they live in pasadena, yet leonard wears 2 jackets, raj wears four shirts, and walawitz looks like he took a one way ticket from the 70s to here. GOD I LOVE THIS SHOW!!!!!
@hollywoodwerewolf I think it's because both Leonard and Raj are really normal looking guys. So on the show they wear whatever they can to look more nerdy. Howard and Sheldon look like real nerds.
I love science, I believe in Creationism, quite frankly there are many points in history in which Christianity has been proven, EX. Constatine was riding to battle, he noticed something burning in the sky when Jesus spoke to him telling him to have his shields bare some sort of Christian symbol, after putting the first 2 letters of Christ on all of his armies shields, he lead his army to many victories that would other wise be impossible to win. Need I go on
@xxxtangerinexxx Actually, the 'proofs' of evolution are VERY shaky. It is based totally on conjecture. The idea is pretty interesting, but since no one has identified a mechanism for it to actually occur, it is still nothing more than an unproven (but still widely accepted) idea.
In fact, random mutations are nearly always destructive (cancer, for example) and Mendelian inheritance ultimately leads to the death of a species unless there is another intervening force.
@FaleiaFrost Wait a minute... Suddenly, questioning the scientific community makes me a die-hard religious person? Someone needs to put on their critical thinking cap!
There's only so much you can say in 500 characters. Mendelian inheritance IS genetics and it only provides for a wide variety of diseases to be spread widely. You can see the effect with sickle cell anemia. Interbreeding doesn't eliminate it, it just spreads it. Dig a bit deeper next time.
And that you in-fact did skip Genetics. Because if you hadn't, you wouldn't think all it proved was that diseases could spread.
Also, you should read what I write for carefully next time. My meaning being that you thinking I said you were a die hard religious person was completely incorrect, much like everything else you've said so far on this video.
@FaleiaFrost You are, by far, the worst troll I have ever encountered.
Our current view of genetics provides for the spread of dominant genes, but equally provides for the spread of recessive genes. This means that 75% of the offspring of a dominant-recessive pairing will carry the recessive gene while 66% express the dominant. This doesn't lead to the elimination of the recessive gene. It leads to the masked spread of the recessive and there's no way for natural selection to weed it out.
@ppardee No, actually evolution is scientific fact. Species do change according to their needs.Just as Darwin demonstrated how finches developed different beaks according to its needs.
@theshadowify Developing a different beak is an adaptation, but adaptation is not evolution. Bacteria swap genes all the time, but never become anything other than bacteria.
Even the force that causes adaptation isn't known. The possibility that a random genetic mutation would be beneficial is astronomical. To have so many non-harmful mutations to cause a single-celled organism to turn into a human through a series of random mutations is beyond astronomical.
@ppardee Yes adaptation is part of evolution. In fact when I look up the definition of evolution, it says nothing about mutation. Evolution is change through natural selection. Dog breeding is evolution through human intervention.
@theshadowify I guess it depends on which dictionary you look in. Natural selection is the method by which mutation is propagated, but without mutation, there is nothing for nature to select. At no point in selective breeding of dogs have we produced anything other than a dog. We have only proven Mendelian inheritance. Evolution goes far beyond repeated natural selection of mutations and hasn't been observed so it is merely conjecture at this point.
@ppardee If you really think evolution hasn't been observed, it's clear you don't even understand what biological evolution is. The fact of evolution simply refers to the phenomenon that allele frequencies change. The theory of evolution refers to the well-substantiated scientific theory that makes a wide array of valid predictions by explaining how selective pressures and genetic drift acting on genetic variation in populations account for various phenomena such as biological evolution.
@nichtmuttersprachler Allelic drift is not synonymous with evolution. It's simply a means of spreading existing phenotypes and is functionally no different than natural selection except that it is random rather than intentional (to the extent that animals can be said to have intent). It does not create new genetic variants and does absolutely nothing to eliminate harmful genes that are non-fatal before sexual maturity.
@theshadowify Oh, and as an interesting factoid related to this discussion, even life coming in to existence on its own is so highly improbably that the concept borders on absurd.
There are 1.5 x 10^84 possible genetic codes. To give you an idea of how huge this is, there are fewer atoms in the observable universe (estimated 9.4×10^79) All life on the planet has about the same genetic make up with only minor variations which implies that there aren't a ton of valid combinations.
@ppardee This is one area where science has not figured it out yet. They do not know how life began. But they are working on it. Just because this planet has about the same genetic make up, does not imply that there arent that many variations. That is flawed logic. There may be planets out there that have life with totaly different makeups. Just because the chances are astronomical, does not make it impossible.
@theshadowify You're correct that just because something is highly improbable doesn't make it impossible, but it certainly isn't something I'd admit to believing. You'd have to have the right chemicals in the right concentrations at the right temperature. Even then it's dicey. Sure, it's possible that there are other valid combinations, but why haven't we seen them? Why can't we recreate life in a lab? We are missing something very important. Until we find it, we can't call evolution a fact.
@SharpMarksMan You can't prove that that actually occurred. To actually prove christianity you can't use stricture which presupposes your conclusion. You need actual evidence. Sorry but certain wings of science contradict religion in many ways.
@bubsadoozy 'Science' presupposes their conclusions all the time. Heck, all of modern relativistic physics is based off the presupposition that the speed of light is a constant. If that's not true, the whole ball of string falls apart.
@ppardee It's called a theory because it's not concluded to be correct it's just something to presuppose so you can extend that knowledge in other branches of science to hopefully make progress. Science, to be considered science, must be considered falsifiable. It doesn't claim to be the correct answer like many religions due it is just the most pragmatic.
@bubsadoozy So why do people throw a clearly incorrect (or at least partially incorrect) view of the universe and history into religious people's faces as the anti-gospel truth? I can respect a person who has a different view point, but using that view point as a weapon when evidence has clearly shown it is not entirely rock solid seems a bit arrogant, yet these are the people calling others ignorant?
@ppardee Evidence my friend. The scientific community admits they are falsifiable and looks for evidence to falsify it -- because if they do it allows progress. The religious community doesn't even wish to acknowledge and sometimes even just falls back on "well you can't prove it wrong so it's not wrong" It's poor argument and in some cases is very arrogant. There are ways to argue points for believing in creationism unfortunately they are rare. Quoting the bible isn't a valid argument.
@bubsadoozy Ah so its "My conclusions that I have drawn based on admittedly flawed assumptions are far superior to your conclusions based on personal experience and religious doctrine."
