Where are you from ?

Not everyone who claims to be Christian will actually be claimed by Christ. The apostate church is growing but the gates of hell will not prevail against the true church. God bless

say Jesus in an office and watch the reaction

@@PeteyGunn It depends on how you say it.

We Christians are not perfect, so when we come up with prophecy it comes out different, and in how old the earth really is: you would think the son of God Jesus said the earth was created in those six days and all things, I mean through him who created all thing would know better, and it true six thousand or so years since creation. Bruce Malone knows it's only six thousand years and he is right mutations proves it to be so by loss information.

God bless those that live by his words!

Yahovah, yod hey vov hey I can read that Hebrew name. Yes random processes don't work it just make a lot of mistakes, and it gets know where but loss. These evolutionist have too be doing this belief system on purpose, because they do not want too acknowledge the fact that there is a designer that created everything, and they don't want to be countable to God.

The existence of God also means the existence of morality and disobedience.

@Jubei Yang soooo, you dont believe there is a god because technology is lagging?

@Jubei Yang you sound butthurt about something and the only way you find relief is by bashing the being that could have prevented said butthurt because He chose not to write history the way you want it. Time to callous up butter cup. Life doesn't revolve around you. Get over it while you still can.

@Jubei Yang So He sent one angel to destroy an Assyrian Army of 185,000 in one night.

@Jubei Yang That's how long it takes their puny little brains to figure it out.

@Jubei Yang you attacked first, idiot. What a hypocrite. I dont argue with hypocrites. It's alot like arguing with a liar.

@Not the real Tupac Right!

There's nothing to see because god doesn't exist.

@@Edward-bm7vw Then you must be blind.

@@mikki7522 Nope. Can't see something that's not there. There is no evidence for such a being. No reason to believe.

@@Edward-bm7vw You're in denial, and it really shows. I bet you could look at my whole "Proof of Jesus" playlist and still be blind to the facts.

Thomas Johnson How much proof do you want? If you're not convinced of Creation after this video, nothing else will suffice. Many of his peers believe in Creation but wouldn't admit it for fear of ridicule or losing their jobs.

@@truthbetold8610 Your whole premise(s) is an argument from ignorance and/or an argument from incredulity; both of which are fallacies and rejected in philosophical debate. The ridicule argument is even lamer doing nothing to advance your case.

@@thomasjohnson6808 Scientists have never observed mutations-even beneficial ones-that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began. Such lack of evidence causes T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr. Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says. Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.” According to these scientific experts, it's you who is ignorant of the facts. Your belief in evolution is a" religion " in itself. So you think ridicule is lame? Here, Einstein. A Professor of Anthropology, Anthony Ostric, said that the vast body of professionals have fallen in behind those who promote evolution “FOR FEAR OF NOT BEING DECLARED SERIOUS SCHOLARS or fear of being REJECTED FROM SERIOUS ACADEMIC CIRCLES ”. In this regard, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also comment: “You either believe the concepts or you will inevitably be BRANDED AS A HERETIC.” One result of this has been an unwillingness by many scientists to investigate the creation viewpoint without prejudice. As a letter to the editor of Hospital Practice observed: “Science has always prided itself upon its objectivity, but I’m afraid that we scientists are rapidly becoming victims of the prejudiced, closed-minded thinking that we have so long abhorred.”

science doesnt ask if theres a god or not , they are not competing , lol , you dont even know that much

What about “mathematically impossible “ don’t you understand? Like that’s it. Period. It can’t happen. Won’t happen. Trust the science, can’t randomly spontaneously appear ever! Say it with me in your dr Seuss voice. Can’t happen in 1 year can’t happen in 10 can’t happen in a car can’t happen in a bar.

I have been thinking of covid-19 in terms of Numbers 21:4-9, specifically verse 6: "Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died." My thinking was that God "allowed" the snakes to come about by themselves as a punishment. I was comfortable with that. But now the video seems to contradict my thinking and it's disturbing me. :-(

Honestly I don’t know but the Bible says that when God will come back a plague and great famine will happen so possibly, He has power to do that, but trust in Him and you’ll understand what He’s doing ❤️ God bless you. Great question I will research about it

Yeah, an hypothesis about beings originated by other beings all subjected to the same principles of intelligent design with no beginning is more reasonable than a book telling the story of a hierarchy of beings subjected to the intelligent designer of them all(!)

@@foolfether Go read the work of mathematicians on intelligent evolving softwares like Chaitin that could explain how intelligence could emerge from scratch instead of reading bullshits of pagan remixes

@@mouvementebr3575 Are you even paying attention to what you are writting? An "intelligent evolving software" obviously was made by something you seem to lack, moron!

Mouvement EBR Go read the 600+ research papers of Dr. James Tour. Yes he is a Jew who is now a Christian ignore that and refute his actual science the evidence he puts forth. It is very interesting.

Yeah, like shifting the origins question onto alien life helps the ultimate origins question.

@Not the real Tupac That's what I wanted to say. All things are reversed. Good became bad, bad Good. You'll know the truth when your life ended.

@Not the real Tupac You must be some kind of super intelligent descendant of apes. Please enlighten us, I'm dazzled by your amazing grasp of bullshit.

