"Science says that everything comes from something, and thats why you should believe in God." "Wait, but then where did God come from." "haHA but you see God exists outside of time so He's exempt from that rule." I'm a Christian and I dont understand his argument. And I'm only on the first question. Oh no.
+Joe Repp Thats a point that keeps popping up. The belief that nothing can exist without cause. Unless god is mentioned. Then clearly there can be made an exception for god, but not for the universe. It's a kind of biased way to think.
the argument goes like this: "everything that BEGAN to exist must have a cause". we know the universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause. it doesn't apply to God because God did not begin to exist, he has always been there. God is usually referred to being the FIRST cause of everything, and in order to be so, he must be timeless, otherwise, we'll have an endless chain of events, which is considered absurd
a m135 Which is a faulty assumption. Of course religious folk will cling to the big bang theory because it would suit their agenda, but there are also other theories like eternal recurrence. There are several theories about the universe, most importantly about the beginning of time. Without time there would not be a before. There wouldn't be any action including the "creation" of an universe. So it's difficult to conceive a beginning in the first place. The concept of the very specific god most monotheistic religions have violates our understanding of physics. And that's the annoying thing, since no religious person cares about that. God exists "outside" of time and space, god is eternal, god doesn't need an explanation. The universe needs an explanation, but god doesn't. It's rather easy to conceive a supernatural cause for something and then removing it from any attempt to explain it. It makes the concept superfluous. It's like the hologram universe theory. How did the universe began? "It's a computer simulation by an advanced civilisation on a higher level of reality." It doesn't explain anything, it just removes the problem from one layer to another. Even a child can notice that an explanation like "God has no beginning, he is eternal." is unsatisfactory. Given, a child can't exactly grasp concepts like infinity and eternity, still, a timeless being is rather nonexistent than eternal, as eternity is defined as "infinite or unending time", but without time itself, eternity can't exist. Therefore a continuous chain of events seems less absurd than the concept of a being that defies logic and is credited as only source of all that exists without having much of an "existence" himself. If something that exists needs to have a beginning, then an existing god must have one too. If not, then there wouldn't be the need to explain the universe. If god doesn't need a beginning, then the universe won't either.
Streifi I really like the point you mentioned about eternity requiring time which makes the whole eternal being creating time itself paradoxical. Alrhough some people wouldn't refer to him as eternal, more like timeless, beyond space and time just to avoid the issue. Which creates another problem when you actually ask them to define time. They also don't say everything needs to have a beginning, they'd say everything that begins need to have a cause for its beginning and they'll refer to the big bang as a beginning for the universe. In any case. I just wanted to point out to the op that the argument was not as simple as he made it out to be. But I do agree that's it's flawed, and even if it wasn't, the argument just boils down to: there must exist a first cause. But it doesn't say anything about this first cause, it requires a leap of faith to define it any further
a m135 True. Or more precisely the first cause is already defined by the mythology and isn't supposed to change, no matter our understanding of the universe. So, the more we know, the more we question, the more this force becomes a god of the gaps. It gets harder and harder to explain, so he keeps retreating to the unknown.
+Fluffykeith I contacted him to tell him this, and he just refused to accept it. I gave him source after source, including American Atheists, the British Humanist Association, Richard Dawkins, and others, explaining how atheism is not what he wants it to be, and he just refused to accept them. All of them. Sad really.
I know, I genuinely tried to aswer those questions but I'm neither a scientist, engineer or cosmologist... I know a bit about comsology and evolution but I'm rather average in my knowledge of those subjects...Number 9 can count as a genuine question but since he won't admit answers that he doesn't like then the whole thing is pretty useless...
That's one of the funniest things you can do to somebody like this. Argue with them about a fictional charakter by using the same logic as they do. "Umm, of course Darth Vader is real, haven't you seen star wars? His whole life is described in that. Idiot"
@@awarmmilkandcookies First of all, that makes less sense than you think. Secondly, there are a few grammatical errors in your comment, you could correct those. Lastly: Calling someone an idiot will never make your argument better... ever.
