you can't claim einstein was an american physicist! he became an american citizen in 1940 aged 61!! he was a german/swiss physicist if anything (he never renounced his swiss citizenship) having gone to zurich university and made most of his great discoveries while in switzerland!
"Believe correctly"?! A belief cannot be correct; that would imply that it's a fact. A belief =/= a fact because a belief cannot be proven! Are you really so vacuous?
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
@TheOssumPawesome Personally, I believe the spiritual realm transcends detection by any scientific method. It appears that Atheists come to the conclusion that the non existence of God can be proved due to this lack of scientific evidence. Much suggests that the nature of the Spirit or God is operational on a totally different plane to that which modern methods can probe, hence the inability to "prove" that God exists . I do not believe that God is open to scientific scrutiny.
@purewhitelight1 that goes the same both ways actually. We atheists cannot believe the existance of godly beings simply because of the lack of prof, while in turn, the religious groups cannot comprehend the fact that we atheists question there beliefs. It is the outsider idea, or rather the thinking outside the box.
A religious person will go on ranting about his/her beliefs for hours, but once the atheists tells he is an atheists, the religious person would simple walk out.
@MaxBlightIn"A religious person will go on ranting about his/her beliefs for hours, but once the atheists tells he is an atheists, the religious person would simple walk out." If a person needed to defend their beliefs to that level it would clearly indicate that they were deeply insecure about about their faith and unable to tolerate others viewpoints or engage in debate.
@purewhitelight1 If this earth is the best god can do then I am not impressed. Are you? Zeus is god right? At least that's what the romans thought but if you say that to someone today they will look at you like you're crazy. It's amazing how many gods have come and gone over the years. All sounds a little fishy to me...maybe they just retire.
@purewhitelight1 : It's not really that. If you assume that some ancient Jewish people came up with the rules that became the 10 commandments, you don't NEED a god. As long as they followed the rules, and the rules changed to make them prosper, nothing supernatural needed. Just a living set of rules that evolved to let them flourish. At that point, God is redundant.
We cant prove the existence of god by go and watch him somwhere. But we can prove the existense of the laws of nature. So using the law of logic to prove GOD we could say that if there is a material existense there have to be a imaterial existence to. Becouse the one can't exist without the other. Like: dark-night, male-female etc... So the spirit world exists for 100%
Jonathan Swift was an Anglican clergyman, and the quote provided is actually not pro-atheist at all if read correctly. The Lincoln quote is apocryphal; he had never given any indication of unbelief, even though he had never joined a church. Gillian Anderson has spoken about her faith in God in interviews, and Alfred Hitchcock was a Catholic.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@Mogley52 You do not understand evolution and the underlying logic. The time you spent in so many posts would have been better spent: 1. reading a text of evolutionary biology, 2. seeking to understand the mathematics and logic that underpin evol. biol., and 3. reading the many replies to your questions from scientists. Believe me, the intelligent design crowd has not thought of all these silver bullets prior to the scientists actually intelligent enough to develop theory.
@Mogley52 : Actually there is a fish that can live in the water and out (for a small amount of time) for obvious reasons : sometimes the water it lives in dries up. So it can walk to the next pond or lake.
Think of a squirrel. Even a small flap of skin slows it when it falls, and as the generations advance, the flap of skin gets larger and larger to help it survive falls. Eventually you get a bat.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@souinvisiblebr One of the worst argument against God. Im not closed to the idea of God, but the arguments for him, like this one, are terrible. Plz just because we dont know yet how the universe began we don't have to jump to: God did it! Like we did with thunder and so on. And what's more we do have some clues on how the universe came to be. For you: The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking -> Read it. Carl Sagan on God and Gods, youtube it
@2CSST2 even if we understand how big bang happened, for example branes theory, we all are hostages of causality... phisics do not explain genesis, philosophy does... the name for it is simply metaphysics
@souinvisiblebr No, you don't understand, you should read Hawking's last book. M-theory explains how universes come into existence from nothing, spontaneously. You see, nothing needs no cause, it's not an event, it's nothing. But nothing causes universes... So there is no causality problem. Even the critics of Hawking's book agree with that. The critics are that this theory has not been confirmed yet. Maybe it's wrong, but know that there is not necessary to explain all this
@souinvisiblebr But the worst with this argument is that it's merely moving the problem. God is also subject to causality. Then you say God by definition isn't. But that's just shooting yourself in your own foot. You can't say that logically ANYTHING needs a cause, and then define something to not need a cause. Logic beats any definition you give. It's not a question of whether or not you define God to need a cause, He just does logically. That's why this argument is desastrous
@2CSST2 What Hawking did were simply reverse back one layer in causality. due the branes colision, a multiples big bangs can happen... okay, but nothing can explain God's origin. The understandin of Gods concept cannot be unanimous, because who is formuling the concept are meerly humans ... our psique can understand almost everything... almost. For years I were a atheist, but today I think atheism doesnt make sense at all. it is like fundamentalists to me, cience fundamentalists
I believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything randomly rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs because of lots and lots of time. That’s why I’m an atheist.
