By referring to William Lane Craig as a competent theist, he actually implies that being a theist and being competent tend to be exclusive to each other, otherwise it wouldn't be such a big deal to have an intelligent theist. The only thing that truly matters is whether there is hard evidence for theism, not winning theoretical debates that don't prove anything.
There are some interesting articles out there how WLC frequently tries to stipulate several favorable aspects whenever he's negotiating the terms of a planned debate.
Not only does he try to gain control of what the "topic" of what the debate is, he also tries to stipulate what the opponent's position must be and how it is presented.
That's because he only has 1 game he can play to ensure that he "wins" the debate and it's been the same for 20 years.
If Pee-Wee Herman challanges Evander Holyfield to a boxing match and Evander declines, is it because he is a coward that fears the deadly fists of the hulking Pee-Wee?
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
Um whats Dawkin going to debate? I don't dislike Craig like many atheists do but there isn't really anything he can actually prove to Craig since there is no science for the latter to present.
I think Hitch dealt adequately with Craig, who knows nothing about science. "Rational grounds for belief in god" - that's how much Craig knows about reason or evidence-based belief.
William Lane Craig has had his ass ceremonially kicked by the late Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, I'm not surprised to see him try to ride this supposed controversy. He's obviously desperate to retrieve something of a once significant reputation. If he can provoke Dawkins into debating him, it would make it seem like he is taken seriously. Unlike WLC, all outspoken atheists live under the constant threat of violent reprisal from religious fruitbats, calling them cowards is simply a lie.
@robsiddall In the one debate I saw between Craig and Harris, I thought Craig did a much better job with the technical aspects, which is why most theists think he wins his debates. Harris was trying to prsent valid arguments and not "win". The content and validity of the arguments are unimportant with Craig. What is important are the stylistic and technical aspects. This no more makes his argument right than Iraq was right when they invaded Kuwait.
You are a classic religionist. I responded to it and you make believe that it doesn't exist. Just like you make beleive there is no evidence for evolution and there is evidence for an invisible magic sky daddy.
Look, enough beating around the bush. It's obvious you have no idea what the words "code" and "information" mean. Allow me to educate you.
Information: Things that are or can be known.
Code: Any defined computing process.
Neither of these are within any living thing. We simply call DNA those things because of how it responds chemically to other atoms and molecules. It is NOT a code, by any stretch of the imagination. You simply took a pet name and made up the rest.
@ObsidianWizroh You can try and explain it away all you want, but the fact remains that if even one "bit" of the coded information is missing, everything goes completely out of whack. Dawkins frequently refers to the genetic code found in DNA. Isn't he one of your heros?
@55k3v1n "if even one "bit" of the coded information is missing, everything goes completely out of whack"
Wrong again! It has already been demonstrated that by natural processes errors can be and are corrected. Second, small does not mean "everything goes completely out of whack", maybe you simply have an allergy to peanuts.
Further, simply saying "bit" demostrates you have no clue about the basics. Are you talking about single nucleotides? Codons? Whole genes?
@jimmo42 Wrong again! Wrong again! Wrong again! What arrogance. Who are you to say what is definitively right or wrong? You're just a mere human being with a finite mind. Pride comes before a fall. You atheists will experience this one day soon.
@55k3v1n "Who are you to say what is definitively right or wrong?"
Is it arrogant to say the sun does NOT go around the earth as your mythology book says? Is it arrogant to say one specific variant of Christianity is correct and all others are incorrect? (like YOU do) You will find that most Christians in the world accept evolution. All except your tiny little, insignificant sect. Now go back to your beads and rattles.
@55k3v1n "You're just a mere human being with a finite mind."
Yet YOU claim to know God's mind well enough to say he did NOT create the universe in such a way that abiognesis and evolution are possible. Now THAT is turlly arrogant.
All you are doing is simply saying that YOUR god is NOT all-powerful, because he couldn't create such a universe. YOUR god is one of deceit as he tricks us with all the evidence for the big bang, evolution, etc when it really isn't true, right?
..facepalm...That is just as ludicrous as the stale old argument "You don't believe in god because you want to sin", "You don't beleive in god because you hate him", and other such nonsense. All that shows is the only argument you have is bronze-age superstition. Wake up! This is the 21st century. We don't live in caves any more.
I see you prefer the Sledgehammer over the Rapier. Together, we've completely shut down this IDiot. Won't be long now before he starts to quote scripture to us verse for verse.
55k3v1n reminds me a lot of the black knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". We've hacked off his arms and leg, and then he screams "Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!" The only thing left is to whack off his bloody head.
You know that won't happen. You chop off the head and it will just grow back. The brain has been missing for some time. All we'd accomplish is deforming the mouth.
@55k3v1n "You just described how many aspects of Darwinian natural selection is being slowly chopped to pieces."
Uh, no....You are simply demonstrating your ignorance about the basic of evolution. Evolution does not create the "perfect" being, but rather one that has even a slightly better chance of reproducing. Having a nose (for example) at all is "better" than not having one, even if it not located in the optimum position.
Exactly why I wouldn't put it past you. You obviously cannot refute what we are telling you, so you then have two choices, claim that our evidence is blind faith (as you are attempting to do with me) or try to silence the opposition.
Actually, there is a third choice: claim the evidence is invalid or insufficient, and provide nothing to support that claim. That is what Michael Behe did in the Kitzmiller-Dover trial. He was shown dozens of peer-reviewed papers and book chapters just on the evolution of the immune system alone (more than the *entire* body of peer-reviewed work on ID as a whole), but he still claimed it was insufficient. Basically: ingore the evidence.
@jimmo42 "He was shown dozens of peer-reviewed papers and book chapters just on the evolution of the immune system alone (more than the *entire* body of peer-reviewed work on ID as a whole), but he still claimed it was insufficient. Basically: ingore the evidence" NO, his claim that it was insufficient was correct. BTW "peer-review" means jack shit. There's nothing scientific about it.
Well, all of your arguments *are* an act of desperation, so why should you not spam? Your arguments so far have no scientific support, are easily refuted, are illogical and often self-contradictory. Each time you are confronted with something you have nothing to counter with, you make the desperate claim of things like "original sin", "gawd dunnit", "Satan has obviously twisted your understanding of God's ways", etc. All you have is "desperation".
Besides, pretty much every post of his marked as spam are going against you. The ones being posted to me are not being marked as spam. I wonder why that is?
@ObsidianWizroh "pretty much every post of his marked as spam are going against you"
You cannot honestly believe that 55k3v1n would mark something as spam, when it really isn't. That would be lying and according to Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD". An "abomination", just like homosexuality! Since he keeps on doing it, that would mean he is unrepentant and unrepentant sinners go to hell, right?
@ObsidianWizroh Then there is Leviticus 19:11 "You must not steal, you must not tell lies", Ephesians 4:25 "each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor", and Luke 13:3 "But unless you repent, you will all perish as well!"
Then there are at least a half dozens passages that require sinners to make amends for their sins. However, as a "good" Christian, 55k3v1n should know that unrepentant sinners (liars) go to hell, right?
@jimmo42 You're a stupid jackass! All you atheists are. You're always calling people of faith liars and now you say I'm lying about spamming your comments! Then you and Obbie the idiot act like little teenagers giggling about it. Atheists are missing the gene that allows them to understand spiritual things. You're stuck in the physical like sick fools. Your foolish pride will be revealed to you on the day of judgment, then you'll realise how much of an idiot you both are.
@55k3v1n "You're always calling people of faith liars"
Once again you are wrong. 1) I only call Christians liars when the evidence indicates such. 2) There is evidence showing that you post things you know are no true, but you still present them as being true. 3) I never called you a liar, as simply pointed out that if you were marking things as spam, when they were not, that would be lying, which is a sin and unrepentant sinners go to hell. Nothing more.
@55k3v1n "Atheists are missing the gene that allows them to understand spiritual things." If anything, we have evolved a gene that allows our intellect to recognize 2000-year-old mythology as nonsense. On the other hand, once again you are wrong. You cannot seem to get anything right. I do "understand spiritual things". I am somewhat of a Taoist. I just don't believe in a god that keeps changing his mind then knocks-up a young girl to show how "moral" we should be.
@55k3v1n "Your foolish pride will be revealed to you on the day of judgment"
Which is nothing more than the classic "you only want to sin" argument.
What you ingore is that should God exist, he is the greatest, most perfect intellect. The "sin" in your mythology is irrelevant to him. Instead, he would want beings at his side that search for the truth and do not ignore the facts because they are unwilling to see the truth. You are not likely to be one of those at his side.
@55k3v1n "You're always calling people of faith liars" cont.
You should read "There is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ" by Michael Gaddis. It provides a small number of examples where Christians throughout history have ignored what their own doctrine says to do evil in the name of Jesus. Lying is just one of many things. While I am not saying directly you are lying, you have made up things and are dishonest. It is simply one more piece of evidence that your belief is nonsense.
@jimmo42 ""You're always calling people of faith liars" cont.
Let's assume one of us did call you a liar. According to your mythology the early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs. Paul even talks about bearing the weight of "persecution" in the name of Christ, yet you cannot even handle a bit of razzing without flying off the handle, just like all religionists. Each of your posts is just more evidence your beliefs are nonsense.
Obbie the idiot. Now we have reverted to name calling when you have to way of defeating my arguments? Well, it can't be long now before I'm blocked from posting to this video. It's the usual tactic of the religious on YouTube. If you cannot defeat someone's argument, you simply make it go away, pretend it never happened, and continue with the fantasy you're imagined for yourself.
@ObsidianWizroh To be quite honest I see it as a victory when someone marks my posts as spam. They have no valid argument, so must resort to dishonesty to hide any contrary evidence. I wear it as badge of honor that religionists give up the morality and ethics taught in their holy book in order for the short term boost to their own ego. It's actually really pathetic that they do it.
I was blocked from a video just a few moments ago after a single comment. All I did was say the Kalam Cosmological Argument is nothing but deductive reasoning based on assumption. They responded then blocked me, as though they had proven the point beyond a doubt.
@ObsidianWizroh Were you blocked by drcraigvideos, by chance? If it was, I am not surprised. Christians get to insult non-believers without provocation and there are no repercussion. However, provide proof Craig is wrong and you get blocked in a second. To me it's a badge of honor because it proves to me that the only thing they can to is try and silence anyone who opposes them.
That's the one. Funny thing is, I sent him a message about it and he said that if I would just avoid trolling, cussing, and lying, then I wouldn't get blocked.
I'm sure you can figure out from my comments on here, that's three things I never do, especially in a debate.
It seems my last post was never posted for some reason...
If one "bit" of the "coded information" is missing, then it's a mutation. Mutations on this scale happen all the time. If they add up to a significant change, this is evolution.
As for Dawkins referring to it as "genetic code," didn't I already say this? It's a pet name. It doesn't mean anything, it's just something to explain it to the layman.
Think about this for a moment: Perhaps you're wrong?
@ObsidianWizroh Mutations always result in disfiguring degression. The context of Dawkins' words are clearly expressions of fascination at how eerily similar the genetic code is to a computer code in the sense that intelligence appears to be involved in both.
Mutations have been shown to be beneficial as well as disfiguring. More often than not, they are neutral, not changing much of anything.
I see you are placing thoughts of your own into Dawkins' head. There is zero evidence for intelligence in DNA, and 100% of evidence points toward evolution after abiogenesis.
Again, you are simply wrong. Please put down your bible, stop listening to the lies of those like Dr. Craig, and retake high school science. You obviously need it.
@ObsidianWizroh I just can't get myself to believe that lifeless matter could figure out how to get information into the genetic code. I admire your faith.
Lifeless matter didn't figure out anything. Chemical reactions caused the formation and mutation of RNA and DNA. There is no intelligence behind it at any stage of development.
You are working on the bias that no complex thing can occur without an intelligence behind it while science knows that it is possible. Not only is it possible, but it is reality. We have evidence showing how it all formed and became what it is today.
All you have to do is open your mind and look at it.
Which, as we all know, is typical for religionists like 55k3v1n. First reach a conclusion based on a 2000-year-old book of mythology, then go out and manipulate the evidence to support its absurd claims.
@ObsidianWizroh Why waste your time with these dickheads? They have a neurological disorder induced by childhood psychological abuse (see Jesus Camp on utube) - which, incidentally, is a gross abuse of the human rights of children - not to mention the sexual abuse which often accompanies it.
@55k3v1n "I just can't get myself to believe that lifeless matter could figure out..."
Three reasons for that. 1) it didn't "figure it out" 2) You do not appear to have the intelelct or knowledge to understand. 3) You are dishonestly misusing the terms "code" and "information" to force an interpretation that implies design.
AGAIN, provide an accepted definition of "code", and now I say provide an accepted definition of "information", and we will show you why they don't apply.
Well, I guess you've finally realized that I'm right. Either that or you're still on the fence and just can't find anything that supports your arguments against mine. In either case, will you concede that I have the better argument, or are you just going to sit quietly and let me win in silence?
@ObsidianWizroh Yep. You're all so right. So many people have left a life of crime and addiction by becoming an atheist. Ooops. Actually nobody's life has changed to the better by becoming an atheist. Oh, but the millions of transformed lives resulting from receiving Jesus Christ into one's life cannot be denied. Jesus Christ is the the same yesterday, today and forever. AMEN. Atheists believe in scientism: the taking of science into the realm of philosophy.
2. Considering religion is an addiction and going against the constitution is a crime, I'd have to say you're wrong in this argument as well. Not to mention all of the people who have killed because of their religion or decided to purposefully hallucinate to understand their god better.
As for millions of transformed lives, not hardly. Religion in general is on the decline. you are LOSING members, not gaining them. And the "benefit" is merely a delusion.
@ObsidianWizroh You say "people have killed in the name of their religion". I doubt many of the killers were the ones I referred to as having been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. And don't forget about the millions killed by noted atheists Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il. The NT prophesies that the time of Christ's second coming will not occur until the "falling away" comes first. So, "losing members" is just the fulfillment of yet another biblical prophesy.
@55k3v1n ..and let's not forget the millions killed by Uncle Sam, in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America, North America....the list goes on. Christianity is the mother of Fascism. That's irrefutable, a matter of public record. Get a life, ye American Taliban!
@vjwebster Uncle Sam isn't a Christain. The West (NATO) isn't a Christain, but a collection of white, black, oriental, muslim, christain, atheist, hindu people who are against all forms of aggression as per Hitler, Stalin, radical Islam, etc. You must have quite the twisted mind to believe Christianity is the mother of fascism. So you a Communist, or what??
@55k3v1n Of course Fascism is Christian, a matter of historical record - originally an exreme R wing catholic movement, now the political soul of Islam and their brothers in arms, the American Taliban (a.k.a. Christian Evangelical fundamentalists). Learn a few things, boy, before you start trying to educate others
Why don't you learn what others - who haven't been brainwashed since infancy - feel about your religion? Then, when you've understood where they are coming from, then you can make an informed choice. You could start by watching The Doomsday Code on youtube. And if you look ar REAL history (crusades, inquisition etc) you'll see Christianity if full of hatred and killing "infidels". Even some Am. Indians were slowly tortured to death for not accepting "jesus".Muslims are still doing it.
@vjwebster Well, what do I feel about your atheism? Some atheists are respectful, but you are a stinking troll. I can only imagine if you came into power: the concentration camps for all people of faith, the firing squads. How many people have turned from alcohol, drugs, gambling addictions, violent tendancies and the such by becoming an atheist? The scummy ones like you usually have some deviant sin in your life, which explains the hate and the rage.
Being killed by Atheists, does not mean they were killed by Atheism. No one has ever been killed by Atheism, or Theism. However, there are those who were killed in the name of Christianity.
As for the "second coming" of Christ, no one has proven there was a first. And the prophesy was made to bolster those who see themselves losing members, to try to gain them back, or to comfort them by knowing they'll be with God soon.
But what's any of this got to do with evolution or abiogenesis?
@ObsidianWizroh If being killed by an atheist doesn't mean being killed by atheism, then why does being killed by a Christain mean being killed by Christianity. I personally don't equate alkl atheists with Stalin, etc., but atheists don't seem to hesitate with painting all Christains with the same brush. Check out "1-16-2012 -- 'Strange sounds' heard world wide -- what is it? YouTube" Forewarning "trumps" being heard before the "last trump" of 1Cor. 15:51-52??
I didn't say getting killed BY a Christian meant being killed BY Christianity. I said that many people have been kille in the name of Christianity. If you won't believe me, believe your own book. There are many times that genocide occurred in the bible in the name of your God.
Broad stroking is not my thing, but it does seem that all creationists I argue with pretend to be insulte in this way.
But what's any of this got to do with evolution or abiogenesis? You know, the topic at hand?
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
But Stalin wasn't killing in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Russell's Tea Pot, now was he? In fact, he wasn't against religion or gods at all. He considered his God to be nature and even believed in heaven. In fact, that pretty much means he wasn't even an Atheist.
On the other side of the coin, however, killing because you think God told you to is a direct result of your religion. If they kill for God it's the religion's fault, if only partly
@ObsidianWizroh Stalin was an adherent to the atheistic Marxist-Leninist ideology. It's amazing how you take liberties to lump all Christains together with the professing ones who do evil in the name of Christianity, but take such offense to lumping all atheists with Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jong Il. etc. If someone murders because they think God told him to, he is ignoring the "Thou shalt not kill" verse. The Devil has a hay day with those who do not know the word of God.
I take no offense over what someone else did and I never said all Christians were killers just because some of them killed people. What I said was that people have been killed in the name of God.
As for Thou Shalt Not Kill, God himself commands killing. He orders you to stone your disobedient child to death with stones. That's killing in the name of God. Killing all non-believers just because they didn't believe in God in Israel, as well.
@ObsidianWizroh Killing in war or as punishment for a capital murder is not "murder" as is implied in "Thou shalt not kill". And what sort of deviant teenager would curse his parents knowing full well that his crime would be punishable by death. These parents were citizens of God's chosen nation and God knew how easily His people could fall into the ways of the wicked nations around them. The Baal worshippers passed their firstborn through the fire in honor of this demon god.
Funny, I don't recall saying war or as punishment for capitol murder. I said killing for disobedience and not believing in God within the walls of Israel. Did you not read that part?
Actually, the stories of God partly stem from Baal. Him, Asherah, El Elyon, and Yahweh (the god of war) were all part of the hebrew polytheistic religion which became what you know to be Christianity.
That last part must have come from Yahweh Sabaoth. War gods love jealousy, wickedness, and vengeance. ^_^
@ObsidianWizroh Maybe you should say the words of Madalyn Murray O'Hair: "If you are real God I ask you to kill me" Famous last words! Prove the pre-existing Hebrew polytheistic religion. First I've heard of it. I can only imagine where you heard it. i guess you didn't read my entire post. "What sort of deviant teenager..." I did respond directly to your point. God's judgment cannot come soon enough when you consider the state this world is in.
@ObsidianWizroh It's not referring to misbehaving teens, but deviant teens who have cursed his parents. The parents lived in Israel: God's chosen nation and God. These laws were put in place to keep the Israelites from falling into the ways of the wicked nations (worse than the Nazis). God's covenant was a national one between Him and one nation. The new covenant is universal (world wide) and the national laws no longer apply.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
@ObsidianWizroh "He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:17) This is based on the assumption that the parents are living according to the covenant israel has with God and by the ten commandments. The son would have been raised to understand the seriousness of committing such an offense, and yet still does it. He would almost have to be a Satan worshipper to do such a thing, knowing full well the consequences.
1. Children misbehave. It's in their nature. They don't understand the consequences at all. They have no idea what being stoned to death even means. And if they don't know, they are willing to do the exact this that will get them stoned to death to find out.
