You seem to lack the basic concept of what a scientific theory is. "Still a theory", There is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. A theory that is not well established is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.
Respectfully, this video is a paper tiger, red herring, strawman.I don't know if you're sincere or a propagandist. giving you benefit of doubt; why do you hate Christianity? Granted, There are a lot of bad representations. Todd Bently, Chistian Coalition, Mormonism, Republicans, Democrats. Yuck! George Bush makes all of the USA look bad. But America is still based on good and real principles, has good ppl, patriots. Like gravity, whether you believe in it or not doesn't make it any less true.
"There are a lot of bad representations. Todd Bently, Chistian Coalition, Mormonism, Republicans, Democrats.
You forgot Hovind, Ham, Brown and the rest of the charlatans who obfuscate scientific principles and well established theories in hopes of keeping their flocks from straying.
"George Bush makes all of the USA look bad."
Bush, as well as ALL christians, base their beliefs right out of the Bible, the VERY same book you do. What makes their interpretations wrong and your's right?
"Science is Science, it is the dishonest, closed minded, arrogant, humanist, so-called scientists that are the tools."
And exactly how is it that the minority of scientists are able to keep the majority of scientists from establishing empirical observations of the divine?
What you fail to realize is that the true measure of being a scientist is the ability to recognize, and account for, personal bias. That's what makes the scientific method (and theories) so accurate.
"science is hostile towards any evidence that points to a creator"
Science is not a conscious entity, it is merely a tool.
"A tool in the hands of biased, flawed, human beings who misuse it, take it out of context, distort it. A claw hammer is a tool too. I wouldn't want to put in the hands of Charlie Manson."
"But to make [science] your God is sad."
Hahahaha! More tripe. I deify and worship nothing.
You deify your own arguments as infalable. (tripe?.. really? Megatron is that you?")
"So the fact that water freezes when temperature drops somehow proves complex, life arises from random chance?"
Nope. It shows one of the many hundreds to thousands of examples of localized pockets of decreased entropy WHICH you sayed there is no proof of. You were WRONG, again.
"So the fact that water freezes when temperature drops"
Think about it. How is the water in a freezer able to freeze? The metal, foam, plastic and gasses that makes the freezer are examples of decreased entropy. Each of these are in turn made possible by other decreases in entropy. All of these pockets of decreased entropy are in turn made possible by the INCREASED entropy of the sun.
@twothlesswonder The thermodynamnic theory is si pathetic I sometimes wander if its made up by something satirising creationists. How do these people think living beings that do not use the sun directly for energy live? It comes about by photosynthesis.. entropy in reverse.
The earth is one part of the universal closed system, and energy can be transferred from one thing to another (the sun powers the electrons to push 'uphill' creating sugar from co2 and water)
@markgg1 I agree. I find it rather amusing when creationists trot out that old mule. I can provide them with hundreds, if not thousands of examples (most rather simple) of decreasing entropy and when I do, they disappear or attempt to change the subject. They HATE being shown they are wrong. I LOVE to shake their faith (creationists, that is). I consider it obligatory.
FACT: Everything that is. Energy, Matter is a result of something. Everything has a cause. Simple Law of CAuse and Effect. Either the Universe has always existed, or it had a creator. Ultimately there has to be an uncaused first cause. Logic, common sense dictates the Universe did not and could not have created itself. Hence the Need for an uncaused first cause.
Your Video lumps all creationist into a young earth paradigm. Not Correct.
FACT: Overwhelming majority of Human beings beleive in a God. Why? How does science explain this?
FACT: Historical secular documents, archeaology back up the accounts of the Bible to the extent they go back.
FACT: Scientists are expelled from major universities by peers for following evidence that even suggests a creator. This ensures a humanistic (biased), darwinain (flawed), intolerant (bigoted) worldview is taught in school, so kids are indoctrinated into a false religion.
"Logic, common sense dictates the Universe did not and could not have created itself."
Actually, there's nothing "logical" about the beginning of the universe as we know it. Much of it is very counterintuitive. Your assertion that scientists claim the universe created itself is a blatantly dishonest strawman tactic. Show me one published paper stating that.
"Your Video lumps all creationist into a young earth paradigm."
It should be QUITE obvious I refer to YEC in the first seconds.
wrong-o. you don't say young earth creationinst, you say creation believe the earth is 6,000 years old blah, blah, blah. So the first frame is a misrepresentation, and it just goes downhill from there. You pick and choose which arguments to dispute, and you mis-represent those arguments at that! This is why you cannot defend the simple question of how the Universe came into being. cause and effect. YOU CANNOT ANSWER THIS! you're version of science fails miserably.
Tell me, what is the definition of a creationist who thinks the Earth is only 6,000years old? OEC? No. YEC? Yes. So, it's PLAINLY obvious I am referring to young Earth creationism.
Yes I can;easily. God is the uncaused first cause. Logically there has to be one. Logically it cannot be the Universe but must be an intelligent creative force. God existence transcends your understanding. Simply put, things cannot create themselves. God is the simpliest, only logical conclusion. Everything else is a dishonest attempt to make themself God. You'd have to be someone so ridiculous you prb listen to System of a down or Disturbed or some other nihlistic emo crap to deny this.
I "deny this" because of lack of evidence, not because of what music I listen to, what an absurd statement.
