After watching this debate, I came to the conclusion that yes, the biology major was somewhat bad a debating. However, he was honest and humble, which is everything that the creationist was not. Being ignorant, the creationist had no idea what evolution was; therefore straw-man's his arguments and strutted around whenever his opponent could not make a remark to his absurd claim. The "creation vs. evolution" topic shouldn't even be a debate, much less televised. Such is the ignorance of man.
@jogreeen 'Creationists to me always look retarded . I can always pick a Creationist by their inbred look.'
Yeah! Beady eyes, missing teeth, drooling open mouth at all times.... I would be interested to see a photo of that Feketefarkas nutjob, although it would probably give me nightmares for life.
There have yet to be unearthed on Earth viable human ancestral relics that link Man to simian. They should be common. EVERY representation of a transitional link fr. Piltdown to Orce Man have been hoaxes perpetrated by evolutionary "scientists." The hoaxes always come from academia w/the exception of Robt. Ripley's penchant for sewing monkey torsos to fish tails among other things. Darwin's monkeyed religion is foundering. Tax money can't save it. We're due for another "find"/fabrication.
That's ridiculous that he thinks dinosaurs co-existed with humans. There would be far more drawings, paintings, literature and anything describing the existence of dinosaurs. If the Greeks or Romans co-existed with dinosaurs there would be much, much more evidence and reference to it from them. All the books, theatre, sporting events, literature ancient civillizations had, and none of them hint at the existence of dinosaurs.
@effyoulaststand the word dinosaur was not invented until the 1800's. That's why you haven't heard of any dinosaur stories. There are however a bunch of stories talking about dragons. I believe this is the word people used to describe what we know to be dinosaurs.
What it was called then or now is irrelevant, dragon stories never came about or were popular until the mid-evil period (at least in Europe), and even if they were widely talked about, the way they are portrayed is not much like a dinosaur. The pictures were always the same, always one large beast with huge wings, which doesn't match any of the thousands of species of dinosaurs, The whole argument is ridiculous, there would have been murders by dinosaurs all the time if they were there.
the Josephus paragraph and the Pilate letter - LATTER DAY FORGERIES.
Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Lucian, Mara bar Sarapion -- all lived 100 to 300 years after 'Christ' and ONLY wrote that Christianity was a 'superstition' -- a fraud.
NOT ONE MENTION FROM THE 'LIFETIME' OF CHRIST, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Philo from the HOLY LANDS.
FRAUD.
PROVIDE ONE MENTION OF CHRIST FROM HIS LIFETIME. GO ON, DON'T YOU WANT TO PROVE ME WRONG, FREAK?!
First, to prove that the ones you are babbling about are forgeries. No, they are not. Your logic was: "Some are much younger, that's fine. The others... Well, there seems to be no problem with the others so I'll just say that they are forgeries".
@Feketefarkas Not even the remotest probability. Not even if we were only talking about 2 species running in parallel like humans & chimps. We are talking about each & every animals sequenced so far.
@Feketefarkas It is VERY ODD that what are KNOWN to be random mutations also track the same phylogenetic tree. If you know what is meant by random then you should know this should NOT be the case.
@ExtantFrodo2 Did I forget to include the invaders? Oh yes, the interlopers comign long after your god's supposed creation, the ERV's oddly so very oddly locating themselves in all out genomes in the same fashion as the nested hierarchy of all other mutations. The transposition of genes also tracking the same fucking tree? Jesus, what's a creationist to do?
Scientific data and theory does NOT have to be reproducible, it just has to be TESTABLE which is achieved by means such as forensic analysis.
Do you think continental drift had to be FULLY REPRODUCED in a lab, you dirtbrain? Did scientists actually REPRODUCE the asteroid collision that killed off the dinosaurs, you pathetic imbecile?? Must have missed THAT one!
Try thinking for a change -- make it a new year's resolution, you cretinous, blubbering retard.
Also, the Jerusalem Talmud (which is not a Christian text, nor is it particularly sympathetic to Christianity) identies Mary as the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4).
@OneEyedJack1970 The Jerusalem Talmud was written after Mathew and Luke so has zero authority. No credible bible scholar in the western world believes the genealogy follows back through Mary....it is not taught in seminaries....would you not think the wise men who teach the bible would not consider it if it was worthy.
@OneEyedJack1970 Math. 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of who was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. Jacob did not begat Mary...we are talking about Joseph's genealogy.
250k? The lying, stealing, grifter & con artist Kent Hovind is in prison. There is no prize.
Real science - Genomics X PRIZE, has a REAL $10 million competition designed to drive breakthroughs in the future of predictive and personalized medicine to make significant advances in human genome sequencing.
The goal of this competition is to push the industry to develop, more accurate, faster and more cost effective sequencing technologies of the Genome.
Have any of you guys seen this hilarious "Reason Rally" where Atheist will desperately rally for a "voice" in the world. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Atheism is dying because people are realizing its ridiculous claims. They cannot prove God is fake! They cannot prove Evolution that's why a $250,000 reward STILL exist for evolutionary proof. They cannot prove where the universe originated from! Sooooo? Simple conclusion: Atheist are Simply Angry!
@jqologist Hey fruitcake, if you hated gravity as much as evolution you'd just say "There's no proof of gravity. GOD is pulling shit together. And since you can't prove that god is fake, I win! haha!" Go change your diaper now.
LOL as in the creatard will deny the evidence as usual and never pay out the money. Plus one of thos creatrds requires a universe to be cretated to prove evolution! LOL are so creatarded to agree with that?
Theres a reason they wont let a court decide if the person proves evolution!
@jqologist, 250k? The lying, stealing, grifter & con artist Kent Hovind is in prison. There is no prize.
Meanwhile, real science -- Genomics X PRIZE, has a REAL $10 million competition designed to drive breakthroughs in the future of predictive and personalized medicine to make significant advances in human genome sequencing.
The goal of this competition is to push the industry to develop, more accurate, faster and more cost effective sequencing technologies of the Genome.
Most Important Archaeological Find Ever Shows Jesus Was An Openly Gay Man.
'The newly discovered cave in Jordan is packed with 70+ lead books from the earliest days of Christianity. The most astounding finding is that Jesus Christ was unambiguously and openly gay. He and his disciples formed a same-sex coterie.There are recorded instances of same-sex activity.'
wow, that creationist is cocky... i won't rant anything yet because my knowledge of evolution isn't exactly at an elite level, but i am considering going to school and study it. but creationists seriously have the dumbest arguments, haha :P
@DocReasonable Was it necessary to copy-paste this nonsense again?
You're always right? You always own me? What kind of a psychotic egomaniac you are? Who is idiotic enough to claim that he's always right? Nobody, except you, the one with a God-complex. I'd bet you hate God so much because he's competition to you.
No one on Earth has lived long enough to tell us how does the inception of the universe or Earth itself began, so why bother debating something that is proned to discretionary ideas and opinions? No matter how much "fact" or "data" we may come across, no one can be absolutely certain of what truly happened ever since the inception of time. Whether creationism or evolution took place, after one another, or maybe simultaneously.. Lets just focus on the future instead :D!
@hardc0r3gam3r, I don't have a problem with anyone's religion. I do have a problem when those that financed the Discovery Institute who invented ID from creationism attempt to bring it in to public schools. They are paid liars with a political agenda.
Science and Religion coexisted for decades until those liars manufactured the fake controversy of evolution vs creationism.
Why not join the majority of more than 2 of 3 Christians that accept evolution & believe in god.
It makes me laugh how always in these debates the creationists are able to provide real scientific information for what they believe but the evolutionists, like this one, spend 99% of their time either just atacking the creationist or his type of debate or just saying "we don't know it's just a theory (a fancy word for guessing)!"
In the textbooks instead of saying life probably came from a primordial soup of non-life "somehow" and matter came from nothing, it should say WE DON'T KNOW!
@swdee2003 and then in the textbooks it should provide both sides of the theories as they are just as valid as each other. The evolutionists are guessing and also are the creationists, but I think it makes a lot more sense to think that everything and life was created than it came from nothing or life somehow came from non-life which is very unscientific and has never ever been replicated.
@swdee2003 from 38:47 is a glaring example of how the evolutionist tries not to answer the question and just waffles on about nothing like a politician would!
@DocReasonable Thank you for being an example of my point "evolutionists, like this one, spend 99% of their time either just atacking the creationist ", when you can't think of an intelligent answer you feel threatened and start name calling etc.
