2 Peter 3:5, 6 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
No... that isn't what happened... do you know what really happened? It went something like this, there was a comet approaching Earth, then I got hungry, and ate all the Dinosaurs. The End.
The answer to what happened to the dinosaurs is obvious. Where do we find their fossil remains? Where do we find the fossil remains of millions of other creatures? Answer....in water deposited sediments. Noah's flood 4400 years ago.
why do u assume that trex was a carnivore? oh bc of the teeth. well geez whiz whilaker there are several animals who have sharp teeth that eat fruit and plants AMAZING
@TheLauraAndVickyShow all this happend but goD is real you fuckin tramps i guess you will find out when you slaving in hell getting raped by the devil
Hard scientific facts point to the dinosaur holocaust as being the reason for their genocide. I encourage you to look into the facts people. Dinosaur Hitler caused the dinosaur holocaust.
actually the creator had awesome intentions for his creations. unfortunately some idiot broke the rules and now we suffer because of that idiot. every bad thing that happens is pretty much a result of that idiot who is actually in charge of this planet under the close eye of the creator. the creator is so fair that he is allowing this to happen, and he's even giving that idiot a chance to do what he wants. better sooner than later if you ask me. and never again.
Evolution doesn't say we Came from apes, but rather they evolved right alongside us (and monkeys, chimps, etc.) Homonids evolved from the same ancestor we all had millions of years ago. Not an ape, nor a human, just something that had the potential to become both, and more as it evolved into niches in its environment.
Evolution doesn't disprove God or the bible, instead it shows that a brilliant plan may have been behind it.
Science and God can co-exist quite peacefully if you look...
The Creation order (the first one, not the 2nd one that contradicts the first one),which is DIRECTLY stolen from the Sumerian tablets is compelety wrong.
There was no lifeless earth b4 the Big Bang, he Sky isn't made of water, there was no plants (or earth) b4 SUN, Animals WERE not all created at once.
The Bible stories fairtales about a celstial dictator who created humans imperfect and then punishes them for being imperfect.
Look dude, you're attacking one of your own, and you're taking what I've said out of context. I don't believe in imaginary beings any more than you do. But if the creationists want to at least have an argument they need to take into account what science has PROVEN to be true. Reread my ENTIRE statement, up there, and down there and see that I'm just trying to help them understand that what we know to be fact can still work with their creation story if they open their minds a little.
- at it from a broader perspective. 'Let there be light' could very well mean the big-bang; and technically, evolution started right around then. If you believe the bible to be true to the letter, perhaps God just did humanity a favor by condensing what went on for a few quite a few billion years into something more digestable.
Then as a gift, gave us the mental capacity to figure out the details.
**As for gravedigging... intelligent conversation should be allowed to happen at any time.
a bad analogy. snowflakes aren't made in the image of any one snow flake and they have no mechanism analagous to that idea. your missing the point that they would all look the same if they were
perhaps the better question is, must all images of a given object be the same? or is it not true that if I take a photograph of a car from the front, it appears different than if I take a photograpf from the side? What if I paint the picture of the car? Wont that look different than the photographs?
So, the point of science is to transform a person into the stereotype of "bad"? And all this time, I thought it was trying to help humanity progress. Now that I've seen it your way, I guess I'm pretty obviously wrong. Man, me and my logic. Oh, and don't be dissing sex. You only added that cause you can't get laid.
LOL! yeah... keep 'em THEISories coming... when the last paper from the last theist is written it will be a carbon copy of what the scientist has been saying for centuries....
Why don't pick up a non-fictional book for education today and OPEN your mind before it is to late.
That was actually pretty good there until that end piece where it says that you actually believe in god and shit like that. Gotta admit you do have balls though, if i was dumb enough to believe in god i sure as hell wouldnt tell anyone.
what makes you think that the universe is so simple that only the simple minded would beleive in God? Do you really think that you know all there is to know? what makes you so certain that god cannot exist? Don't you know that the universe doesn't bend you our will? It doesn't fit our pre conceived notions. If it did, the planets would all be evenly spaced, and all time would be neatly divisible by 10 with no remainders. The universe is more complex than u or i can imagine.
"what makes you so certain that god cannot exist?"
And where exactly did I say that? Mmh, again, you have the hobby to invent or distort what I'm saying to counter what I haven't said. I never said that, I just said that Science deals with natural, not supernatural explanations. THAT 'd be fitting with preconceived supernatural SPECIFIC explanation (btw, changing from culture to culture).
"again I was responding to BrettLoveAndPeace. please look before you leap"
OK I'm sorry. all comments show up in one thread
"Its safer to say that you don't know"
Never said that I know, only that Science seeks natural explanations of natural phenomena. D'you know of an observed direct supernatural intervention in a lab? Could you point me to that experiment? Until then, Science has no basis for asserting the objective existence of the supernatural as necessary irrefutable postulate
and no basis for rejecting it either. You believe it when you see it, I see it when I believe it. Logic, is also beyond scientific experimentation. Name one repeatible lab experiment that proves a syllogism without using logic as a basis. Yet science cannot function without logic.
joness, I have no idea what you're leading at anymore. I haven't ever read any scientific peer-reviewed paper in any journal in any field stating at any point that God doesn't exist. Sometimes particles (for example) are postulated, defined and characterized by some properties and their interactions, whereby the consequences of those are derived for later verification or observation. No object in Science is defined that cannot be characterized precisely and functionally.
Intelligent design is rejected on the basis that it involves the supernatural, modern geology thinks the earth is billions of years old, biologists, and ecologists tell us that we evolved from apes. If science hasn't stated that God doesn't exist it implies that if he does exist he is powerless to do anything or rejects any notion of his involvement. Theology, the queen of science, is absolute truth that I cannot deny even if it makes me look a fool.
I never say fool. I'm surprised though after all that talking about logic to find out that your perception of God fits the most human and terrestrial mental scheme I can think of. Plus, some geologists are theists. They just read instruments, and understand creation consequently, perhaps even better. You'd be as excited about natural sciences as you're about Math if you looked open-mindedly, I argue that what refrains you is being afraid of uncertainity, perhaps
I love physics and chemistry. The rest imo is rubbish that while may have once been science, is no longer. Above all theology reigns supreme, with math and logic just below. I am not afraid of uncertainty. Uncertainty surrounds us constantly. You or I could die at any moment. Not even Jesus knew while he was here when the world would end. No Christians live with uncertainty constantly. Faith is all about believing in what cannot be proven.
I find it very arrogant of you to say the rest of science is rubbish. You'd probably refuse vaccines if you're consistent, and wouldn't accpet DNA testing as forensics
You jump from one assertion to another, it's incomprehensible to me what your position is. On one hand you say most science is rubbish and wrongly (I don't agree) excludes god, soon after you admit faith is about believing in what cannot be proven (I agree). You make assertions but never examples of what's wrong
I have never been vaccinated and I don't ever want to get one. Far too many instances of them causing harm. I can cite a recent case in chicago where a boy was infected by his fathers smallpox vaccine. You want an example? Anything that contradicts God's Word is rubbish. The vast majority of things that do this are not repeatable and therefore not testable to my satisfaction.
