We don't have a God that attempts to deceive us. When you accept a lie as truth, and are confronted with truth, you don't want to receive it, or you choose to believe it is an attempt to deceive, it is not. The lie that you accepted first is the falsehood, it only appears to you that the truth is an attempt to deceive because you first erred.
ANYONE: If you see no reply to any posts made to me below, those people know they are on ignore for things like personal insults and name calling.. I would love to dispel disinformation about things I have said, & about what evolution says, but as they know I only debate with people who are being civil & objective. Personal invective & ad hominems are counterproductive to the true spirit and purposes of science.
@LoricaLady Just because you have a severe case of unwarranted self importance means nothing to anyone. You use more ad hominems to try to attack evolution even though the amount of evidence for it magnifies every year, and the amount of ID evidence dwindles. Just because you are to much of a child to accept your divine book means nothing in science. People like you are the sole reason for the U.S. slowly becoming a third world country.
@JaquarEscarlata The 1st Law of Logic - per a pagan, Aristotle - is that 2 contradictory statements cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that Yeshua, aka Jesus (or anyone else) "created all that is seen and unseen" and that there is no intelligent designer. To believe that is to suffer from cognitive disonance. You have also gone against logic by using the ad hominem logical fallacy. True debate is not possible without logic - and good manners. I debate w/the civil & objective. Bye!
@LoricaLady Except intelligence is the ability to gain knowledge over time. If a God truly made the world in an intelligent way, then he would have made it so it could extend for billions of years. So, if God made the universe in an intelligent way, he would also have to create a component based universe that could easily extend itself throughout billions of years, otherwise, he is just a dumbass newbie who codes everything in main.
@TheBlitMaster Friend, you are following the usual pattern of YT evo fans. When shown evidence that the evolutionary arguments are not valid, you switch the subject, you present a strawman logical fallacy in Diety & religion. Then,passing off "if" & other theoreticals as scientific, you feel free to get into invective & insults. Follow the evidenc e. Evo stands or falls regardless of anything in the Bible.
Come out of the matrix. I debate only with the civil & objective, so...Bye!
@LoricaLady I'm sorry, did you say something? Actually no, evolution doesn't fall at all, here's why;
1. Your theories basis would require no new species to have formed when there are (bacteria do this constantly, and scientists discover evolved plant/animal lifeforms every few years).
2. You also require no backwards compatible DNA and no DNA that could be traced back to an older creature.
3. You (the people fighting it) can't even spell deity right and lack humor.
@TAz69x Kindly observe that in your post there was no science, no critical thinking, no actual rebuttal attempted at anything I said. Also kindly look up logical fallacies. For ex. ad hominem, but all of them for logical fallacies are what evolutionary theory is squarely founded upon. I hope you will learn to think analytically and logically, using a true science foundation - not just make personal attacks. But since to date you are not doing that, you are now on ignore. BYE!
Research hox genes, mRNA, tRNA, atavisms, punctuated equilibrium, abiogenesis, Miller-Uri and montmorillonite clay, amino acid binding in prebiotic earth, codons, amino acid sequences, protein folding, frameshift mutations, nilonase, type III secretory system, junk DNA, horizontal gene transfer, chromosome 2 in humans, and the endless other piles of data that you can use to understand evolution.
If you TRULY CARED about understanding evolution, you'd at LEAST Wiki...
@TAz69x Saying "RNA...atavisms..." is only cutting & pasting. I do not have time to go thru all your cut & pastes. Pick 1 & defend it. In the mean time I'll go over just a few. Miller & Urey is a great ex. of evo fraud. They got r & l handed amino acids - which KILL life. They used 0 oxyben & life is seen to be at every level in the earth. Even if they had gotten the right kind of amino acid they had 0 evidence to show that it would turn into life - since it would be d-e-a-d. Cont.
@TAz69x Cont. The difference between a amino acids and a living cell, which is more complex than a block of factories & has nano technology not only for machines but for making machines, is beyond imagining. Yet with an experiment that caused life to be impossible, M & U told little kids they had an ex. of abioigenesis. And of course it got great peer reveiws! What is punctuated equilibriium? Well Gould admitted (in his early career, he changed his mind all the time) that...Cont.
@TAz69x ...there is really no evidence for any transitions. No problem. He came up with a new theory. Punctuated equilibria. Did it have any evidence whatsoever. Of course not! That's the whole point! With the old evo theory you should have transitional fossils since things are going so slowly and there are uncoutned billions of fossils out there. But you don''t. You see abrupt appearance & stasis instead. But with P.E. you don't need evidence! You just....believe....on faith... (Cont.)
@TAz69x ...that life forms transformed so quickly that, heck, you don't get any evidence at all. Just like with the slow theory. You call this science? Then they say WE are into magical thinking! Then there is the so called proof of evolution with chromosome 2. Yes there's a fusion that makes a superficial number match to chimps. Here we see the usual logical fallacies evo is squarely built upon. 1) Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation. Bees, bats & birds fly, snakes & worms slither. Cont.
@TAz69x Cont. So what? Correlation does not imply causation. 2) Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e.: And only evo can explailn this! But...about 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome. Did that come from apes too? Why one & not the other? Notice evolutioinists never mention the other kind. Kinda messes up their theory. 3) Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Yes there's a number match. But what is inside the chromosomes is extremely different. Cont.
@TAz69x Cont. "You'd at least Wiki". Actually Wiki is frequently not a valid resource. Anyone can post anything there. You are so sure that creationists just stick their heads in the Bible and don't - gasp! - ever actually read evolutionary literature. By now you should be starting to see that's way not true. Evo lit is one of our greatest sources of entertainment! But we look at both sides. Do you? You should. And not just Wiki.
@LoricaLady You didn't even respond to or address any single fucking valid evolution-theory component of my comment, but went on some obfuscating random-ass tirade about Wiki.
Two fucking seconds would have solved this on my profile, showing Organic Chem studies at Uni and corollary B.Sc
--
Now, instead of whining on the source-misdirection of conversation, we're back on the points I listed in my initial fucking comment:
@TAz69x Did you check to see that you had read all my posts? I discussed the so called evidence for abiogenesis presented by the M & U experiment. as well as the so called evidence for human chromosome 2 & chimps, plus punctuated equilibria which doesn't even pretend to have evidence. You think you just get to sit back & cut & paste a few snippets on theories,, defending nothing, then start spewing out obscenities & call it a debate? Learn to think & come out of the matrix. Finis.
Cont. Miller let the comment go right on by. There was no attempt to speak the real truth, namely: To present the primal pond theory as if it is scientific fact is actually to push pseudo science on the public.
4:10 Miller says he is an RC & believes in a designer. And yet he holds workshops on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design." So maybe he thinks the Creator is not intelligent, is stupid? Lol. I saw here on YT a clip from the Colbert show where he says he believes "Jesus is the creator of all that is, seen & unseen." This is double talk & double think and makes no sense. When Colbert spoke of the primal pond - which has 0 data to support it & flies in the face of the LAW of biogenesis - Cont.
@LoricaLady "Miller says he is an RC & believes in a designer.And yet he holds workshops on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design." Still posting the same ignorant bullshit. The worlds major churches (Catholic , Anglican etc) all see no conflict between evolutionary biology & theology - why should they....we see evolution in process every day. Its only the smugly ignorant bigots , like you & fellow AiG stooges that cling to the lies of creationism
@LoricaLady It's not double talk. Miller is the living evidence that science can be reconciled with religion, that evolution is not atheism. And Miller is just one of the many religious people who accept evolution's validity as a scientific explanation to life's diversity without feeling their beliefs threatened, only the fringe fundamentalists who equal their holy books to their deities are still whinning about it.
4:02 Cont. He paints a phony picture of creation scientists believing, "Presumably it was designed by the Creator to lLOOK as if the fusion came from a primate ancestor." I feel sure he knows very well that no creationist is even thinking any such thing & I know he has never read that from any of them. What they are saying is pretty much what I have been saying, i.e.: Logical fallacy & There's no ev-i-dence this fusioin came about from apes any more than that some folk's 2nd fusion did. Cont
3:48 Moving right along we've seen many charts and a quote from Nature Magazine. It all looks so impressive on the surface. What we haven't seen and never will see, is any evidence whatsoever that the fusion in question came from apes. This is a classic example of pseudo science. A theory is presented as if it is actual data and evidence when in reality it has no data and no evidence to back it up. "It's there. It's testable." The existence of the fusion is testable. It's cause is NOT!
Cont. The statement doesn't even make sense. If there is no evidence (& there is only the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy) that fusion came from apes, does that mean the peppered moth example of "evolution", the sickle cell anemia ex. of evo, the nylon eating bacteria ex. of evo are now meaningless? The truth is they already were meaningless as they provide no evidence for evolution. Nevertheless I agree with him, "[Then ]evolution is wrong."
He said it, that evo is dependent on whether or not we have a fused chromosome that comes from an ape & "If we don't find it, evolution is wrong." Again, about 1 in 1000 folk have an additional fused chromosomes yet evoutioinists are not claiming the extra fusion comes from an ape. The truth is they are simply guessing where this particular fusion came form based on zero evidence, and evidence to the contrary since the content of the chimp genes & of ours is not the same. Cont.
@JaguarEscarlata ya, my brain does circles trying to analyze his neurology that made evolve this quirk [likely] through sociology and parents/family [and indoctrination]
1:44 Note this quote, "What must have happened." Again, the whole chimp genome argument, as outlined below, is based on logical fallacies. However that quote is classic pseudo science think. "Must have...could have...all scientists believe...we propose a model..." are theoreticals, hypotheticals. People should have learned in 5th grade science, once & for all, that a hypothetical only does not science make. Yet evo has nothing else so constantly presents hypotheticals as if they are data.
@LoricaLady "People should have learned in 5th grade science, once & for all, that a hypothetical only does not science make."
How convenient, then, that evolutionary theory is NOT purely hypothetical. How convenient that evolution is the most well-supported theory in human history, and well over 150 years of scrutiny have yet to prove it false. Evolution is a fact, and flailing about screaming to the contrary does nothing to change it.
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters (many follow me and others around YT guard dogging Miller, & other evo, vids) they know they are on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, false accusations of lying, open campaigns to get my posts hidden &, in the case of Foxlake & Brospec, sexual harrassment. Such tactics are counter productive to the true purposes of science. Tho I'd love to dispel some of their disinformation, I debate w/those who are civil & objective. Others go on ignore.
Cont. When you believe in something with 0 evidence, you are belkieving based on...faith! There is 0 evidence whatsoever, back to ambulocetus, that it ever led to a whale, ditto that apes led to man. There is just 1 logical fallalcy piled ontop of another with assumptions presented as if they are scientific evidence. If they want their faith, really their religion, fine. Just don't try to force it on other people thru use of the courts while claiming they don't want religon in schools! Cont
@LoricaLady "When you believe in something with 0 evidence, you are belkieving based on...faith!"
How wonderful it is that we have more evidence to support evolutionary theory than gravity. Or germ theory. Or heliocentric theory. Or the theory of a spherical earth. Direct observations of evolution can and have been made, and the theory is validated literally thousands of times daily.
Cont. You are often told that you are an ape, that you are hardly any different than a chimp. If a pregnant friend of yours popped out a chimp at the hospital would you shrug & say, "Most people will hardly notice the difference!" In the gene sequencing spiel much is made of a numerical match in the genes. But, wait, what is IN those genes? The content is astronomically different! Why are they so desperate to get you to believe you're just an ape? Rhetoical Q. Cont.
@LoricaLady "The content is astronomically different!"
