Gene duplication plus random mutation plus natural selection produces new genetic information in the genome of an organism. This has been observed. It is what the makers of this video would call "observational science". Claim #1 in this video is simply false. (And claim #2 is irrelevant)
@jOkErNdEgRaDeR And you call Christians biased. "Dumbass" doesn't sound unbiased to me.
Simple experiment: you can touch yourself. You can hear yourself. You can see yourself. Therefore, you must exist, right?
So, you cannot see, touch, hear, taste your brain right now, right? So by that reasoning, you must not have a brain. Can you prove that you have a brain, right now, without an X-ray, without proving that there is a god?
@hereamiLORDsendme95 Dumbass how would I know I have a brain ? Look up the word empirical .If I observed that a chicken,dog,cat, cow sheep, horse had a brain when dissected what would be the logical conclusion to be drawn from that ?
So if I don't have a x-ray to prove I have brain there must be a god ? Huh ? Is that what that last bit of gibberish was trying to imply ?
"Egg frying in a pan" This is YOUR brain on religion.
@jOkErNdEgRaDeR Are you trying to make me mad? Because I don't really see what your problem is with religion. What is it - are we assuming too much? Do we seem to be illogical? Because it seems like you're making a few snaps at religion without really proving anything.
em...'non-life'? explain. do the classic big bang thing of asking how can 'something' come from 'nothing', but when the universe is set in motion all materials are broken down and built up again and reused. even a lot of inanimate stuff to us is useful in the cycles of material in the universe. look at ecology. fires burn woods but they do not reset to what they once were. there is nothing but change.
@Zinferbuddy reconstitution over a long period of time. the food chain. the worms that eat the corpse are also food themselves. eventually all this activity beneath the surface has its part to play in the grown food we eat. this food gets eaten by a pregnant woman and has its part to play in the development of the foetus. this food also has its part to play in the preservation of and/or betterment of genes. that's the best I can do off the top of my head.biogenesis and abiogenesis.
@KieranG1337 Do you have any thoughts of your own? Why do you all repeat ad-nauseam the same idiotic comments? No, it's not satire. And no, your attempt to ridiculize by saying it's satire does not change the truth. Evolution is something of the past. Get over it, dude!
@raponte1955 Evolution is going on all around you. Anything that doesn't adapt to the conditions around it dies and doesn't get to pass on its genetic material. In that way, the weak are weeded out and become food for something else. It has nothing to do with the initial or origin of everything. Creationists are barking up the wrong tree.
People are having to go back to the issue of the Archaeopteryx because they cannot get their so-called "facts" right. Before, they claimed that it was a fact that the Archaeopteryx was dino-to-bird evolution. Now they are rethinking that and saying "looks like it isn't". They say now "Maybe Archaeopteryx wasn't on the direct ancestral line to birds, but was part of an early experimentation in how to build a bird-like body" FACEPALM!
@DJsStratoArt That's the difference between science and religion. Science is ever seeking and ever learning and the first person who will counter you will be a fellow scientist with new findings. Religion has remained static, believing in a mythical man-god for 2000 years, every willing to kill for its cause and happily choosing to remain ignorant.
@Matthew1944 you may need to think about that just a little bit more. Just because people kill others and claim that they are "of God" or "belong to Jesus" doesn't make it so anymore than someone can just claim to say "I'm a scientist" - just because someone says "I'm a scientist" doesn't make them so. There are qualifications. The "willing to kill" and "religion flies planes into buildings while science sends people to the moon" is a gross oversimplification that disregards what Christ says.
@DJsStratoArt First of all - "belong to Jesus" means you believe in a pagan man-god which has nothing to do with a fully human Jewish male who was executed by Romans for a crime against Rome and remains dead. Jesus didn't preach to gentiles and stated that he was sent only to the "lost sheep of Israel". The Jesus that you are talking about is an invention of Paul 30 years later. "religion flies planes into buildings while science sends people to the moon" is right on.
@Matthew1944 cont'd..."Where we all came from isn't the concern." HUH?! so you go everyday by sticking your head in the sand and that gives you the answer? You refuse to deal with origins because in that lies the fate of evolution (one part of others as again stated in the video).
"Jesus probably lived" - Wrong, Jesus DID live even the atheist Anthony Flew (at the time he was) admitted to the overwhelming support of history clarifying Jesus lived.
@Matthew1944 you are completely mistaken on this point, Paul was a Jew and had no reason to change his information about Christ NOT being the Son of God. He had a visitation on the way to Damascus and God knocked him off the horse, I'm sure you know the story. Paul had a change of heart and became a Christian so your theology is off.
No support from historians? Josephus the Jewish Historian was around, again you can watch the debate between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew. You are mistaken
@HaShim383 Paul claimed to be a Jew, a Benjamite, contradicted by the fact that the tribal systems had ceased some 500 years before. The Ebionites say he was a Greek convert to Judaism. And he was born a Roman Citizen, something true jews would consider to be sacrilage. Most likely he was a Herodian. Yes, I'm aware of his conversion too - all three contradicting versions of them. Josephus, born after Jesus death and writing late in the century was, at best, passing along hearsay.
@Matthew1944 dude what are you talking about? You are incorrect, Paul said he was the son of Pharisees and a Pharisees of Pharisees. He knew the Jewish law better than anyone which is why he started killing Christians. What does it matter an interpretation of Ebionites? If someone is an atheist they are not going to even converge to the fact that Paul who be a Jew because it would validate the Bible, that is what I mean by fabrication. I do not want to keep responding to rabbit trails, so yea
@HaShim383 Ebionites were Jesus first followers, practicing Jews as was Jesus, who believed he was the fully human messiah of prophecy. They weren't Pauline Christians who came along 30 years after the death of Jesus.
@HaShim383 Paul said a lot of things. If he was a Pharisee, why was his preaching style based on the Septuagint, a Greek translation, when a trained Pharisee would have been taught on Hebrew Torah? Paul validated nothng. He was at best a wannabe Jew of the Herodian house who sent him to Israel in the first place to put down rebellion. He stated had Roman citizenship. . It was not until 212AD, that Caracella granted the Jews the privilege of becoming Roman citizens.
@Matthew1944 cont'd...holding on to something that was not confirmed by early church fathers. Christians go by the 1611 King james version of the Bible which is what we have today and the most closest to the manuscripts which consists over 24,000 of the NT and over 4,000 of the OT. Again you are overlooking the evidences and sources that support Christ lived died, and rose again (which is why I recommended Anthony flew vs Gary Hab. debate)
@HaShim383 Christians go by the 1611 King james version of the Bible which is what we have today ?
What??? Boy, have you been fooled. There is the catholic bible with 73 books, the KJB with 66 books, the Ethiopean bible that Includes the book of Enoch, and Macabees 1 & 2, the Vulgate bible, The Septuigent that INCLUDES 12 more books in the Old Test. and has LONGER versions of Daniel, Ezeikiel and others, and there are dozens more. Your KJV is one of the worst translations.
@HaShim383 You are overlooking (or ignoring) the fact that there are numerous differences between the oldest copy of the NT and the current bible and the Jews attest that your OT has hundreds of misinterpretations and mistranslations, not to mention that the last 12 verses of Mark are add ons, Matthew 28:19 is a forger to support the trinity (the pope has already admitted that the trinity was invented in Rome). You have a corrupt worthless text, ha.
@HaShim383 ...holding on to something that was not confirmed by early church fathers.
But yet, you hold on to something not confirmed by anything but hearsay. There are no evidences or sources that Jesus lived, died or rose again (specifically the Codex Sinaiticus). What you have is a life and death of a normal mortal man who was later made into a man-god, pagan style - and this is why no one of this time wrote about him -= there was nothing to write about until the legends began to grow.
@Matthew1944 ok look your appealing to your own authority on half of your story and then half of your "support" is coming from this codex. You keep jumping from one topic to another instead of staying to the one on hand...frankly I'm tired of going around in a circle. You have yet to listen to any of the evidences of secular historians and the Anthony Flew and Gary Hab. debate I gave you. You are choosing to make assumptions about Paul being heretical and changing to Christianity for random...
@HaShim383 - You have yet to listen to any of the evidences of secular historians "
I've read the "evidence" of secular historians many times over but hearsay isn't evidence. The Flew/Hab debate is yet another re-hash of other debates. Jesus first followers were later called Ebionites. Dat Kazav (Lying Religion, or Religion of Falseness) is a Hebrew term Ebionites used to describe Christianity that comes from the 'ish kazav (Lying Man, i.e., Liar) Paul of Tarsus.
@Matthew1944 A heretical doctrine is subject to each person, you can not usurp your own authority or what others have said but it does not make it truth. What I have said does not matter nor what you say it is what is the truth that is what matters. Who cares what the Ebionities said, they were not one of the 12 disciples and again Paul has no reason to become a Christians because they were under heavy persecution.
The KJV is not the worst that is your opinion. KJV is the Canon of scripture.
@HaShim383 Who cares what the Ebionities said, they were not one of the 12 disciples "
Wrong. Jesus, his apostles and the later followers, the Ebionites were ALL part of the initial Jewish Christians who believed in a human messiah, NOT a man God. They knew Jesus or were taught by the apostles. They were in no way part of Paul's doctrine which came along 30 years later and was not even invented in Jesus lifetime.