The only logical answer is that matter and energy have always existed, which follows the law of conservation. If you are asking what caused the big bang to occur, we simply do not know as of right know and it would be unscientific to attempt to answer that question. It may have been a collision of 2 molecules, but that is only speculation.
azdjoe It's hard to prove that leprachauns don't exist. It's hard to prove there's no god. But it's easy to prove the Christian God doesn't exist. It is logically impossible that any being can have the following characteristics: 1- all-knowing 2- all-powerful 3- actively involved in human affairs 4- loving in nature. 1 and 2 and 3 are consistent. 1 and 3 and 4 can be consistent. But to see evil and choose not to stop it one cannot be loving.
@azdjoe God is a simple conclusion, but it is simple because it hasnt been looked into properly... and frankly there is no possible way we know of that can prove this.
Simplicity fo a theory doesnt mean its true.
Also, saying god infact adds a layer of complexity to the quesiton because thn its about explaining where god came from? If you say hes infinite, why cant the universe be so to?
@azdjoe Maybe you can say 'logically this, logically that' but logic doesn not prove an idea. The human body lacks lots of 'logic'.. such as the IgE antibody. it appears to have no benefit whatsoever accept kills people from asthma, anyphalaxis, and toxic shock... why did god make it to attack the huamn body... Fortunately us lowly humans have figured out ways to counter gods grand design to save lives.
Science can't prove a lot of things. Human Beings are inheritently flawed, and limited in what we can comprehend. What was that phrase about Horatio and more imaginable than can be contained by your philosphy? In my view, mixing the physical without the "metaphysical" context is the real "doomed venture"
"In my view, mixing the physical without the "metaphysical" context is the real "doomed venture""
How does one mix the physical with nothing?
Listen, if you've got some "FACTS" you would like to discuss, I'll be here. But if all you want to do is discuss philosophy or epistemology, then you'll be doing it alone, and somewhere else.
FACT: There is not proof of your so-called decreased entropy anywhere. Please present one instance of random chance giving rise to order. You can't there is none.
FACT: Leading scientists are divided on whether or not there is a God. However academia rejects it outright.
FACT: The odds that life could exist from random chance are statsically impossible.
FACT: Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain life. The fossil record does not support it.
"FACT: There is not proof of your so-called decreased entropy anywhere."
Ever use an ice tray in a freezer? I have thousands of simple evidences if you like...
"FACT: Leading scientists are divided on whether or not there is a God. However academia rejects it outright."
Since scientists cannot come to a consensus as to the definition of "god" or a SINGLE way to empirically test for it, one shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of consilience between any religion and science.
Statistically impossible? It's a good thing life isn't dependent on statistics, huh?
Amen to that!
Millions of years of evolution should yield hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils. We have a tooth here, a femer there and a lot of imagination to fill in the blanks. Australopithicus, has one questionalbe representative "Lucy" Then there is piltdown man... proving the falicy of the anthropological community to see what they want, and be fooled by an obvious fraud
Not just scientists. They entire human race defines God differently. Everyone who thinks they can define God is mistaken. We only know of His attributes. However, science and Christianity agree on many things. Archeology, history, for example.
"However, science and Christianity agree on many things. Archeology, history, for example."
So that makes the Bible a scientifically accurate depiction of the world?
"We only know of His attributes."
No "we" don't. Show me a single empirical source proving these attributes. If we HAD proved these attributes, we would have a means for establishing the validity of "god".
Then you point to the bible... but wait. Almost every religion suggests a creator. Why go after the Bible? Maybe because it contains the one thing you hate the most: Truth. Again creationism embodies more that young earth fundamentalist Christians. So now you're 0 - 2. textbook strawman arguments. However geneology in the bible does backup one facet. The population of the Earth, given the observed rate of growth, points to a starting point that lines up with the time of Noah!
Because people like you insist that the Bible is a scientifically accurate depiction of reality. Attempting to force a modern scientific understanding into a compilation of bronze age religious texts will fail every time.
Noah? Wow, you are deluded. The bible and geology are practically opposites. There is almost no evidence to back up any of the claims of the bible, some even dispute that Jesus ever existed.
Hmm. Can you prove Noah didn't exist? I guess the 89% of Christians in the USA are deluded and you're really smart? Some claim the Earth is Flat or George Washington didn't exist. The evidence to back up what is in the Bible is Overwhelming. It is the only historically accurate religious text in existance. ARcheaology, biology, history all back it up. Selective Processing is picking and choosing evidence to support what you want to be true based on your fears, wishes, experience.
epistimology is based on facts. a lot of Philosophy is based on logic. Facts are based on logic. Do you see the connection yet? Physical = evolution, humanism. Metaphysical = spirit, soul, sanctity of life. One gives you compassion, one gives you Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Viewing the world in physical context only; gives no room for Love, Spirituality, Morality. Ultimately doomed because there is no hope for life beyond death. Just death... which spells doom. Caprice?
"Viewing the world in physical context only; gives no room for Love, Spirituality, Morality."
Hmmm. You're fucking dead wrong there bub. Are you accusing me of lacking love, spirituality and morality?
"Ultimately doomed because there is no hope for life beyond death. Just death... which spells doom."
Ah, here's that crux again. Are you afraid of death? Afraid of no longer existing? Tell me, has any researched revealed that god or an afterlife cannot exist because evolution is true.
Wrong you are. Facts are based on truth, reality. Facts, Logic, Philosphy, Hyperbole, Hypothesis, blah blah blah. symantical arguments avoid the real issue. See I can muddy your argument by saying: Facts are based on observable empirical evidence... I could say, observable by whom? Under what conditions, and what psycholgical baggage and predispositions does this person or persons bring with them. what makes evidence empiracle? Scientific method? INterpretations of flawed humans?
