*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 9:52am PST - promote requested by original submitter lv_hunter.

*comedy

Adding video to channels (Comedy) - requested by kulpims.

oh, and *religion

Adding video to channels (Religion) - requested by kulpims.

Since this coward has disabled YouTube comments, I'll say this to her here: calling the appearance of early life "magic" is hypocritical in the extreme, given that's exactly what creationists think happened.

When the level of complexity of a system far outreaches the mental ability of the 'student', it looks like magic. The world must be a wonderful, mystical, magical place for this woman.

God magic trumps scientist 'magic' every time.

Definitely NOT the Megan Fox I was expecting...

I thought she was the nutty Monster drink lady but evidently they are two separate loons

Stupid so powerful and detrimental, it's like a form of mental illness.

I just wish the title of this video started with "Conservative Christian" instead of "Homeschooler", like Homeschooler=Conservative Christian. It most certainly does not.

Magnets.

How they work?

Magic!

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

She has a much longer collection of Christian lunacy here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32mxZxv3dYM&feature=youtu.be

I dare you to watch it all.

Hi Fihh,

I don't know anything about this woman or her youtube channel, but I think her essential point is that these things are printed in textbooks as absolute fact without any proof beyond weak, circumstantial evidence. As a former evolutionist and true believer in the secular creation story, I was absolutely floored to find out the evidence isn't there for how life began (or how it supposedly evolved into what it is today).

And this is the point I would make, that you do have faith in this narrative. There isn't any proof for abiogenesis and you really have to believe that life came from non living sources, such as rocks and water. When you examine the complexity of what would need to happen to even have the minimal number of amino acids be generated, let alone be functional together, you are faced with odds greater than the number of electrons in the Universe, making the event, if it did happen, a bonified miracle.

It's not really necessary to disprove the theory of darwinian evolution, however, if the time isn't available for what they claim to have happened, to happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYpkbCgSNtU

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

I have an answer... put 40mg of DMT into a glass pipe and smoke it. Then shut your fucking mouths for the rest of your lives; if you can.

It's Magic! Fuck You!!

Punk Rock Magician: F@ck You! has been added as a related post - related requested by Fusionaut.

If you consider the evidence of abiogenesis to be weak and circumstantial, then you must realize that the proof for god is completely non-existent in comparison.

Seconded. I recommend changing the title to "Conservative Christian mom..." instead.

"Homeschooling" is not a byword for Christian nutbags. In my family, the generation after me were all home schooled and religion didn't enter into it.

Hey robbersdog49, thanks for the level headed reply. I'll address your comments in a few pieces here:

The origin of life and Darwinian evolution are two entirely different things. Regardless of how you believe the first life came about we do know from the fossil record and evidence about the way the environment and climate changed on earth in those early millennia that the first life was simple single cell organisms.

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it. The Cambrian explosion for example, where basically every type of animal body plan comes into existence at around the same time, contradicts the idea that these things happened gradually over long periods of time. In fact, a new theory was invented called "punctuated equilibrium" which says that the reason we aren't finding the transitional fossils is that the changes happen too quickly to be found in the fossil record. Instead of a theory based on the evidence, we have a theory to explain away the lack of evidence.

Evolution is the process which turned these very simple life forms into the complex forms you see all around you today. It's an ongoing process and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming. The reason we have hundreds of different breeds of dogs is because of micro evolution. Darwin discovered this and all the credit should go to him, but where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically. You cannot see macro evolution taking place anywhere in the world, and you cannot find the transitional fossils to say it ever took place. You cannot test it in a laboratory, it is a historical claim based on weak circumstantial evidence.

Science doesn't know exactly how life first came about. It doesn't claim to. We know that it did because we're here, but how? Not sure. But that's not a problem, science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is a process we use to find out about the world around us. It's not a book with all the answers.

Science is all about what we don't know. It's a process of discovery, and you can't discover something you already know. Religious people like to show any gap in the knowledge of scientists as showing they are frauds, or know nothing and that this means their own views must be true. That's just a stupid logical fallacy. Just because no one else has the answer doesn't mean you can just claim your version must be correct.

Science not being able to tell us how life started has no effect on the validity of the statement 'God did it'.