@Matthew1944 "his apostles and the later followers, the Ebionites were ALL part of the initial Jewish Christians who believed in a human messiah, NOT a man God. "
-this is so absurd I am through with you man, you making things up to fit what you want. Your opinion and interpretation of scripture violates every law known to hermeneutics. peace out.
@HaShim383 FYI Acts 22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Rome], educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day."
.It was not until 212AD, that Caracella granted the Jews the privilege of becoming Roman citizens So was Paul a Jew OR a Roman citizen? - he could not have been both. If he was a Roman citizen, he would have carried a libellium to identify his status and in Acts, he was saved by Roman soldiers. Being a Roman citizen means he was not a Jew. _ CASE CLOSED.-.
Maybe that's the problem, hash. Hermeneutics has to do with interpretation of the bible. Maybe it's time to get out of "hermeneutics" and try a bit of ancient history?
@HaShim383 Paul has no reason to become a Christians because they were under heavy persecution.
"
Of course they were, by Romans - and Paul was sent to Rome to help out with the persecutions. He wasn't very successful either, was he? His prime directive was to quell rebellion. By removing the possible messiah, a leader who, if the Jews accepted him, would have tossed the Romans out on their ear, they weakened the zealot forces, he achieved his prime directive.
@HaShim383 Who cares what the Ebionities said, they were not one of the 12 disciples and again "
The Ebionites were direct descendants of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Your gospels, however, are written by anonymous writers and named 400 years later. No contemporary historian ever wrote about Jesus.
@Matthew1944 You again have not read what the secular historians have said or you would have changed your mind. I'm done having a conversation with a closed minded person, good day sir. You are not looking for truth but trying to throw out everything you think you know about Christianity and the Bible which is unappealing and not a great debating tactic.
1) Matt1944 has a lot of "knowledge" about Christianity and the Bible
@HaShim383 You again have not read what the secular historians have said or you would have changed your mind'
AGAIN, I say. Not one secular historian was contemporary to Jesus time. Contemporary secular historians would have been of historians who lived at THE VERY SAME TIME - who said absolutely NOTHING to say about Jesus. Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD) Anything written generations after the fact is hearsay
@Matthew1944 2) historians who lived at THE VERY SAME TIME who said absolutely NOTHING about Jesus. Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD)
Philo had relatives in Jerusalem, travelled there and was avidly interested in the afterlife. He, of all people would have written something, if there was anything to write about. And it certainly was not among the things the church would have included in their list of destruction.
@Matthew1944 HAHAHA that is such a joke, it is easy to just call it heresy to explain it all away haha I am laughing at you....unreal. What you say is hearsay therefore it is haha peace
@HaShim383 1) Matt1944 has a lot of "knowledge" about Christianity and the Bible (and jewish traditions, customs, laws, science, and a whole lot more than just one KJV book)
@HaShim383 You again have not read what the secular historians have said"
No problem except that the "secular historians" happened to come along a hundred years later and were passing along hearsay. Your argument is a straw man based on desperation or to save face. Doesn't work.
@Matthew1944 cont'd.. random reasons which makes ZERO sense. There is nothing heretical about what he is saying because you are not a believer and you do not want to hear the other side (i.e., the prophecy of the OT pointing to Jesus Christ) so it looks like there is not point in me adding further information to this one sided discussion. I've been open minded in looking up your source and you have been closed minded ignoring everything I have recommended to you and other secular sources.
@HaShim383 There is nothing heretical about what he is saying "
To a Pauline Christian, there is nothing heretical because what he is saying is based on pagan legends of saviour men-gods which is the basis of Pauline belief. The living Jesus was a practicing Jew, leader of a sect within Judaism. There are no men-gods in Judaism. There are no prophecies in the Tanakh for Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 7:14 is one verse often misinterpreted and an explanation is going to your mailbox.
@Matthew1944 why was his preaching style based on the septuagint? Where are you getting this? He studied at the feet of Gamaliel, a pharisee..........
@HaShim383 Did he really study at the feet of Gamliel? There is nothing in the works that mentions such a prestigious student, Ha. Just another lie - just like being a Benjamite 500 years after the tribal systems were lost, being a Jew while being Roman citizen when Jews weren't given citizenship for another 150 years. Study the findings of bibilical historians, ha. Paul's use of wordage was based on the Septuagint, not the Torah.
@HaShim383Better read your bible again, ha. I can spoonfeed you or you can look up "Paul admits to lies" - easy for me - easy for you. He cannot have been a Pharisee because he was not a Jew. Jews could not have had Roman citizenship in his time. He wasn't killing Christians of YOUR kind. That kind wasn't even invented. He was killing Jewish Christians - practicing Jews. Pauline Christians don't have a monopoly on God and therefore a non-Christian is not an atheist.
I see the darwinian zealots are here to prove their faith with the usually repeated fairy tales and insults. I wonder if they realize the fact that they troll every Christian video on youtbe, only proves their desire to hear the truth. You won't find their negative comments on the Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist based videos (except for praises) At least be consistent, and hate all religions
@david84ss They "troll" many sites to try to breath some rational thinking into fence sitters who actually believe the drivel that is being spouted on this and many other videos. I DO despise all religions because they are man made ways of controlling other human beings.
@david84ss ''''''are here to prove their faith with the usually repeated fairy tales and insults'" You believe that an invisible entity, who was his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree....and we're the the ones who believe a fairy tale?.
@Matthew1944 the one who believes in fairy tales is the one who puts his entire existence into his 5 senses that happened randomly and puts ALL his trust into what he feels, hears, smells, tastes, and touches. This person also chooses to ignore the claims of this video and chooses to get into rabbit trail debates with people in avoiding the claims made in the video. Good day Matthew.
@Matthew1944 so you assume you are the one who holds all the knowledge and what this guy says (which is basic science) is wrong? You are making two distinct claims you need to verify. 1) the science this guy talks about and is not what science actually teaches 2) I do not believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible, therefore it is a myth.
You now need to assert 2 options in your worldview otherwise your opinion and logic is flawed and can not be taken serious at all. In fact it would hold no water
@HaShim383 Read my past postings, Ha. I think I've already explained why the assertions are based on lack of knowledge. Evolution is the study of creatures as they change while adapting to their environment. Simple as that. Where we all came from isn't the concern. Secondly, I said that Jesus probably lived but only as a man, just as his original followers believed - BEFORE Paul made him into a man-god based on pagan man gods. The Jewish bible remains just as it was.
@Matthew1944 final thoughts...you are fabricating things up to suite your own misguided interpretation of Christianity but lets get back to the topic at hand.
@HaShim383 - It was the belief that not one word or letter could be changed and in the last 2000, there is a difference of only nine words - which doesn't change the meaning at all. Your version of the OT shows thousands of mistranslations and massive editing. As far as your NT goes - the gospels were all written by anonymous writers and named four centuries later by the Catholic church. Paul's man-god writings are all pagan based.
@Matthew1944 I did not see these responses so go ahead and ignore my last comment...There are thousands huh and massive editing? Where in the world are you getting your information? Paul's teachings were PAGAN?!?! where are you getting this stuff at?
" I think I've already explained why the assertions are based on lack of knowledge"
-What? Where did you explain away the basic things I asked you to begin with?
"evolution is the study of creatures as they change while adapting to their environmen
@HaShim383 There are thousands huh and massive editing? Where in the world are you getting your information? "
If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum , there is a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible - Check out Codex Sinaiticus.
Dude I did a search in google about the codex sinaiticus, I could not help but laugh because he said The earliest possible date for the SINAI BIBLE was once around 350CE, but other opinions place its writing to the end of the 4th century " this is completely mistaken I mean you can even read peoples comments on it. PLus your source is a journal that someone wrote about? Really? Thats the source you are using?
@Matthew1944 The new testament was compiled in the 3rd-4th century, there were writings about Jesus Christ 20-30 years after His death, no other historical figure has this. Also there are more historians that confirmed Christ/ Christianity: Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the younger, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, the list goes further but these are good enough
@HaShim383 Quite right, the first writing was Mark. The problem lies in the fact that despite there being many historians contemporary to the time of Jesus, not one wrote anything.
@Matthew1944 did you just over-look secular historians back in the time recently after Christ that mentioned Christianity? Did you also overlook atheistic scholars who validate 1 Corinthians 15 (mentions the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the way)...did you also miss what I said about Anthony Flew who at the time was an atheist saying there is OVERWHELMING evidence of Jesus Christ living on the earth?
@HaShim383 1 Corinthians 15 (mentions the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the way)..."
Check the Codex Sinaiticus again,. No mention of a resurrection. Paul wrote Corinthians and I don't put too much stock in his writings because he's a self admitted liar. In fact, at Antioch, he was hauled up for a second time by the apostles for preaching heresy. He lied but was found out and had to be saved by Roman soldiers by declaring his Roman citizenship. That ended his ties with the apostles.
@Matthew1944 Where does it say Paul is a self-admitted liar? You are reading into things In Anitoch he was hauled up for a second time by the apostles for preaching hearisy? What hearisy other than that Jesus is the Son of God? Again you are avoiding my points about various authors (even atheistic authors) confirming Jesus lived and died and rose again. Paul has no reason to make up something because he was a pharisee of pharisee. You don't hold much to what Paul said? Yet you are holding to...
@Matthew1944 This is a matter of ones world-view can you not see that? Celsus is writing from a place of disbelief and is actually validating Christianity lol so that discounts that guy.
Ammonius Saccas would fall into the same catergory but Origen held to different beliefs so not sure where you can go from there...
