Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 окт 2009
- Complete video at: fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Daw...
Biologist Richard Dawkins identifies what he views is the single most compelling fact to refute Creationism -- but states that the real problem lies in convincing Creationists to listen to the evidence. "What they do is simply stick their fingers in their ears and say 'La la la,'" says Dawkins. "You cannot argue with a mind like that."
-----
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion created a storm of controversy over the question of God's existence. Now, in The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins presents a stunning counterattack against advocates of "Intelligent Design" that explains the evidence for evolution while keeping an eye trained on the absurdities of the creationist argument.
More than an argument of his own, it's a thrilling tour into our distant past and into the interstices of life on earth. Taking us through the case for evolution step-by-step, Dawkins looks at DNA, selective breeding, anatomical similarities, molecular family trees, geography, time, fossils, vestiges and imperfections, human evolution, and the formula for a strong scientific theory.
Dawkins' trademark wit and ferocity is joined by an infectious passion for the beauty and strangeness of the natural world, proving along the way that the mechanisms of the natural world are more miraculous -- a "greater show" -- than any creation story generated by any religion on earth. - Berkeley Arts and Letters
Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned evolutionary biologist and author. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and, until recently, held the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His first book, The Selfish Gene, was an instant international bestseller, and has become an established classic work of modern evolutionary biology.
He is also the author of The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil's Chaplain, The Ancestor's Tale The God Delusion, and most recently, The Greatsest Show on Earth.
Professor Dawkins's awards have included the Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London (1989), the Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science (1990), The International Cosmos Prize (1997) and the Kistler Prize (2001).
He has Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society. 
Наука
“If you type anything in quotation marks on RUclips, people will flock to it immediately, without ever fact checking the quote.” - Genghis Vanderbilt III
Yer funny.
I've read that somewhere else and can confirm it's true.
@@onafehts - You sound just like Dawkins 😉
I was actually there when Genghis said that, but because he didn't use quotation marks, I didn't believe him. Now I just feel stupid.
@@paulakennedy2085 - The OP was quite insightful. It made coming to this [absurd] video worthwhile.
kf6 *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"2ndchookie"/"davidbanner" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
bgder *Internet - the place where people come to laugh at the 66 year old b-allet dancer A-n-drew Eldridge who still tries to fake a scientist after he insisted that ostriches have no wings.*
asww *My favorite v2de0 is "Ergonomover and the ostrich" which shows the evolution from a man to a g-1bbon.*
"A mind like that is a disgrace to the human species!"
I knew I came here for a reason ;)
You gotta love this guy. Smite the ignorant with wit and intelligence.
And good old British upper class. Seems like a very nice guy. I saw him in person once; he spoke about the ministers who were renouncing their faith--had a couple of them with him, and was utterly astounded that neither of them had a lick of formal thological education. Both were either HS grads or HS dropouts. But that's typical of US southern bible preachers. It was fascinating how he didn't even know that. He always assumes people know more than they do, because he himself knows so very much and he doesn't seem to want to assume anyone is really that much less informed.
Jillian Smith
Your so stupid, it frightens me.
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1
Must be true then if it's in the bible, right?
Because the bible says the bible is true.
(Meanwhile, the koran says the koran is true.)
You fucking moron.
A smart man will read a lifetime worth of books and still admit he knows nothing. A delusional, superstitious man will read one particular book and think he has everything he needs to know.
Even if this clever little statement was in anyway true, it would still condemn someone like Dawkins who may have read many books but still makes the same claims.
Ricahrd P'Brien
""""""""" I wonder why every Christian-affiliated college in the US , except those of the strict fundamentalist variety, teaches that evolution is correct and valid science?"""""""""
It's called "deception"!!
Do you have such a list that I can review? I'm unaware of which Christian colleges support evolution and which ones don't.
Blue Chief Awesome Woe to the unwise man who does not head the words of that book.
Dan Shelton 🤣
*Simply beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And yet atheism is more scientifically rationnal than theism.
P.S: Newton believed in alchemy and put needles in his eyes. There is a reason why we use his mechanic and not his opinions
*Simply beautiful, from Pascal, with love:* _There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy._
When you see creationnist you understand that Pascal was completely wrong in saying that theists are rationnal
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*Sorry if Pascal made u m-ad, Eldridge.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig8802 Even a retard would be able to tell when I'm mad and when I'm not. As you keep on failing to do that you just showed how little intelligence there is in your brain
Please.
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 atheists are comic relief in a fallen world
if he's wearing a ridiculous tie, he's probably a genius
Would a bowtie and long unkempt hair make him more intelligent? -- lol.
#billnye #richarddawkins
@Joseph Henderson Or non-conformity.
Another data point in favor of the 'Absurd Cravat Theory'.
He may be a genius, but not in choosing ties.
*Very beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
wqww *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"AI-CREATARD" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
Senile.
*Simply beautiful and true saying from Pasteur:* _Too little science leads away from God, while too much science leads back to Him_
And yet we have more science than he did and we didn't find your god, how strange
*"conan-le-cimmerian is a t-rolling account of the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge who insisted that ostriches have no wings.....*
@@benjilupik I'm not and you know this, after all I forced you to learn it on your main account
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *I know that Eldridge l-ies more than s-tan as my beautiful v2de0s show.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 You don't have a beautiful video on your channel, you'll see when you will heal from your delusion
The DNA and gene codes of plants and animals look so similar and yet they produce so vastly different organisms.
Therefore trying to find a "common" ancestor based on DNA (aka INFORMATION) similarities is just a s-tup id idea.
@@user-pc4uo3df5i
LUCA.
@@YeshuaisnotJesus *This we were trying to explain to you, Eldridge. There cannot be any LUCA. Sorry if we were too subtle for your intellect.*
@@user-pc4uo3df5i Screeching "nuh uh" won't change reality, little troll.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Oh, after "yeshuaisnotjesus" you came with another t-rolling account "PhD" 😂 to tell us how the things really are because your expertise as a b-allet dancer (in real life) recommends you, Eldridge. So far we got from you that water contains molecules of oxygen, the solar circle is a think tank and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno. Anything else that you want to add?* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*andrew "ergonomover" eldridge" is not only a great actor, but also an amazing biologist. He insisted that Kiwi birds have no wings.*
I didn't make those claims and you are a privacy violator, according to RUclips.
Why not close all your sock accounts since you refuse to follow the rules?
@@ergonomover *How am I a privacy violator if YT ignored your accusations, cc-rree-t in?*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Once again, posting a user's first and last name without consent is a violation of RUclips privacy rules, look it up.
*A reminder for sane, honest people, you can see that in this comment section we deal with a cc-rr-eeee-t in: the ballet dancer andrew "ergonomover" eld-ridge (aka "senor reasonable"/"scientist flanders"/"devil monkey"/joseph fiore") who said he is an actor and the id io-t thinks that if someone mentions the name of an actor, that someone violates the YT guidelines. At the same time, he called me multiple times "Oscar Larsen". That says some thing.....*
*And he told us that the morning-after pills are used for...terminating pregnancies.*
jki *My v5de0s show a character who is more evil than s-tan and more s-tp1d than a baby snail.*
Man say thing I dont agree with, that mean he stupid
gft *My favorite v2de0 is "Ergonomover and the ostrich" which shows the evolution from a man to a g-1bbon.*
What was the proof? I must of missed it ..
@Epsensieg 18 A patient at a loony bin was over heard saying "I must be here because I'm not all there."
Or the video sucked and didn’t explain it very well..
@@BigDaddy-vr2ut Perhaps you don't know what "nested hierarchy of earth's species" means.
@@ExtantFrodo2 The fact is that evolution has no scientific foundation. Just because similar dna is found in organisms does not mean they all came from one ancestor. No physical evidence suggests that one family of organisms can change into another. The carbon 14 and other radiometric dating methods evolutionists use are scientifically proven to be completely false. The origin of the universe stumps atheists so bad that they don't even have theories on what could have happened. (Some claim they do, but they are all based on pure speculation with no standing in facts) The fact is evolution is accepted by faith, not science. Evolution in reality is a wrong philosophy of the how the world works.
ExtantFrodo2 perhaps
2:00 In other words: "If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong."
What arrogance!
Update: I am baffled by the number of people who automatically think I am speaking out against religion. You should only have an issue with this comment if reality contradicts your faith. If you faith aligns with reality, if there is *NO* contradiction, then there is no problem.
If you feel that nothing can cause you to lose your faith then then you are saying that no evidence, no matter how compelling, will convince you that your faith is wrong.
I have heard many many people make this proclamation, as if it is something to take pride in. It is not. There is *ALWAYS* a chance you might have made an error in your world view. If you have made a mistake, wouldn't you want to know?
The fact you are troubled by my comment makes me think you know your faith contradicts reality. If you feel that way, why are you behaving as if it is reality that is wrong?
Reality and science say that sandcastles don't erode into existence because INTELLIGENCE IS NECESSARY FOR THAT LEVEL OF ORDER since mindless forces exemplified by erosion lack the mental power of discrimination which means they will never preserve any order mindlessly made, to build upon it, such that your regressive and mindless system is always overwhelmingly destructive and an utterly hopeless alternative to intelligence which you reject for no good reason whatsoever. But now you will be arrogant and disagree with the facts I pointed to here.
You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality.
As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles.
But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle?
What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging *REALITY* to be wrong is arrogant.
A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith."
You you say this statement applies to you?
If so, you would also agree, "If reality contradicts my faith reality is wrong." because you are saying that no matter what I encounter that shows you are wrong, you will never be convinced you are wrong.
You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality.
@@erictaylor5462 "You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality.
"
NON SEQUITUR. If I don't defend my religion, atheists say I can't. When I do, they complain no matter what. No way to please you, but it is not the intention.
"As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles.
But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle?
"
You're moving the goalpost. Looks like is not the issue. It's about order level, period.