Fact: Something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.
They must be able to be observed by everyone, or they must be falsifiable or able to be tested. Yes interpretatons can be flawed, this is why we have many experiments by different people to ensure authenticity.
Flawed humans? You mean the people who wrote the bible? It didn't fall from the sky.
after listening with an open mind to all sides of the apolegetic argument of both natural humanism and Christianity, plus an exploration of other world views. The evidence lead me overwhelmingly to Christianity. Not hiding it, or denying it. Here are my cards, not ashamed of it one bit. I don't want to "fight" I would rather win the person, than the argument. I have found people will believe what they want too. Science, Religion whatever suits them. This is why most reject God.
Show me anything created from nothing that spontaneously came into existance. Science assumes and guesses a lot. But science is hostile towards any evidence that points to a creator, hence it ceases to be science. Historically people were fobrcily indoctrinated into dogmatic religious beliefs. False ones at that, Now it has completely reversed itself... ironically. Tipping my hand? No here it is. I am a Christian.. not raised that way.
Actually :> It does happen from time to time, something can come from nothing, but the total energy must equal 0, and they never last for long. I was reading something about that in a book refeuting intelligent design and creationisim, and heard it from a few other sources. Of course they likly arn't coming form nothing, but matter/energy can appear from apparently nothing.
One thing I heard was that the matter/antimatter must balance out for it to happen. Not researched it yet but want to
You are still failing to stick to facts, and instead falling back on a hostile, defensive, emotional, rhetorical argument. My two quotes are in perfect agreement, and explain your over zealous defensiveness. Science explains things, yes. But to make it your God is sad. Science has yet to scratch the surface of what is out there. You still have dodged the question. Where did everything come from?
My background is in communication theory and rhetoric. You're hostility, and dispariging words reveal much more about your resistance to facts. I can debate them with you all day and overwhelmingly prove what I believe. But facts are useless against someone whose mind is not open. Let me ask you a question. If God and the Bible were the truth and factual, would you want to know? Science can't prove they are, but that doesn't mean they aren't.
Selective Processing. Obvious yet profound principle in communication. We believe what we want, seek after evidence to support what we want to believe. View the world through the lens of our experience, desires, fears. We present an interpetation based on our agenda. Please do the homework. There is overwhelming proof for creation. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not. It comes down to this. Creation = Creator. Creator = Accountability. And it means its not all about you.
"We believe what we want, seek after evidence to support what we want to believe."
"and let the evidence lead me where it would, instead of seeking evidence to support a view I WANT TO believe."
Your two quotes are in conflict.
"Creation = Creator. Creator = Accountability."
You've tipped your hand. You seek the evidence which supports your personal flavor of "god". You were doing so well not mentioning religion. Mixing the physical with the metaphysical is always a doomed venture...
Since I don't want to spout off about things I haven't fully investigated, I will set aside the age of the earth argument. There is a lot of evidence for a young earth, but I have not carefully weighed the latest arguments in this area. The question posed by Plato is not an attempt to quote Plato to reinforce my side of the debate. This isn't about Plato. Forget who asked it, or what context. Answer this question for yourself. Where did it all come from?
I'm happy to share resources so you can understand where I'm coming from. Not a conclusion I wanted, or sought after. I'm just another insignificant person, in a long line who wanted to know the truth, and let the evidence lead me where it would, instead of seeking evidence to support a view I WANT TO believe. Not trying to be offensive, but this video is weak, logically flawed, and mis leading. It is not a representation that I as a creationist consider accurate.
"who wanted to know the truth, and let the evidence lead me where it would"
What evidence? Are you a scientist trained in each of the relevent field of natural sciences?
"Not trying to be offensive, but this video is weak, logically flawed, and mis leading."
You've failed to show how my representation is false. Creationist do indeed hold Usher's geneaologies as their prime source of dating the age of the Earth.
And here lies the crux of your problem. You think the natural world insofar as science can reveal it excludes the existence of your personal flavor of "god". You'll accept nothing short of what makes you feel all warm and cozy. I've got some news for you, science isn't responsible for your feelings. It's merely a tool for explaining, to an extremely accurate scale, observations of the OBSERVABLE natural world.
twothless, I apologize, I did not read your first reponse. I am sorry but you will have to show some proof where entropy - reduced or otherwise gives rise to order and complexity. It has never been proven or reporpoduced. I have not done enough research to decide if the earth is young or old. While I know there are serious problems with carbon dating, geological strata, and the fossil record, I find the Ice Core record very interesting and it could account for an old earth.
"show some proof where entropy - reduced or otherwise gives rise to order and complexity."
Hahahaha! Are you pulling my leg? Seriously. Maybe you missed it but an increase of order or complexity is the VERY definition of decreased entropy.
"While I know there are serious problems with carbon dating"
Carbon Dating has absolutely nothing to do with dating the Earth. Neither does the fossil record. Ice cores used to date the age of the Earth? Indulge me. How could this possibly work?
Strawman = Define the opposition's argument, frame it in the context favorable to your point of view, and... ATTACK!!! unfortunately this is not the creationist argument, point of view. Just what you think the creationist pov is, or would like others to think the creationist perspective is. Please answer this one question: Why is there something instead of nothing? Where did all matter and energy originate? How does complex life arise in a universe where the 2nd law of thermodynamics exist
"unfortunately this is not the creationist argument, point of view."
Actually, YES! It most certainly IS.
"Please answer this one question: Why is there something instead of nothing?"
Plato would roll over in his grave if he knew how bastardized his query has become under the guise of theistic philosophy. The answer to your lame question is that something is much more probable than nothing...
Matter is energy. The total energy of the universe is, so far as current scientific inquiry can answer, exactly zero.
"How does complex life arise in a universe where the 2nd law of thermodynamics exist" The 2nd law does not omit the ocuurance of localized pockets of decreased entropy. This is precisely why we have something instead of nothing, energy AND ever increasing complexity of life.
Write in CAPS add exclamation points! all you want, saying "yes it is" isn't an argument, or proof of anything just rhetoric. The fact that Plato asked a question in whatever context doesn't make it less valid for anyone else. Using emotional words like bastardized and lame is common for people who attack people instead of a point (ala Bill Orielly or Rush). Do you have any facts to back up your statements? Why is something more probable? Based on what?
Plato's question wasn't based in theism then, and it surely isn't now.
Now, since you ignored my other comment where I crushed your arguments or.. ahem.. questions, you've proven that you can't back your own claims.
Now, as for you calling my presentation of creationists "point of view" a strawman: Unless you can give me another example of how creationists date the Earth, then I am correct.
Great video especially loved the link you gave at the end of the video for hubble. Never been to that site man beautiful and inspiring pictures. Wish creationist would look at pic's like that and let their understanding of a god exspand by the shear beauty of it you know
Only young-earth creationists (YECs) hold that view. I'm one of 'em. Generally, Christian origin views consists of: evolutionist, old-earth creationist and young-earth creationist
Of course, creationists interpret empircal evidence with the assumption the Bible is true, just as secular folk start with materialistic interpretations. There is no unbiased starting point regarding origins. I suppose people from all world-views are ignorant to some degree of proposals from others.
"There is no unbiased starting point regarding origins."
Wrong. The scientific method starts with observation. Until one can observe/prove that there is a god, and for it to be confirmable, one cannot be considered biased to the effect of denying it's existence.
In short, science is agnostic. Any opinion on the existence of a deity is strictly philosophical.
Good text, nicely refutes some stuff. Set to an appropiate soundtrack. I am concerned a bit that you're not so much proving anything as, at least for some points, glorifying science and pointing out disagreement between creationists.
Incidentally, I have also started making videos of my own. Come over and see!
But Gravity is a fact... any theory, well established or not... is still Theory!
azdjoe 3 years ago
You seem to lack the basic concept of what a scientific theory is. "Still a theory", There is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. A theory that is not well established is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.
0HI0STATE18 3 years ago
"Respectfully, this video is a paper tiger, red herring, strawman."
You've STILL yet to prove this. It is clear that geneaologies are the creationists ONLY source for dating the Earth.
"why do you hate Christianity?"
I don't hate christianity, I hate anti-science propaganda. I could care less about what god or gods people believe in.
"Like gravity, whether you believe in it or not doesn't make it any less true."
Same goes for all well established scientific theories...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Respectfully, this video is a paper tiger, red herring, strawman.I don't know if you're sincere or a propagandist. giving you benefit of doubt; why do you hate Christianity? Granted, There are a lot of bad representations. Todd Bently, Chistian Coalition, Mormonism, Republicans, Democrats. Yuck! George Bush makes all of the USA look bad. But America is still based on good and real principles, has good ppl, patriots. Like gravity, whether you believe in it or not doesn't make it any less true.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"There are a lot of bad representations. Todd Bently, Chistian Coalition, Mormonism, Republicans, Democrats.
You forgot Hovind, Ham, Brown and the rest of the charlatans who obfuscate scientific principles and well established theories in hopes of keeping their flocks from straying.
"George Bush makes all of the USA look bad."
Bush, as well as ALL christians, base their beliefs right out of the Bible, the VERY same book you do. What makes their interpretations wrong and your's right?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Actually, there's nothing [logical] about the beginning of the universe as we know it. Much of it is very counterintuitive. "
Hmmm well thats the first thing I think I can agree with you on.
"Wait a minute! You just claimed that most scientists believe in god. Now your claiming science to be a tool in the hands of maligned forces?"
Science is Science, it is the dishonest, closed minded, arrogant, humanist, so-called scientists that are the tools.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"Science is Science, it is the dishonest, closed minded, arrogant, humanist, so-called scientists that are the tools."
And exactly how is it that the minority of scientists are able to keep the majority of scientists from establishing empirical observations of the divine?
What you fail to realize is that the true measure of being a scientist is the ability to recognize, and account for, personal bias. That's what makes the scientific method (and theories) so accurate.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"science is hostile towards any evidence that points to a creator"
Science is not a conscious entity, it is merely a tool.
"A tool in the hands of biased, flawed, human beings who misuse it, take it out of context, distort it. A claw hammer is a tool too. I wouldn't want to put in the hands of Charlie Manson."
"But to make [science] your God is sad."
Hahahaha! More tripe. I deify and worship nothing.
You deify your own arguments as infalable. (tripe?.. really? Megatron is that you?")
azdjoe 3 years ago
"A tool in the hands of biased, flawed, human beings who misuse it, take it out of context, distort it."
Wait a minute! You just claimed that most scientists believe in god. Now your claiming science to be a tool in the hands of maligned forces?
"You deify your own arguments as infalable."
No sir. Merely logical.
Good day!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"No proof of your so-called decreased entropy anywhere."
Ever use an ice tray in a freezer? I have thousands of simple evidences if you like...
Yes I have used an ice tray, and amazingly I never had an ice monster come into existance and bust out of the freezer.
So the fact that water freezes when temperature drops somehow proves complex, life arises from random chance?
Like punctuated equalibrium I suppose? Micro-evolution proves we have common ancestors with watermelon.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"So the fact that water freezes when temperature drops somehow proves complex, life arises from random chance?"
Nope. It shows one of the many hundreds to thousands of examples of localized pockets of decreased entropy WHICH you sayed there is no proof of. You were WRONG, again.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"So the fact that water freezes when temperature drops"
Think about it. How is the water in a freezer able to freeze? The metal, foam, plastic and gasses that makes the freezer are examples of decreased entropy. Each of these are in turn made possible by other decreases in entropy. All of these pockets of decreased entropy are in turn made possible by the INCREASED entropy of the sun.
Do you still think you understand thermodynamics?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
@twothlesswonder The thermodynamnic theory is si pathetic I sometimes wander if its made up by something satirising creationists. How do these people think living beings that do not use the sun directly for energy live? It comes about by photosynthesis.. entropy in reverse.
The earth is one part of the universal closed system, and energy can be transferred from one thing to another (the sun powers the electrons to push 'uphill' creating sugar from co2 and water)
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 I agree. I find it rather amusing when creationists trot out that old mule. I can provide them with hundreds, if not thousands of examples (most rather simple) of decreasing entropy and when I do, they disappear or attempt to change the subject. They HATE being shown they are wrong. I LOVE to shake their faith (creationists, that is). I consider it obligatory.
twothlesswonder 1 year ago
FACT: Everything that is. Energy, Matter is a result of something. Everything has a cause. Simple Law of CAuse and Effect. Either the Universe has always existed, or it had a creator. Ultimately there has to be an uncaused first cause. Logic, common sense dictates the Universe did not and could not have created itself. Hence the Need for an uncaused first cause.
Your Video lumps all creationist into a young earth paradigm. Not Correct.
azdjoe 3 years ago
FACT: Overwhelming majority of Human beings beleive in a God. Why? How does science explain this?
FACT: Historical secular documents, archeaology back up the accounts of the Bible to the extent they go back.
FACT: Scientists are expelled from major universities by peers for following evidence that even suggests a creator. This ensures a humanistic (biased), darwinain (flawed), intolerant (bigoted) worldview is taught in school, so kids are indoctrinated into a false religion.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"FACT: Overwhelming majority of Human beings beleive in a God. Why?
Why not?
"FACT: Historical secular documents, archeaology back up the accounts of the Bible to the extent they go back."
And your point is...
"FACT: Scientists are expelled from major universities by peers for following evidence that even suggests a creator."
Bullshit. Most scientists and professors believe in some god or another. Are you saying they're ostricizing themselves?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Logic, common sense dictates the Universe did not and could not have created itself."
Actually, there's nothing "logical" about the beginning of the universe as we know it. Much of it is very counterintuitive. Your assertion that scientists claim the universe created itself is a blatantly dishonest strawman tactic. Show me one published paper stating that.
"Your Video lumps all creationist into a young earth paradigm."
It should be QUITE obvious I refer to YEC in the first seconds.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
wrong-o. you don't say young earth creationinst, you say creation believe the earth is 6,000 years old blah, blah, blah. So the first frame is a misrepresentation, and it just goes downhill from there. You pick and choose which arguments to dispute, and you mis-represent those arguments at that! This is why you cannot defend the simple question of how the Universe came into being. cause and effect. YOU CANNOT ANSWER THIS! you're version of science fails miserably.
azdjoe 3 years ago
Tell me, what is the definition of a creationist who thinks the Earth is only 6,000years old? OEC? No. YEC? Yes. So, it's PLAINLY obvious I am referring to young Earth creationism.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"This is why you cannot defend the simple question of how the Universe came into being. cause and effect. YOU CANNOT ANSWER THIS! "
And neither can you. Cause and effect? So god exists without a previous creator, he is in direct violation of your own argument.
0HI0STATE18 3 years ago
Yes I can;easily. God is the uncaused first cause. Logically there has to be one. Logically it cannot be the Universe but must be an intelligent creative force. God existence transcends your understanding. Simply put, things cannot create themselves. God is the simpliest, only logical conclusion. Everything else is a dishonest attempt to make themself God. You'd have to be someone so ridiculous you prb listen to System of a down or Disturbed or some other nihlistic emo crap to deny this.
azdjoe 3 years ago
I "deny this" because of lack of evidence, not because of what music I listen to, what an absurd statement.
The only logical answer is that matter and energy have always existed, which follows the law of conservation. If you are asking what caused the big bang to occur, we simply do not know as of right know and it would be unscientific to attempt to answer that question. It may have been a collision of 2 molecules, but that is only speculation.
0HI0STATE18 3 years ago
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
@azdjoe God is a simple conclusion, but it is simple because it hasnt been looked into properly... and frankly there is no possible way we know of that can prove this.
Simplicity fo a theory doesnt mean its true.
Also, saying god infact adds a layer of complexity to the quesiton because thn its about explaining where god came from? If you say hes infinite, why cant the universe be so to?
markgg1 1 year ago
@azdjoe Maybe you can say 'logically this, logically that' but logic doesn not prove an idea. The human body lacks lots of 'logic'.. such as the IgE antibody. it appears to have no benefit whatsoever accept kills people from asthma, anyphalaxis, and toxic shock... why did god make it to attack the huamn body... Fortunately us lowly humans have figured out ways to counter gods grand design to save lives.
markgg1 1 year ago
Science can't prove a lot of things. Human Beings are inheritently flawed, and limited in what we can comprehend. What was that phrase about Horatio and more imaginable than can be contained by your philosphy? In my view, mixing the physical without the "metaphysical" context is the real "doomed venture"
azdjoe 3 years ago
"In my view, mixing the physical without the "metaphysical" context is the real "doomed venture""
How does one mix the physical with nothing?
Listen, if you've got some "FACTS" you would like to discuss, I'll be here. But if all you want to do is discuss philosophy or epistemology, then you'll be doing it alone, and somewhere else.
In other words, shit or get off the pot.
Capice?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
FACT: There is not proof of your so-called decreased entropy anywhere. Please present one instance of random chance giving rise to order. You can't there is none.
FACT: Leading scientists are divided on whether or not there is a God. However academia rejects it outright.
FACT: The odds that life could exist from random chance are statsically impossible.
FACT: Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain life. The fossil record does not support it.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"FACT: There is not proof of your so-called decreased entropy anywhere."
Ever use an ice tray in a freezer? I have thousands of simple evidences if you like...
"FACT: Leading scientists are divided on whether or not there is a God. However academia rejects it outright."
Since scientists cannot come to a consensus as to the definition of "god" or a SINGLE way to empirically test for it, one shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of consilience between any religion and science.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"FACT: The odds that life could exist from random chance are statsically impossible."
Statistically impossible? It's a good thing life isn't dependent on statistics, huh?
"FACT: Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain life. The fossil record does not support it."
Being that this is a counter claim, you should have some specific examples in mind, right? Let's here 'em!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Statistically impossible? It's a good thing life isn't dependent on statistics, huh?
Amen to that!
Millions of years of evolution should yield hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils. We have a tooth here, a femer there and a lot of imagination to fill in the blanks. Australopithicus, has one questionalbe representative "Lucy" Then there is piltdown man... proving the falicy of the anthropological community to see what they want, and be fooled by an obvious fraud
azdjoe 3 years ago
"Australopithicus, has one questionalbe representative "Lucy"."
You forgot quite a few:
ramidus (17), anamensis (38), afarensis (28), africanus (33), garhi (9), bahrelghazali (1), boisei (48), aethiopicus (8), robustus (28), habilis (34), rudolfensis (9), erectus (21), ergaster (27), antecessor (39), heidelbergensis (7), neanderthalensis (33)
Actually, the very anthropological community you are accusing of fraud exposed it as a hoax.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Not just scientists. They entire human race defines God differently. Everyone who thinks they can define God is mistaken. We only know of His attributes. However, science and Christianity agree on many things. Archeology, history, for example.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"However, science and Christianity agree on many things. Archeology, history, for example."
So that makes the Bible a scientifically accurate depiction of the world?
"We only know of His attributes."
No "we" don't. Show me a single empirical source proving these attributes. If we HAD proved these attributes, we would have a means for establishing the validity of "god".
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Then you point to the bible... but wait. Almost every religion suggests a creator. Why go after the Bible? Maybe because it contains the one thing you hate the most: Truth. Again creationism embodies more that young earth fundamentalist Christians. So now you're 0 - 2. textbook strawman arguments. However geneology in the bible does backup one facet. The population of the Earth, given the observed rate of growth, points to a starting point that lines up with the time of Noah!
azdjoe 3 years ago
"Why go after the Bible?"
Because people like you insist that the Bible is a scientifically accurate depiction of reality. Attempting to force a modern scientific understanding into a compilation of bronze age religious texts will fail every time.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Noah? Wow, you are deluded. The bible and geology are practically opposites. There is almost no evidence to back up any of the claims of the bible, some even dispute that Jesus ever existed.
0HI0STATE18 3 years ago
Hmm. Can you prove Noah didn't exist? I guess the 89% of Christians in the USA are deluded and you're really smart? Some claim the Earth is Flat or George Washington didn't exist. The evidence to back up what is in the Bible is Overwhelming. It is the only historically accurate religious text in existance. ARcheaology, biology, history all back it up. Selective Processing is picking and choosing evidence to support what you want to be true based on your fears, wishes, experience.
azdjoe 3 years ago
99% Of christians are deluded. Noah, a man who lived in the 900's of age, yeah that sounds logical.
0HI0STATE18 3 years ago
epistimology is based on facts. a lot of Philosophy is based on logic. Facts are based on logic. Do you see the connection yet? Physical = evolution, humanism. Metaphysical = spirit, soul, sanctity of life. One gives you compassion, one gives you Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Viewing the world in physical context only; gives no room for Love, Spirituality, Morality. Ultimately doomed because there is no hope for life beyond death. Just death... which spells doom. Caprice?
azdjoe 3 years ago
"Viewing the world in physical context only; gives no room for Love, Spirituality, Morality."
Hmmm. You're fucking dead wrong there bub. Are you accusing me of lacking love, spirituality and morality?
"Ultimately doomed because there is no hope for life beyond death. Just death... which spells doom."
Ah, here's that crux again. Are you afraid of death? Afraid of no longer existing? Tell me, has any researched revealed that god or an afterlife cannot exist because evolution is true.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Facts are based on logic."
FAIL
Facts are based on observed empirical evidence, philosophy is based on logic.
