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.

NOT DAVID BANNER....,..

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.

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.

I didn't make those claims and you are a privacy violator, according to KZfaq. 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 KZfaq 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.*

*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!*

Senile.

You talk utter nonsense.

@@peteconrad2077 *Newton (and all other greatest scientists of this planet) said that ur beliefs are nonsense.*

@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 what specific believed did Newton think were nonsense? Don’t be vague.

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......

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?* 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

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 🤣

Man say thing I dont agree with, that mean he stupid

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

@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

ENGLAND!!! SPEAK U THE ENGLAND!!

Latrine assistant Larsen.

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.

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. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ebN-pdxltaudY40.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.

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)

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

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?

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.

Senile.

​@@yeshuaisjoshuaThis is when Einstein's mental faculties began to slip.

​@@AmericanFlyOnTheWall 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.*

You must have a humiliation fetish

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.*

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.

You don't _"tell"_ anybody anything. You are as insignificant as a baby snail.

Are you finding any magic sugars? Like you thought there were magic electrons guided by magic invisible wizards?

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.*

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!*

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)

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

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* .

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

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

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

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....

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... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/juCAq9WFmbuwhYE.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.

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

go away you waste of breath. 300 hundred thousand comments, and half of them yours I suppose!

*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.*

I’ve read repeated comments from you and your other KZfaq 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 🙂

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.

Here is the next part that you decided to leave out: "In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious *feeling* of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." If you would be so kind as to inform me when Einstein said or wrote your quotation and to whom? If you decide not to, I'll have to conclude it is a misquotation, contradicted by several others things he said and wrote.

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".

*_"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!!

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.*

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.

Saying similarities automatically prove ancestry is the most ridiculous lack of good judgement I wouldn't expect from a scientist what a stupid thing to say please tell me you also think that way

@@antoniobrown6210 : You must be joking? Only Dawkins would embarras himself by making such grovelling statments....

@@antoniobrown6210 *I totally agree and actually many people in this comment section spotted the same thing.*

Mae Culpa: Yes I did say that Dawkins cannot answer, because Dawkins never answers, regardless of the competence of his interviewers, he always rides above reality, like a man thinking a snow-drift is reality, while inserting infantile supersitions to fit in with the persona he has conned his sycophants into believing they are seeing who he is…..?

we all have our bad days.

@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?

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.

Damn, you can't tell two people apart and applaud your ignorance by dishonestly upvoting your lies?

Oh I see, yeah what he was saying is that there is such a thing as genetic variation i.e. organisms dont share the same code

Do you understand that every living thing on earth is related to a common ancestor. LUCA proves our DNA is all related.

@@yeshuaisjoshua LUCA is a postulated, unproven being. In no way is that anything remotely resembling proof. DNA being similar among all life makes sense to me. I don't need some magic common ancestor to explain it. If an intelligent mind is behind the universe and everything in it, it would logically follow that all life would be made from similar material, using similar means. Theorize all the ancient beings you want. We still can't demonstrate ONE example of genetic mutation resulting in an addition of information. That would be necessary for this imaginary LUCA to become all other life forms, to include fungi and plants. "Proof"...

@@gowsif_dnb Like the mutation that lets me drink milk? Or new one they found a mutation in the LRP5 gene can also cause an uncommon disorder in which bone density is greatly increased.

@@gowsif_dnb Now how about you show us some of your fairy tale magic????? Go on, show us, I could use a good laugh

@@devilmonkey427 you seem to be confusing "addition of information" and "beneficial change."

-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

Why do emus have wings?

@@2ndchookie919 : HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAmmmmmm HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

@@davidbanner6230 I know they are strange looking birds, but hilarity to that extent? ~ Gets over excited by the mundane, ... A bit touched perhaps! ~ mmm

@@2ndchookie919 What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, if he loses his sanity?

@@davidbanner6230sanity is in the eye of the beholder.

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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/epZ3gsqgrcvQdn0.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.

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.

basically that he has no clue... yup.

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?

Not really.

Creatards love slavery..... That's why it's in your fairy tales.

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source." -Einstein, same dialogue

@@LoAssistidor-uk6qj *Just quoting wikipedia:* _According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@LoAssistidor-uk6qj “I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." --Einstein, 1945 letter to Raner

​@@LoAssistidor-uk6qj A year and three and a half months before his death, Einstein wrote: "The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. "

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.

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.

_"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.

Reported as hate-speech.

Newton: Omniscient apparently

: 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…

That means that out desperation Newton would have taken anything as evidence for his god's existence. Just like what you are doing

​@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien *Sorry that Newton makes u mad, Eldridge.*

​@@atheism-themoststupidrelig8802 Sorry, still not Eldrige. And Newton doesn't make me mad, however it makes you mad that appeal to authority are not valued. Besides, did you train to not feel shame for using around 7 accounts and accusing others of having multiple?

@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien I'm pretty sure it's more like 20 trolling accounts. Too bad Newton knew nothing of the evolution of tetrapod appendages. Too bad he wasted so many years on failed sciences of alchemy, astrology and religion. I don't think he is remembered for that. He was very careful about obscuring his heretical beliefs: no holy trinity, no infant baptism and no personal devil to name a few.

​​@@ergonomoverNo Newton isn't remembered for that. Just like few knows that he also put needles in the flesh surrounding his eyes to study residual images. How did he not go blind with that is a mystery.

@Julian Borges, Book Flip might be talking about this idea: "Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals. Since Darwin, homology has been cited in textbooks as a major proof for evolution. A review of the literature on homology indicates that the theory does not provide evidence for evolutionary naturalism, and that the common examples of homology can be better explained by Creation. Furthermore, increased knowledge about the genetic and molecular basis of life has revealed many major exceptions and contradictions to the theory which, as a result, have largely negated homology as a proof of evolution."

Common function is phenotypes; Dawkins is talking about genotypes.

@@isaacharvey "A review of the literature on homology " So - Not scientific-method derived then. Ok. It's funny, the claim is made as if supported by scientific evidence..

@@kijekuyo9494It’s genotypes too.

The problem with that is, there is no reason to assume the generative principle conscious.

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._

'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