Ok so you think that the theory that life came from a primordial soup of complex non-living chemicals is not guessing, is so why? Please give an intelligent answer.
@swdee2003 "you think that the theory that life came from a primordial soup of complex non-living chemicals is not guessing, is so why?" Scientists have already simulated starting conditions and have observed molecules spontaneously forming some of the building blocks of life, like ribonucleotides. They're currently testing a variety of plausible natural paths. Did they arrive at the final answer yet? No. Does that mean they should waste their time looking for your imaginary friends? No.
@jokesonyouhaha1 Seriously, you tell others to grow up? Look in a mirror, please. You don't provide a shred of evidence; you try to use verbal violence to suppress opinions opposing yours. Seriously, grow up - stop calling others "faggots" just for disagreeing with you. Instead, try to pretend to be intelligent and give intelligent, rational answers - or if you don't, admit that you don't have arguments and rely on faith.
It's that simple. You don't have to be an obnoxious jerk.
@Feketefarkas You're not a faggot because you disagree, you're a faggot because you're flaming ignorant and dishonest. You rely on creationist circle jerks for answers. Go to talkorigins . org, it's a huge index of all the creationist bullshit along with tons of evidence and REAL science to show you just how ignorant and dishonest you people are.
@jokesonyouhaha1 Imagine, I've already seen much of talkorigins. Enough for me to treat it carefully. IT contains, using your own words, "flaming ignorance and dishonesty" many times.
And yes, you call others 'faggots' because they disagree with you. You can't provide a shred of evidence, meaning that they have to take your word, and if they don't do that, they're "faggots".
Just admit that you rely on faith. You redirect us to sites you don't even understand. But you call us "ignorant faggots" if we dare not to believe them.
I feel pity for you.
For the next time, you could tell me what makes an evolutionist site a more credible source than a creationist site (most people seem to treat the first one as something superior, when they don't even have the slightest reason, as the answer is "nothing").
@Feketefarkas Figured you'd bury your head in your ass and ignore the mountains of evidence. And pubmed is not an evolutionist site, you faggoting illiterate. It accepts submissions from all scientific fields. That's why you don't find any creationist fairy tales, because creationism =/= science. That's the difference.
@jokesonyouhaha1 I am burying my head? Don't be kidding. You are the one building a wall of profanities and obscenities to conceal the fact that you're absolutely clueless.
Also, your vocabulary is painfully poor, even in swearing - practically all you're doing is repeating "faggot". Pathetic.
By the way, creationism isn't science, that's right. But common descent isn't science, either. It easily falls out of the boundaries of science - BY DEFINITION.
@Feketefarkas I'm not kidding. Your head is FAR up your own ass. That's the only way you can ignore evidence. But you're right, common descent isn't science per se, it's fact uncovered and explained by science. :)
@Feketefarkas Common descent leads to certain inevitable predictions. A huge one is that a the relatedness (a factor indicating sequence similarity that is adjusted for gene importance) of any one gene of some extant animal to some other extant animal will be identical no matter which gene or set of genes you select. Can you guess what we find when comparing genes of various animals?
@jokesonyouhaha1 Don't twist my words, please. Science is not the absolute truth. Science, albeit one of the most useful "inventions" ever made by mankind, is limited - the scientific method can be applied only to phenomena that have been observed or can be examined experimentally. But I never claimed that only those phenomena exist that can be examined with the scientific method. There is history, similarly not the domain of science.
@jokesonyouhaha1 Good excuse, but you don't have to take my word (unlike you, I can provide evidence for my claims). Look up 'science' or 'scientific method' in any English dictionary, and it will say exactly what I did.
@Feketefarkas Your creationist extrapolation/bastardization of the definition of scientific method is a flaming non sequitur. No definition of scientific method states that all relevant data must be reproducible in real-time experiments. Nice try though.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@jokesonyouhaha1 You're wrong, it does. Don't just babble mindlessly, look it up in ANY dictionary and you'll find that I'm right. You can deny, but that only reduces your credibility (let's add - even further).
@Feketefarkas OK, illiterate shithead, here we go: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" merriam-webster . com/dictionary/scientific%20method
^Doesn't say all data must be reproducible in experiments. I bet you still don't even realize how absurd your faggoting illiterate non sequitur is.
@Feketefarkas And before you gloat like a flaming queen with "it says collection of data through observation AND experiment! AND! That means both! All the time! AHA!" observation and experiment =/= experimental observation. Some data are collected by experiment, other data are collected by observation. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence from both. Can't wait to read your next desperate/pathetic attempt to troll science.
I am not talking about evolution (if you had paid attention to what I said, you'd know that I don't deny it, that's an observed fact), I'm talking about common descent/ancestry. The past can't be examined either by observation or by experiments, placing common ancestry outside the boundaries of science.
Sorry.
By the way, one of my university professors said: it is easy to recognise who is the wrong.
@Feketefarkas Help me with this one O wise one...The farewell discourse. ....John 13:36 Peter says to Jesus "Lord where are you going"...a few verses later John 14:5 Thomas says "Lord we do not know where you are going"...a few more verses John 16:5 Jesus says "Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me "Where are you going" does this mean Jesus has a short attention span?
I know for a FACT that you have NEVER presented a SCRAP of evidence from the 'LIFETIME' of Jesus to indicate that he existed.
NOBODY EVER HAS.
But as you claim you alone HAVE done this, what's stopping you from REPEATING IT? Surely if you HAD such information you would be RUBBING IT IN AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY... RIGHT???
@DocReasonable What you "know for a fact" is utterly wrong.
There is evidence. Nothing stops me from repeating it, but I doubt that it will have any effect on your mind - you'll just ignore it as you always do. So now that I answered your question, you answer mine: what is the point of repeating it for the hundredth time when you'll just ignore it as you always did?
Hey you brainless evil faggot, you believe in a God who COMMANDS THE MURDER OF INNOCENTS.
'Joshua smote all the country of the hills, of the springs, he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God COMMANDED.' Josh 10:40
@Feketefarkas, Still fighting the losing battle for ignorance and against science, reality and the majority of Christians who accept evolution and believe in god.
Why post anonymously and walk into the Biology dept. of your college and tell all the professors to quit lying to their students about evolution.
Then visit the Geology, Astronomy, Cosmology departments and tell the professors to quit lying about the age of the universe as you have the evidence that it's 6,000 years old.
@DocReasonable Absolute cluelessness. Not only in history (you should study it a bit more before making such hilarious statements and claiming them to be facts), but also in the very fantasy you propagate. Common descent is the hypothesis that all organisms are derived from one common ancestor. It is not an event, and especially not a current event.
@DocReasonable Then wait further or read back. I've given you the evidence a hundred times and you ignored it a hundred times. If you're really curious, you'll look back. You don't look back, meaning that you only intend to deny whatever I'm going to write here, and hide your head in the sand.
@Feketefarkas Oh wise one why does Mathew say Joseph...Jacob.....Matthan.....Eleazar....Eliud.....while Luke shows the bloodline as Joseph....Heli.....Mathat.....Levi......Melchi.....which one is wrong and why.
@Jatz071 They're both right. Legally, Jesus had two parents. Heli was Mary's dad. Jacob was Joseph's. Oddly enough, they were both descended from David through different sons (Jacob through Solomon and Mary through Nathan).
@Feketefarkas Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli".....so where do you get *son inlaw* from that verse....and why do no seminarian scholars agree with your interpretation, unless you can name one, then I will be happy to check their credentials.
@Feketefarkas There is no son-inlaw...for over a thousand years theologians have discussed this error and all of a sudden you have the answer, why dont you put it up as a paper so all can discuss it.
@Jatz071 It also states that Joseph wasn't really Jesus' father, but he's still listed in Luke's genealogy. In any case, a son-in-law could still be considered a son back then, especially if a married couple bore no sons of their own.
@OneEyedJack1970 You can consider whatever you want..the fact is the writers did not consider it....if your conclussion was so simple then there would not have been so many debates over the centuries
@Feketefarkas Because you've already been given the evidence. Mendel, Darwin, Lenski, etc. What's YOUR explanation for the specifics of the fossil record and the nested hierarchy?
@ExtantFrodo2 Don't tell me you can't remember the explanations I've already given. I'll tell you what, it's simply that you don't want to remember. If not, please squeeze your brain a bit harder, I'm tired of repeating everything a hundred times because you intolerant folks don't (want to) understand it.
Mendel, by the way, didn't prove common descent. Just genetic recombination.
