😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

They're both pathologically fixated on something that doesn't exist according to them.

The universe from nothing and self organising molecules to life is magical.

@@mrshankerbillletmein491not magical, just highly unlikely

​​@@andrewalford2289 no matter how unlikely something is, if the probability is above 0, in the proper environment, it's inevitable.

​@@andrewalford2289 Then you can say God creating the World is also just highly unlikely not magical!

0 probability I would say@@JAMESLEVEE

Humans could be picking up on a universal principle called God! Human beings evolved apes, it is not religion's fault humans are violent

While I agree, knowing what is possible is a best guess assumption. What makes it more than a random chance is the theory of extra corporeal consciousness. For what possible purpose would consciousness residing in the quantum field be necessary. Add to that if extra corporeal consciousness is local or distal solves problems only found in transpermia. This property negates the arguament of evolution happening only on the earth.

@@thomasstuart6861 interactions that follow the laws of physics are all that are needed, and so it should be expected that life can evolve anywhere when the conditions allow for it. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and so isn't required for evolution to work, but once it has emerged it becomes another element in the natural selection process.

@@cottawalla Maybe I can explain the problem better. Evolution by natural selection must become a conscious choice and not random chance and is required for evolution to advance because bilogically we are never going to grow alloy wheels or motors to drive them at birth except by conscious choice. Without consciousness, the evolution stalls out. The probability is that consciousness requires the entity to view themselves but there is more. Roger Premrose has put forward many advanced "theories" ,being a nobel prize winning scientific theorist, on how the consciousness resides in the quantum field. The question I put forward is why. It would make more sense to evolve wheels, axels and tires than for our minds to need interconnection everywhere in the universe. This is shown where observation of particles causes the properties of the particles to change, simply because you were watching and the universe knew it. The universe is either hiding something or making something clearer. But it does not do this without consciousness. Alexa, does not seem to be able to have this conscious property. My point being, WHY. Nothing in this universe wastes energy and having this property means its so important that the universe won't let it go to avoid entrophy. The hard line atheist believes, as you said, that this property will evolve naturally. I am asking, WHAT????? There is not use for the interaction of the consciousness at any place you are in the universe unless there is a chance you will need to be conscious somewhere else in the expanse of the universe. For example, will people be conscious if they travel to Mars. The answer is, why bother. We did not evolve there so there is no need for you consciousness to extend beyond the earth. The moon is observable so your consciousness might extend there, any further and the human stares blindly at the wall without the ability to form a thought. This is the question, evolutonists try to avoid and theist claim is the produce of God. In this case a creation hypothesis is the best answer regardless of how this creation came into being, it had to support some form of transperma.

🤔 Consciousness is simply an evolved physical self-overseeing awareness, given by the brain processing & aligning & backdating senses input ( eg sight, hearing, touch, proprioception etc ) Hormones are body messengers, & emotions are the physical "push" the body is giving you, in response to those hormones & other input that our brain thinks we have a need to take notice of. That's why emotions make us take notice & want to do something. That is what worked to keep us alive. Why would "consciousness" have anything to do with "making evolution happen" ? Evolution is simply changes over time A rock wears down & changes over time. A fabric fades in the sun, over time. Would anyone say that they couldn't happen without consciousness ? Consciousness is just a more complex form of that. Life is simply just chemical reactions "falling" into the first reaction result that happens. Whatever "choices" we think we take, or beat our heart makes, is just the next first up chemical reaction ( push-pull interaction ), that our body of chemicals reacting, "falls" into , first. ( eg ,if you have three magnets, the strongest two, will move & attract together first, before the weaker/ further one might even feel enough pull to move. They all were magnetically attracted/ repelled, but the stronger interaction obviously happens first. This is life in a nutshell. We don't see the world how it really "is". We evolved a way to view/ sense the carrier particles of the electromagnetic field, photons, hitting our eyes/ bodies, after they've reflected or emitted from other atoms/ matter around us. So we can know what the dangers/ food etc are. Our consciousness stuck around for all these generations, just cos it was an effective means of giving us the information we need to survive No gods or "out of body, or soul" stuff here Ps- Sir Roger Penrose is awesome in his field, but has never been a neuroscientist. ( he says it himself ) He wants to believe there is more to us than just entropy creating us as one of the reactions, lowering the energy state of the universe. I wouldn't ask a hairdresser for sound economic political advice either. 🤔🌏☮️

Here is the obvious and self evident reason ALL gods are imaginary... One two part question for people with superstitious religious beliefs. (A) If someone told you (or you read in a book) that the sun used matches and candles to spread light and heat at night. Would it be obvious to you, how self evidently illogical, irrational, unreasonable and nonsensical this idea was? (Would you understand why)? (B) If someone told you (or you read in a book) that something capable of creating a universe and everything in it, used puny humans and books to spread accurate information. Would it be obvious to you, how self evidently illogical, irrational, unreasonable and nonsensical this idea was? (Would you understand why)? All gods are imaginary. No people = No imagined gods.

