Added: 2 years ago
From: bigwhammyRocks
Views: 5,742
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (355)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Only from JESUS CHRIST and in HIM can humanity's spiritual pride,stubborness,blind conscience,and being can be removed...No one can really see and and have a real genuine relationship with GOD without the SPIRIT OF GOD who leads through JESUS CHRIST.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Science starts with the facts and draws it's conclusion from the fcats.

    The conclusion can be superceded as new facts are discovered.

    Creationism starts with the conclusion and attempts to manufacture facts to fit that conclusion.

    No matter what new information comes to the fore, the initial conclusion can never be altered.

    You couldn't get two more opposing world views.

    Conclusion? Creation is not science and never can be unless it goes through the scientific method.

  • Atheism is not Faith, in fact it is quite the opposite

  • I am disturbed by the idea that these words invigorate purple dressed rapists distressing their victims

  • I thought the word was bird...

    Space and time might not have existed without the point of creation, but the laws of physics could. They are like numbers, or the concept of reality: they do not require the physical presence of anything. Heisenberg´s uncertainty principle allows for at least small amounts of energy to be created out of nothing, for a short period of time, by something described as "quantum fluctuations".

    And laws do make what you describe vaguely as choices. To work. Always.

  • Thank you for proving that Zeus had a hand on the creation of the universe

  • this doc needs a better narrator 

  • Superb documentary. Thanks for uploading.

  • The issue with creation 'science,' is that theology is not a science, and its more of a metaphysical realm,which defeats the purpose as a science. Its pointless to go about justifying it as a 'science' to a holy text, as the stories in the holy book, were not intended to do so, and that is pseudo-science to do so,because you are basing your understanding on a non-scientific methodology to define what science actually is.

  • If God were to offer the human family irrefutable proof of Himself, our subsequent submission would be nothing more than an intellectually necessary assent...NOT a willing submission born of our own volition and free will. There will never be proof of God until the return of Christ, supportive evidence yes, proof never. "A balance is also needed for developing the "living by faith" character so highly valued by God." - C.S. Lewis

  • Everyone here keeps saying "then who created God? God had to have been created" this is false, God was not created, he has always been, God doesn't have "time" as we know it. Our brains can't understand this, but we only use about 10% of our brains, I think God designed our brains to understand

  • @FURRYDulaman

    It's really funny that Christians have such a distorted view of reality. The believe a primitive book was the word of god when it is riddled with mistakes and contradictions, including stuff that they don't even believe in themselves.

    Then they say that evolution can't happen because science is wrong when they accept everything else in science except for the origin of the Universe.

    They are so deluded. Even the Qu'ran makes more sense.

  • @patrickcorliss you do know that evolution is still a theory right? there is no REAL evidence... yeah lolpwned. and athiests think it's their job to go around and pick on christians and tell them that they're distorted and brainwashed, you all sound like 9 year olds im serious, grow up kid. roflolmao. any responses from you will be instantly deleted unread i don't feel like arguing with a little child.

  • @FURRYDulaman

    Hey, Furry. That's the standard response of Christian fundamentalists in the United States. Put your fingers in your ear and shout "La la la la la".

    You say "evolution is still a theory, right?". Sure. It's the same as other "theories". Like the "theory of gravity" which holds down the Earth's atmosphere. I don't see you arguing that one.

    Or the "theory of relativity" which produced the atom bomb. Ooops.

    What about "the theory that God created everything"?

  • @patrickcorliss All those theories you mentioned have been proven, a theory is a hypothesis that has been well supported by science but is NOT proven, so until they can prove evolution, i won't believe it. And who's to say it isn't real? If it is christianity is still a valid religion rofl. U fail. Any resonses from u will be deleted, not because im scared but because ill just come up with some way to counter you, this would go on forever lolz.

  • @patrickcorliss

    Hi Brennan. You look very artistic and creative. I hope you are not gay as your religion is rather intolerant of such a sexual orientation.

    "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death."

    That's Leviticus. I don't believe it. Do you?

  • This entire video is based on the assumption that there was nothing before the beginning of the universe. That is completely WRONG. You can't get something from nothing.... therefor the idea of creation is invalid.

  • @Ondrix

    Of course anybody can make generalisation such as "you can't get something from nothing" as if that proves their religion right.