@HaShim383 What both of them are "validating" are their observances and comparisons between Christianity and paganism of their time and finding them to be essentially the same. Christianity and Judaism share only one human male - nothing else.
@HaShim383 You now need to assert 2 options in your worldview otherwise your opinion and logic is flawed and can not be taken serious at all. In fact it would hold no water "
Certainly they won't be taken seriously by those who continue to live in their little boxes of ignorance and remain quite proud to do so. Study is a good thing, Ha - you should try to vary your diet outside of just the pap your church feeds you. Jewish history is a good way to start.
@Matthew1944 again, I will re-state it. "You now need to assert 2 options in your worldview otherwise your opinion and logic is flawed and can not be taken serious at all. In fact it would hold no water"
"Certainly they won't be taken seriously by those who continue to live in their little boxes of ignorance and remain quite proud to do so"
-Comical, wasn't sure if you were talking about me or yourself. I've asked a simple request which you have yet to comply...who is living in a box now?
6. The arguments presented in this video shows a gross ignorance of science and therefore the rebuttal is based on ignorance.
7. New genetic material can form as a mutation such as that in a rate number of humans whose blood cells contain a coating which naturally doesn't allow infection by HIV. Should HIV numbers keep increasing, it will be those individuals and their some of their offspring who will adapt and survive. Still human but with a difference.
4. NO, one species does not turn into another species, however, one species, with time can gradually evolve into something quite different from what it started with a million years before.
5. Genetic testing has already revealed we, as humans, have one less chromosome than apes and that is because two of our corresponding chromosomes have fused to become one. Watch Ken Miller's detailed explanation on YouTube.
also, genius, in part 7 of my last response to u, i told u exactly what i meant by using "="
this is what i said:
"according to u, ID is science and is inductive, which essentially uses EVIDENCE; since naturalistic evo is mutually exclusive of ID, u have pwndnaturalistic evo"
@gdhgfjf brilliant rebuttal; i was going to write the same thing, but u beat me to it! keep up the good work! we really need to refute these ppl with these sound arguments! well done!
@leviMichealathan seriously though...the evidence is insurmountable, genetically, geologically, pick up a book about the genetic mechanisms of evolution, join the rest of the human race. refuters of evolution have one common background, biblical literalist, and even some of them believe in it, if it were soo flawed, why does every other religious and nonreligious background have zero problems with it? give up already, you're dying out faster than you can say australopithecus africanus
@gdhgfjf i feel really daunted by ALL this evidence for macro evo; my little brain hurts; here's what we be nice, though: if you could STATE the BEST evidence for macro evo; i dont' want a link or a rhetoric-that will hurt my brain even more! just STATE it, thx!
as an example: "the best evidence for macro evolution is XXXXXX."
@leviMichealathan well my personal favorite is the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans, the history of equus should also prove very enlightening, that means horse for the record, but of course I can't explain in detail all of these points, on a youtube comment, and if you refuse to research these kind of details further on your own that makes you either lazy or fearful, neither is very becoming, no one can explain particle physics concepts like higgs boson in one sentence, that does make it fake
Very well done, now that it's clear that God exists through proof of science which he has given us to test the truth, can you prove Jesus existed using using scientific and historical fact? :)
@Monumentil " can you prove Jesus existed using using scientific and historical fact?" lol!!! scientific??? show me the criteria in the HISTORICAL METHOD that says u need to use scientific fact.
also, plz provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist; just one, thx.
@leviMichealathan science and history are one whether books have used it or not, it's part of historical method by default. all the supposed people who recorded or supposedly documented jesus which were written well after his existence or during have been labelled as forgeries by historians and scholars to this day ;P Michael Martin to name one and there are plenty others, try using the internet for browsing information as well, but you have to be ready to receive truth :)
atheism is the pwnd religion for pwnd people. u couldn't provide the criteria from the historical method that proves ur case. PWND
"all the supposed people who recorded or supposedly documented jesus which were written well after his existence or during have been labelled as forgeries by historians and scholars to this day ;P Michael Martin to name one " LOL!!!
marin is a philosopher; i asked for 1 historian and his scholarly source. PWND
“if we apply to the New Testament as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars’.”
"Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, "
@leviMichealathan we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned
....................
So by that reasoning, Zeus, Thor, Hera, Aphrodite, Dionysus, Mithra are real historical figures.
"Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross;"
The "historical" evidence also strongly indicates that Jesus wasn't a supernatural being not to mention the "historical" evidence also indicates there is no such thing as the supernatural period.
@leviMichealathan wtf? i ain't quoted anything bud, this is how intelligent people convey the knowledge they have grasped, it may be close to some quote but i would always give props to the owner/author of a quote. and your arguement was? :P
hey guys, the cycle continues, jimmy boy gets refuted; then, he makes another claim and gets refuted again; finally, he ends with his usual ad hominem attacks.
@ddrninjette "Also... I don't think you're using "information" the same way a mathematician or scientist defines the word..." ur claims sounds rather familiar.
pz provide the scientific and/or mathematical definition of information.
@leviMichealathan Information is an abstraction of data to the next higher level of understanding. Data might be something like, "5 inches." Information would take that data and assign it to something like, "This box is 5 inches wide." In other words, information is interpreted data.
"Information is an abstraction of data to the next higher level of understanding" not true; computers use machine language as information; most end users would need to have the the computer's information translated.
likewise, raw data maybe information to statisticians that need to be interpreted for "the lay person" to understand.
i asked for the scientific and/or mathematical definition of information bcosu claimed......
"Also... I don't think you're using "information" the same way a mathematician or scientist defines the word"
in other words, u claimed that they have a somewhat different definition.
all you have given is the distinction between information and data, yet u claimed that mathematicians/scientists use a different definition for information; ur "definition" apply to DNA; to molecules, DNA is information; we need this information to be interpreted for for us to under it.
Let me sum it up. Common sense proves evolution is a myth. Since evolution is a myth and atheists believe in evolution, then they don't have a common sense and they AREN'T RATIONAL PEOPLE.
@SerJahPhoto Except that "common sense" is frequently wrong. Common sense tells you the earth is flat, yet we know better. Common sense tells us that the stars are pinpoints in a cloak that covers the planet... yet we know that is wrong.
@jwissick i don't know about your common sense, by mine do not tell me about flat earth and pinpoints in a cloak... My common sense also does not tell me that some bones taken from 1km radius belong to one person called Lucy. And that everything came from nothing. We must have different "common senses"...
Especially when we look at fields such as psychology, physics, or mathematics. Time and time again our intuition (common sense) is wrong. I mean how much advanced mathematics/science have you done? The grueling part of mathematics/science are the parts they go against your intuition, and they are aplenty in every field. To put it simply, if you think common sense is reliable then you need to open up an advanced mathematics/science book, and see how far your intuition gets you.
typical atheist response to claim that someone doesn't know this or doesn't know that.
science may have proven some common sense things wrong; plz provide a credible source, with a list, that backs up ur claim "Time and time again our intuition (common sense) is wrong."
"The grueling part of mathematics/science are the parts they go against your intuition" now, u change definitions from common sense to intuition...
please provide a credible source that says common sense and intuition are synonyms.
"Evolution only implies that Australopithecus afarensis is very likely one of the common ancestors of humans." really???
"A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors:...
this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree…Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered." Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62.
australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal-Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94
the skeletal structure of australopithecines is likened to modern orangutans.Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p. 389
according to u, ID is science and is inductive, which essentially uses EVIDENCE; since naturalistic evo is mutually exclusive of ID, u have pwnd naturalistic evo
Sent a PM with a response to your comments. Hopefully you will stop using these terrible arguments as result, but then again you people virtually never become and stay a creationists because of rationality and/or evidence.
u site MW for the definition of intuition-good, but, then u site wiki for the definition of common sense; i asked for a credible source that says they are SYNONYMS; so right off the bat u failed.
but, ur own sources pwn u, anyway:
u claimed about intuition: "Essentially easy to understand knowledge" but u failed to mention that understanding this knowledge is "without evident rational thought and inference"-MW
"Clearly they are very similar and go hand and hand. I didn't mind tying them together. It's just semantics." LOL!!! if u think they go hand in hand, then that's ur baby; merriam-webster refutes u; in never, never land u are welcome to redefine words.
" If it makes you feel better from this point on whenever I say "Intuitive" let it mean "common sense"." NO! u ur not the authority of the english language; ur kind are such hypocrites...
"The Earth being round" are we born with innate knowledge of the shape of the earth? LOL!!!
plus, the Bible says that earth is round; and people knew that the earth was round; if u dispute this, then i will take it up again.
"From our a common sense perspective we assume that venting actually works...." are born knowing this? see, now u are using the word "assumption" if it is innate why do we need assumptions?
also, psychology is not a hard science; plus, the Bible told us it is the heart of man that is the problem, not his behaviour; his heart dictates his behaviour
"Another common sense assumption that people get wrong about psychology is that most good people would never conform to immoral actions." are we born with this knowledge? are we born with this assumption about psychology? LOL!!!
plus, we didn't "Stanley Milgrim" to tell us this when the Bible already told us that no one is good, no one searches for righteousness and the best of man is not good enough; no one i know believes that or heard of Stanley Milgrim
"An interesting example of something counter-intuitive that I remember from my physics classes was a problem which had two blocks sliding relative to each other." are we born with this knowledge?
