energy+mind+love = all? sounds more convincing than anything (or energy, and is misrepresented in the other cases it is unclear where it came from) + time (which if present in both cases) = all,
Don't be like that stupid Christian. Holed your head high and don't hate.Be better than that. Hope one day when daddy gets out of jail and they have ripped off enough money, they discover the TRUTH.
@Jtownlegends You are thinking in terms of this material life ... time, space, matter. But, in order for there to be time, space, and matter, someone had to create it; it did not just "come about." This means that God IS infinite! If He were not infinite, He would not be God. Think about that. Genesis 1:1 --> In the beginning (time) God created (power) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).
@briham86 I must say that I LOVE debating ... like this and I thank you for taking part in a totally intellectual and rational debate; it is an exciting and benefiting experience!
P.S. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. I hear evolutionists yell, "You Christians have no evidence." That is false; we have the same evidence that evolutionists have but it's the way we interpret it that makes the difference. It may be the same object but both lookers see it and/or interpret it differently.
@briham86 Actually, I did not type it accidentally; I meant, "interpret." This is exactly the kind of nonsensical arguments that aren't "arguments" at all that keep an actual "debate" from developing. If people actually payed attention and actually listened to the arguments being made and then reacted, it would be a lot better for us both. That is how I feel about all of this. You CAN listen ... AND pay attention, and I have done this while being accepting to those who disagree with my views.
@RichardSheppard12 Oh, you want an actual debate? Funny, most creationists I've met have no interest in a real intellectual argument. They refuse to consider the validity of any point that match their own and continue to use arguments whose faults have long been pointed out. But very well, I'll make a point and ask a question. You argue my point (don't wander off topic) and then make your own point and/or ask your own question.
@briham86 I'll begin. I argue that similarities between different species are a result of them being related. Just as the theory of evolution states, as environment changes, species diverge into differing groups, and eventually become separate species. If organisms were created, then there would be no reason for the similarities. Your turn. Address my point. and while you're at it, riddle me this Batman, what evidence do you have that supports creation but not evolution?
@briham86 If you read Genesis, it states (in chapter 2) that all living species were created from the dust of the Earth just as Adam was; that is why that there are 23 base elements in your physical being that can be found in the earth. Who are you to say that there was no reason for similarities? If God did it that way, He did it that way. I am merely human; I can't know the mind of God. Don't think that this is an escape, the truth is I don't know. Why are pieces of art similar? That's the ...
@RichardSheppard12 That's the problem with supernatural explanations; they don't actually explain anything. Saying "God just made it that way" doesn't tell us why, and it doesn't allow predictability. If reality is dependant on the whims of a supernatural God, then anything can happen. If the world follows natural laws, we can make theories and predictions, and science has done this accurately many, many times.
@briham86 ... He wanted it to be. He wanted US to have fellowship with Him and be made in His image and His likeness.
Secondly, there is already a problem in the evolutionary theory just from looking at the issue of information because information is not material; it has to come from a mind, a source! Not to mention that so-called mutations take away information in the genome and there is NO information added ... ever!
@RichardSheppard12 I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. I don't see how information requires a mind. Yes, a mind is needed to interpret information, but even without life there would still be information in the universe. If a tree falls in a forest, a sound is still made even if no one hears it.
A deletion in genetic code IS new information. A sandwich with no pickles is a different sandwich from one with pickles. And information is added through ERV's and genes duplications.
@RichardSheppard12 I have read a little bit of it. It was convincing, but later I found out it was wrong and felt fooled. Most of his arguments are borrowed from Jonothan Wells, a member of the Unification Church who believe Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the messiah. Wells has stated his purpose in becoming a doctor was to destroy Darwinism from the inside. Very strong bias, I wouldn't trust it. Also, his examples have been debunked. Check TalkOrigins list of creationists claims for more information.
@RichardSheppard12 So you admit to variation within a species. What stops species from splitting into separate species? To use your garden reference, think about rhizomes; plants that grow by spreading their roots outward. On the surface of the garden, you may see separate plants, but if you dug, you'd see they are connected at the roots. As the roots spread, new shoots are pushed upwards. The surface of the garden is the present. Underneath is the past, and the roots converge.
The universe is finite; therefore, it needs an infinite Creator. Starting your video off by bashing and making fun of Creationist belief just shows that you don't have a defence to fall back on; making fun is the first sign of weakness. That's why I avoid making fun of atheistic belief because that wouldn't get me anywhere. The best thing to do is put up a valid argument and wait for a rational debater; that is a suggestion.
@RichardSheppard12 "The universe is finite; therefore, it needs an infinite Creator." Says who? Recall that ancient people would see phenomena like the sun "moving" and thus assumed "oh, if the sun moves, there must be someone pushing it" and thus we end up with Ra and Apollo and other sun gods. Their argument is hardly different from yours; why are they wrong but you are right?
@briham86 To answer your question, the Bible (believe it or not) is the most prophetically and scientifically accurate book on the planet. It is totally harmonious with science except when it comes into contact with hypotheses such as evolution. In fact, I could go as far as to say that both Creation and evolution are not science because science is knowledge gained from observation. All "Creation" science means is science that is interpreted on the basis of Scripture ...
@briham86 ... but "Evolutionary", "Naturalistic", or "Atheistic" science is merely science that is interpreted with Darwin's Origin of the Species as the basis. You see: evidence/proof/facts are neutral; it is the interpretation that makes all the difference. Me and you HAVE THE SAME FACTS it is just the fact that WE INTERPRET THOSE FACTS differently. Key search these words on Google: scientific facts in the bible AND bible prophecy accuracy. Click on the first site link that comes up on each.
@RichardSheppard12 You do recall that the bible mentions unicorns? It says insects have four legs, and that rabbits chew cud. The bible has errors. Also, the presence of some facts don't validate others. I can't claim that Hogwarts is real just because the Harry Potter books mention real places like that London train station. The theory of evolution was derived and confirmed from facts and observations. Creationism is derived from scripture. That's the difference.
@briham86 For the 4-legged insect discussion, on the site that I have visited, it seems to say that the last set of legs aren't really looked upon as legs. For the rabbit-cud argument, the rabbit does re-eat partially digested fecal pellets that come from a special pouch called the caecum. For the unicorn argument, "unicorn" means one-horned animal. From the site I visited for this argument, it said that it might be a reference to a rhinoceros.
@briham86 Anyway, it is summer where I live and I'd like to enjoy it. Don't think that I'm bailing out of an argument. I am only 17. Can we please continue this debate at another time or leave it as it is? Thank you and I appreciate your participation. :)
I tend to dislike Creation videos before I watch them. Plus I never even read the title of this one, just clicked on a link from a Creation Minute video. Apologies. XD
@Jtownlegends The universe is finite, just as everything we've observed within it. It's expanding and it had a beginning, which Hubble confirmed. There had to be an original cause for the first finite thing. God is eternal and infinite, and is that first cause. Otherwise, you violate physics. The energy of a result cannot exceed the energy of its cause. Where did all the energy in the universe come from?
Nothing + magic? That's how you describe a God infinite power? You can be sarcastic about what Christians believe, but don't expect anyone credible to take you seriously. I'm a Christian, and I see plenty of people on both sides of the debate who present themselves foolishly. Have more respect for yourself and don't be one of them.
@Falkon85 There's nothing to present from the "atheist's side of the debate" as you're alluding to. Christians (and all theists ever in the history of everything) have thus far failed to state YOUR case successfully, therefore some people aren't going to believe it.
@eebamxela You're right, many creationists have failed to properly present the evidence that creation is scientifically valid. However, I have researched both sides myself, and the evidence is there. Most evolutionists deny existence of God because they don't want to be told what to do. It's emotional. Looking at the evidence without emotional bias is a personal responsibility, and when a person does not do that, it's a choice. If only it were as simple as just the evidence.
@Falkon85 No no no.... ALL creationists have failed. Otherwise there would be creation in science textbooks. Oh, and not to mention there would be actual evidence. Science works through evidence, not magic and religion and faith and all that crap.
Oh and by the way... the "two sides" you mentioned, are sides of two SEPARATE arguments. the first argument is about whether evolution occurs (it does by the way). The second argument is about whether a god exists (so far... no evidence).
@eebamxela The only evidence of evolution is variation within species. Apart from that, there is no evidence of DNA being added to make a more complex creature. Mutations such as copying errors have been observed, but nothing to increase complexity.
