@TheBibleLives Whoa my friend we are to love our neighbor and be an example of Christ. In the end all you or I can do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Though your passion is awesome the vile language is not of Gods toungue. I say this as a brother in the faith. This person is our neighbor though they may be blinded by the enemy they still need our love. God bless.
@TheBibleLives This movie is flawed beyond belief in almost every claim it makes. If you think the science in this movie is accurate, you are a hopeless case.
@Mewcat100, Energy cant be created nor Desteoyed is the First law correct, but the second law contradicts the first. And how could energy always exist? And yet you act like God couldnt always exist.
@TheBibleLives How could god have always existed? Don't posit solutions that provide no answers. All you are doing is moving your question back a stop and then using rhetoric and hand waving to cover up its ineptitude. God answers nothing and provides no solutions. God is a non-answer.
@Mewcat100, Dude Science makes it clear the Universe is "Expanding" everyday, which means in Reverse time nothing like Time, Energy, and Matter existed. And the 2nd law of Thermodynamics state that Energy is limited, the sun will adventually die and its Energy cease to exist. And here's a question for you smart Guy, What created Energy? If you say it has always existed then how can some physical be Eternal? Everything thats matter dies/dissolves away. Nothing physical lasts forever.
@TheBibleLives Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. First law right there buddy. Looks like you just lost. Don't try to use science to support your superstition, you'll just work yourself into a corner like you just did.
also, i would implore all you who call yourselves "scientists" because you "believe" in evolution (i'm not talking micro evolution, but feel free to extrapolate it) after reading three paragraphs in your high school science text book to actually get to grips with the facts before you embarrass yourselves on public forums.
evolution postulate sells science in the same way britney's delightful rack and dance skills sell her music. that doesn't mean britney's delightful rack and dance moves ARE music. think about it all ye weak willed . what exactly do you believe makes a scientist? belief in a imminently debatable postulate? How about an education and extensive understanding in APPLIED science, an unwillingness to believe anything that can't be proven, objectivity and and strict adherence to the scientific method?
Wow, this Lee Strobel guy is an idiot. I can tell that from the very begining. I too wanted to know how things work. But even as a kid, I never, never threw something against the ground to break it open to find out it worked. Only an idiot would do that. That would destroy everything you are trying to find.
@theshadowify Dude, children start with approximately 0 knowledge. Even you did. I'm sure you threw a toy or two against the ground for less noble reasons. My own curiosity about the way things worked led me to open up a few toys. I didn't smash them, but they still ended up broken. Trial and error. You really only "think" he's an idiot because you're biased against any worldview which opposes your own. Documented psychological phenomenon. Confirmation bias. Look it up, open your mind.
@NinjaProofShell Children do start out with zero knowledge. But I am sure he did not do this at 1 yr old.You said "My own curiosity about the way things worked led me to open up a few toys. I didn't smash them, but they still ended up broken." Exactly! This is the way would expect it to play out. NOT smashing it up first.This guy wants to prove a case of having a creator. I am sorry, I will not follow someone who thinks this way.I am going with the intelligent people who teach about evolution.
@theshadowify One he was just a kid at the time and didnt thimk to ask his parents how does it work. When I was a child my brother gave me a model car and I too tore it apart to see how it worked. Kids can distructive at times couple that with curiosity and well things are broken. His parents then showed him a way to satisfy his questions in a more constructive or did you miss that?
@billywarren22 OK, you TORE it apart. Did you smash it on the ground? I think that is a big difference.I think even as a kid, I would think that smashing it against the ground would destroy the very thing I wanted to find out. But those toy trains are built pretty stout. Maybe I should give him some leeway for that.But he is still wrong on the creationism. It was evolution with no hand of god involved.
@theshadowify Actually I did hit it on the table for it too was a sturd thing. Question do you know that science has proven that the universe had a clear beginning? So what caused the beginning? If it had a beginning what came before? Nothing. Can nothing create anything? No. All evolutionary biologist will eventually say that they dont how it started so they base their hloe faith on a UNCERTANITY. Eveb Dawkins admits there is design. granted he rather believe little green men did it but he
@billywarren22 The Dawkins comment was taken out of context. He does not really believe that aliens created life on Earth.Scientist do not yet know how life began on Earth.But they do know how life evolved. Yes, there is a clear beginning to the universe. It is called the big bang.Scientist do not yet know what caused it to expand. They are still working on that.One hypothesis is that it was created from a black hole in another universe. Scientist do not have all the answers yet.
@theshadowify Hers the problem a black hole would be something and yet before a beginning there is nothingand so how can nothing create. To forethough take the giraffe it drinks water but if it bends down to drink itll pass out due to the blood to the brain but there is valve that controls that flow so it can drink. Evolution wouldnt allow that trait to be needed or passed down in time. The species would have died before that was passed on.
@billywarren22 This is but one idea.Now, when we say nothing existed, we are talking about our universe. They now see the possibility of a multiple universe system.Other universes existed before our universe did.As far as the giraffe is concerned, who says that evolution would not allow that trait to be passed down?
@theshadowify Like the part of the above doc talks about then there would have to a system to product these universes and again there would have to be a mind for that. The giraffe would drowm in its own blood as it drank and so no reproducing the species wouldnt be able to pass on the info that trait would have to already been there hence forethough. Anyway we will have to agree to disagree. I meant no disrespect just debating anyway I wish the best and God bless.
@billywarren22 I know you were not being disrespectful. I have been in many debates on youtube. Unfortunately this is not the best forum to have a debate. I know you said that we are to agree to disagree, but I have to point out one thing.The giraffe started out with a short neck. It gradually grew a longer neck. As it grew gradually, so did the compensations grow.If the neck grew too fast, then it would die off. But the neck did not grow too fast.I wish on a star for you the best
@billywarren22 Your giraffe comment doesn't make sense. Why, exactly, would it "drown in its own blood?" Your universe comment is rather difficult to comprehend as well. Why does their "have to be a mind" for a universe to be created?
@MewCat100 Have you ever stood on your head and felt the rush of blood to the brain well since giraffes drink water they have to bend over and being so large they have alot of blood and if they didnt a special valve in their brain that controled the flow their brain would drown in their blood. Since nothing cannot create anything and since science has proven that the universe had a clear beginning whay came the big band? Nothing d like I said nothing cant create. God being outside of
1. The giraffe would get a head rush, but drowning occurs when fluid enters the lungs, not the brain. So, the giraffe would not drown. The valves are in their vasculature and similar such valves are found in many organism (common ancestry you know). They also have another structure called a rete mirabile, which regulates blood flow. Also shared by other animals and having common ancestry.
@MewCat100 You just described a complex system that if just one part wasnt there the system fails and the species dies out. The thing is its not common ancestory but common God for he created all of the creatures that dwell here on this earth. Thay system has complex parts kinda like a water pump in a car and we know it had a maker. Now science ha proven that the universe is not etternal so it had a beginning so even they will deny this they do teach that from nothing came everything.
@billywarren22 Don't try IC, it has been proved wrong so many times that people just laugh when they hear it now. Show me evidence for god and I'll believe you. Until then you are just an obstructionist, moving the goal post and putting up road blocks every time science takes one more thing away from your god. What a failure.
@MewCat100 It is the fool that says there is no God. You say that I cant prove that there is a God well I could say that you cant prove that there is no God. No evolutionary biologist would dare make that claim. As I said the universe had a clear beignning and since nothing cant create and well you do the math. God is staring inf the face. Theres another quote. " The reason an atheist cant fid God is the same as thief who cant find a policemen" You dont want to. Science does show design
@billywarren22 Who said there was ever nothing Billy? How do you identify design Billy? You say science shows it, so tell me what the criteria are for design so that it can be identified as design.
The valve does have a purpose, but it wasn't designed for that purpose. It followed the path of mutation and natural selection, which is often better than outright design. Show me the evidence Billy. Until then, you are just making up stories.
@MewCat100 You have just said it that valve has and serves that purpose and if evolution did that then its funny how it just so happen to serve a very important need without it the giraffe dies. See all the evidence strares back at you in the mirror. Take the self replicating cells how would they know what to replicate with the information already being there like a printing press needs a template before it can print. That valve has a purpose it has value and it shows forthought evolution
@billywarren22 Billy, the giraffe would not die without the valve, it just wouldn't be able to take long drinks of water. They would have to be short drinks. You just assume whatever you want to prove your point without actually applying any logic.
@MewCat100 doesnt give purpose. The evidence is all around you and also atheism doent give you morals. Just ask one of your prophets Richard Dawkins has said there is no good there is no evil there is no right or wrong just pityless indifference. So what he is saying that if a woman is raped its not wrong or evil just unfortunate. How absurd! Plus as I said the universe isnt eternal so that must mean at one point there was nothing no space no particles just nothing. So can nothing create. No!
@billywarren22 Why do you continue to dodge the question billy? I answered yours several times. How do you know there was ever nothing and how do you identify design?
@MewCat100 Design shows purpose such as self replicating cells. DNA actually programs certain cells to fulfill a purpose or design and giraffes always take big drinks they are huge animals so it would continue to pass out. My logic is sound you just cant stand the craftsman(God) So I have answered you its just the one you want. In the beginning God. God bless and farewell.
@billywarren22 Billy, you haven't answered two of my questions. How do you know there was ever nothing and how do you identify design?
Your giraffe point is just wishful thinking. There is no reason to assume that they have to take drinks for long periods of time at once. Yes, they require a lot of water, but they can drink slowly over time. What purpose do cells fulfill?
