ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewV...
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW:
The school boards around the U.S. who’ve decided to teach children creationism, intelligent design, or whatever you choose to call it, are poking a stick in the eye of anyone who hopes to expand our understanding of the world around us. According to Bill Nye, evolution is such a fundamental scientific truth that…well, watch.
If you dismiss evolution, Nye says, how can you get any of the followup questions right? The massive number of generations required for evolutionary changes make obvious the kind of time involved, lengthening the age of the earth from religion’s few thousand years to science’s billions of them. And that expanded view, argues Nye, makes so many other things make sense: If we’ve only been around a little while, for example, what’s the deal with those ancient dinosaur bones and fossils? A belief in deep time is so critical to our understanding of life, the earth, its processes, and the stars above us, that to deny it is to force oneself into settling for ever-more-implausible explanations of what we see around us.
What’s got Nye even more chagrined is that it’s one thing to turn your own back on science, but when you pass that outlook on to your children, what’s at risk is nothing less than the creation of a generation whose basic premise-creationism-leads to and answers that just get wronger and wronger. Brilliant young minds consigned to scientific failure from the start. We’d hope for better from educators and parents. Just imagine the things these fresh, inquisitive minds could discover someday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NYE:
Bill Nye, scientist, engineer, comedian, author, and inventor, is a man with a mission: to help foster a scientifically literate society, to help people everywhere understand and appreciate the science that makes our world work. Making science entertaining and accessible is something Bill has been doing most of his life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
BILL NYE: Denial of evolution is unique to the United States. I mean, we are the world's most advanced technological-so, I mean, you could say Japan, but generally the United States is where most of the innovation still happens. People still move to the United States, and that's largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science.
When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everybody back, really. Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, and all of biology. It's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer, your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.
As my old professor Carl Sagan said, "When you're in love, you want to tell the world." So once in a while I get people that claim they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is: Why not? Really, why not? Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones, or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but that are at a different point in their life cycle.
The idea of deep time, of billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview just becomes crazy, it's just untenable, inconsistent. And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we have observed in the universe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems. It's just a really hard thing, it's really a hard thing. In another couple centuries, that world view, I'm sure, just won't exist, I mean, there's no evidence for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT BIG THINK:
Smarter Faster™
Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content -- with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Subscribe to learn from top minds like these daily. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life.
![Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 | เพื่อจักรพรรดิ ! [ตอนเดียวจบ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4M0ckYMA4-U/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE You're an unattractive old biddy, Maria Futile.
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE Prove what old lady? Resistance is Futile isn't even your real name.
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE Prove what old woman? Resistance is Futile isn't even your real name.
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE *"Good. So you admit that Jeb Stuart isn't your real name"*
A) Where did I admit that in this thread loony woman?
B) I was named after him, but like him, Jeb Stuart is not my name, as I have told you previously.
C) What the actual fk does this have to do the video, weird old lady? I thought you wanted to be the police woman in charge of relevance?
LOL.
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE Hey look, REASONING IS FUTILE has posted twice in less than 8 years that don't contain an insult.
He's trying so hard not to call them stupid lol what a legend
Why don't you say that to a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Astrion Zoroastrian or a rabbi. You incredible stinking hypocrite. You make me sick.
😂 for real
Does evolution teach me to be prideful?
Evolution indeed is prideful to understand. From Biology, History, Archaeology, to the physics of atom's. It's the most complete data based knowledge that is complete and objective.
Science is all about Thinking, especially critical, rational, and scientific thinking of methods
"There has been nearly 3,000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.
The others are silly made up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real"
- Ricky Gervais
Thanks, you're right, my apologies, to both you and Ricky.
Cheers
No, I don't mind when somebody shows me I'm wrong and gives me the correct information. That's the way we all learn, but not creationists, they stick with the same bullshit for thousands of years.
Cheers..
H
POQ
The quote isn't really valid, because there is an ENORMOUS difference between the God of Abraham, and the gods of mythology. (aka, entities that live WITHIN our universe)
99% of the comments: 3 dudes
1% everything else
THEY'RE ALL I SEE LOL
Yea , yea wtf is wrong with the comment section !
I just watched the responses to this video, 9k views from good sir ken ham
That jebstuart guy,I saw him everywhere in evolution videos
how is this even possible lmao
And 10 years later the spread of ignorance is even worse
You are the chief offender.
God is real
God is real that’s all I know I think evolution is real too and I think the earth is a lot older than 6000 years old
@@justmythoughts2786 which god is real?
@justmythoughts2786 why do you know that, might i ask?
What is a person of faith to do when deeply held beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence?
1) Deny or ignore the evidence.
2) Complain that ‘evolutionists’ never provide the evidence, as if one’s personal ignorance were somehow the responsibility of others.
3) Refuse to consult any and all sources of legitimate factual information, even when references are supplied.
4) Assert that scientific explanations are ‘unproven’, ‘just a theory’, a belief, or dependent upon assumptions; that science by its very nature is biased against supernatural phenomena.
5) Misrepresent both the science and the evidence on which it is based, either deliberately or through a failure to understand. Make liberal use of red herrings, straw men and non sequiturs. Never deviate from one's faith-based stance, no matter how many times factual corrections are received.
6) Co-opt the science, accepting the stuff that can no longer be denied, and asserting that whatever is discovered, it was God’s will that it should be that way. Ken Ham’s distinction between laboratory-based science and ‘historical’ science is a variant of the former. The Roman Catholic acceptance of the historical fact of evolution and rejection of the role of natural selection is an example of the latter.
7) Make lists of ‘scientists’ who go along with creationist thinking, ignoring the clear factual and philosophical incompatibilities, and the fact that in earlier times scientists were immersed in a cultural milieu in which certain religious beliefs were more or less universally accepted.
8) Use quotes out of context to claim scientific support for those same religious views.
9) Claim that all unresolved scientific issues such as the origin of life, the origin of the universe or the Cambrian radiation require divine intervention, ignoring the near total collapse of God of gaps thinking in the teeth of scientific discovery.
10) Assert that complexity itself requires intelligent design, even as the characteristics of that complexity are precisely what would be expected in natural systems dominated by feedbacks, and incompatible with the idea of design.
11) Claim that science is a hoax or a lie, or a conspiracy by god-hating atheists. Never mind that the scientific approach clearly works, and that about one-third of scientists maintain some kind of religious beliefs.
12) Insist that the science must be wrong because it is at odds with a literal reading of scripture. This is primarily the province of Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham.
13) Argue that science can be safely disregarded because, unlike scripture, scientific theories are forever changing - albeit mostly through increased sophistication rather than outright falsification. And never mind that to be guided by evidence is why science works, and to persist in beliefs contradicted by evidence is why religion doesn’t.
14) If all fails, resort to insults. Belittle the credentials of any person with any actual qualification.
What SHOULD a person of faith do when deeply held beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence? Take a close look at the evidence. Consider why particular beliefs are held in the first place. And given that beliefs are largely a function of early indoctrination and cultural heritage, consider the possibility that they might not actually be true. The real world is a wonderful place. The acceptance of reality turns out to be remarkably liberating.
Ahhh I agree but being an athiest requires quite a bit of faith aswell. And say the theory of god was as indisputable as evolution. That same fear and denial would take take place. People dont loke being told what to do and being under anyone so the thought of a god is still just as uncomfortable as their not being one.
redking497 "Ahhh I agree but being an athiest [sic] requires quite a bit of faith aswell [sic]." Check point 4. My post deals with science, not with atheism. But no, atheism requires no faith whatever. That is rather the point of atheism.
There is no 'theory' of god. There isn't a shred of evidence for ANY god. Were such evidence to exist, I would be among the first to be interested in it.
With regard to people being 'told what to do': if I had to rank my many objections to religion, the inclination of people of faith to force their beliefs onto others is near the top of that list. Again, however, my post has to do with science - an approach to inquiry aimed at discovering how the natural world works. It has nothing to do with telling people what to do.
@@nicholaschristie-blick3139 if you want to learn about possible evidence for a god there’s lots of stuff to go on. Talk to Catholic theologians about the many miracles they attribute to saints especially modern day ones or padre pio, talk to Muslims about Mohammed’s descriptions of the universe and the cosmos before humans had any way of seeing that far into the sky. It’s interesting stuff atleast.
@@icecold7184 All mythology is interesting. Too bad none of it is true. A miracle, by the way, is any unexpected or seemingly improbable yet favorable outcome. All unfavorable outcomes (prayers that bore no fruit) are swiftly forgotten as god working in mysterious ways. Why does god hate amputees? I know of no case where a leg or arm has grown back.
@@icecold7184word of mouth miracles can hardly be classified as evidence.
Make an observation.
Ask a question.
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
Apparently I’m supposed to resort to a 3000-year-old holy text that was written by ancient ignorant immoral men instead 😂😂😂😂
Do you know what the three constituent parts of a scientific experiment is? I bet you don't. You left that out.
Bruh that’s the scientific method not the scientific experiment 😂
@paulmcgarrity4580 HERETIC!
I read that he got booed some place in Texas for saying that the moon reflects the light of the sun.... seriously. "Houston we have a problem!"
Yes, what you read was true. Bill is no genius, not as portrays himself to be anyway. He is a fake and gives out more BS information then a politician on the eve of election. Anyone who buys Bills BS is either an imbecile or they simply cannot make rational choices for themselves.
Ok... so you think the moon is BS?
Ronin So explain me this? How would a loving God create us with a predisposition to not believe in him, and then eternally torture us for hurting his feelings? If he was all-knowing, he would have seen it coming wouldn't he?
EddieHedrick Easy Its called FREE WILL my friend. God gave it to ALL of us. We are born with the ability to make choices ourselves. We are given the opp to believe in and follow God. If you choose not to, then you are turning your back on him. There is no predisposition to Not believe him. There is no proof of this. This is inside the soul, something we do not know. But we do know that once presented the TRUTH, you have one of two ways to go, its a choice. The key world their being CHOICE (IE free will), is yours. And correct, he IS all knowing. Again, that does not mean he is not going to let us make our own choices. God does not force us to be fuck ups. He does not cause hatred, strife, hunger etc. He created man without sin. Man F'd this up. Enter Jesus (a actual historical figure that cannot be argued seeing how there were hundreds, or it may be thousands of eye witnesses). Scholars with any sense do not deny Jesus existed. He is a historical figure like any other. The only argument is if he is the true son of God, which to these eyes, it has surely been proven. I hope this helps.
Ronin So are you a creationist or something? As in, God made Adam and Eve from dirt? There are plenty of Christians who make more rational compromises between science and religion. Like guided evolution. BTW is it man's fault for draughts, plagues, or pests eating crops?
'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful'. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE
There are exceptions to all of Seneca's categories. Einstein was dubious of Judiasm (a religion), BUT was enthralled by Jesus:
*ALBERT EINSTEIN Interviewed by George Sylvester Viereck, 1929*
*GV* _To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?_
*AE* _As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene._
*GV* _Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?_
*AE* _Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot._
*GV* _You accept the historical existence of Jesus?_
*AE* _Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus._
*GV* _Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets._
*AE* _No man can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he._
35 years after that interview, Einstein wrote in a letter: "The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. [...] For me the Jewish religion *like all other religions* is an incarnation of the most childish superstition." He might have found the sayings were beautiful and the legends venerable, et alors?@@alanclarke7
And I'll have to take his word for it, because? I do not give a fuck who that man was, religion has and always been a fact, you can deny the existence of God all you want, but once death creeps in , you will find yourself clinging to idea of the existence of a higher being that can deliver you from the existential terror.
@@khalil8043So it is based on emotions?
so you just confirmed that religion is based on feelings. Lmaoo facts dont care about your feelings bozo@@khalil8043
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Mahatma Gandhi
Science and technology seems to work against humanity. The evidence is clear. The farther man drifts from understanding how frail we are the more diseases we have. How many mothers have to suffer from our ignorance. Science is not such a good thing in the hands of politicians.
+Antony Caporicci Traditionally, the guns and war come from the Catholic Church which promoted a paganism version of what Christ taught and brought in all sorts of mumbo jumbo from pagan religious dogma and stupid looking robes, funny hats, and royalty of priesthood and garbage like that. It is all about keeping the royalty rich and nothing more. Controlling the masses.
There is no "hell" in the original ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew languages in the scriptures.
There is a fire pit where dead bodies go after death. There is only mention of death as the reward for transgressions and return to everlasting life for righteousness.
But for the Romans that was not enough to control the masses. They needed to add even more fearful control so they came up with "eternal suffering in fiery hell and only the Church can save you". I can just see the priests going; "That dogma otta get them under control and pay their 10% and taxes. Don't you think; Constantine? "
"It is far easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled" Mark Twain
Using Christ, as a political tool is pretty disgusting and Christ did teach about this and warned about it; that it would happen.
