Oh this is just sad. There are tonnes of evidence for evolution. But even if there wasn't there is no evidence for God. You seem to think that because someone does not have an exact answer, a god must have created the world.
One fact you can NEVER reconcile with your pathetic crutch of human created religous mythology ; substituted for genuine morality. Walk up to any adequately powerful telescope,and view galaxies TENS OF BILLIONS light years distant. Meaning you are seeing with your own eyes a moment in time TENS OF BILLIONS YEARS in the PAST! ! AS IT HAPPENED!!! How many "Gods", Bibles, faiths are merely forgotten fantasies of countless extinct civilizations swallowed by the eternal, evolving, infinite universe?
@Chopitout69 Why would creating light instantly in place that stretches billions of light years be a problem for God? Why do you assume He has limitations? God most certainly can create stars with the light reaching all points instantly. He can create it in place, stretch it out instantly, or do whatever else He wants. Clearly, in the event of creation, He made the light to be here within the six day time frame of His work. No problem there. For Him, that's easy.
I love that with Christianity you can be a lying, blasphemous, adulterous, thieving, murdering psychopath and all you have to do is "repent" to a bible wielding child molester on your death bed and your soul will be saved. HA! And what's more, if there is a God he certainly doesn't favour you just because you believe in him. Thousands of learned scholars studying the universe for hundreds of years or fantastical stories written with no physical or even anecdotal evidence to back it up..?! Hmm..
@cloud9 Being You seem to imply there is no justice in a habitual sinner being saved. Don't forget, Jesus took our sin upon Himself as if it were His own, and bore the punishment in our place, including death. So, even if the worst of sinners gets right with God on his deathbed, don't worry, justice was done. As for scholars, some are saved, some aren't. Smarts have nothing to do with it. If even the greatest scholar on earth denies God, He is the biggest fool of all.
@Danmill23 I'm surprised it's not more! The world hates God, because God tells them not to sin. People want to keep their sin, and get drunk, fornicate, curse, steal, lie, and do everything else that seems good. Naturally, anyone that stands for the Lord is going to be hated. That's a given. Hatred for God runs deep. It makes no sense, but it's how the majority of people are. Very few will humble themselves in their pride and bow at the feet of Jesus and be saved.
@lo2enge Wow, massive fail on the part of the evolutionist in the debate with Kent. Did you notice how he was so threatened by the thought of hearing the truth that he didn't even let Kent speak? Shut up your opponent and you've won, or so this guy thought. Lol. And all he could talk about was funding. Wow. Like all evolutionists, he has zero proof and must resort to strange odds and ends to make some kind of argument. God, on the other hand, is axiomatic.
There are no textual sources for the so called similarities to the life of christ pre dating Jesus . While particular religions may have predated christianity the similarities were added after christianity .
You cannot produce a textual source for your claim predating Jesus . You would become famous if you could .
page and paragraph PLZ
I didnt think you were serious about sources for Jesus because you would have to be living under a rock .
And the most pointless argument on the planet continues. Christians try to persuade those who don't believe in God or Hell that God says they'll burn in Hell. And in turn, aetheists try to persuade the faithers that God has no place in reality, despite having no ability to explain or replicate life-forming processes. It is the argument itself that both sides here crave, not the truth. The most likely truth here is that we are ALL wrong, the first challenge is getting people to agree on that...
Your idea of why we should be good, is that we will be punished if we're evil, well that deffinition doesn't really float with me. You're not good, if you do it out of selfish fear of being punished. You're selfish, and ergo not putting the good of the community before your own needs. You might say that you're doing alot of good, for other people, but when you're only doing that so you can look good in someone elses eye, turns the gesture into the opposite when talking existentiel morals.
The only part of evolution that is a fact is change over time . All the biodiversiity being the result of this change over time is not even remotely proven .
So any change can be classified as evolution .
havent you ever heard "evolution is a fact" all that means is change happens . But they try to make you believe that it means we all originate from a single celled organism .
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "...But they try to make you believe that it means we all originate from a single celled organism. Its deceit ."
This is an Argument from Ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue. You have to present a case to PROVE it untrue. Since you claim it's a 'deceit', this should be very easy to do. There should be a mountain of facts to counter the claim of a single common ancestor. Please present some.
You have to present a case to prove it true not a simple change happens so it is true .Neither can i prove the tea pot untrue I can prove unlikely.
There is no record of any organism arranging itself to arrive at specific complexity . Claiming it can is much different than science which requires you to show it .
The Abrahamic doctrine has to researched and cannot be excluded just because you say so .A research based conclusion is what is expected .
I'll assume you are scientifically literate enough to know that Theories (capital T) are never proven True. Theories aren't facts, they are what we use to EXPLAIN facts. See AronRa FFOC #15 part one and two.
A huge number of 'facts' in geography, cladistics, genetics, physics, chemistry ( to name only a few) are explained by Evolution. When new facts pop up, they TOO fit nicely into the Theory. The 'case' has been presented for 150yrs.
"..arranging itself to arrive at specific complexity."
"Specific" complexity? This is reminiscent of Dempski's 'Specified Complexity' argument which was torn apart nicely by Wolpert and others. There are however plenty of records of organisms evolving from simply to more and more complex as they adapt to their environments. The first 1.8 billion years of 'life' were simple prokaryotes.
This FACT is explained by evolution and not Abraham.
So you're a physics denier as well as an evolution denier. Gee, couldn't see that one coming. Typically a creationist will be prepared to deny absolutely everything in order to hang on to his fables.
"Atheist (don't) understand..."
Not according to that poll. Look it up at PEW. Atheist scored highest in religious knowledge followed by Jews and Mormons. Of course you'll deny it. That's what you do. The first thing a creationist loses is his personal integrity.
I just took the test myself and missed one . 93% I didnt know that last question about the great awakening .
It isnt a test on a specific religion but on religions but thanks for letting me know because I scored much higher than 99% of those tested.Putting my average way above the atheist . LOL
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "The Abrahamic doctrine has to researched and cannot be excluded just because you say so .A research based conclusion is what is expected ."
Perhaps you're aware of the recent PEW poll on religious knowledge, which revealed something atheists have known for a long time. That is, they typically know more about religion then the people who claim to actually believe in it.
I am a proud transitional form. You should be, too. Darwin would be completely blown away by the amount of evidence we have for his theory. I think that's a pretty strong case for evolution. Where as, the Bible is only changed for political reasons, and it never bothers with truth.
Bacteria to bacteria not evolution? You've demonstrated beyond a doubt that you do not know what evolution is. Bacteria into a horse would demonstrably disprove evolution.
@LoK3y Since the only part of the theory that is proven is change over time bacteria into a horse would not disprove evolution. The term is so broad that nothing could disprove it .
Assuming this isn't satire, It sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself that evolution is wrong and you're right, you honestly don't believe there is no evidence to support evolution do you? and you really don't think that Charles Darwin would post his origin of species unless he believed what he was suggesting?
Yeah, never mind 150 years of scientific scrutiny in multiple scientific disciplines by thousands and thousands of scientists. You're using arguments that have long since been refuted. It's very telling that you are unable to come up with new arguments, just recycling the same old invalid arguments that have no scientific merit. Not to mention logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and simple lies (I know you believe them, but they are lies nonetheless - false information).
ignorance at its finest! please dont talk about the planetary dynamics in the solar system, you have no support data on or even an idea on any of this. If I were your parents i would have "suppressed" you a long time ago
Evidence for evolution: paleontology, embryology, molecular biology, agriculture, all breads of pets and livestock, genetics, atavisms, retro viral insertions, immunology, observed instances of speciation, the fossil record, comparative anatomy... the list goes on and on and on and on...
Evidence for magical creation by invisible sky pixie... a three thousand year old collection of stories written by ignorant, bronze age goat herders- and that's it.
@lowcomedy Posting generalities in broad categories is as about as far from proof of evolution as you can possibly get. I've examined the categories you mentioned, even talking with many evolutionists over the years, and not one person has ever come forth with one single bit of actual proof. It takes more faith to believe the lie of evolution than to believe in God, who is axiomatic. The evidence for God is overwhelming, not so much with evolution. As for Scripture, it has proven to be true.
Around the 2 minute mark you state "Evolution would have you believe that life comes from non-life. That's not what we see". Setting aside the fact that that isn't anything to do with evolution, answer this question. What elements make up your body? Which of these elements is alive? None. The mechanism of life is chemistry. Nothing more.
Wow, this guy is still going? Hex? Well at least that's what he used to be called. I pwned this guy a good while ago in my video "Theistic Argument Pwnage" on my channel. First 30 seconds of this video blew me away, I almost thought this guy was another Edward Current. This guy seems as if he knows what he's saying is B.S. as soon as he starts and he's just throwing out lies because he doesn't know what else to do.
@HumanistWikitopian Well written sir. Indeed @spfinley if you approach objectively, and not have a pre-determined answer, all of the documented and peer-reviewed science then you would have to agree that evolution is the only answer for the known processes and measured observations. Several times in your video you make unsupported conclusions or reference the fringes of a reputable field (ie not peer accepted). Creation concept and proven consensus science cannot coexist. You will need to pick.
You are a prime example of how religion sequesters the intelligence of humanity. Religious dogmas are the bane of modern society. Theology is pseudo-philosophy that is only workable within a closed, narrow-minded, naïve society that will never truly flourish. Religion is for people that are automatons; people that appease themselves by remaining ignorant, and blindly following the dictates of ancient wishful thinkers.
