Discovery Doesn't Bode Well for Evolution & Multiverse in a Quantum Twist | Stars,Cells, and God ep3

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

I've learned a lot from ReasonsToBelieve, and especially from Dr. Fazale Rana, so I'm looking forward to listening about such a wide range of topics all in just one video!

[@wmarkfish]

The multiverse argument is like the chess player moving his king off the board to avoid check mate and saying he is now playing 3D chess.

[@eswn1816]

Good one! 👍

[@frosted1030]

Theists are moving the goalpost. The multiverse is not an argument, nor is any of this related to a deity in any way.

[@wmarkfish]

@@frosted1030 The Multiverse IS an argument to explain fine tuning.

[@frosted1030]

@@wmarkfish "The Multiverse IS an argument to explain fine tuning." Who lied that to you? The appearance of fine tuning (as it's termed in science) speaks specifically to human bias. It's not related to anything but the human tendency toward apophenia, and why we should be aware of the bias. The multiverse is a GROUP of cosmological models. None of which are in question by these non-scientists. And none of this relates to evolution (fact).

[@frosted1030]

@@20july1944 "The multiverse is one way to explain fine tuning, that's not a lie. It doesn't have to be true to be a possible explanation." Again, appearance of fine tuning has nothing to do with this subject. You are trying to elevate a non-science (nonsense) assertion to the stature of a scientific hypothesis. These two are not remotely close. You can contrast them by looking at the difference in the methodology used. Try not to confuse science and pseudoscientific religious rhetoric.

[@agapelight4240]

Thank you for the "honest" science lesson. A lot of scientists like to say they KNOW things that they really do not know. I love the Word of God, and I love studying His creation (science). Thanks!

[@frosted1030]

Your deity is not related to science, not even mentioned once. Best read up.

[@martam4142]

@frosted1030: Our "deity" is related to the origin (existence) of things, and that of course includes our intellects, that have developed the scientific method. You sore because there's ZERO empirical proof for the "multiverse"?

[@frosted1030]

@@martam4142 "Our "deity" is related to the origin (existence) of things" Yes, you have an origin story with no tracking. Have you bothered to ask why you need to use logical fallacy as your only source? In this case, you are promoting several. From special pleading, to tu quoque, to bias. "You sore because there's ZERO empirical proof for the "multiverse"?" And that's a sad attempt at a false analogy, shifting the burden of evidence, and affirming the consequent. Acceptance or not of a multiverse has nothing to do with your fantasy play. You are still on the hook for supporting your fantasy and you still fail.

[@sarahann530]

Do you KNOW God ?

[@frosted1030]

@Tariq Hassan " you seem to have a closed mind - not very scientific" One does not leave their mind so open that their brains fall out.

[@kensanders7558]

Great discussion. I'd like to see a similar discussion on how ancient DNA research is informing paleo-anthropology.

[@pierreabbat6157]

I'd like to see a comparison of the HAR in the DNA of various hominins.

[@bobs4429]

An interesting and thoughful presentation -- thank you. I find the combination of the two disciplines insightful. Physics/Cosmology is a science about how things are now, which is undergirded with math. Anthropology, on the other hand, is about how things were in the past, which is history. The former is guided by prediction/test/observation/analysis/revision while the latter is at most a best guess guided by observation. I don't mean to disparage anthropology. It's a vital discipline yielding significant results and insights. Out of both, though, I tend to agree with Paul Davies, that the most that can be said is that there appears to be a purpose. Calling this God is a valid approach, but so is the notion that discerning the true purpose may be outside our ability to comprehend. I have to point out though, that if there is a God nothing in this says it's necessarily the Christian God.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

The Christian God is a personal being like we are: what makes you think another kind of god is able to be the creator of beings like us?????

[@bobs4429]

@@davidjanbaz7728 I have come to find that there are many definitions of "personal being". Before I can answer your question I need to know exactly how you mean it.

[@martam4142]

RTB, I have been visiting your webpage and you have really made an impressive work! Congratulations.