@Feketefarkas Oh please? Pretty please? Explain how the absolutely uniform proximity relatedness does not indicate common ancestry. Do that and I will seriously question if evolution is true.
@ExtantFrodo2 Oh please? Pretty please? Why don't you just go back and read the explanation I've written you a hundred times and you ignored a hundred times?
@Feketefarkas how many pages of who knows what should I read through to see if you actually provided a valid rebuttal? Do you have a search term (other then just your name)?
@Feketefarkas' so called answer from 4 weeks ago "Anyway, what's so great about that 'nested hierarchy'? The more similar the organisms are, the more similar their blueprints (DNAs) will be."
Indicating you STILL don't know the difference between simple similarities & the rigorous pattern of similarities & differences that comprise a true nested hierarchy. There is ZERO utilization of same gene function outside this NH no matter how useful or terrific it is. Explain pretty please?
@ExtantFrodo2 The nested hierarchy is essentially made up by similarities showing a certain pattern. Which is not very surprising, considering that the more the creatures look alike, the more similarities their DNAs will show, that's sheer logic and in no way proof of common ancestry.
"Explain pretty please"?
Pretty please, how can you state that it has no utilisation, pretty please? Perhaps it's just not discovered yet, pretty please? Maybe it was harmed by a mutation, pretty please?
Why are you deleting all of your lying comments? Embarrassed, finally, by your own deceit?
Like I said, if you can present me with ONE iota of evidence from the lifetime of Jesus to indicate that he lived, I will be VERY interested and may change my entire outlook on life.
It would also make me completely SHUT UP about Jesus never existing -- so .... WHERE IS IT?!?
I'm sure there are MANY other curious readers here too!
@Feketefarkas There are many different kinds of genes. There are genes which are used for making some aspect of an organism. There are multiple genes sets which code for the same protein. There are genes which are broken. There are genes which are infiltrators/invaders. IT IS SURPRISING that each and all of these independently or grouped produce the same nested hierarchy.
@DocReasonable I marked your comment as spam as you merely copy-paste older comments. Please learn to write, and try to pretend to have a minimal intelligence and have the guts to reply to what I actually told you, don't copy-paste the same nonsense all over.
Problem is, you'd be too retarded to UNDERSTAND any intelligent answer, and would instead start cackling like a flaming lunatic and spouting irrelevant verses from the Bible and a bunch of mindless crap from Answersingenesis.
There's no point even BOTHERING with someone as unspeakably damn stupid as you.
@swdee2003 Creationism isn't a theory, it's a superstition. Grow up. Abiogenesis is an actual field of study and has made great progress despite relentless creationist trolling. I'm sure there were faggots like you in the 19th century demanding imaginary gods be given equal consideration in explaining disease as the budding field of microbiology.
@jokesonyouhaha1 Science is based on real evidence. When there is no evidence for something then that goes into the realm of belief. Some people believe that life came from non-living chemicals.
So people have made some more complex chemicals, so what! From that to LIFE is a huge leap!
Actually you have proven that evolution IS correct! Well done!
I mean human mental evolution. I'm obviously more evolved than you as I don't go around calling people faggots.
@swdee2003 Your faggotry merits the label. Wear it with pride. Your failtrolling ancestors in the middle ages also thought diseases are caused and cured by deities. Many of your fellow fagtrolls today still believe that. LOL
What really matters when it comes to scientific theories are those scientists whose life work is spent on a particular scientific discipline.
Creationism = 0.15% in the US & 0.1% of Scientists elsewhere in the world working in relevant fields of earth & life sciences & less than 1 of 3 Christians.
Evolution = 99.85% in the US & 99.9% of Scientists elsewhere working in relevant fields of earth & life sciences & more than 2 of 3 Christians.
@swdee2003 LMFAO @ creationists providing real scientific info for what they believe. This faggot provided ZERO evidence the whole debate. "The eye is too complex to have evolved" is not evidence, it's argument form incredulity and ignorance.
Both Creationism and Evolutionism are world views, each make assumptions. Both believe in a supreme power.Creationists have a god but so do Evolutionists- their god is Time
@avflf Evolutionists are imaginary buddy, evolution is just a word that describes a natural process - it isn't a theology, a belief system or a faith of any kind, so it is not and can not be an 'ism'. Do you call people who accept that gravity is real Gravitationists? Are people who accept that the Earth is ancient Geologyists?
@CarpenterBretL "1. Does not agree with the truth of the Bible" If the bible's account of creation matched reality, it'd be true. Since it doesn't, it's just poetry.
"2. Evolutionist would not cuss so much if they were right." Get off yt and read a scientific journal.
"3. It wouldn't be this easy to beat them in a debate if they were right." Only thing you beat was your meat.
"4. They would be more scientific and not so religious if evolution were true." Again, read a scientific journal.
@jokesonyouhaha1 it is hard to respect your beliefs when you (who doesn't have any degree) discredit many scientists who hold impressive credentials but don't believe in your Evolution religion.
@lunchbox420wb All scientists say the universe is old, not just atheists. The grand canyon was formed over millions years due to erosive forces (ancestral Colorado River). If a global flood happened, then how exactly did 375000+ species of plants survive it? And how did animals and humans survive without oxygen which plants provide? The speed of light is a fundamental constant in physics idiot. Isochron dating and geochronology also prove that the earth and universe are old.
@deadshot1995 All scientists? There are thousands who don't believe in an old earth. You are either misinformed or a liar. I prefer the latter. The grand canyon what? You are apparently ignorant of Steve Austin's research or you are a liar. That we already have established. How did plants survive a flood. Are you or are you pretending to be or are you a liar? How did 8 people survive for a year on earth? No oxygen? Who's socks are you smoking? The speed of light...
@CarpenterBretL Thousands? Are any of these archaeologists or geologists?
And yes I know all about Austin's bullshit. The paper trail documents that Austin knew he'd get a mantle age from whole-rock measurements of those lava flows long before the ICR obtained a single rock sample of their own. If isotopic dating methods are as unreliable as Austin would like us to believe, why did he have to rig his test by only selecting rock samples which were known in advance to fail it?
@CarpenterBretL The the 1988 Impact article documents that Austin knew he'd get a mantle age from whole-rock measurements of those lava flows, long before the ICR obtained a single rock sample of their own. Maybe you should research things more carefully.
@CarpenterBretL So you explain to me then, you arrogant moron, how exactly 375000+ species of plants survived the global flood and while you're at it, explain how the 8 humans and millions of animals aboard the Ark were able to survive without plants providing oxygen.
If you can't, then kindly fuck off and go back to reading your 2000 year old science book.
@deadshot1995 The flood would certainly not kill all plants. Where do you come up with that ridiculous notion. Why do you believe there were millions of animals aboard the Ark? It is very hard to take you seriously when you state such nonsense. Have you ever heard of a straw man argument? By you foul mouth and fatly arguments I must conclude that you are still in high school (Probably a C student). Your religion of Evolution can't even help you not to cuss.
@CarpenterBretL So how did plants survive being submerged under roaring, salty flood waters then? There are millions of animals on Earth today, all of whom could certainly not have formed in the last 5000 years. The flood apparently killed all living creatures outside of the Ark, therefore millions of animals must have been on the ark. Unless you can tell me why not of course. I doubt you can as all you do is say things without giving evidence.
@deadshot1995 I find it quite amusing that an Evolutionist who thinks that life just sprouts up out of a barren world now asking me how could there be so many plants after a Flood. Ha ha ha ha. I can't help but fall down laughing. What are you smoking? You even think that the Flood killed everything outside the Ark??? I was wondering when you were going to ask me how the fish survived in the ocean. You have a serious problem you man. Just google you questions and get the answers.
@CarpenterBretL Genesis 7:23- Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
So yeah, according to your ancient science book, the flood killed every living thing not aboard the ark (other than some aquatic life).
@CarpenterBretL Also, seeds of most plants would not have survived being submerged for a year. And most plants require established soils to grow, soils which would all have been stripped by the Flood.
You're pathetic mocking and delusional arrogance won't help you. Either answer the questions or piss off.
@deadshot1995 Where do you get your info? How long can seeds of most plants survive in the ocean? Please list me the seeds of each particular plant you claim could not survive in the ocean and list the studies done to prove your conclusion. When I grew up in Hawaii these were the same questions and problems that my teachers would ask in class. They never once concluded as you that Hawaii could not have happened. Please don't tell me that the seeds were taken over on a boat.
@CarpenterBretL Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but all other species would've died from being submerged in salt water for a year. Also, most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment deposited by the flood. This is deep enough to prevent spouting.
