Does God Exist? - Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 2)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2021
- Many do not realize that science conclusively proves the existence of God. After watching Part 2 of this series from David C Pack, all doubt will be removed that an all-powerful Creator exists... or will it?
Does God Exist?-Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 2)
• Does God Exist?-Many A...
Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial
• Judgment Day: Intellig...
Thank you to Lois A Edwards.
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
I you would like to inform myself or others that Aron Ra also has a series covering this video, feel free to simply thumbs-up or thumbs-down this comment, depending on how you feel about it.
The more pov the better. The more minds involved the better the outcome.
Paul, your response is quite different from Aron's and I like both of them for different reasons; different opinions are valuable!
Consider yourself, or me, informed.
Both are good. Maybe Viced Rhino will also cover it, and that will be good too.
Just add heavy metal!
"I have personally seen a photograph" is one of my favorite lines from a creationist.
To be shortly followed, no doubt, by some other creationist's you tube video incorporating the phrase 'I personally know a man who has personally seen a photograph. What more could you possibly ask for? These atheists, they have unrealistic expectations when it comes to evidence ... ' ;)
@@martingoodson1651 Followed closely by "I have personally seen a drawing of Mokele-mbembe in a book", lol.
that was HI-LAR-E-OUS
Don't go with personnel stories. Go with the data and evidence. Evolution has no data or facts.
@@guydude7550 EXACTLY!
Is this guy serious...
@Solon Kazos 🙄
It amazes me that someone can be so wrong with such conviction.
Pack is really seriously nuttier than squirrel poo, as the saying goes. The guy thinks he's the second coming. His cult could pass for scientology if you squint really hard.
I think false conviction, is one of the primary forces leading someone like this to be so wrong.
It's really hard to get this far away from reality, without a long string of bad assumptions, buttressed by an arrogant conviction.
In other words, they aren't separate issues.
Not to mention that expressing nonsense with strong conviction is basically how gaslighting works.
Bring that stupid helps tremendously.
But he could say the exact same thing about you in fact he will say the devil has blinded you to the truth.
@@samuelcalderwood1379 Apologists certainly can say lots of things. Many of which aren't supported by much of anything resembling evidence.
Oh and if there was a devil capable of "blinding us to the truth", that would call into question a lot of basic Christian teachings.
Ugh, I hate slogging through David C Pack's nonsense.
But someone has to do it. Thanks Paulogia.
Aron Ra did already cover this material a few years back :P
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke
AronRa is in beast mode right now.
Poor Kent Hovind.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 At least once Aron is done ripping that grifter a new one in this last series, he's done with him.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Sure, but the more people who do it, and in intelligent ways, the better.
Make it fun😁.. take a shot everytime he points a finger at his desk🙄🤨🤷
"Any true god would never leave his creation - mankind - in doubt about whether he exists."
The irony, man... The fucking irony.
God has never left humanity. You don't know what your saying.
@@solonkazos1379 that's true he has been present in some people's imaginations for ever...just not in reality.
@@solonkazos1379 True, in order for God to leave, he must have existed in the first place.
@@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279
God is very real. The DNA proves it. All that information had to come from an information provider. The anthropic principles prove man has been provided a place to live. The Bible tells us the story science is just now finding out.
@@solonkazos1379 no that is all bollox, that's why god did it, or there fore god exists has never been the conclusion of any scientific study, research or theory. Please learn what science is and stop pretending it provides any proof of the existence of an invisible sky daddy, if it did we would not be discussing this. God lives in your imagination not in reality. Of course if he was real he could just turn up and introduce himself to prevent all this confusion but guess what, he stays hidden.
"..(God's) existence need not be taken on faith."
As ever with Christianity, it really all comes down to who you ask. Want a different doctrine? Just ask a different Christian.
Dri - great point...s b a clue about something...🤔🤔
Theistspeak. Look at the words, invert the normal meaning in English, and then you're speaking their language.
"God's existence need not be taken on faith" means what it says in English, but in Theistspeak it translates to "God requires you to believe in him PURELY on faith and warns you that asking for any kind of evidence is punishable. Not necessarily by death; just the same way you'd punish any other sin. I.E. every sin is equal in the eye of God, and the punishment is death." Their language is a pretzel.
Nailed it. I think that's why Christianity has been able to survive for so long. The vagueness of its scriptures which allow people to interpret it however they want while overall remaining in an in-group.
@@greglogan7706 ,
Just another great example of how religion reverses everything..
"There's no link from plants to animals" Good for you! They're different linneages. Their common ancestor was unicellular.
And we still share genes with plants. And fungi too.
But that means we have a common designer, right.
@@thomasdykstra5301 Yes, the physical laws of the universe as we currently understand them 'designed' that which exists.
@@charleslindsey6789 Sorry that was meant as a bad joke of creationism versus evolution.
