I think it's kinda funny, even ironic, that a .44 second video of a cute poodle riding on the back of a bike has stirred up such a serious debate! Go T.D.!
According to Ken Ham, a Poodle is not a real dog! (hehehe) But, seriously folks, even Darwin himself said that he expected transitional forms would be found and if they were not that his whole theory should be put in the trash bin! Sad, but in all this time not one has been found yet Dawkins and others still cling to their RELIGION OF CHOICE, evolution. Not a religion? It most certainly is! Think about it.
@longviewsfinest14 Matthew 5:22. And yeah, essentially nothing creating something is what science says. This is backed up by evidence, whereas belief in your god is backed up by...a self contradicting book.
@jesuriah Oh an infidel trys to quote scriptures? Oh try to use the scriptures to attack me yet you don't even believe God and his Word you either believe it all or you don't at all. You need Jesus then show me scriptures kk. And I didn't call him a fool I was quoting a scripture which fits this situation. Romans 1:22 since you like quoting what you don't believe in so much buddy. Google it.
@longviewsfinest14 Well, I'm pointing out what a hypocrite you are. Thanks for pointing out yet ANOTHER contradiction in your scripture!
I could quote the Art of War, if you wanted, doesn't mean I agree with the book. Unlike closed minded people(you) I actually study what other people think!
You're using scripture to call someone a fool. Thus you yourself are liable to the fires of hell. Logic is a tricky thing.
@jesuriah You have to take everything in BALANCE! The bible, the Word of God, says for US not to call man a fool, but God himself, who knows the very deepest of our hearts, even the motives we have, has the right to call mere man a fool. And only He has that right. Big difference. Also, while God may call a man a sinner, a fool, or anything else, He has also provided a way of escape from our foolishness. Just Saying!
@hopegiver "but God himself, who knows the very deepest of our hearts, even the motives we have, has the right to call mere man a fool."
...So the god that created the flawed man has the right to denigrate the man because of the faults he(god) gave the man? I'm sorry, the logic does not follow.
"He has also provided a way of escape from our foolishness."
You mean his foolishness? According to your bible the universe exists entirely under god's control....cont..
@jesuriah Jesuriah, Jesuriah! God created man, not robots. He wanted a RELATIONSHIP, not mere puppets. He created man with a soul and with the choice to choose to obey, with good consequences or not to obey, with bad consequences. The rest is history (pun intended)! : D I like you Jesuriah. I have no problem with people being honest about what the do or don't believe. Even if they're wrong. And, NO, you're wrong, the bible doesn't say God's will is being done on earth, hence the Lord's prayer.
@hopegiver "He created man with a soul and with the choice to choose to obey, with good consequences or not to obey, with bad consequences."
So my analogies to despots stands.
"God's will was not being done when that happened. "
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. However, according to your theology, you're wrong. Nothing transpires that is against god's will. Ephesians, 1:3-12 and Psalm 139:16 explains this...cont..
@hopegiver Your god is omniscient right? He knows everything that can, will and has happened, correct? He has allowed terrible things to transpire, and done nothing to stop them. According to the bible, your god also created the universe, and thus everything that transpires here is in according with his plan. The Lord's prayer does not help your position, if anything it detracts from it. "Thy will be done as it is in Heaven" really leads one to believe in predestination.
@jesuriah I know we're both probably wasting our time,but this is kinda fun, huh? Jesh (my nickname for ya), JESUS was teaching us how to pray, ie. have a conversation with God, which included us ASKING that His will would be done (someday), on earth as it is in heaven, BECAUSE GOD'S WILL IS NOT BEING DONE IN EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN - YET! Why would Jesus have us to ask for something that already was? Logic + Faith = Believing!
@hopegiver "God created man, not robots. He wanted a RELATIONSHIP, not mere puppets."
Yes and no. Again, because of the predestination the bible teaches.
"The evil in this world, rape, molestation, torture, murder, abuse, you name it, the very Evil that reigns in the earth is the same that denies God. "
The evil that god created and allows to run rampant? This is still supporting my comparison of an evil tyrant. Besides, how many people were killed in god's name in the bible? Millions.
@jesuriah So, if a wierdo were to be following your threads and become a "fan", i.e. follower, and he/she were to go out and kill, and do so in YOUR name, does that mean that you are allowing it, even owning it, per se'? Is it not a fact that enemies will penetrate each other's group and do things in that groups "name" (gangs for example, or James Bond-type scenarios, Democrates "in" the Tea Party meetings, etc.), so they can make that group look bad the the public? Your smarter than that Jesh.
@hopegiver Hey, sorry, I didn't see that you had responded again until today.
"So, if a wierdo were to be following your threads and become a "fan", i.e. follower, and he/she were to go out and kill, and do so in YOUR name, does that mean that you are allowing it, even owning it, per se"
Nowhere in my videos do I advocate violence. This is also a strawman argument, as I do not claim to have created the universe.
@jesuriah "Yes and no. Again, because of the predestination the bible teaches." I knew you were going to say that! And God did too. But it was your thought, your choice and your action. Logic is a tricky thing. : )
@hopegiver ...Anything that can or will happen in this universe(according to Christianity), has happened with god's consent. To call man foolish is to completely miss the point of who would be liable if the Christian god existed. Anyone who would be murdered, raped, etc. becomes a victim because of your god's will.
Even if that god existed he would be an evil tyrant no more worthy of worship than Mother Theresa, the Dalai Llama, John Gotti, or Pablo Escobar.
@jesuriah Wrong again. I'm a survior of rape, at gun point. God's will was not being done when that happened. You know the sad thing? The evil in this world, rape, molestation, torture, murder, abuse, you name it, the very Evil that reigns in the earth is the same that denies God. To be refuse such a loving and caring God is to side with all the horrible things that go on. I'm thankful I survived what happened to me. And I continue to pray for God's will to be done, on earth as it is in heaven!
@jesuriah Everything happens for a reason, yes. With God's knowledge that it's going to happen, yes. And, yes, God does ALLOW bad things to happen, but that's not the same as consent. If He was okay with all the bad that goes on in the world, He wouldn't have sent Jesus to be one of us, live perfectly, be tortured physically, be falsly condemned, and the rejected by God himself due to the repulsion of ALL sins ever commited or to be committed. What about ALL the prophecies of Jesus fullfilled?
@jesuriah You have to take everything in BALANCE! The bible, the Word of God, says for US not to call man a fool, but God himself, who knows the very deepest of our hearts, even the motives we have, has the right to call mere man a fool. And only He has that right. Big difference. Also, while God may call a man a sinner, a fool, or anything else, He has also provided a way of escape from our foolishness. Just Saying!
@jesuriah It does tell us not to insult people. There are fool's, there are foolish, but there is a fine line between insulting and constructive critisizim.
By ‘primitive’ I was referring to the level their societies had reached compared with ours. They were as intelligent as we are.
There is no possibility of a creation event along the lines of a creation week 6,000 years ago Everything we have discovered over the past two centuries shows this. Nor has any necessity for a supernatural ‘creator’ been found, Evolution accounts for life's complexity, and order is not a term that springs to mind when discussing galactic events.
Unlike other ancient cultures, the Hebrews wrote in a historical, rather than mythical, prose. The entire Hebrew Bible is written as historical narrative and has always been regarded as such. All humans are examples of sentient life arising from sentient life. All life is an example of life arising from life. Given the universal nature of the evidence, there is no logical or scientific reason to believe this did not happen in the beginning. The claim of abiogenesis is simply faith.
Well, given the fact that the scientific method in all of its testable forms clearly demonstrates that only sentient living matter can give rise to sentient living matter, I'd say Intelligent Design or the Genesis creation account is the truth.
If the evolutionists can demonstrate factually via the scientific method that non-sentient non-living matter is capable of giving rise to sentient living matter by way of unguided processes with no intelligent thought involved, then I'll understand.
Evolution is silent on the origin of life; only how life diversified once it became established.
Abiogenesis, which is the study of life's origins, has many leads as to how this it could have happened. We don't have a full theory of abiogenesis yet, but we are working our way towards one.
We do know however, that the Genesis account must be false, and there is no indication whatsoever that God, also known as 'The Intelligent Designer’ is responsible.
@bobguk The ancient Hebrews (Jews) provided every indication that God was responsible for the creation of the universe, the earth and all life. They documented it. Science confirms a sentient living Designer as well. All scientific evidence points towards sentient life creating sentient life, while there is no scientific evidence of non-sentient, non-life creating sentient life.
Most primitive peoples had their own creation myths. The ancient Hebrews had their own, two in fact. but they are no more believable than anyone elses.
If you want you can read them in Genesis.
There is no indication that anything more than the natural forces of the universe are required to account for what we observe.
Abiogenesis is subject to ccontinuing research. However, there is an example of sentient life arising from non-sentient life - US
Just because something dates back to ancient times doesnt mean its not true. Y do u have to diss most the people who simply lived before you did?That is a statement of arrogance.
I am not 'dissing' the ancients, they were as intelligent as we are. The only difference between them and us is that we have the benefit of a couple of thousand years of learned knowledge that was unavailable to them.
There is no shame in being wrong in he light of later knowledge.
The shame is holding on to ideas, like a 6,000 year old earth and special creation, that have been conclusively disproved, just because they are in a book that is deemed to be ‘holy’.
well u were the one who called them 'primitive'. That doesnt sound like as "intelligent" as we are. Look, the possibility of creation is not disproved. It is reaffirmed as we study and learn about life at the molecular level or about the vastness of the galaxies and their order.
@bobguk The age of the earth has not been proven, nor can it be proven by science since the dating methods used are assumptive and cannot be verified by going back in time. Conditions on earth have not always been the same. The necessity for a supernatural Creator has been found since the world of science tells us all life arises from life and all sentient life arises from sentient life. Without any counter examples, the only logical and rational conclusion is this occurred in the beginning.
The age of the earth has been determined by many different radiometric methods. They all agree on 4.56 billion years. This includes measurements made on meteorites which were never on earth, therefore conditions on earth are irrelevant.
No,it has not been shown that life only arises from life. If you are referring to Louis Pasteur, this is not what his experiments on rotting meat showed. We know that sentient life can arise from non-sentient life; and WE are the prime example.
@Markus77x7 There are over 40 different radiometric dating methods that all agree on the earth being at the very least a few hundred thousand years old; Far out of bible speculation.
Also not to mention tree rings, ice cores, and rock formations, which themselves also are at the very least several hundred thousand years old.
If you look at the stars, the universe has to be a certain age for the light of certain stars to reach us. The age of the earth is a scientificaly confirmed FACT.
@playerwithfaith So, you were there, were you? Even the Big Bang Theory in and of itself, indicates their was a beginning. And being that there was a beginning, something/someOne started it. I have read and heard of several scientists who have set out to prove the bible wrong, only to be converted by the truth they find. But I have never heard of a creationist setting out to prove the sciences wrong, and then converting to an athiest or agnostic. God is the great "I Am"!
@playerwithfaith Oh, uh, rhetoric, theory, science, it's all the same to me. Kinda like your response. Point blank. And BTW, where the heck do you get "appeal to authority" from your opinion of "logical fallacies"? The ONLY reason I believe the earth isn't "Old" is because I DO believe in the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. But I KNOW God is real, because He's PROVEN Himself to me; my mind (knowledge), my heart (soul) and my body (physical). Sooner or later, you will concur.
@hopegiver Can you or can you not refute the content of my orginal comment? I'm under the impression you cannot. Your "inspired word of God" is contradictory to REAL TANGIBLE EVIDENCE.
You are appealing to an authority figure in your rhetoric, in this case: scientists. Just because someone of authority believes something is true does not mean that it IS true based only on that proposition. It would be a logical fallacy to conclude such because it can be followed by reductio ad absurdum.
@playerwithfaith There you go, replying with your brain again. Know what's worse than being "brain-dead"? Not having a heart in the first place! Or being "heart-dead", if you will. (In case this confuses your brain, what that means is that you only think, not feel. In order to have balance when discussing ankind, one must address ALL aspects of a person; not all emotional (feelings), and not all knowledge. You must be a very lonely person, to only think, and not feel.
@hopegiver More rhetoric. More personal attacks. I find this to be the typical response from those who claim themselves to be these "enlightened people". It would be ironic if it wasn't so common place.
Yes, for the fourth time you have not addressed one single point I have made.
If you are "brave enough", provide evidence that your claims are true. Refute my points instead of avoiding them while simultaneously hurling lame insults.
@playerwithfaith If you're brave enough, check out Dean Overman's book, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, Rowman & Littlefield, 244 pp is reviewed in The Design Debate. TWO COMPETING REVIEWS, both from a theistic perspective and presented AND rebutted. Thought you might find it interesting.
@gary031183 Sorry...... King Kong is not my grandpa. I have no monkeys swinging in my family tree. You guys really crack me up..... will spend hours watching videos about something that you don't believe in. Don't have anything else better to do?
@mcap52 We watch things we don't agree with so we can challenge our thoughts and perceptions of the world, dummy! lol. The frustration sets in when others don't want to do the same- They just want to shout all day with their fingers in their ears. Yet, they want to change our science class into an 'intellegent design' class, and give churches tax breaks, and ignore the constitution about the separation of church and state, etc...
If you actually agree with Ray Comfort on anything... WOW! lol
I'll be nice, Ray. Either you are completely ignorant of what science teaches about evolution, or you lie to people on a regular basis when you portray evolution the way you do. Either issue can be fixed and I hope you do it soon.
Nice transitional organism. I'm working of a tree of life with the ancestors of Ray Comfort but it turns out he didn't take very long to evolve: just one day between him and clay.
Well, at least in this outing of the video the poor dog went 'woof' rather than 'meow'. Do you suppose that this indicates that Ray actually realizes that evolution does NOT say that dogs can evolve into cats? And in fact, if they did so that would DISprove evolution?
No chance; that would mean that he had actually learnt something about the subject, and his religion forbids that...
@216trixie I understand the statement and I get the theory: Everything is always evolving, generation to generation.
But the argument on the other side is that there are no fossils between a dinosaur and a chicken, or between sea plants and sea animals... the thing that comes from a fly is always a fly, etc.
All creatures capable of breeding can breed with creatures with the same ancestors. This is the basis for the understanding that all fossils are species-specific, and not transitional.
@nuclearjong The argument "on the other side that there is no fossils between a dinosaur and a chicken, or between sea plants......", is not an argument. These things never happened, and never will. Evolution does not say this. The fact is, there are thousands of transitional fossils , between species. But this takes place over much time, and does not produce wild, science fiction changes, like you imagine. That's just not how it works. Pleeeeaase, read a book on evolution.
The consensus, based upon the best evidence, is that birds evolved in the Jurassic, from small theropod dinosaurs. In fact you can say that birds ARE theropod dinosaurs.
The birds' wing is a modification of the tetrapod forelimb, just as a whale's flippers and our arms are.
Feathers, which are modified reptilian scales probably arose for heat insulation. Only later were they modified for flight.
@nuclearjong Your statement here is based entirely on ignorance. You are unaware of the fossils that we have that will link Jurassic dinosaurs and modern day birds and so you SAY that there are none. But have you taken the 20 seconds that is required to do an Internet search on the topic? If you had, you'd find MANY transitional fossils from dinosaurs to birds. Try looking up "Archeopteryx"...it has elongated upper limbs and proto-feathers like a bird, but the snout and hips of a reptile.
"Archeopteryx has been debunked time and time again..."
I don't know who told you this, but they were either lying or repeating a lie. Archeopterix, of which we have about 10 examples, has both avian and reptilian features; in fact if it were not for the feathers it would have been identified as a small theropod dinosaur.
Why? Jonathon Wells an ID advocate and Moonie, what does he know?
If you want to learn about evolution read Richard Dawkins 'The Greatest Show on Earth' or 'The Ancestors' Tale' or Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True'; or anything by the late Stephen J. Gould; or for that matter any number of good books that explain the evidence for and the mechanisms of evolution without trying to push the religion of Creationism (even if it is wearing the lab coat of Intelligent Design)
If you want to learn something about evolution read Richard Dawkins 'The Greatest Show on Earth' or 'The Ancestors' Tale' or Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True'; or anything by the late Stephen J. Gould; or for that matter any number of good books that explain the evidence for and the mechanisms of evolution without trying to push the religion on Creationism (even if it is wearing the lab coat of Intelligent Design)
@bobguk and @KingHeathen let's try this then. answersingenesis, crivoice, reasons, accuracyingenesis, reformed, godandscience, gotquestions, reformedanswers, standtoreason. All websites that have come to the same conclusion, evolution is not a proven fact. Not all say it's an absolute lie, but it's not a fact either. They are against the promoted notion that it's a fact, like gravity is. These articles are reviewed through different methods. There are your peer reviewed papers.
Evolution has been directly observed; that makes it a fact, just like gravity.
Your first website, answersingenesis do not COME to any conclusions, they BEGIN with their conclusion; that Genesis is literal. All their articles have to arrive at that pre-conceived notion as laid down in their statement of faith.
And ‘peer-reviewed article’ means a lot more than making sure the ‘t’s are crossed, the spelling is correct and the Old Testament is not contradicted.
@xsoccerdudecjx Something being reviewed doesn't mean the same thing as "peer-reviewed in a respected scientific paper." In peer review, one's peers tries to invalidated one's conclusions by exploring the limitations of your methodology and inferences. Peer review is an exclusively critical thing. All the websites you talk about are unscientific to start with - and they simply and uncritically bolster each other on the idea that evolution isn't real.
@mikeyman211 I understand the difference, but do you have any evidence to back up your claims? People who have worked for these websites and say this rather than other people deciding they're unscientific? Many scientific "facts" go without serious review as well.
@xsoccerdudecjx its called medicine. The majority of modern medicine - germ theory for example - is base on evolutionary premises. If evolution wasn't true, things like anti-biotic and vaccines wouldn't work or be necessary. The common cold would have gone extinct a long time ago. As with all technology, medicine is based on the conclusions of science, part of which is evolutionary theory.
But why don't you go read some of your credulous websites instead.
@mikeyman211 Please define which exact evolutionary premises. I don't deny either microevolution or natural selection as reliable, it's the transition from one entire species into another, like a tiny microbe eventually into us that I have a problem with. Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Probability. Those are Laws, not theories. They are facts, you can't contradict them.
Evolution is not a closed system, energy is input from the sun and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply.
A species is a group of organisms that can and does interbreed.
A microbe, depending on which one you choose, can be a different kingdom from us, not just species. This is a huge gap, and nobody suggests that it can be bridged in one huge leap. However, if you take small changes (see Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) there is no step that is too big for evolution.
@xsoccerdudecjx Anyone who says evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't understand it. It applies to closed systems. The earth and all life is not closed- its feed constant energy by the sun and volcanic heat. As for probabilities - given the 3.5 billion year timespan an uncountable generations involved, the amount of change from cell to human is hardly large - much greater would be capable of artificial selection was used since the beginning.
@rhettboy Evolution is neither, it's an unproven theory. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics and law of probability are laws, descriptions of natural phenomena. When a theory becomes a law, it's accepted as a fact. Why did you need this little lesson? Trying to belittle me?
@xsoccerdudecjx lulz wow, you got it so wrong in so many ways.First, the starting point are facts, not the end point. Facts are the boring observable bits, the data points. Because evolution has been observed, it is a fact. Law is not synonymous with fact.
@xsoccerdudecjx Second, theories do not, and never will, 'become a law'. Laws and theories are completely different from one another, and there's not one thing that separates theory from law, such that one becomes the other when it achieves that one thing. Laws describe the systematic mathematical relationship between facts. Theories describe the mechanism by which the facts behave in the way that they do. One cannot become the other because they describe different things.
@xsoccerdudecjx Lastly, no, I wasn't trying to belittle you, I was trying to educate you. If you felt like it was a humbling or belittling exercise, well, good. That might actually mean it's working.
My other advice to you is to put down the creationist literature, pick up an actual science book once in a while, and learn some of the basics. It'll stand you in better stead against people who actually know what they're talking about.
@rhettboy Ok, I appreciate the insight. However, I'm not stupid. Theories still must have facts backing them up, and if they don't accurately depict the mechanisms then they are still false. Contrary evidence that shows the mechanisms to be means the theory must change, and evolution has not changed to suit new findings. New findings have simply been dismissed unless they support evolution.
P.S. Saying I don't know what I'm talking about is belittlement. Just FYI.
@rhettboy I'm also assuming you're a naturalist. Well, that view in itself has contradictions in it. It fails as a worldview. Message me and I'll tell you why, commenting on videos is hard to follow.
Is that a peer reviewed journal? No? Did the author write a peer reviewed journal? Has ANYONE from your side EVER written a peer reviewed journal attempting to debunk the blatant evidence that HAS bee peer reviewed and found to be accurate?
@5tevef There's a difference? Are 6 Magic God Days not the same as 6 ordinary old human days?
In fact, it doesn't matter because the original point was about being able to confirm something as a fact, or not. Nice try at the red herring, though.
By your own logic, you can't call the assertion "God created the universe in 6 days" a fact, because, in your own words, “You can't state that it's a fact unless you were there to see it happen." Pure speculation. :-)
@rhettboy I totally agree. Just trying to enlighten those that think within the box. I can however believe that by statements contained in the bible that the eternal God who isn't constrained by time can make a statement concerning time to those that are constrained by time. Also, I cannot state it as fact but I can state it by my faith in an inerrant bible (also by faith) that it says so.
The sun set declares GOD's existance, His prophecy coming true is proff that He exists.
JESUS is the ultimate proff of GOD's existance. He died to save you from the wrath to come when GOD will judge this world in justice and righteousness.
Repent from your sin which is an offense to GOD authority and holyness and believe the Gospel.
I think it's kinda funny, even ironic, that a .44 second video of a cute poodle riding on the back of a bike has stirred up such a serious debate! Go T.D.!
hopegiver 1 year ago
According to Ken Ham, a Poodle is not a real dog! (hehehe) But, seriously folks, even Darwin himself said that he expected transitional forms would be found and if they were not that his whole theory should be put in the trash bin! Sad, but in all this time not one has been found yet Dawkins and others still cling to their RELIGION OF CHOICE, evolution. Not a religion? It most certainly is! Think about it.
barriebrown 1 year ago
ARF! ARF! :D
JCinluvwith 1 year ago
1) Crocoduck
2) Bananaman
3) Glasses Dog
4) ?????
5) Profit!!!!!
thunderfr00t 1 year ago
@thunderfr00t Haha this is that guy who believes nothing created everything. Lol professing themselves wise they became fools.
longviewsfinest14 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@longviewsfinest14 "Haha this is that guy who believes nothing created everything."
You are the one that believes everything CAME from nothing; ex nihilo. So that statement is kind of ironic coming from you.
That is also not the position of modern cosmology, but you would know that if you weren't an ignorant fundamentalist :D
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@longviewsfinest14 Matthew 5:22. And yeah, essentially nothing creating something is what science says. This is backed up by evidence, whereas belief in your god is backed up by...a self contradicting book.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah Oh an infidel trys to quote scriptures? Oh try to use the scriptures to attack me yet you don't even believe God and his Word you either believe it all or you don't at all. You need Jesus then show me scriptures kk. And I didn't call him a fool I was quoting a scripture which fits this situation. Romans 1:22 since you like quoting what you don't believe in so much buddy. Google it.
longviewsfinest14 1 year ago
@longviewsfinest14 Well, I'm pointing out what a hypocrite you are. Thanks for pointing out yet ANOTHER contradiction in your scripture!
I could quote the Art of War, if you wanted, doesn't mean I agree with the book. Unlike closed minded people(you) I actually study what other people think!
You're using scripture to call someone a fool. Thus you yourself are liable to the fires of hell. Logic is a tricky thing.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah Who cares what you think anyways? not me. Who are you? I don't know and don't care.
longviewsfinest14 1 year ago
@jesuriah You have to take everything in BALANCE! The bible, the Word of God, says for US not to call man a fool, but God himself, who knows the very deepest of our hearts, even the motives we have, has the right to call mere man a fool. And only He has that right. Big difference. Also, while God may call a man a sinner, a fool, or anything else, He has also provided a way of escape from our foolishness. Just Saying!
hopegiver 1 year ago
@hopegiver "but God himself, who knows the very deepest of our hearts, even the motives we have, has the right to call mere man a fool."
...So the god that created the flawed man has the right to denigrate the man because of the faults he(god) gave the man? I'm sorry, the logic does not follow.
"He has also provided a way of escape from our foolishness."
You mean his foolishness? According to your bible the universe exists entirely under god's control....cont..
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah Jesuriah, Jesuriah! God created man, not robots. He wanted a RELATIONSHIP, not mere puppets. He created man with a soul and with the choice to choose to obey, with good consequences or not to obey, with bad consequences. The rest is history (pun intended)! : D I like you Jesuriah. I have no problem with people being honest about what the do or don't believe. Even if they're wrong. And, NO, you're wrong, the bible doesn't say God's will is being done on earth, hence the Lord's prayer.
hopegiver 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hopegiver "He created man with a soul and with the choice to choose to obey, with good consequences or not to obey, with bad consequences."
So my analogies to despots stands.
"God's will was not being done when that happened. "
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. However, according to your theology, you're wrong. Nothing transpires that is against god's will. Ephesians, 1:3-12 and Psalm 139:16 explains this...cont..
jesuriah 1 year ago
@hopegiver Your god is omniscient right? He knows everything that can, will and has happened, correct? He has allowed terrible things to transpire, and done nothing to stop them. According to the bible, your god also created the universe, and thus everything that transpires here is in according with his plan. The Lord's prayer does not help your position, if anything it detracts from it. "Thy will be done as it is in Heaven" really leads one to believe in predestination.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah I know we're both probably wasting our time,but this is kinda fun, huh? Jesh (my nickname for ya), JESUS was teaching us how to pray, ie. have a conversation with God, which included us ASKING that His will would be done (someday), on earth as it is in heaven, BECAUSE GOD'S WILL IS NOT BEING DONE IN EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN - YET! Why would Jesus have us to ask for something that already was? Logic + Faith = Believing!
hopegiver 1 year ago
@hopegiver "God created man, not robots. He wanted a RELATIONSHIP, not mere puppets."
Yes and no. Again, because of the predestination the bible teaches.
"The evil in this world, rape, molestation, torture, murder, abuse, you name it, the very Evil that reigns in the earth is the same that denies God. "
The evil that god created and allows to run rampant? This is still supporting my comparison of an evil tyrant. Besides, how many people were killed in god's name in the bible? Millions.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah So, if a wierdo were to be following your threads and become a "fan", i.e. follower, and he/she were to go out and kill, and do so in YOUR name, does that mean that you are allowing it, even owning it, per se'? Is it not a fact that enemies will penetrate each other's group and do things in that groups "name" (gangs for example, or James Bond-type scenarios, Democrates "in" the Tea Party meetings, etc.), so they can make that group look bad the the public? Your smarter than that Jesh.
hopegiver 1 year ago
@hopegiver Oh and on intelligent design. ID isn't science, there was a court ruling about it.
The concept was so bankrupt it couldn't even convince a republican church-going judge to approve it.
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@hopegiver Hey, sorry, I didn't see that you had responded again until today.
"So, if a wierdo were to be following your threads and become a "fan", i.e. follower, and he/she were to go out and kill, and do so in YOUR name, does that mean that you are allowing it, even owning it, per se"
Nowhere in my videos do I advocate violence. This is also a strawman argument, as I do not claim to have created the universe.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah "Yes and no. Again, because of the predestination the bible teaches." I knew you were going to say that! And God did too. But it was your thought, your choice and your action. Logic is a tricky thing. : )
hopegiver 1 year ago
@hopegiver ...Anything that can or will happen in this universe(according to Christianity), has happened with god's consent. To call man foolish is to completely miss the point of who would be liable if the Christian god existed. Anyone who would be murdered, raped, etc. becomes a victim because of your god's will.
Even if that god existed he would be an evil tyrant no more worthy of worship than Mother Theresa, the Dalai Llama, John Gotti, or Pablo Escobar.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah Wrong again. I'm a survior of rape, at gun point. God's will was not being done when that happened. You know the sad thing? The evil in this world, rape, molestation, torture, murder, abuse, you name it, the very Evil that reigns in the earth is the same that denies God. To be refuse such a loving and caring God is to side with all the horrible things that go on. I'm thankful I survived what happened to me. And I continue to pray for God's will to be done, on earth as it is in heaven!
hopegiver 1 year ago
@jesuriah Everything happens for a reason, yes. With God's knowledge that it's going to happen, yes. And, yes, God does ALLOW bad things to happen, but that's not the same as consent. If He was okay with all the bad that goes on in the world, He wouldn't have sent Jesus to be one of us, live perfectly, be tortured physically, be falsly condemned, and the rejected by God himself due to the repulsion of ALL sins ever commited or to be committed. What about ALL the prophecies of Jesus fullfilled?
hopegiver 1 year ago
@hopegiver You're not getting what I'm saying, so here it is as a syllogism.
God created the universe according to his plan.
God is omniscient
Therefore, everything that happens in this universe was planned by your god.
"What about ALL the prophecies of Jesus fullfilled?"
Where's the evidence?
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah You have to take everything in BALANCE! The bible, the Word of God, says for US not to call man a fool, but God himself, who knows the very deepest of our hearts, even the motives we have, has the right to call mere man a fool. And only He has that right. Big difference. Also, while God may call a man a sinner, a fool, or anything else, He has also provided a way of escape from our foolishness. Just Saying!
hopegiver 1 year ago
@jesuriah it does not contradict itself. Read it! you are wrong on this one.
argomand 1 year ago
@argomand Does the bible tell us not to call people fools? Yes. Does the bible call people fools? Yes. It's a contradiction.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah It does tell us not to insult people. There are fool's, there are foolish, but there is a fine line between insulting and constructive critisizim.
argomand 1 year ago
@argomand Calling someone a fool is not constructive criticism. There is nothing constructive about telling someone they're stupid.
doombuggy123 1 year ago
@doombuggy123 actually you are calling what they are doing stupid so they can correct their foolish actions.
argomand 1 year ago
By ‘primitive’ I was referring to the level their societies had reached compared with ours. They were as intelligent as we are.
There is no possibility of a creation event along the lines of a creation week 6,000 years ago Everything we have discovered over the past two centuries shows this. Nor has any necessity for a supernatural ‘creator’ been found, Evolution accounts for life's complexity, and order is not a term that springs to mind when discussing galactic events.
bobguk 1 year ago
Unlike other ancient cultures, the Hebrews wrote in a historical, rather than mythical, prose. The entire Hebrew Bible is written as historical narrative and has always been regarded as such. All humans are examples of sentient life arising from sentient life. All life is an example of life arising from life. Given the universal nature of the evidence, there is no logical or scientific reason to believe this did not happen in the beginning. The claim of abiogenesis is simply faith.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
is this a joke or is ray not understanding something again?
12tod 1 year ago
Totally cute! Definitely a Dog About Town!
MegaBlackViolet 1 year ago
Well, given the fact that the scientific method in all of its testable forms clearly demonstrates that only sentient living matter can give rise to sentient living matter, I'd say Intelligent Design or the Genesis creation account is the truth.
If the evolutionists can demonstrate factually via the scientific method that non-sentient non-living matter is capable of giving rise to sentient living matter by way of unguided processes with no intelligent thought involved, then I'll understand.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
@Markus77x7
Evolution is silent on the origin of life; only how life diversified once it became established.
Abiogenesis, which is the study of life's origins, has many leads as to how this it could have happened. We don't have a full theory of abiogenesis yet, but we are working our way towards one.
We do know however, that the Genesis account must be false, and there is no indication whatsoever that God, also known as 'The Intelligent Designer’ is responsible.
bobguk 1 year ago
@bobguk The ancient Hebrews (Jews) provided every indication that God was responsible for the creation of the universe, the earth and all life. They documented it. Science confirms a sentient living Designer as well. All scientific evidence points towards sentient life creating sentient life, while there is no scientific evidence of non-sentient, non-life creating sentient life.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
@Markus77x7
Most primitive peoples had their own creation myths. The ancient Hebrews had their own, two in fact. but they are no more believable than anyone elses.
If you want you can read them in Genesis.
There is no indication that anything more than the natural forces of the universe are required to account for what we observe.
Abiogenesis is subject to ccontinuing research. However, there is an example of sentient life arising from non-sentient life - US
bobguk 1 year ago
@bobguk
"Most primitive peoples"
Just because something dates back to ancient times doesnt mean its not true. Y do u have to diss most the people who simply lived before you did?That is a statement of arrogance.
creationcenterTV 1 year ago
@creationcenterTV
I am not 'dissing' the ancients, they were as intelligent as we are. The only difference between them and us is that we have the benefit of a couple of thousand years of learned knowledge that was unavailable to them.
There is no shame in being wrong in he light of later knowledge.
The shame is holding on to ideas, like a 6,000 year old earth and special creation, that have been conclusively disproved, just because they are in a book that is deemed to be ‘holy’.
bobguk 1 year ago
@bobguk
well u were the one who called them 'primitive'. That doesnt sound like as "intelligent" as we are. Look, the possibility of creation is not disproved. It is reaffirmed as we study and learn about life at the molecular level or about the vastness of the galaxies and their order.
creationcenterTV 1 year ago
@bobguk The age of the earth has not been proven, nor can it be proven by science since the dating methods used are assumptive and cannot be verified by going back in time. Conditions on earth have not always been the same. The necessity for a supernatural Creator has been found since the world of science tells us all life arises from life and all sentient life arises from sentient life. Without any counter examples, the only logical and rational conclusion is this occurred in the beginning.
Markus77x7 1 year ago
@Markus77x7
The age of the earth has been determined by many different radiometric methods. They all agree on 4.56 billion years. This includes measurements made on meteorites which were never on earth, therefore conditions on earth are irrelevant.
No,it has not been shown that life only arises from life. If you are referring to Louis Pasteur, this is not what his experiments on rotting meat showed. We know that sentient life can arise from non-sentient life; and WE are the prime example.
bobguk 1 year ago
@Markus77x7 There are over 40 different radiometric dating methods that all agree on the earth being at the very least a few hundred thousand years old; Far out of bible speculation.
Also not to mention tree rings, ice cores, and rock formations, which themselves also are at the very least several hundred thousand years old.
If you look at the stars, the universe has to be a certain age for the light of certain stars to reach us. The age of the earth is a scientificaly confirmed FACT.
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith So, you were there, were you? Even the Big Bang Theory in and of itself, indicates their was a beginning. And being that there was a beginning, something/someOne started it. I have read and heard of several scientists who have set out to prove the bible wrong, only to be converted by the truth they find. But I have never heard of a creationist setting out to prove the sciences wrong, and then converting to an athiest or agnostic. God is the great "I Am"!
hopegiver 1 year ago
@hopegiver Are you going to actually argue with the content of my comment, or just spout retoric?
You said nothing to try to discredit the fact that the earth IS "old".
Retoric should be saved for when you have made your opponent concede a point, not as an opening statement.
Not to mention the fact that your retoric contains logical fallacies, such as "appeal to authority".
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith Oh, uh, rhetoric, theory, science, it's all the same to me. Kinda like your response. Point blank. And BTW, where the heck do you get "appeal to authority" from your opinion of "logical fallacies"? The ONLY reason I believe the earth isn't "Old" is because I DO believe in the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. But I KNOW God is real, because He's PROVEN Himself to me; my mind (knowledge), my heart (soul) and my body (physical). Sooner or later, you will concur.
hopegiver 1 year ago
@hopegiver Can you or can you not refute the content of my orginal comment? I'm under the impression you cannot. Your "inspired word of God" is contradictory to REAL TANGIBLE EVIDENCE.
You are appealing to an authority figure in your rhetoric, in this case: scientists. Just because someone of authority believes something is true does not mean that it IS true based only on that proposition. It would be a logical fallacy to conclude such because it can be followed by reductio ad absurdum.
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith There you go, replying with your brain again. Know what's worse than being "brain-dead"? Not having a heart in the first place! Or being "heart-dead", if you will. (In case this confuses your brain, what that means is that you only think, not feel. In order to have balance when discussing ankind, one must address ALL aspects of a person; not all emotional (feelings), and not all knowledge. You must be a very lonely person, to only think, and not feel.
hopegiver 1 year ago
@hopegiver More rhetoric. More personal attacks. I find this to be the typical response from those who claim themselves to be these "enlightened people". It would be ironic if it wasn't so common place.
Yes, for the fourth time you have not addressed one single point I have made.
If you are "brave enough", provide evidence that your claims are true. Refute my points instead of avoiding them while simultaneously hurling lame insults.
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
If either of you are BRAVE enough, check this link out. THEN tell me what you think.
(you know how to start this part off, I'm sure) carm.org/prophecy-bible-and-jesus
(Double-dog dare ya'!)
hopegiver 1 year ago
@playerwithfaith If you're brave enough, check out Dean Overman's book, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, Rowman & Littlefield, 244 pp is reviewed in The Design Debate. TWO COMPETING REVIEWS, both from a theistic perspective and presented AND rebutted. Thought you might find it interesting.
hopegiver 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Markus77x7 "since the dating methods used are assumptive"
No. Radioactive decay is something that has been measured thousands of times. Science does not work on assumptions.
jesuriah 1 year ago
poor dog.
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
That was so cute.
jpepling 1 year ago
What's the song that is playing?
tobysimmons 1 year ago
How much of your parishioners money did that dog cost?
Bugglebear 1 year ago
that's a dang ugly dawg ray. it's the type of thing i'd put on a hook to catch fish with. problem is, fish'll probably ignore it
;-P
johnnyflowerboy 1 year ago
Why do you believe something of which there is no evidence to support?
Why do you believe something that contradicts itself?
Good works should be seen. Mt.5:16.
Good works should not be seen. Mt.6:1-4.
Why do you believe something that totally goes against logic and integrated mathematics?
A human walking on water.
asdsdsdsadsadsadasds 1 year ago
Humble...mercy...Thanks !
nepheshchayyah41 1 year ago
Bow Wow! ... a dog wearing sun glasses does not mean he/she is gay.
Try this test: GoodPersonTEST com
GoodPersonTestDOTcom 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoodPersonTestDOTcom 1 year ago
Your dog is gay. Huh huh
toonmonkey 1 year ago
Wow ... I need to get one of those trailers for CoCo ( Pomeranian) and I. Great idea Brother! NeedGOD com
TerryBBurton 1 year ago
hilarious!!!
Samuru2007 1 year ago
Yet, another ridiculous video by a ridiculous person! Evolution is a fact Ray.....accept it!
gary031183 1 year ago
@gary031183 Sorry...... King Kong is not my grandpa. I have no monkeys swinging in my family tree. You guys really crack me up..... will spend hours watching videos about something that you don't believe in. Don't have anything else better to do?
mcap52 1 year ago
@mcap52 We watch things we don't agree with so we can challenge our thoughts and perceptions of the world, dummy! lol. The frustration sets in when others don't want to do the same- They just want to shout all day with their fingers in their ears. Yet, they want to change our science class into an 'intellegent design' class, and give churches tax breaks, and ignore the constitution about the separation of church and state, etc...
