-12 votes

Atheist Challenge

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/116/204-the-mists-of-time/

I would like to challenge any and all atheists on this site to watch this video, and refute it with evidence of course as this man does, and see what kind of discussion comes out of this. Let's see what you atheists can do with this one, it should be interesting. Watch the video or you are disqualified. I will hit you with more after this. Just curious to see how an atheist can deal with this evidence and am open minded to their opinions and evidence to refute this video.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Evil: Adultery Evolutionary

Evil: Adultery
Evolutionary Function: ?

Evil: Fornication
Evolutionary Function: ?

Evil: Hatred
Evolutionary Function: ?

Evil: Strife
Evolutionary Function: ?

Evil: Envyings
Evolutionary Function: ?

Evil: Murders
Evolutionary Function: ?

Evil: Drunkenness
Evolutionary Function: ?

Evil: Evolutionary Function
Why the need to lie, steal, cheat and kill to perpetuate?

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Evil: Adultery Evolutionary

Evil: Adultery
Evolutionary Function: Seeking healthier/ younger mates

Evil: Fornication
Evolutionary Function: Satisfies biological urge towards reproduction

Evil: Hatred
Evolutionary Function: Emotional impulse that may lead to murder/theft of/from subject thus reducing competition for mates and resources

Evil: Strife
Evolutionary Function: Competition for mates and resources

Evil: Envyings
Evolutionary Function: Emotional impulse that may lead to murder/theft of/from subject thus reducing competition for mates and resources

Evil: Murders
Evolutionary Function: Reducing competition for mates and resources

Evil: Drunkenness
Evolutionary Function: Loss of inhibitions and judgement may increase odds of fornication

Evil: Evolutionary Function
Why the need to lie, steal, cheat and kill to perpetuate?

See text above

Then The

PTB are doing nothing wrong. It is all just evolutionary function.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

If you think very simply then

If you think very simply then yes.

If you possess the higher faculties of a human being then no.

One simple question,

Where does your God come from?

If God made the universe than who made God?

The concept of God carries with it that of eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. The idea of God does not imply a creation from something else.

One simple question,
Where do your rights come from? If not God, then Nature? Did nature give you intrinsic worth? For what? And why? And how?

And what kind of master is Nature? Has it not imbued you with the power to subdue those weaker than you? Is this not the foundational principle of evolution, that the universal order is to see to it that the weak are destroyed by the strong?

You make decisions in life choosing between what you believe is right and wrong. Isn't your belief in right and wrong similar to the belief of those who believe in God. Can you justify where your values come from, and why they are meaningful, without expressing a higher moral law?

Simple response

As you put it god is only a concept, and as long as were making him up out of thin air then why not just say he has no begining and no end along with it. Complete nonsense. When we don't have to prove anything or even have any kind of evidence we can make up child like logic to explain anything and proclaim it as truth.

I dont need feer of some all powerfull magic man to keep me from raping and steeling from my neighbor, it is simply not in anyones best interest to behave that way. If someone needs a higher power to keep them from behaving in a self destructive manor then they are simply weak mentally.

Further more if there was a god he would have absolutely no concern for how we live our lives or what we are even doing. Due to the vastness of the univers gods attention to you would be like you being concerned about a one grain of sand twenty feet out to sea on a beach in china.

Simple Response?

Concepts are rooted in experiences and observations regarding the nature of reality. Libertarianism, environmentalism, non-interventionism, communism, socialism, etc etc, are all concepts striving to make sense of reality, and that does not necessarily mean that they are pure fiction.

Your rationale for acting morally, i.e. not raping or stealing, is that it's not in your interest. Therefore, you believe that morality can be logically reduced to that which is in a person's interest. This is a profoundly troubling, as well as weak argument. Since your interest is only approximate to your life, you cannot speak for why it is not in another person's interest to steal from you if they are hungry, or to rape you if they are lustful. In many cases present desires outweigh any considerations regarding future consequences.