@MewCat100 Evolutionary Biologist would the universe an age of about 13 million years some go as far as to say maybe even a trillion. So when you give something an age you are saying this is the length of time that this has existited. Im about to turn 27 and so my age show that I have exisited for 27 years but 28 years ago I didnt exist. So if these scientist give the universe an age that assumes that the universe had a clear beiginning for it at one time didnt exist. Now I dont believe
@billywarren22 Ah, huh. Except that isn't what I asked you. I asked you how do you know there was every nothing? How do you know there was a point in time when there was nothing at all, no matter, no energy....nothing?
@MewCat100 the the universe came from nothing I believe it came from God. Im saying that evolutionary minds date the universe giving an age so thus saying it was birthed at one point. Now back to the giraffe it wouldnt take long for the blood to reach the brain along with gravity and its heartbeat and what a waste of time to sip stand up sip stand up. Cells are a complex thing some carry oxygen to the muscles some help fight off infection or sickness. In order to know their function
@billywarren22 Perhaps a waste of time, which is why the valve, when it spontaneously arose, was such an advantage. Hence the workings of evolution. Sure, cells are complex, but how does that translate into requiring a designer. You still have answered the question of what the criteria are for determining if something is designed. My guess is you can't answer it.
@MewCat100 I already did design show purpose as does the valve it serves a PURPOSE. Funny science did when they give an age to the universe that dictates that at one point the universe didnt exist but then they say energy is eternal which they are right but not the way they think for that eternal energy is also known as GOD. Again if the giraffe didnt have the valve to start with it could bend over long enought to deink even a little one it would pass out over and over and over again.
@MewCat100 The valve does serve a purpose to control the blood flow to the brain kinda like a sparkplugs purpose to create a spark. My friend I did answer you but i think youre acting like a child whose asking for something but doesnt get the answer they want. God bless and farewell.
@billywarren22 The question was, Billy, how do you know nothing is a possible state? You say that there was nothing before the universe and yet you have no way of knowing that. You just posit BS and then walk away without performing the necessary mental footwork to determine if you idea is even remotely valid.
As to the giraffe, you have utterly failed not only to disprove evolution, but to prove the existence of god. An absolute and complete failure on your part.
@billywarren22 The valve may have a purpose, but you have yet to prove that it was DESIGNED for the purpose. You have also refused to answer how you KNOW something was DESIGN? What are the criteria for determining if something was intelligently designed? That is the second question you have completely neglected to answer because you know you cannot. Answer both questions or you will expose yourself as an intellectually dishonest individual and I will cease communication.
@MewCat100 My friend the fact that the valve fulfills its function proves it was designed for that. I dont believe thay there was nothing before the universe I believe that God ia the creator and that eternal energy that is described in the first law of thermodynamics is actually God. In the end we will have to agree to disagree. God bless and farewell.
@MewCat100 The valve is designed for a purpose to help that beautiful creature function correctly. Design is defined as to draw the outline of,to purpose,to plan, a pattern. Look at the DNA molecule it shows design it even has the ability to correct any part of it that incorrect. A function that needs a mind. Heres something take identical twins do you know that they have different finger prints as with snowflake no two are alike. Scripture says behold the treasury of snow.
@MewCat100 So I have given you plenty and now must bid you a fond farewell and I also want to thank you we may have to agree to diagree but you came with respect and I thankyou for that so God bless and take care.
@MewCat100 So I have given you plenty and now must bid you a fond farewell and I also want to thank you we may have to agree to diagree but you came with respect and I thankyou for that so God bless and take care.
@MewCat100 I can show you all the evidence you want but truth is you dont want God so you rather trust the lie. Also if evolution is true where are all the transitional forms there would be millions and millions of fossils and wait where are they? As Romans says God has made himself known through creation. So as I said we will have to agree to disagree. God bless and farewell.
@MewCat100 and purpose just as that valve in the giraffe has a purpose and is designed to carry out that function. You atheist are the ones who move the goal when Gods finger print is in your face. Alas we are going to have to agree to disagree. God bless and goodbye.
@MewCat100 God however being outside the boundaries of space and time being he created them can create everthing out of nothing. As the story went a scientist tried to scale the mountain of logic and when he came to the peak he discovered that a band of theologians have been there for centuries. In the beginning God.
@billywarren22, You creationists are so dumb. If God is such a perfect designer why did he create bacteria, viruses, and natural disasters? If you strongly believe that all of these universal flaws were created by some incompetent God in order for him to curse two people living in 4000 BC because they were deceived by a talking snake (which by the way, God created the snake fully knowing that Adam and Eve would be deceived by it since God is omniscient), then you're a highly uneducated buffoon.
@billywarren22, (continued). Secondly, given the fact that God is omniscient and all knowing, why did he create Satan in the first place? I mean technically God has the transcending knowledge that Satan would rebel against God and deceive millions of people, yet he still creates him? To me that makes God either an incompetent or immoral monster. Because of God's all mighty omniscience, this leads me to conclude that God staged this entire plan of salvation.
@Nashhinton One those horrific things are due to sin and the fall and God is so powerful that he can even deny himself certain knowledge I know youll laugh at that but its not out of his wheel house so he sets before us the choice and it us that have to reap and he can deny himself the knowledge of our choice that doesnt make him weak. Yes he has set forth the plan of salvation and what a awesome plan it is. I am that I am yes he is.
@billywarren22, Let me get this straight... A perfect God created two perfect humans that eventually disobeyed God which led the world into imperfection because of some curse God moronically placed on Adam and Eve's descendants? What kind of illogical BS is that? Secondly, the Bible says God is unchanging yet God decided to annul the curse placed on Adam's descendants by sacrificing his son to himself, so God can forgive those who believe in something that lacks evidence. That's complete BS.
@billywarren22, @billywarren22, (continued).. What's even worse is the concept that the earth is 6000 years old according to the Bible. Also, I love how creationists call evolution magic when the whole concept of popping animals and the world into existence in 6 days is pure magic. There are too many holes in the entire Biblical story. The Bible says the earth sits on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8). Even the idea that hell is the eternal separation from God when God is considered omnipresent, is dumb.
@Nashhinton When it speaks of pillars its being poetic and Hell is eternal seperation from Gods grace but his wrath pours forth there. It also says there will be mockers so thankyou for proving scripture.
@billywarren22, (continued)... Now that I look back on my previously mentioned comments, I can see how you would see that I'm mocking. I would somewhat agree with that. My apologies for being a little boorish.
@MewCat100 cont God being outside of space and time being the first and the last could create out of nothing for he is spirit and super natural. Back to the giraffe if it didnt have that valve the species would have died out long before evolution could do anything so it had to be there from the start. Anyway very good question and let me thank you for being respectful and civil some right off the bat come slinging filth words so I thank you and God bless.
@billywarren22 I'm not sure I follow where you are going with the outside of time and space topic. Why would you think that there was nothing prior to the big bang? Why would you think there could be nothing if there is now something? Thanks.
@b14blah You know what? You're absolutely right; religion IS the refuge of the ignorant. Therefore it's a good thing that Christianity isn't a religion, but an intimate relationship with God made possible through Jesus by what He's done for us approximately 2,000 years ago.
@b14blah Religion is the refuge of the ignorant? Opiate of the masses I can understand, but the ignorant can find refuge in exactly ANYTHING. They're ignorant, they can use science, money, a basement, or some random hobby to hide behind. It doesn't matter. Says nothing about the place of refuge, only something about ignorance. In the real world, I expect we'd find that ignorance exists nearly equally within and without religion. (If this quip seems believable, it's the illusion-of-truth effect.)
Every story in the Bible existed in other cultures before the Israelites even existed. For Adam and Eve orgin watch History Channel "Garden of Eden". For Genesis origin watch "Testament". For origins of soul, resurrection, etc watch Nat Geos "Egyptian Secrets of the Afterlife". For Bible origins watch History Channels "Who wrote the Bible". The Bible stories were copied from older already existing God stories. Hard for me to believe the stories when I can see where they came from.
@MrSandykramer It was a rhetorical question. Strobels science was shreded because it is completely wrong. What are you basing "it is the fallen nature of man to despise his creator" on? The Bible or even worse your opinions based on nothing? I require sources, you dont just get to make up stuff on the fly like my pastors always did when I asked questions.
@MrSandykramer Well aware of Strobels life. Are you aware that Strobel states he is a journalist looking for the truth about religion. A journalists code is to be unbiased and get both sides. However, all his "scientists" in this dvd are his buddies from the discovery Institute (Behe, etc). HOW DISHONEST IS THAT? Behe is the one being shredded in dvd "Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial". Like Behe, Strobel draws the target "God exists" and then twists data to fit his conclusion.
So was evolution in Scopes. So was personhood of blacks in Dred Scott. The judge in Dover was not a scientist and knew little of science's rigorous empirical demands, namely observability, reproducibility, et. al.
@MrSandykramer Are you saying that evolution was shredded in the Scopes Trial??? Are you trying to rewrite history or are you making comments on something you know nothing about? The Scopes trial was about whether John Scopes taught evolution in his class. However, defense attorney Darrow used this opportunity to educate the world. He attacked the literal interpretation of the Bible as well as Bryan's limited knowledge of other religions and science." The national view was Darrow had won.
@MrSandykramer The judge ruled that Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution in class. A point defense attorney Darrow didnt seem that concerned with from the start. The Butler Act saying a teacher cant teach evolution was repealed in 1967.
So was evolution in Scopes. So was personhood of blacks in Dred Scott. The judge in Dover was not a scientist and knew little of science's rigorous empirical demands, namely observability, reproducibility, et. al.