"Anything that contradicts God's Word is rubbish".
That says it all for me
Note: Lemaitre was a priest, I'm certain he did believe in the Christian God. Nevertheless you cited him as one of your idols, and yet you must consider his most important contribution to theoretical physics rubbish. You're a living contradiction
Finally, I'm almost certain you did have a couple of vaccinations as a little boy. Anyways, many plagues would be threatening us daily without the invention
Yes, I understand. According to your standards Lemaitre was a theist and a scientist who was a good example of a theist who wasn't dumb, in fact he did rubbish science. It all makes sense.
your opinion might be changed if you knew how evolution worked. you dont seem to know what scientist say about the matter and have already made up you mind on the matter. what you said in the above post about science saying we came from apes isn't true. i encourage you to research the subject. it's very interesting! also contrary to what many theists claim, the theory of evolution is not an attempt to disprove god but the consequenses of it do force you to view parts of the bible as metaphorical
I hate gravedigging for starters but if you must. "what you said in the above post about science saying we came from apes isn't true" What gave you that idea? Wikipedia says otherwise and so does Richard Leakey.
"the theory of evolution is not an attempt to disprove god" It may not intend to, however since, "the consequenses of it do force you to view parts of the bible as . . ." then it does in a way "disprove" God. Since God is truth, science must be mistaken. They've been wrong before.
By your measure of men, Blaise Pascal, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Rene Descartes, Fibbunacci, Gottfried Leibniz, John Couch Adams, John Dalton, and Georges Lemaitre must have been pritty dumb, and if you can't comprehend their work you must be even dumber even if you don't believe in God.
"By your measure of men, Blaise Pascal, Carl Friedrich Gauss"
I have no idea what this one responded to, and where I have said anything negative about their work. It seems that you even go so far as to invent what I've said. But countering what I haven't said does not prove any point.
Georges Lemaitre invented the Big bang theory which is how you explain how the universe started without inciting a creator, dont know why you brought him up, he obviously didnt believe in god if he thought that up. John Couch Adams and Carl Friedrich Gauss were both mathmaticians, not scientists so their religious beliefs wouldnt contradict their area of expertise. Can you find me ONE scientist POST Darwin that believes in god?
"Georges LeMaitre (1894-1966) showed that religion and science -- or at least physics -- did not have to be incompatible. LeMaitre, born in Belgium, was a monsignor in the Catholic church." Thats from the pbs website.
also Arthur Stanley Eddington astronomer, 1882-1944. And you still havent countered my assertion that if a beleif in God makes you stupid these men were stupid, and if you can't understand their work you are even dumber.
Let me try n say this again a little clearer "BELIEF IN GOD POST DARWIN IS STUPID" knowing all we know now and still grasping on to religion and biblical ignorance for false comfort and fallacious reasoning. I dont know how i can make it any clearer for you but i hope this is as transparent enough.
thats not what you said before. Basically you started by saying that I was stupid enough to believe in God. I then pointed out great minds who were in your opinion "stupid" even though I am sure you cant begin to comprehend all the works by the people I mentioned. Once this happened you changed your tune.
This is kinda like the true scotsman falacy now. Ex. "No true scientist would believe in God" to which I responded but Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, John Dalton and Fibbunacci were scientists who believed in God. to which you respond "ah but they were not true modern scientists" As to the example of "Georges LeMaitre" I expect no less than to hear from you that he wasn't a true scientist.
Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, John Dalton and Fibbunacci were ALL pre Darwin. Before Darwin, sadly yes, belief in god made sense. Before Darwins Theory of Evolution people on Earth had no real way of explaining how Homo sapiens came into existence.
Everybody knows the REAL reason the dinosaurs went extinct: it's because they were too big to fit into Noah's Ark. Seriously though, you've got to admit this video is as scientific as anything else the creationists have ever offered.
I thought this video was rather humorous. Sticking to the point that we all were created is the important part. Thanks for the laugh and showing a humorous side of Creation.
Nice work Pastoroni - Chuck Norris and Frankie Goes to Hollywood. 80s bonanza! You seem quite funny. Unlike the Bible. I presume you don't believe in all of the Bible, because you seem quite sane.
I'm not sure how to respond to that, as you've phrased it in a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sort of way. Why is it that meaningful dialogue is so difficult for many of my atheist friends? Not that many Christians are any better, but let's not reduce ourselves to name-calling, hm?
Sorry. I didn't think you would take that badly. You really do seem quite sane, and from the sensible things I have heard you say elsewhere I had the strong impression that you were not a fundamentalist. I misunderstood you, and so I apologise for how that must have seemed. I am aiming for meaningful dialogue, that last 'presumption' was actually a sloppy way of checking that you were not the sort of person who believes in EVERY bit of the Bible (which I assert to be irrational.)
I happily call myself a fundamentalist, but only in the historic sense, and not the modern American pseudo-political. I do believe that the bible is what it claims to be, but I also believe that I, as someone trying to listen to what God says, have to let the text speak for itself in it's full context and entirety. That means listening for the intent of the original author, the genre of writing, historical context, original language studies, etc.
So, no, I'm not one of these people who thump the King James bible over people's heads and make weird, anachronistic assertions that the biblical authors hadn't even thought about. Study of ancient texts requires a lot of work. Anyone would agree that the meaning of a stanza in old Will's Macbeth, for example, is generally very different than from, say, Much Ado About Nothing, even when it uses the same words. That's what scholarly study is all about.
Thanks for taking time to reply. You've clarified you are not a literalist, and I heartily agree that study of ancient texts require a lot of work. I've struggled through Pre-Socratic work like fragments of Parmenides' writing and Heraclitus, so I'm with you there. Can I ask, do you think it is blasphemous to say that some of the Bible contains wisdom, some is dull and irrelevant and some is just plain nasty?
I'm not sure I'd be willing to judge it as "blasphemous" for an individual to express an opinion. I certainly have no problem saying that some of the things recorded in scripture are "just plain nasty," but I probably have a different intent than an atheist when I say that. I don't see any portion as "irrelevant" though, since even lengthy genealogies or census lists offer historical insight into Jewish record-keeping & thought.
I would say I'm a "literalist" insofar as it's the TEXT doing the talking, and not me imposing my anachronism on it. I would, however, stand opposed to those who want to treat the text like a 20th century product of a single author - there are so many different genres and intended audiences for the various biblical texts that to treat them otherwise is to simply abuse the intent of the original authors, regardless of whether one believes they are writing under the inspiration of God.
Do you know, I've often found it odd when people find inspiration from a verse in the Bible or use it for exhortation. It's great when people find words of comfort or strength, don't get me wrong, but it generally completely disregards the intent of the original authors. I can't imagine 20th century heathen were the intended audience for ANY of the Bible, without some serious extrapolation, can you?
