Видео

You’re describing evolution and saying it’s not evolution. Species slowly adapt and change over time as the survivors genes are passed down and those that don’t adapt die off. Over enough time completely new species are formed.

How you gonna post a video like this and not include the location via map in the video. If it’s not within like 5 seconds imma click off and find another source

Where is the location?

Hilarious at it is. Khan was an evil motherfucker lore wise. It's always satisfying to see him get his ass beat or killed lol

How many times did you have to attempt Gravewalker before getting used to it? I keep getting killed in the first outpost from enemies that attack right as I'm ground executing or just doing something else. Edit: As soon as I beat that first outpost, it became much easier as I could get a second merc.

wow actually looks great, thanks!

Good I guess

Bruv,,,he just served u with some fresh bulshit.... can't even pickpocket the money....did he just started mining... Savage

this walkthrough was awesome

? ???????

thank you!

Very interesting. Good job!

Why do you think that the spider's fang that you talked about is designed? Is it because it's complex? But if God exists, isn't everything designed? So don't you just presuppose everything is designed anyway so it's a bit of a moot point. But of course that would mean simple things are designed too. So I couldn't prove to you or convince you that something wasn't designed. Because everything has to be if God exists. It's unfalsifiable. And the point about it being because of the Fall. That is an explanation, but all these pathogens and predators don't just affect humans. There's a lot of pain and suffering that happens to non-humans too. All animals are suffering in a sinful world too, but it's not their fault and they don't even have souls. What purpose does their suffering have? Can they go to heaven? Also, why does evil exist? Man's sinful nature and free will to enact it. But God made us. God gave us a sinful nature. God made sin. God is good or goodness, and he was all there was. Then he created and then there was sin. Why would he stop the existence of only perfect goodness and create sinful beings. An argument against this might be that the battling against sin creates greater goods like courage and bravery that wouldn't otherwise exist. So it's like investing in the future. You put in and lose some money now but you get more back in the future. But God if all good comes from God, God is good, God is all the good there could ever be. How can God make more good than there already is. Because it would be that God is, by creating, making more of himself, which implies he was lesser before he did the creating, which he can't be right?

Man you going to spacers choice Hell for this one

That's fucking brutal what the hell

Shame I missed it.

Condolences on getting married, I understand some men like being tortured, you must be a masochist. 🤣

Lmao man got dropped

XD

this is so funny

Great! Now u can use the Call of Valor shout to summon Felldir the Old (remember to only say two words of the shout) and watch as he tears his enemies apart with his powerful infinite Frost Breath that is the same as dragons use.

I see the Satanists at google are censoring like the communist dogs that they are, censoring the comment section.

Happy Birthday Landon

good idea for more hangouts 🙂 ! feel free to offer to host after shows to SFT live streams

Wow I didn't even know this game had DLC :O

ATHIESTS COMMANDMENTS 1. Thou shalt be thine own god. 2. Thou shalt do as thou wilt. 3. Thou shalt not allow a divine foot in the door. 4. Thou shalt question everything except evolution. 5. Thou shalt censor anyone who disagrees with evolution. 6. Thou shalt always forgive thyself of wrong doing freely admitted and regretted. 7. Thou shalt attribute all feelings (love, wonder, etc.) to chemical reactions. 8. Thou shalt laugh when approached with NON PEER REVIEWED KNOWLEDGE from people NOT IN THE CLUB. 9. Thou shalt ignore archeological and historical evidence that proves the Bible to be true. 10. Thou shalt, when all else fails, point the finger and claim that God is not good. Doug Wilson once said, there are two tenets of atheism: 1. There is no God; and 2. I hate him.

According to secular geologists the earth was subjected to catastrophic events on average every 27 million yrs. That certainly would have provided a stressful environment which, by evolutionary standards, would have necessitated evolutionary change into organisms. Title of Article: The Earth suffers a regular cycle of horrific catastrophes, scientists say Major Geological events in our planets history were anything but random. "... according to a new study published in the journal Geoscience Frontiers, by a team of geologists who found that our planet goes through a cycle of severe geological events ..." “Many geologists believe that geological events are random over time,” said Michael Rampino, a geologist and professor at New York University and lead author of the study, in a statement. “But our study provides statistical evidence for a common cycle, suggesting that these geologic events are correlated and not random.” "Their conclusion echoes the results of a study by researchers at the University of Sydney, published in 2018, which found the cycle lasted for about 26 million years." “Whatever the origins of these cyclical episodes, our findings support the case for a largely periodic, coordinated, and intermittently catastrophic geologic record, which is a departure from the views held by many geologists,” Rampino said Futurism dot com article, sorry can't post the link as YT removes comments with Web links but it's easy to google search it.