Current physics teaches that the preconditions for the universe were so finely tuned that at the time of the big bang, if the universe expanded in the slightest degree faster or slower than it has, then the universe would collapse and there would be no you or I to discuss these things. We live on a tiny pebble orbiting a giant thermonuclear reactor in a universe too big for any human being to grasp. And while on this little pebble we are confronted with profound questions and decisions in life, about who we are, what our destiny is and how we should treat one another.

I accept that only a creator God can provide the answers to these questions that virtually all people throughout time, have sought an answer for.

wtf

you just responded with a bunch of gibberish, I mean how do you take yourself serious lmao I can do that too...

The sun, the fire forever burns
created 72,000,000 qudabigillion years ago
forever it lasts, filling the sky with lakes of fire
lighting a lantern for all to be guided by
like a deep bond from a mother to new born
this is how I know that the sun loves me
the sun luls my children to sleep, oh how lovely she sings
the sun, our guide, my love, worship her, forever
because the sun has no ending, she is the great first breath
oh holy sun

I changed it up to match the Egyptians mindset since that is what the bible is written from, Egyptian mythology :)

You just got PAULED!

You should take yourself seriously.

"created 72,000,000 qudabigillion years ago."
Can you escape the creationist mindset?

"this is how I know that the sun loves me" Egotistical musings.

"the sun luls my children to sleep, oh how lovely she sings the sun, our guide, my love, worship her, forever" Anthropomorphism. Assign human qualities to inanimate objects.

Many of the items you described are not real, not necessary.

Some are your commands, but contingent on the readers acceptance. They are an intellectual matter.

Proverbs of Solomon From 3000 BC
"20-22 Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech: "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge?"

Free includes debt-free!

LMAO!!!!

I love how you attempted to break this down in your oh so sophisticated way. Too bad you're way off. I am simply making fun of the fact that you go so into detail with all the "poetic" crap you spout lol. When I reference how the sun is great blah blah, I am making fun of the way you idolize an Imaginary figure, whether real or not. I am not sure how much you know about this but Christianity was INVENTED by the Flavian Roman Dynasty, what they did was combine Ceaser's life with Egyptian mythology. It is pretty obvious what they were trying to do when you read it in context. The bible was used as a unifying force throughout the Roman Empire, bringing peoples of all different cultures together through a single God. Worked pretty well for a long time and evolved into all the different religions today. Christianity was born in blood and slavery to brainwash millions, knowing you are into ron paul I don't see how you have a problem looking into the idea that Christianity is just another conspiracy theory.

Plus I believe in reincarnation, go get a past life regression and tell me you don't have a past life. I have had it done and it blew me away to meet myself from a different life. Almost every culture except Christianity acknowledges reincarnation and Christianity could never attempt to include this concept because they wanted the people to be fearful and easily controlled.

You just got PAULED!

No you have it backwards

Egyptian, Greek and other mythologies are actually based on Biblical accounts.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. No other religion, mythology or otherwise has what the Bible. does. Complete histories and genealogies. Christ says He is the only way to God.

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

the bible is a retarded

the bible is a retarded collection of antiquated moral fairy tales

"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

Anyone still trying to take it as anything more than morality stories for children is a fool.

answers in genesis doesn't like anything that doesn't

originate with them. look at the evidence for yourself.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Looking at evidence

means looking at both sides of the story, and the answers in genesis site does a pretty good job of demolishing Wyatt's claims point by point. And then demolishing the attempted responses from the Wyatt side. You're response is that they "don't like" it because they didn't originate it, but all you've done is dodge the question.

Anyone who thinks Wyatt's claims look reasonable should go look at the answers in genesis analysis, and the reply from the Wyatt side, and their response to that. Look at the arguments being made, and evaluate those independent of who made them. It's really no contest. The Wyatt stuff is really just embarrassingly bad, and should trigger any functioning BS detector.

The Bible is infallible

It has never been proven wrong and is totally backed by historical fact. The constant discoveries in science and archeology keep proving it right.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

...

"It has never been proven wrong"

Except or all the times it has.

"and is totally backed by historical fact"

Perhaps as far as region names and some common practices at the time, but none of the supernatural claims (the part Bible critics take issue with) are.

There are no 'historical facts' to back up people being turned into pillars of salt, burning bushes, people ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell, or women being made from ribs.