Wrong. The difference between the human and chimp genomes is less than 2%. ERV markers in both genomes prove conclusively that we share a common ancestor. All life on earth uses the same handful of proteins, despite there being over 100 that could do the job just as well, again pointing to common descent. The fossil record shows a gradual increase in life complexity/diversification over the history of our planet...again, common ancestry.
Cont. Is there a way to paternity test a fossil? Is there any evidence whatsoever that A produced progeny significantly different from itself? None whatsoever. Yet they call these evidenceless claims science & tell children that's what it is! A great example would be calling ambulocetus, which had hooves, a Prewhale! Why? Because it had some minor similarity in its ear to a whale. This ain't science folks, it's logical fallacies running wild. 3. Fallcy of Incomplete Comparison. Cont.
@LoricaLady "Is there any evidence whatsoever that A produced progeny significantly different from itself? None whatsoever."
Evolution thoery doesn't say otherwise. Quite the contrary, the theory shows that each generation will be virtually indistinguishable from the prior generation, and noticable differentiation typically takes hundreds of thousands of years, or tens of thousands of generations.
@LoricaLady "A great example would be calling ambulocetus, which had hooves, a Prewhale! Why? Because it had some minor similarity in its ear to a whale."
And we have literally dozens of intermediates between amb. and modern whales. Why do you ignore their existence?
@LoricaLady Ok, I'm growing tired of debunking your absurd claims, so let me ask this: Do you think that 99.85% of biological scientists, who devote their entire lives to the study of life, are wrong or lying when they say evolution is a fact? Because you MUST think they are either under the greatest misapprehension of facts in human history, or they're part of the greatest conspiracy in human history. Which do you believe?
@TrevorBlack79 I will respond to the posts that you have left that I found this morning. After that you will go on ignore. I'm sorry but I have found that once YT evo buffs get into the personal insult mode "Your absurd claims", they escalate. It is not possible to have a "debate" under such circumstances. Also, I have limited time. I spend it on people who are being civil & objective. Please look over your posts. Many of them are faith based. For ex. with transitional fossils. Cont.
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. You accept it on faith that ambulocetus - a hair beast with hooves is -as little children are told - a Prewhale. Why? Because it has some minor similarities in its ears & swallowing mechanism to whales. That does not show that it is a precursor to whales. It shows that as always evolutionists are using the logical fallacy of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation in place of actual science. Yes, we life forms are composed of many of the same kinds of materials. Cont.
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. Again,Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation. Worms look like snakes, butterflies fly like birds & bats. Does that prove they evolved from one another? Google Colin Patterson Quotes. He was a top evolutionist & paleontologist who admitted "there is not one water tight case" for a transitional form and that claims for such "are not science since they cannot be put to the test." Yes, all the evo sites cry "Quote mine" & try to act like he was quoted out of context/ Cont.
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. However, whenever I check them out, or ask YT evo fans who say the same, for evidence that he ever said creationists lied about his quotes, or that he was quoted out of context, I see 0 You might want to check out The Fossil Record on my YT home page. You can cry Quote Mine there to your heart's content, but you will never find any data showing those quotes were out of context. If even the evoltuionists are admitting there are no transitional forms, why believe in them?
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. Let me give you an ex. of a "transtional" form that Ken Miller gives in another YT vid, Tiktaalik. He says "This is as good as it gets." He is so right. What you see, as can be seen in a Museum, is a fossil of a fish with a huge head & tiny frontal fins close to the body with no fossilzed musculature (yes, even cells have been fossilized) and a missing hind part. Next to the fossil is a 3D replica. Most people just look at the replica. (Evo lit is replete art lies.)
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. The replica shows strong, long muscular frontal fins for pulling the fish up onto land, suitable for its wonderful transition out of water. The hind end has been filled in. How convenient to use as a "transition" a fossil that is incomplete. Most fish (and probably that was true of Tiktaalik) do not have the kind of slithering back end the replica has - again, suitable for its wonderful transitioin to land. Again, Miller said, "This is as good as it gets."
@TrevorBlack79 It is not a matter of conspiracy. It is a matter of defending an ideology. People will lie cheat & kill for ideology. In a nicely peer reviewed Nature Magazine article one scientist said, "Even if all the evidence indicates intelligent design, it is not science because it is not natural." This of course shows a blatant bias and a willingness to close the eyes to the actual facts whatever they may be. This does not show science at work. How many really believe in evolution?
@TrevorBlack79 That is hard to say since as Expelled shows people are afraid to speak out in the highly defensive, orthordox, politcally correct Darwinian atmosphere. I had one poster here on YT, who said he was a school administrator, tell me that he would fire anyone who dissented from evolution. In addition, quite a few former evolutionists have admitted that they simply, for a long time, accepted "underlying assumptions" about "evolution" until someone pointed them out for them. Cont.
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. Just one ex. of this would be Dr. Dean Kenyon who had written a highly publicized book on abiogenesis for universities but who now debunks evo left & right. Students are not trained to look for logical fallacies in science classes, they are mostly expected to just believe what they are told. Also, do not mistake operational sciences, like chemistry, biology, medicine, etc. - which are operatioinal sciences & are testable, repeatable & observable - for evo.Cont.
@TrevorBlack79 This would lead to the logical fallacy of equivocation. "The differences between human & chimp genomes is less than 2%". The difference between a glass of milk with arsenic & one without is far less - which makes the differences astronomical. If you had a pregnant friend pop out a chimp at the hospital you wouldn't say, "Heck there's only about a 2% difference between him & the other kids. Probably most people won't even notice." That 2% makes a staggering difference. Cont.
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. Again, I don't debate with those who take a personally attacking approach. I hope you will learn your logical fallacies & that when theories are presented as evidence - when there is no actual data to back them up - it is pseudo science. Bye!
@TrevorBlack79 Oh, before I leave, I should say 1 more thing. When you keep saying how many scientists believe in evolution, you are using the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. At one time all scientists - even Einstein - believed that the universe was eternal. We don't count raised hands (especially when some fear for their jobs if they raise their hands) to find out the truth. Please learn to use YOUR mind & honestly & carefully resesarch both sides.. Come out of the matrix. Finis.
@LoricaLady I didn't bother reading your lies. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm appealing to EVIDENCE. The evidence is readily available to anyone who cares to study it, and the overwhelming majority of people who dedicate their lives to the study of the available evidence have all drawn the same conclusion - evolution is a fact. I've observed enough of the evidence to barely scratch the surface, and it's obviously a fact. You're literally believing what you want and rejecting the facts.
@TrevorBlack79 "I didn't bother reading your lies." Gee, that's really open minded of you, & you missed a great opportunity to spread your version of truth to poor confused "fundies" like moi. "The overwhelming majority.." Appeal to popularity logical fallacy, then more faith statements. Note you said 0 related to science & 0 to debunk what I said thru science or logic. Friend, tho you're now on ignore for bad manners, I hope you learn to think & analyze not just make faith statements. Bye!
Cont. 2. Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation Logical Fallacy. Ok, so there is a surface numerical match between us and chimps. Yeal, and both chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. So did chimps come from that plant? Snakes & worms & caterpillars, flying fish and moths and birds have many correrlations. Are these the result of one coming from the other? Evolutionists are fond of saying, "Look, Fossil A has characteristics of B. That proves Fossil A came from B!" This is a scam. Cont.
Cont. Evolutionists are trying to get the public to buy it that becuase there is a fusion in human genes that leads to a numerical match with chimps, that shows hands down, no Q about it, that we came from apes! Uh, 'scuze me but about 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome! You will notice evolutionists never mention it. Why? Because they can't explain it while trying to show we came from apes. If 1 fusion didn't come from apes, then how do we know the other one did? Cont.
0:12 According to Miller "intelligent design advocates had nothing to say" about gene sequencing. How accurate that is, I don't know. The "information" is relatively new so perhaps they had not heard about it and had not had a chance to see what it was all about. I have plenty to say about it however! It is the usual use of logical fallacies presented to the public to bolster up a lack of actual evidence for anything. 1. The Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "only evo can explain it!" Cont
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters they know they are on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, open campaigns to get my posts hidden, false accusations of lying &, in the case of Brospec & Foxlake, sexual harrassment. Several Miller vid guarddogs follow me & others around YT with such tactics. I will debate with those who are civil & objective. The rest go on ignore.
3. The Correlation Does Not (!) Imply Causation fallacy. This is the 1 evo lives & breathes on & has gotten most people to buy into because most people have never been told it's illogical! Ex.: Just because ambulocetus has some vague similarities in it's ear to whales, little children are told it's a Prewhale! And it had hooooves! Is there one shred of evidence its descendants were significantly different? None whatsoever. In evo think - if two things look alike in any way, evo did it.
Rejecting science right in frunt of you for religious theology? You let church and religious authority bankrupt ratinal thought in fear of going to hell, do to dogmatic ideals brought on by Pat Robertson! Evolution is how biology works
@pbrskater26 It is so much easier to just start making faith based statements, i.e. "Evolution is how biology works" and to use an insulitng approach rather than to actually, you know...debate using reason, critical thinking and the data. Please notice that though you are believing you are a fan of science, you actually have no science in your post and furthermore never dealt with any of the actuall issues I have mentioned. You also used the logical fallacy of presuming omniscience. Cont.
@LoricaLady I haven't seen you show any evidence or a good argument. People are not a ''fan of science'', they study it, look at the evidence and make up their own minds.
@pbrskater26 Cont. I can't stand Pat Robertson and do not even go to Church since I do not follow the Roman Catholic/Constantinian - as opposed to Scriptural - Sabbath. You also committed the logical fallacy of equivocation by implying that evolution is the same as other sciences, say astrophysics, chemistry, etc. etc. Those are true sciences, based on what is observable, testable and repeatable and they are called operational sciences - all things that are not true of evolution. Cont.
@LoricaLady Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab. It has been tested for 150 years. You can go do some DNA research or dig up some fossils if you want to repeat the process of proving it right.
@pbrskater26 Cont. I debate with those who are civil and objective and actually present some data and evidence (or at least what they think is evidence, what they have been told is evidence.) to make their points. If you will learn your logical fallacies and start to actually (gasp!) listen to scientists who are presenting the other side (I have some favorited on my home page) then maybe some day you'll learn what this debate is all about. I hope so! You're now on ignore tho. Bye!
@LoricaLady What do you think a transitional fossil is? A land animal with a whales ears is one. A dinosaur with feathers is one. A fish with a neck is one.
Cont. You're being led to believe you are practically the same as a chimp, by evolutionary theory. Bull. If you knew a pregnant woman who gave birth to a chimp would you shrug & say, "Hey, no big deal, there's hardly any difference!" The content of our genes and chimps' genes is vastly different in many ways. 2. The Fallacy of The Single Cause. Gee, could there be some other reason for a fused chromosome other than ape ancestry? 1 in 1,000 people have an EXTRA fusion! Is it from apes? No!
@LoricaLady Muscle for muscle, bone for bone, you are the same as a Chimp. Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas. You share 98.6% the same DNA. Chimps and Humans are both Great Apes. We are different species and do not interbreed. But you don't understand what a species is.
Okay, let's look at the primate genome argument. (I will go thru this whole vid unless I get Expelled. Again.) It is based on 3 logical fallacies, at least. (All of evoultionary theory is built solidly on various logical fallacies.) These are 1. The Fallacy Of The Incomplete Comparison. For ex. the number of genes becomes everything. So - tobacco has as many chromosomes as a chimp - does that mean they are related? The CONTENT of the genes is barely ever mentioned. Cont.