By the way, opinions do not necessitate sources. That's why they are ... opinions.
@MrSandykramer Yes, it would be better if the judges in science cases were scientists. But it says something when a religious judge rules against religion. The court found exactly what my 3 years and 200+ dvds on the subject found. The discovery institutes science is garbage science. It is also obvious to anyone with any level of education, as it was to the judge.
Unfortunately, your opinion was coming off as a statement of fact, much the way pastors statements do.
@kaben1979 You are only as open minded as your beliefs wll allow you to be. Your comment is proof enough for me to your close minded thinking. Personally, I perfer to look at all sides of any arguement and make my own judegment thanks.
I do like how people are labeled as being "closed minded" when they don't happen to share the same beliefs as you. I see this over and over again. "If you just open your mind, you'll see the truth!"
In the 70's, man discovered the "Fountains of the Deep" ,written about in the Book of Job (over 3,000 yr's ago). '1894, Sir Robert Anderson determined the precise day of 'Christs Triumphal Entry by study of "Daniel" (written 500 yr's prior.Circumcism almost Eliminates Vaginal Cancers. There are many examples of "man" verifying Biblical Truths through his science, Archaeology, Kosher Practices, History, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics, DNA study, Hidden Truth's in' Biblical Text', Proper Diet etc.
Unfortunately, there is always (and will always be) debate about religion. Any religious person can say that any or everything is due to a supreme being. Meanwhile any non-religious person can say that everything is caused by something explainable, through a process we haven't figured out yet.
I'm agnostic, and don't really care much for how I, or the human race, was created. But i will say this: the Council of Nicea wrote the Bible 300 years after Jesus's death; it's a book of telephone.
@FF1RedMage i agree with you on your first few points, but as for implying that the Bible is flawed or manipulated for an agenda, i disagree because there are tons of manuscripts from people that lived during the time Jesus was alive and recorded the history, disciples of Jesus AND historians who recorded his crucifiction but did not acknowledge he was the Son of God because it would not have benefited Rome and their hierarchy
@demoskunk How is the theory of Evolution any different than a religion? Men before Darwin propose a theory that man is evolving toward godhood and throughout history have been trying to find any evidence that could support their claim. At least the Bible gives us all the answers to our questions about life and makes sense if we look at the world for evidence and take a some step of faith
"Men before Darwin propose a theory that man is evolving toward godhood and throughout history have been trying to find any evidence that could support their claim."
Uh, what? Evolution has nothing to do with "evolving toward godhood".
"At least the Bible gives us all the answers to our questions about life and makes sense if we look at the world for evidence and take a some step of faith"
How is this a good thing? Providing answers doesn't make the answers right.
@demoskunk I have on thing to say to you and I will not respond to you again because I already had a long debate with somone and frankly I don't have time for another. This series uses scientific evidence. You don't have to agree with the conclusion but not even you could deny the fact that this is an example of Science working FOR the Christain argument. And you, like many others I'v seen, attribute all the bad things to God but when something fenomenol happens God had nothing to do with it.
Bible talks about God can make big changes with a blink of an eye including control over gravity think about rapture verses, if so can God create stars that are "billions" years appart according to our calculations? Yes He can how many blinks of an eye made in one day and what is magnituted of change? So God has abilities to create stars in one day.
@thatcommonsenseguy "ok genius if a cell phone isnt used. sits on the shelf forever. then whats its purpose?" It's purpose is to answer calls, duh. The fact that it is not used is irrelevent. The second it was created it had a purpose. What happens after that doesn't change that original purpose. Your insults are pointless. If I am a "waste aspace" then STOP COMMENTING BACK.
@thatcommonsenseguy I see you just want to throw worthless insults. Poeple like you make me apriciate an atheist who is willing to give a real argument. I can comment here if I want like you can. Like I said if something isn't used for its purpose that doesn't mean it has no purpose. When something is useless that means there is no way to use it but if something is not used at all then it can still be used. You can't read Strobel's mind so stop acting like it. Come back once you find your sense.
@brian2189114 nope, the analogy fails as you're doing the old fallacy of comparing apples & oranges. you're ignoring all the unique properties of living systems, notice the complexity, & compare it w/ complexity in non living systems which lack all those properties & then erroneously concluding they had to be magically created & it couldn't have occurred naturally. Here's another thing, the complexity of life has increased overtime, so the first cells weren't as complex as those now, duh.
@thatcommonsenseguy Actually you're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the phone is used or not it still has a purpose which would be to recieve calls. The fact it was made is why it has a purpose. Whether or not something fufills it's purpose doesn't detrmine whether or not it has one. You beleive that we our by ourselves? Are you telling me you want God to be personal with you when you deny his very existence. I said nothing about magic and I said nothing about someone in the clouds.
Evolutionists should watch a DVD called Reasonable Doubt: Evolution versus Modern Microbiology. It is a very informative presentation of the evidence against Evolution and mutation that modern science and microbiology offers. But don't worry its a no punches pulled, non pro-creation so your feelings and prides won't be damaged. Just keep an open mind.
Watch how Lee Strobel's science holds up in court. Youtube "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". Strobel is a member of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is where he gets his "religious science". Michiael Behe represents the Discovery Institute in court and presents the same "religious science" found in Strobels dvds.
NOT RELIGION........... .....SPIRITUAL SALVATION is the gift of God. You cannot earn it. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves,it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."Ephesians 2:8,9. "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, & shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,thou shall be saved". Romans 10:9. Godbless
Ironically, to say that Science is the only begetter of truth is self-contradicting, because that statement in itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. It's a self-defeating philosophical assumption. -Stephen C. Meyer, PHD Put that in your pipe and smoke it.... Their are two types of explanations---Scientific and Personal. There cannot be a scientific explanation of the first state of the universe. Earlier conditions and natural laws are required..and fact is they were not there....
@jbhjgvjbjgv - The whole universe stands as evidence. Consider this - if God really DID create the heavens and earth which we live in, and has testified of this fact to us, we shouldn't need any further 'evidence' - it was all around us the whole time! It is the theories of man such as 'evolution' that really defy reason!
@RUKEAL "Can science prove your wife loves you" actually u can. if u scan your brain, u can actually graph which part of your brain is activated when in love. also scientist is able to mesure the amount of hormones released, such as dopamine adrenaline serotonin and oxytocin. also faith is not required to know ur wife loves u. if she has nevered cheated, and maybe bared children with u, through logic and reason u could come to the conclusion that she does love u.
@RUKEAL even if were not absolutely certain that, our spouse is in "love" anymore ur still not taking it on faith. faith is believing in something in absent of reason and evidence. if ur spouse is projection a mannerism, in which she gives affection, u r relying on such evidence to make an assessment on the current situation, therefore its logical to conclude, that ur marriage still based on love. no faith is required, to make a rational assessment.
@RUKEAL stupidest answer ever. Go educate yourselve, then you would know, that science does not prove anything, it just observes the universe, and finds ways to explain it. The good thing about it is, whenever something is observed, which contradicts a theorie, the theorie will be reviewed and if wrong then changed.
@RUKEAL now then, tell me what's wrong with it? Show me a theory with more evidence then the theory of evolution, if you can't then don't state that the theory of evolution is wrong.
@genix2006 - There is hardly enough intermediate fossil evidence to populate even a single clade! Evolution is nothing more than wishful thinking with big money behind it. In the real universe where God reigns supreme, theories such as this will be laughed at in years to come. There is more evidence for biblical prophecies coming to pass right now, than there is for evolution (a theory where nothing in support of it has ever occurred in the entire recorded history of mankind!)
@genix2006 - If evolution were true we would have over 3.8 billion years worth of fossils and intermediates, clearly showing evolutionary change over time - evidence that would be overwhelming! Instead we find a sparse record of only fully developed creatures, indicative of a previous epoch of life that was wiped out by cataclysm. Even at a bacterial level we find such irreducible complexity that evolutionists are grasping at straws for an explanation.
@RUKEAL yeah a quick search would have shown you, that the oldest fossil found is 3.5 billion years old, The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, evidence for that is was found in Australia, small zircon chrystals from Jack Hills, which are about 4.404 billion years old.
But you just look for the easiest answer, just so you won't have to think for yourself. If you want to discuss evolution get your facts straight first.
@genix2006 - You assume too much genix. Whatever the ultimate age given, it doesn't change the fact that the sparse fossil record does not reflect billions of years worth of life on earth, and certainly does not even come close to populating a single clade with any physical evidence. We should have unearthed something by now and yet still the question stands: Where are the intermediates?
Comment on that rather than nit-picking over the 'supposed' age of the oldest known fossil.
@RUKEAL While intermediate or transitional forms are commonly missing, when the fossil record is complete, the intermediate forms are often observed. Intermediate fossil organisms transitional between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals and other taxonomic groups are also possible. Many of these intermediates have been found only recently. This validates Darwin's assumption that in many cases "missing" intermediates would be found with time. They increasingly have been.
@RUKEAL You still haven't given me a theory that has more evidence than the theory of evolution, if you can't then this discussion is going nowhere.
I'd rather search my whole life for the answer, then basing my opinion on an book that was written by ignorant people, who weren't able to explain the world, without having to include a god.
We are living in a time today where we are able to understand and explain so much using science, of course we still have a long way...
@genix2006 Humans, reptiles, monkeys, etc. all have a different number of chromosomes. When two parents mate the offspring always has to have the same number of chromosomes or it won't go on to become a living being because of the misalignment. Because of this it is literally impossible for species with different chromosomes to come from the same species. In other words, evolution is impossible.