@@thomasdykstra5301 No problem, I tend to jump to conclusions when I should chill and think.
"I don't understand it therefore God." - Pak and his ilk's argument in a nutshell
He and his ilk think that if they can prove science wrong,than that automatically makes their religion true. Can anybody say"pretzel-logic?"
It's not just that they don't understand it, it's that they actively avoid even attempting to understand it, and in many cases blatantly lie in an attempt to ignore facts that they know directly contradict their claims.
I think, "I intentionally misunderstand it, therefor God," is a more accurate statement for this fellow.
As Lion alluded to, these guys are just professional criminals, scamming the ignorant and vulnerable.
The only thing religion has to do with it, is to make it tax free and less chance of being put away.
Suzi Wolf
"I don't understand it therefore God." - Pak and his ilk's argument in a nutshell
That's known as the "Divine fallacy", a subset of the argument from ignorance/personal incredulity logical fallacy.
Long before the discovery of DNA, Darwin predicted that there would be a mechanism that would transfer characteristics from parents to offspring.
In fairness, that was known long before Darwin. Anybody can see that kids tend to look like their parents (or the milkman…).
The fact that the proofs for an all powerful creator who wants a relationship with you are “little known” should be all you need to know about how unlikely such a being is
How so. There’s no evidence to support that macro evolution exists or that we came from a accident. Jesus Christ lived on this earth, died, and rose again just like what the Bible said. Jesus is the most written of person of all time and atheists accept this too. So please homie, I hope one day u can come to ur sense and follow Jesus because the evidence for god is numerous 🙏🏼
@@JuanHernandez-oj6nd - what do you mean by “macro evolution?” There is just evolution. “Macro evolution” is not really an operationalized term in biological sciences. Also, not related to my comment. The existence of god and the truth of evolutionary theory have nothing to do with each other. You can accept or reject both independently of each other.
Even if Jesus were the “most written about person in history” which I’m not sure exactly is supposed to mean, it would have no bearing on whether the supernatural claims made about him were true.
If you’re really concerned with me believing, provide me with compelling evidence. What do you think is the best piece of evidence you can provide?
@@JuanHernandez-oj6nd -and no one argues that life came from “an accident”; naturalists argue we came from natural processes.
@@Phreemunny I may not give u all the evidence or convert u because only god can do that. But I’ll do my best to show u that god exists.
All religions say that u need to work to get into heaven or be a good person. But in the Bible god says no one is good but him and that the only way into heaven is by his grace by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as he was the sinless lamb that was slaughtered for our sins and by repenting of your sins and following him u will have everlasting life. No other religion says that.
Look at all the fossilized animals and dinosaurs. There so many of them that it’s almost impossible to count. However, fossilization is extremely rare and only certain radical conditions create fossils. Why r there so many. Well because god flooded the earth because man was too wicked and evil because of sin. Most Dinos are believed to have drowned and buried under sediment, that’s why the bones and some soft tissue are well preserved.
Your DNA literally cannot create itself and it shows god’s handy work to create u and I.
There’s literally tons of evidence that proves god exists. “You will seek me and find me when you search for me with all your heart” Jeremiah 29:13. However this all falls down on u whether u want accept god or not because all knees will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is lord. God wants u to be apart of his kingdom but if u reject him he won’t force to be apart of it either and u will be cast into hell. I hope this will help u homie
@@JuanHernandez-oj6nd All of your arguments are wrong.
If every dead creature that left a fossils was alive at the same time, there'd be no room for anything.
Chalk beds are the innumerable fossils of tiny lifeforms.
And if all of the chalk beds had been alive at the same time, there would have been not enough ocean for all of them.
Actually do some research, dude.
The layering of fossils supports the slow forming of many layers of fossils from changing biomes over time. There is NO evidence of a worldwide flood.
You have been lied to.
Please don't let yourself hold such false beliefs. I believe you're better than this.
this darwin quotemine at the start... it makes me think of a geocentrist saying galileo recanted his belief that the earth isn't the center of the universe. yes, he did say that, but you left out pretty important context.
i didn't know he recanted let alone the context but then again i don't know much about galileo
@@robjackson4050 here's the context: the inquisition found him guilty of "heresy" and forced him to recant.
@@chezeus1672 Yeah, that's pretty important context. As someone who actually read the origin of species I would find it hilarious if it weren't so frustrating how consistently young earth creationists (or "magical creationists" as I like to call them because they all believe an alternate explanation that involves magic) not only misquote or quote out of context to change the meaning but they often outright lie about what the book contains and it's clear that none of those magical creationists have even read the book because they try to use their misquotes and made up quotes to disprove claims that aren't even in the book while ignoring Darwin's explanation of the general principals of evolution which have been repeatedly vindicated by subsequent evidence. Sure, there are things Darwin didn't know and even specific claims and examples he got wrong about the evolution of specific things but the principal of variation and divergence has only been demonstrated more and more effectively as the evidence comes in.