Cont. Before analyzing the "science" re the chimp genome, let's see what's going on here. The test of science is being abdicated to the court/state w/MIller's help. In another vid he said that there may be Supreme Court action in the future so that those who are against evo "could be in bad straits." He also said "scientists should be above politics" abt 1/2 hr before putting up posters of states where the audience could contact their legislatures. This ain't science - it's propaganda.Cont
@LoricaLady The Urey Miller experiment didn't produce life and no one ever claimed that it did. What it did was produced over 20 different amino acids and 20 are infact naturally occuring in life. This is infact good evidence that the building blocks of life can occur if the conditions are right. Btw, this is abiogenesis not evolution.
Cont. Before I get into the "science" regarding the chimp genome, let's see what's going on here. The test of science is being turned over to the state and Miller is pushing that. In fact in another vid he says that there may be Supreme Court action in the future and that those who disagree with evolution "could be in bad straits." He also said that "scientists should be above politics" abt 1/2 hr. putting up posters of states where the audience should contact legislatures. Cont.
Yeah I don't see what's wrong with saying science should be above politics. Politics shouldn't get involved in the scientific community and just because the majority of people think Intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution that doesn't mean the scientific community should be FORCED to accept something that isn't scientific. Or did you misinterpret that as him saying he believes scientists should be above the law? No, that's not what he meant at all.
@Misbeliefz What I am trying to point out is the double talk and double think that is characteristic of evoevangelists, plus the lack of basic logic. Aristotle taught us the first law of logic: Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that scientists should stay above politics and that they should also be putting up charts on where their audience should take political action, while also politically campaigning across the nation to stop others' free speech.
It's not double talk. What he means is that the government shouldn't determine scientific curriculum. Some people and politicians are trying to do this, so he's asking people to stand up and try to help prevent this in any way they can. Scientists never campaign to stop others free speech. You can say whatever you want to the scientific community but if you make asinine claims then you're going to treated like a moron which is how Intelligent design advocates are treated.
@Misbeliefz If you do not see how the first law of logic is being violated, sorry, I tried. I put people on ignore who name call and are generally insulting. I hope you learn true science, and logic, and that troll talk is antithetical to both of them, however. Bye!
@LoricaLady Scientists are not stopping others free speech, they are trying to keep religion out of schools. Why don't we teach the Hindu version of creation in your sunday school class?
This is the same with sura 9:123. U are allowed to defend yourself if you are being attacked by people because you worship God and are being oppressed.
2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
You are taking this out of context as most do, it is telling you fight in circumstances in war such as if you are suffering oppression and if people stop fighting than you shall stop as well as God does not like the aggressors. This is the same with sura 8:39.
@Liverhawk25 Do me a favour there is no such thing or clause you suggesting maybe you been reading manmade interpretations which they are trying to pervert. It clearly states in the Quran 2:256] 'There shall be no compulsion in religion'. Read it for yourself.
@AzAkh60 You are correct, there is no proof for the theory evolution, just tons and tons of evidence. In fact, there is no proof for gravitational theory, just tons and tons of evidence! Scientific theories cannot be proven by definition, but the strength of theories in science is measured by the amount of evidence for the theory. As the dude in the video said, find one thing that doesn't fit with the theory of evolution, and it's history. Evolution is a hoax?! Did you watch the video?
+ am not judging u you can believe wat you want as God gave us all freewill to decide what to believe in. Theres no complulsion in religion. Again you say there is no proof to God (well you should c how everything is perfectly designed from cells to the solar system) yet u have no proof to disprove it jus making stupid assumptions.
Most atheists then believe in Evolution which is the biggest hoax known to man a made up theory with no real proof jus masses of missing links and data.
If a *mugger* threatens my life and promises to let me live in peace if give them my *wallet* and I do so, would you call that an "act of freewill" or would it be a meaninglessly coerced response to a direct threat?
If a *god* threatens my life and promises to let me live in peace if give them my *devotion* and I do so... well you know the rest.
@eyeammi There is no middle ground (cant sit on the fence) with religion such as Islam you either accept it or reject it in its entirety. Well there is no compulsion as freewill is given to every human to decide with inquiry and either to good or evil.
As a believer, God is seen as the creator and maker of everything from humans to universe etc.. basically he owns everything and has the right for judgment either being in reward or punishment.
This is hard for you to comprehend as u prob atheist
@AzAkh60 So, as a believer, you must either be satisfied with a hypocritical creator or you must endorse violent extortion as acceptable human behavior. There is no middle ground.
@eyeammi As mentioned before as God is the creator of everything he has the right to decide and give judgement to whom he wills. You can express ur own opinion about it but nothing will change the truth. Even the person in the above video accepts there being a creator even though he promotes evolution.
I dont endorse violent extortion u prob caught up with the media crap.
@AzAkh60 Media? I think you may be suggesting that I'm playing to the Islamic extremist stereotype. I'm really not. It seems to me that if your god is fine w/ using violent extortion, you should be too. The same can also be said for the Christian. Both Allah and Yahweh are portrayed as extortioners of devotion. With the concept of Hell, it can be no other way. That being the case & with you declaring a personally peaceful nature (I believe you BTW) it seems you've settled on a hypocritical god.
@eyeammi Not at all why should I use violence Islam encourages peace, violence is only used in certain circumstances such as war, self defence and where it is necessary. God does not like the aggressors.
You can call it hypocritical (ur opinion) but he is the judge if he created yours and everyone else's existence. There must be justice at the end with the amount of evil being carried out by man such as mass murdering, oppression.. whether it being from a so called a believer or atheist.
@AzAkh60 What makes my assertion that Allah and Yahweh are portrayed as hypocritical an "opinion" while your assertion to the contrary is somehow a "fact?" It would seem that with the available data, not only is your claim also an opinion, but it is ill conceived as well. According to both Christian & Islamic theology, a god has carried out all of the offenses you listed and to an extent which no man could ever hope to achieve.
@eyeammi From a believer perspective yes it is fact, as you are atheist you will never accept instead follow Evolution which is the biggest lie known to man taught through the government and schools.
You follow conjecture, saying God encourages and carry out violence. U can call it false or whatever thats the difference between believers and disbelievers.
I suggest you read the Quran and if you have you prob haven't read it properly or try to misinterpret or pervert the verses.
@AzAkh60 "From a believer perspective yes it is fact"
That doesn't answer the question. Clearly I already know you think it's a fact. I would like to know how you know it is a fact.
"instead [you] follow Evolution"
I don't care one way or another about evolution. I'll agree. Evolution is 100% inaccurate, false and does not explain how life came to be as it is on this planet.
So now, tell me. How do you know what you know about your god and how do you know its true?
@eyeammi As a believer I believe it to be the 100% truth through reading both side of the arguments and inquiry. The Quran and faith has obviously helped me to reach such a decision. Also by logical thinking/sense I refuse to accept that everything came to being by chance and random mutation, people say religion is a fairy tale but Evolution and something existing by chance is the biggest con ever created.
Through molecules, atoms and cells and its complexity within suggests there is a design
@eyeammi Michael Behe also makes a strong argument regarding the cells and DNA design which are 'irreducibly complex' which heavily points out to a intelligent designer in other words God and not evolved by natural selection.
At least you admit Evolution is false, normally people who are an atheist normally follow Evolution as a alternative you must be in the minority in agreeing with neither.
@AzAkh60 Certainly design would be a discussable concept, but that's just the tip of the iceberg of what you actually believe in its full detail & I'm not interested in broad caricatures. You believe in everything the Quran says, word for word, without exception. Is that a fair statement? If so, what I want to know is how you can assess that the Quran's portrayal of a particular god has any basis in reality? How do you make the leap from a doubt in a scientific explanation to an entire theology?
@eyeammi Theres no middle ground when it comes in believing in the Quran, either you follow it in its entirety or not at all. To be honest I cannot trust my own judgment when it comes to believing in something or nothing at all through my own assumptions or opinion. I know that Evolution is false through research and logic.
As I believe in a creator who owns everything in existence he has the right to give and set rules. The Quran is a manual & guidance book to humanity.
What research did you come upon that shows evolution is false? You should present it to the scientific community. You know you get awards for that kind of thing right?
@Misbeliefz No one does not get rewards for showing the pseudo science of evolution. The movie Expelled shows why. One does get rewards with wonderful peer reviews for writing pseudo science. For ex. Miller & Urey's experiment produced no life, in fact got the kind of amino acids that would kill life becasue of their wrong handedness. But little children were taught in schools that the experiment gave evidence that life can emerge from chemicals! Cont.
So much of what you said has either been a complete misuse of terms, misunderstandings about what ken is talking about and for a large portion just ignorance.
The Urey Miller experiment didn't produce life and no one ever claimed that it did. What it did was produced over 20 different amino acids and 20 are infact naturally occuring in life. This is infact good evidence that the building blocks of life can occur if the conditions are right. Btw, this is abiogenesis not evolutio
@Misbeliefz Cont. It's the evolutionists who come up w/experiments that show evol is false. Just like with M & U. Also the fruit fly experiments which were creating mutated bugs to prove evolution caused a bunch of deformed bugs, none of which was more viable than the originals, and all of which stayed fruit flies! That was proof against evo. All this is just the tip of the iceberg. I will be going thru this vid - if I don't get Expelled, as has happened before - to show it's B.S. Cont.
To claim that the Miller Urey experiment showed that evolution is false is absurd, the biggest reason being the experiment had NOTHING to do with evolution. Fruit flies mutating was proof against evolution? That's one of the main mechanisms of evolution....
@Misbeliefz Cont. But first, let's look at Miller's definiton of science. It may not be in this particular clip, but in this same talk he does say that "even if the supernatural [expklanation for life] is true...it's not science." Do you see what he is doing? He is separating truth from science if he doesn't like where truth goes! He also said on Colbert that he believes "Jesus Christ is the Creator of all" yet holds workshops on The Collapse of Intelligent Design! Cont.
It's not double talk. When he talks about intelligent design he's not talking about the term in a vague sense. He's talking about the specific claims made by it's advocates that are trying to get it pushed into our schools. When they make claims about Irreducible complexity which have been shown false time and time again. He is a christian, he's a theistic evolutionist which isn't uncommon. Lots of christians accept the theory of evolution.
@Misbeliefz Cont. Aristotle came up with the 1st rule of logic "2 contradictory statements cannot both be true." It cannot both be true that Someone created everything & also that there is no intelligent design! You have stepped right into the realm of double talk & double think, pure pseudo science all the way. This is what evolution has to build itself up on, along with a house of cards made of logical fallacies and some outright lies. Yet it is evo that gets the kuoos, not logic. Cont
@eyeammi I admit my decision is also faith based. Also what is detailed in the Quran contains alot of wisdom and relevant to the present day. I wont go in detail but you should read it if you havn't
There is also scientific details such as on embryology stages, universe, mountains which was written 1400yrs ago and proven to be correct in recent time and scientific testing was non existent or in its very early stages at that time.
Drawbacks in scientific explanation is that is one contradiction
@eyeammi Many scientists/people do not have the definite answer on certain things (origins, the universe) and are guessing and therefore fall in error. I cannot trust human judgement in regards to this as there are many flaws (humans are very limited). Even the very top thinkers such as Einstein and Isaac Newton believed in some form of creator/force which is beyond human comprehension.
Can I ask what do you actually believe in or follow theology based?
I'm a little confused how miller can be a Christian? As a scientist...and a fairly famous, well published and respected one.. Isn't he aware of the startling lack of evidence for the 'theory of Christianity?'
