Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
As you look through the eyes of macro evolution there is no direct connections of each catagory in simple reality and part of survival is being also able to adapt and i do accept changes. I strongly doupt that any other living thing than us will ever evolve into a more complex form. I do understand in simplest forms that evolution seems right when you cancel out god. but imagine god was eventually canceled out social darwanism will have to kick in eventually.
@Danielfallz Why do god and evolution have to be mutually exclusive in your mind? It's perfectly possible to accept evolution and hold a belief in God at the same time.
I beleive that every species has a specific part in life and they are what they are for the role. Yes we all have something in common it can be visually or under the telescope but that is part of law to be able to live in existance. I call it design but you would say we are all decendants from a common ancestor which currently stands unidentified and is very complex. no other creature can be as complex as us as we are dependant of them to survive
@Danielfallz complexity increases over time. Modern single-celled organisms are much more complex that the first forms of life would have been because they have been evolving the longest.
Its not hard for a scientist to come up with a diagram of how the eye came about in theory. but the link between the eye to recieve infomation, the optical to the brain is impossible to come in existance through the eyes of natural selection.
@Danielfallz I think what you're trying to say is that there doesn't seem to be a process by which the optical nerve (which connects the eye to the brain) could have evolved. You are wrong. The video explained that it started with a simple patch on the skin. All of your skin is connected to your brain, that's how you feel. Seeing is nothing more than "feeling" light particles/waves.
@celsius233 power-hungry, no powerful, yes that's why we fear him, I will take time to study your evidence. The proof is in the bible, for example archeologists are currently searching for the location of Sodom and Gammorah which they believe is in one of the lakes in the western middle east, they are relying on the bible because they are searching in areas where there has been volcanic activity
@stepharnos115 PARTS of the bible have been verified. It is the job of a historian to study such texts and, by cross-referencing them, separate the facts from the lies. Yes, there are facts in the bible, but there are also plenty of lies.
@stepharnos115 Are you saying that just because I don't believe in the christian god, I'm therefore not allowed to believe in the existence of Jerusalem?
@celsius233 power-hungry, no powerful, yes that's why we fear him, I will take time to study your evidence. The proof is in the bible, for example archeologists are currently searching for the location of Sodom and Gammorah which they believe is in one of the lakes in the western middle east, they are relying on the bible because they are searching in areas where there has been volcanic activity
@stepharnos115 When looking for a historic city mentioned in the bible, of course you'll refer to the bible. But I'm sure they're using other sources as well.
And when I talked about a power-hungry freak in a robe, I wasn't talking about god. I was talking about priests. I know god and I know that there is no reason to fear him. What I'm saying is that I am at peace spiritually and I achieved this without handing control of my life over to manipulative humans with a monopoly on god.
@celsius233 my pastor agrees with me, yes i pay him each week but that's because it's his job, he dosen't try to con me out of anything, the people who strive towards religion are pharisees those who strive towards christ are true christians
@stepharnos115 I assume you're talking about that stuff about the jews? Well, what about the millions of people who died and are dying without ever knowing about Jesus?
@celsius233 if you knew the Bible then you wouldn't be asking this question. ''the heavens decalre the glory of God'' this is all you need to believe, it is whithin us to ask questions about a God, even if you've never heard about him he can still find you
@stepharnos115 I've told you, I am at peace spiritually. I have had enlightening religious experiences. In Christian terms I would say that I have seen god, he has found me. But I do not believe in the god of the bible.
@stepharnos115 I can do better than one. Copy and paste the following link and replace (dot) with . for a complete overview of EVERY contradiction in the bible: thealmightyguru(dot)com/Atheism/Images/BibleContradictions-ReasonProject(dot)png
@celsius233 for some reason i can't access this file but i will try to find a contadiction, i know that one atheist search through the bible and the only one he could find was when jesus said he wasn't going to a feast, but then went later, i don't think this is a contradiction
@stepharnos115 check that when you paste it, it's still the same as here. I just tried it myself and found that two errors had appeared in the pasting process. I wish I could just post the link, but youtube won't allow that.
@stepharnos115 Name one academic with published academic papers who thinks the bible is a reliable source of historic fact.
And I'm not saying there aren't any historic facts in there, but the only reason we know there are true facts in the bible is because those facts have been verified by OTHER sources.
Even if the bible was written more recently how could they have predicted the fulfilled prophecies and know about the location of hidden historic sites whilst knowing that one day the sun would explode this means that it would have to be written at different times which means it would have contradictions
"The animal was able to steer through light" or "make blurred shapes through a blob" than later "let the lens harden abit with some skin grown over it resulting in very good image resolution".
There was no optic nerve or any infomation passing from the eye to the brain in this theory and that is very crucial. And this was added in the last stages of the diagram.
@Danielfallz So you don't think that an animal's skin is connected to its brain? I guess that's why no animal on earth is able to feel heat or pain, then.
@celsius233 ofcourse it would. but For the eye it requires a cranial nerve so it can transmit visual information from the retina to the brain. Dawkins said it was able to make blurred shapes through a blob into a pit and even able to see in a good image resolution.
@Danielfallz First of all, you're confusing graphics in a TELEVISION show with scientifically accurate diagrams. Secondly, just because an animal isn't able to "visualise" what it's seeing doesn't mean it can't use that information. It would "feel" light and shade the same way a human can feel hot and cold.
@Danielfallz What do you mean "how am I confusing it?" In the way i just said. You're talking about the graphics as if they're an exact scientific representation. They're not, they're graphics from a TV show.
"What animal are we talking about?" lots of animals, most of which are extinct now.
@celsius233 can you tell me the animal? Is there an animal that will provide an example for how the eye was formed. From the start it requires nerve fibres from the area at the first stages. A "single plant", a "single animal" would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. This making miracle become the rule, events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.
@Danielfallz Modern molluscs show the full range of stages of development for the eye. From the limpet which has nothing more than a light-sensitive pit through to the octopus which has better eyes than a human.
@celsius233 OK the examples of the animals you have provided to me are the tips and nodes of their branches in a fossil record. And to be plain and simple there's already something put into a system or expended in its operation to achieve output or a result. You may think Im wrong because you view the record through the eyes of the evolution theory. But we would do better to look at what "the record really says."
@celsius233 ok... in short again, these animals already have the input to survive and be what they are in that surrounding. I just want to conclude, Im a bible beleiving Christian. We are talking about a Great designer of all things. And we are calling it a fairytale because the unimanginable happens which cannot be studied. Everything around us is proof that there is a god and we have not appoached it with a good foundation to study.
@celsius233 This whole existence is "carefully planned" and he did it through his word, now with something without bounds so great can man ever understand god? If evolution is real, how could a god come to mind? If evolution is real there would have always been a relationship with our ancestors or some sort of material used to clarify it in past events. Never try to understand god because his ways are always higher. Never judge god through man and what man has done.