A true christian and congregation does this:
(Not necessarily in any order but simultaneously):
1/ No paid preachers of truth. Sustenance and covering is enough.
2/ Never go to start war or enter another country with an army.
3/ No sex outside of marriage. Stay married for life and keep the family structure for the sake of health and life: for the sake of the children.
4/ Don't spread diseases.
5/ Do not change the wording in the Bible to fit a dogma. Follows the Bible as best as they can.
6/ No monetary pagan based holidays simply for economic (greed) reasons. Religion that feeds the economic systems are not about Truth. Truth has no economic basis.
7/ Always give willingly to help the weak and sick that cannot fend for themselves, but never promotes laziness and living on the dole.
8/ Willing to defend against attacks but never go "rape pillage and murder" for profits. This is what Gandhi was talking about, ie, England's rape pillage and murders in India. (Now England is trying to blame religion for this and promotes the new “Christ” Darwin and pseudo science.)
9/ Never promotes nationalism, racism, boundaries, but only promotes harmony among people. The Truth in reality promotes unity and harmony. Lies and deception, like evolutionism and creationism (the earth is 6000 years old and stupid nonsense) (false sciences) cause division as we can see.
10/ Works on themselves to improve and be better fit examples of Christ's teaching.
11/ Never condemns others. Never forces dogma on others. Offers direction to others Allows others to learn as they ask for direction.
12/ Lives as healthy as possible.
13/ Pays taxes and “gives to Caesar what belongs to Caesar”.
14/ Husbands are responsible and take lead role in protecting the family and children.
15/ Mothers are clean and nurturing, teaching health and kindness to children.
16/ Honest and fair in all business dealings.
17/ Promotes “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, (sound familiar?). Funny but this is the basis for all forms of absolute morality: Good is that which promotes True Knowledge, Health, Life and Joy for Living.
Evil: Actions promoting, ignorance, division, fear, spreading diseases, and shorter lives with earlier deaths. Pretty much what we have with all the governments so far.
18/ No adoration (worship) of any other man. No priest class, no class division at all. No honoring of people and status like the modern professors are to be worshiped as the new high priests of garbage (state owned religious crap like Evolution) or any crap like they deserve anything special.
19/ Uses Christ's perfect example of how to be.
20/ Follows the 10 commandments.
And More. That is just off the top of my head. Consider that I am a yogi, a seeker of truth and I belong to no religion.
@@antoncourtois Guns are a great means of self-defense; nothing opposed to Jesus' character by possessing one or two or 10.
Sadly this is true for a lot of people.
@@GoodScienceForYou Dude I mean, you don't enjoy your life enough if you agree with the 3rd point
I remember when I was really little, maybe about 10, I was talking to my mom about dinosaurs and stuff... Do you know what she told me? "God put the bones there for people to dig up". Even though I was young and this came from my own mother, I just couldn't believe it.
^wow!
the bible does mention dinosaurs in it the word dinosaur however is a fairly recent term Job 40:15-24 Job 41:1-34 the first verse describes a Brachiosaurus and the second a Elasmosaurus type of large water-dwelling dinosaur and dont give me the whole bible is a parable thing its pretty clear when it's a parable and when its to be taken literally
john doe I think you're taking too much coke.
Alexander Est considering the word is confirmed to be over 4000 years old i dont see what your talking about prove to me otherwise that i am wrong
john doe Really, bro?
“If we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition - even when it seems to be doing a little good - we abet a general climate in which scepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995)
Get a life, fellow homo sapiens, stop whining on my posts.
@@ergonomover Get Jesus b4 you wish you could whine in hell
Eternal punishment is a sick idea, my condolences for your illness and loss of humanity. I love my fellow humans, I never talk about shooting them in the eye, maybe you're going to hell and not me.
@@ergonomover I thought you vanished off of youtube. What I said I said it a long time ago, what's his name got me ticked off and we all make mistakes. Not that I would repeat them
Poor Carl. …Carl Sagan was bugged by the many atheists who thought they thought like him.
Carl Sagan changed his mind, hon. He was not, after all, an “atheist”, as he put it…ultimately, he was humbly merely an “agnostic”, saying, “I won’t know what’s on the other side till I get there, will I.” That is admitting to possibility, and that says everything.
Admitting to possibility is scientific. That’s what labwork is all about.
Atheists aren’t atheists because they possess evidence that certain phenomenon “don’t” exist…they have no way of proving what doesn’t exist because they haven’t traveled the entire universe and gained all knowledge in it in order to be able to prove what is “not” so.
No one bearing proof that God exists owes any doubter their own evidence on a silver platter, just as they will not exercise for them, eat for them, lose weight for them, study for them or sleep for them.
You cannot give others documentation for this evidence because it is privileged territory.
You follow the protocol yourself or you don’t get it.
If you attempt to alter the protocol to your own comforts, you nullify it.
Ask me how I know this..but don’t expect an answer.
It’s not this warned-about state of hell that’s most painful just because it’s hell. Hell is a state of loss. A state where anticipation has ceased. Hell is lowest of all moods. Some suffer that sorrow right here, right now, so underestimating it’s consequential suffering is not reasonable. It’s location would not be a subject one would fret about, their feelings would be a far greater, overwhelming sense of living burial. I can describe a degree of this pain because I suffered 26+ years from a chemical disruption due to malpractice.
If we’re going to address self-imposed pain, though,
what’s most painful is hindsight,
because it’s late.
“Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.” - Ashley Montagu
👏
1) What’s an example of scientific “proof without any certainty” that damages creationists?
2) Re: “Creationists have certainty without any proof.”
That mischaracterizes what I believe. I don’t have “certainty” but strong belief based on logic, material evidence, & 70 years experience.
Every single morning, as I go to work, I get run over by the same bicycle.
It's a vicious cycle.
🤣
WHEEL we hear another one soon?
That makes me thirsty for a stiff drink but I cannot HANDLEBARS.
*Q. What do you get if you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness?*
*A. Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.*
@L Ron Cupboard Give it a brake. :-D
Oh I wouldnt worry... I was raised by parents that had no idea but sent me off to church, and I learned all of the creation stories and believed it. Then I became an adult, and a free thinker, and now I know better.
Minds Eye Visual Guitar Methods that comment was 5 years ago.. but that’s the temptation of the devil to get farther away from god
Tommy Le No
@@tommyle3754 the only devil in this world is you ignorance
@@tommyle3754fairy tales come to an end eventually
@@Legend-mg2ry as dose your life, what do you belive is at the end of life?
Long before Jesus supposedly lived, a general and philosophers promoted the 'golden rule' - good advice from a biological standpoint that requires no god(s) :
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." → Pittacus, (military general) Greece (640-568 BCE), Fragment 10.3.
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." → Thales, Asia Minor (624-546 BCE).
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." → Confucius, China (5th century BCE), Analects XV.24, also at V.12 and VI.30.
No need for superstitious belief in supernatural deities such as Jesus in order to have a decent moral code.
Liam: Like all humans, I am a social animal, meaning is what each of us makes of it. Do you really believe you would revert into a wild aggressive animal without your faith? Sounds like brainwashing, sorry. Perhaps repressing homicidal tendencies? (sarcasm) Careful, if that is your meaning, what you'd like to do, society has laws, I will prosecute if you kill me in my sleep. You might have an innate moral compass that'll make you feel bad about it too. I say "might" because religion can skew it.
You fail to see the difference in what Jesus said. He said DO unto your neighbor as you would have him DO unto you.
It is a call for action, not just the avoidance of doing wrong.
Find your neighbor stuck in a ditch and with the first one you can pass on by without getting involved. What Jesus said requires you to help him out of the ditch.
With the first you did not cause him to go into the ditch so you are not required to help him out. With what Jesus said, you would want him to help you if the situation were reversed and you were in the ditch, so you must help him.
Bungalo Bill "do not to your neighbour what you would take Ill from him" leaving him there is what you would talk ill from your neighbour if he would let you there so no need for Jesus there.
Wrong. Your noninvolvement is not doing ill to your neighbor. It is neutral. You were not involved with him going into the ditch, so you do not have to be involved with getting him out.
Clueless creatard cliche number 56: Micro evolution is proven but macro evolution isn’t.
Reality: First of all, this is cherry-picking. It’s like saying that “2+2=4 but 2 million + 2 million doesn’t = 4 million.” Secondly, macro evolution is speciation, which has been observable in American Goatsbeard flowers since the 1950s.
_“If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God.”_ - Richard Dawkins
@God Rules No he is the problem
@God Rules No because he isn't real
@God Rules Yes because it serves a purpose, what purpose is there to make a universe?
@God Rules so basically god is a narcist that wants worship? thanks for the heads up man
Needs point to imperfection, why this need to create the universe after an eternity in absolute emptiness? In order to be worshipped? How vain and weak!
I have lost track of the number of times Mr Aminu has been set straight on his absurd claim about SOMETHING arising from NOTHING.
Atheists not only don't make that assertion. They have no interest in it. To be an atheist is to reject belief in the absence of evidence, not to make bold assertions about things for which no evidence exists. 'We don't know' is a perfectly rational statement.
And once again, the God of gaps argument that a creator is needed to account for the existence of the universe is irrelevant because there is no basis - repeat, no basis - for connecting that hypothetical creator with any contemporary theology or any of the mutually incompatible gods in which people actually believe.
We must conclude that Aminu is a) incapable of rational thought, b) irretrievably deluded, c) clinically insane, or perhaps a combination of all three.
who created god?
I have nothing against people finding comfort in their religious beliefs. That, however, does not include comment-bombers with nothing to say, who have something against higher learning, against people who defend science and technology, and who want themselves and the world to be smarter. Coming to a video whose message they disagree with to post oodles of little word games and to vaguely jab at the quest for intelligence and good ideas, is not a good idea.
Dude, this video is literally just Bill Nye being equally petty.
What he is saying here adds nothing of value to the scientific community or body of human knowledge. It's just a video of a self-righteous science celebrity trying to cling to relevance by appealing to scientific-athiests' sense of superiority. If Nye actually gave a crap about convincing Christians to abandon their beliefs, he'd have taken a completely different tone.
And, I do in fact believe in evolution, and I am a Christian who knows just how important science is. The way Nye presents his opinion at the end is just not very tactful at all. Again, the point of the video isn't to teach, correct misunderstandings, or address concerns someone who denies evolution might have. It's just a blanket accusation that American Christians are holding science back, and that they have no right to teach their own children about their beliefs.
@@travelsizedlions A blanket accusation that never mentions Christians, Christianity, God or even religion? According to polls and surveys, most American Christians do not deny evolution, they hold that God used it to create species.
It is not petty to defend settled and useful science, as you seem to admit.
Nye's plea is well motivated (he wasn't the first) and Nye didn't say believers have no right to teach their beliefs. He said "don't make your kids do it", as in deny evolution. It is possible to teach Christianity without denial of evolution, why shouldn't Nye plead for that?
Q: What do you call a christian who obeys the 9th commandment?
A: An evolutionist.
Q: What do you call a creatard who works in a science lab?
A: The janitor.
What do you call someone who believes in evolution, and doesn't know where the word Semite comes from?
Thick.
What do you call someone who doesn't know where Egypt gets its name?
Thick.
What do you call someone who rejects Christ, the being that made the Roman Empire accept His teachings, and set up the Roman Catholic Church, which exists today?
HappySecular.
Good luck with your choice.
@@marcj3682You make me sick. I'm ashamed to be Christian because of people like you. Spreading this negative image of an IDIOT. Fuck you.
@@marcj3682
The Roman Empire became Christian in the 4th century...so long after Jesus was around...
ROFLMAO! "Everyone on Earth is wrong, life never emerged from what it's comprised of." ~ Miss Agnus Futile Peroxide.
Denying science with arguments from incredulity is completely immaterial, a lost cause and an exercise in futility.
You have a group of zombies that really like you, they must like your corps aroma Bell.. You say the worst mamadas and you still and will get liked
Aren’t humans made out of dirt, as described in Genesis?
Evolution is not “science”. I believe in the scientific method. That’s why I reject evolution.
@@maskofscience More lies or are you really this uneducated?
Why Ken Ham is wrong. This is a long post. The first three points are the most important.
1) The Earth has a protracted history recorded in crustal rocks. The sheer number of events that have to be accommodated in 6,000 years is absurd. Implied rates for many phenomena are 4 to 11 orders of magnitude more rapid than those of today. Yet nothing in the rocks displays even a hint of such a change. It isn’t necessary to know or assume anything about evolution or radioactive decay constants to reach this conclusion. If the rocks were created that way, we must assume that God set out to deceive us.