People being raised in magical creationist doctrine are taught to fear believing evolution with the sin of blasphemy which is pretty much the entire motivation of the movement as far as I can see. You have to believe the literal story of a holy book or you don't get the good afterlife. That's why there are christian "evolutionists" but no atheist "young earth creationists". Atheists don't believe in magic but christians who aren't afraid of their god can feel comfortable questioning what they're told to believe and come up with their own interpretation of god and still call themselves christians. My point to anyone who might read this, growing up with the fear of blasphemy: if someone tells you your not supposed to question what they tell you, it's because they know they're wrong. If someone tells you not to look at certain evidence, it's because they know it will prove them wrong. Any god who would punish you for not believing what you don't know is a god you surely couldn't really worship, even if you pretend to, even if it does exist. You have every reason to find things out for yourself.
Anyway, great comment and follow up, you taught me something about Galileo. Sorry to go on a long rant about things you surely didn't need to be told yourself
"Try to think of one thing man has ever invented that's superior to the mind that created it." Well, AlphaZero spent 4 hours playing chess with itself and was already far better at it than any human has ever been or will ever be.
bullshit, whenever i play chess with myself i always win..
And there is also the AlphaGo AI that defeated the Go world champion Lee Se-dol. An accomplishment previously thought impossible since Go has many more combinations than chess. It often relies on the instinct of the players. Lee Se-dol said he had decided to retire after realizing: "I'm not at the top even if I become the number one."
The computer actually invented new tactics of play that caught everyone by surprise.
Don't have to go that far, no human can calculate at the level of almost any computer. The synapses in our brain are thousands of times slower than the circuitry in modern computers. That being said, maybe one could argue that he probably meant a very generalized superiority of the mind instead of specific tasks.
@@BillRevis -- which, I suppose, leaves one to come up with a generally accepted set of parameters for what constitutes "general superiority of mind".
@@Kevin_Williamson It means being able to make shit up and convince one self to believe it. No matter how clever we are we will never make the proverbial 'electric monk' from The Hitch-hikers Guide To The Galaxy. Only a high priest of some sort, could really believe things they wouldn't believe in Salt Lake City. 😉
I wonder what Pack's response would be to "Yes, there must be a designer, and it is Zeus" ?
Tsk tsk tsk
All hail His Holy Noodliness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Zeus couldn't have created the world, because he had parents and grandparents, who obviously were here before he was.
@@leeshackelford7517 Ramen brother!
@Pisstake Those who claim that he created the world also claim that he existed before he created the world. Nobody claims Zeus existed before he was born to Kronos and Rhea.
Lots of gods to choose from ;0)
I believe we are seeing the evolution of "water cats" right now. Specifically the Tiger and Jaguar. Tigers have actually evolved webbed paws. Good point.
I give you the water hunting cat ua-cam.com/video/cso87inf29Q/v-deo.html
My cat likes fish so much, she's starting to look like one!!! (
Tigers have always had webbing in their paws. This is not evolution at work, it is observation at work.
@@solonkazos1379 Wrong. Not all Tiger species have webbed paws and some are more pronounced than others. Sumatran Tigers have the most pronounced of all. I wonder why that is, living on an island.
Certain types of Dogs, (labs, setters etc.) also have webbed laws and are known as ‘Water Dogs’. These breeds have obviously been bred by humans for these traits to make them better able to retrieve ducks etc. From lakes while hunting. There’s the proof of the science behind evolution right there.
It's interesting to note that essentially every apologist attempt at refuting evolution is based in a willful misrepresentation of what evolution actually claims. I think there's a term for that...
A couple of years back, David C Pack declared himself the reincarnation of the Prophet Elijah. You might consider a video on that as well. Nice take, always good to get another view of the insanity.
David Pack? The lead singer for the soft rock band Ambrosia ?
That "I have personally seen a photograph" line gets me every time
The ad from “Genesis apologetics” is beyond hilarious.
I got one of those and one for the scam phone charger that supposedly improves your phone's performance and undoes chemical battery degradation, which it doesn't.
"We don't want theories where we have to accept things on faith". What? Like God?
That's not even a thesis.
@@germanvisitor2 It's barely a hypothesis
@@JackgarPrime
That's what I meant.
Don't comment while sleepy, kids.
@@germanvisitor2 I feel you there
The big bang theory is a leap of faith
I really enjoyed that. This preacher is always a good source of entertainment, through his misunderstandings/misinterpretation of science. Throwing in some misleading quotes also helps.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I find these people more scary than entertaining. Personally speaking.
@@inyobill I guess UA-cam might not be a thing, if we all had the same point of view about everything. Maybe the whole world might worship the Spaghetti Monster if we did ...
@@briannewton3535 Ramen, Bro.
