Atheism is a religion too. Look closely: aTHEISM. It is still a stance, still a belief system, so it is a religion. One could argue that prophets or spiritual leaders of this religion are Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, etc. So it is very funny that you are bashing THEISM, while you yourself are an aTHEIST!
@MaIcoImZieI: if atheism is a belief, then asocial is being social, assymetrical is symetrical, etc. Look closely: A-theism. The "A" meaning "NOT". It's a stance, yes: a lack of belief in gods. However, it's not a belief, nor a system, nor a religion. There are no prophets, no spiritual leaders, etc. Atheism is simply not believing your bullshit.
A + (theos + ism) = not + (gods + belief in) = NOT a belief in gods. That's what Atheism means. Not the lame bullshit you spout.
The life of an atheists. What is the purpose of pushing natural selection? I was never quite an atheists, but at one point I did believe theistic evolution. More or less, intelligent design. But I know now that the six day creation is better suited towards the Word of God and what it says. Not blind faith, but an spiritual insight on understanding the reality of God's creation.
atheist must believe in this supernatural phenomena in order to keep being an atheist and any statement? of affirmation regarding abiogenesis is a statement of faith, directly on par with the religious statements of faith they so joyously deride. The only difference is the cloak of naturalism that they put over their supernatural belief in order to hide their faith from themselves.
@NicheFindersInc: That's what the CREATIONIST STRAWMAN says. Not what REALITY says. In reality, there's absolutely nothing supernatural about Abiogenesis and no faith at all is required for anything. We have done tests and we have clear indications of completely natural processes forming the building blocks of life. At the moment, we don't know the exact processes for the complete progression of non-life to life, which is why Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis right now. No faith, no supernatural.
@vipaccess1: Dawkins isn't my hero and all throughout history, we see scientists figuring things out, but when they've reached their limits, they fuck it up by saying "God did it". God is the ignorance of man. The more we know, the less we believe in God. I'm fortunate to know enough to no longer believe in said imaginary being.
@vipaccess1: no, there are no digital codes. DNA is not digital, it's a result of nature. There's no sign of any intelligence being involved in any of the processes. There's absolutely no sign of anything divine in anything at all. There are no gods and certainly not YOUR god, which is proven to be imagined by mankind.
I don't DENY he exists, I accept the fact that he doesn't exist.
What you're doing, is riciting typical creationist bullshit which has been debunked a billion times over.
@PJDesseyn, Francis Crick is hardly a creationist, he is the one who used letters to identify digital codes.... You deliberately distort the truth to appeases your iron conscience. Atheist hide behind phony science and thats all your doing.
@vipaccess1: I never mentioned Crick, nor his religiosity. Also, him using letters to identify digital codes, doesn't make DNA a digital code. It's a creationist lie to call DNA a digital code. It's purely natural, arisen through natural processes with no magic whatsoever. I don't distort the truth, I present it. And I use REAL science to prove my points, not creationist lies.
@vipaccess1: of course we can't agree. I present the truth and support it with loads of scientific facts, while you want to destroy the truth and throw us all back into the Dark Ages with your lies and deceit. You have NOTHING to support your case.
Go on, I dare you to present scientific evidence for your beliefs.
BTW - Digital codes are the information that exist on the stands of DNA and are why DNA functions. with out the codes life would not exist........ thanks for the debate.....
Actually to say a house was build by random chance rather than an Intelligent designer would be foolish!! a darkened heart leaves you only chance, sad you will never know the God who made you to know him.
@vipaccess1: ever heard of caves? Also, "random chance" is but a tiny part of the whole process. That's something you crazies refuse to understand. You look at a tiny speck of the spectrum, and give injustified critique on it, while ignoring the huge amount of data next to it. Man made God in his image. God is imaginary, as historical and archaeological records prove. Digitical codes are, as I said, man-made and in computers. DNA =/= digital code. Intelligence is a result of nature.
Natural processes brought about DNA, is like using a software program and thinking nobody wrote it........ DNA reproduces by the instrutions given by the digital codes...
@vipaccess1: There are no digital codes and DNA came through completely natural processes. To say God made DNA, is like saying a house was fully built before the workers to build it were even born.