[@wtk6069]

I'm still on the fence about the multiverse, but its existence would pose no theological issue for me. What would be a more effective demonstration of "with God all things are possible" than the multiverse?

[@Gruuvin1]

I think we cannot really take it seriously if we cannot test it. It seems like theoretical physicists have been concocting fantasies about the multiverse for so long that they think they are developing some kind of truthful model. Has any empirical data given it credibility? I don't think so.

[@ATinyPillow]

I find it rather interesting that the message “God eternal within the body” is encoded into the top layer of dna of all life on earth yet folks continue to debate the existence of God. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3iwqoyirbSpd9E .

[@martam4142]

@Gruuvin1: The materialist paradigm is gone. It's a failed worldview that needs to be abandoned.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

Meh might as well be on the fence about a teapot orbiting Saturn. Except this teapot also predicts that it will either rain tomorrow or not. Oh, but I have a toy model of the teapot’s dimensions.

[@fudgedogbannana]

I like to see debates that are face to face and I'll tell you why. I am a layman, I do know my way around the bible and a little science too, when I first saw and heard Dr. Hugh Ross I took to him right away (fuz too), I heard much from them that resinated well with me, some how I can understand the science and see how science fits right in with Biblical text. Then I hear other opposing scientist and read other comments, I can pick out the cynics and discard them but there are others, big name others that I must consider as I weigh facts. I want to see both sides in the same room, debating, discussing and referring to charts and grafts. Thanks Fuz, Jef and Hugh.

[@johnmartin4152]

Thanks, gents. This was a very good use of any listener's time.

[@greggy553]

If multiverses exist outside of our universe, coming from their own singularities, wouldn't they each need the same fine tuning for life as us?

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Multiverse just puts more steps between us and god. It still needs a creation and beginning. We will always be seeking a humans perspective.

[@mouthpiece200]

Saying a multiverse needs a beginning is no different than saying god needs a beginning.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@mouthpiece200 Not at all..God is defined as the alpha and omega. Defined as infinity itself,

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

omniscient of the multiverse it really wouldn't change anything if it was many verses. This universe can just be so big that its like a multiverse with many earths repeated or even an adjacent anti-matter universe which would explain why so much is missing from our theory

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@mouthpiece200 By applying your standard , This unverse doesn't need a beginning excuse of a multiverse.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@mouthpiece200 pen roses theory or multiverse all these are in the beginning myths that have been chased by those who don't like the Oldest theory of mankind. It's hundreds of in the beginning theories and will be 100s more im sure.

[@artform1364]

I received a BS ( no pun intended) degree in physics in college. And I've kept up somewhat with these theories and arguments. But I have also read the Bible and I have lived and observed life plenty. At 60, my faith is in God the Father, Jesus (the Christ) and the Holy Spirit. I'll let the scientists chase their tails but it's funnier when dogs do it.

[@glennzornig4978]

Buckminster Fuller explained many of these insights in Synergetics in 1975. In 1983 President Reagan awarded the Medal of Freedom to Buckminster Fuller and Billy Graham.

[@mr.griswold8285]

Great vid by two wonderful scientists.Sounds like an assemblage of quantum fluctuations, perhaps the ultimate reduction. Good discussion!

[@DoubtfireClubWGPowers]

Great conversation!

[@bigd5773]

Can one of the old universe Christians that believe in inflation answer this question for me? I’m sure it’s probably basic. If inflation answers the radiation flatness problem, would it not also impact the light distance problem of a young universe? From what I understand, the basic just of the argument is that the radiation was spread out before expansion, then stretched along with the expansion of the universe. Wouldn’t light work the same way?