(or at least it would be a theory if there wee any facts, evidence and observations to combine into an explanation)
This argument can go on forever as theres always going to be conflicting views. Not everyone is going to agree with evolution or creation. You follow what you believe in (even though I dont agree with)
" The most cleverest people who walked this earth believed a creator did exist." All evolution says is there is 'change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations resulting from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population.'
Evolution has nothing to do whether God exists, it doesn't contradict that at all.
Personally though I wouldn't base my beliefs on what other people have said, but find it out for myself.
byteresistor ur da idiot prob another deluded atheist mug.
Well if somebody believes in the scriptures by God e.g. Quran/Bible, there is no mention man being evolved from an ape. Its pretty much the opposite, the human being is a seperate creation from scratch just like other animals are seperate. They have not evolved from millions ago from bacteria,plants,apes,monkeys and the other b.s what theologians say.
Then people like you say check the fossil record which is useless jus like u.
Part of the corrupt Roman Catholic system which is running the world illuminati etc..Roman Catholic is not a religion its a corrupt money making cooperation. Basically it is manmade not pure.
He suppose to be a religious figure as well what a cop out. So he belives we're apes and belives in God at the same time. mmm confusing.
Where you get those stats 60%? The data may of been bias so don't completely trust what you always read. Even if it was true it doesn't mean it is true, there are so many professors/PHD level who refuted evolution or the lack of evidence of with holes in the theory.
The most cleverest people who walked this earth believed a creator did exist e.g Einstein(though he refused to follow a religion) and Issac Newton (though the theory didn't exist in his time)
"Where you get those stats 60%? The data may of been bias so don't completely trust what you always read."
I actually read through the full list of every biology PhD from the two major universities in my city, including the one I attend. The majority use evolutionary theory in some way.
"so many professors/PHD level who refuted evolution."
Actually there's barely any, almost unheard of, so few that Creationists struggle to put together a tiny list from all around the world.
The only reason Creationism even exists is because Evolutionary Theory refutes the Genesis story in the Bible, so hardcore Bible-literalist Christians (Fundamentals) attack Darwinism becaus of this.
Darwinism as it stands doesn't have anything at all to say about whether or not there is a God. Nor does it say anything about the origin of life on earth.
It is simply a complex field of biology that explains the diversity of life on the planet.
@karlkarlkarl1234 I just see Evolution as a theory and some ways a con or a lie. It spread through government schools spreading like it a fact its like fooling and brainwashing people. Just because some person 150 years ago comes with a idea it dont mean it factually true its just a human idea.
I have seen plenty of books/websites refuting evolution then again I have seen people speaking in favour of evolution.
Evolution is in contradiction with the religious scricptures such as Quran
It's not just Darwin's writings that give us evolutionary theory, it is countless researchers and and plethora of scientific data that undoubtedly support it.
it has been proven time and time again conclusively.
You can actually see flies mutations after 35 generations into a whole new species.
The only reason there is any arguement against it is because it contradicts some areas of religion. Denying science due to prioer religious bias is pathetic.
@karlkarlkarl1234 No it is not religious bias, Iam all in favour of science if it is logical and evolution is not.
Evolution is a modern day religion which scientists follow. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." H. J. Lipson,
F.R.S. "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31 .
Even Darwin himself had doubts about his theory. "NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed." - Charles Darwin
@AzAkh60 Transitional form? In bacteria? You probably cant tell one bacteria from the other, do you even know what they are? Its the PROPERTIES that matter. The fact that if you start a bacteria-colony with say 10 identical bacteria that is killed by antibiotics. If you wait untill there is 10 millions of them, then drop some antiobiotic in there, some will die, others not: Evolution before your eyes.
And here on earth. everything is in its transitional form, since evolution is far from done.
@Ztiller1991 No it does not. Transitional forms are very important because evolution theologians claim we come from bacteria, reptiles, apes and all the nonesense etc.. Theres not one form on record but they claim they have it. NO PROOF! Then theres the missing links?? its just one big mess.
Evolution is a lie and trying to brainwashing to make people think the evolution is fact and we are not created from a higher intelligence(thou some believe in both)
@AzAkh60 did you check out the Platypus? How's that for transitional form? An egg-laying mammal with a beak.
And are you trying to tell that just because we dont know everything about evolution, it proves the existance of god, of whom you have no proof whatsoever? How can you demand every single missing piece of a puzzle, untill you accept the whole picture, even though its obvious, while simultaneous pointing at an empty table, claiming that it is something.
Again this is going round in circles, you seem to be another stubborn atheist who has a one track mind on evolution. Dont say I am religious bias coz I am in favour of science and GOD.
Have you read any of the religious scripture such as Quran? I suggest you do and if you still think it to be false den fair enuf thats your OPINION at least gave it chance.
@AzAkh60 And you seem to be another stubborn theist, that has a one track mind of GOD. You are only in favour of GOd, dont even attempt to say anything else.
No, i have not. Have you studied Biologi, Astrobiology, Physics, History or Chemistry?
Its a Transitional form in its purest of cases! You say that you support Science, yet every single piece of evidence put forth, you neglect as False or Fictional. Just look at yourself! If god created man, why is he faulty? Evolution isnt perfect.
@Ztiller1991 I said evolution is false and fictional not SCIENCE so get your facts straight. Because I dont' believe in Evolution doesnt mean Iam against Science.
There are many examples of science in the quranic sciptures which was presented 1400 years ago (though people have tried to refute it)
Evolution isnt perfect because it doesnt actually exist and is not true its a man made idea/theory with deficiences.
@AzAkh60 Evolution is based on science ffs! Your arguments are so invalid that you are ridicilous!
You obviously have no idea whatsoever as to what you're talking about. Its like trying to discuss with a rock.
If you dont believe in science, then you dont believe in modern medicines, cars, aeroplanes, Internet, gravity, atoms, chemistry etc. All of whom are based on science. If you dont believe in science, how do you then explain bacteria and diseases that science can counter.
@Ztiller1991 Your arguments are weak coz you basically trying to say evolution =the whole of science which is not true. Not everybody believes in Evolution so what you trying to say is make believe.
I said I don't believe in Evolution not Science. Its like a arguing with a babboon.
Cars,Aeroplanes, Internet?? what da hell is that got to dow ith evolution..nothing.
@AzAkh60 No, but you are talking as if the only science that is acceptable is the one in the quran. Well, technically, you and i are very much like babbons. Since we share the same ancestor. We have some evidence for it, you have none whatsoever. you demand al lthe correct answers for something before you accept something other than what you have no evidence for.
No, but it has to do with science. If you could read, then you wouldve seen that i stated it was part of science, not evolution.
Evolution is the biggest hoax created by man. No not just quran but I am open to other new discoveries in science which are logical and make sense ( though the quran confirms certain matters written 1400years ago which scientists are only discovering now to be true, thats PROOF in itself).
I am not a babboon but maybe you r in ur head.
As the quran states 16:4 He created the human from a tiny drop, then he turns into an ardent opponent.
@AzAkh60 I just believe it is just arrogance in people which is stopping them in believing in a designer because humans think in some ways they are God themselves taking their Ego's as their security and think they are the highest form of being. It's a joke. Humans are so flawed its beyond belief ( Iam not denying the good in which man has done)
Theres no proof of macro evolution and the fossil record is poor evidence with so many missing links/gaps.
@AzAkh60 So you are saying that there were no correct science 1400 years ago? because they were right then, doesnt prove god -.- And may i ask WHAT the scientists today are discovering that you discovered 1400 years ago?
For example that 1+1=2 is something that have been know for millenia, however proving that it really is so and why is a completely different matter. Same with Gravity.
Oh, but you are. Just look at your genetic code. Not much difference there.
@AzAkh60 True i agree not exactly the same but take a squid we haven't had a common ansester with a squid for millions of years yet when it comes to eyes evolution came up with the same end result.
@Ztiller1991 "Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.
@Ztiller1991 (Continued) In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing." Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
" Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the "tree of life" (Denton 1998, pp. 265-298). For example, in the chapter entitled The Tree of Life from Nature's Destiny, Denton discusses the phylogeny of several closely related species (the primates)...
"Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the "tree of life" (Denton 1998, pp 265-298). For example, in the chapter entitled The Tree of Life from Nature's Destiny, Denton discusses the phylogeny of several closely related species (the primates)..."
@Ztiller1991 Its not that they where dumb compared to today they where just doing there best with what they had. But today we have microscopes and computers and all sorts of instruments and can do exsperiments and confirm finding this is science today.Im sure they did alright with local stars and simple things. For example penacilon very easy to discover but it was only recent in the scheme of things.
@gongme Yea you can say that but u cannot disprove that it is not true can you..just conjecture basically ur opinion. Religious books such as the quran is made simple for everybody to understand, some people may not understand the complex ideas/procedures in science etc.. It is for everybody if they want to choose to believe in a creator, it was made to be simple.
@AzAkh60 Thats what im saying its simple and was so made up by men i cant believe you can not see this but if you have been brainwashed from birth to believe in fairies you may never see the truth but still will have a good life with your fable just keep it at home dont judge me by your stone age beliefs. I do not have to prove god exist you are saying he is real but have no proof and god likes to be very hide and well hide you cant find it if it does not exist.
@gongme I have not been brainwashed since birth I have had my doubts as well in the past its only recently I believe 100% in a creator. See you are just expressing your opinion as one human being saying it is written by men all these arguments you raise are explained and refuted in the quran sayin its fairly tales - thats the difference between believers and disbelievers, they will never believe in god even if you saw god b4 your eyes or the angels came down, u just think its magic.
We don't have a God that attempts to deceive us. When you accept a lie as truth, and are confronted with truth, you don't want to receive it, or you choose to believe it is an attempt to deceive, it is not. The lie that you accepted first is the falsehood, it only appears to you that the truth is an attempt to deceive because you first erred.
water2gashawaii 2 months ago
ANYONE: If you see no reply to any posts made to me below, those people know they are on ignore for things like personal insults and name calling.. I would love to dispel disinformation about things I have said, & about what evolution says, but as they know I only debate with people who are being civil & objective. Personal invective & ad hominems are counterproductive to the true spirit and purposes of science.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady Just because you have a severe case of unwarranted self importance means nothing to anyone. You use more ad hominems to try to attack evolution even though the amount of evidence for it magnifies every year, and the amount of ID evidence dwindles. Just because you are to much of a child to accept your divine book means nothing in science. People like you are the sole reason for the U.S. slowly becoming a third world country.
TheBlitMaster 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you RapidApe for sharing this. I have followed Dr. Miller's older lectures and have found him a truly fascinating and valuable gentleman.
thedeeliciousplum 7 months ago
Comment removed
thedeeliciousplum 7 months ago
@JaquarEscarlata The 1st Law of Logic - per a pagan, Aristotle - is that 2 contradictory statements cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that Yeshua, aka Jesus (or anyone else) "created all that is seen and unseen" and that there is no intelligent designer. To believe that is to suffer from cognitive disonance. You have also gone against logic by using the ad hominem logical fallacy. True debate is not possible without logic - and good manners. I debate w/the civil & objective. Bye!
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@LoricaLady Except intelligence is the ability to gain knowledge over time. If a God truly made the world in an intelligent way, then he would have made it so it could extend for billions of years. So, if God made the universe in an intelligent way, he would also have to create a component based universe that could easily extend itself throughout billions of years, otherwise, he is just a dumbass newbie who codes everything in main.
TheBlitMaster 4 months ago
@TheBlitMaster Friend, you are following the usual pattern of YT evo fans. When shown evidence that the evolutionary arguments are not valid, you switch the subject, you present a strawman logical fallacy in Diety & religion. Then,passing off "if" & other theoreticals as scientific, you feel free to get into invective & insults. Follow the evidenc e. Evo stands or falls regardless of anything in the Bible.