I'm not saying people quoting science texts are wrong. I just feel their sense of superiority is wrong, and just plain silly. Most people aren't scientists. They throw 'facts' at you like they know what they're talking about but they've just read it in a book without testing it. Kinda religiously, actually.
@ppardee I don't wish to say one is better than the other. There is a little more behind *thinking that the scientific take is more *logical,however, both could in fact be wrong. I think the only thing concerning both takes on the universal is that there is progress to be made concerning *knowledge with the scientific take which arguably can't be made through a personal assumption. As for people throwing out scientific fact, there are misguided, ignorant zealots on both sides -- ignore them.
I don't say things like "you can't prove it wrong, so it isn't", nor do I quote the Bible as my proof. but i'm sure being biased against the entire religious community proves your point perfectly
@PoopTastesLikeCandy Please read the full argument before commenting. I went back on that with the next rebuttal to his post. Being biased has nothing to do with any point I had to make. I'm simply trying to say that no one is definitely right, everyone could in fact be wrong.
if jesus is involved in the title expect a heated debate about religion -_- now onto important matter why was william shatner in the new star trek movie? and now my actual question what season is this from
Ok, really? Since when has it become necessary to have a debate every single time someone mentions God or Jesus in a video? Your comment isn't going to change anyone's beliefs. This is simply a funny video from the Big Bang Theory, that makes people laugh. It wasn't meant to provoke controversy in the comments page of a YouTube video. So can we please just watch the video and not get all angry about a single sentence. Thanks!
@scholar5212 You just dont understand how harmfull and evil religions are. We have to fight against them, everywhere, all the time. Untill they are gone.
Yeah, I misread DHerr430's statement too. He did make that first mistake, but it doesn't appear that his understanding of the two terms are wrong when he clarified them further.
I think he was referring to agnostics believing in a higher power in specific refutation of bary1234's claim that the terms were synonymous.
@bary1234 seems to think that agnosticism and atheism are much the same thing, when they are not. Two completely different claims, on two different axes.
@bary1234 "Agnostics dont have a god. They are Atheists."
That is incorrect. The two terms, gnosticism and theism, are completely different claims, but are misused in popular culture to mean roughly the same thing.
Gnosticism is a claim to knowledge, and Theism is a claim to belief.
So you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist and the positions are not mutually exclusive; it just means that neither side KNOWS there is or isn't a God.
What I'm saying is that some agnostics believe in God and some don't. Gnosticism is not a claim to belief. Gnosticism is a claim to knowledge, whereas theism is a claim to belief.
In other words, there can be an agnostic theist who believes there is a God, but doesn't claim to know there is one, just as there can be a gnostic theist who not only believes in a God, but claims to know there is a God.
That's the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Two axes on the same graph.
@AmazinglyAwesomes : Dude, they are scientists. None of them believe in the talking donkeys or flying horses or biblical flood or any of that embarrassing nonsense of religions.
@bary1234 In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, while Atheism is disbelieving in any God's overall. Cmon dude, you can look this stuff up if you want. Not hard.
@bary1234 Oh, and within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that). So once again, completely different. Do the research.
@DHerr430 I'd suggest a dictionary as the bare minimum preparation for knowing what the hell you're talking about. If you're too lazy for that, you might consider not speaking... ever...
@eyeammi Oh yeah? Kinda funny considering there wasn't anything wrong with what i posted. Do YOU have any input about Agnostics and Atheists being the same? If not, kindly get the fuck off of this comment board and go crawl back under a cave where you belong, troll.
@DHerr430 So, you ARE too lazy to crack open a dictionary. Bary1234 already explained it adequately. I'd just like to add that the word "agnostic" has no restriction to being applied to religion or god(s). The word applies to any subject that a person can say they know or don't know to be true. It literally means, without knowledge. In other words, if a human can conceive of it, you can be an agnostic towards it. You can't, however, be agnostic about something & believe in it at the same time.
@eyeammi And did i not just explain that? Use your fucking brain and read my most recent comments below to Bary1234. "applies to any subject that a person can say they know or don't know to be true" Which is in this case, a God. Sounds familiar to me considering i just posted "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God" As well as "within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility)".
@eyeammi Maybe instead of making false accusations towards people telling them to open up dictionaries or not talk at all, you should do a little research your self. Better yet, you don't even have to do research, just READ my fucking comments and maybe you'd have a brief understanding of how stupid you are. You DO realize you're on the side of someone who believes atheism and agnosticism is the same thing, right? Go ahead and take a little time to reflect on that one, buddy. Hahahaha.
@DHerr430 Sorry, I did read those comments but I misread them as if they were from Bary1234 to you instead of the other way around. However, I made that mistake because your 1st comment:
"Agnostic's believe in a higher power"
This implies that atheism & agnosticism are mutually exclusive, so you were basically refuting yourself in your later comments. But that doesn't surprise me. That's what happens when you plagiarize from Wikipedia without actually understanding what you're plagiarizing.
@MrZimJimSlim I tend to believe knowledge is not genetic. Ergo the conclusion being Sheldon learned science stuff in school. His family doesn't have to study science and beam it into his brain or transform it into his gene sequence by procreation. Humans gain knowledge not by hardwiring but by experience
I just want to say the best thing about The Big Bang Theory is that it DOESN'T air on NBC. If it did, the jerks at that company would be taking all videos (of the show) off Youtube left and right, so I'm glad they (NBC) have no control over this funny sitcom. Good job, CBS! (8^)
You know in a technical sense that science stuff does come from Jesus, If you believe in Chrisitianity. But Im muslim so I disagree with that comment...
@MAMJAM55 Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?.. [Noble Quran 21:30]
@Darkownage2 Oh I get what your talking about, but the big bang theory I know about states that by no intelligent being the universe started with a bang, but nice refrence
@bary1234 Why do I have to get pissed so often by christians and debating atheists on simple science channel videos so often?! I am atheist but that's because of my passion for science which lead me to the conclusion that religion is wrong in so many claims and aspects.
@IWasBornStupid Einsteins reply to that very same baseless accusation made against him during his lifetime:
Eistein: "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."
Einstein was not in the zombie-cult of human sacrifice and cannibalism. He had a functional brain.
@bary1234 That is just a Horrible disgrace for you to have said, Jesus gave his life for you to live and not suffer in The eternal pit of hell. You should be ashamed of what you have said. I am breathtakingly distressed at the number of people who have added a like to this comment
You claim to know that Jesus gave his life for us to live and not suffer, but do you have any actual evidence to back up that claim? That's all atheists are asking for. Atheists don't think they should be ashamed of asking for proof, and neither should you.