@@AndyCampbellMusic .... I use this thought experiment: Draw a big circle on a page. Label it the sum total of all knowledge in the universe. Now fill it in to extent of your knowledge. If you are being truthful, you will pass the pencil over the circle at a one foot height. The molecules of the pencil lead that blow off and settle on the page will represent the proportion of what you (or anyone) know(s). Now looking at this empty circle, tell us why you are certainof your conclusions.

@@frankhoffman3566consider this: everything we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces. Not once have we found a divine cause for anything, ever. These facts would seem to make materialism the logical default for the things we don’t yet understand until some evidence is found for an act of divine creation. Right?

@@rickdelatour5355 ... Can the authorship, or not, of the universe ever be self-evident given our admitted state of ignorance?

@@frankhoffman3566 sure, it still seems like the logical default until some piece of evidence for the “author” is found. There is evidence that complexity forms without an author. The sample size seems significant and growing by leaps and bounds. Especially recently. At this point we have no evidence for an author as far as I know. You may have some new information. The amount of our ignorance is not quantified. We may know more than you think.

Because some people don't like ambiguity

If there is a god in the gaps it's none known to man so far and has never made itself known.

@@jameswright...We have just had Easter. The evidence for the resurrection is solid, fully taking in the extraordinary nature of the event. Do you want me to explain the evidence to you my friend?

@@davidrichmond21 Easter, Passover rebrand we to suit a need. A festive day older than jewdaism 🤣 You can't even prove jesus was real, you have nothing but claims in a book that's man made after the fact by unknown authors. A book that's historically scientifically and morally wrong.

@davidrichmond21 The evidence for the resurrection is as solid as that for Gandalf. Don't use anything in the Bible and you don't have evidence. People rising from the dead and walking the streets of Jerusale? There is evidence for that?

@@stephenolan5539The Bible are historic documents so of course I will use the Bible.

This is 100% false. There is no "sudden appearance" of fully formed animals, there is an evolution of simplicity towards complexity. The Precambrian Explosion you must be obliquely referencing is simply an inflection point in the curve, and just one of many such inflections that occur in nature without any intelligent intervention. Finally, comparing carefully constructed language to the obvious accident that is DNA is simply silly.

There is no magic in science be it evolution or cosmology. There is in religious claims though 😂

Except they aren't.

Wrong

It does if you understand thermodynamics 😂 well science really 😂😂

Oh dear which apologist did you get that gibberish from

Oh, my, oh, my, poor sheep.....

Lol. You need to get a good understanding of evolution first them you'll stop asking these. Ofcourse species don't grow or loose legs all of a sudden. Such changes happen over dozens thousands of generations. Environment also plays a role. Gradual change in availability of food for example can drive evolution. It could be that the land animals which eventually turned into whales lived on the coast and hunted both on land and in shallow waters. Over time the supply of food from land reduced so they increasingly become more dependent on sea. This would over thousands of generations increase lung capacity because the ones who can breathe longer will survive and have offsprings. Spending more time in water will also favor streamlined bodies adapted for swimming, which will then get rid of the limbs and change their shapes. Eventually they'll turn into fish, but this time with lungs because they can hold their breath for so long that they don't need any other source of oxygen.

​@@bratwurstmitbiryani Can any superstitionist explain why their imagined god, is too stupid to explain its instructions and desires to each individual in a way they are capable of understanding? Please answer these questions. 1. Where was the imagined creator thing when there was nowhere ? 2. If it "exists" it must have substance. What is it made of? 3. Where did it get the stuff it made itself and everything else from?