The God of the gaps fallacy is simply a red herring in these conversations. I don't purport to say that because science can't explain something, that means God did it. Science is all about the principle of parsimony; what theory has the best explanatory power. I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained. I think the evidence we do understand, in physics, biology, cosmology and information theory overwhelmingly points to design for many good reasons that have nothing to do with the God of the gaps fallacy.

There is also it seems a point of pride for those who think the best position is to say "I don't know", and accusing anyone who thinks they do know as being wrong headed, arrogant, or whatever. It's a very curious position to take because there are plenty of things we can know. No one is going to take the position that if you say the answer to 2 + 2 is 4 and you deny that any other answer is valid, you are arrogant or using fallacious reasoning. Yet, it is arrogrant and fallacious to those who think that science is the sole arbitor of truth when someone who believes in God points to a Creator as the best explanation. They think that because they believe no one else could know the answer except through scientific discovery. You have to realize that is a faith based claim and not an evidence based claim. You think that way when you place your faith in science as what is going to give you the correct answers about how and why you are here. I like these quotes for Robert Jastrow, who was an Astronomer and physicist:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

As for the age of the earth, there's a huge amount of evidence which says it's about 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old. That's plenty of time for evolution to take us from simple single cell life to the complex animals we've become today.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth. That video I provided shows the evidences I am talking about.

Hi Mentality,

There are many good evidences to believe there is a God, but the evidence I like to point to as a Christian is to point the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is that something you have ever studied or looked into?

I agree completely with shiny.
The evidence for god is similar to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, i.e. both completely non-existent.

There is a good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and my question to you would be, have you ever studied it? Are you saying there is no evidence based on your personal study of the subject?

In my study of the evidence from the fossil record, I found more evidence that contradicted the assertions of Darwinian evolution than confirmed it.

The evidence for micro evolution is overwhelming.

I purport to say that the idea of a Creator has better explanatory power for what we see than the current scientific theories for origins, not because of what science cannot explain, but for what science has explained.

Have you ever studied the scientific proofs for both sides? There are some "clocks" which point that way, and there are other clocks that point the other way. The clocks that point to the old Earth have many flaws, and there are simply more evidences that point to a young Earth.

Please enlighten me as to your credentials as a paleontologist. I assume you must have some, given that you feel qualified that your expertise is such as to dismiss millions of man hours of experimental results that support the theory of evolution.

In fact, you should really publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. If they are correct (and not, as I suspect, complete bollocks), it will be a revelation! There's almost certainly a Nobel prize in it for you.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence? Are you not then at this time simply parroting things to me that you don't really understand, not being a paleontologist yourself?

Sweet. You've accepted the evidence for evolution. "Macroevolution" is just lots of "microevolution". Why are we discussing this?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

They aren't actually the same thing; one has scientific evidence to back it up, the other does not. It does not logically follow that because microevolution takes place, macroevolution also must take place. It is the secular creation story which presupposes it, but isn't supported by the evidence.

You've abandoned science at this point. I could equally say that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise his noodly appendages), but none of it is testable and therefore, it's non-scientific.

Besides, the existing theory explains everything pretty well.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power. There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

That is quite simply untrue. It is lies, falsehood, fiction, fabrication, myth, deceit, distortion and misinformation. In short, it's bullshit.

There is no credible evidence for a young earth. Zero, zip, nada.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

btw, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

My cousin lived in the belt buckle of the Bible Belt.

I said to him once -- I don't know what to say to someone who says that transitional fossils are missing.

He laughed and laughed. "All fossils are transitional."

Boy, did that light up my brain. Ever since, when I read a general science article on the discovery of a new fossil, I think my beloved cousin (now gone) as they say that the fossil record has been changed to reflect the new information.

Evolution isn't disproved by the change, of course.

All fossils are transitional.

(I miss you, Gaylan.)

@shinyblurry

If the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, how come all the planets look like meatballs?

@shinyblurry: I for one would love to see a scientific approach to the evidence of God and Jesus Christ. I went through a significant amount of religious indoctrination in my youth, having been involved in countless bible studies, missions, and other very emotionally driven events; but, not once was any scientific evidence presented.