You could also try reading the worldwide best-selling book: "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, rather than denying reality and pretending that the evidence doesn't exist.
There is extensive and overwhelming evidence for evolution, whilst the Christian "Bible" is obvious nonsense to any rational, intelligent, educated adult.
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
If you don't accept the globally accepted scientific consensus on the fact of evolution, how do you account for all the different forms of life on this planet? Do you seriously believe that an imaginary invisible magic man in the sky just created them all one day for fun? That's fucking ridiculous and incredibly stupid.
Part of being an adult is accepting the realities of life, not taking comfort from delusional, childish, illogical, naive and irrational nonsense.
Why not try visiting any reputable school, college, university, library or science museum on the planet and talking to any serious science teacher or educator for more than 5 minutes?
Were there no Biology lessons as part of your education, or are you being intentionally moronic?
You can obviously use YouTube, so why is it so hard for you to simply Google the term: "Evidence for Evolution".
There will be hundreds of books on the subject at your local library also.
Perhaps you get a kick out of denying reality and pretending that those books, all the overwhelming conclusive evidence, and all those Google search results and websites you could read do not exist?
The Wikipedia article on “Speciation” provides many observed examples of speciation.
You could also try to Google the phrase: “Observed Instances of Speciation”, if you really are genuinely interested in finding known examples and educating yourself.
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The rise of a new species from a parental line is called speciation. However, there is no clear line demarcating the ancestral species from the descendant species.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise, and has been induced artificially, through animal husbandry and laboratory experiments.
Evolution has also been observed countless times, both under laboratory conditions (e.g. flu virus strains), and in the wild (e.g. fish trapped in pools devoid of their natural predators).
Type the word "evolution" into Google and you will find details of hundreds of repeatable, observable experiments that demonstrate that evolution is true.
As you are basically asking for evidence of evolution, I would like to request the evidence for the god you mentioned as I would like to examine it for myself. Thanks. :)
"how we all know there is a God" Rather an absolute statement to make on behalf of humankind. It is a lie because there numerous humans who do not "know" there is a god. Speak for yourself and nobody else. :)
wow so this is where Willaim graig's smugness meandered off to. lmao this is every bad creationist argument i have ever heard and not a single source or citation for anything said. wow you sir are a credit to a dying breed. lol
0:25= common quote mine by creationists. Like Darwin likes to do, he asks a question and then answers it. Even if the quote stood for what spfinley claims it does, Darwin was writing almost 150 years ago, at a time early in the scientific study of fossils and when few scientists were expecting to find "transitional forms."
You realize that many fossils have been found of organisms that lived millions of years ago, right? Oh yeah, you creationists think we lived with the dinosaurs. Talk about unscientific.
I love how SPFINLEY reveals his dishonesty right from the start. I guess this is what jesus preached. Lie quickly and hope no one will notice.
FINLEY quotes Darwin asking himself a question, then he puts down the book and says "well, if Darwin didn't see the evidence". However, if this prick of a jesus worshiper would have read the next few paragraphs (and the entire book) he would see that Darwin addresses the very points he raised.
Actually, I have. It's very rare, but I have. I'm excluding the meaningless lies like telling your wife of 40 yrs she's just a young and beautiful as the day you met. I mean lies intended to deceive/manipulate. The last time was years ago when I lied to my roommate that I was talking to a friend instead of calling the police b/c she told me she was going to kill her. She's alive today. If I go to hell b/c of that, then so be it. I won't ask forgiveness for that.
None of the objections you raise have any basis. They're just old canards continuously bandied around by people who worship a god, but place faith in a man-made book over their god's creation.
Don't open your eyes you won't like what you see. The devils of truth steal the souls of the free. Don't open eyes take it from me. I have found you can find happiness in slavery. Trent Reznor. You should check that song out it might serve you well. It's right here on the tube.
A perfect example of someone desperately clinging to the idea of gods and myths, denying the mountains of evidence in all fields that demonstrate that the bible is incorrect.
Fine, believe whatever myths you want - but when you come to a public forum and spout such garbage, get ready for the more enlightened here handing you your ass.
Using a quote from Darwin out of context to try & show that he questioned evolution & natural selection is either abhorrently dishonest or ignorant. 1st, science in Darwins day had only found a very small fraction of the fossils we have today. 2nd, conservatively there are 10's of millions of fossils that have been collected all over the globe, which are all evidence for evolution. 3rd, all predictions from Darwins model HAVE been validated. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity is forever.
Wow, ignoring evidence and quote mining in the first 30 seconds. Total misunderstanding of evolution and 'science is unscientific' within 2 minutes. Evolution somehow needing to explain cosmology and physics within 3 minutes. Wrong application of exponential growth within 3 minutes 15 seconds. Argument from ignorance and misunderstanding of the Atheist viewpoint in 5 minutes. Threat to believe as I do or be tortured forever in 6 minutes.
If you claim that "artist's impressions of dead things in the dirt" is not proof of evolution, how can you possibly then claim that a collection of stories written thousands of years ago and edited/translated across time (and by people of varying agendas, both "good" and "bad") is proof of an ethereal being?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ArpeggiateTHIS The 66 books of the Bible prove to be accurate, true, and supernatural. How so? If you really want to know, give me the word and I'll message you, cause 500 characters is too little to answer that question! And the word was handled with great care when copied, and has not changed over time, as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls. And while men with agendas have made corrupt versions, we do have the word preserved in the King James Version, as I could explain if you wish.
@spfinley I'm curious what would you accept as evidence for evolution? And if you were presented with such evidence would you still believe in your personal interpretation Genesis anyway or actually embrace reality?
@Shadowforce10 Thanks for your comments. While my opening statements aren't a grand revelation or anything, I winged it and did the best I could. Just trying to get the truth out there. Perhaps I could sing and dance in the beginning to grab people's attention? Nah. The truth stands for itself. And nobody wants to see me sing or dance, trust me.
@spfinley Truth must be something that is supportable. And I don't see how quoting Darwin refutes what has been discovered since his time either, dispite your claim that nothing has been found; neither is all there is just artisic reconstructions. They are made with the basis of what has been found - the fossils.
@spfinley My comment had nothing to do with how you presented your opening statement, I didn't find you the least bit boring. It was what you said, which was an outright lie.
@spfinley@spfinley My comment had nothing to do with how you presented your opening statement, I didn't find you the least bit boring. It was what you said, which was an outright lie.
First off, Evolution is a done deal. Everything I hear from you is nothing but strawman arguements, lies, and putting a guilt trip on people, at the end. You represent the whole reason why I HATE religion, it's an oppressive system that's no different from a dictatorship. Your God is totally devoid of morals, if he would send people to an eternal fire, just because you didn't believe in him. Oh boo-hoo, God has his feelings hurt. Give us evidence of your God, or GTFO.
@Slips2 I'm not laying a "guilt trip" on anyone. We ARE guilty! We have all sinned. Please understand God doesn't send people to hell just for not believing in Him. He sends people to hell because of their guilt. We have consequences for lawbreakers, do we not? So, why do you fault God for doing the same? He is just, and punishes the guilty. If He didn't, He'd have to turn a blind eye to justice. But this same God also offers to forgive your transgressions by the shed blood of Christ.
If I offered to prove -to your satisfaction- that evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that all the contrary claims you've made here are completely wrong, would you accept that challenge, and be prepared to change your position accordingly?
@AronRa I will gladly review any evidence you have, time permitting. However, the question of changing position is more of a trap question. If I say no, I'm closed minded. If I say yes, I'm saying God is a liar. However, God does not lie, and all the proofs of His word, His Son, and His grand design in creation cannot be undone or brushed under the rug. So why do I ask for proof? Because I'm willing to listen and learn. So, please still challenge me as I will listen.
@spfinley I would say that the possibility that God is a liar is far less likely than the obvious option that God didn't write the Bible. Of course it is even more likely that God never existed, which is another option you're ignoring. Either God exists and the Bible is wrong about him, or God doesn't exist and that is why the Bible is wrong about everything. If I had to whittle it down to just two options, it would be those.
@spfinley Being asked to engage in an intellectually honest and constructive conversation, wherein the members are expected to fit their opinions to good evidence and argument, is a "trap"? That says it all about this discussion right here.
If you're truly willing to listen and learn, you wouldn't be considering certain beliefs beyond question or reproach.
@Watergun7442 It would take much too long to explain why I couldn't make myself believe in a god, but if such a thing did exist, then it would have to have devised evolution. Evolution occurs whether a god devised it or not, and Genesis is still a falsified fable regardless whether any gods exist or not.
@Watergun7442 Well what caused the universe then? -I don't know is a perfectly respectable answer. More than, "I know. It was [state opinion here]." Scientists have a few hypotheses in M and string theory. Genesis doesn't fit the data well.
How does consciousness arise out of matter? Is matter itself conscious? -Study the evolution of the brain. No.
In Genesis God says to let the EARTH create life. how is that different from Genesis? -You mean aside from "Earth can't 'create' anything"?
@Watergun7442 What caused the universe? If by that, you mean, 'what was the catalyst which instigated the big bang', the answer is, we may never know, but one thing we do know is that every time we've ever tried to evoke the supernatural to explain any phenomenon, that answer turned out to be wrong, and the real answer proved to be a revelation of a whole new field of knowledge beyond our prior imagination. So will the answer to this question surely be.
Once you give me any other alternate naturalistic explanation that would be possible.
Therefore any evidence can be plucked and installed into yours.