A comment for the algorithm! Happy Monday, Paul-low-gi-ah.
My youngest daughter was not thrilled to learn recently on a trip to the Natural History Museum in NYC that animals, birds, and fish as she knows them are not the final stages of all these beings, but just their momentary form in the short blip of time recorded by humans.
I’ve watched Aron ra refute his irrefutable proof also.
AaronRa destroyed this guy’s baseless arguments.
AronRa's video series on Packman's video series might the most comprehensive destruction of bullshit ever produced. You can count on one hand the number of factual claims Packman makes. Darwin was human, he existed, and he wrote a book on evolution. That's about it.
@@RickKasten have you seen Aron's current series on Kent Hovind? hes on part 25 already and just.... wow, there hasnt been a single factual thing that Hovind has said as of yet, like holy shit thats not even an exaggeration
@@TabbyVee Yes I'm watching it now.
The Lucy find was not by Leakey - it was Donald Johansson. At the time, Johansson's interpretation of A. afarensis was the trigger for an intense professional feud between Johansson and Leakey. More than likely, Leakey's quote was from during that feud - trying to disparage Johansson's find in favor of his own work. Leakey would not be trying to critique all of human evolution.
Also - what is with the citation of "Creation Research" for Leakey's quotes? Sounds like another instance of citing from other Creationist misquotes rather than actually looking for the primary source....
You beat me to it. Yes, the Lucy fossil of A. afarensis was found by Donald Johansson and team, not Richard Leakey.
At 22.41 you can see that Pack cites 'Creation Research' as the source of the Leakey quote. I think it's fair to say that Pack relying on another creationist source for information on something as groundbreaking and foundational as the discoverer of Lucy is of a piece with his understanding and method of operation in this series in general. In other words, sloppy and yet somehow delusionally confident.
Sweet, I've been re binging your old videos for the last couple of days. Love me some Paulogia
I don't know which I find more arrogantly sanctimonious, David C. Pack's false assumptions about 'facts', or the insult that God was so inept in establishing his Church as to require *_The Reformed Church of God©_* and not hold the copyright.
This is an illogical argument
I watch "NOVA - Judgement Day" at least once a year. It was a big step in my de-conversion.
You should watch it a little closer. You'll see there are no facts in it. Just an evolutionary story with no data. Bible creation has data that backs the story of creation.
~21:00 "David is misunderstanding things here"
Your patience with this guy is undeserved, but impressive. I'd be screaming at my camera at this point. 😖
God wasn't content with the splendor of his SARS-Cov-2 creation. He had to perform another special act of creation to introduce the Delta variant.
The narrative driving c19 is full of deceit. Not a good example.
@@gordongoodman8342 Seems like a great example to me.
@@kdietz65
Clearly.
5:37 "2 million protons and neutrons" - how about how many atoms? or how many repeated substructures? Sure I guess you can describe water as 18 protons and neutrons, but most people would call it 3 atoms. Sure, there are contexts where saying water has an atomic weight of 18 is more useful, but I guess describing the yeast 26s proteasome as having an atomic weight of 2 million sounds less impressive.
Exactly. It's arguments from big numbers.
Creationists love to scare scientifically illiterate with 'em huge numbers...
Yeah, quoting protons and neutons was decidedly weird!
At work, but so looking forward to this on my ride home.
The same for me - but I just got home!
Oh, the envy 😉
please don't watch it while driving
Leaving for work, so I'll listen on the way haha
@Pauolgia I just wanna know how do you or any other atheist know anything at all in a world without God? How do you even know you exist? Wouldn't you first have to assume that the law of non contradiction holds at all times and all places otherwise you could exist and not exist at the same time. Are you using your reasoning to justify your reasoning?
@@timeshark8727 Audio-only, works great for this one 👍
The whole logic of trying to poke holes in Darwin’s original positions just baffles me. Are the people that make these apologetics ignorant of all biology past the 19th century, or do they just hope their audience is? Biology is so far and away from Darwin’s original theory that this is like trying to falsify quantum mechanics by crapping on Newton.
I found out about this guy via Aron Ra's "Refuting the irrefiutable proof of god" playlist; it's nice to watch this develop as a for of abriged version, both are really informative, although Pack does get grating after a while
All species and fossils are transitional. We are all adapting selectively and gradually to our environment and that's the reason why life somehow still exists in so many shapes, forms, sizes and from the bottom of the ocean to the mountain tops. If life can exist it will exist given enough time to develop in relatively steady conditions. The rest is bronze age mythology.
I love when the channels I follow do a series like this. Each one builds on the other in a way that makes sense and makes the nonsense look even *more* nonsensical and that much more less rational, let alone believable in any sense of the word. Great video (work) Paul! Looking forward to the next one.
Its the devils propaganda
Paulogia, AronRa, and Reactaria (Forest Valkai) are absolute masters at this. I genuinely love them for what they bring to humanity.