@EduardoElSexypants LMAO! Thats gotta be the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Get a brain, Agnostics believe in a higher power which is the opposite of Atheism.
@EduardoElSexypants Whatever man it can be looked at many different ways. There r agnostics that think there is no god but then there r agnostics that think there is a God. The whole definition is just ridiculous, if we go by the definition then everybody is agnostic beside people that have like near death experiences or something.
@ItsAboutWhatUDo this is the actual dictionary definition 0f agnosticism=A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. As far as NDEs go there is nothing spiritual about them, Ketamine can induce NDEs, patients who have higher levels of carbon dioxide in their blood report NDEs while those with lower levels do not
@ItsAboutWhatUDo the bit about the carbon dioxide of course applies to patients experiencing the dying process during cardiac arrest, but I'm sure you knew that.
@calmbluewaters I dont understand ur point. R u talking about near death experiences? When people say they had a near death experience they r saying they actually died and there heart stopped then they were revived. U should know thats what people mean. If ur dead there is nothing about ur body affecting u so thats why i think it makes sense to say science is out of the picture when it comes to death experiences.
@ItsAboutWhatUDo wow, you clearly know nothing at all about biology, medical science,or NDEs. I suspect from the way you type you are very young, I strongly urge you to do some research into the physical processes of dying and what medical science has to say about NDEs, there has been quite a bit of research. Rather than spend time explaining to you my points, I'll just sum up by saying there are physical explanations for NDEs. They are able to be duplicated by chemical means in healthy humans.
@calmbluewaters Just because there is an explaination does that really mean that its a dream or something? I say the explaination is just proving that the experience was real because u cant say it was fake for a fact. Even tho death experiences r obviously real u guys will just deny it forever even tho there is no factual evidence to prove whats real and whats fake.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
I find it funny how there are a massive amount of growing Athiests in the World then in any other decade. Also find it funny that it is all happening when we are coming nearer to the End times, and God has told us that most will be decieved, even the Elect can be decieved. The Religions of today may be corrupt but God is not. I <3 God =)
« amount of growing Athiests in the World then in any other decade »
Actually, that's not true. In various ages in recorded history since the origin of christianism, the portion of humanity that did *not* believe the christian doctrine has been much larger, relatively, than it is now. At the beginning of history, when christianism was but a small movement, the portion of humanity not believing in it was tens of thousands times bigger than the portion that did believe it, for instance.
A QUOTE IS A PERIOD IN THE QUOTED 'S LIFE , CHANGE DOES HAPPEN ?NOTICE NOT ONE OF THE QUOTES UPLIFTED YOU,THEY LACKED THE SO CALLED OPIATES . I DO AGREE AN UPDATE IS DUE ,BUT WE AREN'T PART OF AN EXPERIMENT ,OUR SOFTWARE NEEDS NO UPDATES THEY INSTALL AFTER DEATH ,I VIEW RELIGION AS OFFICER COLUMBO ,EACH OCCURRENCES BY ANY RELIGION HAD THE POWER TO SURVIVE MANY YEARS ,PERVERTED OR NOT.THIS SHOWS EITHER GOOD ADVERTISING OR AN ACTUAL FORCE .BELIEFS ARE HARD TO QUESTION.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@Mogley52 You litany of cut and paste bullshit impresses nobody. You seem to love making wild assertions based on nothing, something common among zealots, and one of the first principles rejected by scientific theory. Its one of the reasons why zealots have failed, are failing and will continue to fail in their war against science.
Oh, and if evolution is 'only possible' through existing genes, why have both lab experiemnts in evolution and the genome project proven this factually wrong?