@jamesandrewjohnson 'two parents mate the offspring always has to have the same number of chromosome'
No, not necessarily. We know that Equine's too have undergone fusion mutations & the addition of an extra chromosome in humans results in down syndrome, not death.
@RUKEAL 'sparse fossil record does not reflect billions of years worth of life on earth'
That it's sparse in certain lineages doesn't mean that the oldest signs of life aren't 3.85 billion years ago. With that in mind, life might have started even earlier since the fossil record is never an absolute minute by minute account, but more like a snapshot of certain times.
'Where are the intermediates?'
Go to Wikipedia, key in 'intermediate fossils', a fantastic book by Donal Prothero is also nice.
The only religion, that has a chance is Buddhism, sorry theists you lost. The fact is god is logically inconsistent (the concept is self-contradictory, vague, meaningless, makes no sense, it explains nothing, nor anything else supernatural does, scientifically, and philosophical fallacious, subjective, and not based on the proper scientific methodology to determine reality that is required, and it has no level of explanatory status, and so on) so it utterly meaningless to use god.
@KevZen2000 : What about Advaita Vedanta, Spinozan metaphysics or other variations of pantheism that label the divine as just an impersonal force that defines nature? Their concept is not contradictory, explained in detail and does make sense although it's not very relevant for daily life decisions and as such can be replaced pretty easily by atheistic naturalism with little to no consequences. Still, the concept remains a logically valid hypothesis and a rationalist complement to science.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker. Pantheism, is just sexed up atheism.The divine is an illusion, its not real, its the psychological tendency we have to place meaning upon the universe. There is no evidence for anything that meets the character of such, and Spinozan, was incorrect, in that concept.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker. God is not the universe or anything finite, its something outside the universe, and its not New Ageish 'god' of post-modernism, its a typical king like figure, that controls the universe and is personally involved with various aspects, typically anthropomorphized to a culture, but not the universe. Pantheists, is really have a faulty conclusion, and in reality, they are seeking something else not God, but some form of mysticism.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker. There is no impersonal force that defies nature, there are many things we do not know about the universe, but anything outside the universe is not valid, as its non-existence, and anything that we will find, will be within the realms of science, and philosophy, not theology or mysticism, so the concept of an impersonal force is mythology, similar to the force of Star Wars, and the forces of the universe are not mystical, but natural, to invalidate pantheism.
@KevZen2000 : I think we largely agree here. I just don't see any rational argument against the existence of what Hindus call a "Brahman" or New Agers call "Gaia", which is basically a sort of impersonal consciousness that drives nature. It could be regarded as a currently undetectable force that keeps the currently measurable forces in nature in place, as some kind of guiding force behing the programming of the huge quantum computer we know as our universe. But is it real? I can't say...
@OutOfTheBoxThinker. It sounds like you're talking about naturalistic pantheism, which is a naturalistic form of pantheism that encompasses feelings of reverence and belonging towards Nature and the wider Universe, concern for the rights of humans and all living beings, care for Nature, and celebration of life. That is what scientist mean, when they talk about God(s), it's this.
@KevZen2000 : It goes a bit beyond that, considering naturalistic pantheism doesn't attribute any consciousness beyond the individual mind, whereas the form of pantheism I'm describing attributes consciousness to groups of individuals as a whole and even inanimate matter. You could see it as the universe being a giant self-aware quantum computer program, like a made collective dream split up into individual conscious units but nevertheless conscious as a whole.
@dannywizz. the God Einstein talked about was Spinoza's God, which is the pantheistic god, based on naturalism,as this god was the laws, and intelligence of the universe. Einstein, did not believe in the God of theism, and the only type god he believed in was the type of god, Hindus mention in Brahma, which is a creative principle of the universe, but within the universe itself, with some 'divine' principle, but still within the realm of naturalistic explanations.
@KevZen2000 Wow, you are really god at making up fairy tales. Better go practice your Einstein knowledge a bit more.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility..."
@dannywizz. I did not say Einstein was an atheist, he was a pantheist.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”-Albert Einstein
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
-Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950;
@KevZen2000 What are you trying to prove? Einstein was not an atheist. And he had a God concept in all his later calculations. He was an agnostic. He was not against the christian God but was neither a supporter of it.
So basically you are trying to say that he believed in a principle of God but not god himself. So if it is just a principle of God, which is logically inconsistent, then he must have been an atheist and not an agnostic, right?
God is whatever you want to call it the first cause
Nazi leader Goebbel's oft-quoted remark that if a lie is repeated often enough as if it is truth, it will be believed. After reading The book “A case for creeation” I have come to the conclussion that The Theory of Evolution and I repeat Theory, has taken this position. Darwin would not believe in evolution if he had the evidence we have today.
@Printerman172 You couldn't put it any plainer than that, my friend! Here's an interesting piece that I've read; Charles Darwin took 2 years of medical school and then dropped out because he was barely passing his courses and THAT was because he spent that time in bars with his buddies.
Now get this: Those 2 years of doing poorly in medical school was the only scientific training that he ever received("The Evolution Handbook" by Vance Ferrell, pg. 25.)! PM me if you want some more info.
In finding the truth, you would refer to an encyclopaedia, (or the Internet in this era). But I would rather break open the locomotive to see in first person how it works. I guess, for a man of faith, just a documented something, a so-called "reliable source" would suffice. Lee sounds like an excited kid in a science fair..
@wolffmagic72 If you think this movie is great, you ought to read a book titled, "The Evolution Handbook", by Vance Ferrel. It has, and I quote, "Over 3,000 scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory." I got this book; awesome book.
Punctuated Equilibrium is not an adequate or valid argument for the explanation of the fossil record gaps evidenced by the Cambrian explosion in relation to Darwin's theory of evolution.
How do you create the information, the blue prints, for these structures by chance? It doesn't make any sense at all to me that the most advanced information system, DNA, we know of is not a computer but something created supposedly
PLEASE DISABLE COMMENTS... youtube brings immaturity .. we dont' want it to bias or take away from the videos themselves...
ObsidianDolphin 6 days ago
@TheBibleLives And you, are an delusional idiot. The bible is a storybook. God does not exist, and creationism is stupid. Plain stupid.
TheJo4an 1 week ago
@TheBibleLives Whoa my friend we are to love our neighbor and be an example of Christ. In the end all you or I can do is tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Though your passion is awesome the vile language is not of Gods toungue. I say this as a brother in the faith. This person is our neighbor though they may be blinded by the enemy they still need our love. God bless.
billywarren22 1 week ago
@Mewcat100, I didnt back myself in a corner, did you not watch this movie? This proves God through science. If those aint proof nothing is.
TheBibleLives 2 weeks ago
@TheBibleLives This movie is flawed beyond belief in almost every claim it makes. If you think the science in this movie is accurate, you are a hopeless case.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@Mewcat100, Energy cant be created nor Desteoyed is the First law correct, but the second law contradicts the first. And how could energy always exist? And yet you act like God couldnt always exist.
TheBibleLives 2 weeks ago
@TheBibleLives How could god have always existed? Don't posit solutions that provide no answers. All you are doing is moving your question back a stop and then using rhetoric and hand waving to cover up its ineptitude. God answers nothing and provides no solutions. God is a non-answer.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@Mewcat100, Dude Science makes it clear the Universe is "Expanding" everyday, which means in Reverse time nothing like Time, Energy, and Matter existed. And the 2nd law of Thermodynamics state that Energy is limited, the sun will adventually die and its Energy cease to exist. And here's a question for you smart Guy, What created Energy? If you say it has always existed then how can some physical be Eternal? Everything thats matter dies/dissolves away. Nothing physical lasts forever.
TheBibleLives 2 weeks ago
@TheBibleLives Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. First law right there buddy. Looks like you just lost. Don't try to use science to support your superstition, you'll just work yourself into a corner like you just did.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@jake5811 Found ya biatch
H8terade187 3 weeks ago
There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all argument,
and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance.
That principle is CONDEMNATION BEFORE INVESTIGATION.
- Edmund Spencer
NinjaProofShell 3 weeks ago
@TheAllien111 Cuz, you know, it's costing us all an arm and a leg to watch this video... in its entirety!
NinjaProofShell 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Burningflame97 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Burningflame97 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Burningflame97 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
demkomusic 1 month ago
also, i would implore all you who call yourselves "scientists" because you "believe" in evolution (i'm not talking micro evolution, but feel free to extrapolate it) after reading three paragraphs in your high school science text book to actually get to grips with the facts before you embarrass yourselves on public forums.
hatsoff509 1 month ago
evolution postulate sells science in the same way britney's delightful rack and dance skills sell her music. that doesn't mean britney's delightful rack and dance moves ARE music. think about it all ye weak willed . what exactly do you believe makes a scientist? belief in a imminently debatable postulate? How about an education and extensive understanding in APPLIED science, an unwillingness to believe anything that can't be proven, objectivity and and strict adherence to the scientific method?
hatsoff509 1 month ago
Wow, this Lee Strobel guy is an idiot. I can tell that from the very begining. I too wanted to know how things work. But even as a kid, I never, never threw something against the ground to break it open to find out it worked. Only an idiot would do that. That would destroy everything you are trying to find.
theshadowify 1 month ago
@theshadowify Dude, children start with approximately 0 knowledge. Even you did. I'm sure you threw a toy or two against the ground for less noble reasons. My own curiosity about the way things worked led me to open up a few toys. I didn't smash them, but they still ended up broken. Trial and error. You really only "think" he's an idiot because you're biased against any worldview which opposes your own. Documented psychological phenomenon. Confirmation bias. Look it up, open your mind.