@@Persholm1 first of all, that comment made more sense than you think. secondly this is a RU-vid comment section proper grammar and spelling is dead here. Lastly: your an idiot....... made my argument so much better
@@brysonsharry3625 First of all, if you say so. Secondly, I know, that's why I said something. Lastly, you need to work on your grammar. You're* an idiot.
J. Cole i have cod aw minecraft fightnight champions hitman absolution halo 3 assasins creed black flag bioshock infinite gears of war judgment terraria the orange box halo reach dishonored dark souls saints row the third warface avatar warfare castle miner z Games i want: idk lets see what you have
+Dilo Power And it's placed between the letters J, f, and k. This is irrefutable proof that John F. Kennedy is part of the Illuminati and faked his death. He's probably still alive and planning something to this day.
jeremy brown I don't think I could and I know I wouldn't want to steal the Armoured Skeptic's thunder, he really is quite enjoyable. If anything, I merely rode his coat tails with one pithy comment, but thanks for thinking it was humorous also. :)
***** Absolutely agree! It's a barbaric practice that should only be done for valid medical reasons. At least in Australia, we have had a lot of doctors since the 80's (the decade I was born in) that will not perform a circumcision without a valid reason, and 'because I say so' is not valid.
***** Absolutely agreed I don't call things evil lightly, but ripping away a healthy part of a body which is actually FUSED to the penis until approximately puberty ages in such a painful way that the child usually enters a coma because if they didn't the pain alone would kill them... in addition to the fact the barbaric mutilation kills hundreds of baby boys in America alone every year... That shit is truly, viciously evil So glad it's not a thing we do here in England
tabularasa0606 Anyone defending it will ultimately be defending it for "medical reasons", but the fact is that you're cutting skin off of an infant for no reason in the first place. The "benefits" are not benefits... they are excuses. You probably mean that there are actual situations where a circumcision will benefit the child... in this case, the operation can begin to be justified.
a theist can not argue that god always existed without opening the door for the atheist argument that the matter and energy in the universe always existed as well.
Nathan Lang I believe time is part of the universe. So whether I believe it occurred spontaneously or was caused to happen by God, that doesn't affect my view that time is a part of this universe and that it began at the big bang. Whether God or some unseen force or even medi-chlorines, whatever preceded the big bang was not a part of this timeline but came from a completely different dimension of time. So I argue that where and whenever God came from is unknowable to us here in this timeline. But relative to this finite timeline, I do believe that we can say God existed as longer than time existed. I have no doubt energy existed before the big bang. Matter is another matter.
@@relativelylucky1454 I didn't and I still don't. I accept that space-time can be deformed as a result of gravity but to say time is the bending of... I don't get that at all.
+Smitty Werben Jaeger man Jensen (Number One) I was terrified when it happened. For me the empire never seemed like the bad guys, yes their government is kind of messed up, but that doesn't excuse killing innocent soldiers who may just want to protect their homeworlds (i am not too familiar with the star wars canon and i don't really remember if they had normal people in their ranks back then, too, but i'd guess they did) from a group they may have been told were terrorists.
I fail to understand why an infinitely existing god is more palatable to creationists than infinitely existing matter. How is it any easier to believe that GOD could exist without higher intervention than it is to believe that matter could?
***** Yeah, I suppose. I never really gave it much thought when I was a Christian, but I have to think that if somebody put the question to me, I would have to admit that there's no real logical reason to believe that an infinite god makes more sense than the alternative.
***** "Well, you were never a TRUE Christian my friend" > Ooooooooooooh... low blow! I can't even count how many times I've had that little nugget thrown at me!
***** By that definition, you are probably right. I very much believed a lot of what I did because I was taught what to believe and not how to think. I went through many years not really thinking about the things I based my life on. Once I started educating myself, things began to unravel very quickly.
I was talking to somebody on youtube and they asked me how I could possibly believe in evolution and the big bang. I told her, well it certainly makes more sense than an all knowing old man who created Adam out of dirt and Eve out of Adam's rib. She then told me that Adam and Eve is a metaphor for the creation of man which led me to ask 2 more questions. How do you know what is to be taken literally from the Bible from those that aren't? And if Adam and Eve is just a metaphor, then how did God create humans? She was stumped lol.