All we are saying is "I don't believe you, please give me some evidence or reason to believe you and I will gladly cede my argument." That's how reason works.
@ltloganwaffle0 I have indeed read the Bible. I don't see what you're getting at. The Bible is not evidence of the divine, it is simply a book written during the Bronze and Iron Ages by various authors that happens to have various truths and fictions in it. Rationalists generally live by the creed that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While there are certainly some historically accurate events and mentions, that doesn't mean it is /all/ historically accurate.
@bary1234 I find it sad that you're a religiously intolerant bigot. Go away. There are enough people in the world like you that can't accept people for who they are or what they believe and want to change them. I have faith. I will never change and there's nothing you can do about it. So there. I don't hate Atheists. They should be allowed to believe what they want to believe. And so should believers. That's fair isn't it?
@Kaagh178 : Off course you can and will believe anything you want, and I know I cant help you.
When religious people stop systematically indoctrinating defenceless children in to their sick cults, I can stop fighting against them. Brainwashing in to superstition is criminal child abuse, and it causes permanent braindamage. That shit has to stop.
So yeah, lets give all humans a free choice. We apparently want the same thing.
@bary1234 You sound reasonable enough. I can see your point of view even if I don't agree entirely with it. As for me, I'm strongly against Christening. Its like Baptism, except for the fundamental difference that babies are given to the Lord before they are old enough to think for themselves and choose. With Baptism you have a choice. With Christening you don't. Just my opinion. My belief is that God gave all humans freewill to do as they choose, aside from murder, rape and steal.
@Kaagh178 : Actually its not your own belief, its just something you heard and adopted. The culture you happened to born in to dictated your religion.
Nobody comes up with jebus on their own, its always picked up from advertising or indoctrination. Always with just stories from humans, never with evidence or reason. Sort of sad, back to my original point.
@bary1234 There IS evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Ask any historian you can find. That's why the term BC exists. However, as to whether or not he actually performed miracles or rose again, that depends on your own belief. And it IS my own belief so I'll stick to it thank you very much. I chose Christ. He offered me eternal life in return for devotion to him. And its not a choice I regret making at all. blazed101 is right, this is a rather pointless argument, so I'll end it here. Goodbye.
@Kaagh178 Why do you find it sad? There's NOTHING wrong about debating and discussing. Are you just one of those christians who are pissed because SOME people dont think the way you do? If so, get open-minded. #BELIEVING IN SCIENCE!
@NGC3370JT I find it sad because its a comedy. Its not supposed to lead to a Religion VS Science argument. That said, there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate. And no I'd rather people didn't all think as one and thought for themselves. As stated in some of my previous comments, I believe God created man to have freewill. We're allowed to think what we want. Atheists are fine with me. Its their opinion and I have my own. Personally, I have no problem with Science either.
i can't see a fundamentalist christian saying the "science stuff" comes from JESUS, dont they generally regard science as an evil conspiracy from satan to drive god out of public schools and corrupt the morals of the country?
evolution is kinda the flagship under which fundamentalists launch their general hatred of science. fundamentalists believe all knowledge must come from the bible, everything else is of the devil. and the only way to rectify the fact that >98% of scientists accept evolution is a conspiracy of all the scientists, since evolution is often used to refute the bible, the logical reason for this manufactured conspiracy is satan driving god out of schools.
@tuseroni I believe and this is my statement on it that whoever has the knowledge like someone in science that God gave them a gift to use it for better of man kind and as a talent should go with what they know. Its the same with singing or martial arts if you have that talent that God gives you use it.
@Jezthevalley free will cannot exist according to religion because the bible contains many stories and examples that actually show fate and predestination, for example free will cannot exist because the book of revelations says the Antichrist will rise, which means that the Antichrist has no choice in the matter of being an enemy of god, he was created for that purpose and therefore cannot choose another path.
@demigod2324 so if I say that most people in the world will wake up tomorrow morning and go to work, does it mean that free will don't exist because I predicted what they will do?
@Jezthevalley i think demigod is talking about the literal "morals" and rules of the bible.. most "christians don't follow their holy book and i think demigod is just pointing that out.. "don't go bible crazy on people if you don't follow your goshdarn book"
or he may be talkinga bout something else but this is what i got from your convo i read.. :D
@Jezthevalley No you've missed his point entirely. He's saying that the Bible contradicts itself as it says there is free will but then certain things in the Bible are "predetermined". Obviously predestination and freewill can't both be true. He's not saying this means the Bible is correct, he's saying that the Bible is impossible to follow because it contradicts itself.
@MaximumCheeseage Yeah, predetermined like how God planned to get his people out of Egypt through Moses. However, i didn't read anything about anybody losing their ability to choose when God led them out of that place.
@MaximumCheeseage you'll understand my point better if you actually read the exodus story. Moses had the ability to refuse all along. But he believed that it was God when he saw the unconsumed burning bush. So he CHOSE to do it.
@BokuWaJShi I don't think that intelligence (aka the 'talent' you speak of) help disproves His existence. The thing is, too many people, atheists and theists alike, take the story of the Creation on a literal level, thus creating the stupid Science vs Religion war we all know of. Personnally, I believe the Bible to be more of an analysis of the Human Nature, and our place in the 'Creation'. This is a more fitting view of religion as its purpose, plus it doesn't contradict actual, factual science
@ChevaliersEmeraude First off, I didn't call it a talent, whoever I responded to did. And secondly, if you're going to be halfhearted about believing one thing or the other, then I don't know what to say. What the Bible says, especially in the first testiment, was no "if you want to believe this, or take this metaphorically, then do so". It said things as if they actually happened, no questions asked. I understand taking certain aspects and lessons from religion, but there is no halfway point.
@ChevaliersEmeraude Taking the Bible as a psychological book rather than fact is alright I suppose, but mostly if you aren't part of the religion itself. But I'm pretty sure it makes it clear what part of the "Creation" it believes we were in. Science also makes it pretty clear what part of "Creation" it believes we were in. To me, if one or more parts are flawed, the view of the Bible as a "history book" looses all credibility.
@BokuWaJShi Oh, I agree, viewing the Bible as factual science makes it uncredible. And like I said, too many people, both theists or atheists, do that! The thing is, it was never intended to be one, the truths in religion do not belongs with the events it describes, but much more in the teachings those described events ought to teach us. Bible's truth are more metaphysical in nature. Same for all religion, really! It's something people should try to remember, I believe...
