msmith999999 My education is listed in detail on my channel page. I am not ruling anything out that has evidence. If you have some evidence that shows that god sprinkled something on the earth to create life, then by all means show it.
I hope you don't feel I'm attacking you by the way.healthy debate is the only way to progress.that whole show me you evidence is a red herring, just like me saying show me your evidence he didn't. that's my point, neither of us have any evidence of the beginning of life.
on another issue-what do you think Chuck Darwin would say about what his theory has turned into? I am assuming you have read "the decent of man" as well.
I believe the man had some valid insights,not the whole pict
@msmith999999 There is plenty of evidence. Why don't you tell me how or why you do not believe the fossils of early homonids or the DNA evidence of early homonids means we were evolved? Did your god just sprinkle new species on the earth every million years or so that progressively evolved a bit?
what evidence is there that life began with undirected process- your arguing evolution- I'm completely fine with that. i'm not arguing evolution, I'm debating on the evidence of undirected life formation. Thats all, you keep going back to fossil records- in the beginning there were no fossils. quit changing the subject and tell me how life began
Yea God sprinkled life on earth, yup, how about we go sprinkle sugar on our coffees and create some sort of portal to new energy. Please If God sprinkling life on Earth was so easy, why should Science exists, why should life exist for that matter. Also give me evidence that Stardust sprinkled life on this earth. This is all mere hypothesis. If you're going to say things like "magic just happened on Earth by God" then I have a whole list of of magic aspects of evolution (such as common descent)
Evidence about evolution is out there. Take a walk to a museum, read a book. Evidence about... religion? ID?, Creationism???? is well almost a contradiction in terms. No Red herring. Study your argumentation fallacies before postulating one. Charles -respectfully- Darwin was a scientist he does not nor ever did OWN all implications of his theories to the extent of whatever other crack pots wanted to write about it. You OBVIOUSLY IGNORE Darwins Origin of Species. Shame on you.
In the future, when new evidence is discovered that disproves my current beliefs, whether on a minor matter such as whether or not to wear a seat belt, or something major like the existence of god, I will... change. I will change the way I think and even live. I will overcome my fear and do whatever it takes to be in harmony with the newly discovered truth.
In the future, when new evidence is discovered that disproves my current beliefs, whether on a minor matter such as whether or not to wear a seat belt, or something major like the existence of god, I will... change. I will change the way I think and even live. I will overcome my fear and do whatever it takes to be in harmony with the newly discovered truth.
In the future, when new evidence is discovered that disproves my current beliefs, whether on a minor matter such as whether or not to wear a seat belt, or something major like the existence of god, I will... change. I will change the way I think and even live. I will overcome my fear and do whatever it takes to be in harmony with the newly discovered truth.
In the future, when new evidence is discovered that disproves my current beliefs, whether on a minor matter such as whether or not to wear a seat belt, or something major like the existence of god, I will... change. I will change the way I think and even live. I will overcome my fear and do whatever it takes to be in harmony with the newly discovered truth.
..."when in future evidence... this and that..." do you live in the future to know this is true and WILL be the case?
NOPE. Shame on you then.
You also ask for credentials, I wonder what for? so Which are yours? are you reciting your priests arguments and your nonsensical asertive superstitional beliefs like you actually know what you are talking about? ooohh yes you are. Lame as lame can be. funny how people like to embarrass themselves like that, isn't it?... ];)
@msmith999999 Like it or not, our understanding is constantly changing. No one complains about learning something new, even if it means our old ideas were wrong. The reason it is ruled out is because there isn't one speck of evidence for it. I know, it can hurt to learn that everything you've been driven to believe is based on nothing, but it's true. By and large, "we" welcome new information and consider it exciting to learn about things which we formerly didn't know, or were wrong about.
@sexyxrs Hitler was also a very progressive Darwinist, read Mein kampf... its astounding how much it reads like orgin of species.
Dr Josef Mengele - prominant darwinist --- Nazi leading scientist at Auschwitz
As I discovered when researching a history of the Nazis at war, much of what scientists did under the Third Reich was regarded as "normal science", subject to standard protocols of peer review in conferences and journals.
John Paul II didn't put it into production f*** stick.. Hilter thought he was driving evolution of the human race with his "superior German race." this is how science can justify evil- i believe Hitler truly thought he was doing good from an evolutionary perspective.
I also believe that you are too F******* stupid to assess your own arguments, so shut up and let the adults talk
Don't worry.. I've been told I am going to hell as well.. I will see you there we can talk more about the mass non-thinking creationists!
Seriously though - thank you, your videos haven't given me a greater insight into it all - the fact it is 2011 and people still believe in Religion really does baffle me.
@Zaunstar You said that "creationist are like hoarders", what I am saying that evolutionists are to. Maybe creationists feel that you have not showed them wrong in your arguments, so they will not leave theirs. You blame creationist for being "hoarders" but will not say the same for an evolutionist!
@Zaunstar i love how this guy tried to argue with you after you've been kicking ass in all three videos. good thing he listened to your advice and gave up
@Zaunstar What about "Creationist"(not the religious sort) that know evolution is irrefutable science. Like me. My only question is. Where did all the condensed matter in the Universe come from 13.7 billion years ago? Don't bother quoting Stephan Hawking, please. I have read his thoughts on the matter. I'm still not convinced that a creator is "not required ". My point is, we aren't all the same.
@Zaunstar Science is in its self is a religion, a religion is a system of beliefs, tradition and dogmas, science will persecute any evidence that flies in the face of its dogma evolution as a blasphemy and will supress it. This falling away of the saints and all this I am so intellagent look at my proof of no god was predicted in scripture thousands of years ago, and it is going to get worse before it gets better at Christ second coming, can anyone out there prove that prayer has never worked?
@Zaunstar answer a question with a question, then throw in an insult to try and get me off balanced and mad very typical. I didn't go to collage by choice, and i couldn't spell crap if it was in my mouth, im ok with that. i do not have to prove leprechauns aint holding the earth up, I don't have to prove anything. you are the one saying no creator, thus no God. how can you prove that prayer is never answerd from God. now laugh point out the fact that I am" uneducated", and correct my spelling
@ddahea I am not saying there is none. I am saying there is no evidence for one. You are making the claim, so I am asking you to back up the claim. I don't have to disprove anything that hasn't been shown to be true in the first place. You're right that you don't have to disprove leprechauns, and it's for the same reason I don't have to disprove your mythology.
@ddahea science isn't a religion. There is no belief in a higher order, no belief in the supernatural. Al there is is a want to find answers.
You know what seperates science and religion? Scientists will accept theories are wrong when proven so. I give you the theory that there was no life in the sea beyond 300 fathoms proposed by Edward Forbes 1843. His theory was proven wrong years later with advances in technology and new theories arose. Along with new questions. How is that religion?
@chrismac1980 This isn't about atheism. It's about science. Science is the understanding of the laws that hold this universe together. This understanding changes based on evidence obtained over time. Some hold their old arguments, both creationists and evolutionists. Anyone who seeks real evidence benefits progress. Those that continue to search for new evidence are the ones I admire. Someday evidence will eliminate all falsehoods as to the universe's laws, as well as humans can observe.
@Zaunstar lol u can chide me all u want about that stuff but we both know that if u were an adolescent living in the 21st century youd probably be doin the same xD
great vids by the way...very entertaining, but if i dont get my japanese homework done i blame you :P
Actually you and who you have broadly labeled as "creationists" are both wrong. The creation is still happening and something creative will always be happening.
