@joshdarkensins 1. I'm afraid it isn't debatable no matter what u say. 2. Science is a methodology not a belief syste. The definition of religion is organized faith in supernatural power. Science does not fit this definition, science are human attempts to understand the world via the methodology that is the scientific method. Science relies on trials, and evidence. Not the apriore, dogmatic beliefs that religion does. People do not worship evolution just as people don't worship the fact that 1+
@7777Ralph Evolution is the belief that a self replicating chemical formation formed life, the. Through random variation and natural selection life became more complex. You're supposed better explanation is not only not supported by evidence but says that a magical man in the sky proofed everything into existance a few thousand years ago. You clearly don't understand scientific concepts.
the scientific community is not interested in truth. they are interested answers and statistics and solidity even when there is no solidity to be found. And they receive much in the way of contribution for these "results" and "answers". sounds rather close to those religious folks don't they
Based on the naturally tendency of man to apply what they find in nature into their society, “it wasn't long before leading thinkers were distilling the ideas of Malthus, Spencer and Darwin into a new concept, bearing a name never used by Darwin himself: social Darwinism,” (Black 12).
Man has always been linked to nature, making it possible for Herbert Spencer to transform a natural idea into a political one. And b/c man, according to Darwin, is a mammal with the same warm blood of other mammals and ultimately no greater than any other creature (save for the fact of just happening to be at the top of the food chain), then it can be logical to see no reason for man to hold any higher standard of ethics than the ethics of a turtle.
There is nothing explicitly sinister about natural selection. In biblical terms, it was common in the Old Testament for people to apply – unknowingly – the natural selection concept by breeding livestock in order to produce positive traits. In regards to plants, Jesus himself provided a practical example of natural selection while talking about bearing spiritual fruit in one's life in Matthew 7: 18-19.
As history progresses, man will come to a point of exhaustion in regards to their singular purpose (SEX), and inevitably fall into a state of nihilism, thus making their entire existence meaningless.
Although Evolution is a scientific theory, its philosophical basis should certainly be examined, for philosophy encompasses all that exists in both the physical and mental realm.
When atheists become impotent and no longer able to carry out their purpose, they become dead weight to the rest of their species, and should thus help their offspring survive by ending their life and providing their body as sustenance. Humans are not in need of training on how to mate, for it is an imbedded instinct and easy to accomplish. The elders of the species should die and cease their consumption of food, water, and other resources in order for there to be more available for the rest.
@MrGreenPoop1000 Of course, that makes the incorrect assumption that a person's worth is tied solely to their ability to reproduce. Why is it that theists like you seem only able to make strawmen like this? Are you really that unable to understand another's point of view that these gross mischaracterizations are the best you're able to do?
@ArcanaKnight It is not a mischaracterization. That IS the purpose and goal of Atheism and the theory of Evolution. To say otherwise is to concede that there are higher concepts that remain eternal, such as "justice", "good", "evil", "unconditional love", etc. They may not necessarily originate from a "god", but the fact remains that neither you nor Evolution can explain.
I have won this argument. Thank you for trying, my mammal companion.
@MrGreenPoop1000 Right, because teaching the next generation, helping to raise them, making the world better place for them, etc. are all entirely meaningless endeavors; once you're no longer to have children yourself, you're useless (btw, that was sarcasm). Your argument is nothing more than an ignorant strawman, one that clearly shows your inability to even try understanding another point of view.
@ArcanaKnight Oh those are certainly "noble" endeavors to create a "better" place for your offspring, But the only reason it would be is b/c genes must be spread successfully.
You don't have a higher calling or purpose. By your very definition, we as a species are no different from other animals. We are beasts of a lower nature, and our destiny is nothing more than an acceptance of nihilism.
All I am stating are the flaws and incapabilities of science.
@MrGreenPoop1000 Being an animal (a classification originally made by a creationist btw) doesn't preclude finding some meaning or purpose to life. You're not even trying to understand other points of view, you're still just trying to promote your little strawman so that you can attempt to argue that any point of view other than yours is wrong.
@ArcanaKnight Haha I could say the same about you. And fine, we are mammals, the equivalent of other species.
Your dissent regarding "wrong" behavior is superficial. You don't believe rape or murder is wrong b/c it is universally wrong.You believe it is wrong simply b/c it does not fulfill a cold and indifferent purpose of science.
@MrGreenPoop1000 How would you know what I consider wrong or why? Morality hasn't been part of the discussion at all so far; that's just another strawman you've concocted. Besides, its possible to believe in god and still accept such well supported scientific principles as evolution (just look at people like Ken Miller); even the Vatican has come out and said that evolution is not incompatible with religion.
@MrGreenPoop1000 To see to be implying that the tenants of atheism are the tenants of the theory of evolution. This is incorrect. An atheist can happily believe in justice, good, evil, love etc; these are all mostly human conceptions are they not? Abstract notions made by the neurons in our advanced brains processes as it goes about it's business? The human brain is a product of evolution after all.
Your argument is flimsy at best and just plain laughable at worst.
@TheBanile Ever heard of a man named Richard Dawkins? He's a very prominent evolutionist while firmly believing that the theory does lead to atheism. Those of evolution who claim to be theists are contradictory and are incapable of having science and morality on the same ground.
Pardon me for being "laughable", but I believe in the ideas of Socrates and Plato, who both claimed that moral virtues (such as justice) are timeless and beyond the scientific/earthly realm. It originates from above...
@MrGreenPoop1000 A large amount of the scientific community are Christian and there is no debate within that community that evolution is proven. I have certainly read Richard Dawkins and he does make that point, but then again, that is his own conclusion. Science and morality are not mutually exclusive, nor are science and religion. Science is merely observable facts. What you do with that is up to your own perceptions.
And what proof do you have that 'virtues' are timeless?
@TheBanile Timeless virtues were the foundation of The Declaration of Independence. It essentially stated that man's morality and rights came from above, and not simply which culture they live in (Hence the reason "ALL men are created equal.") It's also with human rights. Their are universal wrongs that everyone should label as wrong. Those who genuinely don't see such wrong when faced w/ it are usually psychopaths. "All men are born free" would also be a timeless virtue.
@MrGreenPoop1000 A timeless virtue took until the 1700s for it to come into writing? It was also written by humans for humans, using schools of thoughts and laws that were used in almost every culture around the world. I mean, the DoI isn't infallible and certainly doesn't apply to everyone universally. Contrary to what some believe, basic morality like 'don't kill, rape or maim people' is often a general rule in one's own cultural group.
@TheBanile I'm not saying "the evolution theory is bad." Science itself is not the culprit; it is more the individual who studies it. I know it's always intended for science to have only observable facts within nature, but man is a part of nature as well. And coupled with the fact of humans susceptibility, it doesn't come as a surprise when an initially objective scientist begins to use facts as a way to merge his natural scientific ideas with the religious and political.
@MrGreenPoop1000 Maybe, but the two are not mutually exclusive and the religious are equally susceptible to inject their own philosophy and the 'facts' of their religion into their ideas. However, the process of science has peer review, falsifiability and countless tests; it may be that once you realise that most religions cannot account for their beliefs or proof of their validity, that one might ask questions about one's religion. But that doesn't make them the same.
@TheBanile That makes sense. All I'm saying is that scientists are susceptible of being subjective in their conclusions and not following the scientific process to the letter. And the same goes to Christians who insist on killing people who disagree with them, thereby contradicting the original teachings of Jesus.
I'm glad we can have a civil conversation though! Haha I haven't been able to have one in months!
@MrGreenPoop1000 Aye, though the scientific process does have the peer-reveiw process, so bad or poorly done science (like ones with too much subjective data) is usually self-correcting, given time. Which is something religion doesn't really have, so bad ideas never really get shunned properly...
Nice to have a civil meeting indeed! Usually I just get rude slurs and people with the most horrendous understanding of scientific concepts yelling and me and covering their ears... :(
@TheBanile Haha I know what you mean! When I debate some Christians, they accuse me of being a demon if I don't agree with their "fire and brimstone" approach of persuasion.
And to be fair, there have been corrections made in Christianity over time, such as the rejection of the divine right of kings and slavery.
But yeah, I'm not a hater of science. I thinks it's idiotic of religious people to say I love God's creation, but I hate science (which is supposed to be a part of God's creation)
@TheBanile Evolution has a very difficult time of explaining virtue. It's far more than mere brain neurons. And the "morals" that evolutionists may profess can easily become amoral, just as it was with communism.Evolutionary morality is unstable and confined only to either a particular time or situation in history. And I apologize for my so-called stupidity, but I appreciate the quest toward universal virtues that aren't diluted by the lazy conclusion of "all cultures being true"..
@MrGreenPoop1000 'Virtues' such as altruism can easily be explained with basic psychology and biology. You are also confusing evolution scientists with atheists; they are not the same.
The religion can be just as amoral and is certainly more confined than those who do not believe ; the bible for example, is an old book that supports stoning, misogyny and multiple genocides, and more atrocities. Evolution is a neutral tool, it doesn't claim morality or guidance, merely fact.
Atheists may become philanthropists, insisting that they possess a “higher calling” and proclaim that because this is the only life they have, they will “live life to the fullest potential.” They cannot claim this, for they, according to their theory, have only one function: have sex, successfully transfer their genes, spawn offspring, and ensure the survival of their species.
Therefore, rape, murder, assault, and theft is neither good nor bad, it simply is. The Stalinists purges, the Holocaust of Europe, or even the more recent genocides of Africa cannot be considered a great and profound evil. At best, the only thing an atheist can claim is that they are a neutral action conceived by the primitive passion of our animalistic nature.
Some atheists will choose to not follow the law, so long as they are not caught. They would have a legitimate reason, based on their logic, to kill off their competition, and to rape their mate, just as a lion would rape his female counterpart. Humans are creatures as well, and are susceptible to the same primitive urges and instinct to spread their genes. Such actions aren't evil; for morality can't be explained through evolution (no matter how insistent they are of having an explanation.)
They will only love in a superficial manner. They will appear to be compassionate towards others, possess a passion for music, a passion for knowledge, or a passion for life as a whole so that their feathers are more appealing than their competition. Most of them will follow the law, not because of a reverence for what is good, but to maintain their chances of reproduction. If they do not follow the laws, they may be sent to prison and their chances of reproducing will decrease dramatically.
Let me be clear: I am a DEIST and am neutral on the idea of creationism.
The purpose of an atheist and a believer in evolution is to simply reproduce, and ensure the survival of their species. The act of sex may be enjoyable for the purpose for increasing the chances of future opportunities for sex. It is not enjoyable for any profound reason, but is there merely to flame the beast of lust that most desire to feel.
"The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."
Uuhh. I think the Bible has a much better explanation…
Please listen closely to what the Bible says regarding this very thing:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Rom 1:20
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 3:36
Please accept Jesus today as your Lord and Savior if you want salvation
you know sometimes when i find a source that i dont think is reliable, ill look for more and take qualities to make a proper judgement. now, why should i trust the bible when there is too may historical books to ignore that prove otherwise the events that supposedly occurred in the bible?
human evolution is a lie according to evolution humans should not have been able to construct monolithic and megalithic site as they are, matter of fact modern humans would have much trouble today creating them.
how can evolution prove the symbiotic nature of the earth we live not mention the universe?
@faron27 ...what? Evolution doesn't say anything about humans' ability to construct monolithic and megalithic sites. Also, your last question is incomprehensible.
@ArcanaKnight yes according to the evolutionary time line humans were using bone and stone tools and had no idea of longitude or latitude yet the built these sites that modern human can't replicate today.
and my question stands if you have an answer I would love to know...
@faron27 "using bone and stone tools..." Which sites, exactly, are you referring to?
Do you even know what incomprehensible means? Saying "my question stands" doesn't matter if nobody can understand what your question is in the first place.
@ArcanaKnight I do not use web sites for research 1st of all and secondly the evolutionary time line for man doesn't match the ability to quarry, cut and move Granite Stone over long distances, set the stone so even a human hair cant fit through. I would be happy to give site names, their creation dates and the time lines...
@faron27 You made specific claims about humans using bone and stone tools to build "these sites", so exactly which sites were you referring to? "I'd be happy to give site names..." Since that this is precisely what I asked for, why don't you?
Considering that you want an answer to that incomprehensible mess of words you call a question, it actually is your problem.
@ArcanaKnight Göbekli Tepe, The Great Pyramids, The unfinished obelisk Aswan, Easter Island, Stonehenge, and many more not mention thousands of artifacts that don’t fit the time line either here are just a few, The Antikythera Mechanism, Grooved Spheres from Africa, The Baghdad Battery, 290 million years old modern human foot print fossilized in stone. your insults mean nothing to me sir...
@faron27 First of all, not one of those "human footprint" fossils has ever been able to stand up to scrutiny. They've failed so spectacularly that even creationist organizations like the ICR have advised people not to cite them as evidence against evolution.
Secondly, those man-made artifacts and sites (there's no evidence that the spheres were man-made) are not outside the evolutionary timescale. In fact, all they show is that people underestimate what people of the past were capable of.
@ArcanaKnight well the prove that "evolution" when it come too humans is wrong scrutiny by those who aren't willing to except the truth that human is millions of years old just as we are today not ape/money type bipeds.In 1979, at the Laetoli, Tanzania, site in East Africa discovered footprints in volcanic ash deposits over 3.6 million years old. anthropologist R. H. Tuttle In an article in the March 1990 issue of Natural History, said the foot prints are no different than those of modern human
@faron27 How similar the Laetoli footprints are to A. afarensis is actually a matter of debate among anthropologists; in standard cherry-picking style though, creationists tend to only cite Tuttle's opinion because his best supports their viewpoint.
@ArcanaKnight yes I believe man was created but not the traditional way and that foot print isn't the only suppressed archaeology out there human history is not evolution.1880, J. D.Whitney, state geologist of California, published a review of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines. implements, including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, in formations ranging from 9 million to over 55 million years old.
@faron27 The evidence for the presence of artifacts in the gold mines is unreliable and highly suspect. There has been no suppression; the find was widely known and discussed back when it was first discovered, and is largely unknown today simply because their authenticity has been disproven.
@ArcanaKnight yet another explanation with no proof to substantiate it. is there perhaps a name of whom ever this magical team or person that can prove any of my facts wrong or just another pass the buck answer from someone with no intention of searching for the truth? really your answers aren't very believable and lack any date name or place to back up what you say, and again I do not obtain my facts from the internet fools.
@faron27 Differing opinions about the Laetoli footprints are easy to find (Johanson and Edgar 1996, Stern and Susman 1983, Clarke 1999,etc). Even Tuttle doesn't believe that the footprints are actually from modern humans as creationists like to claim, but are just from some later species of australopithecine or an early species of Homo.
"I do not obtain my facts from the internet fools" You do realize that most academic sources are available online, right?
@faron27 No, there has been no suppression; if there had been, the information about it would have been hard to find, not easily available through a simple search. Here's a hint: if you have to concoct a conspiracy to support your claims, they're probably not valid to begin with.
@faron27 You'll obviously fall for any pseudoscience nonsense you hear about. Please stop embarrassing yourself in front of more intelligent and better-educated people.
@ArcanaKnight the fool part was for the conspiracy comment and the best answer anyone has to this is that this relative of man had modern looking feet... that to me is not a answer and in fact is simple minded.
but when you are taught from an early age that man comes from ape what are you going to believe?
anyway the foot print is just 1 example of filtered history so I will keep my opinion as i am sure you will keep yours.
@faron27 "the fool part was for the conspiracy comment " You were the one claiming suppression, even though the information is still easily accessible and there is absolutely no evidence of suppression.
"when you are taught from an early age that man comes from ape what are you going to believe" Except that science doesn't work like that. Further support that the footprints were probably made by A. Afarensis is the fact that their remains have also been found in the area.
I know many christian people who accept evolution as a fact. Why do so many people have trouble with that? I don't see why there should be any controversy there. And religion does not belong in a science class. Religion is about personal belief, not facts, and its up to parents whether or not they want to teach their children about it. Personally I don't believe, I didn't baptize my children, sprinkling a little water seems like a lot of witchdoctor hocus pocus silliness.
Mutations are corrected all of the time and another mutation can reverse the previous mutation. You have to already have a selection for there to be a mutation of that selection. Mutations can only change preexising information that is already functional. Mutations do not account for any of the function. Mutations also do not account for the variation of species. It is the genome that causes the uniform changes that are needed. Mutations order nothing. There can be no mutations without a genome.
@JungleJargon "Mutation can reverse other mutation" Great but it in you mind , its like saying all function has a reverse fuction , how can you say if one mutation act on one genome by chance , oh dear , the environnement will think its not good for the human and will directly reverse the mutation with another mutation which is intended to recompose the genome ?Is the environnement has an intelligence to create a cause for a mutation and the opposite cause for the mutation ! Absolutely not
Creationism and intelligent design are not necessary to show that evolution is flawed. No biologist can show based on over 100 million fossils unearthed or based on mtDNA, a series of four legged animals that GRADUALLY evolved starting from having short necks into a giraffe, the iconic but embarrassing example of evolution taught in almost every biology class.
@daogdaog That is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument. It isn't necessary (or expected) to find every single transition for every species went through in order to reach their current state. Also, we HAVE discovered multiple genetic methods of determining ancestry, and not only do they all show that life developed via common descent, but they also correspond with what we've found in the fossil record; that is called independent confirmation.
Wow, you are pretty good at closing your eyes and covering your ears. So let me try it again. Ever heard of bacteria that develope a resistance against anti-biotics? This is a huge medical problem.
So, which new mechanism in nature do you propose to describe how this can happen? And how would the knowledge of this new mechanism result in a better treatment of lets say an MRSA-Infection?
Why am I even doing this. You are either too stupid or willfully ignorant. Maybe even both...
@JungleJargon a point mutation is when an error accrue during dna replication, and its not corrected by the usual repair mechanism, resulting in a new base substitution. the genetic coding has now changed, and could lead to selecting different amino acid during protein synthesis. mutation not only rearrange existing dna sequence, but a point mutation conjures additional genetic information from error during dna replication.
@JungleJargon if such error is beneficial to an organism then it would be preserved by natural selection, but if its harmful then it would be eliminated. "It is a proven fact that mutations do not accumulate" im sorry but that's simply not true.
@vindelextreme One or two random errors do not order anything. A billion random errors do not order anything because it is changes to information that already existed.
That is the reason that mutations do not accumulate or amount to anything.
@JungleJargon "One or two random errors do not order anything" not order, but a chage has occur. now this copy of the dna sequence, is 1 base different fron the original copy. if its beneficial, it would be preserved by natural selection. then another error has occur and now the code is 2 bases different and son and and so forth. all nonbeneficial changes would be eliminated, and all beneficial changes r kept.
@vindelextreme Errors do not order anything so, in real life, no accumulation of any other order occurs. The mutations are simply corrected or changed again.
Not only are mutations meaningless, they are reversable.
@JungleJargon the error could be adding and additional base or eliminating a base from the coding. "A billion random errors do not order anything" there r much more non beneficial mutations then the contrary, but those non beneficial mutation would be eliminated by natural selection. the rare mutations, that r beneficial would be preserved. thats like having a deck of cards, and picking randomly. we only keep the 10 of hearts and nothing else.
@vindelextreme there is also no guarantee that any mutation will be preserved so it will never be a meaningful ordering of dna. The whole of the instructions always wins out against the partial instructions, in real life, and there is also back up information.
@JungleJargon "there is also no guarantee that any mutation will be preserved" u do not understand natural selection and its process. natual selction is a process to preserve beneficial genetic variation and eliminate non successful variation.
@JungleJargon we would still have a 1 in 52 chance in picking the 10 of hearts from the deck. after repeating the process 52,000 times we would of picked up the 10 of hearts 1000 times. the analogy would explain the same process of mutation and natural selection. the player (natural selection) only keeps the 10 of hearts (beneficial mutations) from the deck of 52 (chance of non benficial mutations). after a while the 10 of hearts (benefial mutations) would accumulate.
@JungleJargon "That is your hope." u said in that mutations can only change existing information, and thats wrong. i explained to u why thats wrong, and a process supported by science that would provide explanation. it is not hope, it is the best explanation so far and is supported by evidence.
@mikerozo The fossil record proves that all kinds of living things are virtually unchaged since the day they were covered with over 100 million cubic miles of sediments that no one has every been able to account for where they came from or how they came to cover every living thing on earth.
@JungleJargon Not one bit of that is actually true. Not only does the fossil record not show that living things are virtually unchanged, it actually shows the exact opposite. The fossil record shows common descent, and we have multiple other methods of determining ancestry which provide independent verification of that.
@ArcanaKnight Untill you can account for the origin of the 100 million cubic miles of sediments and how they came to cover every living thing on earth, you cannot be saying the fossils show anything other than that they were all bried by the flood.
@JungleJargon "Untill you can account for the origin of the 100 million cubic miles of sediments and how they came to cover every living thing on earth" Its quite simple, I call BS on that claim of yours; there is no 100 million cubic miles of sediments that covered "every living thing on earth".
"you cannot be saying the fossils show anything other than that they were all bried by the flood." They show no such thing; if they had died in one event like that, they wouldn't be found as they are.
Just like how in muslims schools ur not allowed to mix fresh and salty water cause they believe from their 'evidence' that those two 'types' of water are insoluble. HAHAHA Stupid religious people. One test and thats proven false. HAHAHA
Many people seem to find it comforting to use the 'idea' that god somehow exists 'ouside of time and space',but I don't think they ever really think this idea through.What they are essentially postulating is a 'non-existent' type of existence. It's just a semantic game where the word "exist" is used in a context that has nothing to do with what we commonly call "existing".To the best of human knowledge, there simply isn't an 'outside of time and space'.It's just naive, wishful idea.
I feel sad for you that you feel it's stupid to believe in a Creator. There is as much evidence proving that there is a Creator as there it so prove that everything came from nothing. It actually takes more faith to believe the later. Just because someone might believe that God created the world it doesn't mean they will shut their brain off to learning more about the creation (weak excuse). There are intelligent people that believe in God. It's not right for you to be so judgemental.
@leadee2007 there is indeed as much evidence that there is a creator as there is to prove everything came from nothing, because there is no evidence for both.
but who says that everything came from nothing? have you heard anyone ever say something like that?
@xilixang999 At the quantum level, matter CAN be created from "nothing"... i.e. in supposedly "empty space". The problem, though, is that before the big bang, space itself didn't exist... so there was no space for matter to be created. Ergo, only two options: creator or nothing.
@leadee2007 Sorry to jump in on this, but you seem to make the same logically incoherent point that so many others do. Are you honestly saying that in a theoretical state where there is "no space" or anything that allows for quantum fluctuations in the vaccuum that 'god' is still allowed to exist and operate? I just don't understand this banal quasi argument. You're saying that at a point where - by definition - NOTHING exists, god exists. It's a paradox of nonsense.
the origins of the universe are not yet explained or even discovered by scientists. some argue that a creator has made the universe, which might be true but it leaves out the question of how this creator came to be. but the fact is that nobody knows how the universe came to be, and it is not a matter of 2 options.
@xilixang999 I completely agree that we don't know the origins of the universe. That's my point. We have to use faith to believe whatever option we choose. Something from nothing or creator outside of space and time.
If I chose god I lose because I waste my one and only life worshiping the make-believe. I lose because I don't see the universe as it really is. I lose because reason is constrained to contain a god. I lose because the enormity of the real universe is much greater than god's. I lose the ability to make decisions for myself without dogma. I lose the value of this life in hopes of the next one, that doesn't exist.
@fly44d What? None of that is true. Your view of Christianity is purely what you've heard. In reality, none of what you say is true.
I hope you don't take me for a perfect Christian example, because I'm not. No one is perfect. But that's no excuse for my behavior.
I know I should be showing you more love. I obviously can not change your view, only God can do that. And he might someday. But if not, you will sadly have eternal punishment. But you don't believe that, and won't until its too late.
@ansonx10 Any level of belief in the big guy in the sky is a loss. Once you believe, you lose. You may think you are not losing all this, but you are.
I know you aren't the perfect Christian, I can tell, I know many who are closer than you.
There is no punishment other than as your brain fades and the white light fades and you realize there isn't anything after death and that you've wasted your life anticipating an after-life. That has got to be hell. That is so sad.
@fly44d You can't exactly waste your life anticipating afterlife.
And you don't actually know there is no afterlife. It's pure speculation on your part. There's no way you can ever be absolutely sure of that until you die.
@ansonx10 Sure you can, if it doesn't exist and you plan and act your life like there is, you are wasting a huge amount of effort.
I know there is no afterlife because there is zero evidence for it. There are many observations that say the brain is where our consciousness resides and dies with it. Ever had surgery? Ever pull 3gs and black out? Out of body experience can be induced easily. Where is the evidence for the afterlife?? Bible, psychics, and anecdotes are meaningless.
@fly44d If someone believes in evolution, they have to also believe that multiple trillions of randomly perfect accidental mutations happened to create life, and then evolve it to the point of actual consciousness. It also had to create the extremely complex and perfectly balanced food web, and amazing variety of animals, each with their specific and vital jobs.
If you believe in creation, all you have to believe is that there's a God, and he created life with everything working perfectly. (:
@ansonx10 You fundamentally do not understand evolution proven by this statement of yours. Watch cdk007's video on how evolution REALLY works. Really. Your statement here shows you have no understanding of evolution.
Look up "laryngeal nerve giraffe" here in YouTube to see how perfect your god isn't.
If you are interested in real info on evolution, Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True" is excellent, doesn't talk down to anyone and brings evolution to light that you can understand.
@fly44d You clearly have no understanding of God. If you've never experienced His presence, you can never have any reason to put your faith in Him. And evolution will become your means of explaining life.
Evolution has changed theories more times than can be counted. The Bible has never changed. It's always been able to explain everything. People are trying to create a one world government. Eliminating the Bible, God, and moral absolutes is one of the steps.
@ansonx10 I don't have a need for a god. Physics, chemistry and biology are all I need to understand where I am, why I am here, what to do with myself. Where is your god as parasites devour children, as women are raped, as people starve? God doesn't exist. Period.
Again, you don't understand evolution. There is one theory and it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. It has been verified many different ways over 150 years. Your god can't even be shown to exist. Get educated.
@ansonx10 "Evolution has changed theories more times than can be counted."
Science is an investigation, not an assumed conclusion like religion is. When new evidence is found a scientific theory may have to be altered to explain it, because scientific theories explain all relevant facts in that particular field of study. Theories don't become weaker when they change, they become more explanatory. When the Bible describes a flat disk shaped Earth, and the Bible doesn't change, it stays wrong.
@ApemanD Describes a flat earth? Where's it say that? The Bible also describes things that were supposedly fairy tales, until SCIENCE uncovered them and found they were, in fact, real. Evolution keeps getting disproved as science progresses, that's why it constantly has to be changed. It's the exact opposite.
I'm sorry you believe what you believe. I regret that I don't have the knowledge to explain it on your level of brain washing. I can do nothing more here.
@ansonx10 Evolution is a fact that is explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection, just like gravity is a fact explained by the theory of general relativity. Like I said, science is an investigation that accounts for all relevant facts both old and new, and the theory has only been getting stronger. I fortunately have the knowledge to explain it in spite of your psychological projection. Here's a video on the Bible's flat Earth part 1/4 watch?v=MS78uT8j3ok
@ansonx10 Daniel describes the Earth as a circle that you can completely see from one focal point. A circle.
There actually isn't a single thing in the bible in regards to science that man couldn't have written without divine inspiration, but I'm open-ears to new examples. Every example that believers give me are even more vague than the prophecies.
Evolution changes because we learn more. That's how real truth-seeking goes. The bible stays the same because it is the preservation of ignorance.
How come all the evolutionists in the comments here are saying that belief in God is completely foolish, and that evolution is scientifically proven with facts out the wazoo, but not expanding on WHY it is.
@ansonx10 there is no WHY YOU IDIOT. in science the question isn't why but how. and kent miller the first man to speak in this video is a theist. just because you have faith doesn't mean you dismiss science and logic. there are plenty of people who are smart enough to research and see the evidence for evolution and at the same time maintain there faith. and for evidence try looking at you own DNA , your DNA is 99.4% identical to a chimp. we can even find the chromasomal links between the two.
@roxas12590 Okay, then HOW is evolution true. DNA similarities doesn't mean anything. You should know that.
I'm not abandoning logic for "religion". Logic is what continuously confirms intelligent design in everything that I study. It seems that it's a religion that evolution is always presented as fact.
Simply the existence of fossil research doesn't mean it has any truth. I've studied whale "evolution", and it's pretty illogical.
@ansonx10 "DNA similarities doesn't mean anything" do you know the first thing about genetics and mutation? there is no opposition. intelligent design has been refuted by modern biology and dismissed by every single reputable scientific organization. even a high school student can refute ID. and clearly you haven't looked at whale evolution. if you have what is the fist transsitonal form in it's evolution. if you've studied it you should know this. in fact just name any form you want.
@roxas12590 When you're in hell, remember me. Remember that I tried to save you.
I can tell there's no hope though. Not in this day and age.
I'm younger, so there's a good chance that I would eventually have the last word. But I don't see the need to waste my time trying to complete an impossible task.
"Where do you believe your consciousness goes after death?" No body knows and don't pretend you do.... Evolution is scientific FACT... creationism is a load of unprovable bullshit to support religion.
@ansonx10 try a science text book you little shit, OH THAT'S RIGHT your an undereducated ignorant little sheep who lacks even a basic understanding of biology let alone the ability to debate any type of science. and to put it simply nothing in science is fact. a scientific theory like evolution is composed of facts and evidence to explain the question of life's origins and biodiversity. it's the backbone of modern biology and is responsible for advances in medicine like viral treatments.
If we're a consequence of randomly perfect chemical reactions, then there is no meaning of life. Humans could steal, rape, as lie we pleased because that's human's natural tendency and instinct. We'd only be doing what feels right.
@ansonx10 No. We make our own meaning. We are born with meaning. Our societies for thousands of years have punished those who don't support the family, tribe, community, nation. Your religion has nothing to do with civilized society. No god worship has ever prevented a rape, murder or torture.
@fly44d Is that really your view of life? I'm pretty sure you're set in your ways, and there's no hope for you. Sorry, but I don't feel as sorry for you as I should.
Where do you believe your consciousness goes after death?
@ansonx10 Obviously consciousness ends with the death of the brain. No question, obvious as the nose on your face without the wishful thinking of religion. I would rather not have you be sorry for me if it means you want me to submit to your god. I do feel sorry for you in your delusion that there is something after this life. Knowing there is not gives me the incentive to make this life as good as I can. Thinking there is something later gives a lot of false leeway in what you do.
@ansonx10 there are multiple gods with multiple rewards and consequences along with them. what makes yours any more valid then faiths that exist now besides yours, and lets not forget those that predate yours. your doing nothing more than defending a illogical concept you have no evidence for. your faith based on the "consequences is simply another example of pascals wager. you haven't won anything you 17 year old ignorant child! grow up
@ansonx10 then present a valid argument instead of attacking pointless bullshit like capitalization you moronic little child. you think attacking the fact that I don't bother to capitalize youtube comments refutes my argument. typical undereducated, ignorant religious nuts always dodge questions and evidence when it refutes there point, because you don't have a valid argument to present. you've simply been shown for the ignorant little sheep you are. grow up dumbass
@roxas12590 Undereducated? Do YOU know the first thing about my beliefs? Did you get taught both sides in school? If you were only taught one thing, you're BOUND to believe it without question. Which is obviously what everyone else here does.
I simply didn't saying anything about the argument in my previous comment because you didn't bring up any points to talk about. I'm not "dodging" anything.
@ansonx10 "Did you get taught both sides in school?" there is no second side. from the time of Galileo to the latest attempts by creationists to push their agendas in schools, science and faith have always been in opposition. whether it's the germ theory of disease vs. demons and the power of exorcisim, heliocentrism vs. angels moving the stars about, lightning rods instead of sounding the church bells, science has never had to back down. but faith does and bends to suite science.
@ansonx10 and you are uneducated, you don't know the first thing about evolution let alone biology. and if you lack the knowledge to understand something then it's no wonder you would dismiss it in favor of fairy tales. beliefs have nothing to do with science. science is the system that built the modern world, its saves lives and is responsible for every human advancement. it's the system that works and seeks real knowledge and answers. who are you to attack the table you eat from you child
@roxas12590 I don't even want to talk with you any more.
I do this not because I'm certain that I can convince you, because I can't. I do it for my entertainment. Your attempts to defend your religion are indeed entertaining.
@ansonx10 typical creation moron rather than attempt to present an argument witch refutes my points you again dodge the questions and present no evidence for your stance. you haven't won anything and you truly fail at debate and you no next to nothing about biology let alone any real science. im not gonna stop calling you on your bullshit until you either present a real argument. you should just go away, because you ignorance is laughable and sad. good luck getting in to college kid
@roxas12590. For your information, I've already got into a college and have tons of college credit.
It all depends on what you study, and from which angle you view it. I don't need to argue with you any more, because I know I'm right and that's good enough for me. You couldn't provide any convincing evidence to sway a 17 year old. It's not your fault; it's evolution's.
It's been fun. You should really work on your typing.
I've already blocked you so, I won't see anything else from you. "cya"
@ansonx10 How very un-Christian of you with your arrogant pride. I suspect you don't even fully understand your own religion. You might grow up someday and when you do, this will be one of thousands of things you'll be ashamed of. Ignorance is correctable. But not if the ignorance is willful.
@ansonx10 what school? what are you studying? theology. lets see you attempt a biology class dumbass. you expect me to believe that you could pass a 101 biology class. when you don't even know the basic premiss of evolutionary theory, which is the backbone of modern biology. lets see you attempt ANY science based career without encountering evolution. because guess what, the teachers at any reputable accredited university are "evolution's.".
@ansonx10 a theory is not at all a synonym of supposition or conjecture or guess. read a science textbook. a theory, as it is used in science, is plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. theories make predictions that can be tested. Newton's theory of motion is an example. Einstein's theory of relativity, atomic theory - these are not "guesses", but prinicples that can be demonstrated in repeatable experiments. evolution falls under the same category
in excess to genetics there is fossil research that details not only our evolution but the biodiversity of millions of species. one of my favorites besides our own is whale evolution. it's one of the most well understood in terms of it's evolution. TRY LOOKING IT UP, go to college, research and learn. your own ignorance to the facts is your own responsibility. it's not my job to teach you but i will answer questions if you'd like
@ansonx10 This is called Pascal's wager and is flawed in so many ways. Which god? Christian and Muslim gods are mutually exclusive, you have to believe the right one. If there is no god and you believe then you've wasted your life groveling to the delusion. For more, search on Hitchens and Pascal here on YT. Much more than I can write here.
@fly44d So you're saying that it's better to not take a chance on anything? You lose no matter what, in that case.
People are always discovering more about The Flood/Ark, and Christ's crucifixion all the time. It seems to me that every time someone discovers some "evidence" for evolution, it gets discredited soon afterwards.
I don't know what you choose to watch/read when you decide to only believe your viewpoint. Most evolutionists have never heard this, because of what they WANT to learn.
@ansonx10 I chose to be atheist, very small chance of being wrong. Evolution is confirmed daily! What creationist crap are you reading? Evolution is fact, details of details are always in discussion but the overriding fact of evolution is without question. Isolated lizards that evolved digestive changes in 70 years, the fact that 90% of our DNA matches all other mammals, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. I don't believe my viewpoint. I see it. I understand it. "God Did It" makes no sense.
Its so strange for me to see people talking about intellegent design with any seriousness, this can only, and does only happen in USA, over here in europe nobody would give this any credence at all. Your primative beliefs in gods in the USA have such a overwelming influence on just about everything, its all very worrying. Give it up and get real for christs sake.
@zinktrumpet As long as we are fighting it here there is still hope. The moment we give up the fight, the moment we get swept under the rug as the intelligent minority, and creationism gets even more power. (Some of us here are really against creationism growing.)
@zinktrumpet No no, you were exactly right in your comment though, because of this BS, we are becoming more and more a backward ass country by the second, It makes me want to go somewhere more secular in nature (once I have my Phd anyway) :P
@zinktrumpet That's because the USA was founded as a Christian nation. The reason the pilgrims came here was so they could worship God freely. The Christian mind-set is also why America became a world power so quickly.
But don't worry. The numbers of Christians over here in the US are dwindling fast. Sure 90 percent of people may claim to a "god" but the amount of actual Christians is extremely small.
Calling it a bastard sibling denies the truth of the matter @atheismisrational. It's the same thing with a cheap Groucho Marx nose and glasses copy and pasted on.
"The 'sin' that man is guilty of " is creating gods to impose external man made power over others. There is no scientific basis to creationism or its bastard sibling intelligent design. They are conclusions in search of non-existent, supporting data. The bible is not proof of anything other than ancient man's ignorance of natural processes,
@aurahero The 'sin' that man is guilty of is eating from the tree of knowledge. So, to use your argument, god is mad because man wanted knowledge and to think for themselves, not to simply exist as a being that was not allowed to think for themselves. God, if you take this to it's natural conclusion then, is a spiteful being that wants to have only ignorant beings worshipping it. Don't even get me started on the ridiculous argument around the christ mythos.
God does not work through evolution to create either. He gets it perfectly right the first time. Why is the world the way it is then? Because of sin which is why God is going to do away with this world and restore the universe to its original perfect design. Also Oreceo not a respector of persons means that God does not care what your status is in this world. Trash man or CEO it does not matter to God.
@TheCdog24 Is it just me, or do I see a contradiction in your argument?
If he is supposedly going to do away with this world, why hasn't he done it yet? And if God supposedly got everything perfectly right, then how come we, who were "created" in his image, are so physically flawed as creatures? For example, we have bad eyesight in comparison to other creatures.
Point is, if God were an engineer, he would've been fired if he created humans like we are.
@AuraHero God did make everything perfect and then sin entered the world when man chose to diobey God. Sin has corrupted the world we live in and God is going to restore it. He will do it in His time. What we need to do is get right with Him by repenting of our sins and accepting His offering of forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
This vid is popular on Bucharest
rebeccaruiz70 11 hours ago
@joshdarkensins 1. I'm afraid it isn't debatable no matter what u say. 2. Science is a methodology not a belief syste. The definition of religion is organized faith in supernatural power. Science does not fit this definition, science are human attempts to understand the world via the methodology that is the scientific method. Science relies on trials, and evidence. Not the apriore, dogmatic beliefs that religion does. People do not worship evolution just as people don't worship the fact that 1+
kyekire 1 week ago
@7777Ralph Evolution is the belief that a self replicating chemical formation formed life, the. Through random variation and natural selection life became more complex. You're supposed better explanation is not only not supported by evidence but says that a magical man in the sky proofed everything into existance a few thousand years ago. You clearly don't understand scientific concepts.
kyekire 2 weeks ago
@joshdarkensins The thing is answers and statistics ARE the truth. Science is a methodology proven to work, not a religion.
kyekire 2 weeks ago
@kyekire thats debatable
joshdarkensins 1 week ago
@joshdarkensins
No, it isn't.
rkyeun 1 week ago
@rkyeun yes, it is.
joshdarkensins 1 week ago
the scientific community is not interested in truth. they are interested answers and statistics and solidity even when there is no solidity to be found. And they receive much in the way of contribution for these "results" and "answers". sounds rather close to those religious folks don't they
joshdarkensins 3 weeks ago
@joshdarkensins
Yes it does. Because you started with a statement about religion and then just switched science into its place to form a statement which is a lie.
rkyeun 2 weeks ago
@rkyeun science is a religion because you worship it as such. and the only lie is what you pretend to be fact.
joshdarkensins 1 week ago
@joshdarkensins
Science is not a religion, despite you lying to say it is.
I do not worship science, despite you lying to say I do.
Worshipping something does not make it a religion, even if I did, despite you lying to say that it does.
Science is based on empirical evidence which is verifiably true, despite you lying to say it isn't.
Your lies are still lies, even if you deny you are lying, and anyone can plainly see it.
rkyeun 1 week ago
Based on the naturally tendency of man to apply what they find in nature into their society, “it wasn't long before leading thinkers were distilling the ideas of Malthus, Spencer and Darwin into a new concept, bearing a name never used by Darwin himself: social Darwinism,” (Black 12).
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man has always been linked to nature, making it possible for Herbert Spencer to transform a natural idea into a political one. And b/c man, according to Darwin, is a mammal with the same warm blood of other mammals and ultimately no greater than any other creature (save for the fact of just happening to be at the top of the food chain), then it can be logical to see no reason for man to hold any higher standard of ethics than the ethics of a turtle.
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
There is nothing explicitly sinister about natural selection. In biblical terms, it was common in the Old Testament for people to apply – unknowingly – the natural selection concept by breeding livestock in order to produce positive traits. In regards to plants, Jesus himself provided a practical example of natural selection while talking about bearing spiritual fruit in one's life in Matthew 7: 18-19.
HOWEVER, .......................
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As history progresses, man will come to a point of exhaustion in regards to their singular purpose (SEX), and inevitably fall into a state of nihilism, thus making their entire existence meaningless.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Although Evolution is a scientific theory, its philosophical basis should certainly be examined, for philosophy encompasses all that exists in both the physical and mental realm.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
When atheists become impotent and no longer able to carry out their purpose, they become dead weight to the rest of their species, and should thus help their offspring survive by ending their life and providing their body as sustenance. Humans are not in need of training on how to mate, for it is an imbedded instinct and easy to accomplish. The elders of the species should die and cease their consumption of food, water, and other resources in order for there to be more available for the rest.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 Of course, that makes the incorrect assumption that a person's worth is tied solely to their ability to reproduce. Why is it that theists like you seem only able to make strawmen like this? Are you really that unable to understand another's point of view that these gross mischaracterizations are the best you're able to do?
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight It is not a mischaracterization. That IS the purpose and goal of Atheism and the theory of Evolution. To say otherwise is to concede that there are higher concepts that remain eternal, such as "justice", "good", "evil", "unconditional love", etc. They may not necessarily originate from a "god", but the fact remains that neither you nor Evolution can explain.
I have won this argument. Thank you for trying, my mammal companion.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 Right, because teaching the next generation, helping to raise them, making the world better place for them, etc. are all entirely meaningless endeavors; once you're no longer to have children yourself, you're useless (btw, that was sarcasm). Your argument is nothing more than an ignorant strawman, one that clearly shows your inability to even try understanding another point of view.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Oh those are certainly "noble" endeavors to create a "better" place for your offspring, But the only reason it would be is b/c genes must be spread successfully.
You don't have a higher calling or purpose. By your very definition, we as a species are no different from other animals. We are beasts of a lower nature, and our destiny is nothing more than an acceptance of nihilism.
All I am stating are the flaws and incapabilities of science.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 Being an animal (a classification originally made by a creationist btw) doesn't preclude finding some meaning or purpose to life. You're not even trying to understand other points of view, you're still just trying to promote your little strawman so that you can attempt to argue that any point of view other than yours is wrong.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Haha I could say the same about you. And fine, we are mammals, the equivalent of other species.
Your dissent regarding "wrong" behavior is superficial. You don't believe rape or murder is wrong b/c it is universally wrong.You believe it is wrong simply b/c it does not fulfill a cold and indifferent purpose of science.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 How would you know what I consider wrong or why? Morality hasn't been part of the discussion at all so far; that's just another strawman you've concocted. Besides, its possible to believe in god and still accept such well supported scientific principles as evolution (just look at people like Ken Miller); even the Vatican has come out and said that evolution is not incompatible with religion.
ArcanaKnight 2 months ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 To see to be implying that the tenants of atheism are the tenants of the theory of evolution. This is incorrect. An atheist can happily believe in justice, good, evil, love etc; these are all mostly human conceptions are they not? Abstract notions made by the neurons in our advanced brains processes as it goes about it's business? The human brain is a product of evolution after all.
Your argument is flimsy at best and just plain laughable at worst.
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile Ever heard of a man named Richard Dawkins? He's a very prominent evolutionist while firmly believing that the theory does lead to atheism. Those of evolution who claim to be theists are contradictory and are incapable of having science and morality on the same ground.
Pardon me for being "laughable", but I believe in the ideas of Socrates and Plato, who both claimed that moral virtues (such as justice) are timeless and beyond the scientific/earthly realm. It originates from above...
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 A large amount of the scientific community are Christian and there is no debate within that community that evolution is proven. I have certainly read Richard Dawkins and he does make that point, but then again, that is his own conclusion. Science and morality are not mutually exclusive, nor are science and religion. Science is merely observable facts. What you do with that is up to your own perceptions.
And what proof do you have that 'virtues' are timeless?
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile Timeless virtues were the foundation of The Declaration of Independence. It essentially stated that man's morality and rights came from above, and not simply which culture they live in (Hence the reason "ALL men are created equal.") It's also with human rights. Their are universal wrongs that everyone should label as wrong. Those who genuinely don't see such wrong when faced w/ it are usually psychopaths. "All men are born free" would also be a timeless virtue.
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 A timeless virtue took until the 1700s for it to come into writing? It was also written by humans for humans, using schools of thoughts and laws that were used in almost every culture around the world. I mean, the DoI isn't infallible and certainly doesn't apply to everyone universally. Contrary to what some believe, basic morality like 'don't kill, rape or maim people' is often a general rule in one's own cultural group.
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile I'm not saying "the evolution theory is bad." Science itself is not the culprit; it is more the individual who studies it. I know it's always intended for science to have only observable facts within nature, but man is a part of nature as well. And coupled with the fact of humans susceptibility, it doesn't come as a surprise when an initially objective scientist begins to use facts as a way to merge his natural scientific ideas with the religious and political.
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 Maybe, but the two are not mutually exclusive and the religious are equally susceptible to inject their own philosophy and the 'facts' of their religion into their ideas. However, the process of science has peer review, falsifiability and countless tests; it may be that once you realise that most religions cannot account for their beliefs or proof of their validity, that one might ask questions about one's religion. But that doesn't make them the same.
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile That makes sense. All I'm saying is that scientists are susceptible of being subjective in their conclusions and not following the scientific process to the letter. And the same goes to Christians who insist on killing people who disagree with them, thereby contradicting the original teachings of Jesus.
I'm glad we can have a civil conversation though! Haha I haven't been able to have one in months!
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 Aye, though the scientific process does have the peer-reveiw process, so bad or poorly done science (like ones with too much subjective data) is usually self-correcting, given time. Which is something religion doesn't really have, so bad ideas never really get shunned properly...
Nice to have a civil meeting indeed! Usually I just get rude slurs and people with the most horrendous understanding of scientific concepts yelling and me and covering their ears... :(
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
@TheBanile Haha I know what you mean! When I debate some Christians, they accuse me of being a demon if I don't agree with their "fire and brimstone" approach of persuasion.
And to be fair, there have been corrections made in Christianity over time, such as the rejection of the divine right of kings and slavery.
But yeah, I'm not a hater of science. I thinks it's idiotic of religious people to say I love God's creation, but I hate science (which is supposed to be a part of God's creation)
MrGreenPoop1000 2 weeks ago
@TheBanile Evolution has a very difficult time of explaining virtue. It's far more than mere brain neurons. And the "morals" that evolutionists may profess can easily become amoral, just as it was with communism.Evolutionary morality is unstable and confined only to either a particular time or situation in history. And I apologize for my so-called stupidity, but I appreciate the quest toward universal virtues that aren't diluted by the lazy conclusion of "all cultures being true"..
MrGreenPoop1000 3 weeks ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 'Virtues' such as altruism can easily be explained with basic psychology and biology. You are also confusing evolution scientists with atheists; they are not the same.
The religion can be just as amoral and is certainly more confined than those who do not believe ; the bible for example, is an old book that supports stoning, misogyny and multiple genocides, and more atrocities. Evolution is a neutral tool, it doesn't claim morality or guidance, merely fact.
TheBanile 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists may become philanthropists, insisting that they possess a “higher calling” and proclaim that because this is the only life they have, they will “live life to the fullest potential.” They cannot claim this, for they, according to their theory, have only one function: have sex, successfully transfer their genes, spawn offspring, and ensure the survival of their species.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Therefore, rape, murder, assault, and theft is neither good nor bad, it simply is. The Stalinists purges, the Holocaust of Europe, or even the more recent genocides of Africa cannot be considered a great and profound evil. At best, the only thing an atheist can claim is that they are a neutral action conceived by the primitive passion of our animalistic nature.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some atheists will choose to not follow the law, so long as they are not caught. They would have a legitimate reason, based on their logic, to kill off their competition, and to rape their mate, just as a lion would rape his female counterpart. Humans are creatures as well, and are susceptible to the same primitive urges and instinct to spread their genes. Such actions aren't evil; for morality can't be explained through evolution (no matter how insistent they are of having an explanation.)
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They will only love in a superficial manner. They will appear to be compassionate towards others, possess a passion for music, a passion for knowledge, or a passion for life as a whole so that their feathers are more appealing than their competition. Most of them will follow the law, not because of a reverence for what is good, but to maintain their chances of reproduction. If they do not follow the laws, they may be sent to prison and their chances of reproducing will decrease dramatically.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let me be clear: I am a DEIST and am neutral on the idea of creationism.
The purpose of an atheist and a believer in evolution is to simply reproduce, and ensure the survival of their species. The act of sex may be enjoyable for the purpose for increasing the chances of future opportunities for sex. It is not enjoyable for any profound reason, but is there merely to flame the beast of lust that most desire to feel.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution vs Creation:
First Evolution:
"The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."
Uuhh. I think the Bible has a much better explanation…
7777Ralph 3 months ago
Please listen closely to what the Bible says regarding this very thing:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Rom 1:20
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 3:36
Please accept Jesus today as your Lord and Savior if you want salvation
7777Ralph 3 months ago
@7777Ralph
you know sometimes when i find a source that i dont think is reliable, ill look for more and take qualities to make a proper judgement. now, why should i trust the bible when there is too may historical books to ignore that prove otherwise the events that supposedly occurred in the bible?
raidersSolja 1 month ago
human evolution is a lie according to evolution humans should not have been able to construct monolithic and megalithic site as they are, matter of fact modern humans would have much trouble today creating them.
how can evolution prove the symbiotic nature of the earth we live not mention the universe?
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 ...what? Evolution doesn't say anything about humans' ability to construct monolithic and megalithic sites. Also, your last question is incomprehensible.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight yes according to the evolutionary time line humans were using bone and stone tools and had no idea of longitude or latitude yet the built these sites that modern human can't replicate today.
and my question stands if you have an answer I would love to know...
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 "using bone and stone tools..." Which sites, exactly, are you referring to?
Do you even know what incomprehensible means? Saying "my question stands" doesn't matter if nobody can understand what your question is in the first place.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I do not use web sites for research 1st of all and secondly the evolutionary time line for man doesn't match the ability to quarry, cut and move Granite Stone over long distances, set the stone so even a human hair cant fit through. I would be happy to give site names, their creation dates and the time lines...
your inability to understand isn't my problem.
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 You made specific claims about humans using bone and stone tools to build "these sites", so exactly which sites were you referring to? "I'd be happy to give site names..." Since that this is precisely what I asked for, why don't you?
Considering that you want an answer to that incomprehensible mess of words you call a question, it actually is your problem.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Göbekli Tepe, The Great Pyramids, The unfinished obelisk Aswan, Easter Island, Stonehenge, and many more not mention thousands of artifacts that don’t fit the time line either here are just a few, The Antikythera Mechanism, Grooved Spheres from Africa, The Baghdad Battery, 290 million years old modern human foot print fossilized in stone. your insults mean nothing to me sir...
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 First of all, not one of those "human footprint" fossils has ever been able to stand up to scrutiny. They've failed so spectacularly that even creationist organizations like the ICR have advised people not to cite them as evidence against evolution.
Secondly, those man-made artifacts and sites (there's no evidence that the spheres were man-made) are not outside the evolutionary timescale. In fact, all they show is that people underestimate what people of the past were capable of.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago 2
@ArcanaKnight well the prove that "evolution" when it come too humans is wrong scrutiny by those who aren't willing to except the truth that human is millions of years old just as we are today not ape/money type bipeds.In 1979, at the Laetoli, Tanzania, site in East Africa discovered footprints in volcanic ash deposits over 3.6 million years old. anthropologist R. H. Tuttle In an article in the March 1990 issue of Natural History, said the foot prints are no different than those of modern human
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 How similar the Laetoli footprints are to A. afarensis is actually a matter of debate among anthropologists; in standard cherry-picking style though, creationists tend to only cite Tuttle's opinion because his best supports their viewpoint.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight yes I believe man was created but not the traditional way and that foot print isn't the only suppressed archaeology out there human history is not evolution.1880, J. D.Whitney, state geologist of California, published a review of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines. implements, including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, in formations ranging from 9 million to over 55 million years old.
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 The evidence for the presence of artifacts in the gold mines is unreliable and highly suspect. There has been no suppression; the find was widely known and discussed back when it was first discovered, and is largely unknown today simply because their authenticity has been disproven.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight yet another explanation with no proof to substantiate it. is there perhaps a name of whom ever this magical team or person that can prove any of my facts wrong or just another pass the buck answer from someone with no intention of searching for the truth? really your answers aren't very believable and lack any date name or place to back up what you say, and again I do not obtain my facts from the internet fools.
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 Differing opinions about the Laetoli footprints are easy to find (Johanson and Edgar 1996, Stern and Susman 1983, Clarke 1999,etc). Even Tuttle doesn't believe that the footprints are actually from modern humans as creationists like to claim, but are just from some later species of australopithecine or an early species of Homo.
"I do not obtain my facts from the internet fools" You do realize that most academic sources are available online, right?
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@faron27 and this was disproved by whom? and nothing is suppressed? sure this is typical good bye.
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 No, there has been no suppression; if there had been, the information about it would have been hard to find, not easily available through a simple search. Here's a hint: if you have to concoct a conspiracy to support your claims, they're probably not valid to begin with.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@faron27 You'll obviously fall for any pseudoscience nonsense you hear about. Please stop embarrassing yourself in front of more intelligent and better-educated people.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 typical reply you must be one of the better-educated do the world a favor and don't reproduce.
faron27 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight the fool part was for the conspiracy comment and the best answer anyone has to this is that this relative of man had modern looking feet... that to me is not a answer and in fact is simple minded.
but when you are taught from an early age that man comes from ape what are you going to believe?
anyway the foot print is just 1 example of filtered history so I will keep my opinion as i am sure you will keep yours.
faron27 3 months ago
@faron27 "the fool part was for the conspiracy comment " You were the one claiming suppression, even though the information is still easily accessible and there is absolutely no evidence of suppression.
"when you are taught from an early age that man comes from ape what are you going to believe" Except that science doesn't work like that. Further support that the footprints were probably made by A. Afarensis is the fact that their remains have also been found in the area.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight sure enjoy that good bye
faron27 3 months ago
Evolution wins, cheers!
Casshyr 3 months ago
I know many christian people who accept evolution as a fact. Why do so many people have trouble with that? I don't see why there should be any controversy there. And religion does not belong in a science class. Religion is about personal belief, not facts, and its up to parents whether or not they want to teach their children about it. Personally I don't believe, I didn't baptize my children, sprinkling a little water seems like a lot of witchdoctor hocus pocus silliness.
nancy6ify 3 months ago
Mutations are corrected all of the time and another mutation can reverse the previous mutation. You have to already have a selection for there to be a mutation of that selection. Mutations can only change preexising information that is already functional. Mutations do not account for any of the function. Mutations also do not account for the variation of species. It is the genome that causes the uniform changes that are needed. Mutations order nothing. There can be no mutations without a genome.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon "Mutation can reverse other mutation" Great but it in you mind , its like saying all function has a reverse fuction , how can you say if one mutation act on one genome by chance , oh dear , the environnement will think its not good for the human and will directly reverse the mutation with another mutation which is intended to recompose the genome ?Is the environnement has an intelligence to create a cause for a mutation and the opposite cause for the mutation ! Absolutely not
Cableethernet33000 3 months ago
The DNA cant recompose by himself
Cableethernet33000 3 months ago
Give me a mtDNA relationship among chimps, neanderthals and humans. Where is that great ape common ancestor based on mtDNA?
daogdaog 4 months ago
Creationism and intelligent design are not necessary to show that evolution is flawed. No biologist can show based on over 100 million fossils unearthed or based on mtDNA, a series of four legged animals that GRADUALLY evolved starting from having short necks into a giraffe, the iconic but embarrassing example of evolution taught in almost every biology class.
daogdaog 4 months ago
@daogdaog That is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument. It isn't necessary (or expected) to find every single transition for every species went through in order to reach their current state. Also, we HAVE discovered multiple genetic methods of determining ancestry, and not only do they all show that life developed via common descent, but they also correspond with what we've found in the fossil record; that is called independent confirmation.
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
The truth is never negative.
You cannot trust liars.
Evolution is a lie and a fraud.
Anyone who says that objects or mutations order anything is a liar.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
Evolution is not science. It is all lies. None of it is true. It doesn't even almost happen.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon
Wow, you are pretty good at closing your eyes and covering your ears. So let me try it again. Ever heard of bacteria that develope a resistance against anti-biotics? This is a huge medical problem.
So, which new mechanism in nature do you propose to describe how this can happen? And how would the knowledge of this new mechanism result in a better treatment of lets say an MRSA-Infection?
Why am I even doing this. You are either too stupid or willfully ignorant. Maybe even both...
ksqoo 5 months ago in playlist Evolution vs. Creationism ( QRC study 24 Videos )
@ksqoo It is the limited information in the genome that cause limited variations.
Mutations can only change existing information, they cannot order any information.
It is a proven fact that mutations do not accumulate or ammount to anything.
This is proven both experimentally and by the fossil record.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon a point mutation is when an error accrue during dna replication, and its not corrected by the usual repair mechanism, resulting in a new base substitution. the genetic coding has now changed, and could lead to selecting different amino acid during protein synthesis. mutation not only rearrange existing dna sequence, but a point mutation conjures additional genetic information from error during dna replication.
vindelextreme 5 months ago
@JungleJargon if such error is beneficial to an organism then it would be preserved by natural selection, but if its harmful then it would be eliminated. "It is a proven fact that mutations do not accumulate" im sorry but that's simply not true.
vindelextreme 5 months ago
@vindelextreme One or two random errors do not order anything. A billion random errors do not order anything because it is changes to information that already existed.
That is the reason that mutations do not accumulate or amount to anything.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "One or two random errors do not order anything" not order, but a chage has occur. now this copy of the dna sequence, is 1 base different fron the original copy. if its beneficial, it would be preserved by natural selection. then another error has occur and now the code is 2 bases different and son and and so forth. all nonbeneficial changes would be eliminated, and all beneficial changes r kept.
vindelextreme 5 months ago
@vindelextreme Errors do not order anything so, in real life, no accumulation of any other order occurs. The mutations are simply corrected or changed again.
Not only are mutations meaningless, they are reversable.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon the error could be adding and additional base or eliminating a base from the coding. "A billion random errors do not order anything" there r much more non beneficial mutations then the contrary, but those non beneficial mutation would be eliminated by natural selection. the rare mutations, that r beneficial would be preserved. thats like having a deck of cards, and picking randomly. we only keep the 10 of hearts and nothing else.
vindelextreme 5 months ago
@vindelextreme there is also no guarantee that any mutation will be preserved so it will never be a meaningful ordering of dna. The whole of the instructions always wins out against the partial instructions, in real life, and there is also back up information.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "there is also no guarantee that any mutation will be preserved" u do not understand natural selection and its process. natual selction is a process to preserve beneficial genetic variation and eliminate non successful variation.
vindelextreme 4 months ago
@JungleJargon we would still have a 1 in 52 chance in picking the 10 of hearts from the deck. after repeating the process 52,000 times we would of picked up the 10 of hearts 1000 times. the analogy would explain the same process of mutation and natural selection. the player (natural selection) only keeps the 10 of hearts (beneficial mutations) from the deck of 52 (chance of non benficial mutations). after a while the 10 of hearts (benefial mutations) would accumulate.
vindelextreme 5 months ago
@vindelextreme That is your "hope".
In real life, things are virtually unchanged since the fossil record.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "That is your hope." u said in that mutations can only change existing information, and thats wrong. i explained to u why thats wrong, and a process supported by science that would provide explanation. it is not hope, it is the best explanation so far and is supported by evidence.
vindelextreme 5 months ago
@JungleJargon fossil record ? you mean that one that proves that new species evolved over time ? or are you one of those flood loons ?
mikerozo 5 months ago
@mikerozo The fossil record proves that all kinds of living things are virtually unchaged since the day they were covered with over 100 million cubic miles of sediments that no one has every been able to account for where they came from or how they came to cover every living thing on earth.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon Not one bit of that is actually true. Not only does the fossil record not show that living things are virtually unchanged, it actually shows the exact opposite. The fossil record shows common descent, and we have multiple other methods of determining ancestry which provide independent verification of that.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Untill you can account for the origin of the 100 million cubic miles of sediments and how they came to cover every living thing on earth, you cannot be saying the fossils show anything other than that they were all bried by the flood.
JungleJargon 5 months ago
@JungleJargon "Untill you can account for the origin of the 100 million cubic miles of sediments and how they came to cover every living thing on earth" Its quite simple, I call BS on that claim of yours; there is no 100 million cubic miles of sediments that covered "every living thing on earth".
"you cannot be saying the fossils show anything other than that they were all bried by the flood." They show no such thing; if they had died in one event like that, they wouldn't be found as they are.
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
@umadbropenis kinda like yourself.....
donnyaldridge 5 months ago
I like watching primitive humans. It's like playing SIMS game.
tkathryyn 5 months ago
Just like how in muslims schools ur not allowed to mix fresh and salty water cause they believe from their 'evidence' that those two 'types' of water are insoluble. HAHAHA Stupid religious people. One test and thats proven false. HAHAHA
MrNintoku 6 months ago
There are mathematicians that would disagree with you that there is nothing outside of time and space.
leadee2007 6 months ago
Many people seem to find it comforting to use the 'idea' that god somehow exists 'ouside of time and space',but I don't think they ever really think this idea through.What they are essentially postulating is a 'non-existent' type of existence. It's just a semantic game where the word "exist" is used in a context that has nothing to do with what we commonly call "existing".To the best of human knowledge, there simply isn't an 'outside of time and space'.It's just naive, wishful idea.
ChuddmasterZero 6 months ago
I feel sad for you that you feel it's stupid to believe in a Creator. There is as much evidence proving that there is a Creator as there it so prove that everything came from nothing. It actually takes more faith to believe the later. Just because someone might believe that God created the world it doesn't mean they will shut their brain off to learning more about the creation (weak excuse). There are intelligent people that believe in God. It's not right for you to be so judgemental.
leadee2007 6 months ago
@leadee2007 there is indeed as much evidence that there is a creator as there is to prove everything came from nothing, because there is no evidence for both.
but who says that everything came from nothing? have you heard anyone ever say something like that?
xilixang999 6 months ago in playlist Creationism
@xilixang999 At the quantum level, matter CAN be created from "nothing"... i.e. in supposedly "empty space". The problem, though, is that before the big bang, space itself didn't exist... so there was no space for matter to be created. Ergo, only two options: creator or nothing.
leadee2007 6 months ago
@leadee2007 Sorry to jump in on this, but you seem to make the same logically incoherent point that so many others do. Are you honestly saying that in a theoretical state where there is "no space" or anything that allows for quantum fluctuations in the vaccuum that 'god' is still allowed to exist and operate? I just don't understand this banal quasi argument. You're saying that at a point where - by definition - NOTHING exists, god exists. It's a paradox of nonsense.
ChuddmasterZero 6 months ago
@leadee2007
the origins of the universe are not yet explained or even discovered by scientists. some argue that a creator has made the universe, which might be true but it leaves out the question of how this creator came to be. but the fact is that nobody knows how the universe came to be, and it is not a matter of 2 options.
xilixang999 6 months ago
@xilixang999 I completely agree that we don't know the origins of the universe. That's my point. We have to use faith to believe whatever option we choose. Something from nothing or creator outside of space and time.
leadee2007 6 months ago
If I chose god I lose because I waste my one and only life worshiping the make-believe. I lose because I don't see the universe as it really is. I lose because reason is constrained to contain a god. I lose because the enormity of the real universe is much greater than god's. I lose the ability to make decisions for myself without dogma. I lose the value of this life in hopes of the next one, that doesn't exist.
fly44d 7 months ago
@fly44d What? None of that is true. Your view of Christianity is purely what you've heard. In reality, none of what you say is true.
I hope you don't take me for a perfect Christian example, because I'm not. No one is perfect. But that's no excuse for my behavior.
I know I should be showing you more love. I obviously can not change your view, only God can do that. And he might someday. But if not, you will sadly have eternal punishment. But you don't believe that, and won't until its too late.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 Any level of belief in the big guy in the sky is a loss. Once you believe, you lose. You may think you are not losing all this, but you are.
I know you aren't the perfect Christian, I can tell, I know many who are closer than you.
There is no punishment other than as your brain fades and the white light fades and you realize there isn't anything after death and that you've wasted your life anticipating an after-life. That has got to be hell. That is so sad.
fly44d 7 months ago
@fly44d You can't exactly waste your life anticipating afterlife.
And you don't actually know there is no afterlife. It's pure speculation on your part. There's no way you can ever be absolutely sure of that until you die.
(more in a sec)
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 Sure you can, if it doesn't exist and you plan and act your life like there is, you are wasting a huge amount of effort.
I know there is no afterlife because there is zero evidence for it. There are many observations that say the brain is where our consciousness resides and dies with it. Ever had surgery? Ever pull 3gs and black out? Out of body experience can be induced easily. Where is the evidence for the afterlife?? Bible, psychics, and anecdotes are meaningless.
fly44d 7 months ago
@fly44d If someone believes in evolution, they have to also believe that multiple trillions of randomly perfect accidental mutations happened to create life, and then evolve it to the point of actual consciousness. It also had to create the extremely complex and perfectly balanced food web, and amazing variety of animals, each with their specific and vital jobs.
If you believe in creation, all you have to believe is that there's a God, and he created life with everything working perfectly. (:
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 You fundamentally do not understand evolution proven by this statement of yours. Watch cdk007's video on how evolution REALLY works. Really. Your statement here shows you have no understanding of evolution.
Look up "laryngeal nerve giraffe" here in YouTube to see how perfect your god isn't.
If you are interested in real info on evolution, Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True" is excellent, doesn't talk down to anyone and brings evolution to light that you can understand.
fly44d 7 months ago
@fly44d You clearly have no understanding of God. If you've never experienced His presence, you can never have any reason to put your faith in Him. And evolution will become your means of explaining life.
Evolution has changed theories more times than can be counted. The Bible has never changed. It's always been able to explain everything. People are trying to create a one world government. Eliminating the Bible, God, and moral absolutes is one of the steps.
I can't do anything else here. Bye
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 I don't have a need for a god. Physics, chemistry and biology are all I need to understand where I am, why I am here, what to do with myself. Where is your god as parasites devour children, as women are raped, as people starve? God doesn't exist. Period.
Again, you don't understand evolution. There is one theory and it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. It has been verified many different ways over 150 years. Your god can't even be shown to exist. Get educated.
fly44d 7 months ago
@ansonx10 Oh... yes you can do something else. Get educated. Ignorance is correctable.
fly44d 7 months ago
@ansonx10 "Evolution has changed theories more times than can be counted."
Science is an investigation, not an assumed conclusion like religion is. When new evidence is found a scientific theory may have to be altered to explain it, because scientific theories explain all relevant facts in that particular field of study. Theories don't become weaker when they change, they become more explanatory. When the Bible describes a flat disk shaped Earth, and the Bible doesn't change, it stays wrong.
ApemanD 7 months ago
@ApemanD Describes a flat earth? Where's it say that? The Bible also describes things that were supposedly fairy tales, until SCIENCE uncovered them and found they were, in fact, real. Evolution keeps getting disproved as science progresses, that's why it constantly has to be changed. It's the exact opposite.
I'm sorry you believe what you believe. I regret that I don't have the knowledge to explain it on your level of brain washing. I can do nothing more here.
Good talk.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 Evolution is a fact that is explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection, just like gravity is a fact explained by the theory of general relativity. Like I said, science is an investigation that accounts for all relevant facts both old and new, and the theory has only been getting stronger. I fortunately have the knowledge to explain it in spite of your psychological projection. Here's a video on the Bible's flat Earth part 1/4 watch?v=MS78uT8j3ok
ApemanD 7 months ago
@ansonx10 Daniel describes the Earth as a circle that you can completely see from one focal point. A circle.
There actually isn't a single thing in the bible in regards to science that man couldn't have written without divine inspiration, but I'm open-ears to new examples. Every example that believers give me are even more vague than the prophecies.
Evolution changes because we learn more. That's how real truth-seeking goes. The bible stays the same because it is the preservation of ignorance.
ChaseKittens 7 months ago
How come all the evolutionists in the comments here are saying that belief in God is completely foolish, and that evolution is scientifically proven with facts out the wazoo, but not expanding on WHY it is.
I have yet to see any evidence brought up.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 there is no WHY YOU IDIOT. in science the question isn't why but how. and kent miller the first man to speak in this video is a theist. just because you have faith doesn't mean you dismiss science and logic. there are plenty of people who are smart enough to research and see the evidence for evolution and at the same time maintain there faith. and for evidence try looking at you own DNA , your DNA is 99.4% identical to a chimp. we can even find the chromasomal links between the two.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 Okay, then HOW is evolution true. DNA similarities doesn't mean anything. You should know that.
I'm not abandoning logic for "religion". Logic is what continuously confirms intelligent design in everything that I study. It seems that it's a religion that evolution is always presented as fact.
Simply the existence of fossil research doesn't mean it has any truth. I've studied whale "evolution", and it's pretty illogical.
Science and evolution are in competition.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 "DNA similarities doesn't mean anything" do you know the first thing about genetics and mutation? there is no opposition. intelligent design has been refuted by modern biology and dismissed by every single reputable scientific organization. even a high school student can refute ID. and clearly you haven't looked at whale evolution. if you have what is the fist transsitonal form in it's evolution. if you've studied it you should know this. in fact just name any form you want.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 When you're in hell, remember me. Remember that I tried to save you.
I can tell there's no hope though. Not in this day and age.
I'm younger, so there's a good chance that I would eventually have the last word. But I don't see the need to waste my time trying to complete an impossible task.
ansonx10 7 months ago
"Where do you believe your consciousness goes after death?" No body knows and don't pretend you do.... Evolution is scientific FACT... creationism is a load of unprovable bullshit to support religion.
LD4WG 7 months ago
@LD4WG "FACT"? Where? Show me. How is it fact?
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 try a science text book you little shit, OH THAT'S RIGHT your an undereducated ignorant little sheep who lacks even a basic understanding of biology let alone the ability to debate any type of science. and to put it simply nothing in science is fact. a scientific theory like evolution is composed of facts and evidence to explain the question of life's origins and biodiversity. it's the backbone of modern biology and is responsible for advances in medicine like viral treatments.
roxas12590 7 months ago
If we're a consequence of randomly perfect chemical reactions, then there is no meaning of life. Humans could steal, rape, as lie we pleased because that's human's natural tendency and instinct. We'd only be doing what feels right.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 No. We make our own meaning. We are born with meaning. Our societies for thousands of years have punished those who don't support the family, tribe, community, nation. Your religion has nothing to do with civilized society. No god worship has ever prevented a rape, murder or torture.
fly44d 7 months ago
@fly44d Is that really your view of life? I'm pretty sure you're set in your ways, and there's no hope for you. Sorry, but I don't feel as sorry for you as I should.
Where do you believe your consciousness goes after death?
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 Obviously consciousness ends with the death of the brain. No question, obvious as the nose on your face without the wishful thinking of religion. I would rather not have you be sorry for me if it means you want me to submit to your god. I do feel sorry for you in your delusion that there is something after this life. Knowing there is not gives me the incentive to make this life as good as I can. Thinking there is something later gives a lot of false leeway in what you do.
fly44d 7 months ago
@fly44d Here's how it can play out:
If there IS a god, and you believe in him, you might go to heaven when you die.
If there IS a god and, and you deny him, you will go to hell.
If there is NOT a god and you believe in one, you would go nowhere.
If there is NOT a god and you don't believe in one, you would go nowhere.
It's wishful thinking on your part that there's no god, and no consequences in an afterlife for denying him.
You're not winning this one... against a 17 year old.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 there are multiple gods with multiple rewards and consequences along with them. what makes yours any more valid then faiths that exist now besides yours, and lets not forget those that predate yours. your doing nothing more than defending a illogical concept you have no evidence for. your faith based on the "consequences is simply another example of pascals wager. you haven't won anything you 17 year old ignorant child! grow up
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 Every heard of capitalization? You'd think someone who's allegedly 7 years older than I, would at least know how to type decently.
I don't mind the haters. Bring 'em on!
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 then present a valid argument instead of attacking pointless bullshit like capitalization you moronic little child. you think attacking the fact that I don't bother to capitalize youtube comments refutes my argument. typical undereducated, ignorant religious nuts always dodge questions and evidence when it refutes there point, because you don't have a valid argument to present. you've simply been shown for the ignorant little sheep you are. grow up dumbass
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 Undereducated? Do YOU know the first thing about my beliefs? Did you get taught both sides in school? If you were only taught one thing, you're BOUND to believe it without question. Which is obviously what everyone else here does.
I simply didn't saying anything about the argument in my previous comment because you didn't bring up any points to talk about. I'm not "dodging" anything.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 "Did you get taught both sides in school?" there is no second side. from the time of Galileo to the latest attempts by creationists to push their agendas in schools, science and faith have always been in opposition. whether it's the germ theory of disease vs. demons and the power of exorcisim, heliocentrism vs. angels moving the stars about, lightning rods instead of sounding the church bells, science has never had to back down. but faith does and bends to suite science.
roxas12590 7 months ago
@ansonx10 and you are uneducated, you don't know the first thing about evolution let alone biology. and if you lack the knowledge to understand something then it's no wonder you would dismiss it in favor of fairy tales. beliefs have nothing to do with science. science is the system that built the modern world, its saves lives and is responsible for every human advancement. it's the system that works and seeks real knowledge and answers. who are you to attack the table you eat from you child
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 I don't even want to talk with you any more.
I do this not because I'm certain that I can convince you, because I can't. I do it for my entertainment. Your attempts to defend your religion are indeed entertaining.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 typical creation moron rather than attempt to present an argument witch refutes my points you again dodge the questions and present no evidence for your stance. you haven't won anything and you truly fail at debate and you no next to nothing about biology let alone any real science. im not gonna stop calling you on your bullshit until you either present a real argument. you should just go away, because you ignorance is laughable and sad. good luck getting in to college kid
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590. For your information, I've already got into a college and have tons of college credit.
It all depends on what you study, and from which angle you view it. I don't need to argue with you any more, because I know I'm right and that's good enough for me. You couldn't provide any convincing evidence to sway a 17 year old. It's not your fault; it's evolution's.
It's been fun. You should really work on your typing.
I've already blocked you so, I won't see anything else from you. "cya"
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 How very un-Christian of you with your arrogant pride. I suspect you don't even fully understand your own religion. You might grow up someday and when you do, this will be one of thousands of things you'll be ashamed of. Ignorance is correctable. But not if the ignorance is willful.
fly44d 7 months ago
@ansonx10 what school? what are you studying? theology. lets see you attempt a biology class dumbass. you expect me to believe that you could pass a 101 biology class. when you don't even know the basic premiss of evolutionary theory, which is the backbone of modern biology. lets see you attempt ANY science based career without encountering evolution. because guess what, the teachers at any reputable accredited university are "evolution's.".
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 only the dum a thinks that way open your eye's.
cannon0286 7 months ago
@cannon0286 what's that a sentence? try again, because aside from proving your a moron i don't understand you!
roxas12590 7 months ago
@ansonx10 a theory is not at all a synonym of supposition or conjecture or guess. read a science textbook. a theory, as it is used in science, is plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. theories make predictions that can be tested. Newton's theory of motion is an example. Einstein's theory of relativity, atomic theory - these are not "guesses", but prinicples that can be demonstrated in repeatable experiments. evolution falls under the same category
roxas12590 7 months ago
@roxas12590 HOW does it fall under that category? Show some evidence or test results that have been validated.
Seems to me that you're saying it is true, without know why. But I don't blame you. A lot of people fall under the same category.
ansonx10 7 months ago
in excess to genetics there is fossil research that details not only our evolution but the biodiversity of millions of species. one of my favorites besides our own is whale evolution. it's one of the most well understood in terms of it's evolution. TRY LOOKING IT UP, go to college, research and learn. your own ignorance to the facts is your own responsibility. it's not my job to teach you but i will answer questions if you'd like
roxas12590 7 months ago
@ansonx10 This is called Pascal's wager and is flawed in so many ways. Which god? Christian and Muslim gods are mutually exclusive, you have to believe the right one. If there is no god and you believe then you've wasted your life groveling to the delusion. For more, search on Hitchens and Pascal here on YT. Much more than I can write here.
fly44d 7 months ago
@fly44d So you're saying that it's better to not take a chance on anything? You lose no matter what, in that case.
People are always discovering more about The Flood/Ark, and Christ's crucifixion all the time. It seems to me that every time someone discovers some "evidence" for evolution, it gets discredited soon afterwards.
I don't know what you choose to watch/read when you decide to only believe your viewpoint. Most evolutionists have never heard this, because of what they WANT to learn.
ansonx10 7 months ago
@ansonx10 I chose to be atheist, very small chance of being wrong. Evolution is confirmed daily! What creationist crap are you reading? Evolution is fact, details of details are always in discussion but the overriding fact of evolution is without question. Isolated lizards that evolved digestive changes in 70 years, the fact that 90% of our DNA matches all other mammals, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. I don't believe my viewpoint. I see it. I understand it. "God Did It" makes no sense.
fly44d 7 months ago
Its so strange for me to see people talking about intellegent design with any seriousness, this can only, and does only happen in USA, over here in europe nobody would give this any credence at all. Your primative beliefs in gods in the USA have such a overwelming influence on just about everything, its all very worrying. Give it up and get real for christs sake.
zinktrumpet 7 months ago
@zinktrumpet As long as we are fighting it here there is still hope. The moment we give up the fight, the moment we get swept under the rug as the intelligent minority, and creationism gets even more power. (Some of us here are really against creationism growing.)
Horathgar42 7 months ago
@Horathgar42 Im glad to here it and my thoughts are with you, Keep up the fight sir.
zinktrumpet 7 months ago
@zinktrumpet No no, you were exactly right in your comment though, because of this BS, we are becoming more and more a backward ass country by the second, It makes me want to go somewhere more secular in nature (once I have my Phd anyway) :P
Horathgar42 7 months ago
@zinktrumpet That's because the USA was founded as a Christian nation. The reason the pilgrims came here was so they could worship God freely. The Christian mind-set is also why America became a world power so quickly.
But don't worry. The numbers of Christians over here in the US are dwindling fast. Sure 90 percent of people may claim to a "god" but the amount of actual Christians is extremely small.
ansonx10 7 months ago
Proven scientific fact -VS- Superstitious belief in magic which is based on nothing.
ubersteigen 7 months ago
Calling it a bastard sibling denies the truth of the matter @atheismisrational. It's the same thing with a cheap Groucho Marx nose and glasses copy and pasted on.
shotgunlo 7 months ago
"The 'sin' that man is guilty of " is creating gods to impose external man made power over others. There is no scientific basis to creationism or its bastard sibling intelligent design. They are conclusions in search of non-existent, supporting data. The bible is not proof of anything other than ancient man's ignorance of natural processes,
atheismisrational 7 months ago
has this been removed? By God?
Conor060468 7 months ago
@aurahero The 'sin' that man is guilty of is eating from the tree of knowledge. So, to use your argument, god is mad because man wanted knowledge and to think for themselves, not to simply exist as a being that was not allowed to think for themselves. God, if you take this to it's natural conclusion then, is a spiteful being that wants to have only ignorant beings worshipping it. Don't even get me started on the ridiculous argument around the christ mythos.
brainwerx 7 months ago
God does not work through evolution to create either. He gets it perfectly right the first time. Why is the world the way it is then? Because of sin which is why God is going to do away with this world and restore the universe to its original perfect design. Also Oreceo not a respector of persons means that God does not care what your status is in this world. Trash man or CEO it does not matter to God.
TheCdog24 9 months ago
@TheCdog24 Is it just me, or do I see a contradiction in your argument?
If he is supposedly going to do away with this world, why hasn't he done it yet? And if God supposedly got everything perfectly right, then how come we, who were "created" in his image, are so physically flawed as creatures? For example, we have bad eyesight in comparison to other creatures.
Point is, if God were an engineer, he would've been fired if he created humans like we are.
AuraHero 8 months ago
@AuraHero God did make everything perfect and then sin entered the world when man chose to diobey God. Sin has corrupted the world we live in and God is going to restore it. He will do it in His time. What we need to do is get right with Him by repenting of our sins and accepting His offering of forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
TheCdog24 8 months ago
@TheCdog24 fairy tales are for children, grow up and use your brain.
MrKGatl 7 months ago