The existence of God is a moot point, can't prove it one way or another. The relevant question is the validity of the Bible. If Jesus really rose from the dead as he said he would, the rest of what he said would be true.
Evolution 'didn't start'. Its a mechanism explaining how life diversifies - it doesn't explain where life originated from. In the same way as the manual that tells your car works doesn't tell you what your mechanic had for breakfast.
@euhominid What does breakfast and a mechanic have to do of starting...never mind. Yet, its kinda hypocritical having an evolutionist make fun of the creation theory when they have none of their own.
@euhominid A mechanism without a designer? Of course. We see those all the time, don't we?
Evolution is one part of a larger picture. One missing link in a chain that is not there. Abiogenesis is another missing link that can't be verified. Give me just one piece of evidence that evolution is scientifically valid. Not conjecture, not what ifs or maybes, but verifiable evidence. Just one thing. Can you do that?
Brilliant - you manage to do what every other creationist manages without any hint of irony. Evolution is not about abiogenesis - that is an entirely independent field of study to biological evolution. Way to miss the point of what was said. Perhaps first if you want to debunk evolution you should find out the biological definition of it rather than the rubbish you've been misled to think it is. And as to abiogenesis have a look at the work of the Szostak lab at Harvard.
@euhominid The DNA for life cannot form with or without oxygen present. Could never have formed in water or with oxygen present, the DNA becomes oxidized and the cell will not form. If you remove oxygen, there is no ozone layer and solar radiation destroys it. Both options fail.
Life was simpler? Organization of non-living material could be simple, sure, but not the living cells. The simplest cell is still an irreducibly complex organism.
"Give me just one piece of evidence that evolution is scientifically valid"
Google the speciation and evolution of Trinidad Guppies. There's countless work and predictions on these little beauties, a number of observed speciation events and some lovely gene loci work for the mathematicians amongst us. Now hows about you find me one piece of creation science that is scientifically valid that they managed for themself rather than plagiarised from elsewhere.
@euhominid Show me that new genetic material/sequencing was formed in response to the environment change. How do you know that it was not a pre-programmed genetic switch that got flipped to trigger the variation?
@Falkon85 DNA has markers like the ones they use in court or use to find out who the father is. It has a nested heirarchey that matches Darwin's tree of life. Any classifcation you use comes up with the same tree. It all matches, it would not if evolution was not true.
@gregrutz What about for fossils? Is there any DNA from fossils to prove what species descended from what ancestor? Without that, I have just as much evidence that my truck evolved from a skateboard because they both have 4 wheels.
The hierarchy can be attributed to common designer just as easily as to common ancestor. Depends what you ignore in order to justify common ancestor.
@gregrutz What about for fossils? Is there any DNA from fossils to prove what species descended from what ancestor? Without that, I have just as much evidence that my truck evolved from a skateboard because they both have 4 wheels.
The hierarchy can be attributed to common designer just as easily as to common ancestor. Depends what you ignore in order to justify common ancestor.
2nd time - Evolution is a mechanism explaining how life diversifies. Its not about the creation of life - thats abiogenesis. Which is why I made the point about the mechanic and his breakfast, its not part of the mechanism. You're confusing the origins of life with the diversification of life. Evolution does not in any way explain the origins - just the diversity. Have a look at Szostaks videos regarding this.
@euhominid ahh, i see now. You should check into Pre-Cambrian rock with the Polonium halos, they hardened in less than second, which puts Creation into favor.
If you're talking about Snellings experiments done by the 'RATE' team then you'll find that this single experiment with some dodgy results has been refuted by the entire scientific community. Not to mention that this particular experiment relies on an assumption in its results of a massive change in the half life decay that has not been evidenced and has any qualification. They have been unable to replicate any results they have and are unwilling to divulge their method.
Secondly, the polonium experiment has nothing to do with a time line. Evolution is purely a mechanism - its about the allele frequency change of a population from generation to generation under natural selection - nothing more and nothing less. I never understand why people that disagree with Evolution seem to want to make it bigger than it actual is.
Other aspects such as common descent is an extrapolation of the mechanism and not the mechanism itself.
@AALASKO54 evolution is nature's own "process of elimination" at work. At any given time, the life that is present is simply the things that have survived long enough to not be eliminated. And over the years genes change, and the best ones live on and keep changing and live on and keep changing.... Each iteration (or generation) is by definition "the best so far". Not the best absolutely, but the best so far. Hence it's presence at the time.
@djfantom205 If you're a creationist, then you're an idiot. I don't need to make a funny video, or waste time arguing with strangers on the internet, for that to be known.
@eebamxela You seem to be making an absolute statement when you say, "If you're a creationist, then you're an idiot." On what objective standard do you base that conclustion on?
@eebamxela Your statement is subjective and therefore flawed. Its assumptions are not based in observation but emotional rationalism. In essence, you simply feel that way. It's interesting because creationism (along with ID) is based on observations in nature and applying logic. All I see as I read your statement is bias and narrow mindedness and quite frankly, no logic at all. So making such a statement is an opinion, not an absolute and we are all entitled to our opinions.
@GoldenLady4125 "It's interesting because creationism (along with ID) is based on observations in nature and applying logic"
And this, boys and girls, is the epitome of creationist idiocy and misuse of the word "observation" and the bastardization of "logic".
"i see something awesome that I personally can't explain... therefore... it was created by some sort of being".... This is asinine and is a logical fallacy, commonly referred to as the 'argument from ignorance'.
@eebamxela The response resonates with emotion & logical fallacies but no substance. Instead of talking, you simply scream louder. When asked for examples of Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian evolution all you did was the shift of the burden of proof. It appears that attack is the only means of response and that your religious devotion negates discourse. Therefore sincere debate is improbable. It’s unfortunate because God exhorts meaningful exchange in Isaiah 1: 18 “Come now, & let us reason together.”
@GoldenLady4125 And on your left you'll see yet ANOTHER creationist trying to claim that "it says here in the bible that X is true, so it must be true".
I am not a scientist who studies and conducts experiments which pertain to evolution. But I have read books and journals by people who do. And yeah yeah your response is probably gonna be something like "oh but I have too and blah blah blah" but you see.... you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how science (in general) works.
@GoldenLady4125 "It’s unfortunate because God exhorts meaningful exchange in Isaiah 1: 18 “Come now, & let us reason together.”"
I'll condone the citation of the bible if and only if you can provide proof of the existence of the source of it's alleged inspiration (ie: god). Prove that your god exists and then and only then will you have a reasonable excuse for citing it (it = your god). Until then, don't use god in a debate (if this really is a debate).
@eebamxela I am amendable to this. Concurrently, you prove to me that God doesn't exist. We'll come together and see what our observations lead to. In what format would you like to do this?
@eebamxela Then no mutual discourse can take place. I must say your response was expected. Again, you make statements that are absolute but when asked to support them, it seems as you refuse to do that. But this exchange grows tedious for both of us. Thank you for taking the time to respond at any rate. Have a good day or evening.
@GoldenLady4125 You told me to provide evidence for a specific claim. A claim that I never made, nor am able to provide proof for. Did you go to your logic 101 class high or something on the day they went over circular logic and the fact that you can't prove a negative?
@eebamxela evolutionary Bio who knows what he is talking about? I no one!! Yea his name is Jesus and he was there... Darwin is dead. Jesus on the other hand is very much alive. So you should talk to him. Its not magic, a real being made a real universe and gave you free choice and a free spirit. Now you know the truth, now you have no excuse. Sorry put that on your shoulders.
@eebamxela Actually your the one who's damned,because you know evolution is a lie. Your trying to make excuses for your sin. No intelligent human being could believe we came from rocks... and yes no matter how you twist it, evolutionist believe we came from rocks.
@godfordummies wait wait wait do go on and tell me how Jesus a dude who died looooong ago (as no one knows his real birth date or thereby his date of death i will not say 2000 if he even has lived) can be alive while darwin a man who has not been dead that long can be dead...do you mean some sort of reincarnation? some new person saying he is jesus cos you know there is mental hospitals filled with jesuses right i myself has met 3 of them in norway
@bjam89 You are a man of the world. You see things like animals see things. You believe only what you smell, touch or eat. My dog is the same way. Jesus is spirit and those without Jesus are dead, even if they can walk, talk and eat. Jesus is alive and is sitting at the right hand of almighty God. Darwin is dead. Anyone without the spirit of God is dead. Reincarnation is about the flesh not about the spirit. There is no reincarnation. Its appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement.
