Brilliant ideas are shared everyday, everywhere, and we don't want you to miss them! FORA.tv makes live streaming easy for conferences and events. Subscribe to our RU-vid channel and watch engaging videos from partners like WIRED, The Atlantic, Intelligence Squared, Carnegie Institution for Science and more.
Muslim vs Christian in Europe Muslim vs Judaism in Israel Muslim vs Hinduism in India and subcontinent Muslims vs Buddhism in Srilanka Muslim vs Buddhism in Myanmar Muslim vs Christian in Newzealand Muslim vs Muslim in Iran Muslim vs Muslim in middles east iraq Saudia Arabia vs iiran The core problem is Islam . Islam is a evil to the society Islam is finished world will be a better place to live in
The existence of the fact that some representatives of science invent different "theories" that reject the word of God, clearly indicates only that for 2000 years there has been no Church of Christ and, accordingly, mankind does not see those miracles that should accompany the Church of Christ, as it is stated in the books of the New Testament. If in the name of Christ the dead were raised from the dead, the blind were given back their sight, the armless and legless were restored to their limbs, the terminally ill were freed from disease, I do not think that scientists would dare to persist in promoting various hypotheses denying the existence of God. The reason for the unbelief of most people is that they do not see the miracles that should accompany the Church of Christ as the books of the New Testament state, but they see in abundance the Churches that claim to be the Church of Christ but have no power to perform miracles, and this confuses many people. These 2000 years was a period of unbelief and despite the efforts of the defenders of the Christian faith they failed because they tried to prove the truth of Christ's teachings by human efforts. God will not prove the truth of Christ's teachings through philosophical speculation, the discovery of ancient manuscripts, or archaeological findings. Not at all. That is not God's handwriting. We know from the Bible how God works, God is a living God, and He will live testify to the truth of Christ's teachings. In the first century this is exactly what was happening. Miracles were the chief weapon of Christ's preachers to convince the skeptic of the truth of Christianity. The following fragment is a good example of this: *"And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.* *But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."* (Acts 13:6-12). In our time we don't see this anymore, because the so-called Christians don't have such power, they are all fake. In the end I want to say that God will be revealed to mankind as He was revealed in the first century, through the Church of Christ. So that there will be no shadow of doubt about the truth of Christ's Teachings. And then all religions and false Christian churches will be disgraced before the risen Church of Christ, through which the same miracles will be performed that we read about in the books of the New Testament. Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years? The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist. Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on RU-vid. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
Science doesn't make any hypothesises against your god. It is there to make us understand the world, the absence of a god is the conclusion that is obtained through research
ghy *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"conan-le-cimerian insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
I didn't, strange that you keep insisting I am an alternative account of Ergonomover when everyone knows you are lying. Besides, you are the one with 4 accounts (I saw another one of yours on another video). Answer me this, are you paranoid or a liar? P.S : It's "Cimmerien" with an "e", is reading too difficult?
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Anyone that sees you claiming I am an Andrew when it's clear I am not. It's also fascinating that I have asked for what evidence led you to conclude that I am an alternative account of ergonomover. That you ran away from this question is indicative that you know you are speaking out of your rear end. Unlike me, because I can justify saying that you have multiple accounts.