Actually there are many scientists who think that Neanderthals and early Europeans interbred which which would mean they're not a different species technically. But then of course creationists don't realise that there are no clear cut offs of when one species turns into another one. It takes nothing away from your argument.
I'm a non-denominational bible believing Christian. I don't believe Christians should argue with atheists. They are already willingly being blinded by the devil - let them loose their souls.
I say that with an attitude of "Only the Power of God can save them, not the wisdom of men".
@JustAnotherMutant where did hate atheist come from? i don't see any hate. reli..is nothing but a form of control, atheist often argues.think about it.humanity needs to be controlled. humans are so diverse in our thoughts that we need some central control. if left alone i may kidnapp my neighbors wfe, use her for a day & return her.u may argue that law enforcement can do the job of control. law
inforce only punishes me if i am caught. while i planning to kidnapp my neig. wfe i wont b arrested
@JustAnotherMutant what religion does it goes into our hearts and helps us surpress that negative feeling b4 it spills into action & pollute the society. & it has work for the good of society so far. what made atheist think that the world w/o religion will b better? schools w/o religion is it any better? the secular est. knows that schools are worst off w/o religion,but atheist will argue to the contrary becuz the easiest thing to do is to disagree.mainwhile athe enjoys the stability of religion
@JustAnotherMutant atheist are comforted that a former gang member has now given his life to christ & is street preaching rather than doing drivebys. atheist know the positive impact that religion has on society but they will just argue & argue indescriminately. the freedom from religion found. the ACLU are some of the argumentors.
@DavidofChrist777 u are right God there is nothing impossible with God. the moment one disagrees with an atheist...it is interperated as hate as justanother mutan is saying. they apply reasoning to everything else, but when it comes to religion its null.. & srgument for religion is more reasonable then all atheist put together
TheToosy, it's not that he disagrees with atheists. One can easily disagree with friends, enemies, and people you don't care about.
The problem is he shrugged off the eternal torture of human persons. That's a whole different issue. Worse yet, he believes that he has the cure to prevent this eternal torture, and recommends against sharing it with atheists.
The problem with your idea that religion is a handy control for humanity is that in addition to the suppression of negative feelings you mention, it also promotes those negative feelings at other times. Religion draws people together against other groups just as easily as it draws them in their own group, and the more dogmatic the worse this is. So yes, it helps draw gang members off the street. It also helps promote genocide, attacks on minorities, ...
@JustAnotherMutant it is not my idea (although i share it) its the truth religion is a handy control & it has worked for the better of mankind. "religion draws people together against other people" Christians set apart from other does not mean against other people.. we are against their practices but not against other people.
nothing wrong with being passionate about ones belief when u inflict wounds on other this is where the problem begins
@JustAnotherMutant religion does not help to promote genocide ( i know my religion dont) its the people who helps to promote genocide in the name of religion..the KKK intheir respect & honor of the US constitution says all other races other than the white race is inferior...the constituton did not tell them that...same as religion.
@JustAnotherMutant being against ones practice is not the same as being against that person..for eg a judge will have harsh words while sentencing is convict...& scorns him because of the crimes he has committed, but the same judge will release him after he has served his jail time..
TheToosy, Actually yes... set apart from other people does help foster being against them, not just their practices. There is a lot of "us vs them" in humans, so setting yourselves apart you put others in the "them". That makes the wounding part easier.
So yes... when you begin to inflict wounds the problem begins... and your religion has been used to justify inflicting wounds for a thousand years.
Now you can claim they weren't your religion, but that's the No True Scotsman fallacy.
@JustAnotherMutant i dont see how being set apart forsters animosity. if that happens then its the individual that fosters hate not the religion, just what i said from the begining. there is a way to hate someone practice w/o hating him/her, it happens all the time in every days life. but in america today everything is taken outta context...being a liberal means being anti american ... etc and & a con. means being a bigot, etc. Humans justify inflicting wounds not christianity... .
@JustAnotherMutant todays christianity does not foster hate those who hate are moved by thier own motive..its in the Bible (u should know this being a christian b4)'every man sin because he is drawn by his own lust & entice" slaughter taken place thousands of yrs. shouldnt be an issue for u to bring up...i never under stood that.. atheists often refer to the slaying of the hitites in the bible or the killing of egyptians in the red sea..how can a merciful god allow that? the often argue.
@JustAnotherMutant todays christianity does not foster hate those who hate are moved by thier own motive..its in the Bible (u should know this being a christian b4)'every man sin because he is drawn by his own lust & entice" slaughter taken place thousands of yrs. shouldnt be an issue for u to bring up...i never under stood that.. atheists often refer to the slaying of the hitites in the bible or the killing of egyptians in the red sea..how can a merciful god allow that? they often argue.
No, schools are not worse off without religion. Don't get me wrong - religious schools aren't all bad... at my school I was 2 grades ahead of the public school teaching in English, 1 in history, and started learning foreign languages at age 6. Math and science however lagged behind.
@JustAnotherMutant i don't know her exact words of the woman who started the movement...but one can conclude that she admits religion has worked for the good, however she went on.. it is time to replace it with a secular, humanistic etc im sure she thought this would result in things being better, but evidence today proove her wrong.. At beverly Middle school in a PA town.. horse- mounted police monitor children after school.. a St Dominic,(a hs) 6 blocks away only crossing guards.
But more importantly, religion in schools is harmful to the religious. You see, it forces the ideas of a specific religion on your child. So if you share the religion of the school, you are good to go, but for anyone else it is interfering with the parent's rights of exercise of religion. Now in private schools, this isn't a problem, but not everyone can afford them.
In public schools you don't want religion, because it helps you worship the way you choose.
LOL sorry, prevents you, not helps you. Must be out of coffee.
For an example of this, I can give you my own schooling. I was Christian, but of a different sect than my school, and my classmates were unaware of this. In the middle of history class, one of my classmates proposed that murdering someone of my sect was ok, because we worshiped God incorrectly. The teacher didn't say anything about this.
So I was against religion in the public schools, even back when I was Christian.
@JustAnotherMutant im not advocating religion is schools..what im saying is that schools are not better w/o religion. if u want to kick out religion so b it, but there r consequences & the consequence is u r worse off. thats why schools police carry weapons in some states. a hs school's teacher had his neck broken by his own student in the state of PA..u call that not worst off? the lady that spearhead the expelling of religion outta sch. admitted that the intervention of religion has been...
TheToosy, if that is in fact the lack of religion in schools causing such things, why are atheists so underrepresented in crime and prison statistics?
And would you support converting public schools to Islamic schools?
@JustAnotherMutant u dont believe the bible anyway..therefore why do u bring about thebloodshed in the bible? the whole bible is a fairy tale as far as u r concern.. no one would argue why superman didnt stop those planes from plowing into WTC. the statistic about atheist being underrepresented doesnt make sense. Even the statisticians will laugh at their own statistic if scrutinized. Google a march 2010 religion section of the wash. Post.. The boston globe reported that a study showed
@JustAnotherMutant boston globe reported that of the kids who stay in school, do their home work & r less likely to join gangs r the ones who attend church regularly, & have religious influence..those who r more likely to drop outta school, involve in gangs & do petty crimes r the ones who dont go to sunday schools & have no interest in religion.. In essence the study about atheist being under represented is saying those in prisons r the ones who do less crime. i thouhht criminals go to prison
@JustAnotherMutant the reason why atheist r not in prison (if that stastic is correct) is because inmates have realized thair mistakes, found religion in prisons & turn over their life to christ (if they chose Christianity). Obiviously they will be counted as christians.. Atheist are so bent on being anti christian that will jump with glee at any opportunity to castigate christianity..with no willingness to seek the truth.