@ChevaliersEmeraude See, don't get me wrong. I don't see anything wrong with just looking at it as a book of life lessons rather than a history book. I suppose you could say I believe in a meta-physical god that comes more from a community who share the same beliefs. But not an all-powerful god who is the master puppeteer of the universe.
"All that science stuff, that comes from Jesus."
MadTimmy 6 days ago
Hey...
Loom.
PorridgeMan1 1 week ago
YOU ALL SUCK.
Nwambe 1 week ago
Hey... loom
I love Sheldon!
Jgibson1371 3 weeks ago
why is there always a random argument in the comment section???
MrHousemagic 1 month ago 19
@MrHousemagic
Because your opinion is clearly different from mine, and therefore I dislike you as a person..
Just kidding. YouTubers are just stupid.
brand089 1 month ago 4
@MrHousemagic because most people have no life so they fight over the internet
tyson6511 2 weeks ago
the science comes from jesus?
HAHAHHAHAA
ZphykTESHD 1 month ago
i agree, science does come from jesus.
creamofweat7773 1 month ago
The science stuff does come from Jesus. :)
Concetta20 1 month ago 2
@Concetta20 No. It most certainly does not.
Buckethead941 1 month ago
they live in pasadena, yet leonard wears 2 jackets, raj wears four shirts, and walawitz looks like he took a one way ticket from the 70s to here. GOD I LOVE THIS SHOW!!!!!
MrHaloplayer1 1 month ago
I can't figure out why Leonard wears jackets indoors.
hollywoodwerewolf 1 month ago
@hollywoodwerewolf PONCHO
MrGuitar5203 3 weeks ago
@hollywoodwerewolf I think it's because both Leonard and Raj are really normal looking guys. So on the show they wear whatever they can to look more nerdy. Howard and Sheldon look like real nerds.
WilsonT011 2 weeks ago
@WilsonT011
Nerd is a look now?
Kadiezi 1 week ago
@Everybody I agree :)
Jamnayrs 1 month ago
the comment section looks more like a chat site
MazzTheBest 1 month ago 43
i love lenonards hair there!
livin4thethunder 1 month ago
Everything is god. Blew your mind.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
sheldon reminds me of a creepy old funny lady
gabriella5671 1 month ago
I love science, I believe in Creationism, quite frankly there are many points in history in which Christianity has been proven, EX. Constatine was riding to battle, he noticed something burning in the sky when Jesus spoke to him telling him to have his shields bare some sort of Christian symbol, after putting the first 2 letters of Christ on all of his armies shields, he lead his army to many victories that would other wise be impossible to win. Need I go on
SharpMarksMan 1 month ago
@SharpMarksMan well, there is still more (millions of more) evidence, proofs for EVOLUTION.
xxxtangerinexxx 1 month ago
@xxxtangerinexxx Actually, the 'proofs' of evolution are VERY shaky. It is based totally on conjecture. The idea is pretty interesting, but since no one has identified a mechanism for it to actually occur, it is still nothing more than an unproven (but still widely accepted) idea.
In fact, random mutations are nearly always destructive (cancer, for example) and Mendelian inheritance ultimately leads to the death of a species unless there is another intervening force.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee If there's anything worse then a die hard religious person it's a religious person who knows how to build sentences.
Of course, it doesn't make anything you say valid.
"...but since no one has identified a mechanism for it to actually occur, it is still..."
I guess you skipped genetics? Or maybe you didn't get there yet. Well spelled for a nine year old.
FaleiaFrost 1 month ago
@FaleiaFrost Wait a minute... Suddenly, questioning the scientific community makes me a die-hard religious person? Someone needs to put on their critical thinking cap!
There's only so much you can say in 500 characters. Mendelian inheritance IS genetics and it only provides for a wide variety of diseases to be spread widely. You can see the effect with sickle cell anemia. Interbreeding doesn't eliminate it, it just spreads it. Dig a bit deeper next time.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee Thanks for confirming both the points:
"Doesn't make anything you say valid."
And that you in-fact did skip Genetics. Because if you hadn't, you wouldn't think all it proved was that diseases could spread.
Also, you should read what I write for carefully next time. My meaning being that you thinking I said you were a die hard religious person was completely incorrect, much like everything else you've said so far on this video.
FaleiaFrost 1 month ago
@FaleiaFrost You are, by far, the worst troll I have ever encountered.
Our current view of genetics provides for the spread of dominant genes, but equally provides for the spread of recessive genes. This means that 75% of the offspring of a dominant-recessive pairing will carry the recessive gene while 66% express the dominant. This doesn't lead to the elimination of the recessive gene. It leads to the masked spread of the recessive and there's no way for natural selection to weed it out.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee No, actually evolution is scientific fact. Species do change according to their needs.Just as Darwin demonstrated how finches developed different beaks according to its needs.
theshadowify 1 month ago
@theshadowify Developing a different beak is an adaptation, but adaptation is not evolution. Bacteria swap genes all the time, but never become anything other than bacteria.
Even the force that causes adaptation isn't known. The possibility that a random genetic mutation would be beneficial is astronomical. To have so many non-harmful mutations to cause a single-celled organism to turn into a human through a series of random mutations is beyond astronomical.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee Yes adaptation is part of evolution. In fact when I look up the definition of evolution, it says nothing about mutation. Evolution is change through natural selection. Dog breeding is evolution through human intervention.
theshadowify 1 month ago
@theshadowify I guess it depends on which dictionary you look in. Natural selection is the method by which mutation is propagated, but without mutation, there is nothing for nature to select. At no point in selective breeding of dogs have we produced anything other than a dog. We have only proven Mendelian inheritance. Evolution goes far beyond repeated natural selection of mutations and hasn't been observed so it is merely conjecture at this point.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee If you really think evolution hasn't been observed, it's clear you don't even understand what biological evolution is. The fact of evolution simply refers to the phenomenon that allele frequencies change. The theory of evolution refers to the well-substantiated scientific theory that makes a wide array of valid predictions by explaining how selective pressures and genetic drift acting on genetic variation in populations account for various phenomena such as biological evolution.
nichtmuttersprachler 1 month ago
@nichtmuttersprachler Allelic drift is not synonymous with evolution. It's simply a means of spreading existing phenotypes and is functionally no different than natural selection except that it is random rather than intentional (to the extent that animals can be said to have intent). It does not create new genetic variants and does absolutely nothing to eliminate harmful genes that are non-fatal before sexual maturity.
ppardee 1 month ago
@theshadowify Oh, and as an interesting factoid related to this discussion, even life coming in to existence on its own is so highly improbably that the concept borders on absurd.
