creation/evolution the video

[Dancefortwo]

What facts?

What facts are there on any individuals that far back?

Just because there is not a written fact about two people that far back does it then mean no one existed back then? or rather it is far more plausible you simply have incomplete information and you are trying to make it fit the whole of what it is you want to believe?

Evolution is a fact and DNA confirms it.  Evolution doesn't go back to two individual people.  Evolution progresses through small,  incremental changes throughout vast amounts of time.  Go read an actual book on evolution by an accredited evolutionary biologist and then get back to me.

you didn't watch the video did you?

What makes you think you can just be apart of the discussion.. what if the topic is of one you never heard before? (it kinda is) watch the video and rephrase your statement in light of what I shared.

you didn't watch the video did you?

 

Nope.  Why should I?  You have a long, long, loooooooooong history of never providing one iota of falsifiable evidence your god exists.  If you actually demonstrated your claims and backed it up with falsifiable evidence the entire scientific community circling the globe would stop and take interest.  You would gladly provide them with your testable evidence which would easily be duplicated by scientists. Have you done this? No. When you do let me know because then - and only then, will I watch your video.

[Bucky Ball]

and that day comes for each and everyne of those people who lived in those thousands of years

So you people keep claiming. Never happens. 
Even your Jesus and Paul expected it in their generation. 
They were wrong. You have not one ounce of proof for your empty threats and assertions. 

So, you have not one scholar who backs up your ignorant nonsense. 
As I said, you have no education in the field. 

no one from this website has contacted me. 

I knew you were lying. 

What is it that makes you so mad that not all of you always pretend to think he knows how the whole universe works all the time?

Nowhere has anyone here ever said that. Not knowing how something works does not justify making up the answers. 
Your gods are gods of the gaps. You *need* them. 

What makes you think that nothing supernatural has ever happened to any of you outside the church and want answers or direction?

No evidence. None at all. 

Why are you so put off of the idea that most of you have doubts?

Lying again. 
I have no doubts that the gods made up in the ancient Near East are no more real than the man in the moon.
The fact you bring this up this way, demonstrates it is YOU that have doubts ... 
You're "projecting" ... look it up. Along with the "need for cognitive closure" and "low ambiguity tolerance", you're doing that also. 
You should take a Psychology class, when your done with Bible 101. 

I even have an atheist fan. apparently he does not post much but likes how I can shellac 15 or 20 of you at a time with what most of you think is a made up fantasy.

No dear. There's your Dunning-Krueger again. You can "shellac" no one. Your *boasting* belies your insecurity and ignorance.  

Or is it that it makes it harder for you to pretend I am just some tard who like waist tons of time reading and posting.

You are just that. You have nothing better to do, and you *need* to tell yourself you are expert in this stupid little hobby you have, which in fact .... as you just proved by posting NO REFERENCES TO A SCHOLAR, you are a total know-nothing.
For you, as we have seen, over and over, religion and the Bible is about having a dick-fight, and seeing who can *best* someone else.
It's all about your (insecure) ego. You and your insulting non-hippie judgmental Jesus.
You can put that shit back in your pants ... no one want any of your brand of nonsense.

[Cheerful Charlie]

This has already all been done.  It is called "Guided Evolution".  Or "Theistic Evolution".

Wikipedia: Francis Collins

"Collins also has written a number of books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. After leaving the directorship of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially through the advancement of evolutionary creation."

The problem with this is that it assumes God exists.  Collins in his book makes little attempt to deal with atheist arguments that demonstrate the God of the Bible, Quran et al is self contradictory and incoherent and not a viable hypothesis.  And thus it is not a good assumption to assume God exists and has anything to do with evolution.

There are already a jillion youtube videos peddling this as a solution to square evolution with God and Bible, and books.  And theistic evolution has been likewise examined by critics and found wanting.

https://biologos.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI...gJXYvD_BwE

Biologos has been around for some time and has not been very successful at demonstrating God exists and has anything to do with Gid, and surely has not been successful with atheists and evolutionary scientists.

kinda the same precept but in the end most of those guys have to bend the bible or change what the bible or the theory says to make it all jive.