A creationnist by the name of Piet has just brought a revolution to science. See he made the claim that the theory of evolution, the most supported aspect of biology, and stellar evolution, which quite literally means the changes a star undergoes in it's "lifespan", are the same thing. Anyone who understands at least the basics of those two theories knows the only link is the word "evolution" in the name (which indicates that the theory is about changes),but creationnists like Piet don't really care about being accurate. So remind yourself, when you see someone like Piet, that you're talking to someone who doesn't go in more depth than the name! P.S : If you want to have some fun with those ask them what is : -the coherence of 2 light sources -the spatial coherence of 2 light sources -the temporal (how you said "temporaire") coherence of 2 light sources. 3 different things, I'll explain to those who want to learn, just ask
A creationnist by the name of Piet has just brought a revolution to science. See he made the claim that the theory of evolution, the most supported aspect of biology, and stellar evolution, which quite literally means the changes a star undergoes in it's "lifespan", are the same thing. Anyone who understands at least the basics of those two theories knows the only link is the word "evolution" in the name (which indicates that the theory is about changes),but creationnists like Piet don't really care about being accurate. So remind yourself, when you see someone like Piet, that you're talking to someone who doesn't go in more depth than the name! P.S : If you want to have some fun with those ask them what is : -the coherence of 2 light sources -the spatial coherence of 2 light sources -the temporal (how you said "temporaire") coherence of 2 light sources. 3 different things, I'll explain to those who want to learn, just ask
1. ATHEISTS (SCIENTIFIC PANTHEISTS) NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE. Amazing. There are still atheists (scientific pantheists) on this page that 'believe' (sic) humans are primates; i.e., the same people who: - when they send a chimpanzee to the zoo, will put the chimp in the cargo hold of the airplane (along with dangerous animals!) Instead of letting it ride with its 'nearest cousins' (sic) in the passenger compartment. - when the chimpazee in the zoo gets sick, they will call for a qualified veterinarian specialising in wildlife care, instead of calling for a general practitioner (doctor) the way they will do for the chimp's 'nearest cousins' when they get sick. - will often speak to chimps for hours, days, weeks, months and years on end trying in vain to make intelligent and meaningful contact with the brute beast, but, however, will not speak as much as 5 minutes to God (the Creator of the chimp in the first place). - cannot produce a single example of a transmutation, transmediary, transitional organism (an organism in the process of evolving into a different organism) as evidence for Evolution. - while others are pre-occupied with LIFE, are pre-occupied with DEATH, hence 'The Death-Cult of Darwinism'. - cannot even produce a single fossil of such a transmutation or transitional, transmediary organism as evidence for Evolution. - say such silly things as, "Nature rewards survivors with longevity!" (DSTV: NG Wild). In plain English: "Animals that survive will live for a very long time!" (They call this "science"?). - say there is no such thing as Absolute Truth ... except for the absolute truth of Atheism (scientific pantheism). - show the middlefinger to God, the Bible and the Ten Commandments but, when their car gets stolen at the mall, they scream blue murder and run to the nearest police station for an affadavit/sworn statement and a case number for the insurance guys because suddenly it dawned on them that surely stealing is wrong. - say such silly things as, "Humans are primates!" but will show up at a debate dressed up as if they are not primates, but human beings wearing clothes as God intended for them to do. Do the math: If they really were primates, why are they not walking around stark naked? Animals also have rights you know. Why are they rebelling against God but are still dressing up with clothes like obedient and subservient little human, not primate) minions suffering from a brain injury? - believe that all animals are in a state of evolutionary flux (are still 'evolving') but then they go ahead and classify animals biologically into fixed little boxes? - say that they do not believe in Intelligent Design but marvel about the intelligence of some animals while speaking about 'Natural Selection' all day long ... 'selection' an activity suggesting 'pre-programmed intelligence' of some kind. P.S. Darwin's distinction between 'Artificial' and 'Natural Selection' is disingenuous and anyway also artificial itself. The Bible teaches that God is the Author of Life, not Evolution. 2. IS EVOLUTION STUPID OR WHAT? Atheists (scientific pantheists) believe 'Evolution' created the world, making one wonder who created Evolution in the first place. Be that as it may, is Evolution stupid or what? Why would it create a world full of people (2 billion+) who do not believe in Evolution, dismiss Evolution as a death-cult and prefer to follow God, the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ instead?
What never ceases to amaze is that you still hold onto your lies and repeat it to the people who debunked them. Such as when you keep claiming that atheists worship science, when we don't. Because science is not a deity but a methodology to discover what is factual. I know why you make such lies, it's to pretend that atheist are also in a cult and that they are not so different from you, but the truth is that we aren't in a cult unlike you
A small sample of Christian hoaxes: the Shroud of Turin (admitted by the Catholic Church as an artwork from 1390) the Spear of Destiny (at least two known) actual blood of Christ (not congealed after 1,970 years) pieces of the Cross and the Ark (enough to build a shopping mall) the fake Josephus mentions of Jesus the original Crucifixion nails (thousands of 'em) the Tomb of Christ (several) the Birthplace of Christ (several) the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Bible Museum, all of which are FORGERIES the Exodus (never happened according to multiple archaeological expeditions and the actual historical record) Noah's Ark (at least 4 have been found, including a natural rock formation) Roman chariot wheels in the Dead Sea (poorly Photoshopped graphics) gigantic human skeletons as big as skyscrapers (more devious Photoshopping, obviously) all claims of miracles, none of which has ever been scientifically verified every word of the Bible etc etc....
DNA scarring occurs when small blocks of DNA units are accidentally deleted or, in other cases, inserted. Insertions and deletions are created by cuts in the DNA followed by reattachment at the cut sites. Like actual scars they have a particular location and profile. Humans and chimps share literally THOUSANDS of such random, accidental scars. Humans share many such scars with all the other primates. The idea that this could have happened by pure coincidence is impossible. It is irrelevant if some of these scars are detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. That this could have originally happened IN EACH SPECIES INDEPENDENTLY is statistically impossible.
I haven't seen a cretard get majorly triggered for a while. PietStassenAdamastor has really lost it. ~~ I'd say he went to the same cretard school as AdieMoron.
asw *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"yeshuaisjoshua"/2ndchookie" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
DO ATHEISTS AGREE? An atheist going by the name of @Conan-Le-Cimmerien says that, " Evolution affects living things, not dead sheets of paper." (See insert below at the bottom of the page). If this atheist is right, then it means that evolutionists have been lying to us all the time about COSMIC (STELLAR) EVOLUTION and GEOLOGIC EVOLUTION (dead things, just like dead sheets of paper). Do all atheists then agree that the evolutionists have been lying to us about Cosmic and Geologic Evolution? - The Universe (a dead thing) did not 'evolve' and is not 13.8 billion years old? - The Earth (a dead thing) did not 'evolve' and is not 4.54 billion years old? "@Conan-Le-Cimmerien 18 hours ago 1-Evolution affect living things, not dead sheets of paper. Given how little you understand I'm surprised you did not say this idiocy sooner." Reply
It's not people who understood evolution that lied to you. It's creationnist that lied to you, because only creationnist claimed that the theory of evolution applies to cosmology. Let me guess, you watched Kent Hovind and believed everything he said? Including the nonsensical claim that somehow there are 6 different evolutions? P.S: In your limited mind you believe that those who accept evolution are all atheists. Which is wrong as plenty of religious people accept evolution, the difference you and them is that they are intellectually honest and look at the evidence honestly without imposing their religious view.
@@Conan-Le-Cimmerien You'd better start educating yourself fast. I do not believe in Cosmic Evolution (the evolution of dead things) but evolutionists do, so you are not in sync or up to date with your own 'faith'. WIKIPEDIA: "Stellar evolution is the process by which a star changes over the course of time. Depending on the mass of the star, its lifetime can range from a few million years for the most massive to trillions of years for the least massive, which is considerably longer than the current age of the universe. The table shows the lifetimes of stars as a function of their masses.[1] All stars are formed from collapsing clouds of gas and dust, often called nebulae or molecular clouds. Over the course of millions of years, these protostars settle down into a state of equilibrium, becoming what is known as a main-sequence star."
Creationist fundies reckon they are not delusional! ~ They are not only a disgrace to human intellect, but they're also raving lunatics and need to be committed ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Rzn8QBXtqV0.html
I'd say people are born with a neural framework capable of learning,..... to various degrees. .... but then it's known that in the early years, a child's bran is _'plastic'_ and future _'interlect'_ is very mich influenced by environment, education and upbringing. Your thoughts?
: I that is a very fair assumption of how things work... Of course we tend to allow ourselves to be misled by exaggeration. For instance, “Mozart wrote a concerto at the age three etc “. I think it is illogical to believe that a child can be born with inherited past on information, but as you say, it may be possible environment low stress, heathy life-style of parents who care, could prepare the embryo for strong development….? Then it begs the question of how do we deem what we mean by intelligence? Some people, although outwardly Autistic, can have a profound ability record what they see or hear, when other people have no such ability…. Also maybe a perchance trigger encounter can set someone on a curiosity path that might lead them being called a genius… when they were just lucky to be inspired….We can go on forever…..
@@davidbanner6230 _'Then it begs the question of how do we deem what we mean by intelligence?'_ Exactly, ... but if I'd posted _'define inteligence'_ you'd reply with some smartarse disingenuous commnt. Now that you're in 'discussion mode' , how about answer my previous question, is consciousness a function of the brain?
@@2ndchookie919 : : Yes, probably Mozart would have been begging on the street, how else could it be, and yes I might have responded as you say because you would have preceded your question with fun things like “why do Emu’s have wings” which is ok…. Or @devilmonkey would have been calling me names, which is also ok… As for your question of “is consciousness a function of the brain” I think you are trying to trap me….if I say it is you will say then how can sentience exist without a brain…I get it. We are back in the Deepak Chopra I do not understand enough about Deepak, to have definitive opinion on what he believes, but from what gather he is saying that we cannot go down the ecological living scale and say that there is no awareness of some kind, even in the first cell? To your question, what is consciousness but a myriad of infinitesimal little ‘awarenesses’. If such a word is allowable?
DO ATHEISTS AGREE? An atheist going by the name of @Conan-Le-Cimmerien says that, " Evolution affects living things, not dead sheets of paper." (See insert below at the bottom of the page). If this atheist is right, then it means that evolutionists have been lying to us all the time about COSMIC (STELLAR) EVOLUTION and GEOLOGIC EVOLUTION (dead things, just like dead sheets of paper). Do all atheists then agree that the evolutionists have been lying to us about Cosmic and Geologic Evolution? - The Universe (a dead thing) did not 'evolve' and is not 13.8 billion years old? - The Earth (a dead thing) did not 'evolve' and is not 4.54 billion years old? "@Conan-Le-Cimmerien 18 hours ago 1-Evolution affect living things, not dead sheets of paper. Given how little you understand I'm surprised you did not say this idiocy sooner."
I can tell from your choice of wording ("COSMIC (STELLAR) EVOLUTION" and "GEOLOGIC EVOLUTION") that you've been reading the work of Kent Hovind. Let me tell you something about Hovind. He's a so-called "Christian Scientist" who got his PhD in "Christian Education" from a diploma mill in Colorado. Have you read his thesis? It barely reads at high school level. He lies about radiocarbon dating. He actually believes in the existence of fire-breathing dragons. To rely on his work as a basis for your arguments is foolish at best.
It's not people who understood evolution that lied to you. It's creationnist that lied to you, because only creationnist claimed that the theory of evolution applies to cosmology. Let me guess, you watched Kent Hovind and believed everything he said? Including the nonsensical claim that somehow there are 6 different evolutions? P.S: In your limited mind you believe that those who accept evolution are all atheists. Which is wrong as plenty of religious people accept evolution, the difference you and them is that they are intellectually honest and look at the evidence honestly without imposing their religious view.
Bishop Pierre d’Arcis and his predecessor Bishop Henri told Pope Clement VII that the shroud was a fake in the 14th Century; they even had a confession by the forger. This is also about when the Shroud first appears in recorded history: 1357 C.E
Can you post a timestamp at where he presents evidence supporting the "resurrection" ?? I'd say you won't, ... why? Coz you can't show evidence that's not there! ~~~~ sighhhhh!
Tarpy thinks he's scoring points with Jesus. "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Only problem is, Tarpy is NOT righteous, and will be damned for lying.
ghn *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"yeshuaisjoshua" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
I used to appreciate Bourdain before I became a Vegan. And now I find his argument not only dangerousely incompassionate but also disgusting, and played to the galleries.
fgvc *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
fgre *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
Creatard says: 'Try misspelling computer code words in a program and see what happens.' Sane person replies: 'You've just explained why DNA is NOT a programmed code.' Creatard: 'But... but... sputter, sputter!!!'
sdd *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"Lexi"/"AI-CREATARD"/"user-jt8dh4qy8d" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
1. SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS. My friend's Grade 1 kid needs a model paper airplane for next week as a school assignment. His Grade 5 kid needs a working 'volcano' simulation for his class assignment by September. Guess what he, himself a teacher who teaches high-school Evolutionary Theory, has decided to do in order to accomplish those tasks in support of his kids? OPTION #1: He decided to be practical and wait for Evolution to fold the paper airplane and construct a working volcano simulation. or OPTION #2: He decided to be practical and help his kids fold a model paper airplane and construct a working volcano simulation himself. (I.Q. TEST: Which one of the two is the right answer?). 2. WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN DARWINISM. I do not, like atheist-evolutionists, believe in Evolution, because I do not believe in 'Scientific Pantheism'. It is as simple as that. 3. WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIVE EVOLUTION. I do not believe in Creative Evolution because I do not believe in 'Darwinian Creationism'. It is as simple as that. Jesus Christ says: "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me."
@@DocReasonable 1. CHRISTIANITY 101(a): Humans are not primates. The reason that human anatomy is often so similar to that of primates is not because humans share a common (mutual) ancestor with the primates as the atheists want to tell us; it is because humans share a mutual Creator with the primates (and with all the other animals too, for that matter). Had humans been primates, they would have flown in the airplane's cargo hold along with chimpanzees and monkeys, and not in the passenger compartment. On the flip side, if monkeys and chimpanzees really were our nearest cousins, they would have flown in the passenger compartment with their human cousins, and not in the cargo hold along with dangerous animals. If humans have mammalian constitutions, it is because it was imperative for the Creator to have created humans with constitutions that would be able to adapt to living off the earth, initially only on vegetation but afterwards on meat as well. Humans cannot afford to die from protein poisoning. In Heaven, however, humans will have spirit bodies like angels, but will not give and take in marriage. Whether you like it or not, your physical body is the very temporary human equivalent of the insect's chrysalis/pupa until you die, when the chrysalis falls away and your spirit emerges for the true being he/she is supposed to be. You are working on that new spiritual being right now, and your status in Eternity will be commensurate with your behaviour on earth. Atheists, according to the Bible, however, do not have a bright future ahead of them, unless of course they repent. Atheists make the mistake of equating this life on earth as the end game, while it is not the end game at all. The end game, hopefully, is for those who love God to live in the Father's House of Many Mansions (John14:1-3) along with Jesus Christ, cherubs, seraphs and angels forever. This universe is probably right now filled with angel beings managing and organising the Cosmos. The Bible clearly speaks of "Heaven and Israel's Armies". Why would God need armies if it weren't for keeping Law and Order? (Read Daniel). Astronomers would be shocked if they could see what is really going on in the Cosmos, but, unfortunately, they themselves say that they only know about 5% of what is going on in the Universe. 2. CHRISTIANITY 101(b): When a gorilla, chimpanzee, baboon or monkey in a zoo gets sick, do the personnel call for a general practitioner (medical doctor) specializing in human diseases, or for a qualified veterinarian specialising in wildlife welfare? (You can call a friend if you like). 3. CHRISTIANITY 101(c). True or False: If left alone and provided he will live that long, a chimpanzee, according to some evolutionists, will, after trillions of years, be able to write the full works of Shakespeare verbatim without error and without any outside help. (Call a friend). "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." (Job28:28; Proverbs 1:7).
Latest findings on carbon 14 dating of the Shroud. Must know to avoid looking like an ignoramus. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QD4hB4XFFAw.html
Ah yes 3 zealots claim that the dating was wrong without any justification (meaning evidence) and all the others believe them. You're not one fit to give advice on not looking like an ignoramus
This was the last test......In a well-attended press conference on October 13, 1988 Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 CE Why do you lie so much?
@@teddytarp If you want an answer try making a question that makes sense. But given I don't expect you to I'll assume that you asked if the dating showing that the shroud was forged is reliable. Yes, it is.
Funny that you picked one that went in your direction. Almost as if you forgot that it was the faith of the person shaping the dream and not the other way around.
You can't define near death, how long before death occurs, a minute, an hour, a week. If you can't give a precise time of death then you can't claim it was a near-death experience.
: How did evolution create coloured people? I believe it when science says humanity began in Africa so, how did dark people come about? Were the light skinned people more visible to predators, so they were all eaten.? Or was it that they tasted a bit more flavoursome for the bears and Lyons etc…survival of the fittest etc…. The above post was a joke, to entice the 'dimwits out from under their rocks, and it worked big time… I must admit that it does get a little tedious, like playing polka with people who’ve never seen a pack of cards before…
*The r-trd reported one of my accounts (actually he does that all the time). No worries, I still have some other active accounts. I was saying that It's always nice to get "science" from a r-trd who insisted that ostriches have no wings e.g. from the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "docreasonable"/"AI_CREATARD", as u can see in my beautiful v4de0s.*
sdd *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"Lexi"/"AI-CREATARD"/"user-jt8dh4qy8d" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
In the Adventures of Young Jesus (i.e. the Apocrypha), he kills at least a couple of his fellow school children. He makes one fall off a roof and another collapses, dead. Quite an abuse of his godly super-powers.
1. COMPREHENDING GOD. Amazing. The atheists on this page want to understand and see a God, the Creator with the assumed I.Q. of INFINITY to the power of infinity, with their ordinary human brain, avarage I.Q. about 120 (?). Were that possible, then God would not be God, would He? "A comprehended God is no god." (St. Augustine). 2. FINITY CANNOT GRASP INFINITY. Guys, you are not to supposed to understand Him. Finity cannot grasp INFINITY. How do you purport to wrap a brain of only about 1300 to 1400 grams around the brain of the Architect of the Universe? The best we can do is to deduce that this Cosmos must have been created by God as it can be clearly seen in the beauty and majesty of the Cosmos. 3. THE LAW OF CREATORSHIP. The 'Law of Creatorship' teaches that any object or product produced by an inventive mind (inventor, scientist, chef, manufacturer etc.) will always be inferior (less complex, less intelligent) to its inventor. The woman baking a cake surely herself is superior to the cake, and the scientist inventing the telephone surely superior to the telephone. It thus stands to reason that, no matter how complex and majestic the Cosmos, its inventor must have been a Mind that is far more superior (far more complex, more majestic, more intelligent) to its invention or product,. i.e., the Cosmos. A Grade 7 could probably figure that out, why can't you? Why can't a "PhD" professor? 4. OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE. We learn the rudiments of Creation from observational science (telescopes, microscopes etc.) and to date sciencists have conceded that they know only about 5% of what is going on in the Cosmos (check your science websites); the rest (95%) is described as "undetectable by scientific instruments dark matter + dark energy". Has it never dawned on atheists that God may be obscured from their observations and view in the 95% of the Cosmos they still know zilch about? Wouldn't it be the mother of all stupidity to build one's life philosophy and dreams on knowledge limited to only that 5% we know? In a palace with 100 rooms, will the police only search in five of the rooms after a murderer and then go home telling everybody that the criminal was not hiding inside that house? People who love science are supposed to be the brightest bulbs in the home or school, not the dumbest. 5. LEARNING FROM GOD. The Bible teaches that wisdom comes from the fear of God (Job28:28; Proverbs1:7). We also learn about the Cosmos from the Bible, God's letter to mankind. If God created the Universe, then it stands to reason that He is quite capable of teaching us about His own Creation, not true? God spoke the Cosmos into existence with the words of His mouth in a single sentence (See Genesis Chrptr 1), hence the word: "UNIVERSE". (UNI + VERSE = A single sentence). 6. LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES. Life is about choosing the RIGHT side of history, not the WRONG side. Why do atheists insist on choosing the WRONG side ... are they nursing some kind of death wish? Life is always about choices. No judge has ever sent a criminal to prison. The criminal goes there of his own volition; he has chosen to go there by virtue of his actions, criminal intent and anti-social behaviour; all the Judge did was to help him with the paperwork; no use arguing with the fellow. Likewise, no atheist will ever inherit damnation because the Supreme Judge has sent him there. He will go there by virtue of his life choices. As free moral agents we have a moral responsibility to choose between light and darkness, good and evil, life and death. Thus far, atheists have, by their own confession, chosen death, because they follow the faith that teaches that there is no life after death (Atheism). Why are atheists choosing death ... surely they are more intelligent than that? So, the warning comes loud and clear when God, as the Inventor and Owner of the Cosmos and the Creator of mankind, puts before us all this ultimatum: "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." (Deuteronomium 30:19MKJV). 7. MARK THIS DAY. From today, this day has been recorded against us all ... no one who had ever read this piece, irrespective of the date, will ever in all Eternity be able to say he has not heard or did not know. Remember that. Your future depends on that. So, from today you will, on the comment pages of this Video-insert, clearsly see those who have chosen wisely and those who have chosen imprudently. Those who have chosen wisely will respond with words that edify and are noble; words that speak life, truth, love and beauty, words that inspire. Those that have chosen imprudently will speak words of bitter anger, sarcasm, cynicism, hate, derision, vulgarity, profanity, blasphemy and gross insult (mark my words!). By their fruits we shall know them. BON VOYAGE!
"Words of bitter anger," like calling everyone a "rtrd" (retard), insinuating "S-tn" (Satan) had sex with my mother, that I lie more than "S-tn", that I'm reduced to walking on all fours, that I run countless accounts without sleeping, that I'm "cretinous, demented, demonic, insane" because I find science is worth defending? Yes, we have all that right here, look at the post just below. "those who have chosen imprudently" many of those do not choose what to believe, they need convincing and you (theists) fail the burden of convincing. Did you choose fundamentalist science-denial or were you indoctrinated at a young age?
1 and 2) Pitiful excuses; your god is supposedly omnipotent. He absolutely can make himself comprehensible to humans, after all that's what your bible is; an attempt to make itself understandood by men. But since your god doesn't exist and that bible is the word of conmen, well you're forced to find excuses for why even you don't understand your deity. 3) No what stands to reason is to not assume that there is a creator. After all; every test that could have told us that there is a creator has failed to do so. 4) No science debunks creation time and again. That rant of yours is just of a god of the gap fallacy; just because we right now know only 5% of the universe doesn't mean that your god is in the rest. It's also particularly funny that you made that image with police inquiring whilst conviently forgetting that scientists are researching those unknown 95%. Also if you find it foolish to base a philosophy on 5% of the universe that is known, what's your excuse for basing your faith on knowning nothing? 5) Fear is an absence of wisdom; what you can explain loses all it's terrifying aura. Also, isn't your god supposed to be all loving? Strange that you have to fear him then.... Also, the chapter 1 of genisis gets the order of the formation of the earth and the sun wrong. Inexcusable for the supposed word of god but explainable when it's the word of men. 6) A pitiful threat from a pitiful liar. You assume your position is the correct one despite being wrong about everything and then you still have to lie. Yes, it's your god that sends atheist to hell according to your fable 7) Yes, we have heard you. We have heard your lie far too much in fact; there isn't a grain of truth in what you said, you want to advance your cult with threats and lies. Votre silence sera infiniment plus sage que vos paroles.
I have to be honest, I don't read everything creationists ramble about. With that said, yhwh is a fictional character in a historical fictional book. Now prove that to be false.
You're so mad that your fairy tales fail each and every test of reality. If you had real faith, you'd demonstrate Mark 16:18 with Drano....... BUT YOU HAVE NO FAITH.
gbcb *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"Lexi"/"AI-CREATARD"/"user-jt8dh4qy8d" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
RICHARD DAWKINS' 95% ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. 1. Check out any textbook or encyclopedia: Scientists have acknowledged that they only know about 5% of what is going on in the Cosmos. The rest (95%) is defined as "undetectable by scientific instruments dark matter and dark energy." "Just 5% of the Universe is ordinary matter. That’s the ordinary matter of everyday life: your hair and clothes, your atoms and organs, the food you eat and the dogs that kiss you, the air and the sea, the Sun and the Moon. Everything we know - everything we see - is just 5% of everything in the Universe.... The remaining 95% of the Universe is stuff that we can’t see, don’t yet understand. An extraordinarily vast portion of the cosmos is still unknown. Despite the technological advancements of the last century, even with computers at our fingertips and the worldwide internet and space-based observatories mapping the far reaches of our Universe, there is still so much that we don’t understand." (Big Think, online) Has it ever occurred to Dawkins and his faithful little atheist minions that God may be obscured from their scientific observations and view in the 95% of the Cosmos they still know zilch about? A Grade #7 Sunday School kid with wires in his teeth and with his cap worn backwards could figure that out ... why can't a PhD decorated professor? The answer is simple: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." (Jesus Christ, Matthew Chptr5).
@@tonyp2865 "Just 5% of the Universe is ordinary matter. That’s the ordinary matter of everyday life: your hair and clothes, your atoms and organs, the food you eat and the dogs that kiss you, the air and the sea, the Sun and the Moon. Everything we know - everything we see - is just 5% of everything in the Universe.... The remaining 95% of the Universe is stuff that we can’t see, don’t yet understand. An extraordinarily vast portion of the cosmos is still unknown. Despite the technological advancements of the last century, even with computers at our fingertips and the worldwide internet and space-based observatories mapping the far reaches of our Universe, there is still so much that we don’t understand." (Big Think, online)
@@PietStassenAdamastor Yes, so what makes you think a supernatural god, that cannot be detected in any way, is the creator of a universe you know nothing about??
Your god of the gap fallacy is miserable. Just because you don't want to know what is actually in that 95%doesn't that your god is there. Unless of course you have an evidence for it's presence which let's be real, you don't
THE ATHEISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS' PROBLEM. The problem with the atheists and evolutionists is that the atheists believe that the colour yellow is a circle while the evolutionists believe it is a square. So, while they are arguing, the Christians are merrily enjoying every beautiful sunset and the priceless gold of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... KING of kings and LORD of lords. Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world and Messiah of the Jews who promised to every sincere believer: - Beauty for ashes -The Oil of Joy for mourning - The Mantle of Praise for a spirit of heaviness. Maranatha!
Why do you think everyone who's not a christian must be an atheist?? Never heard of the numerous OTHER religions, none of which believe in your Roman horsesht?
The concept of consciousness… No need for you, as you know it already…. By the way could you stop your grandchild ‘@devilmonkey’ from playing on your computer? It’s not good for young children…. you know, “give me a child at the age of three, and I’ll give an idiot for life….
@@2ndchookie919 : No need for you, you know all about it.... By the way, can youi stop that "Devilmonkey" grand-child frorm playing on your computer, it's not good for a young child....? You know 'give me a child at the age of three, and Ill give an idiot for life...
Hardly, ... but it seems you're not up to an honest and constructive argument. Obvious by how you deflect with disingenuous intent when pressed for answers to any queries that contradict or oppose your self-centered and arrogant views.
sc32 *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"Lexi"/"AI-CREATARD"/"user-jt8dh4qy8d" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
gbyj *Believing in Aronra's cult leads to severe, painful and irreversible rtrdtion. For instance, the 66 year old b-allet dancer A. Eldridge aka "ergonomover"/"docreasonable"/"flandidlyandersFRS"/"Lexi"/"AI-CREATARD"/"user-jt8dh4qy8d" insisted that ostriches have no wings and the Italian translation of Saturday is Saturno as it can be seen in my last beautiful v1de0.*