    First it's not true as proved by quantum mechanics. Secondly it doesn't solve the question as to who created God.

    So religion comes up with the fantasy that this imaginary being must have existed forever. That's just as or even more illogical.

    So what it boils down to is do you believe scientists or your pastor?

  • @patrickcorliss WTF are you talking about? I wasn't arguing on religion and if I was I wouldn't argue FOR religion. I am an athiest. I was arguing that because you can't get something from nothing the idea of creation from nothing is wrong.

    You should really pay attention to what your reading before you make a reply next time.

  • @Ondrix

    My apologies if I misunderstood you. Your message was not so long and it uses, or seems to use, the standard religious argument namely "How could the Universe have started from nothing?"

    Putting that aside for one minute, the Steady State theory of the Universe has been abandoned by science. The currently accepted theory is the Big Bang which happened 13.75 billion years ago.

    What do you think happened?

  • Eerything has a cause eh? What about your God? Does he not need a creator? Your logic FAILS. If the universe has to have been created, then the creator has to have been created.

  • @Griffdog28jr

    They dodge that by saying he always existed, lol.

    Without realising that's even more illogical.

  • Your video is very flashy but doesn't really prove that creation is the correct origin of anything really. The art of scientific discovery doesn't necessarily point to the right answer immediately, it takes time to uncover the facts of life. It wasn't so long ago that people knew that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. We know otherwise nowadays because of scientific discovery. Science merely offers a logical possibility until said possibility can be proven or disproven.

  • Hawkings is an atheist........ XDDDDDD

  • When do you plan on providing evidence to support your claim of a creator?

  • assume we lived a million years and assume its only one second for the universe, even if so many million years pass it can only be counted a few second to the universe, if what we call time really do exists. these scientist are making a fool out of us. they r making us believe what they want us to believe.

  • @sathish1317

    "Assume this" and "assume that" is not a valid argument.

    The Universe is 13.75 billion years old.

  • I believe the universe is in a constant recycling state between 2 dimensions. I believe that when the universe explosively expanded it created a black hole in the centre which acts like Newton’s cradle, I'm not trying to say your theory is wrong, just trying to add my viewpoint. I don't believe in god as we know it but I do believe there are much greater forces at work in the universe, to which we could never truly understand their being.

  • @mansuri11 I agree. I think the universe is in a constant recycling state as well. However, there are theories that support the existence of many dimensions. Science allows you to change and learn and adjust theory into provable fact as the information comes. It takes no faith to be an atheist. There is no dogma. There is not mythos. To be able to do the right things because they are right and not because it is mandated by an invisible being takes empathy, compassion, understanding and true love

  • @mansuri11

    You said "I believe that the universe is in a constant recycling state . . ."

    Well, no it isn't. Certainly there are great forces at work.

    If you want the truth, I’d strongly recommend watching one of the most brilliant scientists in the world talking about cosmology and the mystery of the Universe.

    It’s Lawrence Krauss. Even if you only understand a bit - like me - it will blow your mind. On YouTube at watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

  • I don't think it would matter if Jesus was standing in front of us all. As long as man loves his sinfulness, he can not love God, evident or not.

  • So if you aer saying that everything had a cause, what caused god?

  • FUCK YOUR GOD

  • In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Even if that line is correct (and that would require a less literal use of the word earth) you still have a heck of a long way to go even if is in 4 four parts.

    Are you cherry picking from a Holy Text?

    Oh, well. On to part two for more chuckles.

  • IT IS ALWAYS FUNNY TO SEE THE CREATIONISTS TRY TO CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT THERE IS god

  • @JourneyOfFacts its even funnier to see god-haters try to escape reality so they can live wicked without the thought of ultimate consequence.

  • @JourneyOfFacts

    Actually that comment is more meaningful than you know. I agree they are not trying to convince us, the audience. Nor are they really trying to convince themselves.

    What they are doing is putting up a false front in order to justify their attachment to a religion which makes no sense at any level.

    The real question is why do they do that? The philopher Dan Dennett has answered it very well.

    On YouTube at watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE

  • It's depressing watching people argue about something nobody knows anything about. What created the universe? Nobody knows. What happens after you die? Nobody knows. Yet ppl fight over who has the monopoly on knowing, who is right and wrong. Says more about our species than it does the universe.