@CarpenterBretL There are tiny a handful of scientists who support Young Earth Creationism, none of them however do so for evidential reasons. Not a single of those scientists has published any research to support their views in science journals. Look up 'Project Steve' - there are more PhD Biologists called Steve who accept evolution than there are creationist scientists of any kind in total.
@parsivalshorse I don't believe in young earth creationism because of the number of scientists who believe that way. Did you examine Steve Austin's evidence? Do you reject his findings at Spirit lake and do you reject the obvious similarities between his findings and the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone petrified forests? His discoveries argue strongly for a recent creation and global flood. Do you deny anthropogenic global warming just because the vast majority of scientist reject the idea?
@CarpenterBretL Yes I am familiar with Austin's claims - if they were factual he would have presented them to science (he never has). The vast majority of scientists accept anthropogenic warming by the way.
@lunchbox420wb You don't know shit. You just pretend that you do. Can you even provide evidence that the universe is less than 10000 years old like the bible says? Of course you can't because it's already been proven that the universe is old. Can you provide evidence for a global flood, Exodus or the massacre of the innocents? Of course not, because not one of those things actually happened.
@deadshot1995 How do you know the universe is old? WHERE YOU THERE?
What method is used to determine the age of the universe? Light distance? Sorry but you cannot prove light has always stayed constant, and distance is irrelevant to time.
The best evidence for a flood is fossils, and the grand canyon to name a few.
Atheist Scientist will say the universe is old but they have no idea how it got here so in reality atheist dont know shit.
@deadshot1995 There is more evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old than the evidence that it is older. Evidence for a global flood. How about the fossils. Ha. Take off your blinders please just for 70 years. Massacre of the innocents? When they come a kill all your family we now know that you call them innocents. Hypo....
@CarpenterBretL Fossils were deposited over millions of years idiot, not by a global flood. Give me some evidence then that the universe is less than 10000 years because I have yet to hear any. Put up or shut the fuck up.
And Herod's massacre of the innocents as described in the Bible was documented by no contemporary historians, including Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's cruel acts. It never happened fool.
@deadshot1995 Except for that science can't prove your claims. I know what you believe. I know that your religion is evolution. But science demands tests and observation and repetition. I know why you say millions of years because it fits into your religion. The one thing we do agree on it that the fossils were deposited. Hmmm, even you think it was a flood. Acts 26:14... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
@CarpenterBretL Evolution in all forms has been observed. No, I don't think there was a global flood. Fossils formed through fossilisation, which does not require a global flood. There never was a global flood remember? Otherwise, how would 375000 species of primarily land-dwelling plants have survived it and how would animals have survived without plants providing oxygen?
Also, still waiting for some evidence of a young universe as you have yet to provide any.
@parsivalshorse What alternate universe do you live in? If it took thousands of years they would decay and disintegrate before they were fossilized. You want to believe that is takes more than 10,000 because that would explain why we don't see any fossils being formed today. This means your beliefs are outside of science and you are at least as religious as I am. The Bible flood is the best explanation of the fossils we find.
After watching this debate, I came to the conclusion that yes, the biology major was somewhat bad a debating. However, he was honest and humble, which is everything that the creationist was not. Being ignorant, the creationist had no idea what evolution was; therefore straw-man's his arguments and strutted around whenever his opponent could not make a remark to his absurd claim. The "creation vs. evolution" topic shouldn't even be a debate, much less televised. Such is the ignorance of man.
TheDrphil07 1 day ago
I like how the evolutionist has a dinosaur tie. Pimpin'.
JulianoRamirez 1 day ago
Creationists to me always look retarded . I can always pick a Creationist by their inbred look.
jogreeen 2 days ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@jogreeen 'Creationists to me always look retarded . I can always pick a Creationist by their inbred look.'
Yeah! Beady eyes, missing teeth, drooling open mouth at all times.... I would be interested to see a photo of that Feketefarkas nutjob, although it would probably give me nightmares for life.
DocReasonable 1 day ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
There have yet to be unearthed on Earth viable human ancestral relics that link Man to simian. They should be common. EVERY representation of a transitional link fr. Piltdown to Orce Man have been hoaxes perpetrated by evolutionary "scientists." The hoaxes always come from academia w/the exception of Robt. Ripley's penchant for sewing monkey torsos to fish tails among other things. Darwin's monkeyed religion is foundering. Tax money can't save it. We're due for another "find"/fabrication.
ThingsTerrestrial 3 days ago
That's ridiculous that he thinks dinosaurs co-existed with humans. There would be far more drawings, paintings, literature and anything describing the existence of dinosaurs. If the Greeks or Romans co-existed with dinosaurs there would be much, much more evidence and reference to it from them. All the books, theatre, sporting events, literature ancient civillizations had, and none of them hint at the existence of dinosaurs.
effyoulaststand 4 days ago 9
@effyoulaststand the word dinosaur was not invented until the 1800's. That's why you haven't heard of any dinosaur stories. There are however a bunch of stories talking about dragons. I believe this is the word people used to describe what we know to be dinosaurs.
buzzrecords100 1 day ago
What it was called then or now is irrelevant, dragon stories never came about or were popular until the mid-evil period (at least in Europe), and even if they were widely talked about, the way they are portrayed is not much like a dinosaur. The pictures were always the same, always one large beast with huge wings, which doesn't match any of the thousands of species of dinosaurs, The whole argument is ridiculous, there would have been murders by dinosaurs all the time if they were there.
effyoulaststand 1 day ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 19 hours ago
@DocReasonable So... He gives you a well reasoned and elaborated argument, and all you reply is this? This tells everything. You are pathetic.
Feketefarkas 13 hours ago
@Feketefarkas 'So... He gives you a well reasoned and elaborated argument'
Who are you talking about here, you stupid, lying bastard?
I don't recall EVER seeing such a thing from ANY creationist.
DocReasonable 9 hours ago
@DocReasonable You could recall such arguments, actually a lot of them.
The problem is that you do not want to.
Feketefarkas 8 hours ago
@Feketefarkas
the Josephus paragraph and the Pilate letter - LATTER DAY FORGERIES.
Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Lucian, Mara bar Sarapion -- all lived 100 to 300 years after 'Christ' and ONLY wrote that Christianity was a 'superstition' -- a fraud.
NOT ONE MENTION FROM THE 'LIFETIME' OF CHRIST, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Philo from the HOLY LANDS.
FRAUD.
PROVIDE ONE MENTION OF CHRIST FROM HIS LIFETIME. GO ON, DON'T YOU WANT TO PROVE ME WRONG, FREAK?!
DocReasonable 8 hours ago
@DocReasonable You forgot two things.
First, to prove that the ones you are babbling about are forgeries. No, they are not. Your logic was: "Some are much younger, that's fine. The others... Well, there seems to be no problem with the others so I'll just say that they are forgeries".
The other one you forgot is the Talmud.
Feketefarkas 6 hours ago
@Feketefarkas
No, I ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE *ANY* MENTION OF JESUS THAT IS FROM HIS LIFETIME.
Why am I STILL waiting for your response to this?
DocReasonable 6 hours ago
@DocReasonable Because you ignore what you get.
Feketefarkas 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feketefarkas
No, you have NEVER PROVIDED to me *ANY* MENTION OF JESUS THAT IS FROM HIS LIFETIME.
I've been waiting for this for AT LEAST A YEAR.
What's stopping you? If you could provide such evidence YOU WOULD SHUT ME UP FOREVER.
I would think you'd LOVE that??
DocReasonable 6 hours ago
@Feketefarkas Talking about beady eyes...and a rat looking face....what you been up to.....begging on a corner for few pennies from heaven.
Jatz071 16 minutes ago
@Feketefarkas Not even the remotest probability. Not even if we were only talking about 2 species running in parallel like humans & chimps. We are talking about each & every animals sequenced so far.
ExtantFrodo2 4 days ago
The Ica Stones that the nerd talks about that show Triceratops has long been known to be a hoax.
elchicho25 4 days ago
WOW That nerdy guy in glasses is incredibly Annoying!! lol
elchicho25 4 days ago
It's not odd or curious that utilized & expressed genes draw out the same tree that comparative morphology creates.
It's very curious that the different sets of codings for any protein also conform to the same pattern - the same tree.
It's also extremely curious that all the non-expressed/unused codings conform to the same pattern - that same tree.
Why? BECAUSE THEY DO THIS DESPITE ZERO SELECTIVE PRESSURE TO KEEP MUTATIONS OUT. Should such random mutations also follow the same pattern?
ExtantFrodo2 4 days ago
@ExtantFrodo2 Knock knock.
It is not odd nor curious that the codes of the DNA are uniform.
Feketefarkas 4 days ago
@Feketefarkas It is VERY ODD that what are KNOWN to be random mutations also track the same phylogenetic tree. If you know what is meant by random then you should know this should NOT be the case.
ExtantFrodo2 4 days ago
@ExtantFrodo2 Although I do not wish to imply that, it is possible - just with a very little probability.
And I strongly doubt that they are "known" to be random mutations. I'd say that they're suspected or thought to be.
Feketefarkas 4 days ago
@Feketefarkas Sorry for your poor education. They are KNOWN to be random mutations.
ExtantFrodo2 4 days ago
@ExtantFrodo2 Did I forget to include the invaders? Oh yes, the interlopers comign long after your god's supposed creation, the ERV's oddly so very oddly locating themselves in all out genomes in the same fashion as the nested hierarchy of all other mutations. The transposition of genes also tracking the same fucking tree? Jesus, what's a creationist to do?
ExtantFrodo2 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feketefarkas
Scientific data and theory does NOT have to be reproducible, it just has to be TESTABLE which is achieved by means such as forensic analysis.
Do you think continental drift had to be FULLY REPRODUCED in a lab, you dirtbrain? Did scientists actually REPRODUCE the asteroid collision that killed off the dinosaurs, you pathetic imbecile?? Must have missed THAT one!
Try thinking for a change -- make it a new year's resolution, you cretinous, blubbering retard.
DocReasonable 3 days ago 6
Also, the Jerusalem Talmud (which is not a Christian text, nor is it particularly sympathetic to Christianity) identies Mary as the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4).
OneEyedJack1970 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OneEyedJack1970 The Jerusalem Talmud was written after Mathew and Luke so has zero authority. No credible bible scholar in the western world believes the genealogy follows back through Mary....it is not taught in seminaries....would you not think the wise men who teach the bible would not consider it if it was worthy.
Jatz071 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OneEyedJack1970 Math. 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of who was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. Jacob did not begat Mary...we are talking about Joseph's genealogy.
Jatz071 5 days ago
I am 100% for freedom of speech but it is a university? Have you seen the meme from Family
guy showing the scale chart for intelligence : Normal - Retarded - Peter Griffin - Creationist ?
LiberalElitistMedia 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feketefarkas, Quit flagging my posts as spam!
250k? The lying, stealing, grifter & con artist Kent Hovind is in prison. There is no prize.
Real science - Genomics X PRIZE, has a REAL $10 million competition designed to drive breakthroughs in the future of predictive and personalized medicine to make significant advances in human genome sequencing.
The goal of this competition is to push the industry to develop, more accurate, faster and more cost effective sequencing technologies of the Genome.
MrHoolits 6 days ago 3
Have any of you guys seen this hilarious "Reason Rally" where Atheist will desperately rally for a "voice" in the world. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Atheism is dying because people are realizing its ridiculous claims. They cannot prove God is fake! They cannot prove Evolution that's why a $250,000 reward STILL exist for evolutionary proof. They cannot prove where the universe originated from! Sooooo? Simple conclusion: Atheist are Simply Angry!
jqologist 1 week ago
@jqologist
God was disproven CENTURIES ago, you cackling retard. Try crawling out of the Dark Ages one day, you infantile goat-fucker.
DocReasonable 1 week ago
@jqologist Hey fruitcake, if you hated gravity as much as evolution you'd just say "There's no proof of gravity. GOD is pulling shit together. And since you can't prove that god is fake, I win! haha!" Go change your diaper now.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jqologist
"why a $250,000 reward STILL "
LOL as in the creatard will deny the evidence as usual and never pay out the money. Plus one of thos creatrds requires a universe to be cretated to prove evolution! LOL are so creatarded to agree with that?
Theres a reason they wont let a court decide if the person proves evolution!
\WHAT IS THAT REASON?
gorilla199uncensored 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jqologist, 250k? The lying, stealing, grifter & con artist Kent Hovind is in prison. There is no prize.
Meanwhile, real science -- Genomics X PRIZE, has a REAL $10 million competition designed to drive breakthroughs in the future of predictive and personalized medicine to make significant advances in human genome sequencing.
The goal of this competition is to push the industry to develop, more accurate, faster and more cost effective sequencing technologies of the Genome.
Try again.
MrHoolits 1 week ago
Comment removed
swdee2003 1 week ago
@swdee2003
Most CHRISTIANS accept evolution, you stupid fucking cunt.
DocReasonable 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Important Archaeological Find Ever Shows Jesus Was An Openly Gay Man.
'The newly discovered cave in Jordan is packed with 70+ lead books from the earliest days of Christianity. The most astounding finding is that Jesus Christ was unambiguously and openly gay. He and his disciples formed a same-sex coterie.There are recorded instances of same-sex activity.'
DocReasonable 1 week ago
wow, that creationist is cocky... i won't rant anything yet because my knowledge of evolution isn't exactly at an elite level, but i am considering going to school and study it. but creationists seriously have the dumbest arguments, haha :P
jonvegard31 1 week ago
Great video. Obviously evolution is fantasy and the world and all life on it HAD to have been created.
issue357 1 week ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 1 week ago
@DocReasonable Was it necessary to copy-paste this nonsense again?
You're always right? You always own me? What kind of a psychotic egomaniac you are? Who is idiotic enough to claim that he's always right? Nobody, except you, the one with a God-complex. I'd bet you hate God so much because he's competition to you.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
No one on Earth has lived long enough to tell us how does the inception of the universe or Earth itself began, so why bother debating something that is proned to discretionary ideas and opinions? No matter how much "fact" or "data" we may come across, no one can be absolutely certain of what truly happened ever since the inception of time. Whether creationism or evolution took place, after one another, or maybe simultaneously.. Lets just focus on the future instead :D!
hardc0r3gam3r 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hardc0r3gam3r, I don't have a problem with anyone's religion. I do have a problem when those that financed the Discovery Institute who invented ID from creationism attempt to bring it in to public schools. They are paid liars with a political agenda.
Science and Religion coexisted for decades until those liars manufactured the fake controversy of evolution vs creationism.
Why not join the majority of more than 2 of 3 Christians that accept evolution & believe in god.
Click 24:50
MrHoolits 1 week ago
It makes me laugh how always in these debates the creationists are able to provide real scientific information for what they believe but the evolutionists, like this one, spend 99% of their time either just atacking the creationist or his type of debate or just saying "we don't know it's just a theory (a fancy word for guessing)!"
In the textbooks instead of saying life probably came from a primordial soup of non-life "somehow" and matter came from nothing, it should say WE DON'T KNOW!
swdee2003 1 week ago
@swdee2003 and then in the textbooks it should provide both sides of the theories as they are just as valid as each other. The evolutionists are guessing and also are the creationists, but I think it makes a lot more sense to think that everything and life was created than it came from nothing or life somehow came from non-life which is very unscientific and has never ever been replicated.
swdee2003 1 week ago
@swdee2003 from 38:47 is a glaring example of how the evolutionist tries not to answer the question and just waffles on about nothing like a politician would!
Because he didn't have an answer! lol
swdee2003 1 week ago
@swdee2003 'The evolutionists are guessing'
You're a badly brain-damaged, clueless retard. Learn something about evolution before you make such imbecilic comments, if you don't mind.
DocReasonable 1 week ago
@DocReasonable Thank you for being an example of my point "evolutionists, like this one, spend 99% of their time either just atacking the creationist ", when you can't think of an intelligent answer you feel threatened and start name calling etc.
Ok so you think that the theory that life came from a primordial soup of complex non-living chemicals is not guessing, is so why? Please give an intelligent answer.
swdee2003 1 week ago
@swdee2003 "you think that the theory that life came from a primordial soup of complex non-living chemicals is not guessing, is so why?" Scientists have already simulated starting conditions and have observed molecules spontaneously forming some of the building blocks of life, like ribonucleotides. They're currently testing a variety of plausible natural paths. Did they arrive at the final answer yet? No. Does that mean they should waste their time looking for your imaginary friends? No.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 Seriously, you tell others to grow up? Look in a mirror, please. You don't provide a shred of evidence; you try to use verbal violence to suppress opinions opposing yours. Seriously, grow up - stop calling others "faggots" just for disagreeing with you. Instead, try to pretend to be intelligent and give intelligent, rational answers - or if you don't, admit that you don't have arguments and rely on faith.
It's that simple. You don't have to be an obnoxious jerk.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas You're not a faggot because you disagree, you're a faggot because you're flaming ignorant and dishonest. You rely on creationist circle jerks for answers. Go to talkorigins . org, it's a huge index of all the creationist bullshit along with tons of evidence and REAL science to show you just how ignorant and dishonest you people are.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 Imagine, I've already seen much of talkorigins. Enough for me to treat it carefully. IT contains, using your own words, "flaming ignorance and dishonesty" many times.
And yes, you call others 'faggots' because they disagree with you. You can't provide a shred of evidence, meaning that they have to take your word, and if they don't do that, they're "faggots".
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas You haven't seen jack shit. You want evidence? Here ya go:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gquery/?term=evolution
You are indeed an ignorant faggot.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 Nice try, irrational one.
Just admit that you rely on faith. You redirect us to sites you don't even understand. But you call us "ignorant faggots" if we dare not to believe them.
I feel pity for you.
For the next time, you could tell me what makes an evolutionist site a more credible source than a creationist site (most people seem to treat the first one as something superior, when they don't even have the slightest reason, as the answer is "nothing").
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas Figured you'd bury your head in your ass and ignore the mountains of evidence. And pubmed is not an evolutionist site, you faggoting illiterate. It accepts submissions from all scientific fields. That's why you don't find any creationist fairy tales, because creationism =/= science. That's the difference.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 I am burying my head? Don't be kidding. You are the one building a wall of profanities and obscenities to conceal the fact that you're absolutely clueless.
Also, your vocabulary is painfully poor, even in swearing - practically all you're doing is repeating "faggot". Pathetic.
By the way, creationism isn't science, that's right. But common descent isn't science, either. It easily falls out of the boundaries of science - BY DEFINITION.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas I'm not kidding. Your head is FAR up your own ass. That's the only way you can ignore evidence. But you're right, common descent isn't science per se, it's fact uncovered and explained by science. :)
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 What you claim is physically impossible, so please reconsider.
By the way, you're extremely vulgar. Please restrain yourself.
And no, common descent isn't a fact, and isn't uncovered by explained by science. By definition, it can't be.
Why?
Science relies on observations and experiments.
Is common descent observed?
No, it's an assumed past event.
Is common descent examined experimentally?
No, the past can't be repeated.
Therefore, common descent has nothing to do with science.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas Common descent leads to certain inevitable predictions. A huge one is that a the relatedness (a factor indicating sequence similarity that is adjusted for gene importance) of any one gene of some extant animal to some other extant animal will be identical no matter which gene or set of genes you select. Can you guess what we find when comparing genes of various animals?
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas In other words, the universe is only as old as the oldest living creationist fagtroll. lulz
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 Don't twist my words, please. Science is not the absolute truth. Science, albeit one of the most useful "inventions" ever made by mankind, is limited - the scientific method can be applied only to phenomena that have been observed or can be examined experimentally. But I never claimed that only those phenomena exist that can be examined with the scientific method. There is history, similarly not the domain of science.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas Luckily, fagtrolling fruitcakes like you don't determine what constitutes science.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 Good excuse, but you don't have to take my word (unlike you, I can provide evidence for my claims). Look up 'science' or 'scientific method' in any English dictionary, and it will say exactly what I did.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas Your creationist extrapolation/bastardization of the definition of scientific method is a flaming non sequitur. No definition of scientific method states that all relevant data must be reproducible in real-time experiments. Nice try though.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@jokesonyouhaha1 You're wrong, it does. Don't just babble mindlessly, look it up in ANY dictionary and you'll find that I'm right. You can deny, but that only reduces your credibility (let's add - even further).
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas OK, illiterate shithead, here we go: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" merriam-webster . com/dictionary/scientific%20method
^Doesn't say all data must be reproducible in experiments. I bet you still don't even realize how absurd your faggoting illiterate non sequitur is.
jokesonyouhaha1 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas And before you gloat like a flaming queen with "it says collection of data through observation AND experiment! AND! That means both! All the time! AHA!" observation and experiment =/= experimental observation. Some data are collected by experiment, other data are collected by observation. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence from both. Can't wait to read your next desperate/pathetic attempt to troll science.
jokesonyouhaha1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jokesonyouhaha1 There is one problem.
I am not talking about evolution (if you had paid attention to what I said, you'd know that I don't deny it, that's an observed fact), I'm talking about common descent/ancestry. The past can't be examined either by observation or by experiments, placing common ancestry outside the boundaries of science.
Sorry.
By the way, one of my university professors said: it is easy to recognise who is the wrong.
He is the loudest.
Apply this for yourself.
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas Help me with this one O wise one...The farewell discourse. ....John 13:36 Peter says to Jesus "Lord where are you going"...a few verses later John 14:5 Thomas says "Lord we do not know where you are going"...a few more verses John 16:5 Jesus says "Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me "Where are you going" does this mean Jesus has a short attention span?
Jatz071 6 days ago
@Jatz071 Maybe he was hard of hearing... watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk
jokesonyouhaha1 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas
I know for a FACT that you have NEVER presented a SCRAP of evidence from the 'LIFETIME' of Jesus to indicate that he existed.
NOBODY EVER HAS.
But as you claim you alone HAVE done this, what's stopping you from REPEATING IT? Surely if you HAD such information you would be RUBBING IT IN AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY... RIGHT???
So.... where is it....LIAR????
DocReasonable 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DocReasonable What you "know for a fact" is utterly wrong.
There is evidence. Nothing stops me from repeating it, but I doubt that it will have any effect on your mind - you'll just ignore it as you always do. So now that I answered your question, you answer mine: what is the point of repeating it for the hundredth time when you'll just ignore it as you always did?
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas
No idiot, if you could provide ONE iota of evidence from the lifetime of Jesus to indicate that he existed, I would COMPLETELY RE-EVALUATE MY VIEWS.
PROVE ME WRONG!!
DocReasonable 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DocReasonable Don't lie. Haven't you been ignoring ANY evidence you were given?
The answer is: yes, you were. You wouldn't re-evaluate your views. You would hide from the facts, as you've been doing so far.
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas
You have not given ANY evidence. Stop lying AND JUST POST YOUR EVIDENCE NOW.
Everyone reading these comments is wondering what's stopping you from doing so...LIAR.
DocReasonable 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas knock knock?
ExtantFrodo2 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feketefarkas
Hey you brainless evil faggot, you believe in a God who COMMANDS THE MURDER OF INNOCENTS.
'Joshua smote all the country of the hills, of the springs, he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God COMMANDED.' Josh 10:40
DocReasonable 1 week ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas
History shows that JESUS DID NOT EXIST as there are NO ROMAN OR JEWISH RECORDS OF HIM FROM HIS SUPPOSED LIFETIME.
And do NOT squeal about the people who mentioned him 100+ years later, as that is MEANINGLESS HEARSAY.
Provide the name of ONE person who mentioned Christ DURING his 'lifetime' and THEN you will have a case. Otherwise, STFU with your idiotic lies.
(Before you start screaming, I deleted a comment due to a typo that you would have gloated about.)
DocReasonable 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feketefarkas, Still fighting the losing battle for ignorance and against science, reality and the majority of Christians who accept evolution and believe in god.
Why post anonymously and walk into the Biology dept. of your college and tell all the professors to quit lying to their students about evolution.
Then visit the Geology, Astronomy, Cosmology departments and tell the professors to quit lying about the age of the universe as you have the evidence that it's 6,000 years old.
MrHoolits 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas
Common descent is a CURRENT 'event' you stupid bastard. Everything alive today is a DESCENDANT and is therefore OBSERVABLE.
DocReasonable 1 week ago
@DocReasonable Absolute cluelessness. Not only in history (you should study it a bit more before making such hilarious statements and claiming them to be facts), but also in the very fantasy you propagate. Common descent is the hypothesis that all organisms are derived from one common ancestor. It is not an event, and especially not a current event.
"Everything alive today is a descendant"
Descendant of what? It does matter, believe me.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas
I'm still waiting, you lying RETARD -- WHERE IS ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE FROM THE SO-CALLED *LIFETIME* OF JESUS CHRIST TO PROVE HE EXISTED?
Yeah, I know -- I'll be waiting forever... LOL, RETARD!!
DocReasonable 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DocReasonable Then wait further or read back. I've given you the evidence a hundred times and you ignored it a hundred times. If you're really curious, you'll look back. You don't look back, meaning that you only intend to deny whatever I'm going to write here, and hide your head in the sand.
