I'm not saying any religion is right, but atheists are the biggest disgrace to this earth. You are going to not acknowledge your creature and use your science bullshit as an excuse to not believe in God's existence. Science developed out of the nature being created by somebody with powers. Nothing comes out of nothing. Human beings and our ability to walk this earth did just come out of nothing, huh? Answer that to me.
There is no such thing as a closed system so why even talk about it. It amazes me how intelligent people like this man can ignore the overwhelming evidence of evolution. I'm not saying I know the origins of life, but I'm sure as hell saying you don't either. I don't know and I'm fine with that, wish you could be too.
Yeah but what if anyone who did one of those, truthfully apologized for what they did n asked for forgiveness, what would u do? Probably would still want him to be executed.
Also what ur saying is coming from God's own creation which is infinitely times weaker and less knowledgeable than he, no offense, I'm no different.
And that is only your opinion so it doesn't change the fact that its wrong.
@L00NGB00W Everyone is evil basically, none have done good n all have fallen shirt if the glory of God, thats from the Bible. Anyway God's view and standards are far higher than ours, that is why people get away with stuff like that, in life anyway.
@L00NGB00WAlso you may want to check the definition of good and evil because men can do evil and think its good, hitler,crusaders, alqaeda,ect. They say they do it for the greater good, or God himself, doesn't mean God agrees.
@ShaggyTheClown17 Hitler, crusaders, alqaeda... all caused more harm than good. Evil. Blaspheme? Yes. I do it all the time! =D Slander, no. I was directly referring to these Biblical stories: -The story of Adam. -The story of Lot. -The stories of Abraham, Jepthah, and Jesus. -The story of Joshua -The stories of Noah, and Revelations. In that order. It's written. God condones and commands these things.
@L00NGB00W I'm not so sure about that, in any case it is still only your opinion, with hitler n crusaders n, alqaeda, they think they're doing good, or necessary evil in God's name, which is slander. Yes the world was quite violent and God had a much firmer hand, but when Jesus came he told us to put the sword down n now all thats left is for the world to tear itself apart.
By what you've said you seem to believe in God, but just don't understand him which is understandable.
you obviously do not understand the theory of evolution. You tire analogy is absurd. evolution functions when organisms breed. Evolution works by natural selection. Being that only the most successful genes get passed on and repeat that billions of years and you will get a completely different animal than you started.
@CnChenn What "proof" are you referring to all. All he demonstrated is that he does not understand the theory of evolution. He is comparing a rubber tire to a complex, well researched, widely accepted (93% of scientists support evolution) explanation for the origin of species. His entire argument is an oversimplification of a process he does not even understand.There is ample evidence supporting evolution. including transitional forms and they very DNA he claims proves a designer.
@techman92 Have you even researched the topic? Transitional forms are not even transitional although in the "sketch" or "picture" shown, the similarities are wildly exaggerated. Remember the so called transitional form of the "whale"? The fossil found was at least TEN times bigger than the modern whale and the whale's "ancestor". The intermediate should be displayed as truly the "middle" in proportion and in evolution. Majority is not always right (displayed again and again in history).
@CnChenn It is possible for an animal to shrink through evolution. I agree that the majority is not always right. although 99% biologist support evolution. That is not just a majority, that is nearly all. And that is among experts in the field. It it possible that evolution is wrong. Unlike Intelligent Design supporters, if the evidence provides a different explanation then evolution will surly be thrown out. Right now evolution is the best explanation.
@techman92 Even when there is proof, the evidence is thrown out! Although you may think I'm stupid for even mentioning the complexity of DNA, it surely proves that part(s) of evolution is not correct. From the "big bang" to now, DNA has no chance of evolving from simple atoms and dark matter. DNA requires specific conditions and specific amounts of different chemicals. Even with the law of physics that exist on earth, it does not explain how DNA has formed!
@CnChenn DNA is riddled with evidence for evolution. The majority of DNA non coding, aka "junk dna". This DNA serves no apparent reason and a this allows for potentially beneficial mutations. Holly Dunsworth writes "long stretches of noncoding DNA provide a playground for evolution. It may be a huge selective advantage to have all that raw material available to mutate and eithermodify existing traits and behaviors or express new ones all together."
@techman92 I don't believe in the magical meaningless process of evolution, if you really believe what you say you wouldn't be here trying to start an argument on a video by someone with different beliefs, and if you think atheism is the right religion for you, best of luck and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
@ShaggyTheClown17 The reason I respond to this video is simple, just read the title. If it read "Why Christianity fails" How would you feel. You have to realize that atheism is NOT a religion, it is simply a lack of belief.
@techman92 Well I don't know what went wrong when atheists decided to think of such a flimsy defense, if you insist that there is no God and do not maintain a neutral balance as you clearly aren't, then you are in the belief/religion category, sorry to burst your bubble, you have to realize that, or don't, I don't care.
looks like that most atheists are spending time searching christian youtube videos to troll on while Christians are spending their time doing something more productive.
In their methods the Crusaders were no different from the Jihadis. But there still was one important difference.
The Jihadis had attacked Christendom in 629 at the battle of Mu'ta without provocation, and had continued attacking Christians, as they still do. The Crusade was to roll back in some measure this unprovoked Muslim attack. The Jihadis were aggressors, while the Crusaders were defenders. We Should remember this difference!
How can anyone possibly say we are in a moral decline that did not exist 200-300 years ago? Are you out of your mind??? Ummm...how about the persecution of gays? Before that, Jim Crow? Before that, slavery, the burning of witches, the inquisition, feudalism, the Crusades, persecution of early Christians, and the general raping & pillaging that had been present for thousands of years? How far back do i really need to take this?
Oh, and please learn what the term "theory" means in a scientific sense. It doesn't mean the same as the layman's term, which is how you're interpreting it. You say "that's why evolution is still just a theory." Well, i assume you believe in gravity. I hate to break it to you, but THAT'S "just a theory" too.
This gentleman's video is a clear example of why proper education is so important to our children. I appreciate your opinions MuscleHead, but your dismissing of years of science is equivalent to me insisting that rockets do not exist, merely because i don't understand how to make one. In other words, just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't mean it's false.
Omg, the comparison between tires and evolution is the most stupid thing i have ever heard. I looked at the first part of your video with an objective perspective, but now im just laughing.
your "objective" source has manifest any kind of morality? when where and how.
if you fail to prove any kind of manifestation by your (I repeat: your) "objective" source, of a "absolute moral" then you are plain and simple trying to give your moral an higher authority that it realy has. stalin is evil by our view, yet if there is a god it seems that he (god) doesn't consider stalin evil, because he (god) gave stalin so much power till the end of his life. that is... if god exists
I am afraid that objective moral and purpose are only wishful thinking. Even ppl of the same religion disagrees with each other. As for evolution, please do your homework. Don't you think that your (Christian) view is narrow? Did God created Buddhism? Hindusim? Think about it, if you assume that ppl created God, all pieces fall into place.
"The more you drive a tyre, the more its gonna ware out"
Of course it will, because the amount of tread lost by friction is much greater than that gained by the tiny amounts of rubber is left on the road. Seriously, get your analogies straight here. Also, read 2 kings 2:24 and tell me that the bible is a moral book.
I'd say you should think where morality comes from.
Of course, I could explain this to you, but then again, this way you would really understand what atheism claims.
Sorry, natural selection adds information. It designs the code, it makes things more complex. Easy thing, but thanks to creationism propaganda, seems you didn't ever get to hear about that.
Evolution would never argue this about tires as they are not living, perhaps you should learn what evolution is before you trash it. However that said even if it turned out to be false a new theory would eventually replace it. "god" doesn't automatically "win" if it were to be proven false because there would be other better explanations than magic.
Were you compering a tier to multiple genarations living beings...?
p.s on good and evil,1) socity needs rules for it to function well wich everyone wants thats why most cives all over the world and at all times have had meany of the same major laws theft,rape etc
2)and some things are just wrong to us like murder even cives that carryd out human sacrifice like the aztecs look down on random pointless murder.
How can multiple religions exist if one religion saids "infedels must die" and other saids "blaphemers must be stoned to death." Why don't you refute that?
Your morality is what you use to cherry pick the bible by. Morality pre-dates old testamant, look at some laws in ancient egypt and the code of hammarabi.
You have no idea about the theory of evolution, dont know the meaning of the word theory, dont know jack about DNA. How are we so different? 98% DNA match is not that big of a difference
Ah another Australian atheist. Exactly right about the morality issue. If The Bible was our source of morals we would have anarchy in secular societies. Also about the DNA - I read that they found a Neandertal which they managed to extract DNA from and it was over a 99% match. Coincidence?