AronRa tore that cult leader a new one.
And still he talks through it! 🤣
The way AronRa ended the series is legendary: "So with all do respect, shut the f*** up"
@@carlospomares3225 lol. Aron is a legend in his own lifetime!
To misquote Dirty Harry...."Pack is a legend in his own mind"
Isn't this Pack guy the one who went "blah blah blah..a termite in Australia blah blah blah?"
The idea of an eternal creator agent leads almost immediately to a contradiction. The idea is itself akin to stating a married bachelor.
Edit: typo (a a married -> a married) and extend the claim to a singular agent, as in 'the agent' rather than 'an agent' for clarity, though I think the argument still follows based on the sufficiency clause of the follow up below.
How can we get a contradiction from just an eternal creator agent? Don't we at least need a few other details like omnipotence or perfect goodness or omnipresence? What contradiction are we talking about?
@@Ansatz66 Is the idea real? Let's consider the necessary aspects of reality In toto.
Given: An eternal creator can not create itself, as that implies a beginning for an eternal being.
The question is then: Did the creator create the necessary aspects of reality or were they already present?
If present, then the creator did not create the necessary aspects of reality and is not the creator.
If not present then the creator is not a necessary aspect of reality.
If the eternal agent is posited as sufficient to reality then reality is also eternal and could not have been created.
Pretty sure that is exhaustive, thus the idea is nonsense. Thoughts?
@@phrozenwun Yeah, that about covers the issues with the notion of an eternal creator
@@phrozenwun : This depends upon us supposing that the eternal creator agent must be responsible for creating all aspects of reality, and cannot merely be responsible for creating things like stars and planets and galaxies and life and laying down the mechanisms of physics. With this assumption then we do get to a contradiction, but that assumption isn't automatic just from hearing "eternal creator agent." This assumption is probably not held by most people, and that's why they don't see this contradiction.
"If the eternal agent is posited as sufficient to reality then reality is also eternal and could not have been created."
Here we have another assumption that wasn't included in "eternal creator agent." If we assume the eternal creator agent is sufficient for reality, then we get a contradiction. Most people do not make that assumption.
@@phrozenwun : When people say that God created everything, they don't mean _literally_ everything, because obviously nothing can create itself. If "all creator" means something that created everything including itself, then that's obviously a contradiction but it's a contradiction within an idea that no one believes.
"There are no creatures found that evidence.... partially-evolved brains..."
Surely you have a mirror around there, somewhere?
::face paws and sighs:: Does the fellow not realize if science actually gave "incontrovertible proof" of one god or another we wouldn't need apologists and he'd be out of a job?
David C. Pack: "This pile of bricks is just too big, no-one could ever have assembled it, it had to be Magicman(tm)"
Meanwhile, everybody who understands how you pile bricks on top of each other is stunned into silence because it's such a stupid goddamn thing to say.
The sad thing is that anybody takes Pack seriously. He should be relegated to ranting his inane nonsense to his sixteen cats. Not that I expect him to be kind to animals.
@Lureeality Arts Those at least have value as fertilizer.
Sometimes messengers say stupid thing, but the message is still the important thing.
So here is a message; evolution has no evidence. Don't make fun, just show some evidence.
@@solonkazos1379 Here's the message. Creationism has no evidence. Don't make fun. Just show some evidence.
@Grant Sherrill A few times, yeah.
@@solonkazos1379 Paternity tests prove evolution. The same technology that we use for paternity tests proves how closely related we are to other apes. Specifically how closely. The more closely related, the closer the DNA. The less closely, the further apart the DNA.
There's evidence for evolution everywhere in museums. For you to say there's none is simply a lie.
I'm not "making fun", here. You're just lying. And you know you're lying. You've been taught to repeat that asinine lie by other liars. I care about evidence, which is why I know there's nothing _BUT_ evidence for evolution. You don't care about the truth, which is why you lie.
Go to a goddamn museum and learn something. A real one, not some creationist theme park with cookie-cutter lies on the wall that you've already memorized for your imaginary friend.
"Atheists don't want to believe in God so they can sin."
It seems to me that if someone wanted to sin with no consequences, the best choice would be to believe in an all-powerful being who can forgive every sin you commit with no effort on your part to earn it. What's up with that, Christians?
You can say that again cause time and time again you point out something that is wrong or goes against their book we get responses like " Jesus will forgive me." Or " god said it was okay" or " it alright I follow god/Jesus". Like they can't take responsibility
@@Orsonfoe Hell, the whole selling point of Christianity over even the other Abrahamic religions is that they believe you can be forgiven for literally anything because all sins are equal, and that blood can be washed away for the trivial price of accepting Jesus.
