You are standing on the floor. You don't fall, so logically the floor is standing over another floor. But you can't go forever, it doesn't make sense. So there most be a Prime Floor, different from the other floor. The Prime Floor supports all of the floors above it, hence it is infinitely strong. The Prime Floor also worries whether I'm gay or not.
There must necessarily needs be the concession that finite can't even a little bit contain (IN)FINITE. Nor can dark comprehend LIGHT. Laws were (Put-In-Place), to also prevent us from ascending. There must necessarily needs be a time when finite must concede with, "I don't know".
The atheist's argument is founded with rebellion, pride and arrogance and not fact. They simply will NOT have this deity Reign over them. But fortunately. It's not their choice.
Damn, Dan Barker is the man! Love watching and hearing him debate! "Do you know what the Hebrew word for virgin?"..."uhhh, no I don't". Priceless! 1:38:30
Bergman seems to me to complain a lot - particularly about the persecution of Christians and evolution deniers. The "poor me" syndrome. I'd never seen him in a debate, so I was hoping that Barker would have a worthy opponent, but Bergman disappoints me in this respect.
Dr Berman's wife left him when he lost his job by coming against the militant darwinists, so he has a reason to complain whole book about it many others same situation Slaughter of the Dissidents by Jerry Bergman and Kevin Wirth
Beginning at about 1:09:38, Bergman says: "What evidence is there clearly that there is no God? Have you looked in *every corner of the universe* to determine whether or not there is no God? One cannot say there is no God until you've searched everywhere and of course one has not done that." Is he seriously asking these questions? Does one have to search "every corner of the universe" for an OMNIPRESENT God? Or has Bergman forgotten that his God is supposed to be omnipresent?
Beginning at about 1:09:51, Bergman says: "Proof is also relative. What you say is proof *depends upon the person.* ... Obviously *proof is in the eye of the beholder.* What may be proof to me is not proof to you." And he calls himself a *scientist?* No wonder his articles are rejected by scientific journals. He invokes the judicial system as "proof" that proof is in the eye of the beholder, but, like so many other Christian apologists before (and after) him, he resorts to a *false analogy.* The standards of judicial proof are unique to the judicial system and apply nowhere else, especially when it comes to criminal law. The nature of judicial proof is intended primarily to protect against convicting a person of a crime he did not commit. The standards of judicial proof do not-and CANNOT-apply to proving the existence of God. And to imply that what he considers "proof" of the existence of God may not be what Dan Barker or others consider proof of the existence of God is simply a colossal cop out.
I use to enjoy watching these debates but not so much anymore. It's hard to watch someone deny truth and believe a lie . When a heart is so hardened it's like a brick wall .
After seeing enough of these debates, you start to see a trend and you can sum up the where is gonna go. Theists are believers but they don't use their opening arguments to present reasons to believe. They are obsessed with atheism and that pretty much consumes their arguments. It is like a suspect in a crime case arguing against law or the judge rather than giving support for his innocence
Just one point - regarding Dr Bergman's suggestion that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school: he forgets that there are MANY creation myths in human culture, so to be fair we'd have to teach all of them alongside evolution. He assumes that it would be ONLY the particular brand of anti-evolutionary creationism that he subscribes to. Upon what authority would one ever make that call? You'd have Muslim clerics demanding their curricula as well - and rightly so. This is a very bad idea from the get-go.
"there are MANY creation myths" Yeah, it's incredible how they vindicate the Genesis account considering that they are similar to Genesis (ofcourse there are distortions) implying that the creation in Genesis actually happened.
@@BhikPersonal Genesis copies others' creation accounts. Why would you think Genesis was the first creation account? The World evolved thanks to nature, no God was required.
At about 16:46, Bergman makes a truly confounding statement. Speaking of mutations, he declares: "You are not going to get evolution when you go 99 steps backward and only one step forward." This is his conclusion from his "discovery" from "the research" that 99.9 percent of mutations are harmful. Does he *really* think that *that* is how evolution through natural selection works? Steps backwards and forwards? Really? For a professor of biology, he is astoundingly thick-or he is being deliberately mendacious. Either way, he is an absolute disgrace to his profession.
Beginning at about 1:11:03, Bergman says: "Billions of people in the world believe there is evidence for God. So, just by the numbers, billions of people believe." Is that really his argument in support of the existence of God? Consider this: There was a time when everyone in the world (millions of people at the time) believed that the Earth is flat. So, by Bergman's reasoning, the Earth really was flat at the time. After all, everyone on Earth believed it to be so. And everyone at one time believed that the Sun moved around the Earth. By Bergman's logic, that is proof enough that the Sun moves around the Earth (or did at that time). And this man calls himself a scientist? The man is an insult to the intelligence of his audience.
Beginning at about 14:00, Bergman attempts to refute homology in typical Christian-apologist fashion with a rather inane false analogy. His argument is that cars have similar parts (and he rattled of a whole list of them-quite unnecessarily), but that does not mean (so he argues) that one car evolved from another. The analogy is absurd-and it is false because we know exactly how cars are designed and manufactured, and we know that they do not reproduce using information encoded in genes. Cars and living organisms could not be more dissimilar and therefore one cannot serve as an analogy for the other. However, while we known that cars *themselves* did not evolve through reproductive means, we also know that the *design* of cars did evolve, and earlier models served as a sort of "genetic blueprint" for later models. We can trace the evolution of car design, from the very simple early models to the highly complex precision vehicles that we know today. This is, of course, not evolution by *natural* selection, but the underlying process is the same: features that did not work well for a given purpose were adjusted, redesigned, tinkered with, to make them "fit" their purpose more closely-with some element of trial and error involved along the way. For example, the shape of the body of cars has become increasingly aerodynamic over time, a phenomenon that corresponds closely with the increasing speed that newer models were able to achieve. We can even trace the "family tree" of various makes and models of cars, much as we can trace the descent of various species of living organisms. So, far from refuting evolution and homology, Bergman's analogy actually serves to illustrate how evolution works, and thus to confirm it.
Thank you for keeping comment section open I greatly respect that. As both sides say they want to promote debate by my inference and simultaneously squelch it, by disabling comments.
At about 18:07, Bergman asks: "What causes aging?" He goes on to answer his own question: "The accumulation of mutations." Really? Is that what he, as a biology professor, thinks causes aging? He goes on to conclude from this false claim that "Evolution is true, it's a fact, but it's going the wrong way. We are not evolving upward, we are evolving downward." Is he not aware that the average human lifespan has increased dramatically over the last 150 years? Is he not aware that people in their 60s today have the same vitality and vigour as people in their 40s a generation ago? Quite apart from the sheer nonsense of the argument, he contradicts himself, for, having spent the last several minutes attempting to refute evolution (with absurd analogies to cars, and so on), he now admits that evolution "is true", "a fact". The man is a complete disaster.
Dan Barker- excellent arguments as always. Jerry Bergman- obstinate and obtuse. He proves he knows a little about a lot and still gets it wrong or can’t give evidence. “I’ve read a lot of books.” It you want an amazingly knowledgeable and witty debate with an atheist, go watch Christopher Hitchens. If you want explanations of biblical history and inaccuracies, go watch Dr. Bart Ehrman.
