According to M-theory, (a major contender for a Grand Unified Theory) ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts a great any universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science.
God made us out of love he doesnt need a reason to make a bunch of people for nothing he doesn't need a reason to make us for somthing because Gods nature is love, many people who believe in God are getting killed in some place all due to who they praise for God does it hurt him yes but it shows him that his creation loves him to death. Love has no boundaries it's eternal
@DreamingOutLoud33 This is so true, and even for those who don't believe in him, you must agree that following his word would make this world a better place
let me ask u this if u had a horrible life like if u had nothin and everybody hated u for no reason why would god give u that life also if u had a family that didn't love u why do u think god gave that horrible life would u still believe him
@101mortalkombat Yes "I" would but no one can say if anyone else but yourself would. this is because nobody knows the hearts of any other man but himself and God. but to answer this from where you are comming from it isbasically the same question of why God allows hurt and anguish etc. and this has been answered. God created us in the beginning with a perfect relationship with him, but "man" chose to screw everything up and since then we are cursed.
Romans 1:20 "Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse"
In other words, God needs nothing from humanity. God is not effect in a positive or negative way by the universe. But the universe is effected by God. I argue that God created the universe and brought life into existence for our benefit. For the benefit of human beings and all life on earth that has the capacity to enjoy and appreciate life. The world was created for our benefit, not for God's. It is a mistake to think God is effected by humanity.
I disagree with your conclusion that God created the universe in order for humans to be "pleasing" to God. The character Elihu in the book of Job makes the observation "look into the sky at the universe around you, which is so far away from you. If you did wrong, how would it harm God? If your failures multiplied, how would it effect God? If you were righteous, what would that do for God? Or if what could you offer to God from your hand? Your actions effect only people like yourself."
God did not make hell. He/she is light, energy, being..we are his/her pieces. Hell can be viewed as a place of fire and torture if one wishes. But my reality as to what hell is: living without conscience. But who ultimately makes hell? That idea...it was me. The bigger question to this bland puzzle (the original question): why not?
@cole3454657 Do you want evidence from people more educated than myself that, this "Fairytale" is the truth. I'll PM you a link if you want. That goes for any one else as well who wants it.
let us make man in our image and of our likeness.. errrrmmm who is the our.. GOD is 1 alone so why does he want to make man in many diff images of GOD?? he has 1 look dont he.. and ezikeal first verce.. i see a vision of GOD as a light and in that light there was a weel upon a weel.. and in that weel was 4 windows.. and in the 4 windows the was the likes of 4 creators.. again errrrrmmm windows and creators.. from a profit of GOD izy is a importand profit.. and he sees things like this..
It's no wonder Scientists & atheist don't see GOD. Of course you won't he's been around much longer than you, more loving than you are, wiser than you are. excuse me but how long exactly have humans been around in the eons of time eh? Scripture "It does not belong to man who is walking, to man who is walking even to direct his step" Humans are not that advanced, not that knowledgeable & really well they think they just because they live in a modern society with technology.
What I do respect is when science works with the bible & science through observation, it's when scientists start to draw assumptions disagre even with each other & disagree with facts they observe but instead they match to suit there own opinions no matter how wrong it is. How much theory really is a fact & truth & how much is guesswork.
IF..there would be a God, looking at the bible. He made everything and humans just so there will be someone worshipping him. Sounds pretty fucking childish huh? XD
There are a lot of questions asking the question "Why?" And there could be many answers. Where is the evidence that "God" is the right answer out of all the possible answers? Science certainly doesn't have all the answers, but the answers it does have, it has shown a lot of evidence for. Show me evidence for God, and I'll actually take the idea seriously.
Check out the following video entitled: Fé Ciência Glauben Wissenschaft Faith Science Esmeralda Campelo Antônio Peters. With enlightening arguments and facts, speaks Pastor Antonio Peters in an interview about his book entitled “Alpha and Omega“ (English subtitels)
“The book Alpha and Omega is not based on science to explain the Bible, it is based on the Bible and uses science as a keyhole to say: "Look, the Bible already tells us this and goes even further! (Pastor Antônio, 2010)"
How do you now god created the world? Oh, some uneducated barbarian scratched it onto a piece of paper, 1000's of years ago. Well case closed then. That's all the evidence some fools need to believe whatever the hell they want to. Pathetic thinking, and dangerous, as demonstrated by news events since history began. The religious affliction in the modern era, is a dirty, and immoral bunch of unbelievable , childish nonsense. Grow up you religious morons. Stop wreaking my beautiful world. MORONS.
People have created Gods all through their existence to explain things that were beyond their scientific level to explain. Sol and Luna were once Gods. Then it was gods that made them rise and fall. We've had gods that make the rains come and gods that make the rains stop. Gods that give life and other gods that take it away.
Right now we still live swaddled in the cradle of our birth. We have yet to take our first true steps into the unknown. Perhaps once we do, we'll be able to answer.
@jkflipflop98 Gods may come i different forms as what people think they are. But the fact why people believe on a splendor is because its clear enough that the universe didnt jst spark up by meeting the right physical conditions, there has to be a catalyst, sumthing that started all those right conditions...and it has to be someone...... Someone totally unexplainable
barbaric desert god(s) (allah or jehova or dead joo) do NOT know Science or logic. All they know is how to make idiots out of the entire world....onviously desert god(s) did not know what he created Universe, because it did NOT create them in the first place...instead some babbling primitive desert dweller created his desert god(s) in his mind.
If God and Science ever met up in a ring, God would be on his ass in a few seconds. Creationists live by some pompous human reasoning that the whole universe was created for them. They're scared at the fact that we may not have any reason to be here other than chance. They can't live without thinking that there's a greater meaning to everything. Silly and scared little nobodies who poison the world with their beliefs.
It's funny, because your religion tells us that we can't possibly be seeing these things in the video. By your holy book, even if god did create objects more than 6000 light years away, we wouldn't be able to see them, because no light would have reached earth yet.
@MrLawrenceV My one exception to not posting to these silly statements.
When Jesus turned the water into wine, He created the wine fully aged. God created the Light in the Universe when He created the Universe. Otherwise there would have been no stars in the sky. Your problem is that you are trying to make God conform to the laws of the universe but you can't impose your logic on the spiritual. Good try though.
@donf48 So, in essence, god is trying to trick us. God created a system which could only facilitate our failure, not our enlightenment. Why would he do that? Why does god want us to fail? Because, he could just have easily created a system which functioned the same way, but didn't lead people astray.
When Jesus made good wine, he said "Look at what I did". The stars didn't come with the same signature. There was no debate about the vintner of the wine, but many take credit for the stars.
@MrLawrenceV I don't know where you surmissed that from what I posted, but God is not trying to trick us, facilitate our failure, want us to fail or lead us astray. But God only deals in faith.
My point was, God created the light by filling the universe with it--- He didn't just allow it to shine. There is no creative work after a star is already in existence.
Why He did it the way He did it is something no one knows, but I believe He had a purpose. Hope that helps.
@donf48 why would a god that desires worship/love create worshipers in a universe in which EVERY aspect of said universe points AWAY from the existence of that god? He gave us things like: free-will, science, logic, and then expects us to draw the OPPOSITE conclusion from everything else he created. How is that NOT a trick?
@MrLawrenceV God is not the one that trying to trick you. Science is not naturally in opposition to God. Man has made a science that is in opposition to God. There is evidence everywhere you look attesting to this fact. At some point, you have to decide whom you will believe. God will not make that choice for you. It is called FAITH.
@donf48 Man didnt make a science in opposition to God. Scientific experiments are made objectively, not subjectively. Scientists dont believe in what they want to believe in (Heaven), they believe in the facts and observations. If science is in opposition to God, than that will mean God may not exist. As simple as that.
@Kenoburned Not exactly. God created the Sun and created the rest using the Big Bang. Earth wasn't finished yet; it looked just like rock. Then He placed water, then grass, then animals, then the sky. Then, He made Hell for all those who sinned. If you don't believe in Him, that's your fault; not mine. I just wanted to help.
@Kenoburned hahaha objective. every heard of the dual slit experiment? prooves that you can never be objective in science. At the quantum level which we are talkin about when we talk about the universe the observer has a huge impact on the experiment :P sorry to crush ur dreams buddy :)
@Kenoburned yeh depending on how the observer observs the experiment the result is different. so that makes the experiment subjective to how the observer chooses to observe the experiment. sorry to crush ur dreams buddy :)
@rsfanlvl108 You dont seem to understand what "making an experiment objectively" means. When you make an experiment objectively, you do it while accepting all the results, even if they are contradicting your own theories. If your experiment requires, lets say, 10 tries, you dont only accept the 3 results you like, you accept ALL the 10 results. THAT is being objective. The double slit experiment was made objectively, the scientists accept the fact that the RESULTS are subjective to the observer.
Godd??? Well come to Theravada Buddhism.. that' s is the religion of 21 century.. that dose not cross science at all.. doesn't need anything to change time to time like most of other religion have to. it's depends on the fact and the result.. in lows of universe. just like science.