  • @ytupld

    You said "What created the Universe? Nobody knows."

    Well they do know. Or at least have a pretty good idea.

    See one of the most brilliant scientists in the world talking about cosmology and the mystery of the Universe.

    It’s Lawrence Krauss. Even if you only understand a bit - like me - it will blow your mind. On YouTube at watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

  • The Big Bang contradicts the biblical creation story. You can not accept evolution, and the Big Bang, and believe in biblical Christianity.Those two scientific theories, disprove the bible. Genesis is totally opposite of Big Bang Cosmology.

  • @KevZen2000

    You said "Yiou cannot accept evolution and the Big Bang and believe in biblical Christianity."

    It's funny but Muslims believe in the creation of the Universe over six "periods of time" rather than days. The Old Earth view. But not evolution.

    So they believe in the Big Bang but not Evolution from the Qu'ran.

    What I don't understand is how the "Old Earth" view go beaten by the "Young Earth" view in Christianity. At least the first makes some sense.

  • They might have all kinds of scientific knowledge, sure, and they might be intellectually giftes in those fields but apparently theyre lacking in the logic department, along with the rest of the people stupid enough to be blinded to the obvious fact that religion is just some pathetic way of refusing to deal with reality. Sorry to break it to you folks

  • What is reality? You life you die and there nothing after it and there is no meaning to life???? Perhaps your view of reality it skewed because you are surrounded by a world of people that tell you you are right. But that doen't mean you are. If I say 1+1=2 but the entire world says its 3, that doesn't make me wrong. What if religion is reality?? Some of the most brilliant people in the world were Christians. There can only be 1 right answers to this issue though. And it all come down to faith.

  • wow really? you wanna talk statistics? theres less then 25% in the entire world who arent part of some religion or another, and im talking beliefs not this bullshit where if yur parents baptise you at the age of 20 days yur 'catholic' im talking ppl who can actually think for themselves. so you tell me whose forcing what on who. and i can respect ppl who believe, if you wanna delude yurself its ur call. what i CANT do is sit there while some idiot attempts to force his beliefs on others

  • You can believe w/e the fuck you want, just sjut up about it and let everyone else believe what they believe. And intelligent debates about different religions or religion vs atheism is ccompletely different, conversion attempts just piss me off

  • I will believe want I want and I really don't care what you believe in or not. Do as you will. Why are you debating in a comment section over religion if you don't want anybody trying to prove you wrong? Why are you watching a video that goes against your beliefs?

  • I watch these videos because the stupidity is fairly amusing to me, and i commented on his video. you responded so i responded, why i commented? also amusement. The fact that i prove yur arguement wrong so you start taking what i said and turning it into 'why are you here then' is pretty funny gj

  • You are a qutoe mining little shit, and pathetic for doing so. Richard dawkins is anything but a creationist so anything pulled from his quotations is obvious bullshit taken more then likely out of context. Reverting analogies into 'proof' is just retarded. Saying its like a religious person looking at God or saying its the Holy Grail of science does NOT make it proof that there was intelligence behind the universe coming to be. those 2 scientists talking about what proof it is, are just dumb

  • He is just stating facts. The fact that those facts were first stated by someone else doesn't mean anything. Can you explain evolution with out stating any ideas Darwin's "Origins of Species" or anything any scientist since then has said? NO! You would just be "a qutoe mining little shit" right? and "pathetic for doing so" right? Can you provide proof for anything that you believe about the origin of life and the universe? Can you provide it? I'd be really glad to hear a response.

  • Wow learn WTF yur talking you dumb shit, quote mining is taking what someone else said and using it out of their intended context to prove your point, restating a previous theory is NOT quote mining, taking what someone said and turning around the meaning is just sad

  • 3:04 (Atheism is the faith that god does not exist)...."Atheism in the name of God is an abandonment of all religious beliefs . . . giving up the attempt to make sense of the world in terms of any fixed idea or intellectual system. It is becoming again as a child and laying oneself open to reality as it is actually and directly felt, experiencing it without trying to categorize, identify or name it"

  • How is it that people watching this don't see the wool being pulled over their eyes when they jump directly from "the big bang has a lot of scientific support" to "the god of the bible is the truth".... what???