Meaning someone who rules over countless souls by fear, has supernatural powers and is able to cause massive cataklisms, resulting in countless deaths of innocents, just to remind his slaves of who they should fear the most? Making a cult of himself everywhere? Having beside him a literal angel - another being of supernatural powers - that burned in hell and eventually rebelled? Yep, Emperor is pretty close to god. And the happy end - is THE DEATH OF THE GOD!
TEN mind numbing questions? Well that's just a blatant breach of the trades description laws. One question & everything went fuzzie & grey, I came around later to find 15 minutes of my life had mysyeriously dissapeared.
Bad Snaxx This GunneLPercher just sounded like WILD HICK constantly asking and CONSTANTLY STUPEFYING with his RIDICULOUS questions and answering his LEGIT Pre-Assumed Contrary Questions For his LACK of Evidence like a HILL-BILLY!!
I still do not believe that this man is comparing the entirely fictional deaths of stormtroopers in star wars to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the bible he thinks is true. I think his subconscious is trying to tell him something
That "Luke Skywalker analogy" is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. First of all, it's fucking fiction. Unless he's admitting that the bible and God are merely fiction, that doesn't hold up. I wouldn't cheer for actual humans being killed in large numbers, even if they were on my opposition. Secondly, Luke Skywalker didn't create the deathstar and send it on its course knowing full well what it would attempt to do and then stop it by destroying it. Thirdly, it's not like Luke Skywalker could've just teleported everyone off of the deathstar unto a habitable planet and removed the thing itself from existence. And finally, they were military personel that were trying to kill people, including Luke. They were at war.
Don't forget that the majority of the personnel on the Death Star were probably clones. So they didn't have souls to begin with according to several theists. So I'd say killing thousands of people and damning their souls to Hell for eternity is probably more cruel then killing a bunch of soulless husk.
+TimeFreak There is a novel titled (You guessed it) Death Star. It actually features the men and women who occupied the Death Star. Great perspective in that there book.
+TheSuperScorpionKing incorrect. clones continued to serve throughout episode 3 (which is obvious) and into 4 (which is implied in the eu, not directly stated or shown in the films) and I believe they served throughout the history of the Empire in small numbers. however after the conversion too the galactic empire they started using mostly conscripts instead of clones.
The Death Star was an actual threat to Luke, and everyone everywhere. Luke lacked the omnipotence to solve this problem without destroying the Death Star. Whereas God is reportedly all-powerful and can't die. The comparison just does not follow. So very much. But what should I really be expecting from guys like that at this point?
@@ShadowDRGN (six years later) - additionally, God flooded the Planet to get rid of "wicked people" and His plan failed in the next chapter with The Tower of Babel. The all-knowing and all-powerful shoulda saw that coming.
yeah right? Its crazy! Its just pathetic really... that some people really think the earth is round.... Its called Velociraptor earth, people, do your research! Glad to have found someone who thinks like me. #velociraptorEarth #HailSatan
Well shit , that guy is right , we enjoyed when a fictional character murdered a bunch of fictional characters in a movie based on a fictional story . We would be such hipocrites if , given yahweh is real , we'd be mad at him for murdering milions of people and at one point exterminating almost all of humanity because he didnt like the way we lived our lives when he chose himself to not give us any evidence of his fucking existence and expects us to love him and obey him .
Questions like this are so dishonest and flawed. They either prove no point or require little thought to answer. Oh! And I'm a Christian. Just thought I'd put that out there. I'm a Christian and I understand evolution because I went to elementary school.
You know, I'd tune in just to listen to you talk about Precambrian life and evolution - your presentation is very engaging and I enjoy listening to you explain these things.
Wow, I have never heard that Luke Skywalker argument! LOL The thing is Luke had a justified reason to blow up the Death Star and like you said it had no children on it. Unlike Earth when loving god decided to flood it. And lets not even begin to talk about the plagues of Egypt.