Come out of the matrix. I debate only with the civil & objective, so...Bye!
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady I'm sorry, did you say something? Actually no, evolution doesn't fall at all, here's why;
1. Your theories basis would require no new species to have formed when there are (bacteria do this constantly, and scientists discover evolved plant/animal lifeforms every few years).
2. You also require no backwards compatible DNA and no DNA that could be traced back to an older creature.
3. You (the people fighting it) can't even spell deity right and lack humor.
Also learn what a matrix is.
TheBlitMaster 4 months ago
@TAz69x Kindly observe that in your post there was no science, no critical thinking, no actual rebuttal attempted at anything I said. Also kindly look up logical fallacies. For ex. ad hominem, but all of them for logical fallacies are what evolutionary theory is squarely founded upon. I hope you will learn to think analytically and logically, using a true science foundation - not just make personal attacks. But since to date you are not doing that, you are now on ignore. BYE!
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@LoricaLady LOL, ya peace
Research hox genes, mRNA, tRNA, atavisms, punctuated equilibrium, abiogenesis, Miller-Uri and montmorillonite clay, amino acid binding in prebiotic earth, codons, amino acid sequences, protein folding, frameshift mutations, nilonase, type III secretory system, junk DNA, horizontal gene transfer, chromosome 2 in humans, and the endless other piles of data that you can use to understand evolution.
If you TRULY CARED about understanding evolution, you'd at LEAST Wiki...
TAz69x 7 months ago
@TAz69x Saying "RNA...atavisms..." is only cutting & pasting. I do not have time to go thru all your cut & pastes. Pick 1 & defend it. In the mean time I'll go over just a few. Miller & Urey is a great ex. of evo fraud. They got r & l handed amino acids - which KILL life. They used 0 oxyben & life is seen to be at every level in the earth. Even if they had gotten the right kind of amino acid they had 0 evidence to show that it would turn into life - since it would be d-e-a-d. Cont.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@TAz69x Cont. The difference between a amino acids and a living cell, which is more complex than a block of factories & has nano technology not only for machines but for making machines, is beyond imagining. Yet with an experiment that caused life to be impossible, M & U told little kids they had an ex. of abioigenesis. And of course it got great peer reveiws! What is punctuated equilibriium? Well Gould admitted (in his early career, he changed his mind all the time) that...Cont.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@TAz69x ...there is really no evidence for any transitions. No problem. He came up with a new theory. Punctuated equilibria. Did it have any evidence whatsoever. Of course not! That's the whole point! With the old evo theory you should have transitional fossils since things are going so slowly and there are uncoutned billions of fossils out there. But you don''t. You see abrupt appearance & stasis instead. But with P.E. you don't need evidence! You just....believe....on faith... (Cont.)
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@TAz69x ...that life forms transformed so quickly that, heck, you don't get any evidence at all. Just like with the slow theory. You call this science? Then they say WE are into magical thinking! Then there is the so called proof of evolution with chromosome 2. Yes there's a fusion that makes a superficial number match to chimps. Here we see the usual logical fallacies evo is squarely built upon. 1) Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation. Bees, bats & birds fly, snakes & worms slither. Cont.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@TAz69x Cont. So what? Correlation does not imply causation. 2) Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e.: And only evo can explailn this! But...about 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome. Did that come from apes too? Why one & not the other? Notice evolutioinists never mention the other kind. Kinda messes up their theory. 3) Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Yes there's a number match. But what is inside the chromosomes is extremely different. Cont.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@TAz69x Cont. "You'd at least Wiki". Actually Wiki is frequently not a valid resource. Anyone can post anything there. You are so sure that creationists just stick their heads in the Bible and don't - gasp! - ever actually read evolutionary literature. By now you should be starting to see that's way not true. Evo lit is one of our greatest sources of entertainment! But we look at both sides. Do you? You should. And not just Wiki.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady You didn't even respond to or address any single fucking valid evolution-theory component of my comment, but went on some obfuscating random-ass tirade about Wiki.
Two fucking seconds would have solved this on my profile, showing Organic Chem studies at Uni and corollary B.Sc
--
Now, instead of whining on the source-misdirection of conversation, we're back on the points I listed in my initial fucking comment:
Address them.
-Chromosome II in particular.
Pubmed or Google Scholar it.
TAz69x 4 months ago
@TAz69x Did you check to see that you had read all my posts? I discussed the so called evidence for abiogenesis presented by the M & U experiment. as well as the so called evidence for human chromosome 2 & chimps, plus punctuated equilibria which doesn't even pretend to have evidence. You think you just get to sit back & cut & paste a few snippets on theories,, defending nothing, then start spewing out obscenities & call it a debate? Learn to think & come out of the matrix. Finis.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady Your last comment is completely incoherent. You must be a poe.
English appears to be your second language; half those blocks of text or rambling incoherent shit. You seem more Muslim than Christian.
TAz69x 4 months ago
Cont. Miller let the comment go right on by. There was no attempt to speak the real truth, namely: To present the primal pond theory as if it is scientific fact is actually to push pseudo science on the public.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@LoricaLady WoW, you must be ~Really~ dedicated to leave such an accrual all of these trolling inept comments!,
I'd lose my mind and become NephilimFree if I wasted so much time proactively fighting something so speciously...
ಠ_ಠ
TAz69x 8 months ago
4:10 Miller says he is an RC & believes in a designer. And yet he holds workshops on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design." So maybe he thinks the Creator is not intelligent, is stupid? Lol. I saw here on YT a clip from the Colbert show where he says he believes "Jesus is the creator of all that is, seen & unseen." This is double talk & double think and makes no sense. When Colbert spoke of the primal pond - which has 0 data to support it & flies in the face of the LAW of biogenesis - Cont.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "Miller says he is an RC & believes in a designer.And yet he holds workshops on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design." Still posting the same ignorant bullshit. The worlds major churches (Catholic , Anglican etc) all see no conflict between evolutionary biology & theology - why should they....we see evolution in process every day. Its only the smugly ignorant bigots , like you & fellow AiG stooges that cling to the lies of creationism
brospec 8 months ago
@LoricaLady It's not double talk. Miller is the living evidence that science can be reconciled with religion, that evolution is not atheism. And Miller is just one of the many religious people who accept evolution's validity as a scientific explanation to life's diversity without feeling their beliefs threatened, only the fringe fundamentalists who equal their holy books to their deities are still whinning about it.
JaguarEscarlata 8 months ago
4:02 Cont. He paints a phony picture of creation scientists believing, "Presumably it was designed by the Creator to lLOOK as if the fusion came from a primate ancestor." I feel sure he knows very well that no creationist is even thinking any such thing & I know he has never read that from any of them. What they are saying is pretty much what I have been saying, i.e.: Logical fallacy & There's no ev-i-dence this fusioin came about from apes any more than that some folk's 2nd fusion did. Cont
LoricaLady 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:48 Moving right along we've seen many charts and a quote from Nature Magazine. It all looks so impressive on the surface. What we haven't seen and never will see, is any evidence whatsoever that the fusion in question came from apes. This is a classic example of pseudo science. A theory is presented as if it is actual data and evidence when in reality it has no data and no evidence to back it up. "It's there. It's testable." The existence of the fusion is testable. It's cause is NOT!
LoricaLady 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. The statement doesn't even make sense. If there is no evidence (& there is only the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy) that fusion came from apes, does that mean the peppered moth example of "evolution", the sickle cell anemia ex. of evo, the nylon eating bacteria ex. of evo are now meaningless? The truth is they already were meaningless as they provide no evidence for evolution. Nevertheless I agree with him, "[Then ]evolution is wrong."
LoricaLady 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont. 2:00
He said it, that evo is dependent on whether or not we have a fused chromosome that comes from an ape & "If we don't find it, evolution is wrong." Again, about 1 in 1000 folk have an additional fused chromosomes yet evoutioinists are not claiming the extra fusion comes from an ape. The truth is they are simply guessing where this particular fusion came form based on zero evidence, and evidence to the contrary since the content of the chimp genes & of ours is not the same. Cont.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
Must be painful for Ken Miller to partition his brain like that... rationality cohabiting with nonsensical theistic batshit...
o.O
TAz69x 8 months ago
@TAz69x Maybe it's like an old car engine, after running for a while it just has to turn off to cool.
JaguarEscarlata 8 months ago
@JaguarEscarlata ya, my brain does circles trying to analyze his neurology that made evolve this quirk [likely] through sociology and parents/family [and indoctrination]
Miller'd be an interesting fMRI subject of study!
=3
TAz69x 8 months ago
1:44 Note this quote, "What must have happened." Again, the whole chimp genome argument, as outlined below, is based on logical fallacies. However that quote is classic pseudo science think. "Must have...could have...all scientists believe...we propose a model..." are theoreticals, hypotheticals. People should have learned in 5th grade science, once & for all, that a hypothetical only does not science make. Yet evo has nothing else so constantly presents hypotheticals as if they are data.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@LoricaLady "People should have learned in 5th grade science, once & for all, that a hypothetical only does not science make."
How convenient, then, that evolutionary theory is NOT purely hypothetical. How convenient that evolution is the most well-supported theory in human history, and well over 150 years of scrutiny have yet to prove it false. Evolution is a fact, and flailing about screaming to the contrary does nothing to change it.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 8 months ago
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters (many follow me and others around YT guard dogging Miller, & other evo, vids) they know they are on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, false accusations of lying, open campaigns to get my posts hidden &, in the case of Foxlake & Brospec, sexual harrassment. Such tactics are counter productive to the true purposes of science. Tho I'd love to dispel some of their disinformation, I debate w/those who are civil & objective. Others go on ignore.
LoricaLady 9 months ago
Cont. When you believe in something with 0 evidence, you are belkieving based on...faith! There is 0 evidence whatsoever, back to ambulocetus, that it ever led to a whale, ditto that apes led to man. There is just 1 logical fallalcy piled ontop of another with assumptions presented as if they are scientific evidence. If they want their faith, really their religion, fine. Just don't try to force it on other people thru use of the courts while claiming they don't want religon in schools! Cont
LoricaLady 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "When you believe in something with 0 evidence, you are belkieving based on...faith!"
How wonderful it is that we have more evidence to support evolutionary theory than gravity. Or germ theory. Or heliocentric theory. Or the theory of a spherical earth. Direct observations of evolution can and have been made, and the theory is validated literally thousands of times daily.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
Cont. You are often told that you are an ape, that you are hardly any different than a chimp. If a pregnant friend of yours popped out a chimp at the hospital would you shrug & say, "Most people will hardly notice the difference!" In the gene sequencing spiel much is made of a numerical match in the genes. But, wait, what is IN those genes? The content is astronomically different! Why are they so desperate to get you to believe you're just an ape? Rhetoical Q. Cont.
LoricaLady 9 months ago
@LoricaLady "The content is astronomically different!"
Wrong. The difference between the human and chimp genomes is less than 2%. ERV markers in both genomes prove conclusively that we share a common ancestor. All life on earth uses the same handful of proteins, despite there being over 100 that could do the job just as well, again pointing to common descent. The fossil record shows a gradual increase in life complexity/diversification over the history of our planet...again, common ancestry.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
Cont. Is there a way to paternity test a fossil? Is there any evidence whatsoever that A produced progeny significantly different from itself? None whatsoever. Yet they call these evidenceless claims science & tell children that's what it is! A great example would be calling ambulocetus, which had hooves, a Prewhale! Why? Because it had some minor similarity in its ear to a whale. This ain't science folks, it's logical fallacies running wild. 3. Fallcy of Incomplete Comparison. Cont.