  • "doctrine of the atheist faith" - it's hysterical how these people can't understand that atheism is the rejection of faith. It's not like it's that hard of a concept. Then again, I wouldn't credit these people with being able to deal with even easy concepts.

  • •intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed

    •personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices).

    Need assumptions to make your argument work? Assume away.

  • The statement that the universe "was precisely designed" is an unsupported claim.

    Of course impersonal forces don't make choices. What makes you think a choice was made?

    You're making assumptions just like anyone else.

  • They aren't my assumptions they are his.

  • I was just pointing out that they are bullshit even for an assumption.

  • Ahh... sorry, I didn't see that it was a reply.

  • No problem ;P

  • I love the false assumptions and logical fallacies for the existence of a Christian Creator.............It's laugable.

    But the upbeat music, together with the outright lies of a "Creation" really did it for me.

    There's no way science could dispute this logic. "God must has done it."

    (Sarcasm)

  • lol @ your ignorance, you just dont like that God is over you, tell me where did we get the definitions of the omni?...0.o stop being stupid on purpose

  • Stupid on purpose? I thought the comment was rather funny.

    Why would an atheist (as I assume bigboy is) not like god being over him when he doesn't believe that a god exists?

    We get definitions of omni from the same place we get definitions of every other words.

  • Hawking's an atheist like Einstein. I expect you'll do fine-tuning next. How embarassing.

  • It must be hard to bother to make something from nothing - especially when there are no laws of Physics to prevent it happening in your absence.

  • You even say it yourself - there was no nature. Don't expect Willie Craig or the sap Turek to help you here. Their 'cause' punt is not even true within our spacetime. But anyway, tell me how you know what the rules were when there were no rules, what the laws of physics were when there was no physics.

  • Exactly.

  • so much is factually wrong with this video

  • I wish I could give you a thumbs up. At least they are allowing comments. That's a start.

  • Wait there!! Where was the scientific fact of creation?? These kinda video just reek of desperation!!!!!

  • So you are saying because there was a big bang, and you claim this created all matter and all time. that the supernatural being who created this is same same being talked to by Moses on top of a mountain 3000 years ago and carried to Jerualem in a box called the arc of the covenant?

  • You said it, natural forces could not create the universe cause there was no nature before the big bang.

  • The Bible is not a science textbook, but what it does say is true. The origin of the universe, earth and mankind is relevant to us. God ordained the sciences when He said, in Genesis 1:28 to "subdue" the earth. Mankind started as human beings, but the accumulation of knowledge would be a gradual process as man "subdued" the earth. It makes sense that a flute ~"20,000" years old...indicated human intelligence similar to ours today. Errors in C14 dating makes it appear older than it is.

  • Ok, thanks for the response.

  • Your welcome and thanks for politely considering my response, even if you may disagree. I will strive to do the same.

  • Scientific fact is based on things that can be observed and tested, creation is based on assumption. Therefore you cannot say that creation is a 'scientific fact'...

  • benzie101: You are absolutely correct and I have never and will never assert that Creation by God is a "scientific fact." I can't demonstrate that, but the other two criteria for knowledge (science), which is, it must be true and it must be believed are met. I *can* say that the facts interpreted logically support a supposition of Creation much better than the presumptuous and meandering tale of evolutionism. IF God exists, then naturalism will never get the correct answer. He is.

  • Re: bigboy. Redefining "science" the bait-and-switch tactic of atheists. Science means "to know." Scientific pursuit does not arbitrarily exclude suppositions based upon a worldview. Knowledge: 1) it is true 2) it is believed 3) demonstrated to be true. By definition, once something is truly "science," the debate is over...all the rest is supposition with or without belief.

     The things which are not debatable, center with pinpoint accuracy upon a Creator; a supernatural being.

  • Actually, science does not deal with anything that involves the supernatural or anything that can not be tested or falsified. This being true, it seems to do quite alright without supernatural explanations. There is always debate within science (it never stops) because science never claims anything to ever be 100% proven because new evidence can be discovered at any time that alters or adds to the theory, etc. Science cares about evidence and explanatory power.