And if you agreed with that order level of any sandcastle requiring intelligence, as SCIENCE SAYS ALL THE TIME IN EVERY BEACH WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you would agree that greater order also necessarily was intended, but that would make you a theist, not an atheist, but you are an atheist, denying this science, closing your eyes to the patent truth.
[[[ What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging REALITY to be wrong is arrogant.
A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith."
You you say this statement applies to you?
]]]
I'm me, not them. Deal with my arguments, not irrelevant ones.
I don't make their weak arguments so don't try to associate me with them.
"You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality."
Total NON SEQUITUR. No reality contradicts my faith. It is totally rational. Atheism is antithetical to the science of erosion, yet you remain an atheist despite admitting I am right about that science: "As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles."
*NON SEQUITUR. If I don't defend my religion, atheists say I can't. When I do, they complain no matter what. No way to please you, but it is not the intention.*
How is the statement, ""If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." attacking your religion? Are you admitting that your faith contradicts reality?
*"As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles.
But would you agree that random, mindless erosion can make something that looks like a sand castle?*
How does the statements "If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." in *ANY WAY* address sand castles? However, to answer your question: Yes, natural processes can lead to structures that look like sand castles, along with many other forms.
*You're moving the goalpost. Looks like is not the issue. It's about order level, period.*
I'm not moving anything. At what level do you consider something to be a sand castle? Is this a face :^) or does it just look like a face?
*And if you agreed with that order level of any sandcastle requiring intelligence, as SCIENCE SAYS ALL THE TIME IN EVERY BEACH WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you would agree that greater order also necessarily was intended, but that would make you a theist, not an atheist, but you are an atheist, denying this science, closing your eyes to the patent truth.*
First off, you are *ASSUMING* I am atheist. Nothing so far has told you explicitly that I am an atheist. It is irrelevant that it happens to be true.
Science doesn't have beaches. It has *BRANCHES.* I think you have a gross misunderstanding of many aspects of science, and possibly even a weak grasp of English. But your grasp of English does not necessarily correlate to your intelligence, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not a native English speaker.
That said, you need to learn some science before you can argue scientifically. Learn it from scientists, not from Creationists. Creationists distort and misrepresent science, especially evolution, saying things like "It is random:" It is not.
*What I said was that if reality contradicts your faith, judging REALITY to be wrong is arrogant.
A great many theists will say, "No matter what you say, no matter what evidence you present, I will still have faith."
You you say this statement applies to you?*
Sorry, That should have been "Would this apply to you?" My mistake. Thank you for clarifying your position.
So, what evidence, if presented would convince you that God does not exist.
*"You defensive comment seems to demonstrate you already believe your faith contradicts reality."
Total NON SEQUITUR. No reality contradicts my faith. It is totally rational. Atheism is antithetical to the science of erosion, yet you remain an atheist despite admitting I am right about that science: "As a matter of fact, I do not disagree with what you say. I have never said that random processes lead to sand castles."*
Okay, a "non sequitur" is a statement that does not fit the question. For example, this child's answer, "I like turtles" is a non sequitur.
ruclips.net/video/CMNry4PE93Y/видео.html
If reality doesn't contradict your faith, then my comment would not apply to it.
The fact you felt moved to defend your faith when I made my original comment indicates you think it does.
My comment said nothing at all about sand castles, evolution, or God. You read all of that into my comment on your own.
@@erictaylor5462 [[[ How is the statement, ""If reality contradicts my faith, then reality is wrong." attacking your religion? Are you admitting that your faith contradicts reality?
]]]
Your already-refuted notion of reality is not the same as reality. My faith I proved right in the series aforementioned which you have not refuted, so stop implying I am irrational for faith, and start proving your insinuation.
"I'm not moving anything."
Liar. It's about order level as I clarified but you pretend resemblance, something so vague that the stars in relation to each other can resemble a bull, was the criterion. It's not. So stop moving the goalpost. Your tactic failed.
"At what level do you consider something to be a sand castle?"
You tell ME. You reached the level of a toddler, haven't you?
You may as well ask me to define the word "sand" in this context of erosion being mentioned. I'm not going to play along with your acting stupid. You are grasping at straws, obviously.
"First off, you are ASSUMING I am atheist. Nothing so far has told you explicitly that I am an atheist. It is irrelevant that it happens to be true."
I don't limit my understanding to what is explicitly expressed to me. I have this thing called deduction. I take context into account, such as you watching and supporting this shitty atheist propaganda I destroyed in a recent video, and you attacking theistic faith as irrational, which is proof you are an atheist which includes agnostics who are a subcategory of them.
I was an atheist like you when I was a baby. Then I grew up. It takes no intelligence to be an atheist. :-) Don't get offended now, since you insult your own intelligence by pretending to be too stupid to know what a sandcastle is. I'm annoyed because you're wasting my time with your pretending to be dumber than a toddler. :-)
I set the bar extremely low, but you give any pretext for not jumping the little hurdle, because you can't, and no atheist ever could, since science is always shitting on atheism by always proving intelligence is necessary for the order level of ANY sandcastle, no matter how simple. I explained why there is no chance of it happening, so you have nothing to stand on for your blind faith in mindlessly arrived at order at that puny level so by extrapolation, your being an atheist is delusion since after the proof is served to you on a silver platter, you just start acting so stupid you pretend to be dumber than a toddler who knows the difference between a drawn smiley face, and a real human face, and the difference between a sandcastle and your shit.
Atheists claim DNA was possibly ultimately unintended yet they can't even prove a puny little sandcastle could be unintended! You claim you can jump to the moon but you can't even get out of your crib! Paper tiger atheists. And evolution depends on DNA to exist, so you can't use the woman's womb to account for that woman.
"Science doesn't have beaches. It has BRANCHES."
Science studying beaches is what I obviously referred to, you who commit a strawman fallacy here based on your own deficiency or pretending to be deficient in grasping my message.
When I said that the science of erosion proves intelligence is needed for the level of order of a sandcastle, I did not say anything about science having beach-front property or anything like that. You are quite desperate to be trying to change the parameters of my arguments all the time. That's called LYING, but you don't blush because you're just another atheist preacher with no integrity.
"I think you have a gross misunderstanding of many aspects of science, and possibly even a weak grasp of English."
You are a hypocrite since I never said anything about science owning earth or anything in it. So if someone has a problem with English, it is you, not the English teacher teaching his second language. Just today some Asians told me "bury" has to Rs, and then after checking on their devices, I was proven right. Not that I am always right. Many words are so rarely used, that when they come to mind, they look a bit unfamiliar, and English orthography is infamous for being retarded. Are you English? Sorry about your language being the worst. :-)
But your grasp of English does not necessarily correlate to your intelligence, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not a native English speaker."
You didn't find a flaw in my English, you pretentious shithead. Don't be acting like you have the edge in this language. I live because I wield this language here in Asia. I have corrected Anglo-Saxons before in their own language, and it was very satisfying. I lived in the US most of my life, and know my English is better than most in the entire world who have it as their native tongue. You can be one of those pedantic types, but give me your best shot. I want to laugh some more. Si quieres hablar en español, está bien conmigo. Mi idioma natal lo prefiero sobre el más inconsistente e ilógico de todos.
"That said, you need to learn some science before you can argue scientifically."
Stupid AD HOMINEM fallacy based on the PETITIO PRINCIPII fallacy of the implied accusation that I am wrong about science. Prove it, because your word is worthless.
"Learn it from scientists, not from Creationists."
Prove I'm wrong about science, because your false dichotomy between scientist and creationist is just an appeal to the majority which is another of your shitty stupid atheist fallacies proving you are an idiot. Also, that's the AD VERECUNDIAM fallacy.
You pretend I'm stupid but in your attempt to show it, you are showing how stupid YOU are. :-) So many damn fallacies in such a short amount of words you spewed there.
"Creationists"
Deal with me, not others, moron trying to change the subject and conflate. Pathetic loser.
"So, what evidence, if presented would convince you that God does not exist."
I told you to prove my religion wrong by showing footage of a sandcastle eroding into existence. Instead of proving theism is illogical, you turn a blind eye to science proving that atheism is totally retarded, since science says it takes intelligence for less order than our own, so ours requires intelligence by extrapolation, duh.
"My comment said nothing at all about sand castles, evolution, or God. You read all of that into my comment on your own."
You don't dictate what arguments I can give against atheism and for theism. What I said was to prove my case. You see the proof, and you just ignore it, changing the subject, or rather, trying to, since I bring the attention back to the argument no atheist can logically deal with. And that's just one of my arguments for theism.
Doesn't matter. Doesn't prove if things were made by a creator or not. This doesn't fully deal with the root problem. This is exactly why it's a heart issue, not an intellectual problem. We simply do not want to acknowledge God in the world or in our lives. We. Are. Sinners.
And why would acknowledge a god that is completely absent. So much so that the most reasonable conclusion is that he doesn't exist?
Why would Thor care? Much less Odin?
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien No one has actually given hard proof, much less reliable proof of the absence of a creator. So saying God is absent is self refuting at this point.
@@eddyy777 Except that you are inverting the burden of proof. You're making the claim that a god exists, you're failing to provide evidence. Your god is absent, saying it's self-refuting is non-sensical.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien The fact is that there is already hard proof of there being a God. The point I'm making is that people don't want to acknowledge God because of the sin issue. People love sin rather than light because their deeds are evil. We don't want a God in our lives that tells us what to do and what not to do. The mere fact that we as humans can think beyond our instincts and make conclusions by ourselves in enough proof for there being a God. No one has yet to prove the absence of God. It is written on your heart already. You have proof alone. In fact, you don't need any other person to tell you if there is a God or not. It's that obvious as harsh and null as that sounds. Just sayin'. It is impossible to prove the absence of God because if there is a creation, there MUST be a creator. What is the alternative??