There's a whole discussion of "inspiration" to be had there, but more importantly one must recognize the many different genres of writing in the bible. Perhaps the census of Numbers 1-2 isn't overly moving, but the poetic or didactic writings are often timeless.
Remember, these are authors writing about what they believe is an absolute, timeless being - so much of what they wrote has future readership in mind. Not that they knew how far into the future, or that we'd be able to pick up a copy of they're writings in our hotel rooms, but people are people. They were people then, they're people now, and like them, we muddle through much of the same stuff on a day to day basis.
I can relate to that - trying to find the common human element in the search of these men (and a few women) is worthwhile. Is there anything you could point to as divine within the words recorded? Or is it something like a matter of the interaction with the reader's mind? I was reading about the idea of non-propositional revelation as well - any thoughts?
Well, from my perspective it's ALL 'theopneustos.' That's the non-existent Greek word that Paul blurted out in 2 Timothy 3:16 in trying to express what scripture is. It's a combination of 'theos', meaning 'God' of course, and 'pneustos' meaning 'breath' or 'spirit.' So, literally, Paul says it's all 'God-breathed' or 'God-spirited,' which some less-dynamic translations render as 'inspired.' So I would point to everything, provided it's in context.
Yes, I know that verse. I never knew it was a coinage of Paul's though - that's interesting. My only problem with this is does it mean writing with God in mind (or 'in a holy kind of mood' if you know what i mean); or does it mean sort of 'channeling' the Holy Spirit, so the words are sort of God's? Sorry about all the questions!!
For many years I asked the same question, mate. Ultimately, it's like having a friend that not many people like - they all ask, "Why do you hang out with him?!"
Ohhhh... okay. Well perhaps you should be responding to one of my more theologically focused videos, rather than this silly piece of fluff. Offering a counter-argument to a one-liner at the end of an animation featuring Chuck Norris really isn't much of an argument at all.
I don't have any problem with the theory of evolution. I *do* have a problem with the theory of evolution when it's enunciated with the specific exclusion of a creator.
unfortunately ,there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for a creator ....believe in God (i sure do) but don't mistake that for scientific evidence or theories
unless you come up with objective evidence for God ...then scientifically, youre just speculating
evolution OTOH is both factual and easily observed OR easily inferred from all the available evidence
you can infer that something happened from evidence it leaves behind -footprints ...science does a lot of that.. the footprints are evidence that something walked there
not all facts in science are from direct observation
there is no physical evidence to suggest that numbers have a relationship, nor has anyone seen euclidean lines or planes. The same is true of logic. I challenge you or anyone to go for a walk in the woods and find evidence that syllogisms exist.
That isnt physical evidence. Thats a logical statement that your brain deduced. Find that in the real world. Just try. You won't find numbers anywhere. They are merely how we describe things. They have a relationship because we have designed rules for them and from those rules we can deduce things. This is not the same as having physical evidence. Also I should point out that 1+1 doesnt nessesarily equal 2 and 2+2 doesnt always equal 4. 1+1 can be 10. 2+2 can be 11 or 10.
"Also I should point out that 1+1 doesnt nessesarily equal 2 and 2+2 doesnt always equal 4. 1+1 can be 10. 2+2 can be 11 or 10"
Explain please, it's nonsense.
I hope you're not referring to change of bases, because, you know, every number is the same object and has the same ptoperty however you write it in any base. In binary, 10+10 is still 100, that is, 2+2 is still 4. Also, any prime is a prime in all bases.
I am refering to change of base. In some feilds of math base has to be specified. 10 could be binary, or hexidecimal just as easily. also with modulo number systems we find situations where 4 isn't a perfect square.
joness, you like to confuse notations and conventions with substance. Two plus two equals four in any base. If you write 10 you must specify the base, "1" and "0" are just symbols, I could use $£ for the number two, that's not the essence. And 4(mod 6) is not the number four in a 1 to 1 correspondence. So yes, 4(mod 6) can be not a perfect square, because 4(mod 6) is not congruent to four. You're saying something like, a marine can be inanimate because marine in italian means seashores. What?
yes oneness and twoness ect are all constant, but notation must be defined. This is why the only reliable way of expressing the concepts of whole numbers exists in set notation. When the number system is not defined chaos ensues.
Chaos ensues only if you don't specify what means what, and play around with it. Someone said 1+1=2, meaning one plus one equals two in any base larger than two. You countered 1+1=10. Option one: Wrong. Option two: unannounced, you chose base two and merely reinstated that one plus one equals two, which disproves nothing of what the other party was claiming. I could choose base ten and (unannounced) choose the symbol % for the number two, and write 1+1=%. What did I prove? Nothing
you are just repeating what I said. you havent even read the context. If we find math in nature it is our own attempts to use the language of logic to understand it.
call it numbers or jiggles or whatever you want. The fact stands that when you associate an arrow of an analogical instrument, a symbol on a digital instrument, an amplitude, a counting, an intensity, to numbers (or jiggles), then you can observe and even predict this will happen that will happen at this time (a number) and that time. If it were ENTIRELY conventional there'd be no correspondence with physical occurrences.
In its purest form it's nothing but logic. Then scientists come and ask a mathematician to help him with something an dthen they figure out how to apply it. There are feilds of math even to day that exist without any application in the sciences. For centuries some parts of number theory were useless to anything in the real world. The truth is that mathematicians create a correspondence with the real world, because they are surrounded by it and because most of them are payed to.
"Then scientists come and ask a mathematician to help him with something an dthen they figure out how to apply it"
Don't exaggerate in onesidededness. That's often the case, not a rule. The Arabs invented a concept so fundamental in Math as zero, for commerce. Newton co-invented infinitesimal calculus, to explain gravity. Dirac invented distributions, a concept only later formalized by mathematicians. Yes, it's logic in its purest form, but it is to some extent grounded on perception
"I *do* have a problem with the theory of evolution when it's enunciated with the specific exclusion of a creator"
I find this sentence weird. Evolution is part of Science. Science explores natural phenomena, not the supernatural. For evolution to call the superatural into the equation would mean Science invades religion. At that point, it'd have to characterize the creator(s). Is it a god? Many gods? Your God? Others' God? Tell me
"if it says that God didn't create mankind, it already has invaded religion"
Uh? Not saying is invasion? Interesting! And why mankind?
Now, I find it interesting that Science invades religion, for example, when it explains lightnings, erathquakes. Because sure enough, there are tribes that believe God does it. You seem quite unsympateic with those fellows of yours. So, WHATEVER Science says is an invasion of some religion of one sort or another.
Then what is "For evolution to call the superatural into the equation would mean Science invades religion. At that point, it'd have to characterize the creator(s). Is it a god? Many gods? Your God? Others' God? Tell me" supposed to mean?