  • There is evidence that argues against the earth being billions of years old. There is evidence that indicates impossible mathematical odds of information in DNA assembling itself without an author. When it comes to origins, the naturalistic rigidity fails to provide a plausible explanation. Tell me how "evolution" can be falsified? Certainly the tests that attempt a model of evolution with bacteria or fruit flies, etc. have failed to make a convincing argument for evolutionism.

  • lol, ok where is this evidence? I didn't ask for assertions, I asked for evidence. If you are speaking origins of the universe then you are correct in saying that science does not yet know. However, it is better to have no answer yet than to assert an untestable, unverifiable one (which is likely to be false anyway). If science does not yet have an explanation for something then it works towards finding an explanation, it does not assert anything.

  • You're on the right track, as long as, you don't arbitrarily exclude a possible explanation just because it would invoke God. So, how would you "verify" the beginning of all space, matter and energy? By watching the Stephen Hawkings on Discovery Channel?

  • There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example: * a static fossil record * true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together * a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating * observations of organisms being created

  • There may be evidence against the earth being billions of years old, i don't know. But i do know that the universe is at least 13 billion years old and this can be proven by observation. Do creationists not state that the earth and the universe were created on the same day?

  • There is no such evidence, he's just making baseless claims.

  • God created the heavens and earth over a six day period. Earth was completed on day 3, the Sun, moon, planets and stars on day 4. Benzie, not everything is as it "looks." Observed yes, but "proven" no. When you look at a piece of aluminum foil, what do you "observe?" The reality is something you cannot see even with an electron microscope...6.02 x 10 to 23rd of atoms per gram, whose nuclei are trillions of times smaller than the atom itself. So, "observation" can be misleading.

  • The universe is most definitely billions of years old. We can measure the distance that each visible star is from us with trigonometry. We know that light travels at a finite speed (186000 miles per second). The distance is measured in light years (the distance light travels in one year). We can see stars that are as far as 13 billion light years away from us. That means it takes 13 billion years for the light from those stars to reach earth. Were the universe younger, we would not see these.

  • Yes, and did you notice that the galaxies were in a mature state? Not what scientists expected based upon "13 billion" light years away. The distance away does not *prove* how long it took them to get there. Also, why don't we see new stars popping up in the sky? You know, new ones in which the light has just reached the earth? We see plenty exploding. The universe is running down since the fall of man.

  • "God created the heavens and earth over a six day period..."

    How do you know this, again?

  • "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." Hebrews 11:3 Faith may not mean much to you, but that is my answer. I believe the Bible and I did not grow up going to church. I have said many of the things you are saying, 20-30 years ago. The Genesis book was written as a narrative as proved by the original Hebrew verb tense. So, it's a historical record, not a metaphor or poem.

  • but if god is allmighty, why diddent he just do everything with a snap?

    And if Satan exists too, why dont The allmighty God kill him?

    And why do we live in this cruel world with War and stuff, is God even good?

    No, there is no God. /sigh.

  • Hey Rocker, those are good questions. I wonder too. I don't always agree with God, that's for sure. But thing is, He's got an advantage...He knows everything. Isaiah 55;8-9: 8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My says," declares the LORD. 9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts."

  • Couple of thots about Satan: Satan was one of the arch angels, a beautiful, powerful angel..."lucifer" comes from angel of light. Satan rebelled because of PRIDE. He wanted to be equal to God, but he was a creation of God, just like we are. Satan was cast out of Heaven...and I believe, until Jesus Christ came, he had a chance to repent and return to Heaven. Since Jesus Christ, the death sentence is set for Satan. Rocker...just hang tight brother. Satan WILL BE killed. Believe in Jesus.

  • nice awnsers

    but im a beliver, but not jesus or god.

    or, i belive in that jesus have existed, but all that stuff he did, so not true.

    Im not saying that people cant belive in God, or Buddah, or whatever you belive in.

    Im saying that i dont belive, and never will.

  • We are glorious accidents of an unpredictable process with no drive to complexity, not the expected results of evolutionary principles that yearn to produce a creature capable of understanding the mode of its own necessary construction. But, when people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.

  • Wow, another rehash of W.L. Craig's shitty reasoning and poor understanding of science.

  • wow another ad hominem fallacy.

  • Although his arguments are convincing for some, he has no real evidence for the existense of a creator. Instead of presenting solid facts, he mocks science and well respected scientists, and quotes some biblical verses which prove nothing at all..