Atheism is unrelated to morality entirely. Atheism just means 'no belief in gods'. That's it. That is the sum total of viewpoints you can attribute to any atheist based on them being an atheist. It's in the word itself.. Theist vs A-Theist. Now, logically proving that absolutely 0 gods exist is rather difficult. So once they put some thought into it the ones who want to be on the most solid ground possible in a discussion will word it as 'no belief in any gods' vs 'belief that no gods exist'. Ultimately in every useful way these are the same. And both positions would be changed by a presentation of evidence that at least 1 god type being does in fact exist. No such evidence has ever been produced so the standoff continues. Most atheists are willing to say the god described in the bible cannot exist, does not exist, because the bible is a cobbled together mess of conflicting descriptions and characteristics for that god. Since the bible is a work of fiction it follows the claims made in it are also fiction, like the creation story, the flood, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and resurrection, heaven and hell, angels, all of it. When it comes to morals there is some overlap with religious values, because religion and culture evolved hand in hand. Things like don't kill, don't steal, treat others like you want to be treated, basics of just getting along that work regardless of what imaginary friends you have in your head. We also find it weird that while laying out rules for society in the 10 commandments the first three that narcissist wrote out pertained to worshipping him. Kinda creepy. Those 3 rules would be better spent on not owning people, washing hands, that kind of thing. But no, all about himself. Anyway, atheism is a belief, just not a belief in a god. And other than a few who just like to argue for the most part we tend to not care what others believe until it impacts our lives. Like when religious groups lobby the government for religious based laws. Abortion topics, same sex marriage, qualifications for elected office, special tax deals for churches, that kind of thing. And some church groups are nothing more than hate groups, like the NIFB. When these issues come up yes we speak up. The US is supposed to have religious freedom, but this is impossible if any one religion gets special treatment, things like 'in god we trust' on the money, 'one nation under god' in the pledge, swearing oaths on bibles, that sort of thing. You are welcome to believe as you wish, no problem. Just keep those beliefs out of the rules that govern those who believe differently.