"wiping out thousands would be a despicable act but you cheered when Luke Skywalker did it" So you must really hate God for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, bruv
What about the second death star? The first one was fully operational when it was destroyed, but the second one was still being built when they blew it up. Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right. The first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials. So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished. The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction. A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms. All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed-casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.
Starwars is the story of an orphaned boy who becomes radicalized after a military strike kills his family. He is indoctrinated into an ancient religion, joins a band of rebel insurgents, and carries out a terrorist attack killing 300,000 people. Good and evil are subjective, it all depends on who you look at things.
What I really mean here is that giraffe physiology and anatomy is really, really dumb if someone wanted to just design them that way. The only way giraffes make sense is if they naturally selected for high reaches to better eat leaves over thousands or millions of years. If someone was just like. "Heh, I want a mammal with a super long neck!" there are much better ways to design it. Oh, giraffes, if intelligent design was real, you wouldn't exist.
When life gets me down, feel like I'm stuck and don't know what to do, these videos are a comfort. Being right in the face of someone who's wrong is like lying in bed while your partner gets up and ready for work.
Don't you just love how this guy phrases his questions as though he wants a response, but suddenly goes "No matter what you say, what I say is how everything happened."
the fact that he can accept god to exist without a cause, but rambles that the big bang needs to have a cause doesn't make sense. if something in existence wouldn't need a cause, then why would all the rest have 2 have one. (this is his logic) besides the point there are alot of theories to the happening of the big bang, a bit of research shows that it can easily happen: pointing at the creation of opposite particles in quantumphysics out of nothing
emiel teamsup Also, heisenberg's uncertainty principle suggests that there can't ever truly be "nothing", since that would be perfect certainty, which is why there's always something there.
emiel teamsup Well, he does specifically say eternal existence of God is part of the definition. In which case I'll define "Spthug" as a being who can whip Yahweh's ass, and is totally real. It's in the definition!
I honestly imagine that if God is real that Christians might have to answer why they believe a book that makes no sense over all the evidence for evolution, age of the Earth, etc that God would've put here for some purpose.
+Rolain The Variable: At what point does Christianity simply become non ideological Theism? I might suggest that such a point would certainly have been reached when 100% of scripture was removed from the equation. I might also point out that Robert's statement made no direct attempt to disprove the existence of God (faith), but rather was directed squarely at (scripture) and those who base their beliefs on it. In fact his whole premise was predicated on the hypothetical notion that God did exist and how silly some peoples refutation of the sciences (studying said creation) might seem to him/it.
I think someone just found a book and decided to make it a religion and the book was about jesus's fictional world where he's the son of this god that created the universe
Morality is objective! Some things are always wrong, and others are always right! ...Eeeexcept for when my god does them! He can commit genocide and command humans to commit genocide, and it's all totally cool no problem!
Sigh.. he could answer all of these questions himself if he had received a solid education. This is why schools need a lot of money, being a teacher needs to be a highly paid and valued job again and selection for teachers has to be much harder than nowadays. Good teachers and schools are one of the most important factors for the future of mankind.
Odinwolfe the number of the beast comes from greek mythology, christians are just 2 oblivious to c what they believe is just a hybrid from alot of religions,
Odinwolfe see atheists, this video has been claimed by Satan to go against gods word and his people. Repent sinners or you will burn in hell with this heathen of knight. *sarcasm
That Star Wars analogy made me chuckle. There are _a lot_ of people in the Star Wars fan community that acknowledge that blowing up the death star was mass murder. We don't think that every single person who worked on the death star was a space nazi or faceless drone. But considering that it had just obliterated an entire planet full of people, was being run by a complete psychopath (Grand Moff Tarkin), and was on the way to blow up Yavin 4, the rebels didn't exactly have the time or resources to find another way to disable the station. While it's inevitable that there were thousands of innocents on-board, it was a necessary act. Comparing the destruction of the death star to the flood is ridiculous. Humans were posing no threat to God or the universe at large. He simply got upset that his whole "free will" experiment didn't work out and that humans were sinful and violent. But instead of magically removing free will or the sin it resulted in, he decided to eliminate the entire race save for one man and his family. It wasn't necessary at all, he was throwing a temper tantrum. Even better, after the flood is over, God says to Noah in Genesis 6:21 _"Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood."_ So he decided to start from scratch, yet leave in that whole sin thing which pissed him off in the first place. And guess what happened? A scant few hundred years later, God got mad again and blew up Sodom and Gomorrah. The Abrahamic god is a petulant child.