@MrLawrenceV God is not someone who tricks us, he is almighty and the reason God gave us free will and minds is so that we could use them in deciding what we believe if we believe in theories about a big bang then we still believe in theories not proven, have you seen an ape turn into a man today? Have you seen another liveable planet be created or heard about it happening today? What happened to make all those man made theories stop happening?
No I haven't missed the point, you have. I can't continue this discussion you are so indoctrinated it's depressing. It's sad that God only goes as far as a dusty, flawed and immoral book for you. I do not care if you accept science or not but at least bother to understand what you are talking about. Science is the direct opposite religion, it based on evidence and logic, and it can admit when it's wrong and improve it's own knowledge. It is not based on dogma, superstition or faith.
However the branches can never be exactly the same, so a cat would never be a giraffe, just like a monkey will never be a human. Doesn't stop the potential for it to become something else, providing the environmental pressures and genetic material is there. And of course assuming they survive (as a species) for long enough.
@akinf22 The cat to giraffe comparison was an attempt at levity. I was trying to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. But species 1 cannot merge into species 2. If it did, it would be species 3. But 1 thing you said intrigues me. Not sure if you are an advocate for evolutionary theory or not, but it sounds like you are saying each species evolved independant of every other species?
@donf48 - I was assuming that you meant for species 2 to be the outcome of adaptive change in species 1. Where does a 3rd species come into it? The thing is that the process of evolution is not absurd (at least to those who understand it) So making absurd statements and attributing them to a sound scientific theory just makes you look like you have no understanding of what you are talking about.
@akinf22 Dude, I was responding to what you said. "Species 1 merges into species 2 but it's still in the same family, kingdom "
The process of evolution is totally absurd. And yes I can pick and choose. Evolution within a species does not equal Evolution from one species to another. Understand?
@donf48 - each species evolved independently? Yes and no. Clearly they interact and place pressures on one and other. Think of the trunk of the tree as the common ancestor, due to geographical migration, selection pressures etc, he generates 2 subspecies which develop into species in their own right, these are the first two branches. One of the these species isn't as affective as the other, so this branch becomes a dead end but the other branch produces another subspecies, and so on.
@akinf22 - the trunk the is the thickest part so species will share a classification say the kingdom, but they are now a different species from that original ancestor, and from each other. Understand yet?
I'm happy to admit it, because I understand biological classifications. Imagine a tree, as time goes along this tree grows branches, and these branches grow branches and so on. Depending on the trees environment some branches grow better than others, some will grow new branches, some will become dead ends and drop off, etc. Species 1 merges into species 2 but it's still in the same family, kingdom etc.
@akinf22 I have mentioned previously that I do believe in evolution in the sense that animals change and adapt to the environment. However, when an animal adapts to the environment, he never changes species. this is the evolution that I am adamantly opposed to.
@donf48 - you cant pick and chose. You just said you accept that animals change and adapt, evolutionary theory argues that these changes and adoptions can lead to the development of new species. Today there is evidence to support that theory, showing the development of species over time, and the genetic relationships between modern species. Either you value evolutionary theory or you don't. Clearly you don't and have made no attempt to understand it.
@akinf22 Hey look, if you can produce just one of these "changes and adoptions can lead to the development of new species", then I will be glad to listen. You guys mock and jeer at our faith and then ask to believe you by that same faith. Prove it.
If anyone should be able to, science should be able to. I will wait.
@donf48 - I haven't even mentioned your faith. And we have provided plenty of evidence you just don't want to see it. I haven't mocked you, I am simply giving you the reality, it up to you what you do with it. Fundamentally it come down to science not giving you the answer you want, and it that makes you so defensive and react negatively to people who just want to understand reality for what it is. If science support these ancient txt you would be all over it like white on rice.
@akinf22 - I'm not asking for your faith, I'm asking you to go and learn, and to try and understand. God's existence is not at stake here only your account of him in ancient and inaccurate documents. So what, surely God is more then one book?
@akinf22 You missed the point entirely. It is not that science has not given me the answer that I want, it doesn't answer any questions. As expected, everything within science's answer is shrouded in vast amounts of time, so that no changes are evident. My answer to that is, regardless of the time involved, for there to be so many species on Earth, and your theory to be correct, in each species you should be able to go back to a specific point in time where, a new species started. continued.....
@akinf22 Science cannot show one instance where a new species started from an established species, and that is called faith. Science fails all along the way when you attempt to take God out of the equation. The properties of matter, an expanding universe, the laws of attraction, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of cause and effect, to name a few. Science. Science is asking you these questions and you say, accept what we are saying?? By faith??
@donf48 - and even if it were a 'religion' its done a lot more for us then your 'faith'. If you don't like the principles of science, go live in a cave instead or reaping all it's benefits whilst simultaneously spitting in its eye.
@akinf22 Are you kidding me? It doesn't matter if there is a basis to your beliefs? Sure science has benefitted me greatly. But science should be about facts. You are arguing facts against faith, correct? Well , your facts don't add up. Am I at fault if science cannot demonstrate one proof of it's fairie tale dogma "We just happened/We evolved from the Ape/primordial ooze" crap. I am not asking you to agree with my faith. I want you to substantiate your facts. You fail.
@donf48 - As you like. If you can't be bothered seeking out or understanding the relevant information for yourself, then I guess you win. You're right I totally failed to break through your misguided ignorance. Continue to worship your dusty old book, and I'll continue on facing up to reality.
@khalidamuslima "some of them [begin to] ascribe to other powers a share in their Sustainer’s divinity?"
From what I gather, I'm being told that the Almighty God's power is being hijacked by humanity to give power unto evil, demonic entities, or false Gods? I'm afraid your sadly mistaken. God's spirit is Divine in nature and in no way does any human, nor demon, nor Satan himself possess the power to manipulate The Almighty's power against him!
How exactly does that single comment display my "way of seeing things". If it did, how would that be mediocre. Having an inconsistent definition that flails in the wind is mediocrity if anything. It's either blind faith, ignorance, or agnosticism which does nothing to give a standard of reasoning and leads to errors in logic such as: one cannot know that one cannot know anything.
@dookiecheez I apologise, I didn't say it correctly, that statement with the perfect univers is kinda mediocre not your overall way of thinking as truly I cannot possibly know. But if you are a beliver in free will of the universe, don't you think that perfection would steal our free will, if everything around you would be perfect, would you have free will? So if there is a God ,the 1 out of a thousand possible reasons he made the world not perfect, is so we have free will upon anything.
Even with the variable of free will a perfect being could produce a perfect universe that included free will. To say that a perfect universe could not contain free will, is the same as saying our universe is so perfect that it necessitates a perfect being to have created it. Either the being does not exist, or it is not perfect, otherwise how as it is omnipotent then unable to create a perfect universe with free will?
@dookiecheez Well if the world would be complex, then the sinq on everyones life afecting each other must be extremly complex in perfection,if we had the power of choice (free will)in a perfect world,then one of the choices must be less perfect then the other,affecting anothers person life and it goes on to infinity and imperfection.
God doesen't need to be perfect, it just needs to give us free will so the world we're seeing now represents us the humans, out brains are not ready for perfection
@dookiecheez Heh seems youtube messed up my third reply to you so it sounds weird and hard to understand, anyways conversations like this can't be taken on youtube, I'm open to other peoples opinions as long as they make logic and I can't deny them, if ur intrested in talking about this, send me a pm :)
@dookiecheez Nice try. God is perfect and He is the creator of the universe. Number 3 is wrong because He purposely gave free will to mankind and so mankind is able to do bad things or in your words things that destroy the original perfect balance of the world and the universe.
Why would a perfect being create imperfection? Why would a perfect being be unable to give us free will without making the universe imperfect? How does free will change anything? Your making assumptions based on NOTHING. My assumptions are based on the accepted definition of god, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
"when affliction befalls men, they cry out unto their Sustainer, turning unto Him [for help]; but as soon as He lets them taste of His grace, lo! some of them [begin to] ascribe to other powers a share in their Sustainer’s divinity?" Huh? Could you message me the verse or give me a direct link or something. Maybe a summation?
@dookiecheez If you are a man, and I assume you are, then you can only make male children. There, any female children are only pretenders and must be destroyed immediately.
Is it obvious to you where your logic is flawed yet?
That's a false tautology. Suggesting that a perfect being would only create something perfectly is to point out the inherent flaws in suggesting a perfect being. It's not my fault people propose such a thing, I'm only applying logic to show the inconsistencies. If we accept a perfect being and ignore the fallacies of such a thing, it follows that it would create perfection. Anything short of that, would mean the being is not perfect--as it has short comings. Do you get it yet?
@dookiecheez But your quote expressly stated this: 3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
So I am not the one who doesn't get it.
God is perfect. But everything He creates is not part of Him. The creation is not God.
By the way, it was the study of science and not religion that caused me to come to the conclusion that God alone is the creator of this Universe and everything in it. Science leaves way to many unanswered questions and requires greater faith.
Science does not require faith. It allows one to be mature enough to say I don't know. But if a being creates imperfection, then it can't be a perfect being. What about this don't you get?
@dookiecheez True science does not require faith. True science does not call theory established fact. But your science does.
Therefore, your science requires faith. There are a lot of things science only guesses at. But in 10 years, how much of that accepted "fact" will be replaced with other "accepted facts"? It would be more honest to say "We don't have enough data to say one way or the other".