[@ericjohnson6665]

Amazing, with all this evidence of extra-terrestrial life (unidentified arial phenomenon), that people still like to think human life is rare seems rather odd. "If we're the only ones there are, it's an awful waste of space." (Contact). Yeah, mind is super-material, it is not an inherent property of matter. It doesn't come from atoms or strings or what have you. "195:7.3 The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe. 112:2.12 In science the human self observes the material world; philosophy is the observation of this observation of the material world; religion, true spiritual experience, is the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space. To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated." truthbook.com/urantia-book-viewer/112-Personality-Survival/#112_2

[@clearway]

Did you know Hugh Ross spent years assigned as a UFO investigator both in the US and Canada? As a result, he gained extensive experience listening to first-hand descriptions of UFO encounters from people coming from a broad spectrum of education levels, income brackets, cultural backgrounds, belief systems, etc. I was impressed with his book "Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men", which combines a wide range of evidences and soundly reasoned analysis of the existence and nature of UFOs, aliens, the physics of space travel, etc. In case it might interest you, here's the link: read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B00A28RKD0&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_EJ8HHPQWKTTPK12WZMGN

[@janwaska4081]

C'est magnifique! Merci!

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

But the cmb was pre programmed to image a theoretical cosmo constant that we don't have consistent evidence of. The 3 or 4 methods to measure expansion speeds varies and hasn't found constant speed expansion. If you set your camera to image a mile away it is no surprise that it's focuses on images found a mile away. So the cmb is kinda cheating ourselves based on questionable measurements..

[@davidfell9696]

Edit... It appears that someone forgot to edit the interruption at around 3:40

[@kmckenney1311]

This is very interesting but just way over my head..I try to understand but struggle

[@chucktowne]

You don't really need to understand all this science. No matter how much research anyone does, you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. You can only refute those who try to use science to say "God doesn't exist" by questioning their evidence and showing that it never gives an answer but always creates more questions. This is God's handy work. This is why there is no united consensus on God's existence. Nobody has ever proved his existence or nonexistence. It is a belief we all must come to on our own. While creation points to his existence because he does exist. I don't have any proof but I do have a testimony. Another way to put it could be this. I am called to testify in a court case against someone who say's they are God. In this court case, I am asked to prove if he did any miracles. I say that I died but he brought me back to life. I cannot prove I died to the court and I cannot prove he brought me back to life either. I can only testify to the court although I know in my mind that I am telling the truth. Its up to the judge and/or jury to believe my testimony. Whether they believe me or not, he is God. That is how it is with creation, it testifies to God's existence.

[@keithmoore3199]

Thanks for the video. I am a first time viewer, a bible believing Christian with a science oriented brain, and I really enjoyed this presentation. Question - Are you guys personally literal, young-earth creationists or more allegorical, "evolution but God-guided" believers? Something in between? or undetermined?

[@RTB_official]

Hi Keith, thank you for watching! Here is a link that will help answer your questions reasons.org/about thank you for your support!

[@t2squared]

@@RTB_official That didn't really answer the question. Do you believe in a "young earth - as do the folks at Answers In Genesis?

[@bigd5773]

@@t2squared Hugh Ross is the founder of Reasons to Believe and he is old earth. He has debated some AiG scientists like Lisle. I don’t remember his stance on evolutionary biology though. Iirc he defers his opinion on that subject to other scientists in the archaeology and biology fields. If I had to guess it would be a directed evolution approach. All that being said, I am not sure how close the organization’s “beliefs” are to the founder to Hugh Ross’ personal beliefs. I would assume they are more vaguely held, hence the vague answer. Hope that helps, and hope it’s accurate. Feel free to fact check me by watching Ross’ lectures or debates yourself. His testimony/history was interesting, but I can’t remember where I heard it.

[@wtk6069]

@@t2squared There used to be a great KZbin video of a debate between Hugh Ross and the guy who founded Answers in Genesis. It would be useful in answering some of the questions.

[@frosted1030]

@@bigd5773 Hugh Ross can't even read a map. He literally points to areas that are not charted and starts in with a gaps fallacy. A gaps fallacy on a blank (not part of the data) area. Seriously.. that's just nonsense.

[@keithparkinson8858]

God stretched out the heavens 'like a curtain'!

[@ericjohnson6665]

Multiverse? An interesting mental plaything. Another alternative would be the information a relatively new revelation gives us, that there are 7 Superuniverses with 700,000 local universes. But the physics is the same for all of them.

