Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence."
---David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
Your point has been understood. Whether the U.S. and the U.K. should've waged war in Iraq was not the reason I uploaded this; I consider myself ill-qualified to fully assess that situation. I only wanted to make the point that the religious don't have a monopoly on the numinous and therefore the conversations we could have on those things we call "spiritual" are for everyone -- not just those who have invested their critical faculties into perceiving an intangible spectre.
@ardendogma : You praise warmongers. That's the issue. You promote this women's magazine hack who has an inexplicable sway with liberally-tattooed, unread 20-somethings.
No, that is not the issue. Hitchens' politics on interventionism are of little concern to me. I am more interested in his views on religion. That's all. Like I said, the wars in the Middle East are beyond my field of expertise and I would dearly appreciate it if you stop accusing me, or anyone else for that matter, of being "unread"
I find that shallow and spiteful, because it implies (quite grossly) that anyone who disagrees with you on Hitchens must be somehow uneducated
I never said I was student of politics, banking or history. I am in fact none of these things. Am I to add the straw-man argument onto your list of growing fallacies??? You have revealed yourself to be rude, conceited, sanctimonious and pugnacious towards people you don't even know. Do you enjoy picking arguments with people on topics they profess to be ill-qualified to comment on?
You accuse me, sir, of "praising a warmonger" when that it is not the reason I support him. I support Hitchens for his views on religion, not his views on interventionist politics. But let’s run with this grotesque "guilt by association" logic of yours.
Wilhelm Wagner and Henry Ford both held antisemitic views; do you accuse someone therefore of praising anti-semites if you catch them listening to Wagner’s composition or driving a Ford vehicle? For your sake, I hope not.
Eugenist ("globaloneyest") Christ' Hitchens IS a social critic & a mouthpiece for internationalists. He preaches throughout the Western World for unconstitutional wars of pelf to advance the Anglo-American Alliance..
Hitchens product is the rhetoric by which to replace democratic Republics w/Marxian collectives. Hitchens is indeed a religionist cut fr. the same bolt of whole cloth as Father Hitler, Vlad, Attila the Hun, Mao Zedong, Pinochet, the Sun King, Robespierre & Thomas Woodrow Wilson. These abominable men sought to create a world of privilege too.
Your relentless ad hominem against a man who cannot defend himself at this moment is beginning to become somewhat nauseating, sir. For a 41-year-old, haven't you better things to do than tack prattle on someone's video which isn't even relevant to the reason he put it online? Kindly turn off your machine, take your spouse out for dinner and chill out.
@ardendogma : Hitchens' advocates the pillaging & irradiation (annihilation) of Islam & the Arab World. That's what he stands for. You might seek someone better to toady for.
I've made my point perfectly clear that that is not the reason by I support Hitchens. Have you not been reading my replies to you???It so, I have nothing left to say to you and you are merely repeating yourself, wasting both my time and yours. If not, please go away and address your comments to a video on Hitchens that is actually related to his opinions of the Middle East. That is not the subject of this video. Your comments are wasted here.
500,000 Iraqi children may be dead. There's nothing I can do to change that and neither can you. Just because Hitchens supported the campaign in Iraq does not mean he either implicitly or explicitly wished the deaths of half a million children. Nonetheless, I am not having this conversation with you. You say things are "wasted on me" when you don't even know me or any of the people you have routinely and unapologetically insulted ever since you appeared on this page
@ardendogma : There's no MAYBE about it: 500,000 children have been murdered by the New World Order. Hitchens always supports the status quo. He supports Kenyan Obama who has escalated total war throughout the East.
This is my final comment to you. After that, I will not reply to a single thing you say. Your delusional beliefs in a New World Order and Obama being a Kenyan have revealed you be a rude and petulant conspiracy believer. I have tried my best to be civil with you, but you clearly didn't think it decent to reciprocate. That says a lot more about you than it does Hitchens.