Where this differs nothing is changed in the bible. it is a straight reading with one none tradition exception. that is to remove all time lines as none are offered scripturally. this allows for a straight forward reading without the need to change a literal 7 day creation.. IE no compromises to the faith.

Collins spends much of his book arguing evolution happened.  He argues that creationism is false, and the Intelligent Design is false.  He then states that God guides evolution.  That is just a statement he makes, he spends no time trying to prove that point.
He does mean the God of the Bible.  The problem is that the God of the Bible makes claims about the nature of God that become fatal self contradictions that calls the existence of God as per Bible into doubt.  But evolution is not in doubt.  Collins makes no effort to deal with the well known theological problems of God and that hypothesis's incoherence problems.

That is where Collin's hypothesis stands.  For us strong atheists who know why God is not a viable hypothesis, theological evolution, guided evolution, is not an option.

Francis Collin's book "The Language Of God" Doesn't solve the problem.  Evolution is a fact.  Genesis is not factual.  Creationism in all it's forms is false.  Creationism is nonsense and does not help prop up claims that God exists, and that the Bible is trustworthy revelation from God.

[Mark]

I've been working on this idea or concept with you guys and others for a while and I have since made a little video/outline of the basic premise. This is the same subject we have discussed in the past usually under the name of how to assimilate all of evolution without changing the bible or the theory of evolution. Just in a video out line. I plan on using this out line to make a animated short.

Let me know if this makes the concept easier to understand than our pure discussion in the past.

There is no need to look at the video.  But your impulse is a good one.  If science and religion conflict, you're doing it wrong.  But fixing it on the science side with ID and so on won't work.  You need to address the theology and use a heaping helping of linguistics in making sense of the bible.  You might just manage to salvage the baby from some pretty foul bath water.

But there is no need to reinvent the wheel here.  There are evangelicals already at work on this.  Just read this report this morning.  Apparently it is mostly just the theology of Christianity as practiced in the U.S. which fosters the perception of a conflict between science and religion which need not exist at all.  Here is that report.

https://biologos.org/articles/scientists...the-globe/

[Minimalist]

this is inpart the reason I have been able to reconcile both a 7 day creation with a bazillion year evolutionary theory.

The bigger part of the reason is that you are batshit crazy.  There are no gods, Drippy.  You are on your own.  Stop wasting your life on bullshit.

seen too much minnie.. Been saved too many times.

IN your case, seeing is not comprehending.  Keep deluding yourself, lad.  You are too far gone for help anyway.

[GenesisNemesis]

Creationism is bullshit and evolution isn't. Simple as that. No reconciliation necessary.

[Bucky Ball]

The source materials used by the Judean priests in editing Genesis can be teased out by careful analysis.
There are a number of traditions present in the Genesis we know, and they go by well-known "letter" identifiers, as anyone who has taken Freshman Bible knows. How do we know this ?

This became what is known in Biblical scholarship as the Source Hypothesis, or Documentary Hypothesis.
There is no longer any dispute in scholarly circles about this hypothesis.
Why ? Because it it confirmed by 6, independent sets of supporting evidence.

1. The linguistic dialect in each source is known, and can be documented as separate by decades, or longer.
2. The terminology for the same idea, person, object, or place is different in each source.
3. The content of each of the sources is different.
4. The "flow" of the story works if the source materials are combined.
5. The same known sources are similar or connect to the same known sources in other books.
6. The inferred political motivations for each source matches the material and it's apparent goals.

[Dancefortwo]

He (Collins)  then states that God guides evolution.  That is just a statement he makes, he spends no time trying to prove that point.

I pointed this problem out in my post above.  Don't expect him to reply to this.  He'll skip over it and hurry on down the Galloping Gish path.   He doesn't know the difference between a claim and demonstrable evidence.  All theists share this problem.

[Bucky Ball]

the day is coming

Yawn.
You people have been claiming that for thousands of years.

and that day comes for each and everyne of those people who lived in those thousands of years

He (Collins)  then states that God guides evolution.  That is just a statement he makes, he spends no time trying to prove that point.