LoricaLady 9 months ago
@LoricaLady "Is there any evidence whatsoever that A produced progeny significantly different from itself? None whatsoever."
Evolution thoery doesn't say otherwise. Quite the contrary, the theory shows that each generation will be virtually indistinguishable from the prior generation, and noticable differentiation typically takes hundreds of thousands of years, or tens of thousands of generations.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@LoricaLady "A great example would be calling ambulocetus, which had hooves, a Prewhale! Why? Because it had some minor similarity in its ear to a whale."
And we have literally dozens of intermediates between amb. and modern whales. Why do you ignore their existence?
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@LoricaLady Ok, I'm growing tired of debunking your absurd claims, so let me ask this: Do you think that 99.85% of biological scientists, who devote their entire lives to the study of life, are wrong or lying when they say evolution is a fact? Because you MUST think they are either under the greatest misapprehension of facts in human history, or they're part of the greatest conspiracy in human history. Which do you believe?
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 I will respond to the posts that you have left that I found this morning. After that you will go on ignore. I'm sorry but I have found that once YT evo buffs get into the personal insult mode "Your absurd claims", they escalate. It is not possible to have a "debate" under such circumstances. Also, I have limited time. I spend it on people who are being civil & objective. Please look over your posts. Many of them are faith based. For ex. with transitional fossils. Cont.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. You accept it on faith that ambulocetus - a hair beast with hooves is -as little children are told - a Prewhale. Why? Because it has some minor similarities in its ears & swallowing mechanism to whales. That does not show that it is a precursor to whales. It shows that as always evolutionists are using the logical fallacy of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation in place of actual science. Yes, we life forms are composed of many of the same kinds of materials. Cont.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. Again,Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation. Worms look like snakes, butterflies fly like birds & bats. Does that prove they evolved from one another? Google Colin Patterson Quotes. He was a top evolutionist & paleontologist who admitted "there is not one water tight case" for a transitional form and that claims for such "are not science since they cannot be put to the test." Yes, all the evo sites cry "Quote mine" & try to act like he was quoted out of context/ Cont.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. However, whenever I check them out, or ask YT evo fans who say the same, for evidence that he ever said creationists lied about his quotes, or that he was quoted out of context, I see 0 You might want to check out The Fossil Record on my YT home page. You can cry Quote Mine there to your heart's content, but you will never find any data showing those quotes were out of context. If even the evoltuionists are admitting there are no transitional forms, why believe in them?
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. Let me give you an ex. of a "transtional" form that Ken Miller gives in another YT vid, Tiktaalik. He says "This is as good as it gets." He is so right. What you see, as can be seen in a Museum, is a fossil of a fish with a huge head & tiny frontal fins close to the body with no fossilzed musculature (yes, even cells have been fossilized) and a missing hind part. Next to the fossil is a 3D replica. Most people just look at the replica. (Evo lit is replete art lies.)
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. The replica shows strong, long muscular frontal fins for pulling the fish up onto land, suitable for its wonderful transition out of water. The hind end has been filled in. How convenient to use as a "transition" a fossil that is incomplete. Most fish (and probably that was true of Tiktaalik) do not have the kind of slithering back end the replica has - again, suitable for its wonderful transitioin to land. Again, Miller said, "This is as good as it gets."
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 It is not a matter of conspiracy. It is a matter of defending an ideology. People will lie cheat & kill for ideology. In a nicely peer reviewed Nature Magazine article one scientist said, "Even if all the evidence indicates intelligent design, it is not science because it is not natural." This of course shows a blatant bias and a willingness to close the eyes to the actual facts whatever they may be. This does not show science at work. How many really believe in evolution?
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 That is hard to say since as Expelled shows people are afraid to speak out in the highly defensive, orthordox, politcally correct Darwinian atmosphere. I had one poster here on YT, who said he was a school administrator, tell me that he would fire anyone who dissented from evolution. In addition, quite a few former evolutionists have admitted that they simply, for a long time, accepted "underlying assumptions" about "evolution" until someone pointed them out for them. Cont.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. Just one ex. of this would be Dr. Dean Kenyon who had written a highly publicized book on abiogenesis for universities but who now debunks evo left & right. Students are not trained to look for logical fallacies in science classes, they are mostly expected to just believe what they are told. Also, do not mistake operational sciences, like chemistry, biology, medicine, etc. - which are operatioinal sciences & are testable, repeatable & observable - for evo.Cont.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 This would lead to the logical fallacy of equivocation. "The differences between human & chimp genomes is less than 2%". The difference between a glass of milk with arsenic & one without is far less - which makes the differences astronomical. If you had a pregnant friend pop out a chimp at the hospital you wouldn't say, "Heck there's only about a 2% difference between him & the other kids. Probably most people won't even notice." That 2% makes a staggering difference. Cont.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TrevorBlack79 Cont. Again, I don't debate with those who take a personally attacking approach. I hope you will learn your logical fallacies & that when theories are presented as evidence - when there is no actual data to back them up - it is pseudo science. Bye!
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@TrevorBlack79 Oh, before I leave, I should say 1 more thing. When you keep saying how many scientists believe in evolution, you are using the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. At one time all scientists - even Einstein - believed that the universe was eternal. We don't count raised hands (especially when some fear for their jobs if they raise their hands) to find out the truth. Please learn to use YOUR mind & honestly & carefully resesarch both sides.. Come out of the matrix. Finis.
LoricaLady 8 months ago
@LoricaLady I didn't bother reading your lies. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm appealing to EVIDENCE. The evidence is readily available to anyone who cares to study it, and the overwhelming majority of people who dedicate their lives to the study of the available evidence have all drawn the same conclusion - evolution is a fact. I've observed enough of the evidence to barely scratch the surface, and it's obviously a fact. You're literally believing what you want and rejecting the facts.
TrevorBlack79 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TrevorBlack79 "I didn't bother reading your lies." Gee, that's really open minded of you, & you missed a great opportunity to spread your version of truth to poor confused "fundies" like moi. "The overwhelming majority.." Appeal to popularity logical fallacy, then more faith statements. Note you said 0 related to science & 0 to debunk what I said thru science or logic. Friend, tho you're now on ignore for bad manners, I hope you learn to think & analyze not just make faith statements. Bye!
LoricaLady 8 months ago
Cont. 2. Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation Logical Fallacy. Ok, so there is a surface numerical match between us and chimps. Yeal, and both chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. So did chimps come from that plant? Snakes & worms & caterpillars, flying fish and moths and birds have many correrlations. Are these the result of one coming from the other? Evolutionists are fond of saying, "Look, Fossil A has characteristics of B. That proves Fossil A came from B!" This is a scam. Cont.
LoricaLady 9 months ago
Cont. Evolutionists are trying to get the public to buy it that becuase there is a fusion in human genes that leads to a numerical match with chimps, that shows hands down, no Q about it, that we came from apes! Uh, 'scuze me but about 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome! You will notice evolutionists never mention it. Why? Because they can't explain it while trying to show we came from apes. If 1 fusion didn't come from apes, then how do we know the other one did? Cont.
LoricaLady 9 months ago
0:12 According to Miller "intelligent design advocates had nothing to say" about gene sequencing. How accurate that is, I don't know. The "information" is relatively new so perhaps they had not heard about it and had not had a chance to see what it was all about. I have plenty to say about it however! It is the usual use of logical fallacies presented to the public to bolster up a lack of actual evidence for anything. 1. The Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "only evo can explain it!" Cont
LoricaLady 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters they know they are on ignore for: name calling, personal insults, gross obscenities, open campaigns to get my posts hidden, false accusations of lying &, in the case of Brospec & Foxlake, sexual harrassment. Several Miller vid guarddogs follow me & others around YT with such tactics. I will debate with those who are civil & objective. The rest go on ignore.
LoricaLady 9 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 9 months ago
3. The Correlation Does Not (!) Imply Causation fallacy. This is the 1 evo lives & breathes on & has gotten most people to buy into because most people have never been told it's illogical! Ex.: Just because ambulocetus has some vague similarities in it's ear to whales, little children are told it's a Prewhale! And it had hooooves! Is there one shred of evidence its descendants were significantly different? None whatsoever. In evo think - if two things look alike in any way, evo did it.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady
Rejecting science right in frunt of you for religious theology? You let church and religious authority bankrupt ratinal thought in fear of going to hell, do to dogmatic ideals brought on by Pat Robertson! Evolution is how biology works
pbrskater26 9 months ago
@pbrskater26 It is so much easier to just start making faith based statements, i.e. "Evolution is how biology works" and to use an insulitng approach rather than to actually, you know...debate using reason, critical thinking and the data. Please notice that though you are believing you are a fan of science, you actually have no science in your post and furthermore never dealt with any of the actuall issues I have mentioned. You also used the logical fallacy of presuming omniscience. Cont.
LoricaLady 9 months ago
@LoricaLady I haven't seen you show any evidence or a good argument. People are not a ''fan of science'', they study it, look at the evidence and make up their own minds.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@pbrskater26 Cont. I can't stand Pat Robertson and do not even go to Church since I do not follow the Roman Catholic/Constantinian - as opposed to Scriptural - Sabbath. You also committed the logical fallacy of equivocation by implying that evolution is the same as other sciences, say astrophysics, chemistry, etc. etc. Those are true sciences, based on what is observable, testable and repeatable and they are called operational sciences - all things that are not true of evolution. Cont.
LoricaLady 9 months ago
@LoricaLady Evolution has been observed in nature and in the lab. It has been tested for 150 years. You can go do some DNA research or dig up some fossils if you want to repeat the process of proving it right.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@pbrskater26 Cont. I debate with those who are civil and objective and actually present some data and evidence (or at least what they think is evidence, what they have been told is evidence.) to make their points. If you will learn your logical fallacies and start to actually (gasp!) listen to scientists who are presenting the other side (I have some favorited on my home page) then maybe some day you'll learn what this debate is all about. I hope so! You're now on ignore tho. Bye!
LoricaLady 9 months ago
@LoricaLady What do you think a transitional fossil is? A land animal with a whales ears is one. A dinosaur with feathers is one. A fish with a neck is one.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Cont. You're being led to believe you are practically the same as a chimp, by evolutionary theory. Bull. If you knew a pregnant woman who gave birth to a chimp would you shrug & say, "Hey, no big deal, there's hardly any difference!" The content of our genes and chimps' genes is vastly different in many ways. 2. The Fallacy of The Single Cause. Gee, could there be some other reason for a fused chromosome other than ape ancestry? 1 in 1,000 people have an EXTRA fusion! Is it from apes? No!
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Muscle for muscle, bone for bone, you are the same as a Chimp. Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas. You share 98.6% the same DNA. Chimps and Humans are both Great Apes. We are different species and do not interbreed. But you don't understand what a species is.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Okay, let's look at the primate genome argument. (I will go thru this whole vid unless I get Expelled. Again.) It is based on 3 logical fallacies, at least. (All of evoultionary theory is built solidly on various logical fallacies.) These are 1. The Fallacy Of The Incomplete Comparison. For ex. the number of genes becomes everything. So - tobacco has as many chromosomes as a chimp - does that mean they are related? The CONTENT of the genes is barely ever mentioned. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
Cont. Before analyzing the "science" re the chimp genome, let's see what's going on here. The test of science is being abdicated to the court/state w/MIller's help. In another vid he said that there may be Supreme Court action in the future so that those who are against evo "could be in bad straits." He also said "scientists should be above politics" abt 1/2 hr before putting up posters of states where the audience could contact their legislatures. This ain't science - it's propaganda.Cont
LoricaLady 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady The Urey Miller experiment didn't produce life and no one ever claimed that it did. What it did was produced over 20 different amino acids and 20 are infact naturally occuring in life. This is infact good evidence that the building blocks of life can occur if the conditions are right. Btw, this is abiogenesis not evolution.