NinjaProofShell 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NinjaProofShell Children do start out with zero knowledge. But I am sure he did not do this at 1 yr old.You said "My own curiosity about the way things worked led me to open up a few toys. I didn't smash them, but they still ended up broken." Exactly! This is the way would expect it to play out. NOT smashing it up first.This guy wants to prove a case of having a creator. I am sorry, I will not follow someone who thinks this way.I am going with the intelligent people who teach about evolution.
theshadowify 3 weeks ago
@theshadowify One he was just a kid at the time and didnt thimk to ask his parents how does it work. When I was a child my brother gave me a model car and I too tore it apart to see how it worked. Kids can distructive at times couple that with curiosity and well things are broken. His parents then showed him a way to satisfy his questions in a more constructive or did you miss that?
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 OK, you TORE it apart. Did you smash it on the ground? I think that is a big difference.I think even as a kid, I would think that smashing it against the ground would destroy the very thing I wanted to find out. But those toy trains are built pretty stout. Maybe I should give him some leeway for that.But he is still wrong on the creationism. It was evolution with no hand of god involved.
theshadowify 2 weeks ago
@theshadowify Actually I did hit it on the table for it too was a sturd thing. Question do you know that science has proven that the universe had a clear beginning? So what caused the beginning? If it had a beginning what came before? Nothing. Can nothing create anything? No. All evolutionary biologist will eventually say that they dont how it started so they base their hloe faith on a UNCERTANITY. Eveb Dawkins admits there is design. granted he rather believe little green men did it but he
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 The Dawkins comment was taken out of context. He does not really believe that aliens created life on Earth.Scientist do not yet know how life began on Earth.But they do know how life evolved. Yes, there is a clear beginning to the universe. It is called the big bang.Scientist do not yet know what caused it to expand. They are still working on that.One hypothesis is that it was created from a black hole in another universe. Scientist do not have all the answers yet.
theshadowify 2 weeks ago
@theshadowify Hers the problem a black hole would be something and yet before a beginning there is nothingand so how can nothing create. To forethough take the giraffe it drinks water but if it bends down to drink itll pass out due to the blood to the brain but there is valve that controls that flow so it can drink. Evolution wouldnt allow that trait to be needed or passed down in time. The species would have died before that was passed on.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 This is but one idea.Now, when we say nothing existed, we are talking about our universe. They now see the possibility of a multiple universe system.Other universes existed before our universe did.As far as the giraffe is concerned, who says that evolution would not allow that trait to be passed down?
theshadowify 2 weeks ago
@theshadowify Like the part of the above doc talks about then there would have to a system to product these universes and again there would have to be a mind for that. The giraffe would drowm in its own blood as it drank and so no reproducing the species wouldnt be able to pass on the info that trait would have to already been there hence forethough. Anyway we will have to agree to disagree. I meant no disrespect just debating anyway I wish the best and God bless.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 I know you were not being disrespectful. I have been in many debates on youtube. Unfortunately this is not the best forum to have a debate. I know you said that we are to agree to disagree, but I have to point out one thing.The giraffe started out with a short neck. It gradually grew a longer neck. As it grew gradually, so did the compensations grow.If the neck grew too fast, then it would die off. But the neck did not grow too fast.I wish on a star for you the best
theshadowify 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Your giraffe comment doesn't make sense. Why, exactly, would it "drown in its own blood?" Your universe comment is rather difficult to comprehend as well. Why does their "have to be a mind" for a universe to be created?
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 Have you ever stood on your head and felt the rush of blood to the brain well since giraffes drink water they have to bend over and being so large they have alot of blood and if they didnt a special valve in their brain that controled the flow their brain would drown in their blood. Since nothing cannot create anything and since science has proven that the universe had a clear beginning whay came the big band? Nothing d like I said nothing cant create. God being outside of
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Whoa, lot of topics there.
1. The giraffe would get a head rush, but drowning occurs when fluid enters the lungs, not the brain. So, the giraffe would not drown. The valves are in their vasculature and similar such valves are found in many organism (common ancestry you know). They also have another structure called a rete mirabile, which regulates blood flow. Also shared by other animals and having common ancestry.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 You just described a complex system that if just one part wasnt there the system fails and the species dies out. The thing is its not common ancestory but common God for he created all of the creatures that dwell here on this earth. Thay system has complex parts kinda like a water pump in a car and we know it had a maker. Now science ha proven that the universe is not etternal so it had a beginning so even they will deny this they do teach that from nothing came everything.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Don't try IC, it has been proved wrong so many times that people just laugh when they hear it now. Show me evidence for god and I'll believe you. Until then you are just an obstructionist, moving the goal post and putting up road blocks every time science takes one more thing away from your god. What a failure.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 It is the fool that says there is no God. You say that I cant prove that there is a God well I could say that you cant prove that there is no God. No evolutionary biologist would dare make that claim. As I said the universe had a clear beignning and since nothing cant create and well you do the math. God is staring inf the face. Theres another quote. " The reason an atheist cant fid God is the same as thief who cant find a policemen" You dont want to. Science does show design
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Who said there was ever nothing Billy? How do you identify design Billy? You say science shows it, so tell me what the criteria are for design so that it can be identified as design.
The valve does have a purpose, but it wasn't designed for that purpose. It followed the path of mutation and natural selection, which is often better than outright design. Show me the evidence Billy. Until then, you are just making up stories.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 You have just said it that valve has and serves that purpose and if evolution did that then its funny how it just so happen to serve a very important need without it the giraffe dies. See all the evidence strares back at you in the mirror. Take the self replicating cells how would they know what to replicate with the information already being there like a printing press needs a template before it can print. That valve has a purpose it has value and it shows forthought evolution
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Billy, the giraffe would not die without the valve, it just wouldn't be able to take long drinks of water. They would have to be short drinks. You just assume whatever you want to prove your point without actually applying any logic.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 doesnt give purpose. The evidence is all around you and also atheism doent give you morals. Just ask one of your prophets Richard Dawkins has said there is no good there is no evil there is no right or wrong just pityless indifference. So what he is saying that if a woman is raped its not wrong or evil just unfortunate. How absurd! Plus as I said the universe isnt eternal so that must mean at one point there was nothing no space no particles just nothing. So can nothing create. No!
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Why do you continue to dodge the question billy? I answered yours several times. How do you know there was ever nothing and how do you identify design?
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 Design shows purpose such as self replicating cells. DNA actually programs certain cells to fulfill a purpose or design and giraffes always take big drinks they are huge animals so it would continue to pass out. My logic is sound you just cant stand the craftsman(God) So I have answered you its just the one you want. In the beginning God. God bless and farewell.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Billy, you haven't answered two of my questions. How do you know there was ever nothing and how do you identify design?
Your giraffe point is just wishful thinking. There is no reason to assume that they have to take drinks for long periods of time at once. Yes, they require a lot of water, but they can drink slowly over time. What purpose do cells fulfill?
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 Evolutionary Biologist would the universe an age of about 13 million years some go as far as to say maybe even a trillion. So when you give something an age you are saying this is the length of time that this has existited. Im about to turn 27 and so my age show that I have exisited for 27 years but 28 years ago I didnt exist. So if these scientist give the universe an age that assumes that the universe had a clear beiginning for it at one time didnt exist. Now I dont believe
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Ah, huh. Except that isn't what I asked you. I asked you how do you know there was every nothing? How do you know there was a point in time when there was nothing at all, no matter, no energy....nothing?
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 the the universe came from nothing I believe it came from God. Im saying that evolutionary minds date the universe giving an age so thus saying it was birthed at one point. Now back to the giraffe it wouldnt take long for the blood to reach the brain along with gravity and its heartbeat and what a waste of time to sip stand up sip stand up. Cells are a complex thing some carry oxygen to the muscles some help fight off infection or sickness. In order to know their function
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 Perhaps a waste of time, which is why the valve, when it spontaneously arose, was such an advantage. Hence the workings of evolution. Sure, cells are complex, but how does that translate into requiring a designer. You still have answered the question of what the criteria are for determining if something is designed. My guess is you can't answer it.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 I already did design show purpose as does the valve it serves a PURPOSE. Funny science did when they give an age to the universe that dictates that at one point the universe didnt exist but then they say energy is eternal which they are right but not the way they think for that eternal energy is also known as GOD. Again if the giraffe didnt have the valve to start with it could bend over long enought to deink even a little one it would pass out over and over and over again.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 The valve has a function, but does not serve a purpose in the sense that you are using the word.
I'm done with you, you're just dodging the question. You clearly don't have an answer.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 The valve does serve a purpose to control the blood flow to the brain kinda like a sparkplugs purpose to create a spark. My friend I did answer you but i think youre acting like a child whose asking for something but doesnt get the answer they want. God bless and farewell.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 The question was, Billy, how do you know nothing is a possible state? You say that there was nothing before the universe and yet you have no way of knowing that. You just posit BS and then walk away without performing the necessary mental footwork to determine if you idea is even remotely valid.
As to the giraffe, you have utterly failed not only to disprove evolution, but to prove the existence of god. An absolute and complete failure on your part.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 The valve may have a purpose, but you have yet to prove that it was DESIGNED for the purpose. You have also refused to answer how you KNOW something was DESIGN? What are the criteria for determining if something was intelligently designed? That is the second question you have completely neglected to answer because you know you cannot. Answer both questions or you will expose yourself as an intellectually dishonest individual and I will cease communication.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 My friend the fact that the valve fulfills its function proves it was designed for that. I dont believe thay there was nothing before the universe I believe that God ia the creator and that eternal energy that is described in the first law of thermodynamics is actually God. In the end we will have to agree to disagree. God bless and farewell.
billywarren22 1 week ago
@MewCat100 The valve is designed for a purpose to help that beautiful creature function correctly. Design is defined as to draw the outline of,to purpose,to plan, a pattern. Look at the DNA molecule it shows design it even has the ability to correct any part of it that incorrect. A function that needs a mind. Heres something take identical twins do you know that they have different finger prints as with snowflake no two are alike. Scripture says behold the treasury of snow.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 So I have given you plenty and now must bid you a fond farewell and I also want to thank you we may have to agree to diagree but you came with respect and I thankyou for that so God bless and take care.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MewCat100 So I have given you plenty and now must bid you a fond farewell and I also want to thank you we may have to agree to diagree but you came with respect and I thankyou for that so God bless and take care.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 they have to be programed and a program requires a mind and once again back to God.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 I can show you all the evidence you want but truth is you dont want God so you rather trust the lie. Also if evolution is true where are all the transitional forms there would be millions and millions of fossils and wait where are they? As Romans says God has made himself known through creation. So as I said we will have to agree to disagree. God bless and farewell.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 and purpose just as that valve in the giraffe has a purpose and is designed to carry out that function. You atheist are the ones who move the goal when Gods finger print is in your face. Alas we are going to have to agree to disagree. God bless and goodbye.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 God however being outside the boundaries of space and time being he created them can create everthing out of nothing. As the story went a scientist tried to scale the mountain of logic and when he came to the peak he discovered that a band of theologians have been there for centuries. In the beginning God.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22, You creationists are so dumb. If God is such a perfect designer why did he create bacteria, viruses, and natural disasters? If you strongly believe that all of these universal flaws were created by some incompetent God in order for him to curse two people living in 4000 BC because they were deceived by a talking snake (which by the way, God created the snake fully knowing that Adam and Eve would be deceived by it since God is omniscient), then you're a highly uneducated buffoon.
Nashhinton 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22, (continued). Secondly, given the fact that God is omniscient and all knowing, why did he create Satan in the first place? I mean technically God has the transcending knowledge that Satan would rebel against God and deceive millions of people, yet he still creates him? To me that makes God either an incompetent or immoral monster. Because of God's all mighty omniscience, this leads me to conclude that God staged this entire plan of salvation.
Nashhinton 2 weeks ago
@Nashhinton One those horrific things are due to sin and the fall and God is so powerful that he can even deny himself certain knowledge I know youll laugh at that but its not out of his wheel house so he sets before us the choice and it us that have to reap and he can deny himself the knowledge of our choice that doesnt make him weak. Yes he has set forth the plan of salvation and what a awesome plan it is. I am that I am yes he is.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Nashhinton 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billywarren22, Let me get this straight... A perfect God created two perfect humans that eventually disobeyed God which led the world into imperfection because of some curse God moronically placed on Adam and Eve's descendants? What kind of illogical BS is that? Secondly, the Bible says God is unchanging yet God decided to annul the curse placed on Adam's descendants by sacrificing his son to himself, so God can forgive those who believe in something that lacks evidence. That's complete BS.
Nashhinton 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22, @billywarren22, (continued).. What's even worse is the concept that the earth is 6000 years old according to the Bible. Also, I love how creationists call evolution magic when the whole concept of popping animals and the world into existence in 6 days is pure magic. There are too many holes in the entire Biblical story. The Bible says the earth sits on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8). Even the idea that hell is the eternal separation from God when God is considered omnipresent, is dumb.
Nashhinton 2 weeks ago
@Nashhinton When it speaks of pillars its being poetic and Hell is eternal seperation from Gods grace but his wrath pours forth there. It also says there will be mockers so thankyou for proving scripture.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22, I'm not mocking or deriding anybody. I'm simply making an argument. Criticism of a religion or an opinion is rationally permissible.
Nashhinton 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22, (continued)... Now that I look back on my previously mentioned comments, I can see how you would see that I'm mocking. I would somewhat agree with that. My apologies for being a little boorish.
Nashhinton 2 weeks ago
@Nashhinton I do appreciate that and what it comes down to is we just have to agree to disagree. I do wish the best for you and God bless.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@MewCat100 cont God being outside of space and time being the first and the last could create out of nothing for he is spirit and super natural. Back to the giraffe if it didnt have that valve the species would have died out long before evolution could do anything so it had to be there from the start. Anyway very good question and let me thank you for being respectful and civil some right off the bat come slinging filth words so I thank you and God bless.
billywarren22 2 weeks ago
@billywarren22 I'm not sure I follow where you are going with the outside of time and space topic. Why would you think that there was nothing prior to the big bang? Why would you think there could be nothing if there is now something? Thanks.
MewCat100 2 weeks ago
Religion is the refuge of the ignorant.
b14blah 1 month ago
@b14blah You know what? You're absolutely right; religion IS the refuge of the ignorant. Therefore it's a good thing that Christianity isn't a religion, but an intimate relationship with God made possible through Jesus by what He's done for us approximately 2,000 years ago.
Burningflame97 1 month ago
@b14blah Religion is the refuge of the ignorant? Opiate of the masses I can understand, but the ignorant can find refuge in exactly ANYTHING. They're ignorant, they can use science, money, a basement, or some random hobby to hide behind. It doesn't matter. Says nothing about the place of refuge, only something about ignorance. In the real world, I expect we'd find that ignorance exists nearly equally within and without religion. (If this quip seems believable, it's the illusion-of-truth effect.)
NinjaProofShell 3 weeks ago
@macman2324 I hope grammar you learn.
ctwalkup1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every story in the Bible existed in other cultures before the Israelites even existed. For Adam and Eve orgin watch History Channel "Garden of Eden". For Genesis origin watch "Testament". For origins of soul, resurrection, etc watch Nat Geos "Egyptian Secrets of the Afterlife". For Bible origins watch History Channels "Who wrote the Bible". The Bible stories were copied from older already existing God stories. Hard for me to believe the stories when I can see where they came from.
Information39 2 months ago
Why is it that when Strobels science was presented in court (Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial). It was torn to shreds as garbage science?
Information39 3 months ago
@Information39
Why? Because it is the fallen nature of man to despise his creator. By the way, Strobel has two degrees from Yale.
MrSandykramer 2 months ago
@MrSandykramer It was a rhetorical question. Strobels science was shreded because it is completely wrong. What are you basing "it is the fallen nature of man to despise his creator" on? The Bible or even worse your opinions based on nothing? I require sources, you dont just get to make up stuff on the fly like my pastors always did when I asked questions.
Information39 2 months ago
Comment removed
Information39 2 months ago
@MrSandykramer Well aware of Strobels life. Are you aware that Strobel states he is a journalist looking for the truth about religion. A journalists code is to be unbiased and get both sides. However, all his "scientists" in this dvd are his buddies from the discovery Institute (Behe, etc). HOW DISHONEST IS THAT? Behe is the one being shredded in dvd "Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial". Like Behe, Strobel draws the target "God exists" and then twists data to fit his conclusion.
Information39 2 months ago
@Information39
So was evolution in Scopes. So was personhood of blacks in Dred Scott. The judge in Dover was not a scientist and knew little of science's rigorous empirical demands, namely observability, reproducibility, et. al.
MrSandykramer 2 months ago
@MrSandykramer Are you saying that evolution was shredded in the Scopes Trial??? Are you trying to rewrite history or are you making comments on something you know nothing about? The Scopes trial was about whether John Scopes taught evolution in his class. However, defense attorney Darrow used this opportunity to educate the world. He attacked the literal interpretation of the Bible as well as Bryan's limited knowledge of other religions and science." The national view was Darrow had won.
Information39 2 months ago
@MrSandykramer The judge ruled that Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution in class. A point defense attorney Darrow didnt seem that concerned with from the start. The Butler Act saying a teacher cant teach evolution was repealed in 1967.
Information39 2 months ago
@Information39
So was evolution in Scopes. So was personhood of blacks in Dred Scott. The judge in Dover was not a scientist and knew little of science's rigorous empirical demands, namely observability, reproducibility, et. al.
By the way, opinions do not necessitate sources. That's why they are ... opinions.
MrSandykramer 2 months ago
@MrSandykramer Yes, it would be better if the judges in science cases were scientists. But it says something when a religious judge rules against religion. The court found exactly what my 3 years and 200+ dvds on the subject found. The discovery institutes science is garbage science. It is also obvious to anyone with any level of education, as it was to the judge.
Unfortunately, your opinion was coming off as a statement of fact, much the way pastors statements do.
Information39 2 months ago
This is a joke right? Perhaps a retarded high school student trying to do a science project
kaben1979 3 months ago
@kaben1979 You are only as open minded as your beliefs wll allow you to be. Your comment is proof enough for me to your close minded thinking. Personally, I perfer to look at all sides of any arguement and make my own judegment thanks.
peipappy1 3 months ago
@peipappy1
I do like how people are labeled as being "closed minded" when they don't happen to share the same beliefs as you. I see this over and over again. "If you just open your mind, you'll see the truth!"
TheSeventhSon 2 months ago
I wouldn't mind having a monitor that big :-)
giorgiv18 3 months ago
In the 70's, man discovered the "Fountains of the Deep" ,written about in the Book of Job (over 3,000 yr's ago). '1894, Sir Robert Anderson determined the precise day of 'Christs Triumphal Entry by study of "Daniel" (written 500 yr's prior.Circumcism almost Eliminates Vaginal Cancers. There are many examples of "man" verifying Biblical Truths through his science, Archaeology, Kosher Practices, History, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics, DNA study, Hidden Truth's in' Biblical Text', Proper Diet etc.