[@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe]

If universe means EVERYTHING, "multiverse" is silly.🤗

[@martam4142]

It certainly is. Materialists keep adding epycicles to their worldview.

[@SPQR2755]

I am loving this series.

[@jayblack6507]

Zweerink seems to favor the existence of the multiverse when he says there is observational backing for it's existence, and by frequently citing Sean Carroll, to whom he gives deference, and who is an evangelical atheist. (Other respected astronomers/cosmologists maintain the multiverse is a belief rather than a scientific fact, such as George Ellis and David Block.) I listened only once, but I did not understand Zweerink's response to Rana's question: how do you make a case for Christian theology given the multiverse. Would appreciate a more developed response to that question.

[@harrisoncunha9381]

You may want to read his book called "who is afraid of the multiverse?" Jeff goes into more detail there. It is a mini book, but he covers the different "levels" of the multiverse, which will answer your question. At the end of the book, he ties together why as Christians we should not have a problem with this hypothesis. In fact, the multiverse is a topic that I have put considerable interest into myself and I agree with Jeff that the multiverse, while interesting, is not a problem at all for theists.

[@matthayes533]

I'm on the opposite side of that question - "How can you not make a case for Christian theology given the multiverse" Christian theology, as I understand it, teaches that God created everything, I take that to mean everything possible and impossible - which, if it exists, includes the multiverse. Obviously, the writers of the old testament had no evident concept of the "multiverse", but inspired by the Holy Spirit - their creation theology was not limited to only what they could see. God exists outside of His creation just as surely as you exist outside of a paper drawing you might create. It doesn't matter if that is one universe or all possible universes. God is still set apart from that which is set apart from that which is set apart from creation, or as scripture says "Holy, Holy, Holy." If I understand dimensions correctly, that puts God outside of not only everything that is possible (including the multiverse), but also everything that is impossible. So for me, while I am fuzzy on dimensions and the multiverse, If there was evidence of them it would only convince me that there has to be a God since I am considering a multiverse where everything is possible - that includes a perfectly good all powerful God who has every positive attribute. For me the opposite could not be true - a completely all powerful evil entity because existence is a positive attribute and for there to be an opposite entity to God then he would have to not possess the attribute of existence. But alas I am uneducated and ill prepared to discuss such things - like Paul I strive only to know Jesus and Him crucified - the rest I'll leave to other more educated participants.

[@ATinyPillow]

I find it rather interesting that the message “God eternal within the body” is encoded into the top layer of dna of all life on earth yet folks continue to debate the existence of God. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3iwqoyirbSpd9E .

[@MutsPub]

Thank you

[@benjaminstephens1904]

I just want to know ,how much is 50% of infinity? Or maybe just 25% or is infinity not real?

[@jvcoulter]

Someone get Fuz a tailor, stat!

[@davidreinhart418]

Who cares?

[@ladoparts]

Anything but truth is the door to anything that amounts to nothing

[@farquadminiman5685]

I find the multi verse hypothesis a interesting one, but it doesn't negate the need for a Creator, it only expands it. It would also still be biblical in some manner. God wants all to live and not die in sin. A multiverse would make this a reality as every person would make every decision including a Hitler that was a good guy. There would be a universe where Peter was the betrayer and Judas would not have done what he done here. Scriptures says God knows ur every thought and decision. A multiverse would mean u have had every thought and decision and it's creator should know them all.

[@johncahill3644]

Sorry, but there is no “need for a Creator”. And if your answer is “where did everything come from?”, I will ask you for your evidence “everything” has not always been.

[@martam4142]

@John Cahill: Where is your *proof that everything "has always existed"?

[@mouthpiece200]

@@johncahill3644 An infinite number of naturalistic explanations could explain a heat death without requiring a beginning. We don't even know if heat death is a real thing. You're only looking at this tiny little box that is our current understanding of the universe.