  • I only mock silly persons that think something comes from nothing. Contrary to popular opinion atheism and reason are just not compatible.

  • I mock people who claim their views are scientific and yet do not even present their concepts and proof in a scientific manner

    For example, let's take your video. You claim that creation is a scientific fact. Let's see it.

    You: "Well you see, I need to beat around the bush first and then I need to discredit things by misquoting them and not properly interpreting their meaning and then I have to make it seem that God is the only remaining choice...

    That's not science. And I mock you.

    Mock

  • I totally agree with you

  • You just made a nice little straw man and burned it - you haven't addressed any of the actual information.

  • It's not a straw man. It's an actual representation of what you do as proven by your videos. A scientific fact does not require to "disprove" over facts. It stands on it's on evidence.

    So, when I say that you discredit things to prop up your argument, it's actually what you do. As demonstrated by your videos.

    Secondly, when I say you don't properly interpret concepts and use them to prop up your argument, it's based on the fact that you did as such with thermodynamics.

    No strawmen here sir

  • @bigwhammyRocks Neither have you.

  • @bigwhammyRocks I'd say you haven't impartially addressed any of the actual information.

  • @bigwhammyRocks You don't know what a straw man is. A straw man is when somone misrepresentsw what you're saying. I'm not changing your argument. I'm saying the way you present your video does not match what it claims. I'm stating that if scientific facts do not need to be discussed at length. They are just simply state. For example, gravity exists because if I drop something it will fall every single time. You don' do that.

  • @Rundvelt Yes, that's how it works. The truth is always straight forward so when the truth is absent, all you have left is arrogance and mockery.

  • @blattt188 It'd be helpful to link your comments to the ones you're replying to. That way I can actually know what you're talking about.

  • That's funny, science says that a belief in the supernatural and scientific reason are not compatible. And Atheism is only a complete disbelief in an unproven supernatural creator.

    I only mock silly Theists, because they don't have the answers, so they argue that an unproven super being did it..............This is an unreasonable assumption. Without facts one cannot say that magic did it...............Sorry.

    It's a very nice strawman argument in the video.

  • Atheist don't think something comes from nothing. The First Law of the Thermodynamics doesn't allow it.

    So where does your god come from again? Oh...that's right... nothing.  What did this nothing god use to "poof" everything into existance? Nothing again!

  • @bigwhammyRocks One, scientists don't say something comes from nothing. That is merely one possibility but there are others. Two, the observable universe is "winding down" but it could be that more exists than is observable in the universe. Three, we don't know that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang might not be the beginning. Four, the atheist "faith" does not require that the atheist know everything. Five, read the stanford encyclopedia entry on the Cosmological Argument.

  • @bigwhammyRocks

    You said Dr. Schaefer "has been nominated for the Nobel Prize".

    Could I ask you when did that happen?

  • You know what, I'm not going past 3:36 because it's obvious you don't have a clue. Seriously. Any scientific fact does not require "disproving" another aspect nor does it require a long explanation.

    You don't understand scientific fact or you're being intellectually dishonest. Which is it?

  • Atheisim is the faith that God does not exist.

    False. Atheism is not a faith. Does it require more faith to believe in Santa Claus then to not believe in Santa Claus? How about Bigfoot? Pixies?  Magical Monkeys?

    The atheist mythos...

    LOL.

    Yes, if the universe is eternal, it doesn't need a creation point. If the universe isn't eternal, it does.

    Still waiting for the science.

    The second law of themodynamics is for a closed system. Prove the universe is a closed system.

  • "Yes, if the universe is eternal, it doesn't need a creation point. If the universe isn't eternal, it does."

    Then it DOES - because It isn't eternal - Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose established that conclusively in 1971.

  • Way to play it like I was making a statement that the universe was eternal. Having a hard time reading or are you so desperate for counter points that you'll fabricate someone's position.

    I think it's the latter, because you didn't touch any of the other valid counter arguments I presented. Ooops.

  • @bigwhammyRocks Ok, so the universe needs a creation point. Where's the science behind your claim? Creation doesn't denote God. It represents any event in which something is brought into being. For example, if you look at a bottle of soda with a cap on, you'll see no bubbles. Once the cap is removed, bubbles are created. Our universe may in fact have been created by something else we're not aware of.