You really like to play around with sophisms not going to the point, do you, joness? I'm saying what I'm saying, which is obvious to any sane person not blinded by preconception or calculus. That is, Science does not invoke the supernatural. THAT would be, IF it DID, invading religion. And IF it did, it'd have to characterize which one god, or how many, interfering at what point, which is absurd. And you know it, but you just prefer being political.
it already invades religion just as you said. you really arent making any sense. You see religion beleives in the supernatural acting upon the natural. When science comes and says that the supernatural does not act upon the natural, it invades religion just as much as if it accepted the existance of the supernatural. I am not being political here. There is no party on you tube running for office, nor have I expressed any politcal views in my commenst on this video.
"When science comes and says that the supernatural does not act upon the natural"
I've been asking for long, exactly how the supernatural acts on the natural. Has it been observed? At what level? Covalent bonding? Replication? Mutation? Strong force? Quantum vacuum fluctuations? Constants of nature? Does the supernaturral determine genes that are passed from parent to son? Selectively preventing/allowing which chemical reactions? You have proofs/experiments, show me
I don't need proof that it does act upon the natural, because its just as big a claim to say that it positivly doesn't. Its safer to say that you don't know. The universe is vast and complex. To say with absolute certainty that there is no supernatural or that it doesn't act on the natural, you yourself must be omniscient. You'd have to be aware of not only what is observable but that which goes on unseen and know everything about everything.
did they died?
GobbieSesh 2 weeks ago
2 Peter 3:5, 6 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
johnthreesixteen316 1 month ago
the video is very bad? - 5 / 5.
zubairkhalid130 1 month ago
Chuck Norris stopped playing golf after that unfortunate incident with the dinosaurs.
JohannesMenn 2 months ago
No... that isn't what happened... do you know what really happened? It went something like this, there was a comet approaching Earth, then I got hungry, and ate all the Dinosaurs. The End.
Imatreethatgrowshear 3 months ago 2
GAY
im415again 4 months ago
lol at 2:15 its Helen Hunt
MadMax2RoadWarrior 5 months ago
The answer to what happened to the dinosaurs is obvious. Where do we find their fossil remains? Where do we find the fossil remains of millions of other creatures? Answer....in water deposited sediments. Noah's flood 4400 years ago.
johnthreesixteen316 7 months ago
Comment removed
johnthreesixteen316 7 months ago
WTF?!
prokayable 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
made a video about is the world going to end in 2012 comment and sub.
Thank You...
Brandon2119891 8 months ago
that was shit but kinda funny
shughes375 9 months ago
why do u assume that trex was a carnivore? oh bc of the teeth. well geez whiz whilaker there are several animals who have sharp teeth that eat fruit and plants AMAZING
MIT2004 10 months ago
Amusing video...except for that god nonsense.
davidls11 1 year ago 2
god isnt real.
the earth was made by the big back,
and other millions of years, it formed the earth
earth started and all the counrties were formed together,
the tectonic plates then moved.
humans were made by cells.
and dinosaurs went when a comet hit earth,
antartica used to be green.
TheLauraAndVickyShow 1 year ago
@TheLauraAndVickyShow all this happend but goD is real you fuckin tramps i guess you will find out when you slaving in hell getting raped by the devil
SHAWNINDAUSN 1 year ago
this is suck ..u are stupid as creat this video
1zootub 1 year ago
''Christians are going to win ALL the arguments''
They lost the one about a flood 4400 years ago, they lost that argument over 200 years ago.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Synopsis: Ha ha ha, giggle, giggle, giggle, he, he, he, oh and God created you, Jesus loves you blah blah blah.
Kudos to the creationists for quite appropriately moving to the comedy section.
videohaure 1 year ago
What happened to the dinosaurs, not much, the big ones went extinct, the feathered ones are doing fine.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
tbart318 1 year ago
Hard scientific facts point to the dinosaur holocaust as being the reason for their genocide. I encourage you to look into the facts people. Dinosaur Hitler caused the dinosaur holocaust.
mackawack12346 1 year ago
@mackawack12346 it was Dino Stalin ACTUALLY
emperormiester 1 year ago
lol.. haha, it makes me laugh. thumbs up :) chuck norris ..ur such an angel!! :]
1995faith 1 year ago
Warning the following program contains graphic scenes of awsomeness. ROFL so dumb.
DJSbros 1 year ago
actually the creator had awesome intentions for his creations. unfortunately some idiot broke the rules and now we suffer because of that idiot. every bad thing that happens is pretty much a result of that idiot who is actually in charge of this planet under the close eye of the creator. the creator is so fair that he is allowing this to happen, and he's even giving that idiot a chance to do what he wants. better sooner than later if you ask me. and never again.
recklesswit2891 1 year ago
pancakes
jackassqwe1 2 years ago
hahah cute puppies
ANDREW26101 2 years ago
Nice digs Christian Ninja's...can you make a 4 min clip of this?
samiam92570 2 years ago
LOLOLOLOL!! Chuck Norris, classic.
brmadman4455 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear no Evil See no Evil Feel no Evil.....
The truth will set you free.... =D
PaulWayneBarnett 2 years ago
the pistons music
Sloan22406 2 years ago
awsome music
moriahid 2 years ago
rail
TIMWISDOM 2 years ago
YES i knew it was chuck
nNorthWestern 3 years ago
Thank you, I knew it all the time that there´s truth out there. And now, it finally came to knowledge.
okmasko 3 years ago
WAIT... 6 days to make the universe... then it took 400 years to come up with Chuck Norris ?!?! FAKE
oh, and by the way.... The first man was apparently Paul Reiser... not Bruce Willis. =) Pretty funny video for Christianity pushing.
jimrbsn 3 years ago
Hominid, not homonid, as I misspelled below.
reydelaisla 3 years ago
Evolution doesn't say we Came from apes, but rather they evolved right alongside us (and monkeys, chimps, etc.) Homonids evolved from the same ancestor we all had millions of years ago. Not an ape, nor a human, just something that had the potential to become both, and more as it evolved into niches in its environment.
Evolution doesn't disprove God or the bible, instead it shows that a brilliant plan may have been behind it.
Science and God can co-exist quite peacefully if you look...
reydelaisla 3 years ago
Are you high?
The Creation order (the first one, not the 2nd one that contradicts the first one),which is DIRECTLY stolen from the Sumerian tablets is compelety wrong.
There was no lifeless earth b4 the Big Bang, he Sky isn't made of water, there was no plants (or earth) b4 SUN, Animals WERE not all created at once.
The Bible stories fairtales about a celstial dictator who created humans imperfect and then punishes them for being imperfect.
Bible god is 6000 years younger than farminglol
buffdaddy3144 3 years ago 2
Look dude, you're attacking one of your own, and you're taking what I've said out of context. I don't believe in imaginary beings any more than you do. But if the creationists want to at least have an argument they need to take into account what science has PROVEN to be true. Reread my ENTIRE statement, up there, and down there and see that I'm just trying to help them understand that what we know to be fact can still work with their creation story if they open their minds a little.
reydelaisla 3 years ago 2
You shouldn't even humour their creation stories.