A genuine Christian wouldn't want to abuse God's grace and yes salvation can't be earned, it is the free gift of God open to anyone, isn't that the beauty of it
@@samuelcalderwood1379 let's not get " no true Scotsman" here and you say it's a gift but so often than not it comes with a viretiy of sting attached. And more often those strings are added on by the follower with their own version of god that will okay their Decision.
@@Orsonfoe you stick to the bible version of salvation and you will be fine
"...over 2 million protons and neutrons..."
Huh... apparently electrons aren't used. Weird. I wonder how that molecule holds itself together. Celestial Super Glue? Demonic Duct Tape? Molecular Prayer?
I wonder how much of what he is reading from his teleprompter he actually understands? I'll go with less than 10%
I canknow with reasonable certainty that there is going to be much misrepresentation, cherry picking, and probably a few strawmen in his video.
Edit - yup,cherry picking Darwin straight off the bat. Ow, my head. Need more facepalm protection
You forgot _lies_ - outright _lies._
Welcome to the world of Christian Apologetics, where lies are a necessary part of their con-job.
@@pauligrossinoz Magical creationists don't get their science info from scientists, "scientists are evil pawns of satan who can't be trusted". Their science info has to come from the "trustworthy, scripture-based interpretation" of their religious leaders. I know this from experience, I grew up in this, I see the next generation of my family growing up in this.
Most evolutionists face palm because they have no facts to support their theory. Its getting embarrassing for them. Still looking for the missing link. Can't prove the age of the universe. Can't prove DNA came from primordial soup. Yah, a lot of pain in evolution
@@solonkazos1379 - *no,* you're just _projecting._
Even if, in your wildest dreams, you could show that evolution by natural selection was wrong, it doesn't follow that Jesus must have been resurrected.
Muslims have also used the same _non sequiter_ fallacy - trying to disprove evolution instead of proving their own religious claims.
It doesn't follow that if evolution is wrong than anyone's religion is right.
You still have all your work ahead of you if you wish to prove Christianity is correct, just like the Muslims do too.
And, just like Islam, Christianity is based on the worst possible evidence: _uncorroborated hearsay._
@@pauligrossinoz Also, I never got the term "christian apologetics" they're not apologizing for anything, they're rationalizing baseless beliefs to justify them
Evolution disporves the first human, disproving adam and eve, disproving first original sin, disproving the need for being saved, disproving Jesus.
Amen. 😉
@@dperry428
It disproves everything.
Who did adam and eve gave birth to ? Cain and Abel, those 2 never existed neither in concequence.
it is a house of cards that crumbles.
it means there never was a noa, an abraham or Moses, the ark was never build. there where never 10 commandments.
Therefore there was no sin, nothing for a jesus to die for.
It is a huge house of cards.
@@dperry428
Well the topic here is the bible, christianity, and the jesus of the bible.
So yeah.. thats on you.
Having said that i am willing to play.
Jesus as a man, who even cares. the normal guy who did nothing that was supernatural, who cares.
Many people say " You love one another", jesus of the bible was not even special in that. it is rediculous to even assume he was THE ONE to even say that.
It is even more rediculous that the bible does not speak of this in the first testament, but in the 2nd.
I do not care for your religeous beliefs, they are just beliefs. II care for what is real.
And no i do not think people are all fundamentalists but there is only 1 kind of religeous person, the one that is desceiving himself.
It is simple realy. Actual beliefs are not chosen, if you try and choose to belief anyway, you are engaged in wishfull thinking, aka deceiving / lying to yourself.
There is no good evidence a god actually can even exist. this is true for all gods.
"Part 3 reveals many more [abject deceits and blatant ignorance]"
Can't wait!
If people like this can cherry pick their own holy book, why would they not also cherry pick scientific evidence?
If the complexity of life requires god, then the complexity of god would also require a god-maker.
"Remember, we want proof, facts, not theories that require faith to believe in them."
" Okay. So where can i meet up with your god for a chat and a cup of coffee, then?"
Demands for "proof" from the man whose argument is esentially, "Evolution could not producre complex life because life is too complex just to evolve." Pure question begging with a large side of hypocrisy.
“David is misunderstanding things here” could have just played on repeat.
Damn, and here I was looking for science broken :)
Nice reference to docu on bacterial pusher though, good way to introduce incremental change visually.
Paul, such a good job again. Thank you so much. We have such a similar background of what we were taught as kids and as adults...until we started thinking for ourselves.❤️❤️
And we're probably related! Thanks for the kind words...
I'm guessing when he says 'proves god's existence' he means of course his particular god. Even if evolution was wring it wouldn't prove a god existed and even if we accepted an 'intelligent design' it still tells us nothing about that designer.
I love the Kitzmiller v Dover documentary Intelligent Design on Trial. Glad to see Paulogia excerpting it here.
Still astounded the number of people that can make a, good(?), income of convincing people to continue believing something that they already apparently believe in. Not only that, in addition to these apologetics, the believers also attend weekly seminars to reinforce their beliefs and charge them for the benefit.