Hi, I hope you don't mind if I share my thoughts on this as an atheist. Firstoff I want to compliment you on the presentation of your criticisms, I think you've presented them quite well and I like the calm and mindfull approach you have towards these subjects. But when it comes to the substance of this video, I can really just agree with one (and a half) criticism. I shall try to explain my thoughts/position chronologically. 1) "Lack of belief" This is actually the criticism I fully agree with. Personally as an atheist myself I find it quite annoying when other atheists describe their position as a "lack of belief or disbelief" To me it seems that they mistake a "lack of belief" with "having a belief based on the lack of evidence". I personally don't believe in the existence of God because I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. 2) Atheism and morality. For me the naturalistic explanation of morality makes much more sense then the Christian one. It fits reality much better. Christian morality most definitively has changed over the course of time, in fact Christianity has excelled in taking credit for moral positions society is responsible for. If you could travel in time and meet with a Christian from the Middle-Ages, I doubt they share your sense of morality. Take for instance slavery, which Christianity was fine with untill society deemed it immoral and all of a sudden the church deemed it immoral too and tried to claim that it was Christianity that stopped slavery. Or what about putting sinners to death? There is even a severe moral shift between the old and new testament... Even in present day Christianity has been divided into about 30.000 different denominations, each with their own views on what is sinfull and how to deal with it. You state that it is evident that Godless societies are self destuctive, but to me godless societies are in no way more selfdestructive as Christian ones. Perhaps that is why you have to rely on a fictional society to make your point. 3) Superfluous atheism. Atheism is a worldview, just like your theism. Basically it is how each of us see reality, so yes, to me it seems very logical that people openly discuss, defend and share their worldview, just as any theist does. The labels agnostic or atheist aren't mutually exclusive, as they each cover a different field. Atheism/theism is you position whether you do or do not believe in the existence of (a) God(s). Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge and whether you think something can be known or not. For instance I identify myself as a agnostic atheist, somebody that believes there are no gods, but doesn't know this for sure. To my knowledge most atheists fall under that catogory. The same goes for theists too, you can have agnostic theists (I believe in the existence of a God even though I do not know for sure) or gnostic theists (I know there is a God). Humans are indeed dispositioned to see patterns and connections even were there are none. This is very apparent in children. From a certain age/stage of cranial development children start to make connections and see reason in things. For instance children were shown a rock that had the exact right height and shape for Giraffes to scratch their back. When asked nearly all children believed that this rock was specifically created to do that. But adults still have these tendencies. In casino's people often think to see patterns, people make connections between the stars and events in their lives (horoscopes) and nearly every form of superstition is born out of believing in connections that aren't there. And children still lack the knowledge and mental capacity to apply reason to debunk those notions. This is why it is so easy to convince children of anything, they miss critical mass. For me personally this is a great explantion for all the religions in the world, because religion gives a sense of hope/comfort where we have none, they give answers where we don't have those and they give a sense of controle over things we have no controle over. But if you do see this tendency as evidence for God, you should be consistent and believe that all those other tendencies are prove for those other aspects as well. So the tendency for children to believe in Santa-Claus or the monsters under their bed is proof for the existence of those things too :) And on a side note, from a evolutionary point of view, this tendency can be explained pretty well. in fact, it is kind of a chicken<=>egg discussion. Because you can ask yourself, do we believe those things because God installed that tendency in us, or did we come up with God because of those tendencies? (for me the its the latter) 4) Unsolved mysteries. This is the criticism I agree half with what you are saying. Anyone claiming we have figured out how life started here on Earth, really needs to educate themselves a bit better in my opinion. Because the best and most honest answer we have about the start of life here on Earth is: "we don't know". The notion of there being a creator is most rational and logic to you, that is why you are an theist, for me however the most logical and reasonable conclusion is that it is very unlikly there is a creator, this is why i'm an atheist. I think the very notion of what is more reasonable, is very subjective. My apologies for the very lenthy comment, but I wanted to respond to your video as thorough as I can. None of this is meant direspectfull or personal in any way, but these are just my thoughts and views regarding the substance of this video. In any case, I hope you are having a great weekend and I wish you well!

"...historically atheism has been defined as the belief that there are no gods..." 'Atheist' originally comes from the Greek 'ateos', which meant 'without the gods', and was, at the time used to refer to..... Christians! Welcome to being part of a living language where usages for words change over time. Were a gun-toting maniac to burst into your home and threaten you and your family, that would be terrific... in the _original_ usage of the word, which meant 'to cause terror' and most definitely _not_ 'something really desirable and/or good'. "...if no belief is present, then what exactly are atheists arguing for?" It depends of what you mean by this. I can see two possible interpretations. 1) Are you asking 'why are atheists arguing'? The reason here has to do with the discrimination and mistreatment of atheists, as well as a dislike of the rather horrible things one can attribute to certain religions. Or are you asking 'what position are atheists promoting'? Atheists are promoting what they consider to be critical thinking and a position based on the null hypothesis ('innocent until proven guilty') as applied to gods. In a sense, they are promoting the idea that those who _do_ believe are believers for improper reasons. "...will act as if they're neutral and agnostic..." Most of us _are_ agnostic, _and_ atheist. This is another definition issue. 'Gnostic/Agnostic' has to do with whether we do (or, perhaps, _can,_ even) know that a god exists, and 'theist/atheist' has to do with the _lesser_ version of whether we _believe_ they do. "...debating theists over a non-belief..." We don't. _You_ believe, _we_ don't, and _we_ think your belief is malformed. We are arguing _your_ belief (or, rather, god-belief in general), arguing that your reasons for it are poor and not well established. "...atheist are arguing for the nonexistence of God..." We _can,_ but only for certain versions of 'God'. There are versions of gods one cannot argue 'do not exist' as they are unfalsifiable, at which point one can only argue that there is no good reason to accept that the god proposed _does_ exist. It's a lot like invisible pixies, or a 1-foot asteroid made entirely of gold orbiting the sun between Neptune and Pluto. It's not that we can show such things _do not_ exist, but merely point out that your belief that they _do_ exist is unfounded and unjustified. The biblical God, however, doesn't exist as written in the bible, you need to make the bible allegorical/metaphorical in order to accept the god therein. "...will never tolerate sin, and will never change His views on what's sin and what's now..." But will change what to do about it whenever he feels like it, according to Christianity. "...under an atheistic worldview, you don't have a strong, solid, timeless, and unchanging morals..." Good thing! Just imagine if we still had to allow _slavery_ because we weren't able to abolish old morals! "...if our morals are the product of evolutionary processes, shouldn't they also be malleable or at least easy to alter if necessary?" You mean... like we actually observe happens in reality? ... There are always going to be _some_ morals that cannot be, due to evolution. If a group finds it moral to slaughter their own members without consequences, they won't last as a group and will die out, so such moral views will die with them. But there's _plenty_ of wiggle-room in _most_ of morality for changes and disagreements, and whichever position you hold you can probably find a bible verse to support it. Morality ultimately depends, however, on the survival and thriving of the species, and that is both absolute and never changing. It can't be alright to slaughter the whole group, or do other things _likely to lead to_ the death or harm of members of the group indiscriminately. We can _always_ allow for _some_ harm, or widespread harm to subsets of the group (which is why slavery was accepted for so long, why women's rights were so bad for so long, etc.) without much of a problem, but all it takes to _eliminate_ those things is for a group that _doesn't do them_ to _function better._ "...Christian morality is set in stone..." No, it isn't. It Jesus _changed_ Jewish morality to make Judaism 2.0 (ie, Christianity). There is _nothing at all_ that prevents some future 'change' from happening. Christians _now_ reject slavery, even though they _used the bible_ for _years_ to defend the practice. They're not stable, they're not unchanging. Don't fool yourself, examine the history of Christian morality and see what it has contained. If it contained A at one time and later on contained not-A, then it isn't engraved in stone. "...if Christianity changed with the times, it would be a useless, meaningless, and pointless religion..." Catholicism, Adventism, Anglicanism, Baptist, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Pentecostalism, Eastern Orthodox... it's changed. It keeps changing. It will continue to change. It's unavoidable. "...authentic, Holy Spirit-infused Christianity never changes..." No True Scotsman fallacy. "...that's what makes Christianity so special. It's a religion out of time..." Ditto effectively _every_ religion. You can _always_ define 'member of this group are only this group if they hold to X and so since X is always X, this group never changes'. _Islam_ has fewer schisms and breaks than Christianity, and has been 'unchanged' for centuries. The point is, Christianity _is not special._ "...why most don't just identify as agnostic instead..." Why should _we_ change _our_ label to make _you_ feel comfortable? Also, wouldn't it be _dishonest_ to suggest were are 'merely' agnostic (unsure) instead of atheist (suggesting we have no good reason, which is subtly different)? "...if modern-day atheism is indistinguishable from the concept of agnosticism..." But it _can_ be distinguished. The distinction is between what is _believed_ and what is _known._ Those who claim to _believe_ there is a god but not to _know_ there is a god are agnostic theists. "...I believe [Romans 1/20 is] describing jus how apparent God's existence truly is..." It, at best, leads to a _deistic_ god, not _your_ god, and doesn't take into account hyperactive agency detection, something humans fall for _a lot_ as it's a survival trait. "...found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist account of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts..." Yep, there's hyperactive agency detection at work. _Even when_ you can show evidence it happened _without_ an agent, our instinct is _so strong_ that it over-rides evidence and logic and makes us tend towards 'magic' as an answer. "...attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents..." Attempts to get people to think critically and rationally are likely to be short-live as human thought is wildly idiosyncratic and filled with flaws leading to fallacious modes of thought. There, corrected. And just think of how _depressing_ that is, that we are doomed by evolution to have the _vast majority_ of us thinking in ways that are non-critical and filled with fallacies in lieu of and in _spite_ of _testable_ evidence we're wrong. Religious-style flawed thinking is how you end up with Flat-Earthers and Anti-Vaxxers and general anti-science folk. The fact that you mention _on this slide_ that kids are predisposed to _reject science_ is, I think, rather telling of the problem. Truly logical, rational, scientific thinking _does not come easily_ to us, but instead takes _work_ to get from the sort of pseudo-proto-science that evolution drove into _every_ species capable of responding to things with thought to the genuine article of fully modern scientific thinking that recognizes the _massive flaws_ that old system had in deciding things were correct or likely correct. "...I've yet to see an even remotely-convincing naturalistic explanation for the origins of the universe and life..." I _also_ haven't seen a remotely-convincing _supernaturalistic_ explanation, along with the lack you mention. The reason for this is that to 'be convincing', we need some sort of measure or predictive model. Otherwise all we have are words. I reject _all_ naturalistic explanations of the origins of the universe _and_ the origins of life as, at present, they are insufficiently evidenced to accept them. This leaves me with 'I have no clue' as to the answer of how the universe started or life started. Both need _much_ more research before I come to any even _tentative_ conclusion. Well, sort of. The origins of life I'm _semi_ willing to go with abiogenesis, but I wouldn't propose that it is 'likely true' or 'definitely true'. It's just, at present, _wildly_ more plausible than _any_ supernatural explanation. "...I want you to know that God loves you and wants you to be saved..." Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing god need _you_ to send that message? Surely such a being _knows_ what it will take for me to become a believer, has the _power_ to make that happen, and so is choosing _not to_ have me believe?