*Simply beautiful one from Max Planck - founder of modern science, read it carefully:* _As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom._
_Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter_
And yet, not a single evidence for god was provided. Strange that you quote scientists opinion but you don't do science. Almost as if you wanted to give the impression that you had a point
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*Sorry if Planck made u m-ad, Eldridge.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig8802 Sorry that the failure of Planck to provide a single evidence for god makes you mad. Do you sleep at night or do you spent it all crying and denying?
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien B :I’m not stuck in concrete like you and your cronies…. I set out things in the best way to get your dull brain to understand…..
So don’t try to use your stupidity change the subject…….Dawkins cannot do it, so you have no chance….
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien : Stop tilting at windmills, that you have no way of comprehending......
"Professing to be wise, they became fools"
Should have quoted the whole scripture. I wonder if they would have recognized themselves.
ExtantFrodo2, you wrote, "Yes, so many religious people professing to be wise. Sucks, doesn't it?"
So many anti-Christian people professing to be wise. Sucks, doesn't it? Have you read this?
_"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -- Ps 14:1-3 KJV_
That cuts the self-righteous atheist off at the knees. LOL!
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools
I often wonder who it is that militant atheists are trying to convince.
:oP
@@steveaustinaustin7173, you wrote, "I often wonder who it is that militant atheists are trying to convince."
Perhaps Einstein had them pegged:
_"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."_
[Guy H. Raner, 1949, quoting Einstein, in Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?". Skeptic, Vol.5, No.2, 1997]_
_"Einstein tended to be more critical of the debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he explained in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who- in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."_
[Walter Isaacson, "Einstein: His Life and Universe." Simon & Schuster, 2007, pp.388-389]
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools *" Have you read this? "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."*
Who knows if there is a god? I only state the truth as I see it - that those who profess a god exists haven't presented any convincing evidence to support their claim.
*"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."*
Wait a minute. Doesn't the god of the bible say that EVERYONE is bad and that NONE have done good? Why NOW single out unbelievers?
*"The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -- Ps 14:1-3 KJV"*
Oh yes, yes indeed it does. Thanks for providing that for me.
I'm still waiting for an Evo to explain in detail how new genes form. Human's have 47,000 of them.
But all the Evo's do is change the subject.
Mockery, erroneous conclusions and a hatred of Jesus Christ…That’s all the Evo’s got.
a gene can duplicate and change to form a new gene sometimes
To be fair, if you really want to learn then that's a great question. To understand the answer, start by looking into how genes get passed from parents down to offspring. Once you get to understand how that works then it's not too big a step to get to the answer to your question. But certainly start by learning about how genes get inherited. Once you understand what "diploid" means in that context then you'll be part way there.
@@davegaskell7680 *At one moment there was no parent to pass the genes from....keep belueving in nonsense.*
Genes can be duplicated. If you take a piece of dough with some sprinkles in it and split it in half, chances are that one side will have a bit more dough than the other. And chances are that the colors of sprinkles in the two halves will be a bit different, and more in one half.
vbvv *Another beautiful one from the same Einstein:* _Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble._
Senile.
@@yeshuaisjoshuaThis is when Einstein's mental faculties began to slip.
@@AmericanJohnnyBoone
Not Einstein, the author of the thread.
Pretty sure that if Einstein was an atheist, you wouldn't have quoted him. BTW he was agnostic, not theist.
@@gazpachopolice7211 *Ur opinions are wrong, even rtrdd, therefore irrelevant.*
*Simply beautiful and powerful one from James C. Maxwell:* _Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created._
Simply beautiful and powerful one from James C. Maxwell:
I didn't provide a single evidence for creation being correct and quoting me about is just an authority fallacy from idiots
*"conan-le-cimmerian is a t-rolling account of the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge who insisted that ostriches have no wings.....*
@@benjilupik I'm not trolling, I'm calling out the BS in your comment. You however are trolling since you are an alt account of the moron I'm calling out. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *I know that Eldridge l-ies more than s-tan as my beautiful v2de0s show.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 So even if he lies (which you have done a lot more than him) that doesn't concern me in the slightest. After all you're the one that keeps failing to prove I'm Mr.Eldridge. So even if he was a liar, your comment would be as impertinent as it can be
_I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism._
*Lord Kelvin*
Kelvin also said: "Radio has no future. X-rays will prove to be a hoax"
@@DocReasonable *Kelvin is one of the greatest scientists of this planet and l-aughed at your doctrine. You are a ballet dancer who insisted that the solar circle is a think tank and 250-237 means an increase of 23, and-rew "ergonomover" eldr-idge.*
@@user-ry9te3ov2u Kelvin also insisted: "Radio has no future. X-rays will prove to be a hoax"
@@DocReasonable *Kelvin was a great scientist who p-iss-ed on your doctrine, ballet dancer andrew "ergonomover" eld-ridge.*
@@user-pc4uo3df5iI never had the job of "ballet" dancer, it's not in the CV you posted, why lie about it all day every day? What is the point of that?
*I really enjoy science. Because science brings you closer to God as all the greatest scientists of this planet admitted.*
And god is energy and matter…….No beard or robe
@@terrymckenzie8786 *Energy/matter cannot create itself according to the laws of physics and cannot create information and codes according to reality and evidence.*
That's absolutely false. To think that, you must first believe enough in a God to forget all the methodology you use in science ...
So, believing scientists may say what you quoted but not rationalist, even out of their domain, scientists.
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 According to observation that's what happens: energy and matter are able to create codes, etc.
And don't forget this: E = MC² equivalence between matter and energy.
Atheism is not a religion , it's just rationalism.
@@BlackSun3Tube *As a matter of fact all the greatest scientists of this planet acknowledged an intelligent creator. I know it takes you by surprise. And as a matter of fact nature creating information and codes and order from disorder and everything from nothing was not spotted in the wild and is discounted by real science.*
nvmy *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"2ndchookie"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"Lexi"/"yesguaisjoshua" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
vvb *Quoting Einstein:* _Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble_
You must have a humiliation fetish
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - Gregory House (TV character played by Hugh Laurie)
Never watched House', but what a simple yet brilliant quote.
Funny cos it's true.
you know way i laugh at people that do not believe in God first off it is the odds live could be done with out a creator the odds are 1/2.850.000 x10 against such b.s. seeing how 1/30 x1000 is an impossibility WITCH SCIENTIST HAVE STATED THAT IS THE NUMBER PAST ALL PROBABILITY (2) if you look at qubed math and the 3,6,9, math Tesla used you begin to see how complex every thing is ,SO I HAVE MORE REASON TO LAUGH AT evolutionist l seeings how there religion is faith based as well NO MY DEAR CHRISTIANS EVEN THOUGH FAITH HAS REVEALED GOD TO YOU AND TRULY IS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW GOD ,THERE IS SO MUSH MORE TO GOD THEN FAITH AND IF MATH DOES NOT CONVINCE THEM THEN GOD HAS NOT CHOSEN THEM BEST YOU MOVE ON
Mike Myr are you for real? Do you even understand what you are actually saying?
*Mike Myr*
The probability that any god, much less yours, exists is 0.0625%.
May god b-less. ; )
I heard it as "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people".
Isn't there a family tree with automobiles? Supposing an alien came to earth and took away all the automobiles that exist today, ranging from the bike, to the moped to the low spec cars to the formula one cars etc, all the models of all the automobiles that exist. Then that alien took those items into its lab and examined them. They'd find remarkable similarities. They'd see wheels, similar metals and similar materials, they'd see steering wheels and brakes and gears etc. Also they'd be able to put them into a geneology, like a family tree based on criteria like simplicity and performance etc. So is it a good argument from Dawkins that the existence of a family tree within DNA is evidence that refutes the existence of a creator?
*It's about the fallacy "similarities=inheritance", indeed. That's the famous "fact" aka f-art which "refutes" creationism. Luckily Dawkins changed his mind, I quote him:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._
Sure, ... your view holds some merit. It's quite possible that life on Earth was 'designed' by some extraterrestrial intelligence.
Dawkins himself admits that life on this planet being intelligently designed is a possibility. ~ Most notably in his Ben Stein interview, --
Quote :
*_"Intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, ... evolution it could come about in the following way, .. it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded on to perhaps this planet, ..... now that is a possibility"_*
ie: *'Directed panspermia'*
I have a question. ~
If, .. as you say, .. some alien car thieves did figure out the vehicles were designed _(and manufactured)_ by some intelligence. - What would be the more logical and reasoned 'hypothesis' for who/what created those vehicles.?
An inteligent _'physical'_ lifeform exists on the planet from where thet absconded with the vehicles.
- or -
An unexplainable, .. unprovable, .. omnipotent, .. omniscient, ..omnipresent supernatural entity exists ouside of all space, time and known physical existence.
@@2ndchookie919 *Your opinion holds some merit too, b-allet dancer Eldridge, after all you told us that ostriches have no wings and 250-237 means an increase of 23. Not to mention you added keywords like "scientist", "PhD" and "professor" to some of your many trolling accounts.*
@@biglongfish9253 *_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
@@2ndchookie919 *Oh, such an interesting reply coming from a 65-year-old adult! Impressive, Eldridge! Aronra's cult couldn't find a better representative!*
Saying genes look similar and so they evolved is like saying every poem in English literature is made up of just 26 letters, so the poems evolved themselves.
Saying 'a new species has never been observed to add new genetic information' is like saying a new sentence has never been observed to add new information, even though it's made from the same 26 letter alphabet as every previous sentence. Try thinking before commenting again, please, ckskr.
The correct analogy would have been that they're sentences in each poems that closely resemble each other with sub a low probability that they form randomly that it indicates that the poems have the origin...
That's some low IQ thinking.
Must of had a crappy BuyBull school teacher for science class.
Actually, your analogy is more akin to genetics than you may realise. A more appropriate way of looking at it would be that by comparing the word usage in poetry across periods of time, one could study the evolution of words and language itself over that period, including the evolution of the letters themselves, as these things change through time with history, culture and usage. And indeed, it could point to the origin of a language from other languages or regions, which is indeed what linguists study these days.
No, Him saying the genes look similar is not what he said,
what he said was, the hierarchical pattern of DNA sequences matches the hierarchical pattern of homology.
This is usually followed up with, "the designer uses similar DNA sequences to code similar organisms so obviously they would be similar genes/genomes"
however, its the noncoding regions within the permitted noise of the genome which is tested, these are not influenced by selection so remain independent of fitness of trait.
If you have any doubts that Larsen is batsht insane... only joking, nobody doubts that!
*From the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
Newton spent more time trying to make sense of the Bible than he did working on Physics. In the end, he failed ... and had nothing insightful to contribute. His mountainous notes on the subject exist and have little to contribute to his above statement.
@@persimmontea6383*Newton did in science more than all your b-washers together.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 speaking of brainwashed. project much?
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Still, that is an argument from authority.
Smart people can be wrong too, thats basically a universal principle now, and his alchemy was pretty bad unfortunately, gotta admire the effort, but that wig was certainly a bit much.
Also, Einstein really absorbed his work, its a shame that Newtons work was so situational.
Every time a Christian tries to convert me, I ask them this:
4,200 religions in the world, what made you choose Christianity?
Agreed! Yours too!
Its a great question. I'm a Christian and whenever I run into a person of faith I ask them the same question. Most of the time I just hear something like, "I prayed about it and feel at peace." or something like that. I then say, "well if I ask the mormon or the muslim that, they will say the same as you, so tell me again why you believe your religion is true and the others are not."
★Modern Physics Reveals an Intelligently Constructed Universe ★ rd ruclips.net/video/D0GOgoHelFI/видео.html
Many theories, why did you choose evolution
I always use - there are 4200 religions in the world so you’re almost as atheistic as me, I don’t believe in 4200 and you don’t believe in 4199 making our religious outlook 99.999% the same.
*Simply beautiful and deep one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
Ah so we can see god through his creation but not verify that it is indeed his creation.... Logic eludes you
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*Here it is smth nice about u, the v1de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich". I know for a fact that u enjoy it.*
@@biglongfish9253 No, I don't enjoy moronic videos so once again you're wrong. And go on explain to me how a video you made before I destroyed you for the first time and that is obsessed with someone else is somehow about me. Unless that's just your hypocrisy speaking (it's that and we both know it)
then howcome the mud isnt evolving into single cell organisms all the way to dinosaurs right now?
Why did yhwh destroy the world?
If god made you from dust, why is there still dust?
@@devilmonkey427 everyuthing on earth is made from earth material, duhrrrrrrrrrrr what did god make u out of alien dna?
@@yeshuaisjoshua if the bible is true howcome arabs+jews are canaanite DNA proven, and y are canaanites aka jews+arabs in the promised land right now against gods words instead of humble serving the older brother as god commands? fake
@@anniemarie-5150 Can you explain Tumfrico's Period Experiment without god?
*Absolutely beautiful and deep one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
Why do emus have wings?
Because everything is 'perfect' to someone's eyes, it means one of the 4000 religions is true? It means that a dead man can resurrect? It means that a man can walk on water and multiply bread and fish? Sorry but religion, as history shows, is always an excuse for kings and rulers to justify why they should own everything. That's what they told the people in america, in the Philippines and everywhere. That 'god' gave the kings the right to own the world.
@@orlandocarrillo7132 Brilliant deconstruction!
@@ergonomover*Here it is smth nice about u, the v1de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich". I know for a fact that u enjoy it.*
Dawkins said "Observing the patterns of resemblance you see when comparing the genes from plants and animals they form a perfect hierarchy" How on earth does this refute creationism? You still need to explain how those genes came into existence from time, matter and chance which originated from a source of nothing. Richard Dawkins has even stated that he is not absolutely certain that God doesn't exist which kinda undermines his whole argument
@Rory Forbes I think he's arguing about the refutation of creationism, not evolution. Anyhow, I am trying to understand the refutation deeper, perhaps you can help fill in the gap for me. So it starts by saying that genes are similar in structure. That if a being created the genes and animals, they should not be similar in structure. Great similarities in structure are deceptions or made to deceive. I'm not sure why there cannot be great similarities if there was a creator. Can you tell me?
@@Pomorchik I guess Hitler wasn't evil then as he was just an organism following the evolutionary process of natural selection for the dominant species
@@pesmergaserene7988 i will try to explain a bit differently: the claim of creationism is actually several claims - 1. That living beings were created not evolved, 2. That they are perfect in their creation (complete without defect), 3. That they are serving a purpose (part of a divine plan). What Dawkins says, therefore, undermines these three claims because: 1. When you compare at the DNA level (and S J Gould compared at the physical level), you can see that DNA has changed over time and that change can be witnessed by comparing animals or plants. And if a change is evidenced, then creationism is debunked because it claims for "permnanecy" since creation day, 2. When you compare and explore DNA, you can find imperfections and "remains" of former genes that no longer are relevant. This debunks the perfect claim in creationism. 3. When you compare and explore DNA you can see how genes correspond with the environment and those that succeeded either were those that carried on or had to evolve... This debunk the claim of creationism that what was created was for a purpose (since that purpose is eternal). But the DNA comparison shows that genes are acting and reacting and therefore the evolutionary claim is not that the created being is ITSELF the purpose, but that the purpose is to live - and therefore if it is better surviving in water, it explains why the nostril turned into a blowhole (in water living mammals)... This debunks the creationist idea that dolphin was created for a puprose. The dolphin evolved from an ancestor that was living on land.
@@Pomorchik I would think death itself has claimed the most human lives
@@ahboaz Okay, you've created in essence a strawman by saying creationists make claims 2 & 3 which are false, the only one you got right was the first claim and you didn't even address it. Can you explain how nothing created everything?
*This is lovely from Max Planck - founder of modern science, read it carefully:*_As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom._
_Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter_
Here's something else about Maxwell, read it carefully.
He never had any evidence indicative of the existence for a god.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*Here it is smth nice about u, the v1de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich". I know for a fact that u enjoy it.*
*Simply beautiful, from Max Planck - founder of modern science:* _There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls_
Yeah that's just wrong. Religion presupposes a god exist and want to prove it, science look for evidence of any god's existence and find none
*Notice that 100% of the comments of the rtrd A-ndrew Eldridge are l-ies or fallacies because that's the ONLY way Aronra's doctrine can be defended.*
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” Proverbs 18:2 ESV
the kind of religious belief that causes a person to block out all evidence and reason, in favor of some fantasy? that's not something I want to understand.
To those who only believe what they can "see", contemplate this science; Since I cannot see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, only the visible light spectrum is real. Everything else is an opinion or does not exist to me.
Scientific fact is humans can only "see" about 1% of the EM wave spectrum.
The more scientists search for "truth", the more they find that the less they truly understand it.
@@stephenmartinez1 perhaps is evidence and reason that leads someone to believe ?
@@nobodyknows3180 I’ll grant u that most people believe because of personal revelation. Though that’s fine but there’s plenty that do offer evidence and that evidence sometimes was the thing that converted them
@@nobodyknows3180 Yh the problem with that is Dawkins has to step in my worldview to argue his case
*Unforgettable one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
frrr *Another beautiful one from the same Einstein:* _Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble._
Are you down to only 14 trolling accounts now, were the others closed by RUclips because of your constant violations?
And an other one about Einstein that he probably thought: _I don't have any evidence for any god_
Well he didn't say it but that doesn't excuse you from forgetting that little detail. Do you anything else than quotes that don't do anything?
*Beautiful one from Einstein:* _Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind._
Science without religion is fascinating. It's impressive enough learning about the world and how it works without adding in fairy tales to explain the difficult parts.
@@deenadamico2673 : "Satan thou aret but a dunce, the harlot was a virgin once" :W Blake..... Now yoy will be wondering what is the relivence of that quote, because you are so shallow.......
Science without religion is science, because it is founded first on not knowing, and works its way backward by carrying empirical observation.
Assuming true without evidence is not science.
And before you say it, the proof that there is no god is the same proof that their is no flying pink unicorn behind your head that only I can see.
Its simply Occams razor, we assume something with no evidence isnt true because assuming things true without evidence can allow us to believe anything.
Now that being said, I could believe in a creative force of some sort, and I know exactly where that observation is, call it his signature, but I know for a fact that you cannot see it and I am not going to tell you because you spawn camp people into your cult that you probably think is Christianity before they get a chance to develop critical thinking skills.
@@davidbanner6230 Shallow? Guys, it's you who are pushing that someone just happened to create everything with the blink of an eye. How is that "deep"?
You can believe in God AND evolution. God actually makes so much more sense that way, as an intrinsic aspect of nature, his presence felt through living creatures, evolution being his hand.
That way, science becomes the indirect study of God. Instead, using miracles to explain everything is lame, not helpful to anyone for anything. That kind of religion has never done anything good, just grasping to power to spread tyranny and hate.
@@deenadamico2673*U know science as much as a snail.*
*Very beautiful and deep one from the great Newton, with much love:* _He must be blind who does not immediately see in the perfect and wise arrangement of beings, the infinite wisdom and goodness of the almighty Creator, and 'idiot' he who does not confess Him_
*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
@@2ndchookie919 *You need to grow up, rtrd buhahaAndrewEldridge.*
@@user-tu1co9xl1k
Says the _M@R@N_ who's a recipient of the *_'Best Pathetic Troll of All Time'_* award!!!
Buwahahahahahahahahahaha, ........ splutter, ... burp, .... cough, cough, ..... ahahahahahahahahaha, ....... sighhhhhhhhh!