Yeah!!! I was starting to think the world was nuts. I must say though most of the absurdities that I have come across in my discussions usually are from US Christians. I get the feeling they (the fundamentalists) are quite insular with respect to what the rest of the world thinks -- or the reality of biblical myths. Even the staunchest Christian here admits to the bible being allegory at best.
Also read the first 2 chapters of matthew and luke, mentioning both a census that took place in the year 6CE while Herod (who died 10 years before that) slaughtering innocent children at the same time. Historically impossible, and the virgin birth story (visited by sheppards and wise men etc) is just a rip off of other religons
Yeah thats like the 2 compltely different geneologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke - or the fcat that Moses had been dead for 300 years before the Torah was written. Not bad penmanship for a dead bloke.
Most historians put the Torah between the 10th and 6th centuary BC. Most historains give the credit to King Josiah, who at the time was belived to be the decendant of David and rightful king.
Funny how people belive David lived around the 10th centuary BC
Yeah I suspect most Christians are unaware of this. Its interesting speaking to some of them who believe that The Bible is the infallible word of god whilst also accepting these massive errors or omissions. Maybe the infallible god was forgetful when he inspired those bits and did a little ad lib.
God exists because the morals we all live by must be His creation. This is called 'begging the question' people, and as arguments go, it's the mating call of the loser. Mark my words, when these people are done banishing evolution from your schools, they're coming for logic and critical thinking next.
Yep and that is a little frightening. That's how they brain wash kids - you are not told how to think - you are told what to think. Its time we stood up to the child abuse and the rest of their phony logic. Keep your archaic ramblings in Churches and philosophic conversations -- not in schools!
However, I must say. This is a really rare opportunity. Divine cause or nones, it doesnt matter. For long aeons the universe has sprobably just been dead colliding matter in space. Our self reflective intelligence is reallyu a way for the universe to literally know itself. This may be the only chance. So instead of killing eachother and waiting for our messiahs we need to enjoy life, and studdy what we are as children of the stars.
Wow. Very "New Age." Are you sure you're not religious?
Just kidding, but can you see where the line of thinking of people like myself (that all humans are inherently ritualistic, yet morally flawed) comes fom?
Even in your critique of man's position in the universe you concede that we search for the unknowable and endeavor to pass what we discover on to the next generation. That is what religion is. You have your beliefs (for they cannot be fully, undebatably proven) and I have mine. It all comes down to which "delusion" we choose. And BTW, both trains of thought (yours and mine) are FAR older than we can imagine. Quite humbling to me, woould you agree?
There is no purpose really. Its what you make of it. We are granted this gift of self reflective life from the laws of nature. Self reflective hyper-intelligence seems to be very efficient at passing our revision of the replecating molecule, dna, along to the next generation. Iff climatic or catastrophic changes cause conditions that are too hard to keep up, we die. Whatever we want to make of it in the mean time really doesnt matter too much in the large scope of things.
So ure just gonna assume theres no answers to those things and attribute it all to a magical man in the sky or a skyhook when theres clearly a land crane behind it; it just needs to be analyzed. Its easy to be a theist, because they have all the answers by default, God did it... Now when it comes to people who dont attribute supernatural assumptions to everything about their existence, it takes a bit more.
Totally flawed arguments.......Who taught u science ? ur pastor in ur church ?.....u talk fluently but not eloquent and intellectually......would u stop talkin abt the evolution and if u want just recite the bible, bcz thats the only book u ever studied.......and finally abt ur objective source-- what objective source r u gonna bring up to compare ur objective source ? so its objective source for objective source for objective source..........
Rubber in the atmosphere? Not on planet earth. And tires don't operate under the snowball effect. Molecular bonds won't allow it. Please try to use an argument that fits your case instead of making one up.
Did this guy say that people need objective source for morality ? that why he read bible ? so did people believe that theft,rape,murder all good b4 bible and ten commedments were told and written?
Exactly. He's also cherry picking badly. This is the God who in the 'good' book warrants Slavery, killing homosexuals, murdering children, people who work on Sundays, those who worship other gods etc etc etc and the human race (except for Noah's family apparently). Pffft - yep good source of morality!
Maybe you haven't read, or at least fully understood, the Bible. The Law of God and the evidence of His existence is written on the hearts of men so that none are without excuse. We choose ourselves over others all of the time, therefore violating God's Law (altruism, anyone?). I don't expect to change your mind, just want to clarify the true Christian perspective on that issue. Peace.
Your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. The decrease in entropy in the earth as a result of evolution by natural selection is compensated for by the increase in entropy in the Sun as a result of the release of energy. To analyze entropy changes you have to look at the whole system because the Earth IS NOT a closed system as you claimed. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not present a problem for evolution by natural selection.
And finally. I live in Australia where our native Aboriginals lived a long time without God or The Bible. I'm sure any Australian would be offended by the notion that they were immoral without your God -- which is in fact what you are saying.
By the way you lost me at 'look at the science'. What are you a scientist of?
In addition if we follow this flawed logic back to a time prior to Biblical tenets being touted - morality (according to you) would break down. Clearly this was not the case as many civilizations lived as harmoniously as one would expect an ancient race to live.
To the author of this vid: What Rubbish. Do you really entertain the notion that we need an external arbitrator to adjudicate on what is right and wrong? By that logic all non-believers would commit murder. Morally does not come from God or The Bible -- in fact we are moral in spite of it. Remember that slavery etc etc are condoned in The Bible. Do you agree that slavery is moral?
Honestly is this meant to be propaganda or a serious reply to the questions posed. You've not only misrepresented numerous theories and laws of physics, you've lied. Whether you spout this nonsense in ignorance or if you truly attempt to deceive is the only real question here.
(cntd) if you want to impress us with your reading skills, 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful' by Sean B Carroll should suffice. it'll help you understand basic genetics in a tone to your liking. You have absolutely no idea about evolution and Hitchens will dismantle your argumnts in 3 seconds.
a couple of books about jesus does not make you an expert on the subject of evolution.
The objective standards are set by the science of freemasonry. Do you have any 'degrees'? There are many of us(MANY!) who believe that ObL had nothing to do with 911.Saddam was a patsy(do your history)and that people like you are profiting from that tragedy.
It is incredible how you can talk so much and say so little. You prove nothing; your arguments are weak and specious. What you basically say is that God exists because he does. You have a teleological belief that fails to persuade and does nothing to disprove the scientific theory of evolution. When you can come up with a testable theory that is reliable and reproducible that there exists a god then more atheists would listen to your argument; but I won't hold my breadth.
The statements on the "theory of evolution" being merely a theory is so wrong that even the Pope and 'answersingenesis' disagree with you there. -> AnsersInGenesis:"The problem with using the word "theory" in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data.."
Now, i assume you don't think the theory gravity is 'just a theory' though you haven't seen gravity itself now do you?
Hitler didn't kill all the people he killed because he was an atheist, in fact, he wasn't an atheist al all.
Stalin was an atheist, but he didn't kill because of this.
The pope on the other hand is ACTIVELY promoting the spreading of aids by condemning the use of condoms based on his Faith, that's your view of 'good christian moral' ?
I only have limited space to respond, so I can't call you on all the flaws in your logic, but there are many. Instead I'll leave you with a question that confronts your own internal logic:
Why would God make you with a mind that is curious and explorative, if he wants to give you all the answers in a book?
You should look up Carl Sagan on youtube, you're a fool, evolution is possible, and it happened, we've been changing since we were small fish, That where a brain and spinal cord start...then we feel aggression and territorial because it part of our reptilian are of our brains. You've got a good idea, with open dialog, I hope you can get Chis Hitchens on your show
The moralities of all churches I have encountered are interprative depending on the focus of your priest/imam/etc. Even in the most static religions I have seen, morality changes in line with societal norms in heel-dragging dogma shifts.
The comment about an "objective" source of morality couldn't be more false. An appeal to the interpretation of god of one tribe on earth is not "objective" it is the definition of a subjective, very self centered view point. Morality is a product of evolution, if that needs explaining you have poor knowledge of evolutionary theory.
p.s. Everyting you said about evolution is nonsense.
you say its only a 'theory' and that being a theory makes it somehow equal to all other theories. I have a theory that you are actually a spider and only exist in outer space. is that theory valid? evolution is as proveable as gravity. fact.
Nah, stating that he *is* a spacespider would be posing that as *fact*. A *theory* would explain how he got there. (Of course, the spider-bit is *not* a fact; it follows in no way from observations, whereas the *fact* that we have evolved *does*)
you talk about having an ''objective standard'' concerning morals, but where does religion give us these morals? the bible? but the bible gives us several different morals, i.e. stone your wife to death if you discover she isnt a virgin on your wedding night. If you pick and choose moral laws from the bible, then you demonstrate that humans have their own ability to see which morals are 'right' and 'wrong'. that doesnt come from religion.
Also, the theory of evolution is called a theory because it explains how something works. Even thermodynamics electromagnetics and mechanics are called theories when we have a deep enough understanding of the topics to create the technology around you.
If something as complex as humanity and other species' had to be designed rather than evolve or spring out of nothing, then what created it? God? God would have to be incredibly complex in himself, and who created god? If nobody created god then why does he get to appear out of nothing when the universe does not?
Also, I suggest you educate yourself on evolution a bit more, tires do not reproduce and thus do not evolve.
So there's no universal right or wrong. SO WHAT!? Theists need to realize that just like the universe doesn't owe us meaning to out existence, there doesn't have to be a universal moral law. Don't like it? Tough! But still true.
Do you really think that God decided that Murder was wrong, and it wasn't wrong untill God told us it was wrong? There really is no debate. One question why do you claim honest debate and then completely ignore facts. It's as if you don't care at all about honesty. peace.
The tire analogy is stupid, come on? You are deliberatly fooling your self. Evolution is as much a fact as the "Theroy" of Evolution. Where did man come from? You ask that as if evolution hasn't already answered that. Stupid!
I can not beleive you never heard of about darwins two theories. Irony rocks!!! People who calim to know all about Darwin yet never read his book. Rofl @ HyperbolaGuy
Here is a religious question for you. Why did it take an all knowing god 6 days to make the Earth. Why not a split second if he/she is so powerful. Your influence in the universe is limited by your mass and the amount of energy you possess. Compare the mass and energy of mankind to that of the sun, Earth. Your existence is insignificant in comparison. How does a soul if it exists and is not of the flesh then feel heat or cold or experience pleasure if in heaven?
again weak. especially your talk on evolution and intelligent design. You use scientific talk but obviously have not studied science. Science does address where dNA comes from....and where man came from...and...more over there is overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection -that is why it is basis for all discussions for biology(in college).
The problem is there are 2 theories on natural selection the general theory and the speacial theory. Christians attack the special theory not the general theory and evolutionists use the general theory as proof for the special theory
When disculling things like hardy weinburg evoltuion does take place!!! That is eolution with in a species that does not explain evolution of a species!!!
hey, I studied at a top ten college (biology) and I have never heard of 2 theories of evolution. It is not in my cell biology text book or any other that have.
I know I did my undergrad at UCD and never herd of it in class. I also had a teacher who was adamantly against teaching about God. However he took the opertunity to teach about Him when ever the opertunitiy was presented. He apparently thought he was the only qualified to teach about God.
Do a search on Darwin's Special Theory and his general theory or better yet actaully read his book
ok. my undergrad was in biology. I think we were talking of slightly different subjects. Evolution is whole subject of changes over time. There aren't two theories/types of this. But how species(new) arise is speciation (this only a part of evolutionary theory). see next...
at least you agree that evolution of species and evolution with in the species are two different things. But Darwin proposed many theories, at least five of them that come to my mind.
from wiki: Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments.
if you talking of reading Dawkin's books...I have read a few...but, while his work was the basis of the overall theory...ie. 1. there is variation 2. there is a method of inheritance 3. there is selection(preference)..changes in populations....
He did not use the word evolution or know of the actual method of inheritance(rRNA/DNA)so more current books are necessary ...take care
You speak in quite theoretical terms. Could you illustrate what specifically you don't think could happen and how your point shows that evolution can't happen with say, a fish turning into a land and water creature?
My point is htat life could not hav spontaneously developed. There are allot of false examples mainly Hackels embryos that lead people to accept the idea of slow changes. But a fish crawling out of the sea either rapid or it is not. There would be no slective advantage for fish with a half a lung and the mussles to move that lung. This is what is called hopeful monster.
Allot of people beleive that evoluton is not a long series of processes but short rapid bursts. Another reason evolution is not falsefiable. It uses the shot gun approch and thoughs out every imaginable posability even if they contradic.
There is tons of evidence for evolution. It is a falsifiable scientific theory that is yet to be proven wrong.
You said, "...like the idea that things break down inside of closed systems." This is true, but the earth is not a closed system. The way to avoid breaking the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is by bringing the sun into the equation.
Can you please give one example apart from evolution, where adding energy decreases decreases dis-order apart from a system that is allready designed to harness and direct that energy?
The 2nd law states that <i>overall</i>, a closed system increases in entropy. Even if the earth was a closed system (it isn't), entropy can still decrease in some areas if the net amount of entropy is still increasing.
human corpses bloat and therefore float on the water's surface. Hence very few, if any, humans would be buried by sediment. Instead they would have rotted and decayed without fossilization.
It is expected that marine creatures and plants were the first things buried and fossilized, since they are at a lower elevation and couldn't escape the sediment and water. When we look at the fossil record we find:
So, we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all. There is still the possibility of finding human fossils in the lower levels of Flood sediments, but the creation/Flood model doesn't require it.
Remember, we don't find human bones buried with coelacanths either, but we live together today (coelacanths are a type of fish, which scientists claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago but have recently been found alive). And some may even be enjoying them for dinner!
I think Youtube has scattered your response, but I think this was all aimed at me. I'm not saying that we need to find loads of examples of humans buried with dinos, just one (with no evidence of a funeral-related burial) would do. The flood model has no way to explain why different creatures of all shapes and sizes are buried uniquely in completely separate layers. A global flood should mix everything up quite well, far more than what is seen.
Most Dino's you find are missing parts (useually Heads) But besides the point envoking the fossil record shows lack of evidence for evolution. The fossil record has huge gaps and even bigger inconsistances such as Polystrate Fossils that transend millions of years of fossils. If you are going to call Kevin use of the thermo as foolish then using the the fossil reccord as evidence is insane
Absolutely not!!!! the flood would heard animals together and you would see large herds burried in concentrated areas. The largest would be at the bottom the smartest on top. Fish would be lower due to mud slides. The idea that fossils for is slap in the face to uniformitarinism
Of course the fossil record has gaps, fossilisation is a comparatively rare event. Polystrate fossils are a result of extensive tree roots penetrating lower layers, an <i>animal</i> straddling layers would be far more impressive. You're telling me that a flood that can supposedly create mountains and carve a grand canyon won't scatter creatures far and wide? Please. Also, the fossils are absolutely not sorted by size.
The trunks of trees starddle layers not only the roots
as far as the flood generating cayons and causesng huge deposits of sediment. Ther eis no other way to rapidly burry huge dinosaurs. We see massive kill spots where dinosaurs are depositied. That is consistant with the flood or some catastrophe.
For centries pangea was laughed at because it it was creationist argument, the rest of you are just trying to catch up.
The final result is wether or not Kevin logically support his conslusion. He claims he can. It is my opinion that as long as he can offer rational support for his position he is more than titled to it.
I think Richard Dawkins is in error but I do not call him names.
I am far from an expert. What I do know is that the higher we get in our understanding the harder evolution is to beleive. Had Darwin know what we know and from what i gathered from reading his book he would in no way think his special theory would hold water.
Yes Darwin had 2 theories the macro and the micro. Micro evolution works macro fall on it face.
No scientific theory can fly in the face of any law of thermo dynamics if it does it is simply not a scientific theory.
Thermo does apply to evolution because energy unless properly harnessed is destructive not constructive. Think about repairing the roof on your house, or cancer. Life has in place an ability to harness energy it is circular to reason energy created the system it use energy. It also contradicts every know law.
you may disagree and you are welcome to do so but to call people names is childish and insults your own level of inelligence.
I am a reformed "evolutionist" yes science pointed me to God. I pray it takes you to the most logical conclusion by following the facts and not peoples interpetation of the facts. Liberty is purely an American virtue, Use that Liberty to experiment with reason and science to think objectively and honesty.
Everyone accepts microeveolution, but you don't accept macro? It seems to me an artificial line is drawn between the two. Macro is just micro over a longer period of time.
I see what you're saying about constructive and deconstructive. This seems to fall into the "I don't know how it works so let's say god did it" argument. Maybe for a long, long time energy wasn't constructive, but in one very specific instance in one very specific part of the universe it was. Maybe it's that rare of an occasion. This seems to touch on what's in my mind, the part of evolution with the biggest gray area, which is getting life from non-life.
You are not forced to conslude that "god" did it. That is my suggestion but I can not prove it. I only know that you evolution can not account for the for very large parts of life on this planet. The energy required to create life is also destructive to life the more complex life is the harder the fight to maintain. I am not sure what level of understanding you have of bio chemistry but I assure you there exist complexity beyond imagnation.
I find it interesting that when a person confronts evolution god is envoked. Can there be another explanation? If not maybe that is why people are so defensable of the theory. Maybe both Darwin and the Bible are wrong.
I'm glad to hear another take on evolution though. I haven't heard the main point you bring up. Are you just talking at the molecular level or are you bringing this point into how fish became land animals and so on? If you are talking about the latter, than what's to say organisms can't keep varying as this process is repeated and repeated until a new species is formed?
Trees of the type you mention always suffered some sort of local catastrophe, other examples are creationist wishful thinking. Same goes for rapidly buried groups, if the catastrophe were global, all fossils should show this, but they don't. And given the various other problems with a global flood mechanic, the scientific explanation is better at avoiding them.
Let us assume for a moment that there is 0 evidence for evolution. Also assume that humans do need an objective source of morality to prevent us from turning into mindless pyschopaths. Ok, what has that to do with the existence of god? Nothing. Were these two statements true there is still absolutely no reason to believe in a god. Its easy to get sidetracked into debates about morality and evolution, that have nothing to do with proving or disproving god.
Morality is a product of evolution, the way we think is a survival mechanism. I am an atheist, and I feel just as strongly as you that mass murder, chlorinating water etc is wrong. Belief in god does not give you a sense of morality. Are you honestly telling me the only reason you dont go out murdering, raping and stealing is because you believe in god? Of course your not, morality is innate, religion corrupts it.
Yes,a human & an algae are just different. How can one be better than the other,better at what?An algae is extremely well adapted for surviving in its environment,the same way a human is,but natural selection designed them to solve different problems, each according to its own environment. So how can you compare one or the other as being better or worse. Its like asking which is better,a car or a tv?The question makes no sense as they were both designed for different purposes
From an evolutionary perspective, having no qualms about killing other species if it helps your own is a species-wide survival advantage. Killing members of your own species is not a species-wide survival advantage. From that point of view, it's easy to see why we have the relevant morals.
Uhm, that's right? Obviously talking about evolution is my way of rubber stamping Osama Bin Laden's antics.
I said killing members of your own species is bad! How on Earth did you manage to get "I think one of the worst mass murderers of modern times is morally equivalent to one of the most famous pacifists" out of that?!
Ifitmovesnukeit, why is it bad if improves the individuals chance of reproductive sucess. You were baited into Kevens reasoning. You say somthing is bad just because.....
Why is <i>what</i> bad? Killing members of your own species? Natural selection isn't just for the benefit of individuals, it's for the benefit of the species. Killing members of your own species weakens the gene pool, and will be selected against. My use of 'bad' in the current context is what natural selection would avoid.
First, evolution can not be proven wrong try and design a test that could prove it wrong. If you suceed the Theory will just evolve like it has been for the last few thousand years.
Second evolution only helps the species in that it helps the individual survive. That is why new species replace old ones. That is what the whole theory is about!!!
Well, since you don't mind using this argument- No, <i>you</i> are wrong, and what's more it's true this time. You can prove evolution wrong by finding rabbits buried in the same layer as dinosaurs. You could prove it wrong by showing that monkeys don't actually share DNA with humans at all. You could prove it by finding a creature totally unrelated to any that currently live. Species have gene <i>pools</i>, of course some selection can occur on the species level.
Often, people believe that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then they didn't live together. This is a false assumption. If human bones aren't found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.
Kevin, evolution does not state that bodies become "better and better, more sophisticated" over time. Thinking that evolution equates to progress is a common misconception. The best synonym for evolution is change, in response to selection pressures caused by a changing environment. Please, if you are going to attack the theory, at least try to understand it first!
So you are saying that a human beign is not better than let us say a algea, they are only different? Interesting argument. I wonder if the boys from columbine could have uses that as a defence. What is the difference between chlorinating your pool and killing your classmates.
I'm not saying any religion is right, but atheists are the biggest disgrace to this earth. You are going to not acknowledge your creature and use your science bullshit as an excuse to not believe in God's existence. Science developed out of the nature being created by somebody with powers. Nothing comes out of nothing. Human beings and our ability to walk this earth did just come out of nothing, huh? Answer that to me.
fleshnbone187 7 months ago
alright mr science man, why dont you explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics for me?
onijimbo 9 months ago
so sending your daughters out to be raped instead of angels isnt evil in your book? your right we do have some differant opinions my friend.
onijimbo 9 months ago
There is no such thing as a closed system so why even talk about it. It amazes me how intelligent people like this man can ignore the overwhelming evidence of evolution. I'm not saying I know the origins of life, but I'm sure as hell saying you don't either. I don't know and I'm fine with that, wish you could be too.
guidi2005 1 year ago
Yeah but what if anyone who did one of those, truthfully apologized for what they did n asked for forgiveness, what would u do? Probably would still want him to be executed.
Also what ur saying is coming from God's own creation which is infinitely times weaker and less knowledgeable than he, no offense, I'm no different.
And that is only your opinion so it doesn't change the fact that its wrong.
ShaggyTheClown17 1 year ago
"Without an objective source giving you what the guidelines are?"[sic]
If you help others you are 'Good'
If you harm others you are 'Evil' The Pope is 'good'?!? What is your objective standard?
Is it because he protects pedophiles? or perhaps because he wants AIDS to take over Africa?
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W Everyone is evil basically, none have done good n all have fallen shirt if the glory of God, thats from the Bible. Anyway God's view and standards are far higher than ours, that is why people get away with stuff like that, in life anyway.
ShaggyTheClown17 1 year ago
@ShaggyTheClown17
"God's view and standards are far higher than ours"
I beg to differ on that point.
My morality is far superior to his. For instance:
-My father's sins have nothing to do with me.
-I think gang-raping young virgins is evil.
-I think human sacrifice is evil.
-I think genocide is evil,
-I think unleashing plagues, pestilences and drowning the majority of the worlds population is evil.
In short. YHWH falls short of himself.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00WAlso you may want to check the definition of good and evil because men can do evil and think its good, hitler,crusaders, alqaeda,ect. They say they do it for the greater good, or God himself, doesn't mean God agrees.
Slander and blaspheme is what you've done.
ShaggyTheClown17 1 year ago
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W I'm not so sure about that, in any case it is still only your opinion, with hitler n crusaders n, alqaeda, they think they're doing good, or necessary evil in God's name, which is slander. Yes the world was quite violent and God had a much firmer hand, but when Jesus came he told us to put the sword down n now all thats left is for the world to tear itself apart.
By what you've said you seem to believe in God, but just don't understand him which is understandable.
ShaggyTheClown17 1 year ago
@ShaggyTheClown17 "When Jesus came he told us to put the sword down"
Hmm, interesting ...Yet Jesus said to obey the commandments and the old law. 1 John 3:24
Also Jesus says: "and he who is not having, let him sell his garment, and buy a sword" Luke 22:36
"By what you've said you seem to believe in God, but just don't understand him which is understandable."
Quite the opposite my friend. I feel I do understand him, and because of this, I don't believe in him.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
you obviously do not understand the theory of evolution. You tire analogy is absurd. evolution functions when organisms breed. Evolution works by natural selection. Being that only the most successful genes get passed on and repeat that billions of years and you will get a completely different animal than you started.
techman92 1 year ago
@techman92 Seeing your failure at debunking the proof he provided, you go to personal attacks, which make you look more stupid.
CnChenn 1 year ago
@CnChenn What "proof" are you referring to all. All he demonstrated is that he does not understand the theory of evolution. He is comparing a rubber tire to a complex, well researched, widely accepted (93% of scientists support evolution) explanation for the origin of species. His entire argument is an oversimplification of a process he does not even understand.There is ample evidence supporting evolution. including transitional forms and they very DNA he claims proves a designer.
techman92 1 year ago
@techman92 Have you even researched the topic? Transitional forms are not even transitional although in the "sketch" or "picture" shown, the similarities are wildly exaggerated. Remember the so called transitional form of the "whale"? The fossil found was at least TEN times bigger than the modern whale and the whale's "ancestor". The intermediate should be displayed as truly the "middle" in proportion and in evolution. Majority is not always right (displayed again and again in history).
CnChenn 1 year ago
@CnChenn It is possible for an animal to shrink through evolution. I agree that the majority is not always right. although 99% biologist support evolution. That is not just a majority, that is nearly all. And that is among experts in the field. It it possible that evolution is wrong. Unlike Intelligent Design supporters, if the evidence provides a different explanation then evolution will surly be thrown out. Right now evolution is the best explanation.
techman92 1 year ago
@techman92 Even when there is proof, the evidence is thrown out! Although you may think I'm stupid for even mentioning the complexity of DNA, it surely proves that part(s) of evolution is not correct. From the "big bang" to now, DNA has no chance of evolving from simple atoms and dark matter. DNA requires specific conditions and specific amounts of different chemicals. Even with the law of physics that exist on earth, it does not explain how DNA has formed!
CnChenn 1 year ago
@CnChenn DNA is riddled with evidence for evolution. The majority of DNA non coding, aka "junk dna". This DNA serves no apparent reason and a this allows for potentially beneficial mutations. Holly Dunsworth writes "long stretches of noncoding DNA provide a playground for evolution. It may be a huge selective advantage to have all that raw material available to mutate and eithermodify existing traits and behaviors or express new ones all together."
techman92 1 year ago
@techman92 I don't believe in the magical meaningless process of evolution, if you really believe what you say you wouldn't be here trying to start an argument on a video by someone with different beliefs, and if you think atheism is the right religion for you, best of luck and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
ShaggyTheClown17 1 year ago
@ShaggyTheClown17 The reason I respond to this video is simple, just read the title. If it read "Why Christianity fails" How would you feel. You have to realize that atheism is NOT a religion, it is simply a lack of belief.
techman92 1 year ago
@techman92 Well I don't know what went wrong when atheists decided to think of such a flimsy defense, if you insist that there is no God and do not maintain a neutral balance as you clearly aren't, then you are in the belief/religion category, sorry to burst your bubble, you have to realize that, or don't, I don't care.
ShaggyTheClown17 1 year ago
looks like that most atheists are spending time searching christian youtube videos to troll on while Christians are spending their time doing something more productive.
CnChenn 1 year ago
Who says we have objective morals ???
Ive heard this debate tons of times about OBJECTIVE things. Like objective logic and morals. But whos says we even have them ??
lilzeus7 2 years ago
Atheism fails end of stroy, trolls here can all go home n cry about it.
ShaggyTheClown17 2 years ago 2
@ShaggyTheClown17 you do realize that you are trolling? you make a blatant statement then dont back it up.
techman92 1 year ago
In their methods the Crusaders were no different from the Jihadis. But there still was one important difference.
The Jihadis had attacked Christendom in 629 at the battle of Mu'ta without provocation, and had continued attacking Christians, as they still do. The Crusade was to roll back in some measure this unprovoked Muslim attack. The Jihadis were aggressors, while the Crusaders were defenders. We Should remember this difference!
kingvoyager 3 years ago
Tell that to Constantinople.
TheHatheist 3 years ago
How can anyone possibly say we are in a moral decline that did not exist 200-300 years ago? Are you out of your mind??? Ummm...how about the persecution of gays? Before that, Jim Crow? Before that, slavery, the burning of witches, the inquisition, feudalism, the Crusades, persecution of early Christians, and the general raping & pillaging that had been present for thousands of years? How far back do i really need to take this?
comiconline 4 years ago 2
Oh, and please learn what the term "theory" means in a scientific sense. It doesn't mean the same as the layman's term, which is how you're interpreting it. You say "that's why evolution is still just a theory." Well, i assume you believe in gravity. I hate to break it to you, but THAT'S "just a theory" too.
comiconline 4 years ago 2
This gentleman's video is a clear example of why proper education is so important to our children. I appreciate your opinions MuscleHead, but your dismissing of years of science is equivalent to me insisting that rockets do not exist, merely because i don't understand how to make one. In other words, just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't mean it's false.
comiconline 4 years ago
Omg, the comparison between tires and evolution is the most stupid thing i have ever heard. I looked at the first part of your video with an objective perspective, but now im just laughing.
Sprautbirger 4 years ago
show me a cell that is a closed system?
show me a living organism that is a closed system?
it seems that you can't even understand your own words.
oraci 4 years ago
your "objective" source has manifest any kind of morality? when where and how.
if you fail to prove any kind of manifestation by your (I repeat: your) "objective" source, of a "absolute moral" then you are plain and simple trying to give your moral an higher authority that it realy has. stalin is evil by our view, yet if there is a god it seems that he (god) doesn't consider stalin evil, because he (god) gave stalin so much power till the end of his life. that is... if god exists
oraci 4 years ago
I am afraid that objective moral and purpose are only wishful thinking. Even ppl of the same religion disagrees with each other. As for evolution, please do your homework. Don't you think that your (Christian) view is narrow? Did God created Buddhism? Hindusim? Think about it, if you assume that ppl created God, all pieces fall into place.
lucidmnd 4 years ago
"The more you drive a tyre, the more its gonna ware out"
Of course it will, because the amount of tread lost by friction is much greater than that gained by the tiny amounts of rubber is left on the road. Seriously, get your analogies straight here. Also, read 2 kings 2:24 and tell me that the bible is a moral book.
theflamingdude 4 years ago
I'd say you should think where morality comes from.
Of course, I could explain this to you, but then again, this way you would really understand what atheism claims.
Sorry, natural selection adds information. It designs the code, it makes things more complex. Easy thing, but thanks to creationism propaganda, seems you didn't ever get to hear about that.
gJonii 4 years ago
u used an anolgy of a tyre against evolution a tyre is not a living organism how does evolution apply 2 a sentetic man made object?
junglevanhalen 4 years ago
Musclehead or meathead?
RHINOPLASM 4 years ago
I'd say bonehead.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
Evolution would never argue this about tires as they are not living, perhaps you should learn what evolution is before you trash it. However that said even if it turned out to be false a new theory would eventually replace it. "god" doesn't automatically "win" if it were to be proven false because there would be other better explanations than magic.
Get42real 4 years ago
His eyes make him look like he has down's syndrome.
EntropyGuardian 4 years ago
Lee Strobel is one of the biggest fucktards I've ever seen in my life.
macman13 4 years ago
Were you compering a tier to multiple genarations living beings...?
p.s on good and evil,1) socity needs rules for it to function well wich everyone wants thats why most cives all over the world and at all times have had meany of the same major laws theft,rape etc
2)and some things are just wrong to us like murder even cives that carryd out human sacrifice like the aztecs look down on random pointless murder.
Demo5 4 years ago
How can multiple religions exist if one religion saids "infedels must die" and other saids "blaphemers must be stoned to death." Why don't you refute that?
DethMachineEngage 4 years ago
Your morality is what you use to cherry pick the bible by. Morality pre-dates old testamant, look at some laws in ancient egypt and the code of hammarabi.
You have no idea about the theory of evolution, dont know the meaning of the word theory, dont know jack about DNA. How are we so different? 98% DNA match is not that big of a difference
ozatheist 4 years ago
Ah another Australian atheist. Exactly right about the morality issue. If The Bible was our source of morals we would have anarchy in secular societies. Also about the DNA - I read that they found a Neandertal which they managed to extract DNA from and it was over a 99% match. Coincidence?
19995700 4 years ago
Why are you so supprised about an aussie atheist? lol
According the the recent census, atheists and agnostics outnumber all non-catholic christians (put together) in Canberra
ozatheist 4 years ago
Yeah!!! I was starting to think the world was nuts. I must say though most of the absurdities that I have come across in my discussions usually are from US Christians. I get the feeling they (the fundamentalists) are quite insular with respect to what the rest of the world thinks -- or the reality of biblical myths. Even the staunchest Christian here admits to the bible being allegory at best.
19995700 4 years ago
I love pointing out to even christians here that the founder of Christianity (Paul of Tarsus) never mentions his "Christ" as ever being a human being
ozatheist 4 years ago
Good work. Not something I knew either but I'll research it to annoy some Christians. Cheers.
19995700 4 years ago
Also read the first 2 chapters of matthew and luke, mentioning both a census that took place in the year 6CE while Herod (who died 10 years before that) slaughtering innocent children at the same time. Historically impossible, and the virgin birth story (visited by sheppards and wise men etc) is just a rip off of other religons
ozatheist 4 years ago
Yeah thats like the 2 compltely different geneologies of Christ in Matthew and Luke - or the fcat that Moses had been dead for 300 years before the Torah was written. Not bad penmanship for a dead bloke.
19995700 4 years ago
Most historians put the Torah between the 10th and 6th centuary BC. Most historains give the credit to King Josiah, who at the time was belived to be the decendant of David and rightful king.
Funny how people belive David lived around the 10th centuary BC
ozatheist 4 years ago
Yeah I suspect most Christians are unaware of this. Its interesting speaking to some of them who believe that The Bible is the infallible word of god whilst also accepting these massive errors or omissions. Maybe the infallible god was forgetful when he inspired those bits and did a little ad lib.
19995700 4 years ago
Please musclehead, remove that book from your vision if you want to see.
M
mindwis3 4 years ago
This man is an idiot. Follow his 'reasoning':
God exists because the morals we all live by must be His creation. This is called 'begging the question' people, and as arguments go, it's the mating call of the loser. Mark my words, when these people are done banishing evolution from your schools, they're coming for logic and critical thinking next.
inimitabull 4 years ago
Yep and that is a little frightening. That's how they brain wash kids - you are not told how to think - you are told what to think. Its time we stood up to the child abuse and the rest of their phony logic. Keep your archaic ramblings in Churches and philosophic conversations -- not in schools!
Atheists United.
19995700 4 years ago
However, I must say. This is a really rare opportunity. Divine cause or nones, it doesnt matter. For long aeons the universe has sprobably just been dead colliding matter in space. Our self reflective intelligence is reallyu a way for the universe to literally know itself. This may be the only chance. So instead of killing eachother and waiting for our messiahs we need to enjoy life, and studdy what we are as children of the stars.
pisscunt 4 years ago
Wow. Very "New Age." Are you sure you're not religious?
Just kidding, but can you see where the line of thinking of people like myself (that all humans are inherently ritualistic, yet morally flawed) comes fom?
fretboarder1 4 years ago
Even in your critique of man's position in the universe you concede that we search for the unknowable and endeavor to pass what we discover on to the next generation. That is what religion is. You have your beliefs (for they cannot be fully, undebatably proven) and I have mine. It all comes down to which "delusion" we choose. And BTW, both trains of thought (yours and mine) are FAR older than we can imagine. Quite humbling to me, woould you agree?
fretboarder1 4 years ago
There is no purpose really. Its what you make of it. We are granted this gift of self reflective life from the laws of nature. Self reflective hyper-intelligence seems to be very efficient at passing our revision of the replecating molecule, dna, along to the next generation. Iff climatic or catastrophic changes cause conditions that are too hard to keep up, we die. Whatever we want to make of it in the mean time really doesnt matter too much in the large scope of things.
pisscunt 4 years ago
So ure just gonna assume theres no answers to those things and attribute it all to a magical man in the sky or a skyhook when theres clearly a land crane behind it; it just needs to be analyzed. Its easy to be a theist, because they have all the answers by default, God did it... Now when it comes to people who dont attribute supernatural assumptions to everything about their existence, it takes a bit more.
pisscunt 4 years ago
How bout we go one on one about evolution. You probably wont care though.
pisscunt 4 years ago
I wish you were as smart as you think you are.
bobjones864 4 years ago
I wish I were as smart as you think he thinks he is. I think...
fretboarder1 4 years ago
Totally flawed arguments.......Who taught u science ? ur pastor in ur church ?.....u talk fluently but not eloquent and intellectually......would u stop talkin abt the evolution and if u want just recite the bible, bcz thats the only book u ever studied.......and finally abt ur objective source-- what objective source r u gonna bring up to compare ur objective source ? so its objective source for objective source for objective source..........
aerosuresh 4 years ago
Rubber in the atmosphere? Not on planet earth. And tires don't operate under the snowball effect. Molecular bonds won't allow it. Please try to use an argument that fits your case instead of making one up.
thkaal 4 years ago
Did this guy say that people need objective source for morality ? that why he read bible ? so did people believe that theft,rape,murder all good b4 bible and ten commedments were told and written?
aerosuresh 4 years ago
Exactly. He's also cherry picking badly. This is the God who in the 'good' book warrants Slavery, killing homosexuals, murdering children, people who work on Sundays, those who worship other gods etc etc etc and the human race (except for Noah's family apparently). Pffft - yep good source of morality!
19995700 4 years ago
Maybe you haven't read, or at least fully understood, the Bible. The Law of God and the evidence of His existence is written on the hearts of men so that none are without excuse. We choose ourselves over others all of the time, therefore violating God's Law (altruism, anyone?). I don't expect to change your mind, just want to clarify the true Christian perspective on that issue. Peace.
fretboarder1 4 years ago
To MuscleHead570
Your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. The decrease in entropy in the earth as a result of evolution by natural selection is compensated for by the increase in entropy in the Sun as a result of the release of energy. To analyze entropy changes you have to look at the whole system because the Earth IS NOT a closed system as you claimed. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not present a problem for evolution by natural selection.
AlastairHeggie 4 years ago
And finally. I live in Australia where our native Aboriginals lived a long time without God or The Bible. I'm sure any Australian would be offended by the notion that they were immoral without your God -- which is in fact what you are saying.
By the way you lost me at 'look at the science'. What are you a scientist of?
19995700 4 years ago
In addition if we follow this flawed logic back to a time prior to Biblical tenets being touted - morality (according to you) would break down. Clearly this was not the case as many civilizations lived as harmoniously as one would expect an ancient race to live.
19995700 4 years ago
To the author of this vid: What Rubbish. Do you really entertain the notion that we need an external arbitrator to adjudicate on what is right and wrong? By that logic all non-believers would commit murder. Morally does not come from God or The Bible -- in fact we are moral in spite of it. Remember that slavery etc etc are condoned in The Bible. Do you agree that slavery is moral?
19995700 4 years ago
How do we know we're different than other species? Probably the same way dogs know they're different from cats and people, but similar to eachother.
MooseHole 4 years ago
Honestly is this meant to be propaganda or a serious reply to the questions posed. You've not only misrepresented numerous theories and laws of physics, you've lied. Whether you spout this nonsense in ignorance or if you truly attempt to deceive is the only real question here.
Sarren187 4 years ago
There is no such thing as good and bad or right and wrong. There is only legal and illegal.
erockbrox 4 years ago
A tire is a non-living thing. Read more on evolution.
erockbrox 4 years ago
(cntd) if you want to impress us with your reading skills, 'Endless Forms Most Beautiful' by Sean B Carroll should suffice. it'll help you understand basic genetics in a tone to your liking. You have absolutely no idea about evolution and Hitchens will dismantle your argumnts in 3 seconds.
anarchyclayman 4 years ago
a couple of books about jesus does not make you an expert on the subject of evolution.
The objective standards are set by the science of freemasonry. Do you have any 'degrees'? There are many of us(MANY!) who believe that ObL had nothing to do with 911.Saddam was a patsy(do your history)and that people like you are profiting from that tragedy.
anarchyclayman 4 years ago
you obviously have no idea how evolution works if you think it's comaparable to your tire idea.
sentinelyo 4 years ago
*educting - indoctrinating
jazzguitarman 4 years ago
This guy is abusing media power, he should try educating people instead of educting them and providing people with dnagerous cultural memes.
jazzguitarman 4 years ago
It is incredible how you can talk so much and say so little. You prove nothing; your arguments are weak and specious. What you basically say is that God exists because he does. You have a teleological belief that fails to persuade and does nothing to disprove the scientific theory of evolution. When you can come up with a testable theory that is reliable and reproducible that there exists a god then more atheists would listen to your argument; but I won't hold my breadth.
callyouout 4 years ago
The statements on the "theory of evolution" being merely a theory is so wrong that even the Pope and 'answersingenesis' disagree with you there. -> AnsersInGenesis:"The problem with using the word "theory" in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data.."
Now, i assume you don't think the theory gravity is 'just a theory' though you haven't seen gravity itself now do you?
mindwis3 4 years ago
What a bunch of BS arguements, man, you certainly don't appear to have been reading anything else than your 'book of answers'.
It is exacly DNA and it's genetic markers that is providing evidence beyond any doubt of what was allready proven. Evolution is for real.
mindwis3 4 years ago
Your morality points are flawed.
Hitler didn't kill all the people he killed because he was an atheist, in fact, he wasn't an atheist al all.
Stalin was an atheist, but he didn't kill because of this.
The pope on the other hand is ACTIVELY promoting the spreading of aids by condemning the use of condoms based on his Faith, that's your view of 'good christian moral' ?
mindwis3 4 years ago
You are an ignorant fool who has read nothing.Your presentation is pitiful.
spanhandle 4 years ago
Great Video! I agree completely. Keep up the good work.
ScottSDVids 4 years ago
I only have limited space to respond, so I can't call you on all the flaws in your logic, but there are many. Instead I'll leave you with a question that confronts your own internal logic:
Why would God make you with a mind that is curious and explorative, if he wants to give you all the answers in a book?
laiksik 4 years ago
youtubecom/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4
Ion457 4 years ago
You should look up Carl Sagan on youtube, you're a fool, evolution is possible, and it happened, we've been changing since we were small fish, That where a brain and spinal cord start...then we feel aggression and territorial because it part of our reptilian are of our brains. You've got a good idea, with open dialog, I hope you can get Chis Hitchens on your show
Ion457 4 years ago
if i had a fosil and i were close enough to you i would throw it just over your head.
brotherblues2112 4 years ago
The moralities of all churches I have encountered are interprative depending on the focus of your priest/imam/etc. Even in the most static religions I have seen, morality changes in line with societal norms in heel-dragging dogma shifts.
narwhol 4 years ago
You compare a car tyre to organisms evolving. Just because a tyre contains a lot of carbon dosen't make it organic.
Zed1967 4 years ago
The comment about an "objective" source of morality couldn't be more false. An appeal to the interpretation of god of one tribe on earth is not "objective" it is the definition of a subjective, very self centered view point. Morality is a product of evolution, if that needs explaining you have poor knowledge of evolutionary theory.
k2dart 4 years ago
The tire stuff made me laugh out loud. You have a radio show? Just goes to show how many idiots are out there.
aakurtz 4 years ago
p.s. Everyting you said about evolution is nonsense.
you say its only a 'theory' and that being a theory makes it somehow equal to all other theories. I have a theory that you are actually a spider and only exist in outer space. is that theory valid? evolution is as proveable as gravity. fact.
richardmaccarthy101 4 years ago
Nah, stating that he *is* a spacespider would be posing that as *fact*. A *theory* would explain how he got there. (Of course, the spider-bit is *not* a fact; it follows in no way from observations, whereas the *fact* that we have evolved *does*)
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
you talk about having an ''objective standard'' concerning morals, but where does religion give us these morals? the bible? but the bible gives us several different morals, i.e. stone your wife to death if you discover she isnt a virgin on your wedding night. If you pick and choose moral laws from the bible, then you demonstrate that humans have their own ability to see which morals are 'right' and 'wrong'. that doesnt come from religion.
richardmaccarthy101 4 years ago
Also, the theory of evolution is called a theory because it explains how something works. Even thermodynamics electromagnetics and mechanics are called theories when we have a deep enough understanding of the topics to create the technology around you.
ladnil 4 years ago
If something as complex as humanity and other species' had to be designed rather than evolve or spring out of nothing, then what created it? God? God would have to be incredibly complex in himself, and who created god? If nobody created god then why does he get to appear out of nothing when the universe does not?
Also, I suggest you educate yourself on evolution a bit more, tires do not reproduce and thus do not evolve.
ladnil 4 years ago
So there's no universal right or wrong. SO WHAT!? Theists need to realize that just like the universe doesn't owe us meaning to out existence, there doesn't have to be a universal moral law. Don't like it? Tough! But still true.
DogBoots77 4 years ago
You people are silly. Look at his eyes, the man is obviously baked out of his mind.
Sad really.
Memdoch 4 years ago
Do you really think that God decided that Murder was wrong, and it wasn't wrong untill God told us it was wrong? There really is no debate. One question why do you claim honest debate and then completely ignore facts. It's as if you don't care at all about honesty. peace.
Infomaniack 4 years ago
musclehead? No.
Bonehead? yep.
dfarmer26 4 years ago
Musclehead doesn't know what he's talking about, which is good for him, seeing as facts would get in the way.
hanniballecturer 4 years ago
The tire analogy is stupid, come on? You are deliberatly fooling your self. Evolution is as much a fact as the "Theroy" of Evolution. Where did man come from? You ask that as if evolution hasn't already answered that. Stupid!
syqnys 4 years ago
I cannot believe this guy just mixed up evolution with relativity! Darwins special and general theory of evolution???!!!!
HyperbolaGuy 4 years ago
I can not beleive you never heard of about darwins two theories. Irony rocks!!! People who calim to know all about Darwin yet never read his book. Rofl @ HyperbolaGuy
sokoboo 4 years ago
Here is a religious question for you. Why did it take an all knowing god 6 days to make the Earth. Why not a split second if he/she is so powerful. Your influence in the universe is limited by your mass and the amount of energy you possess. Compare the mass and energy of mankind to that of the sun, Earth. Your existence is insignificant in comparison. How does a soul if it exists and is not of the flesh then feel heat or cold or experience pleasure if in heaven?
DEWMD47 4 years ago
again weak. especially your talk on evolution and intelligent design. You use scientific talk but obviously have not studied science. Science does address where dNA comes from....and where man came from...and...more over there is overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection -that is why it is basis for all discussions for biology(in college).
sifakaboy 4 years ago
The problem is there are 2 theories on natural selection the general theory and the speacial theory. Christians attack the special theory not the general theory and evolutionists use the general theory as proof for the special theory
sokoboo 4 years ago
When disculling things like hardy weinburg evoltuion does take place!!! That is eolution with in a species that does not explain evolution of a species!!!
sokoboo 4 years ago
hey, I studied at a top ten college (biology) and I have never heard of 2 theories of evolution. It is not in my cell biology text book or any other that have.
sifakaboy 4 years ago
I know I did my undergrad at UCD and never herd of it in class. I also had a teacher who was adamantly against teaching about God. However he took the opertunity to teach about Him when ever the opertunitiy was presented. He apparently thought he was the only qualified to teach about God.
Do a search on Darwin's Special Theory and his general theory or better yet actaully read his book
sokoboo 4 years ago
ok. my undergrad was in biology. I think we were talking of slightly different subjects. Evolution is whole subject of changes over time. There aren't two theories/types of this. But how species(new) arise is speciation (this only a part of evolutionary theory). see next...
sifakaboy 4 years ago
at least you agree that evolution of species and evolution with in the species are two different things. But Darwin proposed many theories, at least five of them that come to my mind.
sokoboo 4 years ago
from wiki: Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are four modes of natural speciation, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry or laboratory experiments.
sifakaboy 4 years ago
if you talking of reading Dawkin's books...I have read a few...but, while his work was the basis of the overall theory...ie. 1. there is variation 2. there is a method of inheritance 3. there is selection(preference)..changes in populations....
He did not use the word evolution or know of the actual method of inheritance(rRNA/DNA)so more current books are necessary ...take care
sifakaboy 4 years ago
You speak in quite theoretical terms. Could you illustrate what specifically you don't think could happen and how your point shows that evolution can't happen with say, a fish turning into a land and water creature?
hthedinga 4 years ago
My point is htat life could not hav spontaneously developed. There are allot of false examples mainly Hackels embryos that lead people to accept the idea of slow changes. But a fish crawling out of the sea either rapid or it is not. There would be no slective advantage for fish with a half a lung and the mussles to move that lung. This is what is called hopeful monster.
sokoboo 4 years ago
Allot of people beleive that evoluton is not a long series of processes but short rapid bursts. Another reason evolution is not falsefiable. It uses the shot gun approch and thoughs out every imaginable posability even if they contradic.
sokoboo 4 years ago
Evolution:
There is tons of evidence for evolution. It is a falsifiable scientific theory that is yet to be proven wrong.
You said, "...like the idea that things break down inside of closed systems." This is true, but the earth is not a closed system. The way to avoid breaking the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is by bringing the sun into the equation.
hthedinga 4 years ago
hthedinga
Can you please give one example apart from evolution, where adding energy decreases decreases dis-order apart from a system that is allready designed to harness and direct that energy?
sokoboo 4 years ago
The 2nd law states that <i>overall</i>, a closed system increases in entropy. Even if the earth was a closed system (it isn't), entropy can still decrease in some areas if the net amount of entropy is still increasing.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
human corpses bloat and therefore float on the water's surface. Hence very few, if any, humans would be buried by sediment. Instead they would have rotted and decayed without fossilization.
It is expected that marine creatures and plants were the first things buried and fossilized, since they are at a lower elevation and couldn't escape the sediment and water. When we look at the fossil record we find:
sokoboo 4 years ago
95% of all fossils were marine organisms.
95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants/trees.
95% of the remaining 0.25% were invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% were vertebrates, mostly fish.1,2
sokoboo 4 years ago
So, we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all. There is still the possibility of finding human fossils in the lower levels of Flood sediments, but the creation/Flood model doesn't require it.
Remember, we don't find human bones buried with coelacanths either, but we live together today (coelacanths are a type of fish, which scientists claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago but have recently been found alive). And some may even be enjoying them for dinner!
sokoboo 4 years ago
I think Youtube has scattered your response, but I think this was all aimed at me. I'm not saying that we need to find loads of examples of humans buried with dinos, just one (with no evidence of a funeral-related burial) would do. The flood model has no way to explain why different creatures of all shapes and sizes are buried uniquely in completely separate layers. A global flood should mix everything up quite well, far more than what is seen.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
Most Dino's you find are missing parts (useually Heads) But besides the point envoking the fossil record shows lack of evidence for evolution. The fossil record has huge gaps and even bigger inconsistances such as Polystrate Fossils that transend millions of years of fossils. If you are going to call Kevin use of the thermo as foolish then using the the fossil reccord as evidence is insane
sokoboo 4 years ago
Absolutely not!!!! the flood would heard animals together and you would see large herds burried in concentrated areas. The largest would be at the bottom the smartest on top. Fish would be lower due to mud slides. The idea that fossils for is slap in the face to uniformitarinism
sokoboo 4 years ago
Of course the fossil record has gaps, fossilisation is a comparatively rare event. Polystrate fossils are a result of extensive tree roots penetrating lower layers, an <i>animal</i> straddling layers would be far more impressive. You're telling me that a flood that can supposedly create mountains and carve a grand canyon won't scatter creatures far and wide? Please. Also, the fossils are absolutely not sorted by size.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
The trunks of trees starddle layers not only the roots
as far as the flood generating cayons and causesng huge deposits of sediment. Ther eis no other way to rapidly burry huge dinosaurs. We see massive kill spots where dinosaurs are depositied. That is consistant with the flood or some catastrophe.
For centries pangea was laughed at because it it was creationist argument, the rest of you are just trying to catch up.
sokoboo 4 years ago
The final result is wether or not Kevin logically support his conslusion. He claims he can. It is my opinion that as long as he can offer rational support for his position he is more than titled to it.
I think Richard Dawkins is in error but I do not call him names.
sokoboo 4 years ago
I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the subject, but let me think...
How about the process of photosynthesis in plants?
hthedinga 4 years ago
Photosynthesis is a great example of how a complex system needs to be inplace to harness and direct the energy.
Think Hiroshima we added allot of energy and caused zero order
sokoboo 4 years ago
I am far from an expert. What I do know is that the higher we get in our understanding the harder evolution is to beleive. Had Darwin know what we know and from what i gathered from reading his book he would in no way think his special theory would hold water.
Yes Darwin had 2 theories the macro and the micro. Micro evolution works macro fall on it face.
sokoboo 4 years ago
My conclusion of this discussion is as follows
No scientific theory can fly in the face of any law of thermo dynamics if it does it is simply not a scientific theory.
Thermo does apply to evolution because energy unless properly harnessed is destructive not constructive. Think about repairing the roof on your house, or cancer. Life has in place an ability to harness energy it is circular to reason energy created the system it use energy. It also contradicts every know law.
sokoboo 4 years ago
you may disagree and you are welcome to do so but to call people names is childish and insults your own level of inelligence.
I am a reformed "evolutionist" yes science pointed me to God. I pray it takes you to the most logical conclusion by following the facts and not peoples interpetation of the facts. Liberty is purely an American virtue, Use that Liberty to experiment with reason and science to think objectively and honesty.
sokoboo 4 years ago
Everyone accepts microeveolution, but you don't accept macro? It seems to me an artificial line is drawn between the two. Macro is just micro over a longer period of time.
hthedinga 4 years ago
Darwin drew the line when he put forth the theory. He had his general theory and his special theory.
sokoboo 4 years ago
I see what you're saying about constructive and deconstructive. This seems to fall into the "I don't know how it works so let's say god did it" argument. Maybe for a long, long time energy wasn't constructive, but in one very specific instance in one very specific part of the universe it was. Maybe it's that rare of an occasion. This seems to touch on what's in my mind, the part of evolution with the biggest gray area, which is getting life from non-life.
hthedinga 4 years ago
You are not forced to conslude that "god" did it. That is my suggestion but I can not prove it. I only know that you evolution can not account for the for very large parts of life on this planet. The energy required to create life is also destructive to life the more complex life is the harder the fight to maintain. I am not sure what level of understanding you have of bio chemistry but I assure you there exist complexity beyond imagnation.
sokoboo 4 years ago
I find it interesting that when a person confronts evolution god is envoked. Can there be another explanation? If not maybe that is why people are so defensable of the theory. Maybe both Darwin and the Bible are wrong.
sokoboo 4 years ago
Yeah, maybe.
I'm glad to hear another take on evolution though. I haven't heard the main point you bring up. Are you just talking at the molecular level or are you bringing this point into how fish became land animals and so on? If you are talking about the latter, than what's to say organisms can't keep varying as this process is repeated and repeated until a new species is formed?
hthedinga 4 years ago
Trees of the type you mention always suffered some sort of local catastrophe, other examples are creationist wishful thinking. Same goes for rapidly buried groups, if the catastrophe were global, all fossils should show this, but they don't. And given the various other problems with a global flood mechanic, the scientific explanation is better at avoiding them.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
sokoboo. What is your level of education?
HyperbolaGuy 4 years ago
HyperbolaGuy,
I am working on my masters organic synthesis
sokoboo 4 years ago
Let us assume for a moment that there is 0 evidence for evolution. Also assume that humans do need an objective source of morality to prevent us from turning into mindless pyschopaths. Ok, what has that to do with the existence of god? Nothing. Were these two statements true there is still absolutely no reason to believe in a god. Its easy to get sidetracked into debates about morality and evolution, that have nothing to do with proving or disproving god.
HyperbolaGuy 4 years ago
Morality is a product of evolution, the way we think is a survival mechanism. I am an atheist, and I feel just as strongly as you that mass murder, chlorinating water etc is wrong. Belief in god does not give you a sense of morality. Are you honestly telling me the only reason you dont go out murdering, raping and stealing is because you believe in god? Of course your not, morality is innate, religion corrupts it.
HyperbolaGuy 4 years ago
Yes,a human & an algae are just different. How can one be better than the other,better at what?An algae is extremely well adapted for surviving in its environment,the same way a human is,but natural selection designed them to solve different problems, each according to its own environment. So how can you compare one or the other as being better or worse. Its like asking which is better,a car or a tv?The question makes no sense as they were both designed for different purposes
HyperbolaGuy 4 years ago
can you explain the moral implications of chlorinating water and mass murder? Thank you for making my point
sokoboo 4 years ago
From an evolutionary perspective, having no qualms about killing other species if it helps your own is a species-wide survival advantage. Killing members of your own species is not a species-wide survival advantage. From that point of view, it's easy to see why we have the relevant morals.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
Ifitmovesnukeit
So you are agree that Osama Bin Laden is morally equivilant to Ghandi
sokoboo 4 years ago
Uhm, that's right? Obviously talking about evolution is my way of rubber stamping Osama Bin Laden's antics.
I said killing members of your own species is bad! How on Earth did you manage to get "I think one of the worst mass murderers of modern times is morally equivalent to one of the most famous pacifists" out of that?!
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
Ifitmovesnukeit, why is it bad if improves the individuals chance of reproductive sucess. You were baited into Kevens reasoning. You say somthing is bad just because.....
sokoboo 4 years ago
Why is <i>what</i> bad? Killing members of your own species? Natural selection isn't just for the benefit of individuals, it's for the benefit of the species. Killing members of your own species weakens the gene pool, and will be selected against. My use of 'bad' in the current context is what natural selection would avoid.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
Ifitmovesnukeit you are wrong.
First, evolution can not be proven wrong try and design a test that could prove it wrong. If you suceed the Theory will just evolve like it has been for the last few thousand years.
Second evolution only helps the species in that it helps the individual survive. That is why new species replace old ones. That is what the whole theory is about!!!
sokoboo 4 years ago
Well, since you don't mind using this argument- No, <i>you</i> are wrong, and what's more it's true this time. You can prove evolution wrong by finding rabbits buried in the same layer as dinosaurs. You could prove it wrong by showing that monkeys don't actually share DNA with humans at all. You could prove it by finding a creature totally unrelated to any that currently live. Species have gene <i>pools</i>, of course some selection can occur on the species level.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
Often, people believe that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then they didn't live together. This is a false assumption. If human bones aren't found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.
Even if they did it would not dis-provevolution
When we look at the fossil record we find
cont..
sokoboo 4 years ago
MASH,MASH.MASH
HyperbolaGuy 4 years ago
Kevin, evolution does not state that bodies become "better and better, more sophisticated" over time. Thinking that evolution equates to progress is a common misconception. The best synonym for evolution is change, in response to selection pressures caused by a changing environment. Please, if you are going to attack the theory, at least try to understand it first!
HyperbolaGuy 4 years ago
Trouble is, no-one who understands the theory and the current evidence for it can honestly attack it.
Ifitmovesnukeit 4 years ago
HyperbolaGuy,
So you are saying that a human beign is not better than let us say a algea, they are only different? Interesting argument. I wonder if the boys from columbine could have uses that as a defence. What is the difference between chlorinating your pool and killing your classmates.
sokoboo 4 years ago