Its possible it could have been subconscious. Some teachers make those gestures occasionally not knowing what they are. However I agree that most people who do make them, repeatedly as well as other symbols, do so knowing full well what they mean and why.

blaz bilban : Some 2,700 years ago-long before people in general knew that the earth is round-the prophet Isaiah wrote: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh here translated “circle,” may also be rendered “sphere.” (A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson)

@@truthbetold8610 Do you know hebrew? Or greek (Septuaginta)? Apperently not, because you can find in Isaiah 22,18, were he used word 'ball', and IS NOT same Word!!!

@@blazbilban2502 please state one Bible verse that says the Earth is Flat. Let's examine it.

@@johnruby1363 Every Biblie (KJV,AMP,EKU,...) is a flat Earth book. There is more than 60 times mentioned, that Sun and moon and starš go round. There is 0 (zero) times mentioned that the Earth is moveing. Please read it some times from cover to cover. Thanks for asking

@@blazbilban2502 i have read the Bible from cover to cover and many times over. C'mon...please state one teeny little Bible verse that says the Earth is flat.

Typical use of fallacy fallacy, where an argument must be incorrect because (like all arguments) you can propose fallacies that exist within them.

@@PM-4564 Learn some rudimentary thinking skills and help ease the burden of ignorance and confusion that is so obviously crippling your mind. Committing logical fallacies ipso facto does not assure the conclusion of an argument in which they occur is incorrect. What committing logical fallacies does assure however is that the conclusion of the argument is not based on sound and correct reasoning. Therefore one or more logical fallacies in an argument means there is no rational justification for considering the conclusion as correct. This is neither synonymous with nor implies the conclusion 'must' be wrong as you incorrectly claimed but rather assures that the conclusion is intellectually worthless. It is so laughably typical that not only are arguments of theists intellectually garbage but, as you so clearly demonstrated, even theist arguments attempting to rebut criticisms of their arguments are also intellectual garbage. Learn some rudimentary thinking skills which might spare you the embarrassment of publicly parading your ignorance.

@@coniferviveur3788 "Therefore one or more logical fallacies in an argument means there is no rational justification for considering the conclusion as correct." My response was that by this line of reasoning, there is no rational justification to consider any conclusion correct, because you can find name number of *informal* fallacies for *any* conclusion. Informal fallacies don't have the same significance as formal fallacies, (and except when it comes to evolution it seems), incredulity is a way of knowing your brain performs all the time, and is how you i.e. might eliminate possibilities on a multiple choice exam to get the correct answer. Your diluting the seriousness of your 2nd paragraph with phrases like: "standard stock", "rudimentary thinking", "obviously crippling", "laughably typical", "intellectually garbage", "clearly demonstrated", "embarrassment of parading your ignorance". Typically, when someone packages an argument like this, its because they're regurgitating things from a first year Intro to logic and reasoning class rather than taking the time to attack substance.

@@PM-4564 You are spewing more garbage. Your first reply claimed logical fallacies meant an argument 'must' be incorrect which was your fundamental mistake that confirmed your confusion and ignorance. Now you are dishonestly trying to squirm your way out of it by concocting some inane drivel about all arguments contain informal logical fallacies. There is no rational justification for claiming you can find informal fallacies in any argument that would invalidate its conclusion as that would destroy the foundation of all reasoning. There are well defined and accepted logical fallacies that invalidate conclusions but there is not an unlimited number of logical fallacies that would result in invalidating any conclusion of any argument. Again you just demonstrate your confusion and ignorance. Conceptually, the conclusion of an argument without logical fallacy and adhering to standard logical rules of inference can be considered correct. But only conceptually. However, for any argument containing empirical content then for the conclusion to be considered correct as well as the logic, the empirical component must be both demonstrably verifiable and equally demonstrable that it justifies the conclusion. Formal fallacies are mostly irrelevant as they are based solely on structure of the argument(undistributed middle term, denying the antecedent etc ) where content is not considered. While formal fallacies invalidate arguments they are not anywhere near as prevalent or relevant as informal fallacies because these are based solely on content regardless of structure. Hence informal fallacies are found much more in common use and therefore much more relevant. And if there is one thing at which theists truly and constantly excel it is trying to justify their beliefs with arguments that are based on logical fallacies. Your comments about incredulity in this context again demonstrate your confusion an ignorance. Incredulity gauging common human situations can often, but not by any means always, have an element of validity. However when considering the nature of reality, not only is incredulity unreliable, worse it is actively misleading which renders it worthless. This arises from our cultural legacy and innate psychological constitution which makes us intuitively want and hence try to construct an explanation of reality that conforms with our experience of the world we inhabit in concert with our innate psycholgical inclinations . We have traditionally based our explanation in the context of our experience but it is indisputably clear from QM and GR that reality at its fundamental level does not conform to our experience of the world. In fact reality at its fundamental level actually defies our experience of the world. So our long established collective intuitive conceptualization of assessing credulity about reality is wholly unreliable, actively misleading and hence utterly worthless. This exemplifies why the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity invalidates the conclusion of any argument containing it. This is where I initially stared this thread. FYI as you mentioned it, I am not regurgitating anything from a first year Intro To Logic because I have a degree in philosophy and a personal library of over 100 philosophy books, several of which focus on logic. That is one of the differences between you and me - I actually know what I am talking about.

@@coniferviveur3788 Now I see why you feel like you're a genius because of your incessant blather. It's a known fact that Philosophy studies destroy all brain synapses and render a person incapable of any rationality, an evolutionist type of reasoning. Crawl back into the slimy green primordial soup from which you (almost) developed.