Theists are kind of hilarious. I just can't help but laugh at the sheer stupidity of the questions they ask. We can answer their questions honestly and intelligently, even when they're loaded. Yet, when we ask them the simplest of questions, it's been my experience that they don't answer rationally, calmly, or honestly.
Around 5:00 that quote is not saying that we don’t have all the pieces. Gould actually is advocating for the idea of punctuated equilibrium. By stating that it doesn’t show gradual change, he means that it, instead, shows periods of rapid change and periods of little change.
I collapsed into one of my occasional narcoleptic spells while watching Armoured Skeptic only to slowly wake up to this video and the metal image of a dragon debating an anthropomorphised pig with a cross around its neck.
9:31 - "I can guarantee you, you will not get the same answer every time." LIAR. Every single person I've asked so far has given the same answer! ... they chose the dog. :D
+William Brooker If you don't like animals that much you wouldn't *have* a favorite dog, so the question wouldn't apply to you. lol Guilt is a pretty legit reason, though, don't get me wrong...
lexalina132 I am not asking for the video he is responding to; I am asking for the claims he makes which he never shows citation for Lol. And I am not saying he is a liar because I totally support him but it's just annoying. :D
Hey , Greg idk if you are going to read this but I just wanted to thank you for making content like this you really pulled me away from being fed dogmatic religion and allowed me to really think about this sort of thing anyway I appreciate it keep it up man !
***** i have cod aw minecraft fightnight champions hitman absolution halo 3 assasins creed black flag bioshock infinite gears of war judgment terraria the orange box halo reach dishonored dark souls saints row the third warface avatar warfare castle miner z Games i want: idk lets see what you have
*The answer to question 2 is very simple:* Nature and cosmic evolution only had to *randomly* produce the conditions required for life ONCE... After that, natural selection & the non-random, physically guided biochemical process within self-replicating molecules took over the insanely complex task of CREATING and propagating life... And ALL in the absence of intelligent design. DNA is not "smart" in any sense of the word. For instance, a woman can produce a baby inside her womb, and the fetus will grow regardless of whether she is aware of being pregnant, and in complete absence of (and independent from) any intelligent guidance or input from her (or the fetus's) "mind" whatsoever. Similarly, a male can create life through intercourse in complete lack of intelligent awareness that haploid gametes converge to produce a full set of chromosomes resulting in the first cell of his offspring i.e. his sperm fertilizes and egg to produce a zygote. A phospholipid bilayer (constituents of the cell membrane) forms naturally by itself due to it's chemical bonding properties, and forms "pockets" around existing particulates when shaken around in water. Primitive RNA strands occur naturally when an electric current (lightning) is passed through the correct mixture of organic molecules- disassembling & rearranging them. *By this logic, it is thus entirely possible (and even somewhat likely) that the initial conditions under which life formed also happened in complete absence of intelligent design.* It's simply not necessary in the equation! Even if there was some sort of "divine artificer," it is more likely than not that the very first cell was formed in a remote, isolated region of his *left testicle* (the universe lol) when a phospholipid bilayer formed a bubble around primitive RNA and other organelles suspended within the primordial soup... _And he was completely unaware that this relatively super-microscopic cell was being formed inside him... Just like us._ *No divine intervention, intelligent design or God necessary!* The evidence is in the pudding.
I love the fact that that you mentioned my province in this video. No one other than archaeologists give a shit about it, other than tourists for about two weeks of our summer.
you know, I feel as though the main problem with people who deny evolution is that they see all the puzzle pieces but don't bother to put them together; I don't think that they truly believe what they say, but are simply in denial, refusing to believe that their beliefs could be wrong.
Ben Murphy I just never really understood how people could look at a logical explanation and a magical explanation and think that magic makes more sense.
owen stephens You'd be surprised what denial can do. I don't think that believing in God, despite how ludicrous it may seem to you and me, makes you in anyway stupid, you just don't want to believe the truth because it's a hard pill to swallow, which I completely get. Granted, I think that us as a species will be better off once we abandon the lie, but completely removing the lie is not the answer either. We need to ease our society away from religion, instead of yank it away from under their feet.
Is it really so hard for people to understand that humans make up their own values? Is it really so hard for people to understand that morality is an opinion? There happen to be some moral positions which almost everyone agrees on, and even if every single person did agree that still wouldn't make morality objective. What's objective about morality is that (nearly) every human has some sense of morality, assuming they have the mental capacity. The presence of morality is objective and not debatable, but the tenets and precepts of any given moral code are, of course, subjective. And another thing; I feel as though theists tend to deny the fact that morals are a luxury. Yes, a luxury. If we really had to fight for survival every day like we did in prehistoric times you better believe that what we think of as morality would collapse. A moral code, such as it exists today, is only possible because of modern society. The increase is morality we see today in modern society is due to a slow, gradual, but inexorable rejection of god and the bible, and not the reverse.
+Joe Gillian Apparently it is that hard to grasp. Sadly. Moral stems from a social lifestyle that the early human clearly had. Most species have that. Its just that when religion popped up moral values became mixed up with religious teachings, so some people think that those teachings are the origin of morals and that they can't exist without those.
Joe Gillian I don't disagree with the logic in what you said. Factually, I agree with it. But when you come from a religion based on a holy book, you tend to defer to it's definitions. According to the book I subscribe to, morals are absolutes handed down by God. That's a very different definition than yours. Because I choose to subscribe to Christianity, I also choose to accept the morals prescribed there-in to be truths that supercede my or anyone's opinions on the matter. Now personally, I would never expect you to conform to my moral values unless you also claim to subscribe to Christianity. As a Christian, I also have to recognize that what morals I believe God has handed down are interpreted through my limited understanding of my holy book. Ie. God perfect, Bible perfect, me flawed. So it still behoves me to tread lightly with what I believe are God's moral code.
Okay let me frame it this way. Using Armored Skeptic's example, just because everyone would give different answers doesn't prove morality is subjective unless you asserted every position is correct. I believe there is an objective morality (saving the neighbor is more moral than rescuing the dog) and those who answered differently are immoral or incorrect. For this perspective to be valid the proposition needs to be true independently of the person who is stating them (me). Just like mathematics being absolute, people can give different answers to a problem, but not all of them will be correct. This framework exists independently from our own human condition, and will continue to be true long after we're gone. Now, if everyone had their own subjective interpretation of mathematics then they could make claims which are subjectively correct for themselves, but not regarding the innate, objective reality they exist within. EDIT: Also, there are many theories attempting to explain how morals can be independent from the observer such as Kantian and Utilitarian ethics but I have another theory. Basically, humans have morality encoded into our DNA because we're ultimately products of objective reality, and our proclivity to certain values and behavior is to encourage successful survival. Regardless of how our existence evolves, there would be fundamental principles that are related to the order of nature. However, these beliefs/actions can be relative (and misunderstood as subjective) due to how they're contextualized into reality. For example, murdering an innocent person is objectively wrong because it ends life unjustly and our affinity to this behavior is hard-coded for encouraging species sustainability. This affinity is related to the objective order of nature and reality, however how we contextualize this morality can be different or ignored all together. This makes morality relative to personal experience but not subjective because its origin exists independently from the individual. EDIT2: I'll even take it a step further and suggest one reason animals don't develop morality for survival is because they lack the mental capacity for self-awareness. In other words, being conscious of our own self-awareness needs to be paired with an innate sense of morality to keep us from destroying ourselves. I just thought of this idea, so forgive me if it doesn't make alot of sense and needs to be developed or scrapped altogether.