"Intuitively we can see why Zeno's paradox is a problem" are we born knowing this? also, genius, you pwnd urself because you used the word "Intuitively"
"Quantum Physics is probably the most interesting example of something that goes completely against our intuition in physic" are we born knowing about quantum physics???
all these fields of study you site have nothing or very to do with common sense; it is based on the scientific method.
plus, u didn't back up ur claim and i wanted a credible source, with a list; and i did admit that science may have proven some common sense knowledge wrong; where's the "Time and time again..." pwnd!
"You realize we have thousands of fossils from Australopithecus fossils" really??? thousands??? plz provide ur credible source.
"The article only references one woman's studies, so what?" actually i gave three CREDIBLE sources; "so what? LOL!!!
"Unless you can present the evidence that she has, her view is not really anymore credible then any fringe view" i provided three independent sources that were published.
typical of ppl like u to reject ur own sources.
" Honestly I cannot find any debate in the scientific community about whether or not Australopithecus africanus is a hominid ancestor" those three sources refutes u...
even, if u are correct about there being no debate in the scientific community, this mean nothing bcos macro evo isn't science, so it wouldn't be debated; last time i asked u for the BEST evidence for evo; and u were refuted with DNA being the best evidence; now, i challenge you to state the BEST evidence for macro evo that has stood the test of time from DARWIN'S DAYS-not a link or a rhetoric, just state it.
"This argument is true if and only if all the components of the set of inductive arguments are all equivalent" LOL!!! anyone with any common sense will see that i was using a short form by using "=" and not claiming that they were equal/equivalent; also, it's clear i wasn't formulating a rigorous argument;
if it makes u feel better, here's what i was trying to say, according to u:
science is inductive; induction is essentially based on evidence; ID is inductive because it is essentially based on Evidence; ID is scientific because it is INDUCTIVE; since, ID and naturalistic evo are mutually exclusive, you pwnd naturalistic evo
quite honestly, genius, u pwnd urself, with ur own statements.
"Just because ID does operate upon evidence because it is inductive, that doesn't mean that there actually is any evidence for ID." LOL!!! ID operates upon evidence but that doesn't mean there's actual evidence? LOL!!!
"This is inductive in nature because even if test X succeeds it doesn't necessarily mean that Divination always works, but it would make it more likely that it may work....
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 14: Just because we can formulate this argument, this doesn't mean that any such evidence actually does in fact exist for Divination" LOL!!! if test X succeeds, that's EVIDENCE for it, genius! the evidence does exist in this case; u pwnd ur self again.
u claimed ID is inductive, you admitted that ID does in fact have evidence based on ur definition of induction.
Well at least I can say that I tried, but clearly no amount of rationality is going to get through to you. I am going to err on the side that you are a troll because I want to believe that someone on youtube that has the mental capacity to type on a keyboard wouldn't be so stupid as to continue to propagate an argument that essentially states that all mice are elephants. It kills me inside to think that someone could be so ignorant, so hopefully you're just a troll.
hmmm.....pwnd u badly, didn't i? u can only respond to ur straw man argument??? what about the rest???
"continue to propagate an argument that essentially states that all mice are elephants" no, genius! that's a straw man, liar; i never said that! u took my usage of "=" and straw manned it by claiming i meant equality/equivalence when clearly i wasn't; any1 can go look at part 7 of my last response (the response i made to u after u responded...
"according to u, ID is science and is inductive, which essentially uses EVIDENCE; since naturalistic evo is mutually exclusive of ID, u have pwnd naturalistic evo"
i said this after i used "=". LOL!!!
i have all ur claims copied and will continue to pwn u! bye, bye!
btw, u call me a troll??? last time i checked this was a Christian video; but, if by calling me a troll makes u feel better, then ok.
@SerJahPhoto this is how an average YT atheist defends his worldview (1) redefine words (2) attack his own sources (3) straw man and read out of context (4) attack science (5) claim macro evo is science (but when asked for the BEST evidence, we find macro evo is all in the head)
Despite you being a troll I have one last thing to say to you. Throughout all your logical fallacies and terrible arguments that you hold onto so tightly the actual evidence for Evolution remains unfettered. No matter how many comments you flood on youtube, no matter how many silly repetitive points you try to make, and no matter how much you want to believe that Evolution is false, as Galileo once said, "E pur si muove." Life evolves whether you want to believe it or not.
Also Evolution doesn't imply atheism, atheism doesn't imply creation ex nihilo, and Evolution only implies that Australopithecus afarensis is very likely one of the common ancestors of humans. It sounds like you're are very ignorant on this subject, and I strongly recommend you earnestly read a few actual books explaining the theory of Evolution before you start trying to debate a subject you obviously don't understand.
WOW!! This is so so bad. Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!!!
...and i love how at the end, the conclusion is, "Well, science hasnt figured out every question of the universe, so therefore, an all-knowing all-powerful super being, that always existed, spoke the universe into existence." Where did that superbeing come from?
Do they not realize that that answer only brings up more questions than it answers?
@Adriancito6669 u already said it, he has always been there. he is eternal. know what that means? doesnt end and doesnt begin. you cant even come to terms with what eternal is by using time the way we see time as. he was, is and forever will be there.
Gene duplication plus random mutation plus natural selection produces new genetic information in the genome of an organism. This has been observed. It is what the makers of this video would call "observational science". Claim #1 in this video is simply false. (And claim #2 is irrelevant)
Daytimeofnight 1 week ago
Wow... the creator of this vidoe is fucking unbelievably retarded.
NegativeBeef 2 weeks ago
Awesome
gweems828 2 months ago
What a heap of crap
dunstable 2 months ago
So evolution is bunk and the vast majority of scientists that believe in it are wrong ?
But the magical thinkers with their imaginary friend(s) are right ?
HAPPY HALLOWEEN DUMBASS CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS , MORMONS, JEWS, $CIENTOLOGISTS
jOkErNdEgRaDeR 4 months ago
@jOkErNdEgRaDeR And you call Christians biased. "Dumbass" doesn't sound unbiased to me.
Simple experiment: you can touch yourself. You can hear yourself. You can see yourself. Therefore, you must exist, right?
So, you cannot see, touch, hear, taste your brain right now, right? So by that reasoning, you must not have a brain. Can you prove that you have a brain, right now, without an X-ray, without proving that there is a god?
hereamiLORDsendme95 3 months ago
@hereamiLORDsendme95 Dumbass how would I know I have a brain ? Look up the word empirical .If I observed that a chicken,dog,cat, cow sheep, horse had a brain when dissected what would be the logical conclusion to be drawn from that ?
So if I don't have a x-ray to prove I have brain there must be a god ? Huh ? Is that what that last bit of gibberish was trying to imply ?
"Egg frying in a pan" This is YOUR brain on religion.
jOkErNdEgRaDeR 3 months ago
@jOkErNdEgRaDeR Are you trying to make me mad? Because I don't really see what your problem is with religion. What is it - are we assuming too much? Do we seem to be illogical? Because it seems like you're making a few snaps at religion without really proving anything.
And what do eggs have to do with this discussion?
hereamiLORDsendme95 3 months ago
@hereamiLORDsendme95 Do we seem to be illogical? Yes.
You're pagans with a hijacked Jew for a central character.
Matthew1944 3 weeks ago
em...'non-life'? explain. do the classic big bang thing of asking how can 'something' come from 'nothing', but when the universe is set in motion all materials are broken down and built up again and reused. even a lot of inanimate stuff to us is useful in the cycles of material in the universe. look at ecology. fires burn woods but they do not reset to what they once were. there is nothing but change.
StrummingSparrow 6 months ago
@StrummingSparrow how do you explain that? when have materials ever been used up/broken down and then come back together as anything living?
Zinferbuddy 4 months ago in playlist More videos from WretchedNetwork
@Zinferbuddy reconstitution over a long period of time. the food chain. the worms that eat the corpse are also food themselves. eventually all this activity beneath the surface has its part to play in the grown food we eat. this food gets eaten by a pregnant woman and has its part to play in the development of the foetus. this food also has its part to play in the preservation of and/or betterment of genes. that's the best I can do off the top of my head.biogenesis and abiogenesis.
StrummingSparrow 4 months ago
So, humans (and all life) evolving through millions of years of natural genetic selection (through genetic mutation): doesn't make sense.
HOWEVER, the bible says God created the Earth and everything on it in a puff of smoke: this makes sense.
Well, that solves that.
JDCalvert91 6 months ago
Is this a troll? This is a troll right? Please for the love of god tell me this is some sort of an elaborate attempt at satire.
KieranG1337 6 months ago
@KieranG1337 Do you have any thoughts of your own? Why do you all repeat ad-nauseam the same idiotic comments? No, it's not satire. And no, your attempt to ridiculize by saying it's satire does not change the truth. Evolution is something of the past. Get over it, dude!
raponte1955 4 months ago
@raponte1955 Are you trolling....?
KieranG1337 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KieranG1337 No, you are the Troll.
raponte1955 4 months ago
@raponte1955 Evolution is going on all around you. Anything that doesn't adapt to the conditions around it dies and doesn't get to pass on its genetic material. In that way, the weak are weeded out and become food for something else. It has nothing to do with the initial or origin of everything. Creationists are barking up the wrong tree.
Matthew1944 3 weeks ago
People are having to go back to the issue of the Archaeopteryx because they cannot get their so-called "facts" right. Before, they claimed that it was a fact that the Archaeopteryx was dino-to-bird evolution. Now they are rethinking that and saying "looks like it isn't". They say now "Maybe Archaeopteryx wasn't on the direct ancestral line to birds, but was part of an early experimentation in how to build a bird-like body" FACEPALM!