Natural processess have never be demonstrated to bring about life. there is no mechanism in Evolution which has been observed, there is no transitional forms between phyla, life has never been observed coming from anything but life.. with out God all you have left is random chance.
@vipaccess1: Abiogenesis is still a work in progress, yes, but we do have clear evidence of natural processes bringing forth the building blocks of life. We still need to find the right conditions before we can actually make life ourselves. However, it has never been demonstrated that gods exist...so your argument is ultimately void. ALL mechanisms of Evolution have been observed, ALL forms are transitional, the origin of life isn't Evolution but Abiogenesis and random chance = real, God = not.
@vipaccess1: what digital codes? The only digital codes are man-made in computers. DNA is completely natural and arose through abiogenesis about 3 billion years ago. Also, your series of events is completely messed up:
intelligence is made of life, life is made of digital codes, digital codes is made of intelligence...? Makes no sense. In reality: natural processes made DNA, DNA made life, life made intelligence. Makes perfect sense, AND is proven.
you might try reading the story of the emperors new clothes. I just don't roll over and except an idea that Non-intelligent power produced the miracle of life, and the wonders of the universe.
@vipaccess1: there's nothing miraculous about life. It's 100% nature. And you can simply look at the mountains of proof to accept it. The beauty about science, is that you can test it for yourself and see. But, of course, you creationists refuse to test anything. You just pick and choose whatever supports your case, whether it's true or false, it doesn't matter to you.
If Evolution could have been supported by the embroyos of themselves Heackels would not have confessed in court that he changed the emboyos? in his confesson he said he would feel bad except for all the professors around him were doing the samething. If EV had evidence t he would not have had to confess to the fraud.
@vipaccess1: embryos are but a tiny speck in the great ocean of evidence for Evolution. And sure, there are fraudulent scientists, we don't deny nor like it. Through science, however, we do prove them wrong. Evolution is a fact, even if we discard everything prior to the year 2000. Heck, if we'd start with a blanc page and would look for evidence right now, we'd already prove it within a day. The problem is, the creationist organisation lies enormously about what Evolution and its evidence is.
@vipaccess1: life and the universe IS wonderful. Even more so, because there was no magic man in the sky to do it. See, everything consists of energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and is thus eternal. Energy always existed and wasn't created, meaning there was no God to create it. God is a useless step, as if you add him, then we can add the Flying Spaghetti Monster and say it created God.
@vipaccess1: the only designer of life, is nature. To claim "God did it" is begging the question, an argument from ignorance, based on absolutely no evidence at all, a lie and wishful thinking.
And Life arose gradually, with some sudden growths, mainly after mass-extinction events.
1859 origin of the spieces was published. Darwin himself admitted he had no evidence for his theory at the time it was published but felt confident evidence would be found. 15 years latter a professor at the university of Jena under pressure to find evidence falsely drew the embroyos between a dog, a pig and a person. He confessed in court to falsely drawing the embroyos. more than 100 years latter they stil use his drawings... lol
@vipaccess1: actually, he DID have evidence, and he added it in his book. There would indeed be more, but he had no idea how rock-solid and extraordinary his find would become. Also, those drawings may be false, but if you look at embryonic growth, he sure wasn't that far off! Embryos grow according to their evolutionary history. And really, you're of no place to judge. Not only is your education piss-poor, you also deny science, use creationist lies and have no understanding of what we present.
If you check out a basic High school ancient History text book you will see the first two chapters on prehistoric man which they base on lucy, and then they place man's beginnings in Mesopotamia 5000 years ago. Secular history book validates the Biblical account of the start of civililzation.
@vipaccess1: yes, I've heard American education is piss-poor and matches that of third world countries. In Europe, however, we learn the truth. I've given you 19 hominid species, all confirmed by science as authentic. Lucy is just 1 of them. And I've given you data on human civilisation, being OLDER than 5000 years. If what you say is highschool history, then we've had that between age 6-12. And secular history books disprove the bible on numerous accounts.
Does saying God doesn't exist over and over makes it more plausible? But if you say he doesn't exist and cuss at the same time then forsure he doesn't exist!!! One thing for sure you have no proof he doesn't exist so your statement comes from a prejuduce against him rather then any fact. A darkened heart is hardly evidence he doesn't exist.
@vipaccess1: actually, I DO have evidence against the biblical god. History and archeaology show that religious ideas were born around 62-72000 years ago. At that time, it was nothing more than burrying the dead. Around 35.000 years ago, it evolved into worshipping and revering nature itself. Around 15.000 years ago, people gave different aspects of nature an own entity. Wind, water, growth, etc. were all personified. In the last 5-10.000 years, the gods are anthropomorphic. Made in our image.
@PJDesseyn Actually Archeaology supports the Biblcial record, for instance art, language, tools and weapons, argriculture of the earliest record of man is only 5000 years ago in the area of mesopotamia. Supposed prehistoric man is based off a set of bones like Lucy, or Neanderthal, java man. etc all shown to be frauds. How is speculation of a big bang of unknown substances proof that there is no Intelligence behind the wonders of life and the universe? try singularity has to have a source.
@vipaccess1: bullshit. What archeaology supports, is a few of the non-religious claims in the bible. Not even all of them! We have art and religion dating back up to 62.000 years ago, tools and weapons about 3 million years (before our species even existed!) and agriculture about 15.000 years ago. Civilisations also started about 15.000 years ago, but unified kingdoms only about 6-10.000 years ago. The earliest WRITTEN sources are about 8000 years old. So your comment is utter bullshit. (cont)
@vipaccess1: our species, Homo Sapiens, didn't exist until about 200.000 years ago. Lucy (Australopithecus Afarensis) is an ancestral species and Homo Neanderthalensis is sort of a cousin-species, which got extinct about 35.000 years ago. Those 2 were REAL. "Java man", "Piltdown man", etc those are indeed frauds, but we have about a dozen real species. Intelligence is a RESULT of nature. Everywhere in nature, we see simple things grow to complexity. And nothing indicates any intelligence.
@PJDesseyn anything beyond 5000 years is speculation, rejecting God I know you are desperate to hold on to crumbs, but really verifiable facts EV needs a serious overhaul.
@vipaccess1: nope, everything for which there's clear scientific evidence for, is not speculation. Saying it's speculation, is a LIE. The stone walls of Jericho are 9000 years old, for example. And I don't "reject" God, I simply lack the belief in gods, because nobody has ever presented any (real) evidence for them.
There's also the chain of events which you must follow. If you're a YEC and claim all of history happened within 6000 years, then our species would be about 1 minute old.
@vipaccess1: here are the REAL hominid species: Homo Sapiens (us), Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus Sediba, Aus. Garhi, Aus. Africanus, Aus. Bahrelghazali, Aus. Afarensis (Lucy), Aus. Anamensis, Ardipithecus Ramidus, Ardipithecus Kadabba, Orrorin Tugenensis, Sahelanthropus Tchadensis. (other line) Paranthropus Aethiopicus, Paranthropus Boisei, Paranthropus Robustus. Those are all real ones.
@PJDesseyn Lucy was 3 1/2 tall with arms that hung to the ground. If there was so much evidence for Evolution why have they kept publishing known frauds in High school txt books like haeckels embroyos, drawings of dinasours and fossils, all these false apemans and I only named a few, Miller- grey experiment, etc....... come on!! the design of life and the universe is clear and leaves everyone with out excuse.
@vipaccess1: Lucy is a transitional form between the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees, and modern humans. For example, the pelvis clearly shows this transition. She also lived about 3 million years ago, whereas modern humans arose 200.000 years ago. In my highschool curriculum, they only mentioned those embryos as an example of what they thought in the '50s. Now, with modern equipment, we know it's a bit different, but the general idea is still correct. Embryos grow like Evolution. (cont)
@vipaccess1: The drawings of dinosaurs, are an artist conception of what the actual animal might've looked like, based on the fossil evidence. Every sane person knows it's not an actual representation, as we don't know what they looked like exactly. We do have a good idea of it, thanks to the fossils. And the false fossils were never accepted in science. In fact, it was science which disproved them and banned the faudulent scientists. Creationists just use it to lie about Evolution. (cont)
@vipaccess1: I don't know the Miller-Grey experiment, but the Miller-Urey experiment concerns abiogenesis, not Evolution. The "design" of life and the universe? If you call it design, then non-sentient nature is the designer, through natural processes. There are a plethora of flaws in every living being. Like the airpipe in whales and dolphins: poor designer indeed!
@vipaccess1: so that was history and archeaology. Psychology and neurology show that when we think of "god", we really just think of an other human being, to which we give our own choice of attributes. These gods aren't based on logic or rational thought, but rather emotions, ignorance and a need for a parental figure. Next, we have the bible. To keep it short: the dozens of stories in it, have been proven false. Creation, global flood, Babel incident, etc. are all proven false.
@vipaccess1: having all that evidence (and more), we can safely say that the god of the bible does not exist. On top of that, not a single person has ever, in the entire history of man, given even the slightest shred of evidence for their existence. And "you have no proof he doesn't exist" is a worthless argument, as by that reasoning, everything you can imagine, could exist. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.
@Lovemetooish: We're not "trying" by any means. God's non-existence is a known fact. It's the convincing of religious zealots which takes up so much time.
Besides, we're not the ones believing in fairy tales.
Your wife called me the other day. it's been a long time. How have you been? But I told your half man half ape wife, that I really enjoyed the four month vacation. Since you've blocked my main accounts about four and half months ago. I've been real busy working on my business with my brothers. Now look, tell your wife to go away. Do it and I'll let you be for good. I've been letting you alone for months. But your wife YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@aikidocrazy: any sane, rational person, who isn't a troll like you, understands accidents (in general) happen all the time. I've had 3 of such accidents in my life. That's closing in on 21 years, meaning once every 7 years.
Case 1: little girl gets changed in public -> nothing perverse on my side
Case 2: little girl walks out the toilet, without pants -> nothing perverse on my side
Case 3: girl my age in changing cabin, who forgot to lock her door -> nothing perverse on my side.
@aikidocrazy: as for the nudist beaches, I only know of 1, but I don't go there...and yes, glancing means you can actually see stuff...glance: "A brief or cursory look". Lets play it in slow motion, shall we?
- I walk around, doing nothing wrong.
- a young girl exists the toilet
- a notice the girl and briefly look at her
- I look down and see she doesn't have any pants on or anything
- having looked down, I see her privates
- realising I'm seeing her privates, I quickly look away
@aikidocrazy: as said: I was addressing a TROLL...when someone is addressing a troll in his own game, then don't take things too seriously. That's the context, which you don't seem to understand. This is comparable with some gangster talking to you about how many people he's killed and you replying "that's nothin', I've popped a dozen myself"...it's "trash talk". In reality, I'm not boasting about anything and yes, I did just glance, not stare or intentionally look or anything. (cont)
@aikidocrazy: I've seen so many things that are gross or otherwise inappropriate. For example: I've seen a Muslim woman being stoned to death. I've seen a fox being skinned alive and still being (barely) alive afterwards. I've seen a tortoise ripping a mouse apart, with the mouse still trying to escape with half its body ripped off. I've seen Muslims cut a man's head off. And just like I've seen girls, I've also seen boys walk around naked.
So, yeah, I've seen shit, so what? I'm still moral.
@aikidocrazy: well, first of all, I was responding to a troll, so the "boasting" wasn't boasting at all. After all, what is there to boast about? Secondly, what I've experienced, is no different than anyone else. Is it my fault that people change their babies in public? Is it my fault I was in a kindergarten and happened to see a girl come out of the toilet without pants? I'm not intentionally looking at these things, I just happen to see them. I've seen a lot more than that...
@aikidocrazy: quote-mines, to be exact. In case you don't know what a quote-mine is: it's a quote taken out of context in such a way that it damages the character of whom the quote is taken. At least, in this context. In an other context, it can mean quoting someone in such a way to fit one's own pre-conceived beliefs. Either way, although the things presented are said by me, they're edited in such a way that they damage my character.
If you're wondering about the context of anything, just ask.
@PJDesseyn: nope, doesn't seem to be any way to link it to his video...other than just posting the link in the description box, of course...I guess we'll just have to make it viral and rick-roll people :p (jk)
Atheism is a religion too. Look closely: aTHEISM. It is still a stance, still a belief system, so it is a religion. One could argue that prophets or spiritual leaders of this religion are Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, etc. So it is very funny that you are bashing THEISM, while you yourself are an aTHEIST!
MaIcoImZieI 7 months ago
@MaIcoImZieI: if atheism is a belief, then asocial is being social, assymetrical is symetrical, etc. Look closely: A-theism. The "A" meaning "NOT". It's a stance, yes: a lack of belief in gods. However, it's not a belief, nor a system, nor a religion. There are no prophets, no spiritual leaders, etc. Atheism is simply not believing your bullshit.
A + (theos + ism) = not + (gods + belief in) = NOT a belief in gods. That's what Atheism means. Not the lame bullshit you spout.
PJDesseyn 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The life of an atheists. What is the purpose of pushing natural selection? I was never quite an atheists, but at one point I did believe theistic evolution. More or less, intelligent design. But I know now that the six day creation is better suited towards the Word of God and what it says. Not blind faith, but an spiritual insight on understanding the reality of God's creation.
NicheFindersInc 10 months ago
atheist must believe in this supernatural phenomena in order to keep being an atheist and any statement? of affirmation regarding abiogenesis is a statement of faith, directly on par with the religious statements of faith they so joyously deride. The only difference is the cloak of naturalism that they put over their supernatural belief in order to hide their faith from themselves.
NicheFindersInc 11 months ago
@NicheFindersInc: That's what the CREATIONIST STRAWMAN says. Not what REALITY says. In reality, there's absolutely nothing supernatural about Abiogenesis and no faith at all is required for anything. We have done tests and we have clear indications of completely natural processes forming the building blocks of life. At the moment, we don't know the exact processes for the complete progression of non-life to life, which is why Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis right now. No faith, no supernatural.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
Anthony Flew, a bigger Atheist in his day than your hero Dawkins, buckled in his Atheism when he saw the model renactment of the DNA molecule.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: Dawkins isn't my hero and all throughout history, we see scientists figuring things out, but when they've reached their limits, they fuck it up by saying "God did it". God is the ignorance of man. The more we know, the less we believe in God. I'm fortunate to know enough to no longer believe in said imaginary being.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
No digital codes? of course you have to deny they exist, as they directly prove God exists. you have no out......
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: no, there are no digital codes. DNA is not digital, it's a result of nature. There's no sign of any intelligence being involved in any of the processes. There's absolutely no sign of anything divine in anything at all. There are no gods and certainly not YOUR god, which is proven to be imagined by mankind.
I don't DENY he exists, I accept the fact that he doesn't exist.
What you're doing, is riciting typical creationist bullshit which has been debunked a billion times over.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn, Francis Crick is hardly a creationist, he is the one who used letters to identify digital codes.... You deliberately distort the truth to appeases your iron conscience. Atheist hide behind phony science and thats all your doing.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: I never mentioned Crick, nor his religiosity. Also, him using letters to identify digital codes, doesn't make DNA a digital code. It's a creationist lie to call DNA a digital code. It's purely natural, arisen through natural processes with no magic whatsoever. I don't distort the truth, I present it. And I use REAL science to prove my points, not creationist lies.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Non-itelligence made intelligence???? We obviously can't agree
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: of course we can't agree. I present the truth and support it with loads of scientific facts, while you want to destroy the truth and throw us all back into the Dark Ages with your lies and deceit. You have NOTHING to support your case.
Go on, I dare you to present scientific evidence for your beliefs.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
BTW - Digital codes are the information that exist on the stands of DNA and are why DNA functions. with out the codes life would not exist........ thanks for the debate.....
vipaccess1 1 year ago
Actually to say a house was build by random chance rather than an Intelligent designer would be foolish!! a darkened heart leaves you only chance, sad you will never know the God who made you to know him.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: ever heard of caves? Also, "random chance" is but a tiny part of the whole process. That's something you crazies refuse to understand. You look at a tiny speck of the spectrum, and give injustified critique on it, while ignoring the huge amount of data next to it. Man made God in his image. God is imaginary, as historical and archaeological records prove. Digitical codes are, as I said, man-made and in computers. DNA =/= digital code. Intelligence is a result of nature.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Natural processes brought about DNA, is like using a software program and thinking nobody wrote it........ DNA reproduces by the instrutions given by the digital codes...
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: There are no digital codes and DNA came through completely natural processes. To say God made DNA, is like saying a house was fully built before the workers to build it were even born.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Natural processess have never be demonstrated to bring about life. there is no mechanism in Evolution which has been observed, there is no transitional forms between phyla, life has never been observed coming from anything but life.. with out God all you have left is random chance.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: Abiogenesis is still a work in progress, yes, but we do have clear evidence of natural processes bringing forth the building blocks of life. We still need to find the right conditions before we can actually make life ourselves. However, it has never been demonstrated that gods exist...so your argument is ultimately void. ALL mechanisms of Evolution have been observed, ALL forms are transitional, the origin of life isn't Evolution but Abiogenesis and random chance = real, God = not.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Digital codes are the language of life, no life exist with out digital codes. Information has never existed with out intelligence.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: what digital codes? The only digital codes are man-made in computers. DNA is completely natural and arose through abiogenesis about 3 billion years ago. Also, your series of events is completely messed up:
intelligence is made of life, life is made of digital codes, digital codes is made of intelligence...? Makes no sense. In reality: natural processes made DNA, DNA made life, life made intelligence. Makes perfect sense, AND is proven.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
you might try reading the story of the emperors new clothes. I just don't roll over and except an idea that Non-intelligent power produced the miracle of life, and the wonders of the universe.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: there's nothing miraculous about life. It's 100% nature. And you can simply look at the mountains of proof to accept it. The beauty about science, is that you can test it for yourself and see. But, of course, you creationists refuse to test anything. You just pick and choose whatever supports your case, whether it's true or false, it doesn't matter to you.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
If Evolution could have been supported by the embroyos of themselves Heackels would not have confessed in court that he changed the emboyos? in his confesson he said he would feel bad except for all the professors around him were doing the samething. If EV had evidence t he would not have had to confess to the fraud.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: embryos are but a tiny speck in the great ocean of evidence for Evolution. And sure, there are fraudulent scientists, we don't deny nor like it. Through science, however, we do prove them wrong. Evolution is a fact, even if we discard everything prior to the year 2000. Heck, if we'd start with a blanc page and would look for evidence right now, we'd already prove it within a day. The problem is, the creationist organisation lies enormously about what Evolution and its evidence is.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Most people are awe struck by the wonders of life and the universe.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: life and the universe IS wonderful. Even more so, because there was no magic man in the sky to do it. See, everything consists of energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and is thus eternal. Energy always existed and wasn't created, meaning there was no God to create it. God is a useless step, as if you add him, then we can add the Flying Spaghetti Monster and say it created God.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
the enter dependancy of all life means life came suddenly not gradually.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
The designers of the airplane got their idea of hollowed frames and wing design from Birds who have no designer????
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: the only designer of life, is nature. To claim "God did it" is begging the question, an argument from ignorance, based on absolutely no evidence at all, a lie and wishful thinking.
And Life arose gradually, with some sudden growths, mainly after mass-extinction events.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
1859 origin of the spieces was published. Darwin himself admitted he had no evidence for his theory at the time it was published but felt confident evidence would be found. 15 years latter a professor at the university of Jena under pressure to find evidence falsely drew the embroyos between a dog, a pig and a person. He confessed in court to falsely drawing the embroyos. more than 100 years latter they stil use his drawings... lol
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: actually, he DID have evidence, and he added it in his book. There would indeed be more, but he had no idea how rock-solid and extraordinary his find would become. Also, those drawings may be false, but if you look at embryonic growth, he sure wasn't that far off! Embryos grow according to their evolutionary history. And really, you're of no place to judge. Not only is your education piss-poor, you also deny science, use creationist lies and have no understanding of what we present.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
If you check out a basic High school ancient History text book you will see the first two chapters on prehistoric man which they base on lucy, and then they place man's beginnings in Mesopotamia 5000 years ago. Secular history book validates the Biblical account of the start of civililzation.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: yes, I've heard American education is piss-poor and matches that of third world countries. In Europe, however, we learn the truth. I've given you 19 hominid species, all confirmed by science as authentic. Lucy is just 1 of them. And I've given you data on human civilisation, being OLDER than 5000 years. If what you say is highschool history, then we've had that between age 6-12. And secular history books disprove the bible on numerous accounts.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Does saying God doesn't exist over and over makes it more plausible? But if you say he doesn't exist and cuss at the same time then forsure he doesn't exist!!! One thing for sure you have no proof he doesn't exist so your statement comes from a prejuduce against him rather then any fact. A darkened heart is hardly evidence he doesn't exist.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: actually, I DO have evidence against the biblical god. History and archeaology show that religious ideas were born around 62-72000 years ago. At that time, it was nothing more than burrying the dead. Around 35.000 years ago, it evolved into worshipping and revering nature itself. Around 15.000 years ago, people gave different aspects of nature an own entity. Wind, water, growth, etc. were all personified. In the last 5-10.000 years, the gods are anthropomorphic. Made in our image.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Actually Archeaology supports the Biblcial record, for instance art, language, tools and weapons, argriculture of the earliest record of man is only 5000 years ago in the area of mesopotamia. Supposed prehistoric man is based off a set of bones like Lucy, or Neanderthal, java man. etc all shown to be frauds. How is speculation of a big bang of unknown substances proof that there is no Intelligence behind the wonders of life and the universe? try singularity has to have a source.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: bullshit. What archeaology supports, is a few of the non-religious claims in the bible. Not even all of them! We have art and religion dating back up to 62.000 years ago, tools and weapons about 3 million years (before our species even existed!) and agriculture about 15.000 years ago. Civilisations also started about 15.000 years ago, but unified kingdoms only about 6-10.000 years ago. The earliest WRITTEN sources are about 8000 years old. So your comment is utter bullshit. (cont)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: our species, Homo Sapiens, didn't exist until about 200.000 years ago. Lucy (Australopithecus Afarensis) is an ancestral species and Homo Neanderthalensis is sort of a cousin-species, which got extinct about 35.000 years ago. Those 2 were REAL. "Java man", "Piltdown man", etc those are indeed frauds, but we have about a dozen real species. Intelligence is a RESULT of nature. Everywhere in nature, we see simple things grow to complexity. And nothing indicates any intelligence.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn anything beyond 5000 years is speculation, rejecting God I know you are desperate to hold on to crumbs, but really verifiable facts EV needs a serious overhaul.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: nope, everything for which there's clear scientific evidence for, is not speculation. Saying it's speculation, is a LIE. The stone walls of Jericho are 9000 years old, for example. And I don't "reject" God, I simply lack the belief in gods, because nobody has ever presented any (real) evidence for them.
There's also the chain of events which you must follow. If you're a YEC and claim all of history happened within 6000 years, then our species would be about 1 minute old.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: here are the REAL hominid species: Homo Sapiens (us), Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus Sediba, Aus. Garhi, Aus. Africanus, Aus. Bahrelghazali, Aus. Afarensis (Lucy), Aus. Anamensis, Ardipithecus Ramidus, Ardipithecus Kadabba, Orrorin Tugenensis, Sahelanthropus Tchadensis. (other line) Paranthropus Aethiopicus, Paranthropus Boisei, Paranthropus Robustus. Those are all real ones.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Lucy was 3 1/2 tall with arms that hung to the ground. If there was so much evidence for Evolution why have they kept publishing known frauds in High school txt books like haeckels embroyos, drawings of dinasours and fossils, all these false apemans and I only named a few, Miller- grey experiment, etc....... come on!! the design of life and the universe is clear and leaves everyone with out excuse.
vipaccess1 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: Lucy is a transitional form between the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees, and modern humans. For example, the pelvis clearly shows this transition. She also lived about 3 million years ago, whereas modern humans arose 200.000 years ago. In my highschool curriculum, they only mentioned those embryos as an example of what they thought in the '50s. Now, with modern equipment, we know it's a bit different, but the general idea is still correct. Embryos grow like Evolution. (cont)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: The drawings of dinosaurs, are an artist conception of what the actual animal might've looked like, based on the fossil evidence. Every sane person knows it's not an actual representation, as we don't know what they looked like exactly. We do have a good idea of it, thanks to the fossils. And the false fossils were never accepted in science. In fact, it was science which disproved them and banned the faudulent scientists. Creationists just use it to lie about Evolution. (cont)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: I don't know the Miller-Grey experiment, but the Miller-Urey experiment concerns abiogenesis, not Evolution. The "design" of life and the universe? If you call it design, then non-sentient nature is the designer, through natural processes. There are a plethora of flaws in every living being. Like the airpipe in whales and dolphins: poor designer indeed!