Yes. He did precisely this thing many times over in his children’s program “Climbing Mount Improbable.” It’s found here on youtube and would be a good start for you.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@AndyCampbellMusicI can provide the responses to your questions… 1) God is external to time and space so doesn’t need a ‘somewhere’ to exist. You’re puny brain is too small to understand this idea. 2) Does the ‘mind’ exist? Yes. As you know, the mind does not have substance, therefore we know it’s possible for a thinking thing without substance to exist. That sounds like a good answer, so we’ll ignore the fact that the only minds we know of only exist when there is also a physical brain in the vicinity. 3) The substance of which everything is made was willed into existence by God, because God can do that kind of thing. Where else could the stuff have come from? It’s an indisputable fact that all atheists believe the universe came from nothing (I know this, because I asked all atheists), and if you can believe that the universe can come from nothing, then why do you find it so hard to believe that God (whose existence I proved in point 2) willed everything into existence from nothing? It’s exactly the same process, except it’s more believable that God did it because I exist and I just can’t believe that I could exist if there wasn’t a supernatural being that loves me as an individual and communicates with me on a personal basis. After all, my Aunty was told by a reputable doctor that she had an incurable disease and, when I prayed, she was cured after spending two years being treated by an experienced medical team who said that the disease just disappeared without them doing anything except for giving her medicine and using radios or something. I can’t give you the exact details because it’s quite complicated, but if you search UKposts for ‘sick Aunty with incurable disease cured by prayer’, you’ll see video evidence that it’s true. See? All your questions answered in a matter of minutes. It’s not my fault you have a closed mind. You just need faith.

So you think seals and walruses don't exist? How about otters?

So many questions from you here. I like your curiosity. I explained you how to ungrow legs in the other comment. Let me make a theory of growing legs for fish. Along the regions where the rivers meet the sea, where freshwater meets saltwater there's a lot of biodiversity due to the nutrients flowing from the land into the sea. It could be that fish who used their fins as legs to propel themselves short distances into fresh water sources to get access to more food were more successful in breeding and eventually evolved limbs. There are a few fish doing that today. We already know many species from the sea come to fresh waters to breed. We also know that amphibians exist. There could have been an intermediate prehistory amphibian between reptiles and fish.

when you say code, you do understand that this is just a label we put on it to try and understand it? It's not an actual 'code' but a series of repeating chemicals. Also, Richard Dawkins doesn't own evolution, science does. If you have opposing views that can be backed up, go ahead and try and publish them