Oh, this cat. Bigger “leaps of logic” than René Descartes.
Aron Ra ripped this bozo to absolute _shreds_ in his own series.
Considering how welll thought out a lot of Descartes other work is I kinda side with the people who claim it was more him covering his ass in a very religious time than a genuinly held belief
But that's pure speculation since we have no hard evidence that that is why he wrote the part about god
@@TheLuckySpades I hadn’t read that. It makes sense. He made a brilliant trap for himself and then kind of cheat-coded his way out.
Why do the YEC's use the non-words "proofs" and "evidences?" It's irritating and makes them sound dumber than their bad ideas do. And their Darwin obsession is bordering on stalking at this point.
"Proofs" and "evidences" are legitimate words, though. That creationists use them incorrectly is a different story.
Dialects naturally tend to form in an insulated culture. YECs live in a bubble and deliberately avoid exposing themselves to outside information, and the habit of using the words "proofs" and "evidences" in this way has become one of the distinguishing features of life inside that bubble. It seems like the normal way of speaking to them because it _is normal_ among the people that they talk to.
Stalkers are less scary
Let's go part 3! You're videos are awesome to purely listen to
I like how he shows oranges when talking about the different kinds of foods god created, even though they're not naturally occurring and manmade.
I hadn't seen Part 1, need to do that! Aron Ra mopped the floor with this guy through a whole series of videos! Love this!❤️👍
Hey Paul's back! I'm not saying that I didn't like the guest host's, because I loved them, I just missed my fix of Paul!
“Ignoring the evidence evolutionists are forced to conjure illusions…. Why would highly intelligent men believe such false and silly ideas”. This irony of this statement can’t be lost on him surely.
"Judgement Day Intelligent Design on Trial" tripped me and I've been falling down the rabbit hole for over 12 years.
Judge Jones was understandably angry when he discovered how the creationists were lying to him.
Mostly Darwin would probably be confused why people are still focusing on his version of evolution when the science has been refined enough that his involvement could be reduced to acknowledgement in the special thanks section
'Life cannot come from non-life.'
Like humans built from clay by a sky wizard?
Nowhere is God called a "sky wizard" in scripture.
@@gordongoodman8342 Your point?
It's an expression.
@@brunozeigerts6379
My point is you are making things up with an intent to be condescending.
@@gordongoodman8342 But the part about God making man from clay is in the Bible. Which is all made up anyway. And theists can be incredibly condescending.
@@brunozeigerts6379
The scriptures say man is made from the dust of the Earth. We know that our bodies are composed of the same material that the dust if the earth is composed of. Remember the periodic table if the elements?
So what's the problem here exactly?
Always good to see a new video from you Paul. If you ask me, they don't happen often enough
Ayy new Paulogia vid! Love you Paul :)
Finally! thank you so much!
I was eagerly waiting for this!
My mother watches such shows and a response is desperately needed!
I eagerly wait for part 3!
Hey Aron Ra already covered the thing from end to end
@@qazhr don't take this the wrong way i am subscribed to him but his videos put me to sleep he is too soft spoken compared to Rationality Rules, Genetically Modified Skeptic, Cosmic Skeptic or Telltale!
@@TibbsFrankies Wow. Of all the terms I would use to describe Aron, soft-spoken, would not rank high!
@@martinmckee5333 depends on the video I guess. Certainly he is more calm when he is not in a "debate".
I'm glad Paulogia also talked about the discovery of Tiktaalik. Yes, its an example of prediction (a form of experimentation) in paleobiology. The scientists predicted that such a creature should have existed, based on what we already knew about the evolution of amphibians and of fish, including DNA evidence. In fact, I believe it was the DNA evidence that gave them a time frame for the evolution of such an animal, then used this time frame to determine what sediments (laid down at a particular time) and what part of the world would be a likely place to look for this transitional fossil. And there it was.
🤣 that guy's gestures crack me up. Reminds me of Terry Gilliam's animated characters.
I love how you address this type of video. Keep up the good work.👍
Edit: thank you for going at a pace that I can keep up with. I love Aron but I have to play his vids at .75 sometimes
11:00 I love it when someone actually goes to read the sources!
I was expecting him to roll out ATP synthase. An amazing bit of cellular machinery. When I was looking for 3d animations of it working for my degree I discovered all the best ones some were from american creationist sources who believe it's proof of a higher power.
One problem with those animations, though:
They are designed in such a way as to reinforce the idea that you are looking at a machine: all round rotating bits or levers, or whatever. A look at a more accurate diagram, however, and you realize it's just a grouping of molecules, which obviously weren't "assembled" into a "mechanism".
He knows what god thinks, he knows what Darwin thought. How convenient to know what dead people think.
Just thought I should let you know that even though I've been subscribed to you for a while, for some reason when this video came up I didn't get any notifications about it.