424werter 3 months ago
listen, all you atheists out there, appreciate the fact that people are using scientific
processess to come up with answers and/or support their conclusions.
tkwtg 3 months ago
@tkwtg at least you Christians try.
WeLoveSonKIE 3 months ago
Science reveals God to the open minded. So don't worry, you're not alone.
peipappy1 4 months ago
Unfortunately, there is always (and will always be) debate about religion. Any religious person can say that any or everything is due to a supreme being. Meanwhile any non-religious person can say that everything is caused by something explainable, through a process we haven't figured out yet.
I'm agnostic, and don't really care much for how I, or the human race, was created. But i will say this: the Council of Nicea wrote the Bible 300 years after Jesus's death; it's a book of telephone.
FF1RedMage 4 months ago
@FF1RedMage i agree with you on your first few points, but as for implying that the Bible is flawed or manipulated for an agenda, i disagree because there are tons of manuscripts from people that lived during the time Jesus was alive and recorded the history, disciples of Jesus AND historians who recorded his crucifiction but did not acknowledge he was the Son of God because it would not have benefited Rome and their hierarchy
finxoner 4 months ago
This whole series is religious superstition masquerading as science. What a joke.
demoskunk 4 months ago
@demoskunk How is the theory of Evolution any different than a religion? Men before Darwin propose a theory that man is evolving toward godhood and throughout history have been trying to find any evidence that could support their claim. At least the Bible gives us all the answers to our questions about life and makes sense if we look at the world for evidence and take a some step of faith
finxoner 4 months ago
@finxoner
"Men before Darwin propose a theory that man is evolving toward godhood and throughout history have been trying to find any evidence that could support their claim."
Uh, what? Evolution has nothing to do with "evolving toward godhood".
"At least the Bible gives us all the answers to our questions about life and makes sense if we look at the world for evidence and take a some step of faith"
How is this a good thing? Providing answers doesn't make the answers right.
TheSeventhSon 4 months ago
@demoskunk I have on thing to say to you and I will not respond to you again because I already had a long debate with somone and frankly I don't have time for another. This series uses scientific evidence. You don't have to agree with the conclusion but not even you could deny the fact that this is an example of Science working FOR the Christain argument. And you, like many others I'v seen, attribute all the bad things to God but when something fenomenol happens God had nothing to do with it.
brian2189114 4 months ago
We should acknowledge GOD, not just as He was in Bible.
There is a SUPREME BEING watching us... silently taking care of things.
What you have today is what you deserve.
Be grateful you can access internet. LOL
888kimy 5 months ago
@888kimy So people who are suffering from disease, war, famine, child abuse, etc, deserve it?!
This supreme being you speak of sure is cold and uncaring, then, and totally undeserving of my love and worship, LOL.
demoskunk 4 months ago
Bible talks about God can make big changes with a blink of an eye including control over gravity think about rapture verses, if so can God create stars that are "billions" years appart according to our calculations? Yes He can how many blinks of an eye made in one day and what is magnituted of change? So God has abilities to create stars in one day.
andy08s 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thatcommonsenseguy "ok genius if a cell phone isnt used. sits on the shelf forever. then whats its purpose?" It's purpose is to answer calls, duh. The fact that it is not used is irrelevent. The second it was created it had a purpose. What happens after that doesn't change that original purpose. Your insults are pointless. If I am a "waste aspace" then STOP COMMENTING BACK.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@thatcommonsenseguy I see you just want to throw worthless insults. Poeple like you make me apriciate an atheist who is willing to give a real argument. I can comment here if I want like you can. Like I said if something isn't used for its purpose that doesn't mean it has no purpose. When something is useless that means there is no way to use it but if something is not used at all then it can still be used. You can't read Strobel's mind so stop acting like it. Come back once you find your sense.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114 nope, the analogy fails as you're doing the old fallacy of comparing apples & oranges. you're ignoring all the unique properties of living systems, notice the complexity, & compare it w/ complexity in non living systems which lack all those properties & then erroneously concluding they had to be magically created & it couldn't have occurred naturally. Here's another thing, the complexity of life has increased overtime, so the first cells weren't as complex as those now, duh.
agentorange20 5 months ago
@thatcommonsenseguy Actually you're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the phone is used or not it still has a purpose which would be to recieve calls. The fact it was made is why it has a purpose. Whether or not something fufills it's purpose doesn't detrmine whether or not it has one. You beleive that we our by ourselves? Are you telling me you want God to be personal with you when you deny his very existence. I said nothing about magic and I said nothing about someone in the clouds.
brian2189114 5 months ago
@brian2189114
‘You ask God to just stop all problem in the world.’
I am not asking a god to stop all problems, maybe just the big ones would be enough. Were he god, & all powerful, we could expect no less.
agentorange20 5 months ago
Evolutionists should watch a DVD called Reasonable Doubt: Evolution versus Modern Microbiology. It is a very informative presentation of the evidence against Evolution and mutation that modern science and microbiology offers. But don't worry its a no punches pulled, non pro-creation so your feelings and prides won't be damaged. Just keep an open mind.
torneo22 5 months ago
Watch how Lee Strobel's science holds up in court. Youtube "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". Strobel is a member of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is where he gets his "religious science". Michiael Behe represents the Discovery Institute in court and presents the same "religious science" found in Strobels dvds.
Information39 6 months ago
NOT RELIGION........... .....SPIRITUAL SALVATION is the gift of God. You cannot earn it. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves,it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."Ephesians 2:8,9. "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, & shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,thou shall be saved". Romans 10:9. Godbless
LordJesusChristtruth 6 months ago in playlist The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel
@LordJesusChristtruth - Pity the scoffers flag the truth as spam these days!
RUKEAL 5 months ago
Ironically, to say that Science is the only begetter of truth is self-contradicting, because that statement in itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. It's a self-defeating philosophical assumption. -Stephen C. Meyer, PHD Put that in your pipe and smoke it.... Their are two types of explanations---Scientific and Personal. There cannot be a scientific explanation of the first state of the universe. Earlier conditions and natural laws are required..and fact is they were not there....
1989cobalt 6 months ago
Faith is the greatest excuse used to defy reason and evidence, excluding the bible theres nooo evidence that creationism is right
jbhjgvjbjgv 7 months ago
Comment removed
dakersley 7 months ago
@jbhjgvjbjgv and what evidence do you have that evolution is right?
pinball281 7 months ago
@jbhjgvjbjgv - The whole universe stands as evidence. Consider this - if God really DID create the heavens and earth which we live in, and has testified of this fact to us, we shouldn't need any further 'evidence' - it was all around us the whole time! It is the theories of man such as 'evolution' that really defy reason!
RUKEAL 5 months ago
@RUKEAL Begging the question.
mikedamat 1 month ago
Really interesting and informative doc
fernanflay 7 months ago
Science can't prove everything! Can science prove your wife loves you??
You simply have to have faith she does!
RUKEAL 7 months ago
@RUKEAL
Science can, sure. It certainly can predict the probability that a couple will divorce, which is going about it the reverse way.
PTurchan1 7 months ago
@RUKEAL "Can science prove your wife loves you" actually u can. if u scan your brain, u can actually graph which part of your brain is activated when in love. also scientist is able to mesure the amount of hormones released, such as dopamine adrenaline serotonin and oxytocin. also faith is not required to know ur wife loves u. if she has nevered cheated, and maybe bared children with u, through logic and reason u could come to the conclusion that she does love u.
kissntellen 6 months ago
@kissntellen - I'm sure there are plenty of couples in the world who remain faithful to eachother, but are sadly no longer in love.
RUKEAL 5 months ago
@RUKEAL even if were not absolutely certain that, our spouse is in "love" anymore ur still not taking it on faith. faith is believing in something in absent of reason and evidence. if ur spouse is projection a mannerism, in which she gives affection, u r relying on such evidence to make an assessment on the current situation, therefore its logical to conclude, that ur marriage still based on love. no faith is required, to make a rational assessment.
kissntellen 5 months ago
@RUKEAL "Science can't prove everything", science dosen't claim to.
kissntellen 6 months ago
@RUKEAL agree man god bless
r0baa 6 months ago
@RUKEAL stupidest answer ever. Go educate yourselve, then you would know, that science does not prove anything, it just observes the universe, and finds ways to explain it. The good thing about it is, whenever something is observed, which contradicts a theorie, the theorie will be reviewed and if wrong then changed.
genix2006 6 months ago
@genix2006 - Sind Sie Deutscher?, wenn nicht, ist das Wort, die Sie suchen 'theory'.
RUKEAL 6 months ago
@genix2006 - Haha - the theory of evolution is wrong but I don't see that being 'changed' anytime soon!
RUKEAL 6 months ago
@RUKEAL now then, tell me what's wrong with it? Show me a theory with more evidence then the theory of evolution, if you can't then don't state that the theory of evolution is wrong.
P.S. Yes I'm german.
genix2006 6 months ago
@genix2006 - There is hardly enough intermediate fossil evidence to populate even a single clade! Evolution is nothing more than wishful thinking with big money behind it. In the real universe where God reigns supreme, theories such as this will be laughed at in years to come. There is more evidence for biblical prophecies coming to pass right now, than there is for evolution (a theory where nothing in support of it has ever occurred in the entire recorded history of mankind!)