Of course, you do have data. The stars shout out information daily and few listen.
Theory is the highest level an idea can be. The only thing that's more established is evidence which requires an idea to be explained. Theories are not overturned regularly, they are however constantly updated to conform to the evidence which does come in daily. I'm dissapointed that you would spout such a common misconception of theory and of fact.
What science have I proposed that requires faith. Give an example.
@dookiecheez Not you specifically, but science in general. For instance, Is matter eternal? Evidence point to a "beginning". Name a principle of science that allows for protons to clump together in the nucleus, ignoring the laws of attraction. Science cannot explain the amount of helium in the atmosphere. Does the law of cause and effect apply to the universe ( and the matter therein)?
What is the probability that DNA would form itself correctly the first time, completely. If not, life dies.
You sincerely think there is no explanation for the levels of helium in the atmosphere, or why protons are in the nucleus of the atom? Debunk anyone? DNA is a complex molecule that formed over time, RNA clearly came first for example. Probability here is misleading, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to cite nonsensical figures in the future.
I know there are protons in the nucleus of an atom. I just don't believe that, if you have a pot of electrons, a pot of protons and a pot of neutrons, plus the other parts of an atom, and you pour them all together, that you will get matter. And you still ignore the fact that, if DNA were not complete with the structure of reproduction, digestion, etc, plus be housed in a protein that allows for the reproduction of it, then life would not progress.
@dookiecheez For life to come about without a creator, there should and would be ample examples of transitional life(The offspring of one species not being the same species as the parent species.) To get the various and numerous amount of life in existence, and to account for the 25 species that go extinct daily, there should be volumns of evidence, but you do not correlate this lack of activity to a flaw in your thinking. The fossile record shows no record of the activity either, like it should
Incorrect. One species never gives birth to another species. That is false on so many levels. Gradual and successive accumulation of superficial changes generation to generation cause speciation. Never does it happen in one generation. You clearly are confused about evolution and the fossil record. The fossil record contains hundreds of clearly transitional species if you actually know what a transitional species is.
@dookiecheez Don't you think the fact that we have a multitude of species to deal with, combined with the explanation that "it almost never happens" doesn't exactly give credance to your theory.
And the fossile record does not show one transitional species. There is nothing in the geologic timeline and then life show up fully developed. Maybe you are confused about transitional species. Does the term missing link, mean anything. It is termed MISSING because it is not there. Sheesh.
Define transitional species, because this complaint that there are none is ubiquitous among evolution denialists (they're often confused). There are literally a dozen of transitional fossil species between the common ancestor humans share with chimps. The term missing link is in the case a misnomer.
Transitional hominid fossils: Homo..erectus, habilius, floresiensis, neanderthalensis, rhodesiensis, heidelbergensis, ergaster, georgicus the list goes on
@dookiecheez I have defined transitional species a number of times but you won't listen. I have not approached this from a faith perspective intentionally. I have tried to show where science claims one thing as fact, but offers no substantiation for the claim. No evidence. On transitional species, "it happens so slowly that it can't be demonstrated" or in other words, "accept it by faith"
Well if I have to place my faith in any subject, it needs to have a FIRM foundation. Sorry, science loses
You did it once, and I corrected you. That is not what evolution says happens. No species gives birth to another species, that is patently false.
No it isn't faith, there are fossils. You can observe all of the mechanisms by which speciation occurs, and there are observed instances in and outside of the lab. The only difference between what between that and what you require is a longer timescale. Science only loses if you don't know what your talking about.
@dookiecheez Correct all you want but you are wrong. If it is provable, why are scientists all over the world coming to the irrefutable conclusion that this universe, and the life within it, did not happen by random chance.
Every one of these people, who are much smarter than you or I, would all have to say that naturalism, or evolution works....... IT DOESN'T, and squeeling like a pig or bullying will not make it work. Get over it.
I'm starting to wonder if you are suffering from a mental illness. Which scientists are coming to what conclusion? Speaking in platitudes is somewhat confusing. When did anyone ever believe that the universe and life happened by random chance?
You seem greatly confused over what evolution is, and are stubbornly holding on to misconceptions--so I'll stop trying to explain it to you.
@dookiecheez I think you are the one suffering from the mental illness. What is the debate over? Creation vs evolution? I thought you were arguing for the evolutionary position that God is imaginary and everything we see just happened by itself. That is what you believe, right?
Skeptic A quotes Skeptic B, who quotes Skeptic C, who quotes Skeptic A. I understand how arguments are won by unbelievers. If you can't provide evidence to support your position, then you attack the presenter. Cont.
@dookiecheez I want you to seriously look at the bombadier beetle and tell me that this animal evolved gradually over time. Impossible. Then consider the giraffe. ITs heart is 2 feet long to pump blood up to its brain. Explain how evolution would build a buffer so it doesn't suffer lethal blood pressure when it lowers its head for a drink. Impossible.
Or a chickens egg, with a built in dose of air for the bird to escape from the shell. Without that he dies. Nature is full of these if you look
You want me to explain the bombadier beetle, the giraffe, and the chicken egg. Alright. talk (no space) origins dot org /indexcc/CB/CB310 dot html
/watch?v= SUvLR2yyWuE
/watch?v= 0cH2bkZfHw4
I have to leave shortly and I keep getting search results for 'chicken or the egg' so I'll come back to that one, but it only took 5 minutes to find 2/3 answers.
@dookiecheez You have friggin got to be kidding me. And you accuse us of believing in fairie tales? hahahahahahahaha. That is a good one. It does not even come close to explaining the beetle's evolution. You weary me with you games.
Well it's clearly not impossible as you said, and that was only the watered down basic explanation. If you were at all interested in the evolution of such things you could learn a lot from opening your eyes by suspending the blindness your faith is imposing on your mind. But you are clearly not interested, life must be easy when you only need to know three words to explain everything: god did it. If only everyone else thought that way, there'd be no science and we'd all be happy.
@dookiecheez You clearly don't get it, do you? You tell me to suspend my belief and believe that there is no authority or creator of everything around us? The fact that there is an "US" tells me that you are wrong. Am I supposed to adopt lies that are pattently in error over the truth that I know rules the universe?
And to suggest that 1 possibility out of billions if proof? Some scientist you are. If you do want to keep this up, I am game. I know what I know and I know you are wrong.
I find it interesting that the basis of your argument is that you have knowledge of god. Please do present this amazing knowledge that tells you short of evidence to the contrary of evolution, that the unifying theory of biology is wrong.
That's ultimately up to you, I hope whatever impression you have of my civility over the internet has not dissuaded you from exposing your delusions to the light of scrutiny.
@dookiecheez And I didn't mean to imply that you are uncivil. I also hope you don't infere that I am. I just think that you do not think critically about what you believe. And that cause me to lose patience.
hehe I didn't mean to imply that you implied such a thing, I was just expressing some candor--I think it's generally a good idea to never assume the tone of someone on the internet.
When you look into the fossil record you can see a series of species leading up to let's say a giraffe. Now only one of those species may have existed at any given time, so there's almost a special lineage where only over time does a species drift far enough apart from it's ancestor's to be another species.
@dookiecheez But that brings up an entirely different problem to me. We are told that as many as 25 species per day are going extinct. I think some entirely different species are being used to suggest an evolutionary connection, when there may not be one at all. (Giving you the benefit of the doubt, here. Don't assume that my conciliatory attitude signifies acceptance of evolution. That is why I used the word MAY)
I'm not familiar with this 25 daily extinct species thing you keep mentioning. I doubt it's accurate, but I will suspend judgment until I see the evidence. Perhaps you could disclose the source of this information?
If you're concerned over how scientists determine common ancestry or the 'lineage' of a species such as the evolution of the whale from a quadrupedal land mammal then that's another thing entirely. I just need to know what your referring to.
@dookiecheez Just a statistic that I have heard from various sources that I can't remember. Probably discovery channel. I watch a lot. But my concern is that just because 2 species may have similar bone structures do not mean that one evolved from the other. I suspect that happens, if not often at least ocassionally.
Morphology is not the only factor in determining relatedness or common ancestry. A nested hierarchy in the fossil record is supported by morphology, phylogeny, genetics and corresponds to independent methods of confirming age such as soil strata and the numerous kinds of radiometric dating. No single piece of evidence is sufficient on it's own, and no single piece of evidence is overlooked. Only when everything known independently confirms the same result is it confirmed.
@dookiecheez Here is another area that I think evolution relies on heavily but I don't think it says what you guys say. I have been taught that fossiles are there because animals die and fall to the bottom of the ocean and are buried by silt and other debris, and that gradual process is the record we now see in our geological studies.
That does not compute with me because that is not what happens now. To be continued. Too important to squeeze in.
@dookiecheez When an animal dies, it sinks to the bottom (I agree with that) but a process begins almost immediately whereby a multitude of organisms start eating the decaying flesh, and that process is complete in days for smaller animals and in weeks in larger ones. All that is left is bone fragments and in some cases, these are converted as well.
I think we only get the fossiles we see now when they are covered quickly, much like the Pompeii humans caught in the lava. (Think Noah)
What does Noah have to do with Pompeii, or what does a flood not congruent with any time line or evidence, historical or scientific, have to do with a known historical volcanic event?