@godfordummies yeah i know darwin is dead, and if jesus has lived he to is dead, what you are talking about seems to me like some sort of haunting that a ghost does and how do you know your dog is this way have you asked it? and what is your reasons for thinking that this almighty god is real, outside the bible and the look outside and look in the mirror idea, cos most athesits only ask for proof about gods nothing more and then we would convert but we find the evidence of god lacking
Evolutionary Bio who knows what he is talking about? I no one!! Yea his name is Jesus and he was there... Darwin is dead. Jesus on the other hand is very much alive. So you should talk to him. Its not magic, a real being made a real universe and gave you free choice and a free spirit. Now you know the truth, now you have no excuse. Sorry put that on your shoulders.
I am always amazed how religious evolutionists are. They believe nothing created everything. I believe God created everything. Like Dr. Hovind said, "Don't tell me your [point of view] is science and mine's isn't. No sir. They're both religious."
@GoldenLady4125 What's the use of accusing a scientist of being religious if you call yourself religious? How does that take away from the validity of scientific claims? And more importantly, how does that make non-scientists any more correct?
The only thing that matters is whether a statement (or set of statements) is accurate. The statements related to evolution are based on observations made in the real world AND in controlled laboratory settings.
@eebamxela What exactly has been tested in laboratory tests that proves the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary model? Can you name some examples? And please understand I'm not being inflammatory. I see that someone else took my comment in such a manner and that's not what I meant to do. This is a topic that can be discussed without heated emotions. But, again, the reason why the debate is so hot is because the answers pertain to the metaphysical realm--is it God or NS?
@GoldenLady4125 "What exactly has been tested in laboratory tests that proves the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary model?"
Copy and paste that question exactly how you worded it into google, and hit "i'm feelin lucky". Yeah i know it's wikipedia, but look at the citations in the text and consult them. Or.... read a biology text book. Or... read scientific journals that are peer reviewed.
If you want scientific answers, consult a fucking scientist. Do some research for cryin outloud.
@smaakjeks Before I answer, let me say this: if you are willing to discuss and not launch verbal attacks that mean absolutely nothing, then I am more than willing to begin a discussion with you. Let me know if that it the case. I don't check this email often which is why I'm just now getting back to you. But I refuse to waste my time if nothing but attacks are going back and forth and neither should you. I've enjoyed many a discussion since I've become interested in this topic. So let me know.
I have no interest in verbally attacking people. I do have interest in seeing what people believe and why. If you think you're up for a discussion about this subject, then I'm prepared to answer comments or questions. Let's do one question at a time and settle it before moving on to the next, okay? That way we keep the discussion neat and focused. Sound good to you?
@smaakjeks Very well. First, it's prudent for you to define your position and understanding. So for the first question, let me know what your position is. I've discovered in topics such as these that it is important to see what certain terms mean to people. So tell me what you mean by evolution. I'll tell you mine, and we'll go from there.
Okay well I'm a biologist, so I know the definition and its consequences. I'm deliberately not going to define it in biological terms (the actual meaning) before I hear what you think. That way I'll know you know at least what we're talking about at a fundamental level. If you can't define evolution properly or understand what that means, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Just like a physicist has little interest in discussing gravity with someone who can't define it.
@smaakjeks I should further add and acknowledge that from a naturalistic standpoint on Earth origins in regards to organic life, there are various evolutionary models that abound but my focus has been on studying the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models. Having said that, can we continue the discussion?
Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in populations over time. If you understand what that means we can continue to question 2. Though remember that this is the actual biological definition. So when and if you ask for evidence of evolution, it must be consistent with that definition. Otherwise we're talking about a strawman, agreed?
@smaakjeks I have had tendinitis for the past several days and have been unable to type. Please do not take my silence as disinterest but simply a reprieve. As I've said, I'd like to continue the discussion because I believe your answer begs more content. If you don't want continue, let me know and thank you for being open to discussion. Okay, typing this hurts so let me know either way.
@GoldenLady4125 why hasn't God healed your tendinitis? Didn't Jesus heal everyone who came to him? Says throughout the new testament that the multitudes came to him and he healed them all. So why them and not you?
@goodvibrato Thanks for noticing my ailment! My tendinitis is gone and I'm feeling great! I think you are misunderstanding the reason behind why Jesus healed so many people but if you want to seriously discuss it, we can. However, if you wish to argue, you have to find someone else to do it. I do not respond to attacks at all but honest inquiry so let me know.
@goodvibrato I have no problem answering the question but I do have one question for you: have you ever read the Bible? This will determine how detailed I need to get with my response. Just a simple "yes" or "no" is sufficient.
@goodvibrato I'm glad to know that! In short, Jesus made a claim that He was God. The way He backed up his claim is multifaceted but for the purposes of this response, I’ll say this: 1) He was sinless 2) He had supernatural authority of sickness (healings), forces of nature, fallen angels, and Death 3) He possessed the very attributes of God—omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. I serve Him because of who he is, not for what he does for me. God manifested in the flesh. Hope that helps.
@GoldenLady4125 Ok, you serve him for who he is, not for what he does for you. That's not really an answer for why he chooses to heal some people and not others. For example, maybe you gave God credit for healing your tendinitis. On the other hand, he refuses to heal a kid with cancer who probably prays to him everyday. The answer is always, it's God's will, his thoughts are higher, his ways are higher. That's no answer though. If God doesn't make sense, I'm not obliged to believe in him.
@goodvibrato I think you answered your own question. The answer makes you angry and you choose not to believe. You stated yourself, “His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways.” He wouldn’t make sense to us because we cannot understand Him. We’re finite. He’s infinite. We’re imperfect. He’s perfect. Remember Job and how he was tested? What did he say? “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” The greatest sign of faith is trusting God, even when you do not understand.
@GoldenLady4125 No, I said that's not an answer. That's just a bad way to explain (by not explaining) God's inconsistencies. He's omnipotent and omnibenevolent, yet allows all kinds of injustices and terrible things to happen. You don't understand why exactly, but you trust God nonetheless. What you call the greatest sign of faith is what I call credulity.
@goodvibrato How can imperfect beings understand the perfect One? How can temporal people understand an eternal God? Your thoughts are not his. They can never be. It's not an inconsistency because you don't understand it. Just because He doesn't do it your way doesn't discredit Him. I trust him because I know He has all the answers regardless if I understand or not. I think people direct their anger at Him when they should be angry WITH Him.
@goodvibrato Let's think about it for a second. Here we are, in bodies that we did not form, breathing air that we didn't make, in an environment we did not builld, on a planet we woke up on, in a solar system we didn't structure that's part of a galaxy we did not create in a galactic neighborhood we just opened the door to, in a universe we barely understand. And we (in general) are going to take our biased, limited knowlegde and tell God that He's doing it wrong?
God is omnibenevolent and can therefor always be trusted. God is omniscient and therefor knows everything. We know he is omnibenevolent because he said so .Therefor, if god says 2+2=5, then 2+2=5.
Tell me, goldenlady, if god personally told you to kill several children-as he did to king saul, would you follow his orders without question?
After all, if god tells you to do something, it is of course the right thing to do..
@KyazuTheInsane In prelude to a response, I'd like to know what your basis for the question is. When you ask if God would tell me to kill children, are you saying that killing children is wrong? If so, how did you come to the conclusion? If not, how did you come to that conclusion?
Killing a sapient being who neither intends to harm nor is capable of harming someone else is indeed almost certainly wrong. Of course we humans live off of the backs of a variety of sentient creatures in the planet, but even monsters like humankind have their moral limits.
I don't mean to say whether or not killing children is wrong, for morality may be the simple product of the whims of the wizard who killed Onan.
@KyazuTheInsane I want to make sure that I understand you because your whole statement is confusing as you are mixing absolute statements with relative jargons, basically talking out of both sides of your mouth. So to make it simple, if you have a child, would it be wrong for me to kill that child and how do you come to your conclusion?
under almost any circumstance, it would be wrong to kill that child, as the child has done neither you nor anyone else any harm. Even if god told me to kill a random child, I would not do so.
@KyazuTheInsane I think there's an issue with this sentiment because if there is a god, that implies and afterlife, and if god wants a child to be killed then the child will still be "alive" after death, so the *real* death doesn't matter, and therefore would not be "wrong".
Of course this all rides on the existence of the god. (which probably isn't real)
@goodvibrato I appreciate your candor and if you'd like to continue discussing it, we can. I do not claim to know the answers but my hope and faith is in Him who has all the answers and promises that one day, there will be no more sickness, suffering, pain and death. That's why I serve Him and trust fully and completely in Him. Again, thank you for your candor and like I said, if you want to continue, we can.
@smaakjeks Before we even talk about that, if you don't mind me asking, where did you go? I LOVE to hear about people's traveling stories. People have the opportunity to go to the most interesting places and I enjoy hearing about them. Did you enjoy yourself? Was it relaxing? Expensive?
"if you don't mind me asking, where did you go? I LOVE to hear about people's traveling stories."
I had 2 weeks of relaxation with my girlfriend from abroad. She and I spent a week in my apartment and then a week at my family cottage (South-Western coast of Norway). We had a wonderful time. We enjoyed (among other things) hikes into the wild, oil painting, photography, swimming in lakes, having cheese and red wine, and snuggling up with good movies. Not too expensive. :-)
@smaakjeks Thank you for sharing. I don't travel often which is why I love hearing about people who do. I can't wait until space travel becomes mainstream. Gosh, imagine the stories we'd all tell then! It's delicious to look forward to.
Thank you for taking interest. Space travel you say. Well I don't even like flying domestic, let alone any farther than that. Sitting in a cramp seat next to a drunkard/screaming baby/plane sick person for hours whilst flying through heavy turbulence? I avoid it if I can. Not that it isn't safe and amazingly quick and all that jazz. But it doesn't mean I have to like it. Especially the turbulence. Urgh. I've watched too many plane crash specials on tv.
@GoldenLady4125 religious evolutionist believe god created life, just god aided it. if you're talking about evolution being a religion, then you're as stupid as kent hovind
Well, Well, An evolutionist has accepted my challenge with providing a fact for evolution. She's sounds pretty intelligent, so I might have my hands full. No worries, friendly debate should always be rewarding. Either you change, or you become more certain. So, Best wishes to you two kids!
Your "challenge" toward evolution and science in general is pathetic.
You have no idea what you are challenging. You have admitted to this.
If you're looking for an education (which is exactly what your "debate request" has been thus far: eg your request for facts) go educate yourself FIRST! then come and debate what you learned.
their is a difference between wisdom and education. you dont have to be smart to know that the earth was made by God. only a fool would say evolution is fact.
why do you say only a fool would say evolution is a fact? Is it because there is so much evidence in support of it that it's just a waste of time to bother mentioning something so obvious?
(for the record... no one is claiming evolution created anything, especially Earth. Read a fucking book. Something other than a bible.)
I apologize i hit the remove button instead of the reply button. You said some stuff about scientists not giving correct data, along with many grammatical errors and spelling errors.
Either way. You can't just change the focus of the discussion. Please cite an instance of a scientist presenting false data with respect to evolutionary theory. And please don't conflate "data" with "conclusion", because I think you might have them mixed up.
type in "Kent Hovind Seminar 4 Lies in the textbooks part 14 of 16" i know you dont like this guy but just watch the whole thing. and if ya got nuf guts watch em all.
"evolution on wales and horses have been proven wrong"
Citation please.
I have seen most if not all of Hovind's material. He is not a scientist. His claims about science are fallacious and wrong. He reads the bible, then comes up with crackpot nonscientific explanations to fit the content of the bible. He's doing science wrong.
Hovind is an ignorant buffoon, and should be ignored.
@goodspeed4441 I don't know what you're belief background is but I wanted to say that it's not conducive to say "only a fool would say evolution is fact." Evolution, in the broadest sense of the world means change over time. One biologist was more specific in the comment section here with the definition but evolution means change. That is a fact. Now as far as one species changing into another from one single ancestor begs evidence which hasn't been seen.
@goodspeed4441 In this type of discussion, it's important to not attack or use words to inflame a person. It is perfectly possible to have this discussion without people throwing insults at each other. I asked someone on here a question and all they did was say words that have no meaning. How can we talk if we don't say anything of value? In the battle of ideas there must be content. I just wanted to say that because as the discussion goes forth, an exchange must take place not verbal barbs.
So far all you've done is come here to rebuke scientific claims that are widely, if not completely, accepted as true, at least by people who know what the fuck their talking about, which apparently does not include you (i say this with confidence given your admitted ignorant stance toward anything scientific).
I can quote you being ignorant if you're wondering what I'm talking about. But i'll spare you the double embarrassment.
I am having trouble believing that you actually looked for data involving evolution. If you simply google "transitional species", all of the hits provide examples of transitional species. Likewise with any of the information you are looking for on evolution. Look for it online. They are available credible sources(most of them). You are either ignoring good science, or you have no clue what a search engine is. Try using something other than Conservapedia when you are looking for scientific .
energy+mind+love = all? sounds more convincing than anything (or energy, and is misrepresented in the other cases it is unclear where it came from) + time (which if present in both cases) = all,
TheGfvdg 1 week ago
Such a weak and ignorant argument!
edifyyourbrother 2 months ago
That is an extremely ignorant and weak argument!
edifyyourbrother 2 months ago
I tried this and it worked. Checkmate evolutionists!
JulianEpsilon 4 months ago
@JulianEpsilon pics or it didn't happen.
eebamxela 4 months ago
Im sorry to see that you have a hard time accepting truth, I will be praying for you :)
sandraeflores23 5 months ago
not a minute a minute and a second;D
121hurricane 7 months ago
I lol'd.
BrimstoneLandscapes 7 months ago
Don't be like that stupid Christian. Holed your head high and don't hate.Be better than that. Hope one day when daddy gets out of jail and they have ripped off enough money, they discover the TRUTH.
semrausky 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jtownlegends You are thinking in terms of this material life ... time, space, matter. But, in order for there to be time, space, and matter, someone had to create it; it did not just "come about." This means that God IS infinite! If He were not infinite, He would not be God. Think about that. Genesis 1:1 --> In the beginning (time) God created (power) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
Comment removed
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
@briham86 I must say that I LOVE debating ... like this and I thank you for taking part in a totally intellectual and rational debate; it is an exciting and benefiting experience!
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
P.S. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. I hear evolutionists yell, "You Christians have no evidence." That is false; we have the same evidence that evolutionists have but it's the way we interpret it that makes the difference. It may be the same object but both lookers see it and/or interpret it differently.
RichardSheppard12 9 months ago
@RichardSheppard12 " we have the same evidence that evolutionists have but it's the way we interpret it that makes the difference."
Dude, you accidently typed "interpret" instead of "ignore"
briham86 9 months ago
@briham86 Actually, I did not type it accidentally; I meant, "interpret." This is exactly the kind of nonsensical arguments that aren't "arguments" at all that keep an actual "debate" from developing. If people actually payed attention and actually listened to the arguments being made and then reacted, it would be a lot better for us both. That is how I feel about all of this. You CAN listen ... AND pay attention, and I have done this while being accepting to those who disagree with my views.
RichardSheppard12 9 months ago
@RichardSheppard12 Oh, you want an actual debate? Funny, most creationists I've met have no interest in a real intellectual argument. They refuse to consider the validity of any point that match their own and continue to use arguments whose faults have long been pointed out. But very well, I'll make a point and ask a question. You argue my point (don't wander off topic) and then make your own point and/or ask your own question.
briham86 8 months ago
@briham86 I'll begin. I argue that similarities between different species are a result of them being related. Just as the theory of evolution states, as environment changes, species diverge into differing groups, and eventually become separate species. If organisms were created, then there would be no reason for the similarities. Your turn. Address my point. and while you're at it, riddle me this Batman, what evidence do you have that supports creation but not evolution?
briham86 8 months ago
@briham86 If you read Genesis, it states (in chapter 2) that all living species were created from the dust of the Earth just as Adam was; that is why that there are 23 base elements in your physical being that can be found in the earth. Who are you to say that there was no reason for similarities? If God did it that way, He did it that way. I am merely human; I can't know the mind of God. Don't think that this is an escape, the truth is I don't know. Why are pieces of art similar? That's the ...
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
@RichardSheppard12 That's the problem with supernatural explanations; they don't actually explain anything. Saying "God just made it that way" doesn't tell us why, and it doesn't allow predictability. If reality is dependant on the whims of a supernatural God, then anything can happen. If the world follows natural laws, we can make theories and predictions, and science has done this accurately many, many times.
briham86 8 months ago
@briham86 ... He wanted it to be. He wanted US to have fellowship with Him and be made in His image and His likeness.
Secondly, there is already a problem in the evolutionary theory just from looking at the issue of information because information is not material; it has to come from a mind, a source! Not to mention that so-called mutations take away information in the genome and there is NO information added ... ever!
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
@RichardSheppard12 I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. I don't see how information requires a mind. Yes, a mind is needed to interpret information, but even without life there would still be information in the universe. If a tree falls in a forest, a sound is still made even if no one hears it.
A deletion in genetic code IS new information. A sandwich with no pickles is a different sandwich from one with pickles. And information is added through ERV's and genes duplications.
briham86 8 months ago
Comment removed
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
@RichardSheppard12 I have read a little bit of it. It was convincing, but later I found out it was wrong and felt fooled. Most of his arguments are borrowed from Jonothan Wells, a member of the Unification Church who believe Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the messiah. Wells has stated his purpose in becoming a doctor was to destroy Darwinism from the inside. Very strong bias, I wouldn't trust it. Also, his examples have been debunked. Check TalkOrigins list of creationists claims for more information.
briham86 8 months ago
Comment removed
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
Comment removed
briham86 8 months ago
@RichardSheppard12 So you admit to variation within a species. What stops species from splitting into separate species? To use your garden reference, think about rhizomes; plants that grow by spreading their roots outward. On the surface of the garden, you may see separate plants, but if you dug, you'd see they are connected at the roots. As the roots spread, new shoots are pushed upwards. The surface of the garden is the present. Underneath is the past, and the roots converge.
briham86 8 months ago
The universe is finite; therefore, it needs an infinite Creator. Starting your video off by bashing and making fun of Creationist belief just shows that you don't have a defence to fall back on; making fun is the first sign of weakness. That's why I avoid making fun of atheistic belief because that wouldn't get me anywhere. The best thing to do is put up a valid argument and wait for a rational debater; that is a suggestion.
RichardSheppard12 9 months ago
@RichardSheppard12 "The universe is finite; therefore, it needs an infinite Creator." Says who? Recall that ancient people would see phenomena like the sun "moving" and thus assumed "oh, if the sun moves, there must be someone pushing it" and thus we end up with Ra and Apollo and other sun gods. Their argument is hardly different from yours; why are they wrong but you are right?
briham86 8 months ago
Comment removed
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
@briham86 To answer your question, the Bible (believe it or not) is the most prophetically and scientifically accurate book on the planet. It is totally harmonious with science except when it comes into contact with hypotheses such as evolution. In fact, I could go as far as to say that both Creation and evolution are not science because science is knowledge gained from observation. All "Creation" science means is science that is interpreted on the basis of Scripture ...
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
@briham86 ... but "Evolutionary", "Naturalistic", or "Atheistic" science is merely science that is interpreted with Darwin's Origin of the Species as the basis. You see: evidence/proof/facts are neutral; it is the interpretation that makes all the difference. Me and you HAVE THE SAME FACTS it is just the fact that WE INTERPRET THOSE FACTS differently. Key search these words on Google: scientific facts in the bible AND bible prophecy accuracy. Click on the first site link that comes up on each.
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
@RichardSheppard12 You do recall that the bible mentions unicorns? It says insects have four legs, and that rabbits chew cud. The bible has errors. Also, the presence of some facts don't validate others. I can't claim that Hogwarts is real just because the Harry Potter books mention real places like that London train station. The theory of evolution was derived and confirmed from facts and observations. Creationism is derived from scripture. That's the difference.
briham86 8 months ago
@briham86 For the 4-legged insect discussion, on the site that I have visited, it seems to say that the last set of legs aren't really looked upon as legs. For the rabbit-cud argument, the rabbit does re-eat partially digested fecal pellets that come from a special pouch called the caecum. For the unicorn argument, "unicorn" means one-horned animal. From the site I visited for this argument, it said that it might be a reference to a rhinoceros.
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
@briham86 Anyway, it is summer where I live and I'd like to enjoy it. Don't think that I'm bailing out of an argument. I am only 17. Can we please continue this debate at another time or leave it as it is? Thank you and I appreciate your participation. :)
RichardSheppard12 8 months ago
Damn, I disliked it. I thought you were a Creatard. Sorry.
bluemoonrising26 10 months ago
@bluemoonrising26 How academically integritous of you.
eebamxela 10 months ago
@eebamxela
I tend to dislike Creation videos before I watch them. Plus I never even read the title of this one, just clicked on a link from a Creation Minute video. Apologies. XD
bluemoonrising26 10 months ago
@Jtownlegends The universe is finite, just as everything we've observed within it. It's expanding and it had a beginning, which Hubble confirmed. There had to be an original cause for the first finite thing. God is eternal and infinite, and is that first cause. Otherwise, you violate physics. The energy of a result cannot exceed the energy of its cause. Where did all the energy in the universe come from?
Falkon85 10 months ago
"Holy crap!" (kind of redundant)
akaei0 1 year ago
You mean 'read a science book'? What a great idea!
gregrutz 1 year ago
Nothing + magic? That's how you describe a God infinite power? You can be sarcastic about what Christians believe, but don't expect anyone credible to take you seriously. I'm a Christian, and I see plenty of people on both sides of the debate who present themselves foolishly. Have more respect for yourself and don't be one of them.
Falkon85 1 year ago
@Falkon85 There's nothing to present from the "atheist's side of the debate" as you're alluding to. Christians (and all theists ever in the history of everything) have thus far failed to state YOUR case successfully, therefore some people aren't going to believe it.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela You're right, many creationists have failed to properly present the evidence that creation is scientifically valid. However, I have researched both sides myself, and the evidence is there. Most evolutionists deny existence of God because they don't want to be told what to do. It's emotional. Looking at the evidence without emotional bias is a personal responsibility, and when a person does not do that, it's a choice. If only it were as simple as just the evidence.
Falkon85 1 year ago
@Falkon85 No no no.... ALL creationists have failed. Otherwise there would be creation in science textbooks. Oh, and not to mention there would be actual evidence. Science works through evidence, not magic and religion and faith and all that crap.
Oh and by the way... the "two sides" you mentioned, are sides of two SEPARATE arguments. the first argument is about whether evolution occurs (it does by the way). The second argument is about whether a god exists (so far... no evidence).
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela The only evidence of evolution is variation within species. Apart from that, there is no evidence of DNA being added to make a more complex creature. Mutations such as copying errors have been observed, but nothing to increase complexity.
The existence of God is a moot point, can't prove it one way or another. The relevant question is the validity of the Bible. If Jesus really rose from the dead as he said he would, the rest of what he said would be true.
Falkon85 1 year ago
This is brilliant. XD
musli4brekkies 1 year ago
ok that made me laugh
MrFastphil007 1 year ago 2
@MrFastphil007 I'm glad I could brighten your day :)
eebamxela 1 year ago
So evolution started how?....
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54
Evolution 'didn't start'. Its a mechanism explaining how life diversifies - it doesn't explain where life originated from. In the same way as the manual that tells your car works doesn't tell you what your mechanic had for breakfast.
euhominid 1 year ago
@euhominid What does breakfast and a mechanic have to do of starting...never mind. Yet, its kinda hypocritical having an evolutionist make fun of the creation theory when they have none of their own.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@euhominid A mechanism without a designer? Of course. We see those all the time, don't we?
Evolution is one part of a larger picture. One missing link in a chain that is not there. Abiogenesis is another missing link that can't be verified. Give me just one piece of evidence that evolution is scientifically valid. Not conjecture, not what ifs or maybes, but verifiable evidence. Just one thing. Can you do that?
Falkon85 1 year ago
@Falkon85
Brilliant - you manage to do what every other creationist manages without any hint of irony. Evolution is not about abiogenesis - that is an entirely independent field of study to biological evolution. Way to miss the point of what was said. Perhaps first if you want to debunk evolution you should find out the biological definition of it rather than the rubbish you've been misled to think it is. And as to abiogenesis have a look at the work of the Szostak lab at Harvard.
euhominid 1 year ago
@euhominid The DNA for life cannot form with or without oxygen present. Could never have formed in water or with oxygen present, the DNA becomes oxidized and the cell will not form. If you remove oxygen, there is no ozone layer and solar radiation destroys it. Both options fail.
Life was simpler? Organization of non-living material could be simple, sure, but not the living cells. The simplest cell is still an irreducibly complex organism.
Falkon85 10 months ago
@Falkon85
"Give me just one piece of evidence that evolution is scientifically valid"
Google the speciation and evolution of Trinidad Guppies. There's countless work and predictions on these little beauties, a number of observed speciation events and some lovely gene loci work for the mathematicians amongst us. Now hows about you find me one piece of creation science that is scientifically valid that they managed for themself rather than plagiarised from elsewhere.
euhominid 1 year ago
@euhominid Show me that new genetic material/sequencing was formed in response to the environment change. How do you know that it was not a pre-programmed genetic switch that got flipped to trigger the variation?
Falkon85 10 months ago
@Falkon85 DNA has markers like the ones they use in court or use to find out who the father is. It has a nested heirarchey that matches Darwin's tree of life. Any classifcation you use comes up with the same tree. It all matches, it would not if evolution was not true.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz What about for fossils? Is there any DNA from fossils to prove what species descended from what ancestor? Without that, I have just as much evidence that my truck evolved from a skateboard because they both have 4 wheels.
The hierarchy can be attributed to common designer just as easily as to common ancestor. Depends what you ignore in order to justify common ancestor.
Falkon85 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz What about for fossils? Is there any DNA from fossils to prove what species descended from what ancestor? Without that, I have just as much evidence that my truck evolved from a skateboard because they both have 4 wheels.
The hierarchy can be attributed to common designer just as easily as to common ancestor. Depends what you ignore in order to justify common ancestor.
Falkon85 10 months ago
@AALASKO54
2nd time - Evolution is a mechanism explaining how life diversifies. Its not about the creation of life - thats abiogenesis. Which is why I made the point about the mechanic and his breakfast, its not part of the mechanism. You're confusing the origins of life with the diversification of life. Evolution does not in any way explain the origins - just the diversity. Have a look at Szostaks videos regarding this.
euhominid 1 year ago
@euhominid ahh, i see now. You should check into Pre-Cambrian rock with the Polonium halos, they hardened in less than second, which puts Creation into favor.
AALASKO54 1 year ago
@AALASKO54
If you're talking about Snellings experiments done by the 'RATE' team then you'll find that this single experiment with some dodgy results has been refuted by the entire scientific community. Not to mention that this particular experiment relies on an assumption in its results of a massive change in the half life decay that has not been evidenced and has any qualification. They have been unable to replicate any results they have and are unwilling to divulge their method.
euhominid 1 year ago
@AALASKO54
Secondly, the polonium experiment has nothing to do with a time line. Evolution is purely a mechanism - its about the allele frequency change of a population from generation to generation under natural selection - nothing more and nothing less. I never understand why people that disagree with Evolution seem to want to make it bigger than it actual is.
Other aspects such as common descent is an extrapolation of the mechanism and not the mechanism itself.
euhominid 1 year ago
@AALASKO54 evolution is nature's own "process of elimination" at work. At any given time, the life that is present is simply the things that have survived long enough to not be eliminated. And over the years genes change, and the best ones live on and keep changing and live on and keep changing.... Each iteration (or generation) is by definition "the best so far". Not the best absolutely, but the best so far. Hence it's presence at the time.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@AALASKO54
nobody has answered your question
shawno66 10 months ago
@shawno66 I wonder why
AALASKO54 10 months ago
Evolutionist always trying to make creationist look stupid again instead of addressing the actual point he really presented.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
You've got to do more of these their awesome !!!!
Duplooytim 1 year ago
hay bud why don't you watch all of Kent and Eric's videos before dubbing them..
are you afraid that you mite get served? cuz only someone ignorant would go dubbing something that you knows nothing about..
like come on man,for real though your calling someone an idiot. are you sure that
you are not ignorant yourself..
just to let you know.by deleting my comment you prove your ignorance.
djfantom205 1 year ago
@djfantom205 If you're a creationist, then you're an idiot. I don't need to make a funny video, or waste time arguing with strangers on the internet, for that to be known.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela You seem to be making an absolute statement when you say, "If you're a creationist, then you're an idiot." On what objective standard do you base that conclustion on?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 It's really quite simple... follow this logic.
creationism is idiotic....
therefore creationists are idiots...
QED.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela Your statement is subjective and therefore flawed. Its assumptions are not based in observation but emotional rationalism. In essence, you simply feel that way. It's interesting because creationism (along with ID) is based on observations in nature and applying logic. All I see as I read your statement is bias and narrow mindedness and quite frankly, no logic at all. So making such a statement is an opinion, not an absolute and we are all entitled to our opinions.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 "It's interesting because creationism (along with ID) is based on observations in nature and applying logic"
And this, boys and girls, is the epitome of creationist idiocy and misuse of the word "observation" and the bastardization of "logic".
"i see something awesome that I personally can't explain... therefore... it was created by some sort of being".... This is asinine and is a logical fallacy, commonly referred to as the 'argument from ignorance'.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela The response resonates with emotion & logical fallacies but no substance. Instead of talking, you simply scream louder. When asked for examples of Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian evolution all you did was the shift of the burden of proof. It appears that attack is the only means of response and that your religious devotion negates discourse. Therefore sincere debate is improbable. It’s unfortunate because God exhorts meaningful exchange in Isaiah 1: 18 “Come now, & let us reason together.”
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 And on your left you'll see yet ANOTHER creationist trying to claim that "it says here in the bible that X is true, so it must be true".
I am not a scientist who studies and conducts experiments which pertain to evolution. But I have read books and journals by people who do. And yeah yeah your response is probably gonna be something like "oh but I have too and blah blah blah" but you see.... you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how science (in general) works.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 "you simply scream louder"
Kind of an odd choice of words given the calm nature of my textual tone.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 "When asked for examples of Darwinian/Neo-Darwinian evolution all you did was the shift of the burden of proof."
I never said I can prove evolution. If you want evidence of evolution go read an evolution book or crack open a scientific journal.
And to be fair... you have made a claim that god exists. You have not provided proof for this claim.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 "It’s unfortunate because God exhorts meaningful exchange in Isaiah 1: 18 “Come now, & let us reason together.”"
I'll condone the citation of the bible if and only if you can provide proof of the existence of the source of it's alleged inspiration (ie: god). Prove that your god exists and then and only then will you have a reasonable excuse for citing it (it = your god). Until then, don't use god in a debate (if this really is a debate).
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela I am amendable to this. Concurrently, you prove to me that God doesn't exist. We'll come together and see what our observations lead to. In what format would you like to do this?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 "Concurrently, you prove to me that God doesn't exist. "
No.
I have not made the claim that there is no god. You have made the claim that there is one. You have the burden of proof. Not me.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela Then no mutual discourse can take place. I must say your response was expected. Again, you make statements that are absolute but when asked to support them, it seems as you refuse to do that. But this exchange grows tedious for both of us. Thank you for taking the time to respond at any rate. Have a good day or evening.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 You told me to provide evidence for a specific claim. A claim that I never made, nor am able to provide proof for. Did you go to your logic 101 class high or something on the day they went over circular logic and the fact that you can't prove a negative?
eebamxela 1 year ago
@djfantom205
Read Kent Hovind's dissertation
:D
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@KyazuTheInsane I read it. I've never laughed, cried AND vomited all at the same time before.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela evolutionary Bio who knows what he is talking about? I no one!! Yea his name is Jesus and he was there... Darwin is dead. Jesus on the other hand is very much alive. So you should talk to him. Its not magic, a real being made a real universe and gave you free choice and a free spirit. Now you know the truth, now you have no excuse. Sorry put that on your shoulders.
godfordummies 1 year ago
@godfordummies I hope this is not for real real, and just for play play.... cuz otherwise.... you're a god damned moron.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela Actually your the one who's damned,because you know evolution is a lie. Your trying to make excuses for your sin. No intelligent human being could believe we came from rocks... and yes no matter how you twist it, evolutionist believe we came from rocks.
gotocamp1 1 year ago
@gotocamp1 I believe you came from a rock.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@godfordummies wait wait wait do go on and tell me how Jesus a dude who died looooong ago (as no one knows his real birth date or thereby his date of death i will not say 2000 if he even has lived) can be alive while darwin a man who has not been dead that long can be dead...do you mean some sort of reincarnation? some new person saying he is jesus cos you know there is mental hospitals filled with jesuses right i myself has met 3 of them in norway
bjam89 1 year ago
@bjam89 You are a man of the world. You see things like animals see things. You believe only what you smell, touch or eat. My dog is the same way. Jesus is spirit and those without Jesus are dead, even if they can walk, talk and eat. Jesus is alive and is sitting at the right hand of almighty God. Darwin is dead. Anyone without the spirit of God is dead. Reincarnation is about the flesh not about the spirit. There is no reincarnation. Its appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement.
godfordummies 1 year ago
@godfordummies yeah i know darwin is dead, and if jesus has lived he to is dead, what you are talking about seems to me like some sort of haunting that a ghost does and how do you know your dog is this way have you asked it? and what is your reasons for thinking that this almighty god is real, outside the bible and the look outside and look in the mirror idea, cos most athesits only ask for proof about gods nothing more and then we would convert but we find the evidence of god lacking
bjam89 1 year ago
Evolutionary Bio who knows what he is talking about? I no one!! Yea his name is Jesus and he was there... Darwin is dead. Jesus on the other hand is very much alive. So you should talk to him. Its not magic, a real being made a real universe and gave you free choice and a free spirit. Now you know the truth, now you have no excuse. Sorry put that on your shoulders.
godfordummies 1 year ago
lol...couple of good moments in that video
erikmania 1 year ago
start with nothing, add to that some magic, simmer on high for 6 days, then take a break for a day and--holy crap, look at that!!!! We got it!!!! LOL
goodvibrato 1 year ago
"you dont have to be smart to know that the earth was made by God."
I don't know if he did or did not, but I don't believe it..
You don't "know" it, you just believe it.. Knowing requires evidence..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
This video makes me want to get stone now. ;)
TheMrDeist 1 year ago
I am always amazed how religious evolutionists are. They believe nothing created everything. I believe God created everything. Like Dr. Hovind said, "Don't tell me your [point of view] is science and mine's isn't. No sir. They're both religious."
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago 2
@GoldenLady4125 What's the use of accusing a scientist of being religious if you call yourself religious? How does that take away from the validity of scientific claims? And more importantly, how does that make non-scientists any more correct?
The only thing that matters is whether a statement (or set of statements) is accurate. The statements related to evolution are based on observations made in the real world AND in controlled laboratory settings.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@eebamxela What exactly has been tested in laboratory tests that proves the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary model? Can you name some examples? And please understand I'm not being inflammatory. I see that someone else took my comment in such a manner and that's not what I meant to do. This is a topic that can be discussed without heated emotions. But, again, the reason why the debate is so hot is because the answers pertain to the metaphysical realm--is it God or NS?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 "What exactly has been tested in laboratory tests that proves the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary model?"
Copy and paste that question exactly how you worded it into google, and hit "i'm feelin lucky". Yeah i know it's wikipedia, but look at the citations in the text and consult them. Or.... read a biology text book. Or... read scientific journals that are peer reviewed.
If you want scientific answers, consult a fucking scientist. Do some research for cryin outloud.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
1) can you define evolution?
2) what evidence would convince you it's true, and why?
3) what evidence would convince you that a deity did NOT create the diversity of life, and why?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Before I answer, let me say this: if you are willing to discuss and not launch verbal attacks that mean absolutely nothing, then I am more than willing to begin a discussion with you. Let me know if that it the case. I don't check this email often which is why I'm just now getting back to you. But I refuse to waste my time if nothing but attacks are going back and forth and neither should you. I've enjoyed many a discussion since I've become interested in this topic. So let me know.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
I have no interest in verbally attacking people. I do have interest in seeing what people believe and why. If you think you're up for a discussion about this subject, then I'm prepared to answer comments or questions. Let's do one question at a time and settle it before moving on to the next, okay? That way we keep the discussion neat and focused. Sound good to you?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Very well. First, it's prudent for you to define your position and understanding. So for the first question, let me know what your position is. I've discovered in topics such as these that it is important to see what certain terms mean to people. So tell me what you mean by evolution. I'll tell you mine, and we'll go from there.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
Okay well I'm a biologist, so I know the definition and its consequences. I'm deliberately not going to define it in biological terms (the actual meaning) before I hear what you think. That way I'll know you know at least what we're talking about at a fundamental level. If you can't define evolution properly or understand what that means, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Just like a physicist has little interest in discussing gravity with someone who can't define it.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Very well. Evolution, in the broadest sense of the term is change over time. Shall we continue the discussion?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I should further add and acknowledge that from a naturalistic standpoint on Earth origins in regards to organic life, there are various evolutionary models that abound but my focus has been on studying the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models. Having said that, can we continue the discussion?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
Evolution has a strict, quantifiable definition. It does not simply mean change over time, and it does not explain the origins of life.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@smaakjeks So what is your definition?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies in populations over time. If you understand what that means we can continue to question 2. Though remember that this is the actual biological definition. So when and if you ask for evidence of evolution, it must be consistent with that definition. Otherwise we're talking about a strawman, agreed?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I understand what it means. Can you be more specific about your use of populations? Animal? Human? Plant?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
"Can you be more specific about your use of populations? Animal? Human? Plant?"
In biology a population is defined as an inter-breeding group of a single species. This applies to all taxa, animal, plant, etc.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I have had tendinitis for the past several days and have been unable to type. Please do not take my silence as disinterest but simply a reprieve. As I've said, I'd like to continue the discussion because I believe your answer begs more content. If you don't want continue, let me know and thank you for being open to discussion. Okay, typing this hurts so let me know either way.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 why hasn't God healed your tendinitis? Didn't Jesus heal everyone who came to him? Says throughout the new testament that the multitudes came to him and he healed them all. So why them and not you?
goodvibrato 1 year ago
@goodvibrato Thanks for noticing my ailment! My tendinitis is gone and I'm feeling great! I think you are misunderstanding the reason behind why Jesus healed so many people but if you want to seriously discuss it, we can. However, if you wish to argue, you have to find someone else to do it. I do not respond to attacks at all but honest inquiry so let me know.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 i'd be interested to know what you think the reason is. I think everyone else would too.
goodvibrato 1 year ago
@goodvibrato I have no problem answering the question but I do have one question for you: have you ever read the Bible? This will determine how detailed I need to get with my response. Just a simple "yes" or "no" is sufficient.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 yes, several times
goodvibrato 1 year ago
@goodvibrato I'm glad to know that! In short, Jesus made a claim that He was God. The way He backed up his claim is multifaceted but for the purposes of this response, I’ll say this: 1) He was sinless 2) He had supernatural authority of sickness (healings), forces of nature, fallen angels, and Death 3) He possessed the very attributes of God—omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. I serve Him because of who he is, not for what he does for me. God manifested in the flesh. Hope that helps.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 Ok, you serve him for who he is, not for what he does for you. That's not really an answer for why he chooses to heal some people and not others. For example, maybe you gave God credit for healing your tendinitis. On the other hand, he refuses to heal a kid with cancer who probably prays to him everyday. The answer is always, it's God's will, his thoughts are higher, his ways are higher. That's no answer though. If God doesn't make sense, I'm not obliged to believe in him.
goodvibrato 1 year ago
@goodvibrato I think you answered your own question. The answer makes you angry and you choose not to believe. You stated yourself, “His thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways.” He wouldn’t make sense to us because we cannot understand Him. We’re finite. He’s infinite. We’re imperfect. He’s perfect. Remember Job and how he was tested? What did he say? “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” The greatest sign of faith is trusting God, even when you do not understand.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 No, I said that's not an answer. That's just a bad way to explain (by not explaining) God's inconsistencies. He's omnipotent and omnibenevolent, yet allows all kinds of injustices and terrible things to happen. You don't understand why exactly, but you trust God nonetheless. What you call the greatest sign of faith is what I call credulity.
goodvibrato 1 year ago
@goodvibrato How can imperfect beings understand the perfect One? How can temporal people understand an eternal God? Your thoughts are not his. They can never be. It's not an inconsistency because you don't understand it. Just because He doesn't do it your way doesn't discredit Him. I trust him because I know He has all the answers regardless if I understand or not. I think people direct their anger at Him when they should be angry WITH Him.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@goodvibrato Let's think about it for a second. Here we are, in bodies that we did not form, breathing air that we didn't make, in an environment we did not builld, on a planet we woke up on, in a solar system we didn't structure that's part of a galaxy we did not create in a galactic neighborhood we just opened the door to, in a universe we barely understand. And we (in general) are going to take our biased, limited knowlegde and tell God that He's doing it wrong?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
God is omnibenevolent and can therefor always be trusted. God is omniscient and therefor knows everything. We know he is omnibenevolent because he said so .Therefor, if god says 2+2=5, then 2+2=5.
Tell me, goldenlady, if god personally told you to kill several children-as he did to king saul, would you follow his orders without question?
After all, if god tells you to do something, it is of course the right thing to do..
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@KyazuTheInsane In prelude to a response, I'd like to know what your basis for the question is. When you ask if God would tell me to kill children, are you saying that killing children is wrong? If so, how did you come to the conclusion? If not, how did you come to that conclusion?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
Killing a sapient being who neither intends to harm nor is capable of harming someone else is indeed almost certainly wrong. Of course we humans live off of the backs of a variety of sentient creatures in the planet, but even monsters like humankind have their moral limits.
I don't mean to say whether or not killing children is wrong, for morality may be the simple product of the whims of the wizard who killed Onan.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@KyazuTheInsane I want to make sure that I understand you because your whole statement is confusing as you are mixing absolute statements with relative jargons, basically talking out of both sides of your mouth. So to make it simple, if you have a child, would it be wrong for me to kill that child and how do you come to your conclusion?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
under almost any circumstance, it would be wrong to kill that child, as the child has done neither you nor anyone else any harm. Even if god told me to kill a random child, I would not do so.
KyazuTheInsane 1 year ago
@KyazuTheInsane I think there's an issue with this sentiment because if there is a god, that implies and afterlife, and if god wants a child to be killed then the child will still be "alive" after death, so the *real* death doesn't matter, and therefore would not be "wrong".
Of course this all rides on the existence of the god. (which probably isn't real)
eebamxela 1 year ago
@goodvibrato I appreciate your candor and if you'd like to continue discussing it, we can. I do not claim to know the answers but my hope and faith is in Him who has all the answers and promises that one day, there will be no more sickness, suffering, pain and death. That's why I serve Him and trust fully and completely in Him. Again, thank you for your candor and like I said, if you want to continue, we can.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Were we going to continue our discussion? Let me know yes or no.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
Hi, I've been on holiday these past 2 weeks. I'm all for continuing the discussion.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Before we even talk about that, if you don't mind me asking, where did you go? I LOVE to hear about people's traveling stories. People have the opportunity to go to the most interesting places and I enjoy hearing about them. Did you enjoy yourself? Was it relaxing? Expensive?
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
"if you don't mind me asking, where did you go? I LOVE to hear about people's traveling stories."
I had 2 weeks of relaxation with my girlfriend from abroad. She and I spent a week in my apartment and then a week at my family cottage (South-Western coast of Norway). We had a wonderful time. We enjoyed (among other things) hikes into the wild, oil painting, photography, swimming in lakes, having cheese and red wine, and snuggling up with good movies. Not too expensive. :-)
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Thank you for sharing. I don't travel often which is why I love hearing about people who do. I can't wait until space travel becomes mainstream. Gosh, imagine the stories we'd all tell then! It's delicious to look forward to.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125
Thank you for taking interest. Space travel you say. Well I don't even like flying domestic, let alone any farther than that. Sitting in a cramp seat next to a drunkard/screaming baby/plane sick person for hours whilst flying through heavy turbulence? I avoid it if I can. Not that it isn't safe and amazingly quick and all that jazz. But it doesn't mean I have to like it. Especially the turbulence. Urgh. I've watched too many plane crash specials on tv.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 "What exactly has been tested in laboratory tests that proves the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolutionary model?"
By definition, natural selection tends to happen, you know, in nature... But we knew you guys wouldn't buy it so we did it in laboratory too.
"But, again, the reason why the debate is so hot"
There's no debate. And it's been cold for a century or so. You've been grossly misinformed. If you paid for that knowledge, try to get a refund.
Meurglys33 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 "Dr. Hovind"?...Phd of what? and how does his phony PhD. qualify him to even comment on the theory of Evolution?
He would know science if it bit him in his ass. Which is why he has to resort to lies and misinformation.
TheWad1959 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 good point.. I can't believe this dude actually dubbed Eric's video like this
djfantom205 1 year ago
@djfantom205 because eric hovind is an idiot. and it's fun to make fun of idiots who willingly profess idiocy.
eebamxela 1 year ago
@GoldenLady4125 religious evolutionist believe god created life, just god aided it. if you're talking about evolution being a religion, then you're as stupid as kent hovind
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
Ha! PERFECT! 5 metaphorical stars!
Venaloid 1 year ago
Great vid!
shagster1970 1 year ago
sit around high for 6 days. LOL
JustinTheMagician12 1 year ago
Well, Well, An evolutionist has accepted my challenge with providing a fact for evolution. She's sounds pretty intelligent, so I might have my hands full. No worries, friendly debate should always be rewarding. Either you change, or you become more certain. So, Best wishes to you two kids!
Carydbuch 2 years ago
Your "challenge" toward evolution and science in general is pathetic.
You have no idea what you are challenging. You have admitted to this.
If you're looking for an education (which is exactly what your "debate request" has been thus far: eg your request for facts) go educate yourself FIRST! then come and debate what you learned.
That's how academia works.
eebamxela 2 years ago
their is a difference between wisdom and education. you dont have to be smart to know that the earth was made by God. only a fool would say evolution is fact.
goodspeed4441 2 years ago
why do you say only a fool would say evolution is a fact? Is it because there is so much evidence in support of it that it's just a waste of time to bother mentioning something so obvious?
(for the record... no one is claiming evolution created anything, especially Earth. Read a fucking book. Something other than a bible.)
eebamxela 2 years ago
I apologize i hit the remove button instead of the reply button. You said some stuff about scientists not giving correct data, along with many grammatical errors and spelling errors.
Either way. You can't just change the focus of the discussion. Please cite an instance of a scientist presenting false data with respect to evolutionary theory. And please don't conflate "data" with "conclusion", because I think you might have them mixed up.
Key word here is SCIENTIST.
eebamxela 2 years ago
evolution on wales and horses have been proven wrong.
goodspeed4441 2 years ago
type in "Kent Hovind Seminar 4 Lies in the textbooks part 14 of 16" i know you dont like this guy but just watch the whole thing. and if ya got nuf guts watch em all.
goodspeed4441 2 years ago
"evolution on wales and horses have been proven wrong"
Citation please.
I have seen most if not all of Hovind's material. He is not a scientist. His claims about science are fallacious and wrong. He reads the bible, then comes up with crackpot nonscientific explanations to fit the content of the bible. He's doing science wrong.
Hovind is an ignorant buffoon, and should be ignored.
eebamxela 2 years ago
i didnt ask you how many hovind videos you have seen. just watch the video sir.
goodspeed4441 2 years ago
You are not engaging in fair discussion. Nor is it apparent that you are reading what I've submitted. I'm done with you. Go annoy someone else.
eebamxela 2 years ago
@goodspeed4441
Hovind "debunks" whale evolution by pointing out that he likes to go into water.. Sorry, that doesn't cut it..
He misrepresents facts about horse evolution.. He was pwned on talkorigins..
Before you assume that only a fool would accept evolution, you should know a little more about it..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@goodspeed4441 I don't know what you're belief background is but I wanted to say that it's not conducive to say "only a fool would say evolution is fact." Evolution, in the broadest sense of the world means change over time. One biologist was more specific in the comment section here with the definition but evolution means change. That is a fact. Now as far as one species changing into another from one single ancestor begs evidence which hasn't been seen.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
@goodspeed4441 In this type of discussion, it's important to not attack or use words to inflame a person. It is perfectly possible to have this discussion without people throwing insults at each other. I asked someone on here a question and all they did was say words that have no meaning. How can we talk if we don't say anything of value? In the battle of ideas there must be content. I just wanted to say that because as the discussion goes forth, an exchange must take place not verbal barbs.
GoldenLady4125 1 year ago
So far all you've done is come here to rebuke scientific claims that are widely, if not completely, accepted as true, at least by people who know what the fuck their talking about, which apparently does not include you (i say this with confidence given your admitted ignorant stance toward anything scientific).
I can quote you being ignorant if you're wondering what I'm talking about. But i'll spare you the double embarrassment.
eebamxela 2 years ago
I am having trouble believing that you actually looked for data involving evolution. If you simply google "transitional species", all of the hits provide examples of transitional species. Likewise with any of the information you are looking for on evolution. Look for it online. They are available credible sources(most of them). You are either ignoring good science, or you have no clue what a search engine is. Try using something other than Conservapedia when you are looking for scientific .
cliffordw0389 2 years ago
*scientific data
cliffordw0389 2 years ago