RUKEAL 5 months ago
@genix2006 - If evolution were true we would have over 3.8 billion years worth of fossils and intermediates, clearly showing evolutionary change over time - evidence that would be overwhelming! Instead we find a sparse record of only fully developed creatures, indicative of a previous epoch of life that was wiped out by cataclysm. Even at a bacterial level we find such irreducible complexity that evolutionists are grasping at straws for an explanation.
RUKEAL 5 months ago
@RUKEAL yeah a quick search would have shown you, that the oldest fossil found is 3.5 billion years old, The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, evidence for that is was found in Australia, small zircon chrystals from Jack Hills, which are about 4.404 billion years old.
But you just look for the easiest answer, just so you won't have to think for yourself. If you want to discuss evolution get your facts straight first.
genix2006 5 months ago
@genix2006 - You assume too much genix. Whatever the ultimate age given, it doesn't change the fact that the sparse fossil record does not reflect billions of years worth of life on earth, and certainly does not even come close to populating a single clade with any physical evidence. We should have unearthed something by now and yet still the question stands: Where are the intermediates?
Comment on that rather than nit-picking over the 'supposed' age of the oldest known fossil.
RUKEAL 5 months ago
@RUKEAL While intermediate or transitional forms are commonly missing, when the fossil record is complete, the intermediate forms are often observed. Intermediate fossil organisms transitional between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals and other taxonomic groups are also possible. Many of these intermediates have been found only recently. This validates Darwin's assumption that in many cases "missing" intermediates would be found with time. They increasingly have been.
genix2006 5 months ago
@RUKEAL You still haven't given me a theory that has more evidence than the theory of evolution, if you can't then this discussion is going nowhere.
I'd rather search my whole life for the answer, then basing my opinion on an book that was written by ignorant people, who weren't able to explain the world, without having to include a god.
We are living in a time today where we are able to understand and explain so much using science, of course we still have a long way...
genix2006 5 months ago
@genix2006 Humans, reptiles, monkeys, etc. all have a different number of chromosomes. When two parents mate the offspring always has to have the same number of chromosomes or it won't go on to become a living being because of the misalignment. Because of this it is literally impossible for species with different chromosomes to come from the same species. In other words, evolution is impossible.
jamesandrewjohnson 5 months ago
@jamesandrewjohnson 'two parents mate the offspring always has to have the same number of chromosome'
No, not necessarily. We know that Equine's too have undergone fusion mutations & the addition of an extra chromosome in humans results in down syndrome, not death.
agentorange20 5 months ago
@jamesandrewjohnson read this: scienceblogs (dot) com / pharyngula / 2008 / 04 / basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
genix2006 5 months ago
@RUKEAL 'sparse fossil record does not reflect billions of years worth of life on earth'
That it's sparse in certain lineages doesn't mean that the oldest signs of life aren't 3.85 billion years ago. With that in mind, life might have started even earlier since the fossil record is never an absolute minute by minute account, but more like a snapshot of certain times.
'Where are the intermediates?'
Go to Wikipedia, key in 'intermediate fossils', a fantastic book by Donal Prothero is also nice.
agentorange20 5 months ago
@RUKEAL 'we would have over 3.8 billion years worth of fossils and intermediates'
Not true, fossilization is the exception, not the rule for what occurs to dead organisms.
agentorange20 5 months ago
The only religion, that has a chance is Buddhism, sorry theists you lost. The fact is god is logically inconsistent (the concept is self-contradictory, vague, meaningless, makes no sense, it explains nothing, nor anything else supernatural does, scientifically, and philosophical fallacious, subjective, and not based on the proper scientific methodology to determine reality that is required, and it has no level of explanatory status, and so on) so it utterly meaningless to use god.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
@KevZen2000 : What about Advaita Vedanta, Spinozan metaphysics or other variations of pantheism that label the divine as just an impersonal force that defines nature? Their concept is not contradictory, explained in detail and does make sense although it's not very relevant for daily life decisions and as such can be replaced pretty easily by atheistic naturalism with little to no consequences. Still, the concept remains a logically valid hypothesis and a rationalist complement to science.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 7 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker. Pantheism, is just sexed up atheism.The divine is an illusion, its not real, its the psychological tendency we have to place meaning upon the universe. There is no evidence for anything that meets the character of such, and Spinozan, was incorrect, in that concept.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker. God is not the universe or anything finite, its something outside the universe, and its not New Ageish 'god' of post-modernism, its a typical king like figure, that controls the universe and is personally involved with various aspects, typically anthropomorphized to a culture, but not the universe. Pantheists, is really have a faulty conclusion, and in reality, they are seeking something else not God, but some form of mysticism.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker. There is no impersonal force that defies nature, there are many things we do not know about the universe, but anything outside the universe is not valid, as its non-existence, and anything that we will find, will be within the realms of science, and philosophy, not theology or mysticism, so the concept of an impersonal force is mythology, similar to the force of Star Wars, and the forces of the universe are not mystical, but natural, to invalidate pantheism.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
@KevZen2000 : I think we largely agree here. I just don't see any rational argument against the existence of what Hindus call a "Brahman" or New Agers call "Gaia", which is basically a sort of impersonal consciousness that drives nature. It could be regarded as a currently undetectable force that keeps the currently measurable forces in nature in place, as some kind of guiding force behing the programming of the huge quantum computer we know as our universe. But is it real? I can't say...
OutOfTheBoxThinker 7 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker. It sounds like you're talking about naturalistic pantheism, which is a naturalistic form of pantheism that encompasses feelings of reverence and belonging towards Nature and the wider Universe, concern for the rights of humans and all living beings, care for Nature, and celebration of life. That is what scientist mean, when they talk about God(s), it's this.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
@KevZen2000 : It goes a bit beyond that, considering naturalistic pantheism doesn't attribute any consciousness beyond the individual mind, whereas the form of pantheism I'm describing attributes consciousness to groups of individuals as a whole and even inanimate matter. You could see it as the universe being a giant self-aware quantum computer program, like a made collective dream split up into individual conscious units but nevertheless conscious as a whole.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 7 months ago
@KevZen2000 Funny you say that because Einstein had no problem of putting in a "god concept" into his calculations.
dannywizz 6 months ago
@dannywizz. the God Einstein talked about was Spinoza's God, which is the pantheistic god, based on naturalism,as this god was the laws, and intelligence of the universe. Einstein, did not believe in the God of theism, and the only type god he believed in was the type of god, Hindus mention in Brahma, which is a creative principle of the universe, but within the universe itself, with some 'divine' principle, but still within the realm of naturalistic explanations.
KevZen2000 6 months ago
@KevZen2000 Wow, you are really god at making up fairy tales. Better go practice your Einstein knowledge a bit more.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility..."
dannywizz 6 months ago
@dannywizz. I did not say Einstein was an atheist, he was a pantheist.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”-Albert Einstein
KevZen2000 6 months ago
@dannywizz
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
-Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950;
KevZen2000 6 months ago
@KevZen2000 What are you trying to prove? Einstein was not an atheist. And he had a God concept in all his later calculations. He was an agnostic. He was not against the christian God but was neither a supporter of it.
So basically you are trying to say that he believed in a principle of God but not god himself. So if it is just a principle of God, which is logically inconsistent, then he must have been an atheist and not an agnostic, right?
God is whatever you want to call it the first cause
dannywizz 6 months ago
Nazi leader Goebbel's oft-quoted remark that if a lie is repeated often enough as if it is truth, it will be believed. After reading The book “A case for creeation” I have come to the conclussion that The Theory of Evolution and I repeat Theory, has taken this position. Darwin would not believe in evolution if he had the evidence we have today.
Printerman172 7 months ago
@Printerman172 You couldn't put it any plainer than that, my friend! Here's an interesting piece that I've read; Charles Darwin took 2 years of medical school and then dropped out because he was barely passing his courses and THAT was because he spent that time in bars with his buddies.
Now get this: Those 2 years of doing poorly in medical school was the only scientific training that he ever received("The Evolution Handbook" by Vance Ferrell, pg. 25.)! PM me if you want some more info.
Burningflame97 7 months ago
a snowflake is still a snowflake even after it melts it has just changed shape and temp and water is very complex just look in the mirror
scottydraine 8 months ago
Comment removed
Burningflame97 8 months ago
i love all o f these videos. wish i could read the book soon. :-)
liuliteddy 8 months ago in playlist The Case for a Creator with Lee Strobel
Oh Lee. Ancient Aliens presents a more logical and coherent argument than any I've seen from you. I just don't get you.
TheEmpiricalTruth 8 months ago
In finding the truth, you would refer to an encyclopaedia, (or the Internet in this era). But I would rather break open the locomotive to see in first person how it works. I guess, for a man of faith, just a documented something, a so-called "reliable source" would suffice. Lee sounds like an excited kid in a science fair..
vishva8kumara 9 months ago
Read this book, it was excellent!
wolffmagic72 9 months ago
@wolffmagic72 If you think this movie is great, you ought to read a book titled, "The Evolution Handbook", by Vance Ferrel. It has, and I quote, "Over 3,000 scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory." I got this book; awesome book.
Burningflame97 8 months ago
Punctuated Equilibrium is not an adequate or valid argument for the explanation of the fossil record gaps evidenced by the Cambrian explosion in relation to Darwin's theory of evolution.
ArchWolfAngel7 9 months ago
@ArchWolfAngel7 I agree. It had been invalidated.
mevinifying 9 months ago
1:32 You mean they didn't just hand you a bible?
VENOM3RDUM 9 months ago
How do you create the information, the blue prints, for these structures by chance? It doesn't make any sense at all to me that the most advanced information system, DNA, we know of is not a computer but something created supposedly