There seems to be 4 ways in which fossilization can occur gradually: I guess it would be called casting, replacement and recrystallization, compression, & bioimmuration. Each is dependent on the environment and the tissues being fossilized.
@dookiecheez I only used pompeii to show the swiftness of the event that caused people to be buried in ash before they could move. I don't think animals lay on the ocean floor for the length of time necessary for any of these.
I think the flood during Naoh's life was the event that produced a great many of today's fossiles. A violent storm killed practically every land animal and covered them up quickly during the event.
Except there is no evidence of a global flood. If it were possible for a such a flood to occur and cause such fossilization we would see a massive amount of fossil's on one soil strata, not spread out in various layers showing a nested hierarchy over millions of years. Assuming that you believe in a young earth, if there was any evidence of such a flood causing fossilization in that way we would see it in the fossil record and evolutionary theory would be sunk, but we don't.
@dookiecheez Against my better judgement, I am going to try one last time. You say that no species gives birth to another species.
THen how do species come into existence? If you say that a cat, over countless years, will turn into a giraffe, then another animal has to turn into a cat, or there would be no cats.
you hide all these changes in large periods of time, but boiled down, on one side of a minute is 1 species and on the other a new species. This is not happening anywhere.
@donf48 - I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but are you imply that evolutionary theory says that a cat would randomly turn into a giraffe over a long period of time?? Because that is quite clearly anything but evolutionary theory, and you need to understand something properly before you dismiss it. I think you need to learn about biological classifications too. The fact of the matter is big changes take time, we cant forcibly speed up nature but with a good historical record of fossils..
@akinf22 Ok, bad example. Species 1 turns into SPecies 2. THere is a point in time that the species changes. How ever that is determined. But 1 species must change into another species. You are saying it. YOu just won't admit it.
@dookiecheez And I see posting (not your but by like minded sceptics) that make the wildest claims without a shred of evidence. For example, 11 dimensions? Really? Black holes are theories without evidence. Faith. We do not know even 10% of what goes on in some portions of the Earth, but yet we know what is happening 10,000 lightyears away? I am sure some of these theories will be substantiated some day, but I am convinced the vast amount of "so-called" knowledge is nothing more than a guess.
The brane theory which proposes 11 dimensions is in it's infancy, it's not well understood and the evidence is lacking at this time. Until the evidence does come in, I will suspend judgment.
Ok wow...so science has to live up to your standards of evidence, but your belief system does not. There is actual evidence of black holes, they have been observed. The specifics are yet to be determined, but are theorized with math. God (creator) has 0 evidence, and is not even falsifiable.
Of course god did not create the universe , all people with a good IQ will explain how could a fully formed human being start a universe . Its so silly except that a human called god said I think I will start a big bang . Q where did god come frome ?
@deanogigalo here is the conundrum that causes science to err. They are looking in the box for answers outside the box. Let me 'splain.
Science is only looking at the physical universe to find answers to the questions it seeks. I understand that the laws of the universe constrain us to this pale blue dot. But to find answers about where a car came from, do you look inside the car? I know this is a bad analogy. But no, you go to where the car was made.
well if this makes any one happier you nevre die for ever life is actualy ever lasting let me explain,ok the nunvierse keeps having the big bang and cruntch so ts infinite there for you never completely die your matter will be brought back to life over and over but theres no telling what you will be a plant mouse anything even the very keys your touching was a living thing at some point or another.
Child's play compared to what I have just accomplished by literally utilizing a methodology combining the {~ONE DOLLAR BILL~} & the Bible as 2 individual parts of the most complex story ever told throughout all of history & the only methodology that which the Lord God itself has sanctioned for the proof beyond doubt of its own existence
This God is not the God of Christianity per se but the God of all living things both past present and future.
My normal response to such questions is "Can you tell me why my great-grandfathers neighbor bought the dog he bought?" I believe in God with out doubt, but to attempt to understand His reasons and understand Him equates to an earthworm trying to argue quantum physics at a science convention. I can't contain all he knows on one subject, His reasoning contains all info on all subjects, and we can't explain what we can't understand.
@steelersteve36 You silly fool! I dont think you realise that the God you have been praying to was the Devil all this time. That is why there is still today so much evil,death, destruction and war in the world today. Great God !
@harleymaori well silly fool evil only contains human,animal,viruslike actions.no god has to do with any aspect of evil.its there chioce to do evil or not.not a chioce made by a god.
Or Amatsu Mikaboshi? "The august Star of heaven" Aka: The God of Evil?
Not to mention that Yaweh character.
Condoning (and commanding) genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, infantacide, rape, theft, pedophilia, The sins of the father passed on to the son... That's evil. No doubt about it.
It was the Devil who sacrificed his son the antichrist, flooded the entire planet, sent disease and pestilence allowed adam and eves children to commit incest. Turned people to stone. You christians have been on the wrong path all this time reading scripture praying all day for nothing.
Scripture was written by the devil to fool man in to thinking it was Gods work to make you feel safe in his arms but all you need to do is look at the real world and see that this world is Evil.
All this time you think you have been prying to God when infact you were prying to the Devil. which explians there is more evi in the world than good.
Why did God create all things ?That is really asking why did God create life?That,to me,is really asking what is the purpose of life.We were created to worship God-which tells me He created us for that purpose-to have a relationship with us!
The Devil created an invisible friend called God to help comfort the sick and needy and to promise them a better life in Heaven. He also gave them a story book to help them before they went to bed. while they were looking the other way. The Devil would rape the land, kill their brothers and sisters and bring death and destruction to the world like it is today like play toys all this while the children were busy praying in their play houses called churches. The Devil smiled and all was Evil
This has been flagged as spam show
According to M-theory, (a major contender for a Grand Unified Theory) ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts a great any universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science.
artyrussell 2 weeks ago
God made us out of love he doesnt need a reason to make a bunch of people for nothing he doesn't need a reason to make us for somthing because Gods nature is love, many people who believe in God are getting killed in some place all due to who they praise for God does it hurt him yes but it shows him that his creation loves him to death. Love has no boundaries it's eternal
DreamingOutLoud33 1 month ago
@DreamingOutLoud33 This is so true, and even for those who don't believe in him, you must agree that following his word would make this world a better place
iiThrowStackzz 2 weeks ago
let me ask u this if u had a horrible life like if u had nothin and everybody hated u for no reason why would god give u that life also if u had a family that didn't love u why do u think god gave that horrible life would u still believe him
101mortalkombat 5 months ago
@101mortalkombat from someone with experience-no,no you wouldnt
werewolf873 5 months ago
@101mortalkombat Yes "I" would but no one can say if anyone else but yourself would. this is because nobody knows the hearts of any other man but himself and God. but to answer this from where you are comming from it isbasically the same question of why God allows hurt and anguish etc. and this has been answered. God created us in the beginning with a perfect relationship with him, but "man" chose to screw everything up and since then we are cursed.
gabbe7 5 months ago
Romans 1:20 "Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse"
megaead69 6 months ago
of course the song is creed.
silversurfer8189 6 months ago
In other words, God needs nothing from humanity. God is not effect in a positive or negative way by the universe. But the universe is effected by God. I argue that God created the universe and brought life into existence for our benefit. For the benefit of human beings and all life on earth that has the capacity to enjoy and appreciate life. The world was created for our benefit, not for God's. It is a mistake to think God is effected by humanity.
JoshuaIsaac89 7 months ago
I disagree with your conclusion that God created the universe in order for humans to be "pleasing" to God. The character Elihu in the book of Job makes the observation "look into the sky at the universe around you, which is so far away from you. If you did wrong, how would it harm God? If your failures multiplied, how would it effect God? If you were righteous, what would that do for God? Or if what could you offer to God from your hand? Your actions effect only people like yourself."
JoshuaIsaac89 7 months ago
God is Universe
Universe is God
Its not a ''he'' its a ''it''
Its part of us
We are part of it
Sinomis 7 months ago
@Sinomis God is higher then the universe. He is beyond the universe!
bass109 6 months ago
God did not make hell. He/she is light, energy, being..we are his/her pieces. Hell can be viewed as a place of fire and torture if one wishes. But my reality as to what hell is: living without conscience. But who ultimately makes hell? That idea...it was me. The bigger question to this bland puzzle (the original question): why not?
CrazyGrin 7 months ago
its too bad that this god dosent exist. science is always right no matter how many fairy tales say other wise.
cole3454657 7 months ago
@cole3454657 Do you want evidence from people more educated than myself that, this "Fairytale" is the truth. I'll PM you a link if you want. That goes for any one else as well who wants it.
SilverfangX777 7 months ago
@SilverfangX777 yes, auctually, i would really like that.
cole3454657 7 months ago
Your Questions will be answer if you talk to the one who create our universe.
-Our GOD-
ShaimVerse 7 months ago
let us make man in our image and of our likeness.. errrrmmm who is the our.. GOD is 1 alone so why does he want to make man in many diff images of GOD?? he has 1 look dont he.. and ezikeal first verce.. i see a vision of GOD as a light and in that light there was a weel upon a weel.. and in that weel was 4 windows.. and in the 4 windows the was the likes of 4 creators.. again errrrrmmm windows and creators.. from a profit of GOD izy is a importand profit.. and he sees things like this..