I love how Bergman tells About alllllllllllllllll kinds of extensive research and proven facts on how true the bible is in every way.....but then gives absolutely no example as to the research conducted. I wonder how much of this debate he pulled straight from the pits of his congested bowls
here's what "scientists" worship: 1. Hydrogen - Born of Water - John 3:5 2. Helium - the Sun - John 8:12 3. Lithium - the Rock - Deuteronomy 32:4 4. Beryllium - aquamarine gemstone - Daniel 10:6 5. Boron - the Cherub - Ezekiel 28:14 6. Carbon - the Fire - Luke 12:49 7. Nitrogen - white powder - Luke 3:22 Photon - The Light of the World - Phaethon was the son of God Helios with a mortal woman, and so Phaethon asked Helios to prove to him that he is indeed his father, and so pop gave lifted him up into heavens, and gave him the chariot of the sun, but the young hipster lost control of it, and almost set the world afire, himself drowning into the waters, as he fell from the sky. Gravity - the apple in the garden - Genesis 3:3 Black Holes and White Holes - Isaiah 45:7
"Evolution, we're talking about going from Hydrogen to people" This guy is an educator? To borrow from the theists all I can say is God help those kids.
Much of Bergman's argument against atheism is gripe and grievance regarding how badly he was treated by atheists when he became a Christian. But, whether his allegations of mistreatment by atheists are true or not, that really has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. The man comes across as an absolute flake, with no understanding of logical argumentation and what it means to participate in a debate. In addition to using the debate to gripe about how badly he was treated by atheists, he also uses it as an extended commercial for all the many books he has written. This shameless plugging of his books during the debate is an indication of what sort of person he is.
The culture in Science is not atheism, it is Science. If you explained every discovery as the work of God, we wouldn't call it science now would we? This is what get's me when it comes to these debates. Science is merely the word we use to describes humans ability to explain the natural world. It is our universal language at that human process. What other word would you like to use?
We were all atheists at one time. God I just heard him say "Doctor Bergman". He says" 98 % of Eminent Scientists don't believe in a God." Bergman, doesn't that tell you something? It is stunning to find that guys like him. ( I assume his Phd. is legit ) Duped into believing what he believes. and grovelling for some flimsy data to back up his claim. If he was in India , or Iran, he would be spouting his reverence for Islam after his departure from Atheism.
"98% of Eminent Scientists don't believe in a God." Bergman, doesn't that tell you something?" The Ad Populam fallacy is fallacious. "If he was in India, or Iran, he would be spouting his reference for Islam after his departure from atheism" This is a fallacy of false equivalency and faulty analogy which is fallacious.
So, Jerry Bergman can just lie about anything he wants to make his case can he? Well, that sure makes it easier to win. Hitler was an atheist? - probably why they had "God with us" on the belt buckle of every soldier, and why when declaring the oath of loyalty to the führer they said "I swear in front of almighty God my undying fealty to Adolf Hitler," - That's definitely the sort of thing atheists do. DB: Do you know the word for virgin? JB: No. DB: It's Betula, and Almah was used which means young married woman. JB: That's not what I studied. It's irrelevant if you don't know it anyway. I don't know how a car engine works but if someone were to tell me what a carburettor did I couldn't say they're wrong based on the fact I studied bicycles.
lol wtf? 18:50 "Species age like individuals", except individuals actually die from the failure of their organs or uncontrolled replication of errors, while at the population level that is not true since mutations that lead to death before reproduction are not passed on or are at least less passed on until they are eliminated or acquire a stable equilibrium and the mutations that lead to death after reproduction are no longer a problem for the propagation of the population (population will not die), not to mention the fact that over time populations tend to split and diverge and even if a population dies a species will likely survive same goes for all the other multiple levels of division that have occurred from the first organisms until now: all the genuses, families, orders, classes, phylums, kingdoms, domains and so on... What a load of ignorance (or lies, which is far worse) from someone that is supposed to be a generally reliable source of information and knowledge. Apparently he didn't even bother to read up on studies on the subject which show the opposite of what he claims (i.e. general increase in fitness in the E Coli long term evolution experiment).
Oners82 He's not a dude; He is your savior - Jesus died for you that you may have eternal life in Heaven. If you were the only person alive, He would still have died for you because he is eternal love, the source of all love. God is love.
***** There is a reason why no one making videos about "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". There is also a reason why people make videos about God; Jesus. People choose to find reasons to believe in God and there are those that look for reasons to not believe in him. What do you think is the motivator? I personally think that those that look for reasons not to believe in God are angry with Him due to some misfortune that may have happened in their lives.
1:38:30 , sums up the actual knowledge of Jerry Bergman, this guy is one of most arrogant person I have seen in long time. he works only with irreducible complexity .
OK - as a retired amateur historian of natural philosophy, I found this the most fatuous debate I have ever had the misfortune of watching! Bergman's "scientific" credentials are obviously suspect because in refuting the validity of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, he is claiming knowledge superior to that of EVERY "first tier" university and research laboratory on Planet Earth. As Bergman claims to be a "scientist", he should know better than to make assertions without providing supporting evidence. In reviewing the debate - which I found very painful - I did not hear Bergman provide any verifiable evidence for any of his assertions. He claims numerous Creationist/ID university professors stay "in the closet" for fear of being fired from their jobs. Well now - I wonder whether Bergman would be happy to have as his regular doctor, a doctor who did not accept as fact the germ theory of disease - or that his doctor believed babies were delivered by storks. Would Bergman consider it acceptable for a professor of astrophysics, cosmology, geology, theoretical physics, or biology in a university, to be allowed to continue with his/her tenure if he/she believed the Earth was flat and populated by Unicorns. The only non-fatuous part of the debate were the extremely erudite, logical, and coherent arguments that were put forth by Barker. Bergman kept picking up books from the table beside his "pulpit" which somehow were meant to support his assertions. I suggest his "scientific" credentials would be enhanced a hundred-fold if he were to read "Life's Greatest Secret: The Race to Crack The Genetic Code" (Matthew Cobb). Zeus be praised!
You seem to be talking down at Bergman from your 'superior' position of a mainstream scientist. I am a professor of medicine and dean of a medical school, and I am a creationist who believes in the literal 6 days of creation. Yet, I operate on eyes successfully everyday and give praise to God. There is a document circulating on the internet called 'Dissent from Darwin'. It has been signed by thousands of Phds from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford, MIT, Caltech etc. These are not morons. Other people would have signed it but for fear of losing tenure due to the Darwinian terror that sweeps American academia. The theory of Darwin has had its day and is only being propped up by terror. Soon, that will cave.
TOM NEEDHAM...I will believe in "natural selection" when I can push my cart in WalMart and the items I selected on my list just "naturally" jump into my cart! Watch my videos and learn! Shalom........
Overall pretty well done. However the dismissal of the prophetic elements of the bible shows a bit of a lack of knowledge, that they are all vague or mistranslated. Some indeed may seem a stretch and there will be the possible of 'lucky guesses' but there are many more pinpoint prophecies. I did a study on Daniel's 70 7's and it was correct to the day, 173880 days after the decree to rebuild the temple was when Jesus rode in on the donkey, and then was cut off from the people. I think people should know the reason why Evolution was attacked so much is without naturalistic evolution, the only alternative is some form of outside influence / intelligence in creation. Multiverse theory is no greater than the cosmic sperm theory (forgot the exact name) that life was seeded from another source, it's circular logic. In the end there has to be something eternal that started everything, otherwise you would be going back to infinity always needing something to create the item, and then something to create that creator, etc. From scripture you can see extra-temperal knowledge, and as much as much as athiests love to take verses out of context, a God who is righteous and holy, and dealing more harshly with his own people for their sin than the other nations. "Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, `It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land'; whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you."