Plenty of claims to there being evidence, but mostly things like "look at the mountains and the clouds -- there's your evidence right there" and endless references to the dead sea scrolls and the lack of deviation from those writings to today's printed word of god. Lots of bragging about the number of languages the bible is printed in, and then conclusions lacking in evidence, focusing on scripture and/or how to trick people into accepting that there is a possibility of God, which somehow validates all claims of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, I'm rambling right now. But point being, after years of disappointment and annoyance at Christianity, I simply stopped reading and attending bible studies. There is NO evidence. Just a bunch of he said, she said, half truths about old documents and their comparison to the documents of today -- which is flat out wrong. There are plenty of deviations. So even what I was taught is incorrect. So, if you have a solid link that outlines scientifically sound evidence for Christianity, please share with us.

If only she picked up a book, or asked someone, instead of asking questions into thin air of nobody. Is it any surprise no one could tell her what tiny organisms were evolving all that time ago when she asked a brick wall?

There is no scientific evidence for God, there never will be and never has been. If there is any type of supreme being, it is almost certainly quite unlike anything any of us could imagine, and i see absolutely no reason to believe a random muslim version of what it is over a random christian, or a random anything else. I may as well make up my own version as adhere to someone else's version, because there's just as much evidence for that as anything else!

I see no reason as to why there shouldn't be some kind of existence after death - we thought we were the only thing that existed until recently... we may have gotten better at understanding the reality we find ourselves in, but it is no less wondrous or magical for all that. Why should there be anything? And if you can't answer that, then why should this be the extent of it?

My childhood question was basically "what comes after death?" - i got my answer after studying a lot, but the answer is "anything could happen." And i quite like that answer as opposed to a more definite one.

I'm late back to this party and iI don't have time to properly address all the points you make so I'll just stick to this one.

The ancestry of living beings isn't just traceable through the fossil record. The study of genetics shows us a huge and utterly overwhelming amount of evidence for the common ancestor idea. Common genes can be traced back to show the lineage of different animals and plants and groups of animals and plants.

There really is a lot of very good peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Darwin may well have taken a leap of faith but it is one which has now been backed up with a huge amount of evidence. Evolution is not open for questioning any more than gravity is. It's a very simple process which can even be seen happening around us.

Ring species show that small changes can indeed lead to separate species. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are evolution in progress. You say that just because small changes can be seen it doesn't follow that big changes can evolve but that's stupid. Big changes are just a series of connected little changes.

That said mutations can be big as well as small. We've all seen photos of two headed snakes for example. That happens to be a detrimental change, but if a large change occurred that happened to be beneficial and the individual survived to breed then a large change could occur very quickly. Remember these are chance occurrences, there's no intelligence driving evolution, it's just a simple process of random mutation and natural selection.

If you accept that genes can mutate randomly (something which is known to be fact and can be shown happening) and that natural selection occurs (again something which can be shown happening) then there really isn't anything more to be said. Those two processes, given a lot of time can change an animal or plant dramatically. And time is something life has had a lot of. Even the cambrian explosion you mentioned happened over 20 million years or so.

This is evolution. There's nothing complex about the process, there really isn't. There's no way that mutations and natural selection can fit together in any way that isn't evolution.

seems she is on hot water..whoopsies:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/science-hating-homeschool-mom-sued-for-defamation-in-ongoing-library-prn-flap/

Conservative Christian mums all look the same.

Hello Shinyblurry,

Out of curiosity, I would like to ask you something, as I don't really know that many religious people.

If we were to find out the absolute proof that life had indeed been created by a greater being (e.g. one day we find a message incrypted into our DNA that spells out "God did it"), and even that Jesus had real superpowers and was some kind of scout sent to see how things were going at some point. Then, what if it was revealed that this great creator was actually a group of Creator beings from, say, Antares-42. And life on earth was just an experiment. Would you still feel the need to worship this god ?? That's my question.

Thanks in advance!

Man, I didnt think this would drum up such a response!

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

The experts have only proven the idea of microevolution, and that is where the usable science comes from. You're telling me that you believe whatever they say on that basis. Isn't that anti-intellectual?

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

How about just one piece of evidence for macroevolution? That would do nicely.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

What you're doing is simply giving the teapot the same essence and characteristics of God, and then calling it something else. That doesn't exactly disprove the idea of God, does it? I think you are trivializing the subject without understanding it. There are good reasons, philosophically and scientifically, to believe that an all powerful being created the Universe. There are logically sound reasons for deducing such a being exists. Have you ever studied the history of philosophy? The subject is a little bit more indepth than you are giving it credit for.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

How am I conflating the origin of the Universe with evolution? So far, the best idea they've come up with is that nothing created everything. Not exactly encouraging, is it?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

Again, this is anti-intellectual isn't it? You dismiss the evidence against your belief while being totally ignorant of what it is. Worse yet, you rail on those who do believe it without understanding their positions. You have also said that if evidence were to be posed, you would simply seek out someone who agreed with your view and copy and paste their views on it. Where exactly in that process is your own brain being used?

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

I used to believe what you believe. I stopped believing it because of the evidence, not in spite of it. It's easy to dismiss me but if you actually do investigate the major claims of evolution you will find, not indisputable proof, but a pile of weak, circumstantial evidence.

No disrespect intended towards your cousin, but Darwin espoused a different view about transitional fossils:

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

Darwin didn't believe all fossils were transitional in the sense I am referring to. He believed that there would be specific fossils showing the links between families, but he thought the reason they couldn't be found was because of the relatively few amount of fossils we had back then. Today hundreds of millions to perhaps billions of fossils have been found, but those pesky transitional forms are still nowhere to be seen.

Just wanted to comment on what you said here. Isn't that like stepping out of a plane without a parachute? Not many would play with their life like that, yet strangely many are content to play around with their eternity in much the same way. If there is anything you should be sure of in this life, it's where you are going to end up when you die. Above anything else, it's the one thing you don't want to get wrong. You have said that you prefer an indefinite answer, but there is a definite answer as to what will actually happen to you. It's not that anything could happen, it is that something will happen and I think it is in your, and everyones, best interest to find out exactly what that is.

The ancestry of living beings isn't just traceable through the fossil record. The study of genetics shows us a huge and utterly overwhelming amount of evidence for the common ancestor idea. Common genes can be traced back to show the lineage of different animals and plants and groups of animals and plants.

Homology is a complex subject..it would take awhile to get into. I found a good link that illustrates the argument against it being a proof that macroevolution occured. If you want to take a look we could discuss further:

http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

Ring species show that small changes can indeed lead to separate species. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are evolution in progress. You say that just because small changes can be seen it doesn't follow that big changes can evolve but that's stupid. Big changes are just a series of connected little changes.

I guess it depends on who you ask?

Erwin, D.H. (2000) Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evol. & Devel. 2:78-84.

the independence of macroevolution is affirmed not only by species selection but also by other processes such as effect sorting among species.

Lieberman, B.S. and Vrba, E.S. (2005) Gould on species selection. in MACROEVOLUTION: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency. E.S. Vrba and N. Eldredge eds. supplement to Paleobiology vol. 31(2) The Paleontological Society, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Micro- and macroevolution are thus different levels of analysis of the same phenomenon: evolution. Macroevolution cannot solely be reduced to microevolution because it encompasses so many other phenomena: adaptive radiation, for example, cannot be reduced only to natural selection, though natural selection helps bring it about.

Scott, E.C. (2004) Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction. (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press).

Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution, and we must envision the process governing its course as being analogous to natural selection but operating at a higher level of organization.

Stanley, S. M. (1975) A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 72: 646-650.

In conclusion, then, macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with microevolutionary theories, but macroevolutionary studies require the formulation of autonomous hypotheses and models (which must be tested using macroevolutionary evidence). In this (epistemologically) very important sense, macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution: macroevolution is an autonomous field of evolutionary study.

Ayala, F.J. (1983) Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. reprinted in PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, M. Ruse ed. p. 118-133.

When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)

@poolcleaner

Hi poolcleaner,

Thank you for sharing where you're coming from with me, I appreciate it. My story is a lot different than yours. I grew up in a home without any religion and God was not discussed, for or against. By default, I was agnostic towards the idea. I did not believe in anything supernatural; I probably would have fit in here fairly well for the most part. I was extremely liberal on many different topics and that seems to be the norm, here.

What changed is that I started to have supernatural experiences and things started happening to me which you couldn't explain away by mere chance. On that basis I started to explore the possibilities, fell into the new age for awhile, and then God reached down one day and pulled out a Christian out of that mess. That's the super short condensed version of what happened.

Even when I became a Christian, I still held to all of the secular views that I did before. It's only when I started to investigate the scientific evidence for these things that I changed my mind. I would still believe those things to this day if it wasn't for the evidence and where it pointed. I will get back to you on this; I'd like some time to come up with some good information for you. God bless!

Hi Ravioli,

I guess that's a fair question. For starters, that would be a contradiction to what God has said about Himself:

Isaiah 45:5-6

I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

If God was not who He claimed to be, I could no longer worship Him according to His desire because we are told He is seeking those who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth:

John 4:23-24

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

If the truth was different than what God claimed, it would be inconsistent with His desire to be worshiped in spirit and truth.

What the bible says about Gods truthfulness is that it is impossible for Him to lie:

Hebrews 6:18 so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us,

I trust that He is telling the truth, and that He is in a better position to know that than I am. The resurrection of His Son gives me ample reason to put my hope and trust in Him for my eternity. Thanks and God bless!

just to clear up a few misconceptions here..First, you cant prove your arguement, by disproving someones elses..This is a tactic of christians. Even if you could disprove evolution, that doesnt prove a 500 year old man built a giant boat.. donkeys can talk,,the sun stopped in the sky..,or there were giants on the earth,,ok?,, AKA false dichotomy fallacy.

Second,,this arguement also applies to evolution and abiogenesis...you cant disprove evolution by saying,well,where did everything come from..

This type of willfull ignorance can actually kill us,,,IE anti vaccine people...ignorance like this, can kill, your children. People will use superstition to kill their children,,,and,,yours.

Never mind.

Hey, it reminds me of the Liar's Paradox. The logic is that someone who ALWAYS lies, will say "I never lie". It is a self-referenced logical proposition. I hope that is not the case here.

I love reading a comment section with religious people who back up their views with religion and weak scientific evidence to back up their points, and secularists who back up their arguments with scientific evidence with little to no religious evidence. It's the stuff that epic battles are made of.

It's interesting because both sides should already know they're not able to convince the other, yet both believe the other's evidence contradicts each other, and is often willing to use evidence from the other side to prove the contradiction when they don't fully understand what that evidence actually says or means. Although, in this case, kudos to the secularists who didn't give a rat's ass what the bible says and didn't try to use it.

Why Christians try to prove or disprove anything to secularists or scientists with biblical evidence, I'll never know.

Hi Shiny,
I'm obviously not a biblical scholar, but didn't God lie to Abraham when he said it was a requirement that he sacrifice his son?
I'm fairly certain that's not the only reference to God lying to or misleading (same thing) people, lies of omission are still lies.

A very honest answer and I greatly appreciate it. Looking forward to your reply

Take a look in the mirror, shiny.

My position is backed up by mountains (both methaphorically and literally) of evidence. You have nothing. I've looked at the so-called evidence for a young earth or creationism and I dismissed it almost instantly.

It fails almost every conceivable test of reliable evidence almost instantly. I am not obliged to consider nonsense. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you.

If I tell you the sky is pink and green with a giant picture of Steve Carell on it, I'd want some pretty decent evidence to back that up.

I don't have to "seek out someone who agreed" with me, that is the default position. It is the accepted scientific reality.

Part of the reason, I don't have to continually reassess my acceptance of it is because it makes sense. I don't go around thinking "man, evolution is a cool idea, but I wonder why it doesn't explain X", because it does explain X (where X is any silly creationist nonsense like irreduceable complexity, etc).

So, on one hand we have evolution, which has:
- an elegant, sensible theory
- millions and millions of man hours of study
- ginormous swathes of evidence

and on the other we have creationism, which has:
- some old book said it's true and the same book said the book is true (despite the fact that said book has been wrong time and time again)

Anyway, I'm done here.
Have fun on the wrong side of history; you can take a seat over there beside the flat earthers, the slave-owners and the people that thought non-whites were genetically inferior.