Stop lying.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Cont. Before I get into the "science" regarding the chimp genome, let's see what's going on here. The test of science is being turned over to the state and Miller is pushing that. In fact in another vid he says that there may be Supreme Court action in the future and that those who disagree with evolution "could be in bad straits." He also said that "scientists should be above politics" abt 1/2 hr. putting up posters of states where the audience should contact legislatures. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady
Yeah I don't see what's wrong with saying science should be above politics. Politics shouldn't get involved in the scientific community and just because the majority of people think Intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution that doesn't mean the scientific community should be FORCED to accept something that isn't scientific. Or did you misinterpret that as him saying he believes scientists should be above the law? No, that's not what he meant at all.
Misbeliefz 10 months ago
@Misbeliefz What I am trying to point out is the double talk and double think that is characteristic of evoevangelists, plus the lack of basic logic. Aristotle taught us the first law of logic: Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. It cannot both be true that scientists should stay above politics and that they should also be putting up charts on where their audience should take political action, while also politically campaigning across the nation to stop others' free speech.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady
It's not double talk. What he means is that the government shouldn't determine scientific curriculum. Some people and politicians are trying to do this, so he's asking people to stand up and try to help prevent this in any way they can. Scientists never campaign to stop others free speech. You can say whatever you want to the scientific community but if you make asinine claims then you're going to treated like a moron which is how Intelligent design advocates are treated.
Misbeliefz 10 months ago
@Misbeliefz If you do not see how the first law of logic is being violated, sorry, I tried. I put people on ignore who name call and are generally insulting. I hope you learn true science, and logic, and that troll talk is antithetical to both of them, however. Bye!
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady Scientists are not stopping others free speech, they are trying to keep religion out of schools. Why don't we teach the Hindu version of creation in your sunday school class?
gregrutz 9 months ago
You need only one argument against intelligent design: 'You sir, are an dumbass'.
It is as good as any argument, becasue fanatics does not listen.
AngeCord 10 months ago
Comment removed
eyeammi 10 months ago
This is the same with sura 9:123. U are allowed to defend yourself if you are being attacked by people because you worship God and are being oppressed.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
You are taking this out of context as most do, it is telling you fight in circumstances in war such as if you are suffering oppression and if people stop fighting than you shall stop as well as God does not like the aggressors. This is the same with sura 8:39.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@Liverhawk25 Do me a favour there is no such thing or clause you suggesting maybe you been reading manmade interpretations which they are trying to pervert. It clearly states in the Quran 2:256] 'There shall be no compulsion in religion'. Read it for yourself.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 You are correct, there is no proof for the theory evolution, just tons and tons of evidence. In fact, there is no proof for gravitational theory, just tons and tons of evidence! Scientific theories cannot be proven by definition, but the strength of theories in science is measured by the amount of evidence for the theory. As the dude in the video said, find one thing that doesn't fit with the theory of evolution, and it's history. Evolution is a hoax?! Did you watch the video?
KillerXCable 1 year ago
+ am not judging u you can believe wat you want as God gave us all freewill to decide what to believe in. Theres no complulsion in religion. Again you say there is no proof to God (well you should c how everything is perfectly designed from cells to the solar system) yet u have no proof to disprove it jus making stupid assumptions.
Most atheists then believe in Evolution which is the biggest hoax known to man a made up theory with no real proof jus masses of missing links and data.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 "Theres[sic] no complulsion in religion"
Then what the hell is the point of Hell?
If a *mugger* threatens my life and promises to let me live in peace if give them my *wallet* and I do so, would you call that an "act of freewill" or would it be a meaninglessly coerced response to a direct threat?
If a *god* threatens my life and promises to let me live in peace if give them my *devotion* and I do so... well you know the rest.
eyeammi 10 months ago
@eyeammi There is no middle ground (cant sit on the fence) with religion such as Islam you either accept it or reject it in its entirety. Well there is no compulsion as freewill is given to every human to decide with inquiry and either to good or evil.
As a believer, God is seen as the creator and maker of everything from humans to universe etc.. basically he owns everything and has the right for judgment either being in reward or punishment.
This is hard for you to comprehend as u prob atheist
AzAkh60 10 months ago
@AzAkh60 So, as a believer, you must either be satisfied with a hypocritical creator or you must endorse violent extortion as acceptable human behavior. There is no middle ground.
eyeammi 10 months ago
@eyeammi As mentioned before as God is the creator of everything he has the right to decide and give judgement to whom he wills. You can express ur own opinion about it but nothing will change the truth. Even the person in the above video accepts there being a creator even though he promotes evolution.
I dont endorse violent extortion u prob caught up with the media crap.
AzAkh60 10 months ago
@AzAkh60 Media? I think you may be suggesting that I'm playing to the Islamic extremist stereotype. I'm really not. It seems to me that if your god is fine w/ using violent extortion, you should be too. The same can also be said for the Christian. Both Allah and Yahweh are portrayed as extortioners of devotion. With the concept of Hell, it can be no other way. That being the case & with you declaring a personally peaceful nature (I believe you BTW) it seems you've settled on a hypocritical god.
eyeammi 10 months ago
@eyeammi Not at all why should I use violence Islam encourages peace, violence is only used in certain circumstances such as war, self defence and where it is necessary. God does not like the aggressors.
You can call it hypocritical (ur opinion) but he is the judge if he created yours and everyone else's existence. There must be justice at the end with the amount of evil being carried out by man such as mass murdering, oppression.. whether it being from a so called a believer or atheist.
AzAkh60 10 months ago
@AzAkh60 What makes my assertion that Allah and Yahweh are portrayed as hypocritical an "opinion" while your assertion to the contrary is somehow a "fact?" It would seem that with the available data, not only is your claim also an opinion, but it is ill conceived as well. According to both Christian & Islamic theology, a god has carried out all of the offenses you listed and to an extent which no man could ever hope to achieve.
eyeammi 10 months ago
@eyeammi From a believer perspective yes it is fact, as you are atheist you will never accept instead follow Evolution which is the biggest lie known to man taught through the government and schools.
You follow conjecture, saying God encourages and carry out violence. U can call it false or whatever thats the difference between believers and disbelievers.
I suggest you read the Quran and if you have you prob haven't read it properly or try to misinterpret or pervert the verses.
AzAkh60 10 months ago
@AzAkh60 "From a believer perspective yes it is fact"
That doesn't answer the question. Clearly I already know you think it's a fact. I would like to know how you know it is a fact.
"instead [you] follow Evolution"
I don't care one way or another about evolution. I'll agree. Evolution is 100% inaccurate, false and does not explain how life came to be as it is on this planet.
So now, tell me. How do you know what you know about your god and how do you know its true?
eyeammi 10 months ago
@eyeammi As a believer I believe it to be the 100% truth through reading both side of the arguments and inquiry. The Quran and faith has obviously helped me to reach such a decision. Also by logical thinking/sense I refuse to accept that everything came to being by chance and random mutation, people say religion is a fairy tale but Evolution and something existing by chance is the biggest con ever created.
Through molecules, atoms and cells and its complexity within suggests there is a design
AzAkh60 10 months ago
@eyeammi Michael Behe also makes a strong argument regarding the cells and DNA design which are 'irreducibly complex' which heavily points out to a intelligent designer in other words God and not evolved by natural selection.
At least you admit Evolution is false, normally people who are an atheist normally follow Evolution as a alternative you must be in the minority in agreeing with neither.
AzAkh60 10 months ago
@AzAkh60 Certainly design would be a discussable concept, but that's just the tip of the iceberg of what you actually believe in its full detail & I'm not interested in broad caricatures. You believe in everything the Quran says, word for word, without exception. Is that a fair statement? If so, what I want to know is how you can assess that the Quran's portrayal of a particular god has any basis in reality? How do you make the leap from a doubt in a scientific explanation to an entire theology?
eyeammi 10 months ago
@eyeammi Theres no middle ground when it comes in believing in the Quran, either you follow it in its entirety or not at all. To be honest I cannot trust my own judgment when it comes to believing in something or nothing at all through my own assumptions or opinion. I know that Evolution is false through research and logic.
As I believe in a creator who owns everything in existence he has the right to give and set rules. The Quran is a manual & guidance book to humanity.
AzAkh60 10 months ago
@AzAkh60
What research did you come upon that shows evolution is false? You should present it to the scientific community. You know you get awards for that kind of thing right?
Misbeliefz 10 months ago
@Misbeliefz Evolution is dead .com
AzAkh60 10 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@Misbeliefz No one does not get rewards for showing the pseudo science of evolution. The movie Expelled shows why. One does get rewards with wonderful peer reviews for writing pseudo science. For ex. Miller & Urey's experiment produced no life, in fact got the kind of amino acids that would kill life becasue of their wrong handedness. But little children were taught in schools that the experiment gave evidence that life can emerge from chemicals! Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady
So much of what you said has either been a complete misuse of terms, misunderstandings about what ken is talking about and for a large portion just ignorance.
The Urey Miller experiment didn't produce life and no one ever claimed that it did. What it did was produced over 20 different amino acids and 20 are infact naturally occuring in life. This is infact good evidence that the building blocks of life can occur if the conditions are right. Btw, this is abiogenesis not evolutio
Misbeliefz 10 months ago
@Misbeliefz Cont. It's the evolutionists who come up w/experiments that show evol is false. Just like with M & U. Also the fruit fly experiments which were creating mutated bugs to prove evolution caused a bunch of deformed bugs, none of which was more viable than the originals, and all of which stayed fruit flies! That was proof against evo. All this is just the tip of the iceberg. I will be going thru this vid - if I don't get Expelled, as has happened before - to show it's B.S. Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady
To claim that the Miller Urey experiment showed that evolution is false is absurd, the biggest reason being the experiment had NOTHING to do with evolution. Fruit flies mutating was proof against evolution? That's one of the main mechanisms of evolution....
Misbeliefz 10 months ago
@Misbeliefz Cont. But first, let's look at Miller's definiton of science. It may not be in this particular clip, but in this same talk he does say that "even if the supernatural [expklanation for life] is true...it's not science." Do you see what he is doing? He is separating truth from science if he doesn't like where truth goes! He also said on Colbert that he believes "Jesus Christ is the Creator of all" yet holds workshops on The Collapse of Intelligent Design! Cont.
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@LoricaLady
It's not double talk. When he talks about intelligent design he's not talking about the term in a vague sense. He's talking about the specific claims made by it's advocates that are trying to get it pushed into our schools. When they make claims about Irreducible complexity which have been shown false time and time again. He is a christian, he's a theistic evolutionist which isn't uncommon. Lots of christians accept the theory of evolution.
Misbeliefz 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Misbeliefz Cont. Aristotle came up with the 1st rule of logic "2 contradictory statements cannot both be true." It cannot both be true that Someone created everything & also that there is no intelligent design! You have stepped right into the realm of double talk & double think, pure pseudo science all the way. This is what evolution has to build itself up on, along with a house of cards made of logical fallacies and some outright lies. Yet it is evo that gets the kuoos, not logic. Cont
LoricaLady 10 months ago
@eyeammi I admit my decision is also faith based. Also what is detailed in the Quran contains alot of wisdom and relevant to the present day. I wont go in detail but you should read it if you havn't
There is also scientific details such as on embryology stages, universe, mountains which was written 1400yrs ago and proven to be correct in recent time and scientific testing was non existent or in its very early stages at that time.