TheTruthSeeker1975 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
hcgdiets0 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
truehealthyproducts 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 8 months ago
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
StrikeTsunami 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love the video work nice keep them coming! When you have time come
visit my channel!
bestpreworkout 8 months ago
Humans have only been around for a blink of an eye.
UndercoverCracker 8 months ago
It's no wonder Scientists & atheist don't see GOD. Of course you won't he's been around much longer than you, more loving than you are, wiser than you are. excuse me but how long exactly have humans been around in the eons of time eh? Scripture "It does not belong to man who is walking, to man who is walking even to direct his step" Humans are not that advanced, not that knowledgeable & really well they think they just because they live in a modern society with technology.
FaithfulWitness11 9 months ago
What I do respect is when science works with the bible & science through observation, it's when scientists start to draw assumptions disagre even with each other & disagree with facts they observe but instead they match to suit there own opinions no matter how wrong it is. How much theory really is a fact & truth & how much is guesswork.
FaithfulWitness11 9 months ago
IF..there would be a God, looking at the bible. He made everything and humans just so there will be someone worshipping him. Sounds pretty fucking childish huh? XD
codyjohn1551 9 months ago
There are a lot of questions asking the question "Why?" And there could be many answers. Where is the evidence that "God" is the right answer out of all the possible answers? Science certainly doesn't have all the answers, but the answers it does have, it has shown a lot of evidence for. Show me evidence for God, and I'll actually take the idea seriously.
Justiroth 9 months ago
If there's no God there's no science because everything here on Earth is from GOD.
obeee030 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, I'm not kidding, and I'm 14.
TheStlrocks 10 months ago
Check out the following video entitled: Fé Ciência Glauben Wissenschaft Faith Science Esmeralda Campelo Antônio Peters. With enlightening arguments and facts, speaks Pastor Antonio Peters in an interview about his book entitled “Alpha and Omega“ (English subtitels)
“The book Alpha and Omega is not based on science to explain the Bible, it is based on the Bible and uses science as a keyhole to say: "Look, the Bible already tells us this and goes even further! (Pastor Antônio, 2010)"
RabieFam 10 months ago
@RabieFam Good, WILD-EYED GUESS, but completely WRONG. Visit any High School, inyou immediate area, for conformation, of this. Thank you.
evidenceonlythanx 10 months ago
@evidenceonlythanx I am not suprised that you never heard about Big Crunch, antimatter, dilitation of time and so forth, in High School..... ^^
RabieFam 10 months ago
How do you now god created the world? Oh, some uneducated barbarian scratched it onto a piece of paper, 1000's of years ago. Well case closed then. That's all the evidence some fools need to believe whatever the hell they want to. Pathetic thinking, and dangerous, as demonstrated by news events since history began. The religious affliction in the modern era, is a dirty, and immoral bunch of unbelievable , childish nonsense. Grow up you religious morons. Stop wreaking my beautiful world. MORONS.
evidenceonlythanx 11 months ago
People have created Gods all through their existence to explain things that were beyond their scientific level to explain. Sol and Luna were once Gods. Then it was gods that made them rise and fall. We've had gods that make the rains come and gods that make the rains stop. Gods that give life and other gods that take it away.
Right now we still live swaddled in the cradle of our birth. We have yet to take our first true steps into the unknown. Perhaps once we do, we'll be able to answer.
jkflipflop98 1 year ago
@jkflipflop98 Gods may come i different forms as what people think they are. But the fact why people believe on a splendor is because its clear enough that the universe didnt jst spark up by meeting the right physical conditions, there has to be a catalyst, sumthing that started all those right conditions...and it has to be someone...... Someone totally unexplainable
ipilcottage 11 months ago
HE WAS LONELY ITS JUST LIKE THE GAME SIMS
Infinity1782 1 year ago
YES HE WAS LONELY THATS THE REAL 100% TRUTH
Infinity1782 1 year ago
those scientists and their brain cells
hempartist420 1 year ago
barbaric desert god(s) (allah or jehova or dead joo) do NOT know Science or logic. All they know is how to make idiots out of the entire world....onviously desert god(s) did not know what he created Universe, because it did NOT create them in the first place...instead some babbling primitive desert dweller created his desert god(s) in his mind.
rkan10 1 year ago
If God and Science ever met up in a ring, God would be on his ass in a few seconds. Creationists live by some pompous human reasoning that the whole universe was created for them. They're scared at the fact that we may not have any reason to be here other than chance. They can't live without thinking that there's a greater meaning to everything. Silly and scared little nobodies who poison the world with their beliefs.
trurealest 1 year ago
wtf is this... just creed and pictures of galaxies?
funincluded 1 year ago
i think he was just bored.....
wrestling2091 1 year ago
Christianioty is known as a religon?
Why dont they class muslim as a relgion, catholic is accepted, satanism people avoid....
Everyone hates Jews, and athiest just say there is nothing that made something just by extreme luck?
Sorry, God looks so much real
EthanEzrahite 1 year ago
It's funny, because your religion tells us that we can't possibly be seeing these things in the video. By your holy book, even if god did create objects more than 6000 light years away, we wouldn't be able to see them, because no light would have reached earth yet.
MrLawrenceV 1 year ago
@MrLawrenceV My one exception to not posting to these silly statements.
When Jesus turned the water into wine, He created the wine fully aged. God created the Light in the Universe when He created the Universe. Otherwise there would have been no stars in the sky. Your problem is that you are trying to make God conform to the laws of the universe but you can't impose your logic on the spiritual. Good try though.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 So, in essence, god is trying to trick us. God created a system which could only facilitate our failure, not our enlightenment. Why would he do that? Why does god want us to fail? Because, he could just have easily created a system which functioned the same way, but didn't lead people astray.
When Jesus made good wine, he said "Look at what I did". The stars didn't come with the same signature. There was no debate about the vintner of the wine, but many take credit for the stars.
MrLawrenceV 1 year ago
@MrLawrenceV I don't know where you surmissed that from what I posted, but God is not trying to trick us, facilitate our failure, want us to fail or lead us astray. But God only deals in faith.
My point was, God created the light by filling the universe with it--- He didn't just allow it to shine. There is no creative work after a star is already in existence.
Why He did it the way He did it is something no one knows, but I believe He had a purpose. Hope that helps.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 why would a god that desires worship/love create worshipers in a universe in which EVERY aspect of said universe points AWAY from the existence of that god? He gave us things like: free-will, science, logic, and then expects us to draw the OPPOSITE conclusion from everything else he created. How is that NOT a trick?
MrLawrenceV 1 year ago
@MrLawrenceV God is not the one that trying to trick you. Science is not naturally in opposition to God. Man has made a science that is in opposition to God. There is evidence everywhere you look attesting to this fact. At some point, you have to decide whom you will believe. God will not make that choice for you. It is called FAITH.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 Man didnt make a science in opposition to God. Scientific experiments are made objectively, not subjectively. Scientists dont believe in what they want to believe in (Heaven), they believe in the facts and observations. If science is in opposition to God, than that will mean God may not exist. As simple as that.
Kenoburned 1 year ago 6
@Kenoburned Not exactly. God created the Sun and created the rest using the Big Bang. Earth wasn't finished yet; it looked just like rock. Then He placed water, then grass, then animals, then the sky. Then, He made Hell for all those who sinned. If you don't believe in Him, that's your fault; not mine. I just wanted to help.
TheStlrocks 1 year ago
@TheStlrocks you know....I dont really appreciate sentences that start with a "God created..." instead of "MAYBE God created..."
Kenoburned 1 year ago
@Kenoburned well then MAYBE u dnt exist...
ipilcottage 11 months ago
@ipilcottage maybe
Kenoburned 11 months ago
@TheStlrocks lmfao dude you are just kidding right! how old are you 11 or 12?
hidethefetus 10 months ago
@TheStlrocks Like its a fault not believing in your God.
Sinomis 7 months ago
@Kenoburned hahaha objective. every heard of the dual slit experiment? prooves that you can never be objective in science. At the quantum level which we are talkin about when we talk about the universe the observer has a huge impact on the experiment :P sorry to crush ur dreams buddy :)
rsfanlvl108 7 months ago
@rsfanlvl108 Eh, the experiment was made objectively, sorry to crush your dreams buddy.
Kenoburned 7 months ago
@Kenoburned yeh depending on how the observer observs the experiment the result is different. so that makes the experiment subjective to how the observer chooses to observe the experiment. sorry to crush ur dreams buddy :)
rsfanlvl108 7 months ago
@rsfanlvl108 You dont seem to understand what "making an experiment objectively" means. When you make an experiment objectively, you do it while accepting all the results, even if they are contradicting your own theories. If your experiment requires, lets say, 10 tries, you dont only accept the 3 results you like, you accept ALL the 10 results. THAT is being objective. The double slit experiment was made objectively, the scientists accept the fact that the RESULTS are subjective to the observer.
Kenoburned 7 months ago
Godd??? Well come to Theravada Buddhism.. that' s is the religion of 21 century.. that dose not cross science at all.. doesn't need anything to change time to time like most of other religion have to. it's depends on the fact and the result.. in lows of universe. just like science.