DJsStratoArt 7 months ago
@DJsStratoArt That's the difference between science and religion. Science is ever seeking and ever learning and the first person who will counter you will be a fellow scientist with new findings. Religion has remained static, believing in a mythical man-god for 2000 years, every willing to kill for its cause and happily choosing to remain ignorant.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 you may need to think about that just a little bit more. Just because people kill others and claim that they are "of God" or "belong to Jesus" doesn't make it so anymore than someone can just claim to say "I'm a scientist" - just because someone says "I'm a scientist" doesn't make them so. There are qualifications. The "willing to kill" and "religion flies planes into buildings while science sends people to the moon" is a gross oversimplification that disregards what Christ says.
DJsStratoArt 7 months ago
@DJsStratoArt First of all - "belong to Jesus" means you believe in a pagan man-god which has nothing to do with a fully human Jewish male who was executed by Romans for a crime against Rome and remains dead. Jesus didn't preach to gentiles and stated that he was sent only to the "lost sheep of Israel". The Jesus that you are talking about is an invention of Paul 30 years later. "religion flies planes into buildings while science sends people to the moon" is right on.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 cont'd..."Where we all came from isn't the concern." HUH?! so you go everyday by sticking your head in the sand and that gives you the answer? You refuse to deal with origins because in that lies the fate of evolution (one part of others as again stated in the video).
"Jesus probably lived" - Wrong, Jesus DID live even the atheist Anthony Flew (at the time he was) admitted to the overwhelming support of history clarifying Jesus lived.
Paul did not make Jesus into a Pagan God.
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 The science that deals with origins is called abiogenesis, Ha, not evolution.
There is no support for Jesus from historians contemporary to his time.
Well then, the Jesus man-god story doesn't come from Judaism, that leaves only the pagans.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 you are completely mistaken on this point, Paul was a Jew and had no reason to change his information about Christ NOT being the Son of God. He had a visitation on the way to Damascus and God knocked him off the horse, I'm sure you know the story. Paul had a change of heart and became a Christian so your theology is off.
No support from historians? Josephus the Jewish Historian was around, again you can watch the debate between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew. You are mistaken
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Paul claimed to be a Jew, a Benjamite, contradicted by the fact that the tribal systems had ceased some 500 years before. The Ebionites say he was a Greek convert to Judaism. And he was born a Roman Citizen, something true jews would consider to be sacrilage. Most likely he was a Herodian. Yes, I'm aware of his conversion too - all three contradicting versions of them. Josephus, born after Jesus death and writing late in the century was, at best, passing along hearsay.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 dude what are you talking about? You are incorrect, Paul said he was the son of Pharisees and a Pharisees of Pharisees. He knew the Jewish law better than anyone which is why he started killing Christians. What does it matter an interpretation of Ebionites? If someone is an atheist they are not going to even converge to the fact that Paul who be a Jew because it would validate the Bible, that is what I mean by fabrication. I do not want to keep responding to rabbit trails, so yea
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 I am not saying the ebionites are atheists I am just saying, its like a Christian validating Hinduism or Islam, etc
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Ebionites were Jesus first followers, practicing Jews as was Jesus, who believed he was the fully human messiah of prophecy. They weren't Pauline Christians who came along 30 years after the death of Jesus.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Paul said a lot of things. If he was a Pharisee, why was his preaching style based on the Septuagint, a Greek translation, when a trained Pharisee would have been taught on Hebrew Torah? Paul validated nothng. He was at best a wannabe Jew of the Herodian house who sent him to Israel in the first place to put down rebellion. He stated had Roman citizenship. . It was not until 212AD, that Caracella granted the Jews the privilege of becoming Roman citizens.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 cont'd...holding on to something that was not confirmed by early church fathers. Christians go by the 1611 King james version of the Bible which is what we have today and the most closest to the manuscripts which consists over 24,000 of the NT and over 4,000 of the OT. Again you are overlooking the evidences and sources that support Christ lived died, and rose again (which is why I recommended Anthony flew vs Gary Hab. debate)
By the way I looked up the codex sinaiticus.
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Christians go by the 1611 King james version of the Bible which is what we have today ?
What??? Boy, have you been fooled. There is the catholic bible with 73 books, the KJB with 66 books, the Ethiopean bible that Includes the book of Enoch, and Macabees 1 & 2, the Vulgate bible, The Septuigent that INCLUDES 12 more books in the Old Test. and has LONGER versions of Daniel, Ezeikiel and others, and there are dozens more. Your KJV is one of the worst translations.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 You are overlooking (or ignoring) the fact that there are numerous differences between the oldest copy of the NT and the current bible and the Jews attest that your OT has hundreds of misinterpretations and mistranslations, not to mention that the last 12 verses of Mark are add ons, Matthew 28:19 is a forger to support the trinity (the pope has already admitted that the trinity was invented in Rome). You have a corrupt worthless text, ha.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 ...holding on to something that was not confirmed by early church fathers.
But yet, you hold on to something not confirmed by anything but hearsay. There are no evidences or sources that Jesus lived, died or rose again (specifically the Codex Sinaiticus). What you have is a life and death of a normal mortal man who was later made into a man-god, pagan style - and this is why no one of this time wrote about him -= there was nothing to write about until the legends began to grow.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 ok look your appealing to your own authority on half of your story and then half of your "support" is coming from this codex. You keep jumping from one topic to another instead of staying to the one on hand...frankly I'm tired of going around in a circle. You have yet to listen to any of the evidences of secular historians and the Anthony Flew and Gary Hab. debate I gave you. You are choosing to make assumptions about Paul being heretical and changing to Christianity for random...
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 - You have yet to listen to any of the evidences of secular historians "
I've read the "evidence" of secular historians many times over but hearsay isn't evidence. The Flew/Hab debate is yet another re-hash of other debates. Jesus first followers were later called Ebionites. Dat Kazav (Lying Religion, or Religion of Falseness) is a Hebrew term Ebionites used to describe Christianity that comes from the 'ish kazav (Lying Man, i.e., Liar) Paul of Tarsus.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 A heretical doctrine is subject to each person, you can not usurp your own authority or what others have said but it does not make it truth. What I have said does not matter nor what you say it is what is the truth that is what matters. Who cares what the Ebionities said, they were not one of the 12 disciples and again Paul has no reason to become a Christians because they were under heavy persecution.
The KJV is not the worst that is your opinion. KJV is the Canon of scripture.
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Who cares what the Ebionities said, they were not one of the 12 disciples "
Wrong. Jesus, his apostles and the later followers, the Ebionites were ALL part of the initial Jewish Christians who believed in a human messiah, NOT a man God. They knew Jesus or were taught by the apostles. They were in no way part of Paul's doctrine which came along 30 years later and was not even invented in Jesus lifetime.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 "his apostles and the later followers, the Ebionites were ALL part of the initial Jewish Christians who believed in a human messiah, NOT a man God. "
-this is so absurd I am through with you man, you making things up to fit what you want. Your opinion and interpretation of scripture violates every law known to hermeneutics. peace out.
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 FYI Acts 22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Rome], educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day."
~Case Closed~
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus .........
.It was not until 212AD, that Caracella granted the Jews the privilege of becoming Roman citizens So was Paul a Jew OR a Roman citizen? - he could not have been both. If he was a Roman citizen, he would have carried a libellium to identify his status and in Acts, he was saved by Roman soldiers. Being a Roman citizen means he was not a Jew. _ CASE CLOSED.-.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 this is so absurd "
Not at all. It's just something your church hasn't told you. Check out Epiphanius criticisms of the Ebionites.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 every law known to hermeneutics.
Maybe that's the problem, hash. Hermeneutics has to do with interpretation of the bible. Maybe it's time to get out of "hermeneutics" and try a bit of ancient history?
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Paul has no reason to become a Christians because they were under heavy persecution.
"
Of course they were, by Romans - and Paul was sent to Rome to help out with the persecutions. He wasn't very successful either, was he? His prime directive was to quell rebellion. By removing the possible messiah, a leader who, if the Jews accepted him, would have tossed the Romans out on their ear, they weakened the zealot forces, he achieved his prime directive.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Who cares what the Ebionities said, they were not one of the 12 disciples and again "
The Ebionites were direct descendants of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Your gospels, however, are written by anonymous writers and named 400 years later. No contemporary historian ever wrote about Jesus.
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 You again have not read what the secular historians have said or you would have changed your mind. I'm done having a conversation with a closed minded person, good day sir. You are not looking for truth but trying to throw out everything you think you know about Christianity and the Bible which is unappealing and not a great debating tactic.
1) Matt1944 has a lot of "knowledge" about Christianity and the Bible
2) What Matt1944 says is true
3) Therefore what Matth1944 says is right
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 You again have not read what the secular historians have said or you would have changed your mind'
AGAIN, I say. Not one secular historian was contemporary to Jesus time. Contemporary secular historians would have been of historians who lived at THE VERY SAME TIME - who said absolutely NOTHING to say about Jesus. Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD) Anything written generations after the fact is hearsay
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 I JUST GAVE YOU SOME FROM HIS TIME, WHAT ON EARTH!?!?!
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the younger, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, the list goes further but these are good enough
Tacitus wrote almost a hundred years after the event - hearsay.
Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) - hearsay
Pliny the younger - 61 AD – ca. 112 AD hearsay
Babylonian Talmud written between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., - not contemporary.