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas
Common descent is ONGOING NOW you stupid bastard...
Perhaps what you're desperately trying to say and lie about is *COMMON ANCESTRY*, WHICH IS A PAST EVENT??!!!
I think that's what it is you're idiotically not able to comprehend, as you're just SO-O-O thoroughly damn RETARDED you can't find the words!!!
LOL AT YOUR ENDLESS RETARDATION!!!! LOL!!!
DocReasonable 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas Oh wise one why does Mathew say Joseph...Jacob.....Matthan.....Eleazar....Eliud.....while Luke shows the bloodline as Joseph....Heli.....Mathat.....Levi......Melchi.....which one is wrong and why.
Jatz071 1 week ago
@Jatz071 They're both right. Legally, Jesus had two parents. Heli was Mary's dad. Jacob was Joseph's. Oddly enough, they were both descended from David through different sons (Jacob through Solomon and Mary through Nathan).
OneEyedJack1970 6 days ago
@OneEyedJack1970 Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary....Luke 1:23 and also Mathew 1:16
Jatz071 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jatz071 No, Luke doesn't indicate that. You know it as well: "son-in-law", you can see: son.
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli".....so where do you get *son inlaw* from that verse....and why do no seminarian scholars agree with your interpretation, unless you can name one, then I will be happy to check their credentials.
Jatz071 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jatz071 There is no son-in-law, yes.
Haven't you heard people who called their sons-in-law simply their sons?
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas There is no son-inlaw...for over a thousand years theologians have discussed this error and all of a sudden you have the answer, why dont you put it up as a paper so all can discuss it.
Jatz071 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jatz071 There is son-in-law.
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feketefarkas There is no son in-law.....I just found your spamed comment.
Jatz071 4 days ago
@Jatz071 It also states that Joseph wasn't really Jesus' father, but he's still listed in Luke's genealogy. In any case, a son-in-law could still be considered a son back then, especially if a married couple bore no sons of their own.
OneEyedJack1970 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OneEyedJack1970 You can consider whatever you want..the fact is the writers did not consider it....if your conclussion was so simple then there would not have been so many debates over the centuries
Jatz071 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OneEyedJack1970 Correction Luke 3:23
Jatz071 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas "But common descent isn't science, either. It easily falls out of the boundaries of science - BY DEFINITION."
You can't lie your way into heaven.
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
@ExtantFrodo2 I can tell the same to you. You claim that I lie, but of course you don't give a shred of evidence.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas Because you've already been given the evidence. Mendel, Darwin, Lenski, etc. What's YOUR explanation for the specifics of the fossil record and the nested hierarchy?
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
@ExtantFrodo2 Don't tell me you can't remember the explanations I've already given. I'll tell you what, it's simply that you don't want to remember. If not, please squeeze your brain a bit harder, I'm tired of repeating everything a hundred times because you intolerant folks don't (want to) understand it.
Mendel, by the way, didn't prove common descent. Just genetic recombination.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas Oh please? Pretty please? Explain how the absolutely uniform proximity relatedness does not indicate common ancestry. Do that and I will seriously question if evolution is true.
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
@ExtantFrodo2 Oh please? Pretty please? Why don't you just go back and read the explanation I've written you a hundred times and you ignored a hundred times?
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@Feketefarkas how many pages of who knows what should I read through to see if you actually provided a valid rebuttal? Do you have a search term (other then just your name)?
ExtantFrodo2 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ExtantFrodo2 My name should do, but your own words ("nested hierarchy") would work, too.
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas' so called answer from 4 weeks ago "Anyway, what's so great about that 'nested hierarchy'? The more similar the organisms are, the more similar their blueprints (DNAs) will be."
Indicating you STILL don't know the difference between simple similarities & the rigorous pattern of similarities & differences that comprise a true nested hierarchy. There is ZERO utilization of same gene function outside this NH no matter how useful or terrific it is. Explain pretty please?
ExtantFrodo2 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExtantFrodo2 The nested hierarchy is essentially made up by similarities showing a certain pattern. Which is not very surprising, considering that the more the creatures look alike, the more similarities their DNAs will show, that's sheer logic and in no way proof of common ancestry.
"Explain pretty please"?
Pretty please, how can you state that it has no utilisation, pretty please? Perhaps it's just not discovered yet, pretty please? Maybe it was harmed by a mutation, pretty please?
Feketefarkas 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas
Why are you deleting all of your lying comments? Embarrassed, finally, by your own deceit?
Like I said, if you can present me with ONE iota of evidence from the lifetime of Jesus to indicate that he lived, I will be VERY interested and may change my entire outlook on life.
It would also make me completely SHUT UP about Jesus never existing -- so .... WHERE IS IT?!?
I'm sure there are MANY other curious readers here too!
DocReasonable 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas No comment on the Farewell Discourse error....you can say, I dont know as to why its written like that.
Jatz071 6 days ago
@Feketefarkas There are many different kinds of genes. There are genes which are used for making some aspect of an organism. There are multiple genes sets which code for the same protein. There are genes which are broken. There are genes which are infiltrators/invaders. IT IS SURPRISING that each and all of these independently or grouped produce the same nested hierarchy.
ExtantFrodo2 5 days ago
@Feketefarkas 'One more comment like this and I report you - AGAIN, just in case.'
Sorry, but you CANNOT report someone just because he is always RIGHT about everything and OWNS you every time, you JEALOUS LOSER... LOL!!
But tell me, why do you HATE Jesus so much?? You should OBEY his words:
'But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also' Matt 5:39
Pay ATTENTION to your beloved Jesus, you SCUM! LOL!!
DocReasonable 1 week ago
@DocReasonable I marked your comment as spam as you merely copy-paste older comments. Please learn to write, and try to pretend to have a minimal intelligence and have the guts to reply to what I actually told you, don't copy-paste the same nonsense all over.
Thanks.
Feketefarkas 1 week ago
@swdee2003 'Please give an intelligent answer.'
Problem is, you'd be too retarded to UNDERSTAND any intelligent answer, and would instead start cackling like a flaming lunatic and spouting irrelevant verses from the Bible and a bunch of mindless crap from Answersingenesis.
There's no point even BOTHERING with someone as unspeakably damn stupid as you.
DocReasonable 1 week ago 2
@swdee2003 Creationism isn't a theory, it's a superstition. Grow up. Abiogenesis is an actual field of study and has made great progress despite relentless creationist trolling. I'm sure there were faggots like you in the 19th century demanding imaginary gods be given equal consideration in explaining disease as the budding field of microbiology.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 Science is based on real evidence. When there is no evidence for something then that goes into the realm of belief. Some people believe that life came from non-living chemicals.
So people have made some more complex chemicals, so what! From that to LIFE is a huge leap!
Actually you have proven that evolution IS correct! Well done!
I mean human mental evolution. I'm obviously more evolved than you as I don't go around calling people faggots.
swdee2003 1 week ago
@swdee2003 Your faggotry merits the label. Wear it with pride. Your failtrolling ancestors in the middle ages also thought diseases are caused and cured by deities. Many of your fellow fagtrolls today still believe that. LOL
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swdee2003, Some people on the internet?
What really matters when it comes to scientific theories are those scientists whose life work is spent on a particular scientific discipline.
Creationism = 0.15% in the US & 0.1% of Scientists elsewhere in the world working in relevant fields of earth & life sciences & less than 1 of 3 Christians.
Evolution = 99.85% in the US & 99.9% of Scientists elsewhere working in relevant fields of earth & life sciences & more than 2 of 3 Christians.
MrHoolits 1 week ago
@swdee2003 LMFAO @ creationists providing real scientific info for what they believe. This faggot provided ZERO evidence the whole debate. "The eye is too complex to have evolved" is not evidence, it's argument form incredulity and ignorance.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
Both Creationism and Evolutionism are world views, each make assumptions. Both believe in a supreme power.Creationists have a god but so do Evolutionists- their god is Time
avflf 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@avflf Evolutionists are imaginary buddy, evolution is just a word that describes a natural process - it isn't a theology, a belief system or a faith of any kind, so it is not and can not be an 'ism'. Do you call people who accept that gravity is real Gravitationists? Are people who accept that the Earth is ancient Geologyists?
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
Creationists make me sad, so dumb.
AdamandBrennan 1 week ago
I can't waste more time on Evolution. Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
I conclude that the religion of Evolution is a false for the following reasons.