There are 1.5 x 10^84 possible genetic codes. To give you an idea of how huge this is, there are fewer atoms in the observable universe (estimated 9.4×10^79) All life on the planet has about the same genetic make up with only minor variations which implies that there aren't a ton of valid combinations.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee This is one area where science has not figured it out yet. They do not know how life began. But they are working on it. Just because this planet has about the same genetic make up, does not imply that there arent that many variations. That is flawed logic. There may be planets out there that have life with totaly different makeups. Just because the chances are astronomical, does not make it impossible.
theshadowify 1 month ago
@theshadowify You're correct that just because something is highly improbable doesn't make it impossible, but it certainly isn't something I'd admit to believing. You'd have to have the right chemicals in the right concentrations at the right temperature. Even then it's dicey. Sure, it's possible that there are other valid combinations, but why haven't we seen them? Why can't we recreate life in a lab? We are missing something very important. Until we find it, we can't call evolution a fact.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee YOU GUYS ARE NERDS!!!!
MrHaloplayer1 1 month ago
@MrHaloplayer1 FINALLY, the recognition I deserve!
ppardee 1 month ago
@SharpMarksMan Lol, point me to the evidence.
FaleiaFrost 1 month ago
@SharpMarksMan You can't prove that that actually occurred. To actually prove christianity you can't use stricture which presupposes your conclusion. You need actual evidence. Sorry but certain wings of science contradict religion in many ways.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@bubsadoozy 'Science' presupposes their conclusions all the time. Heck, all of modern relativistic physics is based off the presupposition that the speed of light is a constant. If that's not true, the whole ball of string falls apart.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee It's called a theory because it's not concluded to be correct it's just something to presuppose so you can extend that knowledge in other branches of science to hopefully make progress. Science, to be considered science, must be considered falsifiable. It doesn't claim to be the correct answer like many religions due it is just the most pragmatic.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@bubsadoozy So why do people throw a clearly incorrect (or at least partially incorrect) view of the universe and history into religious people's faces as the anti-gospel truth? I can respect a person who has a different view point, but using that view point as a weapon when evidence has clearly shown it is not entirely rock solid seems a bit arrogant, yet these are the people calling others ignorant?
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee Evidence my friend. The scientific community admits they are falsifiable and looks for evidence to falsify it -- because if they do it allows progress. The religious community doesn't even wish to acknowledge and sometimes even just falls back on "well you can't prove it wrong so it's not wrong" It's poor argument and in some cases is very arrogant. There are ways to argue points for believing in creationism unfortunately they are rare. Quoting the bible isn't a valid argument.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@bubsadoozy Ah so its "My conclusions that I have drawn based on admittedly flawed assumptions are far superior to your conclusions based on personal experience and religious doctrine."
I'm not saying people quoting science texts are wrong. I just feel their sense of superiority is wrong, and just plain silly. Most people aren't scientists. They throw 'facts' at you like they know what they're talking about but they've just read it in a book without testing it. Kinda religiously, actually.
ppardee 1 month ago
@ppardee I don't wish to say one is better than the other. There is a little more behind *thinking that the scientific take is more *logical,however, both could in fact be wrong. I think the only thing concerning both takes on the universal is that there is progress to be made concerning *knowledge with the scientific take which arguably can't be made through a personal assumption. As for people throwing out scientific fact, there are misguided, ignorant zealots on both sides -- ignore them.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@bubsadoozy
I don't say things like "you can't prove it wrong, so it isn't", nor do I quote the Bible as my proof. but i'm sure being biased against the entire religious community proves your point perfectly
PoopTastesLikeCandy 1 month ago
@PoopTastesLikeCandy Please read the full argument before commenting. I went back on that with the next rebuttal to his post. Being biased has nothing to do with any point I had to make. I'm simply trying to say that no one is definitely right, everyone could in fact be wrong.
bubsadoozy 1 month ago
@bubsadoozy
I agree. It just appeared that you were biased; I apologize.
PoopTastesLikeCandy 1 month ago 3
if jesus is involved in the title expect a heated debate about religion -_- now onto important matter why was william shatner in the new star trek movie? and now my actual question what season is this from
robozombisaur 2 months ago
mary: honey why'd u get a loom?
sheldon: i was working with luminous fish and thought hey? loom
crashbasher09 2 months ago
i watched this episode today
bmxdude2471 2 months ago
Ok, really? Since when has it become necessary to have a debate every single time someone mentions God or Jesus in a video? Your comment isn't going to change anyone's beliefs. This is simply a funny video from the Big Bang Theory, that makes people laugh. It wasn't meant to provoke controversy in the comments page of a YouTube video. So can we please just watch the video and not get all angry about a single sentence. Thanks!
scholar5212 2 months ago
@scholar5212 You just dont understand how harmfull and evil religions are. We have to fight against them, everywhere, all the time. Untill they are gone.
bary1234 2 months ago
Jesus is not nor was ever real.
redrum41987 2 months ago
TBBT comments can reach another level of total crap. It's mind-expanding ... not.
isbourne 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
holy hell, how many people from Roseanne are on here?????
OPearth 2 months ago
I have a handmade poncho, they are so soft and comfty
FireFlight19943 2 months ago
mention jesus in youtube and WHUOP
hotnovel 2 months ago
Eww look at the comments.
C'mon people, discuss this stuff with others in your life not a comments section. I find it a bit sad and in vain.
FlintSparkedStudios 2 months ago
@DHerr430, @eyeammi,
Yeah, I misread DHerr430's statement too. He did make that first mistake, but it doesn't appear that his understanding of the two terms are wrong when he clarified them further.
I think he was referring to agnostics believing in a higher power in specific refutation of bary1234's claim that the terms were synonymous.
@bary1234 seems to think that agnosticism and atheism are much the same thing, when they are not. Two completely different claims, on two different axes.
falcon12687 2 months ago in playlist The Big Bang Theory
@falcon12687 Agnostics dont have a god. Do they?
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 "Agnostics dont have a god. They are Atheists."
That is incorrect. The two terms, gnosticism and theism, are completely different claims, but are misused in popular culture to mean roughly the same thing.
Gnosticism is a claim to knowledge, and Theism is a claim to belief.