*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
1600's ?? ...... mmmmm! _"Out Of Date'_ by 300+ years!!
*Get With The Program Cteard !!!!!* ~~ Buwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
*Pure comedy: the rtrdd BALLET DANCER who insisted that ostriches have no wings calls me "latrine assistant".....No one can stop this crcture when he wants to publicly humiliate himself*
ENGLAND!!! SPEAK U THE ENGLAND!!
Latrine assistant Larsen.
Why creationists will never produce evidence:
...they don't have the foggiest idea what actually counts as evidence. 🤷♂️
*Take the 7-8 pieces of the simplest puzzle, bring them wherever you want on this planet, shuffle them and let any natural force act upon them. It will never fit the pieces together, but id-iots are dreaming that it can put together many billions of dynamic parts, each with its own set of functions, all interconnected.*
There is a mistake in your reasoning. The pieces of the puzzle you are referring to, are the DNA parts. They were not assembled the way they are by randomness but by nature. Its the conditions of nature that pushed them, through billions of years of evolution and not just an empty coincidence. Why are there black people where is sunny and white people where it snows? Evolution shaped humans, their DNA that way.
If I had 8 cards, and I continuously shuffled them, they would definitely be in order at some point.
But that aint how evolution works anyway.
This argument is ridiculous.
Man is an intelligent designer and all of mans creations share so many basic characteristics.
All land vehicles from the bycicle to wheelbarrows even every aeroplane all have wheels, made from metals and so on.
An intelligent designer can make many different things from the same basic ingredients very easily and readily.
Just as a chef 👨🍳.
This is not a refutation of anything.
Nonsense is still nonsense even when it’s spoken by intelligent people.
Epsensieg 18
The point is not whether man designed God or not. If you believe man designed God then may you live long and prosper.🖖
However the real point is the utter absurdity that similarities must mean evolution.
This is pointedly proven false every single day by human ingenuity and creativity.
All the different foods made in a kitchen have markedly similar characteristics yet they did not evolve from each other.
Nor did cars to the movies we watch and so on.
This example can be used on anything intelligently designed.
Even the different Gods in human mythology from Zeus to whoever all share similar characteristics but they were intelligently designed.
They did not evolve or mutate from each other.
Common sense anyone?
Whether you are religious or atheist it’s always a good idea to Keep a nugget of common sense around.
I agree with man being an intelligent designer....but everything supposedly started with a BANG and then an Evolutionary process......if MAN the intelligent designer is a product of this....did evolution pass that intellect and ability to consciously reason on to man?
@horror I think creationism does quite well with diversity and differences. It doesn't need similarities as a crutch.
@Karl Pagan 'festering garbage'.... Where is the empathy in such a statement... As I was told multiple times here about the empathy of the non-religious....so....energy just existed and is eternal....and was not created but was the catalyst of creation and all eventual life......becareful Karl.... Wouldn't want that theory to start sounding too much like God.... who is eternal... Was not created but is the creator and just existed from the beginning... The different is that He is a conscious and intelligent being...unless of course this energy you speak of had intellect and consciousness.....then I would say to you... You're getting warmer Karl..
intellectual being
@Karl Pagan Your argument was blown apart the moment you retorted Nazi propaganda, in the form of calling those of opposing viewpoints subhuman, we lost millions to end that, fuck off with bringing it back. But, I'll indulge you, energy is not sentient as far as anyone knows, but what it makes up, is, you're using a strawman argument to justify hatred and apathy toward empathy, which is wrong, and a sign of sociopathic tendencies.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html&ved=2ahUKEwiUz-qgw77kAhVGXq0KHegcD6YQFjAEegQICxAL&usg=AOvVaw0X3udLuYDd4oxyR565Dn8_
You claim the Big Bang was never stated to be an explosion, which is half correct, it was stated to be an expansion CAUSED by an explosion, but this was refuted as was most of the Big Bang, it's a Pseudoscience, a theory, most people agree the universe is constantly expanding, but the Big Bang is not agreed to be the cause anymore, it's considered go be to grand, and lacking to be true. Tell me, how did the Big Bang create time, or space? You can't because the Big Bang is not accepted anymore.
It's a fact that life changes over time, or more specifically, that allele frequencies change in populations over time. _Nature_ mag. explains it: "Alleles are variant forms of a gene that are located at the same position, or genetic locus, on a chromosome. An allele frequency is calculated by dividing the number of times the allele of interest is observed in a population by the total number of copies of all the alleles at that particular genetic locus in the population. Allele frequencies can be represented as a decimal, a percentage, or a fraction. *In a population, allele frequencies are a reflection of genetic diversity.* Changes in allele frequencies over time can indicate that genetic drift is occurring or that new mutations have been introduced into the population."
Mutations change organisms, denial is futile. Evolution explains genetic diversity.
Isn't it cute how the creationist promotes his putzy video which has a whopping 2 views and displays other people's postings , not mine? It seems there is no sound-track and comments are disabled, typical of cowardly creationists who want to spoil or to avoid rational discourse. Who is this captainatheist, he never posts here? Typically false and irrelevant, are all creationist postings.
TV's Ancient Aliens is less ridiculous than Darwin's short island adventure.
Why? Because you can't simply deny the theory of evolution?
Are you glued to the History Channel, it changed a lot when people like you subscribed to it.
*Great example of e-vil rtrdation, I am quoting b-allet dancer 😂 A. Eldridge aka "FlandiddlyandersPhD"/"docreasonable"/"creationists-arecrybabies":* _Only 2% of an organism's DNA even has any function...What sloppy tinkerer would design junk ?_
*He later on, suddenly increasing his initial prediction from 2%: to 32% 😂:* _The Yale School of Medicine says "68% of human DNA is functionless junk_
*Quoting Yale School of Medicine:* _Yale scientists played a leading role in an international effort to map the 99 percent of the human genome that doesn’t produce proteins-perhaps ending the notion that those regions are “junk.”_
: you are a pathetic lost soul, with a rudimentary childish understanding, Those tiny communities are incapable of surviving today, while surrounded by stability, so you can imagine the carnage that would have taking place then?
What about the establishment of universities and factories making toilet bowls, do you think those tiny comitie
s could have done that? Groe up and get real…..and Fk off, I’m tired of talking to children and Dawkin’s made up names…..go away you shallow idiot…
*Very beautiful one from Max Planck - founder of modern science, read it carefully:* _As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom._
_Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter_
'we must assume'... That's completely opposed to how a scientist should work. Scientists do not assume. They hypothesize and work on proving those hypotheses. But that's the result of brainwashing. I have many friends who studied medicine with me and even though the profession demands living under the rules of the scientific method, they are devote believers. Which makes no sense at all. Its either you're a scientific or religious
: you are a pathetic lost soul, with a rudimentary childish understanding, Those tiny communities are incapable of surviving today, while surrounded by stability, so you can imagine the carnage that would have taking place then?
What about the establishment of universities and factories making toilet bowls, do you think those tiny comitie
s could have done that? Groe up and get real…..and Fk off, I’m tired of talking to children and Dawkin’s made up names…..go away you shallow idiot…
Damn, Max Planck really dropped the ball on that one
Wow!! "I don't suport with what you are saying, but will fight for your right to say it" : Stalin....I think....
@@davidbanner6230 lol
Article by the American Law Registry:
It was conceded in the convention of 1821, that the Court in People vs Ruggles, did decide that the Christian religion was the law of the land, in the sense that it was preferred over all other religions, and entitled to the cognition and protection of the temporal Courts by the common law of the State. One class, including Chief Justice Spencer and Mr. King, regarded Christianity as a part of the common law adopted by the Constitution. Another class, in which were Chancellor Kent and Mr. Van Buren, were of the opinion that the decision was right, not because Christianity was established by law, but because Christianity was in fact the religion of the country, the rule of our faith and practice, and the basis of public morals. - Source: People vs Ruggles, New York, 1811. (Published Online by Penn Carey Law Legal Scholarships).
Ah so the US are a theocracy that forgot the liberty of religion (and therefore from religion) that it was established upon. That explains why the Christian population there is tanking the country down
Isnt that the guy who said he wouldnt believe God even if He spoke directly to him? Talk about evidence...
Stop speaking sht.
Stop lying.
Its probably because schizophrenia and manufactured dream people are a thing and also very much has evidence unlike the other
Lmao no one said that. No one ever said that. The real quote is, "if he were real I wouldn't worship him" think of how dumb someone would be to say they wouldn't believe in something right in front of them
@@ErinnnnL ruclips.net/video/2vG_8wkwhr0/видео.htmlsi=KnO-Agg1smweryjm
Just a reminder: "Ballet dancer A***w E******e" is 1. a forbidden and lawless posting online of private information without consent 2. A slur on mon character, as if a dancer can't think
3. a mistake since I am a contemporary dancer first and foremost.
Such a bad-faith bungler and failed cyber-stalker wants us to trust him about Jesus?
Quoting you: _"Ballet dancer A***w E******e" is_
Judging by the number of "*"It seems you don't know how many letters are contained in your name....😂😂😂😂
*It looks like you found my vids very interesting, Eldridge and I thank you for that.*
Thanks for proving I left this page over a month ago, and that you are thus lying every day. Your silly videos were flagged for harassement and privacy violations. 10 putzy trolling videos that no one watches for a page no one visits, you are such a smart guy. Why not waste more time making longer videos with more slides?@@user-tu1co9xl1k
You've been screaming "ballet dancer" for over 9 months now, how it that attempt at a homophobic slur working for you, troll?@@user-tu1co9xl1k
You refuse to answer me man to man? Thanks for proving you are a liar and a coward.@@user-tu1co9xl1k
I had an old buddy who claimed Conan the Barbarian would destroy Doc Savage (pulp fiction by Lester Dent).
Time has proven that this is correct, Conan reigns supreme, Doc Savage has been forgotten.
In other news, our resident "destroyer of trolls" is still laboring away, destroying here, destroying there, they keep popping up.
*A rtrd who insisted that ostriches have no wings calling people "creatard". This is what you get from Aronra's cult.*
I really like how he condensed all that into one sentence
Even though it is a false premise. You can look at the similarities and say it points to a common creator just as easily.
@@vistuscaine you didn't get the video.
The idea of ”vestigial relics” of genetic information, also called “junk DNA”, that Dawkins meant to be the most important fact to prove evolution true, is not considered a fact anymore. When it was discovered in the 1970’s that most part of the human genome does not code for proteins, the rest of the DNA was soon declared to be useless left overs of random evolutionary processes. However, recent studies have shown that the non-protein-coding parts of DNA, do code for other necessary processes in living organisms. The study of these “junk” parts of the genetic information has already proved to be a gold mine of information, among other things about diseases and their treatment, and most certainly more is to follow. Richard Dawkins made himself a “disgrace”, to cite his own word, in perpetrating that unintelligent, unscientific idea that the origin of life can best be explained by declaring the most part of genetic information as junk. Today it sounds like a joke.
Actually, he condensed it into one word only : "Hallucination" !
I guess I must have been "hallucinating" for more than 45 years by now, then.
It was more than one sentence....
*I really love this quote:*
_This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being._
*Newton*
Newton realized he was mistaken, fctard.
@@DocReasonable _A-theism is so senseless and o-dious to mankind_ *Newton*
i would make shit up as well if i knew the crazy church and its followers would kill me for speaking the truth
You love how Newton suffered religious brain-lock when challenged by Jupiter's secondary gravitational tug? We had to wait hundreds of years for French scientists Legrand and Laplace to elaborate "perturbation theory". The natural answer was always out there, but Newton gave up trying to find it. Hardly something to celebrate.
@@ergonomover *When Newton speaks it's advisable that a ballet dancer like you whose intellectual level is "the solar circle is a think tank" and "250-237 means an increase of 23" to be silent!*
Did you guys see the debate Richard Dawkins had a month ago , he said if I would choose one religion it would be the Christian team
WRONG. He only said that Christianity is not as bad as Islam.
@DocReasonable He said that too bro but he also said he chooses Christianity of all religions
@@Dts71 He said he's a 'cultural christian', I guess you don't know what that means.
@@Dts71 The amount of lies U tell really guarantees ur place in the LoF where the worm dieth not.
@DocReasonable ok what ever you say , Richard said he considers himself on the Christian team
Big Bang theory vs Genesis chapter 1:
The standard explanation from secular science assumes that the Earth is the result of particle and asteroid collisions over time, and that life has derived from other worlds that supposedly contain water and organics due to meteor fragments on Earth that contain sea water and bacteria. Yet the Earth could not have derived from particle and asteroid collisions over time due to the force of the sun’s gravitational effect, which is far greater than any object within the solar system by orders of magnitude. This means that a group of particles and asteroids cannot collect together to form a single cluster in proximity of the sun, because a gravitational effect greater than the sun is required first.
Otherwise, there would be nothing to gather the particles and asteroids into a single location near the sun to form the Earth due to the sun’s immense gravitational effect. The current assertion by Big Bang cosmologists is that particles and gases formed the Earth via electrolysis, but because particles and gases have mass, it will mean that they cannot form into a cluster in proximity of the sun's intense gravity, which is self-explanatory.
According to Genesis chapter 1, God made the Earth on day one, while the sun and the moon were created on day four, which means that the Holy Bible has taken the sun’s gravitational effect into account, while the Big Bang theory has not. And the sun’s gravity must be taken into account, because no planet could be formed whilst being in the proximity of the sun’s immense gravity. So, because there are no examples of a planet having derived from particle and asteroid collisions due to the sun's immense gravity, it will mean that they have derived from supernatural creativity instead, which is equal to being a miracle, because there is no natural process that can generate a planet from particle and asteroid collisions over time within the sun's proximity due to the sun's intense gravitational field, which exceeds any object within the solar system by orders of magnitude
-No you idiot, where we are the sun's gravity is not the strongest gravity that we feel. So yes, Earth was able to form itself
-The second paragraph is BS. If the Sun was so strong that nothing with a mass could cluster then neither earth, nor the moon nor the other planets of the system (including mercury which is feeling a much stronger gravity than earth) could remain as they are
-And the sun has been shown to be older than the earth therefore your book is wrong. Also, funny that you make a poor excuse for earth but not about mercury which according to your (lack of) logic shouldn't have formed due to the sun's gravity as your god made it with the sun, same goes for venus...
Look at you trying to disprove science with science by insisting its magic.
BA HA HA HA HA
*One must be incredibly s-tup id to say that codes are random and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno. That's the case of the 65-year old ballet dancer A-ndrew Eldridge*
I’ve read repeated comments from you and your other RUclips accounts. Firstly I find it odd that you have posted so many messages and using multiple accounts. I think you are saying that God exists but I can’t work it out. Is this correct? I am highly educated but from your repeated messages I think you were trying to use odd information to make atheists look stupid
@@danprice7973 *I don't need to make u and ur fellows to look s-tp1d, because they do this job by themselves.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703🙂
Mutation is not random, Mutations are arranged in a nested hierarchy of mutability wrapped around replication/reproduction (which is the very center).
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 🙂
feff *I confess I have the same problem as Lord Kelvin who said this:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
He says and things come to existence
Does evolution preclude (make impossible) the possibility of a Creator?
Seeding a planet with DNA is not a creator.
@@yeshuaisjoshua You did not answer the question.
@leehughart3160
Even if a god exists, evolution is a fact. But how life started is still a mystery. A god is not necessary for life to begin.
@@yeshuaisjoshua You still did not answer the question.
@leehughart3160
I answered, not the answer you're looking for, it's your problem.
*Simply beautiful from Anro Penzias, Nobel laureate in physics, co-discoverer of the cosmic microwave background:*
_The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five Books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole_
basically that he has no clue... yup.
*I made screenshots showing that the 65-year-old ballet dancer A-n-d-rew Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"FlandiddlyandersPhD"/"creationists-arecrybabies" spent his New Year's Eve....trolling, carrying imaginary dialogs to his own t-rolling accounts and wishing them "Happy New Year!". This is what it means to be enrolled in Aronra's cult.*
*_"SKWAAAAAARK!!!! ~~~ CRETARD WANTS A CRACKER" ~~~~ SKWAAAAAARK!!!!_*
*Simply beautiful and motivational this one from Kelvin:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Or it was above him, which is no surprise as he said that physic was over as a science and failed to prove his god's existence
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*Sorry if Kelvin made u m-ad, Eldridge.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig8802 Sorry that reminding Kelvin got a lot of things wrong and that your appeal to authority is just terrible
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien*Here it is smth nice about u, the v1de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich". I know for a fact that u enjoy it.*
@@biglongfish9253 3 times you get debunked by the same comment, you must like it.
No, I don't enjoy moronic videos so once again you're wrong. And go on explain to me how a video you made before I destroyed you for the first time and that is obsessed with someone else is somehow about me. Unless that's just your hypocrisy speaking (it's that and we both know it)
1 oh wow God made all the organisms in the same way, and they feed on the same food, and they are food to each other so it makes sense they are made from the same blocks
2 If my friend that I know and has saved my life multiple times tells me "trust me" , I will
1. 500 million years of creatures eating each other (using spikes, teeth, claws venom etc), often alive is a powerful motor of evolutionary change, but a very sloppy one, this god you worship must love extinctions of species (4 billion extinct and counting) and be very patient.
2. This friend is immaterial (not made of energy or matter)? You two communicate telepathically or through vague signs?
I trust you know most followers of your friend accept some form of theistic evolution, as you seem to do.
Did one of your talking animals tell you that?
And what are these "BLOCKS" you speak of...
Pandas eat bamboo.... Grizzlies do not..... They are both part of the family Ursidae
I'm sorry that you're ignorant.
Have you ever thought about going to school and getting an education?
Then how come there is abundant animal, plant and fungus life on this planet that is toxic to humans if consumed? ~ mmmmm!
Dr Dawkins would therefore be amazed to find the similarities among buildings to be do to a designer! How he misses the point is baffling.
Creationists are dishonest out of pure necessity.
@@YeshuaisnotJesus *Said the id i-ot- ic b-allet dancer a-ndre-w "ergonomover" e-ldri-dge who added "PhD" to one of his countless t-rolling accounts and pretended that YT added it for recognizing his brilliance.*
He might ask who or what designed the designer(s) of the buildings, then he could check city records, obtain the name of the designer, who is not some spooky immaterial entity. Was yours supposed to be an argument in favor of creationism?
@@immanuelkant6309 *Take this one from Dawkins:* _A serious case could be made for a deistic God._
Dawkins actually said to John Lennox: "a *reasonably respectable* case could be made for a deistic god" Don't you care about the truth? @@atheism-themoststupidrelig8802
"One fact to rule them all"
One error to deceive them all.
@@civilization57 one strawman of science*
I don't think Dawkins understands that the same fact is also evidence for creation. It's all about the philosophy you use to interpret what common genetic code means...
ruclips.net/video/XzPxrT4ULUM/видео.html
@@garrettpapit Exactly. Look at the computer code for Windows 1-10. You'll see a consistent pattern of development in complexity. Right? But only an idiot would deny "intelligent design" and say it evolved.
@@garrettpapit I don't think it's evidence for the creation story. You could say that an intelligent being turned it all loose and let it evolve, but that each species was created independently, in six days, given the clear story written in life's genes? I don't see it.
What he is arguing is homology i.e. because there are similarities, there must be universal common ancestry which in itself takes a leap of faith.
Are you saying the patterns of similarities have a more simple explanation? Common ancestry explains them parsimoniously, what is your alternative evidence-based explanation? Hopefully, it is not one that involves talking animals, ghosts and giants.
You are hopelessly misinformed, cuttru.
"Insert 100+ Year Old Quote Here" - Insert Famous Guy Here
ha, brilliant
@@JustOffTheRegister Thanks!
Evolution wasn't true 100 years ago and it still isn't true today. The majority of evidence for evolution from Darwin's day has been discarded. In another 150 the majority of today's evidence for evolution will also be discarded.
@@hwd71 Thanks for this
@@hwd71 Did you even listen to what Dawkins said? There is ton of evidence and evolution is an undeniable fact. Take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Don't be a fool.
Any similarity of DNA is evidence of a "Common designer", that's all.
*You shouldn't bother reading the inane comments of this troll "cupboard", he's a psychopath with no brain and no education.*
@@ExtantFrodo2 My point stands. Similarity = Common designer. It is evidence of nothing else.
@@ExtantFrodo2 _But the bottom line is that Darwin's Theory of Evolution enables the formation of accurate predictions_
*Tell me ONE prediction.*
@@ExtantFrodo2 *Why do you need to predict the tetrapods' eyes structure, poor creature? If there wasn't Darwin's SF book, couldn't we JUST SEE their eyes instead of making silly "predictions"? You are seriously damaged. You fulfill "predictions" about something that you can see that exists, composing a SF scenario around it (e.g. in this case, fishes starting to walk out of the sea) and then you say that your "prediction" is a proof for that scenario??????!!!!!*
@@ExtantFrodo2 *But that's not a prediction, pathetic troll, you see a little cat next to an old dog, you notice they have many things in common and you just suppose that the respective dog is the parent of that cat. And the fact that the two have indeed many things in common becomes the confirmation that indeed that dog is the parent of that cat. Sorry, but this can work only in the world of Aronra's disciples.*
Problem is public believes money to be god
ghy *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"conan-le-cimerian insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
I didn't, strange that you keep insisting I am an alternative account of Ergonomover when everyone knows you are lying. Besides, you are the one with 4 accounts (I saw another one of yours on another video).
Answer me this, are you paranoid or a liar?
P.S : It's "Cimmerien" with an "e", is reading too difficult?
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien _when everyone knows you are lying._
*Who is "everyone", Andrew?*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Anyone that sees you claiming I am an Andrew when it's clear I am not.
It's also fascinating that I have asked for what evidence led you to conclude that I am an alternative account of ergonomover. That you ran away from this question is indicative that you know you are speaking out of your rear end. Unlike me, because I can justify saying that you have multiple accounts.
@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 You must really enjoy being constantly humiliated by us.
@@FlandiddlyandersFRS *Ur dense rtrdtion makes u think u humiliate me whenever u humiliate urself, Andrew.*
Let's get some conversation going about the logic of god's mind. As far as I see it,
God sacrifices himself,...to himself, ........... to save us,...from himself.
Ancient Hebrews weren't too bright. Adam and Eve have two sons, one murders the other and then Yahweh marks the murderer so "everyone that see's him won't murder him", everyone equals his mum and dad. Genesis is the dumbest fairytale ever written.
Doc Reasonable
Hey Doc... Jatz is about to be crowned "Top Idiot"!!!
Are you trying to give him a run for his money?????
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!
So, ... the Desperate-Dingbat has now resorted to only _'slinging-slander'_ , like some grudge-bearing petulant child who doesn't get his own way. ---- pathetic
Thanks Jatz , ... NOT!!!! --
That really fucked up my afternoon. -- I was having such a nice time with a beer and a spliff after spending the day working on the house.
That was so fucking sad, .. that dude spent his whole life thinking there is something _'better'_ than the life he had. Such a waste of a short life because he never actually lived it, .. he always lived in the _'hope'_ of a better _'afterlife'_ . Even at the end, rather than spending the little time he had left reflecting and coming to terms with the end, ...... his mind was still in fear of what was going to happen when he _"meets his maker'_ !
Jatz 07
So just what are you trying to say Jatz?? That the guy would have had a "better" life if he was an atheist??
He died just like you are going to die. His "hope" was in his creator.
What "hope" do you have???
CAN WE SAVE MONEY IN THE NAVY BY RIDING AROUND IN BIBLE WHALES INSTEAD OF SUBMARINES?
THEN FIRE TORPEDOES OUT OF THE BLOW HOLES?
I KNOW WE CAN RIDE IN BIBLE WHALES
♬♬♫ *BECAUSE MY BIBLE TELLS ME SO* ♫♪♬♫♪♬
*"Creationists-AreCryBabies"/"YeshuaisnotJesus"/"FlandiddlyandersFRS" are few of the countless trolling accounts of the b-allet dancer A. Eldridge, basically the most s-tu-p id t-roll I have encountered, he told us that water contains molecules of oxygen and the solar circle is a think tank. But that's the best his cult has.*
False. Intelligent designer could use similar design in DNA and genes for all living creatures. It is not a family tree but a forest planted by the Greater Forester of Life. The genetic makeup by intelligent design for "living things on earth have the same basic needs and biochemical requirements, genes for many commonly needed proteins are understandably similar. If it were otherwise, their coexistence and interaction on the earth would be problematic...This tree of life is not supported by biological observations, as organisms to not acquire the genetic information to evolve into new and more complex kinds of organisms. The absence of intermediate (transitional) forms between kinds of organisms likewise argues against the evolutionary tree of life. Biological observations show that animals and plants do vary but only within limits. Those limits are their kinds, which correspond within our classification systems often to roughly the level of the “family.” Therefore reality corresponds to a “Creation Orchard” model in which each original kind of created plant or animal has its own family tree of species." (Dr. Elizaeth Mitchell, Answers in Genesis).
"This tree of life is not supported by biological observations", "Therefore reality corresponds to a “Creation Orchard” model in which each original kind of created plant or animal has its own family tree of species"
collect your nobel prize if you have actual data to back that claims up.
"The absence of intermediate (transitional) forms between kinds of organisms likewise argues against the evolutionary tree of life"
no it doesn't. what do you expect, to find every single one of the species that ever lived, fossilized, ready to be examined? of course there are species that aren't found, we can be happy that we found ANY.
"Biological observations show that animals and plants do vary but only within limits."
no they don't. has any biologist ever presented what this physical barrier, that prevents small changes from accumulating, actually is and how it works?
"Those limits are their kinds, which correspond within our classification systems often to roughly the level of the “family.”
I've never heard a specific definition of "kind", so could you give me one?
Frank Walton so, you are able of copy/pasting a 1100 lines long article, but can you invest own thoughts? since you read and understood the article you can surely give a brief, precise summary of it. oh, also answer the questions, you seem to have forgotten them.
@Larry Cavalli Your assertion without evidence is shallow name-calling and shows you are close-minded.
@Mr Brightside You make an assertion with no evidence of logical analysis. This is typical of naturalist who worship the gods of time and chance.
@Mr Brightside You made an assertion that my comments were gibberish without any logical analysis to prove your point. You committed the logical error of "begging the question."
The evolutionism and the existence of God are compatible ideas at 100%.
Not really.
nmki *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"yeshuaisjoshua"/"dougwalker"/"AI-CREATARD" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
Well, that was rubbish. God obviously does not lend intelligibility.
@@twcnz3570 *What was rubbish, r-trd?*
r-tard?
boy, you sure do know how to not listen to Jesus.
*Absolutely beautiful and powerful one from James C. Maxwell:* _Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created._
The problem with that is, there is no reason to assume the generative principle conscious.
Someone is monkeying with your happiness? Just remember, that person is a mammal, a primate and an ape just like you are.
"No matter how the calculation (of genetic similarities) is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, *humans are not only related to the great apes - we are one.* The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes." --Smithsonian Institute
gwui *Shermer admitting that the theists have strong arguments for the existence of God is much like Dawkins who sold to the rtrds a book called "God delusion" and then he said this :* _a serious case could be made for a deistic god_ *And then, even worse, he said this:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer_ 😂😂😂😂😂
xzd *By the way, the r-trd (an a-theist in theory) said that I am owned by unclean spirits. That's because he acrually knows he is in that situation, my beautiful v3de0s show it.*
*Simply beautiful this one from Lord Kelvin says the same thing as all other greatest scientists:* _If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God._
No it doesn't, that's why most scientists are atheists
Lord Kelvin also said "x-rays will turn out to be a hoax" and "heavier than air flying machines are impossible" (8 years before the Wright brothers proved him wrong).
No one remembers him for his blunders. What _do_ we remember him for? At big bang, the universe was a million million million million million degrees *Kelvin* .
*Another beautiful one, from Max Planck - founder of modern science:* _There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls_
Oh yes we all know how extremely religious Einstein was
@@DonutOfNinja *Einstein l-aughed at Aronra's cult and acknowledged an intelligent creator.*
@@user-pc4uo3df5i got any source for this?
Einstein famously wrote that "... I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly..." in a letter to a friend on 24th of march 1954
Source: Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side.
@@DonutOfNinja *A nice one from Einstein:* _The fanatical atheists are like s-laves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are c-reatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres._
@@DonutOfNinja *I quote Einstein:* _The f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are c-reatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres._
bhgv *If you have any doubts that the 66 year old b-allet dancer A-n-drew Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable" is completely 1-nsane and rtrdd, just watch the v2de0 "ergonomover and the ostrich"*
*Absolutely beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Reported as hate-speech.
Newton: Omniscient apparently
*I wanted to see how a rtrd looks like, so I came here and I met the 65-year-old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"ergonomover"/"yeshuaisjoshua" who told us this:*
_Ostriches do not have wings ACCORDING TO ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA!_
Can you rewrite that in English. 😂😂😂
Sapientes infideles, ave!
Mathematics, Systems theory, and the Law of Relativity Explained:
*Quotation:
"The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics." - Galileo Galilei
According to the principles of mathematics, a standard numerical order must be defined by a sequence in place that acts as a standard for sequencing to occur, which is by definition universal, such is the case when counting from 1 to 100, which is numerically ordered on the basis that there is a standard in place that defines the sequence as orderly. Thus, a standard in place is the evidence of creativity, because a standard must always be inferred the same as any set of rules, simply because there is a method in place, which in turn, defines mathematics as a system or procedure. Any sequence or series of events that act according to a procedure (such as a countdown procedure), is by definition, orderly, and therefore cannot derive at random in accordance with the law of probability.
For example; When a deck of cards are shuffled, the arrangement is disorderly because the cards are not in a numerical order. So, in order for a deck of cards to be in a numerical order, then a standard for sequencing is required first, which then acts as a set of parameters in order for sequencing to occur. And parameters are always inferred the same as any set of rules, because a standard will always be rule based.
Anything that has had rules applied to it is by definition a creation, simply because rules must always be inferred, which does include the laws of mathematics, simply because there is a procedure in place. A procedure or algorithm that is by definition orderly cannot occur at random, otherwise, there would be nothing to define that which is orderly in terms of a sequence. In systems theory, anything random will remain random unless a method is applied, which then defines the process as a system or procedure due to the application of a method.
The law of relativity states that any sequence or series of events that are in relation to each other are by definition, relative, which cannot occur at random in accordance with the law of probability. For example; When a protein is made within the body, the protein must be specific in relation to other proteins or they will not combine to form a functional cell. Thus, the ordered complexity of living cells is due to the fact that each protein must be relative to the next in order for sequencing to occur. This principle is a cardinal principle in systems theory and systems science, because a system will always be integrated according to a set of rules by definition of the word, method.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
system
/ˈsɪstɪm/
noun
a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.
"the public school system"
Similar:
method
Definition of system by Wikipedia Encyclopedia:
A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole. A system, surrounded and influenced by its environment, is described by its boundaries, structure and purpose and is expressed in its functioning. Systems are the subjects of study of systems theory and other systems sciences.
_"Mathematics, Systems theory, and the Law of Relativity Explained: "_
By someone that doesn't even know the scientific terminology...This ought to be good
_"*Quotation:...Gallilei"_
Appeal to authority fallacy, Gallileo never provided any evidence for the existence of a god. Citing his personnal faith is only evidence of his personnal faith, nothing
more.
_"Thus, a standard in place is the evidence of creativity, "_
It isn't. You merely said "there is thing, therefore god" without any logical link between the two
_"because a standard must always be inferred the same as any set of rules, simply because there is a method in place, which in turn, defines mathematics as a system or procedure"_
A system still isn't thhe same thing as a method. It's funny that when it's time for you to learn the scientific terminology you don't do it because it would show you don't understand what you're talking about but when you try to cite a scientist it's not to refer to an experiment or a law but to make an appeal to authority with their faith...
Also I love that for your example you just glossed over the fact that your deck of card can be orderly after the shuffle. Really shows your honesty when you don't address the cases that go against you.
_"Anything that has had rules applied to it is by definition a creation"_
It isn't it's a system
_"simply because rules must always be inferred,"_
They don't. Of course if you start with the conclusion you'll believe that you arrive at the right conclusion...
_"The law of relativity"_
Does not exist
_"that any sequence or series of events that are in relation to each other are by definition, relative"_
So if two events are related to each other then they are related. Well, I'm sure that for you it's big news but the rest of the world already knew
_"a functional cell."_
All cells are functionnal. It's the protein that can be non-functionnal
_"Definitions from Oxford Languages"_
Which isn't the scientific community
_"Definition of system by Wikipedia Encyclopedia:"_
Funny that this definition doesn't say that you need to apply a method and that a system that is subjucated to no force whatsoever still satisfy this definition. I'm sure the irony went over your head.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien Your understanding of the empirical method is without justification due to your ignorance of that which is good for teaching and reproof. This is not a laughing matter, but one of life and death, for the spirit of the Lord shall not be mocked without incurring the burden of proof in return. Scientific studies have disproven the theory of evolution on the basis of inheritance, for the genealogy of man is of one kind back to the beginning where the war with Satan started. If man is animal, then man is beast, which is not to be defined as a science, but as an abomination instead. May those who search diligently the word of God find prayers of faith, and mediations of hope from the heavens above, so that the wonders and splendors of God Holy Kingdom may be revealed to those who love Him forever. Amen
@@user-rr8cf4mv1f _"Your understanding of the empirical method"_
Is fine as is, otherwise I wouldn't have debunked you time and again (and if I wanted to send myself some flowers I wouldn't have gotten my degree in fundamental and applied physics but that's unimportant to the topic as hand)
_"justification due to your ignorance of that which is good for teaching and reproof. "_
Which you can't show because we both know I'm not the ignorant one
_"This is not a laughing matter,"_
Which is why I first correct you then I laugh at you once the important part has been laid down. Except when you make a prayer, funny little texts, in which case there's no argument to be made as you don't make one yourself
_"but one of life and death"_
I was gonna say of intellectual honesty, just because your dishonesty is shown doesn't mean you will be gone because of it
_"for the spirit of the Lord shall not be mocked without incurring the burden of proof in return."_
I don't mock that spirit, I deny it's existence. It's you that I mock, also it's funny that you refer to the burden of proof when no one has been able to meet it when it comes to any god's existence
_" Scientific studies have disproven the theory of evolution on the basis of inheritance,"_
Funny little lie but far too obvious. So you're telling me that a scientific study has succesfully upturned the theory on which modern biology is founded, something that would give fame and fortune to all scientists involved and would mean that biologists have work to do for the years to come as they would have to remake a working theory with better predictive power than evolution. And despite this revolution you can't even give the name of at least one study, strange.
_"for the genealogy of man is of one kind back to the beginning where the war with Satan started"_
Spoiler alert, if your "study" refer to fictionnal character it isn't scientific. No wonder then that you didn't have any reference!
_"If man is animal, then man is beast"_
Beast isn't a scientific word, animal is. There is no biological definition for "beast"; because it's a word used by laymen like you not by people who need accuracy
_"which is not to be defined as a science, but as an abomination instead."_
That's your opinion; it's unimportant so don't give it
The rest is a bit of zealotry where you're just saying that if you want your god to exist you'll believe it exists, nothing surprising.
Everything that has order is defined as created. Hell no Ade. That's a claim, not a definition. Fail.
@@werriboy55 It is a universal principle that ordered complexity cannot derive at random, otherwise, there would nothing to define that which is orderly in terms of complexity. Anything random will remain random unless a method is applied, which then defines the process as a procedure due to the application of a method. And a method will always be the evidence of creativity by reason of the fact that method is by definition inferred.
A natural or normal process is simply the normal workings of a system in place, so a natural process cannot occur unless the is a system in place first that is operating according to plan, only then can something abnormal occur by reason of the fact that something normal was occurring to begin with, which is self-explanatory.
*Quoting the 65 year old rtrd ballet dancer A. Eldridge (aka "creationists-arecrybabies", "flandiddlyanders") from his account "docreasonable"* _OK fine! I'll admit that captainatheist9855 is my trolling account (it's where I make rtrded comments)_
*The sad truth is that all his comments from all his trolling accounts are rtrded....* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The sad truth is that I use ONE account and you melted down completely.
@@ergonomover : you are a pathetic lost soul, with a rudimentary childish understanding, Those tiny communities are incapable of surviving today, while surrounded by stability, so you can imagine the carnage that would have taking place then?
What about the establishment of universities and factories making toilet bowls, do you think those tiny comitie
s could have done that? Groe up and get real…..and Fk off, I’m tired of talking to children and Dawkin’s made up names…..go away you shallow idiot…
When your best argument is calling someone "R"
yall know you have no argument.
Also, go back to Jesus, you need to be a better person.
dsar *The 65 year old b-allet dancer A-n-d-re-w Eldridge ( (aka "ergonomover"/"flandiddlyandersFRS"/"docreasonable"/"yeshuaisjoshua"), the one who insisted that ostriches have no wings, was screaming that no one has refuted the "fact" of Dawkins (this "fact" being actually a fallacy "similarites = inheritance"), but look, Dawkins himself did it:* _if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ben Stein lied to you and you swallowed it.
@@ergonomover *That must be the method that Aronra applies to his disciples.*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Aronra is aligned with the global scientific community and wields facts and evidence - did your putzy interview with him hurt you so badly you never got over it? Poor boy!
@@ergonomover *What does Aronra have to do with science. As much as u, the one who insisted that there is a single copy of the genome in the human body have to do with science.*
@@ergonomover *I would say u need to stop this ridiculous game of playing the smart one. It's too painful for u, considering ur dense rtrdtion.*
I am now 54. The older I get, the prouder I am to be a Strong American Atheist.
👍
Who needs fairy tales when you have facts and reality?
*so ure proud of being a rtrd....*
Confident thing to say as an American , considering you're in a 5-7% minority. As an Aussie, my 'non-belief' is very much accepted. I'm proud to say I live in a country that is more than 35% atheist.
ARE THERE GOOD BIBLE WITCHES LIKE GLENDA FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ?
I KNOW MAGIC HAS TO BE REAL
♬♪♬♬♫ *BECAUSE MY BIBLE TELLS ME SO* ♬♫♪♬♫♪♬
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, OR,
In the beginning, a mindless nothing created everything, including all life and everything for that life to survive and prosper.
I'll choose an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, the Creator, every time.
why is there a god? where does he come from?
@@VanoArts why is there Not a god? Where do we come from?
Don Q Paul Excellent reply!!
@@VanoArts where dose the a.i game creator come from wise guy so he didn't create the game huh
Good question Don O, tell us why there are no gods to be found anywhere?