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 Please stop making shit up about science you do not understand. I am so tired of kids who have never taken physics trying to apply the second law of thermodynamics to 'the universe'. Read the law my friend, it has no application whatsoever. if it DID, then complexity out of simplicity would be impossible in the universe, but it happens all the time in nature. Crystals, solar bodies, spontanious chemical reactions, etc.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," "Origin of Life Deception by Evolutionists," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. You didn't find fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Religion is just a hidey-hole for the morally fearful, afraid of death.
Putting your faith and life into the hands of an imaginary celestial protector is the ultimate cop-out from taking any responsibility for your own life.
It's the ultimate security blanket. All you have to do is find a nice dark corner of your life, pull the blanket around you, shut your eyes, stick your thumb in your mouth and cry to daddy to make all the nasty things go away.
@afar1 You my friend are truly misinformed. There isn't even a controversy among biologists, you creationists wish to have a short cut through the scientific consensus that all theories presented must fight there way through to achieve that. Of course there are areas of dispute but there are areas like that in every conceivable field in science. You think what you say is unique but people have been saying what you say and have been refuted since the 50s.
@falsehope444444 To explain the unknown because they didn't have the tools to discover it on their own. And then later the powerful use it to manipulate the masses.
Just a quick FYI: by and large, the only people who still use the term 'Theory of Evolution' are creationists. In Universities around the first world is is (and has been for a decade) taught as evolutionary biology or evolutionary science. Its not a theory, its a well proven, established fact.
@CuiusRegio LMAO!!!! Do you get misty eyed when you mention universities with their Darwin club full of true believers that are afraid to admit theyve been brainwashed? PREACH ON BROTHER!
@CuiusRegio Actually it is still a theory, a scientific theory tough, people often mixes up the laymen term of theory with a scientific theory.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
—National Academy of Sciences.
With all the evidence that evolution has in its favour it is difficult to find any serius scientist within the field who does not suport it.
I would like to thank George Washington for fighting for our freedom against King James Middle Eastern Abrahamic Spaghetti Monster which is not the word of God. Sincerely one Free Secular Nation above all Religious theocracy, as a free American I refuse to be forced to bow to a dead Middle Eastern man who has been elected to be my New God and who I would not trust my money with which is based on blind faith for a fool.
im a realist not a atheist i hate the word to be honest it doesnt suite me thank u for uploading this i hope more like this will come and more people will see and open there eyes to the truth about religion and its complete waste of my time yet a free thinking man is called crazy for believein in himself but a man that believes in god and a talkin snake and bullshit like that aint crazy yes yes u are crazy some of our founders where free thinkers i hope u people wake the fuk up
@BleedAl0ne You'll hav to know what evil is before asking such questions. Evil will be destroyed, just when He says, not when we say. Thats what Hell is for, to do away with the evil.
@horseburger Again I say You'll hav to knw wat evil is before making such assumptions. Th only reason i sounded contradictory is bcuz u applied ur beliefs to my reasoning. It shld b th other way around. Reasoning applied beliefs. One atheist comment said there is no good n evil, just public opinion. Explain to me how these two things dont exist since it was one of you, an atheist, that said this.
Christianity is very young compared 2 the other monotheistic religions. so my question is. why would God damn his children from the start by having them born into certain religions?. <----- not exactly wat im trying 2 say but im tired lolz
@Renrockxxstrings wered ths info come from. Ive been taught by christian n atheist alike tht christiany, islam, n catholisism r th oldest relgions in existance.
@mrdarkhalo666 dnt like tht u feel th need to curse or ur user name, but i agree. Th Bible ddnt make sence to me until i strtd readin for myself. All id ever herd wer th same old stories; of david n goliath, moses, samson n delilah, n noah. I now c tht theyve ben taught so much tht theyve become cliche n may b th reason ppl hav truble believin in thm ne more. But i digress. Wat i mean to say is, my thoughts always go to dark places if scripture isnt applied to thm. God is my cage.
@MultiDarknessrules Force is of man, not God. Hell was for the rebelled angels, not us. He simply said Hell is waiting for the wicked, He doesnt snd us there. What cruel punishment on Adam and Eve? He banished them from paradise, thn bcuz they wnted to b covered stitched for thm clothes. God always fulfils His promises. (James 4: 3-4) Satan will meet his destruction along with th demons, hell, and th world. Th Bible cn not be added to or taken frm.
@sleeeep125 this god character sounds unbelievably petty and open to interpretation. he also seems inconsistent and amazingly humanly flawed, why is that? why is the god of the bible such a repulsive, ignorant and evil entity? the answer is very simple, the bible was written by men, and god is just as man made and artificial as it.
I find it incredible to believe that so many U.S. presidents were rejecting of Christianity...that point is not brought up much. So....where are your sources? for these quotes? I see no citations
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Here are some definitions for theory, pick the one that fits best your interests.1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
@shncsr --If Islam is the true faith, why is it mostly practiced by mid-easterners only? Shouldnt it have universal appeal and a "Great Commision" from Mohammed?
you can't claim einstein was an american physicist! he became an american citizen in 1940 aged 61!! he was a german/swiss physicist if anything (he never renounced his swiss citizenship) having gone to zurich university and made most of his great discoveries while in switzerland!
leopoldstotch62 2 weeks ago 2
@leopoldstotch62 Americans do that get use to it lol
1974Qball 2 days ago
Quite a one track mind , all religion is bad no good in religion . Come on lets be honest believe correctly and act correctly.
mfrx6bb2 3 weeks ago
@mfrx6bb2
"Believe correctly"?! A belief cannot be correct; that would imply that it's a fact. A belief =/= a fact because a belief cannot be proven! Are you really so vacuous?
charleysaysrawr 3 weeks ago
@JezusSlave I'm sure you'd be willing to give us proof, then.
bleedingheart12009 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
God did not create man, man created god.
thaboy123 1 month ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@shanxtc1984 Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a belief that is not a fact.! google faith lol
flexbrat 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a belief that is not a fact.! google faith lol
flexbrat 1 month ago
What's with the music
femaleasteroids 1 month ago
@shanxtc1984 Just because they believe differently than you.
connerjd 1 month ago in playlist my playlist
Religion is man made, and clearly open to flaw. God, however, is infinite and beyond conception to the human mind.
purewhitelight1 2 months ago
@purewhitelight1 Great. That means it's pointless to think about it. Problem solved.
robandre1 2 months ago
Comment removed
purewhitelight1 2 months ago
@purewhitelight1
You say that as if the concept of god is separate from religion, when in fact it is completely a result of humans' "open to flaw" religions.
TheOssumPawesome 2 months ago
@TheOssumPawesome Personally, I believe the spiritual realm transcends detection by any scientific method. It appears that Atheists come to the conclusion that the non existence of God can be proved due to this lack of scientific evidence. Much suggests that the nature of the Spirit or God is operational on a totally different plane to that which modern methods can probe, hence the inability to "prove" that God exists . I do not believe that God is open to scientific scrutiny.
purewhitelight1 2 months ago
@purewhitelight1 that goes the same both ways actually. We atheists cannot believe the existance of godly beings simply because of the lack of prof, while in turn, the religious groups cannot comprehend the fact that we atheists question there beliefs. It is the outsider idea, or rather the thinking outside the box.
A religious person will go on ranting about his/her beliefs for hours, but once the atheists tells he is an atheists, the religious person would simple walk out.
MaxBlight 2 months ago
@MaxBlight I wouldn't walk out. I believe athiests have a perfectly valid argument.
purewhitelight1 2 months ago
@MaxBlightIn"A religious person will go on ranting about his/her beliefs for hours, but once the atheists tells he is an atheists, the religious person would simple walk out." If a person needed to defend their beliefs to that level it would clearly indicate that they were deeply insecure about about their faith and unable to tolerate others viewpoints or engage in debate.
purewhitelight1 2 months ago
@purewhitelight1 If this earth is the best god can do then I am not impressed. Are you? Zeus is god right? At least that's what the romans thought but if you say that to someone today they will look at you like you're crazy. It's amazing how many gods have come and gone over the years. All sounds a little fishy to me...maybe they just retire.
thaboy123 1 month ago
@purewhitelight1 : It's not really that. If you assume that some ancient Jewish people came up with the rules that became the 10 commandments, you don't NEED a god. As long as they followed the rules, and the rules changed to make them prosper, nothing supernatural needed. Just a living set of rules that evolved to let them flourish. At that point, God is redundant.
nosuchthing8 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We cant prove the existence of god by go and watch him somwhere. But we can prove the existense of the laws of nature. So using the law of logic to prove GOD we could say that if there is a material existense there have to be a imaterial existence to. Becouse the one can't exist without the other. Like: dark-night, male-female etc... So the spirit world exists for 100%
ferry7777 2 months ago
Jonathan Swift was an Anglican clergyman, and the quote provided is actually not pro-atheist at all if read correctly. The Lincoln quote is apocryphal; he had never given any indication of unbelief, even though he had never joined a church. Gillian Anderson has spoken about her faith in God in interviews, and Alfred Hitchcock was a Catholic.
stallion4life 2 months ago
Ok, the quotes are great, but what with the wiggling electrical light for? Hypnotism?
WickedSoulXD 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 3 months ago
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
@Mogley52 You do not understand evolution and the underlying logic. The time you spent in so many posts would have been better spent: 1. reading a text of evolutionary biology, 2. seeking to understand the mathematics and logic that underpin evol. biol., and 3. reading the many replies to your questions from scientists. Believe me, the intelligent design crowd has not thought of all these silver bullets prior to the scientists actually intelligent enough to develop theory.
MrShysterme 2 months ago
@Mogley52 : Actually there is a fish that can live in the water and out (for a small amount of time) for obvious reasons : sometimes the water it lives in dries up. So it can walk to the next pond or lake.
Think of a squirrel. Even a small flap of skin slows it when it falls, and as the generations advance, the flap of skin gets larger and larger to help it survive falls. Eventually you get a bat.
nosuchthing8 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 months ago
Comment removed
youthtube69 3 months ago in playlist More videos from URBANRUST
How did that work out again nutbar? hilarious
cckirkland1 3 months ago
causality + God -> google it
souinvisiblebr 3 months ago
@souinvisiblebr One of the worst argument against God. Im not closed to the idea of God, but the arguments for him, like this one, are terrible. Plz just because we dont know yet how the universe began we don't have to jump to: God did it! Like we did with thunder and so on. And what's more we do have some clues on how the universe came to be. For you: The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking -> Read it. Carl Sagan on God and Gods, youtube it
2CSST2 3 months ago
@2CSST2 even if we understand how big bang happened, for example branes theory, we all are hostages of causality... phisics do not explain genesis, philosophy does... the name for it is simply metaphysics
souinvisiblebr 3 months ago
@souinvisiblebr No, you don't understand, you should read Hawking's last book. M-theory explains how universes come into existence from nothing, spontaneously. You see, nothing needs no cause, it's not an event, it's nothing. But nothing causes universes... So there is no causality problem. Even the critics of Hawking's book agree with that. The critics are that this theory has not been confirmed yet. Maybe it's wrong, but know that there is not necessary to explain all this
2CSST2 3 months ago
@souinvisiblebr But the worst with this argument is that it's merely moving the problem. God is also subject to causality. Then you say God by definition isn't. But that's just shooting yourself in your own foot. You can't say that logically ANYTHING needs a cause, and then define something to not need a cause. Logic beats any definition you give. It's not a question of whether or not you define God to need a cause, He just does logically. That's why this argument is desastrous
2CSST2 3 months ago
@2CSST2 What Hawking did were simply reverse back one layer in causality. due the branes colision, a multiples big bangs can happen... okay, but nothing can explain God's origin. The understandin of Gods concept cannot be unanimous, because who is formuling the concept are meerly humans ... our psique can understand almost everything... almost. For years I were a atheist, but today I think atheism doesnt make sense at all. it is like fundamentalists to me, cience fundamentalists
souinvisiblebr 3 months ago
Thanks for an enjoyable video.
Open your mind, consider......
onwardjames 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything randomly rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs because of lots and lots of time. That’s why I’m an atheist.
waiotahi52 4 months ago
lol, religion.
So glad I don't live in the US.
Londron 4 months ago
agnostics are cowardly atheists.
EduardoElSexypants 4 months ago
@EduardoElSexypants That is such bullshit.
I mean, I'm not Agnostic, but... That is complete and utter bullshit.
EasilyDistLOOKABIRDY 4 months ago
@EasilyDistLOOKABIRDY 3 phrases, 0 arguments. Thank you for wasting my time.
EduardoElSexypants 4 months ago
@EduardoElSexypants LMAO! Thats gotta be the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Get a brain, Agnostics believe in a higher power which is the opposite of Atheism.
ItsAboutWhatUDo 4 months ago
@ItsAboutWhatUDo Actually, Atheist claim there is no god, Agnostics just say they dont know. Retard.
EduardoElSexypants 4 months ago
@EduardoElSexypants Whatever man it can be looked at many different ways. There r agnostics that think there is no god but then there r agnostics that think there is a God. The whole definition is just ridiculous, if we go by the definition then everybody is agnostic beside people that have like near death experiences or something.
ItsAboutWhatUDo 4 months ago
@ItsAboutWhatUDo this is the actual dictionary definition 0f agnosticism=A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. As far as NDEs go there is nothing spiritual about them, Ketamine can induce NDEs, patients who have higher levels of carbon dioxide in their blood report NDEs while those with lower levels do not
calmbluewaters 3 months ago
@ItsAboutWhatUDo the bit about the carbon dioxide of course applies to patients experiencing the dying process during cardiac arrest, but I'm sure you knew that.
calmbluewaters 3 months ago
@calmbluewaters I dont understand ur point. R u talking about near death experiences? When people say they had a near death experience they r saying they actually died and there heart stopped then they were revived. U should know thats what people mean. If ur dead there is nothing about ur body affecting u so thats why i think it makes sense to say science is out of the picture when it comes to death experiences.
ItsAboutWhatUDo 3 months ago
@ItsAboutWhatUDo wow, you clearly know nothing at all about biology, medical science,or NDEs. I suspect from the way you type you are very young, I strongly urge you to do some research into the physical processes of dying and what medical science has to say about NDEs, there has been quite a bit of research. Rather than spend time explaining to you my points, I'll just sum up by saying there are physical explanations for NDEs. They are able to be duplicated by chemical means in healthy humans.
calmbluewaters 3 months ago
@calmbluewaters Just because there is an explaination does that really mean that its a dream or something? I say the explaination is just proving that the experience was real because u cant say it was fake for a fact. Even tho death experiences r obviously real u guys will just deny it forever even tho there is no factual evidence to prove whats real and whats fake.
ItsAboutWhatUDo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
im pretty sure abraham Lincoln wasn't an atheist
deadlock1011 4 months ago
plant a tree ,save a tiger, rescue a whale and feed the children and it will be good.
nedbless 4 months ago
I find it funny how there are a massive amount of growing Athiests in the World then in any other decade. Also find it funny that it is all happening when we are coming nearer to the End times, and God has told us that most will be decieved, even the Elect can be decieved. The Religions of today may be corrupt but God is not. I <3 God =)
700KRISTY 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« amount of growing Athiests in the World then in any other decade »
Actually, that's not true. In various ages in recorded history since the origin of christianism, the portion of humanity that did *not* believe the christian doctrine has been much larger, relatively, than it is now. At the beginning of history, when christianism was but a small movement, the portion of humanity not believing in it was tens of thousands times bigger than the portion that did believe it, for instance.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
@700KRISTY
"The Religions of today may be corrupt but God is not."
So you believe in the jew god then.
gorilla199uncensored 4 months ago
A QUOTE IS A PERIOD IN THE QUOTED 'S LIFE , CHANGE DOES HAPPEN ?NOTICE NOT ONE OF THE QUOTES UPLIFTED YOU,THEY LACKED THE SO CALLED OPIATES . I DO AGREE AN UPDATE IS DUE ,BUT WE AREN'T PART OF AN EXPERIMENT ,OUR SOFTWARE NEEDS NO UPDATES THEY INSTALL AFTER DEATH ,I VIEW RELIGION AS OFFICER COLUMBO ,EACH OCCURRENCES BY ANY RELIGION HAD THE POWER TO SURVIVE MANY YEARS ,PERVERTED OR NOT.THIS SHOWS EITHER GOOD ADVERTISING OR AN ACTUAL FORCE .BELIEFS ARE HARD TO QUESTION.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI SEP16
9493760 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are no mice on the moon.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
i had to turn the sound off it was awful
22JaneDoe 4 months ago
officially one of the best videos i've ever seen on youtube. well done to the uploader!
atonement19 4 months ago
Did you guys know that i have an invicible dog
And it cant be touched, but i have it.
Disproof it!
boratfromkazax 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
@Mogley52 You litany of cut and paste bullshit impresses nobody. You seem to love making wild assertions based on nothing, something common among zealots, and one of the first principles rejected by scientific theory. Its one of the reasons why zealots have failed, are failing and will continue to fail in their war against science.
Oh, and if evolution is 'only possible' through existing genes, why have both lab experiemnts in evolution and the genome project proven this factually wrong?
CuiusRegio 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
@Mogley52 Please stop making shit up about science you do not understand. I am so tired of kids who have never taken physics trying to apply the second law of thermodynamics to 'the universe'. Read the law my friend, it has no application whatsoever. if it DID, then complexity out of simplicity would be impossible in the universe, but it happens all the time in nature. Crystals, solar bodies, spontanious chemical reactions, etc.
CuiusRegio 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," "Origin of Life Deception by Evolutionists," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. You didn't find fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago in playlist Atheism
wheres Joseph Stalin? lol
josey5673 5 months ago
I have enjoyed "troll vs. dimwit". Please continue your battle for the benefit of the spectators. May I be appointed judge to name a final winner?
alyosha24601 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Don't you just love Atheism/Satanism"
- Charles Darwin
"Don't you just love Atheism/Satanism"
- Jeffery Dahmer
"Don't you just love Atheism/Satanism"
- Tedd Bundy
"Don't you just love Atheism/Satanism"
- John Wayne Gacey
"Don't you just love Atheism/Satanism'
- Richard Dawkins
waketheoblivious 5 months ago
Thank God I'm an atheist =)
DeathlinK993 5 months ago
Religion is just a hidey-hole for the morally fearful, afraid of death.
Putting your faith and life into the hands of an imaginary celestial protector is the ultimate cop-out from taking any responsibility for your own life.
It's the ultimate security blanket. All you have to do is find a nice dark corner of your life, pull the blanket around you, shut your eyes, stick your thumb in your mouth and cry to daddy to make all the nasty things go away.
HonestMan395 5 months ago
@afar1 You my friend are truly misinformed. There isn't even a controversy among biologists, you creationists wish to have a short cut through the scientific consensus that all theories presented must fight there way through to achieve that. Of course there are areas of dispute but there are areas like that in every conceivable field in science. You think what you say is unique but people have been saying what you say and have been refuted since the 50s.
pat5168 5 months ago
all this talk about the bible being made up, has anyone stopped to wonder "why would they do that?"?
falsehope444444 5 months ago
@falsehope444444 To explain the unknown because they didn't have the tools to discover it on their own. And then later the powerful use it to manipulate the masses.
pat5168 5 months ago
Just a quick FYI: by and large, the only people who still use the term 'Theory of Evolution' are creationists. In Universities around the first world is is (and has been for a decade) taught as evolutionary biology or evolutionary science. Its not a theory, its a well proven, established fact.
CuiusRegio 5 months ago 11
@CuiusRegio If someone comes up with a better theory - I'll subscribe to that one.
DarwinsFriend 5 months ago
Comment removed
afar1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CuiusRegio LMAO!!!! Do you get misty eyed when you mention universities with their Darwin club full of true believers that are afraid to admit theyve been brainwashed? PREACH ON BROTHER!
afar1 5 months ago
@CuiusRegio Actually it is still a theory, a scientific theory tough, people often mixes up the laymen term of theory with a scientific theory.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
—National Academy of Sciences.
With all the evidence that evolution has in its favour it is difficult to find any serius scientist within the field who does not suport it.
Sweddude 5 months ago
To bad these guys went to hell.
darius777ful 5 months ago
@darius777ful LOL.
WhiteFlagNation 5 months ago
@WhiteFlagNation ino right.
darius777ful 5 months ago
@darius777ful I was laughing at your ignorance.
WhiteFlagNation 5 months ago
@WhiteFlagNation oh
darius777ful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would like to thank George Washington for fighting for our freedom against King James Middle Eastern Abrahamic Spaghetti Monster which is not the word of God. Sincerely one Free Secular Nation above all Religious theocracy, as a free American I refuse to be forced to bow to a dead Middle Eastern man who has been elected to be my New God and who I would not trust my money with which is based on blind faith for a fool.
MagicTellaVision 5 months ago
oh and just to be clear, i am an athiest
BIGWUNuvDbunch 5 months ago
this video gives me hope
BIGWUNuvDbunch 5 months ago
im a realist not a atheist i hate the word to be honest it doesnt suite me thank u for uploading this i hope more like this will come and more people will see and open there eyes to the truth about religion and its complete waste of my time yet a free thinking man is called crazy for believein in himself but a man that believes in god and a talkin snake and bullshit like that aint crazy yes yes u are crazy some of our founders where free thinkers i hope u people wake the fuk up
SuperIlovemesomeme 5 months ago
@BleedAl0ne You'll hav to know what evil is before asking such questions. Evil will be destroyed, just when He says, not when we say. Thats what Hell is for, to do away with the evil.
sleeeep125 5 months ago
@sleeeep125
"Thats what Hell is for, to do away with the evil."