Great video. Easy to understand, informative, and entertaining.
It's kind of hard to take seriously a guy who calls a molecule, even a big one, an "organism." So let's get this cleared up. A molecule is not an organism. All organisms are made of molecules, but so are chairs and, well, rocks, and, well, everything else.
Don’t worry little David, you’re special!
when i started mt Atheistic journey, It never even crossed my mind that many people still believe that evolution is not true, Earth is flat. These topics may not be connected to Theism, but it seems most religious people believe it. I am totally astonished.
I've just discovered your channel today. Great stuff!
Welcome aboard!
Ah yes... more "proofs", phrasing causing horrible flashbacks to high school and college math class for me.
... and then they go on and on, not with evidence or "proofs", but with lies, misrepresentations and empty assertions.
It still astounds and saddens me how much faith they have in their followers never checking anything they say, and how often that faith is well founded.
If he were a proper educator, imagine what a great teacher he'd make. He's using his talent for the "wrong" side.
@@southernsal3113 meh, we already have enough teachers that just make assertions without teaching the kids how to look at and evaluate evidence for themselves.
Yeah, only creationists talk about "microevolution and macroevolution." Paleobiologists talk about speciation.
Loved the aquatic kitty idea!!!
Fuck yes! I thought you weren't y continue with this series! For anyone who does not know, Aron Ra did a great job of responding to the same series. Totally thrilled to see paulogia respond as well
why must theists insist on such loose definitions of "proof"? 😐
You’re my hero
Made myself wait until the next morning to watch, just so I could wake up in a good mood.
Every claim well refuted, thanks Paulogia. That was entertaining.
i'm going to say things without evidence and wave my hands around so people believe me
Why do these people always seem to dwindle down non-believers into "big babies who don't wanna do what they're told"? It's because they want to appear to be superior in their smug Christian demeanor. They want people to "look at non-religious people as inferior and in need of prayer because they're so blinded".
It is the height of arrogance when they do this, of course.
And the cherry on top is when they use the line "....is being intellectually dishonest..." when speaking about those who don't believe them. It is truly....childish.
Childish, and incredibly ironic. Christians like this project their faults onto others bigly (to paraphrase a fat orange man)
Nonsense.
@@gordongoodman8342 Explain how my post was "nonsense". I see this happening all the time. The _false_ sense of superiority theists manifest on a regular basis.
@@DRayL_
It's nonsense. Christians ask other Christians to pray form them.
Praying for someone else has nothing to do with a superiority complex.
@@gordongoodman8342 Your referring to a snipped portion of my post [praying for someone] without referencing the context, and then call it "nonsense"?
I was referring to those who say "I'll pray for you" in a condescending way of saying "you don't know how lost you are" kind of way. It's arrogance....thinking that _they_ [the Christian] has figured it all out and are now having pity on the "deceived atheist".
I hope that makes it plain enough.
For a reason that I cannot fathom, David C Pack accepts an account of creation written in Hebrew by an unknown author who was not a witness to anything that he wrote and who failed to source anything that he wrote. Why in the world would anyone choose to believe it? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Amazing job again. You knock it out of the park every. single. time.
David reminds me of a 1950's narrator for a sexual reproduction film with the stork being the main character.
These are Absolute proofs.
We all know that if you take the absolute value of something you remove the negative sign, so a negative proof becomes a proof.
Sneaky Christian math.
That pokemon analogy just made me love your channel even more
Just found your channel. I'm 37 and have been a spiritual atheist for about four years. I was a devout Christian between 16 and 33 and I was a pastor with a seminary degree. What led me to atheism? The moral contradictions of the Bible.
Theist: Life can't come from non-life
Me: I agree, it's so laughable that god made adam from clay when even you can see it's impossible.
Theist: Wait, no... God can make it happen
Me: but that's not what you said, you said it was impossible, thus even god's power is unable to do so. glad we agree.
*Theist.exe has stopped responding.*
I can always go for another great Paulogia video.
But this preacher's tone is so demeaning and arrogant that even though we have Paul to guide us through it - this is barely watchable, hehe
*The first law of thermodynamics says that God must be eternal. Something cannot come from nothing.*
No, the first law of thermodynamics states that the change of internal energy in a thermodynamic system is equal to the difference in heat transferred and work performed by the system. This is different than the law of conservation of the Hamiltonian, which states that the sum of the potential of a system and its kinetic energy is a constant with respect to time. Neither law states that something cannot come from nothing.
David has obviously never touched a physics textbook.
8:53 you are right in emphasizing "DEMANDS". Demanding a complete chain of evidence and explananations of evolution is all what IDers are doing when "researching"the science of their imaginary opponents. Would be nice if they were so thoroughly when researching their own hypothesis of intelligent design for a change.
How come he has such massive ears ? Are they required for selective hearing ? Proves evolution