  • @Rundvelt Santa has nothing to do with order and complexity or universal law. that's not a good cop out.

  • @blattt188 Perhaps you should read my statement in context. Then you'd perhaps understand what it is I'm saying.

  • I disagree

  • Again another video about creation by people who are scientifically illiterate.

  • we are rational.  Just curious as to how this absolute certainty of such wild claims came about? People dont come back from the dead. Its pretty silly that we still have to have these discussions.

  • Even if there was a god and he did create everything,..he obviously doesnt want anyone to know he exists,..therefore ,a god has no purpose in my life.

  • Lets see he came to earth died on a cross and rose from the dead and appeared to over 500 eye witnesses. There are churches on every street corner teaching his inspired word and you say something silly like he doesn't want any on to know? That's not seeing the forest for the trees.

  • oh u have this all on tape, therefore its fact or something? Oh wait, no u just read it in some old book, and had stories told to u as a child, thats right. Your man made god doesnt exist. NO ONE knows the whole truth of how /why we got here. ANd pretending to know by picking one of the worlds many man made religions, is not correct simply cause u dillute yourself into thinking it is.

  • ROFL! lots of love for ya, bigwhammy!

  • God created you for a purpose. God gave you the option to choose between right and wrong. But, we choose not to believe that God created you and I and all that is within you. Trusting is deeper than believing. You believe in the Lord because you trust Him.

  • Amen!

    "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (Heb 11:6)

  • The assertion that there was no nature prior to the big bang is unfounded and the claim that everything came from nothing is not supported by mainstream science.

    Leaving that aside however and assuming that the universe was created by a supernatural being with the attributes claimed in the video, there can be no way for humans to know anything about this being so its existence is utterly meaningless to us.

  • Actually we can know what He chooses to reveal to us. He did reveal quite a bit - he inspired over 40 authors to write 66 books.

  • oh of course, the bible! i really like the stuff he reveals to us about:

    slavery, what we can and can't eat, human sacrifice, what kinds of fabrics we can wear, infanticide, how we are supposed to plant our crops, murder, people being turned into salt, genocide, people living inside fish, zombies, rape, world wide floods, miracles, the end of the world, genital mutilation, creation, blood rites, blackmail and eternal damnation in hell fire.

    just take your pick, it's all good!

  • Yes you are correct it has the solution to all those problems and more.

  • lol, keep believing it skippy

  • right...the bible has the solution to zombies.

    Please explain because I'm running out of shotgun shells.

  • . Being that science still has no answer(s) for many questions, it is quite easy to form many counter examples, however even proving a counter example still does not prove a Creator. For example, All horses are the same color. This can be proved wrong by a counter example or by mathematical induction, but in proving this wrong it does not prove there is a Creator it just proves that not all horse are of the same color.

  • Also the author uses the terms space less, timeless and etc, these concepts are nothing but concepts and are not defined; thus the author is trying to negate something that isnt even defined, therefore simple logic will lead to a simple contradiction here. In conclusion all this author attempt to do is provide some sort of horribly piece together counter example (counter proof) to what stands today in science.

  • The video also claims that there were no natural forces prior to the big bang, thats yet another huge assumption. Thats in fact what science is trying to figure out, yet the author of this video seems to make his own theories based on what he/she deposited in the toilet as this video was made.

  • which also leads into the religious opinions expressed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilison which has a correlation they made to the universe being a nuclear furnace. This correlation of course is just religious opinion and has no scientific backing. Furthermore, it does not take an engineer or a physicist to know that the universe emits radiation, that is heat, light, radio waves, all of which are forms of radiation. Thus, its not a huge jump in logic to say that we have background radiation.

  • Science is suppose to be objective, however this is sometimes impossible to achieve because most scientists are driven by an intuition inside them which by definition of intuition would contradict complete objectiveness. Objectiveness can only be achieved through the data collected (assuming it was collected in an objective way),

  • The definition of entropy is totally wrong as well. Also the documentary fails to signify that Arthur Eddinton was a priest and therefore any opinion expressed by this man was that of religious opinion. However, he was a physicist as well so that of his SCITENFIC work holds merit.