Trevor - you don't seem to realise that the authors of the NT constructed their stories to retrospectively fit to the OT. The credibility of the NT was totally dependent on this - and the authors knew it.
elgar104 elgar, i would encourage you to think on some things, and see if history and sense validate or discredit the theory. Think on these: 1: If the apostles simply wrote things to match, including the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then they knew these things to be a lie. Can you justify then how each lived selfless lives (no gain), and willingly died equally horrendous deaths if they knew it was a lie? It's one thing to die for something you believe, but to die for something you know to be false is another matter. 2: Does history match that these events where just written to match the old testament? I would research the various extra-biblical references to Christ. neverthirsty dot org has a page "Historical Jesus" with quotes and references to the various external references to Christ and his followers from roman historical records and other similar sources. Most of all, i would ask yourself why you attribute to this theory. The new testament matches the old testament, timelines, the people, their actions, etc (which history verifies, not just writing). It is common when someone doesn't want to believe something that no matter how much the evidence does not point to it they will take the path that doesn't make them confront what they do not want to believe. I pray you think carefully and really do some research, i have taken on the hard questions of the opposite side and seen if i could find logical and reasonable answers to each question. in all things we must use our reason. If you have questions, please ask, i would be more than happy to go into more detail.
YOu are under some major misapprehensions. You hold to them because you want to believe. Not because they are true. 1) The Gospels were not written by the apostles. Either anonymous authors and in the case of JOhn - mulitple authors unknown. Did they write to suit an agenda? Of course they did, as the mistakes they made betray. Since the apostles were not the authors - your point about them dieing for a cause is moot. In any case - dieing for a cause is in no sense proof of its truth. Or else you would have to say that 911 proves islam is true and not Christianity. 2) There are no extra biblical references to Christ. The nearest you have is Josephus - and a reference to Jesus as brother of James.... The rest is proven later forgery. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Jesus is a euhemerized creation, one that draws on a number of contemporary Gods, and so sufficiently familiar to the illiterate peasants as to encourage defection from other religons with minimal inconvenience. It was extremely important to the early Christians that they could prove lineage from the Torah. They drew credibility and congregation from doing this. Paul knew exactly what he was doing. He was a politician - and a smart one.
elgar104 I believe you didn't read my message properly. In response to point 1, i wrote "It's one thing to die for something you believe, but to die for something you know to be false is another matter." And the accounts of their deaths are both from church history as well as general history. 2: You say there is no extra biblical reference, yet i just gave you a site that lists the extra biblical references that you can verify, i've done so with a couple. For example, Lucian the Greek Historian, Phlegon, the Papyri Graecae Magicae, etc. Please see "Historical Jesus" link on the neverthirsty org, each item has references that you can look up and verify. Take a step back and analyze. You have claimed i believe because i want to with no evidence, i have presented evidence, i hope you take the time to take a look.
Trey Fayas Lucian lived in 2nd C AD - not a contemporary account - and he reflects on 'Christians' - not Christ. Phlegon also not a contemporary - Papyri Graecae is not a history - and it includes a discourse on Mithras - I assume you dont think this proves Mithras was real? No - the only contemporary historian who even slightly mentions Jesus (if it is indeed the same person) was Josephus. Fact. And given the wonders he supposedly performed - the fact that they didnt rate a mention anywhere in such a 'slow news period' for Judea - means it was very likely a later fabriaction or euhemerized conflation. And you have mis understood the point I made. I never said people died willing for a cause they didnt believe in. The 911 terroists believed in their cause. Many early Christians were Im sure in earnest - but being in earnest doesnt prove a belief true. There are many who have been brainwashed into dieing for a cult. Waco, Texas, anyone? So your bag remains empty sir. And even were you to provide me with Jesus's tax returns - you would still have all your work in front of you to prove the man was divine..
one cannot prove existence of god by thinking--his or her existence can be proven only by our five senses and they tell us there is no god!! so, god, nevertheless, may exists--it is just that we cannot hear, see, smell, taste, and touch god like we can a blossom, a rat, a woman......
I'd be very sceptical to artcles published with monetary support from churches......very sceptical. It would be like trusting research on genetically modified food sponsored by Monsanto.
Kind of like secular scientists who make their living by receiving grants. In other words, if their research doesn't reveal something interesting or, even worse, find something that goes against the current evolution propaganda, their money is pulled. This system for scientific system encourages dishonesty and trumped-up finds.
Oners82 No one has ever, ever documented a mutation that has increased information in the genome of any organism. Conversely, there are detrimental mutations documented every generation. We are devolving. Look up the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. That LAW, which is proven mathematically, means nature has no option but to wind down. Sorry dude. Don't drink the Kool Aid.
Oners82 I think you mean to say the earth is not a CLOSED system. Let's try to use the correct verbage. Shall we bud? I agree the earth is not a closed system, but the universe is. You see, no matter what you choose as your system, net entropy still has to increase. So, evolution is in direct conflict with this law. Now go Google that so you can come up with someone else's rebuttal. PS Let's be careful talking about education. You have no idea who you are speaking with.
Oners82 The word is "verbiage." Sorry about the typo. Now you can look it up in the dictionary and see that it doesn't apply to verbs only. Is this where I put "FACEPALM?" And Oh boy you really got me with the "speaking with" observation. You should be proud of yourself. You must be an English wizz too. Oh, did I spell wizz wrong. Make sure to correct me on that. Okay bud? Also your sentence, "You know nothing about science, you make up words and your grammar is atrocious so let's not pretend that you have an education shall we bud." is a run on sentence consisting of no less than 5 independent clauses. So, can we dispense with the little school girl corrections? Now getting to your argument above. The universe is a closed system by its very definition. The UNI-verse is the only system in existence. There is only one. Please spare me the multiple universe nonsense that is a product of zero empirical evidence. Also, even in an open system, dumping energy into an environment without direction and design only complicates matters. In other words, it tends to speed entropy. "The statement in integral form, namely that the entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form, which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not." . Arnold Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (New York Academic Press, 1956), p. 155. All in all, you are obviously very upset. I would ask why you get so hot under the collar about this stuff? If you are right, I am just a highly organized bag of chemicals that will fall apart some day. BTW-don't you have a job or something? How do you find the time for all this?
Jesus could not have been the Messiah because the Messiah must communicate with people on the air like we are doing now, phone, radio, tv or internet, besides the Seven Times ( 2548 years ) ended in our time which means that The Messiah must be here now.
Crazy G. Kuklinski You are missing the point. My argument specifically here on this post is the basic difference between atheism and theism. Ample general revelation has been given to all. Mankind is without excuse in this area. It is denial when a soul turns their back on that which they know is real.
Randy Pacchioli No, you're missing it. Please stop bothering me. I don't fuck with people with 30 less IQ points than me. I'm a recovered alcoholic. One must have extreme self-honesty to overcome this. So you're saying I am honest about this, but lying to myself about God? Why does God NEVER EVER heal amputees? If I saw any actual evidence, I might actually believe. So, while God wanted you to have a nice new ipod, he wasn't saving 9,000,000 children that die of starvation every year. You're in a human sacrifice cult bro. I guess God had a plan for your life but not for theirs.