Just because it is the most and only plausible naturalistic explanation does not give it validity until you prove your materialistic presupposition is correct .
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I don't have a 'materialistic presupposition'. I don't have any 'presuppositions' at all. That's your department. What I do have are lots of compelling reasons to believe as I do, and not one reason why anyone should take your alternative suggestion seriously at all.
To pretend that there isnt evidence for the argument for the christian proposal is simply ridiculous .
Could it be that your question has deceit and what you are really asking for is proof of God.
I make a deal with you . If you list the evidence for the argumet for evolution I will list evidence for the argument for the chritian proposal I will wager that you will run out of evidence long before I.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You're on. The reason your position is defined as a 'faith' is that it lacks evidence. I have many times repeated the point that creationism makes two kinds of claims. Those which are untestable are also unsupported and unjustified. Those which are testable have all turned out to be wrong. There is no third category, because there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence positively indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU If you want my list of evidence in support of evolution, see my series on the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism as well as my subsequent (and as yet incomplete) series on Falsifying Phylogeny, and 'turns out we did come from monkeys'. Since you accuse me of deceit, then -if nothing else- you should at least see my video, 'How could creationism not be dishonest?' The last few minutes of that includes an overview of the evidence I have -which you will never match.
DNA has a continued history of being misunderstood, To claim that ERV insertion positions are a proof for evolution (Grand scheme) is simply not true. It is evidence for your argument. So I will list two evidences for my argument to your one .
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU In the least of my references, I listed 8 or 9 categories of evidence. You chose only one of them, and you failed to address or refute even that. Evolution offers the only explanation for any aspect of ERVs. Your challenge was to produce another evident explanation which was verifiably accurate and positively indicative of your position. You failed in that too -since all you gave me was a circular argument, that the Bible is true because the Bible says so. Try again.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I listed nine categories of evidence. You selected only one facet from one of them and failed to address or refute it. You ignored the rest and presented a circular argument, and are now pleading for a non-sequitor. Do you have any actual factual evidence, or don't you?
This God because of love, would want to communicate with us and to let us know who he is .
The bible can be used as evidence for the argument of this communication especially if my premise is that love is the greatest thing any being could possess . A God would possess it if he were indeed a God .
Because the bible exist does not prove anything other than it does exist. I am not positioning my argument solely on this fact but I am attempting to layout the groundwork .
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "I will ignore the other post directed at me because of the glaring ill framed arguments they present ."
"I am attempting to layout the groundwork ."
These are the kinds of lines you hear in a creation vs. evolution discuss that tell you somone is going to frame their argument in a set of premises that make the argument entire either circular or unfalsifiable.
"It is my position that if THOR existed he would be responsible for the creation of thunder since he is the thunder god. This god of thunder would want to create thunder. Thunder can be used as evidence of this desire to produce thunder by the thunder god, but this evidence cannot be used as evidence because the existence of thunder doesn't prove anything other then that it exists."
If by 'groundwork' you mean 'digging your grave', pray continue.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU According to you favorite fables, your god forgives any sin -if the sinner is gullible enough to believe impossible nonsense for no good reason. But he damns good men to Hell simply because they're not dumb enough to believe whatever compost ignorant charlatans are selling. And you say this is done out of 'love'?
I presume you beleive that you are more educated because you say you are .
You can make a bunch of statements and then yell nanananboo boo and expect the vast majority of sheep to follow as you have also followed those before you ..
The arguments for the Abrahamic God and Jesus are far more persuasive than you evidently know .
You wrote "Impossible nonsense "
Your short stay on this planet has allowed you to determine what is and isnt possible . ( Thats nonsense)
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU As we have already seen, you presume too much. It is apparently impossible for you to present a persuasive argument for your god. All you've done so far is ignore evidence and plead non-sequitors.
What I have done is to do non bias research and have found the argument for the Abrahamic God to be persuasive and the arguments against to be not very well thought out . Such as .
(Science) Science could not find God even if he were to slap every scientist in the face every tuesday morning.
The method demanding a naturalistic explanation for the bruising on their faces .
Science would not even be the last to know it would never know if a God existed .
@WHOwas.. - "What I have done is to do non bias research"
No, I'm sure you haven't. By saying you have done research, and have found arguments persuasive, you are revealing your hand as a closet non-believer. Perhaps it will take you a while to admit it to yourself. You are trying to imply that you came to your position logically. That it is a rational decision. Subconsciously trying to borrow the integrity of science, while failing at the one and only requirement of your religion, ie. faith.
Ah yes "faith" ( firmly persuaded ) and then you posit "No, I am sure you haven't" Which everyone knows if you are sure then you are so mule minded that facts are of little use to you .
I am firmly persuaded that the christian proposal is the truth because i am firmly persuaded I have faith tthat what God says will come to pass . Hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding of what faith means.
Silly rabbit tricks are for kids . Anything else to share????
You haven't presented any facts. Nor will you. You're not the first christian fail on YT. Seen it a hundred times.
Try another perspective. If a scientologist said he was "firmly persuaded" a galactic overlord named Xenu dumped frozen bodies into the volcanoes of Hawaii.... would you believe him? Perhaps you would require some evidence?
Same thing with you. But you won't present anything but circular arguments and you're own delusions.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "Silly rabbit tricks are for kids . Anything else to share????"
KIDS: Please utter those lines the next time a priest tries to 'explain' the bible to you.
Can you really expect to be taken seriously when you admit to believing in goat herder gods? That you literally believe such a creature is watching over the universe? Can't you see that it's your own cultural bias at work?
What would you have worshiped if you were living in Peru 3000 years ago?
I dont take anyones word for anything . I research the posit and find out the truth .
I make sure translations are correct and find out the truth on my own . Unlike you who hasnt done anything but presume that his short time on this planet allows him to arrogantly proclaim what is and is not possible.
I know that God exist and Jesus was his son , I know that the root of all other religions worshipped the creation sun moon stars snakes rivers etc. not the creator . NEXT
"I make sure translations are correct and find out the truth on my own"
So once you've translated...... you then proceed to 'take the word' of the author that you are translating.
See how faulty your logic is? That's because it isn't logic or reason. It's simply a defense mechanism to employ when you want to defend your cultural bias. You don't "know" that god exists, you simply prefer to believe it.
You have to be kidding . I dont follow my cultural bias .
My culture has a completely different set of ideas and conclusions than I . Theirs relayed down through mans traditions rather than actual truth
So once again it is your bias that determines I am misinformed because I disagree with you.Yet I know all of your arguments and you know none of mine . Next you add cute rhetoric and pretend you are the one educated .
Troll or imbecillic ? Either way I dont feed either
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "Theirs relayed down through mans traditions rather than actual truth "
If you consider your Abrahamic doctrine to be "actual truth", then you are indeed espousing a cultural bias no matter how you try to wiggle your way around it. And I don't pretend to be educated. If you feel insecure when someone writes out a coherent sentence that's your issue. I'm simply pointing out that have nothing to offer here. Prove me wrong. Stop dancing around and present your case.
Pretending you have provided some type of evidence against, is simply you not understanding the question I find most atheist have the same problem , always presenting ill framed or strawmen arguments
then yelling FTW
I can offer evidence for the argument so someone can become firmly persuaded that the christian proposal is the truth .Since the proposal states that YOU cannot find him you may have to listen rather than speak.
I understand you have evidence for the argument for evolution (Grand scheme) but you do not have evidence of evolution (Grand scheme)
When I offer evidence for the argument for GOD you pretend I need proof of God .The proposal states that someone with your mindset cannot find him . You asking to see him is a strawman
Now the argument is in proper context ,hopefully you can see how you framed the argument incorrectly.
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I offered more than sufficient evidence to prove that evolution is an inevitable fact of population genetics, one which is also indicated historically via various other indications in many fields. You have failed to address any of that. You offered to produce evidence of a miraculous creation instead, and you still have not done that either. Can you? Or can you not?
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU My name isn't spongebob but anyhow ...A few words that can be interpreted as a prophecy if you really try hard is your best evidence for the existence of Jesus/god. Even other religious people debate wether or not it is prophecy & I suppose the committee that decided what was going into the bible could mould it to fit whatever purpose they wanted.
It is but one piece of evidence for the argument . The bible is a collection of text speaking to the relationship man has had with God . It tells us about God and the new testiment tells of those who witnessed the fullfillment of the old testament . It takes a very in depth study to even begin to speak on the topic .
I am just approaching this discussion with you one step at a time.
Do you know of other prophecies that cannot be explained away so easily ??
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Yes you offered to provide compelling evidence for the Abrahamic god, but instead you give me just another assumed conclusion. I did not narrow the possibilities like you're trying to. But while at it, what is the significance of Issaiah 53 being written centuries after Krishna, while Luke 2:52, 4:14-15 and Mark 3:8-9 were written decades after Jesus? As there is no historical or archaeological evidence that Jesus ever existed, then why should I believe that he did?
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU If you're so keen on taking him down a peg, why not pick an example for us to mull over. Give us a piece of evidence that the jesus depicted in the bible existed.
It was very dangerous to beleive Jesus was the messiah.Speaking or writting about it could land you in a tub of boiling oil Yet those closest to Jesus taught and wrote about their eye witness accounts . These writtings were collected and put into what we now call the New Testament
Josephus also wrote about Jesus and James his briother. While we know a small portion is corrupted we also kno without the corruption he still testifies to the life of Jesus
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU So you've chosen to prove Jesus existed.... with the bible. *sigh*
To your credit, you've included the writings of Josephus. But as you said, there has been questions on the authenticity of certain parts of the texts. They haven't reached a consensus on it for the last couple hundred years, it'll be a miracle if they can work it out in the next hundred. And if that's all there is, you really can't fault AronRa for declaring "no historical or archeological evidence ".
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU If there was any historical or archaeological evidence for your Jesus, you would have cited it. Since there isn't -and you are unable to admit that- then all you can do is call me names.
I've never heard of the website you're talking about, but the Bhagavad-Gita is but one of several examples of what (I think) you're asking for. It's hard to tell, because I don't think you have any idea what you're even talking about.
@KarlHeinzofWpg The Bible is uncomparible to any other text in that it has been prove to be the very word of God. Jesus Christ proved this alone, not to mention the mountain of evidence that supports the text as inspired. To best answer your question, I would for now focus on Jesus proving that He is god. He fulfilled an insane number of prophecies about His coming, did miracles in full public view, was killed, and rose from the dead, appearing to many, and changes lives to this day.
@spfinley - So if you say the bible is "proven" - are you saying that your Faith is no longer required? And if by "proven" you mean applying your bias after the fact, would you say that the existence of Thor is proven by the fact that we hear thunder? And if doing "miracles" in full public view is proof of divinity, would you say that King Henry IV of France is a god because he would "heal" upwards of 1500 people at one time? Is the Hindu god Ganesha "proven" by the present day Milk Miracle?
Evolution has also been observed countless times, both under laboratory conditions (e.g. flu virus strains), and in the wild (e.g. fish trapped in pools devoid of their natural predators).
Type the word "evolution" into Google and you will find details of hundreds of repeatable, observable experiments that demonstrate that evolution is true.
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The rise of a new species from a parental line is called speciation. However, there is no clear line demarcating the ancestral species from the descendant species.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise, and has been induced artificially, through animal husbandry and laboratory experiments.
The Wikipedia article on “Speciation” provides many observed examples of speciation.
You could also try to Google the phrase: “Observed Instances of Speciation”, if you really are genuinely interested in finding known examples and educating yourself.
I dont think anyone argues with the fact of speciation. You have proven evolution ( change over time ).
To extrapolate that these changes are responsible and capable of producing all the bio diversity we observe is not even close to being proven . You simply imagine it happened and then try to bully your ideas on others . You have no solid evidence for your imagination
nylonaise erv's,and fossil record are merely evidence for your unproven argument
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - Contrary to what you state, I would say the vast number of creationist claim speciation NEVER occurs. Take that numbskull ThickShades for example.
Evolution is a Theory which explains biodiversity, nylonaise, ERVs the fossil record and countless other things. Until someone can come up with an opposing (and testable) Theory to explain the same - Evolution is the only game in town. And No "God did it" is not a Theory, it's a cultural bias and worthless in science.
"To extrapolate that these changes are responsible and capable of producing all the bio diversity we observe is not even close to being proven."
1) So why does the globally accepted scientific consensus on the fact of evolution say otherwise?
Why do the vast majority of the scientific community and academia support evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others?
2) Why does almost every reputable school, college, university, library or science museum on the planet and all serious science teachers or educators teach this as the fact that it is?
An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
Why do you feel qualified and able to proclaim that the whole of academia and the global scientific community is wrong and you are right?
3) Have you ever considered the fact that if something makes little sense to yourself, but makes sense to world renowned distinguished scientists, and is part of the global scientific consensus, then perhaps it could be your own understanding that could be flawed?
4) If you don't accept the globally accepted scientific consensus on the fact of evolution, how do you account for all the different forms of life on this planet? Do you seriously believe that an imaginary invisible magic man in the sky just created them all one day for fun? That's fucking ridiculous and incredibly stupid.
Part of being an adult is accepting the realities of life, not taking comfort from delusional, childish, illogical, naive and irrational nonsense.
I dont think anyone argues with the fact of speciation. You have proven evolution ( change over time ).
To extrapolate that these changes are responsible and capable of producing all the bio diversity we observe is not even close to being proven . You simply imagine it happened and then try to bully your ideas on others . You have no solid evidence for your imagination
nylonaise erv's,and fossil record are merely evidence for your argument (unproven argument)
You can obviously use YouTube, so why is it so hard for you to simply Google the term: "Evidence for Evolution".
There will be hundreds of books on the subject at your local library also.
Perhaps you get a kick out of denying reality and pretending that those books, all the overwhelming conclusive evidence, and all those Google search results and websites you could read do not exist?
No evidence for evolution? The uneducated, delusional mind is a terrible thing.
greenarcher180 4 days ago in playlist Moronic Idiots that need attention!
You can lead an atheist to truth, but in no way, shape, or from will they listen to it.
Ezekielthirtyeight 2 months ago
Oh this is just sad. There are tonnes of evidence for evolution. But even if there wasn't there is no evidence for God. You seem to think that because someone does not have an exact answer, a god must have created the world.
examinationboard 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm surprised you can say its a lie when you look like a chimp
l1nkie 4 months ago
One fact you can NEVER reconcile with your pathetic crutch of human created religous mythology ; substituted for genuine morality. Walk up to any adequately powerful telescope,and view galaxies TENS OF BILLIONS light years distant. Meaning you are seeing with your own eyes a moment in time TENS OF BILLIONS YEARS in the PAST! ! AS IT HAPPENED!!! How many "Gods", Bibles, faiths are merely forgotten fantasies of countless extinct civilizations swallowed by the eternal, evolving, infinite universe?
Chopitout69 4 months ago
@Chopitout69 Why would creating light instantly in place that stretches billions of light years be a problem for God? Why do you assume He has limitations? God most certainly can create stars with the light reaching all points instantly. He can create it in place, stretch it out instantly, or do whatever else He wants. Clearly, in the event of creation, He made the light to be here within the six day time frame of His work. No problem there. For Him, that's easy.
spfinley 3 months ago
I love that with Christianity you can be a lying, blasphemous, adulterous, thieving, murdering psychopath and all you have to do is "repent" to a bible wielding child molester on your death bed and your soul will be saved. HA! And what's more, if there is a God he certainly doesn't favour you just because you believe in him. Thousands of learned scholars studying the universe for hundreds of years or fantastical stories written with no physical or even anecdotal evidence to back it up..?! Hmm..
cloud9 4 months ago
@cloud9 Being You seem to imply there is no justice in a habitual sinner being saved. Don't forget, Jesus took our sin upon Himself as if it were His own, and bore the punishment in our place, including death. So, even if the worst of sinners gets right with God on his deathbed, don't worry, justice was done. As for scholars, some are saved, some aren't. Smarts have nothing to do with it. If even the greatest scholar on earth denies God, He is the biggest fool of all.
spfinley 3 months ago
lol 100 dislikes. Well done.
Danmill23 5 months ago
@Danmill23 I'm surprised it's not more! The world hates God, because God tells them not to sin. People want to keep their sin, and get drunk, fornicate, curse, steal, lie, and do everything else that seems good. Naturally, anyone that stands for the Lord is going to be hated. That's a given. Hatred for God runs deep. It makes no sense, but it's how the majority of people are. Very few will humble themselves in their pride and bow at the feet of Jesus and be saved.
spfinley 5 months ago
watch?v=tnb_pmRDpqU
watch?v=_sxh_L1LUNk
lo2enge 11 months ago
@lo2enge Wow, massive fail on the part of the evolutionist in the debate with Kent. Did you notice how he was so threatened by the thought of hearing the truth that he didn't even let Kent speak? Shut up your opponent and you've won, or so this guy thought. Lol. And all he could talk about was funding. Wow. Like all evolutionists, he has zero proof and must resort to strange odds and ends to make some kind of argument. God, on the other hand, is axiomatic.
spfinley 5 months ago
There are no textual sources for the so called similarities to the life of christ pre dating Jesus . While particular religions may have predated christianity the similarities were added after christianity .
You cannot produce a textual source for your claim predating Jesus . You would become famous if you could .
page and paragraph PLZ
I didnt think you were serious about sources for Jesus because you would have to be living under a rock .
Google
secular sources for jesus
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
And the most pointless argument on the planet continues. Christians try to persuade those who don't believe in God or Hell that God says they'll burn in Hell. And in turn, aetheists try to persuade the faithers that God has no place in reality, despite having no ability to explain or replicate life-forming processes. It is the argument itself that both sides here crave, not the truth. The most likely truth here is that we are ALL wrong, the first challenge is getting people to agree on that...
elnodgo 1 year ago
Your idea of why we should be good, is that we will be punished if we're evil, well that deffinition doesn't really float with me. You're not good, if you do it out of selfish fear of being punished. You're selfish, and ergo not putting the good of the community before your own needs. You might say that you're doing alot of good, for other people, but when you're only doing that so you can look good in someone elses eye, turns the gesture into the opposite when talking existentiel morals.
Foileedify 1 year ago
How would bacteria turning into a horse be in favor of evolution?
Jesse2K12 1 year ago
@Jesse2K12
The only part of evolution that is a fact is change over time . All the biodiversiity being the result of this change over time is not even remotely proven .
So any change can be classified as evolution .
havent you ever heard "evolution is a fact" all that means is change happens . But they try to make you believe that it means we all originate from a single celled organism .
Its deceit .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "...But they try to make you believe that it means we all originate from a single celled organism. Its deceit ."
This is an Argument from Ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue. You have to present a case to PROVE it untrue. Since you claim it's a 'deceit', this should be very easy to do. There should be a mountain of facts to counter the claim of a single common ancestor. Please present some.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg
You have to present a case to prove it true not a simple change happens so it is true .Neither can i prove the tea pot untrue I can prove unlikely.
There is no record of any organism arranging itself to arrive at specific complexity . Claiming it can is much different than science which requires you to show it .
The Abrahamic doctrine has to researched and cannot be excluded just because you say so .A research based conclusion is what is expected .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "..present a case to prove it true"
I'll assume you are scientifically literate enough to know that Theories (capital T) are never proven True. Theories aren't facts, they are what we use to EXPLAIN facts. See AronRa FFOC #15 part one and two.
A huge number of 'facts' in geography, cladistics, genetics, physics, chemistry ( to name only a few) are explained by Evolution. When new facts pop up, they TOO fit nicely into the Theory. The 'case' has been presented for 150yrs.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@WHOwas
"..arranging itself to arrive at specific complexity."
"Specific" complexity? This is reminiscent of Dempski's 'Specified Complexity' argument which was torn apart nicely by Wolpert and others. There are however plenty of records of organisms evolving from simply to more and more complex as they adapt to their environments. The first 1.8 billion years of 'life' were simple prokaryotes.
This FACT is explained by evolution and not Abraham.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg
"The first 1.8 billion years"
You dont know what happened the first 1.8 billion years neither do you know if there was 1.8 billion years .
You speculate that there was .
Atheist understand Judaism and Christianity as well as a first grader who picks up a calculus text
Your specified compexity argument is a total sum of . "They must have assembled since it is here ".
And only ignorant people dont realize how weak the argument .
That be you
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwas
"You speculate..."
So you're a physics denier as well as an evolution denier. Gee, couldn't see that one coming. Typically a creationist will be prepared to deny absolutely everything in order to hang on to his fables.
"Atheist (don't) understand..."
Not according to that poll. Look it up at PEW. Atheist scored highest in religious knowledge followed by Jews and Mormons. Of course you'll deny it. That's what you do. The first thing a creationist loses is his personal integrity.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg
I just took the test myself and missed one . 93% I didnt know that last question about the great awakening .
It isnt a test on a specific religion but on religions but thanks for letting me know because I scored much higher than 99% of those tested.Putting my average way above the atheist . LOL
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "Putting my average way above the atheist . LOL"
Congrats. But this atheist got 100%. ROFLOL.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "The Abrahamic doctrine has to researched and cannot be excluded just because you say so .A research based conclusion is what is expected ."
Perhaps you're aware of the recent PEW poll on religious knowledge, which revealed something atheists have known for a long time. That is, they typically know more about religion then the people who claim to actually believe in it.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
lol this is great comedy!!
deanosumo 1 year ago
I am a proud transitional form. You should be, too. Darwin would be completely blown away by the amount of evidence we have for his theory. I think that's a pretty strong case for evolution. Where as, the Bible is only changed for political reasons, and it never bothers with truth.
Bacteria to bacteria not evolution? You've demonstrated beyond a doubt that you do not know what evolution is. Bacteria into a horse would demonstrably disprove evolution.
LoK3y 1 year ago
@LoK3y Since the only part of the theory that is proven is change over time bacteria into a horse would not disprove evolution. The term is so broad that nothing could disprove it .
JAMRAND 1 year ago
A persuasive argument is useless. Can you provide any evidence for your god?
Not assertions, or incredulity - evidence!
trooperJac 1 year ago
@trooperJac
Yes Issiah 53 was wriiten 700 years before the life of Christ . Thats better than nylonaise and evr's put together.
Hows that spongebob
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
Assuming this isn't satire, It sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself that evolution is wrong and you're right, you honestly don't believe there is no evidence to support evolution do you? and you really don't think that Charles Darwin would post his origin of species unless he believed what he was suggesting?
ronocko 1 year ago
Edward Current would be proud.
WillGo7 1 year ago
Another creationist looking for crocoduck evidence? This guy needs google... :)
L3G3NDizAtheist 1 year ago
What University you graduate from?
what are you qualifications? why should I believe you?
JerezJulio 1 year ago
Yeah, never mind 150 years of scientific scrutiny in multiple scientific disciplines by thousands and thousands of scientists. You're using arguments that have long since been refuted. It's very telling that you are unable to come up with new arguments, just recycling the same old invalid arguments that have no scientific merit. Not to mention logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and simple lies (I know you believe them, but they are lies nonetheless - false information).
BiiigT 1 year ago
ignorance at its finest! please dont talk about the planetary dynamics in the solar system, you have no support data on or even an idea on any of this. If I were your parents i would have "suppressed" you a long time ago
verumINscientia 1 year ago
ignorance at its finest!
verumINscientia 1 year ago
Evidence for evolution: paleontology, embryology, molecular biology, agriculture, all breads of pets and livestock, genetics, atavisms, retro viral insertions, immunology, observed instances of speciation, the fossil record, comparative anatomy... the list goes on and on and on and on...
Evidence for magical creation by invisible sky pixie... a three thousand year old collection of stories written by ignorant, bronze age goat herders- and that's it.
lowcomedy 1 year ago 5
@lowcomedy Posting generalities in broad categories is as about as far from proof of evolution as you can possibly get. I've examined the categories you mentioned, even talking with many evolutionists over the years, and not one person has ever come forth with one single bit of actual proof. It takes more faith to believe the lie of evolution than to believe in God, who is axiomatic. The evidence for God is overwhelming, not so much with evolution. As for Scripture, it has proven to be true.
spfinley 5 months ago
Around the 2 minute mark you state "Evolution would have you believe that life comes from non-life. That's not what we see". Setting aside the fact that that isn't anything to do with evolution, answer this question. What elements make up your body? Which of these elements is alive? None. The mechanism of life is chemistry. Nothing more.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
Wow, this guy is still going? Hex? Well at least that's what he used to be called. I pwned this guy a good while ago in my video "Theistic Argument Pwnage" on my channel. First 30 seconds of this video blew me away, I almost thought this guy was another Edward Current. This guy seems as if he knows what he's saying is B.S. as soon as he starts and he's just throwing out lies because he doesn't know what else to do.
GravityFoxx 1 year ago 2
@HumanistWikitopian Well written sir. Indeed @spfinley if you approach objectively, and not have a pre-determined answer, all of the documented and peer-reviewed science then you would have to agree that evolution is the only answer for the known processes and measured observations. Several times in your video you make unsupported conclusions or reference the fringes of a reputable field (ie not peer accepted). Creation concept and proven consensus science cannot coexist. You will need to pick.
Alloutside 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a prime example of how religion sequesters the intelligence of humanity. Religious dogmas are the bane of modern society. Theology is pseudo-philosophy that is only workable within a closed, narrow-minded, naïve society that will never truly flourish. Religion is for people that are automatons; people that appease themselves by remaining ignorant, and blindly following the dictates of ancient wishful thinkers.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 4
You could also try reading the worldwide best-selling book: "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, rather than denying reality and pretending that the evidence doesn't exist.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
There is extensive and overwhelming evidence for evolution, whilst the Christian "Bible" is obvious nonsense to any rational, intelligent, educated adult.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 2
Science provides valid explanations of the universe, ancient 2000 year old fairy tales do not.
Hopefully one day you'll find the courage to grow up and face reality.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 2
If you don't accept the globally accepted scientific consensus on the fact of evolution, how do you account for all the different forms of life on this planet? Do you seriously believe that an imaginary invisible magic man in the sky just created them all one day for fun? That's fucking ridiculous and incredibly stupid.
Part of being an adult is accepting the realities of life, not taking comfort from delusional, childish, illogical, naive and irrational nonsense.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 2
Why not try visiting any reputable school, college, university, library or science museum on the planet and talking to any serious science teacher or educator for more than 5 minutes?
Were there no Biology lessons as part of your education, or are you being intentionally moronic?
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
You can obviously use YouTube, so why is it so hard for you to simply Google the term: "Evidence for Evolution".
There will be hundreds of books on the subject at your local library also.
Perhaps you get a kick out of denying reality and pretending that those books, all the overwhelming conclusive evidence, and all those Google search results and websites you could read do not exist?
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
The Wikipedia article on “Speciation” provides many observed examples of speciation.
You could also try to Google the phrase: “Observed Instances of Speciation”, if you really are genuinely interested in finding known examples and educating yourself.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The rise of a new species from a parental line is called speciation. However, there is no clear line demarcating the ancestral species from the descendant species.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise, and has been induced artificially, through animal husbandry and laboratory experiments.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
Evolution has also been observed countless times, both under laboratory conditions (e.g. flu virus strains), and in the wild (e.g. fish trapped in pools devoid of their natural predators).
Type the word "evolution" into Google and you will find details of hundreds of repeatable, observable experiments that demonstrate that evolution is true.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
There is extensive and overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Perhaps the book "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne may be a good place to start to remedy your astounding ignorance and lack of education.
Also, it will probably be beneficial for you to read the following Wikipedia articles:
Wiki: Introduction to evolution
Wiki: Evolution
Wiki: Evolution as theory and fact
Happy Reading!
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
As you are basically asking for evidence of evolution, I would like to request the evidence for the god you mentioned as I would like to examine it for myself. Thanks. :)
MzHellinahandbasket 1 year ago 3
"how we all know there is a God" Rather an absolute statement to make on behalf of humankind. It is a lie because there numerous humans who do not "know" there is a god. Speak for yourself and nobody else. :)
MzHellinahandbasket 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
now stop this 6000 year old earth you are showing yourself a retard,sorry to say.
italiatua 1 year ago
evidence for evolution.
watch?v=MV82wxgshDU
watch?v=NpZKPDqZOCc
watch?v=Dw4FOFDCLcw&feature=watch_response
watch?v=RidninalrWI&feature=watch_response
italiatua 1 year ago
wow so this is where Willaim graig's smugness meandered off to. lmao this is every bad creationist argument i have ever heard and not a single source or citation for anything said. wow you sir are a credit to a dying breed. lol
overlordcacius 1 year ago
Wow, really great video man! Can you also make one exposing Galileo's dirty filthy atheist lies about how the Earth revolves around the Sun!?
MattThermo 1 year ago
0:25= common quote mine by creationists. Like Darwin likes to do, he asks a question and then answers it. Even if the quote stood for what spfinley claims it does, Darwin was writing almost 150 years ago, at a time early in the scientific study of fossils and when few scientists were expecting to find "transitional forms."
Dartyn 1 year ago
You realize that many fossils have been found of organisms that lived millions of years ago, right? Oh yeah, you creationists think we lived with the dinosaurs. Talk about unscientific.
moreoreos123 1 year ago
If we were created instantly by God 6,000 years ago, why do humans and all other great apes have a gene for making vitamin C that does not work?
Gorteenminogue 1 year ago
Made it to 1.30 before vomiting
It's amazing how some people are proud of their ignorance.
jemorrismmorris 1 year ago
I love how SPFINLEY reveals his dishonesty right from the start. I guess this is what jesus preached. Lie quickly and hope no one will notice.
FINLEY quotes Darwin asking himself a question, then he puts down the book and says "well, if Darwin didn't see the evidence". However, if this prick of a jesus worshiper would have read the next few paragraphs (and the entire book) he would see that Darwin addresses the very points he raised.
Yet again...
Jesus dude - 0.
Evolution - 1.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
"Have you ever told a lie?"
Actually, I have. It's very rare, but I have. I'm excluding the meaningless lies like telling your wife of 40 yrs she's just a young and beautiful as the day you met. I mean lies intended to deceive/manipulate. The last time was years ago when I lied to my roommate that I was talking to a friend instead of calling the police b/c she told me she was going to kill her. She's alive today. If I go to hell b/c of that, then so be it. I won't ask forgiveness for that.
Ripley747 1 year ago
None of the objections you raise have any basis. They're just old canards continuously bandied around by people who worship a god, but place faith in a man-made book over their god's creation.
Isn't that the ultimate blasphemy?
Misterb0z 1 year ago
The saving grace of a video propagating such absolute stupidity is that in 10 months it's only gotten 600 views.
suumr 1 year ago 3
why do skinks have tiny little legs?
tonybuk70 1 year ago
Don't open your eyes you won't like what you see. The devils of truth steal the souls of the free. Don't open eyes take it from me. I have found you can find happiness in slavery. Trent Reznor. You should check that song out it might serve you well. It's right here on the tube.
vudumunqi 1 year ago
A perfect example of someone desperately clinging to the idea of gods and myths, denying the mountains of evidence in all fields that demonstrate that the bible is incorrect.
Fine, believe whatever myths you want - but when you come to a public forum and spout such garbage, get ready for the more enlightened here handing you your ass.
trooperJac 1 year ago
Using a quote from Darwin out of context to try & show that he questioned evolution & natural selection is either abhorrently dishonest or ignorant. 1st, science in Darwins day had only found a very small fraction of the fossils we have today. 2nd, conservatively there are 10's of millions of fossils that have been collected all over the globe, which are all evidence for evolution. 3rd, all predictions from Darwins model HAVE been validated. Ignorance can be cured, stupidity is forever.
AussieNaturalist 1 year ago 3
Ever considered that God was not real? Just think about it, that is all I ask of you.
Zlibservacratican 1 year ago 2
Wow, ignoring evidence and quote mining in the first 30 seconds. Total misunderstanding of evolution and 'science is unscientific' within 2 minutes. Evolution somehow needing to explain cosmology and physics within 3 minutes. Wrong application of exponential growth within 3 minutes 15 seconds. Argument from ignorance and misunderstanding of the Atheist viewpoint in 5 minutes. Threat to believe as I do or be tortured forever in 6 minutes.
Vicsor 1 year ago 2
aHahahahahaahahahaahahahaha, oh god keep going its brilliant
CATBOXMAN 1 year ago
If you claim that "artist's impressions of dead things in the dirt" is not proof of evolution, how can you possibly then claim that a collection of stories written thousands of years ago and edited/translated across time (and by people of varying agendas, both "good" and "bad") is proof of an ethereal being?
ArpeggiateTHIS 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ArpeggiateTHIS The 66 books of the Bible prove to be accurate, true, and supernatural. How so? If you really want to know, give me the word and I'll message you, cause 500 characters is too little to answer that question! And the word was handled with great care when copied, and has not changed over time, as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls. And while men with agendas have made corrupt versions, we do have the word preserved in the King James Version, as I could explain if you wish.
spfinley 1 year ago
@spfinley I'm curious what would you accept as evidence for evolution? And if you were presented with such evidence would you still believe in your personal interpretation Genesis anyway or actually embrace reality?
whitefox998 1 year ago
I stopped watching this video 20 seconds into it, and that was being generous. Getting so sick of hearing the "no evidence for evolution" nonsense.
Shadowforce10 1 year ago 2
@Shadowforce10 Thanks for your comments. While my opening statements aren't a grand revelation or anything, I winged it and did the best I could. Just trying to get the truth out there. Perhaps I could sing and dance in the beginning to grab people's attention? Nah. The truth stands for itself. And nobody wants to see me sing or dance, trust me.
spfinley 1 year ago
@spfinley Truth must be something that is supportable. And I don't see how quoting Darwin refutes what has been discovered since his time either, dispite your claim that nothing has been found; neither is all there is just artisic reconstructions. They are made with the basis of what has been found - the fossils.
PikminDS 1 year ago
@spfinley My comment had nothing to do with how you presented your opening statement, I didn't find you the least bit boring. It was what you said, which was an outright lie.
Shadowforce10 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spfinley @spfinley My comment had nothing to do with how you presented your opening statement, I didn't find you the least bit boring. It was what you said, which was an outright lie.
Shadowforce10 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shadowforce10 1 year ago
First off, Evolution is a done deal. Everything I hear from you is nothing but strawman arguements, lies, and putting a guilt trip on people, at the end. You represent the whole reason why I HATE religion, it's an oppressive system that's no different from a dictatorship. Your God is totally devoid of morals, if he would send people to an eternal fire, just because you didn't believe in him. Oh boo-hoo, God has his feelings hurt. Give us evidence of your God, or GTFO.
Slips2 1 year ago
@Slips2 I'm not laying a "guilt trip" on anyone. We ARE guilty! We have all sinned. Please understand God doesn't send people to hell just for not believing in Him. He sends people to hell because of their guilt. We have consequences for lawbreakers, do we not? So, why do you fault God for doing the same? He is just, and punishes the guilty. If He didn't, He'd have to turn a blind eye to justice. But this same God also offers to forgive your transgressions by the shed blood of Christ.
spfinley 1 year ago
If I offered to prove -to your satisfaction- that evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that all the contrary claims you've made here are completely wrong, would you accept that challenge, and be prepared to change your position accordingly?
AronRa 1 year ago 48
@AronRa I will gladly review any evidence you have, time permitting. However, the question of changing position is more of a trap question. If I say no, I'm closed minded. If I say yes, I'm saying God is a liar. However, God does not lie, and all the proofs of His word, His Son, and His grand design in creation cannot be undone or brushed under the rug. So why do I ask for proof? Because I'm willing to listen and learn. So, please still challenge me as I will listen.
spfinley 1 year ago
@spfinley I would say that the possibility that God is a liar is far less likely than the obvious option that God didn't write the Bible. Of course it is even more likely that God never existed, which is another option you're ignoring. Either God exists and the Bible is wrong about him, or God doesn't exist and that is why the Bible is wrong about everything. If I had to whittle it down to just two options, it would be those.
AronRa 1 year ago 5
@spfinley Being asked to engage in an intellectually honest and constructive conversation, wherein the members are expected to fit their opinions to good evidence and argument, is a "trap"? That says it all about this discussion right here.
If you're truly willing to listen and learn, you wouldn't be considering certain beliefs beyond question or reproach.
MichelFialloPerez 1 year ago 2
@MichelFialloPerez perfectly stated.
IntelligentProbe 1 year ago
@AronRa
Why do you believe that there is NO God?
Why couldn't God have been behind evolution?
Watergun7442 1 year ago
@Watergun7442 It would take much too long to explain why I couldn't make myself believe in a god, but if such a thing did exist, then it would have to have devised evolution. Evolution occurs whether a god devised it or not, and Genesis is still a falsified fable regardless whether any gods exist or not.
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa
Well what caused the universe then?
How does consciousness arise out of matter? Is matter itself conscious?
In Genesis God says to let the EARTH create life. how is that different from Genesis?
Watergun7442 1 year ago
@Watergun7442
"In Genesis God says to let the EARTH create life. how is that different from Genesis?"
Genesis also says that Eve was made out of Adams rib AND the original human population was consistent of 2 people.
If that is true, that means that brothers and sisters would have to mate to make more people.
I hope you know what kind of children result from such an mixture; thus supporting AronRa's claim:
"... Genesis is still a falsified fable regardless whether any gods exist or not."