Rob Fowler so you agree it's moral to stone an engaged woman to death for being raped? Or perhaps even worse if she isnt engaged she is forced to marry her rapist and cannot divorce. Deuteronomy something, I think 22:24 or so. The moral code of the bible is just as subjective as any non religious moral code, written by people with a socially acceptable at the time, subjective morality.
I suspect that the cause of the Cambrian Explosion was the combination of two things: >the emergence of animal life (duh) >the phenomenon of niche partitioning Because animals had previously not existed, ALL possible animal niches were open, and so they were ALL able to be filled very rapidly.
frederik jacobsen i really just want to watch the video he talked about. so i dont really care that he bashed shockofgod for the same thing. but i found that he also (at least sometimes) dont provide us with the links. which kinda makes him a hypocrite. but i just wanted to point that out in hope that he will provide said link.
God.... This guy's questions are cringe-inducingly stupid. You can tell he thought them up in an echo-chamber, and that he seldom gets the opportunity to defend his views in face to face discussion with people who disagree and know what they're talking about.
Quick question: I watch these rediculous arguments from christians all the time. And my quedtion is why does it have to be an either/or situation? I'm not a scientist, so though the data looks good, I have no idea if the big bang is correct. But I do know there is no God. At least not the one described in the abrahamic faiths. So what's wrong with saying yea it could be a big bang,...Or alternative 3. it could be a wat we have not yet discovered. But just because I don't know therefore God? I don't need to have an absolute alternate theory in order to reject your hocus pocus. Can you see that? :)
+JeTamme Derouet Well, about the big bang part. We are pretty sure it happened, about 100% sure. Calling it the Big Bang though is a bit misleading. Think more of it like a balloon growing bigger instead of a full balloon bursting, except this balloon doesn't burst if it gets to big. The reason why we are sure if the big bang is due to the redshift in light from other galaxies. Let me explain it in a simple way. Imagine this, the light that reaches us from those galaxies. Normally one would expect that the light that reaches us, wouldn't change. Their wavelengths and such would be the same. But with redshifting, the wavelengths of the light streches out, since the galaxies are moving away from us, and add to that that we are also moving away from said galaxies, well, yah. The scary part is that the space between galaxies is expanding faster and faster. The empty space between them is expanding faster than light. But the reason WHY we believe it had to come form a big bang, or cosmilogical expansion if that makes more sense, is that sense the universe is expanding, with the galaxies moving away from eachother(well, not really, but I explained it above), we can assume that everything was, at a time, grouped together. All matter, all energy, everything in the universe as we know it was grouped together in a single singularity.
+Firecage Aah, interesting. That makes more sense. I think I should study more about the big bang in order to s r strengthen my argument about it being closer to 100%. But I do like the balloon stretching analogy. I wish I could find a good video on it. So that happened over a long period of time?
Well, let me put it like this. The big bang never ended, it is still happening. But if you mean the initial stages of it? Yes, it didn't happen in a split second, it happened over a long period of time. Though some of the initial stages of it was a lot more chaotic.
+Firecage Oh Jiggity!!! You may have just saved me A LOT of research! That makes perfect sense! The frustrating thing is that we all know science not only makes sense, but learning about our universe is quite sexy in it's complexity. Yey it seems that in order to defend our position,we on this side of the table must first be able to understand and explain in simple terms many different and complex disciplines as well as applications of science. Compare that with their "God did it and I know because an ancient book of mythology and political motivation to lie told me so" and I honestly don't understand how they can look us in the face with any kind of sincere expression with that literal NO EVIDENCE AT ALL argument. Anyway, thank you for making something so beautifully complex understandable to a writer monkey like me. :)
okay ... I know this video is old. But, I just saw it and I have to say I almost fell out of my chair during a laughing fit at " ... from somebody whose most popular video is How to Iron Pants ..." HI - Larious
5:45 WOOHOO My tiny reject of a Canadian island owns something :D No joke this is literally the first time I've seen someone on the internet mention the island I live on.
The one I love the most is when they think they got you with this one: "If there's no god... ... who woke you up this moring???!!!" lol I usually just smile at that and walk away.