So you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist and the positions are not mutually exclusive; it just means that neither side KNOWS there is or isn't a God.
falcon12687 2 months ago in playlist The Big Bang Theory
@falcon12687 : Are you saying Agnostics believe in a god?
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234
What I'm saying is that some agnostics believe in God and some don't. Gnosticism is not a claim to belief. Gnosticism is a claim to knowledge, whereas theism is a claim to belief.
In other words, there can be an agnostic theist who believes there is a God, but doesn't claim to know there is one, just as there can be a gnostic theist who not only believes in a God, but claims to know there is a God.
That's the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Two axes on the same graph.
falcon12687 2 months ago
@falcon12687 : Yeah, thats the way it goes. Agnostic Theist and Agnostic Atheist are different.
Just by saying somebody is Agnostic you have not said much about his beliefs, he can still be either superstitious or sane.
It so dumb we have to have all these labels for degrees of superstition.
bary1234 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMY IS TAKING PRECIOUS TIME AWAY FROM PENNY AND SHELDON!!!
Spread the word!!
Chowmix12 2 months ago
ANNNDDDD I'm ignoring the pointless argument of ANOTHER YouTube video
blazed101 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
tatianamveloso 2 months ago
what episode?
crash2cute 2 months ago
as I recall, none of the characters from The Big Bang Theory are atheist
AmazinglyAwesomes 2 months ago
@AmazinglyAwesomes any evidence for that whatsoever?
SuppleOldMan 2 months ago
@AmazinglyAwesomes : Dude, they are scientists. None of them believe in the talking donkeys or flying horses or biblical flood or any of that embarrassing nonsense of religions.
bary1234 2 months ago
Comment removed
AmazinglyAwesomes 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bary1234 In one of the episodes leonard specificly says he's agnostic.
AmazinglyAwesomes 2 months ago
@AmazinglyAwesomes : Off course he does. He is a scientist.
Agnostics dont believe in a god, they are Atheists.
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 Agnostic's believe in a higher power. Atheism is rejecting any existence of Deities. They're different.
DHerr430 2 months ago
@DHerr430 : Nope.
If you believe in a in "higher power" you are a deist.
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, while Atheism is disbelieving in any God's overall. Cmon dude, you can look this stuff up if you want. Not hard.
DHerr430 2 months ago
@DHerr430 : If you have never heard about gods, you are an Atheist. No "disbelief" is needed.
All newborn babies are Atheists. Atheism is the default position.
If you cant name or explain the god you believe in, you are an Atheist. Agnostics dont have a god. They are Atheists.
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 Oh, and within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that). So once again, completely different. Do the research.
DHerr430 2 months ago
@DHerr430 : Agnostic Atheist is pretty much the position of all honest humans.
We can clearly see all man-made religions are complete bullshit, zombie-jebus and allah and all that jazz are just idiotic crap.
But we cant say we know everything. So out there in the vastness of the universe migh lurk some "higher powers." Who knows.
bary1234 2 months ago
@DHerr430 I'd suggest a dictionary as the bare minimum preparation for knowing what the hell you're talking about. If you're too lazy for that, you might consider not speaking... ever...
eyeammi 2 months ago
@eyeammi Oh yeah? Kinda funny considering there wasn't anything wrong with what i posted. Do YOU have any input about Agnostics and Atheists being the same? If not, kindly get the fuck off of this comment board and go crawl back under a cave where you belong, troll.
DHerr430 2 months ago
@DHerr430 So, you ARE too lazy to crack open a dictionary. Bary1234 already explained it adequately. I'd just like to add that the word "agnostic" has no restriction to being applied to religion or god(s). The word applies to any subject that a person can say they know or don't know to be true. It literally means, without knowledge. In other words, if a human can conceive of it, you can be an agnostic towards it. You can't, however, be agnostic about something & believe in it at the same time.
eyeammi 2 months ago
@eyeammi And did i not just explain that? Use your fucking brain and read my most recent comments below to Bary1234. "applies to any subject that a person can say they know or don't know to be true" Which is in this case, a God. Sounds familiar to me considering i just posted "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God" As well as "within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility)".
DHerr430 2 months ago
@eyeammi Maybe instead of making false accusations towards people telling them to open up dictionaries or not talk at all, you should do a little research your self. Better yet, you don't even have to do research, just READ my fucking comments and maybe you'd have a brief understanding of how stupid you are. You DO realize you're on the side of someone who believes atheism and agnosticism is the same thing, right? Go ahead and take a little time to reflect on that one, buddy. Hahahaha.
DHerr430 2 months ago
@DHerr430 Sorry, I did read those comments but I misread them as if they were from Bary1234 to you instead of the other way around. However, I made that mistake because your 1st comment:
"Agnostic's believe in a higher power"
This implies that atheism & agnosticism are mutually exclusive, so you were basically refuting yourself in your later comments. But that doesn't surprise me. That's what happens when you plagiarize from Wikipedia without actually understanding what you're plagiarizing.
eyeammi 2 months ago
i think she means that the "Science stuff sheldon knows was given from jesus since none of his family studies science
MrZimJimSlim 2 months ago 10
@MrZimJimSlim I tend to believe knowledge is not genetic. Ergo the conclusion being Sheldon learned science stuff in school. His family doesn't have to study science and beam it into his brain or transform it into his gene sequence by procreation. Humans gain knowledge not by hardwiring but by experience
Frets200 1 month ago
Not exactly knowing what you belive in for the win!
FuyuAkiWorld 2 months ago
"All that science stuff,that comes from Jesus." Ha,Leonard's face XD
BrittanyAlto 2 months ago
i like how sheldons mom is jackie grom roseanne leonard was david and the darline had 3 or 4 cameos
guitarplayinggoddess 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I was working with luminous fish and I thought..hey..loom!" XD
Casabase91 3 months ago
Comment removed
Casabase91 3 months ago
"All that science stuff...that comes from jesus"!!!...ROFLOLMAO!!!!!...XD
ajdrage 3 months ago 4
Sheldon's mom is hilarious but not as funny as Sheldon is
IndigoCat17 3 months ago
It's a poncho. I wear a poncho now. Poncho's are cool.
airnbobo 3 months ago 32
@airnbobo You combined Doctor Who and TBBT!?
You are my hero.
bimaru12 3 months ago
And I thought: "Mini-Bites" - Product placement. And forgot the rest of it.
camarillo17 3 months ago
And I thought.. Hey..! ...... Loom...!