This has not been a conversation but instead an unwarranted barrage of unlettered slurs from yourself.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
You don't believe in Hell. At least that's a step in the right direction. But I'm afraid your views, though virtuous, are a minority, and a small one at that.
In the Old Testament, when the earth closed over your corpse, God was through with you. Only when gentle Jesus came along did you hear, "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41 NIV)
Everlasting fire sounds to me very unpleasant and eternal. Eternal punishment is what it says and to deny this would be to miss the point of Christianity.
Regardless of whether you believe in Hell or not, why not use your newfound knowledge to combat Christian fanatics who revel in poisoning and frightening and corrupting the minds of innocent, impressionable children with images of demons and hellfire? Hell is very real to those who believe in it and are genuinely terrified of it.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Indeed, Einstein was a brilliant man and also a deist. I have no qualms with deists, because when it comes to questions that matter, like what is moral and true, all their work is still ahead of them. It is the theist who claims to not only know that God exists, but also knows that He (specifically He) is all-loving, knows black from white, and takes an active concern in our mortal affairs. For all your science, there isn't a shred of evidence you have that God is omnibenevolent.
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
You don't have fins (I assume), yet anatomically you can swim perfectly well.
Fins are evolved to move a fish perfectly through water, but when aquatic organism began to grow more complex billions of years ago, a tiny fin was better than no fin at all, in the same respect that half a wing is better than no wing (some prehistoric animals could glide before they could fly).
A common criticism of evolution is that is has no transitional fossils. Read Wikipedia; there are loads of them.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
We didn't evolve from ape-like creatures. In actual fact, the "missing link" resembled a small tree dwelling mammal (like a squirrel) more closely than it did a monkey.
Humans aren't comfortable in how we walk. In the same way our teeth are poorly evolved (wisdom teeth), we are still paying the price for evolving to stand up straight and being able to run without our hands (which we could then adapt and specialise into using tools). Our knees and backs suffer for this price.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
When the revered geneticist Francis Collins (a Christian, don't you know) finished the Human Genome Project, we found the elegant hierarchy of genetic inheritance that is the final proof of evolution. Whether it was by design or by automated processes, that remains unclear, but the fact is homo sapiens, as well as chimpanzees, gorillas and all other great apes evolved from a common ancestor. You can no more doubt this than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
According to evolutionary biology, there is no such thing as macroevolution, only several microevolutionary steps that cumulatively surmount to a new trait. In the case of an eye, having a very primitive eye is much better than having no eye at all, even if it makes the organism vulnerable to injury or requires higher oxygen demand. If primitively eyed organisms have the advantage over blind ones, the eye can only get better. It's specialisation. That's evolution by natural selection.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Brian Thomas is a creationist, meaning not only does he believe that a God made everything instantly, but also that God is omnibenevolent.
If the eye is so perfectly designed, then perhaps Brian Thomas could tell this to the countless children in West Africa whose eyes are being devoured from the inside out by parasites that will render them blind. Did God lack the knowledge to design the eye to be resistant to the parasite, or is He punishing these children for being born in sin?
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 week ago
"Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way." - Hitchens
it's good advice.
rockos414 2 weeks ago
@rockos414
I wholeheartedly concur.
ardendogma 2 weeks ago
Thank you, Mr. Hitchens.
scytheka 2 months ago
David Rockefeller: Unashamed Predatory Globalist
"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
--David Rockefeller, “Memoirs,” page 405
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
"But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence."
---David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
Your point has been understood. Whether the U.S. and the U.K. should've waged war in Iraq was not the reason I uploaded this; I consider myself ill-qualified to fully assess that situation. I only wanted to make the point that the religious don't have a monopoly on the numinous and therefore the conversations we could have on those things we call "spiritual" are for everyone -- not just those who have invested their critical faculties into perceiving an intangible spectre.
ardendogma 4 months ago
@ardendogma : You praise warmongers. That's the issue. You promote this women's magazine hack who has an inexplicable sway with liberally-tattooed, unread 20-somethings.