Oners82 Bible fits perfectly : must be written that way. Bible doesn't fit perfectly : must not be from God. Author given in letter : scholars have no consensus, throw it out. Author not given in letter : throw it out, no author. Writers die for the cause : must be a written myth. Writers not willing to die : most not be real what they claimed. Secular writers mention Christ and his followers : forgeries or just about the movement after many hoaxed. Secular writers don't mention : see it never happened. Tell me again how you are objective? Or how can one argue with someone when no matter what evidence is given it will just be either disregarded or twisted?
1 your conditions make prophecy impossible, grats. 2 then I suppose the Paul letters are equally valid since they were authored with references? He validates the gospel message quite throughly. 3 making general examples. 4 good list here that includes the Roman historians carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people 5 you are not objective because you start with your own presuppositions that God doesn't exist and such events listed are impossible. Prophecy timeline in my Daniel video is pretty spot on, you should view it, also details all the major empires in detail and was part of the septuagent before all the events came to pass
Trevor Fayas Trevor you only have to answer and give " a reason of the hope that is in you " not convince fools of their own foolishness But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 1 Peter 3:15 If an atheist asks you why you believe, asks for " a reason of the hope that is in you " then tell em then if they don't want to believe they can kick rocks, God will let people go to hell that want to go to hell
The world is waiting for a falsifiable experiment that would demonstrate the existence of God. The logical arguments are not convincing. Why not agree with Paul when he says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." No one knows if the Bible is true; it has to be taken on faith.
Ben Easy if the atheism/evolution worldview were true then atheists and everybody else would just be skin bags of meat and bones and chemical reactions interacting with other skin bags of meat and bones and chemical reactions and it would neither be wrong or right if one skin bag of meat, bones and chemical reactions raped and/or hit in head with a hammer another skin bag of meat, bones and chemical reactions. The fact that every professing atheist disagrees with that shows atheism is false because their God given conscience tells you that they are not simply a skin bag of meat, bones and chemical reactions and their God given conscience gives them knowledge of basic right and wrong. Stealing From God by Frank Turek If you think atheists have reason, evidence, and science on their side, think again! Award-winning author Dr. Frank Turek (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist) will show you how atheists steal reason, evidence, science, and other arguments from God in trying to make their case for atheism. If that sounds contradictory, it’s because it is! Atheists can’t make their case without appealing to realities only theism can explain. In an engaging and memorable way, Stealing from God exposes these intellectual crimes atheists are committing and then provides four powerful reasons for why Christianity is true.
Real words of Dan Barker......Hissth...hisssth....hisssthh.....Did God really say...? Just because you don't understand the bible in context you have a hissy fit of indignation. To invoke a circular reason on a Creator who states clearly that He has no beginning or end, and that He has proven He sees the future ahead of its completion in our world. Try looking at fulfilled prophecy...or is that a fantastic fluke as well.
Crazy G. Kuklinski If you don't understand the beginning of the Bible, you can't begin to grasp the continuity of its unfolding. It would take quite awhile to put things in sequence as you are supposed to read it in order.I actually like refuting this commonly used by atheists 'chapter and verse' that is usually pulled up from talk origins site. Do you want to go ahead or am I wasting my time? Right now I am on my way out so it will have to wait for tomorrow anyways. In the meantime, please think about your answer, for if you are not sincere, you are declaring that you really don't want to know, but just want an excuse to not find out.That would be a-typical atheist.
Sharon Taylor And yes, please contextually show me how it is okay for God to order the slaughter of infants. I can't think of a possible context where that would be morally okay, can you? If you can, you're insane. Why does God hold himself to a lower standard than he holds us? Then do yourself a favor and read Leviticus 14 and ask yourself if you think that literature reflects the level of intelligence of the designer of this universe. What a joke.
Crazy G. Kuklinski Iam going to make some assumptions here in order to open an out for you. I'm not interested in "winning an argument" type mentality, For you to see some things from a perspective you may not have considered before is the goal at this point in time.. I will assume you are from a western nation now and given Kuklinski is your surname you have Polish roots. This would suggest, and again I am only assuming these things, there is a deep seated abhorrence to dictatorship along the lines of those like Stalin, and Hitler, and that somehow you have aligned the God of the bible in such a vein? Am I on the right road for you this far, because I think it is important and I have to go to work before I continue later.
You'll have to "win the argument" because that's the only way you can convince me, through logic. I love to debate; I used to be on the other side. Richard Leonard Kuklinski was the most powerful man that ever lived. He never had a rats chance in hell at a normal life. I am a quarter Polish but Kuklinski is not the name. You have assumed a huge amount, and I used to think the same thing. "These people just don't want a dictator." I was actually much happier as a believer. My unbelief is not a choice, it is a very sad conclusion. Better just leave it alone. Even though you're clearly a genius, you're not going to convince me that God wrote the Bible. He'd have to be an idiot. I wish I did believe in God, but it couldn't ever be the God of the Bible because he contradicts himself constantly. Keep your faith. Your life may be better for it, no doubt. This says nothing of its truth. Please don't respond. You flatter yourself. For the record, you still haven't answered one single charge. I'll assume this time: you're not up for it. This is twice you have responded with nothing. Please don't waste my time. Christmas is a hell of a lot more fun when you believe in Santa Claus.
Creation demands a creator. It is the creator of the Bible, like it or not, believe it or not. And we will all see one day, even if & when we die because the soul will be judged. That means waking up from death to be judged. Every non believer. Yea, sorry about that.
You are standing on the floor. You don't fall, so logically the floor is standing over another floor. But you can't go forever, it doesn't make sense. So there most be a Prime Floor, different from the other floor. The Prime Floor supports all of the floors above it, hence it is infinitely strong. The Prime Floor also worries whether I'm gay or not.
There must necessarily needs be the concession that finite can't even a little bit contain (IN)FINITE. Nor can dark comprehend LIGHT. Laws were (Put-In-Place), to also prevent us from ascending.
There must necessarily needs be a time when finite must concede with, "I don't know".
The atheist's argument is founded with rebellion, pride and arrogance and not fact.
They simply will NOT have this deity Reign over them. But fortunately. It's not their choice.
Damn, Dan Barker is the man! Love watching and hearing him debate! "Do you know what the Hebrew word for virgin?"..."uhhh, no I don't". Priceless! 1:38:30
Care to elaborate on what his false assertion was?
Bergman seems to me to complain a lot - particularly about the persecution of Christians and evolution deniers. The "poor me" syndrome. I'd never seen him in a debate, so I was hoping that Barker would have a worthy opponent, but Bergman disappoints me in this respect.
Dr Berman's wife left him when he lost his job by coming against the militant darwinists, so he has a reason to complain whole book about it many others same situation
Slaughter of the Dissidents
by Jerry Bergman and Kevin Wirth
Beginning at about 1:09:38, Bergman says: "What evidence is there clearly that there is no God? Have you looked in *every corner of the universe* to determine whether or not there is no God? One cannot say there is no God until you've searched everywhere and of course one has not done that." Is he seriously asking these questions? Does one have to search "every corner of the universe" for an OMNIPRESENT God? Or has Bergman forgotten that his God is supposed to be omnipresent?
The more I hear apologists speak the more I’m stunned at how pathetic their arguments are.