Ristengirl876 3 months ago
HAHAHAHA! i love how i didn't read the title so the ending really caught me off-guard! xD
Th3Sp3ct4t0r 3 months ago
So where are the jokes?
stopcicles 3 months ago
@stopcicles In B^U
chipman3d 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just want to say the best thing about The Big Bang Theory is that it DOESN'T air on NBC. If it did, the jerks at that company would be taking all videos (of the show) off Youtube left and right, so I'm glad they (NBC) have no control over this funny sitcom. Good job, CBS! (8^)
AlBundyFan365 3 months ago
I thought Sheldon believed in evolution??
partyman147 4 months ago
lol
ldegeeter1 4 months ago
You know in a technical sense that science stuff does come from Jesus, If you believe in Chrisitianity. But Im muslim so I disagree with that comment...
MAMJAM55 4 months ago
@MAMJAM55 I'm muslim too. You should know that Islam agrees with The Big Bang Theory. c:
Darkownage2 3 months ago
@Darkownage2 Um no
MAMJAM55 3 months ago
@MAMJAM55 Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?.. [Noble Quran 21:30]
Darkownage2 3 months ago
@Darkownage2 Oh I get what your talking about, but the big bang theory I know about states that by no intelligent being the universe started with a bang, but nice refrence
MAMJAM55 3 months ago
@MAMJAM55 Ah yes... Well that's the part I, just like you, don't believe in.
Darkownage2 3 months ago
Atheism for the win!
bary1234 4 months ago 65
@bary1234 Why do I have to get pissed so often by christians and debating atheists on simple science channel videos so often?! I am atheist but that's because of my passion for science which lead me to the conclusion that religion is wrong in so many claims and aspects.
UnleashedFire 2 months ago
@UnleashedFire You get pissed because you dont understand how dangerous religion is, and how important it is to fight against superstition.
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 Christianity for the win!
Albert Einstein was a Christian.
Yeeahh.
IWasBornStupid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IWasBornStupid Einsteins reply to that very same baseless accusation made against him during his lifetime:
Eistein: "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."
Einstein was not in the zombie-cult of human sacrifice and cannibalism. He had a functional brain.
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 That is just a Horrible disgrace for you to have said, Jesus gave his life for you to live and not suffer in The eternal pit of hell. You should be ashamed of what you have said. I am breathtakingly distressed at the number of people who have added a like to this comment
ltloganwaffle0 2 months ago
@ltloganwaffle0 : Nope, jebus is a lie. Dont believe in lies.
Who lied to you about gods, can you remember?
bary1234 2 months ago
@ltloganwaffle0 How do you know any of that is true?
You claim to know that Jesus gave his life for us to live and not suffer, but do you have any actual evidence to back up that claim? That's all atheists are asking for. Atheists don't think they should be ashamed of asking for proof, and neither should you.
All we are saying is "I don't believe you, please give me some evidence or reason to believe you and I will gladly cede my argument." That's how reason works.
falcon12687 2 months ago
@falcon12687 I now understand your argument, but have you read the Bible?
ltloganwaffle0 2 months ago
@ltloganwaffle0 I have indeed read the Bible. I don't see what you're getting at. The Bible is not evidence of the divine, it is simply a book written during the Bronze and Iron Ages by various authors that happens to have various truths and fictions in it. Rationalists generally live by the creed that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While there are certainly some historically accurate events and mentions, that doesn't mean it is /all/ historically accurate.
falcon12687 2 months ago
I can't wait for Roseann to guest star.
GOOJAJ 4 months ago
I just KNEW the very title of this video was spark a prolonged religious debate. I'm Christian and even I find that sad.
Kaagh178 4 months ago 50
@Kaagh178 I also find it sad that you are a christian.
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 I find it sad that you're a religiously intolerant bigot. Go away. There are enough people in the world like you that can't accept people for who they are or what they believe and want to change them. I have faith. I will never change and there's nothing you can do about it. So there. I don't hate Atheists. They should be allowed to believe what they want to believe. And so should believers. That's fair isn't it?
Kaagh178 2 months ago
@Kaagh178 : Off course you can and will believe anything you want, and I know I cant help you.
When religious people stop systematically indoctrinating defenceless children in to their sick cults, I can stop fighting against them. Brainwashing in to superstition is criminal child abuse, and it causes permanent braindamage. That shit has to stop.
So yeah, lets give all humans a free choice. We apparently want the same thing.
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 You sound reasonable enough. I can see your point of view even if I don't agree entirely with it. As for me, I'm strongly against Christening. Its like Baptism, except for the fundamental difference that babies are given to the Lord before they are old enough to think for themselves and choose. With Baptism you have a choice. With Christening you don't. Just my opinion. My belief is that God gave all humans freewill to do as they choose, aside from murder, rape and steal.
Kaagh178 2 months ago
@Kaagh178 : Actually its not your own belief, its just something you heard and adopted. The culture you happened to born in to dictated your religion.
Nobody comes up with jebus on their own, its always picked up from advertising or indoctrination. Always with just stories from humans, never with evidence or reason. Sort of sad, back to my original point.
bary1234 2 months ago
@bary1234 There IS evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Ask any historian you can find. That's why the term BC exists. However, as to whether or not he actually performed miracles or rose again, that depends on your own belief. And it IS my own belief so I'll stick to it thank you very much. I chose Christ. He offered me eternal life in return for devotion to him. And its not a choice I regret making at all. blazed101 is right, this is a rather pointless argument, so I'll end it here. Goodbye.
Kaagh178 2 months ago
@Kaagh178 : Jesus the average dude has lived millions of times. Supernatural zombie-jesus never existed.
Goodbye, take care!
bary1234 2 months ago
@Kaagh178 D: Mhhhmmm.
IWasBornStupid 2 months ago
@Kaagh178 Why do you find it sad? There's NOTHING wrong about debating and discussing. Are you just one of those christians who are pissed because SOME people dont think the way you do? If so, get open-minded. #BELIEVING IN SCIENCE!
NGC3370JT 2 months ago
@NGC3370JT I find it sad because its a comedy. Its not supposed to lead to a Religion VS Science argument. That said, there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate. And no I'd rather people didn't all think as one and thought for themselves. As stated in some of my previous comments, I believe God created man to have freewill. We're allowed to think what we want. Atheists are fine with me. Its their opinion and I have my own. Personally, I have no problem with Science either.
Kaagh178 2 months ago
@Kaagh178 I know, all these atheist fuckers.
God bless you
Alecalisk 2 months ago
@Alecalisk Atheist fuckers, eh? The title of the damn show is evidence you're made of bullshit.