Band-Aid, 1 motion, right off...
Creationists, Youtube "we must teach creationism", nuff said.
buffdaddy3144 3 years ago
@buffdaddy3144 LOL your crazy ROFL I cant stop laughing at you
greenhornet123 1 year ago
- at it from a broader perspective. 'Let there be light' could very well mean the big-bang; and technically, evolution started right around then. If you believe the bible to be true to the letter, perhaps God just did humanity a favor by condensing what went on for a few quite a few billion years into something more digestable.
Then as a gift, gave us the mental capacity to figure out the details.
**As for gravedigging... intelligent conversation should be allowed to happen at any time.
reydelaisla 3 years ago
I liked when the man and woman hid behind the sofa!
Tamaldo 3 years ago
how can we be created in gods image and all be unique at the same time?
Danny22000 3 years ago
How can all snowflakes be unique and still be snowflakes made of water?
joness105639 3 years ago
a bad analogy. snowflakes aren't made in the image of any one snow flake and they have no mechanism analagous to that idea. your missing the point that they would all look the same if they were
Danny22000 3 years ago
please read all posts before replying
joness105639 3 years ago
perhaps the better question is, must all images of a given object be the same? or is it not true that if I take a photograph of a car from the front, it appears different than if I take a photograpf from the side? What if I paint the picture of the car? Wont that look different than the photographs?
joness105639 3 years ago
haha my only mistake "The Village People"
radguy66 3 years ago
this video made me laugh until you gane that pathetic christian message at the end
999VINCENT666 3 years ago
God didn't create waffles and ice cream we did you don't find waffles and ice cream grow on trees you know.
CharlieTeague 3 years ago
Yeah but God created the people that created those things, making him ultimately responsible.
Dustyn211 3 years ago
final countdown, awesome..
Shmeurung9 4 years ago
crono trigger lol
Zombiefisting 4 years ago
So, the point of science is to transform a person into the stereotype of "bad"? And all this time, I thought it was trying to help humanity progress. Now that I've seen it your way, I guess I'm pretty obviously wrong. Man, me and my logic. Oh, and don't be dissing sex. You only added that cause you can't get laid.
dailycorrectness 4 years ago 2
lmfao
yoyo6450 4 years ago
LOL! yeah... keep 'em THEISories coming... when the last paper from the last theist is written it will be a carbon copy of what the scientist has been saying for centuries....
Why don't pick up a non-fictional book for education today and OPEN your mind before it is to late.
Paxmax 4 years ago
Wow do you understand how contradictory your statement was?
MelancholyWindmill 4 years ago
nope
Paxmax 4 years ago
LMAO god, whatever.
striderUK360 4 years ago
umm... nice try?
Darcis12321 4 years ago
Very entertaining
johanovich777 4 years ago
Oh my goodness! Chuck Norris as avenging angel LMBO. Bless
deborahbetty58 4 years ago
Funny video
But that last bit is exactly why people believe: they want to be important.
To be entirely non-important is many people's worst nightmare.
philip1201 4 years ago
... Yeah.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
As an atheist I'll give you that I liked the vid. Well made and made me chuckle.
maynardgravy 4 years ago
lol
tghori2 4 years ago
I am an Atheist.. but that was wonderfully funny.. kudos! "Cool Noise"
mewtwo523 4 years ago
you're so stupid
get an education. ignorance is not a worldview
superfisto 4 years ago
It has a lot of followers though LOL
deborahbetty58 4 years ago
you lost me at chuck norris
rd1999 4 years ago
OMG THIS VID IS SO STUPID...but disturbingly awesome! LOL
theatb89 4 years ago
you need 2 try smoking some weed,- fuckstick!
homerbear46 4 years ago
I've never laughed at something so stupid in all my life
timefilm 4 years ago
they died.
xshoootgun 4 years ago
chuck norris saved me and 4 puppies from drowing when i was less than a year old. thank you jesus!!!
fireandashes36 4 years ago
man fuck this video , this piece of trash is making fun of God and the bible. who ever made this is gonna answer for this.
josueanthonylpz 4 years ago
Christian love...
markonamission 4 years ago
Love it...thanks...there is God.
Saravuth1111 4 years ago
That was actually pretty good there until that end piece where it says that you actually believe in god and shit like that. Gotta admit you do have balls though, if i was dumb enough to believe in god i sure as hell wouldnt tell anyone.
BrettLoveAndPeace 4 years ago
what makes you think that the universe is so simple that only the simple minded would beleive in God? Do you really think that you know all there is to know? what makes you so certain that god cannot exist? Don't you know that the universe doesn't bend you our will? It doesn't fit our pre conceived notions. If it did, the planets would all be evenly spaced, and all time would be neatly divisible by 10 with no remainders. The universe is more complex than u or i can imagine.
joness105639 4 years ago
"what makes you so certain that god cannot exist?"
And where exactly did I say that? Mmh, again, you have the hobby to invent or distort what I'm saying to counter what I haven't said. I never said that, I just said that Science deals with natural, not supernatural explanations. THAT 'd be fitting with preconceived supernatural SPECIFIC explanation (btw, changing from culture to culture).
schrodcat 4 years ago
again I was responding to BrettLoveAndPeace. please look before you leap.
joness105639 4 years ago
"again I was responding to BrettLoveAndPeace. please look before you leap"
OK I'm sorry. all comments show up in one thread
"Its safer to say that you don't know"
Never said that I know, only that Science seeks natural explanations of natural phenomena. D'you know of an observed direct supernatural intervention in a lab? Could you point me to that experiment? Until then, Science has no basis for asserting the objective existence of the supernatural as necessary irrefutable postulate
schrodcat 4 years ago
and no basis for rejecting it either. You believe it when you see it, I see it when I believe it. Logic, is also beyond scientific experimentation. Name one repeatible lab experiment that proves a syllogism without using logic as a basis. Yet science cannot function without logic.
joness105639 4 years ago
joness, I have no idea what you're leading at anymore. I haven't ever read any scientific peer-reviewed paper in any journal in any field stating at any point that God doesn't exist. Sometimes particles (for example) are postulated, defined and characterized by some properties and their interactions, whereby the consequences of those are derived for later verification or observation. No object in Science is defined that cannot be characterized precisely and functionally.
schrodcat 4 years ago
Intelligent design is rejected on the basis that it involves the supernatural, modern geology thinks the earth is billions of years old, biologists, and ecologists tell us that we evolved from apes. If science hasn't stated that God doesn't exist it implies that if he does exist he is powerless to do anything or rejects any notion of his involvement. Theology, the queen of science, is absolute truth that I cannot deny even if it makes me look a fool.
joness105639 4 years ago
I never say fool. I'm surprised though after all that talking about logic to find out that your perception of God fits the most human and terrestrial mental scheme I can think of. Plus, some geologists are theists. They just read instruments, and understand creation consequently, perhaps even better. You'd be as excited about natural sciences as you're about Math if you looked open-mindedly, I argue that what refrains you is being afraid of uncertainity, perhaps
schrodcat 4 years ago
I love physics and chemistry. The rest imo is rubbish that while may have once been science, is no longer. Above all theology reigns supreme, with math and logic just below. I am not afraid of uncertainty. Uncertainty surrounds us constantly. You or I could die at any moment. Not even Jesus knew while he was here when the world would end. No Christians live with uncertainty constantly. Faith is all about believing in what cannot be proven.
joness105639 4 years ago
joness
I find it very arrogant of you to say the rest of science is rubbish. You'd probably refuse vaccines if you're consistent, and wouldn't accpet DNA testing as forensics
You jump from one assertion to another, it's incomprehensible to me what your position is. On one hand you say most science is rubbish and wrongly (I don't agree) excludes god, soon after you admit faith is about believing in what cannot be proven (I agree). You make assertions but never examples of what's wrong
schrodcat 4 years ago
I have never been vaccinated and I don't ever want to get one. Far too many instances of them causing harm. I can cite a recent case in chicago where a boy was infected by his fathers smallpox vaccine. You want an example? Anything that contradicts God's Word is rubbish. The vast majority of things that do this are not repeatable and therefore not testable to my satisfaction.
joness105639 4 years ago
"Anything that contradicts God's Word is rubbish".
That says it all for me
Note: Lemaitre was a priest, I'm certain he did believe in the Christian God. Nevertheless you cited him as one of your idols, and yet you must consider his most important contribution to theoretical physics rubbish. You're a living contradiction
Finally, I'm almost certain you did have a couple of vaccinations as a little boy. Anyways, many plagues would be threatening us daily without the invention
schrodcat 4 years ago
i dont idolize lemaitre. I simply cited him as a theist who wasn't dumb
joness105639 4 years ago
Yes, I understand. According to your standards Lemaitre was a theist and a scientist who was a good example of a theist who wasn't dumb, in fact he did rubbish science. It all makes sense.
schrodcat 4 years ago
your opinion might be changed if you knew how evolution worked. you dont seem to know what scientist say about the matter and have already made up you mind on the matter. what you said in the above post about science saying we came from apes isn't true. i encourage you to research the subject. it's very interesting! also contrary to what many theists claim, the theory of evolution is not an attempt to disprove god but the consequenses of it do force you to view parts of the bible as metaphorical
Danny22000 3 years ago
I hate gravedigging for starters but if you must. "what you said in the above post about science saying we came from apes isn't true" What gave you that idea? Wikipedia says otherwise and so does Richard Leakey.
"the theory of evolution is not an attempt to disprove god" It may not intend to, however since, "the consequenses of it do force you to view parts of the bible as . . ." then it does in a way "disprove" God. Since God is truth, science must be mistaken. They've been wrong before.
joness105639 3 years ago
By your measure of men, Blaise Pascal, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Rene Descartes, Fibbunacci, Gottfried Leibniz, John Couch Adams, John Dalton, and Georges Lemaitre must have been pritty dumb, and if you can't comprehend their work you must be even dumber even if you don't believe in God.
joness105639 4 years ago
"By your measure of men, Blaise Pascal, Carl Friedrich Gauss"
I have no idea what this one responded to, and where I have said anything negative about their work. It seems that you even go so far as to invent what I've said. But countering what I haven't said does not prove any point.
schrodcat 4 years ago
I was responding to BrettLoveAndPeace. Look before you leap.
joness105639 4 years ago
Georges Lemaitre invented the Big bang theory which is how you explain how the universe started without inciting a creator, dont know why you brought him up, he obviously didnt believe in god if he thought that up. John Couch Adams and Carl Friedrich Gauss were both mathmaticians, not scientists so their religious beliefs wouldnt contradict their area of expertise. Can you find me ONE scientist POST Darwin that believes in god?
BrettLoveAndPeace 4 years ago
"Georges LeMaitre (1894-1966) showed that religion and science -- or at least physics -- did not have to be incompatible. LeMaitre, born in Belgium, was a monsignor in the Catholic church." Thats from the pbs website.
joness105639 4 years ago
also Arthur Stanley Eddington astronomer, 1882-1944. And you still havent countered my assertion that if a beleif in God makes you stupid these men were stupid, and if you can't understand their work you are even dumber.
joness105639 4 years ago
Let me try n say this again a little clearer "BELIEF IN GOD POST DARWIN IS STUPID" knowing all we know now and still grasping on to religion and biblical ignorance for false comfort and fallacious reasoning. I dont know how i can make it any clearer for you but i hope this is as transparent enough.
BrettLoveAndPeace 4 years ago
thats not what you said before. Basically you started by saying that I was stupid enough to believe in God. I then pointed out great minds who were in your opinion "stupid" even though I am sure you cant begin to comprehend all the works by the people I mentioned. Once this happened you changed your tune.
joness105639 4 years ago
This is kinda like the true scotsman falacy now. Ex. "No true scientist would believe in God" to which I responded but Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, John Dalton and Fibbunacci were scientists who believed in God. to which you respond "ah but they were not true modern scientists" As to the example of "Georges LeMaitre" I expect no less than to hear from you that he wasn't a true scientist.
joness105639 4 years ago
For how many of those scientists was heresey punishable by death? That might have something to do with their declared beliefs.
genuinecanadianprick 4 years ago
youtube ken miller
Danny22000 3 years ago
gravedigger
joness105639 3 years ago
i wasnt grave digging. he is just one of many theist scientists
Danny22000 3 years ago
you are posting a comment on a thread that has seen no activity for a year. That is grave digging.
joness105639 3 years ago
ah thank you for defining the word for me i thought it meant somthing else. ill look out from now on. i dont see why gravedigging is bad though
Danny22000 3 years ago
Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, John Dalton and Fibbunacci were ALL pre Darwin. Before Darwin, sadly yes, belief in god made sense. Before Darwins Theory of Evolution people on Earth had no real way of explaining how Homo sapiens came into existence.
BrettLoveAndPeace 4 years ago
Out of all the lies I'v heard, That was the biggest lie, The Biggest load of crap i ever herad.
ceitiosaurus 4 years ago
Bloody hilarious. Shows exactly how dumb creationism is. Props for making (or at least posting) this.
Clifftothemax 4 years ago
i like it, very monty pythonesque!
greattlemurs 4 years ago
Yep, that's how it happened alright.
;)
lplate67 4 years ago
Everybody knows the REAL reason the dinosaurs went extinct: it's because they were too big to fit into Noah's Ark. Seriously though, you've got to admit this video is as scientific as anything else the creationists have ever offered.
sprucefan 4 years ago
I totally called it. Good vid!
chadagg 5 years ago
Great video. I loved it!
Blaze25z 5 years ago
I thought this video was rather humorous. Sticking to the point that we all were created is the important part. Thanks for the laugh and showing a humorous side of Creation.
tootacky3 5 years ago
I'll watch anything with Helen Hunt. I think she's...oh darn I just thought sinned. Darn I did it again.
owheydusoapsk 5 years ago
or 21st century for that matter... doh! ;)
CharlieBBoy12345 5 years ago
Btw: happy new year everyone! May 2007 be fun for all!
CharlieBBoy12345 5 years ago
Nice work Pastoroni - Chuck Norris and Frankie Goes to Hollywood. 80s bonanza! You seem quite funny. Unlike the Bible. I presume you don't believe in all of the Bible, because you seem quite sane.
CharlieBBoy12345 5 years ago
I'm not sure how to respond to that, as you've phrased it in a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sort of way. Why is it that meaningful dialogue is so difficult for many of my atheist friends? Not that many Christians are any better, but let's not reduce ourselves to name-calling, hm?
Pastoroni 5 years ago
Sorry. I didn't think you would take that badly. You really do seem quite sane, and from the sensible things I have heard you say elsewhere I had the strong impression that you were not a fundamentalist. I misunderstood you, and so I apologise for how that must have seemed. I am aiming for meaningful dialogue, that last 'presumption' was actually a sloppy way of checking that you were not the sort of person who believes in EVERY bit of the Bible (which I assert to be irrational.)
CharlieBBoy12345 5 years ago
I happily call myself a fundamentalist, but only in the historic sense, and not the modern American pseudo-political. I do believe that the bible is what it claims to be, but I also believe that I, as someone trying to listen to what God says, have to let the text speak for itself in it's full context and entirety. That means listening for the intent of the original author, the genre of writing, historical context, original language studies, etc.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
So, no, I'm not one of these people who thump the King James bible over people's heads and make weird, anachronistic assertions that the biblical authors hadn't even thought about. Study of ancient texts requires a lot of work. Anyone would agree that the meaning of a stanza in old Will's Macbeth, for example, is generally very different than from, say, Much Ado About Nothing, even when it uses the same words. That's what scholarly study is all about.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
Thanks for taking time to reply. You've clarified you are not a literalist, and I heartily agree that study of ancient texts require a lot of work. I've struggled through Pre-Socratic work like fragments of Parmenides' writing and Heraclitus, so I'm with you there. Can I ask, do you think it is blasphemous to say that some of the Bible contains wisdom, some is dull and irrelevant and some is just plain nasty?
CharlieBBoy12345 5 years ago
I'm not sure I'd be willing to judge it as "blasphemous" for an individual to express an opinion. I certainly have no problem saying that some of the things recorded in scripture are "just plain nasty," but I probably have a different intent than an atheist when I say that. I don't see any portion as "irrelevant" though, since even lengthy genealogies or census lists offer historical insight into Jewish record-keeping & thought.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
I would say I'm a "literalist" insofar as it's the TEXT doing the talking, and not me imposing my anachronism on it. I would, however, stand opposed to those who want to treat the text like a 20th century product of a single author - there are so many different genres and intended audiences for the various biblical texts that to treat them otherwise is to simply abuse the intent of the original authors, regardless of whether one believes they are writing under the inspiration of God.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
Do you know, I've often found it odd when people find inspiration from a verse in the Bible or use it for exhortation. It's great when people find words of comfort or strength, don't get me wrong, but it generally completely disregards the intent of the original authors. I can't imagine 20th century heathen were the intended audience for ANY of the Bible, without some serious extrapolation, can you?
CharlieBBoy12345 5 years ago
There's a whole discussion of "inspiration" to be had there, but more importantly one must recognize the many different genres of writing in the bible. Perhaps the census of Numbers 1-2 isn't overly moving, but the poetic or didactic writings are often timeless.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
Remember, these are authors writing about what they believe is an absolute, timeless being - so much of what they wrote has future readership in mind. Not that they knew how far into the future, or that we'd be able to pick up a copy of they're writings in our hotel rooms, but people are people. They were people then, they're people now, and like them, we muddle through much of the same stuff on a day to day basis.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
I can relate to that - trying to find the common human element in the search of these men (and a few women) is worthwhile. Is there anything you could point to as divine within the words recorded? Or is it something like a matter of the interaction with the reader's mind? I was reading about the idea of non-propositional revelation as well - any thoughts?
CharlieBBoy12345 5 years ago
Well, from my perspective it's ALL 'theopneustos.' That's the non-existent Greek word that Paul blurted out in 2 Timothy 3:16 in trying to express what scripture is. It's a combination of 'theos', meaning 'God' of course, and 'pneustos' meaning 'breath' or 'spirit.' So, literally, Paul says it's all 'God-breathed' or 'God-spirited,' which some less-dynamic translations render as 'inspired.' So I would point to everything, provided it's in context.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
Yes, I know that verse. I never knew it was a coinage of Paul's though - that's interesting. My only problem with this is does it mean writing with God in mind (or 'in a holy kind of mood' if you know what i mean); or does it mean sort of 'channeling' the Holy Spirit, so the words are sort of God's? Sorry about all the questions!!
CharlieBBoy12345 5 years ago
The funniest part was the messages at the end. What could possibly drive someone that SEEMS as intelligent as you to believe this stuff?
constust 5 years ago
For many years I asked the same question, mate. Ultimately, it's like having a friend that not many people like - they all ask, "Why do you hang out with him?!"
Pastoroni 5 years ago
my purpose is to experience infinite love not to follow a figure recycled from paganism. i am a spiritual being having a human experience
buckfush818 5 years ago
Ummmmmmm.... what? How is that even remotely related to the video?
Pastoroni 5 years ago
it is related because the message at the end is i am to discover myself through christ
buckfush818 5 years ago
Ohhhh... okay. Well perhaps you should be responding to one of my more theologically focused videos, rather than this silly piece of fluff. Offering a counter-argument to a one-liner at the end of an animation featuring Chuck Norris really isn't much of an argument at all.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
Wow that's the best argument in favor of evolution I think I've ever heard
Godkillersg0 5 years ago
I don't have any problem with the theory of evolution. I *do* have a problem with the theory of evolution when it's enunciated with the specific exclusion of a creator.
Pastoroni 5 years ago
unfortunately ,there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for a creator ....believe in God (i sure do) but don't mistake that for scientific evidence or theories
unless you come up with objective evidence for God ...then scientifically, youre just speculating
evolution OTOH is both factual and easily observed OR easily inferred from all the available evidence
dancingnature 5 years ago
I agreed with everything you said until that last part. How can something be factual OR inferred? Either it's a fact or it isn't, right?