Lucien of Samasota - ( 125 – after A.D. 180) Hearsay.
Not one of these was a contemporary.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 2) historians who lived at THE VERY SAME TIME who said absolutely NOTHING about Jesus. Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD)
Philo had relatives in Jerusalem, travelled there and was avidly interested in the afterlife. He, of all people would have written something, if there was anything to write about. And it certainly was not among the things the church would have included in their list of destruction.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 HAHAHA that is such a joke, it is easy to just call it heresy to explain it all away haha I am laughing at you....unreal. What you say is hearsay therefore it is haha peace
HaShim383 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HaShim383 Is that the best you can come up with?
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 1) Matt1944 has a lot of "knowledge" about Christianity and the Bible (and jewish traditions, customs, laws, science, and a whole lot more than just one KJV book)
2) What Matt1944 says is true
3) Therefore what Matth1944 says is right
.......
Now you've got it!
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 You again have not read what the secular historians have said"
No problem except that the "secular historians" happened to come along a hundred years later and were passing along hearsay. Your argument is a straw man based on desperation or to save face. Doesn't work.
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 cont'd.. random reasons which makes ZERO sense. There is nothing heretical about what he is saying because you are not a believer and you do not want to hear the other side (i.e., the prophecy of the OT pointing to Jesus Christ) so it looks like there is not point in me adding further information to this one sided discussion. I've been open minded in looking up your source and you have been closed minded ignoring everything I have recommended to you and other secular sources.
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 There is nothing heretical about what he is saying "
To a Pauline Christian, there is nothing heretical because what he is saying is based on pagan legends of saviour men-gods which is the basis of Pauline belief. The living Jesus was a practicing Jew, leader of a sect within Judaism. There are no men-gods in Judaism. There are no prophecies in the Tanakh for Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 7:14 is one verse often misinterpreted and an explanation is going to your mailbox.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 why was his preaching style based on the septuagint? Where are you getting this? He studied at the feet of Gamaliel, a pharisee..........
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Did he really study at the feet of Gamliel? There is nothing in the works that mentions such a prestigious student, Ha. Just another lie - just like being a Benjamite 500 years after the tribal systems were lost, being a Jew while being Roman citizen when Jews weren't given citizenship for another 150 years. Study the findings of bibilical historians, ha. Paul's use of wordage was based on the Septuagint, not the Torah.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383Better read your bible again, ha. I can spoonfeed you or you can look up "Paul admits to lies" - easy for me - easy for you. He cannot have been a Pharisee because he was not a Jew. Jews could not have had Roman citizenship in his time. He wasn't killing Christians of YOUR kind. That kind wasn't even invented. He was killing Jewish Christians - practicing Jews. Pauline Christians don't have a monopoly on God and therefore a non-Christian is not an atheist.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
I see the darwinian zealots are here to prove their faith with the usually repeated fairy tales and insults. I wonder if they realize the fact that they troll every Christian video on youtbe, only proves their desire to hear the truth. You won't find their negative comments on the Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist based videos (except for praises) At least be consistent, and hate all religions
david84ss 7 months ago
@david84ss They "troll" many sites to try to breath some rational thinking into fence sitters who actually believe the drivel that is being spouted on this and many other videos. I DO despise all religions because they are man made ways of controlling other human beings.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@david84ss ''''''are here to prove their faith with the usually repeated fairy tales and insults'" You believe that an invisible entity, who was his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree....and we're the the ones who believe a fairy tale?.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 the one who believes in fairy tales is the one who puts his entire existence into his 5 senses that happened randomly and puts ALL his trust into what he feels, hears, smells, tastes, and touches. This person also chooses to ignore the claims of this video and chooses to get into rabbit trail debates with people in avoiding the claims made in the video. Good day Matthew.
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 The claims of this video are nonsense, based on ignorance and a fervent desire to hold on to myth.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 so you assume you are the one who holds all the knowledge and what this guy says (which is basic science) is wrong? You are making two distinct claims you need to verify. 1) the science this guy talks about and is not what science actually teaches 2) I do not believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible, therefore it is a myth.
You now need to assert 2 options in your worldview otherwise your opinion and logic is flawed and can not be taken serious at all. In fact it would hold no water
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Read my past postings, Ha. I think I've already explained why the assertions are based on lack of knowledge. Evolution is the study of creatures as they change while adapting to their environment. Simple as that. Where we all came from isn't the concern. Secondly, I said that Jesus probably lived but only as a man, just as his original followers believed - BEFORE Paul made him into a man-god based on pagan man gods. The Jewish bible remains just as it was.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 final thoughts...you are fabricating things up to suite your own misguided interpretation of Christianity but lets get back to the topic at hand.
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 No, I'm not fabricating anything Ha. I'm telling you things that your church won't.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@HaShim383 - It was the belief that not one word or letter could be changed and in the last 2000, there is a difference of only nine words - which doesn't change the meaning at all. Your version of the OT shows thousands of mistranslations and massive editing. As far as your NT goes - the gospels were all written by anonymous writers and named four centuries later by the Catholic church. Paul's man-god writings are all pagan based.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 I did not see these responses so go ahead and ignore my last comment...There are thousands huh and massive editing? Where in the world are you getting your information? Paul's teachings were PAGAN?!?! where are you getting this stuff at?
" I think I've already explained why the assertions are based on lack of knowledge"
-What? Where did you explain away the basic things I asked you to begin with?
"evolution is the study of creatures as they change while adapting to their environmen
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 There are thousands huh and massive editing? Where in the world are you getting your information? "
If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum , there is a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible - Check out Codex Sinaiticus.
..................
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 cont'd..again
Dude I did a search in google about the codex sinaiticus, I could not help but laugh because he said The earliest possible date for the SINAI BIBLE was once around 350CE, but other opinions place its writing to the end of the 4th century " this is completely mistaken I mean you can even read peoples comments on it. PLus your source is a journal that someone wrote about? Really? Thats the source you are using?
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 I dont recall giving you a source -a journal that someone wrote about, Ha. I will send an article to your mailbox if you like.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 The new testament was compiled in the 3rd-4th century, there were writings about Jesus Christ 20-30 years after His death, no other historical figure has this. Also there are more historians that confirmed Christ/ Christianity: Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the younger, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, the list goes further but these are good enough
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Quite right, the first writing was Mark. The problem lies in the fact that despite there being many historians contemporary to the time of Jesus, not one wrote anything.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 did you just over-look secular historians back in the time recently after Christ that mentioned Christianity? Did you also overlook atheistic scholars who validate 1 Corinthians 15 (mentions the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the way)...did you also miss what I said about Anthony Flew who at the time was an atheist saying there is OVERWHELMING evidence of Jesus Christ living on the earth?
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 1 Corinthians 15 (mentions the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the way)..."
Check the Codex Sinaiticus again,. No mention of a resurrection. Paul wrote Corinthians and I don't put too much stock in his writings because he's a self admitted liar. In fact, at Antioch, he was hauled up for a second time by the apostles for preaching heresy. He lied but was found out and had to be saved by Roman soldiers by declaring his Roman citizenship. That ended his ties with the apostles.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 Where does it say Paul is a self-admitted liar? You are reading into things In Anitoch he was hauled up for a second time by the apostles for preaching hearisy? What hearisy other than that Jesus is the Son of God? Again you are avoiding my points about various authors (even atheistic authors) confirming Jesus lived and died and rose again. Paul has no reason to make up something because he was a pharisee of pharisee. You don't hold much to what Paul said? Yet you are holding to...
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 Paul's teachings were PAGAN?"
...........................
Celsus wrote” The Christian religion contains nothing but what Christians hold in common with the heathen; nothing new”.
Ammonius Saccas (175-240 AD): the teacher of Origen, maintained that Christianity and Paganism differed on no essential points.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 This is a matter of ones world-view can you not see that? Celsus is writing from a place of disbelief and is actually validating Christianity lol so that discounts that guy.
Ammonius Saccas would fall into the same catergory but Origen held to different beliefs so not sure where you can go from there...
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 What both of them are "validating" are their observances and comparisons between Christianity and paganism of their time and finding them to be essentially the same. Christianity and Judaism share only one human male - nothing else.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 o yeah, the video does not even go into the word of God being in-errant so not sure why you went on a big long tangent there...
HaShim383 7 months ago
@HaShim383 You now need to assert 2 options in your worldview otherwise your opinion and logic is flawed and can not be taken serious at all. In fact it would hold no water "
Certainly they won't be taken seriously by those who continue to live in their little boxes of ignorance and remain quite proud to do so. Study is a good thing, Ha - you should try to vary your diet outside of just the pap your church feeds you. Jewish history is a good way to start.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 again, I will re-state it. "You now need to assert 2 options in your worldview otherwise your opinion and logic is flawed and can not be taken serious at all. In fact it would hold no water"
"Certainly they won't be taken seriously by those who continue to live in their little boxes of ignorance and remain quite proud to do so"
-Comical, wasn't sure if you were talking about me or yourself. I've asked a simple request which you have yet to comply...who is living in a box now?
HaShim383 7 months ago
@3165Peter
1 true for observational science
2 true for micro evolution as it passes no. 1
3 true for micro evolution as it passes no. 1
4 fairytale fails number 1
5 "we, as humans, have one less chromosome than apes" false
also, it's a logical fallacy to assert that the fusion happend bcos of macro evolution; also, chromosome 2 disproves macro evolution.