I pointed this problem out in my post above.  Don't expect him to reply to this.  He'll skip over it and hurry on down the Galloping Gish path.   He doesn't know the difference between a claim and demonstrable evidence.  All theists share this problem.

Evolution is not guided. There are many known dead ends, and horrible mistakes. 
https://massivesci.com/articles/evolving...xtinction/
Anyone who knows anything about science knows that 99.9 percent of all species that ever existed are extinct. 
Not such a good record for this "guider" now, is it ?

[Cheerful Charlie]

See the website "Parasite Of The Day".
http://dailyparasite.blogspot.com/

So many parasites, viruses, fungi, germs and bacteria. Who guided their evolution? Why?

[jerry mcmasters]

I clicked on the video, saw the length was 11 minutes, and closed it. Has OP provided a written summary or synopsis?

[Phaedrus]

Nope.  Why should I?  You have a long, long, loooooooooong history of never providing one iota of falsifiable evidence your god exists.

Well, don't you know, we're supposed to prove god doesn't exist.

[Bucky Ball]

See the website "Parasite Of The Day".  
http://dailyparasite.blogspot.com/

So many parasites, viruses, fungi, germs and bacteria.  Who guided their evolution?  Why?

Glioblastoma multiforme. 

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) (also called glioblastoma) is a fast-growing glioma that develops from star-shaped glial cells (astrocytes and oligodendrocytes) that support the health of the nerve cells within the brain. GBM is often referred to as a grade IV astrocytoma. 

The tumor sends down "fingers" or "tendrils" from the main site, to invade everything in sight. Sometimes it grows out the ears or the nose or the eyes. 
Praise be the Lord for his mighty works. 

[Astreja]

I skim-watched the video. It has a fatal flaw: It presumes that the book of Genesis is fact, not fiction. Nothing to see here, folks.

[Minimalist]

I knew that when I saw that Dripshit posted it.

He really does think that nonsense is real.

[Dancefortwo]

See the website "Parasite Of The Day".  
http://dailyparasite.blogspot.com/

So many parasites, viruses, fungi, germs and bacteria.  Who guided their evolution?  Why?

Glioblastoma multiforme. 

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) (also called glioblastoma) is a fast-growing glioma that develops from star-shaped glial cells (astrocytes and oligodendrocytes) that support the health of the nerve cells within the brain. GBM is often referred to as a grade IV astrocytoma. 

The tumor sends down "fingers" or "tendrils" from the main site, to invade everything in sight. Sometimes it grows out the ears or the nose or the eyes. 
Praise be the Lord for his mighty works. 

I'm a terrible hypochondriac.  Oh dear, I wish I hadn't read that.   

[Cheerful Charlie]

Genesis 1
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
...
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:


Genesis 2

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

----

Genesis has it's infamous 2 different tall tails about the creation of man and animals.  No amount of sophistry or word games can harmonize the two tall tales.  This cannot be true, cannot be true revelation, cannot be in any way squared with itself, much less real biology and paleontology.  Yet the Christers cling to it and throw reason, logic and rationality out and expect us to do so also.

That is not going to happen.  The creationist tell us they want to "teach the controversy" in our science classes in public schools.
By which the mean, teach creationism.  Perhaps then they should consider that "teaching the controversy" means telling the kiddies why those bad old scientists read Genesis and call it for what it is, ancient tall tales that don't even agree as to what supposedly happened.

[SYZ]

I can appreciate the time you've taken to produce your video, but posting it on an atheist web site
is ultimately a total waste of your time...

If and when God is apparent to everyone (the day is coming) and he can no longer be denied, what do you think Science say? how do you think 'science will identify God? will they say oops we are wrong that is the God of the bible!

There is not one iota of empirical evidence that supports the notion of supernatural gods.  
Until (or more likely if) that evidence was produced and proved, then it's a nonsense to
even talk about "God's coming".  Despite a plethora of claims made predicting that—over
two millennia—it never happened, and in all probability it never will.  And you need to
remember that no sane, rational human being, of all the billions who've lived, have ever
actually seen an unequivocal appearance of any gods.

Even if God came and opened a porthole to the past and we could literally all watch it all play out as described in the bible. Science would still not bend the figurative knee.

Another non sequitur.  You're again presupposing that gods can exist in the real
world.  And absurdly presupposing that science would be cowed by proof of this existence.  
Too many "ifs" there mate.

God will be identified by science as a transdimensional being with either tech that is beyond our comprehension or bio mental connection to some greater 'force' we do not understand yet.

A "transdimensional" being? LOL.  What does that even mean?   One foot in reality, and
one in mythology?

However for the more open minded science is nothing more than how a natural God put his creation in order and maintains it.

A "natural" god?  What the fuck's a natural god in comparison to an unnatural god.  How
do you specifically define a god anyway?  I define gods as supernatural entities drawn
from the over-fertile imaginations of men who're intellectually challenged, fearful of things
they can't understand, who lack any self-assurance, or who're especially gullible and too
easily manipulated.

[NorthernBen]

A natural god is defined as a god who matches upstairs and downstairs.

[Cheerful Charlie]

A natural God is a God who doesn't shave his legs.

[Drich]

Evolution is a fact and DNA confirms it.  Evolution doesn't go back to two individual people.  Evolution progresses through small,  incremental changes throughout vast amounts of time.  Go read an actual book on evolution by an accredited evolutionary biologist and then get back to me.

you didn't watch the video did you?

What makes you think you can just be apart of the discussion.. what if the topic is of one you never heard before? (it kinda is) watch the video and rephrase your statement in light of what I shared.

you didn't watch the video did you?

 

Nope.  Why should I?  

So you do not sound like a fool discussing the typical atheist vs christian evolutionary arguments. when the topic is on something else completely.

You have a long, long, loooooooooong history of never providing one iota of falsifiable evidence your god exists.

again you are arguing stereotypes. You assume I can so I have never done so. Not true what I offer can be falsified on an individual level through personal experimentation. It does not even seem that you know anything about me outside of what you peers have said, mixed with a stereotype you feel comfortable with.

I shall require that [the] logical form [of the theory] shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.

— Karl Popper, Popper 1959. p 19

And if you do not know who popper is then you are not allowed to use the term falsifiability with me again.

  If you actually demonstrated your claims and backed it up with falsifiable evidence the entire scientific community circling the globe would stop and take interest.

Do you want to know why? because if I could put God in a box and poke him with a stick and get him to react a certain way each and every time. then what I put in said box would not be God, does not have to be feared because it can be controlled. That is all 'science' is is a false sense of knowledge from a position of security.

Here is where the falsifiability comes in sport. God is not an experiment. He is a being that is waiting and can be found once seek and ask after him on his terms. This would be no different than meeting with the president or queen or some other world leader. there is a protocol and if one follows said protocol then they will find God. but again has to be on his term. those therms can be found in luke 11.

 

You would gladly provide them with your testable evidence which would easily be duplicated by scientists. Have you done this? No.

protocols and procedures are also acceptable forms of providing falsifiability. As not everything in science can be manipulated.

When you do let me know because then - and only then, will I watch your video.

Done, now watch the video, or don't. However if you are going to continue to speak...
educate yourself before you come off half cocked again. you sound foolish and antiquated using decades old stereotypical arguments and atheistic challenges that do not apply to me or this topic. You sound like someone desperately wanting to contribute but can't or wont rise to the topic being discussed so you try and bring it down to your safe space. (challenging christians on things you think they can not do.)

[Dancefortwo]

 educate yourself before you come off half cocked again

LOL  Half cocked?      Provide falsifiable evidence your god exists.  Quoting the bible isn't evidence. The Bible is a book of claims.  It claims a god exists, it is not evidence a god exists.  If any part of your video references the Bible as a source then you've lost the argument right there, buddy.

[OakTree500]

there is a protocol and if one follows said protocol then they will find God. but again has to be on his term. those therms can be found in luke 11

I am sorry, but BULLSHIT right here.