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
No, that is not the issue. Hitchens' politics on interventionism are of little concern to me. I am more interested in his views on religion. That's all. Like I said, the wars in the Middle East are beyond my field of expertise and I would dearly appreciate it if you stop accusing me, or anyone else for that matter, of being "unread"
I find that shallow and spiteful, because it implies (quite grossly) that anyone who disagrees with you on Hitchens must be somehow uneducated
ardendogma 4 months ago
@ardendogma : People who lick the boots of Hitchens' are not serious students of politics, banking & history.
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
I never said I was student of politics, banking or history. I am in fact none of these things. Am I to add the straw-man argument onto your list of growing fallacies??? You have revealed yourself to be rude, conceited, sanctimonious and pugnacious towards people you don't even know. Do you enjoy picking arguments with people on topics they profess to be ill-qualified to comment on?
ardendogma 4 months ago
@ardendogma : You profess your admiration for a warmonger and then contradict yourself.
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
You accuse me, sir, of "praising a warmonger" when that it is not the reason I support him. I support Hitchens for his views on religion, not his views on interventionist politics. But let’s run with this grotesque "guilt by association" logic of yours.
Wilhelm Wagner and Henry Ford both held antisemitic views; do you accuse someone therefore of praising anti-semites if you catch them listening to Wagner’s composition or driving a Ford vehicle? For your sake, I hope not.
ardendogma 4 months ago
Eugenist ("globaloneyest") Christ' Hitchens IS a social critic & a mouthpiece for internationalists. He preaches throughout the Western World for unconstitutional wars of pelf to advance the Anglo-American Alliance..
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
Hitchens product is the rhetoric by which to replace democratic Republics w/Marxian collectives. Hitchens is indeed a religionist cut fr. the same bolt of whole cloth as Father Hitler, Vlad, Attila the Hun, Mao Zedong, Pinochet, the Sun King, Robespierre & Thomas Woodrow Wilson. These abominable men sought to create a world of privilege too.
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
Your relentless ad hominem against a man who cannot defend himself at this moment is beginning to become somewhat nauseating, sir. For a 41-year-old, haven't you better things to do than tack prattle on someone's video which isn't even relevant to the reason he put it online? Kindly turn off your machine, take your spouse out for dinner and chill out.
ardendogma 4 months ago
@ardendogma : Hitchens' advocates the pillaging & irradiation (annihilation) of Islam & the Arab World. That's what he stands for. You might seek someone better to toady for.
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
I've made my point perfectly clear that that is not the reason by I support Hitchens. Have you not been reading my replies to you???It so, I have nothing left to say to you and you are merely repeating yourself, wasting both my time and yours. If not, please go away and address your comments to a video on Hitchens that is actually related to his opinions of the Middle East. That is not the subject of this video. Your comments are wasted here.
ardendogma 4 months ago
@ardendogma : Many things are wasted on you. 500,000 dead Iraqi children is relevant to plagiarist Hitchens' preachments.
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
500,000 Iraqi children may be dead. There's nothing I can do to change that and neither can you. Just because Hitchens supported the campaign in Iraq does not mean he either implicitly or explicitly wished the deaths of half a million children. Nonetheless, I am not having this conversation with you. You say things are "wasted on me" when you don't even know me or any of the people you have routinely and unapologetically insulted ever since you appeared on this page
ardendogma 4 months ago 4
@ardendogma : There's no MAYBE about it: 500,000 children have been murdered by the New World Order. Hitchens always supports the status quo. He supports Kenyan Obama who has escalated total war throughout the East.
CelestialEmbodiment 4 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
This is my final comment to you. After that, I will not reply to a single thing you say. Your delusional beliefs in a New World Order and Obama being a Kenyan have revealed you be a rude and petulant conspiracy believer. I have tried my best to be civil with you, but you clearly didn't think it decent to reciprocate. That says a lot more about you than it does Hitchens.