6 what arguments would that be?
7 if ur INFO is true, that's evidence of adaptation & design. "Still human but with a difference." ???
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan we, as humans, have one less chromosome than apes" false
Wrong. We do.
Try to post a bit of what you're replying to.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan There is no difference between MACRO AND MICRO evolution, except what the creationists have concocted
"it's a logical fallacy to assert that the fusion happend bcos of macro evolution; also, chromosome 2 disproves macro evolution.
"
It's a hell of a lot more of a fallacy to think that a giant invisible being breathed into dirt and created a human, levi.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@gdhgfjf 'well my personal favorite is the fusion of chromosome 2" no! i asked what was the BEST evidence; NOT was ur favourite.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
6. The arguments presented in this video shows a gross ignorance of science and therefore the rebuttal is based on ignorance.
7. New genetic material can form as a mutation such as that in a rate number of humans whose blood cells contain a coating which naturally doesn't allow infection by HIV. Should HIV numbers keep increasing, it will be those individuals and their some of their offspring who will adapt and survive. Still human but with a difference.
3165Peter 7 months ago
4. NO, one species does not turn into another species, however, one species, with time can gradually evolve into something quite different from what it started with a million years before.
5. Genetic testing has already revealed we, as humans, have one less chromosome than apes and that is because two of our corresponding chromosomes have fused to become one. Watch Ken Miller's detailed explanation on YouTube.
3165Peter 7 months ago
1 THEORY in science is not a guess. It is a conclusion reached based on a series of observable, repeatable events.
2. Evolution is the study of the changes in creatures as they adapt to their environment. It has nothing to do with the origin of things.
3. Yes there are mutations that appear that allow better adaptation of a particular species i.e. antibiotic resistant microorganisms.
3165Peter 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom yep! what a refutation; too bad those ur arguments only work in never, never land; i will let ppl be the judge, genius;
As Galileo once said, "E pur si muove." macro evolution is a fairytale for grownups
the thing is, genius, i have all ur claims copied and i will continue to pwn u!
now go back under ur rock and open the god delusion and try and find out why ur prophet's arguments don't work in the real world.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 16:
also, genius, in part 7 of my last response to u, i told u exactly what i meant by using "="
this is what i said:
"according to u, ID is science and is inductive, which essentially uses EVIDENCE; since naturalistic evo is mutually exclusive of ID, u have pwndnaturalistic evo"
every1 can see that you attacked a straw man.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
bold faced lies, go buy a biology book
gdhgfjf 7 months ago
@gdhgfjf brilliant rebuttal; i was going to write the same thing, but u beat me to it! keep up the good work! we really need to refute these ppl with these sound arguments! well done!
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan seriously though...the evidence is insurmountable, genetically, geologically, pick up a book about the genetic mechanisms of evolution, join the rest of the human race. refuters of evolution have one common background, biblical literalist, and even some of them believe in it, if it were soo flawed, why does every other religious and nonreligious background have zero problems with it? give up already, you're dying out faster than you can say australopithecus africanus
gdhgfjf 7 months ago
@gdhgfjf i feel really daunted by ALL this evidence for macro evo; my little brain hurts; here's what we be nice, though: if you could STATE the BEST evidence for macro evo; i dont' want a link or a rhetoric-that will hurt my brain even more! just STATE it, thx!
as an example: "the best evidence for macro evolution is XXXXXX."
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan well my personal favorite is the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans, the history of equus should also prove very enlightening, that means horse for the record, but of course I can't explain in detail all of these points, on a youtube comment, and if you refuse to research these kind of details further on your own that makes you either lazy or fearful, neither is very becoming, no one can explain particle physics concepts like higgs boson in one sentence, that does make it fake
gdhgfjf 7 months ago
@gdhgfjf It isn't chromosome#2 and it doesn't involve horses,ad. Maybe you need to do MORE research.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
Awesome
gweems828 7 months ago
Very well done, now that it's clear that God exists through proof of science which he has given us to test the truth, can you prove Jesus existed using using scientific and historical fact? :)
Monumentil 7 months ago
@Monumentil Don't hold your breath there....
jwissick 7 months ago
@Monumentil " can you prove Jesus existed using using scientific and historical fact?" lol!!! scientific??? show me the criteria in the HISTORICAL METHOD that says u need to use scientific fact.
also, plz provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist; just one, thx.
@jwissick "Don't hold your breath there..."
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan science and history are one whether books have used it or not, it's part of historical method by default. all the supposed people who recorded or supposedly documented jesus which were written well after his existence or during have been labelled as forgeries by historians and scholars to this day ;P Michael Martin to name one and there are plenty others, try using the internet for browsing information as well, but you have to be ready to receive truth :)
Monumentil 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Monumentil part 1:
atheism is the pwnd religion for pwnd people. u couldn't provide the criteria from the historical method that proves ur case. PWND
"all the supposed people who recorded or supposedly documented jesus which were written well after his existence or during have been labelled as forgeries by historians and scholars to this day ;P Michael Martin to name one " LOL!!!
marin is a philosopher; i asked for 1 historian and his scholarly source. PWND
here's a real historian:
cont.
leviMichealathan 4 months ago
@Monumentil part 2:
“if we apply to the New Testament as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars’.”
cont...
leviMichealathan 4 months ago
@leviMichealathan
"Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, "
cont >>
jOkErNdEgRaDeR 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leviMichealathan we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned
....................
So by that reasoning, Zeus, Thor, Hera, Aphrodite, Dionysus, Mithra are real historical figures.
Matthew1944 3 weeks ago
@Monumentil part 3:
PWND!!! now, "try using the internet for browsing information as well, but you have to be ready to receive truth" LOL!!!!
leviMichealathan 4 months ago
@leviMichealathan
"Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross;"
The "historical" evidence also strongly indicates that Jesus wasn't a supernatural being not to mention the "historical" evidence also indicates there is no such thing as the supernatural period.
jOkErNdEgRaDeR 3 months ago
@Monumentil part 4:
that quote if from michael grant
leviMichealathan 4 months ago
@leviMichealathan wtf? i ain't quoted anything bud, this is how intelligent people convey the knowledge they have grasped, it may be close to some quote but i would always give props to the owner/author of a quote. and your arguement was? :P
Monumentil 4 months ago
hey guys, the cycle continues, jimmy boy gets refuted; then, he makes another claim and gets refuted again; finally, he ends with his usual ad hominem attacks.
until the next video, james...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
On point!!!
UnrealHelix 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ddrninjette "Also... I don't think you're using "information" the same way a mathematician or scientist defines the word..." ur claims sounds rather familiar.
pz provide the scientific and/or mathematical definition of information.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan Information is an abstraction of data to the next higher level of understanding. Data might be something like, "5 inches." Information would take that data and assign it to something like, "This box is 5 inches wide." In other words, information is interpreted data.
ddrninjette 7 months ago
@ddrninjette part 1:
"Information is an abstraction of data to the next higher level of understanding" not true; computers use machine language as information; most end users would need to have the the computer's information translated.
likewise, raw data maybe information to statisticians that need to be interpreted for "the lay person" to understand.
i asked for the scientific and/or mathematical definition of information bcosu claimed......
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@ddrninjette part 2:
"Also... I don't think you're using "information" the same way a mathematician or scientist defines the word"
in other words, u claimed that they have a somewhat different definition.
all you have given is the distinction between information and data, yet u claimed that mathematicians/scientists use a different definition for information; ur "definition" apply to DNA; to molecules, DNA is information; we need this information to be interpreted for for us to under it.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
'nuff said...
Let me sum it up. Common sense proves evolution is a myth. Since evolution is a myth and atheists believe in evolution, then they don't have a common sense and they AREN'T RATIONAL PEOPLE.
SerJahPhoto 7 months ago
@SerJahPhoto Except that "common sense" is frequently wrong. Common sense tells you the earth is flat, yet we know better. Common sense tells us that the stars are pinpoints in a cloak that covers the planet... yet we know that is wrong.
Common sense isn't right in your claim either.
jwissick 7 months ago
@jwissick i don't know about your common sense, by mine do not tell me about flat earth and pinpoints in a cloak... My common sense also does not tell me that some bones taken from 1km radius belong to one person called Lucy. And that everything came from nothing. We must have different "common senses"...
SerJahPhoto 7 months ago
@SerJahPhoto - James is lost. He'll never get it until he gets saved. (I know I didn't.)
JMcH 7 months ago
@SerJahPhoto (1)
Especially when we look at fields such as psychology, physics, or mathematics. Time and time again our intuition (common sense) is wrong. I mean how much advanced mathematics/science have you done? The grueling part of mathematics/science are the parts they go against your intuition, and they are aplenty in every field. To put it simply, if you think common sense is reliable then you need to open up an advanced mathematics/science book, and see how far your intuition gets you.
MaximumAxiom 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 1: please read ALL parts:
typical atheist response to claim that someone doesn't know this or doesn't know that.
science may have proven some common sense things wrong; plz provide a credible source, with a list, that backs up ur claim "Time and time again our intuition (common sense) is wrong."
"The grueling part of mathematics/science are the parts they go against your intuition" now, u change definitions from common sense to intuition...
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 2:
please provide a credible source that says common sense and intuition are synonyms.
"Evolution only implies that Australopithecus afarensis is very likely one of the common ancestors of humans." really???
"A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors:...