I think having a conversation about evolution versus creation can be fruitful. As a former lifelong agnostic who has experienced it, I can testify of the brainwashing that goes on the other side of the fence. It starts out early in childhood books and cartoons, then through public education, television, science fiction and movies. You're raised all of your life to believe the secular creation narrative, and your friends and family who believe as you do reinforce this belief. You are self-deceived into thinking your information filter is very large and sophisticated when it is very small and full of personal bias.

That can be why people have an adverse reaction when evolution is called into question. To them it is reality and if you were to remove that cornerstone their idea of the way the world is would come tumbling down with it. If someone doesn't understand their need for Jesus, it is a hard thing to consider accepting.

It's not the case, it's based on my personal experience that Gods words are in fact true. That He is exactly who He says He is, and that His promises are true; when I placed my faith in Jesus Christ as I was born again as a new person and received the Holy Spirit. He utterly transformed me, inside and out. I can attest with every fiber of my being that His words are true, and trustworthy.

What atheists don't believe, but what I believe, is that His word is the power of God unto salvation for those who will believe:

Hebrews 4:12 For the Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Hey Newtboy,

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac; later, when it was clear that Abraham would obey Him, He rescinded the command. I don't know if you've ever read about this, but God was revealing a deeper truth here as to what He would do when He sent Jesus to the cross to die for our sins. Often in the Old Testament you can find what are called "types". There is a whole study of the scripture called "typeology", where certain events happened in the Old Testament which were foreshadowing events in the New Testament.

Issac then, in this context, is a type of Jesus. Issac, like Jesus, voluntarily submitted himself to be sacrificed. He was a young man whereas Abraham was close to 100 years old; he could have easily overpowered Abraham. This is a picture of Jesus voluntarily going to the cross by His own volition. There is also a similarity in that Issac, like Jesus, carried the wood for his own sacrifice. The biggest difference is, God the Father didn't ask Abraham to do what He ultimately would do, which is to give His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for sins. Here is some more information about typeology:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/larkin/dt/28.cfm

If you're unwilling to consider the evidence, and mock those whose positions you don't truly understand, what would you call that? You seem to think that is reasonable for some reason. In any case, have a good one, Chaosengine. Hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas and New Years.

Don't confuse disdain for lack of understanding. I understand it perfectly well, and because of this I can recognise it as nonsense.

Nevertheless, have a good Christian appropriation of the solstice

If that works for you, rock on.

But I don't care otherwise.

Sounds like a lie to me....to paraphrase how I see it going.....

God -Abraham, I now require you to sacrifice your son to me if you are to be granted my favor and receive salvation.
Abraham -Weren't my servants, and flocks, and crops enough, Damn it?
God -You dare question my wishes, do as I say or be damned for eternity.
Abraham -OK, fine...I'll do it.
God -Just kidding, it was only a test and you passed. Sorry for the whole 'destroying your entire life' thing.
Abraham -Great. Thanks loads, god. You're a true friend for not making me destroy the single last thing you had left me in life and only making me believe I had to.

Since he did not HAVE to sacrifice his son, god lied to him, tricked him, and ultimately totally fucked him. When ever I discuss this with religious people, they insist you not look at it from Abraham's viewpoint, and ignore the apparent hatred and distain god showed this pious man. I refuse.

No.
I was raised in Houston, surrounded by hyper religious family, friends, and public. I went to a really good private school and learned how much they ignore, don't know, or pretend is magic to continue believing their beliefs. I had to make my own way, mostly, and learn to distinguish between fact and propaganda (religious, political, etc). Many people don't have that ability, since often it means analyzing data by one's self, and many don't even know what is data and what is propaganda.

People have an adverse reaction when evolution and other scientific 'fact' are called into question by religious people for religious reasons because we've already had the trouble of wading through the confusion and BS to find 'fact', and having more BS nonsensical rhetoric poured into the mix to attempt to confuse those who have not learned yet makes us angry with the spreaders and sad for the future generations.

If someone doesn't understand my lack of a need for god or Jebus, it's a hard thing to consider accepting.
(or to say it another way... Who are you to question god's wanting me to not believe in him?)