Beginning at about 1:09:51, Bergman says: "Proof is also relative. What you say is proof *depends upon the person.* ... Obviously *proof is in the eye of the beholder.* What may be proof to me is not proof to you." And he calls himself a *scientist?* No wonder his articles are rejected by scientific journals. He invokes the judicial system as "proof" that proof is in the eye of the beholder, but, like so many other Christian apologists before (and after) him, he resorts to a *false analogy.* The standards of judicial proof are unique to the judicial system and apply nowhere else, especially when it comes to criminal law. The nature of judicial proof is intended primarily to protect against convicting a person of a crime he did not commit. The standards of judicial proof do not-and CANNOT-apply to proving the existence of God. And to imply that what he considers "proof" of the existence of God may not be what Dan Barker or others consider proof of the existence of God is simply a colossal cop out.
I use to enjoy watching these debates but not so much anymore. It's hard to watch someone deny truth and believe a lie . When a heart is so hardened it's like a brick wall .
I feel the same - it gets depressing, actually sickening, hearing so much Christian madness.
After seeing enough of these debates, you start to see a trend and you can sum up the where is gonna go. Theists are believers but they don't use their opening arguments to present reasons to believe. They are obsessed with atheism and that pretty much consumes their arguments. It is like a suspect in a crime case arguing against law or the judge rather than giving support for his innocence
Just one point - regarding Dr Bergman's suggestion that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school: he forgets that there are MANY creation myths in human culture, so to be fair we'd have to teach all of them alongside evolution.
He assumes that it would be ONLY the particular brand of anti-evolutionary creationism that he subscribes to. Upon what authority would one ever make that call? You'd have Muslim clerics demanding their curricula as well - and rightly so. This is a very bad idea from the get-go.
"there are MANY creation myths"
Yeah, it's incredible how they vindicate the Genesis account considering that they are similar to Genesis (ofcourse there are distortions) implying that the creation in Genesis actually happened.
@@BhikPersonal Genesis copies others' creation accounts. Why would you think Genesis was the first creation account? The World evolved thanks to nature, no God was required.
Thanks for posting this debate! I wasn't able to make it, but glad I can watch it now online!
At about 16:46, Bergman makes a truly confounding statement. Speaking of mutations, he declares: "You are not going to get evolution when you go 99 steps backward and only one step forward." This is his conclusion from his "discovery" from "the research" that 99.9 percent of mutations are harmful. Does he *really* think that *that* is how evolution through natural selection works? Steps backwards and forwards? Really? For a professor of biology, he is astoundingly thick-or he is being deliberately mendacious. Either way, he is an absolute disgrace to his profession.
Beginning at about 1:11:03, Bergman says: "Billions of people in the world believe there is evidence for God. So, just by the numbers, billions of people believe." Is that really his argument in support of the existence of God? Consider this: There was a time when everyone in the world (millions of people at the time) believed that the Earth is flat. So, by Bergman's reasoning, the Earth really was flat at the time. After all, everyone on Earth believed it to be so. And everyone at one time believed that the Sun moved around the Earth. By Bergman's logic, that is proof enough that the Sun moves around the Earth (or did at that time). And this man calls himself a scientist? The man is an insult to the intelligence of his audience.
Beginning at about 14:00, Bergman attempts to refute homology in typical Christian-apologist fashion with a rather inane false analogy. His argument is that cars have similar parts (and he rattled of a whole list of them-quite unnecessarily), but that does not mean (so he argues) that one car evolved from another. The analogy is absurd-and it is false because we know exactly how cars are designed and manufactured, and we know that they do not reproduce using information encoded in genes. Cars and living organisms could not be more dissimilar and therefore one cannot serve as an analogy for the other. However, while we known that cars *themselves* did not evolve through reproductive means, we also know that the *design* of cars did evolve, and earlier models served as a sort of "genetic blueprint" for later models. We can trace the evolution of car design, from the very simple early models to the highly complex precision vehicles that we know today. This is, of course, not evolution by *natural* selection, but the underlying process is the same: features that did not work well for a given purpose were adjusted, redesigned, tinkered with, to make them "fit" their purpose more closely-with some element of trial and error involved along the way. For example, the shape of the body of cars has become increasingly aerodynamic over time, a phenomenon that corresponds closely with the increasing speed that newer models were able to achieve. We can even trace the "family tree" of various makes and models of cars, much as we can trace the descent of various species of living organisms. So, far from refuting evolution and homology, Bergman's analogy actually serves to illustrate how evolution works, and thus to confirm it.
Thank you for keeping comment section open I greatly respect that. As both sides say they want to promote debate by my inference and simultaneously squelch it, by disabling comments.
Bergman : They never published my articles, hence God
At about 18:07, Bergman asks: "What causes aging?" He goes on to answer his own question: "The accumulation of mutations." Really? Is that what he, as a biology professor, thinks causes aging? He goes on to conclude from this false claim that "Evolution is true, it's a fact, but it's going the wrong way. We are not evolving upward, we are evolving downward." Is he not aware that the average human lifespan has increased dramatically over the last 150 years? Is he not aware that people in their 60s today have the same vitality and vigour as people in their 40s a generation ago? Quite apart from the sheer nonsense of the argument, he contradicts himself, for, having spent the last several minutes attempting to refute evolution (with absurd analogies to cars, and so on), he now admits that evolution "is true", "a fact". The man is a complete disaster.
The burden of proof is on the accuser . So who is accusing who ?
Dan Barker- excellent arguments as always. Jerry Bergman- obstinate and obtuse. He proves he knows a little about a lot and still gets it wrong or can’t give evidence. “I’ve read a lot of books.”
It you want an amazingly knowledgeable and witty debate with an atheist, go watch Christopher Hitchens.
If you want explanations of biblical history and inaccuracies, go watch Dr. Bart Ehrman.
Barker nailed it (no pun intended)...
I love how Bergman tells About alllllllllllllllll kinds of extensive research and proven facts on how true the bible is in every way.....but then gives absolutely no example as to the research conducted. I wonder how much of this debate he pulled straight from the pits of his congested bowls
Jaccob Bailey...watch my evidenses!
The speaker at the end said there is plenty of proof in the Bible, but it requires faith --- I guess he needs to look up the meaning of faith...
+Jeff Carlin excuse me?
***** --- The only thing the Bible proves is that some very ignorant people wrote it...
***** --- Amen...
Dan Barker nails it again
here's what "scientists" worship:
1. Hydrogen - Born of Water - John 3:5
2. Helium - the Sun - John 8:12
3. Lithium - the Rock - Deuteronomy 32:4
4. Beryllium - aquamarine gemstone - Daniel 10:6
5. Boron - the Cherub - Ezekiel 28:14
6. Carbon - the Fire - Luke 12:49
7. Nitrogen - white powder - Luke 3:22
Photon - The Light of the World - Phaethon was the son of God Helios with a mortal woman, and so Phaethon asked Helios to prove to him that he is indeed his father, and so pop gave lifted him up into heavens, and gave him the chariot of the sun, but the young hipster lost control of it, and almost set the world afire, himself drowning into the waters, as he fell from the sky.
Gravity - the apple in the garden - Genesis 3:3
Black Holes and White Holes - Isaiah 45:7
"Evolution, we're talking about going from Hydrogen to people"
This guy is an educator? To borrow from the theists all I can say is God help those kids.
Pretty poor showing by Bergman. Nothing but personal anecdote.
You know who could have been the guest of honor and settle this debate once and for all?.....