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 3:
this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree…Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered." Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 4:
australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal-Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94
the skeletal structure of australopithecines is likened to modern orangutans.Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p. 389
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 5:
so, u have a monkey and science tells u that it's likely our ancestor? this is better than common sense??
remember how i pwnd u; remember how u claimed that ID is inductive? remember how u tried to backpedal?
pwnage next part...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 6:
u said "ID is supernatural"
u said: "Inductive logic is just a logical argument structure that essentially use EVIDENCE to provide support for the conclusion. " -emp mine
u said “ID cannot be proven because it is inductive”
u said: “Science cannot be proven because it is inductive”
in other words, science = ID = inductive = uses evidence = supernatural
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 7:
according to u, ID is science and is inductive, which essentially uses EVIDENCE; since naturalistic evo is mutually exclusive of ID, u have pwnd naturalistic evo
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan
Sent a PM with a response to your comments. Hopefully you will stop using these terrible arguments as result, but then again you people virtually never become and stay a creationists because of rationality and/or evidence.
MaximumAxiom 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto: part 1:
hmmm...sit back and let me pwn u again:
u site MW for the definition of intuition-good, but, then u site wiki for the definition of common sense; i asked for a credible source that says they are SYNONYMS; so right off the bat u failed.
but, ur own sources pwn u, anyway:
u claimed about intuition: "Essentially easy to understand knowledge" but u failed to mention that understanding this knowledge is "without evident rational thought and inference"-MW
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 2:
here's MW definition of common sense: "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts"
but u claimed this about common sense: "Essentially easy simple knowledge that people should innately have through basic life experiences."
this is going to be good; i will use ur own definition of common sense to pwn u; sit back and relax...
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 3:
"Clearly they are very similar and go hand and hand. I didn't mind tying them together. It's just semantics." LOL!!! if u think they go hand in hand, then that's ur baby; merriam-webster refutes u; in never, never land u are welcome to redefine words.
" If it makes you feel better from this point on whenever I say "Intuitive" let it mean "common sense"." NO! u ur not the authority of the english language; ur kind are such hypocrites...
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 4
u are allowed to redefine words what we can't???
let's come back to ur definition of common sense: "Essentially easy simple knowledge that people should innately have through basic life experiences"
this is the definition of innately from MW: "existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth"
now, lets apply ur definition of common sense to ur "examples"
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 5:
"The Earth being round" are we born with innate knowledge of the shape of the earth? LOL!!!
plus, the Bible says that earth is round; and people knew that the earth was round; if u dispute this, then i will take it up again.
"From our a common sense perspective we assume that venting actually works...." are born knowing this? see, now u are using the word "assumption" if it is innate why do we need assumptions?
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 6:
also, psychology is not a hard science; plus, the Bible told us it is the heart of man that is the problem, not his behaviour; his heart dictates his behaviour
"Another common sense assumption that people get wrong about psychology is that most good people would never conform to immoral actions." are we born with this knowledge? are we born with this assumption about psychology? LOL!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 7:
plus, we didn't "Stanley Milgrim" to tell us this when the Bible already told us that no one is good, no one searches for righteousness and the best of man is not good enough; no one i know believes that or heard of Stanley Milgrim
"An interesting example of something counter-intuitive that I remember from my physics classes was a problem which had two blocks sliding relative to each other." are we born with this knowledge?
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 8:
"Intuitively we can see why Zeno's paradox is a problem" are we born knowing this? also, genius, you pwnd urself because you used the word "Intuitively"
"Quantum Physics is probably the most interesting example of something that goes completely against our intuition in physic" are we born knowing about quantum physics???
all these fields of study you site have nothing or very to do with common sense; it is based on the scientific method.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 9:
plus, u didn't back up ur claim and i wanted a credible source, with a list; and i did admit that science may have proven some common sense knowledge wrong; where's the "Time and time again..." pwnd!
"You realize we have thousands of fossils from Australopithecus fossils" really??? thousands??? plz provide ur credible source.
"The article only references one woman's studies, so what?" actually i gave three CREDIBLE sources; "so what? LOL!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 10:
"Unless you can present the evidence that she has, her view is not really anymore credible then any fringe view" i provided three independent sources that were published.
typical of ppl like u to reject ur own sources.
" Honestly I cannot find any debate in the scientific community about whether or not Australopithecus africanus is a hominid ancestor" those three sources refutes u...
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 11:
even, if u are correct about there being no debate in the scientific community, this mean nothing bcos macro evo isn't science, so it wouldn't be debated; last time i asked u for the BEST evidence for evo; and u were refuted with DNA being the best evidence; now, i challenge you to state the BEST evidence for macro evo that has stood the test of time from DARWIN'S DAYS-not a link or a rhetoric, just state it.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 12:
"This argument is true if and only if all the components of the set of inductive arguments are all equivalent" LOL!!! anyone with any common sense will see that i was using a short form by using "=" and not claiming that they were equal/equivalent; also, it's clear i wasn't formulating a rigorous argument;
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 12:
if it makes u feel better, here's what i was trying to say, according to u:
science is inductive; induction is essentially based on evidence; ID is inductive because it is essentially based on Evidence; ID is scientific because it is INDUCTIVE; since, ID and naturalistic evo are mutually exclusive, you pwnd naturalistic evo
quite honestly, genius, u pwnd urself, with ur own statements.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 13:
"Just because ID does operate upon evidence because it is inductive, that doesn't mean that there actually is any evidence for ID." LOL!!! ID operates upon evidence but that doesn't mean there's actual evidence? LOL!!!
"This is inductive in nature because even if test X succeeds it doesn't necessarily mean that Divination always works, but it would make it more likely that it may work....
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 14: Just because we can formulate this argument, this doesn't mean that any such evidence actually does in fact exist for Divination" LOL!!! if test X succeeds, that's EVIDENCE for it, genius! the evidence does exist in this case; u pwnd ur self again.
u claimed ID is inductive, you admitted that ID does in fact have evidence based on ur definition of induction.
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part 15:
"Hopefully now you realize whenever you make this objection you either look like a troll or a dimwit." i really hope you do, really!
consider urself pwnd!!!
don't send me any pms; post here; i want everyone to see what a genius u are!
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan
Well at least I can say that I tried, but clearly no amount of rationality is going to get through to you. I am going to err on the side that you are a troll because I want to believe that someone on youtube that has the mental capacity to type on a keyboard wouldn't be so stupid as to continue to propagate an argument that essentially states that all mice are elephants. It kills me inside to think that someone could be so ignorant, so hopefully you're just a troll.
MaximumAxiom 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom,@SerJahPhoto part a:
hmmm.....pwnd u badly, didn't i? u can only respond to ur straw man argument??? what about the rest???
"continue to propagate an argument that essentially states that all mice are elephants" no, genius! that's a straw man, liar; i never said that! u took my usage of "=" and straw manned it by claiming i meant equality/equivalence when clearly i wasn't; any1 can go look at part 7 of my last response (the response i made to u after u responded...
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part b:
to SerJahPhoto) and see exactly what i meant.
but just for laughs, let me quote part 7 again:
"according to u, ID is science and is inductive, which essentially uses EVIDENCE; since naturalistic evo is mutually exclusive of ID, u have pwnd naturalistic evo"
i said this after i used "=". LOL!!!
i have all ur claims copied and will continue to pwn u! bye, bye!
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part c:
btw, u call me a troll??? last time i checked this was a Christian video; but, if by calling me a troll makes u feel better, then ok.
@SerJahPhoto this is how an average YT atheist defends his worldview (1) redefine words (2) attack his own sources (3) straw man and read out of context (4) attack science (5) claim macro evo is science (but when asked for the BEST evidence, we find macro evo is all in the head)
cont...
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@leviMichealathan
Despite you being a troll I have one last thing to say to you. Throughout all your logical fallacies and terrible arguments that you hold onto so tightly the actual evidence for Evolution remains unfettered. No matter how many comments you flood on youtube, no matter how many silly repetitive points you try to make, and no matter how much you want to believe that Evolution is false, as Galileo once said, "E pur si muove." Life evolves whether you want to believe it or not.
MaximumAxiom 7 months ago 2
@MaximumAxiom, @SerJahPhoto part d:
(6) claim Christians don't know about this or that and we need to study this or read that (7) ad hominems galore.
leviMichealathan 7 months ago
@SerJahPhoto (2)
Also Evolution doesn't imply atheism, atheism doesn't imply creation ex nihilo, and Evolution only implies that Australopithecus afarensis is very likely one of the common ancestors of humans. It sounds like you're are very ignorant on this subject, and I strongly recommend you earnestly read a few actual books explaining the theory of Evolution before you start trying to debate a subject you obviously don't understand.
MaximumAxiom 7 months ago
@jwissick - "Common sense tells you the earth is flat"
ROFL!!! Oh, James, James, James. How can you possibly face yourself in the mirror every day when you say stuff like that. Honestly.
JMcH 7 months ago
WOW!! This is so so bad. Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!!!
...and i love how at the end, the conclusion is, "Well, science hasnt figured out every question of the universe, so therefore, an all-knowing all-powerful super being, that always existed, spoke the universe into existence." Where did that superbeing come from?
Do they not realize that that answer only brings up more questions than it answers?
Adriancito6669 7 months ago
@Adriancito6669 u already said it, he has always been there. he is eternal. know what that means? doesnt end and doesnt begin. you cant even come to terms with what eternal is by using time the way we see time as. he was, is and forever will be there.
RCACsurvivorman 7 months ago