Thanks Landon, that was very helpful. God bless you

Italian wall lizards for sale. 917-310-8113

Landon Freeman what time today would you like me to Primeir this on my channel so you can be in live chat?

cool video thank you! 🙂

Lovely to hear your journey Landon . I wondered where you'd gone lol. Great to see you're back and I know you'll be adding a lot of knowledge to the yec community, and continue to be a blessing to us all as in time past. God bless you from your English sister in Christ, Jo

Hi Landon, subscribed I've yet to hear how a bird can build an intricate nest within a year of birth. It didn't watch any other bird to learn from it, so the general evo response is "instinct" but instinct is like saying "magic"

Awesome information and presentation brother! So glad to have you back in action taking on the science denying evolutionists!

Yup......and you don't understand what you're talking about. Because new structures are modified versions of preexisting structures, the "information" that codes for the new structure will always precede it. For example, the genes or "information" that codes for making jaws was already present in our jawless ancestors. *"Between jawless vertebrates -- called agnathans -- and vertebrates with jaws -- called gnathosomes -- only three genes of the 12 genes the team looked at appeared to be used differently, Medeiros said. This finding suggests that "creating a jaw in a jawless ancestor was a relatively simple matter of altering when and where these few genes are used."* So as we see here, its just a matter of altering what's already there to get a new structure. *Genetic clues to evolution of jaws in vertebrates unearthed* www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100924095840.htm

Just like every example evolutionist have used in the past trying to say that these are proof of evolution and beneficial mutations yet always turn out to be nothing more than the epigenetic regulation LOL

Rapid evolution = Equivocation fallacy used by evolutionists to indoctrinate. You will notice it never means anything other than slight minor adaptation never actual evolution like in the books like they describe

Make more videos! This was a good one to decide on though. It is a more popular one evolutionism uses to defend itself. Jackson wheat used this on Nephilim Free

Excited for this!

A- Performance for the YEC.

I am taking this and putting it on SFT channel (premiering it tomorrow) If you have any written work or links of any kind to go along with this let me know

Awesome! Looking forward to this. Good job on the setup brother Landon!

@landon want to have a conversation?

link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03209695 You guys never seem to link the papers unless prodded.

A testament to the glory of molecular complexity. GOMC?

Great presentation brother !! I’ll be uploading this one.

27:00 no, no no no. the rabbit or Cow in the Cambrian is used to mainly to argue that because these species never existed in that time period then they shouldn't be found there. I am aware that creationists don't expect to see a cow or rabbit in the Cambrian because of their different habitats...... Thus I've modified the challenge myself and instead ask for Any Sharks or Marine Tetrapods or Bony fish or True Crabs. It's still the same thing, creationists still can't find them in the Cambrian because they didn't exist yet.