Just because a story contains elements of truth, doesn't make the story itself true.

"The constant discoveries in science and archeology keep proving it right."

Except that 'evil' stuff like evolution, right? Satan placed those dinosaur bones there to trick us all!

Even if the original version of the Bible did turn out to be 100% accurate, it still wouldn't matter, because so many versions are accepted as being the 'true' version now, each one having been altered and re-translated by fallible men.

A signature used to be here!

"Except or all the times it

"Except or all the times it has."

Tell me and I'll try to give you an answer for any inconsistencies if I can.

"There are no 'historical facts' to back up people being turned into pillars of salt, burning bushes, people ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell, or women being made from ribs."

Sodom and Gomorrah have been discovered with charred rocks everywhere within it (brimstone), a placard with the name Pontus Pilate has been found and even Noah's Ark has been discovered. The mountain top where Moses received the 10 commandments has been discovered with its top still charred from the presence of God as the Bible says it was. However, some things, like what you mentioned, have to be taken by faith.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

"Except that 'evil' stuff like evolution, right? Satan placed those dinosaur bones there to trick us all!"

Oh, evolution, lets debate this :) I would love to talk about this if you want, but be prepared and make sure you know what you claim to believe so we can actually have a good debate :) I'll start by saying that the carbon dating done on those bones is very flawed and the fossil debate is easily refuted. I believe that God put a lot of those bones in the ground to confound atheists.

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

You'll start by saying what now?

"Except that 'evil' stuff like evolution, right? Satan placed those dinosaur bones there to trick us all!"

Oh, evolution, lets debate this :) I would love to talk about this if you want, but be prepared and make sure you know what you claim to believe so we can actually have a good debate :) I'll start by saying that the carbon dating done on those bones is very flawed

That's an awesome place to start. Why don't you pick one specific example where evolutionists used carbon dating to test the age of dinosaur bones, and then we can look at what you think they got wrong.

This should be fun.

So I take it by your

So I take it by your nonanswer that you don't really know where the Bible has errors?

The geologic column is flawed in itself. The fossils are tested until they match whatever data the evolutionist is trying to prove... This is not science, it's fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws...
http://www.creationtoday.org/carbon-dating/

If you are an 'honest' atheist you will consider these links. If you seek truth in an honest way God will reveal Himself to you. I challenge you to do this.

Answer me a very simple question. Do you believe there is good and evil in the world?

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Backing down already?

You suggested that the use of carbon dating on dinosaur bones by evolutionists was deeply flawed.

And yet even the creationtoday link you cited says that evolutionists *do not* use carbon dating on dinosaur bones. And that would be the correct answer, because carbon dating isn't meaningful on anything older than about 50,000 years old. You can find *creationists*, not evolutionists, using carbon dating on fossils, but if you start taking creationists seriously when they don't understand the science they're pretending to use you're going to end up believing all kinds of silly things.

Regardless,

some dino bones have been carbon dated and found that the oldest were 16 thousand years old. They were most likely not even that old and hardly millions of years old. At this point, though, I am talking about carbon dating itself and not carbon dating dinosaurs. You just want to pick small areas to prove your point and that doesn't work my friend. The reason they don't carbon date dinosaurs anymore is because they are supposedly more that 40k years old and it's not creationists doing the carbon dating...

It's easy to see how carbon dating is flawed if you are honest with yourself.

I am not backing down as you ask. I am merely trying to give an answer which apparently you are not...

Are you still refusing to answer my questions?

Do you believe in good and evil in this world?

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Fascinating

You first have carbon dating as evidence that dinosaur bones are *not* ancient, based on the claim that carbon dating has shown that the oldest were 16 thousand years old allegedly. This testing was done by creationists, though, who take this result to mean something damaging to evolutionary theory. For various reasons that you're misrepresenting, evolutionists don't think that carbon dating has anything meaningful to say about dinosaur fossils, so they're not the ones doing the carbon dating of fossils.

But then you're arguing that carbon dating is deeply flawed. But if it's flawed, then why would creationists applying it to dinosaur bones be at all meaningful? If carbon dating is meaningless, how is that a problem for evolutionists who don't use carbon dating on dinosaur bones *at all*?