Pastoroni 5 years ago
you can infer that something happened from evidence it leaves behind -footprints ...science does a lot of that.. the footprints are evidence that something walked there
not all facts in science are from direct observation
dancingnature 5 years ago
In that case mathematics is pure speculation and so are the laws of logic.
joness105639 5 years ago
math is merely abstract ..that numbers have a relationship is not speculation
dancingnature 4 years ago
there is no physical evidence to suggest that numbers have a relationship, nor has anyone seen euclidean lines or planes. The same is true of logic. I challenge you or anyone to go for a walk in the woods and find evidence that syllogisms exist.
joness105639 4 years ago
1+1=2
2+2=4
numbers have a relationship
dancingnature 4 years ago
That isnt physical evidence. Thats a logical statement that your brain deduced. Find that in the real world. Just try. You won't find numbers anywhere. They are merely how we describe things. They have a relationship because we have designed rules for them and from those rules we can deduce things. This is not the same as having physical evidence. Also I should point out that 1+1 doesnt nessesarily equal 2 and 2+2 doesnt always equal 4. 1+1 can be 10. 2+2 can be 11 or 10.
joness105639 4 years ago
joness
"Also I should point out that 1+1 doesnt nessesarily equal 2 and 2+2 doesnt always equal 4. 1+1 can be 10. 2+2 can be 11 or 10"
Explain please, it's nonsense.
I hope you're not referring to change of bases, because, you know, every number is the same object and has the same ptoperty however you write it in any base. In binary, 10+10 is still 100, that is, 2+2 is still 4. Also, any prime is a prime in all bases.
schrodcat 4 years ago
I am refering to change of base. In some feilds of math base has to be specified. 10 could be binary, or hexidecimal just as easily. also with modulo number systems we find situations where 4 isn't a perfect square.
joness105639 4 years ago
joness, you like to confuse notations and conventions with substance. Two plus two equals four in any base. If you write 10 you must specify the base, "1" and "0" are just symbols, I could use $£ for the number two, that's not the essence. And 4(mod 6) is not the number four in a 1 to 1 correspondence. So yes, 4(mod 6) can be not a perfect square, because 4(mod 6) is not congruent to four. You're saying something like, a marine can be inanimate because marine in italian means seashores. What?
schrodcat 4 years ago
yes oneness and twoness ect are all constant, but notation must be defined. This is why the only reliable way of expressing the concepts of whole numbers exists in set notation. When the number system is not defined chaos ensues.
joness105639 4 years ago
Chaos ensues only if you don't specify what means what, and play around with it. Someone said 1+1=2, meaning one plus one equals two in any base larger than two. You countered 1+1=10. Option one: Wrong. Option two: unannounced, you chose base two and merely reinstated that one plus one equals two, which disproves nothing of what the other party was claiming. I could choose base ten and (unannounced) choose the symbol % for the number two, and write 1+1=%. What did I prove? Nothing
schrodcat 4 years ago
you are just repeating what I said. you havent even read the context. If we find math in nature it is our own attempts to use the language of logic to understand it.
joness105639 4 years ago
joness
call it numbers or jiggles or whatever you want. The fact stands that when you associate an arrow of an analogical instrument, a symbol on a digital instrument, an amplitude, a counting, an intensity, to numbers (or jiggles), then you can observe and even predict this will happen that will happen at this time (a number) and that time. If it were ENTIRELY conventional there'd be no correspondence with physical occurrences.
schrodcat 4 years ago
In its purest form it's nothing but logic. Then scientists come and ask a mathematician to help him with something an dthen they figure out how to apply it. There are feilds of math even to day that exist without any application in the sciences. For centuries some parts of number theory were useless to anything in the real world. The truth is that mathematicians create a correspondence with the real world, because they are surrounded by it and because most of them are payed to.
joness105639 4 years ago
"Then scientists come and ask a mathematician to help him with something an dthen they figure out how to apply it"
Don't exaggerate in onesidededness. That's often the case, not a rule. The Arabs invented a concept so fundamental in Math as zero, for commerce. Newton co-invented infinitesimal calculus, to explain gravity. Dirac invented distributions, a concept only later formalized by mathematicians. Yes, it's logic in its purest form, but it is to some extent grounded on perception
schrodcat 4 years ago
Pastoroni, I liked the video.
However, in one response you say:
"I *do* have a problem with the theory of evolution when it's enunciated with the specific exclusion of a creator"
I find this sentence weird. Evolution is part of Science. Science explores natural phenomena, not the supernatural. For evolution to call the superatural into the equation would mean Science invades religion. At that point, it'd have to characterize the creator(s). Is it a god? Many gods? Your God? Others' God? Tell me
schrodcat 4 years ago
if it says that God didn't create mankind, it already has invaded religion.
joness105639 4 years ago
"if it says that God didn't create mankind, it already has invaded religion"
Uh? Not saying is invasion? Interesting! And why mankind?
Now, I find it interesting that Science invades religion, for example, when it explains lightnings, erathquakes. Because sure enough, there are tribes that believe God does it. You seem quite unsympateic with those fellows of yours. So, WHATEVER Science says is an invasion of some religion of one sort or another.
schrodcat 4 years ago
Then what is "For evolution to call the superatural into the equation would mean Science invades religion. At that point, it'd have to characterize the creator(s). Is it a god? Many gods? Your God? Others' God? Tell me" supposed to mean?
joness105639 4 years ago
You really like to play around with sophisms not going to the point, do you, joness? I'm saying what I'm saying, which is obvious to any sane person not blinded by preconception or calculus. That is, Science does not invoke the supernatural. THAT would be, IF it DID, invading religion. And IF it did, it'd have to characterize which one god, or how many, interfering at what point, which is absurd. And you know it, but you just prefer being political.
schrodcat 4 years ago
it already invades religion just as you said. you really arent making any sense. You see religion beleives in the supernatural acting upon the natural. When science comes and says that the supernatural does not act upon the natural, it invades religion just as much as if it accepted the existance of the supernatural. I am not being political here. There is no party on you tube running for office, nor have I expressed any politcal views in my commenst on this video.
joness105639 4 years ago
"When science comes and says that the supernatural does not act upon the natural"
I've been asking for long, exactly how the supernatural acts on the natural. Has it been observed? At what level? Covalent bonding? Replication? Mutation? Strong force? Quantum vacuum fluctuations? Constants of nature? Does the supernaturral determine genes that are passed from parent to son? Selectively preventing/allowing which chemical reactions? You have proofs/experiments, show me
schrodcat 4 years ago
I don't need proof that it does act upon the natural, because its just as big a claim to say that it positivly doesn't. Its safer to say that you don't know. The universe is vast and complex. To say with absolute certainty that there is no supernatural or that it doesn't act on the natural, you yourself must be omniscient. You'd have to be aware of not only what is observable but that which goes on unseen and know everything about everything.
joness105639 4 years ago
That was amazing. I nominate you for an Emmy.
twicedouble 5 years ago
awesome vid.
cdk007 5 years ago
That was like....a rollercoaster ride on caffeine. Pretty hillarious when Chuck comes in. Good stuff!
philos71 5 years ago