2) Ham has no explanation for a highly resolved fossil record in which every fossil appears and disappears in exactly the same order at a global scale. That record is incompatible with the Genesis account in which plants were created before fish and birds, and birds before land animals. It is not the case that every ‘kind’ of organism existed before the asserted global flood. ‘Pre-flood’ strata (Precambrian) are generally unfossiliferous. ‘Flood’ deposits (primarily Paleozoic to Mesozoic) are dominated by marine organisms. There are virtually no representatives of the ‘kinds’ of terrestrial plants and animals that were supposedly wiped out by the ‘flood’, and the preservation of which Noah’s ark was intended to guarantee. No human bone has ever been found in ‘flood’ strata. Indeed, there are no human bones in most of the ‘post-flood’ strata either. Ham has no explanation for observed biogeographic variations, many of them incompatible with the contemporary distribution of continents and oceans.
3) There is no evidence for a global flood. We don’t need to assume that sedimentary processes were the same in the past as they are today. It is a matter of observation. Fine details of modern and ancient deposits are the same. Asserted ‘flood’ deposits have numerous attributes incompatible with marine sedimentation (from wind ripples to river channels, soils and desiccation features, to glacial pavements and landforms, to the tracks of terrestrial vertebrates and plants in growth position). There is no clear-cut global boundary between ‘pre-flood’ and ‘flood’ deposits. The geometry of layered sedimentary rocks and their highly varied character within many successions is incompatible with continuous sedimentation. The style of tectonic folding and faulting in many ‘flood’ deposits, and the relationship between those structures and younger ‘flood’ deposits indicate that over wide areas it would have been necessary to convert unconsolidated sediment into hard rock in a span of no more than a few months. No explanation is provided in the flood hypothesis for very considerable variations in stratigraphic thickness or for the source of the sediment once the continents had been inundated. No plausible source exists for the water (two to three times the present volume of the oceans). No plausible explanation exists for where the water went after the flood.
4) No plausible explanation is provided for how or why the rheology of the Earth could have changed so radically during a year-long flood to permit catastrophic plate tectonics (rates of displacement 8-9 orders of magnitude more rapid than today). No explanation is provided for why that event began during the waning stages of the ‘flood’ and continued well into the ‘post-flood’ interval (with rates of displacement at least 3-4 orders of magnitude more rapid than today). Nothing in human history over the past 4,500 years relates to the massive earthquakes and tsunamis that ought regularly to have disrupted civilization, but didn’t.
5) No explanation is provided for how, when or why an Earth operating under catastrophic rules transitioned into an Earth characterized by phenomena at contemporary rates: everything from reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field, to rates of radioactive decay, to the pace of evolution within asserted ‘kinds’, to processes of sedimentation and crustal deformation, to the development of continental ice sheets, to regular seasonal cycles (versus the many summer-winter alternations implied by the ice core and tree ring record on an annual basis).
6) No plausible explanation is offered for how it is possible to observe most of the stars in our own galaxy, let alone the 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, so great are the distances involved. There is no basis for supposing that the speed of light changed.
In short, Ham’s position is based upon ad hoc assertion unsupported by even a shred of evidence, with clear evidence contradicting many of his claims. This is explicitly not a matter of different assumptions or worldviews, or different explanations for the same data. Nor is there any valid distinction between observational science and historical science. Our presence or absence is irrelevant. Ham’s assumptions are themselves contradicted by data, and he ignores much of the evidence that requires explanation. Young Earth Creationism is incompatible with science on the facts and with respect to philosophy. As Ham admitted when pressed, there is no circumstance in which he would change his mind. His associates at AiG declined a recent offer from me to examine and discuss the critical evidence in the field.
Three explanations exist for scientists who go along with YEC: a) They partition their lives. Evidence matters above all else, except when it doesn’t. b) Their field of research is distant from disciplines relevant to the Earth or human origins. Most of the individuals mentioned by Ham in his presentation fall into one or both of these categories. c) They completed PhDs without ever grasping the essence of science. Ham’s colleagues at AiG are examples.
Bahaha. There is no evidence of a global flood.
Get real.
@@aprilbeeson5331 Correct. The argument is stronger. The global flood narrative is contradicted by entire disciplines of science.
Creationism (as evolution denialism) is the result of:
1. The assumption that creationism is correct and anything that disagrees with it can't possibly be right,
2. The observation that evolution is inconsistent with their personal interpretation of their holy book (and all other interpretations are wrong and potentially dishonest),
3. The assumption that they have wisdom (and knowledge) from The Book on any subject, theological, scientific, or otherwise, in any topic on which the Holy Reference Manual makes any statement they deem to be literal,
4. The conclusion that the vast, VAST majority of scientists are either lying or incompetent or both.
5. They further conclude that they themselves are humble and that all those pointy-head scientists are arrogant.
Well technically creationists don't admit they're right 100% of the time - they only know a few basic things. Who said anything someone says in the name of the Bible is true? Creationists still discuss particular topics and come up with tentative theories that perhaps might not be true. Secondly, is there something wrong with a lot of scientists being wrong? Consider all the wrong theories scientists have come up with in the past and all the "evidence" they collected to support it. And all those scientists aren't arrogant, they're just misinformed, so it's not like creationists are trying to make themselves look right. Go believe what you want to. It's just a matter of what you want to put your faith in. (Your first 2 points are correct though.)
Samuel Lam
Creationists start out assuming that the Bible cannot be wrong. If it seems wrong, then we misunderstand it or the data are wrong, etc.
I refer to you the ICR loyalty oath, refer to as their "tenets of faith:"
www.icr.org/tenets/
That scientists are often mistaken doesn't justify rejecting whatever science you don't like simply because it disagrees with your prejudices. (The fact that you call it "faith" does not mean it's not a "prejudice.")
Scientists are "misinformed" because their conclusions don't agree with the conclusion you started with before you knew anything about the science? That is, the science is wrong, because it disagrees with the Bible. THAT is the problem, not just for the lay creationists such as yourself, but for the creationist "scientists." Regardless of what degrees anyone has, real science doesn't start out with conclusions and then work backwards to decide what science is acceptable.
Fallible Fiend I was talking about assuming that your personal interpretation of the Bible is always right is wrong, we don't have a "right" and "perfect" interpretation of the Bible. Some might believe they do, but who are you to claim that you're right 100% in interpreting some text? Unless you're the guy who thought up the text, and that happens to be God.
Samuel Lam
There are LOTS of "evolutionists" who consider themselves Christians. I don't think my interpretation of the Bible is 100% correct (in fact, I've read it and I don't even understand some of it and I'm sure I misunderstand some of it) and I don't think those particular Christians who accept evolution (for the most part) believe their interpretation is 100% correct.
But for the guys who are convinced that evolution, i.e. the actual science, is wrong because it disagrees with their interpretation the Bible - well, they seem pretty sure of that interpretation. The Christians who have no trouble with evolution, well, I don't follow their reasoning, but I get that they accept that some things may not be as they appear in the scriptures. But those other guys (the creationists), they don't seem any less than 100% sure that their interpretation of the literal creation account in the Bible is correct.
@@TheFallibleFiend the Bible cannot be wrong. yes!
I’ll be honest, I prefer Thor to the other fictional gods. At least he has a cool hammer.
🤣
@@uneducatedchristain2963 Hey mate, come check out the video called “Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism”. Lots of crazy fundies there! 😅🤪🤣
@@toostupidforsciencetryreli2987 Is this your entire life dude?
In Stargate SG1 he's an alien
Most polytheisms have awesome stories and characters. Hindu mythology, Norse mythology, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology. Norse and Greek are my favourites
The fun thing about science is that it is true wether or not you believe in it.
+Tracomaster *"The fun thing about science is that it is true wether or not you believe in it."*
In science, what was true yesterday isn't always true today, and what is true today won't always be true tomorrow.
*"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." - Richard Feynman*
Alan Clarke It sure is better evidence than a book from a couple of hundred years ago or so with stories from longer ago.
Alan Clarke and on top of that, it is true...the interpretation changes as new evidence comes in.
***** someone with a brain
+Alan Clarke can't we say the same thing about the bible? I mean no one knows who wrote it after all. When it comes down to it who is to say the person was an expert for our fallen christ? (yes our fallen i'm catholic and i do believe and have faith in my religion just i prefer evidence rather than just being told to believe)
TODAYS CREATIONIST MOMENT.
REMEMBER THAT TIME THEY FIRED ALL THE DOCTORS
AND REPLACED THEM WITH FAITH HEALERS......
YA NEITHER DO I.
Today's atheist moment: We can't back up our own dumb and ridiculous beliefs so we'll just keep making ignorant twists and attacks on the Bible. The book that survived impossible odds for thousands of years and is still the best selling, most well preserved literature in all of human history.
@@williamholshoy8883 DID YOU DRINK THAT DRANO YET?
DON'T BE SCARED.
HOW COULD FAIRYTALES BE WRONG?
@@mike62mcmanus DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE THAT TYRE STILL STANDS
EVEN THOUGH GOD SAID IT WOULD BE DESTROYED AND NEVER REBUILT.
@@mike62mcmanus DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE IN MARK WHEN IT SAID THAT IT WAS THE LAST DAYS 2,000 YEARS AGO..... NEVER RIGHT.
@@mike62mcmanus MAYBE YOU SHOULD GOOGLE "SELF FULFILLING PROPHECIES"
WATCH.... I WILL EAT STEAK TONIGHT....
LOOK AT THAT I'M A PROFIT.
My heart skipped a beat when he said ".. in another couple of centuries I'm sure that world view (of creationism) just won't exist". Why, you ask? Because I discovered last week that the number of self-identified Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc have been declining year over year for the past 12-15 years, and that the only group whose numbers were rising are Agnostics/Atheists/Non-believers. _Christians and Muslims were still 1st and 2nd respectively in world populace, but get this folks! Self-identified Agnostics/Atheists/Non-believers had risen dramatically from being ~10th to being 3rd! It therefore appears that Atheists/Agnostics/Non-believers will soon outnumber Muslims and Christians - WooHooo!!!~ The end of god-fearing people, and wars in the name of god(s), and fortunes in church coffers while people starved, and the Clergy abusing their followers and the faithful, etc. OH HAPPY DAY!~
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! *_You're JUST DECEIVING YOURSELF, aren't you?_* Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Jim: I agree that the trend is favorable, if painfully slow. Organized religions have proven very effective at indoctrination. So generation after generation, the pattern repeats. Also, while the internet has vastly increased global interconnectivity, the religion industry has harnessed the same tool to spread ignorance and misinformation. Creation Moment is an example on this comment page. Based on the experience in Europe, I expect a tipping point to be reached in the United States at which a small change in the acceptance of beliefs leads to a large change in the sway of religion over our daily lives. The way forward is also through education and persuasion, and not by banning Muslims or any other group.
Sorry to disappoint you all, but those are the numbers reported by numerous reliable sources. Apparently people who were previously afraid to identify as Atheist/Agnostic/Non-believers are coming out of the proverbial closet. Sorry you didn't get the memo....
As John Lennon wrote/sang, "Imagine no religion, It's easy if you try. No Hell below us, above us only sky!" So why on earth do you sound so surprised? This isn't something new. Oh, wait, you weren't paying attention, were you?? ROFL!!~
+Fuzoo, The lamest response of all; When you can't defeat the truth, try to defeat it's messenger. You're a kid, right?
I have a new coworker from South Carolina, here in California. She told me her parents were creationists. I didn't realize how extreme the beliefs were. I had a client and we were talking about space, she started to laugh. I feel bad for her because I don't think she has done her own research or gone beyond her parents understanding.
Yes. A very sad state of affairs indeed.
We had a religious person here who denied space not too long ago. All those big rocket launches, satellites, the space station, the space telescopes, the moon landings - all lies! It is rather mind-boggling.
Its very sad and AGGRAVATING! My child got DUPED into believing creationism at about 14-15yo... it drove a wedge between us and was the result of many an argument as I TRIED to unbrainwash my own child from another familys beliefs.. that were so delusional and foreign to me, (a product of a cross between extreme Christianity and Evangelicism type beliefs, that I broke away from at about the same age..15-16yo) I was flabbergasted. That ANYONE, could not only believe it without question or doing their own research, (as I did as a teenager when realizing what I was taught my whole life up to that point, didnt make complete sense!) But happily argued actual nonsense that made 0 sense and buried their heads in the sand to sanity, logic, and reason.
My child stopped believing a word I said and exhibited such vanity, arrogance, and straight disrespect towards me due to these beliefs.. like I was a savage from a foreign land that had no true understanding or knowledgeable about life or the world, and what I imagine the Europeans treated Native Americans like during the Settling years.. very degrading. I'd never been so disappointed in my child before, in her life! Up to that point, I'd been so proud of how smart, responsible, and educated she was. She was, and still is, a very smart, giving, and loving person. And THANKFULLY disabused of this FALSE notion of Creationism and that this world is only roughly 6,000 y.o.! WoW!
Her dad and I honestly thought it was getting time to keep her away from that family and the church they went to, AND specifically take her to a psychiatrist or psychologist that specialized in unbrainwashing people that ended up in cults! That is how worried we were!!
@@emeraldrayv3n Happy for you that your daughter was finally disabused of Young Earth Creationism. My nephew was the same, I vaguely wondered why his mom never talked about her religion. Turns out many Southern Baptists are indoctrinated to shun family members who are not fundamentalists. 20-30 years, I was shunned, those extreme beliefs became a wedge.
I was visiting from abroad one day, nephew asked me if I believed we came from monkeys, it blew me away. Deep down I felt it was a form of child abuse. I decided to learn the ropes and do my best to change his mind over the following years. His parents thought he'd make a good gym teacher, now he is climbing the ladder at Amazon as a machine learning expert. Godless for better or worse. I'm not really against faith, just against fundamentalism.
@@emeraldrayv3n Won't you be surprised one day how terribly wrong you were.
"But now chemists in the United Kingdom report new evidence that precursors for all three sets of biomolecules-nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids-can be generated by a pair of simple compounds that would have been present on early Earth. As such, the work offers a possible way out of the paradoxes of the origin of life on Earth."
*ORIGIN OF LIFE PUZZLE CRACKED* Science, March 2015
Why miss? Why do you think an argument from increduity painted in enough scientific terms is a reasonable argument? MAKE AN ARGUMENT. FINALLY.
*Because* that is what living systems require, silly Stuart! Are you a ‘miss,’ Stuart?
You're not making any sense, miss Wolf. Try to address the topic.
+jebstuart: If the "origin of life puzzle has been cracked," then it should be *NO PROBLEM* for you to demonstrate that the nucleic acids *all feature D-ribose* to the complete exclusion of *SEVEN* other aldopentose isomers, and that the amino acids *all feature L-isomers.* You will then show the unguided, prebiotic synthesis of DNA and catalytic proteins, featuring >95% reaction efficiency and the efficient removal of *unwanted reaction intermediates* by unguided, natural chemistry.
Guess what, Stuart? *YOU CAN'T* .... *EVER* ...
"But now chemists in the United Kingdom report new evidence that precursors for all three sets of biomolecules-nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids-can be generated by a pair of simple compounds that would have been present on early Earth. As such, the work offers a possible way out of the paradoxes of the origin of life on Earth."
*ORIGIN OF LIFE PUZZLE CRACKED* Science, March 2015
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
I'm learning first-hand that if God wants you to believe, you will. No amount of debate or arguing will convince either way. A disciple of Jesus Christ should defend his faith, not for those who refuse to believe, but for those who are weak or are honestly searching for the path to life.
the best way to search the path of life is through biology and science. there is nothing in the bible that will solve any of the universes mysteries. reading the bible is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. it only takes your attention away from the things that are actually here and demand our attention. like micro organisms for example
Have you considered the possibility that the development of critical thinking skills might be more useful than indoctrination? What happens when the received wisdom that you choose to impart is contradicted by new information?
8bitsorcerer By saying, "path to life," I mean eternal life, which is only found in Jesus Christ. I would say that science could more accurately be called a "path through life." It's useful for solving certain temporal issues, but i doesn't save anyone from perdition.
As for the "universe's mysteries," understand that the Bible was meant to reveal God, not his creation. The Bible won't reveal to you the laws of nature that we take for granted today: it was never intended to do so. It is written from an observer's viewpoint, to the observer, for the purpose of understanding.
The Bible, contrary to being analogous of an Ostrich sticking its head in the sand, is actually quite revealing. It reveals the thoughts, feelings, and motivations of the hearts and minds of human beings. The things that are here, and do demand our attention, are things like the destructive and malicious tendencies of human beings through sin.
Explain your thinking on micro organisms.
Nicholas Christie-Blick The development of critical thinking skills is only useful for solving temporal problems. The Bible presents solutions to both temporal and eternal problems.
The Bible is falsifiable. Perhaps someone has already told you: you must...
a) Prove that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead
b) Prove that Jesus Christ is genetically related to his stepfather, Joseph.
Creation vs Evolution is not the way to prove/disprove the bible.
Z Marr
"The Bible presents solutions to both temporal and eternal problems."
Well that is the claim. Is it true?
With regard to the falsification of the Bible, you present a straw man. A better test is whether what Christ is supposed to have claimed is true. We now know that it isn't. So if Christ existed - which is not established beyond reasonable doubt - we may suppose that he was a charlatan, deluded in the way that contemporary preachers are deluded, and/or misrepresented by those who followed. To the extent that much of what is believed by a great many is contradicted by empirical science, and it is, I fail to see the value of such beliefs.
Some people say, "Oh, we should teach BOTH 'theories' and let the kids decide!" However, teaching false facts, poor reasoning and incompetent science does not induce children to think critically.
People saying that we should teach both theories, are to be ignored and excluded from making the decision. Why? Because anyone with basic knowledge of science knows that there can only be one theory. If they would say one theory and one hypothesis, I'd listen to them. Both theories... nope. I expect people to know these things if they want to make an important decision for children.
Gwen Walravens I just explained that the people who say that both are theories don't know what a scientific theory is. People who do not understand science should not be defining science teaching policy - or misinform children about science.
Binguh Bungah Your science illiteracy does not refute the actual science of evolution.
Fallible Fiend
"wah-wa-wa-wa illiteracy wa-wah-wah-wa science wahwah.."
that is not the sound of refute- its the sound of a sterile mind being bleached..
ya just keep trying to kick that football, eh, charles brown..
*****
what part of "nobodys" have told me dont you get, whoever you are..
and get yourself a feminine napkin if your in PMs and quit raggin on me.
Christians come here every day to cry about how badly they failed Biology class 😂🤣
😂🤣😂🤣 All evolutionists act the same way...
No science. All insults. Like insults scream intelligence 😂😂
Keep going 👍🏿
@@WesD92422 And yet we have over 99% of the global scientific community in agreement. Who’s having the last laugh…
@@toostupidforsciencetryreli2987 Great argument...
Lots of people believe in it so I do too 😂🤣😂🤣
When people thought slavery was alright, would you have been backing the consensus too? 👀
Moron 😁
@@WesD92422 DID YOU FIND MAGIC?
WE CAN'T WAIT TO SEE IT.
@@uneducatedchristain2963 un. Anti-christ magic belongs to the occultist.
If you argue for a *_supernatural_* origin of life on earth, you are making an argument from incredulity in the clear absence of any proof of your position: "Even though there's no evidence for it, I don't personally accept how the first cell could have formed except from a _guiding intelligence, like Jehovah for example, yet since life is obviously here on earth, and I can imagine how it could have happened, _*__creationism must therefore be true_*
God of the gaps, eh?
If we're made in the images of gods, then why aren't we invisible and inaudible?
+Gary Bell *"If we're made in the images of gods, then why aren't we invisible and inaudible?*"
God made us in his image, not in the "images of gods" which could be anything from a monkey to a cow to an elephant. When God came to earth, he came as a visible and audible man, not as an animal or something invisible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> *"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son" - Romans **8:29*
Alan Clarke Oh really, so jesus claimed he was god Al?
+Gary Bell *so jesus claimed he was god Al?* >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll let you decide: >>> John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. >>>>>>> John 14:7-9 - If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Alan Clarke As the tale goes it was half human/half alien which isn't your god but it's illegitimate child that was born under a magic star that could light up an individual barn.
Zaki Aminu So you're corrupt and sinful Cletus, yes... yes quite right, religion turned you into a manically cackling monster and you didn't need any gods to tell you that.
One more time: the theory of evolution doesn't depend upon the Ediacaran-Cambrian transition, and the Ediacaran-Cambrian transition doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. Endless misrepresentation of and quote-mining from the paleontological literature on this interval of time doesn't constitute an argument. It's a red herring. A diversion.
*IS HUMAN EXISTENCE AN ACCIDENT?*
If so, then we'd be like frightened little children, frantically running around inventing countless false religions to explain why we're here, and be at a loss to explain an apparently infinite universe ....HEY! wait a minute - that's *exactly* what we do ...
Owen Atkins You've hurt my feelings now, miss. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Owen Atkins
How will you get out of your chair? You're quite large for a little girl. Maybe mommy could help you?
matchlockfun "false religion" is just redundance.
matchlockfun "false religion" is just redundance.
juan reyes
I hear you.
lol a creationist posted "Biologists have absolutely no idea why molecules are left-handed" Really? In a few clicks, I found this: "Here we show, by computer simulation-with a model based on the RNA world scenario, that the biased-chirality may have been established at polymer level instead, just deriving from a racemic mixture of monomers" The origin of biological homochirality along with the origin of life
Yong Chen 1, Wentao Ma 1
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007592
Oops, back to the drawing board for creationists, time to move goal-posts again, look for a new gap of scientific understanding to hide their god in. This one is -absolutely- slowly but surely closing.
Funny, the creationmuseum rebuttal video won't allow comments or ratings. I thought they weren't afraid of evolution?
Everyone knows the internet was invented by satan (al gore) as a way for his minions (people with educations) to spread his LIES (empirical truths).
Was just going to point out the same thing about how this one is open to comments and ratings and the other one isn't. Doesn't that just perfectly sum up the two different viewpoints =)
Adam Wright Oh I never looked at it like that. Absolutely represents their viewpoints.
I like your choice of pic. Did you know that Wernher von Braun was a creationist?
Robert Sparks Thanks, I took it. And I didn't know that, but I suppose it is a fairly common point of view. I don't suppose he was raised in a household that taught evolution.
Evidence of evolution:
Biogeography;
Genetics;
Paleontology;
Anatomy compare;
Embriology.
👍👏
Including genetics
Artificial selection too
@@trashtuber6021 Yeah
Natural selection as well
Reading the comments on this makes me want to simultaneously vomit and cry hysterically. Denying evolution is so fucking ridiculous, and the problem is that most who deny it do not properly understand it.
The intellectual laziness of creationists does not refute the actual science of evolution.
reality refutes the science of evolution
greg watchman your intellectual laziness and science illiteracy renders your 'considered opinion' irrelevant in any intelligent conversation on the subject.
I'm not hating anyone. I'm stating clearly that the creationists don't know what they're talking about with regards to the science and misrepresent science in every conceivable way.
No science is absolute and infallible - and no science is required to be absolute.
Whether god exists is irrelevant to science, because it is orthogonal to it. I don't have a problem with people asserting "God did it." My problem is with people who assert "God did it" is a scientific explanation.
Fallible Fiend
GOD did it doesnt have to be scientific if in fact GOD created the universe, then what you call science is also his creation... but what escapes us is his method of creation other than miraculous
The angry denial of evolution has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with the threat that evolution poses to deeply held faith. The lengths that creationists are prepared to go to preserve their beliefs are almost comical. The misrepresentation, quote mining, red herrings, non sequiturs, outrageous assertions and bald-faced lies, all of it dressed up as a legitimate argument, but boiling down to nothing of the sort. The issue that such folk may wish to address is Why? Why do you insist upon beliefs that don't even make any sense? [No need to respond.]
I'd be glad to respond for my colleagues, some of whom are decidedly passionate and growing in their understanding of a balanced view of science and Christian faith. I respect those who would bond more closely to their church teachings and defend "creationism" as the title proclaims. For some of us who have a smattering of scientific studies under our belts, your generalities and stereotyping are just another angry rant from a desperately confused atheist. I sympathize as one who was in the past angry at Christianity. Strike out at the weakest of our brothers, so you don't have to deal with the more competent discussions. In fact, avoid competent discussions in favor of ranting and attacking, that will keep you safe. Safe from the obvious glory of God all around you. The baby's giggle in on our side. Joy is on our side. Science too, but much less convincing, glorifies God and his presence.
D. Campbell
In defense or perhaps denial of angry denial. “Misrepresentation, quote mining, red herrings, non sequiturs, outrageous assertions and bald-faced lies” (Christie-Blick) are either justifiable discourse or a figment of my imagination - “just another angry rant from a desperately confused atheist” (Campbell). The disconnect from reality is truly remarkable.
D. Campbell An example of a "balanced view of science and Christian faith" posted by one of your "colleagues". Once again, I am striking out at "the weakest of our brothers" so that I don't have to "deal with the more competent discussions." Mr Giuffre's most recent post, in its entirety:
"'and to accept that evidence if you find it compelling.' To accept something is to think that it is true, which one can only do if one believes that it is true, you fucking stupid idiot. No wonder you're an evotard. You have bullshit for brains."
There is not one single example of a frog turning into different creature. Not one single example of a fish evolving predator proof skin. Not one single example anywhere of anything that is evolving. The only thing evolutionist know, is their religious beliefs. Anyone with eyes and a brain can see that evolution is not science, it is a religion.