@celsius I want to give you a glimpse of god. People directly call god a murderer because he put an end to so many lives, stated in the old testament. But the bible clearly stated the reason for this. "The lord saw how great mans wickedness on earth has become, and that every inclination of thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." If god didnt do anything, would we all be here today? There is way too much to go on. The truth has been given to us in a book and its easily available.
@celsius233 I want you to know whats important is you and your relationship with god. God is a good god period, because his love and mercy is everlasting.
@Danielfallz What it comes down to is that your experience of god is so narrowly focused on a book written by humans 2000 years ago that you can't accept anything that challenges that book. The bible is outdated. If the search for God is the search for truth, then science has taught us of a god far beyond the wildest imaginings of the desert nomads who imagined Jehovah.
@celsius233 There is nothing wrong with Science, give the bible a detailed critical inspection by all means. Yes the book is written by humans and they were able to do this because god revealed himself to them. They had a close relationship with him and he also chose them with this responsibility and its done through him. No one can study his nature. Existance and everything around us points to him.
@celsius233 A hypothesis which is tested, examined, peer reviewed and scrutinized, and remains unfalsifiable becomes a scientific theory. There is a matter of time where the evolutionary tree will be axed because it has become sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.
@Danielfallz I don't think you understand what the word "falsifiable" means. No scientific theory is unfalsifiable, that would defeat the whole point of science. And let me just compare what you're saying to a simple analogy. The universe we exist in seems like it was created specially for us in the same way that a sink seems specially created for the body of water lying in it.
@celsius233 I'll give it a rest for a while. I still have more study to do in my spare time. I think time will reaveal what this theory really is. I will look on more on speciation. But god is still the foundation in which I stand.
We're the same the only difference is, I've been saved and redeemed by God's grace alone.
@Danielfallz I find it sad that you think the only way for a human to be saved is through following the bible. That's nothing more than spiritual snobbery.
@celsius233 You probably dont even read the bible, you wouldnt be saying this if you did. Everyone has freedom of choice and thats how much god loves us. He doesnt rule us. If you want to follow Richard Dawkins, then feel free to do so. I dont hate him but I can see he has been hurt by religious people. God sees everything. I am only human, no matter how many mistakes I have made I will still be with him when I die.
@Danielfallz We only have a small amount of time on earth to respond to god and show people the light out of all this corruption since the fall of man, thats our journey in this situation it has become. And will spend eternity in which we choose to go.
Cephalopods are easily the most interesting aquatic animals I've ever seen. Didn't realise they were molluscs though; usually think of gastropods, clams and bivalves in that regard. Evidently I missed something while cramming for a test... :P
Go watch Starwars. Thats more realistic then your stupid video. Tell me are animals able to think. Can we observe logic in any animal. Or reason,. There is something that we have that nothing else has. That is the capacity to think. Prove that to be evolutionary.
@praylude90 Actually, other primates have been observed to problem solve. Likewise, there are some species of birds that plan, problem solve and use tools.
Apparently you've never had a smart dog or cat as a pet.
@praylude90 Alright, prove that they do not think? or better yet, prove that we are actually smarter than animals? oh wait, prove logic? and what about reason?
We're animals in a habitat that we are destroying ourselves.. and will soon outgrow in terms of population.. how logical or reasonable is that actually? We certainly have something that 'nothing else' has; that is the determination to detach ourselves from nature and ourselves thus making life more complicated than it has to be.
@praylude90 yes and girafs have a long neck. And no other animal has. So I think god created the world for them. Oh but elephants have those large ears, and no other animal has anything similar. So maybe god created the world for elephants too. But not for us, otherwise we would have a long neck and big ears too. Seems logic to me.
right off the bat. richard said. i want to see if i can build an eye using those principles from ''scratch''... (then he says) a bare patch of skin (unquote) THATS NOT STARTING FROM SCRATH. the skin had to have foarmed by benificial mutation. QUESTION 4 U. how did the skin go from ''SCRATCH'' to skin?????????????????????????????????????? Then talk about how skin evolved into an eye.
What is this luxury? In my day we had to create the DNA for the cow by hand and grow it and raise it before we could even think about extracting the milk.
if you're standing in the shade with your eyes close....I'm pretty sure that is a beam of light were to strike your body somewhere, you would notice it.
If you want a better quality video of this, on richard dawkins channel there is a video on climbing mount improbable. he pretty much says the same thing.
Thank you celsius233. I was totally unaware that Dawkins was making videos in the 1980s showing the evolution of eyeballs. I really need to get out of the USA, as this place is overrun with religious nutbars. American television had me believing that removing a single cell from an eye makes it blind.
mrchekky is thinking evolution works just like a mechanical machine created by humans. Like a train. Well, untill the parts and pieces are assembled it's not going to work. Thats not evolution. Are people really that intelligently unevolved. People like that shouldn't be allowed to graduate high school. Schools need to make reasoning tests and an ability to understand new concepts tests.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This video does not prove evolution of the eye, in my opinion! It proves intelligence beyond humans and beyond the human brain, rather than chance. It also proves that humans like to stick to their narrow beliefs and fight with each other, calling each other insulting names, and lording it over each other. Dimwits will latch onto ideas and from that point, all new discovery is lost. Both of your camps of war, have some good points, but in the future, I have the strong sense, that both the w
I'll do whatever I fucking well please. No, it's a fair point that vulgarity does tend to diminish an argument. But shock value shouldn't be underestimated. Besides, I hate censorship almost as much as creationism.
be honest son,you want to get rid of any accountability to god so you can play with penises,right? may you burn with an everlasting gonorrhea (snickers)
If God'sgreatest earthly punishment for "sinful behaviour" is somethi that can easily be stopped with a thin piece of rubber, doesn't that say alot about the impotence of your god?
"what about your accountability to vishnu,allah,buddha or zeus?"
this has nothing to do with my accusation towards the gay chap.i`m saying he denies the existence of ANY higher power so that he can be free to mangle penises without any worries of actually being held accountable for that.hence,his gay lifestyle.
So, what your saying is you want to "mangle penises" to. You just choose not to. It is so nice of your god to place hormones and chemicals in your brain that influence your wants and desires but then places the rules in the opposite position and threatens burning fire on you for a hell of a long time. You parents have conditioned and passed on a sick tradition created from men who lived thousands of years ago. Step out of the cave , man, and experiance the light which many call reason.
no,that has never occured to me because if it did then i would be strawmanning my argument like you just did.
i don`t NEED the threat of punishment to act "moral" but a threat of punishment LOGICALLY would influence whether or not i acted out in an immoral way.if you have a problem with that then you should be an anarchist.
"atheists are more moral"
prove it ... get together with your atheist friends and make an atheist charity organization.you`d be the 1st.
Strawman fallacy only applies to a corruption which is argued against in lieu of the real argument.
"a threat of punishment LOGICALLY would influence whether or not i acted out in an immoral way" --- And THAT is why you are not moral. Acting nice becaue of a heavenly reward or a hellish punishment is self-preservation, not morality.
As for charities, do a simple web-search for atheist and secular charities. You are overtly lying when you say that there would be a first.
As for reasons - religious charities are given HUGE concessions by govermnent. Do you think secular and atheist charities get tax-cuts? Do you think they get to keep their books firmly sealed, as is permissible for religious charities to do?
Non-religious charities exist IN SPITE of the obstacles which have ingrained themselves within government.
Oh and, "anarchist"? You really are a vain little man aren't you? Then again, you believe homosexuals only exist in defiance of your magic man.
no duh? that`s exactly what you did.you set up a strawman by insinuating that i as a theist need a threat of punishment to be moral.
i didn`t say i was "acting nice" to avoid a hellish punishment.i said a threat of punishment would LOGICALLY influence how i behave.notice the differance? that`s where your strawman comes in.
btw,a "secular charity" is NOT an atheist charity! you`re a complete asshole for even saying that lol.there is over 1 billion of you,right? where`s your charity group?
Ah, I see the original message has gone. Wasn't there something about people not believing in God so that they are not accountable to anyone? THAT was the point I responded to.
"btw,a "secular charity" is NOT an atheist charity! you`re a complete asshole for even saying that lol"
And that is why I separated them. What was that about strawmen?
You were factually wrong on those charities. You also need to differentiate between accountability and the threat of punishment.
"wasn`t there something about people not believing in God so that they are not accountable"
of course.wouldn`t atheism be more appealing to you as a homosexual? (not that you are one) ... BUT this doesn`t mean you should do good for rewards/punishments.that simply does not follow.
"that is why i separated them"
separated them? lol you have yet to establish they (ATHEIST charities) exist!
also ... even if you do find a MODERN organization of atheists,why are almost ALL charities rooted in religious groups rather than atheist groups? i mean,atheists have been around since the dawn of time.
keep in mind that i`m responding to the infinitely laughable idea that atheists are more charitable than religious people.
"why are almost ALL charities rooted in religious groups rather than atheist groups?"
So as well as Google being beyond you, you are now incapable of looking further up that page where I address this very issue.
Yes, there have been atheists since the dawn of time - do you think that *acceptance* of atheists has always existed? Secular values are what create increasingly open societies where people can...
"wouldn`t atheism be more appealing to you as a homosexual?"
What an arrogant thing to say. How about homosexuals going for *any of the other religions* that don't mention gay people.
"lol you have yet to establish they (ATHEIST charities) exist! "
You're right - I don't do google searches for other people's benefit. Any charity that does not espouse a belief in God is BY DEFINITION an atheist charity. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that atheism is a philosophy that a charity...
"a moniker that says {1big10incher} damning someone else to play with penises for supporting evolution"
i chose this moniker to proclaim my large penis.whoopy! ... does that mean i like penises? Hellz No! dix are for chix,remember?
BTW,i didn`t accuse the gay chap of affirming evolution to sanction his penile peversions ... i accused him of denying the reality of God in order to sanction his gay lifestyle.
the fact that prominent evolutionists run away from debate with creationists really speak volumes
evolutionists make many faith-based comments like eye evolution is a fact, not so, making diagrams does not make fact. still don't see why no eye in the back of my head given your alleged process likes to trial and error until it finds an optimal solution.
Evolutionists have given creationists more time then they deserve. No geologist has needed to tell the flat earth society to bugger off a second time. evolutionists actually conduct science and have continued to systematically answer any valid challanges. Creationists only shake their heads and say "No God did it in 7 days".
Actually no where does the Bible teach a flat earth. Expressions like ends of the earth: Is in reference to time, not the shape of the earths surface. The word earth: Also in many references is simply means the soil, or a geographical area. You don't have to believe it, but obviously you are not in position to understand the concepts or language of the scriptures.
I agree with specialkalpha. While people in developed world are debating on real issues, back in redneck states people are still arguing whether earth is flat, or if the earth is 6000 years old (flat earth as an example as both statements are equally ridiculous).
It's a disgrace for the US education system that they still have to have so much debates on this subject.
And no where in the Bible does it say the age of the Earth. Creationists made an aproximation based on the generations of Adam. The point is I don't really care what the Bible has to say about the shape, age or origin of biodiversity on earth. I take the Bible as 1 of many texts concerning man's search for divinity. For a scientist to engage in constant debate with creationists is like a mathamatician arguing with a man who only reads the phone book.
If scientist would stick to looking at how to cure Aids, Cancer etc.. Things that matter, rather than spend billions of dollars trying to convert people to believe in Evolution. Biology should be about where we go from here, not trying to prove we evolved from a single cell: They spend so much time debating, because they want more than the 50% that believe them. Why else would they?
Yes becasue Kent Hovind has done so much to cure cancer. Creationists are the ones who are obsessed with getting the slime majority of people to believe them. All creationists do is debate because the can't actually produce anything. Scientists are out doing things, some for more abstract knowledge and a lot of it very practical but they are doing something. That is why the don't ahve time to tell you that your Fable is not a technically accurate understanding of the way the world works.
Understand that no one is opposed to the science. Evolutionist point to circumstantial evidence Like Dawkin's, admits: A crime scene: They try to find the clues: Well the clues isn't the science, it's your interpretation of the evidence. While, we waist time and money arguing over the evidence, most which is circumstantial, and as any evidence should be, viewed and studied from various angles, instead of placing it in this box, or that box. You don't seem to understand the difference...
So why does it bother you what others think: That is the point, if you are convince it's your way or know way: so be it! What difference is attacking someones belief, or forcing your interpretation of the evidence on someone else going to make? Please explain what that has to do with science and research? There are plenty of secular scientist that believe in God, and have a variety of views that differ form each other. So what?
Your asked why don't scientists answer you people anytime you want to debate. My answer was that the majority are busy actually doing science. Creationists are the ones obessed with belief and absolute dogma. I believe in a divinity but one that moves the universe in ways much more complex and subtle then a simple fable from the bronze age. It is creationists who demand absolute conformity in faith with no evidence. So don't ask for my tax $ so you can define christianity on your own terms.
I never said why don't they answer us: Why are they so worried that some folks don't buy it? That's what gets me: That's what makes it look like they have an agenda aside from the scientific aspect. I hear them say: We aren't doing our job if 50% don't believe us: There job is to advance the science, not to convert people to there interpretation on the evidence. If you can't see that, don't know much more I could say to clarify it.
Firstly in your post you said that scientists spent Billions trying to "convert people". This is untrue. And yes if 50% of the population of a 1st world country believes the literal interpretation of an ancient fable is as or more accurate than science than we are failing to educate people in proper science.
The question is: Why worry about peoples religious convictions? It's nothing to you: Great scientist today, and over the years have been fundamental Christians. I don't care if Muslims, believe they are going to be rewarded with 70 virgins, as long as they stop flying planes into building to get them. Macro evaluation isn't going to save a single life. Use biology for that! You sound as if you believe they are synonymous, there not.
what about the billions spent on building mega churches and other such stupidity in the persuit of favour from a mythical being. Why should scientists work curing diseases if stupid people won't believe in the scientific method and not use the treatment because they're told not to by other fools and faith healers. For example MMR vaccine. scientifically proven not to increase autism, yet many people don't immunise their kids for this fear. thats why we should educate people in scientific method
Krydan I have no problem with Christians belief that God created the Earth. Notice that nobody argues with Catholics who accept both a divine origin of and an evolutionary one. They say that Genisis represents a broadstrokes telling of God's creation of the world as told to an ancient people. Science shows us more accuratly how we came to be. Literal Biblical creation is a dogma that begins and ends with a simple reading of the Bible, not actual investigation.
Investigation: Good word! You are looking at clues, pieces of a puzzle:Most scientist will tell you different things: I will PM, you a list of famous quotes by today's leaders in the evolution debate: That contradict, mislead, and are just plain foolish arguments. Like: Dawkin's: "We've never actually seen macro evolution observed, but it's as real as anything can be" He says the same thing about the fossil record! Cont...
The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.
"...the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists" -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p 229
Scientists hardly use the two terms anymore, but when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they dont use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply dont pay attention to them.
Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons-this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned.
In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.
Steven Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard, wrote in Natural History, Vol LXXXVI (6), June-July, 1977, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
Trying to educate a creationist is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Paraphrased from Robert A. Heinlein
I find it amusing that scarlets79 talks about atheists clinging to fallacies then follows with a fallacious statement about eyes in the back of his head. Argument from incredulity.
you'd need a secondary frontal lope, double the optic nerves, and an even bigger head to make even more room for processing it all because it'd have to orient two images, that's why you punce. and many animals, such as giraffes, fish, and many types of birds, can already see behind them because their eyes are on the sides of there head. Idiot.
Your question can be explained but I can't do it in a 500 character response. So lets stipulate, for the sake of argument, that why we don't have eyes in the back of our head cannot be explained by evolutionary biology. Would that then prove that god exists? I have a question for you to explain. If having eyes in the back of our heads would be so valuable, why didn't god create us that way?
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
As you look through the eyes of macro evolution there is no direct connections of each catagory in simple reality and part of survival is being also able to adapt and i do accept changes. I strongly doupt that any other living thing than us will ever evolve into a more complex form. I do understand in simplest forms that evolution seems right when you cancel out god. but imagine god was eventually canceled out social darwanism will have to kick in eventually.
Danielfallz 10 months ago
@Danielfallz Why do god and evolution have to be mutually exclusive in your mind? It's perfectly possible to accept evolution and hold a belief in God at the same time.
celsius233 10 months ago
I beleive that every species has a specific part in life and they are what they are for the role. Yes we all have something in common it can be visually or under the telescope but that is part of law to be able to live in existance. I call it design but you would say we are all decendants from a common ancestor which currently stands unidentified and is very complex. no other creature can be as complex as us as we are dependant of them to survive
Danielfallz 10 months ago
@Danielfallz complexity increases over time. Modern single-celled organisms are much more complex that the first forms of life would have been because they have been evolving the longest.
celsius233 10 months ago
Its not hard for a scientist to come up with a diagram of how the eye came about in theory. but the link between the eye to recieve infomation, the optical to the brain is impossible to come in existance through the eyes of natural selection.
Danielfallz 10 months ago
@Danielfallz I think what you're trying to say is that there doesn't seem to be a process by which the optical nerve (which connects the eye to the brain) could have evolved. You are wrong. The video explained that it started with a simple patch on the skin. All of your skin is connected to your brain, that's how you feel. Seeing is nothing more than "feeling" light particles/waves.
celsius233 10 months ago
The bible itself has been verified by other sources, Josephus is a good example
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@celsius233 power-hungry, no powerful, yes that's why we fear him, I will take time to study your evidence. The proof is in the bible, for example archeologists are currently searching for the location of Sodom and Gammorah which they believe is in one of the lakes in the western middle east, they are relying on the bible because they are searching in areas where there has been volcanic activity
stepharnos115 1 year ago
The bible itself has been verified by other sources, Josephus is a good example
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 PARTS of the bible have been verified. It is the job of a historian to study such texts and, by cross-referencing them, separate the facts from the lies. Yes, there are facts in the bible, but there are also plenty of lies.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 what lies, you either believe the bible or you don't
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 Are you saying that just because I don't believe in the christian god, I'm therefore not allowed to believe in the existence of Jerusalem?
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 what? the existance of Jerusalem isn't a debate but you would be wise to believe n God
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 That's exactly my point. That is one of the facts, not one of the lies.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 so do you think the Bible is true?
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 I already told you, some of it is true.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 power-hungry, no powerful, yes that's why we fear him, I will take time to study your evidence. The proof is in the bible, for example archeologists are currently searching for the location of Sodom and Gammorah which they believe is in one of the lakes in the western middle east, they are relying on the bible because they are searching in areas where there has been volcanic activity
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 When looking for a historic city mentioned in the bible, of course you'll refer to the bible. But I'm sure they're using other sources as well.
And when I talked about a power-hungry freak in a robe, I wasn't talking about god. I was talking about priests. I know god and I know that there is no reason to fear him. What I'm saying is that I am at peace spiritually and I achieved this without handing control of my life over to manipulative humans with a monopoly on god.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 yes, religion is a very bad thing, history has proven this but this is just a tool of the devil,e uses it to discourage people
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@celsius233 that's why you serch for true christianity, my pastor dosen't manipulate, you've just gotta find the right people
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 "Religion is a very bad thing"...."my pastor"
FAIL.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 my pastor agrees with me, yes i pay him each week but that's because it's his job, he dosen't try to con me out of anything, the people who strive towards religion are pharisees those who strive towards christ are true christians
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 Are you trying to say that Christianity is not a religion?
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 no im saying that christianity is a religion with many shades and few are the right ones
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 So, christianity is a religion. And in your own words: "religion is a very bad thing, history has proven this".
....ok
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 that is not true. discoveries through the bible have been very accurate where archealogists seek guidance through.
Danielfallz 10 months ago
@Danielfallz such as....?
celsius233 10 months ago
The only way to be saved is by Christ, the bible is just proof and comfort
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 Then every human who died before Christ and every human who has not heard of Christ must be in hell. Fuck your god.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 no, look at Romans chapter 2
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 I assume you're talking about that stuff about the jews? Well, what about the millions of people who died and are dying without ever knowing about Jesus?
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 if you knew the Bible then you wouldn't be asking this question. ''the heavens decalre the glory of God'' this is all you need to believe, it is whithin us to ask questions about a God, even if you've never heard about him he can still find you
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 He has found me. He is not Jesus.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 what do you meen he has fouund you, are you saying that god has found you ut not jesus?
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 I've told you, I am at peace spiritually. I have had enlightening religious experiences. In Christian terms I would say that I have seen god, he has found me. But I do not believe in the god of the bible.
celsius233 1 year ago
I'd rather believe a fairy story than think I came from a rock
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 I'd rather know the truth of god than believe what a power-hungry freak in a robe tells me.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celcius233 then tell me one contradiction in the bible
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 I can do better than one. Copy and paste the following link and replace (dot) with . for a complete overview of EVERY contradiction in the bible: thealmightyguru(dot)com/Atheism/Images/BibleContradictions-ReasonProject(dot)png
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 for some reason i can't access this file but i will try to find a contadiction, i know that one atheist search through the bible and the only one he could find was when jesus said he wasn't going to a feast, but then went later, i don't think this is a contradiction
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 check that when you paste it, it's still the same as here. I just tried it myself and found that two errors had appeared in the pasting process. I wish I could just post the link, but youtube won't allow that.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 ok i'll try to
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@celsius233 if they doubt the bible they aren't Christians and archeologists deem the bible reliable as do historians
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 Name one academic with published academic papers who thinks the bible is a reliable source of historic fact.
And I'm not saying there aren't any historic facts in there, but the only reason we know there are true facts in the bible is because those facts have been verified by OTHER sources.
celsius233 1 year ago
Even if the bible was written more recently how could they have predicted the fulfilled prophecies and know about the location of hidden historic sites whilst knowing that one day the sun would explode this means that it would have to be written at different times which means it would have contradictions
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 You're right, there aren't any contradictions in the bible.
Oh, wait....
celsius233 1 year ago
How is the bible a fairy story if it is deemed a reliable source
stepharnos115 1 year ago
@stepharnos115 The only people who deem the bible a reliable source are Christians and I doubt it's even the majority of Christians.
celsius233 1 year ago
"The animal was able to steer through light" or "make blurred shapes through a blob" than later "let the lens harden abit with some skin grown over it resulting in very good image resolution".
There was no optic nerve or any infomation passing from the eye to the brain in this theory and that is very crucial. And this was added in the last stages of the diagram.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz So you don't think that an animal's skin is connected to its brain? I guess that's why no animal on earth is able to feel heat or pain, then.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 ofcourse it would. but For the eye it requires a cranial nerve so it can transmit visual information from the retina to the brain. Dawkins said it was able to make blurred shapes through a blob into a pit and even able to see in a good image resolution.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz First of all, you're confusing graphics in a TELEVISION show with scientifically accurate diagrams. Secondly, just because an animal isn't able to "visualise" what it's seeing doesn't mean it can't use that information. It would "feel" light and shade the same way a human can feel hot and cold.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 how am i confusing it? wat animal are we talking about?
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz What do you mean "how am I confusing it?" In the way i just said. You're talking about the graphics as if they're an exact scientific representation. They're not, they're graphics from a TV show.
"What animal are we talking about?" lots of animals, most of which are extinct now.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 can you tell me the animal? Is there an animal that will provide an example for how the eye was formed. From the start it requires nerve fibres from the area at the first stages. A "single plant", a "single animal" would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. This making miracle become the rule, events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz Modern molluscs show the full range of stages of development for the eye. From the limpet which has nothing more than a light-sensitive pit through to the octopus which has better eyes than a human.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 OK the examples of the animals you have provided to me are the tips and nodes of their branches in a fossil record. And to be plain and simple there's already something put into a system or expended in its operation to achieve output or a result. You may think Im wrong because you view the record through the eyes of the evolution theory. But we would do better to look at what "the record really says."
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz I honestly cannot fathom what you mean by that last comment.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 ok... in short again, these animals already have the input to survive and be what they are in that surrounding. I just want to conclude, Im a bible beleiving Christian. We are talking about a Great designer of all things. And we are calling it a fairytale because the unimanginable happens which cannot be studied. Everything around us is proof that there is a god and we have not appoached it with a good foundation to study.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@celsius233 This whole existence is "carefully planned" and he did it through his word, now with something without bounds so great can man ever understand god? If evolution is real, how could a god come to mind? If evolution is real there would have always been a relationship with our ancestors or some sort of material used to clarify it in past events. Never try to understand god because his ways are always higher. Never judge god through man and what man has done.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@celsius I want to give you a glimpse of god. People directly call god a murderer because he put an end to so many lives, stated in the old testament. But the bible clearly stated the reason for this. "The lord saw how great mans wickedness on earth has become, and that every inclination of thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." If god didnt do anything, would we all be here today? There is way too much to go on. The truth has been given to us in a book and its easily available.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@celsius233 I want you to know whats important is you and your relationship with god. God is a good god period, because his love and mercy is everlasting.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz What it comes down to is that your experience of god is so narrowly focused on a book written by humans 2000 years ago that you can't accept anything that challenges that book. The bible is outdated. If the search for God is the search for truth, then science has taught us of a god far beyond the wildest imaginings of the desert nomads who imagined Jehovah.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 There is nothing wrong with Science, give the bible a detailed critical inspection by all means. Yes the book is written by humans and they were able to do this because god revealed himself to them. They had a close relationship with him and he also chose them with this responsibility and its done through him. No one can study his nature. Existance and everything around us points to him.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@celsius233 A hypothesis which is tested, examined, peer reviewed and scrutinized, and remains unfalsifiable becomes a scientific theory. There is a matter of time where the evolutionary tree will be axed because it has become sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz I don't think you understand what the word "falsifiable" means. No scientific theory is unfalsifiable, that would defeat the whole point of science. And let me just compare what you're saying to a simple analogy. The universe we exist in seems like it was created specially for us in the same way that a sink seems specially created for the body of water lying in it.
celsius233 1 year ago
@Danielfallz "no one can study his nature". Well, at least we both agree that theology is bullshit.
celsius233 1 year ago
@celsius233 I'll give it a rest for a while. I still have more study to do in my spare time. I think time will reaveal what this theory really is. I will look on more on speciation. But god is still the foundation in which I stand.
We're the same the only difference is, I've been saved and redeemed by God's grace alone.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz I find it sad that you think the only way for a human to be saved is through following the bible. That's nothing more than spiritual snobbery.
celsius233 1 year ago 2
@celsius233 You probably dont even read the bible, you wouldnt be saying this if you did. Everyone has freedom of choice and thats how much god loves us. He doesnt rule us. If you want to follow Richard Dawkins, then feel free to do so. I dont hate him but I can see he has been hurt by religious people. God sees everything. I am only human, no matter how many mistakes I have made I will still be with him when I die.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
@Danielfallz We only have a small amount of time on earth to respond to god and show people the light out of all this corruption since the fall of man, thats our journey in this situation it has become. And will spend eternity in which we choose to go.
Danielfallz 1 year ago
is this rubbish still on youtube?
mrchekky 1 year ago
@mrchekky apparently.
celsius233 1 year ago
Cephalopods are easily the most interesting aquatic animals I've ever seen. Didn't realise they were molluscs though; usually think of gastropods, clams and bivalves in that regard. Evidently I missed something while cramming for a test... :P
Direkin 1 year ago
@Direkin doh! Forgot about nautiluses.
Direkin 1 year ago
pwnd
VYCanisMajor4 1 year ago
Go watch Starwars. Thats more realistic then your stupid video. Tell me are animals able to think. Can we observe logic in any animal. Or reason,. There is something that we have that nothing else has. That is the capacity to think. Prove that to be evolutionary.
praylude90 2 years ago
Animals don't have the capacity to think?
Seriously?
Wrong. But you are proving that some humans still don't.
nolobede 2 years ago 5
@praylude90 Actually, other primates have been observed to problem solve. Likewise, there are some species of birds that plan, problem solve and use tools.
Apparently you've never had a smart dog or cat as a pet.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@praylude90 Alright, prove that they do not think? or better yet, prove that we are actually smarter than animals? oh wait, prove logic? and what about reason?
We're animals in a habitat that we are destroying ourselves.. and will soon outgrow in terms of population.. how logical or reasonable is that actually? We certainly have something that 'nothing else' has; that is the determination to detach ourselves from nature and ourselves thus making life more complicated than it has to be.
drkozz 1 year ago
@praylude90 yes and girafs have a long neck. And no other animal has. So I think god created the world for them. Oh but elephants have those large ears, and no other animal has anything similar. So maybe god created the world for elephants too. But not for us, otherwise we would have a long neck and big ears too. Seems logic to me.
Tripmania123 1 year ago
Awesome vid.
Dawkins rocks!
Creationists suck.
whydoyouwanttoknow 2 years ago
Dude, where do you get these Dawkins' videos? The dude has led a very busy life.
Vamavid 2 years ago
Damn those are some huge ass eyebrows.
DanaWhite0 2 years ago
As the ozone layer depletes, the "huge ass eyebrows" bloom to form a canopy to protect the eyes. ;-)
VictorLaszloLives 2 years ago
right off the bat. richard said. i want to see if i can build an eye using those principles from ''scratch''... (then he says) a bare patch of skin (unquote) THATS NOT STARTING FROM SCRATH. the skin had to have foarmed by benificial mutation. QUESTION 4 U. how did the skin go from ''SCRATCH'' to skin?????????????????????????????????????? Then talk about how skin evolved into an eye.
mrchekky 2 years ago
oohh i see, so when you bake cookies from scratch you start plant your own sugar cane, and churn you own butter from the cow in your back yard no?
p79wub 2 years ago
What is this luxury? In my day we had to create the DNA for the cow by hand and grow it and raise it before we could even think about extracting the milk.
celsius233 2 years ago
are you retarded?
birdiejoehoaks 2 years ago
if you're standing in the shade with your eyes close....I'm pretty sure that is a beam of light were to strike your body somewhere, you would notice it.
sk80soarus 2 years ago
You don't know how skin was formed? Are you an idiot?
NoCrispin 2 years ago
haha vfunny bit where you rant at the prick.Would pay to see that bitch fight..
(makes you look like an idiot geek tho)
waynewanke 2 years ago
If you want a better quality video of this, on richard dawkins channel there is a video on climbing mount improbable. he pretty much says the same thing.
hobbitsarecool 2 years ago
You and I are one in the same. Keep up the good work and thank you for your contribution to our cause.
XxVizzinixX 2 years ago
YOUR DICKHEAD!!! jk im kidding i just couldnt resist lol. nice vid
hieu1994 2 years ago
WOW!
Thank you celsius233. I was totally unaware that Dawkins was making videos in the 1980s showing the evolution of eyeballs. I really need to get out of the USA, as this place is overrun with religious nutbars. American television had me believing that removing a single cell from an eye makes it blind.
otonanoC 2 years ago
mrchekky is thinking evolution works just like a mechanical machine created by humans. Like a train. Well, untill the parts and pieces are assembled it's not going to work. Thats not evolution. Are people really that intelligently unevolved. People like that shouldn't be allowed to graduate high school. Schools need to make reasoning tests and an ability to understand new concepts tests.
RoundSquareX 2 years ago
hey, great video
mrchekky 3 years ago 2
Hahaha!! Love the starwars gear
blubberass 3 years ago 2
I think you might be the first to comment positively on that.
celsius233 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video does not prove evolution of the eye, in my opinion! It proves intelligence beyond humans and beyond the human brain, rather than chance. It also proves that humans like to stick to their narrow beliefs and fight with each other, calling each other insulting names, and lording it over each other. Dimwits will latch onto ideas and from that point, all new discovery is lost. Both of your camps of war, have some good points, but in the future, I have the strong sense, that both the w
1949daxxx 3 years ago
Your vulgar and immature language diminishes any of your arguments - regardless of their validity.
Don't condescend to their level.
Zendrig 3 years ago
I'll do whatever I fucking well please. No, it's a fair point that vulgarity does tend to diminish an argument. But shock value shouldn't be underestimated. Besides, I hate censorship almost as much as creationism.
celsius233 3 years ago 2
Lol, nice response.
Also, very nice explanation by Dawkins.
Chantzehao 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hi all. Im back. Geeeez over 1000 hits.
you still havent come to your senses.
Oh well.
mrchekky 3 years ago
gold
solconnection2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
20 bucks says celsius (and dawkins the dick blower) are flaming FAGGOTS.
1big10incher 3 years ago
Actually, the only reson I even started this account was as a flimsy platform to ask you out. So, what do you say, will you suck my cock? Please?
celsius233 3 years ago
be honest son,you want to get rid of any accountability to god so you can play with penises,right? may you burn with an everlasting gonorrhea (snickers)
1big10incher 3 years ago
If God'sgreatest earthly punishment for "sinful behaviour" is somethi that can easily be stopped with a thin piece of rubber, doesn't that say alot about the impotence of your god?
celsius233 3 years ago
and what about your accountability to Vishnu, Allah, Buddha, or Zeus?
mattc867 3 years ago
"what about your accountability to vishnu,allah,buddha or zeus?"
this has nothing to do with my accusation towards the gay chap.i`m saying he denies the existence of ANY higher power so that he can be free to mangle penises without any worries of actually being held accountable for that.hence,his gay lifestyle.
1big10incher 2 years ago
So, what your saying is you want to "mangle penises" to. You just choose not to. It is so nice of your god to place hormones and chemicals in your brain that influence your wants and desires but then places the rules in the opposite position and threatens burning fire on you for a hell of a long time. You parents have conditioned and passed on a sick tradition created from men who lived thousands of years ago. Step out of the cave , man, and experiance the light which many call reason.
RoundSquareX 2 years ago
Ahh, the old accountability arrogance.
Does it occur to you that atheists are more moral because they DON'T need a magic entity to punish them for being immoral?
Theists never realise how much of themselves they reveal when they say things like that.
cfytcf 2 years ago
no,that has never occured to me because if it did then i would be strawmanning my argument like you just did.
i don`t NEED the threat of punishment to act "moral" but a threat of punishment LOGICALLY would influence whether or not i acted out in an immoral way.if you have a problem with that then you should be an anarchist.
"atheists are more moral"
prove it ... get together with your atheist friends and make an atheist charity organization.you`d be the 1st.
1big10incher 2 years ago
Strawman fallacy only applies to a corruption which is argued against in lieu of the real argument.
"a threat of punishment LOGICALLY would influence whether or not i acted out in an immoral way" --- And THAT is why you are not moral. Acting nice becaue of a heavenly reward or a hellish punishment is self-preservation, not morality.
As for charities, do a simple web-search for atheist and secular charities. You are overtly lying when you say that there would be a first.
cfytcf 2 years ago
As for reasons - religious charities are given HUGE concessions by govermnent. Do you think secular and atheist charities get tax-cuts? Do you think they get to keep their books firmly sealed, as is permissible for religious charities to do?
Non-religious charities exist IN SPITE of the obstacles which have ingrained themselves within government.
Oh and, "anarchist"? You really are a vain little man aren't you? Then again, you believe homosexuals only exist in defiance of your magic man.
cfytcf 2 years ago
no duh? that`s exactly what you did.you set up a strawman by insinuating that i as a theist need a threat of punishment to be moral.
i didn`t say i was "acting nice" to avoid a hellish punishment.i said a threat of punishment would LOGICALLY influence how i behave.notice the differance? that`s where your strawman comes in.
btw,a "secular charity" is NOT an atheist charity! you`re a complete asshole for even saying that lol.there is over 1 billion of you,right? where`s your charity group?
1big10incher 2 years ago
Ah, I see the original message has gone. Wasn't there something about people not believing in God so that they are not accountable to anyone? THAT was the point I responded to.
"btw,a "secular charity" is NOT an atheist charity! you`re a complete asshole for even saying that lol"
And that is why I separated them. What was that about strawmen?
You were factually wrong on those charities. You also need to differentiate between accountability and the threat of punishment.
Just be good FFS.
cfytcf 2 years ago
"wasn`t there something about people not believing in God so that they are not accountable"
of course.wouldn`t atheism be more appealing to you as a homosexual? (not that you are one) ... BUT this doesn`t mean you should do good for rewards/punishments.that simply does not follow.
"that is why i separated them"
separated them? lol you have yet to establish they (ATHEIST charities) exist!
1big10incher 2 years ago
also ... even if you do find a MODERN organization of atheists,why are almost ALL charities rooted in religious groups rather than atheist groups? i mean,atheists have been around since the dawn of time.
keep in mind that i`m responding to the infinitely laughable idea that atheists are more charitable than religious people.
1big10incher 2 years ago
would declare itself to be representing.
"why are almost ALL charities rooted in religious groups rather than atheist groups?"
So as well as Google being beyond you, you are now incapable of looking further up that page where I address this very issue.
Yes, there have been atheists since the dawn of time - do you think that *acceptance* of atheists has always existed? Secular values are what create increasingly open societies where people can...
cfytcf 2 years ago
be comfortable asserting that there is no God. We are dragging religions into the 21st century kicking and screaming. You're welcome.
"keep in mind that i`m responding to the infinitely laughable idea that atheists are more charitable than religious people. "
Which nobody here claimed.
cfytcf 2 years ago
"wouldn`t atheism be more appealing to you as a homosexual?"
What an arrogant thing to say. How about homosexuals going for *any of the other religions* that don't mention gay people.
"lol you have yet to establish they (ATHEIST charities) exist! "
You're right - I don't do google searches for other people's benefit. Any charity that does not espouse a belief in God is BY DEFINITION an atheist charity. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that atheism is a philosophy that a charity...
cfytcf 2 years ago
Oh, the irony of a person with a moniker that says "1big10incher" damning someone else to play with penises for supporting evolution.
(BIG LAUGH!!)
SYLFan2008 2 years ago
"a moniker that says {1big10incher} damning someone else to play with penises for supporting evolution"
i chose this moniker to proclaim my large penis.whoopy! ... does that mean i like penises? Hellz No! dix are for chix,remember?
BTW,i didn`t accuse the gay chap of affirming evolution to sanction his penile peversions ... i accused him of denying the reality of God in order to sanction his gay lifestyle.
1big10incher 2 years ago
"i chose this moniker to proclaim my large penis.whoopy! ... does that mean i like penises? "
No, it means you're obsessed with it, that's all. Doesn't take long for obsession to become compulsions.
SYLFan2008 2 years ago
"no,it means you`re obsessed with it"
fuck off :-)
1big10incher 2 years ago
Great rebuttal (rolls eyes). However, all signs point to obsession.
SYLFan2008 2 years ago
hahaha u are a wee wee head. damn Brit!! what proof is that crap? u will be in hell burning with fire. hahahahahaha.
GO KENT HOVAND!!
beckelberry24 3 years ago
Shit, I never thought of that. I'll go and repent this very instant.
celsius233 3 years ago
Excellent response.
damialni 3 years ago
the fact that prominent evolutionists run away from debate with creationists really speak volumes
evolutionists make many faith-based comments like eye evolution is a fact, not so, making diagrams does not make fact. still don't see why no eye in the back of my head given your alleged process likes to trial and error until it finds an optimal solution.
scarlets79 3 years ago
Evolution is RANDOM.
You are the one claiming an omnipotent, perfect force designed us all individually.
So, you tell me why god didn't give you an eye in the back of your head.
celsius233 3 years ago
Evolutionists have given creationists more time then they deserve. No geologist has needed to tell the flat earth society to bugger off a second time. evolutionists actually conduct science and have continued to systematically answer any valid challanges. Creationists only shake their heads and say "No God did it in 7 days".
specialkalpha 3 years ago
Actually no where does the Bible teach a flat earth. Expressions like ends of the earth: Is in reference to time, not the shape of the earths surface. The word earth: Also in many references is simply means the soil, or a geographical area. You don't have to believe it, but obviously you are not in position to understand the concepts or language of the scriptures.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
I agree with specialkalpha. While people in developed world are debating on real issues, back in redneck states people are still arguing whether earth is flat, or if the earth is 6000 years old (flat earth as an example as both statements are equally ridiculous).
It's a disgrace for the US education system that they still have to have so much debates on this subject.
lainet 3 years ago
And no where in the Bible does it say the age of the Earth. Creationists made an aproximation based on the generations of Adam. The point is I don't really care what the Bible has to say about the shape, age or origin of biodiversity on earth. I take the Bible as 1 of many texts concerning man's search for divinity. For a scientist to engage in constant debate with creationists is like a mathamatician arguing with a man who only reads the phone book.
specialkalpha 3 years ago
If scientist would stick to looking at how to cure Aids, Cancer etc.. Things that matter, rather than spend billions of dollars trying to convert people to believe in Evolution. Biology should be about where we go from here, not trying to prove we evolved from a single cell: They spend so much time debating, because they want more than the 50% that believe them. Why else would they?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Yes becasue Kent Hovind has done so much to cure cancer. Creationists are the ones who are obsessed with getting the slime majority of people to believe them. All creationists do is debate because the can't actually produce anything. Scientists are out doing things, some for more abstract knowledge and a lot of it very practical but they are doing something. That is why the don't ahve time to tell you that your Fable is not a technically accurate understanding of the way the world works.
specialkalpha 3 years ago
Understand that no one is opposed to the science. Evolutionist point to circumstantial evidence Like Dawkin's, admits: A crime scene: They try to find the clues: Well the clues isn't the science, it's your interpretation of the evidence. While, we waist time and money arguing over the evidence, most which is circumstantial, and as any evidence should be, viewed and studied from various angles, instead of placing it in this box, or that box. You don't seem to understand the difference...
Krydan2167 3 years ago
So why does it bother you what others think: That is the point, if you are convince it's your way or know way: so be it! What difference is attacking someones belief, or forcing your interpretation of the evidence on someone else going to make? Please explain what that has to do with science and research? There are plenty of secular scientist that believe in God, and have a variety of views that differ form each other. So what?
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Your asked why don't scientists answer you people anytime you want to debate. My answer was that the majority are busy actually doing science. Creationists are the ones obessed with belief and absolute dogma. I believe in a divinity but one that moves the universe in ways much more complex and subtle then a simple fable from the bronze age. It is creationists who demand absolute conformity in faith with no evidence. So don't ask for my tax $ so you can define christianity on your own terms.
specialkalpha 3 years ago
I never said why don't they answer us: Why are they so worried that some folks don't buy it? That's what gets me: That's what makes it look like they have an agenda aside from the scientific aspect. I hear them say: We aren't doing our job if 50% don't believe us: There job is to advance the science, not to convert people to there interpretation on the evidence. If you can't see that, don't know much more I could say to clarify it.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Firstly in your post you said that scientists spent Billions trying to "convert people". This is untrue. And yes if 50% of the population of a 1st world country believes the literal interpretation of an ancient fable is as or more accurate than science than we are failing to educate people in proper science.
specialkalpha 3 years ago
The question is: Why worry about peoples religious convictions? It's nothing to you: Great scientist today, and over the years have been fundamental Christians. I don't care if Muslims, believe they are going to be rewarded with 70 virgins, as long as they stop flying planes into building to get them. Macro evaluation isn't going to save a single life. Use biology for that! You sound as if you believe they are synonymous, there not.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
what about the billions spent on building mega churches and other such stupidity in the persuit of favour from a mythical being. Why should scientists work curing diseases if stupid people won't believe in the scientific method and not use the treatment because they're told not to by other fools and faith healers. For example MMR vaccine. scientifically proven not to increase autism, yet many people don't immunise their kids for this fear. thats why we should educate people in scientific method
bigdogrg12 3 years ago
The scientific method agrees with evolution, if you don't agree with evolution you don't agree with the scientific method.
bigdogrg12 3 years ago 2
Krydan I have no problem with Christians belief that God created the Earth. Notice that nobody argues with Catholics who accept both a divine origin of and an evolutionary one. They say that Genisis represents a broadstrokes telling of God's creation of the world as told to an ancient people. Science shows us more accuratly how we came to be. Literal Biblical creation is a dogma that begins and ends with a simple reading of the Bible, not actual investigation.
specialkalpha 3 years ago 2
Investigation: Good word! You are looking at clues, pieces of a puzzle:Most scientist will tell you different things: I will PM, you a list of famous quotes by today's leaders in the evolution debate: That contradict, mislead, and are just plain foolish arguments. Like: Dawkin's: "We've never actually seen macro evolution observed, but it's as real as anything can be" He says the same thing about the fossil record! Cont...
Krydan2167 3 years ago
The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.
Robert951 3 years ago
"...the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists" -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p 229
Krydan2167 3 years ago
Typical faith head quoting out of context. Where's the rest of the paragraph hmmm.
bigdogrg12 3 years ago 5
Kent Hovind is the master of quoting out of context
mattc867 3 years ago
Scientists hardly use the two terms anymore, but when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they dont use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply dont pay attention to them.
Robert951 3 years ago
Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.
Robert951 3 years ago
When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons-this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned.
Robert951 3 years ago
Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.
Robert951 3 years ago
In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.
Robert951 3 years ago
Steven Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard, wrote in Natural History, Vol LXXXVI (6), June-July, 1977, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
Krydan2167 3 years ago
oh damnit, my last post is in the wrong spot...
Anthrax4000 3 years ago
Trying to educate a creationist is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Paraphrased from Robert A. Heinlein
I find it amusing that scarlets79 talks about atheists clinging to fallacies then follows with a fallacious statement about eyes in the back of his head. Argument from incredulity.
Ansonidak 3 years ago
so you start off with an insult. Not a clever man's way.
No please explain why no eyes in the back of the head. This would aid survival enormously as you could see an enemy creeping up behind you.
scarlets79 3 years ago
you'd need a secondary frontal lope, double the optic nerves, and an even bigger head to make even more room for processing it all because it'd have to orient two images, that's why you punce. and many animals, such as giraffes, fish, and many types of birds, can already see behind them because their eyes are on the sides of there head. Idiot.
Anthrax4000 3 years ago
Your question can be explained but I can't do it in a 500 character response. So lets stipulate, for the sake of argument, that why we don't have eyes in the back of our head cannot be explained by evolutionary biology. Would that then prove that god exists? I have a question for you to explain. If having eyes in the back of our heads would be so valuable, why didn't god create us that way?
Ansonidak 3 years ago