Good and evil? People have done things I would use the word "good" to describe, and people have done things that I would use the word "evil" to describe. Does that count as "believing in" good and evil?

Fascinating Indeed

" evolutionists don't think that carbon dating has anything meaningful to say about dinosaur fossils, so they're not the ones doing the carbon dating of fossils."

You're missing my point. They may not do it anymore, but they have been the ones to do it.

"If carbon dating is meaningless, how is that a problem for evolutionists who don't use carbon dating on dinosaur bones *at all*?"

So, you think it's meaningless? I would say it's meaningless too except that for my argument its not because it helps me disprove evolution. You seem to agree that it has no point in proving the theory and so discount it. In a way we agree. Carbon dating is flawed. My point is that it has been used to prove evolution supposedly. So evolutionists use faulty data to try and prove their theory.

"Good and evil? People have done things I would use the word "good" to describe, and people have done things that I would use the word "evil" to describe. Does that count as "believing in" good and evil?"

Yes. So, now that we have established that and thank you for your honesty so far with it, we can go to the next step. Because there is good and evil there has to be moral law. Do you agree?

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Huh?

No I didn't say carbon dating is meaningless. I'm just pointing out that if *you* think it's deeply flawed, and its results don't really mean anything, then it's rather odd for you to be using carbon dating results to try to make an argument against evolution. In the context of dinosaur bones, both you and the evolutionists are in agreement that carbon dating results won't be meaningful. For different reasons, of course.

My point is that it has been used to prove evolution supposedly.

Huh? You'd have to explain how carbon dating has been used to prove evolution. I thought we were talking about dinosaur bones, and if so, then no, evolutionists do not use carbon dating as any part of an argument about the age of dinosaur bones.

Yes. So, now that we have established that and thank you for your honesty so far with it, we can go to the next step. Because there is good and evil there has to be moral law. Do you agree?

Because I use the word "evil" to describe some human actions, and the word "good" to describe other human actions, I have to believe in what exactly? You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "has to be moral law" because it doesn't seem to follow from what I said.

You use the words "blue" and "green" presumably, and think you are saying something meaningful with those words, but does that entail that there must be some metaphysical absolute "law of blueness" and "law of greenness" to make those words meaningful?

"You'd have to explain how

"You'd have to explain how carbon dating has been used to prove evolution. I thought we were talking about dinosaur bones, and if so, then no, evolutionists do not use carbon dating as any part of an argument about the age of dinosaur bones."

No, I've been trying to move off of dino bones completely and just talk about carbon dating in general. For example, there was a study-I can try to find it-of living snails carbon dated as thousands of years old. Or a mammoth leg carbon dated as thousands of years older than another part of the same mammoth.

"Because I use the word "evil" to describe some human actions, and the word "good" to describe other human actions, I have to believe in what exactly? You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "has to be moral law" because it doesn't seem to follow from what I said."

mor·al law
noun
1.
(in some systems of ethics) an absolute principle defining the criteria of right action (whether conceived as a divine ordinance or a truth of reason).

We are all born with a sense of right and wrong/good and evil which is moral law. Moral law transcends our governing laws as it has lead us to create them. Aren't we all born with this sense of right and wrong? Is it not wrong to kill someone or steal from them? Do you agree with that?

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Moral law

You have a definition of "moral law" as "an absolute principle defining the criteria of right action (whether conceived as a divine ordinance or a truth of reason)." Fine, let's roll with that definition. You say: "We are all born with a sense of right and wrong/good and evil which is moral law." But that's question begging. So is "Moral law transcends our governing laws as it has lead us to create them." Maybe you believe that, but it doesn't follow from what I said.

I said I use the words "good" and "evil" to describe some human actions. You're the one trying to jump from there to these sweeping claims about moral absolutes and innate senses of good and evil which you want to equate with absolute moral law.

Are you trying to suggest that we can't use words meaningfully unless the word is defined by some transcendent metaphysical absolute standard? If not, then what justifies the leap you're trying to make there? You seem to have skipped a few important steps in your argument.