@JustAnotherMutant 'In public sch u dont want relig, becuz it helps u worship the way u choose"..i thought atheist were against worship.. things being impose on others dont necessarily mean its a bad thing..i once worked with former addicts where we imposed good behavior upon them to their outmost objection the civil war was to force the union to stay together & the abolition of slaves..How did it wind up? the U.S. is a police state in most cases where there is an ever of police.
TheToosy, actually I rarely complain about violence in the Bible. What I point out instead is Christians fighting Christians, Muslims, and Pagans over the past thousand years, in the name of religion.
For the violence in the Bible, my problem is the god of the Bible commands a lot of vile things, and yet so many Christians claim him as a source of morality. The wars and xenocide I mentioned above indicates a fair number have taken it seriously, but fortunately most don't get their morals there.
For the criminal statistics of atheists, yes... criminals tend to go to prison, and atheists in prison are a much lower percentage than atheists in the general population. So perhaps you are missing some other causative factors there. Also, only 2 Christian sects have as low a divorce rate as atheists.
Atheists against worship? Well, we might think you're wasting your time, but hey, it's your time. What you do with it is up to you. What the majority of atheists are against is you determining how other people worship. So religion at home or private schools is generally fine. We might think it's pointless, but unless it starts harming people, it's your right. Religion in public schools however becomes a problem.
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists need to stop worshipping the invisible "ape-man" that they take a leap of faith in believing the existence of from the Theory of Evolution. Time to wake up and pay attention to 'real' science and how evolution actually works. This world is too finely tuned to simply be a random byproduct. Everything denotes there is a God. Either agree with the Laws of Nature and God, or live in a state of denial where you live rationalizing there is no God to feel better inside.
Bloodrip 1 month ago
I didn't "get" the information from a website, or a text book, I get this information from the bible and such, but you just consider that to be a book thrown together a while back; so, ill give you information that your used to. It's based off of scientific information that we get, and its also proven to be true when evolutionary information is proven to be wrong. how old do you think the earth is, and what "facts" do you have to back it up?
kitkat98139813 2 months ago
@kitkat98139813 In each field, there are experts, people that have studied a subject and learned a great deal about a subject, and work in the field, perform research, publish research, and so on. These are the people that have the information. In the case of the age of the earth, these people are geologists. So, did you ask a geologist about the age of the earth, and what did they say? If it wasn't a geologist, why not? Wildwoodclaire1 is a geologist on youtube. Ask her.
Zaunstar 2 months ago
@kitkat98139813 O REALLY so you went through and personally added everything up by your self having never heard that Figure before and came to it completely independently..... no I'm pretty sure your opinions are based of some other reading materials too.
RomanHistoryNut 2 months ago
No, I'm not over 18, YET IM STILL SMARTER!!! You don't seem to understand that the fossil record isn't accurate, in fact i would like to hear what your opinion or "facts" are about the fossil record. approximetly how old do you believe the earth is? to you what is evolution itself based off of? i am curious. :)
kitkat98139813 2 months ago
@kitkat98139813 Slow down there, kiddo. *:-) What is the source you are using that led you to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old? Which person, book, website, etc.
Zaunstar 2 months ago
@Zaunstar
"Ken Miller really destroys this one..."
Not really. For starters, the type III secretion is not a precursor system to the flagellum. Secondly, the fact that there are subfunctions buried within the bacterial flagellum doesn't refute the fact that removal of one of its core components results in the *flagellar system to cease function.* Which means that cooption must be invoked to explain its origin, and there are problems with the cooption scenario.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Genomiques Removal of some core components in the CURRENT system makes it stop functioning perhaps, but that is not the argument that creationists make. They say it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have another function, and that was refuted by showing that it can and almost certainly did. Intelligent design is just another version of god of the gaps. Putting god into the gaps has a zero percent correct track record so far, once we have the tech to fully understand something.
Zaunstar 2 months ago
@Zaunstar
That's true - that creationists make a different argument with regards to IC systems, and that the standard creationist argument is refuted by the type III secretion system. But... "...and that was refuted by showing that it can and almost certainly did." Uh, where is the evidence that the flagellum almost certainly did have a non-motile function?
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Zaunstar
Just for you to know, I am a proponent of an intelligent design hypothesis in biology, but I wouldn't say all ID notions are god of the gap arguments. The front-loading hypothesis is inherently an intelligent design hypothesis, but it certainly makes testable predictions. Just saying.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Genomiques One prediction I would say is that there should be exact sections of DNA that should be the same for the same function (like flight), between different types of creatures, and we do not see that.
Also, doesn't it ever give you pause though to realize you are on the "god did it" side of the argument, where that argument has the worst possible track record, from Apollo carrying the sun across the sky, all the way to the present understanding of how we evolved?
Zaunstar 2 months ago
@Zaunstar
"One prediction I would say is that there should be exact sections of DNA that should be the same for the same function (like flight), between different types of creatures, and we do not see that."
Uh, I'm not a creationist. I'm an advocate of the front-loading hypothesis, which is NOT a god-of-the-gaps argument. I'm not on the "goddunnit" side of the argument. And so your statement on predictions isn't really relevant to me.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Zaunstar
By the way, exact sections of DNA wouldn't be predicted under any biological hypothesis, because different DNA sequences can code for the same amino acid sequence. Just saying ; )
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Genomiques You'd certainly be close though a lot more often, it seems. Really this entire debate is over. The current research is all about nailing down details. It's still interesting to chat about though. Which religion are you specifically? (Sect as well, if applicable and willing to share.)
Zaunstar 2 months ago
@Zaunstar
"Really this entire debate is over."
Of course, I agree that the debate of evolution vs. creationism was over decades ago particularly with the advent of genomics research. But, at the same time, with the era of genomics and molecular biology, the clues and hints that intelligence may have been involved with the history of life strengthened. The debate over a design hypothesis in biology is far from over - in my humble opinion.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Zaunstar
I don't want to sound impolite, but it's up for speculation whether I am a theist, atheist, agnostic, or whether I really don't care if deities and gods exist - the reason I don't want to answer that question is because I want to try to approach the discussion over biological origins in as objective a manner as possible (though we all have biases), and the whole religion stuff seems irrelevant to me.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Genomiques I can understand that. I ask because as you know, nearly all of the support from any form of creationism, intelligent design, or any other idea that Darwinian evolution did not happen, has religion at its source, and particular sects of those religions especially. It's merely a demographic question. In the US, it is almost entirely from certain sects that are evangelical Protestants.
Zaunstar 2 months ago
@Zaunstar
The vast majority of ID proponents are religious and seem to have at least some religious agenda (much to my annoyance, for example, UncommonDescent continually posts articles on atheism vs. theism, when I really don't see the relevance of theology to an objective discussion over biological origins). However, there are some individuals who are sincerely interested in the possibility that some engineer or engineers may have been responsible for parts of life.
Genomiques 2 months ago
first time seeing your videos. your fun to watch. thanks. i like the stories as well
pinkfluffyguy 3 months ago
@pinkfluffyguy Thanks! Feel free to subscribe, if you dare. *;-)
Zaunstar 3 months ago
I like the segue from Hoarders to the rest of the content of this video, but have a moral problem in exploiting the mentally ill for fun, profit, and entertainment. Many of them don't have the means to medically deal with their problems and live some of the most miserable lives on this planet. A hoarder died nearby last week. A fire broke out in his house and he couldn't escape it.