"Creationism is like asking 'who pops up the next Kleenex?' " -- Dan Barker
lol I'm stealing this.
klennta kleena klonoto
BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
+BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG Klaatu barada nikto is the password to open the kleenex box
Jerry is at the lower end of the apologetics.
Barker just curbstomps everyone he faces. Not even close.
Dan is the man!!
Congratulations Bergman on the worst set of debate "arguments" I have ever come across.
You wouldn't need apologetics if your claims were evidently true.
weaseldragon you don’t need the Big Bang theory if your claims were evidently true
weaseldragon.....evidenses are used since Romans 1: 20, says they are clearly seen in creation itself! Watch all of my videos and learn!
Shalom.....
If he can't even comprehend the burden of proof, then there's no reason to even entertain his ignorant ramblings.
Much of Bergman's argument against atheism is gripe and grievance regarding how badly he was treated by atheists when he became a Christian. But, whether his allegations of mistreatment by atheists are true or not, that really has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. The man comes across as an absolute flake, with no understanding of logical argumentation and what it means to participate in a debate. In addition to using the debate to gripe about how badly he was treated by atheists, he also uses it as an extended commercial for all the many books he has written. This shameless plugging of his books during the debate is an indication of what sort of person he is.
The culture in Science is not atheism, it is Science. If you explained every discovery as the work of God, we wouldn't call it science now would we? This is what get's me when it comes to these debates. Science is merely the word we use to describes humans ability to explain the natural world. It is our universal language at that human process. What other word would you like to use?
We were all atheists at one time. God I just heard him say "Doctor Bergman". He says" 98 % of Eminent Scientists don't believe in a God." Bergman, doesn't that tell you something? It is stunning to find that guys like him. ( I assume his Phd. is legit ) Duped into believing what he believes. and grovelling for some flimsy data to back up his claim. If he was in India , or Iran, he would be spouting his reverence for Islam after his departure from Atheism.
"98% of Eminent Scientists don't believe in a God." Bergman, doesn't that tell you something?"
The Ad Populam fallacy is fallacious.
"If he was in India, or Iran, he would be spouting his reference for Islam after his departure from atheism"
This is a fallacy of false equivalency and faulty analogy which is fallacious.
So, Jerry Bergman can just lie about anything he wants to make his case can he? Well, that sure makes it easier to win.
Hitler was an atheist? - probably why they had "God with us" on the belt buckle of every soldier, and why when declaring the oath of loyalty to the führer they said "I swear in front of almighty God my undying fealty to Adolf Hitler," - That's definitely the sort of thing atheists do.
DB: Do you know the word for virgin?
JB: No.
DB: It's Betula, and Almah was used which means young married woman.
JB: That's not what I studied.
It's irrelevant if you don't know it anyway. I don't know how a car engine works but if someone were to tell me what a carburettor did I couldn't say they're wrong based on the fact I studied bicycles.
Young woman having a baby is not a sign of anything special.. a virgin having a baby though, that is a sign of the divine
And your evidence for this is happening is...?
...none existent
BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG
Well...
Maybe.
I mean, we don't know of any verified example of a virgin having a baby, so it's a pointles hypothetical.
If You live in America, you have in god we trust, does that mean all americans believe in God
I have only heard the introduction and cant listen any further
+Nicky ya this is kind of ridiculous, and mind numbing in every way possible imo.
My left ear enjoyed this debate.
Excellent debate. But why was it filmed with a potato?
Dan's the man !!
lol wtf? 18:50 "Species age like individuals", except individuals actually die from the failure of their organs or uncontrolled replication of errors, while at the population level that is not true since mutations that lead to death before reproduction are not passed on or are at least less passed on until they are eliminated or acquire a stable equilibrium
and the mutations that lead to death after reproduction are no longer a problem for the propagation of the population (population will not die), not to mention the fact that over time populations tend to split and diverge and even if a population dies a species will likely survive same goes for all the other multiple levels of division that have occurred from the first organisms until now: all the genuses, families, orders, classes, phylums, kingdoms, domains and so on...
What a load of ignorance (or lies, which is far worse) from someone that is supposed to be a generally reliable source of information and knowledge. Apparently he didn't even bother to read up on studies on the subject which show the opposite of what he claims (i.e. general increase in fitness in the E Coli long term evolution experiment).
Before the debate reached 4 minutes, Jerry Bergman put up a slide, that spelled "commandments" wrong. Who will take him seriously? 😂
He never mentions racism.
Jesus loves you
Oners82 He's not a dude; He is your savior - Jesus died for you that you may have eternal life in Heaven. If you were the only person alive, He would still have died for you because he is eternal love, the source of all love. God is love.
***** There is a reason why no one making videos about "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". There is also a reason why people make videos about God; Jesus. People choose to find reasons to believe in God and there are those that look for reasons to not believe in him. What do you think is the motivator? I personally think that those that look for reasons not to believe in God are angry with Him due to some misfortune that may have happened in their lives.
i approve this message
"Read the books....."
It's all just words.
1:38:30 , sums up the actual knowledge of Jerry Bergman, this guy is one of most arrogant person I have seen in long time. he works only with irreducible complexity .
The theist repeated over and over that he had proof of God --- my question is why is he keeping it to himself...
OK - as a retired amateur historian of natural philosophy, I found this the most fatuous debate I have ever had the misfortune of watching! Bergman's "scientific" credentials are obviously suspect because in refuting the validity of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, he is claiming knowledge superior to that of EVERY "first tier" university and research laboratory on Planet Earth. As Bergman claims to be a "scientist", he should know better than to make assertions without providing supporting evidence. In reviewing the debate - which I found very painful - I did not hear Bergman provide any verifiable evidence for any of his assertions. He claims numerous Creationist/ID university professors stay "in the closet" for fear of being fired from their jobs. Well now - I wonder whether Bergman would be happy to have as his regular doctor, a doctor who did not accept as fact the germ theory of disease - or that his doctor believed babies were delivered by storks. Would Bergman consider it acceptable for a professor of astrophysics, cosmology, geology, theoretical physics, or biology in a university, to be allowed to continue with his/her tenure if he/she believed the Earth was flat and populated by Unicorns. The only non-fatuous part of the debate were the extremely erudite, logical, and coherent arguments that were put forth by Barker. Bergman kept picking up books from the table beside his "pulpit" which somehow were meant to support his assertions. I suggest his "scientific" credentials would be enhanced a hundred-fold if he were to read "Life's Greatest Secret: The Race to Crack The Genetic Code" (Matthew Cobb). Zeus be praised!
You seem to be talking down at Bergman from your 'superior' position of a mainstream scientist. I am a professor of medicine and dean of a medical school, and I am a creationist who believes in the literal 6 days of creation. Yet, I operate on eyes successfully everyday and give praise to God. There is a document circulating on the internet called 'Dissent from Darwin'. It has been signed by thousands of Phds from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford, MIT, Caltech etc. These are not morons. Other people would have signed it but for fear of losing tenure due to the Darwinian terror that sweeps American academia. The theory of Darwin has had its day and is only being propped up by terror. Soon, that will cave.
TOM NEEDHAM...I will believe in "natural selection" when I can push my cart in WalMart and the items I selected on my list just "naturally" jump into my cart!
Watch my videos and learn!
Shalom........
Nice
What's up with the sermon at the end? Annoying.
