@legion1a Are you in the United States? I live in Kansas, and reality is reeling around spitting out blood and teeth. Around these parts science is "liberal propaganda"
I don't know, maybe it's just because Thunderf00t has the easier premise. I think they should trade sides and see if Thunderf00t can argue *against* science and still beat vfx! ;-)
@ReedYoung Only way you may validly argue about evince on which all the science stands and falls is to provide new, contradictory evidence. But since VFX is a poor debater and has no understanding on science, I guess it would end up in tie - TF would just refute the fallacies VFX would produce, but stay silent about "why is science wrong".
@DevelX666 Yeah, I'm sure TF wouldn't argue against science, or for that matter even waste time piling on the evidence that vfx can't think its way out of a paper bag. I just thought it would be funny if Thunderfoot won both sides of the argument. And I honestly think he would.
This is what modern psychology/psychiatry practice.. Instead of remedies, they present oppressive measures. In psychology, everything is a sickness except the Dr. Observer, which in my mind is a mad scientist. So as you can see, even physics is cherry picked by people pointing the cherry picking finger. And its all wrapped up in agenda & lies. Yet people need there foundation to stand on as they nail there reality down. Yet we havent even addressed the manipulations in history books.
Though this is evident in deep religion as well, The simple fact of a open mind increases bandwidth in brainwaves. To say there is no god or afterlife is beyond anyones knowledge, so to conclude that it doesnt present any evidence disscludes observation. By closing these doors, you are unable to view what is on the other side. You can see this throughout history as many people died from ailments from lack of observation. If no one believed diabetes exsisted, they would turn away & ignore it.
Modern science has come to a state of observation. As we observe, we find that much of what we incorporated into our way of thinking was drawn from ancient methods. We also see the blatant CHERRY PICKING(Dawkins) that has occured do to lack of observation(state of witness). This can be taken deeper with politics & agendas unknown to the common observer. Quite simply, materialists are following what they were programmed to believe. Whether the observation is valid or not as we see dissinformation
So much for those death threats he supposedly received huh? His old website has also had the same message on it for some time now: "This site has been taken offline by the parents of VenomFangX, they don't support/share his views and apologize if he has offended anyone. This site will be offline for good in 3 days."
I'm just wondering how long until his next site pops up.
I have achieved my goal. This sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant, indoctrinated scientific-illiterate zealot has been cornered. All he can do now is close his eyes, cover his ears & scream "YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG"
Let's take a closer look at his latest pathetic bullshit. Mind you, I writing this for those of you who just might be inclined to give it some consideration.
davegooley said "I do not care about the atheist's opinions about the origin of the universe and life because the atheist's opinions about these topics are based on illogical conjecture"
Not by atheists but by scientists of many persuasions. That's a fact.
He has an opinion, scientists MUST have theories that MUST be supported by evidence. It may be "illogical conjecture" to him because he's scientific-illiterate, google "WMAP" & see how scientists are learning about the early universe.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
egamble22, I will make this the last comment because you apparently did not understand what I said. I will be as clear as I can. I do not care about the atheist's opinions about the origin of the universe and life because the atheist's opinions about these topics are based on illogical conjecture. You cannot use modern information to explain the past. You require information from that same time. You have yet to produce a single bit of actual evidence from that time and you have failed.
"You cannot use modern information to explain the past"
What an idiotic statement. Let's suppose this moron was 1 of many on death row for a crime he didn't commit. His defense apply new methods to the old evidence & produce unquestionable new information that exonerates him.
He would shit on himself if the prosecutor said "Sorry modern information can't explain the past"
Forensic science does an exceptional job of producing new information that explaiins the past.
"You cannot use modern information to explain the past"
As early as the 18th century, scientists concluded that the world was very old. Using several methods, they came up with about 30 different calculations ranging from 100,000 years to 100 million years.
Using modern information about radioactive material, radiometric dating was developed in the 20th century & it was possible to determine an accurate date.
This is just 1 of many example which shows he's full of shit.
A timelile of events as recorded in the fossil records which is A PICTURE OF LIFE ON EARTH from the beginning until today. The fossils are pictures of the organisms, themselves.
The problem for him is the fossil records cannot be reconciled with a 6,000 year old earth
That is the stupidest thing I have seen for an argument in a while. Why is modern information unable to explain the past? Are you saying the only way to explain it is to create a time machine, travel back, and then bring back what you found?
It seems to me you are only trying to create excuses for yourself; convincing yourself that you are right.
egamble22, certainly have made this into more than what it needed to be. The reality is that Yahweh created the universe and life and you, like all other atheists, try to say that Yahweh doesn't exist because you don't want to acknowledge Yahweh. It's that simple. Personally, I really don't care about atheism in the least, which is why I am not an atheist. Yahweh provided the evidence I needed to believe, which is why I believe. You are too absorbed into atheism to even understand it.
"certainly have made this into more than what it needed to be"
With all due respect, THAT is your opinion. I have 1, too. And it does not agree with yours. It is "more than what is needed" for what? Was it more than is needed to prove there is evidence which proves evolution is valid?
Wait, wait.. I will even make the utterly outrageous concession that the evidence may be forged & that all evolution-related scientists are dishonest.
"like all other atheists, try to say that Yahweh doesn't exist"
The opposite of " atheist" is not "Yahweh", it's "theist".
Theists believe in THEIR god but are atheist when it comes to all other gods.
You don't believe in Thor, Zeur, Horus, Osirus or Allah. The ONLY difference between you & me is I feel the same way you do about those gods AND your god.
Why don't you believe Thor, Zeur, Horus, Osirus or Allah exist? Do you refuse to believe they don't exist because you don't WANT to acknowledge them? Do you have a choice in believing or not believing in the?
Try applying the same feelings you have about those other gods to how I feel about yours. Sounds kinda stupid, doesn't it.
egamble22, in any case, you have a lot of growing up to do. You can't communicate without your insults, which disproves you as a person of compassion, morals, or ethics, you promote illogical theories that have never been observed or repeated, and you can't handle when the truth is presented to you. It must be driving you crazy that I can forgive you. Maybe when you can stop the temper tantrums, you might be able to act in a mature and rational manner.
"Maybe when you can stop the temper tantrums, you might be able to act in a mature and rational manner."
O. K, I'm over my temper tantrum.
Creation scientists acknowledge that the earth's radiation level was once deadly. Based on the half-life of radiation, it would have taken billions of years for it to reach its present safe level.
Therefore, the earth could not be a few thousand years old. Please explain.
Ice core from Anartica has been dated at 850,000 years ago. What do you think of that? Can you explain this disparity with the 6,000 year old date for the earth?
Scientists have developed an evolutionary tree. On it they have placed millions of organisms to show their relation to previous & subsequent organisms. Can you tell us what creation scientists have to say about the individual entries?
I'm happy to tell you I'm still in control of my temper.
From its beginning up to today, the earth's rocks have slowly formed. If we express the rocks as a 34 hour clocks, with 0000 being the base rock and 2359:59 being the most recent rocks, we find:
1, the first organism appears at 1230
2. the first fish appear at 2330
3. man appears at 2359:59
Evolution explains this evidence perfectly, it makes a mockery of creation. Can you elaborate on this problem for evolution?
Thanks to your wonderful counseling, I'm still hanging onto my temper. LOL
Oh yes, with no evidence to support their claim, as usual, creationists assert that Neanderthal Man & humans are one and the same. With DNA & genome data to support them, scientists have theorized that they are separate theories. What's your opinion on that?
Hey, you should be happy to know I'm still in control
Scientists have discovered a huge caulders under in Yelllowston National park. Their research shows it has erupted several times over a several million years with catastrophic results.
If what they say is true, then the earth has been around much longer than 6,000 years.
Scientists theorizes that the continents were once a single land mass called Pangea. They also theorize that it broke & is floating apart on what they also theorize as tetonic plates. Using satellite data, they determined that the plates are moving apart at about an inch annually. Based on its speed, scientists theorize that Pangea broke apart about 200 million years ago. What is the creationists' response to this information?
In the Burgess Pass, high in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, scientists discovered a fossil bed that details life on Earth as they theorize it existed 520 Million years ago. How does creation science explain this site?
Errrr, back to the issue. Wooly mammoth, sabre toothed tiger, short face bear, giant sloths, bisons wolves, & hundreds of other extinct animals are being removed from tar beds in Brae, CA at this very moment. In Australia, they are researching hundreds of giant animals, including the marsupial lion. Scientists theorize they lived from 1 million to12,000 years ago. What does creation science have to say about them?
In case you miss the point I was trying to make, let me present it to you.
The Big Bang, Abiogenesis & Evolution are theorise - scientific ideas that explain the evidence. If you get rid of them tomorrow, there will still be the kind of data I listed to challenge genesis.
Bottom line? Unless you can provide alternative ideas for the existing evidence or new knowledge to challenge it, the only thing you will do is reassure those who are seeking reassurance.
egamble22, for your information, I went to sleep before you started your dissertation, so don't assume that because I didn't respond that you were right. Are you that obsessed to try and prove you are right? Wouldn't psychologists call that an obsessive disorder? The fact is that just because you use modern information to try and explain the past does not mean the information can accurately do so. Also, anything can be shown through computer simulation and data can be manipulated.
"don't assume that because I didn't respond that you were right"
I DON'T know if I'm right. And you are unqualified to determine if I'm right.
The key point is whether the evidence is correct & has been correctly interpreted. That must be determined by scientists working in that field. This is why we have to rely on the scientists who conduct the peer reviews to ensure the quality & accuracy of the information.
Whether I'm right or wrong I am guided by the evidence or lack thereof.
Perhaps. But how does my being obsessed affect what I wrote? What has that to do with the issues I raised.
"Wouldn't psychologists call that an obsessive disorder"
I don't know. Do you want to discuss some disorder you attribute to me or do you want to discuss the evidence? Better yet, is THIS your response to what I wrote?
Scientists maintain that given time, microevolution would become macroevolution. I'm trying to show the time was available.
"because you use modern information to try and explain the past does not mean the information can accurately do so"
Actually, it's more modern methods. But you are right. That said, you can't discredit the method or information it produced by SAYING it might be flawed. You have to show where 1 or the other is flawed.
"Also, anything can be shown through computer simulation and data can be manipulated"
Tell me, do you really think you have falsified everything I wrote? Better yet, do you think clever words have falsified MILLIONS of hours of observation, research, study, testing, documenting, reporting & quality assurance? What happened to your claim that there was no evidence to support evolution?
Do you think implying that all scientists are dishonest PROVES they are dishonest?
Clever words may convince you & other creationists of what you say. But your goal is to persuade others that you are right. This situation is no different than a trial, with the people you are trying to influence being the jury.
This tactic was pretty much tried in the Dover, PA creation trial where you people were laughed out of court .
Because data can be manipulated doesn't mean it was manipulated. You have to prove that.
Do you have proof of anything you say? Anything at all?????
egamble22, by the way, if atheism has nothing to do with abiogenesis, cosmology and macroevolution, why do you as an atheists promote it religiously? And now you are separating yourself from it? Please make up your mind. Maybe when you learn to talk without adhom attacks and mature to an adult, you might be able to handle the conversation.
You have no idea how much i appreciate you showing me the error of my ways. LOL
One last point. There are MILLIONS of issues like the ones I mentioned which all prove the earth is older than 6,000 years.
As for that flood myth, Japan, China, India, Greece &, particularly, Egypt all predate the flood & have never been destroyed, and their rulers & peoples left millions of documents to prove it. What evidence do creation science provide to counter this evidence?
Wow, Dave, I have never seen someone get defeated so handily in a little conversation. All the tactics you resorted t instead of actually defending your points were quite humorous. Are you a comedian or were you actually serious?
egamble22, to continue, atheists like you verbally criticize people of faith for the very thing they are guilty of, not showing evidence of their theories other than biased opinions based on modern information. In any case, I forgive you.
egamble22, spin, misinform and lie about is a common tactic of atheists. What I did was point out the illogical nature of the atheist theories. Abiogenesis = life from non-life. Cosmology = how the universe came into existence, but started by a non-intelligent singularity. Macroevolution = one kind evolving into another kind. All non-observed and never repeated. Atheists say they do not believe in anything not observed and can't be repeated. That is why I said that atheists are hypocrites
"Atheists say they do not believe in anything not observed and can't be repeated"
That's a damned lie. Atheism is a disbelief in god's existence. Period, end of discussion. Being the arrogant fool you are, you refuse to understand that atheism has nothing to do with cosmology, abiogenesis or evolution.
On second thought, perhaps you are indoctrinated to the point that you are capable of digesting & regurgitating only what your handlers tell you about these issues.
Atheists, like catholics, Hindus, Buddists & hundreds of other THEISTS believe in evolution because of the overwhelming validating evidence.
On a scale of 1 (weak conviction) - 10 (strong conviction), I am a 10 atheist. But what about tthose who are 1 or 2, who could be persuaded to become theist (christians, in your case) by evidence?
All you have to offer them is negativism about what they believe. You have nothing positive to show them that might cause them to change their minds
egamble22, stop making this about you. You're just upset you can't bully me through my inbox. And by the way, passing off discredited theories that were illogical to begin with is a fraudulent way to earn a paycheck. No wonder why atheists fought to remove scripture and prayer from government run schools. They have to force children to learn theories that atheists can never prove or repeat. This is why my sons are in private school, at least there they get real education, not propaganda.
"You took my advice by putting my comment in quotes and then typing your response without ALL CAPS"
Yeah, look at ALL the shit I have written. And all you can comment on directly is some shit about my use of caps. What about all of those specific comments which show you & you beliefs are based on bullshit that you have to spin misinform & even lie about to sustain.
Stop attacking abiogenesis & try to reconcile you 6,000 year old creation myth with the evidence in the fossil records.
egamble22, you keep proving my point. I don't need my inbox filled with your childish and immature adhom attacks. To answer your question about what Yahweh has done, He created the universe and life, and then created you despite your attitude against Him. Yahweh is willing to save and redeem you, but you have to humble yourself. Once again, I forgive you.
egamble22, childish and vengeful behavior won't take you off the blocked list. I do forgive you because you don't know any better. Let the world know when you find someone who observed the beginning of cosmology and macroevolution or has observed a repeat of those events. Abiogenesis has already been labeled as a discredited theory, and rightfully so since it is so illogical and self-contradicting just in the summary description "life from non-life".
"Abiogenesis has already been labeled as a discredited theory"
And I label you as a dishonest creationist. I gave you a definition of abiogenesis which explained how "Aristotelian evolution" had been discredited & how biologists had redefined the word to apply to the work being done to create life.
You are too brain dead to realize that the word CAN'T be discredited when scientists around the world are working on it.
You can't get funding for discredited theories, fool.
First, scientists ask questions: (how old is the earth? When did life first appear?, Why is there no life in the K-T boundary, When did the dinosaurs disappear)
Fifth, they submit the data for peer review, where it is 1) pre-screened for suitability, 2) sent to 3 or more referees for review & 3) assessed for suitability by a percentage of scientists in the field.
Sixth, if the scientist is successful in convincing his peers he is right, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
Instead, they throw crap into the public forum, where they discuss everything except the specific, overwhelming evidence which validates evolution & undermines the veracity of their 3,000 year old myths. For example scientists spent THOUSANDS of hours creating THOUSANDS of papers answering such questions as how old is the earth? When did life first appear? What happened with the K-T boundary & the dinosaurs?
Each of them, as well as MILLIONS of others, destroys the dates given for the creation & flood myths. But IDiots dont even dare mention them. Instead, they attack the credibility of the scientific community which supposedly stifles creation scientists activities. And what is their proof for their claims? Biased writings, such as the discredited Expelled, by creationists with axes to grind. Like Expelled, they only provide hearsay & 1-sided information.
"And you are the one to be talking about 1-sided information aren't you"
Let me try this again. Any scientific paper MUST contain falsifiable evidence. Do you know what THAT means? It means any scientist in that field can take the data, check it and determine if the conclusion reached by the developer is valid. The problem for IDiots is that you can't show where a single 1is invalid.
So, you make asinine accusations about millions of scientists protecting the idea known as evolution
Actually they have. Again you show you haven't looked at all. Atheism Is Dead and Reasonable Kansans both killed this, type in Expelled Exposed Exposed on google and they'll be on the first page.
I don't think it is evidence, I think it's misreading. 2 Samuel says there were 800,000 Isrealites and 500,000 Judeans, while 1 Chronicles combines them into 1,100,000. 2 Samuel rounded up, and 1 Chronicles was more specific. Also, it was Satan who provoked God, God simply allowed Satan to do what he wanted in the situation. It never says God provoked.
I say you comic book contains errors & I list the evidence which supports my claim are obvious errors. You say you don't think it's evidence? Why not? Why is your reference evidence & mine, taken from your comic book, not?
"i think it is misleading"
So, you think your comic book is misleading even though that's what it says. Why can't I say the same thing about what you referred me to?
"@Samuel says there were 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeals, while 1 Chronicles combines them into 1,100,000"
1. The combined total in Samuel is 1,300,000. So, there is still a 200,000 difference.
2. You are guilty of a wilful or ignorant error. ! Chronicles does not combine the 2. I states that there were 1,100,000 Israelites & "Juda was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword".
WTF! 2 Samuel 24:1 says "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah"
Chroincles 21:1 says "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel"
Which 1 made David number the Jews?
"It never says God provoked"
I did. Proviked means "To stir to action or feeling" Substitute any word you want that means he was stirred to count the Jews
"He moved against David by allowing Satan to do what he wanted"
How ignorant of you! Let's take this slowly.
1 independent entry in your comic book says " "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah"
1. God is pissed (as usual)
2. He caused David to have the people counted.
Doesn't this verse say god caused this action? Isn't this verse in 2 Samuel independent of what's written in 1 Chronicles?
1 Chronicles 24:1 says "And Satan stood up against Israel, and proviked David to number Israel"
Doesn't this verse say Satan caused David to number the people?
2different places in your comic book says David had the people counted. The question is who caused him to do so. Did God do it , as Samuel claims or did Satan do it, as Chronicles.
"2 Samuel says there were 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeans, while 1 Chronicles combined them into 1,100,000"
1. 800,000 + 500,000 = 1,300,000. So, there is still a contradiction.
2. ! Chronicles does not combine them as you claim.
You came onto this site accusing tf of lying but you never pointed out the lies. It appears you are the liar. And when I pointed out your errors to you, you ignored my comments.
It is always interesting to read people claim contradictions of something they don't believe in, yet believe in something that is totally unobserved that they profess as "scientific" theories. Even cosmology has gone through so many revisions and ended up as a completely illogical theory (ie. a singularity causing an entire universe to exist from space dust of unknown origin.) If you oppose the Creator and the scriptures, just say so and move on. The claims you make are old and tired.
"It is always interesting to read people claim contradictions of something they don't believe in"
I, like most object thinking people, study all sides of issues to make intelligent choices. You should try it. I was responding to the claim the bible is inerrant.
"yet believe in something that is totally unobserved"
If you were in the practice of reading all sides of issues you would know evolution is an observed fact. It reduces the chance you will say something silly like this.
About 99% of the world's 5 million or so scientists accept it as a valid theory. What are your qualifications to challenge them? State what is wrong with the theory, if you can.
"Even cosmology has gone through so many revisions and ended up as a completely illogical theory"
Science is designed to make changes as new knowledge comes available.
Perhaps the theory is illogical to you because you lack a real scientific education.
Let's see if I have this right. You have no problem with bible apologists who claim the bible is inerrant during an exxchange such as this. But if someone says "no, no, you are wrong" & presents evidence to prove it, you say that's old & tired.
Is THAT your only response to the myriad of obvious mistakes in your holy book?
In a private message, you threatened to block me. But you forgot that you do not control this site. I will be posting part of your message to show everyone who reads this in the future what an arrogant asshole you are.
Also, I will share the entire pile of tripe with anyone who resuests it.
Wow, you really showed me. The reason why I blocked you is because you were too irrational and immature to communicate with. Your choice of insults is proof positive.
"Considering you have as much maturity as an ill-mannered child in grade school by your immature display, I will have to block you as you really have nothing intelligent or mature to say"
He claimed there was no evidence for evolution. I laid out the time line in tthe fossil records as a 24 hour clock. It shows man arrived in the last 23 hours, 59 minutes & 59 seconds. Evolution explains it perfectly, it makes a joke of creatikon. What was his reply. Silly nonsense & personal attacks.
In reply to his original charge, I provided a definition from "Bio-Medicine", which explains that "Aristotelian evolution", which claimed life could evolve from decaying matter, had been discredited, and abiogenesis, AS DEFINED BY BIOLOGIST was still valid.
I also referred him to scientists' working on the issue who promised to create life with 3 - 10 years.
"Without Yahweh, the universe and life cannot exist. Atheists like you make up theories based on irrelevant information and show yourselves to be the true believers of theories of conjecture"
Although he has ZERO proof that his god exist or that the universe can't exist without it, that doesn't stop him from making that emphatic assertion. But wait, he turns around & accuses atheists, who insist on dealing in evidence, of being "true believers of theories of conjecture"
"Atheists like you are truly hypocritical because atheists like you have never observed abiogenesis, cosmology or macroevolution happening and have never repeated it".
He's never seen his god do shit
"While atheists like you claim that you do not believe anything you can't observe or repeat, you certainly like to promote things based on blind faith and then criticize anyone who believes in reality, reason and logic"
This was in response to my attempt to discuss the evidence.
"A painting doesn't paint itself. A car can't manufacture itself"
I thought all creationists had been thoroughly embarrassed by this stupidity. In a discussion about reproduction, he's ranting about items that don't reproduce.
"The universe and life cannot come from a magical singularity from magical pixie space dust"
Others say it can & did - & and they have falsifiable evidence to suport their theory. All he has is his opinion which, alone, is worthless to everyone else.
"Honestly, atheists such as yourself promote the prime examples of fairy tales, and you hypocritically project your fairy tale beliefs on people of faith all because you don't want to humble yourselves"
Idiotic ramblings. How can anyone so stupid as to take a single stupid motive & apply it to everyone in a class of people. I We are atheists because we don't believe in any god - including those who don't require us to humble ourselves.
Making sure I found the right articles, both of them just took a few quotes out of context, misrepresented claims, and failed to actually make a case. am I looking at the right thing?
I'm a 16 year old high school student who plays varsity sports you numbskull, like I have to time, resources, or knowledge to conduct those kind of studies. You haven't either, so don't give me this sort of crap. You're throwing more garbage than i am, try looking at the comment page you just filled up with your crap.
Like a just starting researching to talk to you, big assumption. I've been doing it for years. I'm talking about present time which you are eating up with comment pages full of responses.
You haven't presented any actual evidence, you've avoided anything but opinions so I can't point out anything.
Again, have you done ANY research at ALL? If you think not a single creationist study has been through the scientific process you are further showing what a hyprocrite you are, citing all this evidence and flat out denying the other side without review at all. Try looking.
Permit me to correct myself, if you please. There have been "peer reviewed" papers.But , they were done by cronies or, as in the case of Dr Behe, they were forged. However, no creationist paper has been peer reviewed by a reputable scientific organization.
You're the one talking about forged, ever heard of Haeckl's embryos? No doubt you have, even after being proven faked they still show up in textbooks.
First, scientists ask questions: (how old is the earth? When did life first appear?, Why is there no life in the K-T boundary, When did the dinosaurs disappear)
First, scientists ask questions (how old is the earth, when did life first appear, why is the K-T boundary barren of life, When did the dinosaurs disappear)
This last one isn't a response to one message, it's to all. I find it very disgusting that you continually look for any sort of cheap shot you can take at me, and go after it without thought. You are really saying something about what a life without any sort of creator who holds you accountable can do for someone, and if it continues I'm finished just because you need to learn insults don't get you anywhere. That's why it makes it 100x harder to take anything you say seriously.
Very Bill O', what with all the bullet point style text that overlaps the narration. I just can't help but find the points you make marred by such execution, and can't be bothered to watch/listen/watch again
i almost thought i was going to see a debate where at least 2 worthless excuses of humans threw ideas at eachother for an hour and nobody would win. now i realize you made this video to waste a whole minute to one-sidedly give your opinion on what the debate would be like. egamble, we get it. you hate god. cool it.
Ok at this point I really don't have the time to reply for an entire comment page. If you want some serious answers PM me with legitimate questions, and your email, and I'll write up a paper with answers and we can end this like gentlemen. Otherwise you can continue slamming anyone who comments on this page. I won't see any replys you make on this page. Also, you can call me a coward if you want, but a coward wouldn't have offered that up. God bless.
"if you want some serious answers PM me with legitimate questions"
Why don't you do likewise on the issue of evolution?
"I'll write up a paper with answers"
There are >250,000 such scientific papers that validate, yet you summarily dismiss them. There are 15,000 radiometric dating report that might offset the 1 you use to invalidate all radiometric dating. There are also tens of thousand studies on transitional fossils.
Allow us to explain our stuff as you demand for your stuff.
I guess xsoccerdudecjx tired of being publicly flogged by egamble22. Awesome. You rock dude. Perhaps you might like to respond to thequesoguy's accusation that "you hate god" (below).
Excuse me for being able to defend myself against people like egamble, of course you're going to make pointless insults, every atheists I've ever debated has. Way to take the high road.
Tavereen, I don't see how believing all organisms slowly evolve into new species would change the discoveries of how to cure diseases. The people becoming involved in medicine has exploded, which is why I think it has advanced. Evolutionists are quick to take credit.
"The fact is knowledge of evolution is used to produce flu vaccine & to create optimum designs."
You do realize that natural selection and evolution are different right? Those are mutations, not species randomly turning into new ones. You don't need the crap that "disproves" God to get medicine.
You do realize that natural selection and evolution are different right
Evolution explains how increasingly complex organisms appeared on earth. Natural selection explains how it happened. They may be different but they are closely related on the same issue.
You don't need the crap that "disproves" God to get medicine
If you know of some "crap" that disproves god, you have the key to fame & fortune beyond your imagination.
"If you know of some "crap" that disproves god, you have the key to fame & fortune beyond your imagination. "
Trust me, I've heard more than one atheist claim it disproves God, just making sure you people know it doesn't. It would have to be true to do anything lol.
"They may be different but they are closely related on the same issue."
But that difference if the step across the line of what the evidence actually supports.
Of course, you are ignorant of the fact that science does not "prove" anyting. It simply searches for natural answers to isues. Tough shit if those answers falsify the 3,000 year old crap written by superstitious, ignorant nomads.
I believe you lie when you say atheists claims evolution disproves god. We say it disprove the silly nonsense in genesis. We simply don't believe god - any god - exists.
It falsifies nothing. Scientists since the 1920's have been changing facts around so that evolution works.
Lying is intentionally telling what I know isn't true, so you're implying I don't believe what I'm even saying!? Fail on your part. I get that you don't believe any god exists, but the silly nonsense could make perfect since if you only looked at the other perspective.
It doesn't? Then why are IDiots running around screaming like raped apes that itis false?
"Scientists since the 1920's have been changing facts around so that evolution works.
Let's take this slowly, now. Can you think of a reason why scientists would do that? Don't you know the scientists who falsified evolution would be more famous than Einstein, & every IDiot alive would kiss his ass?
Why on earth would scientists manipulate the data. C'mon tell me why.
When you say scientists have been manipulating the data, you are implying that about 5 MILLION people are conspiring to protect evolution. Why would they?
You have creation scientists (oxymoron, if ever there was one). Why aren't they proving what you claim? . They can't even get funding to try to falsify a single 1 of the >2 million scientific studies that validate evolution. Because they know they can't.
Stop saying scientists manipulate data unless you can present supporting evidence
If you had been born and raised in Saudi Arabia or Pakastan, would you be vainly defending the bible teachings?
If you answered "yes", you are a moron. The fact is you would be ATTACKING christianity. The only reason you feel as you do is because you have been indoctrinated. When it comes to your faith, you are incapable of backing off, looking at all the evidence & then making a decision.
you speak with authority about science but you are scientifically illiterate.
What exactly is wrong with remembering your ancestors with an object? Are you really that insensitive? Also, Jesus wasn't one of "my people" he is a selfless individual, who didn't have to die but did to save me. Those others were murdered involuntarily. Very different.
"What exactly is wrong with remembering your ancestors with an object"
Pitiful. Neither individual would ever wear such an item because of the horrific offense to their people they represent. According to christians, the greatest offense of all times was the crucifixion of jesus. Yet they love the replica of the instrument used to commit the offense. The reason is simple. You have een indoctrinated.
You never know, don't speak for entire races you arrogant pig. I was going along with the hypothetical situation, and you slam me for it. You truly are just looking for insult opportunities.
Offense is the wrong word for this situation. It was a horrible sin by man, yes, but it's not an offense to Christians. We wear the cross because it represents Jesus giving Himself up as a Holy Sacrifice so that we are no longer bound by sin, we're not reminiscing about an offense.
"he is a selfless individual who didn't have to die"
1. Only 1 gospel claims the event was planned.
2. It is the dumbest story ever told. Because he was pissed at man, god sent his spook to knock up a child with himself so that he could be born as a human - but not a human - die like a dog nailed to a tree so that his anger could be appeased & he could forgive mankind their "sins"
Why didn't the dumb ass simply forgive them without all the silly nonsense? LOL
"Didn't knock up a child, implanted a fetus, no sex"
Aaaahhh, "knocked up", means she had a fetus grow in her, dummy.
"What part of Triune don't you understand"
Triune is not mentioned in the bible. Boeing engineers can write an aircraft repair manual in 50 different languages & everyone will follow it precisely. But you have to write another book to explain god's "inerrant"word. Who are you petty mortals to decide what your inerrant god meant? What crap! LOL
"If you had and idea what the Christian faith was about you'd know all of this"
Translation: If you close your mind to everything but the bible & read what man wrote to further explain what god was trying to say, you'd know all of that. RROTFLMAO!!!!
Again you're being a hypocrite, accusing me of having a closed mind when instead of using this debate to further your knowledge you are insulting me. Shows what a life without God does, allows you to rationalize away insulting others.
Ok, more bull crap insults. The same is true for you and your atheism, but I don't believe it is because I believe in the doctrine of Arminius, that God has chosen people, and that we can either accept or reject Him. It's true I more than likely would've rejected Him as you have, but that's now it how it worked out. Hypothetical situations are of no use here.
I can supply evidence, read Icons of Evolution. There is absolutely no reason to believe our early atmosphere did not contain oxygen, and yet the presence of oxygen wouldn't allow organic compounds to form out of inorganic ones. And yet this is still accepted.
I think they probably would be, but as soon as they get onto something it gets shot down as bull crap. Ever seen "Expelled"? Also, the same thing is in Icons of Evolution. They manipulate it because of Pride, plain and simple.
There is not really a religious debate.
Atheists are right, Theists are delusional.
End of conversation.
Reality wins!
legion1a 4 months ago 3
@legion1a Are you in the United States? I live in Kansas, and reality is reeling around spitting out blood and teeth. Around these parts science is "liberal propaganda"
Snakepliskinist 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
VenomFangX FTW (but thats just me)
TheSuperchick5555 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is technical knowledge -it isn't for everyone: watch?v=xiwMdNPaxcg
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
lol. nice video...and I hope so too!
91nickt 1 year ago
I don't even know Tfoot gives the time of day. Venom is a moron.
MrThunderbeast 1 year ago 4
lololololol at science joke at end
Mayhem108 1 year ago 5
Agreed.
coreylogan2 1 year ago
I don't know, maybe it's just because Thunderf00t has the easier premise. I think they should trade sides and see if Thunderf00t can argue *against* science and still beat vfx! ;-)
ReedYoung 2 years ago 2
@ReedYoung Only way you may validly argue about evince on which all the science stands and falls is to provide new, contradictory evidence. But since VFX is a poor debater and has no understanding on science, I guess it would end up in tie - TF would just refute the fallacies VFX would produce, but stay silent about "why is science wrong".
DevelX666 1 year ago
@DevelX666 Yeah, I'm sure TF wouldn't argue against science, or for that matter even waste time piling on the evidence that vfx can't think its way out of a paper bag. I just thought it would be funny if Thunderfoot won both sides of the argument. And I honestly think he would.
ReedYoung 1 year ago
This is what modern psychology/psychiatry practice.. Instead of remedies, they present oppressive measures. In psychology, everything is a sickness except the Dr. Observer, which in my mind is a mad scientist. So as you can see, even physics is cherry picked by people pointing the cherry picking finger. And its all wrapped up in agenda & lies. Yet people need there foundation to stand on as they nail there reality down. Yet we havent even addressed the manipulations in history books.
LendMeYourHand 2 years ago
Though this is evident in deep religion as well, The simple fact of a open mind increases bandwidth in brainwaves. To say there is no god or afterlife is beyond anyones knowledge, so to conclude that it doesnt present any evidence disscludes observation. By closing these doors, you are unable to view what is on the other side. You can see this throughout history as many people died from ailments from lack of observation. If no one believed diabetes exsisted, they would turn away & ignore it.
LendMeYourHand 2 years ago
Modern science has come to a state of observation. As we observe, we find that much of what we incorporated into our way of thinking was drawn from ancient methods. We also see the blatant CHERRY PICKING(Dawkins) that has occured do to lack of observation(state of witness). This can be taken deeper with politics & agendas unknown to the common observer. Quite simply, materialists are following what they were programmed to believe. Whether the observation is valid or not as we see dissinformation
LendMeYourHand 2 years ago
excellent review...
SirGibbels 2 years ago
@lordnimr0d : You must be drunk, on drugs or both
Ridleysama 2 years ago
For anyone unclear on whether VFX really did steal from Sick Kid's Hospital, please see my accounts profile write-up for the proof.
VFX should NOT be coming back until he pays Sick Kids Hospital the funds he stole.
themsfightinwoids 2 years ago 15
"You cannot use modern information to explain the past"
Uhhhh, what???
OK, lets say your wife has gonorrhea. Can you assume she's been unfaithful if you haven't?
Well according to you no. Modern information can't explain the past.
DUHHH!!!
warren52nz 2 years ago
Did you know that VFX has resurrected into "Letstalkchrist" ?
Strange, on THOSE videos, he has nothing but fabulous comments from everyone. Hmmmm....
But I noticed that "Comments Disabled" looks EXACTLY like ZERO STARS which is what I would have given him if they weren't disabled.
8^P
warren52nz 2 years ago
So much for those death threats he supposedly received huh? His old website has also had the same message on it for some time now: "This site has been taken offline by the parents of VenomFangX, they don't support/share his views and apologize if he has offended anyone. This site will be offline for good in 3 days."
I'm just wondering how long until his next site pops up.
Snackar 2 years ago
It has already, his handle is apparently "Letstalkchrist"
Look him up. I was missing my daily laugh. I learned not to watch his videos at lunch after milk came shooting out of my nose one day.
8^)
warren52nz 2 years ago
So tired so damn tired.
blauwen 2 years ago
Folks,
I have achieved my goal. This sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant, indoctrinated scientific-illiterate zealot has been cornered. All he can do now is close his eyes, cover his ears & scream "YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG"
Let's take a closer look at his latest pathetic bullshit. Mind you, I writing this for those of you who just might be inclined to give it some consideration.
egamble22 2 years ago 20
davegooley said "I do not care about the atheist's opinions about the origin of the universe and life because the atheist's opinions about these topics are based on illogical conjecture"
Not by atheists but by scientists of many persuasions. That's a fact.
He has an opinion, scientists MUST have theories that MUST be supported by evidence. It may be "illogical conjecture" to him because he's scientific-illiterate, google "WMAP" & see how scientists are learning about the early universe.
egamble22 2 years ago 2
@egamble22 and if that does'nt work he/she can always try the tried and true BLAAAAALLALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAL!!!!ha ha haaaa
thanksforthemessdick 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
egamble22, I will make this the last comment because you apparently did not understand what I said. I will be as clear as I can. I do not care about the atheist's opinions about the origin of the universe and life because the atheist's opinions about these topics are based on illogical conjecture. You cannot use modern information to explain the past. You require information from that same time. You have yet to produce a single bit of actual evidence from that time and you have failed.
davegooley 2 years ago
"You cannot use modern information to explain the past"
What an idiotic statement. Let's suppose this moron was 1 of many on death row for a crime he didn't commit. His defense apply new methods to the old evidence & produce unquestionable new information that exonerates him.
He would shit on himself if the prosecutor said "Sorry modern information can't explain the past"
Forensic science does an exceptional job of producing new information that explaiins the past.
egamble22 2 years ago
"You cannot use modern information to explain the past"
As early as the 18th century, scientists concluded that the world was very old. Using several methods, they came up with about 30 different calculations ranging from 100,000 years to 100 million years.
Using modern information about radioactive material, radiometric dating was developed in the 20th century & it was possible to determine an accurate date.
This is just 1 of many example which shows he's full of shit.
egamble22 2 years ago
"You require information from that same time"
A timelile of events as recorded in the fossil records which is A PICTURE OF LIFE ON EARTH from the beginning until today. The fossils are pictures of the organisms, themselves.
The problem for him is the fossil records cannot be reconciled with a 6,000 year old earth
egamble22 2 years ago
FACT: The initial level of U-235 in uranium was 100%
FACT: U-235 half life is 713 million years
FACT: The present U-235 level in uranium is about 0.72.
FACT: Based on its present level & the time required to complete a half-life, U-235 must be between its 6th & 7th half-life (4.28 b - 5 b years)
FACT: If the earth were 6,000 years old, the U-235 level in uranium would be 100%
As with all new scientific knowledge, it's not about creation. But it indirectly prove genesis is a lie.
egamble22 2 years ago
@davegooley
That is the stupidest thing I have seen for an argument in a while. Why is modern information unable to explain the past? Are you saying the only way to explain it is to create a time machine, travel back, and then bring back what you found?
It seems to me you are only trying to create excuses for yourself; convincing yourself that you are right.
LeFrenchAvenger 2 years ago
egamble22, certainly have made this into more than what it needed to be. The reality is that Yahweh created the universe and life and you, like all other atheists, try to say that Yahweh doesn't exist because you don't want to acknowledge Yahweh. It's that simple. Personally, I really don't care about atheism in the least, which is why I am not an atheist. Yahweh provided the evidence I needed to believe, which is why I believe. You are too absorbed into atheism to even understand it.
davegooley 2 years ago
"certainly have made this into more than what it needed to be"
With all due respect, THAT is your opinion. I have 1, too. And it does not agree with yours. It is "more than what is needed" for what? Was it more than is needed to prove there is evidence which proves evolution is valid?
Wait, wait.. I will even make the utterly outrageous concession that the evidence may be forged & that all evolution-related scientists are dishonest.
But you have to present proof of your charge.
egamble22 2 years ago
"The reality is that Yahweh created the universe and life and you"
Perhaps he did. But I'm not convinced in the least. Show me proof & I might be persuaded to change my mind.
egamble22 2 years ago
"like all other atheists, try to say that Yahweh doesn't exist"
The opposite of " atheist" is not "Yahweh", it's "theist".
Theists believe in THEIR god but are atheist when it comes to all other gods.
You don't believe in Thor, Zeur, Horus, Osirus or Allah. The ONLY difference between you & me is I feel the same way you do about those gods AND your god.
egamble22 2 years ago
"because you don't want to acknowledge Yahweh"
Why don't you believe Thor, Zeur, Horus, Osirus or Allah exist? Do you refuse to believe they don't exist because you don't WANT to acknowledge them? Do you have a choice in believing or not believing in the?
Try applying the same feelings you have about those other gods to how I feel about yours. Sounds kinda stupid, doesn't it.
egamble22 2 years ago
"I really don't care about atheism in the least, which is why I am not an atheist"
You are a theist because you have been indoctrinated.
"Yahweh provided the evidence I needed to believe"
Share it with me, as I listed evidence for evolution that cused you to say it was "more than what it needed to be"
egamble22 2 years ago
"You are too absorbed into atheism to even understand it"
We - I repeat, we - don't believe in the religions associated with Thor, Zeur, Horus, Osirus or Allah. And neither of us is absorbed in them, right?
Why should I be absorbed by your religion when not believing in the others didn't causes either of us to be absorbed by them?
Now stop the distractions & respond to the evidence or provide some of your own. That is assuming you can do either.
egamble22 2 years ago
egamble22, in any case, you have a lot of growing up to do. You can't communicate without your insults, which disproves you as a person of compassion, morals, or ethics, you promote illogical theories that have never been observed or repeated, and you can't handle when the truth is presented to you. It must be driving you crazy that I can forgive you. Maybe when you can stop the temper tantrums, you might be able to act in a mature and rational manner.
davegooley 2 years ago
"Maybe when you can stop the temper tantrums, you might be able to act in a mature and rational manner."
O. K, I'm over my temper tantrum.
Creation scientists acknowledge that the earth's radiation level was once deadly. Based on the half-life of radiation, it would have taken billions of years for it to reach its present safe level.
Therefore, the earth could not be a few thousand years old. Please explain.
egamble22 2 years ago
Ice core from Anartica has been dated at 850,000 years ago. What do you think of that? Can you explain this disparity with the 6,000 year old date for the earth?
egamble22 2 years ago
Like I said, I'm over my temper tantrum
Tree roots in Norway have been determined to be >9,000 years old. What do you think about that?
egamble22 2 years ago
Still keeping my temper under control
Scientists have developed an evolutionary tree. On it they have placed millions of organisms to show their relation to previous & subsequent organisms. Can you tell us what creation scientists have to say about the individual entries?
egamble22 2 years ago
I'm happy to tell you I'm still in control of my temper.
From its beginning up to today, the earth's rocks have slowly formed. If we express the rocks as a 34 hour clocks, with 0000 being the base rock and 2359:59 being the most recent rocks, we find:
1, the first organism appears at 1230
2. the first fish appear at 2330
3. man appears at 2359:59
Evolution explains this evidence perfectly, it makes a mockery of creation. Can you elaborate on this problem for evolution?
egamble22 2 years ago
Thanks to your wonderful counseling, I'm still hanging onto my temper. LOL
Oh yes, with no evidence to support their claim, as usual, creationists assert that Neanderthal Man & humans are one and the same. With DNA & genome data to support them, scientists have theorized that they are separate theories. What's your opinion on that?
egamble22 2 years ago
scientists have theorized that they are separate SPECIES
egamble22 2 years ago
Hey, you should be happy to know I'm still in control
Scientists have discovered a huge caulders under in Yelllowston National park. Their research shows it has erupted several times over a several million years with catastrophic results.
If what they say is true, then the earth has been around much longer than 6,000 years.
egamble22 2 years ago
Boy!! Being in control is great!!!
Scientists theorizes that the continents were once a single land mass called Pangea. They also theorize that it broke & is floating apart on what they also theorize as tetonic plates. Using satellite data, they determined that the plates are moving apart at about an inch annually. Based on its speed, scientists theorize that Pangea broke apart about 200 million years ago. What is the creationists' response to this information?
egamble22 2 years ago
Controlling one's temper is GREAT!!
Er, back to the main issue. About 65 million years ago, the fossil records show that well over 95% of all life on earth came to an end.
How does creation scientists explain this fact in terms of what caused it, why and when it occured.
egamble22 2 years ago
Still hanging in there
In the Burgess Pass, high in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, scientists discovered a fossil bed that details life on Earth as they theorize it existed 520 Million years ago. How does creation science explain this site?
egamble22 2 years ago
I see it!!! Throwing temper tantrums is childish.
Errrr, back to the issue. Wooly mammoth, sabre toothed tiger, short face bear, giant sloths, bisons wolves, & hundreds of other extinct animals are being removed from tar beds in Brae, CA at this very moment. In Australia, they are researching hundreds of giant animals, including the marsupial lion. Scientists theorize they lived from 1 million to12,000 years ago. What does creation science have to say about them?
egamble22 2 years ago
In case you miss the point I was trying to make, let me present it to you.
The Big Bang, Abiogenesis & Evolution are theorise - scientific ideas that explain the evidence. If you get rid of them tomorrow, there will still be the kind of data I listed to challenge genesis.
Bottom line? Unless you can provide alternative ideas for the existing evidence or new knowledge to challenge it, the only thing you will do is reassure those who are seeking reassurance.
egamble22 2 years ago
egamble22, for your information, I went to sleep before you started your dissertation, so don't assume that because I didn't respond that you were right. Are you that obsessed to try and prove you are right? Wouldn't psychologists call that an obsessive disorder? The fact is that just because you use modern information to try and explain the past does not mean the information can accurately do so. Also, anything can be shown through computer simulation and data can be manipulated.
davegooley 2 years ago
"don't assume that because I didn't respond that you were right"
I DON'T know if I'm right. And you are unqualified to determine if I'm right.
The key point is whether the evidence is correct & has been correctly interpreted. That must be determined by scientists working in that field. This is why we have to rely on the scientists who conduct the peer reviews to ensure the quality & accuracy of the information.
Whether I'm right or wrong I am guided by the evidence or lack thereof.
egamble22 2 years ago
"Are you obsessed"
Perhaps. But how does my being obsessed affect what I wrote? What has that to do with the issues I raised.
"Wouldn't psychologists call that an obsessive disorder"
I don't know. Do you want to discuss some disorder you attribute to me or do you want to discuss the evidence? Better yet, is THIS your response to what I wrote?
Scientists maintain that given time, microevolution would become macroevolution. I'm trying to show the time was available.
What say you?
egamble22 2 years ago
"because you use modern information to try and explain the past does not mean the information can accurately do so"
Actually, it's more modern methods. But you are right. That said, you can't discredit the method or information it produced by SAYING it might be flawed. You have to show where 1 or the other is flawed.
egamble22 2 years ago
"Also, anything can be shown through computer simulation and data can be manipulated"
Tell me, do you really think you have falsified everything I wrote? Better yet, do you think clever words have falsified MILLIONS of hours of observation, research, study, testing, documenting, reporting & quality assurance? What happened to your claim that there was no evidence to support evolution?
Do you think implying that all scientists are dishonest PROVES they are dishonest?
egamble22 2 years ago
Clever words may convince you & other creationists of what you say. But your goal is to persuade others that you are right. This situation is no different than a trial, with the people you are trying to influence being the jury.
This tactic was pretty much tried in the Dover, PA creation trial where you people were laughed out of court .
Because data can be manipulated doesn't mean it was manipulated. You have to prove that.
Do you have proof of anything you say? Anything at all?????
egamble22 2 years ago
egamble22, by the way, if atheism has nothing to do with abiogenesis, cosmology and macroevolution, why do you as an atheists promote it religiously? And now you are separating yourself from it? Please make up your mind. Maybe when you learn to talk without adhom attacks and mature to an adult, you might be able to handle the conversation.
davegooley 2 years ago
"Maybe when you learn to talk without adhom attacks and mature to an adult, you might be able to handle the conversation"
ROTFLMFAO!!! This from a lowlife who resorts to personal attacks immediately upon beinf faced with specific facts.
egamble22 2 years ago
You have no idea how much i appreciate you showing me the error of my ways. LOL
One last point. There are MILLIONS of issues like the ones I mentioned which all prove the earth is older than 6,000 years.
As for that flood myth, Japan, China, India, Greece &, particularly, Egypt all predate the flood & have never been destroyed, and their rulers & peoples left millions of documents to prove it. What evidence do creation science provide to counter this evidence?
egamble22 2 years ago
Wow, Dave, I have never seen someone get defeated so handily in a little conversation. All the tactics you resorted t instead of actually defending your points were quite humorous. Are you a comedian or were you actually serious?
tsferg 2 years ago
egamble22, to continue, atheists like you verbally criticize people of faith for the very thing they are guilty of, not showing evidence of their theories other than biased opinions based on modern information. In any case, I forgive you.
davegooley 2 years ago
egamble22, spin, misinform and lie about is a common tactic of atheists. What I did was point out the illogical nature of the atheist theories. Abiogenesis = life from non-life. Cosmology = how the universe came into existence, but started by a non-intelligent singularity. Macroevolution = one kind evolving into another kind. All non-observed and never repeated. Atheists say they do not believe in anything not observed and can't be repeated. That is why I said that atheists are hypocrites
davegooley 2 years ago
"Atheists say they do not believe in anything not observed and can't be repeated"
That's a damned lie. Atheism is a disbelief in god's existence. Period, end of discussion. Being the arrogant fool you are, you refuse to understand that atheism has nothing to do with cosmology, abiogenesis or evolution.
On second thought, perhaps you are indoctrinated to the point that you are capable of digesting & regurgitating only what your handlers tell you about these issues.
egamble22 2 years ago
Atheists, like catholics, Hindus, Buddists & hundreds of other THEISTS believe in evolution because of the overwhelming validating evidence.
On a scale of 1 (weak conviction) - 10 (strong conviction), I am a 10 atheist. But what about tthose who are 1 or 2, who could be persuaded to become theist (christians, in your case) by evidence?
All you have to offer them is negativism about what they believe. You have nothing positive to show them that might cause them to change their minds
egamble22 2 years ago
egamble22, stop making this about you. You're just upset you can't bully me through my inbox. And by the way, passing off discredited theories that were illogical to begin with is a fraudulent way to earn a paycheck. No wonder why atheists fought to remove scripture and prayer from government run schools. They have to force children to learn theories that atheists can never prove or repeat. This is why my sons are in private school, at least there they get real education, not propaganda.
davegooley 2 years ago
egamble22, I will congratulate you on one thing. You took my advice by putting my comment in quotes and then typing your response without ALL CAPS.
davegooley 2 years ago
"You took my advice by putting my comment in quotes and then typing your response without ALL CAPS"
Yeah, look at ALL the shit I have written. And all you can comment on directly is some shit about my use of caps. What about all of those specific comments which show you & you beliefs are based on bullshit that you have to spin misinform & even lie about to sustain.
Stop attacking abiogenesis & try to reconcile you 6,000 year old creation myth with the evidence in the fossil records.
egamble22 2 years ago
egamble22, you keep proving my point. I don't need my inbox filled with your childish and immature adhom attacks. To answer your question about what Yahweh has done, He created the universe and life, and then created you despite your attitude against Him. Yahweh is willing to save and redeem you, but you have to humble yourself. Once again, I forgive you.
davegooley 2 years ago
egamble22, childish and vengeful behavior won't take you off the blocked list. I do forgive you because you don't know any better. Let the world know when you find someone who observed the beginning of cosmology and macroevolution or has observed a repeat of those events. Abiogenesis has already been labeled as a discredited theory, and rightfully so since it is so illogical and self-contradicting just in the summary description "life from non-life".
davegooley 2 years ago
"childish and vengeful behavior won't take you off the blocked list"
LOL!! You block me, then you come here & argue with me. Dumbass
"I di forgive you"
Well fuck you, you phony selfrighteous asshole.
"Let me know when you find someone who observed the beginning of cosmology and macroevolution"
Let me know when your clumsy, ignorant, impotent god is observed doing ANYTHING
egamble22 2 years ago
"Abiogenesis has already been labeled as a discredited theory"
And I label you as a dishonest creationist. I gave you a definition of abiogenesis which explained how "Aristotelian evolution" had been discredited & how biologists had redefined the word to apply to the work being done to create life.
You are too brain dead to realize that the word CAN'T be discredited when scientists around the world are working on it.
You can't get funding for discredited theories, fool.
egamble22 2 years ago
Having Thunderf00t pwn VenomFangX would be like using a tank to take out a housefly.
RoCkErX285 2 years ago
Folks,
Please bear with me & place all the IDiot bullshit on hold. I'm going to briefly explain the mission of science & how it goes about achieving it.
The mission of science is to provide natural explanations (as opposed to "god dunnit") for phenomenon.
egamble22 2 years ago
Folks,
Please bear with me & place all the IDiot bullshit on hold. I'm going to briefly explain the mission of science & how it goes about achieving it.
The mission of science is to provide natural explanations (as opposed to "god dunnit") for phenomenon.
egamble22 2 years ago
First, scientists ask questions: (how old is the earth? When did life first appear?, Why is there no life in the K-T boundary, When did the dinosaurs disappear)
egamble22 2 years ago
Second, they conduct studies/experiments.
Third, they compile the data
Fourth, they analyze the data for suitability.
Fifth, they submit the data for peer review, where it is 1) pre-screened for suitability, 2) sent to 3 or more referees for review & 3) assessed for suitability by a percentage of scientists in the field.
Sixth, if the scientist is successful in convincing his peers he is right, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
This is the MANDATORY scientific process
egamble22 2 years ago
This rigorous process was used to produce EVERY scientific achievement you can see, feel, smell or touch.
Among them are the MILLIONS of studies that validate evolution. Each of them had to pass the process described above.
How many creationists studies have been submitted to this rigorous process? None. I repeat, NONE, NADA, ZERO
egamble22 2 years ago
Instead, they throw crap into the public forum, where they discuss everything except the specific, overwhelming evidence which validates evolution & undermines the veracity of their 3,000 year old myths. For example scientists spent THOUSANDS of hours creating THOUSANDS of papers answering such questions as how old is the earth? When did life first appear? What happened with the K-T boundary & the dinosaurs?
egamble22 2 years ago
Each of them, as well as MILLIONS of others, destroys the dates given for the creation & flood myths. But IDiots dont even dare mention them. Instead, they attack the credibility of the scientific community which supposedly stifles creation scientists activities. And what is their proof for their claims? Biased writings, such as the discredited Expelled, by creationists with axes to grind. Like Expelled, they only provide hearsay & 1-sided information.
egamble22 2 years ago
Please keep these FACTS (not allegations) in mind as you read the bullshit postings of biblical apologists like xsoccerdudecjx.
And thanks for your indulgence.
Now, I will address some of the crap written by xsoccerdudecjx.
egamble22 2 years ago
And you're the one to be talking about 1-sided information aren't you? Wow.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"And you are the one to be talking about 1-sided information aren't you"
Let me try this again. Any scientific paper MUST contain falsifiable evidence. Do you know what THAT means? It means any scientist in that field can take the data, check it and determine if the conclusion reached by the developer is valid. The problem for IDiots is that you can't show where a single 1is invalid.
So, you make asinine accusations about millions of scientists protecting the idea known as evolution
egamble22 2 years ago
I was talking about YOU, the arrogant man who has yet to look at the papers that show were hundreds are invalid. That would be why I said that.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
And which paper was THAT?
egamble22 2 years ago
Don't know? Try LOOKING.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
You recommended "Expelled", which Ihave seen.
In turn, I recommended "Expelled Exposed", which shows the lies in "Expelled". More importantly, you will see what FALSIFIABLE evidence looks like.
For example, it lists dates, states that people were no fired as they claim & lists the positions they held instead of the ones they claim they held.
If "Expelled Exposed" had made mistakes, those involved with "Expelled" would have jumped all over the error(s). But they haven't said shit.
egamble22 2 years ago
"But they haven't said shit. "
Actually they have. Again you show you haven't looked at all. Atheism Is Dead and Reasonable Kansans both killed this, type in Expelled Exposed Exposed on google and they'll be on the first page.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
You evidence definitely indicates "Expelled Exposed" contains falsehoods. I have no problem admitting it. That's how rational minded people function.
How about you? I say again, your comic book contains errors.
1. 2 Samuel 24:1 says god provoked David to count the fighting men of Israel, 1 Chroincles 21:1 says the devil did.
2. 2 Samuel 24:9 says he counted 800,000, 1 Chronicles 21:5 says 1,100,000.
What do you think of my evidence?
egamble22 2 years ago
I don't think it is evidence, I think it's misreading. 2 Samuel says there were 800,000 Isrealites and 500,000 Judeans, while 1 Chronicles combines them into 1,100,000. 2 Samuel rounded up, and 1 Chronicles was more specific. Also, it was Satan who provoked God, God simply allowed Satan to do what he wanted in the situation. It never says God provoked.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"I don't tink it is evidence"
I say you comic book contains errors & I list the evidence which supports my claim are obvious errors. You say you don't think it's evidence? Why not? Why is your reference evidence & mine, taken from your comic book, not?
"i think it is misleading"
So, you think your comic book is misleading even though that's what it says. Why can't I say the same thing about what you referred me to?
egamble22 2 years ago
"@Samuel says there were 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeals, while 1 Chronicles combines them into 1,100,000"
1. The combined total in Samuel is 1,300,000. So, there is still a 200,000 difference.
2. You are guilty of a wilful or ignorant error. ! Chronicles does not combine the 2. I states that there were 1,100,000 Israelites & "Juda was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword".
What you said is a lie.
egamble22 2 years ago
"Also, it was Satan who proviked God"
WTF! 2 Samuel 24:1 says "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah"
Chroincles 21:1 says "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel"
Which 1 made David number the Jews?
"It never says God provoked"
I did. Proviked means "To stir to action or feeling" Substitute any word you want that means he was stirred to count the Jews
egamble22 2 years ago
He moved against David by allowing Satan to do what he wanted, the word provoked isn't in that text. Therefore, no contradiction. Good try.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"He moved against David by allowing Satan to do what he wanted"
How ignorant of you! Let's take this slowly.
1 independent entry in your comic book says " "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah"
1. God is pissed (as usual)
2. He caused David to have the people counted.
Doesn't this verse say god caused this action? Isn't this verse in 2 Samuel independent of what's written in 1 Chronicles?
egamble22 2 years ago
1 Chronicles 24:1 says "And Satan stood up against Israel, and proviked David to number Israel"
Doesn't this verse say Satan caused David to number the people?
2different places in your comic book says David had the people counted. The question is who caused him to do so. Did God do it , as Samuel claims or did Satan do it, as Chronicles.
That is an unquestionable contradiction.
egamble22 2 years ago
"the word provoked isn't in that text"
The verse says god "moved" David. Q: "moved" him to do what . A: to have the people counted.
Knowing that, a 6th grader can come up with synonyms for "moved". cause, had,, made, influenced, forced and, yes prompted.
Are you as smart as a 6th grader? No.
"Therefore, no contradiction. Good try"
You should know by now what the contradiction is. If you don't you are hopelessly ignorant & unqualified to carry on a conversation with a 6th grader.
egamble22 2 years ago
"2 Samuel says there were 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeans, while 1 Chronicles combined them into 1,100,000"
1. 800,000 + 500,000 = 1,300,000. So, there is still a contradiction.
2. ! Chronicles does not combine them as you claim.
You came onto this site accusing tf of lying but you never pointed out the lies. It appears you are the liar. And when I pointed out your errors to you, you ignored my comments.
Can't admit you were wrong, can you.
egamble22 2 years ago
It is always interesting to read people claim contradictions of something they don't believe in, yet believe in something that is totally unobserved that they profess as "scientific" theories. Even cosmology has gone through so many revisions and ended up as a completely illogical theory (ie. a singularity causing an entire universe to exist from space dust of unknown origin.) If you oppose the Creator and the scriptures, just say so and move on. The claims you make are old and tired.
davegooley 2 years ago
"It is always interesting to read people claim contradictions of something they don't believe in"
I, like most object thinking people, study all sides of issues to make intelligent choices. You should try it. I was responding to the claim the bible is inerrant.
"yet believe in something that is totally unobserved"
If you were in the practice of reading all sides of issues you would know evolution is an observed fact. It reduces the chance you will say something silly like this.
egamble22 2 years ago
"that they profess as "scientific" theories"
About 99% of the world's 5 million or so scientists accept it as a valid theory. What are your qualifications to challenge them? State what is wrong with the theory, if you can.
"Even cosmology has gone through so many revisions and ended up as a completely illogical theory"
Science is designed to make changes as new knowledge comes available.
Perhaps the theory is illogical to you because you lack a real scientific education.
egamble22 2 years ago
"The claims you make are old and tired"
Let's see if I have this right. You have no problem with bible apologists who claim the bible is inerrant during an exxchange such as this. But if someone says "no, no, you are wrong" & presents evidence to prove it, you say that's old & tired.
Is THAT your only response to the myriad of obvious mistakes in your holy book?
egamble22 2 years ago
In a private message, you threatened to block me. But you forgot that you do not control this site. I will be posting part of your message to show everyone who reads this in the future what an arrogant asshole you are.
Also, I will share the entire pile of tripe with anyone who resuests it.
egamble22 2 years ago
Wow, you really showed me. The reason why I blocked you is because you were too irrational and immature to communicate with. Your choice of insults is proof positive.
davegooley 2 years ago
Stick around, I'm showing you as you crow.
egamble22 2 years ago
"Considering you have as much maturity as an ill-mannered child in grade school by your immature display, I will have to block you as you really have nothing intelligent or mature to say"
He claimed there was no evidence for evolution. I laid out the time line in tthe fossil records as a 24 hour clock. It shows man arrived in the last 23 hours, 59 minutes & 59 seconds. Evolution explains it perfectly, it makes a joke of creatikon. What was his reply. Silly nonsense & personal attacks.
egamble22 2 years ago
"You believe in illogical theories such as abiogenesis, cosmology and macroevolution"
I pointed out that they may be illogical to him because of a personal problem - lack of proper education.
egamble22 2 years ago
"abiogenesis was actually listed as discredited"
In reply to his original charge, I provided a definition from "Bio-Medicine", which explains that "Aristotelian evolution", which claimed life could evolve from decaying matter, had been discredited, and abiogenesis, AS DEFINED BY BIOLOGIST was still valid.
I also referred him to scientists' working on the issue who promised to create life with 3 - 10 years.
All this was ignored
egamble22 2 years ago
"Without Yahweh, the universe and life cannot exist. Atheists like you make up theories based on irrelevant information and show yourselves to be the true believers of theories of conjecture"
Although he has ZERO proof that his god exist or that the universe can't exist without it, that doesn't stop him from making that emphatic assertion. But wait, he turns around & accuses atheists, who insist on dealing in evidence, of being "true believers of theories of conjecture"
Confused, perhaps?
egamble22 2 years ago
"Atheists like you are truly hypocritical because atheists like you have never observed abiogenesis, cosmology or macroevolution happening and have never repeated it".
He's never seen his god do shit
"While atheists like you claim that you do not believe anything you can't observe or repeat, you certainly like to promote things based on blind faith and then criticize anyone who believes in reality, reason and logic"
This was in response to my attempt to discuss the evidence.
egamble22 2 years ago
"A painting doesn't paint itself. A car can't manufacture itself"
I thought all creationists had been thoroughly embarrassed by this stupidity. In a discussion about reproduction, he's ranting about items that don't reproduce.
"The universe and life cannot come from a magical singularity from magical pixie space dust"
Others say it can & did - & and they have falsifiable evidence to suport their theory. All he has is his opinion which, alone, is worthless to everyone else.
egamble22 2 years ago
"Honestly, atheists such as yourself promote the prime examples of fairy tales, and you hypocritically project your fairy tale beliefs on people of faith all because you don't want to humble yourselves"
Idiotic ramblings. How can anyone so stupid as to take a single stupid motive & apply it to everyone in a class of people. I We are atheists because we don't believe in any god - including those who don't require us to humble ourselves.
egamble22 2 years ago
"Atheism is dead"
You pulled that out of your ass, right. Here is evidence to the contrary:
2007, Pew Research Values Study: Percentage of people identifying themselves as atheist, agnostic or "no religion" by year of birth:
<1946 : 5%
1946-1964: 11%
1965-1976: 14%
1977+: 19%
Do you note a trend that refutes your baseless claim?
You are living proof that those numbers would be much higher if it were illegal to indoctrinate 6 & 7 year olds with your crap.
egamble22 2 years ago
Atheism is dead is the name of the blog, not my opinion. Wow, you really enjoy your insults.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
Making sure I found the right articles, both of them just took a few quotes out of context, misrepresented claims, and failed to actually make a case. am I looking at the right thing?
sidneyx2 2 years ago
I'm a 16 year old high school student who plays varsity sports you numbskull, like I have to time, resources, or knowledge to conduct those kind of studies. You haven't either, so don't give me this sort of crap. You're throwing more garbage than i am, try looking at the comment page you just filled up with your crap.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
You have the time to present yourself as someone knowledgeable enough to challenge & question the work of scientists.
If you don't have time to do research, then stop posting shit from creationists, sites as gospel.
Point out where I have written something that is crap.
egamble22 2 years ago
Like a just starting researching to talk to you, big assumption. I've been doing it for years. I'm talking about present time which you are eating up with comment pages full of responses.
You haven't presented any actual evidence, you've avoided anything but opinions so I can't point out anything.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
Again, have you done ANY research at ALL? If you think not a single creationist study has been through the scientific process you are further showing what a hyprocrite you are, citing all this evidence and flat out denying the other side without review at all. Try looking.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
Permit me to correct myself, if you please. There have been "peer reviewed" papers.But , they were done by cronies or, as in the case of Dr Behe, they were forged. However, no creationist paper has been peer reviewed by a reputable scientific organization.
Refer me to the paper if I'm wrong.
egamble22 2 years ago
You're the one talking about forged, ever heard of Haeckl's embryos? No doubt you have, even after being proven faked they still show up in textbooks.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
First, scientists ask questions: (how old is the earth? When did life first appear?, Why is there no life in the K-T boundary, When did the dinosaurs disappear)
egamble22 2 years ago
First, scientists ask questions (how old is the earth, when did life first appear, why is the K-T boundary barren of life, When did the dinosaurs disappear)
egamble22 2 years ago
This last one isn't a response to one message, it's to all. I find it very disgusting that you continually look for any sort of cheap shot you can take at me, and go after it without thought. You are really saying something about what a life without any sort of creator who holds you accountable can do for someone, and if it continues I'm finished just because you need to learn insults don't get you anywhere. That's why it makes it 100x harder to take anything you say seriously.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
What debate? An idiot called VenomFangX utters garbage and not logic. That's not a debate.
AgentCROCODILE 2 years ago 4
True.
VenomfangX is a douche and a moron.
Omegashadowyoshi 2 years ago 7
Dude.
I laughed so hard when I ,read this, I actually thought you wrote: douche and mormon.^^
Rastafirez 2 years ago
Very Bill O', what with all the bullet point style text that overlaps the narration. I just can't help but find the points you make marred by such execution, and can't be bothered to watch/listen/watch again
DuctTapeMyFace 2 years ago
i almost thought i was going to see a debate where at least 2 worthless excuses of humans threw ideas at eachother for an hour and nobody would win. now i realize you made this video to waste a whole minute to one-sidedly give your opinion on what the debate would be like. egamble, we get it. you hate god. cool it.
thequesoguy 2 years ago
Well when youre talking about religion it doesnt matter if you make sense.
MelissaMarsx 2 years ago 4
"Hoping you're isotopes remain stable"
Awesome :0
tombeeni 2 years ago 2
Ok at this point I really don't have the time to reply for an entire comment page. If you want some serious answers PM me with legitimate questions, and your email, and I'll write up a paper with answers and we can end this like gentlemen. Otherwise you can continue slamming anyone who comments on this page. I won't see any replys you make on this page. Also, you can call me a coward if you want, but a coward wouldn't have offered that up. God bless.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"if you want some serious answers PM me with legitimate questions"
Why don't you do likewise on the issue of evolution?
"I'll write up a paper with answers"
There are >250,000 such scientific papers that validate, yet you summarily dismiss them. There are 15,000 radiometric dating report that might offset the 1 you use to invalidate all radiometric dating. There are also tens of thousand studies on transitional fossils.
Allow us to explain our stuff as you demand for your stuff.
egamble22 2 years ago 4
I guess xsoccerdudecjx tired of being publicly flogged by egamble22. Awesome. You rock dude. Perhaps you might like to respond to thequesoguy's accusation that "you hate god" (below).
massspectrician 2 years ago
Excuse me for being able to defend myself against people like egamble, of course you're going to make pointless insults, every atheists I've ever debated has. Way to take the high road.
Tavereen, I don't see how believing all organisms slowly evolve into new species would change the discoveries of how to cure diseases. The people becoming involved in medicine has exploded, which is why I think it has advanced. Evolutionists are quick to take credit.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"I don't see how believing all organisms slowly evolved into new species would change the discoveries of how to cure disease"
The fact is knowledge of evolution is used to produce flu vaccine & to create optimum designs.
"Evolutionists are quick to take credit"
IDiots are quicker to give credit to their man-made god.
Why believe dumb shit like a 6,000 year old earth, 6 day creation, the flood myth & talking animals when a mountain of evidence proves otherwise?
egamble22 2 years ago 3
"The fact is knowledge of evolution is used to produce flu vaccine & to create optimum designs."
You do realize that natural selection and evolution are different right? Those are mutations, not species randomly turning into new ones. You don't need the crap that "disproves" God to get medicine.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
You do realize that natural selection and evolution are different right
Evolution explains how increasingly complex organisms appeared on earth. Natural selection explains how it happened. They may be different but they are closely related on the same issue.
You don't need the crap that "disproves" God to get medicine
If you know of some "crap" that disproves god, you have the key to fame & fortune beyond your imagination.
egamble22 2 years ago
The floor is looking pretty clean after you (egamble22) spent a month mopping it with xsoccerdudecjx .
massspectrician 2 years ago
massspectrician, you are SO funny, I wish I was as funny as you.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"If you know of some "crap" that disproves god, you have the key to fame & fortune beyond your imagination. "
Trust me, I've heard more than one atheist claim it disproves God, just making sure you people know it doesn't. It would have to be true to do anything lol.
"They may be different but they are closely related on the same issue."
But that difference if the step across the line of what the evidence actually supports.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"It would have to be true to do anything"
Of course, you are ignorant of the fact that science does not "prove" anyting. It simply searches for natural answers to isues. Tough shit if those answers falsify the 3,000 year old crap written by superstitious, ignorant nomads.
I believe you lie when you say atheists claims evolution disproves god. We say it disprove the silly nonsense in genesis. We simply don't believe god - any god - exists.
egamble22 2 years ago
It falsifies nothing. Scientists since the 1920's have been changing facts around so that evolution works.
Lying is intentionally telling what I know isn't true, so you're implying I don't believe what I'm even saying!? Fail on your part. I get that you don't believe any god exists, but the silly nonsense could make perfect since if you only looked at the other perspective.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"It falsifiesnothing"
It doesn't? Then why are IDiots running around screaming like raped apes that itis false?
"Scientists since the 1920's have been changing facts around so that evolution works.
Let's take this slowly, now. Can you think of a reason why scientists would do that? Don't you know the scientists who falsified evolution would be more famous than Einstein, & every IDiot alive would kiss his ass?
Why on earth would scientists manipulate the data. C'mon tell me why.
egamble22 2 years ago
When you say scientists have been manipulating the data, you are implying that about 5 MILLION people are conspiring to protect evolution. Why would they?
You have creation scientists (oxymoron, if ever there was one). Why aren't they proving what you claim? . They can't even get funding to try to falsify a single 1 of the >2 million scientific studies that validate evolution. Because they know they can't.
Stop saying scientists manipulate data unless you can present supporting evidence
egamble22 2 years ago
If you had been born and raised in Saudi Arabia or Pakastan, would you be vainly defending the bible teachings?
If you answered "yes", you are a moron. The fact is you would be ATTACKING christianity. The only reason you feel as you do is because you have been indoctrinated. When it comes to your faith, you are incapable of backing off, looking at all the evidence & then making a decision.
you speak with authority about science but you are scientifically illiterate.
What a shame.
egamble22 2 years ago
You see a Jew and an African-American wearing large gold objects around their necks. You ask what they are.
The Jew says "It's a replica of the gass chamber used to kill my people, isn't it beautiful.
The African-American says "It's a replica of the noose chamber used to kill my people, isn't it beautiful.
What do you think? Both are bat shit crazy, right?
You see a man with a shiny gold cross around his neck. What do you think?
He's a christian, but he's not crazy.
egamble22 2 years ago
Why exactly are they crazy for remembering the suffering of their peoples? You are a socially insensitive jerk apparently.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"Both are bat shit crazy, right?"
What exactly is wrong with remembering your ancestors with an object? Are you really that insensitive? Also, Jesus wasn't one of "my people" he is a selfless individual, who didn't have to die but did to save me. Those others were murdered involuntarily. Very different.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"What exactly is wrong with remembering your ancestors with an object"
Pitiful. Neither individual would ever wear such an item because of the horrific offense to their people they represent. According to christians, the greatest offense of all times was the crucifixion of jesus. Yet they love the replica of the instrument used to commit the offense. The reason is simple. You have een indoctrinated.
egamble22 2 years ago
You never know, don't speak for entire races you arrogant pig. I was going along with the hypothetical situation, and you slam me for it. You truly are just looking for insult opportunities.
Offense is the wrong word for this situation. It was a horrible sin by man, yes, but it's not an offense to Christians. We wear the cross because it represents Jesus giving Himself up as a Holy Sacrifice so that we are no longer bound by sin, we're not reminiscing about an offense.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"he is a selfless individual who didn't have to die"
1. Only 1 gospel claims the event was planned.
2. It is the dumbest story ever told. Because he was pissed at man, god sent his spook to knock up a child with himself so that he could be born as a human - but not a human - die like a dog nailed to a tree so that his anger could be appeased & he could forgive mankind their "sins"
Why didn't the dumb ass simply forgive them without all the silly nonsense? LOL
egamble22 2 years ago
This story shows how incompetent your omnipotent god was.
1. The first man he made "sinned" so bad he had to destroy him. But he never told man he was pissed or why.
2. He killed all animals beside man.
3. The second man "sinned" so bad he had to send himself to earth and die for his forgiveness. LOL
4. None of the "sinners" knew about it. The incompetent could have waited a few centuries & made it a halftime show during the World Cup final.
And god takes no responsibility.
egamble22 2 years ago
That seriously had to be the WORST representation of the gospel ever.
1) Didn't knock up a child, implanted a fetus, no sex.
2) What part of Triune don't you understand?
3)He died in the worst possible way to show how greatly he would go for us because he loves us.
4) It wasn't His anger, it was His wrath, they're different. He made it so only perfect blood could cover sin.
5) If you had any idea what the Christian faith was about you'd know all of that.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
"Didn't knock up a child, implanted a fetus, no sex"
Aaaahhh, "knocked up", means she had a fetus grow in her, dummy.
"What part of Triune don't you understand"
Triune is not mentioned in the bible. Boeing engineers can write an aircraft repair manual in 50 different languages & everyone will follow it precisely. But you have to write another book to explain god's "inerrant"word. Who are you petty mortals to decide what your inerrant god meant? What crap! LOL
egamble22 2 years ago
"He died in the worst possible way to show how greatly he would go for us"
Whydidn't he just decide to forgive us? Are you quoting from an addendum to your bible that is needed to explain god's motives?
"It wasn't His anger, it was His wrath"
wrath: "great anger: strong anger". They are the same. Did you get your paper from the same mill as Hovind?
egamble22 2 years ago
"If you had and idea what the Christian faith was about you'd know all of this"
Translation: If you close your mind to everything but the bible & read what man wrote to further explain what god was trying to say, you'd know all of that. RROTFLMAO!!!!
egamble22 2 years ago
Again you're being a hypocrite, accusing me of having a closed mind when instead of using this debate to further your knowledge you are insulting me. Shows what a life without God does, allows you to rationalize away insulting others.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
Ok, more bull crap insults. The same is true for you and your atheism, but I don't believe it is because I believe in the doctrine of Arminius, that God has chosen people, and that we can either accept or reject Him. It's true I more than likely would've rejected Him as you have, but that's now it how it worked out. Hypothetical situations are of no use here.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
I can supply evidence, read Icons of Evolution. There is absolutely no reason to believe our early atmosphere did not contain oxygen, and yet the presence of oxygen wouldn't allow organic compounds to form out of inorganic ones. And yet this is still accepted.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago
I think they probably would be, but as soon as they get onto something it gets shot down as bull crap. Ever seen "Expelled"? Also, the same thing is in Icons of Evolution. They manipulate it because of Pride, plain and simple.
xsoccerdudecjx 2 years ago