ChipArgyle 4 months ago
I enjoyed the video, you really know your stuff. But i have a question since you mentioned arguing with the evolution of ape to men was the best way to explain it to creationists. As far as i learned there are some quite unfortunate gaps. Eg between homo habilis and homo ergaster and between homo heidelbergensis and homo sapiens. In the evolutionary line between birds and dinosaurs however the fossil evolutionary ladder is quite subsequent. Wouldn't that make it a better argument?
TheLadyOfG 4 months ago
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Readabookism 5 months ago
Thanks for the videos they are great and very informative. Creationist can be described in one word, ignorant. Which is funny because they call evolutionist ignorant when we talk about the progress of species throughout time. Everything the creationist say is hypocritical and they should evaluate their understanding of the known universe.
ticklemydalek 6 months ago
That is such a beautiful analogy. It always boggles my mind when I see people make these arguments that have been debunked hundreds of times in hundreds of places. I always think to myself, have they really never seen why what they say is nonsense, or are they just ignoring it, or are they purposely trying to trick someone else knowing full well that it is nonsense? Your analogy seems to be a pretty good explanation.
PainefulMass 8 months ago
I have about had it with these videos, as well as anybody else who believes in this "science" blasphemy. Everybody knows that the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn and the only way to get into invisible pink heaven is to have total faith!
/end sarcasm
Axiss360 8 months ago 22
@Axiss360 Hey, I like pink unicorns as much as the next guy. Maybe it's time to subscribe and see who I blaspheme next then. *;-)
Zaunstar 8 months ago
@Axiss360 I thought it was created by a double headed cotton candy pink unicorn! I've been misinformed damn it.
thaboy123 2 months ago
Ugh... Me and my dad debate all the time. And I usually just let him rant, because I can't change his mind, no matter how much I try to convince him.
treasuredroperX 9 months ago
I hope you are arguing from ignorance and not lying. There is evidence since 2007 that there is up to a .5 percent difference in the human genome. "Previous work, based on point mutations estimated that there is a 0.1 percent difference between individuals, while this work points to a level of variation between two- and five-times higher"
Please update your erroneous material.
Sciencedaily Oct.3, 2007. "Individual Differences Caused By Shuffled Chunks Of DNA In The Human Genome"
mrarphaxad1 9 months ago
@mrarphaxad1 Apparently you have no reply to this. Maybe you need to stop using Wikipedia for information. They are not usually encouraged in academia, but you probably already knew that...I hope.
mrarphaxad1 9 months ago
quick thing, recent DNA evidence shows that we interbred with Homo Neandertalensis to create modern man, dont know if this video was made before this discovery but its a good thing to know
deathman1021 9 months ago
@deathman1021 Yep found that out after this video. Good point.
Zaunstar 9 months ago
@Zaunstar just wanted to make sure people were aware
deathman1021 9 months ago
Creationism, not the arguments, is in it of itself a hoarding because the can't get rid of that religious belief.
MelvinThe42 10 months ago
I tell you what's funny: atheists / anti-theists love to rail on the Noah's Ark story claiming that there's just not enough water on the planet to entirely flood it but at the same time they are unable to explain how water got here in the first place. The latest hypothesis is that a supernova could have created and propelled a pocket of oxygen into our solar system, turned into water along the way or from our sun, and finding its way to Earth (where in very careful measurements didn't flood us)
RayTech70 10 months ago
@RayTech70 That sounds like a "science" idea dreamed up by a creationist. Please tell me where I can read about this hypothesis you mention.
Zaunstar 10 months ago 8
@Zaunstar even though he might not know were his hypothesis came from, you still didn't answer the question of were all the water came from
dx1all33 8 months ago
@dx1all33 Define:argument from ignorance.
PhobicOne 8 months ago
@dx1all33 why dont religous people answer where god came from then, instead of him just being there which i have heard all the time.
MrJaysChannel 8 months ago
@RayTech70 Is that the best argument that has been presented to you about why the Noah's Ark story is completely false?
SelwynG1 9 months ago
@RayTech70 What? That's not at all true is it?
cardinalkesky 9 months ago
@RayTech70 Nice, pseudoscience. COULD have happened. We find no evidence that it did.
treasuredroperX 9 months ago
if evolution is science then it can be duplicated in a lab, now breeding is not evolving, I can customize my dogs by breeding traits into them from other dogs but they wont evolve into a monkey then to an apetard then to a humanoid then to a human. you cant do it in a lab so your science is only a theory, a theory that is being preached as fact to our childern until they believe it as fact. I am sorry I see no evidence for evolution.
ddahea 10 months ago
@ddahea You don't see it because you don't know much about it, if your post is any indication of your level of understanding. You'll need to learn how it actually works in order to make some kind of judgment on it. The experts in these matters know how it works. I have read from those experts, and now I understand how it works too, and understand how to evaluate the evidence presented. Do you?
Zaunstar 10 months ago 15
@Zaunstar you say that their is no evidence for our Christian faith, you then dont have an understanding on how faith really works. I know that change happens yes i will agree to that. You will only mock my faith, you will keep going in circle logic, and keep feeling oh so superior,God give me a million dollars right now.-nope didn't get it, does that mean prayer don't work and God never answers, and I am not going to go into an " If it is His will speech" either...
ddahea 10 months ago
@Zaunstar
those experts don't KNOW anything. people are always being proved wrong. science isn't about having the greatest knowledge it is about gaining new knowledge . their new theories are proving the previous ones wrong. scientists had proof the earth was flat, they were wrong.
therefore how could the experts know how something works when that something is probably going to be proved wrong in the distant future.
ikwhereyoulive00 2 months ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 Try video one (or maybe two) I hate (as I'm sure he hates as well) re-instating arguments.
GarretBj26 1 month ago
@GarretBj26 re-instating arguments? what do you mean by that? so you are saying(i'm assuming) that once an argument is over it can't be talked abut again? if that's true then i'll just start arguing then stop and complain when someone shows me that i am wrong. even if god were to come down from heaven and greet you, you would blame it on some kind of coincidence like you atheists do about any kind of miracle story.
ikwhereyoulive00 1 month ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 Ah classic elemental stupidity number 203. You do realize that well in excess of 95% of all changes to the scientific paradigm are literally refinements of theories that already existed at the time of change? Even in the case of flat to sphere it's actually not a big change in curvature. At least when you realize we're literally talking feet on the mile in terms of how drastic the calculated curve was.
hockeater 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Zaunstar
@hockeater Further the fact that science is self-correcting, constantly expanding, and challenging its' own theories is the greatest strength it has. Unlike the bat-shit insane morons that even now use the invented fruits of those labors like for example you scientists are the first to admit when they're wrong and correct themselves; they sight the source that proved them wrong and document it for all to see and if applicable recreate the experiment that verified it.
hockeater 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Zaunstar
@hockeater you may call it a refinement and yes it is, that's my point. we always act like we KNOW something but it always needs "refinement" because we are never accurate. if you want to call it refinement then go ahead but i'm going to call it being wrong.
and i think that they were WRONG when they said the earth was flat, i don't know where in the hell you live, or what time period, but we have figured out that the earth is round.
here's your slip for classic elemental stupidity number 204
ikwhereyoulive00 2 weeks ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 But see that's just it. Science is the strongest form of being close to correct we humans have because it works off of the assumption that the current theory or paradigm is in some way inaccurate or incomplete if not wrong. Therefor it works to correct itself and in effect less wrong. Other organizations throw a dart at a board and keep it there regardless of whether or not they've been proven to be a bunch of chimps with mental diseases. I know who I trust.