This whole "follow gods rules and you'll know" shit it just backwards. 

I mean the ultimate question is "WHY?". Why in fucks name do we HAVE to do anything. Why do we have to believe in god before we know it's real? Why does IT in its infinite knowledge/wisdom demand we follow specific rules, when it clearly doesn't confirm to known rules that humans understand/can potentially comprehend? WHY do we have to do all of this to make IT 'feel important'?

I can guarantee you if your god suddenly just appeared and made itself known to EVERYBODY ON EARTH [which you would think it could because you reckon it created the universe....so you know, things that it can do and all that] interest in your religion/church would increase by over a billion percent instantly.

The problem with saying you can't "poke" god or Test god or whatever, is that in itself is backwards - because if we can't, why not? Is it because it's a being of ultimate power that cannot take physical form? If not, then how did it create the universe, or how did it manifest to those people in the bible? It clearly has some sort of power, why not demonstrate it instead of showing some and not others? Why only show itself to those that already believe it exists in the first place? That's not helping theists convince anybody that it exists, which in itself is paradoxical. I can say if GOD appeared to me RIGHT NOW [which we assume it could based on 'evidence' from your bible story book] and proved without a doubt that it was infact GOD, and not just an alien or something else, [which again I presume it could if you 'KNOW' what god is, right?] then I would 100% give up my life to the church. But because this doesnt not, and has NEVER happened, EVER, then I'll carry on presuming such a being does not exist in the first place.......because it never has.

[Drich]

I've been working on this idea or concept with you guys and others for a while and I have since made a little video/outline of the basic premise. This is the same subject we have discussed in the past usually under the name of how to assimilate all of evolution without changing the bible or the theory of evolution. Just in a video out line. I plan on using this out line to make a animated short.

Let me know if this makes the concept easier to understand than our pure discussion in the past.

There is no need to look at the video.  But your impulse is a good one.  If science and religion conflict, you're doing it wrong.  But fixing it on the science side with ID and so on won't work.  You need to address the theology and use a heaping helping of linguistics in making sense of the bible.  You might just manage to salvage the baby from some pretty foul bath water.

But there is no need to reinvent the wheel here.  There are evangelicals already at work on this.  Just read this report this morning.  Apparently it is mostly just the theology of Christianity as practiced in the U.S. which fosters the perception of a conflict between science and religion which need not exist at all.  Here is that report.

https://biologos.org/articles/scientists...the-globe/

what a typical trained response. seek out information that only supports your position and pretend this is an authority in which all life is governed.

In truth the article only seeks out what scientists have to say about religion, it does not include the the voice of the religious has to say about science. Which in the 'real world' is a far greater number as religious people outweigh actual scientists.

You maybe content siding with the minority here, but I am not as science should not have to be a mutually exclusive cub for God haters and deniers.

With what has been said in the video those who are predominantly religious can establish a strong foot hold in the world of science and not have to shed their religious beliefs.

This is what the video is about, as I have very little concern what 'science' might have to say in keeping their club membership as anti God only.

[Drich]

Genesis 1
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
...
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:


Genesis 2

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

----

Genesis has it's infamous 2 different tall tails about the creation of man and animals.  No amount of sophistry or word games can harmonize the two tall tales.  This cannot be true, cannot be true revelation, cannot be in any way squared with itself, much less real biology and paleontology.  Yet the Christers cling to it and throw reason, logic and rationality out and expect us to do so also.

That is not going to happen.  The creationist tell us they want to "teach the controversy" in our science classes in public schools.
By which the mean, teach creationism.  Perhaps then they should consider that "teaching the controversy" means telling the kiddies why those bad old scientists read Genesis and call it for what it is, ancient tall tales that don't even agree as to what supposedly happened.

I know know for sure you did not watch the video. How?

I reconcile this in the video as well as EVERY OTHER INCONSISTENCY AND OR CONTRADICTION YOU GUY USE!

Watch it and then tell me how much sense it all makes now, by simply taking away the book chapter and verse denotations.