MRexsited 2 months ago
@MrLawrenceV God is not someone who tricks us, he is almighty and the reason God gave us free will and minds is so that we could use them in deciding what we believe if we believe in theories about a big bang then we still believe in theories not proven, have you seen an ape turn into a man today? Have you seen another liveable planet be created or heard about it happening today? What happened to make all those man made theories stop happening?
brimarie1981 1 year ago
Comment removed
brimarie1981 1 year ago
No I haven't missed the point, you have. I can't continue this discussion you are so indoctrinated it's depressing. It's sad that God only goes as far as a dusty, flawed and immoral book for you. I do not care if you accept science or not but at least bother to understand what you are talking about. Science is the direct opposite religion, it based on evidence and logic, and it can admit when it's wrong and improve it's own knowledge. It is not based on dogma, superstition or faith.
akinf22 1 year ago
However the branches can never be exactly the same, so a cat would never be a giraffe, just like a monkey will never be a human. Doesn't stop the potential for it to become something else, providing the environmental pressures and genetic material is there. And of course assuming they survive (as a species) for long enough.
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 The cat to giraffe comparison was an attempt at levity. I was trying to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. But species 1 cannot merge into species 2. If it did, it would be species 3. But 1 thing you said intrigues me. Not sure if you are an advocate for evolutionary theory or not, but it sounds like you are saying each species evolved independant of every other species?
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 - I was assuming that you meant for species 2 to be the outcome of adaptive change in species 1. Where does a 3rd species come into it? The thing is that the process of evolution is not absurd (at least to those who understand it) So making absurd statements and attributing them to a sound scientific theory just makes you look like you have no understanding of what you are talking about.
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 Dude, I was responding to what you said. "Species 1 merges into species 2 but it's still in the same family, kingdom "
The process of evolution is totally absurd. And yes I can pick and choose. Evolution within a species does not equal Evolution from one species to another. Understand?
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 - each species evolved independently? Yes and no. Clearly they interact and place pressures on one and other. Think of the trunk of the tree as the common ancestor, due to geographical migration, selection pressures etc, he generates 2 subspecies which develop into species in their own right, these are the first two branches. One of the these species isn't as affective as the other, so this branch becomes a dead end but the other branch produces another subspecies, and so on.
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 - the trunk the is the thickest part so species will share a classification say the kingdom, but they are now a different species from that original ancestor, and from each other. Understand yet?
akinf22 1 year ago
I'm happy to admit it, because I understand biological classifications. Imagine a tree, as time goes along this tree grows branches, and these branches grow branches and so on. Depending on the trees environment some branches grow better than others, some will grow new branches, some will become dead ends and drop off, etc. Species 1 merges into species 2 but it's still in the same family, kingdom etc.
akinf22 1 year ago
Not to mention we witness the smaller changes all the time, in fact most of our agriculture is built on these elements.
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 I have mentioned previously that I do believe in evolution in the sense that animals change and adapt to the environment. However, when an animal adapts to the environment, he never changes species. this is the evolution that I am adamantly opposed to.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 - you cant pick and chose. You just said you accept that animals change and adapt, evolutionary theory argues that these changes and adoptions can lead to the development of new species. Today there is evidence to support that theory, showing the development of species over time, and the genetic relationships between modern species. Either you value evolutionary theory or you don't. Clearly you don't and have made no attempt to understand it.
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 - If you honestly think your version of 'evolutionary theory' is sound, then please do the research and submit it to scientific scrutiny.
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 Hey look, if you can produce just one of these "changes and adoptions can lead to the development of new species", then I will be glad to listen. You guys mock and jeer at our faith and then ask to believe you by that same faith. Prove it.
If anyone should be able to, science should be able to. I will wait.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 - I haven't even mentioned your faith. And we have provided plenty of evidence you just don't want to see it. I haven't mocked you, I am simply giving you the reality, it up to you what you do with it. Fundamentally it come down to science not giving you the answer you want, and it that makes you so defensive and react negatively to people who just want to understand reality for what it is. If science support these ancient txt you would be all over it like white on rice.
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 - I'm not asking for your faith, I'm asking you to go and learn, and to try and understand. God's existence is not at stake here only your account of him in ancient and inaccurate documents. So what, surely God is more then one book?
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 You missed the point entirely. It is not that science has not given me the answer that I want, it doesn't answer any questions. As expected, everything within science's answer is shrouded in vast amounts of time, so that no changes are evident. My answer to that is, regardless of the time involved, for there to be so many species on Earth, and your theory to be correct, in each species you should be able to go back to a specific point in time where, a new species started. continued.....
donf48 1 year ago
@akinf22 Science cannot show one instance where a new species started from an established species, and that is called faith. Science fails all along the way when you attempt to take God out of the equation. The properties of matter, an expanding universe, the laws of attraction, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of cause and effect, to name a few. Science. Science is asking you these questions and you say, accept what we are saying?? By faith??
It sounds like religion.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 - and even if it were a 'religion' its done a lot more for us then your 'faith'. If you don't like the principles of science, go live in a cave instead or reaping all it's benefits whilst simultaneously spitting in its eye.
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 Are you kidding me? It doesn't matter if there is a basis to your beliefs? Sure science has benefitted me greatly. But science should be about facts. You are arguing facts against faith, correct? Well , your facts don't add up. Am I at fault if science cannot demonstrate one proof of it's fairie tale dogma "We just happened/We evolved from the Ape/primordial ooze" crap. I am not asking you to agree with my faith. I want you to substantiate your facts. You fail.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 - As you like. If you can't be bothered seeking out or understanding the relevant information for yourself, then I guess you win. You're right I totally failed to break through your misguided ignorance. Continue to worship your dusty old book, and I'll continue on facing up to reality.
akinf22 1 year ago
@khalidamuslima "some of them [begin to] ascribe to other powers a share in their Sustainer’s divinity?"
From what I gather, I'm being told that the Almighty God's power is being hijacked by humanity to give power unto evil, demonic entities, or false Gods? I'm afraid your sadly mistaken. God's spirit is Divine in nature and in no way does any human, nor demon, nor Satan himself possess the power to manipulate The Almighty's power against him!
JustinLB82 1 year ago
Can you explain why God created the universe?
no explanation whatsoever!!! junk video
2010fys 1 year ago
He had to take an explosive dump, thus there was the big bang and from this exploding feces we were made. XD
StewpidGenius 1 year ago
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez You my friend, have a mediocre way of seeing things.
rarestiby 1 year ago
@rarestiby
How exactly does that single comment display my "way of seeing things". If it did, how would that be mediocre. Having an inconsistent definition that flails in the wind is mediocrity if anything. It's either blind faith, ignorance, or agnosticism which does nothing to give a standard of reasoning and leads to errors in logic such as: one cannot know that one cannot know anything.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I apologise, I didn't say it correctly, that statement with the perfect univers is kinda mediocre not your overall way of thinking as truly I cannot possibly know. But if you are a beliver in free will of the universe, don't you think that perfection would steal our free will, if everything around you would be perfect, would you have free will? So if there is a God ,the 1 out of a thousand possible reasons he made the world not perfect, is so we have free will upon anything.
rarestiby 1 year ago
@rarestiby
Even with the variable of free will a perfect being could produce a perfect universe that included free will. To say that a perfect universe could not contain free will, is the same as saying our universe is so perfect that it necessitates a perfect being to have created it. Either the being does not exist, or it is not perfect, otherwise how as it is omnipotent then unable to create a perfect universe with free will?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Well if the world would be complex, then the sinq on everyones life afecting each other must be extremly complex in perfection,if we had the power of choice (free will)in a perfect world,then one of the choices must be less perfect then the other,affecting anothers person life and it goes on to infinity and imperfection.
God doesen't need to be perfect, it just needs to give us free will so the world we're seeing now represents us the humans, out brains are not ready for perfection
rarestiby 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Heh seems youtube messed up my third reply to you so it sounds weird and hard to understand, anyways conversations like this can't be taken on youtube, I'm open to other peoples opinions as long as they make logic and I can't deny them, if ur intrested in talking about this, send me a pm :)
rarestiby 1 year ago
@rarestiby
Sure...I'm a little confused coming back to this every few days so why not.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Nice try. God is perfect and He is the creator of the universe. Number 3 is wrong because He purposely gave free will to mankind and so mankind is able to do bad things or in your words things that destroy the original perfect balance of the world and the universe.
khalidamuslima 1 year ago
@khalidamuslima
Why would a perfect being create imperfection? Why would a perfect being be unable to give us free will without making the universe imperfect? How does free will change anything? Your making assumptions based on NOTHING. My assumptions are based on the accepted definition of god, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Read Qur'an Sura 2 Verse 30-33. This will answer your question.
khalidamuslima 1 year ago
@khalidamuslima
If you could be so kind as to just quote it here, I'm finding it difficult to confirm whether or not I'm reading what you're intending me to.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I wanted to but it's too long. On the page of IslamiCity there's a translation into english.
khalidamuslima 1 year ago
@khalidamuslima
"when affliction befalls men, they cry out unto their Sustainer, turning unto Him [for help]; but as soon as He lets them taste of His grace, lo! some of them [begin to] ascribe to other powers a share in their Sustainer’s divinity?" Huh? Could you message me the verse or give me a direct link or something. Maybe a summation?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez If you are a man, and I assume you are, then you can only make male children. There, any female children are only pretenders and must be destroyed immediately.
Is it obvious to you where your logic is flawed yet?
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
That's a false tautology. Suggesting that a perfect being would only create something perfectly is to point out the inherent flaws in suggesting a perfect being. It's not my fault people propose such a thing, I'm only applying logic to show the inconsistencies. If we accept a perfect being and ignore the fallacies of such a thing, it follows that it would create perfection. Anything short of that, would mean the being is not perfect--as it has short comings. Do you get it yet?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez But your quote expressly stated this: 3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
So I am not the one who doesn't get it.
God is perfect. But everything He creates is not part of Him. The creation is not God.
By the way, it was the study of science and not religion that caused me to come to the conclusion that God alone is the creator of this Universe and everything in it. Science leaves way to many unanswered questions and requires greater faith.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
Science does not require faith. It allows one to be mature enough to say I don't know. But if a being creates imperfection, then it can't be a perfect being. What about this don't you get?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez True science does not require faith. True science does not call theory established fact. But your science does.
Therefore, your science requires faith. There are a lot of things science only guesses at. But in 10 years, how much of that accepted "fact" will be replaced with other "accepted facts"? It would be more honest to say "We don't have enough data to say one way or the other".
Of course, you do have data. The stars shout out information daily and few listen.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
Theory is the highest level an idea can be. The only thing that's more established is evidence which requires an idea to be explained. Theories are not overturned regularly, they are however constantly updated to conform to the evidence which does come in daily. I'm dissapointed that you would spout such a common misconception of theory and of fact.
What science have I proposed that requires faith. Give an example.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Not you specifically, but science in general. For instance, Is matter eternal? Evidence point to a "beginning". Name a principle of science that allows for protons to clump together in the nucleus, ignoring the laws of attraction. Science cannot explain the amount of helium in the atmosphere. Does the law of cause and effect apply to the universe ( and the matter therein)?
What is the probability that DNA would form itself correctly the first time, completely. If not, life dies.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
What evidence points to a beginning?
You sincerely think there is no explanation for the levels of helium in the atmosphere, or why protons are in the nucleus of the atom? Debunk anyone? DNA is a complex molecule that formed over time, RNA clearly came first for example. Probability here is misleading, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to cite nonsensical figures in the future.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez An expanding universe!
I know there are protons in the nucleus of an atom. I just don't believe that, if you have a pot of electrons, a pot of protons and a pot of neutrons, plus the other parts of an atom, and you pour them all together, that you will get matter. And you still ignore the fact that, if DNA were not complete with the structure of reproduction, digestion, etc, plus be housed in a protein that allows for the reproduction of it, then life would not progress.
donf48 1 year ago
@dookiecheez For life to come about without a creator, there should and would be ample examples of transitional life(The offspring of one species not being the same species as the parent species.) To get the various and numerous amount of life in existence, and to account for the 25 species that go extinct daily, there should be volumns of evidence, but you do not correlate this lack of activity to a flaw in your thinking. The fossile record shows no record of the activity either, like it should
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
Incorrect. One species never gives birth to another species. That is false on so many levels. Gradual and successive accumulation of superficial changes generation to generation cause speciation. Never does it happen in one generation. You clearly are confused about evolution and the fossil record. The fossil record contains hundreds of clearly transitional species if you actually know what a transitional species is.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Don't you think the fact that we have a multitude of species to deal with, combined with the explanation that "it almost never happens" doesn't exactly give credance to your theory.
And the fossile record does not show one transitional species. There is nothing in the geologic timeline and then life show up fully developed. Maybe you are confused about transitional species. Does the term missing link, mean anything. It is termed MISSING because it is not there. Sheesh.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
What theory are you referring to?
Define transitional species, because this complaint that there are none is ubiquitous among evolution denialists (they're often confused). There are literally a dozen of transitional fossil species between the common ancestor humans share with chimps. The term missing link is in the case a misnomer.
Transitional hominid fossils: Homo..erectus, habilius, floresiensis, neanderthalensis, rhodesiensis, heidelbergensis, ergaster, georgicus the list goes on
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I have defined transitional species a number of times but you won't listen. I have not approached this from a faith perspective intentionally. I have tried to show where science claims one thing as fact, but offers no substantiation for the claim. No evidence. On transitional species, "it happens so slowly that it can't be demonstrated" or in other words, "accept it by faith"
Well if I have to place my faith in any subject, it needs to have a FIRM foundation. Sorry, science loses
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
You did it once, and I corrected you. That is not what evolution says happens. No species gives birth to another species, that is patently false.
No it isn't faith, there are fossils. You can observe all of the mechanisms by which speciation occurs, and there are observed instances in and outside of the lab. The only difference between what between that and what you require is a longer timescale. Science only loses if you don't know what your talking about.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Correct all you want but you are wrong. If it is provable, why are scientists all over the world coming to the irrefutable conclusion that this universe, and the life within it, did not happen by random chance.
Every one of these people, who are much smarter than you or I, would all have to say that naturalism, or evolution works....... IT DOESN'T, and squeeling like a pig or bullying will not make it work. Get over it.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
I'm starting to wonder if you are suffering from a mental illness. Which scientists are coming to what conclusion? Speaking in platitudes is somewhat confusing. When did anyone ever believe that the universe and life happened by random chance?
You seem greatly confused over what evolution is, and are stubbornly holding on to misconceptions--so I'll stop trying to explain it to you.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I think you are the one suffering from the mental illness. What is the debate over? Creation vs evolution? I thought you were arguing for the evolutionary position that God is imaginary and everything we see just happened by itself. That is what you believe, right?
Skeptic A quotes Skeptic B, who quotes Skeptic C, who quotes Skeptic A. I understand how arguments are won by unbelievers. If you can't provide evidence to support your position, then you attack the presenter. Cont.
donf48 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I want you to seriously look at the bombadier beetle and tell me that this animal evolved gradually over time. Impossible. Then consider the giraffe. ITs heart is 2 feet long to pump blood up to its brain. Explain how evolution would build a buffer so it doesn't suffer lethal blood pressure when it lowers its head for a drink. Impossible.
Or a chickens egg, with a built in dose of air for the bird to escape from the shell. Without that he dies. Nature is full of these if you look
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
You want me to explain the bombadier beetle, the giraffe, and the chicken egg. Alright. talk (no space) origins dot org /indexcc/CB/CB310 dot html
/watch?v= SUvLR2yyWuE
/watch?v= 0cH2bkZfHw4
I have to leave shortly and I keep getting search results for 'chicken or the egg' so I'll come back to that one, but it only took 5 minutes to find 2/3 answers.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez You have friggin got to be kidding me. And you accuse us of believing in fairie tales? hahahahahahahaha. That is a good one. It does not even come close to explaining the beetle's evolution. You weary me with you games.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
Well it's clearly not impossible as you said, and that was only the watered down basic explanation. If you were at all interested in the evolution of such things you could learn a lot from opening your eyes by suspending the blindness your faith is imposing on your mind. But you are clearly not interested, life must be easy when you only need to know three words to explain everything: god did it. If only everyone else thought that way, there'd be no science and we'd all be happy.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez You clearly don't get it, do you? You tell me to suspend my belief and believe that there is no authority or creator of everything around us? The fact that there is an "US" tells me that you are wrong. Am I supposed to adopt lies that are pattently in error over the truth that I know rules the universe?
And to suggest that 1 possibility out of billions if proof? Some scientist you are. If you do want to keep this up, I am game. I know what I know and I know you are wrong.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
I find it interesting that the basis of your argument is that you have knowledge of god. Please do present this amazing knowledge that tells you short of evidence to the contrary of evolution, that the unifying theory of biology is wrong.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez WOuld you even listen if I made the attempt? I think not.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
That's ultimately up to you, I hope whatever impression you have of my civility over the internet has not dissuaded you from exposing your delusions to the light of scrutiny.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez And I didn't mean to imply that you are uncivil. I also hope you don't infere that I am. I just think that you do not think critically about what you believe. And that cause me to lose patience.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
hehe I didn't mean to imply that you implied such a thing, I was just expressing some candor--I think it's generally a good idea to never assume the tone of someone on the internet.
When you look into the fossil record you can see a series of species leading up to let's say a giraffe. Now only one of those species may have existed at any given time, so there's almost a special lineage where only over time does a species drift far enough apart from it's ancestor's to be another species.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez But that brings up an entirely different problem to me. We are told that as many as 25 species per day are going extinct. I think some entirely different species are being used to suggest an evolutionary connection, when there may not be one at all. (Giving you the benefit of the doubt, here. Don't assume that my conciliatory attitude signifies acceptance of evolution. That is why I used the word MAY)
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
I'm not familiar with this 25 daily extinct species thing you keep mentioning. I doubt it's accurate, but I will suspend judgment until I see the evidence. Perhaps you could disclose the source of this information?