hockeater 2 weeks ago
@hockeater tell me this: even if evolution is true, what have you gained from it??
i may see that a star is in the sky but i am not any better for it.
evolution is true and when you die you go to the ground and nothing more. your life is meaningless, and your sufferings go unpunished.
ill stick to my belief where i at least look forward to something with hope that my misery was worth it.
i'm done arguing: tell yourself that you won.
in the end your ignorance will be shown to you.
ikwhereyoulive00 2 weeks ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 You mean you don't understand how a system which allows us to make highly accurate predictions in the evolution of various types of disease causing bacteria and viruses and make changes to various forms of disease treatment has value? Yeah you have FUN with that. You also have fun devaluing the life you have in anticipation for an afterlife on a cloud with your head up the ass of a psychotic, genocidal god of death plagiarized from countless past religions.
hockeater 2 weeks ago
@hockeater my god is not a god of death or he wouldn't spend time creating LIFE.
my life is not devalued by following god. i value it more, because i can actually know that i have something to look forward to after i leave this shithole we humans destroyed.
ikwhereyoulive00 2 weeks ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 And then repeatedly genociding it for being an exact result of events that with omniscient tendencies he could or at least should by definition be able to predict. What a sadistic douche. At least hittler only killed a few tens of thousands. Further I find it ironic that you find more value in something you're looking forward to getting away from. They programed you well didn't they? How else could any value be explained as wanting to be rid of something? Sad.
hockeater 2 weeks ago
@hockeater he could've seen those events coming yes, and he did the fruit on the tree was a test to see if we were loyal to god by CHOICE when we chose Satan, god had to show his other creations the results of sin. Satan had called god corrupt and evil so if god had destroyed Satan on the spot, the other creations would start wondering if Satan was right, god is only waiting to reveal satans true colors.
ikwhereyoulive00 2 weeks ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 It's not a test if know with demonstrable certainty beforehand what will happen. Choice can't exist in that environment either because if you can predict it with absolute certainty beforehand the alternative couldn't have happened and thus there was no actual choice involved. In other words he supposedly created an entire species only to put things in front of them and then punish them for reacting just as predicted. Sick little bastard I say.
hockeater 2 weeks ago
@hockeater it's hard to put in words, but he knew beforehand because it had already happened, it is like tivo you can record something and then watch it later, he is omnipresent everywhere all the time past and present and future, a human cannot understand this concept we can only feebly attempt to put it in words.
ikwhereyoulive00 1 week ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 In other hypothetical words he had total knowledge of what would happen, set every factor up that made it happen, made no move to prevent it, and then blamed us for being exactly what he supposedly created and predicted. Further he went on to punish us for this programmed fault by cursing the entire species and then repeatedly genociding it. Oh but you should TOTALLY still worship him for this. After all it's all YOUR fault. See why it doesn't gel with people?
hockeater 1 week ago
@hockeater he didn't blame us for being what he created, he didn't create us this way, you didn't see the angels going and fucking up like we did, that is out problem, and it doesn't work with people because people are ignorant and self-loving. that is not the bible saying that either that is my own observation. he knew it was going to happen but he didn't make it happen, that was our CHOICE and he is punishing people for OUR choices, we genocide ourselves anyways.
ikwhereyoulive00 1 week ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 You sick, depraved, ignorant excuse for a maggot. By that logic if I manage to genetically engineer a race of lemmings-stupid humanoid babies that constantly explore and follow one another without any forethought and put a giant blender just off the edge of the table they're on and a safe comfy cushion on the other I can't be blamed for any death that happens because the babies choose it? My scenario is nicer; we don't know for certain the bad thing happens.
hockeater 1 week ago
@hockeater As for yours it's not just death but eternal punishment, expectancy of worship, full knowledge beforehand, and on top of that ultimate power to stop it from happening. By the scenario you've outlined for me your god is one of the most horrid and undeniably evil things to ever exist in the human culture. You and anyone else who could not only defend and justify that but worship it sicken me right down to the core. Abhorrent mental-fecal sludge on our history.
hockeater 1 week ago
@hockeater whether or not you know thebad things happen doesn't mean they aren't going to happen, it is the world we live in, it is the world we make for ourselves, god made us to be perfect in a perfect home and we threw that away, even now we have a freedom to choose and we had the choice then, and we ruined it for ourselves. there comes a point when you have to accept responsibility for your own faults, and that goes for anyone who ever passes the blame onto god.
ikwhereyoulive00 1 week ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 I'm so glad you deem feeding babies to blenders okay you morally repugnant little troglodyte. I've already explained why choice is invalid in this scenario so your response has already been dealt with. I've had my rant about why your position is worthless and as you're repeating yourself with the same weak argument I'm done here. Goodbye.
hockeater 1 week ago
@hockeater running away eh? that's fine, we all know you weren't winning anyways, you were just spewing out your rhetoric, and no i don't think it's okay to put babies in blenders, not sure where in the hell that came from. but evolutionists never learn. it's fine, in the end i'll be fine.
now it's my turn, GOODBYE!
ikwhereyoulive00 1 week ago
@hockeater and know i wasn't programmed and insults aren't going to change that either. so leave the failed immature insults behind when you are in a debate.
ikwhereyoulive00 2 weeks ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 Actually that was an objective observation considering that you seem to attribute words with meanings that are the precise opposite of their definitions. I'd say the same if you started ranting on about a bullet to the face at high velocity being healthy.
hockeater 2 weeks ago
@hockeater i might not say it is healthy, but i may be able to rationalize a bullet to the face being a good thing, i can try if you'd like?
ikwhereyoulive00 1 week ago
@ikwhereyoulive00 Unless you can rationalize it not being the exact opposite of healthy for the recipient any point you make would really have no bearing on my point. I'd have made the same remark if say... You said bacteria were the largest lifeforms on the planet. It's a simple matter of the definition you ascribe something being completely opposite reality. Now back on topic because frankly this is a tangent. By the common definition of value your statement devalued life.
hockeater 1 week ago
@Zaunstar i could ask you the same thing about the bible, i'm sure you lack knowledge about the bible as well, and in order to say how to argue with a cretionist then maybe you should learn a little about creationism?
ikwhereyoulive00 1 week ago
@ddahea you do realize evolution happens over hundres of millions and in some cases billions of years right ?and not all science cn be done in a lab. you ever try to breakdown helium atoms and make a star ???? i would recommend not trying to
revelation1234 9 months ago
@ddahea i would recomend the video "65 million years with a creationist"
it talks about a simply understood fact, evolution takes such a long time that even if you were to watch it you would never notice, its that gradual, kind of like watching a child growing, by the time you realize its happend you never notice the change
deathman1021 9 months ago
@ddahea you dont see evidence because you refuse to see it -_- your stupid as shit
mondose2 6 months ago
@mondose2 An atheist can not find God the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.
Readabookism 5 months ago
Evolution is a religion, time is it's dogma, billions of trillions of years, this is pounded into the heads of childern from the start of there education. 6000 or so years ago God created everything, 4000 years ago or so there was a flood, now tell me can any of you prove that no one has every had a prayer answerd from a higher power? 150 years of telling our childern that there is no right or wrong and that they came from apes has lead to the decay of our society. NOBAMA 2012
ddahea 10 months ago
@ddahea LOL I just find it hilarious how you threw in "NOBAMA 2012" at the end. What the hell are you talking about, "Evolution is a religion." What? What? "150 years of telling our children there is no right or wrong." WHAT??? You are getting extremely off topic, and making no sense. And evolution was certainly not "pounded" into my head, and I'm only 16. If the flood that supposedly happened had occurred as described in the bible, humanity would not have survived.
PyroNinja7 8 months ago
Why don't you tell everyone how all life on earth began. If it can be proven shouldn't it be able to be recreated in a lab.
topgunz23 10 months ago
@topgunz23 they will tell you it doesnt need to be recreated after telling you that you are ignorant to how it really works, they will talk about study and theory and peer testing, never once admitting that the same peer review will take any findings against their dogma's of billions of years , slow evolution , and climate change. Some will go as far as hiding data that may go against the theory. teach the theory if you want but teach it as a theory not as fact. They are a religion
ddahea 10 months ago
@ddahea You are clearly mistaken. I hope you'll do some reading (not from Kirk Cameron and those of his ilk) and actually begin to understand a little about this. The way it goes is that an observation is first made. Anyone can see this observation and it becomes and observed fact. Then, based on evidence compiled, an explanation for how this happened is given. If the explanation can predict future patterns, doesn't violate any other known laws, etc. it becomes a "Theory."
JadedRockStar84 9 months ago
@ddahea So you see, in order to have a scientific Theory of evolution, you must first have the observed fact of evolution. It works like that for everything. Gravity is the same way. You have an observed fact and a Theory explaining it. Yet, I never hear anyone really complain that gravity is "only a theory" in which they would be every bi correct as saying evolution is only a theory. Teach facts, not fairy tales of a man in the sky.
JadedRockStar84 9 months ago
if you do not want to debate creationists for eternity then why are you doing it now?
grrrantw 10 months ago
i will believe in your beliefs if you chop down the largest tree in this forst....WITH A HERRING
shopadrop 11 months ago
i will believe in your beliefs if you chop down the largest tree in this forst....wWITH A HERRING
shopadrop 11 months ago
oh my science, what are you credentials if you don't mind me asking, or are you just repeating the Richard Dawkins argument you saw on Discovery?
Darwin didn't know how life began, and he didn't even try. We still don't know, so why rule something out? why? why must the we way began fit your model? what are you gonna do, when in future evidence, if we find that the evidence actually points in one direction, what and its not the direction you want?
msmith999999 11 months ago
@msmith999999 My education is listed in detail on my channel page. I am not ruling anything out that has evidence. If you have some evidence that shows that god sprinkled something on the earth to create life, then by all means show it.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar
I hope you don't feel I'm attacking you by the way.healthy debate is the only way to progress.that whole show me you evidence is a red herring, just like me saying show me your evidence he didn't. that's my point, neither of us have any evidence of the beginning of life.
on another issue-what do you think Chuck Darwin would say about what his theory has turned into? I am assuming you have read "the decent of man" as well.
I believe the man had some valid insights,not the whole pict
msmith999999 11 months ago
@msmith999999 There is plenty of evidence. Why don't you tell me how or why you do not believe the fossils of early homonids or the DNA evidence of early homonids means we were evolved? Did your god just sprinkle new species on the earth every million years or so that progressively evolved a bit?
Zaunstar 11 months ago
@Zaunstar
what evidence is there that life began with undirected process- your arguing evolution- I'm completely fine with that. i'm not arguing evolution, I'm debating on the evidence of undirected life formation. Thats all, you keep going back to fossil records- in the beginning there were no fossils. quit changing the subject and tell me how life began
msmith999999 11 months ago
Yea God sprinkled life on earth, yup, how about we go sprinkle sugar on our coffees and create some sort of portal to new energy. Please If God sprinkling life on Earth was so easy, why should Science exists, why should life exist for that matter. Also give me evidence that Stardust sprinkled life on this earth. This is all mere hypothesis. If you're going to say things like "magic just happened on Earth by God" then I have a whole list of of magic aspects of evolution (such as common descent)
cgholds 10 months ago
@cgholds you are living proof of "stardust" being sprinkled on earth. We are made up of the same materials that the stars and planets are.
clemons3232 10 months ago
@cgholds you are living proof of "stardust" being sprinkled on earth. We are made up of the same materials that the stars and planets are.
clemons3232 10 months ago
@msmith999999
ERR.
Evidence about evolution is out there. Take a walk to a museum, read a book. Evidence about... religion? ID?, Creationism???? is well almost a contradiction in terms. No Red herring. Study your argumentation fallacies before postulating one. Charles -respectfully- Darwin was a scientist he does not nor ever did OWN all implications of his theories to the extent of whatever other crack pots wanted to write about it. You OBVIOUSLY IGNORE Darwins Origin of Species. Shame on you.
DrErkencho 10 months ago
@Zaunstar
Theres no point arguing with a creatard, they are creatards and only they can decide to stop being a creatard, you cant force it on them.
gorilla199uncensored 10 months ago
In the future, when new evidence is discovered that disproves my current beliefs, whether on a minor matter such as whether or not to wear a seat belt, or something major like the existence of god, I will... change. I will change the way I think and even live. I will overcome my fear and do whatever it takes to be in harmony with the newly discovered truth.
ananaphone 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the future, when new evidence is discovered that disproves my current beliefs, whether on a minor matter such as whether or not to wear a seat belt, or something major like the existence of god, I will... change. I will change the way I think and even live. I will overcome my fear and do whatever it takes to be in harmony with the newly discovered truth.
ananaphone 10 months ago
In the future, when new evidence is discovered that disproves my current beliefs, whether on a minor matter such as whether or not to wear a seat belt, or something major like the existence of god, I will... change. I will change the way I think and even live. I will overcome my fear and do whatever it takes to be in harmony with the newly discovered truth.
ananaphone 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the future, when new evidence is discovered that disproves my current beliefs, whether on a minor matter such as whether or not to wear a seat belt, or something major like the existence of god, I will... change. I will change the way I think and even live. I will overcome my fear and do whatever it takes to be in harmony with the newly discovered truth.
ananaphone 10 months ago
@msmith999999
You are lame.
..."when in future evidence... this and that..." do you live in the future to know this is true and WILL be the case?
NOPE. Shame on you then.
You also ask for credentials, I wonder what for? so Which are yours? are you reciting your priests arguments and your nonsensical asertive superstitional beliefs like you actually know what you are talking about? ooohh yes you are. Lame as lame can be. funny how people like to embarrass themselves like that, isn't it?... ];)
DrErkencho 10 months ago
@msmith999999 Like it or not, our understanding is constantly changing. No one complains about learning something new, even if it means our old ideas were wrong. The reason it is ruled out is because there isn't one speck of evidence for it. I know, it can hurt to learn that everything you've been driven to believe is based on nothing, but it's true. By and large, "we" welcome new information and consider it exciting to learn about things which we formerly didn't know, or were wrong about.
JadedRockStar84 9 months ago
Comment removed
oneandonlyjonesy 1 year ago
yeah dw about hell man , no matter what those asholes say hitler was chatholic ...
we still have to deal with stalin (im not sure - he prolly tought he was god - at least he acted like it)
sexyxrs 1 year ago
@sexyxrs Hitler was also a very progressive Darwinist, read Mein kampf... its astounding how much it reads like orgin of species.
Dr Josef Mengele - prominant darwinist --- Nazi leading scientist at Auschwitz
As I discovered when researching a history of the Nazis at war, much of what scientists did under the Third Reich was regarded as "normal science", subject to standard protocols of peer review in conferences and journals.
msmith999999 11 months ago
@msmith999999 haha
first of hitler wrote main campf in preison in 1933 or 1932 whatever
and what becouse he took eveolution seriously that makes him what ?
John Paul II outspoke to take evolution seriously and he was a head of a freaking church
get over it man u aint got shit , i said it milion times evolutionts are bunch of pussies they should do witch hunt after all religous freaks the end.
sexyxrs 11 months ago
@sexyxrs
John Paul II didn't put it into production f*** stick.. Hilter thought he was driving evolution of the human race with his "superior German race." this is how science can justify evil- i believe Hitler truly thought he was doing good from an evolutionary perspective.
I also believe that you are too F******* stupid to assess your own arguments, so shut up and let the adults talk
msmith999999 11 months ago
@msmith999999 thats not since and what u talking about couldnt have less to do with evolution get real
sexyxrs 11 months ago
Don't worry.. I've been told I am going to hell as well.. I will see you there we can talk more about the mass non-thinking creationists!
Seriously though - thank you, your videos haven't given me a greater insight into it all - the fact it is 2011 and people still believe in Religion really does baffle me.
Keep up the good work!!
gavck 1 year ago
thank you
strpped379 1 year ago
So atheist are not the same way about there arguments?? Atheists are "hoarders" to
chrismac1980 1 year ago
@chrismac1980 This isn't about atheism. This is about science. Science is decided through evidence.
Zaunstar 1 year ago 16
@Zaunstar O.k science. People will never leave there science arguments??
chrismac1980 1 year ago
@chrismac1980 I'll leave a particular argument as soon as you can show me where it's wrong.
Zaunstar 1 year ago 5
@Zaunstar You said that "creationist are like hoarders", what I am saying that evolutionists are to. Maybe creationists feel that you have not showed them wrong in your arguments, so they will not leave theirs. You blame creationist for being "hoarders" but will not say the same for an evolutionist!
chrismac1980 1 year ago
@Zaunstar i love how this guy tried to argue with you after you've been kicking ass in all three videos. good thing he listened to your advice and gave up
allie2012marie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zaunstar What about "Creationist"(not the religious sort) that know evolution is irrefutable science. Like me. My only question is. Where did all the condensed matter in the Universe come from 13.7 billion years ago? Don't bother quoting Stephan Hawking, please. I have read his thoughts on the matter. I'm still not convinced that a creator is "not required ". My point is, we aren't all the same.
oneandonlyjonesy 1 year ago
@Zaunstar Science is in its self is a religion, a religion is a system of beliefs, tradition and dogmas, science will persecute any evidence that flies in the face of its dogma evolution as a blasphemy and will supress it. This falling away of the saints and all this I am so intellagent look at my proof of no god was predicted in scripture thousands of years ago, and it is going to get worse before it gets better at Christ second coming, can anyone out there prove that prayer has never worked?
ddahea 10 months ago
@ddahea 1. Prove that prayer has never worked? Prove that the world is not held up by invisible leprechauns.
2. It's spelled "intelligent", not "intellagent". What was your major in college, since it clearly wasn't science or English?
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@Zaunstar answer a question with a question, then throw in an insult to try and get me off balanced and mad very typical. I didn't go to collage by choice, and i couldn't spell crap if it was in my mouth, im ok with that. i do not have to prove leprechauns aint holding the earth up, I don't have to prove anything. you are the one saying no creator, thus no God. how can you prove that prayer is never answerd from God. now laugh point out the fact that I am" uneducated", and correct my spelling
ddahea 10 months ago
@ddahea I am not saying there is none. I am saying there is no evidence for one. You are making the claim, so I am asking you to back up the claim. I don't have to disprove anything that hasn't been shown to be true in the first place. You're right that you don't have to disprove leprechauns, and it's for the same reason I don't have to disprove your mythology.
Zaunstar 10 months ago
@ddahea science isn't a religion. There is no belief in a higher order, no belief in the supernatural. Al there is is a want to find answers.
You know what seperates science and religion? Scientists will accept theories are wrong when proven so. I give you the theory that there was no life in the sea beyond 300 fathoms proposed by Edward Forbes 1843. His theory was proven wrong years later with advances in technology and new theories arose. Along with new questions. How is that religion?
4allmusictypes 9 months ago
@chrismac1980 This isn't about atheism. It's about science. Science is the understanding of the laws that hold this universe together. This understanding changes based on evidence obtained over time. Some hold their old arguments, both creationists and evolutionists. Anyone who seeks real evidence benefits progress. Those that continue to search for new evidence are the ones I admire. Someday evidence will eliminate all falsehoods as to the universe's laws, as well as humans can observe.
Nepycros 7 months ago
"that and the...wait, you're all over 18 right?"
lol, xD im 16, but the internet has expanded my access to stuff like dat
dylanator94 1 year ago
@dylanator94 Well that's good. Errr, I mean, that's bad! Errr, I mean I wish I had the internet when I was 16!!!
Zaunstar 1 year ago 11
@Zaunstar lol u can chide me all u want about that stuff but we both know that if u were an adolescent living in the 21st century youd probably be doin the same xD
great vids by the way...very entertaining, but if i dont get my japanese homework done i blame you :P
dylanator94 1 year ago
@Zaunstar
I'm a Christian, but I was never raised to be a creationist. I was aloud to watch Jurassic Park.
dancingwithcalvin 11 months ago
@dancingwithcalvin That's good that they didn't teach you science denial. Many Christian sects don't actually. Keep learning, always.
Zaunstar 11 months ago
You will go to hell for this!
xeroxknight 1 year ago
Actually you and who you have broadly labeled as "creationists" are both wrong. The creation is still happening and something creative will always be happening.
pspence2 1 year ago
Actually there are many scientists who think that Neanderthals and early Europeans interbred which which would mean they're not a different species technically. But then of course creationists don't realise that there are no clear cut offs of when one species turns into another one. It takes nothing away from your argument.
bowezo 1 year ago
You remind me of my doctor.
lashkaretoiba 1 year ago
I'm a non-denominational bible believing Christian. I don't believe Christians should argue with atheists. They are already willingly being blinded by the devil - let them loose their souls.
I say that with an attitude of "Only the Power of God can save them, not the wisdom of men".
DavidofChrist777 1 year ago
DavidofChrist777, why do you hate atheists so much that you can shrug off eternal torture?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant where did hate atheist come from? i don't see any hate. reli..is nothing but a form of control, atheist often argues.think about it.humanity needs to be controlled. humans are so diverse in our thoughts that we need some central control. if left alone i may kidnapp my neighbors wfe, use her for a day & return her.u may argue that law enforcement can do the job of control. law
inforce only punishes me if i am caught. while i planning to kidnapp my neig. wfe i wont b arrested
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant what religion does it goes into our hearts and helps us surpress that negative feeling b4 it spills into action & pollute the society. & it has work for the good of society so far. what made atheist think that the world w/o religion will b better? schools w/o religion is it any better? the secular est. knows that schools are worst off w/o religion,but atheist will argue to the contrary becuz the easiest thing to do is to disagree.mainwhile athe enjoys the stability of religion
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant atheist are comforted that a former gang member has now given his life to christ & is street preaching rather than doing drivebys. atheist know the positive impact that religion has on society but they will just argue & argue indescriminately. the freedom from religion found. the ACLU are some of the argumentors.
TheToosy 1 year ago
@DavidofChrist777 u are right God there is nothing impossible with God. the moment one disagrees with an atheist...it is interperated as hate as justanother mutan is saying. they apply reasoning to everything else, but when it comes to religion its null.. & srgument for religion is more reasonable then all atheist put together
TheToosy 1 year ago
TheToosy, it's not that he disagrees with atheists. One can easily disagree with friends, enemies, and people you don't care about.
The problem is he shrugged off the eternal torture of human persons. That's a whole different issue. Worse yet, he believes that he has the cure to prevent this eternal torture, and recommends against sharing it with atheists.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
The problem with your idea that religion is a handy control for humanity is that in addition to the suppression of negative feelings you mention, it also promotes those negative feelings at other times. Religion draws people together against other groups just as easily as it draws them in their own group, and the more dogmatic the worse this is. So yes, it helps draw gang members off the street. It also helps promote genocide, attacks on minorities, ...
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant it is not my idea (although i share it) its the truth religion is a handy control & it has worked for the better of mankind. "religion draws people together against other people" Christians set apart from other does not mean against other people.. we are against their practices but not against other people.
nothing wrong with being passionate about ones belief when u inflict wounds on other this is where the problem begins
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant religion does not help to promote genocide ( i know my religion dont) its the people who helps to promote genocide in the name of religion..the KKK intheir respect & honor of the US constitution says all other races other than the white race is inferior...the constituton did not tell them that...same as religion.
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant being against ones practice is not the same as being against that person..for eg a judge will have harsh words while sentencing is convict...& scorns him because of the crimes he has committed, but the same judge will release him after he has served his jail time..
TheToosy 1 year ago
TheToosy, Actually yes... set apart from other people does help foster being against them, not just their practices. There is a lot of "us vs them" in humans, so setting yourselves apart you put others in the "them". That makes the wounding part easier.
So yes... when you begin to inflict wounds the problem begins... and your religion has been used to justify inflicting wounds for a thousand years.
Now you can claim they weren't your religion, but that's the No True Scotsman fallacy.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant i dont see how being set apart forsters animosity. if that happens then its the individual that fosters hate not the religion, just what i said from the begining. there is a way to hate someone practice w/o hating him/her, it happens all the time in every days life. but in america today everything is taken outta context...being a liberal means being anti american ... etc and & a con. means being a bigot, etc. Humans justify inflicting wounds not christianity... .
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant todays christianity does not foster hate those who hate are moved by thier own motive..its in the Bible (u should know this being a christian b4)'every man sin because he is drawn by his own lust & entice" slaughter taken place thousands of yrs. shouldnt be an issue for u to bring up...i never under stood that.. atheists often refer to the slaying of the hitites in the bible or the killing of egyptians in the red sea..how can a merciful god allow that? the often argue.
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant todays christianity does not foster hate those who hate are moved by thier own motive..its in the Bible (u should know this being a christian b4)'every man sin because he is drawn by his own lust & entice" slaughter taken place thousands of yrs. shouldnt be an issue for u to bring up...i never under stood that.. atheists often refer to the slaying of the hitites in the bible or the killing of egyptians in the red sea..how can a merciful god allow that? they often argue.
TheToosy 1 year ago
No, schools are not worse off without religion. Don't get me wrong - religious schools aren't all bad... at my school I was 2 grades ahead of the public school teaching in English, 1 in history, and started learning foreign languages at age 6. Math and science however lagged behind.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant i don't know her exact words of the woman who started the movement...but one can conclude that she admits religion has worked for the good, however she went on.. it is time to replace it with a secular, humanistic etc im sure she thought this would result in things being better, but evidence today proove her wrong.. At beverly Middle school in a PA town.. horse- mounted police monitor children after school.. a St Dominic,(a hs) 6 blocks away only crossing guards.
TheToosy 1 year ago
But more importantly, religion in schools is harmful to the religious. You see, it forces the ideas of a specific religion on your child. So if you share the religion of the school, you are good to go, but for anyone else it is interfering with the parent's rights of exercise of religion. Now in private schools, this isn't a problem, but not everyone can afford them.
In public schools you don't want religion, because it helps you worship the way you choose.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
LOL sorry, prevents you, not helps you. Must be out of coffee.
For an example of this, I can give you my own schooling. I was Christian, but of a different sect than my school, and my classmates were unaware of this. In the middle of history class, one of my classmates proposed that murdering someone of my sect was ok, because we worshiped God incorrectly. The teacher didn't say anything about this.
So I was against religion in the public schools, even back when I was Christian.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant im not advocating religion is schools..what im saying is that schools are not better w/o religion. if u want to kick out religion so b it, but there r consequences & the consequence is u r worse off. thats why schools police carry weapons in some states. a hs school's teacher had his neck broken by his own student in the state of PA..u call that not worst off? the lady that spearhead the expelling of religion outta sch. admitted that the intervention of religion has been...
TheToosy 1 year ago
TheToosy, if that is in fact the lack of religion in schools causing such things, why are atheists so underrepresented in crime and prison statistics?
And would you support converting public schools to Islamic schools?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
Or for that matter, Wiccan schools, Hindu schools, .... ?
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant u dont believe the bible anyway..therefore why do u bring about thebloodshed in the bible? the whole bible is a fairy tale as far as u r concern.. no one would argue why superman didnt stop those planes from plowing into WTC. the statistic about atheist being underrepresented doesnt make sense. Even the statisticians will laugh at their own statistic if scrutinized. Google a march 2010 religion section of the wash. Post.. The boston globe reported that a study showed
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant boston globe reported that of the kids who stay in school, do their home work & r less likely to join gangs r the ones who attend church regularly, & have religious influence..those who r more likely to drop outta school, involve in gangs & do petty crimes r the ones who dont go to sunday schools & have no interest in religion.. In essence the study about atheist being under represented is saying those in prisons r the ones who do less crime. i thouhht criminals go to prison
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant the reason why atheist r not in prison (if that stastic is correct) is because inmates have realized thair mistakes, found religion in prisons & turn over their life to christ (if they chose Christianity). Obiviously they will be counted as christians.. Atheist are so bent on being anti christian that will jump with glee at any opportunity to castigate christianity..with no willingness to seek the truth.
TheToosy 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant 'In public sch u dont want relig, becuz it helps u worship the way u choose"..i thought atheist were against worship.. things being impose on others dont necessarily mean its a bad thing..i once worked with former addicts where we imposed good behavior upon them to their outmost objection the civil war was to force the union to stay together & the abolition of slaves..How did it wind up? the U.S. is a police state in most cases where there is an ever of police.
TheToosy 1 year ago
TheToosy, actually I rarely complain about violence in the Bible. What I point out instead is Christians fighting Christians, Muslims, and Pagans over the past thousand years, in the name of religion.
For the violence in the Bible, my problem is the god of the Bible commands a lot of vile things, and yet so many Christians claim him as a source of morality. The wars and xenocide I mentioned above indicates a fair number have taken it seriously, but fortunately most don't get their morals there.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
For the criminal statistics of atheists, yes... criminals tend to go to prison, and atheists in prison are a much lower percentage than atheists in the general population. So perhaps you are missing some other causative factors there. Also, only 2 Christian sects have as low a divorce rate as atheists.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
Atheists against worship? Well, we might think you're wasting your time, but hey, it's your time. What you do with it is up to you. What the majority of atheists are against is you determining how other people worship. So religion at home or private schools is generally fine. We might think it's pointless, but unless it starts harming people, it's your right. Religion in public schools however becomes a problem.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago