there is difference between the cars analogy and cladistics classification.
the 4-2 door, colour, and body are functionally unrelated. However flowers and seeds are related functionally, so of coarse every flowering plant must have seeds because flowers' function is to spread pollen for fertilization and seed formation, so of coarse God didn't create flowering seedless plants, and amniotic fluid membrane is needed for internal gestation .
Wow. Knock your head dude. You just said you can't make a heredity chart with things that are designed. LMAO. No REALLY!? Because they didn't evolve! Just cause we take variations in a kind of species and line'em up all biased like on a "heredity chart" full of missing links and gaps doesn't demonstrate evolution. That same thing can be done with skeletons of species alive today.
It does not follow that because all life shares a common biochemical basis, that relationship was cause by evolution.
Your argument about common design with the cars was extremely biased. You grouped the cars in a way that did not allow for maxium selection even though you could have and then you say that common decent which can also be grouped in an unfair way does. Straw man. This guy is a fraud. Evolution is what sets kids back. Variation and heredity exist in design, but rejects adding information to the gene pool. Evolution is the opposite of what God teaches. Read your bible.
Its so pathetic when someone teaches science and then mixes in some random mythical story as if its a scientific hypothesis.
Christians it could have still been magical creation if you put it like this! Sure, and we could do the same for every other creation myth mankind has made up.
Aronra is right, this is a superb video. I spend half my time on YouTube trying to persuade creationists that nothing that science says contradicts the notion that a creator exists. Now that I've found this video I'll be sending some of them here. Thanks for a brilliant video.
The argument that the classification system shows that the natural world is ordered and shows common descent is circular. Man sorted the organisms according to features exhibited. So flowering plants were put with flowering plants You can't turn around and say because flowering plants are together this is evidence the system is right. That is a circular argument. How many animal and insects have eyes and are in totally different areas on this 'tree'? Presto we invent 'convergence theory'
@dcrmsmith55 It might be circular if we also had no idea how genetics and inheritance work. It turns out that varying traits are passed on from parent to offspring-- so mammals only give birth to mammals, hominids only give birth to hominids, etc., without exception. This is the reason why cladistic assortment is inherently meaningful (excuse the pun).
@hugesinker ....Actually, the system itself does not require common descent, that's just what evidence suggests for all life found here on earth so far-- all appears to have traits that would be inherited from evidently pre-existing life. It is possible that we could dig up some strange creature with evident traits that make it completely unique to any other life we have evidence for. In this case, it would eventually find its way into a unique clade, not branching from any other.
@hugesinker It is possible that all of life began in a single place in the ocean, as Richard Dawkins pretends is true. Atheists like Dawkins often pretend what they say is "science", when in fact it is nothing but the opinion of some scientsts. Other scientists claim life began in plain dirt, clay, a cave, in or near fresh water, under the earth and some believe it was carried in on space rocks. Life may have appeared from all over the earth from zillions of tiny sources. Nobody knows.
@richardaberdeen The complexity of the eukaryote cell suggests, as a matter of parsimony, that it originated in one place as a highly successful "unit of life". I would be willing to believe that archaea or protobiontes arose in different places on earth independently, but I have no justification to assert this. To Dawkins and many others, the agitation of complex chemical soups in the deep ocean seem a likely place to hypothesize early self-replicating molecules as precursors to simple life.
@hugesinker Several scientists support a theory that either life or what they call "pre-life" (an assumed something) arrived on space rocks, which heavily bombarded the earth during early formation. There is some evidence for this as an unknown exotic organism was found in the river in a town in India after a large space rock landed there in the 1990's, which turned the water a reddish color; scientists examining the organism believe it may be the first known example of exterrestrial life.
@hugesinker If this theory is correct, life may well have been "seeded" all over the earth and have come forth from all over the earth, like the Bible says (let the waters bring forth in abundance, etc.) That is exactly what would happen if life or "pre-life" was "seeded" all over the earth. What causes life to appear may well be "seeded" throughout the cosmos. No human being has any idea how, when or where life first appeared on earth and anyone who says they do like Dawkins is a liar.
@hugesinker Complexity of cells or complexity of anything else proves nothing as far as how life arises. Any kind of cell is an extremely large complex apparatus compared to a virus, which is extremely large compared to an atom, which is extremely large compared to a quark. As a secular (non creationist) biologist recently stated on PBS, life at atomic and quantum levels is so irreducibly complex, it is irrational to pretend that science can ever have a legitimate theory of life (or evolution)
@hugesinker Anybody who has studied the evidence, studied a little about human/animal behavior, disease and virus theories, knows there is no geologic or fossil record for 800 million years of earth's existence, knows it is unknown how or why disease arises or persists in a supposedly blind advantage driven system, why there is competition, war, murder, rape and chaos, rather than peaceful co-existence among species, whether DNA or RNA came first or how one can exist without the other.
@mikebForJesus According to Jesus, war, murder and deliberate lies arise from within us all. According to modern behaviorial science, war, murder and deliberate lies arise from within us all. Atheists who pretend there is no sin are denying what Jesus taught, what our own conscience teaches us and what modern behaviorial science has supposedly 'discovered', as well as they are contradicting ALL of the known historical, scientific and other evidence. Atheism = total bullshit.
[What Jesus, our conscience and evidence teach...]
Fully agreed. It seems full-faith atheists would not be perusing discussions like these, but I don't think we'll convince them by argument alone. There has to be love combined with the Truth.
@mikebForJesus Note what great liars militant atheists are: Dawkins said the universe represents "nothing but blind pitiless indifference". Any moron knows if this is true, then Jesus, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Keller, Chavez and Parks would never have existed. Christopher Hitchens said "all Jewish historians now admit Moses probably didn't exist"; according to the Britannica article on Moses written by a noted Jewish historian, the majority of historians believe Moses did. SUCH OBVIOUS LIARS.
It's an emotional topic and passions run high. I suppose members of both sides have been caught lying at one point or another, but I'm slow to cast the accusation, since perspective plays such a huge role and mistakes can happen.
I always have trouble with this slippery label "militant atheist" that moronic theists like to project onto an educated mind. How do you conclude that Dawkins, Hitchens and others could be using violence to win an argument against theists? This is nonsense and purile. It is a wonder you don't suffer from constant stomach ache from your own intestines wanting to climb up your neck and strangle your brain with such idiot speak!
@SupaShang Mussolini and Stalin were militant atheists; Dawkins and Hitchens seem to proudly embrace the label of "militant atheist" which the modern media has labeled them--I did not invent the term.
@richardaberdeen Just so I am clear (see your past comments to confirm) - you base your belief in God on cherry picked quotes from historical authority figures, you confirm the belief with the “entire universe!“, you now accept defamation of character based on “what the media (Fox “news“?) say”, and you think all atheists are liars because we can’t explain how non intelligence creates intelligence… - Please excuse me while I epic face palm! No wonder you are confused.
When someone compares Dawkins and Hitchens to Mussolini and Stalin, you know that any intelligent debate is well and truly over. I can't waste anymore of my time on your ignorance until you decide to grow up and grow a brain. I refuse to get into the age old "head count" argument with you. Atheists don't wear bomb belts nor go to war because of their lack of belief in YOUR God! How can you be so stupid man? Stalin and Mussolini were power hungry mad men. You think it was because of atheism?
@richardaberdeen Mussolini, Stalin, Dawkins and Hitchen all have arse hairs. In your mind, it was because of their ass hairs that they are all evil liars? Wait, hang on, here is another... Let's see if you can Glenn Beck a connection from alcohol to an atheistic regime change; since I guess all the above enjoy a relaxing drink too? Wait here is another one for you to "Nixon" into reality, - THEY ALL HAVE TWO EYES! Yes that's it! It is eyes that are to blame! Those damn binocular atheists!!!
@SupaShang Sorry, I don't have time to answer any more of your bullshit. Mussolini, Stalin, Dawkins and Hitchens are four living examples clearly demonstrating that atheism has no value whatsoever to the human race. Compare Francis Collins, for example, who believes in God, who uses his time and brains to help cure disease. Mussolini proves beyond dispute that atheism solves nothing, can't change a single moral hair on our heads and, has no value to the human race. MY LAST RESPONSE TO YOU.
@richardaberdeen Don't sweat it. It is no big loss. You have failed to answer anything I have asked you, in favor of simply smack talking atheism in a totally dishonest and strawman like way. A totally unbiased and objective opinion on your part of course! I don't doubt your "fanboyism" of creationist scientists; but please, if you are going to cherry pick famous names to cement your ignorance, do try to make it sound convincing. You still have not made YOUR case for the existence of God.
@richardaberdeen You harp on about creationist scientists contributing towards a better standard of well being; yet you conveniently FAILED to mention how scientists, doctors, geneticists and more are combining what we know about DNA and how we are all related to our animal cousins through the evolutionary process, to help cure diseases. It does not matter if scientists are atheists or not. You just act bigoted out of fear toward what you are ignorant about. Lose the fear and grow a brain.
@richardaberdeen I can only surmise that the same immature level of cascading neuronal fireworks going on in your little head reinforces your belief that all atheists are liars, homosexuals, Marxist and Nazi's? And you fancy yourself as a writer? LOL! How is an atheist a liar exactly? Because we doubt YOUR claims of the existence of a God? You sound like Dorothy tapping her little red heals together repeating the line "there's no place like home" when evidence for your God is at question.
@SupaShang It is incredibly boring to answer the same elementary school positions of atheists over and over again, as if they all went to the same sound-bite school of atheistm. Atheists are obvious liars because they have provided no evidence that the universe could have somehow magically appeared all by itself. Atheism is the most obvious of all known lies.
@richardaberdeen It is repeatedly boring having to explain to you that just because a person holds an alternate belief than you, that does not make them a liar. You talk about atheists using sound bites, yet you go on to use the same old theist mantra of "atheists have provided no evidence for..."! For the billionth time… Atheism is a rejection of YOUR divine claims. YOU are required to provide evidence to backup YOUR claims, NOT atheists. Do you still not understand?
@richardaberdeen Answer this question: Since when did atheism become a truth claim about the creation of the universe? God forbid (Zues btw!) that atheism would leave a mind open and healthy to the fruits of scientific inquiry. In your opinion, that same mind is a liar for comprehending a natural explanation of things based on actual evidence rather than your spooky supernatural non-explanation of everything?! How absolutely intelligent you must imagine you are!
@hugesinker Richard Dawkins claims that what one finds when one looks at the evidence is exactly what one would expect if there is no God; a merciless, heartless blind evolutionary competition. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain why there is such a concept as love as opposed to hate, why there are concepts of God, good and evil, why Dawkins or anyone would oppose war, why there are ethics classes taught at Oxford University, or why there are so-called "naughty" children, police and jails.
@hugesinker Dawkins continues to repeatedly make the same boneheaded statement he's been making for years, that he neither believes in God or the Spaghetti Monster. Anyone who has studied philosophy 1-A or moron with half a brain can drive a Mack Truck through such a pig-headed statement. If one eliminates the Spaghetti Monster, one isn't left having to explain how they and the universe happen to exist, thus no legitimate intellectual would ever make such an assinine, bone-headed statement.
@richardaberdeen Okay, you've gone off on a long litany of topics here which are all very important, but the comment section on YouTube was never made to accommodate the level of discourse you are looking for. I am happy to reply via PM or if you want a public discussion, recommend another forum.
You've also done two things that I was afraid you were gong to do--Conflate abiogenesis hypotheses with evolution and present the idea that granting a religious answer is superior to Socratic ignorance.
@hugesinker I did not mention "abiogenesis". According to Britannica, some scientists believe that such nonsense doesn't belong in a rational discussion or mentioned in relation to science, which I agree with. I keep going by the evidence and you keep bringing up terms and theories of various scientists. Theories embraced by some or even all scientists don't prove accuracy; virtually all scientists once believed the earth is the center of the solar system and there's only one static galaxy.
@hugesinker And, you keep pretending that belief in God is somehow a "religious" answer, when in fact it is simply going by the known evidence. According to Descartes and virtually all historical scientists of note, the evidence demonstrates "Eternal Creator". That is not a "religious" answer but rather, it is a scientific conclusion based on the known evidence. There is zero evidence for any other conclusion.
@richardaberdeen Fine, I'll take the initiative and try to send you a PM in the next couple days, but I will address one thing now--
A belief in God is not necessarily religious, but an ad hoc rejection of abiogenesis based on theology IS. A God could have used any means, including elegant naturalistic ones, to create varied life in the universe.
@hugesinker I did not make an "ad hoc" rejection based on theology. I very deliberately stated, that according to the Britannica, many scientists believe that abiogenesis theory is total bullshit. That has nothing to do with theology. Unlike you, the Britannica makes an attempt to include the opinions of various scientists, not just those who agree with a certain narrow-minded position. The Britannica contains bias, but far less bias than anything I've read by Richard Dawkins.
@mikebForJesus Though they are unusual, the Platypus is clearly related to other life. One of their closest living relatives is the Spiney Ant Eater (echidna). We can see in developmental biology, comparative anatomy, and genetics, that they show many primitive transitional characteristics. For example, they produce milk with mammary glands but sweat it through their skin. They also incubate their eggs internally before laying them.
Hugsinker provided a very good explanation, so all I'm going to do here is point out that the Taxonomic classification system was invented by creationist.
Well i dont agree with (God) just springing into existance, as the Bible says he is etarnal, his is un-created, that means he alsways was and is, with scientific information i have seen and heard i have trouble thinking the world is over around 10 to even 20 thousand years old, as Geologist Dr emil silvestru says, with the geological information, Millions of years is not needed, it is just a length of time as an excuse for evolutionists to fit chance into.
Yeah, i agree, i mean i know hardened atheists that know, life cannot arise from nothing, so logically a creator of some kind must have been there in the first place.
"life cannot arise from nothing, so logically a creator of some kind must have been there in the first place."
You haven't been keeping up on the research then. RNA has been spontaneously generated in lab conditions that mimic tide pools. This shows that not only is a divine hand not required, but no creator is required as well. Before you make the declaration that "Scientists created it!" you need to read the WIRED article about abiogenesis. And actually research Evolution.
Actually, how a "species" is defined is still debated among scientists. Modern science classification is what in philosophy is called a "human construct", a human attempt to define reality. As such, it represents an artificial view of life and has no correlation to what is actually true, anymore than any other human construct. All of life is in a constant state of transition, created to adapt in order to survive. As such, the idea that "new" species "evolve" from "old" species is a myth.
" As such, the idea that "new" species "evolve" from "old" species is a myth."
I see. Another person who has never actually looked up "Observed instances of speciation". The information is all out there, and it amazes me that none of you actually bother to look for it.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Apparently this is over your head. Creation goes on regardless of how we classify it. ALL of life is created to adapt and change in order to survive. This is correctly defined as "transition", not evolution. It is a myth that a new species evolves from another species, as all species are in a constant state of transition. Evolution is a piss-poor term at best, which long ago should have been discarded, replaced by life in transition and more accurately, "creation in flux".
". Creation goes on regardless of how we classify it. ALL of life is created to adapt and change in order to survive"
Thats a wonderful assertion, but it flies in the face of all known evidence. Unfortunately you haven't met your burden of proof, and ignorance of evidence doesn't make you correct. All you have to do is just google the term "Observed instances of speciation".
". It is a myth that a new species evolves from another species, as all species are in a constant state of transition."
Your last point here is roughly correct, but still misses the point. Apparently you've never heard of ring species, like the california salamander. Look that one up. Or the London underground mosquito.
Skimming your online book, I can see that you haven't researched much of this beyond your own nose. Apparently the concept of researching opposing claims is beyond you.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger And I also might say in regards to this response, it is easy to dismiss what anybody says with a "you need to research better" wave of the hand. It is often more difficult to demonstrate by evidence where someone may be correct or not correct, depending on what they say. You can nonchangly dismiss my book all you want, but until you can demonstrate by evidence where it is wrong, then you have done neither myself or anyone else any favors at all.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger There is a much better and longer explanation at my website under my name and a dot and a com, found in Appendix C of my free online book, Fixing America in 500 Words or Less. It is absurd to pretend that a new species "evolves" from an already existing species, as there is in reality no such thing as a completed species. This is easy to prove by the known evidence and is very clearly explained in depth in my free online book, for which YouTube does not allow room.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Well, you finally said something right. Regarding what science calls "species", as you said, "all species are transitional". Therefore, the correct term is "creation in transition" or "life in transition". Like my book says, "evolution" is a poor descriptive term which should have been discarded long ago. God creates life to adapt and change so life can survive. It is not true that one part of life (a species) "evolves" from another part; all of life is in transition.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger To illustrate further, If 100 birds classified as a "species" by science is divided up and 25 are placed in each of 4 different environments, over time there will be 4 "species" of birds classified by science. In reality, they are the same life form, the same bird, that has just adapted and changed in order to survive. This is because ALL of life is constantly adapting to survive as environments change; it has nothing to do with one species "evolving" from another.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger To continue. A child might call 100 birds a "bird" and, a scientist might eventually call their descendants by 4 different species names, if they are divided up and 25 of the 100 are placed in 4 different environments. In reality, they are the same life form, the same bird, the same part of life, that has just adapted and changed in order to survive. Thus, it is a human construct error and complete myth that one species "evolves" from another species.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger And finally, it is accurate to say that "all of life is in transition". It is not accurate to say that all of life represents "transitional forms", as how we classify life is a "human construct" and, has no bearing on how life is created and functions in true reality. Life does what it does regardless of how we classify it, whether we call all of the descendants of a bird a "bird" or, whether we divide them into various "species" of birds. Either way, life marches on.
You can post as much as you want in the comments section. Go ahead, and we'll see how many creationist talking points you can put forth. I've heard them all, refuted them all, and am noticing several right now.
Several of my replies were considered spam because I quoted your words in them. I would appreciate it if you searched the All Comments section and replied to them in kind.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger If you say something on a website that atheists don't like, they will call it "spam", regardless of how accurate or innacurate it may be. An atheist will dismiss the likelihood the sun will appear tomorrow in the sky, before they will admit that at the bottom line, they are embracers of nothing but baseless superstition. That is because they are not seeking what is true but rather, they have already made up their mind that a lie is true, when in fact, it is an obvious lie
@WeedGreenPowerRanger My original assertion appears to be correct, that this is over your head. As I tried to explain, a child may look at a million birds and call them all "birds". A scientist may look at the same million birds and divide them up into 25 different species, each with a different name. None of this has any bearing on what life does; life does what it does regardless of how we classify it. Your response of "observed...speciation" has no validity in regards to my position.
I'm glad I found this. I volunteer at an adult high school. A few weeks ago I was going over the "evolution bit" with a student. It was obvious that she had the "evolution is only a theory" bit, but she was applying it in totally inappropriate ways. For instance, she kept on claiming that direct observations were only theories. Then came the moment when her face went smoothly blank and she claimed she was deeply religious. I'm hoping that you have the language that can reach her.
Modern scientists still debate what actually constitutes a "species" and, there is no conclusive evidence for common descent from a single ancestor as long assumed by most Darwinists, although Darwin himself allowed for original life forms in plural. Modern evidence indicates life probably arose from all over the planet rather than from a single ancestor, although nobody really knows; some secular biologists believe that science may never know how, where, why or when life first arose on earth.
@richardaberdeen Um?, bullshit!, we may share the same DNA with apes of about 95%, but looking closer its about 1 billion 500 page novels worth of information, not error!, thats HUGE!!!!, so we should not be surprised if God created all things with similar things, i mean i saw a science graduate agree to that in a Hovind class, and dawrinism has been debunked so many times, its considerd nothing more than another faith.
@Aheadstix85 Life is obviously created to adapt and change so life can survive. That is what ALL of the known evidence clearly demonstrates. That is correctly called "life in transition" and more correctly "creation-in-flux". The term "evolution" is misleading and should have been discarded a long time ago. Life does not "evolve"; rather, life adapts and changes to it's ever changing environment. How life actually began remains a mystery according to many scientists and likely always will.
Nice job. At least you don't deny incontrovertible evidence of evolution. I still don't agree there is any evidence for a creator but at least we can have some commonality.
@torqueman6 Thanks. I agree that there is no objective evidence of a creator. That's not why people believe. If a theist tells you they believe in God because they can prove it -- they are lying. Believe in God, specifically in the Christian God, is a choice based on many factors -- the least of which are scientific evidence.
@glovergj " the least of? which are scientific evidence."
Ok step back to that statement one second! This is precisely what puzzles me! You say this, but then contradict yourself and include God as an AGENT for the explanation of diversity in evolution in a damn science video!!! In your own logic, you just called yourself a liar! *Facepalm! I give up!
"theist using proof for God = liar."
"hey look at my science video for Christians..."
"Why would God do this? bullet points 1 & 2" o.O !!!
@SupaShang Why are you here? If you want to attack religion, start with the really bad stuff: like AiG, ICR, or anything by Ray Comfort and kirk Cameron. When you've iradicated them, then you can come here and bother me for defending evolution while not giveg explicit proof for my theism. Good grief. Your priorties seem out of whack.
This series goes through great pains to explain an area of use of the scientific method within reasonable degrees. I just don't see the point of pushing "God" onto the same stage, without any objective basis to back up the claim. Call me picky, but I just don't like flies in my soup. :)
Apparently, you do, since the majority of reasonable questions I posed to you were returned as a defensive statement from you!
If you are unhappy with allowing people to post comments on your videos or ask questions about science or God, why not just do as most theists on YouTube do and block comments! I am expressing my freedom of speech and right to question. Are you saying Christian science cannot be questioned? o.O
I totally agree; it would be great to have this guy on LoR, although I think DonExodus fills this position already. This series IS orders of magnitude better than the Ray Comfort & Hovind crap out there. I think you are missing the point and also the tone of my comment. Listen to the first twenty seconds of this video, then LISTEN to how God is inferred without any objective evidence @3:40! Science at that point? No! God is inferred WITHOUT using the scientific method here? Clear?
@SupaShang Dude, the video serious if for Christians who are ignorant about science. I don't need to give a reason to assume God's existence. When a physicist talks to another pysicsist about black holes, he doesn't have to retread the math each time. That is common gound. They can grant eachother that and move forward. You are getting worked up over something that is outside the scope of this video series.
The only way in which I am worked up is your scapegoating me as some kind of anti-religious crusader LOL! I merely posed the question as to why you use the scientific method to explain science yet "tippy toe" around the BIG question of God.
A simple answer would have sufficed, without the reactionary, "quick hide its an angry atheist" comment! XD
@glovergj Hahaha!, thats just a stupid and a lame atheist excuse!, i know christians that have studies science for ten years!, have a degree in biology and chemistry and know a hell of a lot more then you moron atheists that completely ignore all forms of logic!, trust me, you atheists know nothing about science!.
@sculpt2live "then baseless claims such as 'god did it' will fade..."
And here is your paradox. The way in which the idea of someone's personal God propagates; parasitism of popular culture. Science is a tool. The facts do the explaining. If this is good science, then show me the facts for the base claim; God? You wax liberal on the "correct use of the scientific method", yet fail to see the agenda underlying this video. Care to beat around the bush some more?
This is simply another example of how religion propagates through history. Admittedly, a clever insight to how religion is still around; more "if you can't beat them, join them" behaviour. A turn for the better for the average uninformed believer maybe, but as for the base of the claim it still has ways to go.
What I am trying to say is, does anyone believe that 2 + 2 = 3.999? Close but still no cigar.
As soon as you say "God did it" when teaching science, how is that not a lie? Unless you can PROVE the basis for that claim, simply wrapping "good science" around it does not hide the propaganda. If I explained to you the laws of thermodynamics and then tucked in somewhere that the big bang was started by a unicorn flapping its wings; how is that science? Absurd as that sounds, this is how I feel about creationists bastardising science to include their God.
I think often secularist are complacent surmising that reason and evidence will win.
But something must be done because with this agenda in mind these scriptural literalist will use politics and persuasion to redefine science in a theocratic terms that would be similar the Orwellian newspeak concept.
Imagine a world where ideas that conflicted with literal biblical interpretation had no words that they might be expressed.
@AronRa He's also very clear, convincing and civil. For science sake we need Christians to speak out and give help to Christians who have trouble with these contradictions even though it's tempting to want to pit science against the bible for anti-religious reasons.
Question. How is this guy linking evidence for evolution to God without evidence to prove that even a God exists? Simply sneaking the word God into science does not make him exist. Nice try though. Was anyone stupid enough to buy this propaganda?
@SupaShang Buddy, this isn't pro-God propoganda. This series isn't designed to provide any evidence for theism or convince a non-theist in the existence of a deity. It is a series from one Christian to other Christians about science. Your hatred of religion is irrational. Live and let live.
I've always wondered why theists take another persons simple questioning about their faith as unwarranted hatred!? Going to DEFCON 1 as soon as an atheist asks you a question - says little about your commitment or core of your faith.
"Live and let live?"
Hmm ok, you remember that the next time you see a plane flown into a building, the stoning of a woman buried chest high, dead soldiers labelled as "fags", bombs hitting children's hospitals, doctors being murdered...
@USFrabbit Hahaha, Evolution is the most irrational philosophy of all!, not only does it violate all laws of nature!, but there is also no actual empirical evidence to support it!, mots of the "factual evidence" you hear about is simply speculation!, no one actually has a clue, its called assumption!, how do i know?, i was told by a biologist with a degree in chemisty and over 10 years experiance.
" how do i know?, i was told by a biologist with a degree in chemisty and over 10 years experianc"
Lets examine this sentence: A BIOLOGIST with a DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY. This was your first mistake. As for the rest, 10 years of experience being an idiot doesn't garner you credibility.
This is all before I get to my point that 1) This is anecdotal from you 2) its an argument from authority 3) I don't believe a damn word you just said.
" not only does it violate all laws of nature!, but there is also no actual empirical evidence to support it!, mots of the "factual evidence" you hear about is simply speculation!,"
No, no, and no. This is entirely incorrect, and you have all the hallmarks about you of someone who spends all of his study time on creationist websites that make assertions, and not actually researching their references. I bet you think Kent Hovind is a respected scientist.
BTW, you need a degree in Biology to be a Biologist. A degree in Chemistry makes you a Chemist. Not that I believe your assertion anyway. What, was it John Pendleton?
@SupaShang Simple evidence for God can be found avereywhere, you atheists just use willfullignorance to say that pure chance and time created something that pure logic says a God must have created, Biology has disproven abiogensis, no life comes from non living or dead matter, its impossible, it must have been created, chemicals mixing in the ocean is also impossible, as chemicals dont mix they just diffuse, so no matter what is said it comes back to a creator, there is no other expanation.
@Aheadstix85 Out of respect for Glover I'd rather not turn his forum into a puerile stick throwing contest. I can see what he is trying to do now, and I can't fault him for that. Your argument is an example of what he is trying to address.
However, if your argument about complexity unable to slowly accumulate over billions of years in favour of your superior complexity just springing into existence (God), I think you can see the flaw in your argument and also how u pwned yourself. Thoughts....?
@SupaShang What evidence do you have that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence? Atheists who hide behind "evidence" are among the greatest of all hypocrites, as there is absolutely ZERO evidence that a universe of parts within parts containing creatures of intelligence and conscious awareness can arise all by itself. Most of us with half a brain stopped in magic and the Boogie Man a long time ago.
@richardaberdeen "What evidence do you have that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence?"
Was that even a question!? Ask yourself that same question when applied to your position, and see how it makes equally no sense. If I asked you how "a rock" could come from a "non rock". How much grammatical sense does that make? None! If you want answers, try using a coherent sentence.
After talking to glover after my initial post, I understand his reason for the use of "God" in his videos.
@SupaShang I have no idea why you are complaining about my grammar. It is quite clear to me that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence, which is clearly the reason WHY atheism is total bullshit. As far as I understand, both my position and ALL of the known evidence are quite clear.
@richardaberdeen Look, I have heard the argument from ignorance many times before. It was boring and pointless the last five hundred times too. It is clear that you hold a "belief". A belief that has not made ANY scientific claims, nor can be tested by the scientific method; therefore, I am at a loss to comprehend this "evidence" you mention, since there is none to support your supernatural claims. You believe in one God yes? Why not all the others? You are atheist to them. Still total bullshit?
@SupaShang Major historical scientists including Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and millions more believed the EVIDENCE demonstrates deliberate design. Note the term EVIDENCE. To believe in God is of the highest scientific order, as these represent humanity's greatest scientists. Atheism has no scientific or other value. There is no evidence that intelligence or parts within parts can magically exist all by themselves; atheism=gross superstition & total lie
@richardaberdeen "To believe in God is of the highest scientific order".
Where are you getting this stuff from? I doubt many scientists study science to believe in your God!
You talk about humility, yet then go onto to appeal to authority figures (with total false assumptions about Darwin and Einstein's personal beliefs) as though that gives any ridiculous comment you come out with any weight at all! If you believe in God because "that historical dude did", you need to examine your faith.
@SupaShang As noted, the top scientists of human history ALL believed in God. Thus, as any logical and rational human being would conclude, it is therefore of the "highest scientific order" to believe in God. Perhaps you want to also pretend that Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and the modern Francis Collins are not representative of the great scientists of human history. Go ahead, make my day.
At first I thought you were just a poe; now I see that you are simply a lost cause and a waste of my time. Your opinions on what you "think" other scientists throughout history thought about God warrant no comment, and are at best misinformed. Once you figure out how to define your God (yourself) and explain to me what it is, then we can debate. Pulling authority figures out of your ass to try justify a superstitious claim bores me.
@richardaberdeen It is clear that you hold a personal hatred towards atheism, since it challenges you to think about what is real and what is not based on actual evidence. I couldn't care less if you think atheism is a total lie, because until you provide the slightest shred of proof for your God, it is the most humble rational position to hold. Show me your God and I will become a believer in a split second. Until then, everything you rant about is no more than hot air and dogmatic lies.
@SupaShang I have a personal disdain for anyone who deliberately lies to me. I don't like lies, I don't like liars, which is why I don't like atheism.
@richardaberdeen You say you don't like atheism, yet you are atheist towards any other religion but your own. So in your reasoning, the only person who is lying to anyone is yourself. I would bet that you have valid reasons for not accepting other religions Gods and overwhelming evidence to support your own? You are either acting naive enough to believe that your God is the only one written about throughout the whole of human history, or u are too stupid to understand what you are attacking.
I'm sure you have a list of those millions more scientists names for me to have a look at? Let me stress to you again that appeals to authority figures and large numbers DO NOT present ANY evidence for your Gods existence. Surely if you are a true believer, you hold a personal faith and can back that up with personal experience of God, right? If not, then all you're doing is following a crowd, as the end reward sounds better than the punishment of non obedience.
@SupaShang I don't appeal to authority figures. You are the one who said belief in God is unscientific, which is an obvious complete lie, as the key greates scientists of human history ALL believed in God. I'm not going to make you a list, you can read their biographies in the Britannica for yourself, as I have done. I have no doubt there is a God, regardless of what Aristotle, DaVinci, Darwin, Einstein and the rest believed. I was merely illustrating what a great liar you are.
@richardaberdeen "You are the one who said belief in God is unscientific"
Please refresh my memory on where I posted that comment?
What do anyone's personal beliefs have to do with science? Good objective science is indifferent to your (or anyones) beliefs. It is only when people inject their superstitious beliefs into science that I take issue. It muddies the observable facts in favor for "woo woo" answers to fill in gaps of understanding, retarding the scientific method into "spooky method."
@SupaShang This is what you said: "It is clear that you hold a personal hatred towards atheism, since it challenges you to think about what is real and what is not based on actual evidence". To any rational mind, that is saying the belief in God is unscientific. Since a great many major scientists believe in God, you are an obvious liar, as major scientists themselves are who have defined science, Descartes, Newton, Einstein for example, who all three believed in God and defined science.
@richardaberdeen If someone says they "disbelieve in God", aside from such a statement having no value, as anybody can disbelieve in anything and doing so proves nothing, it represents a personal belief. If somone says the universe was created, that represents a personal belief. And, if someone says that evolution is true or the earth is round, that represents a personal belief. Sorry, all we have on our planet are personal beliefs, thus your position makes no rational sense.
@richardaberdeen Sorry no. If someone says that the earth is round. That is a testable prediction. One which has been shown to be true. The available EVIDENCE shows evolution to be true, which is why it is not a personal belief. It is a scientific fact. God has NO evidence to support him/her; therefore, God is a personal belief.
If I disbelieved that the earth was an ellipse nor evolution is true, it would be that there was NO EVIDENCE showing the validity of the claims. You idiot!
@richardaberdeen "anybody can disbelieve in anything and doing so proves nothing," That is the one thing you have got correct during the whole of this discussion. Now understand this; atheism is NOT trying to PROVE anything! Would you like this in crayon? Atheism is the disbelief in a God. Atheism IS NOT the same as saying "there is no God." I love how creationists like you try divert attention away from the bogus claims of your religion with word play! It is boring old and ridiculous, like you.
@richardaberdeen "To any rational mind, that is saying the belief in God is unscientific" If by unscientific you mean that the God claim can't be tested by using the scientific method, then yes I agree God is unscientific. A great many people believe in a great many things, any or all of which may not be true. Just because a scientist postulates past the limits of his/her understanding and attributes ultimate knowledge as "God", that does not confirm Gods existence.
@richardaberdeen You keep coming back to the beliefs of scientists as though that proves anything! From this alone it is clear that you have NO real faith at all in what you say you believe in. What is so wrong with your bible that you have to resort to scientists to corroborate your beliefs? It looks like your faith is not enough to hold your belief in your God. Why does your faith require scientific backing? You may want to get that looked at your dogma is malfunctioning!
@richardaberdeen " I was merely illustrating what a great liar you are."
Explain to me how I am a liar by not believing in your God? What exactly do you assume an atheist is, because you clearly do not know nor care! When making an argument against someone, it is a good idea to understand them or their position. You have all day to blow me away with an answer. I am off to bed.
@richardaberdeen The entire universe? So not your bible then? Not a personal relationship or encounter with your saviour? You look up at space and concluded, "yep it looks pretty big up there, so I'm convinced that God exists!" Now explain how you know of the "entire universe" since the best efforts of human space travel so far have not even got us beyond our own solar system? It's looking like your claims to high authority are lacking somewhat, now you are making special pleads to infinity!
@richardaberdeen You may find this an uncomfortable realisation my friend: but you and I are both atheists to a measure of 0.001%. I just count your God into my non belief too. So, I am 99.999% atheist, and find the supernatural stories for the existence of God/s not be compelling enough for me to believe in any of them, and you are 99.998% unsatisfied with the same mythological stories and God claims for anything but your own God, yes? So you agree with me on most atheism 99.99% Still bullshit?
@SupaShang That's even worse bullshit. Pretending there is no God is to pretend that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence and, to pretend that the observable universal reality of zillions of parts within parts magically appeared all by itself. To pretend there is no God represents the most absurd of all known superstitions.
@richardaberdeen Ok. You clearly have no understanding of what the word atheism means. Let me spell it out for you ABC style. Atheism means that I hold no belief in a God. That is not the same as saying that I pretend that a God does not exist, or I know a God doesn't exist. Even if a God existed in the 0.001% of my 99.999% of non belief, you have not presented ANY evidence to show that one does; nor has God himself (or herself).
You can't even present a strawman argument towards atheism!
@SupaShang No, it is you who have no understanding of what atheism means. An atheist is announcing to the world that they believe that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence, which is clearly the most absurd and foolish position known in the history of humanity. If you want to announce to the world that you are an embracer of gross superstition, then I'm going to point it out, just as I have. You have a right to make up shit and, I have a right to point out that you are making up shit.
@richardaberdeen "An atheist is announcing to the world that they believe that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence"
Wrong on so many epic levels. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. It has no code by which to follow, no dogma, no script, no church that we all have to attend to make sure our story fits. It is simple a position to describe someone who does not accept the bullshit theists are selling to us about the existence of their Gods. Nothing more. Do you still not understand?
@SupaShang If there is no God, then intelligence arose from non-intelligence. Apparently you got up on the wrong side of the bed today or, have you always done so. There isn't a third alternative. You can't "disbelieve" in God without claiming that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence. My conversation with you is finished, as you appear to be entirely irrational. It is completely and entirely irrational to say there is no God, any baboon with half a brain knows better then that.
Translation: you have nothing to add to the debate beyond mythology and spooky non-testable claims that even you know are bullshit and have no place in a scientific discussion.
"intelligence arose from non-intelligence"
Your "ignorance" has a long way to go before it even gets to earn the title "intelligence". If you get so far as "mildly intelligent", I'd consider that a good start for you. Your ignorance burns.
Although listening to your arguments in favour of God, it is becoming quite apparent that "non intelligence" in the universe is in constant abundance, especially in your time zone.
Although listening to your arguments in favour of God, it is becoming quite apparent that "non intelligence" in the universe is in constant abundance, especially in your time zone.
I think your video is very well reasoned and provides a great way of understanding why common descent is the better model, but you do realize that evolution can happen with or without god, right?
snakes and whales have claspers used during copulation not hind limbs . the creator didnt give these to other mammals as they have limbs to hold each other with during copulation .
of coarse all flowering plants must have seeds because flowers are used for seed dispertion.
In other words, god distributed features according to the needed function
These findings agree perfectly with special creation and are not a proof of common descent.
@rafikgl Flowers attract pollinators, but many flowering plants have 'apomixis' which is producing seeds without fertilization (Dandelions and other "weeds"). These flowers are not necessary for reproduction but are present anyway. This does not agree with "special creation" but plants that descend from an ancestor flowering plant that does need its flower.
@manutdfan4321 -- Thanks, my brother-in-law is a musician and this was one his singles that he wrote and produced by himself. he works with a band now called, "the wounded dogs choir" which you can find on-line.
I like your videos quite a bit. I'm not a christian, but I do appreciate your work very much. I think it's important for everyone to understand the sciences, and I'm glad you're stepping up and sharing it.
*Buzzer* Taxonomy doesn't depend on universal common descent, only on similarities across the board. Descent is an explanation for these similarities, just as taxonomy is based on them. The logic presented here essentially confuses cause with effect.
The so-called "patterns of inheritence" are every bit as compatable with God as a stryteller as they are with evolution.
You're missing the point. With special creation, any patter is possible because God is unconstrained in creation. However, with common descend, only the patterns of inheritence are predicted. So when we find the patterns predicted by evolution, that makes evolution a useful scientific paradigm. Special can't make any specific predictions becuase the creator would be wholly unconstained and anything would be "consistent" with special creation. One theory has utitlity and the other does not.
Yes, but would it be so difficult to just teach what we know; i.e. that certain animals do have similar traits (and admit while we're at it, admit that sometimes those traits serve different functions), that these similarities have practical use, and that there are differing views on exactly why these similarities exist? It would make a lot more sense than all this nonsense.
What we know is that all evidence points towards common ancestry -- not just in comparative anatomy, but in biogeography, molecular genetics and paleontology. At this point, there are no other serious views that stand up to the evidence.
Yes, just like all the evidence used to say that Luke was a historically inaccurate hack. Or that Piltfown Man, Java Man, and Nebraska Man were genuine human ancestors. Eventually, the truth will out, and those who try to treat the Bible as myth will be left with egg on their faces and nothing to show for it.
Besides, what would the natural sciences say about the resurrection, or the virgin birth for that matter?
Despite those fraudulent cases you mentioned, the perponderance of paleontological evidence is more than adequate to dismiss the biblical creation account as non-literal and non-scientific. There is also zero geological evidence for a recent global flood. Even though science can always be mistaken, it's hard to fathom a discovery that could make a young or global flood believable. There is just too much evidence stacked against them. You would literally have to undo everything we know.
A few centuries ago, they would have said the same about abiogenesis. There were even books on how to get maggots from spoiled meat, frogs from mud, and even a swarm of bees from a dead bull.
That's true because we know so little about the natural origins of life. But in the case of geology, astronomy, and the age of the earth -- we know quite a bit and have accummulated a ton of positive evidence for modern theories.
And what of the virgin birth or the resurrection? For that matter, what about any of the miracles Jesus performed? Water into wine? A man who had been crippled for decades jumping to his feet with only a simple spoken command?
The problem is that people's perceptions of God's power are defined too often by their perceptions of the rules of the natural order. God controls the natural order, not the other way around.
Those are singular events -- miraculous events. They have nothing to do with the normal order of things. However, geologic superposition, distant star light, radioactive decay, etc. are based on regular ongoing procesess that we can observe both past and present. We can test claims and either confirm or falsify them. You can't do that with miracles and other singular acts of physical discontinuity.
Very enjoyable thank you
clairebehun 4 days ago
great video thanks
TheKcsmithy 4 days ago
very interesting thanks
jjclassjj 5 days ago
i enjoyed this vid
jessyjessy4 1 week ago
you have some great stuff here
SuperDogbrown 1 week ago
love the video really good
SuperDogbrown 1 week ago
The Man created God!!!!!!!
DanielManfred1991 2 months ago
there is difference between the cars analogy and cladistics classification.
the 4-2 door, colour, and body are functionally unrelated. However flowers and seeds are related functionally, so of coarse every flowering plant must have seeds because flowers' function is to spread pollen for fertilization and seed formation, so of coarse God didn't create flowering seedless plants, and amniotic fluid membrane is needed for internal gestation .
rafikgl 7 months ago
Wow. Knock your head dude. You just said you can't make a heredity chart with things that are designed. LMAO. No REALLY!? Because they didn't evolve! Just cause we take variations in a kind of species and line'em up all biased like on a "heredity chart" full of missing links and gaps doesn't demonstrate evolution. That same thing can be done with skeletons of species alive today.
It does not follow that because all life shares a common biochemical basis, that relationship was cause by evolution.
laconic151 8 months ago
Your argument about common design with the cars was extremely biased. You grouped the cars in a way that did not allow for maxium selection even though you could have and then you say that common decent which can also be grouped in an unfair way does. Straw man. This guy is a fraud. Evolution is what sets kids back. Variation and heredity exist in design, but rejects adding information to the gene pool. Evolution is the opposite of what God teaches. Read your bible.
laconic151 8 months ago
Look at this species, they are morphologically similar, so, let's look at their DNA;
oh! they are similar too, let's look at the genes;
oh! the similar ones have similar genes, let's make'em a cute family tree!
(The circularity of cladistics is outstanding)
...OMG this animal does not fit anywere, it must have the same genes due to similar enviromental pressure, let's call this phenomena: analogy.
(yeah, the stupidity is even worst)
Complains? research platypus' bird-like gametes
IloveYOUviruses 9 months ago
Its so pathetic when someone teaches science and then mixes in some random mythical story as if its a scientific hypothesis.
Christians it could have still been magical creation if you put it like this! Sure, and we could do the same for every other creation myth mankind has made up.
DutchNordic 9 months ago
Aronra is right, this is a superb video. I spend half my time on YouTube trying to persuade creationists that nothing that science says contradicts the notion that a creator exists. Now that I've found this video I'll be sending some of them here. Thanks for a brilliant video.
Misterb0z 1 year ago
The argument that the classification system shows that the natural world is ordered and shows common descent is circular. Man sorted the organisms according to features exhibited. So flowering plants were put with flowering plants You can't turn around and say because flowering plants are together this is evidence the system is right. That is a circular argument. How many animal and insects have eyes and are in totally different areas on this 'tree'? Presto we invent 'convergence theory'
dcrmsmith55 1 year ago
@dcrmsmith55 It might be circular if we also had no idea how genetics and inheritance work. It turns out that varying traits are passed on from parent to offspring-- so mammals only give birth to mammals, hominids only give birth to hominids, etc., without exception. This is the reason why cladistic assortment is inherently meaningful (excuse the pun).
(cont..)
hugesinker 1 year ago
Comment removed
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker ....Actually, the system itself does not require common descent, that's just what evidence suggests for all life found here on earth so far-- all appears to have traits that would be inherited from evidently pre-existing life. It is possible that we could dig up some strange creature with evident traits that make it completely unique to any other life we have evidence for. In this case, it would eventually find its way into a unique clade, not branching from any other.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker It is possible that all of life began in a single place in the ocean, as Richard Dawkins pretends is true. Atheists like Dawkins often pretend what they say is "science", when in fact it is nothing but the opinion of some scientsts. Other scientists claim life began in plain dirt, clay, a cave, in or near fresh water, under the earth and some believe it was carried in on space rocks. Life may have appeared from all over the earth from zillions of tiny sources. Nobody knows.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen The complexity of the eukaryote cell suggests, as a matter of parsimony, that it originated in one place as a highly successful "unit of life". I would be willing to believe that archaea or protobiontes arose in different places on earth independently, but I have no justification to assert this. To Dawkins and many others, the agitation of complex chemical soups in the deep ocean seem a likely place to hypothesize early self-replicating molecules as precursors to simple life.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker Several scientists support a theory that either life or what they call "pre-life" (an assumed something) arrived on space rocks, which heavily bombarded the earth during early formation. There is some evidence for this as an unknown exotic organism was found in the river in a town in India after a large space rock landed there in the 1990's, which turned the water a reddish color; scientists examining the organism believe it may be the first known example of exterrestrial life.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@hugesinker If this theory is correct, life may well have been "seeded" all over the earth and have come forth from all over the earth, like the Bible says (let the waters bring forth in abundance, etc.) That is exactly what would happen if life or "pre-life" was "seeded" all over the earth. What causes life to appear may well be "seeded" throughout the cosmos. No human being has any idea how, when or where life first appeared on earth and anyone who says they do like Dawkins is a liar.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@hugesinker Complexity of cells or complexity of anything else proves nothing as far as how life arises. Any kind of cell is an extremely large complex apparatus compared to a virus, which is extremely large compared to an atom, which is extremely large compared to a quark. As a secular (non creationist) biologist recently stated on PBS, life at atomic and quantum levels is so irreducibly complex, it is irrational to pretend that science can ever have a legitimate theory of life (or evolution)
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@hugesinker Anybody who has studied the evidence, studied a little about human/animal behavior, disease and virus theories, knows there is no geologic or fossil record for 800 million years of earth's existence, knows it is unknown how or why disease arises or persists in a supposedly blind advantage driven system, why there is competition, war, murder, rape and chaos, rather than peaceful co-existence among species, whether DNA or RNA came first or how one can exist without the other.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
"...why there is disease, competition, war, murder, rape..."
What if we know, but have rejected the truth?
mikebForJesus 9 months ago
@mikebForJesus According to Jesus, war, murder and deliberate lies arise from within us all. According to modern behaviorial science, war, murder and deliberate lies arise from within us all. Atheists who pretend there is no sin are denying what Jesus taught, what our own conscience teaches us and what modern behaviorial science has supposedly 'discovered', as well as they are contradicting ALL of the known historical, scientific and other evidence. Atheism = total bullshit.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen
[What Jesus, our conscience and evidence teach...]
Fully agreed. It seems full-faith atheists would not be perusing discussions like these, but I don't think we'll convince them by argument alone. There has to be love combined with the Truth.
mikebForJesus 9 months ago
@mikebForJesus Note what great liars militant atheists are: Dawkins said the universe represents "nothing but blind pitiless indifference". Any moron knows if this is true, then Jesus, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Keller, Chavez and Parks would never have existed. Christopher Hitchens said "all Jewish historians now admit Moses probably didn't exist"; according to the Britannica article on Moses written by a noted Jewish historian, the majority of historians believe Moses did. SUCH OBVIOUS LIARS.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen,
It's an emotional topic and passions run high. I suppose members of both sides have been caught lying at one point or another, but I'm slow to cast the accusation, since perspective plays such a huge role and mistakes can happen.
mikebForJesus 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "militant atheist" ROFL!
I always have trouble with this slippery label "militant atheist" that moronic theists like to project onto an educated mind. How do you conclude that Dawkins, Hitchens and others could be using violence to win an argument against theists? This is nonsense and purile. It is a wonder you don't suffer from constant stomach ache from your own intestines wanting to climb up your neck and strangle your brain with such idiot speak!
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang Mussolini and Stalin were militant atheists; Dawkins and Hitchens seem to proudly embrace the label of "militant atheist" which the modern media has labeled them--I did not invent the term.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Just so I am clear (see your past comments to confirm) - you base your belief in God on cherry picked quotes from historical authority figures, you confirm the belief with the “entire universe!“, you now accept defamation of character based on “what the media (Fox “news“?) say”, and you think all atheists are liars because we can’t explain how non intelligence creates intelligence… - Please excuse me while I epic face palm! No wonder you are confused.
SupaShang 9 months ago
When someone compares Dawkins and Hitchens to Mussolini and Stalin, you know that any intelligent debate is well and truly over. I can't waste anymore of my time on your ignorance until you decide to grow up and grow a brain. I refuse to get into the age old "head count" argument with you. Atheists don't wear bomb belts nor go to war because of their lack of belief in YOUR God! How can you be so stupid man? Stalin and Mussolini were power hungry mad men. You think it was because of atheism?
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Mussolini, Stalin, Dawkins and Hitchen all have arse hairs. In your mind, it was because of their ass hairs that they are all evil liars? Wait, hang on, here is another... Let's see if you can Glenn Beck a connection from alcohol to an atheistic regime change; since I guess all the above enjoy a relaxing drink too? Wait here is another one for you to "Nixon" into reality, - THEY ALL HAVE TWO EYES! Yes that's it! It is eyes that are to blame! Those damn binocular atheists!!!
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang Sorry, I don't have time to answer any more of your bullshit. Mussolini, Stalin, Dawkins and Hitchens are four living examples clearly demonstrating that atheism has no value whatsoever to the human race. Compare Francis Collins, for example, who believes in God, who uses his time and brains to help cure disease. Mussolini proves beyond dispute that atheism solves nothing, can't change a single moral hair on our heads and, has no value to the human race. MY LAST RESPONSE TO YOU.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Don't sweat it. It is no big loss. You have failed to answer anything I have asked you, in favor of simply smack talking atheism in a totally dishonest and strawman like way. A totally unbiased and objective opinion on your part of course! I don't doubt your "fanboyism" of creationist scientists; but please, if you are going to cherry pick famous names to cement your ignorance, do try to make it sound convincing. You still have not made YOUR case for the existence of God.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen A simple question to you: Why do you believe in God?
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen You harp on about creationist scientists contributing towards a better standard of well being; yet you conveniently FAILED to mention how scientists, doctors, geneticists and more are combining what we know about DNA and how we are all related to our animal cousins through the evolutionary process, to help cure diseases. It does not matter if scientists are atheists or not. You just act bigoted out of fear toward what you are ignorant about. Lose the fear and grow a brain.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen I can only surmise that the same immature level of cascading neuronal fireworks going on in your little head reinforces your belief that all atheists are liars, homosexuals, Marxist and Nazi's? And you fancy yourself as a writer? LOL! How is an atheist a liar exactly? Because we doubt YOUR claims of the existence of a God? You sound like Dorothy tapping her little red heals together repeating the line "there's no place like home" when evidence for your God is at question.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang It is incredibly boring to answer the same elementary school positions of atheists over and over again, as if they all went to the same sound-bite school of atheistm. Atheists are obvious liars because they have provided no evidence that the universe could have somehow magically appeared all by itself. Atheism is the most obvious of all known lies.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen It is repeatedly boring having to explain to you that just because a person holds an alternate belief than you, that does not make them a liar. You talk about atheists using sound bites, yet you go on to use the same old theist mantra of "atheists have provided no evidence for..."! For the billionth time… Atheism is a rejection of YOUR divine claims. YOU are required to provide evidence to backup YOUR claims, NOT atheists. Do you still not understand?
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Answer this question: Since when did atheism become a truth claim about the creation of the universe? God forbid (Zues btw!) that atheism would leave a mind open and healthy to the fruits of scientific inquiry. In your opinion, that same mind is a liar for comprehending a natural explanation of things based on actual evidence rather than your spooky supernatural non-explanation of everything?! How absolutely intelligent you must imagine you are!
SupaShang 9 months ago
@hugesinker Richard Dawkins claims that what one finds when one looks at the evidence is exactly what one would expect if there is no God; a merciless, heartless blind evolutionary competition. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain why there is such a concept as love as opposed to hate, why there are concepts of God, good and evil, why Dawkins or anyone would oppose war, why there are ethics classes taught at Oxford University, or why there are so-called "naughty" children, police and jails.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@hugesinker Dawkins continues to repeatedly make the same boneheaded statement he's been making for years, that he neither believes in God or the Spaghetti Monster. Anyone who has studied philosophy 1-A or moron with half a brain can drive a Mack Truck through such a pig-headed statement. If one eliminates the Spaghetti Monster, one isn't left having to explain how they and the universe happen to exist, thus no legitimate intellectual would ever make such an assinine, bone-headed statement.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Okay, you've gone off on a long litany of topics here which are all very important, but the comment section on YouTube was never made to accommodate the level of discourse you are looking for. I am happy to reply via PM or if you want a public discussion, recommend another forum.
You've also done two things that I was afraid you were gong to do--Conflate abiogenesis hypotheses with evolution and present the idea that granting a religious answer is superior to Socratic ignorance.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker I did not mention "abiogenesis". According to Britannica, some scientists believe that such nonsense doesn't belong in a rational discussion or mentioned in relation to science, which I agree with. I keep going by the evidence and you keep bringing up terms and theories of various scientists. Theories embraced by some or even all scientists don't prove accuracy; virtually all scientists once believed the earth is the center of the solar system and there's only one static galaxy.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@hugesinker And, you keep pretending that belief in God is somehow a "religious" answer, when in fact it is simply going by the known evidence. According to Descartes and virtually all historical scientists of note, the evidence demonstrates "Eternal Creator". That is not a "religious" answer but rather, it is a scientific conclusion based on the known evidence. There is zero evidence for any other conclusion.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Fine, I'll take the initiative and try to send you a PM in the next couple days, but I will address one thing now--
A belief in God is not necessarily religious, but an ad hoc rejection of abiogenesis based on theology IS. A God could have used any means, including elegant naturalistic ones, to create varied life in the universe.
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker I did not make an "ad hoc" rejection based on theology. I very deliberately stated, that according to the Britannica, many scientists believe that abiogenesis theory is total bullshit. That has nothing to do with theology. Unlike you, the Britannica makes an attempt to include the opinions of various scientists, not just those who agree with a certain narrow-minded position. The Britannica contains bias, but far less bias than anything I've read by Richard Dawkins.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@hugesinker
"...we could dig up some strange creature..."
Like the platypus?
mikebForJesus 9 months ago
@mikebForJesus Though they are unusual, the Platypus is clearly related to other life. One of their closest living relatives is the Spiney Ant Eater (echidna). We can see in developmental biology, comparative anatomy, and genetics, that they show many primitive transitional characteristics. For example, they produce milk with mammary glands but sweat it through their skin. They also incubate their eggs internally before laying them.
hugesinker 9 months ago
@dcrmsmith55
Hugsinker provided a very good explanation, so all I'm going to do here is point out that the Taxonomic classification system was invented by creationist.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
Well i dont agree with (God) just springing into existance, as the Bible says he is etarnal, his is un-created, that means he alsways was and is, with scientific information i have seen and heard i have trouble thinking the world is over around 10 to even 20 thousand years old, as Geologist Dr emil silvestru says, with the geological information, Millions of years is not needed, it is just a length of time as an excuse for evolutionists to fit chance into.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
Yeah, i agree, i mean i know hardened atheists that know, life cannot arise from nothing, so logically a creator of some kind must have been there in the first place.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85
"life cannot arise from nothing, so logically a creator of some kind must have been there in the first place."
You haven't been keeping up on the research then. RNA has been spontaneously generated in lab conditions that mimic tide pools. This shows that not only is a divine hand not required, but no creator is required as well. Before you make the declaration that "Scientists created it!" you need to read the WIRED article about abiogenesis. And actually research Evolution.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
Actually, how a "species" is defined is still debated among scientists. Modern science classification is what in philosophy is called a "human construct", a human attempt to define reality. As such, it represents an artificial view of life and has no correlation to what is actually true, anymore than any other human construct. All of life is in a constant state of transition, created to adapt in order to survive. As such, the idea that "new" species "evolve" from "old" species is a myth.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
" As such, the idea that "new" species "evolve" from "old" species is a myth."
I see. Another person who has never actually looked up "Observed instances of speciation". The information is all out there, and it amazes me that none of you actually bother to look for it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Apparently this is over your head. Creation goes on regardless of how we classify it. ALL of life is created to adapt and change in order to survive. This is correctly defined as "transition", not evolution. It is a myth that a new species evolves from another species, as all species are in a constant state of transition. Evolution is a piss-poor term at best, which long ago should have been discarded, replaced by life in transition and more accurately, "creation in flux".
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
". Creation goes on regardless of how we classify it. ALL of life is created to adapt and change in order to survive"
Thats a wonderful assertion, but it flies in the face of all known evidence. Unfortunately you haven't met your burden of proof, and ignorance of evidence doesn't make you correct. All you have to do is just google the term "Observed instances of speciation".
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardaberdeen
". It is a myth that a new species evolves from another species, as all species are in a constant state of transition."
Your last point here is roughly correct, but still misses the point. Apparently you've never heard of ring species, like the california salamander. Look that one up. Or the London underground mosquito.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
" Apparently this is over your head. "
Skimming your online book, I can see that you haven't researched much of this beyond your own nose. Apparently the concept of researching opposing claims is beyond you.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger And I also might say in regards to this response, it is easy to dismiss what anybody says with a "you need to research better" wave of the hand. It is often more difficult to demonstrate by evidence where someone may be correct or not correct, depending on what they say. You can nonchangly dismiss my book all you want, but until you can demonstrate by evidence where it is wrong, then you have done neither myself or anyone else any favors at all.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger There is a much better and longer explanation at my website under my name and a dot and a com, found in Appendix C of my free online book, Fixing America in 500 Words or Less. It is absurd to pretend that a new species "evolves" from an already existing species, as there is in reality no such thing as a completed species. This is easy to prove by the known evidence and is very clearly explained in depth in my free online book, for which YouTube does not allow room.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
"found in Appendix C of my free online book, Fixing America in 500 Words or Less"
I'm sorry, but I have no interest in your political or social opinions. Stick to the subject.
"It is absurd to pretend that a new species "evolves" from an already existing species"
Its not actually, you should look it up.
" as there is in reality no such thing as a completed species. "
This is true, which is why all species can be considered Transitional Forms, as other creationists put it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger Well, you finally said something right. Regarding what science calls "species", as you said, "all species are transitional". Therefore, the correct term is "creation in transition" or "life in transition". Like my book says, "evolution" is a poor descriptive term which should have been discarded long ago. God creates life to adapt and change so life can survive. It is not true that one part of life (a species) "evolves" from another part; all of life is in transition.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger To illustrate further, If 100 birds classified as a "species" by science is divided up and 25 are placed in each of 4 different environments, over time there will be 4 "species" of birds classified by science. In reality, they are the same life form, the same bird, that has just adapted and changed in order to survive. This is because ALL of life is constantly adapting to survive as environments change; it has nothing to do with one species "evolving" from another.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger To continue. A child might call 100 birds a "bird" and, a scientist might eventually call their descendants by 4 different species names, if they are divided up and 25 of the 100 are placed in 4 different environments. In reality, they are the same life form, the same bird, the same part of life, that has just adapted and changed in order to survive. Thus, it is a human construct error and complete myth that one species "evolves" from another species.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger And finally, it is accurate to say that "all of life is in transition". It is not accurate to say that all of life represents "transitional forms", as how we classify life is a "human construct" and, has no bearing on how life is created and functions in true reality. Life does what it does regardless of how we classify it, whether we call all of the descendants of a bird a "bird" or, whether we divide them into various "species" of birds. Either way, life marches on.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardaberdeen
" for which YouTube does not allow room."
You can post as much as you want in the comments section. Go ahead, and we'll see how many creationist talking points you can put forth. I've heard them all, refuted them all, and am noticing several right now.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
Several of my replies were considered spam because I quoted your words in them. I would appreciate it if you searched the All Comments section and replied to them in kind.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger If you say something on a website that atheists don't like, they will call it "spam", regardless of how accurate or innacurate it may be. An atheist will dismiss the likelihood the sun will appear tomorrow in the sky, before they will admit that at the bottom line, they are embracers of nothing but baseless superstition. That is because they are not seeking what is true but rather, they have already made up their mind that a lie is true, when in fact, it is an obvious lie
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger My original assertion appears to be correct, that this is over your head. As I tried to explain, a child may look at a million birds and call them all "birds". A scientist may look at the same million birds and divide them up into 25 different species, each with a different name. None of this has any bearing on what life does; life does what it does regardless of how we classify it. Your response of "observed...speciation" has no validity in regards to my position.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
I'm glad I found this. I volunteer at an adult high school. A few weeks ago I was going over the "evolution bit" with a student. It was obvious that she had the "evolution is only a theory" bit, but she was applying it in totally inappropriate ways. For instance, she kept on claiming that direct observations were only theories. Then came the moment when her face went smoothly blank and she claimed she was deeply religious. I'm hoping that you have the language that can reach her.
eTourist 1 year ago
Modern scientists still debate what actually constitutes a "species" and, there is no conclusive evidence for common descent from a single ancestor as long assumed by most Darwinists, although Darwin himself allowed for original life forms in plural. Modern evidence indicates life probably arose from all over the planet rather than from a single ancestor, although nobody really knows; some secular biologists believe that science may never know how, where, why or when life first arose on earth.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Um?, bullshit!, we may share the same DNA with apes of about 95%, but looking closer its about 1 billion 500 page novels worth of information, not error!, thats HUGE!!!!, so we should not be surprised if God created all things with similar things, i mean i saw a science graduate agree to that in a Hovind class, and dawrinism has been debunked so many times, its considerd nothing more than another faith.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85 Life is obviously created to adapt and change so life can survive. That is what ALL of the known evidence clearly demonstrates. That is correctly called "life in transition" and more correctly "creation-in-flux". The term "evolution" is misleading and should have been discarded a long time ago. Life does not "evolve"; rather, life adapts and changes to it's ever changing environment. How life actually began remains a mystery according to many scientists and likely always will.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85
" i mean i saw a science graduate agree to that in a Hovind class, "
Yep, I knew it. A Hovind follower. Spend some time on the ExtantDodos videos. They refute all of hovind's videos point by point.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
your video series is comparable to AaronRa's foundational falsehoods of creationism great stuff man
manutdfan4321 1 year ago
@glovergj
Fine, clear, concise &c. intro to the subject.
Hope those christians with hangups over this kind of science find your
arguments compelling, they ought to.
The more sci edu to more people the better.
Pedantic ps: "iguanas" leaf in cladogram ca. 3 mins should read "tuataras"
VDMajendie 1 year ago
Nice job. At least you don't deny incontrovertible evidence of evolution. I still don't agree there is any evidence for a creator but at least we can have some commonality.
torqueman6 1 year ago
@torqueman6 Thanks. I agree that there is no objective evidence of a creator. That's not why people believe. If a theist tells you they believe in God because they can prove it -- they are lying. Believe in God, specifically in the Christian God, is a choice based on many factors -- the least of which are scientific evidence.
glovergj 1 year ago
@glovergj " the least of? which are scientific evidence."
Ok step back to that statement one second! This is precisely what puzzles me! You say this, but then contradict yourself and include God as an AGENT for the explanation of diversity in evolution in a damn science video!!! In your own logic, you just called yourself a liar! *Facepalm! I give up!
"theist using proof for God = liar."
"hey look at my science video for Christians..."
"Why would God do this? bullet points 1 & 2" o.O !!!
SupaShang 1 year ago
@SupaShang Why are you here? If you want to attack religion, start with the really bad stuff: like AiG, ICR, or anything by Ray Comfort and kirk Cameron. When you've iradicated them, then you can come here and bother me for defending evolution while not giveg explicit proof for my theism. Good grief. Your priorties seem out of whack.
glovergj 1 year ago
@glovergj It's you tube. We aren't all like this :)
RuinSonic 1 year ago
This series goes through great pains to explain an area of use of the scientific method within reasonable degrees. I just don't see the point of pushing "God" onto the same stage, without any objective basis to back up the claim. Call me picky, but I just don't like flies in my soup. :)
SupaShang 1 year ago
@SupaShang But some people do like flies in their soup. Some people think flies make the soup more interesting. Do you have problem with that?
glovergj 1 year ago
@glovergj
Apparently, you do, since the majority of reasonable questions I posed to you were returned as a defensive statement from you!
If you are unhappy with allowing people to post comments on your videos or ask questions about science or God, why not just do as most theists on YouTube do and block comments! I am expressing my freedom of speech and right to question. Are you saying Christian science cannot be questioned? o.O
SupaShang 1 year ago
@sculpt2live
I totally agree; it would be great to have this guy on LoR, although I think DonExodus fills this position already. This series IS orders of magnitude better than the Ray Comfort & Hovind crap out there. I think you are missing the point and also the tone of my comment. Listen to the first twenty seconds of this video, then LISTEN to how God is inferred without any objective evidence @3:40! Science at that point? No! God is inferred WITHOUT using the scientific method here? Clear?
SupaShang 1 year ago
@SupaShang Dude, the video serious if for Christians who are ignorant about science. I don't need to give a reason to assume God's existence. When a physicist talks to another pysicsist about black holes, he doesn't have to retread the math each time. That is common gound. They can grant eachother that and move forward. You are getting worked up over something that is outside the scope of this video series.
glovergj 1 year ago
@glovergj
The only way in which I am worked up is your scapegoating me as some kind of anti-religious crusader LOL! I merely posed the question as to why you use the scientific method to explain science yet "tippy toe" around the BIG question of God.
A simple answer would have sufficed, without the reactionary, "quick hide its an angry atheist" comment! XD
SupaShang 1 year ago
@glovergj Hahaha!, thats just a stupid and a lame atheist excuse!, i know christians that have studies science for ten years!, have a degree in biology and chemistry and know a hell of a lot more then you moron atheists that completely ignore all forms of logic!, trust me, you atheists know nothing about science!.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@sculpt2live "then baseless claims such as 'god did it' will fade..."
And here is your paradox. The way in which the idea of someone's personal God propagates; parasitism of popular culture. Science is a tool. The facts do the explaining. If this is good science, then show me the facts for the base claim; God? You wax liberal on the "correct use of the scientific method", yet fail to see the agenda underlying this video. Care to beat around the bush some more?
SupaShang 1 year ago
@sculpt2live
This is simply another example of how religion propagates through history. Admittedly, a clever insight to how religion is still around; more "if you can't beat them, join them" behaviour. A turn for the better for the average uninformed believer maybe, but as for the base of the claim it still has ways to go.
What I am trying to say is, does anyone believe that 2 + 2 = 3.999? Close but still no cigar.
SupaShang 1 year ago
@sculpt2live "At least he's not lying"
As soon as you say "God did it" when teaching science, how is that not a lie? Unless you can PROVE the basis for that claim, simply wrapping "good science" around it does not hide the propaganda. If I explained to you the laws of thermodynamics and then tucked in somewhere that the big bang was started by a unicorn flapping its wings; how is that science? Absurd as that sounds, this is how I feel about creationists bastardising science to include their God.
SupaShang 1 year ago
Religious positions aside, this may be the best introductory primer on systematic classification that I've ever seen.
AronRa 1 year ago 14
@AronRa
A new species of creationism.
I think often secularist are complacent surmising that reason and evidence will win.
But something must be done because with this agenda in mind these scriptural literalist will use politics and persuasion to redefine science in a theocratic terms that would be similar the Orwellian newspeak concept.
Imagine a world where ideas that conflicted with literal biblical interpretation had no words that they might be expressed.
If you don't the literalistic will.
mtheoryrules 1 year ago
@AronRa He's also very clear, convincing and civil. For science sake we need Christians to speak out and give help to Christians who have trouble with these contradictions even though it's tempting to want to pit science against the bible for anti-religious reasons.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Question. How is this guy linking evidence for evolution to God without evidence to prove that even a God exists? Simply sneaking the word God into science does not make him exist. Nice try though. Was anyone stupid enough to buy this propaganda?
SupaShang 1 year ago
@SupaShang Buddy, this isn't pro-God propoganda. This series isn't designed to provide any evidence for theism or convince a non-theist in the existence of a deity. It is a series from one Christian to other Christians about science. Your hatred of religion is irrational. Live and let live.
glovergj 1 year ago 2
@glovergj
I've always wondered why theists take another persons simple questioning about their faith as unwarranted hatred!? Going to DEFCON 1 as soon as an atheist asks you a question - says little about your commitment or core of your faith.
"Live and let live?"
Hmm ok, you remember that the next time you see a plane flown into a building, the stoning of a woman buried chest high, dead soldiers labelled as "fags", bombs hitting children's hospitals, doctors being murdered...
Irrational?
SupaShang 1 year ago
@glovergj you know what else is irrational? your belief of religion. just saying.
USFrabbit 1 year ago
@glovergj you know what else is irrational? religion.
USFrabbit 1 year ago
@USFrabbit Hahaha, Evolution is the most irrational philosophy of all!, not only does it violate all laws of nature!, but there is also no actual empirical evidence to support it!, mots of the "factual evidence" you hear about is simply speculation!, no one actually has a clue, its called assumption!, how do i know?, i was told by a biologist with a degree in chemisty and over 10 years experiance.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85
" how do i know?, i was told by a biologist with a degree in chemisty and over 10 years experianc"
Lets examine this sentence: A BIOLOGIST with a DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY. This was your first mistake. As for the rest, 10 years of experience being an idiot doesn't garner you credibility.
This is all before I get to my point that 1) This is anecdotal from you 2) its an argument from authority 3) I don't believe a damn word you just said.
Provide evidence, not stories. Evolution HAS.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85
" not only does it violate all laws of nature!, but there is also no actual empirical evidence to support it!, mots of the "factual evidence" you hear about is simply speculation!,"
No, no, and no. This is entirely incorrect, and you have all the hallmarks about you of someone who spends all of his study time on creationist websites that make assertions, and not actually researching their references. I bet you think Kent Hovind is a respected scientist.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aheadstix85
"i was told by a biologist with a degree in chemisty and over 10 years experiance."
He needs a Degree in Biology to be a Biologist there, skippy. You're breaching the 9th commandment.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85
BTW, you need a degree in Biology to be a Biologist. A degree in Chemistry makes you a Chemist. Not that I believe your assertion anyway. What, was it John Pendleton?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@SupaShang Simple evidence for God can be found avereywhere, you atheists just use willfullignorance to say that pure chance and time created something that pure logic says a God must have created, Biology has disproven abiogensis, no life comes from non living or dead matter, its impossible, it must have been created, chemicals mixing in the ocean is also impossible, as chemicals dont mix they just diffuse, so no matter what is said it comes back to a creator, there is no other expanation.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85 Out of respect for Glover I'd rather not turn his forum into a puerile stick throwing contest. I can see what he is trying to do now, and I can't fault him for that. Your argument is an example of what he is trying to address.
However, if your argument about complexity unable to slowly accumulate over billions of years in favour of your superior complexity just springing into existence (God), I think you can see the flaw in your argument and also how u pwned yourself. Thoughts....?
SupaShang 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aheadstix85
"Biology has disproven abiogensis, no life comes from non living or dead matter, its impossible,"
Again, read the WIRED article on Abiogenesis.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@SupaShang What evidence do you have that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence? Atheists who hide behind "evidence" are among the greatest of all hypocrites, as there is absolutely ZERO evidence that a universe of parts within parts containing creatures of intelligence and conscious awareness can arise all by itself. Most of us with half a brain stopped in magic and the Boogie Man a long time ago.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "What evidence do you have that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence?"
Was that even a question!? Ask yourself that same question when applied to your position, and see how it makes equally no sense. If I asked you how "a rock" could come from a "non rock". How much grammatical sense does that make? None! If you want answers, try using a coherent sentence.
After talking to glover after my initial post, I understand his reason for the use of "God" in his videos.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang I have no idea why you are complaining about my grammar. It is quite clear to me that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence, which is clearly the reason WHY atheism is total bullshit. As far as I understand, both my position and ALL of the known evidence are quite clear.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Look, I have heard the argument from ignorance many times before. It was boring and pointless the last five hundred times too. It is clear that you hold a "belief". A belief that has not made ANY scientific claims, nor can be tested by the scientific method; therefore, I am at a loss to comprehend this "evidence" you mention, since there is none to support your supernatural claims. You believe in one God yes? Why not all the others? You are atheist to them. Still total bullshit?
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang Major historical scientists including Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and millions more believed the EVIDENCE demonstrates deliberate design. Note the term EVIDENCE. To believe in God is of the highest scientific order, as these represent humanity's greatest scientists. Atheism has no scientific or other value. There is no evidence that intelligence or parts within parts can magically exist all by themselves; atheism=gross superstition & total lie
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "To believe in God is of the highest scientific order".
Where are you getting this stuff from? I doubt many scientists study science to believe in your God!
You talk about humility, yet then go onto to appeal to authority figures (with total false assumptions about Darwin and Einstein's personal beliefs) as though that gives any ridiculous comment you come out with any weight at all! If you believe in God because "that historical dude did", you need to examine your faith.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang As noted, the top scientists of human history ALL believed in God. Thus, as any logical and rational human being would conclude, it is therefore of the "highest scientific order" to believe in God. Perhaps you want to also pretend that Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and the modern Francis Collins are not representative of the great scientists of human history. Go ahead, make my day.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Dirty Harry for Jesus now!?
At first I thought you were just a poe; now I see that you are simply a lost cause and a waste of my time. Your opinions on what you "think" other scientists throughout history thought about God warrant no comment, and are at best misinformed. Once you figure out how to define your God (yourself) and explain to me what it is, then we can debate. Pulling authority figures out of your ass to try justify a superstitious claim bores me.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen It is clear that you hold a personal hatred towards atheism, since it challenges you to think about what is real and what is not based on actual evidence. I couldn't care less if you think atheism is a total lie, because until you provide the slightest shred of proof for your God, it is the most humble rational position to hold. Show me your God and I will become a believer in a split second. Until then, everything you rant about is no more than hot air and dogmatic lies.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang I have a personal disdain for anyone who deliberately lies to me. I don't like lies, I don't like liars, which is why I don't like atheism.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen You say you don't like atheism, yet you are atheist towards any other religion but your own. So in your reasoning, the only person who is lying to anyone is yourself. I would bet that you have valid reasons for not accepting other religions Gods and overwhelming evidence to support your own? You are either acting naive enough to believe that your God is the only one written about throughout the whole of human history, or u are too stupid to understand what you are attacking.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "millions more"
I'm sure you have a list of those millions more scientists names for me to have a look at? Let me stress to you again that appeals to authority figures and large numbers DO NOT present ANY evidence for your Gods existence. Surely if you are a true believer, you hold a personal faith and can back that up with personal experience of God, right? If not, then all you're doing is following a crowd, as the end reward sounds better than the punishment of non obedience.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang I don't appeal to authority figures. You are the one who said belief in God is unscientific, which is an obvious complete lie, as the key greates scientists of human history ALL believed in God. I'm not going to make you a list, you can read their biographies in the Britannica for yourself, as I have done. I have no doubt there is a God, regardless of what Aristotle, DaVinci, Darwin, Einstein and the rest believed. I was merely illustrating what a great liar you are.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "You are the one who said belief in God is unscientific"
Please refresh my memory on where I posted that comment?
What do anyone's personal beliefs have to do with science? Good objective science is indifferent to your (or anyones) beliefs. It is only when people inject their superstitious beliefs into science that I take issue. It muddies the observable facts in favor for "woo woo" answers to fill in gaps of understanding, retarding the scientific method into "spooky method."
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang This is what you said: "It is clear that you hold a personal hatred towards atheism, since it challenges you to think about what is real and what is not based on actual evidence". To any rational mind, that is saying the belief in God is unscientific. Since a great many major scientists believe in God, you are an obvious liar, as major scientists themselves are who have defined science, Descartes, Newton, Einstein for example, who all three believed in God and defined science.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen If someone says they "disbelieve in God", aside from such a statement having no value, as anybody can disbelieve in anything and doing so proves nothing, it represents a personal belief. If somone says the universe was created, that represents a personal belief. And, if someone says that evolution is true or the earth is round, that represents a personal belief. Sorry, all we have on our planet are personal beliefs, thus your position makes no rational sense.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Sorry no. If someone says that the earth is round. That is a testable prediction. One which has been shown to be true. The available EVIDENCE shows evolution to be true, which is why it is not a personal belief. It is a scientific fact. God has NO evidence to support him/her; therefore, God is a personal belief.
If I disbelieved that the earth was an ellipse nor evolution is true, it would be that there was NO EVIDENCE showing the validity of the claims. You idiot!
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "anybody can disbelieve in anything and doing so proves nothing," That is the one thing you have got correct during the whole of this discussion. Now understand this; atheism is NOT trying to PROVE anything! Would you like this in crayon? Atheism is the disbelief in a God. Atheism IS NOT the same as saying "there is no God." I love how creationists like you try divert attention away from the bogus claims of your religion with word play! It is boring old and ridiculous, like you.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "To any rational mind, that is saying the belief in God is unscientific" If by unscientific you mean that the God claim can't be tested by using the scientific method, then yes I agree God is unscientific. A great many people believe in a great many things, any or all of which may not be true. Just because a scientist postulates past the limits of his/her understanding and attributes ultimate knowledge as "God", that does not confirm Gods existence.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen You keep coming back to the beliefs of scientists as though that proves anything! From this alone it is clear that you have NO real faith at all in what you say you believe in. What is so wrong with your bible that you have to resort to scientists to corroborate your beliefs? It looks like your faith is not enough to hold your belief in your God. Why does your faith require scientific backing? You may want to get that looked at your dogma is malfunctioning!
SupaShang 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardaberdeen " I was merely illustrating what a great liar you are."
Explain to me how I am a liar by not believing in your God? What exactly do you assume an atheist is, because you clearly do not know nor care! When making an argument against someone, it is a good idea to understand them or their position. You have all day to blow me away with an answer. I am off to bed.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "atheism=gross superstition & total lie"
You have to be a poe to use a comment like that. Haha! Good one. You got me.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang Sorry, I don't believe in magic and, neither does God, as far as I can tell.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@richardaberdeen "Sorry, I don't believe in magic and, neither does God, as far as I can tell."
How humble of you to say that you know the mind of your own God! o.O Hardly surprising though, he does live inside your head.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang The entire universe is evidence for God. What is absent is evidence for atheism.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen The entire universe? So not your bible then? Not a personal relationship or encounter with your saviour? You look up at space and concluded, "yep it looks pretty big up there, so I'm convinced that God exists!" Now explain how you know of the "entire universe" since the best efforts of human space travel so far have not even got us beyond our own solar system? It's looking like your claims to high authority are lacking somewhat, now you are making special pleads to infinity!
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen You may find this an uncomfortable realisation my friend: but you and I are both atheists to a measure of 0.001%. I just count your God into my non belief too. So, I am 99.999% atheist, and find the supernatural stories for the existence of God/s not be compelling enough for me to believe in any of them, and you are 99.998% unsatisfied with the same mythological stories and God claims for anything but your own God, yes? So you agree with me on most atheism 99.99% Still bullshit?
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang That's even worse bullshit. Pretending there is no God is to pretend that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence and, to pretend that the observable universal reality of zillions of parts within parts magically appeared all by itself. To pretend there is no God represents the most absurd of all known superstitions.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Ok. You clearly have no understanding of what the word atheism means. Let me spell it out for you ABC style. Atheism means that I hold no belief in a God. That is not the same as saying that I pretend that a God does not exist, or I know a God doesn't exist. Even if a God existed in the 0.001% of my 99.999% of non belief, you have not presented ANY evidence to show that one does; nor has God himself (or herself).
You can't even present a strawman argument towards atheism!
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang No, it is you who have no understanding of what atheism means. An atheist is announcing to the world that they believe that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence, which is clearly the most absurd and foolish position known in the history of humanity. If you want to announce to the world that you are an embracer of gross superstition, then I'm going to point it out, just as I have. You have a right to make up shit and, I have a right to point out that you are making up shit.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "An atheist is announcing to the world that they believe that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence"
Wrong on so many epic levels. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. It has no code by which to follow, no dogma, no script, no church that we all have to attend to make sure our story fits. It is simple a position to describe someone who does not accept the bullshit theists are selling to us about the existence of their Gods. Nothing more. Do you still not understand?
SupaShang 9 months ago
@SupaShang If there is no God, then intelligence arose from non-intelligence. Apparently you got up on the wrong side of the bed today or, have you always done so. There isn't a third alternative. You can't "disbelieve" in God without claiming that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence. My conversation with you is finished, as you appear to be entirely irrational. It is completely and entirely irrational to say there is no God, any baboon with half a brain knows better then that.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen "My conversation with you is finished.."
Translation: you have nothing to add to the debate beyond mythology and spooky non-testable claims that even you know are bullshit and have no place in a scientific discussion.
"intelligence arose from non-intelligence"
Your "ignorance" has a long way to go before it even gets to earn the title "intelligence". If you get so far as "mildly intelligent", I'd consider that a good start for you. Your ignorance burns.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Again you miss the point.
Although listening to your arguments in favour of God, it is becoming quite apparent that "non intelligence" in the universe is in constant abundance, especially in your time zone.
SupaShang 9 months ago
@richardaberdeen Again you miss the point.
Although listening to your arguments in favour of God, it is becoming quite apparent that "non intelligence" in the universe is in constant abundance, especially in your time zone.
SupaShang 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SupaShang Sorry, I don't believe in magic and, neither does God, as far as I can tell.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
and then comes convergent mechanisms to blow ur mind
viperstrike0 1 year ago
I think your video is very well reasoned and provides a great way of understanding why common descent is the better model, but you do realize that evolution can happen with or without god, right?
tempo3rd 1 year ago
Comment removed
rafikgl 1 year ago
2 questions :
snakes and whales have claspers used during copulation not hind limbs . the creator didnt give these to other mammals as they have limbs to hold each other with during copulation .
of coarse all flowering plants must have seeds because flowers are used for seed dispertion.
In other words, god distributed features according to the needed function
These findings agree perfectly with special creation and are not a proof of common descent.
rafikgl 1 year ago
@rafikgl Flowers attract pollinators, but many flowering plants have 'apomixis' which is producing seeds without fertilization (Dandelions and other "weeds"). These flowers are not necessary for reproduction but are present anyway. This does not agree with "special creation" but plants that descend from an ancestor flowering plant that does need its flower.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
i know! what song was that??
Great vid btw
zzz0mg 1 year ago
great stuff glovergj btw mind telling what song you used in your intro to this video
manutdfan4321 1 year ago
@manutdfan4321 -- Thanks, my brother-in-law is a musician and this was one his singles that he wrote and produced by himself. he works with a band now called, "the wounded dogs choir" which you can find on-line.
glovergj 1 year ago
I like your videos quite a bit. I'm not a christian, but I do appreciate your work very much. I think it's important for everyone to understand the sciences, and I'm glad you're stepping up and sharing it.
jirris 1 year ago
*Buzzer* Taxonomy doesn't depend on universal common descent, only on similarities across the board. Descent is an explanation for these similarities, just as taxonomy is based on them. The logic presented here essentially confuses cause with effect.
The so-called "patterns of inheritence" are every bit as compatable with God as a stryteller as they are with evolution.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
You're missing the point. With special creation, any patter is possible because God is unconstrained in creation. However, with common descend, only the patterns of inheritence are predicted. So when we find the patterns predicted by evolution, that makes evolution a useful scientific paradigm. Special can't make any specific predictions becuase the creator would be wholly unconstained and anything would be "consistent" with special creation. One theory has utitlity and the other does not.
glovergj 1 year ago
Yes, but would it be so difficult to just teach what we know; i.e. that certain animals do have similar traits (and admit while we're at it, admit that sometimes those traits serve different functions), that these similarities have practical use, and that there are differing views on exactly why these similarities exist? It would make a lot more sense than all this nonsense.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
What we know is that all evidence points towards common ancestry -- not just in comparative anatomy, but in biogeography, molecular genetics and paleontology. At this point, there are no other serious views that stand up to the evidence.
glovergj 1 year ago
Yes, just like all the evidence used to say that Luke was a historically inaccurate hack. Or that Piltfown Man, Java Man, and Nebraska Man were genuine human ancestors. Eventually, the truth will out, and those who try to treat the Bible as myth will be left with egg on their faces and nothing to show for it.
Besides, what would the natural sciences say about the resurrection, or the virgin birth for that matter?
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
Despite those fraudulent cases you mentioned, the perponderance of paleontological evidence is more than adequate to dismiss the biblical creation account as non-literal and non-scientific. There is also zero geological evidence for a recent global flood. Even though science can always be mistaken, it's hard to fathom a discovery that could make a young or global flood believable. There is just too much evidence stacked against them. You would literally have to undo everything we know.
glovergj 1 year ago
A few centuries ago, they would have said the same about abiogenesis. There were even books on how to get maggots from spoiled meat, frogs from mud, and even a swarm of bees from a dead bull.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
That's true because we know so little about the natural origins of life. But in the case of geology, astronomy, and the age of the earth -- we know quite a bit and have accummulated a ton of positive evidence for modern theories.
glovergj 1 year ago
And what of the virgin birth or the resurrection? For that matter, what about any of the miracles Jesus performed? Water into wine? A man who had been crippled for decades jumping to his feet with only a simple spoken command?
The problem is that people's perceptions of God's power are defined too often by their perceptions of the rules of the natural order. God controls the natural order, not the other way around.
Omnitrix12 1 year ago
Those are singular events -- miraculous events. They have nothing to do with the normal order of things. However, geologic superposition, distant star light, radioactive decay, etc. are based on regular ongoing procesess that we can observe both past and present. We can test claims and either confirm or falsify them. You can't do that with miracles and other singular acts of physical discontinuity.
glovergj 1 year ago