AndrianGA 1 year ago
@Watergun7442 Well what caused the universe then? -I don't know is a perfectly respectable answer. More than, "I know. It was [state opinion here]." Scientists have a few hypotheses in M and string theory. Genesis doesn't fit the data well.
How does consciousness arise out of matter? Is matter itself conscious? -Study the evolution of the brain. No.
In Genesis God says to let the EARTH create life. how is that different from Genesis? -You mean aside from "Earth can't 'create' anything"?
Ripley747 1 year ago
@Watergun7442 What caused the universe? If by that, you mean, 'what was the catalyst which instigated the big bang', the answer is, we may never know, but one thing we do know is that every time we've ever tried to evoke the supernatural to explain any phenomenon, that answer turned out to be wrong, and the real answer proved to be a revelation of a whole new field of knowledge beyond our prior imagination. So will the answer to this question surely be.
AronRa 1 year ago
@Watergun7442 did earth create the life taht exist on other planets?
painterQjensen 1 year ago
@AronRa
Once you give me any other alternate naturalistic explanation that would be possible.
Therefore any evidence can be plucked and installed into yours.
Just because it is the most and only plausible naturalistic explanation does not give it validity until you prove your materialistic presupposition is correct .
Your turn .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I don't have a 'materialistic presupposition'. I don't have any 'presuppositions' at all. That's your department. What I do have are lots of compelling reasons to believe as I do, and not one reason why anyone should take your alternative suggestion seriously at all.
AronRa 1 year ago 17
@AronRa
To pretend that there isnt evidence for the argument for the christian proposal is simply ridiculous .
Could it be that your question has deceit and what you are really asking for is proof of God.
I make a deal with you . If you list the evidence for the argumet for evolution I will list evidence for the argument for the chritian proposal I will wager that you will run out of evidence long before I.
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU You're on. The reason your position is defined as a 'faith' is that it lacks evidence. I have many times repeated the point that creationism makes two kinds of claims. Those which are untestable are also unsupported and unjustified. Those which are testable have all turned out to be wrong. There is no third category, because there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence positively indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution.
AronRa 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU If you want my list of evidence in support of evolution, see my series on the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism as well as my subsequent (and as yet incomplete) series on Falsifying Phylogeny, and 'turns out we did come from monkeys'. Since you accuse me of deceit, then -if nothing else- you should at least see my video, 'How could creationism not be dishonest?' The last few minutes of that includes an overview of the evidence I have -which you will never match.
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa
DNA has a continued history of being misunderstood, To claim that ERV insertion positions are a proof for evolution (Grand scheme) is simply not true. It is evidence for your argument. So I will list two evidences for my argument to your one .
Oral tradition
Genesis 1/1
Israel
issiah 53 .
well I can afford to give up four to your one
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU In the least of my references, I listed 8 or 9 categories of evidence. You chose only one of them, and you failed to address or refute even that. Evolution offers the only explanation for any aspect of ERVs. Your challenge was to produce another evident explanation which was verifiably accurate and positively indicative of your position. You failed in that too -since all you gave me was a circular argument, that the Bible is true because the Bible says so. Try again.
AronRa 1 year ago 25
@AronRa
Sorry ,I have been out of town and havent had the time to respond .
I will ignore the other post directed at me because of the glaring ill framed arguments they present .
Do not list 8 or 9 categories of evidence . Lets both go at it one at a time .
It is my position that if a God exist he would have the greatest treasure known to man . LOVE
Proven by men and women who would gladly give their lives and possessions to save the life of their offspring because of love
cont.
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Once again, science is inductive so it's not the burden of anyone to provide a possible alternative, especially when none exist.
'It is my position that if a God exist he would have the greatest treasure known to man . LOVE'
This is a fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I listed nine categories of evidence. You selected only one facet from one of them and failed to address or refute it. You ignored the rest and presented a circular argument, and are now pleading for a non-sequitor. Do you have any actual factual evidence, or don't you?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa
This God because of love, would want to communicate with us and to let us know who he is .
The bible can be used as evidence for the argument of this communication especially if my premise is that love is the greatest thing any being could possess . A God would possess it if he were indeed a God .
Because the bible exist does not prove anything other than it does exist. I am not positioning my argument solely on this fact but I am attempting to layout the groundwork .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU "I will ignore the other post directed at me because of the glaring ill framed arguments they present ."
"I am attempting to layout the groundwork ."
These are the kinds of lines you hear in a creation vs. evolution discuss that tell you somone is going to frame their argument in a set of premises that make the argument entire either circular or unfalsifiable.
MichelFialloPerez 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU -
WHO's argument....
"It is my position that if THOR existed he would be responsible for the creation of thunder since he is the thunder god. This god of thunder would want to create thunder. Thunder can be used as evidence of this desire to produce thunder by the thunder god, but this evidence cannot be used as evidence because the existence of thunder doesn't prove anything other then that it exists."
If by 'groundwork' you mean 'digging your grave', pray continue.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU According to you favorite fables, your god forgives any sin -if the sinner is gullible enough to believe impossible nonsense for no good reason. But he damns good men to Hell simply because they're not dumb enough to believe whatever compost ignorant charlatans are selling. And you say this is done out of 'love'?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa
I presume you beleive that you are more educated because you say you are .
You can make a bunch of statements and then yell nanananboo boo and expect the vast majority of sheep to follow as you have also followed those before you ..
The arguments for the Abrahamic God and Jesus are far more persuasive than you evidently know .
You wrote "Impossible nonsense "
Your short stay on this planet has allowed you to determine what is and isnt possible . ( Thats nonsense)
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU As we have already seen, you presume too much. It is apparently impossible for you to present a persuasive argument for your god. All you've done so far is ignore evidence and plead non-sequitors.
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa
What I have done is to do non bias research and have found the argument for the Abrahamic God to be persuasive and the arguments against to be not very well thought out . Such as .
(Science) Science could not find God even if he were to slap every scientist in the face every tuesday morning.
The method demanding a naturalistic explanation for the bruising on their faces .
Science would not even be the last to know it would never know if a God existed .
Cont.
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwas.. - "What I have done is to do non bias research"
No, I'm sure you haven't. By saying you have done research, and have found arguments persuasive, you are revealing your hand as a closet non-believer. Perhaps it will take you a while to admit it to yourself. You are trying to imply that you came to your position logically. That it is a rational decision. Subconsciously trying to borrow the integrity of science, while failing at the one and only requirement of your religion, ie. faith.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg
Ah yes "faith" ( firmly persuaded ) and then you posit "No, I am sure you haven't" Which everyone knows if you are sure then you are so mule minded that facts are of little use to you .
I am firmly persuaded that the christian proposal is the truth because i am firmly persuaded I have faith tthat what God says will come to pass . Hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding of what faith means.
Silly rabbit tricks are for kids . Anything else to share????
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "facts are of little use to you ."
You haven't presented any facts. Nor will you. You're not the first christian fail on YT. Seen it a hundred times.
Try another perspective. If a scientologist said he was "firmly persuaded" a galactic overlord named Xenu dumped frozen bodies into the volcanoes of Hawaii.... would you believe him? Perhaps you would require some evidence?
Same thing with you. But you won't present anything but circular arguments and you're own delusions.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "Silly rabbit tricks are for kids . Anything else to share????"
KIDS: Please utter those lines the next time a priest tries to 'explain' the bible to you.
Can you really expect to be taken seriously when you admit to believing in goat herder gods? That you literally believe such a creature is watching over the universe? Can't you see that it's your own cultural bias at work?
What would you have worshiped if you were living in Peru 3000 years ago?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@KarlHeinzofWpg
I dont take anyones word for anything . I research the posit and find out the truth .
I make sure translations are correct and find out the truth on my own . Unlike you who hasnt done anything but presume that his short time on this planet allows him to arrogantly proclaim what is and is not possible.
I know that God exist and Jesus was his son , I know that the root of all other religions worshipped the creation sun moon stars snakes rivers etc. not the creator . NEXT
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
"I dont take anyones word for anything"
Sure you do. Example...
"I make sure translations are correct and find out the truth on my own"
So once you've translated...... you then proceed to 'take the word' of the author that you are translating.
See how faulty your logic is? That's because it isn't logic or reason. It's simply a defense mechanism to employ when you want to defend your cultural bias. You don't "know" that god exists, you simply prefer to believe it.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@KarlHeinzof
You have to be kidding . I dont follow my cultural bias .
My culture has a completely different set of ideas and conclusions than I . Theirs relayed down through mans traditions rather than actual truth
So once again it is your bias that determines I am misinformed because I disagree with you.Yet I know all of your arguments and you know none of mine . Next you add cute rhetoric and pretend you are the one educated .
Troll or imbecillic ? Either way I dont feed either
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - "Theirs relayed down through mans traditions rather than actual truth "
If you consider your Abrahamic doctrine to be "actual truth", then you are indeed espousing a cultural bias no matter how you try to wiggle your way around it. And I don't pretend to be educated. If you feel insecure when someone writes out a coherent sentence that's your issue. I'm simply pointing out that have nothing to offer here. Prove me wrong. Stop dancing around and present your case.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago
@AronRa
Pretending you have provided some type of evidence against, is simply you not understanding the question I find most atheist have the same problem , always presenting ill framed or strawmen arguments
then yelling FTW
I can offer evidence for the argument so someone can become firmly persuaded that the christian proposal is the truth .Since the proposal states that YOU cannot find him you may have to listen rather than speak.
Asking for anything else is not very thoughtfull
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@AronRa
I understand you have evidence for the argument for evolution (Grand scheme) but you do not have evidence of evolution (Grand scheme)
When I offer evidence for the argument for GOD you pretend I need proof of God .The proposal states that someone with your mindset cannot find him . You asking to see him is a strawman
Now the argument is in proper context ,hopefully you can see how you framed the argument incorrectly.
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU I offered more than sufficient evidence to prove that evolution is an inevitable fact of population genetics, one which is also indicated historically via various other indications in many fields. You have failed to address any of that. You offered to produce evidence of a miraculous creation instead, and you still have not done that either. Can you? Or can you not?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa
It doesnt take much to argue that change over time is an inevitable fact of population genetics.
The funding and extent of that change much more so .
I offered to provide compelling evidence for the argument for the Abrahamic God . You narrowing the possibilities is a cute trick
You know the saying "silly rabbit tricks are for kids"
Issiah 53 written 7 centuries before the life of Jesus . I am sure you know not to argue that Jesus did not exist .
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU My name isn't spongebob but anyhow ...A few words that can be interpreted as a prophecy if you really try hard is your best evidence for the existence of Jesus/god. Even other religious people debate wether or not it is prophecy & I suppose the committee that decided what was going into the bible could mould it to fit whatever purpose they wanted.
Seriously this is your evidence.
trooperJac 1 year ago
@trooperJac
It is but one piece of evidence for the argument . The bible is a collection of text speaking to the relationship man has had with God . It tells us about God and the new testiment tells of those who witnessed the fullfillment of the old testament . It takes a very in depth study to even begin to speak on the topic .
I am just approaching this discussion with you one step at a time.
Do you know of other prophecies that cannot be explained away so easily ??
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Yes you offered to provide compelling evidence for the Abrahamic god, but instead you give me just another assumed conclusion. I did not narrow the possibilities like you're trying to. But while at it, what is the significance of Issaiah 53 being written centuries after Krishna, while Luke 2:52, 4:14-15 and Mark 3:8-9 were written decades after Jesus? As there is no historical or archaeological evidence that Jesus ever existed, then why should I believe that he did?
AronRa 1 year ago
@AronRa
"there is no historical or archeological evidence that jesus ever existed "
You"re a buffoon. try that on someone who smokes as much crack as you .
Every major contemporary work done on the subject seems to diaagree with aron ra (shocker ).
If you can find a textual source pre dating christ that has similarities then plz share with me .
If not then your mind has been swindled by jesus aint really real do t or g
Not exactly a scholarly piece of work
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU If you're so keen on taking him down a peg, why not pick an example for us to mull over. Give us a piece of evidence that the jesus depicted in the bible existed.
trypayingattention 1 year ago
@trypayingattention
It was very dangerous to beleive Jesus was the messiah.Speaking or writting about it could land you in a tub of boiling oil Yet those closest to Jesus taught and wrote about their eye witness accounts . These writtings were collected and put into what we now call the New Testament
Josephus also wrote about Jesus and James his briother. While we know a small portion is corrupted we also kno without the corruption he still testifies to the life of Jesus
Plenty more
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU So you've chosen to prove Jesus existed.... with the bible. *sigh*
To your credit, you've included the writings of Josephus. But as you said, there has been questions on the authenticity of certain parts of the texts. They haven't reached a consensus on it for the last couple hundred years, it'll be a miracle if they can work it out in the next hundred. And if that's all there is, you really can't fault AronRa for declaring "no historical or archeological evidence ".
trypayingattention 1 year ago
@trypayingattention
Of course the bible can be used to prove the life of Jesus . Since the new testament is a small collection of
witnesses . This collection was assembled . Because they were included in the collection you somehow believe that invalidates their usefullness.
Thats like saying we cannot use witneses of a crime because they have been biased .
Only atheist would fall for that .
Google secular sources for the life of Jesus
JAMRAND 1 year ago
@JAMRAND
Atheist are always ranting what they were told and never taking a second look at its ignorance . The bible cant be used
The testimonies of those who walked with Jesus cannot be used becauser they are in the bible . LOL
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@trypayingattention
there are over 18 secular sources for the life of Jesus .
Dr. Gary Habermas
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 11 months ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU If there was any historical or archaeological evidence for your Jesus, you would have cited it. Since there isn't -and you are unable to admit that- then all you can do is call me names.
I've never heard of the website you're talking about, but the Bhagavad-Gita is but one of several examples of what (I think) you're asking for. It's hard to tell, because I don't think you have any idea what you're even talking about.
AronRa 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
How do you conclude that the "Oral Tradition" of the bible is true?
How do you conclude that the "Oral Tradition" of the entire pantheon of Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Native American, etc, etc, etc, religion is false?
Or do you prefer to believe that they are all true?
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago 3
@KarlHeinzofWpg The Bible is uncomparible to any other text in that it has been prove to be the very word of God. Jesus Christ proved this alone, not to mention the mountain of evidence that supports the text as inspired. To best answer your question, I would for now focus on Jesus proving that He is god. He fulfilled an insane number of prophecies about His coming, did miracles in full public view, was killed, and rose from the dead, appearing to many, and changes lives to this day.
spfinley 5 months ago
@spfinley - So if you say the bible is "proven" - are you saying that your Faith is no longer required? And if by "proven" you mean applying your bias after the fact, would you say that the existence of Thor is proven by the fact that we hear thunder? And if doing "miracles" in full public view is proof of divinity, would you say that King Henry IV of France is a god because he would "heal" upwards of 1500 people at one time? Is the Hindu god Ganesha "proven" by the present day Milk Miracle?
KarlHeinzofWpg 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
There is extensive and overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Perhaps the book "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne may be a good place to start.
Also, it will probably be beneficial for you to read the following Wikipedia articles:
Wiki: Introduction to evolution
Wiki: Evolution
Wiki: Evolution as theory and fact
Happy Reading!
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
Evolution has also been observed countless times, both under laboratory conditions (e.g. flu virus strains), and in the wild (e.g. fish trapped in pools devoid of their natural predators).
Type the word "evolution" into Google and you will find details of hundreds of repeatable, observable experiments that demonstrate that evolution is true.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 4
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The rise of a new species from a parental line is called speciation. However, there is no clear line demarcating the ancestral species from the descendant species.
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise, and has been induced artificially, through animal husbandry and laboratory experiments.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
The Wikipedia article on “Speciation” provides many observed examples of speciation.
You could also try to Google the phrase: “Observed Instances of Speciation”, if you really are genuinely interested in finding known examples and educating yourself.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
@HumanistWikitopian
I dont think anyone argues with the fact of speciation. You have proven evolution ( change over time ).
To extrapolate that these changes are responsible and capable of producing all the bio diversity we observe is not even close to being proven . You simply imagine it happened and then try to bully your ideas on others . You have no solid evidence for your imagination
nylonaise erv's,and fossil record are merely evidence for your unproven argument
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU How is an argument with evidence unproven?
How does ERV insertion fail to serve as evidence for evolution?
How does an oral tradition and a few Bible chapters serve as evidence for anything?
And how come the helpful comments showing people where and how they can educate themselves on the matter keep getting marked as spam?
MichelFialloPerez 1 year ago 3
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU - Contrary to what you state, I would say the vast number of creationist claim speciation NEVER occurs. Take that numbskull ThickShades for example.
Evolution is a Theory which explains biodiversity, nylonaise, ERVs the fossil record and countless other things. Until someone can come up with an opposing (and testable) Theory to explain the same - Evolution is the only game in town. And No "God did it" is not a Theory, it's a cultural bias and worthless in science.
KarlHeinzofWpg 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
"To extrapolate that these changes are responsible and capable of producing all the bio diversity we observe is not even close to being proven."
1) So why does the globally accepted scientific consensus on the fact of evolution say otherwise?
Why do the vast majority of the scientific community and academia support evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others?
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
2) Why does almost every reputable school, college, university, library or science museum on the planet and all serious science teachers or educators teach this as the fact that it is?
An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
Why do you feel qualified and able to proclaim that the whole of academia and the global scientific community is wrong and you are right?
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
3) Have you ever considered the fact that if something makes little sense to yourself, but makes sense to world renowned distinguished scientists, and is part of the global scientific consensus, then perhaps it could be your own understanding that could be flawed?
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 3
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
4) If you don't accept the globally accepted scientific consensus on the fact of evolution, how do you account for all the different forms of life on this planet? Do you seriously believe that an imaginary invisible magic man in the sky just created them all one day for fun? That's fucking ridiculous and incredibly stupid.
Part of being an adult is accepting the realities of life, not taking comfort from delusional, childish, illogical, naive and irrational nonsense.
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
5) There is no valid logical reason to believe in any god, that's why the religious hide behind the word "faith".
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago
@HumanistWikitopian
I dont think anyone argues with the fact of speciation. You have proven evolution ( change over time ).
To extrapolate that these changes are responsible and capable of producing all the bio diversity we observe is not even close to being proven . You simply imagine it happened and then try to bully your ideas on others . You have no solid evidence for your imagination
nylonaise erv's,and fossil record are merely evidence for your argument (unproven argument)
WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU
You can obviously use YouTube, so why is it so hard for you to simply Google the term: "Evidence for Evolution".
There will be hundreds of books on the subject at your local library also.
Perhaps you get a kick out of denying reality and pretending that those books, all the overwhelming conclusive evidence, and all those Google search results and websites you could read do not exist?
HumanistWikitopian 1 year ago 4