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: so that was history and archeaology. Psychology and neurology show that when we think of "god", we really just think of an other human being, to which we give our own choice of attributes. These gods aren't based on logic or rational thought, but rather emotions, ignorance and a need for a parental figure. Next, we have the bible. To keep it short: the dozens of stories in it, have been proven false. Creation, global flood, Babel incident, etc. are all proven false.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@vipaccess1: having all that evidence (and more), we can safely say that the god of the bible does not exist. On top of that, not a single person has ever, in the entire history of man, given even the slightest shred of evidence for their existence. And "you have no proof he doesn't exist" is a worthless argument, as by that reasoning, everything you can imagine, could exist. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.
God doesn't exist. Care to prove me wrong?
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
It's funny atheist waste their time trying disprove something they don't believe in
Lovemetooish 1 year ago
@Lovemetooish: We're not "trying" by any means. God's non-existence is a known fact. It's the convincing of religious zealots which takes up so much time.
Besides, we're not the ones believing in fairy tales.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Your wife called me the other day. it's been a long time. How have you been? But I told your half man half ape wife, that I really enjoyed the four month vacation. Since you've blocked my main accounts about four and half months ago. I've been real busy working on my business with my brothers. Now look, tell your wife to go away. Do it and I'll let you be for good. I've been letting you alone for months. But your wife YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IKill51 1 year ago
@IKill51: yeah, I was wondering how long it would take before you exposed yourself again, Monte. (or was it Robert...I seem to have 2 now)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@aikidocrazy: any sane, rational person, who isn't a troll like you, understands accidents (in general) happen all the time. I've had 3 of such accidents in my life. That's closing in on 21 years, meaning once every 7 years.
Case 1: little girl gets changed in public -> nothing perverse on my side
Case 2: little girl walks out the toilet, without pants -> nothing perverse on my side
Case 3: girl my age in changing cabin, who forgot to lock her door -> nothing perverse on my side.
now go, troll.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@aikidocrazy: as for the nudist beaches, I only know of 1, but I don't go there...and yes, glancing means you can actually see stuff...glance: "A brief or cursory look". Lets play it in slow motion, shall we?
- I walk around, doing nothing wrong.
- a young girl exists the toilet
- a notice the girl and briefly look at her
- I look down and see she doesn't have any pants on or anything
- having looked down, I see her privates
- realising I'm seeing her privates, I quickly look away
- no harm done
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@aikidocrazy: as said: I was addressing a TROLL...when someone is addressing a troll in his own game, then don't take things too seriously. That's the context, which you don't seem to understand. This is comparable with some gangster talking to you about how many people he's killed and you replying "that's nothin', I've popped a dozen myself"...it's "trash talk". In reality, I'm not boasting about anything and yes, I did just glance, not stare or intentionally look or anything. (cont)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@aikidocrazy: I've seen so many things that are gross or otherwise inappropriate. For example: I've seen a Muslim woman being stoned to death. I've seen a fox being skinned alive and still being (barely) alive afterwards. I've seen a tortoise ripping a mouse apart, with the mouse still trying to escape with half its body ripped off. I've seen Muslims cut a man's head off. And just like I've seen girls, I've also seen boys walk around naked.
So, yeah, I've seen shit, so what? I'm still moral.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@aikidocrazy: well, first of all, I was responding to a troll, so the "boasting" wasn't boasting at all. After all, what is there to boast about? Secondly, what I've experienced, is no different than anyone else. Is it my fault that people change their babies in public? Is it my fault I was in a kindergarten and happened to see a girl come out of the toilet without pants? I'm not intentionally looking at these things, I just happen to see them. I've seen a lot more than that...
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@aikidocrazy: quote-mines, to be exact. In case you don't know what a quote-mine is: it's a quote taken out of context in such a way that it damages the character of whom the quote is taken. At least, in this context. In an other context, it can mean quoting someone in such a way to fit one's own pre-conceived beliefs. Either way, although the things presented are said by me, they're edited in such a way that they damage my character.
If you're wondering about the context of anything, just ask.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
why don't you make this video a response to that..??
dilberto1986 1 year ago
@dilberto1986: I'll go see if it works.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn: nope, doesn't seem to be any way to link it to his video...other than just posting the link in the description box, of course...I guess we'll just have to make it viral and rick-roll people :p (jk)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago