@RIDDLERonRITALIN Science is based on the one branch of epistomology known as empiricism, with some further divergence led to the methods of science we know today. So no, science is not based on a logical fallacy.
@RIDDLERonRITALIN Oh, I get what you're saying, positivism, the ideal that science is the only source of all certain knowledge, is easily demonstrably false. However most scientists, if not all, understand that all scientific knowledge is conjectural. Thus you avoid the fallacy by postulating knowledge as a whole as an infinite process, where our current induction is our best understanding with the current data. Makes sense to me :P
@TheAtheologian Wow, better spoken than I could say it. I bet you write text books or something.
I must admit, I love science in all its different fields and applications. However I'm more of a Philosophy buff.
Science is often hard for me to practice because my measurement is terrible. Science unlike philosophy requires measurement of observable and tangible evidence. Philosophy is just a complex metamorphic system of competing theories and ideas, which is way easier for me.
Yeah in my opinion science and philosophy are alot alike, those who study them don't always get along with the other.
Its like science and pholosophy are relatives who got into an arguement and don't talk to eachother anymore. Except on certain holidays when they get together and attempt to act civil to one another.
Its funny when science nerds laugh at us when we tell them we study philosophy, but we don't care cause we atleast have sex with women.
@RIDDLERonRITALIN Unfortunately I have this weird compulsion to read science all the time so I unfortunately end up as a science nerd for all intensive purposes xP Shunned by the philosophers for not having lady skills, shunned from the scientists for not having measurement skills. WHERE WILL IT END?!
On the pluss side I get the general respect from my scientist buddies who enjoy the fact that I actually understand what they're talking about when they talk about stuff like virtual particles etc.
That guy talking about the peanut butter container. He was actually refering to Bio-genesis, which is something completely different than Evolutioin through natural selection.
Anyways he must not know much about philosophy and the theory of induction and the induction fallacy.
Even though they had been doing that expirement for over a hundred years and no life has ever sprang out. He or any scientist cannot say with 100% certainty that life will never spring out of one.
Not true, random mutations occur all the time. You have aprox 170 unique genetic variables that neither one of your parents has.
External factors ensure which parts of the genome get to make more genome. Fairly basic understanding of natural selection req.
Yes, that's true, so what's the problem?
The non-random selection of random variables. Duh. I'm not going to address that first line because it's even theologically stupid. Which is impressive.
@TheAtheologian Natural selection can only ever select what is reorganized by the genome. No external factors are ever able to reorganize the genome. Only the genome is able to reorganize the genome so that life forms are born young again.
Random mutations do nothing to reorganize the genome.
External factors organize nothing so they "ensure" nothing.
Then you wonder why we never see any evolution in real life. It is because there is no such thing as evolution. That's why.
@JungleJargon 12345 is a hypothetical genome of a species. Random mutation causes genomes 13345 11345 and 15345. Genome 13345 is inactive, 11345 is adverse, and 15345 is beneficial. After several generations very few 11345 and 13345 will be left.
If this simplified process happens millions of times over billions of years, voila, evolution.
All these steps, random mutation, external pressures, have and are tested. Look at Artificial Selection. Did God suddenly decide to let evolution happen?
@JungleJargon First off, what do you think the genome is, some sort of entity that picks and chooses what will happen? No, mutations happen, no doubt.
Also, what do you think beneficial means? In certain environments certain traits will cause more offspring than others. If I had a gene that metabolises methane, that would be beneficial if I had access to alot of methane, neutral if I didn't, bad if the sideeffects were negative as well.
@JungleJargon They only disorganize? Where are you getting this stuff, OF COURSE they disorganize, they change the current order to something new, like shuffling a deck of cards. There is no such thing as an inherently positive order of the genome.
The benefit comes from the effects of the new order and the environment.
I explained how side-effects can be good, bad or neutral, depending on the environment.
Are you just using words with connotations for effect because you don't understand them?
@TheAtheologian DNA is like software, you cannot disorganize it. It has to continually be reorganized in order to remain viable and that is only something the genome is able to do.
You're not being rational with the general overall effect of mutations which is only negative. There are essentially zero good effects compared to many more bad effects. You don't even consider the difference between the percentages of "beneficial" vs. the rest that disorganize the genome.
@JungleJargon Don't you see that the environment is what defines good and bad mutations? Remember the methane analogy?
Also, even if 1 in a million mutations are "negative" in a given situation then these effects die out due to natural selection. Also, I did mention 170 new mutations per child (these mutations are neutral btw) which means only 6000 or so, us9ing the hypothetical ratio, need to be born for a beneficial one to occur.
1234 is one order, 12435 is another. "disorganized" indeed...
@TheAtheologian The evironment determins what direction the variations take whether it will be more or less of one thing or another that is already there in place only as determined by the genome.
The variations do not depend on mutations. If the variations did depended on mutations, they would not be uniform mutations and they would not ever be what is needed.
@JungleJargon Exactly, the environment determines how much of one MUTATION there is in the environment.
DNA, you know, the thing that makes the entire body, when mutated causes a variation in the body. Like hair colour, eye colour and whatnot. So yes, variations depend on mutations. Unless you have a silly notion that "all kinds" are included in the DNA.
Now, I'm not confusing myself, you are confusing me, and honestly I would wager you where a troll for your complete lack of coherency.
@TheAtheologian You are still speaking of variations that do not equate to the morphing evolution requires. No viable mutation or variation equates to evolution.
The most extreme example of variation is when a green grasshopper turns into a locust, which is a grasshopper on steroids.
It never turns into anything else. It always remains a grasshopper.
@JungleJargon Ah, thank you, an argument I recognize, micro vs macro evolution. Well, basically the sum of microevolution over time causes macro evolution.
F.ex. +-0.1 would be micro change, +-1 would be macro change.
1 to 1.1 to 1.2 ... to 1.9 to 2.0 would be macro evolution as a result of microevolution.
This requires time, and radiometric dating etc demonstrates the age of life at 3.8 billion years. Plenty of time for steroid grasshoppers to diverge properly into a new species, etc.
@TheAtheologian It has never been observed that grasshoppers ever change into anything other than grasshoppers so you are still in fantasy land.
The limited directives in the genome are the only thing that ever reorganizes the genome so there's no mechanism for evolution because natural selection can only select what is reorganized by the limited information of the genome.
All life was buried and fossilized no more than 4300 - 5130 years ago.
@JungleJargon Ah, now we've broken through your creative word-use to what all YEC believe; microevolution, the observable, and there isn't enough time for macroevolution.
Well, as a matter of fact, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, life has gradually fossilized all throughout time, the ark is a logistical nightmare and the genome of a dog does not contain the information to make a wolf due to all the mutations that have occured.
I suggest you read a science book, physics, chemistry, biology...
@TheAtheologian The apparent age of the earth is irrelevant to the known age of life on earth.
The layers of sediments that fossils are in are consecutive layers that were deposited in rapid succession, over 100 million cubic miles in all which could only have been deposited by a global flood.
Dogs can woof as good as anything. Variations do not prove evolution because only the genome is able to reorganize itself and cause variations with the limited information that it has.
@JungleJargon The fossils were not deposited in rapid succession. Quite the contrary, time and time again we date life on earth at 3.8 Billion years old, through the same means as we date the entire age of the earth. If things really were in rapid succession btw, animals would be spread out randomly, not sorted chronologically.
Also, if the information to make a wolf was in a dogs genes, then we would've found it by now. A chihuahua does not have that information, sorry.
@TheAtheologian There is no science or physics that supports objects making or refining what you are, that is irrational and illogical!
All function, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker and life forms are *not* exempt from science because everything has a cause.
You need to learn science, physics, chemistry and biology. The limited genome is the only physical thing that reorganizes the genome and causes variations. Mutations cannot reorganize the genome.
@JungleJargon The intuitive principle of a prime mover is not science, it is intuition.
Physics tells me life is 3.8 billion years old (radiometric dating), chemistry tells me that the aminoacids that make up DNA can make cpying errors that result in, which I know from biochem, differences in the lifeform. And from biology I know certain traits are naturally selected for.
And from science in general, there I know that I should not simply take your word for what you say.
@TheAtheologian Your biology is all wrong, only the genome ever reorganizes the genome,your assumptions of age are all wrong because they contradict actual known historical facts and chemicals never order themselves without being ordered so your science is all wrong and anything you deduce from it is all wrong.
@JungleJargon The genome does nothing to reorganize itself, basic knowledge of cellular biology req: Cell division, when the DNA is split by an enzyme and recopied in the cell, then reorganisations may occur, as may mutations.
Which historical facts? Chemicals always react, is that necessarily order? DNA is just a complex reaction.
But if this has come down to some sort of idiotic game of "you're wrong just because" then I'm not playing anymore and you sir have lost the right to be reasoned with
@TheAtheologian If the genome did not reorganize iteslef, babies would be born old and deformed couples would not be able to have a perfect baby ...and you just admitted that reorganization "may" occur. They have to occur because of alterations to the genome.
You say you don't know what history is.
Chemicals reacting does not make working mechanisms without being ordered.
Your illogical and irrational belief is that objects made you what you are so you don't have any reason.
They reorganize yes, but the "genome" has no mechanism of doing so, it is the cells themselves that replicate the genome, but do so imperfectly. In an already living body, this causes either mutations (often cancer) or death. In sperm and egg cells, this causes change in the baby.
I claim that your definition of working is simply set upon any non-directed chemical process without there being any inherent direction.
I think you would do better by reading 1st grade biology.
@JungleJargon Would you care to explain to me what exactly this mechanism is, as I have explained to you the mechanism in which mutations occur?
There are in fact no such specific directives, the genes determine a veriety of aspects of the dog or cat, many of which are similar for lizards. It is the sum of this genetic information that leads to the cat being a cat, by our definition of a cat.
There might not be, but there is a way to get from simple life to complex life, namely evolution.
@TheAtheologian You are imagining things. There is not even enough time for evolution to occur and there is no mechanism for eovlution to occur.
No, there is no mechanism for the genome to sail against the wind, it is not there.
The genome only reorganizes the directives that it has as best it can and many times it fails to preserve our functions. There is much more corruption and destruction of the genome than anything resembling evolution.
@JungleJargon Will you please explain to me how that is answering my question? Is it simply so, as I knew all along, that essentially creationism adds no understanding, only limits it?
Basically what you have resorted to now is not actually rebutting my claims, though you hoenstly did so poorly from the start, but simply stating that I am wrong without any argument from the physical nature of reality to back that up.
Now if God did create life as is, he did alot to make it seem like evolution.
Those who believe in creationism should really pay attention to this video because it is ALL true. Evolution is NOT a theory anymore. The only people who call it a theory are creationists. The evidence is so overwhelming and if you disagree, you are simply in denial or refuse to look at it. It doesn't mean the Bible is all wrong. It just means that the creation story was created by primitive man trying to explain how we got here with his limited knowledge. Imagine Moses trying to explain a TV.
The religious dont have a leg to stand on anymore!! The internet has destroyed their belief system I didn't know what to believe ,before the internet cause I've been surrounded by NARROW-MINDED morons in the bible belt my whole life.I did the Pascal's wager thing,BUT the internet opened my eye's. I realize the closest thing we have to a god at this point is Darwin!! He's given us the best explanation to date.(outdated,but brilliant).Darwin is GOD and the internet is his sword!
30 seconds into it, I can already doubt you're a genuine Christian. Only until the theory of evolution was discovered, did they put that twist onto Genesis' creation. Up until the 1700s and Darwin, there was no evolution. Genesis was read literally. Fail Christian, fail.
@seaFoodSifu lol he's an atheist now. This video was in 2007. His personal views have changed alot since then. Also, Genesis wasn't always read literally. Early christian thinkers like St. Augustine preached against a literal interpretation of Genesis.
those damn elitist scientists acting like they know what they're talking about!..sounding all smug..it reminds me of how smug and arrogant expert pilots sound when they talk about the technicalities of flying a plane.
itzahazylife Flying a plane, like chemistry and physics, is a hard or exact science. These discplines have experiments and measurements that are verifiable in the lab and out in the field. The evolution/ big bang knotheads look at "evidence" and "intrepret" it. (or PONTIFICATE) and have backtracked and changed their stories numerous times.
.(continued) These aren't even considered hard sciences but more akin to ecomomics, sociology, or psychology/psychiatry. By comparing it to an exact science like aviation you are showing your supreme ignorance.
so, you're saying evolution isn't verifiable or falsifiable?..if so, u are ignorant..the theory of evolution can make testable predictions, and it does..and no data has ever effectively falsified it..back tracked and changed their stories?...i think u mean they have refined the theory over time..many details on the mechanisms of evolution are hotly debated, but not whether or not evolution occurs.
what u don't realize is that life reproduces..because of this, evolution is ine
what u don't realize is that life reproduces..because of this, evolution is inevitable..many times when dna replicates, it undergoes copying errors (random mutations)..these errors cause genetic diversity. (variation of genetic traits) natural selection determines which traits aid in survival, and which ones don't..if u divide a group into sub groups throut an environment, each sub group will adapt differently, and over time, the groups will diverge from each other, and new species with arise.
@akkadianarab Yes there would. The Adam and Eve story is a metaphor about hunter gatherers turning into farmers. In a sense, these people who went from having to hunt to survive are now playing god because they grow and raise their own food.
@akkadianarab Sure there would be. Creationism or belief in evolution has nothing to do with salvation. They think, however, that if you don't believe the WHOLE Bible that you can't believe in any of it which is ridiculous. They are so brainwashed because of religious dogma designed to control. It's really sad.
wait if your a christian why say evolution is real? you make us christians look like retards....i mean if you read the bible and you were christian then believe it not this "evolution.... we all are monkeys and whales evolved from hyenas" that just makes christians look retarded... anyway some stupid religions that are based off christianity say that we need to thank God for dead soldiers.... that isnt christianity!
@sonicm710 First, you understand nothing of evolution. Of course whales didn't evolve from hyenas. They aren't even in the same family. You make yourself look like a retard with that logic. And you can be a Christian, believe that "God" created the animals, and an evolutionist because they talk about two separate ideas. Evolution doesn't talk about how animals were created, only the diversity of animals. Genesis only states that the animals were created. The last line is irrelevant.
u don't know a damn thing about the theory of evolution..which is why u don't accept it..the same way a cave man wouldn't accept that humans can achieve flight because he wouldn't understand how it could possibly be done..your opinion on evolution is rooted in ignorance..u know it and i know it..i bet u haven't read or listened to a single thing on evolution by expert scientists in your entire life.
Well, Evolution doesn't really rule out the possibility of a creator, but it certainly but Christian faiths at doubt. I mean, how convinced can you be at a holy book that started out wrong?
"Well, Evolution doesn't really rule out the possibility of a creator."
it does however take us into some strange territory..one of the main things that drives evolution is random mutations in dna..(copying errors)..these errors create genetic diversity. whichever errors benefit the organism, are kept, and passed on via reproduction..basically, evolution is driven by an error based system..a very strange system for an intelligent creator to devise, wouldn't u say?
@itzahazylife I agree. It doesn't entirely rule out the possibility to a creator, but really gave huge restrictions to the ability which this hypothetical creator might have worked.
nice video, I used to be like you - christian who accepted the scientific method with all its implications. I'm an atheist now, but still, nice video.
Thanks for this video in particular. It shows how quickly The Christians will stab someone in the back. Just as I received, no love "as they profess", no caring, no gentle taking time to understand a fellow brothers circumstance, but immediately ostracizing and being as critical as possible on subjects they have no real understanding.
Although of course that does illuminate something very interesting to me.
Religion and rationality are ultimately completely incompatible. And I think the creationist leaders, being the chronic liars they are, know this VERY well, and thus strive to get as many people ignorant as they can. Because then they'll follow their religion and then they can be made to give money and vote the way they want.
Well, his reasoning is that if people want him to beleive in god then they should show him he exists. I am agnostic myself, but for the sake of argyment I'll label myself a deist. I know there's no evidence for god and Jesus, and as such I don't let faith blind me to the truth. I was never really a religious person anyway even when my parents took me to church and as such never felt comfortable about going. Though I did have some fun on occasion.
Atheist here. You know what I think about your (and my former) god, but I want to lay my thanks and respect on you for trying this video. It's something I would love for my girlfriend's Baptist parents to watch, but they wouldn't. The young earth creationist movement is attempting to do (forgive the pun) massive damage to the minds of the credulous and the innocent, and ultimately hurt their livelihood and ability to compete in a modernizing world. But of course, you know this.
Way to start off with an appeal to the majority fallacy DonExodus. There are many pseodoscientific/historical concepts that were believed by 99% of the educated people in history due to everyone being taught the SAME thing in schools (hmm...I wonder what parallels we can draw from that). Here's a TINY bit of the evidence for the Bible & Creation.
You are grossly over simplifying the issue. First evolution as a theory is so braud that saying creationist completely deny it is a total lie. All scientist that believe in young earth creation (one being John Sanford who is co inventor of the gene gun) would tell you natural selection takes place. It diversifies things it just doesn't make them more complex. Abiogenesis on the other hand is not supported by any experimental evidence. The Milller exp. shows more problems with A. than support.
I've never felt there is any conflict between my acceptance of evolution & my christanity. For me, the bible is a book containing many spiritural and moral truths for mankind but not a literal account of events which took place in the past.
okay you say the earth is not hollow have you ever dug into the center of the eath to see have you ever physicly done this? no you havent therefore you have no phyisical proof sure the same thing may be said about god but that is where faith comes in you have to belive.....
People like Don Exodus and Chuck Missler are a rare breed, seems the bible spoke about the narrow path. Should give some insight on who actually cares about truth in this supposedly Christian nation: only a small percentage. thans for your vids Don
even if he were on to something, the 'new life' would be micro-FRIGGIN-scopic. how many people a year examine their peanut butter with high powered microscopes??
even in his reasoning, if there was life it'd be micro-FRIGGIN-scopic. how many people examine there jars of peanut butter with high powered microscopes a day?
i'm a highschool sophomore in biology. i know little about science, yet i can run mental circles around many of the outspoken creationists. and i suspect anyone who has passed an 8th grade science course could, if they didn't fall victim to the creationist attack tactics.
don, the illogical tatics of creationist that you are so upset with are only reflection of how illogical and outrageous christianity (and all other religions) is. You can make a million videos in which you sound like a rational thinking person, but until you can shake the illogical belief that christ rose from the dead and that you can do the same, you will continue to make yourself look like a pot calling the kettle black bro.
What that creationist said was like "People who believe in Cars say that when you're inside an object and you step on something the object can move and take you places. Therefore when i get inside this cardboard box and step on this banana i should occasionally be able to drive. I cannot, and the whole cardboard box industry rests on this fact"
I know early teenagers who would find that flaw with that video. That man seriously probably has some mental disability. I'm actually serious.
Man, you either accept the Bible as a whole (with all the horrors that God sent on the sinful nations that threatened Israel's, Christ's and the Elect's existence) or just don't play religion and admit that the Bible does not make any sense to you for what it is written there plainly as a whole (so no picking and choosing). First the authority of Genesis, then prohibition of fornication, then what? Deity of Christ?
As for evidence, it's all a matter of interpretation. Lucy's hip anyone?
If the bible says that animals only give birth to their own kind, wouldn't evolution mean that animals give birth to different kinds? Wouldn't that be a contradiction
@MrAubery The concept of "kind" is too vague to be used scientifically. I could claim that Michelangelo's David and his Sistine Chapel painting are the same kind because they were made by the same artist, but I could also claim they are not because one is a statue while the other is a painting. This simple example shows that saying things produce only after their own "kind" has no scientific merit simply because of ambiguity and its being open to interpretation.
@MrAubery :) Evolution does not say that modern dogs mate with sheep nor dinosaurs either. If they did, then evolution would actually fall apart, because instead of following along the same branch of the tree of life, it would describe a case where it jumped between branches, which cannot happen.
@MrAubery Kindly watch Gigano1986's video called "Copypasting genes: The origin of new genetic information" where he details that gene duplication, coupled with mutations, will increase the diversity and functional abilities of genes coded in the sequence (a.k.a. an increase in information).
@MrAubery Perhaps you are unaware of this but it's an incremental change. It is small things like variance of hearing and seeing etc. Kindly remember that Evolution is not a one-generation process. By the way, you don't know how naive you sound spewing this stuff at us. You clearly know very little about evolution. Learn it, get some evidence refuting it, come up with an alternate theory then we'll talk.
@MrAubery No you didn't. But it's rude in normal society to butt in on other's conversation. Therefore, I explained that the internet has no manner code. Manners are entirely at the converser's discretion. In other words, I don't have to observe that on the internet simply because it's a free speech zone. Ya dig?
How nice to have someone conciliating honesty and faith.
As an atheist, I often and increasingly get scared by religion, because of this over-representation of dangerous zealots in various medias (Youtube to the extreme)
This sometimes pushes me towards intolerance, and that's really not who I wanna be.
I wish reasonnable honest people of faith would push themselves ahead a bit more. Along with agnostics, they are the ones able to create a middle ground for society to stand on
The number of Americans claiming to be Christian has dropped precipitously in the last decade, not only because of the Creationist nonsense but because of the entire Born-Again movement and its self-righteous chest beating arrogance. When the public face of American religion was tepid, 'nice', theologically vague but with a feeling of kindness and warmth, religion had the respect of everybody. The Religious Right has made Christianity look and feel like a harsh, exclusive ideology.
you have single handedly restored my faith in the human race. i have been watching your videos for a while now and had no idea you were a christian. i'm actually really, really surprised. have you ever made a video discussing your religious beliefs? i'd really like to check that out.
there are a few christian evolutionists out there and I as well would love to hear how he can reconcile the two. I've heard a few guys (Mcgrath in his discussion with Dawkins comes quickly to mind) and I find their explanations very odd. I wouldn't be surprised in Mcgrath's case that he was doing it for the money and didn't believe a word of what he was saying. Believe in a God ok but not what comes out of the bible...that's a made up book by man...end of story...
@robertchflynn oh don't worry, i'm practically and anti-theist and certainly don't believe that a god exists. i just found it very, very interesting that he is a theist because he appears to be very intelligent and articulate and those aren't attributes normally applied to the religious folk.
yes he is a smart dude and his videos are great. Perplexing to say the least. I assume he believes in Jesus Christ (virgin birth, resurrection). Well there's a point brought up by Christopher Hitchens that I would love to hear an answer to. If mankind has been here for 200 thousand years why did god only intervene such a short time ago? Was god just sitting back and watching as humans evolved from horribly short lives filled with disease and major suffering? God maybe, religion no...
obviously this is something no one can really answer but the point is that this is something you would have to believe as true if you were a christian evolutionist. There are a myriad of unbelievable things you would have to reconcile and I don't just buy that you need to interpret the bible in an allegorical manner to do so...too convenient...
YECtards are the most dishonest and lying sacks of shits I've ever met. Don't they have a commandment against that? If anyone is going to hell it's those fuckers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Many struggle to answer with credibility key questions about God and the Bible. But God is most definitely real. If you doubt it, read 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
Its nice to see somebody with their head screwed on straight, but im pretty confused as to why somebody as rational as yourself would even be a christian at all.. And why aren't you fond of Richard Dawkins?
However, Don, in the spirit of being strict on the facts... if I remember correctly, it's the RATIO of historians that deny the holocaust, rather than the number.
Frankly I don't see why any rationalist would really want to bother with christianity anyway.
There's nothing about christianity or ANY religion that secular means can't do as well, if not much better. Nor is there any compelling reason to belief any supernatural things exist at all.
One more thing how damn tasty would peanut butter based life be I would so smoke a phatty and eat me some peanut butter based life that would be the shit.
Whets funny is some people really think the earth is hallow. I have had a heated "debate" with someone who believed it and the theories they spit out was just so damn hilarious. Its funny how some will believe anything they read.
Hey DonExodus2, Did you know that the book of Genesis also contains the passage of scripture that talks about Noah and the flood and more importantly talks about the Covenant that God made with Abraham which is essential for the eternal life offerred by God to people so that they can even become a Christian - an heir according to the promise through the promised Messiah Jesus Christ. So Jesus Christ is God fullfilling his obligation in accordance with this Covenant - CONTINUED
''69% of scientists believe in God'' This isn't true. It does however depend on what you call scientist. For instance My first pick wouldn't be professors (those that teach only) nor would it be the USA alone. Could someone comment with those links as I couldn't see them clearly so couldn't check. The obvious choice to contradict this is the survey of the royal society on the issue. Further more to see if there's a conflict you should check the relevant field ie: creationism=physics,biology
the earth is hollow. that's crazy but the resurrection that happened, that's what we should take seriously.
You know what, the evidence shows the earth to be non-hollow but to say it is hollow is far more conceivable than the resurrection after all there are pockets containing only gas.
Yeah but the Earth's mass is known by the moon's orbit (and other evidence). So unless part of the earth is made out of super dense matter like White Dwarf matter, it can't be hollow.
P.S. And it can't be made out of White Dwarf matter.....
...I do realize that it's not hollow, I'm just saying a better case can be made for a hollow earth than for the resurrection.
white dwarf matter? I think you mean neutron star. White dwarf stars aren't very dense, a neutron star is so dense that the atoms are crushed together, it's the most dense thing we know of next to a black hole.
Evolution does not teach life out of nothing. That's abiogenesis. I'll never be ashamed ogf the gospel no matter how much silly creationists try to embarass me.
Christianity makes christians look ridiculous man.......religion in general makes people look ridiculous.....God or gods and the belief thereof make people look foolish....sorry to say...wait, no I'm not.
yea i was born a secular so its impossible for me to believe in god...which is actually a constant reminder of why i dont believe in god. i mean think about it....i cant believe in god...it soundds so rediculous to me it will never happen. to think i was created this way by a god that wanted me to worship him is rediculous as well. if u believe tha then u believe he made me just to burn in hell.
to be honest i already had trouble with my faith before i stopped going to church after the priest stated "i find it hard to everything happened without god's intervention" i just walked out and haven't gone back
Yes all science is based on a logical fallacy, and it was philosophy not religion who dealt that blow.
Philosophy also debunks alot of religion aspects, and philosophy doesn't even require measurement or imperical evidence.
RIDDLERonRITALIN 2 months ago
@RIDDLERonRITALIN Science is based on the one branch of epistomology known as empiricism, with some further divergence led to the methods of science we know today. So no, science is not based on a logical fallacy.
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
@TheAtheologian OK maybe I had phrased what I said incorrectly and thus messed up my intended meaning.
But have you heard of the theory of induction or the induction fallacy?
Yeah they dont really make any sense but they still seem to work, which was concluded by the concept's creator David Hume.
RIDDLERonRITALIN 1 week ago
@RIDDLERonRITALIN Oh, I get what you're saying, positivism, the ideal that science is the only source of all certain knowledge, is easily demonstrably false. However most scientists, if not all, understand that all scientific knowledge is conjectural. Thus you avoid the fallacy by postulating knowledge as a whole as an infinite process, where our current induction is our best understanding with the current data. Makes sense to me :P
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
@TheAtheologian Wow, better spoken than I could say it. I bet you write text books or something.
I must admit, I love science in all its different fields and applications. However I'm more of a Philosophy buff.
Science is often hard for me to practice because my measurement is terrible. Science unlike philosophy requires measurement of observable and tangible evidence. Philosophy is just a complex metamorphic system of competing theories and ideas, which is way easier for me.
RIDDLERonRITALIN 1 week ago
@RIDDLERonRITALIN You have no idea how much you described me in descriping yourself...
Philosopher of Science, that's the goal, all the fun of science, none of the annoying measurements :P
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
@TheAtheologian Thats funny :)
Yeah in my opinion science and philosophy are alot alike, those who study them don't always get along with the other.
Its like science and pholosophy are relatives who got into an arguement and don't talk to eachother anymore. Except on certain holidays when they get together and attempt to act civil to one another.
Its funny when science nerds laugh at us when we tell them we study philosophy, but we don't care cause we atleast have sex with women.
RIDDLERonRITALIN 1 week ago
@RIDDLERonRITALIN Unfortunately I have this weird compulsion to read science all the time so I unfortunately end up as a science nerd for all intensive purposes xP Shunned by the philosophers for not having lady skills, shunned from the scientists for not having measurement skills. WHERE WILL IT END?!
On the pluss side I get the general respect from my scientist buddies who enjoy the fact that I actually understand what they're talking about when they talk about stuff like virtual particles etc.
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
That guy talking about the peanut butter container. He was actually refering to Bio-genesis, which is something completely different than Evolutioin through natural selection.
Anyways he must not know much about philosophy and the theory of induction and the induction fallacy.
Even though they had been doing that expirement for over a hundred years and no life has ever sprang out. He or any scientist cannot say with 100% certainty that life will never spring out of one.
RIDDLERonRITALIN 2 months ago
I could just say so many things against this video, but it would take up way to much space...
Goobieproductions 3 months ago
Creationism is Christianity.
watch?v=qZev7hb40uk
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon Creationism is *not* christianity.
/watch?v=mEwrkjTbWgU
EnlightenedReader 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader Creation has everything to do with Christianity because only our Maker can be our Savior because there is no one else who can be.
There is no mechanism for evolution.
Only the genome is able to reorder the genome.
External factors do not order the genome.
Natural selection can only select what is reordered by the genome.
Tell your evolutionist teacher that objects did not make us what we are.
JungleJargon 1 month ago
@JungleJargon Mechanism: Natural selection
Not true, random mutations occur all the time. You have aprox 170 unique genetic variables that neither one of your parents has.
External factors ensure which parts of the genome get to make more genome. Fairly basic understanding of natural selection req.
Yes, that's true, so what's the problem?
The non-random selection of random variables. Duh. I'm not going to address that first line because it's even theologically stupid. Which is impressive.
TheAtheologian 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian Natural selection can only ever select what is reorganized by the genome. No external factors are ever able to reorganize the genome. Only the genome is able to reorganize the genome so that life forms are born young again.
Random mutations do nothing to reorganize the genome.
External factors organize nothing so they "ensure" nothing.
Then you wonder why we never see any evolution in real life. It is because there is no such thing as evolution. That's why.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon 12345 is a hypothetical genome of a species. Random mutation causes genomes 13345 11345 and 15345. Genome 13345 is inactive, 11345 is adverse, and 15345 is beneficial. After several generations very few 11345 and 13345 will be left.
If this simplified process happens millions of times over billions of years, voila, evolution.
All these steps, random mutation, external pressures, have and are tested. Look at Artificial Selection. Did God suddenly decide to let evolution happen?
TheAtheologian 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian That is the definition of fantasy.
You are confusing yourself.
The genome is the only thing that ever reorganizes the genome. Nothing else does.
Natural selection can only select what is reorganized by the genome.
You don't even have any beneficial mutations that are without side effects.
Evolution is nonsense.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon First off, what do you think the genome is, some sort of entity that picks and chooses what will happen? No, mutations happen, no doubt.
Also, what do you think beneficial means? In certain environments certain traits will cause more offspring than others. If I had a gene that metabolises methane, that would be beneficial if I had access to alot of methane, neutral if I didn't, bad if the sideeffects were negative as well.
TheAtheologian 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian The genome is always reorganizing itself. Mutations reorganize nothing. They only disorganize.
The genome is responsible for any benefit there is because it is there and nothing else is able to organize the genome.
In the slight chance there will some day be a beneficial human mutation that has no side effects, it will *not* constitute evolution.
Please get over it, there is no evolution.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
@JungleJargon They only disorganize? Where are you getting this stuff, OF COURSE they disorganize, they change the current order to something new, like shuffling a deck of cards. There is no such thing as an inherently positive order of the genome.
The benefit comes from the effects of the new order and the environment.
I explained how side-effects can be good, bad or neutral, depending on the environment.
Are you just using words with connotations for effect because you don't understand them?
TheAtheologian 2 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian DNA is like software, you cannot disorganize it. It has to continually be reorganized in order to remain viable and that is only something the genome is able to do.
You're not being rational with the general overall effect of mutations which is only negative. There are essentially zero good effects compared to many more bad effects. You don't even consider the difference between the percentages of "beneficial" vs. the rest that disorganize the genome.
Go figure!
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Don't you see that the environment is what defines good and bad mutations? Remember the methane analogy?
Also, even if 1 in a million mutations are "negative" in a given situation then these effects die out due to natural selection. Also, I did mention 170 new mutations per child (these mutations are neutral btw) which means only 6000 or so, us9ing the hypothetical ratio, need to be born for a beneficial one to occur.
1234 is one order, 12435 is another. "disorganized" indeed...
TheAtheologian 2 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian The evironment determins what direction the variations take whether it will be more or less of one thing or another that is already there in place only as determined by the genome.
The variations do not depend on mutations. If the variations did depended on mutations, they would not be uniform mutations and they would not ever be what is needed.
Stop confusing yourself.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Exactly, the environment determines how much of one MUTATION there is in the environment.
DNA, you know, the thing that makes the entire body, when mutated causes a variation in the body. Like hair colour, eye colour and whatnot. So yes, variations depend on mutations. Unless you have a silly notion that "all kinds" are included in the DNA.
Now, I'm not confusing myself, you are confusing me, and honestly I would wager you where a troll for your complete lack of coherency.
TheAtheologian 2 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian You are still speaking of variations that do not equate to the morphing evolution requires. No viable mutation or variation equates to evolution.
The most extreme example of variation is when a green grasshopper turns into a locust, which is a grasshopper on steroids.
It never turns into anything else. It always remains a grasshopper.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Ah, thank you, an argument I recognize, micro vs macro evolution. Well, basically the sum of microevolution over time causes macro evolution.
F.ex. +-0.1 would be micro change, +-1 would be macro change.
1 to 1.1 to 1.2 ... to 1.9 to 2.0 would be macro evolution as a result of microevolution.
This requires time, and radiometric dating etc demonstrates the age of life at 3.8 billion years. Plenty of time for steroid grasshoppers to diverge properly into a new species, etc.
TheAtheologian 2 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian It has never been observed that grasshoppers ever change into anything other than grasshoppers so you are still in fantasy land.
The limited directives in the genome are the only thing that ever reorganizes the genome so there's no mechanism for evolution because natural selection can only select what is reorganized by the limited information of the genome.
All life was buried and fossilized no more than 4300 - 5130 years ago.
We are the survivors of the flood.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon Ah, now we've broken through your creative word-use to what all YEC believe; microevolution, the observable, and there isn't enough time for macroevolution.
Well, as a matter of fact, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, life has gradually fossilized all throughout time, the ark is a logistical nightmare and the genome of a dog does not contain the information to make a wolf due to all the mutations that have occured.
I suggest you read a science book, physics, chemistry, biology...
TheAtheologian 2 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian The apparent age of the earth is irrelevant to the known age of life on earth.
The layers of sediments that fossils are in are consecutive layers that were deposited in rapid succession, over 100 million cubic miles in all which could only have been deposited by a global flood.
Dogs can woof as good as anything. Variations do not prove evolution because only the genome is able to reorganize itself and cause variations with the limited information that it has.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon The fossils were not deposited in rapid succession. Quite the contrary, time and time again we date life on earth at 3.8 Billion years old, through the same means as we date the entire age of the earth. If things really were in rapid succession btw, animals would be spread out randomly, not sorted chronologically.
Also, if the information to make a wolf was in a dogs genes, then we would've found it by now. A chihuahua does not have that information, sorry.
TheAtheologian 2 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian When you look at a chihuahua, you can see that its genes have been damaged, that does nothing to prove evolution.
You cannot date fossils that are 100% contaminated by the environment.
Everything was all buried by the same layers of sediment deposited in rapid succession because there's little or no erosion between the layers.
Again, you can't account for where all the layers came from or how they came to cover everything living on earth so you can say nothing.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@TheAtheologian There is no science or physics that supports objects making or refining what you are, that is irrational and illogical!
All function, working parts and mechanisms always have a maker and life forms are *not* exempt from science because everything has a cause.
You need to learn science, physics, chemistry and biology. The limited genome is the only physical thing that reorganizes the genome and causes variations. Mutations cannot reorganize the genome.
JungleJargon 2 weeks ago
@JungleJargon The intuitive principle of a prime mover is not science, it is intuition.
Physics tells me life is 3.8 billion years old (radiometric dating), chemistry tells me that the aminoacids that make up DNA can make cpying errors that result in, which I know from biochem, differences in the lifeform. And from biology I know certain traits are naturally selected for.
And from science in general, there I know that I should not simply take your word for what you say.
TheAtheologian 2 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian Your biology is all wrong, only the genome ever reorganizes the genome,your assumptions of age are all wrong because they contradict actual known historical facts and chemicals never order themselves without being ordered so your science is all wrong and anything you deduce from it is all wrong.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@JungleJargon The genome does nothing to reorganize itself, basic knowledge of cellular biology req: Cell division, when the DNA is split by an enzyme and recopied in the cell, then reorganisations may occur, as may mutations.
Which historical facts? Chemicals always react, is that necessarily order? DNA is just a complex reaction.
But if this has come down to some sort of idiotic game of "you're wrong just because" then I'm not playing anymore and you sir have lost the right to be reasoned with
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
@TheAtheologian If the genome did not reorganize iteslef, babies would be born old and deformed couples would not be able to have a perfect baby ...and you just admitted that reorganization "may" occur. They have to occur because of alterations to the genome.
You say you don't know what history is.
Chemicals reacting does not make working mechanisms without being ordered.
Your illogical and irrational belief is that objects made you what you are so you don't have any reason.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
Sigh...
They reorganize yes, but the "genome" has no mechanism of doing so, it is the cells themselves that replicate the genome, but do so imperfectly. In an already living body, this causes either mutations (often cancer) or death. In sperm and egg cells, this causes change in the baby.
I claim that your definition of working is simply set upon any non-directed chemical process without there being any inherent direction.
I think you would do better by reading 1st grade biology.
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
@TheAtheologian The genome does not need mutations to reorganize variations.
It does have its own mechanism for reorganizing the directives that it has regardless of changes to the genome.
There is direction or directives in the genome, that say either, "dog" or "cat", they do not say "docgat" or "lizadogcatrd".
Your belief that no life forms result in higher life forms has no basis, it is irrational and illogical. There is no way to get here from there.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
@JungleJargon Would you care to explain to me what exactly this mechanism is, as I have explained to you the mechanism in which mutations occur?
There are in fact no such specific directives, the genes determine a veriety of aspects of the dog or cat, many of which are similar for lizards. It is the sum of this genetic information that leads to the cat being a cat, by our definition of a cat.
There might not be, but there is a way to get from simple life to complex life, namely evolution.
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
@TheAtheologian You are imagining things. There is not even enough time for evolution to occur and there is no mechanism for eovlution to occur.
No, there is no mechanism for the genome to sail against the wind, it is not there.
The genome only reorganizes the directives that it has as best it can and many times it fails to preserve our functions. There is much more corruption and destruction of the genome than anything resembling evolution.
JungleJargon 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon Will you please explain to me how that is answering my question? Is it simply so, as I knew all along, that essentially creationism adds no understanding, only limits it?
Basically what you have resorted to now is not actually rebutting my claims, though you hoenstly did so poorly from the start, but simply stating that I am wrong without any argument from the physical nature of reality to back that up.
Now if God did create life as is, he did alot to make it seem like evolution.
TheAtheologian 1 week ago
@EnlightenedReader Only your Maker Himself alone is able to remake you again because there is no one else who can.
That is Christianity. It is about a Savior (God) being born of a woman.
JungleJargon 3 weeks ago
Those who believe in creationism should really pay attention to this video because it is ALL true. Evolution is NOT a theory anymore. The only people who call it a theory are creationists. The evidence is so overwhelming and if you disagree, you are simply in denial or refuse to look at it. It doesn't mean the Bible is all wrong. It just means that the creation story was created by primitive man trying to explain how we got here with his limited knowledge. Imagine Moses trying to explain a TV.
joecane6340 4 months ago
The religious dont have a leg to stand on anymore!! The internet has destroyed their belief system I didn't know what to believe ,before the internet cause I've been surrounded by NARROW-MINDED morons in the bible belt my whole life.I did the Pascal's wager thing,BUT the internet opened my eye's. I realize the closest thing we have to a god at this point is Darwin!! He's given us the best explanation to date.(outdated,but brilliant).Darwin is GOD and the internet is his sword!
MrAmericanzombie 5 months ago
30 seconds into it, I can already doubt you're a genuine Christian. Only until the theory of evolution was discovered, did they put that twist onto Genesis' creation. Up until the 1700s and Darwin, there was no evolution. Genesis was read literally. Fail Christian, fail.
seaFoodSifu 5 months ago
@seaFoodSifu lol he's an atheist now. This video was in 2007. His personal views have changed alot since then. Also, Genesis wasn't always read literally. Early christian thinkers like St. Augustine preached against a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
do i detect a closet atheist? =P
callinshumen 5 months ago
@callinshumen
He's an atheist now.
Ironically, I only listened to what he had to say when I saw this the first time because we were both Christians at the time.
HylianPirate278 5 months ago
I once found new life when i opened a jar of strawberry jam, it was green and fuzzy, what was it called again? oh yeah mold.
Sweddude 5 months ago
More ELITIST ATTITUDES from FALSE SCIENCE- FALSE EVOLUTION SCIENCE
barrypatrickius 7 months ago
@barrypatrickius
those damn elitist scientists acting like they know what they're talking about!..sounding all smug..it reminds me of how smug and arrogant expert pilots sound when they talk about the technicalities of flying a plane.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
itzahazylife Flying a plane, like chemistry and physics, is a hard or exact science. These discplines have experiments and measurements that are verifiable in the lab and out in the field. The evolution/ big bang knotheads look at "evidence" and "intrepret" it. (or PONTIFICATE) and have backtracked and changed their stories numerous times.
barrypatrickius 5 months ago
.(continued) These aren't even considered hard sciences but more akin to ecomomics, sociology, or psychology/psychiatry. By comparing it to an exact science like aviation you are showing your supreme ignorance.
barrypatrickius 5 months ago
@barrypatrickius
so, you're saying evolution isn't verifiable or falsifiable?..if so, u are ignorant..the theory of evolution can make testable predictions, and it does..and no data has ever effectively falsified it..back tracked and changed their stories?...i think u mean they have refined the theory over time..many details on the mechanisms of evolution are hotly debated, but not whether or not evolution occurs.
what u don't realize is that life reproduces..because of this, evolution is ine
itzahazylife 5 months ago
what u don't realize is that life reproduces..because of this, evolution is inevitable..many times when dna replicates, it undergoes copying errors (random mutations)..these errors cause genetic diversity. (variation of genetic traits) natural selection determines which traits aid in survival, and which ones don't..if u divide a group into sub groups throut an environment, each sub group will adapt differently, and over time, the groups will diverge from each other, and new species with arise.
itzahazylife 5 months ago
but there wouldn't be Christianity if there wasn't creationism
akkadianarab 7 months ago
@akkadianarab Yes there would. The Adam and Eve story is a metaphor about hunter gatherers turning into farmers. In a sense, these people who went from having to hunt to survive are now playing god because they grow and raise their own food.
HimesInu 5 months ago
@akkadianarab Sure there would be. Creationism or belief in evolution has nothing to do with salvation. They think, however, that if you don't believe the WHOLE Bible that you can't believe in any of it which is ridiculous. They are so brainwashed because of religious dogma designed to control. It's really sad.
joecane6340 4 months ago
wait if your a christian why say evolution is real? you make us christians look like retards....i mean if you read the bible and you were christian then believe it not this "evolution.... we all are monkeys and whales evolved from hyenas" that just makes christians look retarded... anyway some stupid religions that are based off christianity say that we need to thank God for dead soldiers.... that isnt christianity!
sonicm710 7 months ago
@sonicm710 First, you understand nothing of evolution. Of course whales didn't evolve from hyenas. They aren't even in the same family. You make yourself look like a retard with that logic. And you can be a Christian, believe that "God" created the animals, and an evolutionist because they talk about two separate ideas. Evolution doesn't talk about how animals were created, only the diversity of animals. Genesis only states that the animals were created. The last line is irrelevant.
HimesInu 7 months ago
@sonicm710
u don't know a damn thing about the theory of evolution..which is why u don't accept it..the same way a cave man wouldn't accept that humans can achieve flight because he wouldn't understand how it could possibly be done..your opinion on evolution is rooted in ignorance..u know it and i know it..i bet u haven't read or listened to a single thing on evolution by expert scientists in your entire life.
itzahazylife 6 months ago
Well, Evolution doesn't really rule out the possibility of a creator, but it certainly but Christian faiths at doubt. I mean, how convinced can you be at a holy book that started out wrong?
ImAnotherZang 9 months ago
@ImAnotherZang And continue to be wrong and self contradicting to this day yes it's a stupid stupid book.
hockeater 8 months ago
@hockeater mhmm, stupid book indeed
ImAnotherZang 8 months ago
@ImAnotherZang
"Well, Evolution doesn't really rule out the possibility of a creator."
it does however take us into some strange territory..one of the main things that drives evolution is random mutations in dna..(copying errors)..these errors create genetic diversity. whichever errors benefit the organism, are kept, and passed on via reproduction..basically, evolution is driven by an error based system..a very strange system for an intelligent creator to devise, wouldn't u say?
itzahazylife 6 months ago
@itzahazylife I agree. It doesn't entirely rule out the possibility to a creator, but really gave huge restrictions to the ability which this hypothetical creator might have worked.
ImAnotherZang 6 months ago
3:05... so funny roflmao... would have killed me is i was high and saw that.. death by laughter
isrealjason 10 months ago
nice video, I used to be like you - christian who accepted the scientific method with all its implications. I'm an atheist now, but still, nice video.
RaggedM88 10 months ago
@RaggedM88
DonExodus did in fact become an Atheist eventually.
Primordialfan1 10 months ago 2
@Primordialfan1 Suck a dick.
deathtoall87 10 months ago
@deathtoall87
You following me around now you little cunt? LOL
Primordialfan1 10 months ago
@Primordialfan1 You have no idea how bored I am, mang.
deathtoall87 10 months ago
I wish I could have been there, taken that peanut butter jar, and threw it at that moron's face.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
I spotted your subliminal message -- a giraffe and a lion with a giraffe neck.
Godlesspanther 1 year ago
Oh. My. God. @ Peanut Butter + Energy = Life
billy936 1 year ago
maybe that is real oppurnity of creationism? just dmg christian religious... -.-
NAMUKPL 1 year ago
Thanks for this video in particular. It shows how quickly The Christians will stab someone in the back. Just as I received, no love "as they profess", no caring, no gentle taking time to understand a fellow brothers circumstance, but immediately ostracizing and being as critical as possible on subjects they have no real understanding.
pumpstations 1 year ago
And then he DID end up on the atheist side.
Although of course that does illuminate something very interesting to me.
Religion and rationality are ultimately completely incompatible. And I think the creationist leaders, being the chronic liars they are, know this VERY well, and thus strive to get as many people ignorant as they can. Because then they'll follow their religion and then they can be made to give money and vote the way they want.
It's about power, it always was.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
if don exodus is a smart guy( which he is), why does he still call himself a christian?
he knows that pretty much everything bible claims is either absurd/contradicting itself or simply an astrological reference.
why to call urself a christian then?
why not to become a deist. religions have nothing to do with higher intelligence or god.
UninstallingWindows 1 year ago
@UninstallingWindows donexodus2 is no longer christian according to a later video he made
scottpastry 1 year ago
Well, his reasoning is that if people want him to beleive in god then they should show him he exists. I am agnostic myself, but for the sake of argyment I'll label myself a deist. I know there's no evidence for god and Jesus, and as such I don't let faith blind me to the truth. I was never really a religious person anyway even when my parents took me to church and as such never felt comfortable about going. Though I did have some fun on occasion.
NUTCASE71733 11 months ago
Thank you Don Exodus. Creationists are indeed killing Christianity (the better aspects certainly).
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Atheist here. You know what I think about your (and my former) god, but I want to lay my thanks and respect on you for trying this video. It's something I would love for my girlfriend's Baptist parents to watch, but they wouldn't. The young earth creationist movement is attempting to do (forgive the pun) massive damage to the minds of the credulous and the innocent, and ultimately hurt their livelihood and ability to compete in a modernizing world. But of course, you know this.
MrTomfooligans 1 year ago
Way to start off with an appeal to the majority fallacy DonExodus. There are many pseodoscientific/historical concepts that were believed by 99% of the educated people in history due to everyone being taught the SAME thing in schools (hmm...I wonder what parallels we can draw from that). Here's a TINY bit of the evidence for the Bible & Creation.
“Come Search with Me” by Dr. Subodh Pandit
/my_playlists?p=ADA90FCF20A839A1
“The Genesis Conflict” by Dr. Veith
/my_playlists?p=0F4C0511B7DFC4C7
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
You are grossly over simplifying the issue. First evolution as a theory is so braud that saying creationist completely deny it is a total lie. All scientist that believe in young earth creation (one being John Sanford who is co inventor of the gene gun) would tell you natural selection takes place. It diversifies things it just doesn't make them more complex. Abiogenesis on the other hand is not supported by any experimental evidence. The Milller exp. shows more problems with A. than support.
CrownIdeas 1 year ago
I've never felt there is any conflict between my acceptance of evolution & my christanity. For me, the bible is a book containing many spiritural and moral truths for mankind but not a literal account of events which took place in the past.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
okay you say the earth is not hollow have you ever dug into the center of the eath to see have you ever physicly done this? no you havent therefore you have no phyisical proof sure the same thing may be said about god but that is where faith comes in you have to belive.....
hay326159487 1 year ago
People like Don Exodus and Chuck Missler are a rare breed, seems the bible spoke about the narrow path. Should give some insight on who actually cares about truth in this supposedly Christian nation: only a small percentage. thans for your vids Don
AndrewKH85 1 year ago
this is awesome i remember when i was a christian it was the creationists that led me to my atheism, a lot like donexodus
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
even if he were on to something, the 'new life' would be micro-FRIGGIN-scopic. how many people a year examine their peanut butter with high powered microscopes??
MrFelix987 1 year ago
even in his reasoning, if there was life it'd be micro-FRIGGIN-scopic. how many people examine there jars of peanut butter with high powered microscopes a day?
MrFelix987 1 year ago
i'm a highschool sophomore in biology. i know little about science, yet i can run mental circles around many of the outspoken creationists. and i suspect anyone who has passed an 8th grade science course could, if they didn't fall victim to the creationist attack tactics.
juniorMilenko 1 year ago
Comment removed
chilldaddy81 1 year ago
don, the illogical tatics of creationist that you are so upset with are only reflection of how illogical and outrageous christianity (and all other religions) is. You can make a million videos in which you sound like a rational thinking person, but until you can shake the illogical belief that christ rose from the dead and that you can do the same, you will continue to make yourself look like a pot calling the kettle black bro.
chilldaddy81 1 year ago
@chilldaddy81 *tactics
chilldaddy81 1 year ago
don exodus.....is it your claim the resurrection of heyseuss is factual?
chilldaddy81 1 year ago
Comment removed
chilldaddy81 1 year ago
awesome video man!!!!!!!!!!!!! very outstanding points.
derikli0103 1 year ago
What that creationist said was like "People who believe in Cars say that when you're inside an object and you step on something the object can move and take you places. Therefore when i get inside this cardboard box and step on this banana i should occasionally be able to drive. I cannot, and the whole cardboard box industry rests on this fact"
I know early teenagers who would find that flaw with that video. That man seriously probably has some mental disability. I'm actually serious.
procritic09 1 year ago
I LOVE the mechanic analogy.
procritic09 1 year ago
Man, you either accept the Bible as a whole (with all the horrors that God sent on the sinful nations that threatened Israel's, Christ's and the Elect's existence) or just don't play religion and admit that the Bible does not make any sense to you for what it is written there plainly as a whole (so no picking and choosing). First the authority of Genesis, then prohibition of fornication, then what? Deity of Christ?
As for evidence, it's all a matter of interpretation. Lucy's hip anyone?
MichaelGabrielR 1 year ago
3:36 Yeah you could. Just put some sort of genetically altered insect in there.
N00bcrunch3r 1 year ago
Why do people laugh at creationists? Thanks TF
pchtermino 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The biggest problem with Darwinism is that it makes ruthlessness and reason kissing cousins, when in truth they are mutually exclusive.
GhostofCliffGullett 1 year ago
The earth is hollow
MrAubery 1 year ago
Are you still a christan, DonExodus2??
I actually am quite shocked to hear this!
martialme84 1 year ago
@martialme84 dprjones released a video including DonExodus's answer to this question called "What does atheism have to offer?" Check it out :)
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny Thank you. :)
I did follow your advice. ;)
martialme84 1 year ago
If the bible says that animals only give birth to their own kind, wouldn't evolution mean that animals give birth to different kinds? Wouldn't that be a contradiction
MrAubery 1 year ago
@MrAubery The concept of "kind" is too vague to be used scientifically. I could claim that Michelangelo's David and his Sistine Chapel painting are the same kind because they were made by the same artist, but I could also claim they are not because one is a statue while the other is a painting. This simple example shows that saying things produce only after their own "kind" has no scientific merit simply because of ambiguity and its being open to interpretation.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny .. It's pretty simple..
Dogs don't have sex with sheep to make chickens.
Dogs don't have sex with dinosaurs to make dogs.
Dogs don't have sex with dog's to make zebras.
Dogs DO have sex with dogs to make dogs.
Dogs + Dogs do NOT make something different/(evolution)
MrAubery 1 year ago
@MrAubery :) Evolution does not say that modern dogs mate with sheep nor dinosaurs either. If they did, then evolution would actually fall apart, because instead of following along the same branch of the tree of life, it would describe a case where it jumped between branches, which cannot happen.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny .........Exactly.
Dogs give birth to their own kind = DOGS
No new genetic information
No scales, antlers, hooves, wings... nothing
MrAubery 1 year ago
@MrAubery Kindly watch Gigano1986's video called "Copypasting genes: The origin of new genetic information" where he details that gene duplication, coupled with mutations, will increase the diversity and functional abilities of genes coded in the sequence (a.k.a. an increase in information).
A link to the video can be found here:
/watch?v=G2a-oMNbei4
lhvinny 1 year ago
@MrAubery Perhaps you are unaware of this but it's an incremental change. It is small things like variance of hearing and seeing etc. Kindly remember that Evolution is not a one-generation process. By the way, you don't know how naive you sound spewing this stuff at us. You clearly know very little about evolution. Learn it, get some evidence refuting it, come up with an alternate theory then we'll talk.
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
@Darthmas2242 I don't remember looking to talk to you.
MrAubery 1 year ago
@MrAubery You weren't but I felt like helping to educate you a little bit. And this is the internet and normal manners don't apply.
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
@Darthmas2242 I don't recall saying that any certain manners apply.
MrAubery 1 year ago
@MrAubery No you didn't. But it's rude in normal society to butt in on other's conversation. Therefore, I explained that the internet has no manner code. Manners are entirely at the converser's discretion. In other words, I don't have to observe that on the internet simply because it's a free speech zone. Ya dig?
Darthmas2242 1 year ago
@MrAubery Evolution doesn't say that, only idiots who don't know how evolution works (creationists) say that.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
I'm a Christian but staunch evolutionist, and am about to do a PhD in biochemistry.
Evolutionary theory and faith do not contradict each other.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
The debate is not Christianity vs evolution.
Its bad redneck biblical scholarship vs evolution.
celshader 1 year ago
How nice to have someone conciliating honesty and faith.
As an atheist, I often and increasingly get scared by religion, because of this over-representation of dangerous zealots in various medias (Youtube to the extreme)
This sometimes pushes me towards intolerance, and that's really not who I wanna be.
I wish reasonnable honest people of faith would push themselves ahead a bit more. Along with agnostics, they are the ones able to create a middle ground for society to stand on
VincentPhil 1 year ago
Thank You DonExodus2.
emmyjo720 1 year ago
Good to hear an honest Christian. Many profs in my bio department are religious.
Ramshobraja 1 year ago
2:57 *FACEPALM*
Brennanthefurry 1 year ago
The number of Americans claiming to be Christian has dropped precipitously in the last decade, not only because of the Creationist nonsense but because of the entire Born-Again movement and its self-righteous chest beating arrogance. When the public face of American religion was tepid, 'nice', theologically vague but with a feeling of kindness and warmth, religion had the respect of everybody. The Religious Right has made Christianity look and feel like a harsh, exclusive ideology.
HPoelzig 1 year ago
Regarding the quote mining of Darwin. Screw quoting the next 15 pages. Why don't creationists quote the next sentence? lol
"...I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
"Yet reason tells me..."
urantivirus 1 year ago
you have single handedly restored my faith in the human race. i have been watching your videos for a while now and had no idea you were a christian. i'm actually really, really surprised. have you ever made a video discussing your religious beliefs? i'd really like to check that out.
holdenbane 1 year ago 5
Watch Philhellenes.
redice1024 1 year ago
there are a few christian evolutionists out there and I as well would love to hear how he can reconcile the two. I've heard a few guys (Mcgrath in his discussion with Dawkins comes quickly to mind) and I find their explanations very odd. I wouldn't be surprised in Mcgrath's case that he was doing it for the money and didn't believe a word of what he was saying. Believe in a God ok but not what comes out of the bible...that's a made up book by man...end of story...
robertchflynn 1 year ago
@robertchflynn oh don't worry, i'm practically and anti-theist and certainly don't believe that a god exists. i just found it very, very interesting that he is a theist because he appears to be very intelligent and articulate and those aren't attributes normally applied to the religious folk.
holdenbane 1 year ago
yes he is a smart dude and his videos are great. Perplexing to say the least. I assume he believes in Jesus Christ (virgin birth, resurrection). Well there's a point brought up by Christopher Hitchens that I would love to hear an answer to. If mankind has been here for 200 thousand years why did god only intervene such a short time ago? Was god just sitting back and watching as humans evolved from horribly short lives filled with disease and major suffering? God maybe, religion no...
robertchflynn 1 year ago
obviously this is something no one can really answer but the point is that this is something you would have to believe as true if you were a christian evolutionist. There are a myriad of unbelievable things you would have to reconcile and I don't just buy that you need to interpret the bible in an allegorical manner to do so...too convenient...
robertchflynn 1 year ago
nice to see that you brought up the bullshit about the darwins "eye" so few people actually know where the quote originated from.
PsychoSymantic 2 years ago
Argh! there is a LION IN MY PEANUT BUTTER!!!
TheOssien 2 years ago 21
@TheOssien
LMAO, that was the funniest thing all week! XD
chiggevara 1 year ago
@TheOssien There's peanut butter in my lion!
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
YECtards are the most dishonest and lying sacks of shits I've ever met. Don't they have a commandment against that? If anyone is going to hell it's those fuckers.
LaingGod 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Many struggle to answer with credibility key questions about God and the Bible. But God is most definitely real. If you doubt it, read 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
keep believing in fairy tales bitch
LaingGod 2 years ago 3
Its nice to see somebody with their head screwed on straight, but im pretty confused as to why somebody as rational as yourself would even be a christian at all.. And why aren't you fond of Richard Dawkins?
wildchildcobhc 2 years ago 3
Another good explanation.
However, Don, in the spirit of being strict on the facts... if I remember correctly, it's the RATIO of historians that deny the holocaust, rather than the number.
But yes, you're otherwise spot on.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
DonExodus2 might be the most honest christian in the world.
Thank you to him!
Korkzor 2 years ago
Well said, DonExodus!
I tip my hat to you!
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
Thanks for reminding us that a lot of Christians are rational. The nuts tend to drown you out.
By the way, did Miller-Urey duplicate the atmosphere inside a peanut butter jar?
tctheunbeliever 2 years ago 10
@Leehofooks
mind. blown.
supastarrie 2 years ago
To be honest, creationism is hardly the only thing damaging to christianity.
The pope saying condoms cause aids is another example.
But frankly, the bible alone is pretty horrible. And there isn't any proof for any of it's claims being true, so really...
It's not just the creationists.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago 5
Frankly I don't see why any rationalist would really want to bother with christianity anyway.
There's nothing about christianity or ANY religion that secular means can't do as well, if not much better. Nor is there any compelling reason to belief any supernatural things exist at all.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago 3
LOL @ 3:04
Zephemus 2 years ago
One more thing how damn tasty would peanut butter based life be I would so smoke a phatty and eat me some peanut butter based life that would be the shit.
stantheman42069 2 years ago 2
Imagine if a chocolate comet impacted the peanut butter life Earth.
Delicious!
Leehofooks 2 years ago
Whets funny is some people really think the earth is hallow. I have had a heated "debate" with someone who believed it and the theories they spit out was just so damn hilarious. Its funny how some will believe anything they read.
stantheman42069 2 years ago
Hey DonExodus2, Did you know that the book of Genesis also contains the passage of scripture that talks about Noah and the flood and more importantly talks about the Covenant that God made with Abraham which is essential for the eternal life offerred by God to people so that they can even become a Christian - an heir according to the promise through the promised Messiah Jesus Christ. So Jesus Christ is God fullfilling his obligation in accordance with this Covenant - CONTINUED
mattsch74 2 years ago
What was that bombshell at the end? DonExodus2 is a Christian???
How can you have your eyes that wide open and then swallow the BS?
Or was it a joke?
warren52nz 2 years ago
''69% of scientists believe in God'' This isn't true. It does however depend on what you call scientist. For instance My first pick wouldn't be professors (those that teach only) nor would it be the USA alone. Could someone comment with those links as I couldn't see them clearly so couldn't check. The obvious choice to contradict this is the survey of the royal society on the issue. Further more to see if there's a conflict you should check the relevant field ie: creationism=physics,biology
corsair0001 2 years ago
the earth is hollow. that's crazy but the resurrection that happened, that's what we should take seriously.
You know what, the evidence shows the earth to be non-hollow but to say it is hollow is far more conceivable than the resurrection after all there are pockets containing only gas.
corsair0001 2 years ago
Yeah but the Earth's mass is known by the moon's orbit (and other evidence). So unless part of the earth is made out of super dense matter like White Dwarf matter, it can't be hollow.
P.S. And it can't be made out of White Dwarf matter.....
warren52nz 2 years ago
...I do realize that it's not hollow, I'm just saying a better case can be made for a hollow earth than for the resurrection.
white dwarf matter? I think you mean neutron star. White dwarf stars aren't very dense, a neutron star is so dense that the atoms are crushed together, it's the most dense thing we know of next to a black hole.
corsair0001 2 years ago
Yes I know that, I did my degree in Physics. 8^)
White Dwarf material may not be as dense as crunched down neutrons but it's miles more dense than "ordinary matter"
I don't think we'd like to contemplate a neutron star under the surface of the earth.
Anyway you're right... they're both so unlikely as to be dismissed out of hand.
Cheers
warren52nz 2 years ago
Agreed.
corsair0001 2 years ago
Evolution does not teach life out of nothing. That's abiogenesis. I'll never be ashamed ogf the gospel no matter how much silly creationists try to embarass me.
usernameofnobody 2 years ago
Are you Christian Don? Or making fun? Regardless I enjoy your videos very much.
JohnnieNaked 2 years ago
Christianity makes christians look ridiculous man.......religion in general makes people look ridiculous.....God or gods and the belief thereof make people look foolish....sorry to say...wait, no I'm not.
hangthebastard 2 years ago
yea i was born a secular so its impossible for me to believe in god...which is actually a constant reminder of why i dont believe in god. i mean think about it....i cant believe in god...it soundds so rediculous to me it will never happen. to think i was created this way by a god that wanted me to worship him is rediculous as well. if u believe tha then u believe he made me just to burn in hell.
keggerous 2 years ago
Don't be tired of the atheist side of the arguments. At least stay for the cookies and barbequed kittens.
:)
jcgadfly 2 years ago
3:05 - subliminal message of half giraffe half lion.. .nice :)
jeremalaria 2 years ago
to be honest i already had trouble with my faith before i stopped going to church after the priest stated "i find it hard to everything happened without god's intervention" i just walked out and haven't gone back
kayman92 2 years ago
Haha, I swear I heard him say "the credibility of christianity".
5 stars for this comedy
Hasosoft 2 years ago
the fact that adam and eve were made from dirt disproves adam and eve...Fact is on our side don't make shit up when you don't have to.
sgtbigs22 2 years ago