@@JRS1121960 My best advice, JRS, is to take a few minutes to discover for yourself what the theory of evolution is. None of your statements has anything to do with the actual science. Among facts to consider: The theory of evolution is universally accepted by academic scientists as the correct explanation for the diversity of life. That includes a great many scientists who also claim religious beliefs. [Full disclosure: I am an ivy league professor.]
How creatards “win” debates
1. Dodge all questions
2. Keep repeating their own questions while pretending they can’t be answered
3. Get in the last word
Delete this.
@@isaacthegoat1432Hell no
When that doesn't work, some of them use multiple trolling accounts to flag everything as hate speech in hopes TH-cam will delete everything, and sometimes it works.
I noticed that you asked the same questions above after I already answered them, so I had to answer you a second time.
@@alanclarke7 Nope, you’re lying. You’ve never even acknowledged the evidence I gave you before today. And your “answer” was a cherry-pick with baseless contradiction.
"A godless universe would also only produce life rarely and sparingly, and that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) and by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal to life (constituting stars and black holes on which no life can ever live)." - Richard Carrier
Watch this video.
th-cam.com/video/JQ3hUlU0vR4/w-d-xo.html
@@MARTINELSA1 Thanks for the video, but creationists attacking a strawman of abiogenesis is nothing new on TH-cam.
Ignoring the fact that chemical interactions are not governed by chance alone, our biggest clue that Meyer is misusing probability is that he's deriving his figures from a sample set of 1, for we have no other universes to compares our to where functional proteins formed by chance. And even if we could, that would solve his problem anyway since multiple universes would increase the probability of one like ours existing where functional proteins form by chance. You see, when you use a sample set of 1, then the probability can only ever be 1:1. Meyer is also operating under the assumption that the constants can be altered, which is a completely unfounded assumption. Either he doesn't understand probability, or he does and he's blatantly misrepresenting it. Not convincing at all.
@@EnlightenedByKnowledge your belief in order and life springing forth from a chemical explosion is like imagining someone blowing up the Campbell's alphabet soup factory and the bits and pieces of pasta that used to be alphabet letters drop from the sky to form something intelligible. Its nonsense
@@EnlightenedByKnowledge what blew up and why did it blow up? Where did whatever blew up come from? WHERE did it blow up since nothing and NOPLACE existed then?
@@EnlightenedByKnowledge your beliefs are a religion built on blind faith.
When all of the facts are on the side of evolution, and none in support of creationism, what is a creationist to do? Deny, ignore, misrepresent and lie about what is known. These folk are aware that they are clueless about science, just as a person who is unable to speak Portuguese knows full well that he is unable to speak Portuguese. So when creationists make bold but false assertions about science, they are aware that they are lying. How exactly does that accord with the Ninth Commandment?
Every fact attests creation and slays evolution.
@@godreigns7445 You may wish to become better informed about evolution.
It is no accident that every creationist posting comments to this video is a science illiterate.
Wherever you find someone who rejects evolution, there too you find someone with a cartoon understanding of science and a grasp of evolution that amounts to barbershop gossip.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect ensures that those who are the most profoundly ignorant of science continue to reject evolution based on their cartoon understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
Name calling/accusations doesn't make you right.
We know what it is and we still deny it.
Happy Birthday to Bill Nye, now 68. This video is over 11 years old, creationists are still unhappy, evolution is still settled and useful science.
🥳🎂🍾🥂🖖
i love how ken ham made the comment section disabled for his video...it's like he's shouting in your face "i don't care about your opinion go write it somewhere else"
"Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler hardens, debases, and pollutes even the vilest soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in the universe, no good being can be perfectly happy." - Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll, statesman and orator, 1833-1899
PAPA
REASONING IS FUTILE : *_"I know first hand what it's like to be fully conscious, fully me, and NOT require a brain or a body......oh, and I didn't need to breathe, and I moved independent of gravity, and I could pass through walls."_*
She enjoyed not requiring a brain so much she decided to ditch it permanently.
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE It's true, it does hurt my sides. And I can never unsee it. Thanks maam
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE Oh you THOUGHT you had a genuine out of body experience. Many people think they see fairies, hear demons, and levitate to the moon.
I had heat-stroke twice, and both times I could hear myself talking as I "came to" and I was impressed that I seemed quite cogent, even though I felt it wasn't me in control of my speech.
The difference between rational folk and you, is that at no time did I think the paranormal was involved.
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE You had a vivid dream. Nothing more. Get over yourself.
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE 🤣 *ROTFLMAO* 🤣
In all my years of debating others, I've never once seen even the most hardcore fundie creationist use the phrase "You're wrong, I'm right, and I won't back down." You sure showed me by... being butthurt and triggered over me challenging your cute little just-so story. 🙄 So convincing... 🙄
Still, glad to know that you'll defend your vivid dream built on recollection and a familiar environment - it sure beats pretending that a magical part of yourself exists apart from yourself and can freely float unencumbered through spacetime. Feel better soon, Rip Van Winkle.
@RESISTANCE IS FUTILE In case you haven't noticed, me not believing your incredibly vivid dream story or dignifying your stubbornness isn't code for "you're so close to convincing me. Keep going." No, the only thing you're acquainted with is buying into the hype of the hucksters. "Fumed... futility..." Thanks for the belly laugh, dreamer. 🤣
To all the religious people out here. We, atheist or whatever you want to call it, have nothing against you believing in an "god".Everyone has the right to believe in what they want. What bothers me though is when you try to force other people to believe in your imaginary friend, and i'm sorry if that upset you , but that's how i see your "god".Believe in what you want as long as you it doesn't affect other people that don't share those belief.
If a women wants to have an abortion, well it's her right to do it and you have nothing to say regarding that. If a man wants to drink alcohol and eat pork , it's his right to do so. If two people of the same sex wants to marry, let them do. It's their life and their belief. You think that they'll go to hell ? They don't. Respect that.
I completely agree with what bill Nye says. You can't raise children and orientate their views of the world and of the universe based on a book that was written centuries ago and then translated multiple times.
I have an open mind and i'm ready to accept anything that the bible, or any other religious book, say if i see some real evidence , and by evidence i mean something that is not written in that book.
Thing that i like with science, is that it unites everyone and everything that exist on this planet and on the universe. It doesn't discriminate and make difference between humans, it doesn't tell a human to kill another human just because he believes in something else. That's why i find it so important to raise children with science and not with religion as it seperates humans.
Do you realize that, especially in the first and second paragraphs, you're telling people not to tell other people what to believe/do but you're actually telling people what to believe/do? I think that you don't want people to question your worldview, but you don't mind questioning, even ridiculing other people's views. It looks to be terribly hypocritical to me.
To all the religious people out here. We, atheist or whatever you want to call it, have nothing against you believing in an "god".Everyone has the right to believe in what they want. What bothers me though is when you try to force other people to believe in your imaginary friend, and i'm sorry if that upset you , but that's how i see your "god".Believe in what you want as long as you it doesn't affect other people that don't share those belief.
AGREED!!!
TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE AND DON'T FORCE YOUR god OR EVOLUTIONARY BELIEFS ON OTHERS
1. YOU CANNOT PROVE ORIGINS THEREFORE ITS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE ANSWER THATS WHY THEORIES ALWAYS CHANGE WITH TIME.
EITHER TEACH EVERY PERSPECTIVE ON ORIGINS MUSLIMS CHRISTIANS SCIENTOLOGY AND LET THE KIDS THINK CRITICALLY FOR THEMSELVES OR FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON THEM AND FALL PREY TO YOUR OWN FALLACY!!
***** You make a good point and i understand what you mean. Let me explain you.
I don't mind people questionning my world view. On the contrary i embrace it.
I don't accept in teaching creationism to children because that theory is based on a book that was written centuries ago and translated multiple times whereas as evolution and science is based on what we see around us. And it's this fundamental difference that bothers me with children being taught creationism. We would teach them a world view based on a book and not with what they can see and experience in their daily life.
See i'm ready to accept your god , for me everythig is possible. But i need some evidence, something else that what is written in a book.
See i don't have faith and i will never have it simply because i don't believe in things if i don't have evidence.
What i say might offend people, but i see faith as the cancer of the mind. And by that i mean people that have faith refute every argument you present them , they don't lose their brain and die of course but they lose their critical thinking which is even worst for me. That's another reason why i don't want children to be taught creationism. It doesn't promote critical thinking. For example, Why is the universe expanding ? "Because god wants to show us his might so he expand it" ( Ken ham, )
I don't want my children to be taught that kind of stuff. We should use religion to promote tolerance and respect , which are usually present in every famous religion. But when it comes to explaining what physically surrounds us , science is the way to go.
It's none of your or Nye's business how I raise my children.
I have noted atheists calling teaching creationism to children "child abuse".
Mind your own atheist business.
It's not child abuse you idiots.
Robert Sparks You're correct. It's not child abuse.. but it is ignorant and detrimental to their learning.
I could say the same thing about teaching a child to be racist. While it may not be another persons business of how I raise my child, it is unfortunate that I would teach them to grow up into ignorance, with a world view that is simply put, wrong.
It's foolish to believe that humans and dinosaurs shared the planet together hand and hand and worked side by side, like an episode of the Flintstones.
To believe that despite all evidence to the contrary that the earth is 6k years old, and that somehow we went from drawing pictures in caves to driving cars and building sky-scrapers in even less time.
It's insane to believe that we came from a garden where animals talked and a snake tricked a girl into eating an apple.. Funny enough from the tree of KNOWLEDGE. It's insane to believe that if there was a omnipotent being (GOD) that he'd be opposed to his creations attaining knowledge.
What is so odd about the theory of evolution. Is it that people refuse to believe that we came from a common ancestor with modern day great apes, or that it simply is contradictory to the teachings of the Bible?
Humans have personally witnessed evolution and even had their hand in it significantly. The modern dog, which humans created, with all it's various breeds are an evolution of the Wolf. The dog breed "Pug" is proof enough that animals can evolve. I've never seen a wolf look anything like a Pug.
So are creationist openly saying that Dogs don't have a common ancestor in Wolves? A fact that is widely known to anyone that has ever seen a dog...
Or do they just want to argue the semantics of an adaptation versus the word "evolution"?
"Progress is born of doubt and inquiry. The Church never doubts, never inquires. To doubt is heresy, to inquire is to admit that you do not know-the Church does neither." -- Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You know what I really like about this comment is that it makes me feel better about what I'm Doing. And there is no body to answer to when I die. Only,,,, wait ,, whats going to happen when I die?? holy shit ,,, hold on??? let me re think this.
@@sheckygagstein8966 Are you just spamming this horribly illogical comment on everything you don't like, or did you forget that you made this senseless point on another thread?
The stench of the ergo brain dead fart noise is very overpowering in this one.
What nonsense. Biblical Christianity, not organized religion, is not based on doubts but compelling evidence, both biblical and secular--massive manuscript evidence, thousands of amazing, precisely fulfilled prophecies, over 300 Messianic prophecies alone, many made hundreds of years before Christ was born; scientific evidence (i.e. archaeology) ; compelling legal-historical evidence for Christ's life, death and resurrection; incredible unity and preservation of God's Word, despite over 2000 years of assaults from the biggest guns (both theologians and scientists) both inside and outside the church (and you claim Christians do not inquire as well as skeptics); secular documentation from several sources, the amazing power of the Gospel to spiritually transform hearts and lives of all who believe it, etc. to name just a few. . Check your history, my friend, most of the great inventions we have today as well as branches of modern science were the results of the inquiring minds and research of scientists who believed in the God of the Bible and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ--Kepler, Kelvin, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell , Orville and Wilbur Wright, Wernher von Brawn, head of NASA, believed in a designer and opposed evolution (first moon landing), James Irwin, a creationist who walked on the moon; Joseph Lister (antiseptic surgery), Louis Pasteur (Bacteriology, vaccination and Immunization, pasteurization and Biogenesis law), Blaze Pascal (Barometer, Mathematical theory of probability), Charles Babbage (Calculating machine, Computer Science), Sir James Simpson ( Chloroform and Gynecology), Carlos Linneas (Classification system, systematic biology), George Civier ( Verebrate Paleontology), Sir James Fleming (radio valve), Dr. Raymond Damadian (inventor of MRI), Dr. John Sanford (inventor of the gene gun) , to name just a few. Go back to a school that teaches (not indoctrinates) its students to think critically and honestly evaluate the evidence, my friend,
Ray: Was the city Tyre destroyed forever? Was there one word written by a non-Christian of the time of Jesus about any supposed miracle? Did Jesus return within the generation of his listeners? Did the Roman Catholic church burn scientist Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 for observing that distant stars were suns with solar systems like ours? Does the bible not say "lean not on your own understanding" (don't think for yourself")?
Accounts Hydrogen Peroxide, Dragon Slayer, Magnus Carlsen, the japânese , the russian , the Terminator, Nuclear Fallout, Cerebral Independence, Resistance is Futile, Wolf1, Dozy Bill Nye, → are all by one person, they are used to deceitfully self-upvote publications. Trying to "make believe" one person is a multitude who all agree, just exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the science deniers' position.
The 67 bible literalist cdesignpronentsists are trying to deceitfully be the "multitudes", if you're a Christian your morals are corrupted by their very own ancient religious scripture.
Facts and what is true take a backseat to propping up the religious woo., the One True Woo.
Rest assured, I'm none of those things. It's all in your head, day after day.
I may have to insist on some consistency here. If evolution isn't outlined _in detail_ here on youtube, then the fundies say it's not correct, and if creation isn't outlined _in any way, anywhere_ whatsoever it's still correct. That seems a little deranged.
Perhaps in this context, immaterial is synonym to -deranged- inconsistent.
Scientists have observed species evolving into other species via natural selection. So.. evidence enough for me.
Son, get a life, because obviously from your high school class you have failed to differentiate between micro and macro evolution. There is sufficient genetic information to change inside of a species to create maybe a slightly longer neck or longer claws. It does not, however, allow for change such as a fish -----> salamander. It's just genetically impossible. Information is usually lost during a mutation, get over it. And when information is lost, yes, you may lose something bad, and your species might benefit, but unfortunately, you don't gain information and you can never get from a fish -----> salamander.
Get over it.
Excuse me, are you talking to me?
Samuel Chan Ad hominem attacks and conclusory statements are clear indicators that you know what you're talking about. I'm convinced.
^that's called sarcasm^ haha
Bullshit. Cats, dogs, lizards, birds, fish, and plants have all been observed to speciate into distinct species. I was not referring to hybrids like ligers or mixed breeds.
Big Nye has done more for humanity than those who promote creationism ever will!
Totally agree, 100%.
Humanity won't mean anything in hell though. He never touches on how the Bible knew there were underwater springs and we didn't know till 1977 or a dozen other things that he never gets to debate about because the only debates one guy that's not as smart as him. I would gladly debate his engineer ass
It's the deep thinkers that usually find the little cracks that turn into massive crevices and end up denouncing their faith in the process. Not everyone needs a god to keep their sanity. Not everyone needs the threat of a fiery eternity to maintain a moral code.
In fact, it is my personal belief that humanity would be better if no one needed a god to keep their sanity. Just look at how much it has held us back in the past (i.e. mistaking diseases for demons, putting Galileo on house arrest, THIS VIDEO).
But how can you justify morality without a god
@@Dah_J Because we're social beings with a capacity for empathy. For example, I know it causes immense pain when someone I know is killed, so it's wrong for me to kill.
Also, pay attention to how old a comment is before replying. In a sense, a comment from 8 years ago is essentially by a person that no longer exists.
@@HalfMoonProphet So the standard is if it causes someone immense pain to someone, is it ok to kill someone that has no friends or family? meaning if that person died, it would not cause any pain to anyone. Is it still wrong to kill that person?
@@Dah_J That's the default state that there would be someone who misses them, yes. But it's also wrong because no one wants anyone to kill them, and if they do, then they need help.
@@HalfMoonProphet oh trust me, there are people that want to kill them. But you haven’t responded to the issue. How are you able to justify your morality.
Christian: Jesus died for all of our sins.
Atheist: So Jesus is dead?
Christian: Jesus is eternal, the alpha and omega, he can never die.
Atheist: So he didn't die for our sins?
Christian: He died so that we may live.
Atheist: So he IS dead then?
Christian: He is eternal. He is the light, the truth, the ,,,,,
Atheist: Shut up. Is he dead or not?
jebstuart He died to suffer for the consequences of our sin and then he was resurrected once he paid the pride and he concurred death so that we may live and be resurrected also.
Death is not part of God’s design, death came due to sin, but evolutionists think it’s national
Creatard: 'Duh, I can't see grass growing therefore it's not growing duuuuuhhhhhh'.
Gods sneakily replace all the plants with fresh slightly bigger ones each night when we're asleep.
Ha HAW!!!! @@PoorCreationists
“The Ten Commandments weren't historical. They're mythical, because they never existed and neither did Moses, neither does God; none of that is evidently real. Even rabbinical scholars now admit a consensus among archaeologists that the Exodus never happened, because the Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt the way the Bible describes. Moses's childhood river arc was taken from the Saga of Sargon, and the parting of the Red Sea was adapted from the legend of an Egyptian pharaoh from an earlier millennium [Snefru and Djadjamankh]. Belief in the Ten Commandments never changed anything for the better either; most of the believers professing to promote them can't even recite them, and never knew what they meant.” *-Aron Ra*
A day age creationist patiently explained to me that the six days of creation were in fact periods of millions of years.
I enquired, "God made land plants and modern day grasses on the third day of creation and made the Sun on the fourth day, how did flora survive for millions of years without the Sun?"
You don't have to be too bright to be a Christian!
"A day age creationist patiently explained to me that the six days of creation were in fact periods of millions of years.
I enquired, "God made land plants and modern day grasses on the third day of creation and made the Sun on the fourth day, how did flora survive for millions of years without the Sun?"
You don't have to be too bright to be a Christian!"
Hahahahahahahahahaha! And the reason you think that plants need a SUN instead of just LIGHT is - WHAT? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! THESE STUPID ATHEISTS! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Zaki claimed the (Genesis) light before the Sun came from the big bang - but the earth and it's waters pre-existed the big bang! Fake Atkins says the light came from God, but that he switched Himself off at night (x3) like a light bulb!
Ah, these foolish zealots! Haha(etc)
Zaki Aminu
What "LIGHT" was that Captain Cupcake?
Gary Bell
"What "LIGHT" was that Captain Cupcake? "
Hahahahahahahahahaha! SO YOU DON'T KNOW THAT PLANTS DON'T NEED A SUN IN ORDER TO GROW - AND ONLY NEED LIGHT? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! THESE STUPID ATHEISTS! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
ergonomover
"Zaki claimed the (Genesis) light before the Sun came from the big bang - but the earth and it's waters pre-existed the big bang!...."
Hahahahahahahahahaha! And - TO YOU - "the earth and its waters" referred to in the Bible is PLANET EARTH and its oceans, eh? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"....Fake Atkins says the light came from God, but that he switched Himself off at night (x3) like a light bulb!
Ah, these foolish zealots! Haha(etc)"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! EVERYONE can EASILY see from this that you didn't understand a single word that was said to you - or that you read from the Bible! BUT THEN YOU ADMIT YOU REJECT THE LAWS OF LOGIC, don't you? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I am struck on a Sunday evening by two ideas widely held by people of faith, particularly creationists. The first is that evolution is somehow a belief or religion that is either outside science or the basis for rejecting all science as self-evidently unreliable. The second idea is that evolution is rooted in atheism and the rejection of God. The reality, of course, is 180° from both perceptions. The theory of evolution is as well established on the basis of evidence as any idea in all of mainstream science. Charles Darwin was not merely devoutly Christian in his early years. He was greatly troubled by the implications of his theory for his wife's faith, which she never abandoned. If a majority of scientists, and most of the best scientists, are atheist or agnostic, it is because they are led there by the evidence, not the other way around. They don't reject God. They doubt the idea of God, for which there is not one scintilla of evidence, and recognize that much of what many people believe about God is incompatible with empirical data. I do not expect creationists to pay any attention to these points because they are not in the least interested in what is known, only in what they believe. And that in a nutshell is why religion doesn't work.
I mostly agree, and I respect how you view things. I am rather religious myself, but I don't discount evolution one bit. Unlike most of my family. I've never understood a lot of their views. I heavily advocate for the coexistence of science and religion, I don't believe in one or the other. I believe in both of them, neither have made me doubt the other. But both have given me new perspectives on each other. I don't think more religious people should abandon what they believe, but I think more of them should truly consider what science has to offer. It's not a demon, and it's okay to admit when you've misinterpreted something. Science is valuable, and we should appreciate everything it's gifted us with and we should nurture young scientists and advocate for its progression.
Lost books of the Bible: If Mary gaveth birth to Jesus and Jesus is thine Lamb of God, then Mary actually did have a little Lamb whose fleece was white as snow.
That's the ticket you go girl
There is no record of Jesus' hair colour.
There's no physical description of the mythical book character because it's mythical. Three of the four resurrection stories say that it reanimated into a different looking guy and none of those stories physically describe it either. It's all fairytales and lies.
Hahaha, that was funny!
@@garybell1291 look at the historical evidence surrounding the resurrection and the Bible
I love how the triggered religious Karens on this video are pretending to be our moral superiors while blatantly lying to us about our own beliefs/disbeliefs. The only tactics I’ve seen from them is redefining words and cowering behind Straw Men.
Yep! 👍
Ahhh. You can tell the truth. So they are just beliefs and not facts.
Thanks for finally admitting it 👍🏿
As for the "triggered religious Karens" 😁
Is it Creationists starting threads just to insult a group of people who do not share the same beliefs, or is it the crying Atheists like you... 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
😂 🤣 😂 🤣
Intelligent Design Creationism collapses under the merest hint of scrutiny.
Evolution and abiogenesis, by contrast, come through unscathed...indeed triumphant.
Your posts are what one would expect from a low IQ ai bot. Billboard boilerplate examples:
1) "Intelligent Design Creationism collapses under the merest hint of scrutiny."
2) "Evolution and abiogenesis, by contrast, come through unscathed...indeed triumphant."
3) "The Book of Genesis is a steaming pile of [shit].*
4) "Evolution is regarded as scientific fact due to the overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting it."
5) "There is no God without superstitious imagination."
Prove that you're not a bot and have an IQ above 60.
@@alanclarke7Dry your tears, little troll.
Faith is tangible....that's why it's believed and facts. Those with faith literally experience it.
@@zari5972 Faith is believing something without evidence. In other words, you're a gullible fool.
Cristian Pataki
Bill didn't demand. He asked. And he avised. Because he cares. He didn't delcare they must all be engineers, but said that creationism's methods seem to be crippling toward MAKING new engineers. And he didn't target Christianity - he targeted young earth CREATIONISM.
Most creationists aren't Christians. Most Christians aren't creationists. It's a splinter of a division of Christianity in general.
I think the Creationist side of this comment thread is missing the point of what Bill Nye said.
For the record, I'm American and was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school, and have no problem with how I was taught about the world as a child. Even still, I believe God should be taken out of education altogether. If you're a creationist, wouldn't you be mad if your child was taught science based around the Hindu faith? That religion sounds ridiculous to you because you weren't raised on it, but that's exactly how Christianity sounds to people who don't believe in it! I think Nye's comment about how we're the only country in the world where this is still a problem is an important point, because not to jump on the American-hate bandwagon, but we're pretty ignorant to the fact that not everyone in America is raised with Christianity in their lives, and that is what I think is so difficult for Creationists to grasp when discussing the argument of teaching Evolution vs. Intelligent Design in schools.
Nye is saying that to deny evolution, despite its various holes, is the groundwork that modern science is based on. To teach your children to deny evolution is to inhibit them from understanding the rest of the natural world. And for the people who say, "I'm not going to teach my kids to accept a theory that's not completely proven by science", how does Creationism sound any better? It's not like Creationism is proven by any scientific measure, not by a long shot.
Personally, I consider myself somewhat Catholic, because I think adhering to a religious code can give you discipline and teach you kindness and understanding. But to deny pure fact (or theory strongly supported by fact) because it doesn't fit your faith's picture of the world is completely foolish. Don't damn your kids to that kind of ignorance.
*Re: "To teach your children to deny evolution is to inhibit them from understanding the rest of the natural world."*
I teach my children that "evolution" has many definitions (e.g. "change over time", "men & amoebas share a common ancestor", etc.) which are rarely disclosed when its advocates try to promote it. Example:
*_"Denying evolution inhibits one from understanding the rest of the natural world."_*
Such ambiguity places this misleading statement near to, *_"Ye shall not surely die for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."_*
"[T]he 'fine tuning' of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof [of a god]-if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist."
- Richard Carrier
The agnostic does not simply say, “l do not know.” He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that *you do not know* . He insists that *you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others* . He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, - he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact - he drives you from the realm of reason - he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture - into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that *your faith has no foundation in fact.*- Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
ergo is sex spectrum gender "school boy bender" we must apologize for ergo's daily man boy love persecution complex rant's. Most times we forget I do apologize for this whole heartedly
You do not know, you prefer lies to truth, va te faire mettre.
@@ergonomover well I’m still agnostic, but I don’t agree with religion, so I don’t agree with the Qua’ran or whatever it is called. And there is plenty of evidence to evolution. I am not confused, just unsure.
@@youreokayboah2128 We agnostics should stick together. Those in the USA who answer "no religious affiliation in particular" (nones) are growing in numbers, like nearly 30%, we are in good company. Stay curious.
What a snotty bottom bean bag
There is only one explanation for the origins of species which is why the Theory of Evolution is universally accepted and universally taught as fact. For the creationists out there, "universally" means worldwide or everywhere. Creationists hoping that the world will start teaching that entire populations of mature plants and adult animals just suddenly appear from nothing but sorcery is just the day dreams of small childish minds incapable of understanding the world they live on.
Another display of complete ignorance of biology. Meyer gave up this hopeless cause for Yahweh yet you still think his lies are worth following.
Typical strawman argument…you believe in evolution only because you pick and chose creationists views that seem the most absurd.
@@maskofscience You have no explanations for the origins of anything using Hebrew mythology because it's mythology. Sorcery from nothing is make believe child.
But the fruit was so low-hanging, looked ripe like the apple in the Garden.
Can you please point to (science-denying) creationists views that are not the least bit absurd?@@maskofscience
Evolution has no input into the ultimate theological and cosmological question of Creationism, it can merely disprove or challenge certain facts taken literally by certain religions, and that is all.
*"I have no obligation to do any work personally"*
*"Look it up yourself"*
*"Explain your paper..."*
*"You provided the paper, now help us understand it..."*
*"I see no need to prove anything"*
*"I have no obligation to "write out the entire list."*
*"I see no need to do any work personally"*
*"The OP does NOT have to be "backed up" by a "scientific review paper."*
*A reasoned argument is a reasoned argument. There is no need for 'scientific peer review' papers"*
Miss Giggles Futile hard at work supporting her claims.
Those are all your quotaions reproduced in full and the context is obvious. You are an obvious liar.
So, there's a context in which it's okay for you to claim the following:
"I have no obligation to do any work personally"
"Look it up yourself"
"I see no need to prove anything"
"The OP does NOT have to be "backed up" by a "scientific review paper"
"A reasoned argument is a reasoned argument. There is no need for 'scientific peer review' papers"
You've got a terminal case of Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do. Sucks to be you.
Dog Peed on my homework
@@richardwind2859 i only just now saw this comment but i’m so glad i did
Evolution is so much more interesting… and the fact that it works, is amazing.
Even if you are a creationist, you should allow yourself to learn real science.
If all the textbooks and religious texts were burned today in a thousand years we will have rewritten all the textbooks the same but all religious texts would be completely different as we'd figure out the same science yet invent all new stories/religions.
I love this comment. I can only like it once, but here is as close as I can get to liking it twice: +1
@Joe Gallop why would you ever think that fighting human emotions with the god (fear) is a good thing?
You know what I really like about this comment is that it makes me feel better about what I'm Doing. And there is no body to answer to when I die. Only,,,, wait ,, whats going to happen when I die?? holy shit ,,, hold on??? let me re think this.
@@sheckygagstein8966 Why would you rethink it? What makes you believe anything happens when you die? That's a dumb argument.
@Joe Gallop How can you logically assert that there exists more than we can know about. If you start the sentence with "we can't know", you can't end the sentence with any other conclusion than that. Just doesn't make sense.
Also, can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as a spirit? Or is that another thing which can't be known that you magically know? You're argument starts off alright but falls apart after the first few words.
I also think people should be open minded. But not so much so that their brain falls out.
'Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.' Psalm 137:9
I hate that we have to be careful and tip toe about this subject because it destroys the fantasies of believers in creationism." I've decided to be uninformed so don't hurt my delusions with your knowledge. Feed into it please. Thanks." I have a close family member who is a flat earther and I'm so ashamed 😑
Stay strong.
That family member is probably ashamed of you, too...
@@WesD92422 right....... 😂
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS What a surprise that you're still trolling 😴
@@WesD92422 Nice projection. 🤭
I can be religious and still easily believe in evolution, and the Big Bang, and things like that. Both religious and nonreligious people don't seem to understand that religion does not try to explain the origin of our species and of the universe.
I completely trust all of our scientific theories and laws to the creation of everything. Religion just tries to explain the MEANING behind it all. It says stuff like, "Yeah, we're here, but why? Yeah, we're here because of evolution, and the Big Bang, and gravity, etc., but WHY?" It asks the spiritual and emotional reasons for our existence and what the universe means, not the SCIENTIFIC way in which it came into being. And that cannot be proven or unproven. That's the origin of faith.
MIKEANTHONY321 Do you also wonder why mountains exist? Or cockroaches? What is their meaning?
The Celestial Coffeepot With a quick Google search, I could easily tell you, scientifically, how they formed. I'm sure you already know, though, so it's not worth it. Religion will try to explain what kind of purpose roaches or mountains may have on life.
Christianity, for instance, doesn't exactly go into the specifics of mountains and roaches themselves. Who knows, though, there may be some crazy cult religion out there or something that worships roaches as the deities of the universe or something. That religion may have its reasoning, but it's still not trying to interfere with the science of how roaches came to exist.
Yes, I know, the Bible says stuff near the beginning about the formation of the universe. It said stuff like there being light on the first day, sky on the second day, oceans on the third day, etc., all because God said so. I understand how far-fetched that may seem. But the truth is, very few things in the Bible happened exactly the way it was described. The Bible uses a lot of symbolism and metaphors to explain how things were said to have really happened. Light suddenly appearing on the first day was most likely just the Big Bang, for instance.
Also, the universe wasn't obviously created in just one week. We have confirmed that the universe is a little over a dozen billion years old. I interpret the week of creation in the Bible as a compressed version of the entire process. "The first day" in the Bible was probably the first several million years of the universe when no stars had yet formed to be "the sky."
Everything in the universe, in my opinion, happened exactly the way scientists have explained it. I just believe that the spirit of God helped it to happen. God isn't really a definitive being within our universe. No, he exists elsewhere...everywhere, but also nowhere. He's not just a "big daddy in the sky." In reality, he IS the universe, reexplained in a more spiritual way.
So, you see, we're not trying to disrupt science. But yes, there are morons out there who will stand their ground and tell you that evolution is wrong and that God is responsible directly for everything. They don't understand what their own religion truly means. This is why we have things like Bible study, so people can really grasp what it is they claim to believe.
MIKEANTHONY321 Thanks for the response, Mike(?). I guess my point was that people often question the purpose of their lives, or the reason for the existence of the universe, but it seems that they will never question the purpose of cockroaches or rocks. From where I stand, a person has as much cosmic purpose as any other animal, including a cockroach - we are all biological entities. Similarly, if you ask the question of why the universe exists, why are you also not compelled to ask why rocks exist?
The Celestial Coffeepot Thanks for the understanding. Yes, my name is Mike. Sometimes people don't care to listen, so it's nice that it intrigues you enough.
MIKEANTHONY321 Not all questions deserve an answer (your 'why' questions included). There is no 'MEANING behind it all'. Meaning is something that we (humans) establish by the way we lead our lives. It isn't handed to us by an imaginary deity.
Faith is a security blanket. There is no basis for thinking that any of what people believe in the absence of evidence is true. Mutually contradictory beliefs cannot be simultaneously true.
I'm glad bill has the stones to stand up to these fools. Bill is a hero.
If he is your hero, I feel sorry for you. Try opening a book or two. And global warming IS a lie and you are a fool for believing in it. Go ahead and follow those sheep right off the cliff when they tell you this extreme weather is because you used aresol air freshner in the crapper this morning. Oh and I know you didnt say anything about global warming but Bill did and he is your hero, remember?
Michelle W
I'm sure Trevor has opened a book or two, hell probably more than that. I bet he's opened a million more books that compared to your one book you keep reopening.
ShiroToshi Are you talking about the book the powers that be are brainwashing people to believe its not real? That one? Oh right, keep following eachother off the cliff you sheeple.
I think the only sheep here is you. I'd gladly change my opinion on things like evolution if credibly, physical, scientific, non-biblical evidence was presented to me. But for the mean time, you keep on accepting things unquestioningly while I can take solace in having an intelligent, flexible, and open mind.
Michelle W Dude don't call other people sheep when your messiah is called a shepherd.
He's more or less telling you to not raise your kids to be close minded and to come to their own conclusions on what to think is the truth. Note I said think, not believe.
Most be;lievers teach not only what the scriptures teach, particularly what Jesus said and did. But all of life given by God can be studied, early scientists were believers because they believed since God is orderly that nature could be studied because it is orderly. So science has its foundation in a belief in orderliness created by God. Compared to the amount of one sided view points belong to secular humanism in public education. That is where contiual brainwashing takes [place with no discent or debate. That is tyrannical and that is what you and Bill Nye are trying to shove down children's throats. We compare different truth claims and teach how to examine those claims and also defend our beliefs so our kids can do the same. To bad you are so close minded you would restrict kids from studying other scientific viewpoints based on Intelligence and orederliness in nature.
Ronald Kelly "Most be;lievers teach not only what the scriptures teach, particularly what Jesus said and did."
Most believers in the world are not believers in Christian mythology. The believers in Hindu mythology, Muslim mythology, Buddhist mythology, etc...outnumber Christian believers about 4:1.
"To bad you are so close minded you would restrict kids from studying other scientific viewpoints based on Intelligence and orderliness in nature."
On the contrary, the closed-minded, such as yourself it seems, want to restrict the perspective on the onset with 'have faith and believe biblegod is true...then work from there'. That's closed minded.
*****
Not necessarily. I think about the parallel universe theory often, but I haven't determined it true or false.
Note : your comment is pointless
@Emanuel Teklu For gullible people sure. The same con of prophecy is pulled in almost every religion.
Here : "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." ~ Jesus. John 14:12-14.
Jesus and the bible are verifiably full of shit.
*First monkey-human embryos reignite debate over hybrid animals*
Monkey-human embryos have been created. In April 2021, researchers fertilized eggs extracted from cynomolgus monkeys and grew them in culture. Six days after fertilization, the team injected 132 embryos with human pluripotent stem cells, which can grow into a range of cell types inside and outside an embryo. Wouldn't be possible if 'separate creation' was true, would it?
"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty." - Stephen Hawking
The most persuasive arguments against creationism come not from the people who accept the facts of evolution but from the ignorance of those speaking against it.
One need only read the comments of xme71, 633495 or any of a plethora of other creationists to see how quickly they degenerate to childish comments when their, allegedly, logical arguments fail to hold up to be thoroughly convinced that creationism is the path of lower intellect
* Re: "the facts of evolution"*
How many "facts of evolution" can you state? One, two, three, none?
I estimate that about 1 in 100 people claiming to be engineers and creationists in this forum have ever opened a math or engineering book as part of their working life.
Call it a hunch.
I'm one. :)
Andrew Fong I believe you, of course.
I have no reason to think that Noah's Ark defenders would make things up.
What are you basing that on? My dad graduated form Ohio State in the 60s. Worked for Bell Labs. Retired working for AT&T. What does electoral egineering have to do with natural selection? There are plenty of examples of people are totally incompetent in when intellectual area that are brilliant in others.
Mark Stuber What am I basing that on?
I knew someone who used to tip their goldfish out onto the lawn while they quickly cleaned the fishbowl and filled it with water, then replaced the fish.
It survived this ordeal every few weeks for months.
It defied the odds.
My point is, if you can't see how the Noah's Ark story is utterly impossible, then the likelihood that you can design an electrical circuit for a phone relay station is very low.
But I think about 1 in 100 may defy those odds.
matchlockfun so your mom embarrassed you as a kid and now you hate God for it.. for Gods sake let it go-o-o man ;(
Evolution is science. Creationism is faith. Between the two? Evolution holds more truth about how the world really started and how it may possibly end. Science will soon outweigh religious claims that couldn't be supported by any kind of evidence.
"Evolution holds more truth about how the world really started and how it may possibly end." No, it really does not. That is not what evolution is about.
Milkshake how hard did you hit your head stupid
Milkshake science already has outweighed religious claims a while ago
I think religion is a way to make kids, and adult kids, behave.
If that were true, please explain why, per capita, religious believers commit more violent crimes than the non-religious.
TheHigherVoltage
They didn't say it was necessarily a good way.
TheHigherVoltage If people can convince themselves that it is the will of God, then the mental barrier against violence is diminished. Afterall they're just following orders from God, similar to soldiers who commit atrocities under orders from superiors eg Abu Ghraib tortures of P.O.Ws. Violence is so easier when there is an authority figure ordering it, rather than committing such acts under their own free will.
All that's left to do is cherry pick bible verses of God ordering violence. Preferably from the Old Testament, because OT God is ruthless.
***** I'd argue NT God is way more violent and psychotic.
From "if your eye causes you to sin gouge it out" to the whole being cut down and thrown into a fire for eternity threat. At least in the OT, you were just killed and that was that. In the NT, you're tortured for eternity.
When the world was run by religion do you know what we call that period of time???? The dark ages
yeah the god fairytale has had its hayday...now we should let a state of pure science persist for a thousand years. human beings can decide which is a better way to live.