2. How do you know these rules only applied within the walls of Israel? Show me where it says that in the bible.
@ObsidianWizroh Children were not put to death for general misbehaving. These rules only existed "in this particular context" as part of the laws of Moses. Everything was specific to being God's chosen nation. God's people had to keep themselves apart from the influences of the ungodly pagan nations surrounding them. Deut. 18:9-12 explains the wicked practises such as passing children thru the fire, occultism & necromancy. Israel later fell into these sinful practises.
Whether or not they WERE being put to death doesn't detract from the law that said they SHOULD.
Where does it say these laws only applied within the walls of Israel?
Actually, Israel began with those "sinful" practices with their pagan origins. They then molded Baal, Asherah, El Elyon and Yahweh Sabaoth into one god. About 600 BCE, they declared his name to BE God.
Now, are we done with this tangent? Or do you declare defeat on the topic of evolution for the sake of this one?
@ObsidianWizroh If a people were going to try and paint themselves as God's chosen, you would think they would want make themselves appear worthy faithful followers of their God. Yet God says, "Not for thy righteousness...dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob." (Con't)
@ObsidianWizroh (Con't) "Understand therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art not a stiffnecked people." (Deut. 9:5-6) Imagine the Hebrew writers portraying their people in such a bad light. This, to me is what makes it more believable. I'd find it more questionable if the entire OT was one story after another of Israel living in perfect obedience to God. But even their heroes mess up big time. (con't)
@ObsidianWizroh (Con't) So, Israel is spoken by God as being unworthy of being His chosen people. It's like you say, the Hebrews practised a lot of paganism prior to Exodus and even fell into it when they were supposed to be God's representatives on earth. They molded the golden calf and worshipped as the God who delivered them out of Egypt. But I don't know where you get the idea that they molded a bunch of pagan gods into Jehovah.
@ObsidianWizroh I have no problem with the strictness of God that was necessary for keeping His chosen people from evil influences that were prevalent in those days. We can see much of this stuff going on in the world today: sexual deviancy, pedophilia, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, human trafficking, drug addiction, etc. etc. etc. It would have been kind of nice if God had smote the Nazis at the height of WWII. I doubt that many would have complained.
Then why didn't he? He killed every man woman and child on the entire planet for disobeying his wishes and he refuses to kill a single nation that is killing off his loyal children?
You know, Hitler believed in a version of evolution. Not the same kind the rest of us, but he did believe in a version of it. You still done with that topic? I see you are also done with the topic of your paganist religion.
Shall I assume, then, that any topic you stop discussing you have conceded to me?
@ObsidianWizroh Christianity may be a paganist religion to you, but not to Christains. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). So man was so utterly wicked that God saw them as being beyond redemption and chose to exact judgment on them. Maybe you cannot fathom such wickedness. Maybe al Qaida mixed with Nazism X 20? Justice is justice. The final judgment will come
@ObsidianWizroh I think Elohim who "created the heavens and the earth" is the Intelligent Designer" Abiogenesis nor any other random unguided process will ever be proven.
Elohim is used to represent a single god as well as multiple gods, both forms being used in the hebrew texts from the present all the way back to the beginning of Hebrew polytheism. That's one of the smaller examples of the old pagan texts.
Also, we have proven abiogenesis is a viable explanation of our origin. We have created the building blocks of life in the lab, exactly as predicted through abiogenesis. Now we just need the exact conditions to know how we, specifically, began.
@ObsidianWizroh Elohim is a word that can be used both singularly and plurally. The "Us" in "Let us make man in our image..." is the divine trinity who constitute the one Godhead as seen in the next verse. "And Elohim created man in "His" image... It has nothing to do with paganist view of many separate gods of war, of peace, of thunder, of lightning, of dawn, of the sun... So "In the beginning Elohim (the one Godhead) created the heavens & the earth...": not abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis made life, not the Earth. The Earth was made through gravity. Abiogenesis has evidence. You have an old book. Sorry, but that's reality.
Also, you have no evidence that it is referring to the trinity, something that did not exist until the NT. The rest of us have evidence for the polytheistic religion where this was El Elyon speaking to all of the other gods. "Let us make man in our image" refers to all of them making man in their own image, similar to them all.
@ObsidianWizroh Abiogenesis has never been nor will ever be proven because the first self-replicating molecule would require "information" to exist in the first place. Wher could such complex information come from. Science shows design, but cannot identify the designer. To me it's Elohim. Read Zechariah 2:8-11: The Messiah is identified as Jehovah and Jehovah is identified as the one who sent Him. There are also two Jehovahs working together in Genesis 19:24.
@ObsidianWizroh P.S. Zechariah 2:8-11 is an end time prophesy. Many prophetic OT scriptures speak of a divine Messiah. Why would the writer of Genesis want to portray Elohim in both a singular and plural manner, especially in back-to-back verses that speak of the same thing? It would be silly to have Elohim say "Let US make man..." and then one verse later say "So God created man in HIS own image" At the end of ch. 3, Jehovah says "Behold, the man has become as one of US..."
So... you're just going to ignore this scientific discovery altogether? Simply because you refuse to believe it happened?
[Elohim] Those are two different writers. The book has been written and re-written several times by many different people. Didn't I already mention this?
@ObsidianWizroh Most evolutionists, up to this day, say that abiogenesis has not yet been proven. So I am not ignoring a "scientific discovery" at all. There still is no evidence to support it. And you forgot to supply me with the evidence to support that two different writers wrote (exactly what?) and that Genesis has been rewritten "many times". Did one author write Gen. 1:26 and a different author write 1:27? That's rich.
Actually, yes. There are many instances in the bible where one author or another changed or added just one line to make it appear more like the way they wanted the story to go.
As for Abiogenesis, please give me a list of "evolutionists" who say abiogenesis has yet to be proven. I know I have my list of those who know it's our origin, as well as the evidence. Look up the Miller–Urey experiment on wikipedia, or google it. That's the most famous example of WORKING abiogenesis.
@ObsidianWizroh The Bible warns of people adding or taking away from His word (Rev. 22:18-19). But He also says that the essential message from the original text that the world needs to hear will be preserved. (Luke 21:33). Why was the Urey-Miller experiment ordered to be removed from science classroom textbooks?
I wasn't aware it was added to the text books, let alone removed. What is your source for this information?
As or the bible stuff, you just said right there that we should not add more meaning to the bible than was already there. Doesn't that mean we should take the bible at its word, not come up with reasons for it to mean other things?
@ObsidianWizroh The essential message of the original text remains intact. There is no need to change anything. The Urey-Miller experiment has been in the textbooks for a long time. Many errors have been exposed and it has been ordered to be removed. It all began when it was decided that academic freedom should be permitted in the science classroom. Students no longer have to be afraid to challenge some aspects of evolution.
Still, it doesn't surprise me that it would be removed from the text books as they were using atmosphere different from the original Earth and we now have better experiments with closer atmospheres that are getting even better results.
@ObsidianWizroh So scientists become the intelligent designers by using the original Intelligent Designer's recipe. They have to painstakingly create the best scenario and add the right chemicals to the mix and coax them to interact as they must to kickstart life. This still doesn't rule out an Intelligent Designer providing the information necessary for the first self-replicating molecule to come into existance. God still remains to be the original "chemist".
@55k3v1n Adam was formed from earthly elements and sure enough, we know today that humans are made up of water, minerals, etc. Everything that can be found in a human being exists on the earth. There is no problem between the science and the Genesis account. It wouldn't be so if God used some magic extraterrestrial powder to make life.
1) The "essential message" is not the original text, nor is it even intact at all. The original message was polytheistic.
2) They did not create the best scenario, they create what they though was the planet's atmosphere at the time. Since then we have made closer models with significantly better results. further evidence that it's true.
3) You don't call 6-10 thousand versus 13 BILLION years a "problem?" Or evolution vs creation? Or Genesis vs Cosmology? I certainly do.
@ObsidianWizroh The biblical message was never polytheistic. You just want it to be and have yet to give compelling evidence that backs your claims. Their are three separate and distinct Persons in the One Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body. This is why Elohim can go by both singular and plural pronouns. You only assume the "Us" must be referring to multiple gods when it doesn't. What other "proofs do you have?
@ObsidianWizroh Again you make fantastic assumptions. Nowhere does it tell us that the earth is onlt 6-10 thousand years old. The scriptures do not tell us when "in the beginning" was. But, as science shows us, there definately was a beginning to time and space. Believing it all came about on its own takes a lot of blind faith.
4) As for us being made out of earth stuff and not alien stuff, I challenge you to find a handful of dirt that holds all of the different chemicals and minerals that are in our body. Better yet, what about the particles that are in the dirt that are NOT a part of us? Where'd the water come from? There is no water in the dirt. Even if you go with "dust" this does not explain a great deal of the chemicals we find in our bodies or the lack of the dust particles.
@ObsidianWizroh Where do you get the idea that all chemicals & minerals making up life would have to be contained in a handful of dirt? The particles in the earth that are not part of us are simply unnecessary for life. God created man from what's found on the planet. The fact that all the chemicals and minerals required can't be found in the same place makes it all the more compelling. You make the mistake of thinking that God has to explain the exact process that was involved
1) Kinda hard to give evidence in a comment. Can't post links. watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
2) So you think Adam and Eve were made 13.6 billion years ago? Or do you think God's week lasted that long? How do you account for the Earth being created before the sun?
3) God created Adam from dust. He then made Eve from a rib. Dust contains no water. Ribs contain no flesh. If God did not create man from dust, why say he did? If it is metaphor, why take the rest literally?
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
@55k3v1n "Mutations always result in disfiguring degression."
Incorrect. Whyilemost mutations are harmful or at best genetic neutral, your claim of "always" is yet more proof you are ignorant of the basic principles of evolution. STOP simply regurgitating what other people and start thinking for yourself.
@jimmo42 The basic principles of evolution, as per neo Darwinism, is nothing but an effort to come up with answers to explain the impossible: life coming from a bunch of unrelated chemicals randomly gathering together mixed with a bit of lightning. Do you realise how many "bad" chemicals would have amazingly not joined in the mix? Only the right chemicals "knew" to come together at exactly the right time and in exactly the right way. You probably don't think of that.
Waving your hands and jumping up and down screaming it is is "impossible" does not make it so. Once again (and again and again) you are arguing from incredulity. YOU lack the intellect or knowledge to understand it. Just like ancient people thought flight was impossible or sending a rocket to the moon was impossible, you claim abiogensis and evolution is impossible simply because you are just as superstitious and primitive humans.
@55k3v1n "Do you realise how many "bad" chemicals would have amazingly not joined in the mix? "
Certainly better than you do. However, you are ignoring three key facts. 1) there was *not* just a single place where the "chemicals" existed, but rather they were spread out all over the planet. 2) The earth had at least a billion years to get the right mixture. 3) We have already show that created amino acids is possible naturally in the primoridal atmosphere, becasue we have done it!
And PLEASE do not come up with thhe absurd argument that the Urey-Miller experiment was invalid because they simulated an atmosphere were now know is incorrrect. However, scientists have already redone the experiment using the current accept value, demonstrating your claim that it is "impossible" is wrong!
@55k3v1n "a bunch of unrelated chemicals randomly gathering together"
We've been there, remember? Your dishonest use of "random" serves nothing. It is common for ingorant religionists like yourself to misuse the term "random" to force an incorrect interpretation. It is NOT random, but most defintitely deterministic. Given the same conditions, the same processes with always give the *same* results. That is NOT random. Is it clear yet, or do you chose to continue to be dishonest?
@55k3v1n "in the sense that intelligence appears to be involved in both. "
Incorrect. First, you are once again guilty of quote mining and are taking the "River out of Eden" quote out of context.
The very next sentence is "Among many other consequences, this digital revolution at the very core of life has dealt the final, killing blow to vitalism—the belief that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material." (I have the book right in front of me)
Admitted. However, you are dishonestly taking his quote out of context as you certainly have not read the book. You not only have a reading comprehension problem, but you have a problem with English vocaulary. The word "similarity" does NOT mean they are the same. Again, you avoid giving us a *definiton* of code because you know we can refute your claim. Instead, you vomit out some nonsensical hyperbole.
If I declined getting involved with the santa claus issue with a 5 year old would that make me a coward? The Roman Catholic church IS an evil institution and the pope IS a learing old villain in a frock. I'm a former Roman Catholic and I see nothing wrong with this comment and other comments made by professor Dawkins. This other guy is not a scientist and probably got his doctorate from some mail order bible college. Degrees in "theology" sould be removed from any respectful college.
Exactly! Now you're getting it. As you know the bible was written by bronze age, illiterate, human and animal sacrificing, supersticious, nomadic, goat-hearding, tribesmen! I read the bible when I was in the hole (solitary confinement) and I must say I never realized how contradictive, inconsistant, irrational and barbaric, it really was! The new testament wasn't a whole lot better either. I was raised as a christian but through using critical thinking I was saved from religious bondage.
@55k3v1n Why do you keep insisting that this is "digital information?" That it your super-imposition upon it. It is NOT. It's A, C, G and T. Also known as cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine. How these nucleobases interact is simple, well understood chemistry. Bill Gates is not a molecular biologists. He isn't even a computer programmer. He is a businessman. So I dont care what Bill Gates says about DNA. THis whole shit about "Durrrrr DNA is teh information!" is total crap.
@55k3v1n "Even your idol Richard Dawkins says that there is a genetic code"
If you actually bothered to read his work, you would see that calling it a "code" is simply to provide a reference point for laymen. Are you so naive to think that among biologist themselves they ever actually use the term "genetic code"? You are conflating the definitons of "code" to force interpretation.
@55k3v1n DNA is no more a genetic code than it is a "code" that when you put capsaicin (occurs in chili peppers) on your tongue causes a burning sensation.
- If capsaicin, then activate neuron to create burning sensation.
- If DNA sequence Y, then make protein X.
- If cliff, create waterfall
In all three cases, there are natural laws that are being blindly followed, without a hint of being "guided" or an intelligence.
@jimmo42 I could have sworn that Dawkins referred to the genetic code as being a reality, yet still attempted to use an undirected materialistic cause to explain it.
@55k3v1n "I could have sworn that Dawkins referred to the genetic code as being a reality"
Find the quote and allow us the opportunity to explain your misunderstanding. If he did say something similar, it was likely in the context that it is as real as the code that causes capsaicin to burn your toungue, that obviously is an "undirected materialistic cause". It is by no means the same as an arbitrary computer code, as your ludicrous claim implied.
@55k3v1n DNA confirms everything that was long suspected by science and evolution. But, keep repeating the lies you have been fed. Your religion is dying around you. Steadily year after year. Maybe you'd be happier in a Muslim nation where EVERYONE shares your infantile rejection of science.
@lormendi It has nothing to do with religion. DNA tells us that information is contained in the genetic code. Each previous cell required the information in order to reproduce. So where did the information come from that produced the first self-replicating molecule? The laws of physics? Can the laws of physics think and, as you said, direct chemicals to produce first life? I only reject your version of sciencific indoctrination permeating the minds of neo-Darwinists.
@55k3v1n the Miller-Urey experiment is the first step to answering the questions mentioned here by you... they are re-doing this experiment right now and additional knowledge about abiogenesis will become available in the near future.
@55k3v1n Shame on you! First you say "cell" then "self-replicating molecule". You quite obviously do not have a grasp of even the basics. There are many steps between a self-replicating molecule (what has already been done in the laboratory) and even a prokaryotic cell.
@55k3v1n "Can the laws of physics think and, as you said, direct chemicals to produce first life?"
It seems that you have a compulsion to conflate definitions. Physical laws "direct" the chemicals to create life in the same way a cliff "directs" the river to "create" a waterfall. In the case of creating life, there are many more steps than in creating a waterfall, but that by no means implies that it is not following natural laws.
@lormendi WOW! You sure convinced me that life was directed by the laws of physics and chemicals. First life would have required pre-existing genetic information to become the first self-replicating molecule. But, wait there couldn't have been pre-existing information...but there would have to be. The old chicken and egg enigma.
@55k3v1n There's really nothing else that can be said to someone who publicly said that UFO's are piloted by fallen angels. You have officially jumped the shark. You keep repeating the same tired arguments and we keep trying to show you how and why you are wrong. I think I have learned a lesson: "It is irrational to assume others will be rational." Good luck in life. I hope something eventually leads you to the light of reason and away from your silly mythology.
William Lane Craig loves to issue challenges but he's a lot more shy when challenged by a theologically-trained atheists like John W. Loftus.
Is Craig a coward? Perhaps he's 'too busy'?
shumble32 2 weeks ago
By referring to William Lane Craig as a competent theist, he actually implies that being a theist and being competent tend to be exclusive to each other, otherwise it wouldn't be such a big deal to have an intelligent theist. The only thing that truly matters is whether there is hard evidence for theism, not winning theoretical debates that don't prove anything.
x234gm 3 weeks ago
This is ridiculous.
There are some interesting articles out there how WLC frequently tries to stipulate several favorable aspects whenever he's negotiating the terms of a planned debate.
Not only does he try to gain control of what the "topic" of what the debate is, he also tries to stipulate what the opponent's position must be and how it is presented.
That's because he only has 1 game he can play to ensure that he "wins" the debate and it's been the same for 20 years.
sooperfukker 3 weeks ago
If Pee-Wee Herman challanges Evander Holyfield to a boxing match and Evander declines, is it because he is a coward that fears the deadly fists of the hulking Pee-Wee?
caralhoman 4 weeks ago
Darwin's Heretic: Did the Co-founder of Evolution Embrace Intelligent Design?: YouTube. Alfred Russel Wallace: A scientist that used his brain!
55k3v1n 4 weeks ago
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from your sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 1 month ago
@mamainmancj either you're home-schooled, faith-schooled, retarded - or you are joking.
vjwebster 4 weeks ago
Er.......... the poster wouldn't be an home- (or faith-) schooled evangelical, by any chance?
vjwebster 1 month ago
lol!
dkthg 1 month ago
Um whats Dawkin going to debate? I don't dislike Craig like many atheists do but there isn't really anything he can actually prove to Craig since there is no science for the latter to present.
MrNicMachiavelli 1 month ago
I think Hitch dealt adequately with Craig, who knows nothing about science. "Rational grounds for belief in god" - that's how much Craig knows about reason or evidence-based belief.
ilkinond 1 month ago
Comment removed
ilkinond 1 month ago
Fundy dogshit.
ilkinond 1 month ago
thats great take him out of context who is the coward here? dawkins would debate with the pope
metalandjazzare1 1 month ago
William Lane Craig has had his ass ceremonially kicked by the late Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, I'm not surprised to see him try to ride this supposed controversy. He's obviously desperate to retrieve something of a once significant reputation. If he can provoke Dawkins into debating him, it would make it seem like he is taken seriously. Unlike WLC, all outspoken atheists live under the constant threat of violent reprisal from religious fruitbats, calling them cowards is simply a lie.
robsiddall 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robsiddall In the one debate I saw between Craig and Harris, I thought Craig did a much better job with the technical aspects, which is why most theists think he wins his debates. Harris was trying to prsent valid arguments and not "win". The content and validity of the arguments are unimportant with Craig. What is important are the stylistic and technical aspects. This no more makes his argument right than Iraq was right when they invaded Kuwait.
jimmo42 1 month ago 3
@jimmo42 You're a hopeless heathen. How about the Richard Dawkin's quote?
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n "How about the Richard Dawkin's quote?"
You are a classic religionist. I responded to it and you make believe that it doesn't exist. Just like you make beleive there is no evidence for evolution and there is evidence for an invisible magic sky daddy.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@BlongBlarble Aw? Does no one take BlongBlarble's trolling seriously? Keep trying scrub haha
Elitest2 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
Look, enough beating around the bush. It's obvious you have no idea what the words "code" and "information" mean. Allow me to educate you.
Information: Things that are or can be known.
Code: Any defined computing process.
Neither of these are within any living thing. We simply call DNA those things because of how it responds chemically to other atoms and molecules. It is NOT a code, by any stretch of the imagination. You simply took a pet name and made up the rest.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh You can try and explain it away all you want, but the fact remains that if even one "bit" of the coded information is missing, everything goes completely out of whack. Dawkins frequently refers to the genetic code found in DNA. Isn't he one of your heros?
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n "if even one "bit" of the coded information is missing, everything goes completely out of whack"
Wrong again! It has already been demonstrated that by natural processes errors can be and are corrected. Second, small does not mean "everything goes completely out of whack", maybe you simply have an allergy to peanuts.
Further, simply saying "bit" demostrates you have no clue about the basics. Are you talking about single nucleotides? Codons? Whole genes?
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42 Wrong again! Wrong again! Wrong again! What arrogance. Who are you to say what is definitively right or wrong? You're just a mere human being with a finite mind. Pride comes before a fall. You atheists will experience this one day soon.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "Who are you to say what is definitively right or wrong?"
Is it arrogant to say the sun does NOT go around the earth as your mythology book says? Is it arrogant to say one specific variant of Christianity is correct and all others are incorrect? (like YOU do) You will find that most Christians in the world accept evolution. All except your tiny little, insignificant sect. Now go back to your beads and rattles.
jimmo42 1 month ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "You're just a mere human being with a finite mind."
Yet YOU claim to know God's mind well enough to say he did NOT create the universe in such a way that abiognesis and evolution are possible. Now THAT is turlly arrogant.
All you are doing is simply saying that YOUR god is NOT all-powerful, because he couldn't create such a universe. YOUR god is one of deceit as he tricks us with all the evidence for the big bang, evolution, etc when it really isn't true, right?
jimmo42 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "Pride comes before a fall."
..facepalm...That is just as ludicrous as the stale old argument "You don't believe in god because you want to sin", "You don't beleive in god because you hate him", and other such nonsense. All that shows is the only argument you have is bronze-age superstition. Wake up! This is the 21st century. We don't live in caves any more.
jimmo42 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "Dawkins frequently refers to the genetic code found in DNA."
Because he writes to the layman. You most certainy would not understand it if he only talked about codons, nucleotides, messanger RNA and the like.
So, professor, why don't YOU provide us with a definition of "code" and then we will explain why you are wrong about applying the term to DNA.
jimmo42 1 month ago 3
@jimmo42
I see you prefer the Sledgehammer over the Rapier. Together, we've completely shut down this IDiot. Won't be long now before he starts to quote scripture to us verse for verse.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh
55k3v1n reminds me a lot of the black knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". We've hacked off his arms and leg, and then he screams "Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!" The only thing left is to whack off his bloody head.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
You know that won't happen. You chop off the head and it will just grow back. The brain has been missing for some time. All we'd accomplish is deforming the mouth.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@jimmo42 You just described how many aspects of Darwinian natural selection is being slowly chopped to pieces.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "You just described how many aspects of Darwinian natural selection is being slowly chopped to pieces."
Uh, no....You are simply demonstrating your ignorance about the basic of evolution. Evolution does not create the "perfect" being, but rather one that has even a slightly better chance of reproducing. Having a nose (for example) at all is "better" than not having one, even if it not located in the optimum position.
jimmo42 1 month ago 3
@55k3v1n
So, who do you have marking posts as spam for you? Just curious since all of Jimmo's posts to you seem to be getting marked.
I ask you as it's quite common for creationists to attempt to silence opposition that they know they cannot defeat.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh I never spam anyone. It's an act of desperation.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
Exactly why I wouldn't put it past you. You obviously cannot refute what we are telling you, so you then have two choices, claim that our evidence is blind faith (as you are attempting to do with me) or try to silence the opposition.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh "two choices"
Actually, there is a third choice: claim the evidence is invalid or insufficient, and provide nothing to support that claim. That is what Michael Behe did in the Kitzmiller-Dover trial. He was shown dozens of peer-reviewed papers and book chapters just on the evolution of the immune system alone (more than the *entire* body of peer-reviewed work on ID as a whole), but he still claimed it was insufficient. Basically: ingore the evidence.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
Really that's just a combination of the two. Some "It's all faith" and some "shut up about it!"
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh "Really that's just a combination of the two."
Very valid point!
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42 "He was shown dozens of peer-reviewed papers and book chapters just on the evolution of the immune system alone (more than the *entire* body of peer-reviewed work on ID as a whole), but he still claimed it was insufficient. Basically: ingore the evidence" NO, his claim that it was insufficient was correct. BTW "peer-review" means jack shit. There's nothing scientific about it.
MaximusArurealius 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "It's an act of desperation."
Well, all of your arguments *are* an act of desperation, so why should you not spam? Your arguments so far have no scientific support, are easily refuted, are illogical and often self-contradictory. Each time you are confronted with something you have nothing to counter with, you make the desperate claim of things like "original sin", "gawd dunnit", "Satan has obviously twisted your understanding of God's ways", etc. All you have is "desperation".
jimmo42 1 month ago 2
@55k3v1n
Besides, pretty much every post of his marked as spam are going against you. The ones being posted to me are not being marked as spam. I wonder why that is?
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ObsidianWizroh "pretty much every post of his marked as spam are going against you"
You cannot honestly believe that 55k3v1n would mark something as spam, when it really isn't. That would be lying and according to Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD". An "abomination", just like homosexuality! Since he keeps on doing it, that would mean he is unrepentant and unrepentant sinners go to hell, right?
jimmo42 1 month ago 3
@ObsidianWizroh Then there is Leviticus 19:11 "You must not steal, you must not tell lies", Ephesians 4:25 "each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor", and Luke 13:3 "But unless you repent, you will all perish as well!"
Then there are at least a half dozens passages that require sinners to make amends for their sins. However, as a "good" Christian, 55k3v1n should know that unrepentant sinners (liars) go to hell, right?
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42 You're a stupid jackass! All you atheists are. You're always calling people of faith liars and now you say I'm lying about spamming your comments! Then you and Obbie the idiot act like little teenagers giggling about it. Atheists are missing the gene that allows them to understand spiritual things. You're stuck in the physical like sick fools. Your foolish pride will be revealed to you on the day of judgment, then you'll realise how much of an idiot you both are.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n "You're always calling people of faith liars"
Once again you are wrong. 1) I only call Christians liars when the evidence indicates such. 2) There is evidence showing that you post things you know are no true, but you still present them as being true. 3) I never called you a liar, as simply pointed out that if you were marking things as spam, when they were not, that would be lying, which is a sin and unrepentant sinners go to hell. Nothing more.
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "Atheists are missing the gene that allows them to understand spiritual things." If anything, we have evolved a gene that allows our intellect to recognize 2000-year-old mythology as nonsense. On the other hand, once again you are wrong. You cannot seem to get anything right. I do "understand spiritual things". I am somewhat of a Taoist. I just don't believe in a god that keeps changing his mind then knocks-up a young girl to show how "moral" we should be.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@55k3v1n "Your foolish pride will be revealed to you on the day of judgment"
Which is nothing more than the classic "you only want to sin" argument.
What you ingore is that should God exist, he is the greatest, most perfect intellect. The "sin" in your mythology is irrelevant to him. Instead, he would want beings at his side that search for the truth and do not ignore the facts because they are unwilling to see the truth. You are not likely to be one of those at his side.
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "You're always calling people of faith liars" cont.
You should read "There is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ" by Michael Gaddis. It provides a small number of examples where Christians throughout history have ignored what their own doctrine says to do evil in the name of Jesus. Lying is just one of many things. While I am not saying directly you are lying, you have made up things and are dishonest. It is simply one more piece of evidence that your belief is nonsense.
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42 ""You're always calling people of faith liars" cont.
Let's assume one of us did call you a liar. According to your mythology the early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs. Paul even talks about bearing the weight of "persecution" in the name of Christ, yet you cannot even handle a bit of razzing without flying off the handle, just like all religionists. Each of your posts is just more evidence your beliefs are nonsense.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
Obbie the idiot. Now we have reverted to name calling when you have to way of defeating my arguments? Well, it can't be long now before I'm blocked from posting to this video. It's the usual tactic of the religious on YouTube. If you cannot defeat someone's argument, you simply make it go away, pretend it never happened, and continue with the fantasy you're imagined for yourself.
Jimmo's right, it is rather pathetic.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh To be quite honest I see it as a victory when someone marks my posts as spam. They have no valid argument, so must resort to dishonesty to hide any contrary evidence. I wear it as badge of honor that religionists give up the morality and ethics taught in their holy book in order for the short term boost to their own ego. It's actually really pathetic that they do it.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
I was blocked from a video just a few moments ago after a single comment. All I did was say the Kalam Cosmological Argument is nothing but deductive reasoning based on assumption. They responded then blocked me, as though they had proven the point beyond a doubt.
Quite an idiotic move, really.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh Were you blocked by drcraigvideos, by chance? If it was, I am not surprised. Christians get to insult non-believers without provocation and there are no repercussion. However, provide proof Craig is wrong and you get blocked in a second. To me it's a badge of honor because it proves to me that the only thing they can to is try and silence anyone who opposes them.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
That's the one. Funny thing is, I sent him a message about it and he said that if I would just avoid trolling, cussing, and lying, then I wouldn't get blocked.
I'm sure you can figure out from my comments on here, that's three things I never do, especially in a debate.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
It seems my last post was never posted for some reason...
If one "bit" of the "coded information" is missing, then it's a mutation. Mutations on this scale happen all the time. If they add up to a significant change, this is evolution.
As for Dawkins referring to it as "genetic code," didn't I already say this? It's a pet name. It doesn't mean anything, it's just something to explain it to the layman.
Think about this for a moment: Perhaps you're wrong?
Just a thought.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh Mutations always result in disfiguring degression. The context of Dawkins' words are clearly expressions of fascination at how eerily similar the genetic code is to a computer code in the sense that intelligence appears to be involved in both.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
Mutations have been shown to be beneficial as well as disfiguring. More often than not, they are neutral, not changing much of anything.
I see you are placing thoughts of your own into Dawkins' head. There is zero evidence for intelligence in DNA, and 100% of evidence points toward evolution after abiogenesis.
Again, you are simply wrong. Please put down your bible, stop listening to the lies of those like Dr. Craig, and retake high school science. You obviously need it.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh I just can't get myself to believe that lifeless matter could figure out how to get information into the genetic code. I admire your faith.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
Lifeless matter didn't figure out anything. Chemical reactions caused the formation and mutation of RNA and DNA. There is no intelligence behind it at any stage of development.
You are working on the bias that no complex thing can occur without an intelligence behind it while science knows that it is possible. Not only is it possible, but it is reality. We have evidence showing how it all formed and became what it is today.
All you have to do is open your mind and look at it.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh "You are working on the bias that..."
Which, as we all know, is typical for religionists like 55k3v1n. First reach a conclusion based on a 2000-year-old book of mythology, then go out and manipulate the evidence to support its absurd claims.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42
Yeah, completely backwards from true, scientific discovery.
Science finds evidence and describes the world based on said evidence.
Religion describes the world and then tries to find evidence to back it up.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh Why waste your time with these dickheads? They have a neurological disorder induced by childhood psychological abuse (see Jesus Camp on utube) - which, incidentally, is a gross abuse of the human rights of children - not to mention the sexual abuse which often accompanies it.
vjwebster 4 weeks ago
@vjwebster
Boredom, typically. Occasionally, though, I like to hammer home for everyone reading that IDiots like these are no where near the truth.
Besides, my rapier needs something to sharpen against or it will get dull. Might as well be a stone that refuses to break or wear down. ^_^
ObsidianWizroh 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "I just can't get myself to believe that lifeless matter could figure out..."
Three reasons for that. 1) it didn't "figure it out" 2) You do not appear to have the intelelct or knowledge to understand. 3) You are dishonestly misusing the terms "code" and "information" to force an interpretation that implies design.
AGAIN, provide an accepted definition of "code", and now I say provide an accepted definition of "information", and we will show you why they don't apply.
jimmo42 1 month ago 2
@55k3v1n
Not going to respond to my post? Does that mean you then agree with me? Do you finally see where you are wrong?
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
Well, I guess you've finally realized that I'm right. Either that or you're still on the fence and just can't find anything that supports your arguments against mine. In either case, will you concede that I have the better argument, or are you just going to sit quietly and let me win in silence?
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh Yep. You're all so right. So many people have left a life of crime and addiction by becoming an atheist. Ooops. Actually nobody's life has changed to the better by becoming an atheist. Oh, but the millions of transformed lives resulting from receiving Jesus Christ into one's life cannot be denied. Jesus Christ is the the same yesterday, today and forever. AMEN. Atheists believe in scientism: the taking of science into the realm of philosophy.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
1. That wasn't the argument.
2. Considering religion is an addiction and going against the constitution is a crime, I'd have to say you're wrong in this argument as well. Not to mention all of the people who have killed because of their religion or decided to purposefully hallucinate to understand their god better.
As for millions of transformed lives, not hardly. Religion in general is on the decline. you are LOSING members, not gaining them. And the "benefit" is merely a delusion.
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh You say "people have killed in the name of their religion". I doubt many of the killers were the ones I referred to as having been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. And don't forget about the millions killed by noted atheists Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il. The NT prophesies that the time of Christ's second coming will not occur until the "falling away" comes first. So, "losing members" is just the fulfillment of yet another biblical prophesy.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n ..and let's not forget the millions killed by Uncle Sam, in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America, North America....the list goes on. Christianity is the mother of Fascism. That's irrefutable, a matter of public record. Get a life, ye American Taliban!
vjwebster 1 month ago
@vjwebster Uncle Sam isn't a Christain. The West (NATO) isn't a Christain, but a collection of white, black, oriental, muslim, christain, atheist, hindu people who are against all forms of aggression as per Hitler, Stalin, radical Islam, etc. You must have quite the twisted mind to believe Christianity is the mother of fascism. So you a Communist, or what??
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n Of course Fascism is Christian, a matter of historical record - originally an exreme R wing catholic movement, now the political soul of Islam and their brothers in arms, the American Taliban (a.k.a. Christian Evangelical fundamentalists). Learn a few things, boy, before you start trying to educate others
vjwebster 4 weeks ago
@vjwebster You are a perfect example of someone who uses stereotypical words of hate. You are not worthy of relating to.
55k3v1n 4 weeks ago
Why don't you learn what others - who haven't been brainwashed since infancy - feel about your religion? Then, when you've understood where they are coming from, then you can make an informed choice. You could start by watching The Doomsday Code on youtube. And if you look ar REAL history (crusades, inquisition etc) you'll see Christianity if full of hatred and killing "infidels". Even some Am. Indians were slowly tortured to death for not accepting "jesus".Muslims are still doing it.
vjwebster 4 weeks ago
@vjwebster Well, what do I feel about your atheism? Some atheists are respectful, but you are a stinking troll. I can only imagine if you came into power: the concentration camps for all people of faith, the firing squads. How many people have turned from alcohol, drugs, gambling addictions, violent tendancies and the such by becoming an atheist? The scummy ones like you usually have some deviant sin in your life, which explains the hate and the rage.
55k3v1n 4 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
Being killed by Atheists, does not mean they were killed by Atheism. No one has ever been killed by Atheism, or Theism. However, there are those who were killed in the name of Christianity.
As for the "second coming" of Christ, no one has proven there was a first. And the prophesy was made to bolster those who see themselves losing members, to try to gain them back, or to comfort them by knowing they'll be with God soon.
But what's any of this got to do with evolution or abiogenesis?
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh If being killed by an atheist doesn't mean being killed by atheism, then why does being killed by a Christain mean being killed by Christianity. I personally don't equate alkl atheists with Stalin, etc., but atheists don't seem to hesitate with painting all Christains with the same brush. Check out "1-16-2012 -- 'Strange sounds' heard world wide -- what is it? YouTube" Forewarning "trumps" being heard before the "last trump" of 1Cor. 15:51-52??
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
I didn't say getting killed BY a Christian meant being killed BY Christianity. I said that many people have been kille in the name of Christianity. If you won't believe me, believe your own book. There are many times that genocide occurred in the bible in the name of your God.
Broad stroking is not my thing, but it does seem that all creationists I argue with pretend to be insulte in this way.
But what's any of this got to do with evolution or abiogenesis? You know, the topic at hand?
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
But Stalin wasn't killing in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Russell's Tea Pot, now was he? In fact, he wasn't against religion or gods at all. He considered his God to be nature and even believed in heaven. In fact, that pretty much means he wasn't even an Atheist.
On the other side of the coin, however, killing because you think God told you to is a direct result of your religion. If they kill for God it's the religion's fault, if only partly
ObsidianWizroh 1 month ago
@ObsidianWizroh Stalin was an adherent to the atheistic Marxist-Leninist ideology. It's amazing how you take liberties to lump all Christains together with the professing ones who do evil in the name of Christianity, but take such offense to lumping all atheists with Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jong Il. etc. If someone murders because they think God told him to, he is ignoring the "Thou shalt not kill" verse. The Devil has a hay day with those who do not know the word of God.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n
1. Not lumping.
2. I'm not at all offended.
I take no offense over what someone else did and I never said all Christians were killers just because some of them killed people. What I said was that people have been killed in the name of God.
As for Thou Shalt Not Kill, God himself commands killing. He orders you to stone your disobedient child to death with stones. That's killing in the name of God. Killing all non-believers just because they didn't believe in God in Israel, as well.
ObsidianWizroh 4 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Killing in war or as punishment for a capital murder is not "murder" as is implied in "Thou shalt not kill". And what sort of deviant teenager would curse his parents knowing full well that his crime would be punishable by death. These parents were citizens of God's chosen nation and God knew how easily His people could fall into the ways of the wicked nations around them. The Baal worshippers passed their firstborn through the fire in honor of this demon god.
55k3v1n 4 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
Funny, I don't recall saying war or as punishment for capitol murder. I said killing for disobedience and not believing in God within the walls of Israel. Did you not read that part?
Actually, the stories of God partly stem from Baal. Him, Asherah, El Elyon, and Yahweh (the god of war) were all part of the hebrew polytheistic religion which became what you know to be Christianity.
That last part must have come from Yahweh Sabaoth. War gods love jealousy, wickedness, and vengeance. ^_^
ObsidianWizroh 4 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Maybe you should say the words of Madalyn Murray O'Hair: "If you are real God I ask you to kill me" Famous last words! Prove the pre-existing Hebrew polytheistic religion. First I've heard of it. I can only imagine where you heard it. i guess you didn't read my entire post. "What sort of deviant teenager..." I did respond directly to your point. God's judgment cannot come soon enough when you consider the state this world is in.
55k3v1n 4 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
I've gone with similar phrases, actually. Never got a response.
We have evidence for the religion as well as the connections made. Look up evid3nc3 history of god to learn more.
So you think an appropriate punishment for disobedient teens is killing them?
God's judgement was suposed to come within the generation of the disciples. Didn't happen. I believe it was Matthew 24:34.
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
ObsidianWizroh 4 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh It's not referring to misbehaving teens, but deviant teens who have cursed his parents. The parents lived in Israel: God's chosen nation and God. These laws were put in place to keep the Israelites from falling into the ways of the wicked nations (worse than the Nazis). God's covenant was a national one between Him and one nation. The new covenant is universal (world wide) and the national laws no longer apply.
55k3v1n 4 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
It says disobedient children. It does not specify an age or amount of disobedience. If they disobey, stone them to death.
As for the laws no longer applying, it says in the bible that they all still apply until everything has been fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Placed into context (17-20) it's even more clear.
ObsidianWizroh 4 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh "He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:17) This is based on the assumption that the parents are living according to the covenant israel has with God and by the ten commandments. The son would have been raised to understand the seriousness of committing such an offense, and yet still does it. He would almost have to be a Satan worshipper to do such a thing, knowing full well the consequences.
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
1. Children misbehave. It's in their nature. They don't understand the consequences at all. They have no idea what being stoned to death even means. And if they don't know, they are willing to do the exact this that will get them stoned to death to find out.
2. How do you know these rules only applied within the walls of Israel? Show me where it says that in the bible.
ObsidianWizroh 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Children were not put to death for general misbehaving. These rules only existed "in this particular context" as part of the laws of Moses. Everything was specific to being God's chosen nation. God's people had to keep themselves apart from the influences of the ungodly pagan nations surrounding them. Deut. 18:9-12 explains the wicked practises such as passing children thru the fire, occultism & necromancy. Israel later fell into these sinful practises.
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
Whether or not they WERE being put to death doesn't detract from the law that said they SHOULD.
Where does it say these laws only applied within the walls of Israel?
Actually, Israel began with those "sinful" practices with their pagan origins. They then molded Baal, Asherah, El Elyon and Yahweh Sabaoth into one god. About 600 BCE, they declared his name to BE God.
Now, are we done with this tangent? Or do you declare defeat on the topic of evolution for the sake of this one?
ObsidianWizroh 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh If a people were going to try and paint themselves as God's chosen, you would think they would want make themselves appear worthy faithful followers of their God. Yet God says, "Not for thy righteousness...dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob." (Con't)
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh (Con't) "Understand therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art not a stiffnecked people." (Deut. 9:5-6) Imagine the Hebrew writers portraying their people in such a bad light. This, to me is what makes it more believable. I'd find it more questionable if the entire OT was one story after another of Israel living in perfect obedience to God. But even their heroes mess up big time. (con't)
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh (Con't) So, Israel is spoken by God as being unworthy of being His chosen people. It's like you say, the Hebrews practised a lot of paganism prior to Exodus and even fell into it when they were supposed to be God's representatives on earth. They molded the golden calf and worshipped as the God who delivered them out of Egypt. But I don't know where you get the idea that they molded a bunch of pagan gods into Jehovah.
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh I have no problem with the strictness of God that was necessary for keeping His chosen people from evil influences that were prevalent in those days. We can see much of this stuff going on in the world today: sexual deviancy, pedophilia, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, human trafficking, drug addiction, etc. etc. etc. It would have been kind of nice if God had smote the Nazis at the height of WWII. I doubt that many would have complained.
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
Then why didn't he? He killed every man woman and child on the entire planet for disobeying his wishes and he refuses to kill a single nation that is killing off his loyal children?
You know, Hitler believed in a version of evolution. Not the same kind the rest of us, but he did believe in a version of it. You still done with that topic? I see you are also done with the topic of your paganist religion.
Shall I assume, then, that any topic you stop discussing you have conceded to me?
ObsidianWizroh 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Christianity may be a paganist religion to you, but not to Christains. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). So man was so utterly wicked that God saw them as being beyond redemption and chose to exact judgment on them. Maybe you cannot fathom such wickedness. Maybe al Qaida mixed with Nazism X 20? Justice is justice. The final judgment will come
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh I think Elohim who "created the heavens and the earth" is the Intelligent Designer" Abiogenesis nor any other random unguided process will ever be proven.
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
Elohim is used to represent a single god as well as multiple gods, both forms being used in the hebrew texts from the present all the way back to the beginning of Hebrew polytheism. That's one of the smaller examples of the old pagan texts.
Also, we have proven abiogenesis is a viable explanation of our origin. We have created the building blocks of life in the lab, exactly as predicted through abiogenesis. Now we just need the exact conditions to know how we, specifically, began.
ObsidianWizroh 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Elohim is a word that can be used both singularly and plurally. The "Us" in "Let us make man in our image..." is the divine trinity who constitute the one Godhead as seen in the next verse. "And Elohim created man in "His" image... It has nothing to do with paganist view of many separate gods of war, of peace, of thunder, of lightning, of dawn, of the sun... So "In the beginning Elohim (the one Godhead) created the heavens & the earth...": not abiogenesis.
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
Abiogenesis made life, not the Earth. The Earth was made through gravity. Abiogenesis has evidence. You have an old book. Sorry, but that's reality.
Also, you have no evidence that it is referring to the trinity, something that did not exist until the NT. The rest of us have evidence for the polytheistic religion where this was El Elyon speaking to all of the other gods. "Let us make man in our image" refers to all of them making man in their own image, similar to them all.
ObsidianWizroh 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Abiogenesis has never been nor will ever be proven because the first self-replicating molecule would require "information" to exist in the first place. Wher could such complex information come from. Science shows design, but cannot identify the designer. To me it's Elohim. Read Zechariah 2:8-11: The Messiah is identified as Jehovah and Jehovah is identified as the one who sent Him. There are also two Jehovahs working together in Genesis 19:24.
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh P.S. Zechariah 2:8-11 is an end time prophesy. Many prophetic OT scriptures speak of a divine Messiah. Why would the writer of Genesis want to portray Elohim in both a singular and plural manner, especially in back-to-back verses that speak of the same thing? It would be silly to have Elohim say "Let US make man..." and then one verse later say "So God created man in HIS own image" At the end of ch. 3, Jehovah says "Behold, the man has become as one of US..."
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
So... you're just going to ignore this scientific discovery altogether? Simply because you refuse to believe it happened?
[Elohim] Those are two different writers. The book has been written and re-written several times by many different people. Didn't I already mention this?
ObsidianWizroh 3 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Most evolutionists, up to this day, say that abiogenesis has not yet been proven. So I am not ignoring a "scientific discovery" at all. There still is no evidence to support it. And you forgot to supply me with the evidence to support that two different writers wrote (exactly what?) and that Genesis has been rewritten "many times". Did one author write Gen. 1:26 and a different author write 1:27? That's rich.
55k3v1n 3 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
Actually, yes. There are many instances in the bible where one author or another changed or added just one line to make it appear more like the way they wanted the story to go.
As for Abiogenesis, please give me a list of "evolutionists" who say abiogenesis has yet to be proven. I know I have my list of those who know it's our origin, as well as the evidence. Look up the Miller–Urey experiment on wikipedia, or google it. That's the most famous example of WORKING abiogenesis.
ObsidianWizroh 2 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh The Bible warns of people adding or taking away from His word (Rev. 22:18-19). But He also says that the essential message from the original text that the world needs to hear will be preserved. (Luke 21:33). Why was the Urey-Miller experiment ordered to be removed from science classroom textbooks?
55k3v1n 2 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
I wasn't aware it was added to the text books, let alone removed. What is your source for this information?
As or the bible stuff, you just said right there that we should not add more meaning to the bible than was already there. Doesn't that mean we should take the bible at its word, not come up with reasons for it to mean other things?
ObsidianWizroh 2 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh The essential message of the original text remains intact. There is no need to change anything. The Urey-Miller experiment has been in the textbooks for a long time. Many errors have been exposed and it has been ordered to be removed. It all began when it was decided that academic freedom should be permitted in the science classroom. Students no longer have to be afraid to challenge some aspects of evolution.
55k3v1n 2 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
Still, it doesn't surprise me that it would be removed from the text books as they were using atmosphere different from the original Earth and we now have better experiments with closer atmospheres that are getting even better results.
ObsidianWizroh 2 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh So scientists become the intelligent designers by using the original Intelligent Designer's recipe. They have to painstakingly create the best scenario and add the right chemicals to the mix and coax them to interact as they must to kickstart life. This still doesn't rule out an Intelligent Designer providing the information necessary for the first self-replicating molecule to come into existance. God still remains to be the original "chemist".
55k3v1n 2 weeks ago
@55k3v1n Adam was formed from earthly elements and sure enough, we know today that humans are made up of water, minerals, etc. Everything that can be found in a human being exists on the earth. There is no problem between the science and the Genesis account. It wouldn't be so if God used some magic extraterrestrial powder to make life.
55k3v1n 2 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
1) The "essential message" is not the original text, nor is it even intact at all. The original message was polytheistic.
2) They did not create the best scenario, they create what they though was the planet's atmosphere at the time. Since then we have made closer models with significantly better results. further evidence that it's true.
3) You don't call 6-10 thousand versus 13 BILLION years a "problem?" Or evolution vs creation? Or Genesis vs Cosmology? I certainly do.
ObsidianWizroh 2 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh The biblical message was never polytheistic. You just want it to be and have yet to give compelling evidence that backs your claims. Their are three separate and distinct Persons in the One Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body. This is why Elohim can go by both singular and plural pronouns. You only assume the "Us" must be referring to multiple gods when it doesn't. What other "proofs do you have?
55k3v1n 2 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Again you make fantastic assumptions. Nowhere does it tell us that the earth is onlt 6-10 thousand years old. The scriptures do not tell us when "in the beginning" was. But, as science shows us, there definately was a beginning to time and space. Believing it all came about on its own takes a lot of blind faith.
55k3v1n 2 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
4) As for us being made out of earth stuff and not alien stuff, I challenge you to find a handful of dirt that holds all of the different chemicals and minerals that are in our body. Better yet, what about the particles that are in the dirt that are NOT a part of us? Where'd the water come from? There is no water in the dirt. Even if you go with "dust" this does not explain a great deal of the chemicals we find in our bodies or the lack of the dust particles.
ObsidianWizroh 2 weeks ago
@ObsidianWizroh Where do you get the idea that all chemicals & minerals making up life would have to be contained in a handful of dirt? The particles in the earth that are not part of us are simply unnecessary for life. God created man from what's found on the planet. The fact that all the chemicals and minerals required can't be found in the same place makes it all the more compelling. You make the mistake of thinking that God has to explain the exact process that was involved
55k3v1n 2 weeks ago
@55k3v1n
1) Kinda hard to give evidence in a comment. Can't post links. watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg
2) So you think Adam and Eve were made 13.6 billion years ago? Or do you think God's week lasted that long? How do you account for the Earth being created before the sun?
3) God created Adam from dust. He then made Eve from a rib. Dust contains no water. Ribs contain no flesh. If God did not create man from dust, why say he did? If it is metaphor, why take the rest literally?
ObsidianWizroh 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ObsidianWizroh I am perfectly aware of people killing in the name of Christianity. In the same way that you would say Stalin misrepresents true atheism, I say that "killer Christains" misrepresent the teachings of Jesus Christ. As I said, I do not lump all atheists with Stalin because that would be silly. I'm sure some Christains might erroneously do this, but the same can be said for some atheists stating that Christianity is a violent intolerant religion.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n "Mutations always result in disfiguring degression."
Incorrect. Whyilemost mutations are harmful or at best genetic neutral, your claim of "always" is yet more proof you are ignorant of the basic principles of evolution. STOP simply regurgitating what other people and start thinking for yourself.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42 The basic principles of evolution, as per neo Darwinism, is nothing but an effort to come up with answers to explain the impossible: life coming from a bunch of unrelated chemicals randomly gathering together mixed with a bit of lightning. Do you realise how many "bad" chemicals would have amazingly not joined in the mix? Only the right chemicals "knew" to come together at exactly the right time and in exactly the right way. You probably don't think of that.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n "answers to explain the impossible"
Waving your hands and jumping up and down screaming it is is "impossible" does not make it so. Once again (and again and again) you are arguing from incredulity. YOU lack the intellect or knowledge to understand it. Just like ancient people thought flight was impossible or sending a rocket to the moon was impossible, you claim abiogensis and evolution is impossible simply because you are just as superstitious and primitive humans.
jimmo42 1 month ago
@55k3v1n "Do you realise how many "bad" chemicals would have amazingly not joined in the mix? "
Certainly better than you do. However, you are ignoring three key facts. 1) there was *not* just a single place where the "chemicals" existed, but rather they were spread out all over the planet. 2) The earth had at least a billion years to get the right mixture. 3) We have already show that created amino acids is possible naturally in the primoridal atmosphere, becasue we have done it!
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42 "primoridal atmosphere" cont.
And PLEASE do not come up with thhe absurd argument that the Urey-Miller experiment was invalid because they simulated an atmosphere were now know is incorrrect. However, scientists have already redone the experiment using the current accept value, demonstrating your claim that it is "impossible" is wrong!
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "a bunch of unrelated chemicals randomly gathering together"
We've been there, remember? Your dishonest use of "random" serves nothing. It is common for ingorant religionists like yourself to misuse the term "random" to force an incorrect interpretation. It is NOT random, but most defintitely deterministic. Given the same conditions, the same processes with always give the *same* results. That is NOT random. Is it clear yet, or do you chose to continue to be dishonest?
jimmo42 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "in the sense that intelligence appears to be involved in both. "
Incorrect. First, you are once again guilty of quote mining and are taking the "River out of Eden" quote out of context.
The very next sentence is "Among many other consequences, this digital revolution at the very core of life has dealt the final, killing blow to vitalism—the belief that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material." (I have the book right in front of me)
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42 "The context of Dawkins' words...
WRONG! Anyone who has the book can see that your dishonest attempt to twist what Dawkins said is a massive FAIL!!!
I say again, what I have said repeatedly:
Now, YOU need to come up with a definition of "code" that applies to both computers and DNA that demonstrably requires a designer.
You cannot. I seriously doubt you are intellectually capable, and I am sure that we will easily be able to show why it does apply.
jimmo42 1 month ago
Correct:
"I seriously doubt you are intellectually capable, and I am sure that we will easily be able to show why it does NOT apply."
jimmo42 1 month ago
@jimmo42 Dawlins observed the "uncanny" similarities between the genetic code and computer code. That's what he said.
55k3v1n 1 month ago
@55k3v1n "That's what he said. "
Admitted. However, you are dishonestly taking his quote out of context as you certainly have not read the book. You not only have a reading comprehension problem, but you have a problem with English vocaulary. The word "similarity" does NOT mean they are the same. Again, you avoid giving us a *definiton* of code because you know we can refute your claim. Instead, you vomit out some nonsensical hyperbole.
jimmo42 1 month ago
And Craig (the coward) refused to debate with Loftus
shumble32 1 month ago
Still you can always enjoy watching William Lane Craig getting Hitchslapped...If I had an argument as weak as yours, I wouldn't draw attention to it.
rogan71 2 months ago 2
Re Jimmo42. Its pleasant and refreshing to see someone take the time and effort to systematically dismantle every point made. Much respect.
sheikhyaboooty 2 months ago
A degree in theology is an abomination to any school of higher learning. If you don't like this comment, blow me!
somethingdiffereable 2 months ago
If I declined getting involved with the santa claus issue with a 5 year old would that make me a coward? The Roman Catholic church IS an evil institution and the pope IS a learing old villain in a frock. I'm a former Roman Catholic and I see nothing wrong with this comment and other comments made by professor Dawkins. This other guy is not a scientist and probably got his doctorate from some mail order bible college. Degrees in "theology" sould be removed from any respectful college.
somethingdiffereable 2 months ago
Exactly! Now you're getting it. As you know the bible was written by bronze age, illiterate, human and animal sacrificing, supersticious, nomadic, goat-hearding, tribesmen! I read the bible when I was in the hole (solitary confinement) and I must say I never realized how contradictive, inconsistant, irrational and barbaric, it really was! The new testament wasn't a whole lot better either. I was raised as a christian but through using critical thinking I was saved from religious bondage.
somethingdiffereable 2 months ago
Proof that humans are NOT designed:
Think about the area between a human's legs. Only a idiot would build a entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system.
jimmo42 2 months ago
@55k3v1n Why do you keep insisting that this is "digital information?" That it your super-imposition upon it. It is NOT. It's A, C, G and T. Also known as cytosine, guanine, adenine and thymine. How these nucleobases interact is simple, well understood chemistry. Bill Gates is not a molecular biologists. He isn't even a computer programmer. He is a businessman. So I dont care what Bill Gates says about DNA. THis whole shit about "Durrrrr DNA is teh information!" is total crap.
lormendi 2 months ago
@lormendi Even your idol Richard Dawkins says that there is a genetic code that passes on information.
55k3v1n 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "Even your idol Richard Dawkins says that there is a genetic code"
If you actually bothered to read his work, you would see that calling it a "code" is simply to provide a reference point for laymen. Are you so naive to think that among biologist themselves they ever actually use the term "genetic code"? You are conflating the definitons of "code" to force interpretation.
jimmo42 2 months ago
@55k3v1n DNA is no more a genetic code than it is a "code" that when you put capsaicin (occurs in chili peppers) on your tongue causes a burning sensation.
- If capsaicin, then activate neuron to create burning sensation.
- If DNA sequence Y, then make protein X.
- If cliff, create waterfall
In all three cases, there are natural laws that are being blindly followed, without a hint of being "guided" or an intelligence.
jimmo42 2 months ago
@jimmo42 I could have sworn that Dawkins referred to the genetic code as being a reality, yet still attempted to use an undirected materialistic cause to explain it.
55k3v1n 2 months ago
@55k3v1n "I could have sworn that Dawkins referred to the genetic code as being a reality"
Find the quote and allow us the opportunity to explain your misunderstanding. If he did say something similar, it was likely in the context that it is as real as the code that causes capsaicin to burn your toungue, that obviously is an "undirected materialistic cause". It is by no means the same as an arbitrary computer code, as your ludicrous claim implied.
jimmo42 2 months ago
@55k3v1n DNA confirms everything that was long suspected by science and evolution. But, keep repeating the lies you have been fed. Your religion is dying around you. Steadily year after year. Maybe you'd be happier in a Muslim nation where EVERYONE shares your infantile rejection of science.
lormendi 2 months ago
@lormendi It has nothing to do with religion. DNA tells us that information is contained in the genetic code. Each previous cell required the information in order to reproduce. So where did the information come from that produced the first self-replicating molecule? The laws of physics? Can the laws of physics think and, as you said, direct chemicals to produce first life? I only reject your version of sciencific indoctrination permeating the minds of neo-Darwinists.
55k3v1n 2 months ago
@55k3v1n the Miller-Urey experiment is the first step to answering the questions mentioned here by you... they are re-doing this experiment right now and additional knowledge about abiogenesis will become available in the near future.
doyoublush 2 months ago
@55k3v1n Shame on you! First you say "cell" then "self-replicating molecule". You quite obviously do not have a grasp of even the basics. There are many steps between a self-replicating molecule (what has already been done in the laboratory) and even a prokaryotic cell.
jimmo42 2 months ago
@55k3v1n "Can the laws of physics think and, as you said, direct chemicals to produce first life?"
It seems that you have a compulsion to conflate definitions. Physical laws "direct" the chemicals to create life in the same way a cliff "directs" the river to "create" a waterfall. In the case of creating life, there are many more steps than in creating a waterfall, but that by no means implies that it is not following natural laws.
jimmo42 2 months ago
@55k3v1n lol........wow. Just wow.
lormendi 2 months ago
@lormendi WOW! You sure convinced me that life was directed by the laws of physics and chemicals. First life would have required pre-existing genetic information to become the first self-replicating molecule. But, wait there couldn't have been pre-existing information...but there would have to be. The old chicken and egg enigma.
55k3v1n 2 months ago
@55k3v1n There's really nothing else that can be said to someone who publicly said that UFO's are piloted by fallen angels. You have officially jumped the shark. You keep repeating the same tired arguments and we keep trying to show you how and why you are wrong. I think I have learned a lesson: "It is irrational to assume others will be rational." Good luck in life. I hope something eventually leads you to the light of reason and away from your silly mythology.
lormendi 2 months ago