Overall pretty well done. However the dismissal of the prophetic elements of the bible shows a bit of a lack of knowledge, that they are all vague or mistranslated. Some indeed may seem a stretch and there will be the possible of 'lucky guesses' but there are many more pinpoint prophecies. I did a study on Daniel's 70 7's and it was correct to the day, 173880 days after the decree to rebuild the temple was when Jesus rode in on the donkey, and then was cut off from the people.
I think people should know the reason why Evolution was attacked so much is without naturalistic evolution, the only alternative is some form of outside influence / intelligence in creation. Multiverse theory is no greater than the cosmic sperm theory (forgot the exact name) that life was seeded from another source, it's circular logic.
In the end there has to be something eternal that started everything, otherwise you would be going back to infinity always needing something to create the item, and then something to create that creator, etc. From scripture you can see extra-temperal knowledge, and as much as much as athiests love to take verses out of context, a God who is righteous and holy, and dealing more harshly with his own people for their sin than the other nations.
"Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, `It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land'; whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out before you."
Trevor - you don't seem to realise that the authors of the NT constructed their stories to retrospectively fit to the OT. The credibility of the NT was totally dependent on this - and the authors knew it.
elgar104 elgar, i would encourage you to think on some things, and see if history and sense validate or discredit the theory. Think on these:
1: If the apostles simply wrote things to match, including the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then they knew these things to be a lie. Can you justify then how each lived selfless lives (no gain), and willingly died equally horrendous deaths if they knew it was a lie? It's one thing to die for something you believe, but to die for something you know to be false is another matter.
2: Does history match that these events where just written to match the old testament? I would research the various extra-biblical references to Christ. neverthirsty dot org has a page "Historical Jesus" with quotes and references to the various external references to Christ and his followers from roman historical records and other similar sources.
Most of all, i would ask yourself why you attribute to this theory. The new testament matches the old testament, timelines, the people, their actions, etc (which history verifies, not just writing). It is common when someone doesn't want to believe something that no matter how much the evidence does not point to it they will take the path that doesn't make them confront what they do not want to believe. I pray you think carefully and really do some research, i have taken on the hard questions of the opposite side and seen if i could find logical and reasonable answers to each question. in all things we must use our reason. If you have questions, please ask, i would be more than happy to go into more detail.
YOu are under some major misapprehensions. You hold to them because you want to believe. Not because they are true.
1) The Gospels were not written by the apostles. Either anonymous authors and in the case of JOhn - mulitple authors unknown. Did they write to suit an agenda? Of course they did, as the mistakes they made betray. Since the apostles were not the authors - your point about them dieing for a cause is moot.
In any case - dieing for a cause is in no sense proof of its truth. Or else you would have to say that 911 proves islam is true and not Christianity.
2) There are no extra biblical references to Christ. The nearest you have is Josephus - and a reference to Jesus as brother of James.... The rest is proven later forgery.
There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Jesus is a euhemerized creation, one that draws on a number of contemporary Gods, and so sufficiently familiar to the illiterate peasants as to encourage defection from other religons with minimal inconvenience.
It was extremely important to the early Christians that they could prove lineage from the Torah. They drew credibility and congregation from doing this. Paul knew exactly what he was doing. He was a politician - and a smart one.
elgar104 I believe you didn't read my message properly. In response to point 1, i wrote "It's one thing to die for something you believe, but to die for something you know to be false is another matter." And the accounts of their deaths are both from church history as well as general history.
2: You say there is no extra biblical reference, yet i just gave you a site that lists the extra biblical references that you can verify, i've done so with a couple. For example, Lucian the Greek Historian, Phlegon, the Papyri Graecae Magicae, etc. Please see "Historical Jesus" link on the neverthirsty org, each item has references that you can look up and verify.
Take a step back and analyze. You have claimed i believe because i want to with no evidence, i have presented evidence, i hope you take the time to take a look.
Trey Fayas
Lucian lived in 2nd C AD - not a contemporary account - and he reflects on 'Christians' - not Christ.
Phlegon also not a contemporary -
Papyri Graecae is not a history - and it includes a discourse on Mithras - I assume you dont think this proves Mithras was real?
No - the only contemporary historian who even slightly mentions Jesus (if it is indeed the same person) was Josephus. Fact. And given the wonders he supposedly performed - the fact that they didnt rate a mention anywhere in such a 'slow news period' for Judea - means it was very likely a later fabriaction or euhemerized conflation.
And you have mis understood the point I made. I never said people died willing for a cause they didnt believe in. The 911 terroists believed in their cause. Many early Christians were Im sure in earnest - but being in earnest doesnt prove a belief true. There are many who have been brainwashed into dieing for a cult. Waco, Texas, anyone?
So your bag remains empty sir. And even were you to provide me with Jesus's tax returns - you would still have all your work in front of you to prove the man was divine..
Jerry Bergman destroys Dan Barker here...
one cannot prove existence of god by thinking--his or her existence can be proven only by our five senses and they tell us there is no god!!
so, god, nevertheless, may exists--it is just that we cannot hear, see, smell, taste, and touch god like we can a blossom, a rat, a woman......
I'd be very sceptical to artcles published with monetary support from churches......very sceptical. It would be like trusting research on genetically modified food sponsored by Monsanto.
Kind of like secular scientists who make their living by receiving grants. In other words, if their research doesn't reveal something interesting or, even worse, find something that goes against the current evolution propaganda, their money is pulled. This system for scientific system encourages dishonesty and trumped-up finds.
Oners82 No one has ever, ever documented a mutation that has increased information in the genome of any organism. Conversely, there are detrimental mutations documented every generation. We are devolving. Look up the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. That LAW, which is proven mathematically, means nature has no option but to wind down. Sorry dude. Don't drink the Kool Aid.
Oners82 I think you mean to say the earth is not a CLOSED system. Let's try to use the correct verbage. Shall we bud? I agree the earth is not a closed system, but the universe is. You see, no matter what you choose as your system, net entropy still has to increase. So, evolution is in direct conflict with this law. Now go Google that so you can come up with someone else's rebuttal. PS Let's be careful talking about education. You have no idea who you are speaking with.
www.cheniere.org/books/aids/kindlingetc.html
Oners82 The word is "verbiage." Sorry about the typo. Now you can look it up in the dictionary and see that it doesn't apply to verbs only. Is this where I put "FACEPALM?" And Oh boy you really got me with the "speaking with" observation. You should be proud of yourself. You must be an English wizz too. Oh, did I spell wizz wrong. Make sure to correct me on that. Okay bud? Also your sentence, "You know nothing about science, you make up words and your grammar is atrocious so let's not pretend that you have an education shall we bud." is a run on sentence consisting of no less than 5 independent clauses. So, can we dispense with the little school girl corrections? Now getting to your argument above. The universe is a closed system by its very definition. The UNI-verse is the only system in existence. There is only one. Please spare me the multiple universe nonsense that is a product of zero empirical evidence. Also, even in an open system, dumping energy into an environment without direction and design only complicates matters. In other words, it tends to speed entropy.
"The statement in integral form, namely that the entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form, which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not." . Arnold Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (New York Academic Press, 1956), p. 155.
All in all, you are obviously very upset. I would ask why you get so hot under the collar about this stuff? If you are right, I am just a highly organized bag of chemicals that will fall apart some day. BTW-don't you have a job or something? How do you find the time for all this?