DarthRelkan795 2 months ago
@DarthRelkan795 God created the earth and the humans
'nuff said
Alecalisk 2 months ago
everyone on youtube is a PHD carrying philosopher or scientist!
KowaruKei 4 months ago 2
0:49 did he mess up?
WeirdIdeasCO 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Alright, im gonna take a shit, when i come back i expect this to be the top comment.
turtlepturtle 4 months ago
i can't see a fundamentalist christian saying the "science stuff" comes from JESUS, dont they generally regard science as an evil conspiracy from satan to drive god out of public schools and corrupt the morals of the country?
tuseroni 5 months ago
@tuseroni .... really???????
mleone97 5 months ago
@tuseroni well some i think are changing there stance on science since day by day there more are seeing them as the crazy ones
5H4K490 5 months ago
@tuseroni ....no
ChrisSousaPortugal 4 months ago
@ChrisSousaPortugal google "evolution satan"
evolution is kinda the flagship under which fundamentalists launch their general hatred of science. fundamentalists believe all knowledge must come from the bible, everything else is of the devil. and the only way to rectify the fact that >98% of scientists accept evolution is a conspiracy of all the scientists, since evolution is often used to refute the bible, the logical reason for this manufactured conspiracy is satan driving god out of schools.
tuseroni 4 months ago
@tuseroni I believe and this is my statement on it that whoever has the knowledge like someone in science that God gave them a gift to use it for better of man kind and as a talent should go with what they know. Its the same with singing or martial arts if you have that talent that God gives you use it.
jp3711nc1 4 months ago
@jp3711nc1 I don't mean to further a dispute, but why in the world would god give someone a talent that would help disprove his existence?
BokuWaJShi 4 months ago
@BokuWaJShi Its a talent but they can choose not to believe like I choose to believe we have free will for a reason.
jp3711nc1 4 months ago
Comment removed
BokuWaJShi 4 months ago
Comment removed
BokuWaJShi 4 months ago
@BokuWaJShi two words. Free Will.
Jezthevalley 4 months ago
@Jezthevalley If god doesn't exist, there would be no will to give in the first place.
BokuWaJShi 4 months ago
@Jezthevalley Also, /watch?v=SzHHZ5oXAr0
BokuWaJShi 4 months ago
@Jezthevalley free will cannot exist according to religion because the bible contains many stories and examples that actually show fate and predestination, for example free will cannot exist because the book of revelations says the Antichrist will rise, which means that the Antichrist has no choice in the matter of being an enemy of god, he was created for that purpose and therefore cannot choose another path.
demigod2324 4 months ago
@demigod2324 so if I say that most people in the world will wake up tomorrow morning and go to work, does it mean that free will don't exist because I predicted what they will do?
Jezthevalley 4 months ago
@Jezthevalley i think demigod is talking about the literal "morals" and rules of the bible.. most "christians don't follow their holy book and i think demigod is just pointing that out.. "don't go bible crazy on people if you don't follow your goshdarn book"
or he may be talkinga bout something else but this is what i got from your convo i read.. :D
joshuagoboom 4 months ago
@Jezthevalley No you've missed his point entirely. He's saying that the Bible contradicts itself as it says there is free will but then certain things in the Bible are "predetermined". Obviously predestination and freewill can't both be true. He's not saying this means the Bible is correct, he's saying that the Bible is impossible to follow because it contradicts itself.
MaximumCheeseage 4 months ago
@MaximumCheeseage Yeah, predetermined like how God planned to get his people out of Egypt through Moses. However, i didn't read anything about anybody losing their ability to choose when God led them out of that place.
Jezthevalley 4 months ago
@Jezthevalley Well if you say "I have chosen for person X to do something" then they don't have the choice not to do it do they?
MaximumCheeseage 4 months ago
@MaximumCheeseage you'll understand my point better if you actually read the exodus story. Moses had the ability to refuse all along. But he believed that it was God when he saw the unconsumed burning bush. So he CHOSE to do it.
Jezthevalley 4 months ago
@BokuWaJShi I don't think that intelligence (aka the 'talent' you speak of) help disproves His existence. The thing is, too many people, atheists and theists alike, take the story of the Creation on a literal level, thus creating the stupid Science vs Religion war we all know of. Personnally, I believe the Bible to be more of an analysis of the Human Nature, and our place in the 'Creation'. This is a more fitting view of religion as its purpose, plus it doesn't contradict actual, factual science
ChevaliersEmeraude 4 months ago
@ChevaliersEmeraude First off, I didn't call it a talent, whoever I responded to did. And secondly, if you're going to be halfhearted about believing one thing or the other, then I don't know what to say. What the Bible says, especially in the first testiment, was no "if you want to believe this, or take this metaphorically, then do so". It said things as if they actually happened, no questions asked. I understand taking certain aspects and lessons from religion, but there is no halfway point.
BokuWaJShi 4 months ago
@ChevaliersEmeraude Taking the Bible as a psychological book rather than fact is alright I suppose, but mostly if you aren't part of the religion itself. But I'm pretty sure it makes it clear what part of the "Creation" it believes we were in. Science also makes it pretty clear what part of "Creation" it believes we were in. To me, if one or more parts are flawed, the view of the Bible as a "history book" looses all credibility.
BokuWaJShi 4 months ago
@BokuWaJShi Oh, I agree, viewing the Bible as factual science makes it uncredible. And like I said, too many people, both theists or atheists, do that! The thing is, it was never intended to be one, the truths in religion do not belongs with the events it describes, but much more in the teachings those described events ought to teach us. Bible's truth are more metaphysical in nature. Same for all religion, really! It's something people should try to remember, I believe...
ChevaliersEmeraude 4 months ago
@ChevaliersEmeraude See, don't get me wrong. I don't see anything wrong with just looking at it as a book of life lessons rather than a history book. I suppose you could say I believe in a meta-physical god that comes more from a community who share the same beliefs. But not an all-powerful god who is the master puppeteer of the universe.
BokuWaJShi 4 months ago
I want John Goodman to make an appearance as Leonard's father :)
gertiecummings 5 months ago
10 people want sheldons poncho
mcbubbles987 5 months ago
if that recording of laughter wasnt playing. i think this should never get a laugh.
kathy160 5 months ago
what????
thedoorman135 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OMG, I'd love to bend Sheldon's mom over and do her until she screamed for Jesus!
ButtBouncer500 5 months ago
Shedon is as tranditional as those women in the remote country such as in china
Gotshan 5 months ago