  • however by adding something to it, it became the right answer but you have no clue to that something you added to it made it work...anyone who has taken algebra in junior high has ran into this. Furthermore, the definition used for singularity is totally bogus. Another huge assumption is God itself and the garden of eden; there is no concrete evidence of the existence of any of these things.

  • Therefore as the narrator put it...it is in fact not 'growing' at all. Furthermore Einstein's cosmological constant was wrong because he assumed a static universe. Secondly, the constant stands for which something we cannot understand at the moment but we know is their...let me explain it another way, ever worked a problem and it came out wrong and you knew it,

  • yet one of the growing problems with the internet any fool can publish some type of media and other fools will think its fact when it has not even stood up to scientific rigor.... just to let everyone know...the creator of this video has wrong definitions and also assumed theories that no one knows is true or not to support his/her argument i.e. infinite universe....no one knows if its infinite it could just as well as be finite because the universe is expanding but not expanding into more space

  • Wow...this is the most ill researched and ill presented video about physics I have seen in a very long time. This is exactly why when scientific papers are published they go through a series of experts who which pick it apart and either verify the publication or not...and then it hits public...yet

  • and fossils make evolution right, correct?

    NOPE

    scientists have found plants and animals thought 2 b extinct for millions of years but they found them again and so they compared them to the "million" year old fossil, and guess what, virtually identical, so over millions of years no change

    use ur evolutionist view to answer the question

    y did they not evolve?

  • they didn't evolve because they did not have to.

  • so over MILLIIONS and MILLIONS of years there was absolutely nothing to cause these plants and anilmals to evolve

    come on, that has to sound absurd even to u

    a fossil of some kind of bacteria was founded and dated to b 3.5 BILLION years old

    they compared it to some current living bacteria and guess what

    thats right, u guessed it, identical

  • give me a link or it didn't happen.

  • flatlinejc ur link is the web site of the museum of paleontology

    and the 3.5 billion year old thing is considered the oldest living fossil

    its blue-green aglae (Cyanobacteria)

  • Demonhunter is an ignorant fool, no one listen to this tool.

  • uh, its fool not tool

    thanks C=

  • Fool and tool!

  • lol

    that was good

    so for what reason do u believe evolution to be true and creation and the bible to be bull?

  • Because there is a heavy amount of evidence for evolution while the bible is mostly mythology.

  • give me thoes links that prove evolution is a "fact"

  • Lol they teach this stuff in school to pretty much everyone, or have you not reached that point yet?

    Anyways just pull up google or wikipedia and you can see a ton of sources, that is if you're actually interested.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Amazing video man !! keep on the good work !!

  • Also, by proving that there was a big bang by using simply-understood evidence, you have not disproved other theories for steady universes.

    The Vatican continues to spread its fingers into politics and science. What were the crusades? Why are all US presidents expected to be devout Christians?

    I disagree with all but the first three points at the end of the video; the anthropic can explain the rest of the "phenomena"(which religion proudly calls God).

  • I love how creationists try to call everything that science does not yet understand God. Oh, we don't understand heliocentricism--it must be God, then, right?

    Also, singularities are definitely not nothing! Black holes have mass & exert their gravity on entire galaxies!

    Because some theories were wrong once, it does not mean all counter theories were wrong.

    I read Hawking's book, and understanding the science behind it. If the universe is self-contained, there is no evidence for a creator.

  • Twofaced4 is Jesus Lord of all creation?

  • No, Allah. Assuming you have proven anything, you could have proved any religion.

  • agreed

  • the universe has space so the creator must be spaceless. (?)

    the universe has time so the creator must be timeless. (?)

    therefore:

    beacause the universe exists the creator can't exist?

    don't worry, i'm being stupid, that logic doesn't work, but neither does yours.

  • spaceless was the wrong word beyond space is better

  • "in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god"

    pfft: "don't you know about the bird? well everybody knows that the bird is the word."

    charlie parker is the supreme creator, we must try to emulate his perfect example: be jazz musicians, have intercourse with many different women and inject heroin on a daily basis.

    because if you don't you'll spend eternity separated from him and dizzy

  • haha.. i love to see creationists using the same argument they have been using forever.. Who was it that first made this argument? Aquinas, come on that guy lived like 750 years ago.. your argument is dead.