Creationism is what happens when religous views are told to be respected.
if you make an outrages claim about the world, how it started, who created, miracles about died being bought to life, etc then you should be able to back that up and your religon or your belief does not add credibility to your outrages claims.
hey, could you help me debunk the argument creationists use regarding the law of conservation of energy during the big bang... i respond that energy for the system (everything that exists) remained constant or brought some fancy einsteinian point with mass at the speed of light into the conversation but both of those points are flimsy at best and i would like a deeper understanding on a fellow evolutionist's mind on this point.
hey, could you help me debunk the argument creationists use regarding the law of conservation of energy during the big bang... i respond that energy for the system (everything that exists) remained constant or brought some fancy einsteinian point with mass at the speed of light into the conversation but both of those points are flimsy at best and i would like a deeper understanding on a fellow evolutionist's mind on this point.
@MaskofMystery It's more in the vein of "they latched onto an area that I (he) am not completely knowledgeable of and some information on it would be helpful" It's similar to when creationists misapply the second law of thermodynamics claiming that evolution violates it. Ignoring that the Earth is not a closed system as we are receiving energy from the sun.
@MaskofMystery First off you're making assertions saying that changes and variations within a species (IE Micro-evolution) result in a loss of information. I would also ask how you would define information in this context, since the while I have heard many creationists talk about amounts of information I have yet to hear them explain how they define it and how they measure it Also if the suns rays are universally harmful to non-plants then vitamin D deficiencies wouldn't be a problem for people.
@MaskofMystery No, I do not know exactly what you mean by genetic information. I simply want to be sure of what you're asking for before I answer you or if I need to correct a misconception, assuming that you are merely deceived rather than a deceiver.
The people who have never heard of the Bible will still be guilty when they stand before God, just like you will if they refuse to acknowledge Him through His creation.
Only a fool would say there is no God if they just look around. Everything cries out of a Creator, everything!
You will spend eternity in the hell you don't believe in if you don't acknowledge that fact, repent of your sins & believe what Christ did for you on the cross.
@digger629 If God condemns a man whose never even heard of the Bible, and therefore never had a chance to redeem himself, to eternal hell and torment, he's an asshole, he's evil, malignent and unjust. A tyrant. If you believe God can do anything he wants because he's God, unaccountable to anyone, and you don't mind, you in fact praise him for it, then you're no better than a sycophant, a parasite, that guy Benni from the Mummy, you're even worse than him, you're an agent of evil.
If mocking and condemning God makes you happy and makes you feel good, then by all means do it NOW while you are hear on earth before you die. You will die some day, I promise you that. Then all your mocking & disagreements will mean nothing when you stand before this God you don't agree with.
I urge you to read the Bible for yourself and learn of Him before it's too late.
Eternity is a long time! God loves you. This may be your final warning.
@digger629 Yes, it does make me feel good and Yes I am doing it right now.
The Bible is a set of historically inaccurate, self-contradicting, censored, incomplete biased, primitive, hurtful books that promote slavery, racism, blackmail, murder and genocide. I will die and you will die as well, I promise you that. And if you see God, tell him to go fuck himself. He won't give a shit. He's fucking God. I'll re-incarnate rich and step on the nearest bug I see hoping it's you.
@digger629 I mock God because that's my right, to express my opinion. If a cook makes my dinner I have the right to say if it's good or bad. God's creation as described in the Bible is flawed and evil, his system is unjust and He himself is inconsistent and vain, a monster who creates only suffering, hands out a promise of paradise that can only be earned through ignorant worship, like asking love at the point of a gun. And you don't even condemn that? Deprive God of his sick pleasure! Revolt!
@digger629 Yoshua or Jesus, was a story of a normal man enhanced with the stolen stories of other ancient made-up Gods to give hope to the poor masses, their target audience, and give the oppressors a chance to redeem themselves and join their cause of revolt. God was thought up by primitive man to explain things science has found the answers for nowadays, and to make a naive death fearing man feel special, empowered, superior and eternal. Reality begs to differ.
@viridismonasteriense Dude you have some serious issues. I to do not believe in the traditional god but I do believe in the bible I believe it's text is geniuine it's the way it's interpeted<--(pretty sure I spelled that wrong). Your argument is based on hatred and revenge you obviously had something very bad happen to you and you want "God" to suffer for it. So you in a way you believe in god just as much as a christian. Get over it!
@jb42682 If this God is real he deserves to be hated.
There's no reason to believe in the Bible. Not as truth, not as a morality tale, not as an historical account. I do hate religion for its detrimental effects on society and civilization, it's divisive nature, how it keeps minds and societies stuck in the time and place where their holy book was written. If the God is eternal, alpha and omega, why does his holy book need to be interpreted to the context of the time and place of primitive men
@jb42682 It sickens me to see my Catholic mother teach my little sister about angels and arks and Mary and Jesus, and although she's blind and turns 'violent' everytime I question her beliefs I cannot blame her for what she's been taught. It's her religion I blame for preaching this insanity as truth and deem every one who contradicts them liars and "evil" and that they who question deserve to suffer an eternity in hell. Simultaneously they claim they've superior morality. That's what angers me.
@viridismonasteriense Ahh Catholic that explains a lot. I agree with everything you say on your reply. I've asked people and challenged there beliefs and 95% believe cause there scared they'll never see there love one''s again when they move on. So there belief is made out of fear and emotion not spiritual at all. My family was mormon and it was so easy to put them in there place. On sunday there perfect people every other day there much worse then any "non beliver" I ever met.
@jb42682 I don't agree entirely that their belief is purely fear. I agree that it's mostly a security and comfort blanket to think that the dead are in candyland, but I do suspect that most of what entails my mother's beliefs is the fact that she's never been confronted about it before. She's grown up in a community that all believes the same nonsense and this feeling of superiority in mayority and the good fuzzy feeling she gets in church makes her think that her beliefs are unquestionably real
@jb42682 Reminds me of Arthur C Clarke's Third Law : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "
Jesus was an alien? Funny, but I think it's more logical to assume that if any God exists, it itself is an alien. A being beyond space and time can't have made us in his own image. It's human delusion of wanting to be special, to be loved, to be protected, to be rewarded at the end for their suffering. They're projecting themselves upon the universe. (cont'd)
@jb42682 (cont'd) Theists project themselves upon the universe, so that God is whatever they want him to be. A judge? Love? Faith? Balance? Whatever they want!
So when atheists challenge their beliefs, they believe they themselves are being challenged, because they're so emotionally invested in it. And they close their mind so they can never hear that they have been wrong. They personally. That they are not special. That there is no plan. And life's just life. It's hard to come to terms with it
@digger629 If we don't believe in your delusion your delusion will punish us, gotcha. As it is your baby killing madman of a deity is worthy of nothing but scorn and derision. I would urge you to read your bible and realize that the reason God kicked man from the garden was because, according to your scriptures, he feared Man becoming his equal. But then again I reject your and other superstitions, reality doesn't imply a creator, it implies an uncaring reality that loves us not.
So if science knows the limitations of carbon dating that you cited and uses other methods of radiometric dating when carbon dating wouldn't be appropriate, then what's the problem? You act like carbon dating is the only dating method scientists have. Due to its half life, it isn't even used in anything older than 60,000 years. Carbon dating does work when used right and it's been tested against samples of known age as early as 1949.
Could you please explain to me how you "think" Kent Hovind made a "career out of being a thief.
Oh, and BTW, there is never a good reason to lie, cheat, steal, etc.
Your generation has not been taught that. You have been raised in a society that is anti-God or you don't believe in God because you have been brainwashed in school about evolution being a fact.
Evolution is a theory!!! Although many believe it is fact. Thats too bad.
@digger629: When you're all through beating up the teenagers, perhaps you'd like to try someone your own age.
Good and evil existed long before Yahweh appeared, and all men know of them. Evolution has written the golden rule on everyone's hearts. You don't think there weren't just men in ancient Greece? How about Hammurabi? How about all those people in the world who never heard of Christ or the Bible? Ethics was studied in Greece before the Pentateuch was written down. ...
As for that Theory of theories you have, you're right. Evolution is a theory. It is an inferential abstraction of a collection of observations/facts. It is called a hypothesis until some amount of evidence is gathered for its acceptance, but Darwin's book filled that in.
Since a theory is inferential, it is always provisional, always awaiting possible findings of data that will change or even overthrow it. That's why scientists still study it. It likely isn't going away.
the fact that we actualy have 6000 years of documented humain civilisation history here on earth that have gone from generation to generation kinda put your 4000 years old earth thing
we have been lied to by you schoffing friends. evolution is not science at all. it is all based purely on major assumptions thought as fact. evolution is stupid. prove me wrong.
aussies don't care too much either, since we were originally a convict colony that lead to the genocide of the aboriginals. No, I don't care since I am actually forign to australia :P I was born in holland, we discovered australia but left because it was TOO DAMN HOT HERE.
Debunking creationists is like shooting fish in a barrel, except you keep shooting the fish and they wont die and when you finally kill one another one takes its place. :(
Its time to stop shooting them in the barrel. Try just putting the lid on it. We can do this by removing their government tax breaks. Getting rid of state paid theologians. And in my country, Kicking the bishops and the chief Rabbi out of the house of Lords. They are not elected to the 2nd house. However still have a hand in enacting our laws. How can that be fair and just. My kind wishes to you Brother.
You guys have state paid theologians? I thought we had it bad in the states. These damn fundamentalist Christians are trying to convince people this is a christian country. Worse yet they are attacking science because it doesn't fit their beliefs. They have been systematically trying to dumb down science standards in school boards in most of the southern states. If you look up user AronRa he has some good videos about what he has to fight against in his own state, Texas.
Did you not Know that you also have state paid theologians. IE. Who pays your armed forces chaplains. And the prayers in senate and other house. All state funded by your tax dollar. There are more examples. Maybe a research paper is about somewhere.
It's more like playing cops and robbers as a kid. You shoot down the ignorant creationist's argument, and then they yell "nuh-uh! You missed! God is still real!"
They don't want to know anything different. They just want to believe, even if they have to ignore truth and science to do it.
You can't prove or disprove God. God is by definition beyond man kind's comprehension. Even if you could prove the existence of God religion and faith would cease to exist as no faith would be necessary to know that he is real. It would merely becoming scientific knowledge.
Personally I think it's a crock of shit, but the only way we can really win this argument is to keep making scientific discoveries that show what kind of nonsensical garbage is in the bible.
if the Bible is correct the earth is a few thousand years old and the world wide flood happened 4,400 years ago. the sahara desert is the largest in the world. after years of observations german scientists determined that the largest desert in the world is about 4000 years old. QUESTION! if the earth is millions of years old, why dont we have a bigger desert anywhere else in the world? why does the largest desert fit perfectly with the flood legend of the Bible?
I know your comments were from over a month ago, but your ignorance made me laugh. The Namib Desert is around 55 million years old. They have found bristlecone pines 5,000 years old and clonal trees (quaking aspen) nearly a million years old. The oldest coral reef is off Isle Lamot in Virginia and is around 450 million years old. So we do have older deserts, older trees, and older coral reefs, but I bet that won't change your mind.
HA! you obviously dont do your homework. tell me....... how do you figure those things are millions and millions of years old? i bet you have no proof for that. there are two sides to this, so how do you suppose your side is right without any proof? kent hovind has debated hundreds of professors and won all his debates. AGAIN, give me your proof. i bet you wont cuz you have none. if you think im wrong, ill prove you wrong and make you look stupid. lets debate, shall we?
So, you think that eventually everything will be desert, as it just keeps growing? That's not how it works. Sometimes deserts grow, sometimes they shrink. Depends on wind patterns, mountains, all sorts of things.
that is correct. wind patterns do change, but the one flowing over the sahara desert flows almost always in the same direction. im using logic to defend my case. what do you have? absolutely nothing, i bet. the biggest desert is around 4,000 years old and the Bible says that the flood happened around 4,400 years ago. explain to me how you can call that a coincidence. you wont beat me in this debate, garuantee.
Clearly, you have no real conception of how "coincidence" works.
In any case, you have bad info. Fossil dunes (yes, that happens) have been found in the area dating back 7 million years.
The Namid desert appears to be 5700 years old.
I found your "4000 year-old Sahara". It was part of a climate *simulation*, which relied on changes that happened to Earth's orbit over many thousands of years.
define the term coincidence. and me? bad info? you claim millions of years old with absolutely no proof of that and you're telling me i have bad info? whatever dude! what proves millions of years old? i know what you're going to say, but i would like for you to say it yourself first. i use logic, you use stupidity.
whats your point about the namid desert? my argument is that the sahara desert is the largest in the world. after observing the growth of it for a while, german scientists determined that it is only around 4,000 years old. that would fit perfectly with the flood of the Bible which may be around 4,400 year ago, other creationists believe 6-10,000 ago. im using logic, what do you have, carbon dating? HA! dont make me laugh. how is the namid 5700 years old? also, that contradicts evolution, right?
So, 1 group published 1 paper that says something might be about the right age for something related to your flood.
Here's a thought experiment: assume the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you suppose that *something* might be found that's about 4000 years old? *Anything*? Certainly.
So, the fact the something gets dated at 4000 years, by a very shaky methodology, doesn't prove that Earth is only a little over 4000 years.
what do you mean 1 group and 1 paper? and what about the largest reef in the world, the biggest desert in the world, and the bristle cone pine tree? why are you ignoring those? heres another one for you. continued.....
according to you guys, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, creating the oil underneath the surface fot the earth. the problem is the ground holding the oil under can only withstand 10,000 years of pressure. QUESTION! if the earth is millions of years old, why hasnt the oil erupted out of the earth by now? why is it still sitting under ground? why does this fit perfectly with the Bible which says the earth is only thousands of years old?
You must have ignored the post by theradioschizo about the *5000* year old pine. (google "List of oldest trees")
But even if the ages of those particular things are right, that doesn't prove the Earth only that old. The oldest verified person was 122 years old. Does that mean that's as old as Earth can be?
Where do you get this notion that the rock can only stand 10,000 years of pressure?
And actually, oil was 1st found because it *was* seeping out of the ground!
122 years old? no you moron. who would believe that thats how old the earth is just because the oldest person was 122 years old? that person had parents, right? his parents had parents, right? i never said time began when the oldest person was born. in fact, this isnt even a good argument. and what is this 5000 year old tree about? maybe the oldest is 5000 years old, but so what? my argument is that all this fits perfectly with the Bible and NOT evolution. continued....
You should read up on the 5000 year old tree argument, the rings aline perfectly with other timbers found cut by earlier man, so we have a records taking us back well over 10,000 years. sorry
i dont remember the source to which kent hovind gave about the ground holding up to 10,000 years of oil pressure. but Dr. kend hovind says it does. prove it wrong!
@dimestiny06: Dr. Kent Hovind has no expertise in any science I'm aware of. If he taught it, as he claims, then pity the poor kids. His degree is in Christian Education, and a reading of his thesis was a hoot; he's lucky they sent him his piece of paper. I'm not accepting any proof based on his name, down to and including how his first name is spelled. You can believe what you want. Even locating a direct verified quote from him won't suffice, I'm afraid. So, no, it's all yours.
jursamaj: regarding the 5000 year old tree argument, the rings aline perfectly with other timbers found cut by earlier man, so we have a records taking us back well over 10,000 years.... googling overlapping tree rings gives interesting reading on this. hope this is of interest!
@dimestiny06: ANSWER! (This is fun.) The deposits of oil originate primarily with the plant life that grew during the Carboniferous period. Where did you get this "10,000 years of pressure"? Pressure isn't measured in years. It usually is under some pressure where it has gathered, but not anywhere near enough pressure to blow through the rock that caps it. In some places it did work its way to the surface (because of geologic faults, not pressure). Look up the La Brea tar pits, for example.
im simply pointing out the fallacies being tought as fact. the most popular and supposedly most accurate method used by evolutionists is carbon dating. i gave you some sources that explain how that is not true. you keep talking about dating methods. im not necessarily using any dating methods but LOGIC.
"Of course, creationist websites feed you that 1 bit: Sahara 4000 years old."
you hypocrite! whats this potsdam institute crap then you're giving me then?
That "Potsdam crap" is the actual paper that discusses the age of the Sahara, which creationist websites even cite when making the claim.
What the paper actually says is quite different. 4000 is the *minimum* age they give. In fact, their simulation has to start about 9000 years ago in order to produce the Sahara 4-5000 years ago.
And no, carbon dating is *not* "the most popular and supposedly most accurate method". It is only one of an array of methods.
the potsdam crap is the actual paper that discusses the age of the sahara, but with what dating method? even if they say that its around 5000, 10,000, or 4000, why arent there any thats millions of years old? tell me...... whats the most popular method used, cuz i heard different.
If you accept the dating methods that show the Sahara a 4000 years old, then you should accept that they also show the Earth as billions of years old. Finding a few things that happened around the time of the alleged biblical flood proves nothing. Of *course* some things happened at that time.
if you're talking about carbon dating, you're wrong. im dont believe c-14 dating to be accurate at all. let me give you some examples of why i dont believe in it.
lower leg of a mammoth dated at 15,380 years old when at the same time the skin and flesh dated at 21,300 years old.
harold e. anthony, "natures deep freeze." natural history, sept. 1949 page 300. continued.....
@dimestiny06 So glad that you just copy Kent Hovind's arguments. It makes them easy to refute. The paper you cited (m. kieth, et al) is called "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells" It describes what's called the reservoir effect which is well understood. Animals that feed on the bottoms of bodies of water don't get their carbon from the air, but from their food sources who's carbon has been filtered down, giving it a much older reading.
The article on the seal, called "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land" also described the reservoir effect and gave scientists a better understanding of the limits of carbon dating. Carbon dating does work, but not in all cases and science knows its limitation and that's why there are more than a dozen types of radiometric dating. You've only cited known limitations of ONE type. It doesn't work well on marine animals, but it's great for plants, who get their carbon directly from the air.
@dimestiny06 - ANSWER! Perhaps because an area being desert, or tropical, or tiaga, or mountain, is only a brief condition in the total history of the Earth? At one point almost all the land area of the globe was gathered together in one huge mass, now called Pangaea. It likely held the largest desert ever known, but it was pulled apart in the middle of the age of dinosaurs (about 150 million years ago) to become the continents we know today.
if the Bible is correct, the earth is a few thousand years old and the world wide flood happened 4,400 years ago. if you count the rings in a tree trunk, you can conclude what the age of it is. the oldest tree in the world (bristle cone pine) has around 4,300 rings. QUESTION! if the earth is millions of years old, why dont we have an older tree anywhere else in the world? why does this tree fit perfectly with the flood legend of the Bible?
what are you talking about? that doesnt answer my question.
why does the oldest tree in the world (using tree rings) fit almost perfectly with the flood legend of the Bible? im using logic here. what do you have to present to me? NOTHING! you start an argument with me with no proof of your stupidity.
@dimestiny06: ANSWER! Because trees don't live that long. Period. Why don't we have humans who were eye witnesses to the flood? Because humans don't live that long. Boy, was that one a toughy.
if the Bible is correct, the earth is a few thousand years old and the world wide flood happened 4400 years ago. the largest barrier reef in the world is off the coast of australia. during WWll it was partially damaged. scientists observed it for 20 years and concluded that the largest reef is only less than 4200 years old. QUESTION! if the earth is millions of years old why dont we have a bigger reef anywhere else in the world? why does this one fit perfectly with the flood legend of the Bible?
i have only one question do you understand what cabon 14 datation is? if yess then you justproven earth is 4.5 billions years old if no search on youtube for it
yes i have. i do my homework, but i bet you dont, huh? tell me...... how does carbon dating work? i bet you wont be able to explain that one to me cuz you speak out of your own lust. you want God to be a fairytale so yo can live your life the way you want to. you're not an athiest cuz theres proof for evolution, you're an ahiest cuz you dont want God telling you what to do, thats it. you dont know how it works, huh? you wont beat me in this debate, garauntee. PROVE ME WRONG!
it's not precis to the little scale your brain can understand but at the scale of the universe it's really precise
on your side you wan the bible to be truth cause it places you at the center of the universe and god would have created everything for us but damn grow up life is not a fary tale and we are insignificant on the scale of time and size
and you can't accept your insignificance your ego can't accept it
you're studying in physics? YOU LIER! go back to grammer school, learn to speak and write proper english.
you accept evolution cuz it tells you that if there's no God then you can live you life the way you want to and no one can tell you what to do. you dont like Gods laws, thats it. i am not the center of the universe, God is. stop missing the point. telling me that there is no God without proof? God is going to get you for this. i can prove God exists with scientific proof.
carbon dating doesnt work at all. it is inaccurate, but most professors today are blind like you cuz they too do not want God telling them what to do. they know all about the fallacies of evolution and are lying about them. kent hovind (creationist) had debated hundreds of professors and beat ALL of them. explain that one to me.
as said as the answer to your previsous comment i could explain it but the 500 card limitation of youtube would be a pain but if your eally wan to i could
ffalse religion i don't adhere to any religion because i hate people putting thought in my head through menace i don,t need to have someone to theaten me with hell to know that i must no kill or many othe things
if you need it good for us that religion exist it keep people like you away from us
(i did put word in your mouth just like you did tell me if you like it)
so tell me......... what is it that they or who ever you speak of is using to determine that? scientists who defend evolution are either confused or lying. kent hovind has proven that litterally hundreds of times. there is no proof of hundreds of thousands of years old, NONE! PROVE ME WRONG!
Funny, I didn't say he stole. :) What he did was evade taxes.
Nice how you just assume without proof that my answers would be yes. Although in fact, there are few people who wouldn't have to admit the occasional lie or theft. That said, by your definition, pretty much everybody in the world qualifies.
No, there's a big difference between the occasional act (sometimes for good reasons) and making a career out of it. That would be Kent.
whether he is a criminal or not doesnt prove anyting. he decided not to pay taxes using loop holes that were legitimate, as so he was told by the irs. he had been doing this for years, so why would he believe he was committing a crime? he sent letters and made phone calls to the irs making sure what he was doing was legal. even if he did commit a crime, i believe he was made to believe he wasnt. continued.....
im just assuming that he was lead cuz how can one get away with years of tax evasion and not get busted for it? when i owed the irs over 200 dollars, they immediately sent me a letter telling me that i am in violation of the law and i have to pay it a.s.a.p.. hovind and had sent them letters and called them on the phone asking if what he was doing was legal. he was told he was doing things right. but the last few times, NO RESPONSE! THATS WHY!
look! im not saying what he did was wrong. i just think he was lead to believe the loop holes he used (if any) were legitimate. he made phone calls and send letters to the irs wanting to know if he was okay or not. not once was he told that he was a criminal until he was arrested during church service. his wife was arrested while sick in bed. they were both taken in as if they were on the FBI's most wanted list. its obvious they just wanted to shut him up. prove me wrong.
i told you already. tell me in which one of his debates did he lose in? you didnt do that. all you're doing is telling me im wrong. AGAIN, i have never seen a debate where his opponents had proved evolution true and the Bible false. no one has ever claimed the quarter of a million dollar prize for proving him wrone. AND THATS WHERE THE CREDIBILITY COMES IN. do not ignore what im throwing at you again. just answer my questions.
He has lost every debate I've ever seen him in. He just refuses to acknowledge it.
Nobody can claim his prize because, as I told you, he designed it to be unwinnable. And his challenge throws in a lot of things that have nothing to do with evolution.
EXCUSE ME! what debate has he lost in? i want to see it. and where do you get this notion that the challenge for the prize money is rigged and unwinnable? all they have to do is prove millions of years, prove macro evolution true, and so on. NOT ONCE DID I SEE THEM PROVE CARBON DATING TO BE ACCURATE in a debate with hovind. it is you guys who refuse to acknowledge your failures cuz you dont want God telling you what to do, thats it. prove me wrong.
@dimestiny06 Wow, you are fucking stupid. Take Kent Hovind's advice and eat a bunch of crushed peach seeds and spare the world your continued existence.
(watch the whole thing) and tell me in which debate did hovind lose in. i couldnt find ONE where his opponent proved evolution true and the Bible false and claimed the quarter of a million dollar reward to anyone who can prove evolution true. NOT ONE! PROVE ME WRONG!
Hovind's "challenge" is designed to be impossible, whether evolution is provable or not. It refers to a lot of things that aren't even evolution: cosmology, abiogenesis, etc.
It also requires proof that "evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." Can't prove a universal negative, nor is this the standard burden of proof.
you are twisting things up. hovind points out the major fallacies told as fact in textbooks, like C-14 dating to be accurate, which is wrong, macro evolution which is not true at all, and so forth. theres no tricks up his sleeve. quit twisting things around to make it look like he is being unfair.
SERIOUSLY? think hard for a moment. not that hard cuz i know you're not dumb. and tell me...... DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU'RE WINNING THIS DEBATE? again, you this and that are millions of years old. you imply that carbon dating is accurate, but on what proof do you have? moron! it is you who is looking stupid.
It requires proving evolution occurred w/o God, altho evolution itself doesn't deny God. Hovind himself has admitted that this clause is impossible to meet.
Hovind is unqualified to judge the issue, yet insists he is qualified to *pick* the judges.
He disallows important evidence. He won't answer questions on what some of the clauses mean. He doesn't even respond to people who attempt the challenge.
Basically, the whole thing is a fraudulent publicity stunt.
right! evolution doesnt deny God, but with lies, you are. all you say is that this and that are millions of years old but fail to explain how you would come to that conclusion. at least im giving you my sources. what do you have? YOU'RE NOT ANTHIEST, if thats what you claim to be, but nothing more than a scoffer. PROVE ME WRONG.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! whatever! you claim to be an athiest based on proof that you dont even have. you tell me that im ignoring theradioschizo about whatever, and hypocritically do the same about the so called cavemen i threw at you thats been proven a hoax.
there are over 24 transitional fossils factually proven through DNA analysis now that show Mans transition back to common ancestors with Chimps. DNA can't lie and isn't open to interpretation... .this is why the Head of the Human Genome Project (who is a devout Christian) says people denying evolution happened is only going to damage the Christian faith and message, this is because it shows Christians to be intellectually dishonest about the evidence.
@billymatronics: As much as I'd like to back you up on this, I have to wonder where we got DNA evidence on 24 ancestors? We have many marker lines of Homo sapiens, Chimp, Bonobo, Gorilla and Oranutan (5 species?) DNA. Just this month they've managed to piece together a full genome for Neadertal man. AFAIK, that's the DNA evidence we have. Beyond that the evidence is morphological, cultural and environmental.
let me ask you a quick question. if you were to die right now and by some miracle you appeared before a big bright light. and that light asked you, "why should i let you into heaven?" what would you say? that there was no proof for your existence? WHAT EVER DUDE! i do my home work and find lots of proof for creation and find lots of fallicies in evolution. go ahead and prove evolution true and the Bible false, i dare you. you wont beat me in this debate, guarantee!
If I were to believe in a supreme being, I wouldn't believe in a whiny bitch prepubescent supreme being who throws a tantrum if every tiny nothing Human Being didn't worship him.
That's just depressing.
By the way your argument for the Earth being 4000 years old is completely belied by the point i already regarding the whole it's been scientifically proven beyond doubt that dinosaurs were around tens of millions of years ago.
just cuz Got gets angry at those who dont worship Him, whos to say thats wrong? Hes God and you're man. i too would not act as he does, but we cant change anything but accept. also, i threw some really good arguments proving the earth to be thousands of years old. YOU telling me that its been proven to be millions of years old doesnt make it so. prove to me that the earth is millions of years old. i dare you! you have no proof for evolution being true and the Bible false for sure! PROVE ME WRONG
prove it! i bet you wont cuz you have absolutely none. you're not an athiest cuz of proof that you supposedly have, you're an athiest cuz you just don want God telling you what to do, thats it. also, according to your schoffing friends, dinosaurs died out 65 to 70 million years ago, NOT BILLIONS. give me proof of your stupidity, i dare you. you wont beat me in this debate, garauntee. PROVE ME WRONG ON THAT! i bet you wont. lets dance shall we?
you are not an athiest. you are a schoffer. you attack us with absolutely no evidence to present your stupidity. and if you dont have any proof, why do you act like an athiest? EXACTLY MY POINT!
It wasn't an argument, it was a question. I couldn't find "schoffer" in a dictionary or in a web search. "Scoffer" was the closest I could figure, but I was giving you the opportunity to clarify.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! whatever dude! you have nothing else to throw at me so you spit complete nonsense. is miss spelling a word make one lose the argument? think about it.
You still don't get it: It wasn't criticism. The 4 sentences with it didn't make sense. "Scoffer" *seemed* to be possibly what you meant, but I was *trying* to make sure.
Is it so hard for you to comprehend that somebody would *try* to find out exactly what you were saying *before* commenting on it?
To that end, you *still* haven't clarified if that was what you meant. If so, why do you use it as an epithet? *You* clearly scoff at a lot of things...
so you mean to tell me that you didnt know what i was talking about, but assumed right away that i might be trying to say scoffer? LIER! and yes thats what i was trying to say. you only corrected me as a means of attacking me, not simply cuz you wanted to make sure you knew what i meant. im not stupid!
WRONG! do you know what the big bang theory is all about? do your homework. according to your schoffing friends, billions of years ago, there was absolutely nothing at all, and then a enormous explosion happened and created everything. NOW, run that threw your thick head again and ask yourself, HOW CAN NOTHING EXPLODE AND CREATE EVERYTHING WE SEE TODAY? how does emptyness blow up? and who ignited it? you people make no sence but still attack us. WATCH kent hovind's debates. he has never lost.
Homg, you know nothing about the big bang theory. It is the explanation of the EXPANSION of the universe. It starts with a singularity (which is NOT "nothing" but rather... everything). I've seen many Hovind lectures and the info he presents is either purposefully misrepresented or shows complete and utter ignorance for the subjects he talks about. "Debating" you would be useless.
back then every scientists believed that there was nothing at all, and then an explosion happened. RIDICULOUS! today most of them believe that there was a small dot like a period of this comment that exploded. STILL RIDICULOUS! debating me would be useless to you cuz you cant beat me, thats why.
"today most of them believe that there was a small dot like a period of this comment that exploded. STILL RIDICULOUS! "
oOo, good refutation! Bet your extensive knowledge of astrophysics helped you come up with that, didn't it? Debating you would be useless because with every comment you leave you show your ignorance more and more as well as your unwillingness to hear any point that disagrees with you. Obvious troll is obvious.
"As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past."
Does that say "exploded from nothing"? No! If you want do debate then it'd help if you knew what you were talking about.
i know exactly what im talking about. i do my homework and you obviously dont. you throw nonsense at me without looking at both sides fo the spectrum.
the Bible has been proven medically, historically, mathematically, and scientifically. i do my homework on both sides of the spectrum and have not found any proof for the existence of allah, brahman, and zeus. i have not found any one who has proven those religions true at all. i also have not found any proof for evolution, especially from you. and im still looking.
excuse me? im not? all you tell me is that this and that are millions of years old but fail to answer my question of how can that be. i can say that something is a few thousand years old, but what good is it if i dont present the proof? same thing with you, give me your proof of millions of years. PROVE EVOLUTION TRUE AND THE BIBLE FALSE, i dare you! i bet you cant. GARAUNTEE!
I'm sorry, but 500 letters is not sufficient to remedy your decades of miseducation. Nor can I do anything about your forgone conclusion that your religion is right.
whatever dude! you have absolutely nothing in reply. thats it! its not about how much i throw at you is more like what can i prove. and thats exactly what im doing here. i throw my argument with proof, you throw me crap. end of story.
hmm, i joined the group, but i don't have any videos for debunking creationism, but did make a response towards a stupid christian girl who believes halloween is the devil's birthday.
whether that stupid christian girl was right about halloween being the devils birthday or not, whats your point? does that prove evolution true and the Bible false? this is not a good argument. its a strawman! prove evolution true and the Bible false, i dare you!
Did I at any point say anything about God? No, I did not. Neither did I say anything about evolution or disproving God, it's all written in that dribble of a holy book.
no you did not, but you were obviously attacking because she is a christian. my question to you is, why are you calling her stupid? and why are you acting like a stupid athiest knowing nothing about science and the Bible? you mock God and have no clue what you are doing. He is going to get you for this unless you repent and put your faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins.
You might want to take a look at youtubers GIIVideo, PatCondell and EdwardCurrent. An eclectic mix but all get their messages across (although Eddy's satire is often mistaken for the real thing by the naive).
Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!"
Whatever. Haters can hate.
CrimsonAssassin999 10 months ago
Creationism is what happens when religous views are told to be respected.
if you make an outrages claim about the world, how it started, who created, miracles about died being bought to life, etc then you should be able to back that up and your religon or your belief does not add credibility to your outrages claims.
shandcunt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey, could you help me debunk the argument creationists use regarding the law of conservation of energy during the big bang... i respond that energy for the system (everything that exists) remained constant or brought some fancy einsteinian point with mass at the speed of light into the conversation but both of those points are flimsy at best and i would like a deeper understanding on a fellow evolutionist's mind on this point.
44jackhammer 1 year ago
hey, could you help me debunk the argument creationists use regarding the law of conservation of energy during the big bang... i respond that energy for the system (everything that exists) remained constant or brought some fancy einsteinian point with mass at the speed of light into the conversation but both of those points are flimsy at best and i would like a deeper understanding on a fellow evolutionist's mind on this point.
44jackhammer 1 year ago
Comment removed
MaskofMystery 1 year ago
@MaskofMystery It's more in the vein of "they latched onto an area that I (he) am not completely knowledgeable of and some information on it would be helpful" It's similar to when creationists misapply the second law of thermodynamics claiming that evolution violates it. Ignoring that the Earth is not a closed system as we are receiving energy from the sun.
Darkstar1484 11 months ago
Comment removed
MaskofMystery 11 months ago
@MaskofMystery First off you're making assertions saying that changes and variations within a species (IE Micro-evolution) result in a loss of information. I would also ask how you would define information in this context, since the while I have heard many creationists talk about amounts of information I have yet to hear them explain how they define it and how they measure it Also if the suns rays are universally harmful to non-plants then vitamin D deficiencies wouldn't be a problem for people.
Darkstar1484 11 months ago
Comment removed
MaskofMystery 11 months ago
@MaskofMystery No, I do not know exactly what you mean by genetic information. I simply want to be sure of what you're asking for before I answer you or if I need to correct a misconception, assuming that you are merely deceived rather than a deceiver.
Darkstar1484 11 months ago
Comment removed
MaskofMystery 11 months ago
@MaskofMystery Ah, stopped being a creationist then?
Darkstar1484 11 months ago
@Darkstar1484 lol.....i did send you a pm did you get it?
MaskofMystery 11 months ago
To Puncheek
The people who have never heard of the Bible will still be guilty when they stand before God, just like you will if they refuse to acknowledge Him through His creation.
Only a fool would say there is no God if they just look around. Everything cries out of a Creator, everything!
You will spend eternity in the hell you don't believe in if you don't acknowledge that fact, repent of your sins & believe what Christ did for you on the cross.
digger629 1 year ago
@digger629 If God condemns a man whose never even heard of the Bible, and therefore never had a chance to redeem himself, to eternal hell and torment, he's an asshole, he's evil, malignent and unjust. A tyrant. If you believe God can do anything he wants because he's God, unaccountable to anyone, and you don't mind, you in fact praise him for it, then you're no better than a sycophant, a parasite, that guy Benni from the Mummy, you're even worse than him, you're an agent of evil.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense
If mocking and condemning God makes you happy and makes you feel good, then by all means do it NOW while you are hear on earth before you die. You will die some day, I promise you that. Then all your mocking & disagreements will mean nothing when you stand before this God you don't agree with.
I urge you to read the Bible for yourself and learn of Him before it's too late.
Eternity is a long time! God loves you. This may be your final warning.
digger629 1 year ago
@digger629 Yes, it does make me feel good and Yes I am doing it right now.
The Bible is a set of historically inaccurate, self-contradicting, censored, incomplete biased, primitive, hurtful books that promote slavery, racism, blackmail, murder and genocide. I will die and you will die as well, I promise you that. And if you see God, tell him to go fuck himself. He won't give a shit. He's fucking God. I'll re-incarnate rich and step on the nearest bug I see hoping it's you.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@digger629 I mock God because that's my right, to express my opinion. If a cook makes my dinner I have the right to say if it's good or bad. God's creation as described in the Bible is flawed and evil, his system is unjust and He himself is inconsistent and vain, a monster who creates only suffering, hands out a promise of paradise that can only be earned through ignorant worship, like asking love at the point of a gun. And you don't even condemn that? Deprive God of his sick pleasure! Revolt!
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@digger629 Yoshua or Jesus, was a story of a normal man enhanced with the stolen stories of other ancient made-up Gods to give hope to the poor masses, their target audience, and give the oppressors a chance to redeem themselves and join their cause of revolt. God was thought up by primitive man to explain things science has found the answers for nowadays, and to make a naive death fearing man feel special, empowered, superior and eternal. Reality begs to differ.