That contradicts itself since hell and eternal torment is evil.
Its a good thing that hell isnt real and the christian god is a fairytale.
horseburger 5 months ago
@horseburger Again I say You'll hav to knw wat evil is before making such assumptions. Th only reason i sounded contradictory is bcuz u applied ur beliefs to my reasoning. It shld b th other way around. Reasoning applied beliefs. One atheist comment said there is no good n evil, just public opinion. Explain to me how these two things dont exist since it was one of you, an atheist, that said this.
sleeeep125 5 months ago
@sleeeep125
"Evil" is an english word created by man and its definition can be found in any dictionary.
What makes you think that I know exaclty what another person was talking about just because we both dont believe in any gods?
Thats like me expecting you to know what a total stranger is thinking just because you both are wearing a red t shirt.
I can only imagine that he was implying right and wrong are subjective which means that they are a construct of the mind.
horseburger 5 months ago
Christianity is very young compared 2 the other monotheistic religions. so my question is. why would God damn his children from the start by having them born into certain religions?. <----- not exactly wat im trying 2 say but im tired lolz
Renrockxxstrings 5 months ago
@Renrockxxstrings wered ths info come from. Ive been taught by christian n atheist alike tht christiany, islam, n catholisism r th oldest relgions in existance.
sleeeep125 5 months ago
@sleeeep125 Judiasm: some 5700 years old.
Christianity: some 1700 years old (300 years after JC, the new testament was actually penned.)
Islam: some 1400 years ago
Renrockxxstrings 5 months ago
the early founder os usa seem to have been atheist. too bad christian sheep hijacked the government later
ByabyaChannel 5 months ago
f*ck religion! think 4 u're self... always.
mrdarkhalo666 5 months ago
@mrdarkhalo666 dnt like tht u feel th need to curse or ur user name, but i agree. Th Bible ddnt make sence to me until i strtd readin for myself. All id ever herd wer th same old stories; of david n goliath, moses, samson n delilah, n noah. I now c tht theyve ben taught so much tht theyve become cliche n may b th reason ppl hav truble believin in thm ne more. But i digress. Wat i mean to say is, my thoughts always go to dark places if scripture isnt applied to thm. God is my cage.
sleeeep125 5 months ago
@MultiDarknessrules Force is of man, not God. Hell was for the rebelled angels, not us. He simply said Hell is waiting for the wicked, He doesnt snd us there. What cruel punishment on Adam and Eve? He banished them from paradise, thn bcuz they wnted to b covered stitched for thm clothes. God always fulfils His promises. (James 4: 3-4) Satan will meet his destruction along with th demons, hell, and th world. Th Bible cn not be added to or taken frm.
sleeeep125 5 months ago
@sleeeep125 this god character sounds unbelievably petty and open to interpretation. he also seems inconsistent and amazingly humanly flawed, why is that? why is the god of the bible such a repulsive, ignorant and evil entity? the answer is very simple, the bible was written by men, and god is just as man made and artificial as it.
niccilomachiaveli 5 months ago in playlist atheism and reason
@sleeeep125 I stick by ths, but also say, Yes it is convenient, just believe.
sleeeep125 5 months ago
I find it incredible to believe that so many U.S. presidents were rejecting of Christianity...that point is not brought up much. So....where are your sources? for these quotes? I see no citations
over18irish 5 months ago
@over18irish just look them up I've found plenty of articles on some of the quotes in this videos like abraham lincoln etc just google it
CrAzYnAdEz 5 months ago
@over18irish I know right. I learned all through out grade school, this country was built on religious freedom. Where did that freedom go?
sleeeep125 5 months ago
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Quixotepr 5 months ago
Here are some definitions for theory, pick the one that fits best your interests.1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
Quixotepr 5 months ago
watch?v=o9ktS2U53Qg Write "Logical Evidences for Islam" and watch it...
There is A Creator. There a religion. Islam is the true religion.
shncsr 5 months ago
@shncsr --If Islam is the true faith, why is it mostly practiced by mid-easterners only? Shouldnt it have universal appeal and a "Great Commision" from Mohammed?
WorldBibleUnion454 5 months ago
SONG NAME PLEASE!!!! Sorry for caps but lawd so many comment wars.
rugby121 5 months ago
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest
tenghz 6 months ago