0HI0STATE18 3 years ago
Wrong you are. Facts are based on truth, reality. Facts, Logic, Philosphy, Hyperbole, Hypothesis, blah blah blah. symantical arguments avoid the real issue. See I can muddy your argument by saying: Facts are based on observable empirical evidence... I could say, observable by whom? Under what conditions, and what psycholgical baggage and predispositions does this person or persons bring with them. what makes evidence empiracle? Scientific method? INterpretations of flawed humans?
azdjoe 3 years ago
Fact: Something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.
They must be able to be observed by everyone, or they must be falsifiable or able to be tested. Yes interpretatons can be flawed, this is why we have many experiments by different people to ensure authenticity.
Flawed humans? You mean the people who wrote the bible? It didn't fall from the sky.
0HI0STATE18 3 years ago
after listening with an open mind to all sides of the apolegetic argument of both natural humanism and Christianity, plus an exploration of other world views. The evidence lead me overwhelmingly to Christianity. Not hiding it, or denying it. Here are my cards, not ashamed of it one bit. I don't want to "fight" I would rather win the person, than the argument. I have found people will believe what they want too. Science, Religion whatever suits them. This is why most reject God.
azdjoe 3 years ago
Still waiting for these facts that you purport to be the basis of your beliefs.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Show me anything created from nothing that spontaneously came into existance. Science assumes and guesses a lot. But science is hostile towards any evidence that points to a creator, hence it ceases to be science. Historically people were fobrcily indoctrinated into dogmatic religious beliefs. False ones at that, Now it has completely reversed itself... ironically. Tipping my hand? No here it is. I am a Christian.. not raised that way.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"Show me anything created from nothing that spontaneously came into existance."
Show me a single peer reviewed published paper which purports ANYTHING that came from NOTHING? If you can, I'll remove this video.
"But science is hostile towards any evidence that points to a creator"
Science is not a conscious entity, it is merely a tool.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Actually :> It does happen from time to time, something can come from nothing, but the total energy must equal 0, and they never last for long. I was reading something about that in a book refeuting intelligent design and creationisim, and heard it from a few other sources. Of course they likly arn't coming form nothing, but matter/energy can appear from apparently nothing.
One thing I heard was that the matter/antimatter must balance out for it to happen. Not researched it yet but want to
wolfwing1 3 years ago
"Actually :> It does happen from time to time, something can come from nothing, but the total energy must equal 0, and they never last for long."
Indeed. Guess what the total energy of the universe is estimated to be?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Exactly just wanted to point that out in case you didn't know :>
Frankly who need/wants god, everything is so much cooler without him :>
wolfwing1 3 years ago
You are still failing to stick to facts, and instead falling back on a hostile, defensive, emotional, rhetorical argument. My two quotes are in perfect agreement, and explain your over zealous defensiveness. Science explains things, yes. But to make it your God is sad. Science has yet to scratch the surface of what is out there. You still have dodged the question. Where did everything come from?
azdjoe 3 years ago
My background is in communication theory and rhetoric. You're hostility, and dispariging words reveal much more about your resistance to facts. I can debate them with you all day and overwhelmingly prove what I believe. But facts are useless against someone whose mind is not open. Let me ask you a question. If God and the Bible were the truth and factual, would you want to know? Science can't prove they are, but that doesn't mean they aren't.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"You're hostility, and dispariging words reveal much more about your resistance to facts."
Again... WHAT facts? You've failed to list any "facts" other than the fact that you are a theist.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"You are still failing to stick to facts"
What facts? You've yet to bring forth an argument based upon facts.
"My two quotes are in perfect agreement"
So which is it? Do you let the evidence lead you to a conclusion or do you seek evidence which supports a view you want to believe?
"But to make [science] your God is sad."
Hahahaha! More tripe. I deify and worship nothing.
"Where did everything come from?"
Energy? Mass? Matter? Angular momentum? Specify please.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Selective Processing. Obvious yet profound principle in communication. We believe what we want, seek after evidence to support what we want to believe. View the world through the lens of our experience, desires, fears. We present an interpetation based on our agenda. Please do the homework. There is overwhelming proof for creation. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not. It comes down to this. Creation = Creator. Creator = Accountability. And it means its not all about you.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"We believe what we want, seek after evidence to support what we want to believe."
"and let the evidence lead me where it would, instead of seeking evidence to support a view I WANT TO believe."
Your two quotes are in conflict.
"Creation = Creator. Creator = Accountability."
You've tipped your hand. You seek the evidence which supports your personal flavor of "god". You were doing so well not mentioning religion. Mixing the physical with the metaphysical is always a doomed venture...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Since I don't want to spout off about things I haven't fully investigated, I will set aside the age of the earth argument. There is a lot of evidence for a young earth, but I have not carefully weighed the latest arguments in this area. The question posed by Plato is not an attempt to quote Plato to reinforce my side of the debate. This isn't about Plato. Forget who asked it, or what context. Answer this question for yourself. Where did it all come from?
azdjoe 3 years ago
I'm happy to share resources so you can understand where I'm coming from. Not a conclusion I wanted, or sought after. I'm just another insignificant person, in a long line who wanted to know the truth, and let the evidence lead me where it would, instead of seeking evidence to support a view I WANT TO believe. Not trying to be offensive, but this video is weak, logically flawed, and mis leading. It is not a representation that I as a creationist consider accurate.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"who wanted to know the truth, and let the evidence lead me where it would"
What evidence? Are you a scientist trained in each of the relevent field of natural sciences?
"Not trying to be offensive, but this video is weak, logically flawed, and mis leading."
You've failed to show how my representation is false. Creationist do indeed hold Usher's geneaologies as their prime source of dating the age of the Earth.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Where did it all come from?"
And here lies the crux of your problem. You think the natural world insofar as science can reveal it excludes the existence of your personal flavor of "god". You'll accept nothing short of what makes you feel all warm and cozy. I've got some news for you, science isn't responsible for your feelings. It's merely a tool for explaining, to an extremely accurate scale, observations of the OBSERVABLE natural world.
Science explains HOW, Religion explains WHY...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
twothless, I apologize, I did not read your first reponse. I am sorry but you will have to show some proof where entropy - reduced or otherwise gives rise to order and complexity. It has never been proven or reporpoduced. I have not done enough research to decide if the earth is young or old. While I know there are serious problems with carbon dating, geological strata, and the fossil record, I find the Ice Core record very interesting and it could account for an old earth.
azdjoe 3 years ago
"show some proof where entropy - reduced or otherwise gives rise to order and complexity."
Hahahaha! Are you pulling my leg? Seriously. Maybe you missed it but an increase of order or complexity is the VERY definition of decreased entropy.
"While I know there are serious problems with carbon dating"
Carbon Dating has absolutely nothing to do with dating the Earth. Neither does the fossil record. Ice cores used to date the age of the Earth? Indulge me. How could this possibly work?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Strawman = Define the opposition's argument, frame it in the context favorable to your point of view, and... ATTACK!!! unfortunately this is not the creationist argument, point of view. Just what you think the creationist pov is, or would like others to think the creationist perspective is. Please answer this one question: Why is there something instead of nothing? Where did all matter and energy originate? How does complex life arise in a universe where the 2nd law of thermodynamics exist
azdjoe 3 years ago
"unfortunately this is not the creationist argument, point of view."
Actually, YES! It most certainly IS.
"Please answer this one question: Why is there something instead of nothing?"
Plato would roll over in his grave if he knew how bastardized his query has become under the guise of theistic philosophy. The answer to your lame question is that something is much more probable than nothing...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Where did all matter and energy originate?"
Matter is energy. The total energy of the universe is, so far as current scientific inquiry can answer, exactly zero.
"How does complex life arise in a universe where the 2nd law of thermodynamics exist" The 2nd law does not omit the ocuurance of localized pockets of decreased entropy. This is precisely why we have something instead of nothing, energy AND ever increasing complexity of life.
Were those your big guns?!?!
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"Actually YES! It most certainly IS"
Write in CAPS add exclamation points! all you want, saying "yes it is" isn't an argument, or proof of anything just rhetoric. The fact that Plato asked a question in whatever context doesn't make it less valid for anyone else. Using emotional words like bastardized and lame is common for people who attack people instead of a point (ala Bill Orielly or Rush). Do you have any facts to back up your statements? Why is something more probable? Based on what?
azdjoe 3 years ago
Plato's question wasn't based in theism then, and it surely isn't now.
Now, since you ignored my other comment where I crushed your arguments or.. ahem.. questions, you've proven that you can't back your own claims.
Now, as for you calling my presentation of creationists "point of view" a strawman: Unless you can give me another example of how creationists date the Earth, then I am correct.
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Great video especially loved the link you gave at the end of the video for hubble. Never been to that site man beautiful and inspiring pictures. Wish creationist would look at pic's like that and let their understanding of a god exspand by the shear beauty of it you know
ShellySummers 3 years ago
well the world is defiantly not only 6000 years old...I mean, come on, people have been around for at least 200,000 years.
daveythewavey19 3 years ago
Only young-earth creationists (YECs) hold that view. I'm one of 'em. Generally, Christian origin views consists of: evolutionist, old-earth creationist and young-earth creationist
Of course, creationists interpret empircal evidence with the assumption the Bible is true, just as secular folk start with materialistic interpretations. There is no unbiased starting point regarding origins. I suppose people from all world-views are ignorant to some degree of proposals from others.
Frebtec 4 years ago
"creationists interpret empircal evidence with the assumption the Bible is true, just as secular folk start with materialistic interpretations."
1- interpreting empirical evidence with pre-concieved notions of biblical truth is unabashed bias.
2- interpreting empirical evidence without invoking a deity until one is proven is logic.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
"There is no unbiased starting point regarding origins."
Wrong. The scientific method starts with observation. Until one can observe/prove that there is a god, and for it to be confirmable, one cannot be considered biased to the effect of denying it's existence.
In short, science is agnostic. Any opinion on the existence of a deity is strictly philosophical.
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
Nice video.
Netwriter 4 years ago
Good text, nicely refutes some stuff. Set to an appropiate soundtrack. I am concerned a bit that you're not so much proving anything as, at least for some points, glorifying science and pointing out disagreement between creationists.
Incidentally, I have also started making videos of my own. Come over and see!
seanmd80 4 years ago
Thanks Sean. I see your point. This was my first video and I was learning the ropes of windows movie maker in the process.
I'll be right over to check out your vids......
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
Good Video. Thanks
Panzerjock 4 years ago
i enjoyed that.
GOAQ 4 years ago
Great video and definition of a theory. That is what I hear most from creationists. Well done.
savagemike90 4 years ago
Awsome job =)
Another excellent addition!
ThatOneQuestion 4 years ago
Thanks TOQ! Heh, I just realized that I misspelled a couple words. Genealogies and empirical......
Oh well, I'll be more attentive with my proof-reading in the future.......
twothlesswonder 4 years ago
great job man. keep it up.
ridi0t 4 years ago
Thanks ridiOt! I found it rather fun to watch it all come together on the storyboard. I'll be uploading more in the near future...
twothlesswonder 4 years ago