This has not been a conversation but instead an unwarranted barrage of unlettered slurs from yourself.
ardendogma 4 months ago 5
@CelestialEmbodiment I share your sentiments about Hitchens being a warmonger, but I think he has more qualities and more good choices than bad ones.
includao 2 months ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
You don't believe in Hell. At least that's a step in the right direction. But I'm afraid your views, though virtuous, are a minority, and a small one at that.
In the Old Testament, when the earth closed over your corpse, God was through with you. Only when gentle Jesus came along did you hear, "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41 NIV)
ardendogma 4 months ago
@Mogley52
Everlasting fire sounds to me very unpleasant and eternal. Eternal punishment is what it says and to deny this would be to miss the point of Christianity.
Regardless of whether you believe in Hell or not, why not use your newfound knowledge to combat Christian fanatics who revel in poisoning and frightening and corrupting the minds of innocent, impressionable children with images of demons and hellfire? Hell is very real to those who believe in it and are genuinely terrified of it.
ardendogma 4 months ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
Indeed, Einstein was a brilliant man and also a deist. I have no qualms with deists, because when it comes to questions that matter, like what is moral and true, all their work is still ahead of them. It is the theist who claims to not only know that God exists, but also knows that He (specifically He) is all-loving, knows black from white, and takes an active concern in our mortal affairs. For all your science, there isn't a shred of evidence you have that God is omnibenevolent.
ardendogma 4 months ago
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
You don't have fins (I assume), yet anatomically you can swim perfectly well.
Fins are evolved to move a fish perfectly through water, but when aquatic organism began to grow more complex billions of years ago, a tiny fin was better than no fin at all, in the same respect that half a wing is better than no wing (some prehistoric animals could glide before they could fly).
A common criticism of evolution is that is has no transitional fossils. Read Wikipedia; there are loads of them.
ardendogma 4 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
We didn't evolve from ape-like creatures. In actual fact, the "missing link" resembled a small tree dwelling mammal (like a squirrel) more closely than it did a monkey.
Humans aren't comfortable in how we walk. In the same way our teeth are poorly evolved (wisdom teeth), we are still paying the price for evolving to stand up straight and being able to run without our hands (which we could then adapt and specialise into using tools). Our knees and backs suffer for this price.
ardendogma 4 months ago
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
When the revered geneticist Francis Collins (a Christian, don't you know) finished the Human Genome Project, we found the elegant hierarchy of genetic inheritance that is the final proof of evolution. Whether it was by design or by automated processes, that remains unclear, but the fact is homo sapiens, as well as chimpanzees, gorillas and all other great apes evolved from a common ancestor. You can no more doubt this than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
ardendogma 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
According to evolutionary biology, there is no such thing as macroevolution, only several microevolutionary steps that cumulatively surmount to a new trait. In the case of an eye, having a very primitive eye is much better than having no eye at all, even if it makes the organism vulnerable to injury or requires higher oxygen demand. If primitively eyed organisms have the advantage over blind ones, the eye can only get better. It's specialisation. That's evolution by natural selection.
ardendogma 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 4 months ago
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52
Brian Thomas is a creationist, meaning not only does he believe that a God made everything instantly, but also that God is omnibenevolent.
If the eye is so perfectly designed, then perhaps Brian Thomas could tell this to the countless children in West Africa whose eyes are being devoured from the inside out by parasites that will render them blind. Did God lack the knowledge to design the eye to be resistant to the parasite, or is He punishing these children for being born in sin?
ardendogma 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
Stay Strong, Hitchens! Dont leave us just yet..
BreaktheChainsofFate 4 months ago
awesome... :) xx
toodlepipism 4 months ago
Thanks ardendogma
halfpennystudios 5 months ago
@halfpennystudios
My very first uploaded video comment deserves a response, I think.
All I can say is, you are very welcome.
ardendogma 5 months ago