The dark ages is when Europe (not the world) was run by Catholicism. Catholicism does not represent religion as a whole.
You are right. That’s why God is not religion, He is a person.
And what about now that the ones that rule the world are atheists and scientists. Biological weapons like viruses and diseases are being tested on human beings. No difference buddy. Any thinking person can agree that the periods are getting darker.
@@voiceoreason9884 exactly. But you know how atheists are the self righteously clamp up all religions together and act like the self proclaimed critiques that they often try to be.
Today if someone claims to hear the voices of the gods inside their heads they're promptly escorted to a secure facility, heavily sedated and rightly called a schizophrenic. In the past they were escorted to a temple and called a prophet of the gods. Which means the schizophrenia of the past are the religions of the present. Think about it!
+Gary Bell
"Today if someone claims to hear the voices of the gods inside their heads they're promptly escorted to a secure facility, heavily sedated and rightly called a schizophrenic. In the past they were escorted to a temple and called a prophet of the gods. Which means the schizophrenia of the past are the religions of the present. Think about it!"!
Hahahahahahahahahaha! *_You must live in a POLICE STATE! Which country is that again where people are not allowed to have inspirations?_* Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Zaki Aminu Your schizophrenia is inspiring? That's quite an admission, did you ask Cletus first?
Gary Bell
"Your schizophrenia is inspiring? That's quite an admission, did you ask Cletus first?"
Hahahahahahahahaha! *_You're now COMMITTED TO PROCEEDING WITH BUFFOONERY ALONE, eh?_* Hahahahahahahahahahaha! *_That means YOU HAVE NOTHING LEFT, doesn't it?_* Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
*****
"That would be most western nations where electrotherapy was/is used. Only last week it was finally banned in the US for use on children."
Hahahahahahahaha! *_And there you were condemning Nigeria - and yet YOU BELIEVE MOST WESTERN STATES ARE POLICE STATES AND USE BARBARIC METHODS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM HAVING INSPIRATIONS, eh?_* Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
+Zaki Aminu
*Which country is that again where people are not allowed to have inspirations?*
You're allowed to have inspiration. You're just not allowed to kill people with those "inspirations."
Look what it did to Andrea Yates, Kimberly Lucas, Brian David Mitchell, Deanna Laney, Michael Carreiro, Elizabeth Schatz, Zachary Stirewalt, Vince Li, or Jessica Murphy. They all had inspirations, and as a result, they had their victims' blood on their hands.
Oh, and if you pull the No True Scotsman fallacy on me, then you only deserve to be insulted.
People say, let people believe what they wanna believe.... Or respect people's beliefs......
BUT PEOPLE'S BELIEF AFFECTS POLITICS THEREFORE IT ALSO AFFECTS ME
Being an atheist is a political stance and so is being religious
And as far is I know, Religious folks doesnt make the smartest decisions and most of them are rather violent!
@The Shadow I can write you an essay on why religious folks don't make the smartest decisions.... but that's just a waste of time......I wouldn't make a fuss about religious people in the first place if it wasn't for the fact that there are more churches than there are schools or restaurants here in America, and its clear that they want to replace science with religion, They want indoctrination introduced in schools..... and also due to ignorance, it's no surprise that religious people in all races are more likely to be homophobic, sexist, racist, and violent.... and dont forget that Christian's were the ISIS of the ancient world...they burned pagan books, art and architecture... the books that are not just religious writings, they were advance scientific knowledge, and the destruction of those books retards human progress by hundreds of years!
Yes, most religious people are violent
.. statistically, 85% of the prison population are in fact religious, Its a fact.... and the more religious a country is, the more crime ridden it is... and it's no surprise that the most religious countries are third world's....... it seems that religion doesn't make you a more moral person strictly based on statistics...
TH-camAccount159 Consensus-Science is the new religion; not much science, but plenty of intolerance, and closed mindedness, Ironically, similar to the Catholic Church posture in 1632.
TH-camAccount159 Consensus-science is not science. You missed the point.
Kian: how are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed publications detailing empirical evidence for biological evolution underpinning universal acceptance of a brilliant theory anything like the Catholic church of 1632? They had burnt scientist Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 because he posited exoplanets, of which we now have over 4000. Evolution is science by every rational metric.
Really then mind your own business because you can't change our religion by making up thing things give us proof that religious people are all the thing you say you jerk
Creationist museum has turned off the comments to their poor attempt at copying this video and arguing against it. Typical. They want to be heard but not questioned. So I am typing my response here. If you think teaching evolution ideas as well makes it okay for you to teach children ideas on creation that completely disregards evolution, then you are still wrong. So just don't teach creation/ religious nonsense as a possible truth in schools because it is not.
You'll find that most creationist videos disable replies and ratings. Something should be said about a belief that can't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny or questioning.
I HAVE A MAGIC WIZARD WHO MAKES CHILDHOOD CANCERS BECAUSE HE'S BORED. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU SHOW LOVE TO CHILDREN..... BY KILLING THEM.
I've been adoring dinosaurs since I was a little kid. When I went to school, I recall they taught me creationism from the bible and I was disappointed that dinosaurs weren't mentioned at all. Thankfully, my parents already had deeper theology knowledge and explained that Genesis is only a parable.
Genesis is NOT a parable it is the word of God, i believe in the seven day creation and the bible did mention dinosaurs! in Job 41
King James Version (KJV)
41 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
Leviathan =/= Dinosaurs. Leviathan is a mythical creature and it is as well mentioned in the Koran. I believe God created everything but not instantly: each had gone through a process that scientifically acceptable.
Charles Georgius Wilson sci·ence /ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science
he intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Where can one observe and experiment to prove evolution as scientific fact?
Jordan Cookie dogs and other such domesticated animals are an immediate example of how selective reproduction can engineer different breeds. it's basically evolution that's been carried out in a controlled manner. one that doesn't necessitate millions of years of experimental error.
@@R3KTANGL3 selective breeding is different from evolution. Besides that’s not an example of evolution because dogs or any animal being selectively bred isn’t gaining any completely new parts like limbs or feathers or scales, etc. it’s changing in its own zone with the capabilities of its own dna.
Don't like this video or you're going to hell.
knock knock...
Who's There?
it's jesus, let me in...
Why?
i have to save you.
From What?
from what I'm gonna do to you if you don't let me in.
um... sarcasm? Didn't notice the knock knock joke below it?
***** So I'm stupid? It is okay to backpedal and admit that you made a mistake instead of making personal attacks.
***** *chuckle* don't flatter yourself
Binguh Bungah shush. doesn't concern you.
Binguh Bungah carry on pip, pip!!! Cute. Will have to use that.
So, I couldn't help but notice the "creation museum" videos do their best to copy the Big Think videos down to every detail. They even go so far as to include an orange logo in curvy font in the upper right corner. It would appear their only hope is for someone to accidentally click on the thumbnail, believing it to be a real science video. Creationism has apparently EVOLVED the mechanism of mimicry to stay in the game. Creationists who haven't evolved mimicry are dying out and the up-and-coming new, more successful species is (trying to be) more difficult to spot by its predator -- reason.
_"When all of the facts are on the side of evolution and none in support of creationism, what is a creationist to do? Deny, ignore and misrepresent what is actually known. These folk are aware that they are clueless about science - just as a person who has never studied the Portuguese language knows that he is unable to speak or understand Portuguese. So when creationists make bold but false assertions about science - they know they are lying."_
- Professor Nicholas Christie-Blick
The scientific revolution was largely led by creationists, so Mr. Blick needs to re-study his history.
@@alanclarke7Thanks for reminding us that creation “science” hasn’t progressed in over 300 years
Let's review where Giggler's up to: She has a natural universe, natural matter, a natural star, a natural planet, natural geochemical reactions, natural biochemical reactions, natural energy sources, naturally self replicating cells, natural mechanistic explanations for life's variety. Her best guess is that it's all sorcerous magic from prebiotic physical space brains and she's not kidding.
She could make a good living - as comic relief.
Yes Garry, Gothic mistical
Denying evolution... is pretty much exactly like denying that the top of a tree is attached to the rest of the tree. Think about that.
+MOSES PRAY Obviously we haven't, as evolution happens in the course of millions of years and intelligent humans haven't been around for even a million, doesn't just happen over night.
***** Why would land animals evolving wings be part of *_recorded_* history? Might that have happened... I dunno... BEFORE recorded history? Dumbass. Oh, but there is a fossil record filled with dinosaurs that have primitive feather-like features and plenty of ancient birds with more reptile-like features. Oops, guess that's the 'observations' you thought didn't exist.
+MOSES PRAY black people. or white people that go to the sun for long periodes of time they adapt to the climate wile the skin darkens. and bacteria evolves ganing resistances.
+MOSES PRAY What evolutionary paper did you read that says you should observe an animal evolve wings ? When you make up straw-man arguments of things that evolution actually says you will not see , it demonstrates just how weak your position is and just how little reason you have to doubt evolution . After all you had to make up a reason .
Evolution is an observed fact, hard to hide from that except by saying things that evolution says you would not observe haven't been observed and pretend they should have.
***** As convenient as the fact that nobody can prove your religion to me until after I die? Or maybe a little less convenient?
The problem with creationism in the form of Biblical literalism is not that it disagrees with evolution. The problem with Biblical literalism is that it disagrees with the facts. The ways that creationists obviate this are:
1. Ignore the facts,
2. Posit innumerable ad hoc supernatural miracles to pretend they have an explanation,
3. Apply poor reasoning to those facts to make it appear that they do not really conflict with Biblical literalism, and
4. Assert additional, unsubstantiated, and usually false "facts" that are not really facts at all.
Anything else?
Believing in evil and hateful gods makes you an evil and hateful person, there's no doubt about that.
“Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
-VOLTAIRE
Today, I learned that being a young-earth creationist means actually having a position on the speed of light. Tomorrow, young-earth creationists are going to talk about having a position on the temperature at which water boils.
Let me get this straight; his position on the speed of light is that, in a big-bang singularity, empty space might travel faster than light, that's as far as I could stomach. Doesn't that mean acceptance of big-bang cosmology is requisite to his "position"? Didn't you know water boils at lower temperatures at high altitudes during a supernova, on Thorsday in July, in the 5th dimension of the 3rd mulitverse? Positioning is key to obfuscating everything we know.
… and they're getting miffed that the world isn't taking their claims seriously, claims that include every single individual out of 78 species of coelacanths drowned before one giraffe calf did, before a single wolf puppy did and before a single baby mouse did.
I salute your reasonable position but what good reason is there to believe the bible was divinely inspired?@@AmberDennis001
@iadatoroboto8427 idk if I believe in God anymore
"Scripture makes it clear that everything was created 6,000 years ago. Which should I trust? The word of the living God or the word of a buffoon that thinks pretending to be a monkey makes him a man of science?" - Melvin Goodrum
Goodrum raises the standard question. He misses the correct answer, though it is staring him in the face.
Let's deconstruct the reasoning. If scripture is the 'word of the living God' then of course we should take it seriously. Yet the only basis for claiming divine authorship (or inspiration) is scripture itself. So the potential for circularity exists.
The word of God claim is best treated as a testable assumption. Approximately 38% of Americans think that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years (Gallup, 22 May, 2017). A lower but not well determined fraction insists that the universe itself is young, the view that Goodrum is promoting. The difficulty with this view is that it is contradicted by entire disciplines of science. That fact is easily checked. So it isn't sensible to insist that all scientists are buffoons or to reach for a convenient insult (the misrepresentation of evolution).
news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
A great many Christians point out that the Bible doesn't require either a young universe or the recent creation of humans, that the Book of Genesis is allegorical, and not literally true. They hold this view in an attempt to accommodate science. The difficulty, as YECs recognize, is that theology then becomes a matter of opinion. And to the extent that deeply held beliefs are mutually incompatible, and in many cases demonstrably not true, we know that faith has no bearing on whether any of what is believed in the absence of evidence is true.
Worse yet, the fudge that theologically sophisticated Christians adopt to avoid obvious contradictions with science is itself untenable. None of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs or the natural world functions has anything to do with divine intervention. Indeed, such intervention is precluded as playing any meaningful role. So there is no way to connect claims about origins with any contemporary religious dogma. And if a god played no role in the emergence of humans as a species, it is hardly likely that that god would develop a personal interest in our sins and sex lives.
The bottom line is this. We know on the basis of empirical evidence that neither humans nor the universe were 'created 6,000 years ago'. The god that is supposed to have done that is therefore imaginary. If we choose instead to argue that scripture is allegorical, we have no way to determine independently what is or isn't true in scripture. And to the extent that it is necessary to argue that however things turned out was God's plan when planning was demonstrably not involved, that more sophisticated version of god is also imaginary.
Show less
Wow such facts! Many thanks!