Drawbacks in scientific explanation is that is one contradiction
AzAkh60 10 months ago
@eyeammi Many scientists/people do not have the definite answer on certain things (origins, the universe) and are guessing and therefore fall in error. I cannot trust human judgement in regards to this as there are many flaws (humans are very limited). Even the very top thinkers such as Einstein and Isaac Newton believed in some form of creator/force which is beyond human comprehension.
Can I ask what do you actually believe in or follow theology based?
AzAkh60 10 months ago
smoking gun No. 345.432.208.097.234
grebrim 1 year ago
I'm a little confused how miller can be a Christian? As a scientist...and a fairly famous, well published and respected one.. Isn't he aware of the startling lack of evidence for the 'theory of Christianity?'
(or at least it would be a theory if there wee any facts, evidence and observations to combine into an explanation)
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
This argument can go on forever as theres always going to be conflicting views. Not everyone is going to agree with evolution or creation. You follow what you believe in (even though I dont agree with)
AzAkh60 1 year ago
" The most cleverest people who walked this earth believed a creator did exist." All evolution says is there is 'change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations resulting from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population.'
Evolution has nothing to do whether God exists, it doesn't contradict that at all.
Personally though I wouldn't base my beliefs on what other people have said, but find it out for myself.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
byteresistor ur da idiot prob another deluded atheist mug.
Well if somebody believes in the scriptures by God e.g. Quran/Bible, there is no mention man being evolved from an ape. Its pretty much the opposite, the human being is a seperate creation from scratch just like other animals are seperate. They have not evolved from millions ago from bacteria,plants,apes,monkeys and the other b.s what theologians say.
Then people like you say check the fossil record which is useless jus like u.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
Lol quoting from the pope how reliable is that..
Part of the corrupt Roman Catholic system which is running the world illuminati etc..Roman Catholic is not a religion its a corrupt money making cooperation. Basically it is manmade not pure.
He suppose to be a religious figure as well what a cop out. So he belives we're apes and belives in God at the same time. mmm confusing.
The theory of evolution is dead!
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 "So he belives we're apes and belives in God at the same time. mmm confusing."
Confusing indeed. To an idiot like you. Do tell me why exactly evolution and god cannot both exist?
byteresistor 1 year ago
@AzAkh60
"The theory of evolution is dead!"
I'm at university and can say that about 60% of all biological PhD's are based directly on evolution.
Thankfully, evolutionary theory is absolutely BOOMING beyond all belief, and leading to amazing scientific discoveries.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234
Where you get those stats 60%? The data may of been bias so don't completely trust what you always read. Even if it was true it doesn't mean it is true, there are so many professors/PHD level who refuted evolution or the lack of evidence of with holes in the theory.
The most cleverest people who walked this earth believed a creator did exist e.g Einstein(though he refused to follow a religion) and Issac Newton (though the theory didn't exist in his time)
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60
"Where you get those stats 60%? The data may of been bias so don't completely trust what you always read."
I actually read through the full list of every biology PhD from the two major universities in my city, including the one I attend. The majority use evolutionary theory in some way.
"so many professors/PHD level who refuted evolution."
Actually there's barely any, almost unheard of, so few that Creationists struggle to put together a tiny list from all around the world.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234
The only reason Creationism even exists is because Evolutionary Theory refutes the Genesis story in the Bible, so hardcore Bible-literalist Christians (Fundamentals) attack Darwinism becaus of this.
Darwinism as it stands doesn't have anything at all to say about whether or not there is a God. Nor does it say anything about the origin of life on earth.
It is simply a complex field of biology that explains the diversity of life on the planet.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 I just see Evolution as a theory and some ways a con or a lie. It spread through government schools spreading like it a fact its like fooling and brainwashing people. Just because some person 150 years ago comes with a idea it dont mean it factually true its just a human idea.
I have seen plenty of books/websites refuting evolution then again I have seen people speaking in favour of evolution.
Evolution is in contradiction with the religious scricptures such as Quran
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60
It's not just Darwin's writings that give us evolutionary theory, it is countless researchers and and plethora of scientific data that undoubtedly support it.
it has been proven time and time again conclusively.
You can actually see flies mutations after 35 generations into a whole new species.
The only reason there is any arguement against it is because it contradicts some areas of religion. Denying science due to prioer religious bias is pathetic.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 No it is not religious bias, Iam all in favour of science if it is logical and evolution is not.
Evolution is a modern day religion which scientists follow. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." H. J. Lipson,
F.R.S. "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31 .
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234
Even Darwin himself had doubts about his theory. "NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed." - Charles Darwin
This is still 100% true til this day.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 Bacteria changes all the time. Ever heard of Resistant bacteria? Thats evolution.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991
I have heard it all before. Wheres the proof?
Show me proof of one transitional form? Don' show me a made up picture or something trying to be something which is not.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 Transitional form? In bacteria? You probably cant tell one bacteria from the other, do you even know what they are? Its the PROPERTIES that matter. The fact that if you start a bacteria-colony with say 10 identical bacteria that is killed by antibiotics. If you wait untill there is 10 millions of them, then drop some antiobiotic in there, some will die, others not: Evolution before your eyes.
And here on earth. everything is in its transitional form, since evolution is far from done.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 And if you really want "ths missing link", just read up on the Platypus.
Btw: The reason you have "heard it all before" is becaue that is the purest way of watching evolution that exists.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 No it does not. Transitional forms are very important because evolution theologians claim we come from bacteria, reptiles, apes and all the nonesense etc.. Theres not one form on record but they claim they have it. NO PROOF! Then theres the missing links?? its just one big mess.
Evolution is a lie and trying to brainwashing to make people think the evolution is fact and we are not created from a higher intelligence(thou some believe in both)
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 did you check out the Platypus? How's that for transitional form? An egg-laying mammal with a beak.
And are you trying to tell that just because we dont know everything about evolution, it proves the existance of god, of whom you have no proof whatsoever? How can you demand every single missing piece of a puzzle, untill you accept the whole picture, even though its obvious, while simultaneous pointing at an empty table, claiming that it is something.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991
Again this is going round in circles, you seem to be another stubborn atheist who has a one track mind on evolution. Dont say I am religious bias coz I am in favour of science and GOD.
Have you read any of the religious scripture such as Quran? I suggest you do and if you still think it to be false den fair enuf thats your OPINION at least gave it chance.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 And you seem to be another stubborn theist, that has a one track mind of GOD. You are only in favour of GOd, dont even attempt to say anything else.
No, i have not. Have you studied Biologi, Astrobiology, Physics, History or Chemistry?
Its a Transitional form in its purest of cases! You say that you support Science, yet every single piece of evidence put forth, you neglect as False or Fictional. Just look at yourself! If god created man, why is he faulty? Evolution isnt perfect.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 I said evolution is false and fictional not SCIENCE so get your facts straight. Because I dont' believe in Evolution doesnt mean Iam against Science.
There are many examples of science in the quranic sciptures which was presented 1400 years ago (though people have tried to refute it)
Evolution isnt perfect because it doesnt actually exist and is not true its a man made idea/theory with deficiences.
I say each to their own.
Peace.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 Evolution is based on science ffs! Your arguments are so invalid that you are ridicilous!
You obviously have no idea whatsoever as to what you're talking about. Its like trying to discuss with a rock.
If you dont believe in science, then you dont believe in modern medicines, cars, aeroplanes, Internet, gravity, atoms, chemistry etc. All of whom are based on science. If you dont believe in science, how do you then explain bacteria and diseases that science can counter.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 Your arguments are weak coz you basically trying to say evolution =the whole of science which is not true. Not everybody believes in Evolution so what you trying to say is make believe.
I said I don't believe in Evolution not Science. Its like a arguing with a babboon.
Cars,Aeroplanes, Internet?? what da hell is that got to dow ith evolution..nothing.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 No, but you are talking as if the only science that is acceptable is the one in the quran. Well, technically, you and i are very much like babbons. Since we share the same ancestor. We have some evidence for it, you have none whatsoever. you demand al lthe correct answers for something before you accept something other than what you have no evidence for.
No, but it has to do with science. If you could read, then you wouldve seen that i stated it was part of science, not evolution.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
Evolution is the biggest hoax created by man. No not just quran but I am open to other new discoveries in science which are logical and make sense ( though the quran confirms certain matters written 1400years ago which scientists are only discovering now to be true, thats PROOF in itself).
I am not a babboon but maybe you r in ur head.
As the quran states 16:4 He created the human from a tiny drop, then he turns into an ardent opponent.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 I just believe it is just arrogance in people which is stopping them in believing in a designer because humans think in some ways they are God themselves taking their Ego's as their security and think they are the highest form of being. It's a joke. Humans are so flawed its beyond belief ( Iam not denying the good in which man has done)
Theres no proof of macro evolution and the fossil record is poor evidence with so many missing links/gaps.
Evolution is dead.com
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 So you are saying that there were no correct science 1400 years ago? because they were right then, doesnt prove god -.- And may i ask WHAT the scientists today are discovering that you discovered 1400 years ago?
For example that 1+1=2 is something that have been know for millenia, however proving that it really is so and why is a completely different matter. Same with Gravity.
Oh, but you are. Just look at your genetic code. Not much difference there.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 Such as the stages of the development of the human embryo this has been clarified by professional qualified people e.g Dr Keith Moore.
Also explains how the universe is expanding. It is best you read the book yourself but you prob wont coz you like to keep a blind eye.
The genetic code doesnt mean nothin if it is similar...
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 True i agree not exactly the same but take a squid we haven't had a common ansester with a squid for millions of years yet when it comes to eyes evolution came up with the same end result.
gongme 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 "Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 (Continued) In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing." Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60: talkorigins:
" Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the "tree of life" (Denton 1998, pp. 265-298). For example, in the chapter entitled The Tree of Life from Nature's Destiny, Denton discusses the phylogeny of several closely related species (the primates)...
puncheex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AzAkh60: talkorigins:
"Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the "tree of life" (Denton 1998, pp 265-298). For example, in the chapter entitled The Tree of Life from Nature's Destiny, Denton discusses the phylogeny of several closely related species (the primates)..."
puncheex 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 Its not that they where dumb compared to today they where just doing there best with what they had. But today we have microscopes and computers and all sorts of instruments and can do exsperiments and confirm finding this is science today.Im sure they did alright with local stars and simple things. For example penacilon very easy to discover but it was only recent in the scheme of things.
gongme 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 you can make any thing you want out of religious books there so vauge.
gongme 1 year ago
@gongme Yea you can say that but u cannot disprove that it is not true can you..just conjecture basically ur opinion. Religious books such as the quran is made simple for everybody to understand, some people may not understand the complex ideas/procedures in science etc.. It is for everybody if they want to choose to believe in a creator, it was made to be simple.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 Thats what im saying its simple and was so made up by men i cant believe you can not see this but if you have been brainwashed from birth to believe in fairies you may never see the truth but still will have a good life with your fable just keep it at home dont judge me by your stone age beliefs. I do not have to prove god exist you are saying he is real but have no proof and god likes to be very hide and well hide you cant find it if it does not exist.
gongme 1 year ago
@gongme I have not been brainwashed since birth I have had my doubts as well in the past its only recently I believe 100% in a creator. See you are just expressing your opinion as one human being saying it is written by men all these arguments you raise are explained and refuted in the quran sayin its fairly tales - thats the difference between believers and disbelievers, they will never believe in god even if you saw god b4 your eyes or the angels came down, u just think its magic.
AzAkh60 1 year ago
@AzAkh60 Fool
MHJDenmark 1 year ago