As-Salāmu `Alayka.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense Dude you have some serious issues. I to do not believe in the traditional god but I do believe in the bible I believe it's text is geniuine it's the way it's interpeted<--(pretty sure I spelled that wrong). Your argument is based on hatred and revenge you obviously had something very bad happen to you and you want "God" to suffer for it. So you in a way you believe in god just as much as a christian. Get over it!
jb42682 1 year ago
@jb42682 If this God is real he deserves to be hated.
There's no reason to believe in the Bible. Not as truth, not as a morality tale, not as an historical account. I do hate religion for its detrimental effects on society and civilization, it's divisive nature, how it keeps minds and societies stuck in the time and place where their holy book was written. If the God is eternal, alpha and omega, why does his holy book need to be interpreted to the context of the time and place of primitive men
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@jb42682 It sickens me to see my Catholic mother teach my little sister about angels and arks and Mary and Jesus, and although she's blind and turns 'violent' everytime I question her beliefs I cannot blame her for what she's been taught. It's her religion I blame for preaching this insanity as truth and deem every one who contradicts them liars and "evil" and that they who question deserve to suffer an eternity in hell. Simultaneously they claim they've superior morality. That's what angers me.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense Ahh Catholic that explains a lot. I agree with everything you say on your reply. I've asked people and challenged there beliefs and 95% believe cause there scared they'll never see there love one''s again when they move on. So there belief is made out of fear and emotion not spiritual at all. My family was mormon and it was so easy to put them in there place. On sunday there perfect people every other day there much worse then any "non beliver" I ever met.
jb42682 1 year ago
@jb42682 I don't agree entirely that their belief is purely fear. I agree that it's mostly a security and comfort blanket to think that the dead are in candyland, but I do suspect that most of what entails my mother's beliefs is the fact that she's never been confronted about it before. She's grown up in a community that all believes the same nonsense and this feeling of superiority in mayority and the good fuzzy feeling she gets in church makes her think that her beliefs are unquestionably real
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@viridismonasteriense I can't wait to see the look on there faces when they relize jesus is an alien.
jb42682 1 year ago
@jb42682 Reminds me of Arthur C Clarke's Third Law : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "
Jesus was an alien? Funny, but I think it's more logical to assume that if any God exists, it itself is an alien. A being beyond space and time can't have made us in his own image. It's human delusion of wanting to be special, to be loved, to be protected, to be rewarded at the end for their suffering. They're projecting themselves upon the universe. (cont'd)
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@jb42682 (cont'd) Theists project themselves upon the universe, so that God is whatever they want him to be. A judge? Love? Faith? Balance? Whatever they want!
So when atheists challenge their beliefs, they believe they themselves are being challenged, because they're so emotionally invested in it. And they close their mind so they can never hear that they have been wrong. They personally. That they are not special. That there is no plan. And life's just life. It's hard to come to terms with it
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago
@digger629 If we don't believe in your delusion your delusion will punish us, gotcha. As it is your baby killing madman of a deity is worthy of nothing but scorn and derision. I would urge you to read your bible and realize that the reason God kicked man from the garden was because, according to your scriptures, he feared Man becoming his equal. But then again I reject your and other superstitions, reality doesn't imply a creator, it implies an uncaring reality that loves us not.
Darkstar1484 11 months ago
google Doe's Account, its insane.
mitinglafer 1 year ago
So if science knows the limitations of carbon dating that you cited and uses other methods of radiometric dating when carbon dating wouldn't be appropriate, then what's the problem? You act like carbon dating is the only dating method scientists have. Due to its half life, it isn't even used in anything older than 60,000 years. Carbon dating does work when used right and it's been tested against samples of known age as early as 1949.
theradioschizo 2 years ago
Could you please explain to me how you "think" Kent Hovind made a "career out of being a thief.
Oh, and BTW, there is never a good reason to lie, cheat, steal, etc.
Your generation has not been taught that. You have been raised in a society that is anti-God or you don't believe in God because you have been brainwashed in school about evolution being a fact.
Evolution is a theory!!! Although many believe it is fact. Thats too bad.
digger629 2 years ago
@digger629: When you're all through beating up the teenagers, perhaps you'd like to try someone your own age.
Good and evil existed long before Yahweh appeared, and all men know of them. Evolution has written the golden rule on everyone's hearts. You don't think there weren't just men in ancient Greece? How about Hammurabi? How about all those people in the world who never heard of Christ or the Bible? Ethics was studied in Greece before the Pentateuch was written down. ...
puncheex 1 year ago
...
As for that Theory of theories you have, you're right. Evolution is a theory. It is an inferential abstraction of a collection of observations/facts. It is called a hypothesis until some amount of evidence is gathered for its acceptance, but Darwin's book filled that in.
Since a theory is inferential, it is always provisional, always awaiting possible findings of data that will change or even overthrow it. That's why scientists still study it. It likely isn't going away.
puncheex 1 year ago
When your deceived by satan and his lies, you will never see the truth of God's wonderful creation.
Have you looked up in the sky lately/
Have you looked at the wonderful complexity of the human body lately or the beauty of flowers?
How about the human eye...ever try making one? or the ear?
Creation is so complex and wonderfully made it just makes me want to shout...PRAISE GOD...HOW GREAT THOU ART.
digger629 2 years ago
the fact that we actualy have 6000 years of documented humain civilisation history here on earth that have gone from generation to generation kinda put your 4000 years old earth thing
granyte 2 years ago
And dimestiny06 the earth is billions of years old its been proven by science.
And the fact that if you dont believe in some supreme being youll go to hell or whatever is just stupid.
Mcquad3 2 years ago
we have been lied to by you schoffing friends. evolution is not science at all. it is all based purely on major assumptions thought as fact. evolution is stupid. prove me wrong.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
What i dont get is how people believe some book. That couldve been written some drunk guy thousands of years ago.
Mcquad3 2 years ago
you are such a moron. i cant believe you would believe evolution true and the Bible false without any proof.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
..right...because that matters to me...lol
LordWhorfinX 2 years ago
Remember, no matter how many times you disprove a creationist, they'll always say, "Oh yeah? Well god did that! That means he's real!"
Ammit5 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God created Earth, but NOT in 6,000 years
LordWhorfinX 2 years ago
aussies don't care too much either, since we were originally a convict colony that lead to the genocide of the aboriginals. No, I don't care since I am actually forign to australia :P I was born in holland, we discovered australia but left because it was TOO DAMN HOT HERE.
Daclunator 2 years ago
in sweden, beleving a god or not doesn't make any different regarding becmoing a prime minister at all. it doesn't matter to people here.
93alvbjo 2 years ago 18
that must be nice
hereticjoeyjoey 2 years ago 2
Same thing in Norway.
Hjernespreng 2 years ago 2
Debunking creationists is like shooting fish in a barrel, except you keep shooting the fish and they wont die and when you finally kill one another one takes its place. :(
madzyzome 2 years ago 9
Its time to stop shooting them in the barrel. Try just putting the lid on it. We can do this by removing their government tax breaks. Getting rid of state paid theologians. And in my country, Kicking the bishops and the chief Rabbi out of the house of Lords. They are not elected to the 2nd house. However still have a hand in enacting our laws. How can that be fair and just. My kind wishes to you Brother.
grengd 2 years ago 5
What country would that be?
madzyzome 2 years ago
UK.
grengd 2 years ago
You guys have state paid theologians? I thought we had it bad in the states. These damn fundamentalist Christians are trying to convince people this is a christian country. Worse yet they are attacking science because it doesn't fit their beliefs. They have been systematically trying to dumb down science standards in school boards in most of the southern states. If you look up user AronRa he has some good videos about what he has to fight against in his own state, Texas.
madzyzome 2 years ago
Did you not Know that you also have state paid theologians. IE. Who pays your armed forces chaplains. And the prayers in senate and other house. All state funded by your tax dollar. There are more examples. Maybe a research paper is about somewhere.
kind wishes.
grengd 2 years ago
Figures, we are a bunch of religious fanatics over here.
madzyzome 2 years ago
It's more like playing cops and robbers as a kid. You shoot down the ignorant creationist's argument, and then they yell "nuh-uh! You missed! God is still real!"
They don't want to know anything different. They just want to believe, even if they have to ignore truth and science to do it.
SkeksisRule 2 years ago 19
okay SkeksisRule! go ahead and prove God a fairytale and i will prove God true. UP FOR THE CHALLENGE!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
You can't prove or disprove God. God is by definition beyond man kind's comprehension. Even if you could prove the existence of God religion and faith would cease to exist as no faith would be necessary to know that he is real. It would merely becoming scientific knowledge.
Personally I think it's a crock of shit, but the only way we can really win this argument is to keep making scientific discoveries that show what kind of nonsensical garbage is in the bible.
ryg909 2 years ago
if the Bible is correct the earth is a few thousand years old and the world wide flood happened 4,400 years ago. the sahara desert is the largest in the world. after years of observations german scientists determined that the largest desert in the world is about 4000 years old. QUESTION! if the earth is millions of years old, why dont we have a bigger desert anywhere else in the world? why does the largest desert fit perfectly with the flood legend of the Bible?
dimestiny06 2 years ago
I know your comments were from over a month ago, but your ignorance made me laugh. The Namib Desert is around 55 million years old. They have found bristlecone pines 5,000 years old and clonal trees (quaking aspen) nearly a million years old. The oldest coral reef is off Isle Lamot in Virginia and is around 450 million years old. So we do have older deserts, older trees, and older coral reefs, but I bet that won't change your mind.
theradioschizo 2 years ago
Comment removed
dimestiny06 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HA! you obviously dont do your homework. tell me....... how do you figure those things are millions and millions of years old? i bet you have no proof for that. there are two sides to this, so how do you suppose your side is right without any proof? kent hovind has debated hundreds of professors and won all his debates. AGAIN, give me your proof. i bet you wont cuz you have none. if you think im wrong, ill prove you wrong and make you look stupid. lets debate, shall we?
dimestiny06 2 years ago
So, you think that eventually everything will be desert, as it just keeps growing? That's not how it works. Sometimes deserts grow, sometimes they shrink. Depends on wind patterns, mountains, all sorts of things.
jursamaj 2 years ago
that is correct. wind patterns do change, but the one flowing over the sahara desert flows almost always in the same direction. im using logic to defend my case. what do you have? absolutely nothing, i bet. the biggest desert is around 4,000 years old and the Bible says that the flood happened around 4,400 years ago. explain to me how you can call that a coincidence. you wont beat me in this debate, garuantee.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Clearly, you have no real conception of how "coincidence" works.
In any case, you have bad info. Fossil dunes (yes, that happens) have been found in the area dating back 7 million years.
The Namid desert appears to be 5700 years old.
I found your "4000 year-old Sahara". It was part of a climate *simulation*, which relied on changes that happened to Earth's orbit over many thousands of years.
jursamaj 2 years ago
define the term coincidence. and me? bad info? you claim millions of years old with absolutely no proof of that and you're telling me i have bad info? whatever dude! what proves millions of years old? i know what you're going to say, but i would like for you to say it yourself first. i use logic, you use stupidity.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
whats your point about the namid desert? my argument is that the sahara desert is the largest in the world. after observing the growth of it for a while, german scientists determined that it is only around 4,000 years old. that would fit perfectly with the flood of the Bible which may be around 4,400 year ago, other creationists believe 6-10,000 ago. im using logic, what do you have, carbon dating? HA! dont make me laugh. how is the namid 5700 years old? also, that contradicts evolution, right?
dimestiny06 2 years ago
So, 1 group published 1 paper that says something might be about the right age for something related to your flood.
Here's a thought experiment: assume the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you suppose that *something* might be found that's about 4000 years old? *Anything*? Certainly.
So, the fact the something gets dated at 4000 years, by a very shaky methodology, doesn't prove that Earth is only a little over 4000 years.
jursamaj 2 years ago
what do you mean 1 group and 1 paper? and what about the largest reef in the world, the biggest desert in the world, and the bristle cone pine tree? why are you ignoring those? heres another one for you. continued.....
dimestiny06 2 years ago
according to you guys, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, creating the oil underneath the surface fot the earth. the problem is the ground holding the oil under can only withstand 10,000 years of pressure. QUESTION! if the earth is millions of years old, why hasnt the oil erupted out of the earth by now? why is it still sitting under ground? why does this fit perfectly with the Bible which says the earth is only thousands of years old?
dimestiny06 2 years ago
You must have ignored the post by theradioschizo about the *5000* year old pine. (google "List of oldest trees")
But even if the ages of those particular things are right, that doesn't prove the Earth only that old. The oldest verified person was 122 years old. Does that mean that's as old as Earth can be?
Where do you get this notion that the rock can only stand 10,000 years of pressure?
And actually, oil was 1st found because it *was* seeping out of the ground!
jursamaj 2 years ago
122 years old? no you moron. who would believe that thats how old the earth is just because the oldest person was 122 years old? that person had parents, right? his parents had parents, right? i never said time began when the oldest person was born. in fact, this isnt even a good argument. and what is this 5000 year old tree about? maybe the oldest is 5000 years old, but so what? my argument is that all this fits perfectly with the Bible and NOT evolution. continued....
dimestiny06 2 years ago
You should read up on the 5000 year old tree argument, the rings aline perfectly with other timbers found cut by earlier man, so we have a records taking us back well over 10,000 years. sorry
billymatronics 1 year ago
i dont remember the source to which kent hovind gave about the ground holding up to 10,000 years of oil pressure. but Dr. kend hovind says it does. prove it wrong!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
@dimestiny06: Dr. Kent Hovind has no expertise in any science I'm aware of. If he taught it, as he claims, then pity the poor kids. His degree is in Christian Education, and a reading of his thesis was a hoot; he's lucky they sent him his piece of paper. I'm not accepting any proof based on his name, down to and including how his first name is spelled. You can believe what you want. Even locating a direct verified quote from him won't suffice, I'm afraid. So, no, it's all yours.
puncheex 1 year ago
jursamaj: regarding the 5000 year old tree argument, the rings aline perfectly with other timbers found cut by earlier man, so we have a records taking us back well over 10,000 years.... googling overlapping tree rings gives interesting reading on this. hope this is of interest!
billymatronics 1 year ago
@dimestiny06: ANSWER! (This is fun.) The deposits of oil originate primarily with the plant life that grew during the Carboniferous period. Where did you get this "10,000 years of pressure"? Pressure isn't measured in years. It usually is under some pressure where it has gathered, but not anywhere near enough pressure to blow through the rock that caps it. In some places it did work its way to the surface (because of geologic faults, not pressure). Look up the La Brea tar pits, for example.
puncheex 1 year ago
Google "Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. July 15, 1999 Geophysical Research Letters"
The scientists made computer simulations of the climate, *not* observation of the Sahara.
The research talks about the change possibly starting 6700ya & that it's caused by changes in the Earth's orbit & tilt, starting 9000ya!
Of course, creationist websites feed you that 1 bit: Sahara 4000 years old.
jursamaj 2 years ago
im simply pointing out the fallacies being tought as fact. the most popular and supposedly most accurate method used by evolutionists is carbon dating. i gave you some sources that explain how that is not true. you keep talking about dating methods. im not necessarily using any dating methods but LOGIC.
"Of course, creationist websites feed you that 1 bit: Sahara 4000 years old."
you hypocrite! whats this potsdam institute crap then you're giving me then?
dimestiny06 2 years ago
That "Potsdam crap" is the actual paper that discusses the age of the Sahara, which creationist websites even cite when making the claim.
What the paper actually says is quite different. 4000 is the *minimum* age they give. In fact, their simulation has to start about 9000 years ago in order to produce the Sahara 4-5000 years ago.
And no, carbon dating is *not* "the most popular and supposedly most accurate method". It is only one of an array of methods.
jursamaj 2 years ago
the potsdam crap is the actual paper that discusses the age of the sahara, but with what dating method? even if they say that its around 5000, 10,000, or 4000, why arent there any thats millions of years old? tell me...... whats the most popular method used, cuz i heard different.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
If you accept the dating methods that show the Sahara a 4000 years old, then you should accept that they also show the Earth as billions of years old. Finding a few things that happened around the time of the alleged biblical flood proves nothing. Of *course* some things happened at that time.
jursamaj 2 years ago
if you're talking about carbon dating, you're wrong. im dont believe c-14 dating to be accurate at all. let me give you some examples of why i dont believe in it.
lower leg of a mammoth dated at 15,380 years old when at the same time the skin and flesh dated at 21,300 years old.
harold e. anthony, "natures deep freeze." natural history, sept. 1949 page 300. continued.....
dimestiny06 2 years ago
LIVING mollusk shells dated at 2,300 years old. mollusks dont live that long if you didnt know.
science vol. 141, 1963 p. 634-637.
m. kieth and g. anderson
dimestiny06 2 years ago
@dimestiny06 So glad that you just copy Kent Hovind's arguments. It makes them easy to refute. The paper you cited (m. kieth, et al) is called "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells" It describes what's called the reservoir effect which is well understood. Animals that feed on the bottoms of bodies of water don't get their carbon from the air, but from their food sources who's carbon has been filtered down, giving it a much older reading.
theradioschizo 2 years ago
FRESHLY killed seal dated at 1,300 years old.
antarctic journal vol. 6, sept.-oct. 1971, p.211
dimestiny06 2 years ago
The article on the seal, called "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land" also described the reservoir effect and gave scientists a better understanding of the limits of carbon dating. Carbon dating does work, but not in all cases and science knows its limitation and that's why there are more than a dozen types of radiometric dating. You've only cited known limitations of ONE type. It doesn't work well on marine animals, but it's great for plants, who get their carbon directly from the air.
theradioschizo 2 years ago
@dimestiny06 - ANSWER! Perhaps because an area being desert, or tropical, or tiaga, or mountain, is only a brief condition in the total history of the Earth? At one point almost all the land area of the globe was gathered together in one huge mass, now called Pangaea. It likely held the largest desert ever known, but it was pulled apart in the middle of the age of dinosaurs (about 150 million years ago) to become the continents we know today.
puncheex 1 year ago
if the Bible is correct, the earth is a few thousand years old and the world wide flood happened 4,400 years ago. if you count the rings in a tree trunk, you can conclude what the age of it is. the oldest tree in the world (bristle cone pine) has around 4,300 rings. QUESTION! if the earth is millions of years old, why dont we have an older tree anywhere else in the world? why does this tree fit perfectly with the flood legend of the Bible?
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Because tress don't live forever?
jursamaj 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because tress don't live forever?
????????????????
what are you talking about? that doesnt answer my question.
why does the oldest tree in the world (using tree rings) fit almost perfectly with the flood legend of the Bible? im using logic here. what do you have to present to me? NOTHING! you start an argument with me with no proof of your stupidity.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
@dimestiny06: ANSWER! Because trees don't live that long. Period. Why don't we have humans who were eye witnesses to the flood? Because humans don't live that long. Boy, was that one a toughy.
puncheex 1 year ago
if the Bible is correct, the earth is a few thousand years old and the world wide flood happened 4400 years ago. the largest barrier reef in the world is off the coast of australia. during WWll it was partially damaged. scientists observed it for 20 years and concluded that the largest reef is only less than 4200 years old. QUESTION! if the earth is millions of years old why dont we have a bigger reef anywhere else in the world? why does this one fit perfectly with the flood legend of the Bible?
dimestiny06 2 years ago
i have only one question do you understand what cabon 14 datation is? if yess then you justproven earth is 4.5 billions years old if no search on youtube for it
granyte 2 years ago
>cabon 14 dating
>billion years
Please mention the correct dating method when talking about these things.
Tarciryan2 2 years ago
my main language is french stop bieng a douche
granyte 2 years ago
yes i have. i do my homework, but i bet you dont, huh? tell me...... how does carbon dating work? i bet you wont be able to explain that one to me cuz you speak out of your own lust. you want God to be a fairytale so yo can live your life the way you want to. you're not an athiest cuz theres proof for evolution, you're an ahiest cuz you dont want God telling you what to do, thats it. you dont know how it works, huh? you wont beat me in this debate, garauntee. PROVE ME WRONG!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
i know how it work i'm studying in physics
it's not precis to the little scale your brain can understand but at the scale of the universe it's really precise
on your side you wan the bible to be truth cause it places you at the center of the universe and god would have created everything for us but damn grow up life is not a fary tale and we are insignificant on the scale of time and size
and you can't accept your insignificance your ego can't accept it
granyte 2 years ago
you're studying in physics? YOU LIER! go back to grammer school, learn to speak and write proper english.
you accept evolution cuz it tells you that if there's no God then you can live you life the way you want to and no one can tell you what to do. you dont like Gods laws, thats it. i am not the center of the universe, God is. stop missing the point. telling me that there is no God without proof? God is going to get you for this. i can prove God exists with scientific proof.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
I,m studying in french sir the universe revolve around my asss
i bet you don,t even know what french is ethier
you can't prove anything with scientific proof you are just denying them
on the other hand i didnot said god didn't exist i in fact belive in god like einstein and many other scientist befor me
but i keep my self fairly far from religion because of people like you
granyte 2 years ago
"YOU LIER! go back to grammer school, learn to speak and write proper english. "
Irony much? LOL. Obvious troll is obvious indeed.
theradioschizo 2 years ago
ME? learn to speak and write proper english? i think you're being hypacrital, dont you think?
what in the work is obvious troll is obvious? that makes absolutely no sense to me.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
carbon dating doesnt work at all. it is inaccurate, but most professors today are blind like you cuz they too do not want God telling them what to do. they know all about the fallacies of evolution and are lying about them. kent hovind (creationist) had debated hundreds of professors and beat ALL of them. explain that one to me.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
as said as the answer to your previsous comment i could explain it but the 500 card limitation of youtube would be a pain but if your eally wan to i could
granyte 2 years ago
whatever dude! you're just scared cuz you have nothing to defend your false religion.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
ffalse religion i don't adhere to any religion because i hate people putting thought in my head through menace i don,t need to have someone to theaten me with hell to know that i must no kill or many othe things
if you need it good for us that religion exist it keep people like you away from us
(i did put word in your mouth just like you did tell me if you like it)
granyte 2 years ago
More modern research shows the reef to have started 20,000 years ago. Which is about when the last great ice age ended.
And there is evidence of reef structures there dating back 600,000 years.
jursamaj 2 years ago
so tell me......... what is it that they or who ever you speak of is using to determine that? scientists who defend evolution are either confused or lying. kent hovind has proven that litterally hundreds of times. there is no proof of hundreds of thousands of years old, NONE! PROVE ME WRONG!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Kent Hovind is a known liar and criminal, who hasn't proved anything except that desperately religious people will buy into his claims.
jursamaj 2 years ago
@jursamaj
Have you ever told a lie??? Then you too are a liar.
Have you ever stolen something???
Than you too are a thief. (criminal)
In logical summery> Kent Hovind is exactly what you are!
digger629 2 years ago
Funny, I didn't say he stole. :) What he did was evade taxes.
Nice how you just assume without proof that my answers would be yes. Although in fact, there are few people who wouldn't have to admit the occasional lie or theft. That said, by your definition, pretty much everybody in the world qualifies.
No, there's a big difference between the occasional act (sometimes for good reasons) and making a career out of it. That would be Kent.
jursamaj 2 years ago
i know, huh? what a hypocrite!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
whether he is a criminal or not doesnt prove anyting. he decided not to pay taxes using loop holes that were legitimate, as so he was told by the irs. he had been doing this for years, so why would he believe he was committing a crime? he sent letters and made phone calls to the irs making sure what he was doing was legal. even if he did commit a crime, i believe he was made to believe he wasnt. continued.....
dimestiny06 2 years ago
On what basis do you say Hovind was lead by the IRS to believe that what he was doing was OK.
On what basis do you say Hovind has never lost a debate?
If all you can offer is his own word, then his publicly known, persistent fraudulent behavior makes that a poor basis.
jursamaj 2 years ago
im just assuming that he was lead cuz how can one get away with years of tax evasion and not get busted for it? when i owed the irs over 200 dollars, they immediately sent me a letter telling me that i am in violation of the law and i have to pay it a.s.a.p.. hovind and had sent them letters and called them on the phone asking if what he was doing was legal. he was told he was doing things right. but the last few times, NO RESPONSE! THATS WHY!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Again, you only have Hovind's word that's how it went.
*Your* taxes were easy: they had your W2's filed by employers. Hovind's relied on self-reporting. It could pass for years until he got audited.
jursamaj 2 years ago
look! im not saying what he did was wrong. i just think he was lead to believe the loop holes he used (if any) were legitimate. he made phone calls and send letters to the irs wanting to know if he was okay or not. not once was he told that he was a criminal until he was arrested during church service. his wife was arrested while sick in bed. they were both taken in as if they were on the FBI's most wanted list. its obvious they just wanted to shut him up. prove me wrong.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
i told you already. tell me in which one of his debates did he lose in? you didnt do that. all you're doing is telling me im wrong. AGAIN, i have never seen a debate where his opponents had proved evolution true and the Bible false. no one has ever claimed the quarter of a million dollar prize for proving him wrone. AND THATS WHERE THE CREDIBILITY COMES IN. do not ignore what im throwing at you again. just answer my questions.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
He has lost every debate I've ever seen him in. He just refuses to acknowledge it.
Nobody can claim his prize because, as I told you, he designed it to be unwinnable. And his challenge throws in a lot of things that have nothing to do with evolution.
jursamaj 2 years ago
EXCUSE ME! what debate has he lost in? i want to see it. and where do you get this notion that the challenge for the prize money is rigged and unwinnable? all they have to do is prove millions of years, prove macro evolution true, and so on. NOT ONCE DID I SEE THEM PROVE CARBON DATING TO BE ACCURATE in a debate with hovind. it is you guys who refuse to acknowledge your failures cuz you dont want God telling you what to do, thats it. prove me wrong.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
@dimestiny06 Wow, you are fucking stupid. Take Kent Hovind's advice and eat a bunch of crushed peach seeds and spare the world your continued existence.
tml4873 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
also, watch any of kent hovinds debates
(watch the whole thing) and tell me in which debate did hovind lose in. i couldnt find ONE where his opponent proved evolution true and the Bible false and claimed the quarter of a million dollar reward to anyone who can prove evolution true. NOT ONE! PROVE ME WRONG!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Hovind's "challenge" is designed to be impossible, whether evolution is provable or not. It refers to a lot of things that aren't even evolution: cosmology, abiogenesis, etc.
It also requires proof that "evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." Can't prove a universal negative, nor is this the standard burden of proof.
jursamaj 2 years ago
you are twisting things up. hovind points out the major fallacies told as fact in textbooks, like C-14 dating to be accurate, which is wrong, macro evolution which is not true at all, and so forth. theres no tricks up his sleeve. quit twisting things around to make it look like he is being unfair.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
The carbon dating issue has been addressed, but like Hovind, you refuse to admit it.
jursamaj 2 years ago
SERIOUSLY? think hard for a moment. not that hard cuz i know you're not dumb. and tell me...... DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU'RE WINNING THIS DEBATE? again, you this and that are millions of years old. you imply that carbon dating is accurate, but on what proof do you have? moron! it is you who is looking stupid.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
It requires proving evolution occurred w/o God, altho evolution itself doesn't deny God. Hovind himself has admitted that this clause is impossible to meet.
Hovind is unqualified to judge the issue, yet insists he is qualified to *pick* the judges.
He disallows important evidence. He won't answer questions on what some of the clauses mean. He doesn't even respond to people who attempt the challenge.
Basically, the whole thing is a fraudulent publicity stunt.
jursamaj 2 years ago
right! evolution doesnt deny God, but with lies, you are. all you say is that this and that are millions of years old but fail to explain how you would come to that conclusion. at least im giving you my sources. what do you have? YOU'RE NOT ANTHIEST, if thats what you claim to be, but nothing more than a scoffer. PROVE ME WRONG.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
I don't believe in any god.
Therefore I am an atheist.
There, I've proved you wrong.
jursamaj 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! whatever! you claim to be an athiest based on proof that you dont even have. you tell me that im ignoring theradioschizo about whatever, and hypocritically do the same about the so called cavemen i threw at you thats been proven a hoax.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
there are over 24 transitional fossils factually proven through DNA analysis now that show Mans transition back to common ancestors with Chimps. DNA can't lie and isn't open to interpretation... .this is why the Head of the Human Genome Project (who is a devout Christian) says people denying evolution happened is only going to damage the Christian faith and message, this is because it shows Christians to be intellectually dishonest about the evidence.
billymatronics 1 year ago
@billymatronics: As much as I'd like to back you up on this, I have to wonder where we got DNA evidence on 24 ancestors? We have many marker lines of Homo sapiens, Chimp, Bonobo, Gorilla and Oranutan (5 species?) DNA. Just this month they've managed to piece together a full genome for Neadertal man. AFAIK, that's the DNA evidence we have. Beyond that the evidence is morphological, cultural and environmental.
puncheex 1 year ago
let me ask you a quick question. if you were to die right now and by some miracle you appeared before a big bright light. and that light asked you, "why should i let you into heaven?" what would you say? that there was no proof for your existence? WHAT EVER DUDE! i do my home work and find lots of proof for creation and find lots of fallicies in evolution. go ahead and prove evolution true and the Bible false, i dare you. you wont beat me in this debate, guarantee!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
If I were to believe in a supreme being, I wouldn't believe in a whiny bitch prepubescent supreme being who throws a tantrum if every tiny nothing Human Being didn't worship him.
That's just depressing.
By the way your argument for the Earth being 4000 years old is completely belied by the point i already regarding the whole it's been scientifically proven beyond doubt that dinosaurs were around tens of millions of years ago.
So yeah good argument.
ryg909 2 years ago 2
just cuz Got gets angry at those who dont worship Him, whos to say thats wrong? Hes God and you're man. i too would not act as he does, but we cant change anything but accept. also, i threw some really good arguments proving the earth to be thousands of years old. YOU telling me that its been proven to be millions of years old doesnt make it so. prove to me that the earth is millions of years old. i dare you! you have no proof for evolution being true and the Bible false for sure! PROVE ME WRONG
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Dinosaurs were billions of years not 4000 years ago. NOW THATS PROOF.
Mcquad3 2 years ago
prove it! i bet you wont cuz you have absolutely none. you're not an athiest cuz of proof that you supposedly have, you're an athiest cuz you just don want God telling you what to do, thats it. also, according to your schoffing friends, dinosaurs died out 65 to 70 million years ago, NOT BILLIONS. give me proof of your stupidity, i dare you. you wont beat me in this debate, garauntee. PROVE ME WRONG ON THAT! i bet you wont. lets dance shall we?
dimestiny06 2 years ago
you are not an athiest. you are a schoffer. you attack us with absolutely no evidence to present your stupidity. and if you dont have any proof, why do you act like an athiest? EXACTLY MY POINT!
So yeah good argument.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
"Schoffer"? What is that? Do you mean "scoffer"?
jursamaj 2 years ago
ooooooooooooooooooo! good argument! you moron.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
It wasn't an argument, it was a question. I couldn't find "schoffer" in a dictionary or in a web search. "Scoffer" was the closest I could figure, but I was giving you the opportunity to clarify.
jursamaj 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! whatever dude! you have nothing else to throw at me so you spit complete nonsense. is miss spelling a word make one lose the argument? think about it.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
You still don't get it: It wasn't criticism. The 4 sentences with it didn't make sense. "Scoffer" *seemed* to be possibly what you meant, but I was *trying* to make sure.
Is it so hard for you to comprehend that somebody would *try* to find out exactly what you were saying *before* commenting on it?
To that end, you *still* haven't clarified if that was what you meant. If so, why do you use it as an epithet? *You* clearly scoff at a lot of things...
jursamaj 2 years ago
so you mean to tell me that you didnt know what i was talking about, but assumed right away that i might be trying to say scoffer? LIER! and yes thats what i was trying to say. you only corrected me as a means of attacking me, not simply cuz you wanted to make sure you knew what i meant. im not stupid!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
I assumed it might be "scoffer" because that was the closest word I knew of that you might have misspelled.
And it's "liar", not "lier".
Actually, it wasn't an attack. But the more you write, the more you make *yourself* look stupid.
jursamaj 2 years ago
you know what? im not getting into this with you again cuz this is stupid. you correct me on misspelled words cuz you have nothing else to say.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
@dimestiny06
Type in "the big bang theory"
Theres more sense there.
Than your bible.
Mcquad3 2 years ago
WRONG! do you know what the big bang theory is all about? do your homework. according to your schoffing friends, billions of years ago, there was absolutely nothing at all, and then a enormous explosion happened and created everything. NOW, run that threw your thick head again and ask yourself, HOW CAN NOTHING EXPLODE AND CREATE EVERYTHING WE SEE TODAY? how does emptyness blow up? and who ignited it? you people make no sence but still attack us. WATCH kent hovind's debates. he has never lost.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Homg, you know nothing about the big bang theory. It is the explanation of the EXPANSION of the universe. It starts with a singularity (which is NOT "nothing" but rather... everything). I've seen many Hovind lectures and the info he presents is either purposefully misrepresented or shows complete and utter ignorance for the subjects he talks about. "Debating" you would be useless.
theradioschizo 2 years ago
back then every scientists believed that there was nothing at all, and then an explosion happened. RIDICULOUS! today most of them believe that there was a small dot like a period of this comment that exploded. STILL RIDICULOUS! debating me would be useless to you cuz you cant beat me, thats why.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"today most of them believe that there was a small dot like a period of this comment that exploded. STILL RIDICULOUS! "
oOo, good refutation! Bet your extensive knowledge of astrophysics helped you come up with that, didn't it? Debating you would be useless because with every comment you leave you show your ignorance more and more as well as your unwillingness to hear any point that disagrees with you. Obvious troll is obvious.
theradioschizo 2 years ago
"As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past."
Does that say "exploded from nothing"? No! If you want do debate then it'd help if you knew what you were talking about.
Obvious troll is obvious
theradioschizo 2 years ago
i know exactly what im talking about. i do my homework and you obviously dont. you throw nonsense at me without looking at both sides fo the spectrum.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
And if you die and find yourself standing before Allah, or Brahman, or Zeus, and he asks you that question?
You see, that argument is meaningless until you actually show a reason to believe *your* god exists.
jursamaj 2 years ago
the Bible has been proven medically, historically, mathematically, and scientifically. i do my homework on both sides of the spectrum and have not found any proof for the existence of allah, brahman, and zeus. i have not found any one who has proven those religions true at all. i also have not found any proof for evolution, especially from you. and im still looking.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
No, you aren't looking, or you'd realized that you are spewing nonsense. Much of the bible has been *disproved*, but you refuse to face to facts.
jursamaj 2 years ago
excuse me? im not? all you tell me is that this and that are millions of years old but fail to answer my question of how can that be. i can say that something is a few thousand years old, but what good is it if i dont present the proof? same thing with you, give me your proof of millions of years. PROVE EVOLUTION TRUE AND THE BIBLE FALSE, i dare you! i bet you cant. GARAUNTEE!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but 500 letters is not sufficient to remedy your decades of miseducation. Nor can I do anything about your forgone conclusion that your religion is right.
jursamaj 2 years ago
whatever dude! you have absolutely nothing in reply. thats it! its not about how much i throw at you is more like what can i prove. and thats exactly what im doing here. i throw my argument with proof, you throw me crap. end of story.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Yay collaboration
UNFFwildcard 2 years ago
"do you need help debunking. . ."
eh no. 99.9% don't even take research anymore.
DonHoraldo 3 years ago
hmm, i joined the group, but i don't have any videos for debunking creationism, but did make a response towards a stupid christian girl who believes halloween is the devil's birthday.
parodyking23 3 years ago
ROTFLMAO....Ain't that the truth. They HATE Halloween...'Too Pagan'. Like Christmas isn't Pagan!
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
lol, it is. anyway, would you be kind enough to comment my video?
parodyking23 3 years ago
whether that stupid christian girl was right about halloween being the devils birthday or not, whats your point? does that prove evolution true and the Bible false? this is not a good argument. its a strawman! prove evolution true and the Bible false, i dare you!
dimestiny06 2 years ago
Did I at any point say anything about God? No, I did not. Neither did I say anything about evolution or disproving God, it's all written in that dribble of a holy book.
parodyking23 2 years ago
no you did not, but you were obviously attacking because she is a christian. my question to you is, why are you calling her stupid? and why are you acting like a stupid athiest knowing nothing about science and the Bible? you mock God and have no clue what you are doing. He is going to get you for this unless you repent and put your faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins.
dimestiny06 2 years ago
I called her stupid because of her complete ignorance of the history of Halloween.
Why did you start your sentence with the word "and", yet call me a stupid atheist?
I mock your god because the whole idea of the biblical god is idiotic. Watch out kids, or the angry god will get ya.
parodyking23 2 years ago
You say "the" problem as though there's only one.
That's not right...
leecristo 3 years ago 2
You might want to take a look at youtubers GIIVideo, PatCondell and EdwardCurrent. An eclectic mix but all get their messages across (although Eddy's satire is often mistaken for the real thing by the naive).
bdf2718 3 years ago
Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!"
PammyG68 3 years ago 2
LOL, so true. Very well put, thank you for sharing. :)
NikolitaNiko 3 years ago