[@ATinyPillow]

I find it rather interesting that the message “God eternal within the body” is encoded into the top layer of dna of all life on earth yet folks continue to debate the existence of God. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3iwqoyirbSpd9E .

[@timricketts.]

I see in scripture mor info than is realy captured. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form and void". The evolution theory can actually be seen in these verses. Just as the earth was without form so was the heaven. We see that God fine tuned. Scripture bases most of the information on earth because it is primary to us.

[@Drakemiser]

Maybe turn up the mics a tad. Hard to hear on an Apple pro book

[@tomshields8411]

Reasons to believe isn't quite the same as evidence to believe, is it?

[@fuzrana894]

I am not sure what you are driving at Tom. Please elaborate, if you have the chance and time. I see the reasons to believe coming from the scientific, archeological and historical evidence for Christianity

[@ATinyPillow]

I find it rather interesting that the message “God eternal within the body” is encoded into the top layer of dna of all life on earth yet folks continue to debate the existence of God. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3iwqoyirbSpd9E .

[@LM-jz9vh]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible: Primitive Nonsense"* Google *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* Google *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* Google *"Reasons for disbelief: The top ten reasons I am an atheist - Real Bible Stories"* (Written by a former minister) Google *"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies - Psychology Today"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible - Is it the Word of GOD?"* Google *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* Google *"Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible - American Humanist Association"* Google *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* Google *"Does the Ipuwer Papyrus Refer to the Biblical Exodus Account? - Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy"* Google *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* Google *"The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more. - News24"* Google *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* Google *"40 Problems with Christianity - Hemant Mehta - Friendly Atheist - Patheos"* Google *"The Problem With Faith: 11 Ways Religion Is Destroying Humanity"* Google *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell""* Google *"You Need To Consider The Possibility Your Religion Is Mythology"* Google *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* Google *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* Google *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten"* Google *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* Google *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*

[@EdKidgell]

Wrong response for this argument. Try again with Dr. Michael Heiser. He has your answers.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Yes, Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos show the holes in your narratives.

[@HearthsAndAdventures]

If the stories in the Bible are historicial events, then it shouldn't be surprising that those events would be mentioned in other places. For example, if the flood was real, decendents of Noah would have talked about it as they split up. The more culture that talk about some sort of flood in the distant past can be evidence that such a flood happened. Of course, as time passes without written language, it has a chance to warp into different versions; thus, you get version like Gilgamesh.

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Google *"The First Easters: Death and Resurrection Before Christ | atheologica"* Google *"The Christs Before Christ: Tammuz-Adonis | atheologica"* Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"Rising Gods, Pagan Parallels, and Cultural Context: A Response to M. David Litwa | atheologica"* Google *"An Evidence Attested Resurrection? - chromosome two"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@martam4142]

@LM If according to you Christianism is a "myth" and (correct me if I'm wrong) you do not believe in any other "god", then we are left with only matter as a self-subsistent (another god then). Now please explain to us how dumb matter could have created intellects like ours. Because that sounds to me like a very poor myth and what's even worse, it contradicts logic.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😆

[@martam4142]

@LM And Richard Carrier is an ignoramus. I prefer Profesor Edward Feser.

[@AMC2283]

Can’t talk scientifically to conclude mythology

[@martam4142]

Science has a broader definition than "empirical" science. Hence the adjective.

[@keananfischer8113]

Going to have to stick with the non evolutionary view. I used to believe in evolution but the more and more I see things in kinds that can breed with other kinds or evolve into anything else I have to go with Gods word.

[@martam4142]

Mechanistic evolution is a creative myth. No problem with life adapting itself to different environments and with relations among individuals, but converting it into an alternative "genesis" account is religion, not science.

[@gerrielubbe3968]

Americans “all” speak slang and consequently are terrible at speaking and phrasing English..

[@aubreyleonae4108]

These guys either don't understand what they are saying or they are being dishonest. WLC anyone?

[@MutsPub]

Your credentials to make such an assertion?

[@aubreyleonae4108]

@@MutsPub SI