1. Does not agree with the truth of the Bible
2. Evolutionist would not cuss so much if they were right.
3. It wouldn't be this easy to beat them in a debate if they were right.
4. They would be more scientific and not so religious if evolution were true.
I give the Evolutionist the last word.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarpenterBretL LOL, sure buddy - if spouting a lot of crap that doesn't even make sense is winning, then sure.
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarpenterBretL "1. Does not agree with the truth of the Bible" If the bible's account of creation matched reality, it'd be true. Since it doesn't, it's just poetry.
"2. Evolutionist would not cuss so much if they were right." Get off yt and read a scientific journal.
"3. It wouldn't be this easy to beat them in a debate if they were right." Only thing you beat was your meat.
"4. They would be more scientific and not so religious if evolution were true." Again, read a scientific journal.
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarpenterBretL So....and who gives a shit what you think or dont think.
Jatz071 1 week ago
JESUS
onehndrdprcntcreep 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL "All scientists? There are thousands who don't believe in an old earth."
Creationists aren't scientists. Though they love to play make-believe.
@lunchbox420wb: "How do you know the universe is old? WHERE YOU THERE?"
In other words, the universe is only as old as the oldest living creationist fagtroll. lulz
jokesonyouhaha1 1 week ago
@jokesonyouhaha1 it is hard to respect your beliefs when you (who doesn't have any degree) discredit many scientists who hold impressive credentials but don't believe in your Evolution religion.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
@lunchbox420wb All scientists say the universe is old, not just atheists. The grand canyon was formed over millions years due to erosive forces (ancestral Colorado River). If a global flood happened, then how exactly did 375000+ species of plants survive it? And how did animals and humans survive without oxygen which plants provide? The speed of light is a fundamental constant in physics idiot. Isochron dating and geochronology also prove that the earth and universe are old.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 All scientists? There are thousands who don't believe in an old earth. You are either misinformed or a liar. I prefer the latter. The grand canyon what? You are apparently ignorant of Steve Austin's research or you are a liar. That we already have established. How did plants survive a flood. Are you or are you pretending to be or are you a liar? How did 8 people survive for a year on earth? No oxygen? Who's socks are you smoking? The speed of light...
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL Thousands? Are any of these archaeologists or geologists?
And yes I know all about Austin's bullshit. The paper trail documents that Austin knew he'd get a mantle age from whole-rock measurements of those lava flows long before the ICR obtained a single rock sample of their own. If isotopic dating methods are as unreliable as Austin would like us to believe, why did he have to rig his test by only selecting rock samples which were known in advance to fail it?
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 Please cite your sources as to his rigging the tests.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL The the 1988 Impact article documents that Austin knew he'd get a mantle age from whole-rock measurements of those lava flows, long before the ICR obtained a single rock sample of their own. Maybe you should research things more carefully.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL So you explain to me then, you arrogant moron, how exactly 375000+ species of plants survived the global flood and while you're at it, explain how the 8 humans and millions of animals aboard the Ark were able to survive without plants providing oxygen.
If you can't, then kindly fuck off and go back to reading your 2000 year old science book.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 The flood would certainly not kill all plants. Where do you come up with that ridiculous notion. Why do you believe there were millions of animals aboard the Ark? It is very hard to take you seriously when you state such nonsense. Have you ever heard of a straw man argument? By you foul mouth and fatly arguments I must conclude that you are still in high school (Probably a C student). Your religion of Evolution can't even help you not to cuss.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL So how did plants survive being submerged under roaring, salty flood waters then? There are millions of animals on Earth today, all of whom could certainly not have formed in the last 5000 years. The flood apparently killed all living creatures outside of the Ark, therefore millions of animals must have been on the ark. Unless you can tell me why not of course. I doubt you can as all you do is say things without giving evidence.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 I find it quite amusing that an Evolutionist who thinks that life just sprouts up out of a barren world now asking me how could there be so many plants after a Flood. Ha ha ha ha. I can't help but fall down laughing. What are you smoking? You even think that the Flood killed everything outside the Ark??? I was wondering when you were going to ask me how the fish survived in the ocean. You have a serious problem you man. Just google you questions and get the answers.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL Genesis 7:23- Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
So yeah, according to your ancient science book, the flood killed every living thing not aboard the ark (other than some aquatic life).
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL Also, seeds of most plants would not have survived being submerged for a year. And most plants require established soils to grow, soils which would all have been stripped by the Flood.
You're pathetic mocking and delusional arrogance won't help you. Either answer the questions or piss off.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 Where do you get your info? How long can seeds of most plants survive in the ocean? Please list me the seeds of each particular plant you claim could not survive in the ocean and list the studies done to prove your conclusion. When I grew up in Hawaii these were the same questions and problems that my teachers would ask in class. They never once concluded as you that Hawaii could not have happened. Please don't tell me that the seeds were taken over on a boat.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but all other species would've died from being submerged in salt water for a year. Also, most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment deposited by the flood. This is deep enough to prevent spouting.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarpenterBretL Petunia's
Jatz071 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL There are tiny a handful of scientists who support Young Earth Creationism, none of them however do so for evidential reasons. Not a single of those scientists has published any research to support their views in science journals. Look up 'Project Steve' - there are more PhD Biologists called Steve who accept evolution than there are creationist scientists of any kind in total.
parsivalshorse 1 week ago 2
@parsivalshorse I don't believe in young earth creationism because of the number of scientists who believe that way. Did you examine Steve Austin's evidence? Do you reject his findings at Spirit lake and do you reject the obvious similarities between his findings and the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone petrified forests? His discoveries argue strongly for a recent creation and global flood. Do you deny anthropogenic global warming just because the vast majority of scientist reject the idea?
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarpenterBretL Yes I am familiar with Austin's claims - if they were factual he would have presented them to science (he never has). The vast majority of scientists accept anthropogenic warming by the way.
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
@lunchbox420wb You don't know shit. You just pretend that you do. Can you even provide evidence that the universe is less than 10000 years old like the bible says? Of course you can't because it's already been proven that the universe is old. Can you provide evidence for a global flood, Exodus or the massacre of the innocents? Of course not, because not one of those things actually happened.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 How do you know the universe is old? WHERE YOU THERE?
What method is used to determine the age of the universe? Light distance? Sorry but you cannot prove light has always stayed constant, and distance is irrelevant to time.
The best evidence for a flood is fossils, and the grand canyon to name a few.
Atheist Scientist will say the universe is old but they have no idea how it got here so in reality atheist dont know shit.
lunchbox420wb 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 There is more evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 years old than the evidence that it is older. Evidence for a global flood. How about the fossils. Ha. Take off your blinders please just for 70 years. Massacre of the innocents? When they come a kill all your family we now know that you call them innocents. Hypo....
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL Fossils were deposited over millions of years idiot, not by a global flood. Give me some evidence then that the universe is less than 10000 years because I have yet to hear any. Put up or shut the fuck up.
And Herod's massacre of the innocents as described in the Bible was documented by no contemporary historians, including Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's cruel acts. It never happened fool.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@deadshot1995 Except for that science can't prove your claims. I know what you believe. I know that your religion is evolution. But science demands tests and observation and repetition. I know why you say millions of years because it fits into your religion. The one thing we do agree on it that the fossils were deposited. Hmmm, even you think it was a flood. Acts 26:14... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarpenterBretL You are being silly. More than 2 of 3 Christians accept evolution and believe in god. Actually that is funny.
When did biology, DNA, Genome and the other supporting scientific disciplines become religious.
You must be a big fan of Tisdall who talks of the dinosaurs living with man but did not like living in heavily populated urban areas.
Or that the Behemoth drank all the water in the river Jordan. That is REAL science. ;-)
MrHoolits 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL Evolution in all forms has been observed. No, I don't think there was a global flood. Fossils formed through fossilisation, which does not require a global flood. There never was a global flood remember? Otherwise, how would 375000 species of primarily land-dwelling plants have survived it and how would animals have survived without plants providing oxygen?
Also, still waiting for some evidence of a young universe as you have yet to provide any.
deadshot1995 1 week ago
@CarpenterBretL Fossils take longer than 10000 years to form - is the world was that young there would be no fossils.
parsivalshorse 1 week ago
@parsivalshorse What alternate universe do you live in? If it took thousands of years they would decay and disintegrate before they were fossilized. You want to believe that is takes more than 10,000 because that would explain why we don't see any fossils being formed today. This means your beliefs are outside of science and you are at least as religious as I am. The Bible flood is the best explanation of the fossils we find.
CarpenterBretL 1 week ago