If you actually agree with Ray Comfort on anything... WOW! lol
gary031183 1 year ago
I could've found a better way to use that 44 seconds of my life. :^(
Kevbox2008 1 year ago
That dog is cooler than me. . .
220duckie 1 year ago
Guess the Discovery Institute isnt writing you checks like they used too...that bikes lookin good.
laxstar3 1 year ago
I'll be nice, Ray. Either you are completely ignorant of what science teaches about evolution, or you lie to people on a regular basis when you portray evolution the way you do. Either issue can be fixed and I hope you do it soon.
postalgbv 1 year ago
that was cute :D
MeanHacker 1 year ago
I have a question: did Ray Comfort evolve into a cunt?
ultimateinfinite 1 year ago
A true transitional form - half dog half Ray Comfort - the living proof of evolution!
sjuas690 1 year ago
hahahahaha so random :) love this ministry though! cute dog ray!
michelaspage 1 year ago
Comment removed
michelaspage 1 year ago
Hey Ray, you should raise your bike seat a bit higher to get more power from your legs which will make your cycling easier
Nightzo 1 year ago
Nice transitional organism. I'm working of a tree of life with the ancestors of Ray Comfort but it turns out he didn't take very long to evolve: just one day between him and clay.
handplanty 1 year ago
So it's either a "Transportational Dog" or the sunglasses indicate it's slowly getting closer to being human; am I getting it?
I'm not laughing but I still love you.
nuclearjong 1 year ago
lol i love you guys!
EvangelistMissionary 1 year ago
what in the world lol
Acuraintegraman1 1 year ago 2
Well, at least in this outing of the video the poor dog went 'woof' rather than 'meow'. Do you suppose that this indicates that Ray actually realizes that evolution does NOT say that dogs can evolve into cats? And in fact, if they did so that would DISprove evolution?
No chance; that would mean that he had actually learnt something about the subject, and his religion forbids that...
bobguk 1 year ago
cute dog
gerinja 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All fossils are transitional.
216trixie 1 year ago
@216trixie how do u falsify this claim?
leviMichealathan 1 year ago
@216trixie I understand the statement and I get the theory: Everything is always evolving, generation to generation.
But the argument on the other side is that there are no fossils between a dinosaur and a chicken, or between sea plants and sea animals... the thing that comes from a fly is always a fly, etc.
All creatures capable of breeding can breed with creatures with the same ancestors. This is the basis for the understanding that all fossils are species-specific, and not transitional.
nuclearjong 1 year ago
@nuclearjong The argument "on the other side that there is no fossils between a dinosaur and a chicken, or between sea plants......", is not an argument. These things never happened, and never will. Evolution does not say this. The fact is, there are thousands of transitional fossils , between species. But this takes place over much time, and does not produce wild, science fiction changes, like you imagine. That's just not how it works. Pleeeeaase, read a book on evolution.
216trixie 1 year ago
@216trixie I did.
Before the ancestors of birds had feathers and wings, were they possibly reptilian, even dinosaurs?
It had been my understanding that this was a common belief on the evolution side.
If birds did not originate from reptilian ancestors, what were they before they were birds?
nuclearjong 1 year ago
@nuclearjong
The consensus, based upon the best evidence, is that birds evolved in the Jurassic, from small theropod dinosaurs. In fact you can say that birds ARE theropod dinosaurs.
The birds' wing is a modification of the tetrapod forelimb, just as a whale's flippers and our arms are.
Feathers, which are modified reptilian scales probably arose for heat insulation. Only later were they modified for flight.
bobguk 1 year ago
@nuclearjong We know that birds are descendants of reptiles. And there are transitional species showing this.
216trixie 1 year ago
@nuclearjong Your statement here is based entirely on ignorance. You are unaware of the fossils that we have that will link Jurassic dinosaurs and modern day birds and so you SAY that there are none. But have you taken the 20 seconds that is required to do an Internet search on the topic? If you had, you'd find MANY transitional fossils from dinosaurs to birds. Try looking up "Archeopteryx"...it has elongated upper limbs and proto-feathers like a bird, but the snout and hips of a reptile.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen Archeopteryx has been debunked time and time again...
xsoccerdudecjx 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx
"Archeopteryx has been debunked time and time again..."
I don't know who told you this, but they were either lying or repeating a lie. Archeopterix, of which we have about 10 examples, has both avian and reptilian features; in fact if it were not for the feathers it would have been identified as a small theropod dinosaur.
It is a true transitional
bobguk 1 year ago
@bobguk I shouldn't have to go over this. Read "Icons of Evolution"
xsoccerdudecjx 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx
Why? Jonathon Wells an ID advocate and Moonie, what does he know?
If you want to learn about evolution read Richard Dawkins 'The Greatest Show on Earth' or 'The Ancestors' Tale' or Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True'; or anything by the late Stephen J. Gould; or for that matter any number of good books that explain the evidence for and the mechanisms of evolution without trying to push the religion of Creationism (even if it is wearing the lab coat of Intelligent Design)
bobguk 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx
Why?
Isn’t Jonathon Wells an ID advocate and Moonie?
If you want to learn something about evolution read Richard Dawkins 'The Greatest Show on Earth' or 'The Ancestors' Tale' or Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is True'; or anything by the late Stephen J. Gould; or for that matter any number of good books that explain the evidence for and the mechanisms of evolution without trying to push the religion on Creationism (even if it is wearing the lab coat of Intelligent Design)
bobguk 1 year ago
@bobguk and @KingHeathen let's try this then. answersingenesis, crivoice, reasons, accuracyingenesis, reformed, godandscience, gotquestions, reformedanswers, standtoreason. All websites that have come to the same conclusion, evolution is not a proven fact. Not all say it's an absolute lie, but it's not a fact either. They are against the promoted notion that it's a fact, like gravity is. These articles are reviewed through different methods. There are your peer reviewed papers.
xsoccerdudecjx 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx
Evolution has been directly observed; that makes it a fact, just like gravity.
Your first website, answersingenesis do not COME to any conclusions, they BEGIN with their conclusion; that Genesis is literal. All their articles have to arrive at that pre-conceived notion as laid down in their statement of faith.
And ‘peer-reviewed article’ means a lot more than making sure the ‘t’s are crossed, the spelling is correct and the Old Testament is not contradicted.
bobguk 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx Something being reviewed doesn't mean the same thing as "peer-reviewed in a respected scientific paper." In peer review, one's peers tries to invalidated one's conclusions by exploring the limitations of your methodology and inferences. Peer review is an exclusively critical thing. All the websites you talk about are unscientific to start with - and they simply and uncritically bolster each other on the idea that evolution isn't real.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 I understand the difference, but do you have any evidence to back up your claims? People who have worked for these websites and say this rather than other people deciding they're unscientific? Many scientific "facts" go without serious review as well.
xsoccerdudecjx 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx its called medicine. The majority of modern medicine - germ theory for example - is base on evolutionary premises. If evolution wasn't true, things like anti-biotic and vaccines wouldn't work or be necessary. The common cold would have gone extinct a long time ago. As with all technology, medicine is based on the conclusions of science, part of which is evolutionary theory.
But why don't you go read some of your credulous websites instead.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@mikeyman211 Please define which exact evolutionary premises. I don't deny either microevolution or natural selection as reliable, it's the transition from one entire species into another, like a tiny microbe eventually into us that I have a problem with. Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Probability. Those are Laws, not theories. They are facts, you can't contradict them.
xsoccerdudecjx 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx i'm calling you on your nonsense. please state the second law of thermodynamics and the "law of probability".
Egendomlighet 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx
Evolution is not a closed system, energy is input from the sun and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply.
A species is a group of organisms that can and does interbreed.
A microbe, depending on which one you choose, can be a different kingdom from us, not just species. This is a huge gap, and nobody suggests that it can be bridged in one huge leap. However, if you take small changes (see Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) there is no step that is too big for evolution.
bobguk 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx Anyone who says evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't understand it. It applies to closed systems. The earth and all life is not closed- its feed constant energy by the sun and volcanic heat. As for probabilities - given the 3.5 billion year timespan an uncountable generations involved, the amount of change from cell to human is hardly large - much greater would be capable of artificial selection was used since the beginning.
mikeyman211 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx Well which are they, laws or facts, or both? Laws and facts aren't one and the same.
If you're going to try and talk about science, you might want to brush up on the basic definitional stuff first.
rhettboy 1 year ago
@rhettboy Evolution is neither, it's an unproven theory. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics and law of probability are laws, descriptions of natural phenomena. When a theory becomes a law, it's accepted as a fact. Why did you need this little lesson? Trying to belittle me?
xsoccerdudecjx 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx lulz wow, you got it so wrong in so many ways.First, the starting point are facts, not the end point. Facts are the boring observable bits, the data points. Because evolution has been observed, it is a fact. Law is not synonymous with fact.
rhettboy 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx Second, theories do not, and never will, 'become a law'. Laws and theories are completely different from one another, and there's not one thing that separates theory from law, such that one becomes the other when it achieves that one thing. Laws describe the systematic mathematical relationship between facts. Theories describe the mechanism by which the facts behave in the way that they do. One cannot become the other because they describe different things.
rhettboy 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx Third, science (except math), doesn't seek to prove anything. It just doesn't disprove things, yet. Your 'unproven theory' assertion is therefore meaningless.
rhettboy 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx Lastly, no, I wasn't trying to belittle you, I was trying to educate you. If you felt like it was a humbling or belittling exercise, well, good. That might actually mean it's working.
My other advice to you is to put down the creationist literature, pick up an actual science book once in a while, and learn some of the basics. It'll stand you in better stead against people who actually know what they're talking about.
rhettboy 1 year ago
@rhettboy Ok, I appreciate the insight. However, I'm not stupid. Theories still must have facts backing them up, and if they don't accurately depict the mechanisms then they are still false. Contrary evidence that shows the mechanisms to be means the theory must change, and evolution has not changed to suit new findings. New findings have simply been dismissed unless they support evolution.
P.S. Saying I don't know what I'm talking about is belittlement. Just FYI.
xsoccerdudecjx 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx Which 'new findings' are you talking about?
rhettboy 1 year ago
@rhettboy Actually, I'll just PM.
rhettboy 1 year ago
@rhettboy I'm also assuming you're a naturalist. Well, that view in itself has contradictions in it. It fails as a worldview. Message me and I'll tell you why, commenting on videos is hard to follow.
xsoccerdudecjx 1 year ago
@xsoccerdudecjx
Is that a peer reviewed journal? No? Did the author write a peer reviewed journal? Has ANYONE from your side EVER written a peer reviewed journal attempting to debunk the blatant evidence that HAS bee peer reviewed and found to be accurate?
Didn't think so.
KingHeathen 1 year ago 2
@bobguk You can't state that it's a fact unless you were there to see it happen. Pure speculation.
5tevef 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tevef
"You can't state that it's a fact unless you were there to see it happen. Pure speculation."
No, you cn deduce what has happened from the evidence left behind. If what you say is true the whole of our legal system is invalid.
However, it's all academic. People have been there to observe speciation. Pure fact.
bobguk 1 year ago
@5tevef Like the fact "God created the universe in 6 days", right? :-)
rhettboy 1 year ago
@rhettboy Are you talking your 6 days or His?
5tevef 1 year ago
@5tevef There's a difference? Are 6 Magic God Days not the same as 6 ordinary old human days?
In fact, it doesn't matter because the original point was about being able to confirm something as a fact, or not. Nice try at the red herring, though.
By your own logic, you can't call the assertion "God created the universe in 6 days" a fact, because, in your own words, “You can't state that it's a fact unless you were there to see it happen." Pure speculation. :-)
rhettboy 1 year ago
@rhettboy I totally agree. Just trying to enlighten those that think within the box. I can however believe that by statements contained in the bible that the eternal God who isn't constrained by time can make a statement concerning time to those that are constrained by time. Also, I cannot state it as fact but I can state it by my faith in an inerrant bible (also by faith) that it says so.
5tevef 1 year ago
Transitional stupidity
Ryosuke1208 1 year ago
I get it.
jshjamaar 1 year ago
What`s this, what are you telling us`
I found it confusing???
lorrainegate 1 year ago
It's...A pun?
I uhhh, alright then.
Another nail in the coffin for the evils of science, and reason!
playerwithfaith 1 year ago
I don't get it...
ianmathwiz7 1 year ago
what about this one?
watch?v=pNrt90MJL08
rphamning 1 year ago
have you seen this video? watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8
rphamning 1 year ago
Yes, dogs, like all life, are transitional.
EssentialPedagogy 1 year ago
You're such a dork, Ray.
BishopRealTalk98 1 year ago
I don't think there are any gods.
TanTanDaDude 1 year ago
@TanTanDaDude
The sun set declares GOD's existance, His prophecy coming true is proff that He exists.
JESUS is the ultimate proff of GOD's existance. He died to save you from the wrath to come when GOD will judge this world in justice and righteousness.
Repent from your sin which is an offense to GOD authority and holyness and believe the Gospel.
Glory2JESUS4ever 1 year ago
I don't know what to say to this.
LetUsAdoreHim 1 year ago
first
JM12101 1 year ago