If you're concerned over how scientists determine common ancestry or the 'lineage' of a species such as the evolution of the whale from a quadrupedal land mammal then that's another thing entirely. I just need to know what your referring to.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Just a statistic that I have heard from various sources that I can't remember. Probably discovery channel. I watch a lot. But my concern is that just because 2 species may have similar bone structures do not mean that one evolved from the other. I suspect that happens, if not often at least ocassionally.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
Morphology is not the only factor in determining relatedness or common ancestry. A nested hierarchy in the fossil record is supported by morphology, phylogeny, genetics and corresponds to independent methods of confirming age such as soil strata and the numerous kinds of radiometric dating. No single piece of evidence is sufficient on it's own, and no single piece of evidence is overlooked. Only when everything known independently confirms the same result is it confirmed.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Here is another area that I think evolution relies on heavily but I don't think it says what you guys say. I have been taught that fossiles are there because animals die and fall to the bottom of the ocean and are buried by silt and other debris, and that gradual process is the record we now see in our geological studies.
That does not compute with me because that is not what happens now. To be continued. Too important to squeeze in.
donf48 1 year ago
@dookiecheez When an animal dies, it sinks to the bottom (I agree with that) but a process begins almost immediately whereby a multitude of organisms start eating the decaying flesh, and that process is complete in days for smaller animals and in weeks in larger ones. All that is left is bone fragments and in some cases, these are converted as well.
I think we only get the fossiles we see now when they are covered quickly, much like the Pompeii humans caught in the lava. (Think Noah)
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
What does Noah have to do with Pompeii, or what does a flood not congruent with any time line or evidence, historical or scientific, have to do with a known historical volcanic event?
There seems to be 4 ways in which fossilization can occur gradually: I guess it would be called casting, replacement and recrystallization, compression, & bioimmuration. Each is dependent on the environment and the tissues being fossilized.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez I only used pompeii to show the swiftness of the event that caused people to be buried in ash before they could move. I don't think animals lay on the ocean floor for the length of time necessary for any of these.
I think the flood during Naoh's life was the event that produced a great many of today's fossiles. A violent storm killed practically every land animal and covered them up quickly during the event.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
Except there is no evidence of a global flood. If it were possible for a such a flood to occur and cause such fossilization we would see a massive amount of fossil's on one soil strata, not spread out in various layers showing a nested hierarchy over millions of years. Assuming that you believe in a young earth, if there was any evidence of such a flood causing fossilization in that way we would see it in the fossil record and evolutionary theory would be sunk, but we don't.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez There is plenty of evidence of a global flood. There are sea shells and fossils of sea animals on some mountain tops.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
That's evidence of how mountains form. You need a lesson in geology then.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@donf48 Mt Erarat was there when the flood happened. In fact, you might actually find the ark there too. hehe.
donf48 1 year ago
@dookiecheez Against my better judgement, I am going to try one last time. You say that no species gives birth to another species.
THen how do species come into existence? If you say that a cat, over countless years, will turn into a giraffe, then another animal has to turn into a cat, or there would be no cats.
you hide all these changes in large periods of time, but boiled down, on one side of a minute is 1 species and on the other a new species. This is not happening anywhere.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48 - I'm not sure I understand this correctly, but are you imply that evolutionary theory says that a cat would randomly turn into a giraffe over a long period of time?? Because that is quite clearly anything but evolutionary theory, and you need to understand something properly before you dismiss it. I think you need to learn about biological classifications too. The fact of the matter is big changes take time, we cant forcibly speed up nature but with a good historical record of fossils..
akinf22 1 year ago
@akinf22 Ok, bad example. Species 1 turns into SPecies 2. THere is a point in time that the species changes. How ever that is determined. But 1 species must change into another species. You are saying it. YOu just won't admit it.
donf48 1 year ago
@dookiecheez And I see posting (not your but by like minded sceptics) that make the wildest claims without a shred of evidence. For example, 11 dimensions? Really? Black holes are theories without evidence. Faith. We do not know even 10% of what goes on in some portions of the Earth, but yet we know what is happening 10,000 lightyears away? I am sure some of these theories will be substantiated some day, but I am convinced the vast amount of "so-called" knowledge is nothing more than a guess.
donf48 1 year ago
@donf48
The brane theory which proposes 11 dimensions is in it's infancy, it's not well understood and the evidence is lacking at this time. Until the evidence does come in, I will suspend judgment.
Ok wow...so science has to live up to your standards of evidence, but your belief system does not. There is actual evidence of black holes, they have been observed. The specifics are yet to be determined, but are theorized with math. God (creator) has 0 evidence, and is not even falsifiable.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Nice image compilation. Wierd title.
Because his designer, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, commanded Him to.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
Of course god did not create the universe , all people with a good IQ will explain how could a fully formed human being start a universe . Its so silly except that a human called god said I think I will start a big bang . Q where did god come frome ?
deanogigalo 1 year ago
@deanogigalo here is the conundrum that causes science to err. They are looking in the box for answers outside the box. Let me 'splain.
Science is only looking at the physical universe to find answers to the questions it seeks. I understand that the laws of the universe constrain us to this pale blue dot. But to find answers about where a car came from, do you look inside the car? I know this is a bad analogy. But no, you go to where the car was made.
And Who said God was human?
donf48 1 year ago
well if this makes any one happier you nevre die for ever life is actualy ever lasting let me explain,ok the nunvierse keeps having the big bang and cruntch so ts infinite there for you never completely die your matter will be brought back to life over and over but theres no telling what you will be a plant mouse anything even the very keys your touching was a living thing at some point or another.
tjinga2u1 1 year ago
Child's play compared to what I have just accomplished by literally utilizing a methodology combining the {~ONE DOLLAR BILL~} & the Bible as 2 individual parts of the most complex story ever told throughout all of history & the only methodology that which the Lord God itself has sanctioned for the proof beyond doubt of its own existence
This God is not the God of Christianity per se but the God of all living things both past present and future.
Read ~ Angels on the Ark by Michael Fazio
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 1 year ago
All praise to Jesus our King!
steelersteve36 1 year ago
My normal response to such questions is "Can you tell me why my great-grandfathers neighbor bought the dog he bought?" I believe in God with out doubt, but to attempt to understand His reasons and understand Him equates to an earthworm trying to argue quantum physics at a science convention. I can't contain all he knows on one subject, His reasoning contains all info on all subjects, and we can't explain what we can't understand.
daddyg321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no such thing as hungry. Hunger is the absence of food.
There is no such thing as Hate. Hate is the absence of Love.
There is no such thing as God. God is the absence of intellegence LOL!
harleymaori 5 hours ago
harleymaori 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no such thing as hungry. Hunger is the absence of food.
There is no such thing as Hate. Hate is the absence of Love.
There is no such thing as God. God is the absence of intellegence LOL!
harleymaori 5 hours ago
harleymaori 1 year ago
He's a great God,a righteous King! Ruler over everything! He's a great God we will proclaim honor and glory to His name!.........Great God!
steelersteve36 1 year ago
@steelersteve36 You silly fool! I dont think you realise that the God you have been praying to was the Devil all this time. That is why there is still today so much evil,death, destruction and war in the world today. Great God !
harleymaori 1 year ago
@harleymaori well silly fool evil only contains human,animal,viruslike actions.no god has to do with any aspect of evil.its there chioce to do evil or not.not a chioce made by a god.
derruf 1 year ago
@derruf
Ever hear of Kuahana? The God of manslaughter?
Or Amatsu Mikaboshi? "The august Star of heaven" Aka: The God of Evil?
Not to mention that Yaweh character.
Condoning (and commanding) genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, infantacide, rape, theft, pedophilia, The sins of the father passed on to the son... That's evil. No doubt about it.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
Death is final. No book, scripture, belief, opinions, ideas, Gods, philosophy, and talk can save you. Accept death as it is and you will truly live.
harleymaori 1 year ago
It was the Devil who sacrificed his son the antichrist, flooded the entire planet, sent disease and pestilence allowed adam and eves children to commit incest. Turned people to stone. You christians have been on the wrong path all this time reading scripture praying all day for nothing.
harleymaori 1 year ago
Scripture was written by the devil to fool man in to thinking it was Gods work to make you feel safe in his arms but all you need to do is look at the real world and see that this world is Evil.
harleymaori 1 year ago
All this time you think you have been prying to God when infact you were prying to the Devil. which explians there is more evi in the world than good.
harleymaori 1 year ago
Why did God create all things ?That is really asking why did God create life?That,to me,is really asking what is the purpose of life.We were created to worship God-which tells me He created us for that purpose-to have a relationship with us!
steelersteve36 1 year ago
@steelersteve36 God was not the creator. The devil is and he wants your soul this is his purpose End of mystery.
harleymaori 1 year ago
The Devil created an invisible friend called God to help comfort the sick and needy and to promise them a better life in Heaven. He also gave them a story book to help them before they went to bed. while they were looking the other way. The Devil would rape the land, kill their brothers and sisters and bring death and destruction to the world like it is today like play toys all this while the children were busy praying in their play houses called churches. The Devil smiled and all was Evil
harleymaori 1 year ago
@harleymaori If you really believe that,it is pretty sad.
steelersteve36 1 year ago