Jesus could not have been the Messiah because the Messiah must communicate with people on the air like we are doing now, phone, radio, tv or internet, besides the Seven Times ( 2548 years ) ended in our time which means that The Messiah must be here now.
Barker knows God exists.
And you know this through your special Jesus augmented psychic abilities?
Actually the basic knowledge of the existence of God is known by all through natural revelation.
Really? You're a genius huh? If that were true there will be only one religion you jackass.
Crazy G. Kuklinski You are missing the point. My argument specifically here on this post is the basic difference between atheism and theism. Ample general revelation has been given to all. Mankind is without excuse in this area. It is denial when a soul turns their back on that which they know is real.
Randy Pacchioli No, you're missing it. Please stop bothering me. I don't fuck with people with 30 less IQ points than me.
I'm a recovered alcoholic. One must have extreme self-honesty to overcome this. So you're saying I am honest about this, but lying to myself about God?
Why does God NEVER EVER heal amputees? If I saw any actual evidence, I might actually believe.
So, while God wanted you to have a nice new ipod, he wasn't saving 9,000,000 children that die of starvation every year.
You're in a human sacrifice cult bro. I guess God had a plan for your life but not for theirs.
No !
One little serpent and fruit salad ingredients created all this mess.
Oners82 Bible fits perfectly : must be written that way. Bible doesn't fit perfectly : must not be from God.
Author given in letter : scholars have no consensus, throw it out. Author not given in letter : throw it out, no author.
Writers die for the cause : must be a written myth. Writers not willing to die : most not be real what they claimed.
Secular writers mention Christ and his followers : forgeries or just about the movement after many hoaxed. Secular writers don't mention : see it never happened.
Tell me again how you are objective? Or how can one argue with someone when no matter what evidence is given it will just be either disregarded or twisted?
1 your conditions make prophecy impossible, grats. 2 then I suppose the Paul letters are equally valid since they were authored with references? He validates the gospel message quite throughly. 3 making general examples. 4 good list here that includes the Roman historians carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people 5 you are not objective because you start with your own presuppositions that God doesn't exist and such events listed are impossible. Prophecy timeline in my Daniel video is pretty spot on, you should view it, also details all the major empires in detail and was part of the septuagent before all the events came to pass
Nicely put Trevor.
Trevor Fayas Trevor you only have to answer and give " a reason of the hope that is in you " not convince fools of their own foolishness
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 1 Peter 3:15
If an atheist asks you why you believe, asks for " a reason of the hope that is in you " then tell em then if they don't want to believe they can kick rocks, God will let people go to hell that want to go to hell
The world is waiting for a falsifiable experiment that would demonstrate the existence of God. The logical arguments are not convincing. Why not agree with Paul when he says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." No one knows if the Bible is true; it has to be taken on faith.
Ben Easy
if the atheism/evolution worldview were true then atheists and everybody else would just be skin bags of meat and bones and chemical reactions interacting with other skin bags of meat and bones and chemical reactions and it would neither be wrong or right if one skin bag of meat, bones and chemical reactions raped and/or hit in head with a hammer another skin bag of meat, bones and chemical reactions.
The fact that every professing atheist disagrees with that shows atheism is false because their God given conscience tells you that they are not simply a skin bag of meat, bones and chemical reactions and their God given conscience gives them knowledge of basic right and wrong.
Stealing From God by Frank Turek
If you think atheists have reason, evidence, and science on their side, think again! Award-winning author Dr. Frank Turek (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist) will show you how atheists steal reason, evidence, science, and other arguments from God in trying to make their case for atheism. If that sounds contradictory, it’s because it is! Atheists can’t make their case without appealing to realities only theism can explain. In an engaging and memorable way, Stealing from God exposes these intellectual crimes atheists are committing and then provides four powerful reasons for why Christianity is true.
goosebumps are not evidence of the holy spirit, they are evidence of evolution.
If a burning in the bossom is evidence of god, what is a breezy rattle of the spincter evidence of?
+ismokeweed420 goosebumps are proof of everything and anything. As for the breezy rattle of the sphincter well that's proof if I ever smelt it.
aye I It's probably holy spirit gone over ...
+aye “blank” I you, sir, are an imbecile.
Real words of Dan Barker......Hissth...hisssth....hisssthh.....Did God really say...? Just because you don't understand the bible in context you have a hissy fit of indignation. To invoke a circular reason on a Creator who states clearly that He has no beginning or end, and that He has proven He sees the future ahead of its completion in our world. Try looking at fulfilled prophecy...or is that a fantastic fluke as well.
You must love 1 Samuel 15:3. I'd love for you to put that one in context for me.
Crazy G. Kuklinski If you don't understand the beginning of the Bible, you can't begin to grasp the continuity of its unfolding. It would take quite awhile to put things in sequence as you are supposed to read it in order.I actually like refuting this commonly used by atheists 'chapter and verse' that is usually pulled up from talk origins site. Do you want to go ahead or am I wasting my time? Right now I am on my way out so it will have to wait for tomorrow anyways. In the meantime, please think about your answer, for if you are not sincere, you are declaring that you really don't want to know, but just want an excuse to not find out.That would be a-typical atheist.
Sharon Taylor And yes, please contextually show me how it is okay for God to order the slaughter of infants.
I can't think of a possible context where that would be morally okay, can you? If you can, you're insane. Why does God hold himself to a lower standard than he holds us?
Then do yourself a favor and read Leviticus 14 and ask yourself if you think that literature reflects the level of intelligence of the designer of this universe. What a joke.
Crazy G. Kuklinski Iam going to make some assumptions here in order to open an out for you. I'm not interested in "winning an argument" type mentality, For you to see some things from a perspective you may not have considered before is the goal at this point in time.. I will assume you are from a western nation now and given Kuklinski is your surname you have Polish roots. This would suggest, and again I am only assuming these things, there is a deep seated abhorrence to dictatorship along the lines of those like Stalin, and Hitler, and that somehow you have aligned the God of the bible in such a vein? Am I on the right road for you this far, because I think it is important and I have to go to work before I continue later.
You'll have to "win the argument" because that's the only way you can convince me, through logic. I love to debate; I used to be on the other side.
Richard Leonard Kuklinski was the most powerful man that ever lived. He never had a rats chance in hell at a normal life.
I am a quarter Polish but Kuklinski is not the name.
You have assumed a huge amount, and I used to think the same thing. "These people just don't want a dictator."
I was actually much happier as a believer. My unbelief is not a choice, it is a very sad conclusion. Better just leave it alone. Even though you're clearly a genius, you're not going to convince me that God wrote the Bible. He'd have to be an idiot.
I wish I did believe in God, but it couldn't ever be the God of the Bible because he contradicts himself constantly.
Keep your faith. Your life may be better for it, no doubt. This says nothing of its truth.
Please don't respond. You flatter yourself. For the record, you still haven't answered one single charge. I'll assume this time: you're not up for it. This is twice you have responded with nothing. Please don't waste my time.
Christmas is a hell of a lot more fun when you believe in Santa Claus.
Cheesehead vs whine.
jerry became a chtistian to sell more books... jerry keep it up, you are converting more people to atheism with you weak argument
Creation demands a creator. It is the creator of the Bible, like it or not, believe it or not. And we will all see one day, even if & when we die because the soul will be judged. That means waking up from death to be judged. Every non believer. Yea, sorry about that.
Dans knowledge is not going to work out.
The fact he wants to live for eternity shows his bias.