EVOLUTION FOR EASY UNDERSTANDING (PART 1) Evolution The Proof.. Evolution is proven by many different sciences all confirming it. Does it have a million year long video, showing a fish changing into a cat, as crazy creationists demand...? NO and it NEVER has claimed to.. It does not know every single step of evolution and it possibly NEVER will. This is the "god of the gaps" argument loved by religionists, as if it proves evolution wrong and their creator idea to be correct.. It DOESN'T? They used to think thunder was gods being angry and rain was angels tears etc. Science ACCIDENTALLY proved this religious belief to be UTTER nonsense. Religion HAD to admit their beliefs were wrong but it didn't want to, so what it did, was look for gaps in the knowledge of science and proclam.. There you are! Our god did that bit. It's NONSENSE. It has been constantly attacking evolution by this method and variations of it ever since. Evolution is OBVIOUS, even without the complex scientific evidence that proves and confirms it. Here is the undeniable proof. Seals, sea lions, walruses.... Common ancestor.. OBVIOUS. Tigers lions, leopards, cheetahs.... Common ancestor... OBVIOUS. Horses, zebras, donkeys. Common ancestor...... OBVIOUS. Monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, humans... Common ancestor.. OBVIOUS... Ahh say the creationists.... Where is one "kind" changing to another "kind"? Evolution says, well, that is dependent on various factors and it takes a very long time.. We don't have a 4 million year long video to show you step by step. But we have a great deal of other evidence that supports this conclusion, in genetics and DNA, geology and the fossil record etc. They all confirm each other.. Not good enough, says creationism.. We want something that shows one "kind" "evolving" into a completely different "kind." Well creationists. Look in in your own garden or local ponds. There you will SEE with your own eyes a legless creature that breathes water and has GILLS,! EVOLVE into a LAND living creature, with four LEGS and air breathing LUNGS! If that's not enough... You can find a ground dwelling creature, that has many legs and EVOLVING into a FLYING creature with WINGS! that eats completely DIFFERENT food from the ground dwelling creature it used to be.... This happens EVERYWHERE in the world billions of times every year. Now that's called UNDENIABLE evidence, that one "kind" can change to a completely different "kind" by entirely natural means.. In order to insert an imagined creator into this process these questions must be answered. (A) What is the imagined creator formed composed of? If it "exists" it must have substance. (B) How did the imagined creator create itself out of nothing? (C) Where did this imagined creator get the stuff it made everything else from? (D) How did it create the first thing? (Detailed step by step explanatio, as creationism demands of science). When creationists, can nail someone to a tree stick spears in them, have a medical doctor certify them as dead, then bring them back to life AND prove the causal link between them doing this and the forgiveness of other people's crimes/sins... THEN they might have a point. Till they CAN, a story in an old book written by people just WON'T do! EVOLUTION FOR EASY UNDERSTANDING (PART 2) This is how it works: Picture a long wall with photos hanging on it. The first picture is of YOU. The next picture is of your father (or, feel free to substitute mother/mothers) - who certainly resembles you, but not exactly. The next picture is of your father’s father (your grandfather) and then a picture of his father, and so on & so forth - picture after picture of successive fathers. Now, this is a VERY long wall stretching for miles & miles - covered with photos successive fathers and ALL of them ancestors of YOU. Walk down along the wall 20-30 generations and you’ll notice that the people pictured all still strongly resemble you generally (though maybe not so you’d necessarily recognize a “family resemblance”). And, while you’d certainly call them “human”, but you might notice that they’re typically a bit shorter than you and your father. But, obviously, they’re still pictures of “people”, and if you had a time machine and travelled back to meet that generation, you (as a modern human) would certainly be capable of successfully mating with others in your ancestor’s town or village. Now, keep walking down that wall of YOUR fathers for about 10,000 generations. You’ll notice that the pictures no longer resemble YOU as much as they used to. You’ll notice that the subjects are typically hairier than you and maybe a little hunched. If you travelled back to this time, you may not be able to successfully breed with members of your ancestor’s tribe or group. This circumstance WILL be true at some point along the wall. Keep going down the wall looking at successive pictures and you will reach a point where you would find yourself wanting to call the ancestors in the photos “apes”. They will not look exactly exactly like a modern apes (who, themselves, have evolved independently to fit their environments, even though photos of THEIR fathers might converge a cousin of the ancestor who’s photo you are currently looking at - and WILL eventually converge at some ancestor of YOURS). Now, here’s where I blow your mind. Keep going down and down along this wall of YOUR ancestors past several MILLION of YOUR fathers’ fathers … and you’ll be looking a photos of FISH!! At any given visible span along the wall in any direction, children will resemble their immediate parents and definitely be part of their species. But, over great distances (in time & generations), the minor differences in traits from parent to offspring will add up to such a degree where the some of YOUR ancestors are clearly across a species barrier from you, and eventually whole Genus, Family, Class, Phylum, etc … barriers get crossed. There is no place along the wall that you could rationally draw a line between two adjacent photos and claim that a new species started with THIS specific ancestor of yours. Each child is part of his parent’s species. You can ONLY tell that it happened gradually across a wide, WIDE band of your ancestors when you compare photos that are miles apart on the wall. So, there was no Adam & no Eve. No “first human”. No baby that was a “human

@@patman142 Well you can take it up with Dawkins or even Francis Collins, who both say it is a literal digital code, not an anology or speaking figuratively. You can watch John Perry's interview with Dawkins where he says its literally a code, he just thinks nature made this code with some form of agency behind it .That would be a very strange code if you ask me. Every code I am aware of it, always is created by a mind. But if you dont agree with Dawkins or Francis Collins who says its a digital code, go take it up with them since you may have a better science background.

@@gsp3428 you don't understand what you are talking about, same as John Lennox

Why do you WANT a god to exist?

No I just think Richard and Matt are like me in that they don't want Bibles and Korans shoved in their faces .

@@kookamunga2458 I dont know what planet you live on, I have never had a bible, koran or torah shoved in my face. You probably talk about religion and God far more than any Christian or muslim. The problem is more with you. Most people just do their thing and go to church or their mosque or temple, they dont bother anyone.

Want doesn't enter into to it. What is true is true whether we want it to be or not. Evidence strongly suggests that all God beliefs are wrong not just most of them.

Nonsense. They're two guys who want evidence for what they're going to believe in.