Disproved Bible Genesis, Exodus And Great Flood. But The Christian Fundamentalist Says We Are Wrong
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- How many times have you heard from the fundamentalist that Creationism is correct and we are all wrong. But how many are in "we." Let's see how many of us would have to be wrong for the Christian fundamentalist to be right.
If you would like to read a novel about what I think the Apocalypse would be like if Christ ever returned (a tale the fundamentalist will despise) click the link below. And may God bless you---just not the God that floods an entire world.
THE SECOND FALL. By Charles Hurst
www.amazon.com...
Correction: most of flood fable taken from Sumerian myth came from soon later Babylonian tablets in the same area although portions of creation Sumerian text remain. If you would like to check out a tale I admit is fiction take a look at THE SECOND FALL. The offbeat Apocalypse that will offend the Evangelical--and probably many others. www.amazon.com/SECOND-FALL-Charles-Hurst/dp/B08RR9SJFM
debunkingthefundementalist
Do you understand the the Pentateuch preceded those texts? Do you understand that most of the earth is covered in sedimentary layers? Do you understand hydrological sorting is rapid? Your video is a lie.
such a mess
@@ntraha Evolution does not exist and therefore cannot be a mess.
The really funny thing about the Fundies who try to "debunk" Lucy is that they think Lucy is the only example of Australopithecus Afarensis that's been found, when, indeed, there are hundreds
IanM-Idor, Believe any lie you desire if it soothes your uneducated intellect.
@@TheMickeymentalwhich lie, exactly?
@@CaptPeon Evolution exactly.
Really? I was unaware of that. Cheers, DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist
Help me to understand why you would make a video which is based upon pure sophistry?
This video is inaccurate exploiting the appeal to majority and appeal to authority fallacies in order to deceive the obviously uneducated. Perusing the comments those who post do not have a modicum of science education. It seems as if you are taking advantage or their willingness to be duped, so as to reinforce their own belief system. It also appears you are using the video for monetary gain, which is not evil per se, but when a person does this to deceive then it is greed.
I read as a lot of atheist and evolutionist literature, scientific papers both pro and con while this video is unbalanced and relies on disputed scientists' opinions.
There is absolutely no chemical or biological evidence that evolution is possible.
I always wondered what is a Christian fundamentalist. Why is it that Jesus himself never talks about these stories in the New Testament, yet fundamentalist make it their priority? At the same time, the center of Christ teachings of forgiveness and compassion are never on fundamentalists radar. What I have witnessed in my life, is that fundamentalist only make themselves believe in there stories because they feel that they will go to hell if they don't. which again is found no where in scripture.
I'll never understand why people use their intelligence to rationalize their belief in ANY religion.
Life is too short. Once you are dead, you ain't comin' back. Sorry.
I am just as afraid of dying as anyone else.
If you can't do any good in the world, at least do no harm.
And yet none of them can agree on anything. Well they can't all be right
Exactly, yet they feel like they can run the USA government 🙄 😂. Can you imagine the childlike bickering??
frozentspark Your statement is false.
They can, however, all be wrong. And they are.
When I learned in grade school BASIC science like elementary geology and astronomy, I completely rejected the Bible and religion as human-made myth and bullshit. I have been a staunch atheist ever since.
johnfox9169 You in truth you have been willfully stupid, willfully ignorant, and willfully condescending. You lack the basic understanding of biology and chemistry.
Awesome video. Thanks for sharing 👍
Thanks for watching!--DCF
According to Christian fundamentalists the Bible can't possibly be in error, since all scripture is the inspired and revealed word of God. Anybody who disputes the inerrancy of scripture therefore is calling God a liar. The truth is that fundamentalist Christians would gladly toss the Old Testament aside if they could, since they find it very hard to defend the stories within its pages. The reason why they don't is because what happens in the Hebrew scriptures directly impacts on all subsequent events in the New Testament. For instance, if there were no Adam & Eve and no original sin, then what exactly are we being saved from, and more importantly, why do we need a saviour? Not only that but Jesus himself mentions several Old Testament characters. If they never existed that would mean either Jesus was lying or he never said those things in the first place.
I actually have a video scheduled months from now that notes Yeshua's reference to OT characters and events that can't be metaphorical. I have read the gospels multiple times and never put that together until a few months ago which doesn't really push me to those baptismal waters for reconversion. That revelation was a big nail in the coffin. Cheers, DCF
It's understandable with your lack of understanding of Christianity and the OT that you would come up with such a flawed theory.
Take this ridiculous comment, "if there were no Adam & Eve and no original sin, then what exactly are we being saved from and more importantly, why do we need a saviour"? The multitude of sins they commit their entire lives?
Instead of ridiculing out of ignorance, perhaps just leave alone topics you clearly don't understand. Alternatively, especially for those who supposedly embrace knowledge, perhaps try educating yourself.
@@silverbackhayabusaNo, he's right. Christian theology states that Christ's death atones for the original sin of Adam. You must be a new Christian as this is common knowledge.
Romans 5:18-19 "Consequently, just as *one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.* For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. *For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."*
@@silverbackhayabusa So tell me, just where did you get your own superior knowledge of Christianity from? It wouldn't be from fundamentalist Christians by any chance? Do me a favour. They're the most sacra religious people on the face of the Earth. They're judgemental, intolerant, narcissistic, bigoted, ignorant and arrogant. I'm afraid it's you who are lacking in Biblical knowledge. If it hadn't been for Adam & Eve, sin would never have entered the world in the first place. The Bible says we're all born sinners. Here is an extract I took from a Wikipedia page on the concept of original sin, "The biblical basis for the belief is generally found in Genesis 3 (the story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden), in a line in Psalm 51:5 ("I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me"),[2] and in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 5:12-21 ("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned"
@@ryanrevland4333 LOL.
Your knowledge of Scripture is poor.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."
Original sin brought death to our mortal bodies, not eternal damnation. Jesus doesn't save us from mortal death but eternal damnation. We see here clearly that people would die from original sin regardless of whether they sinned themselves.
What dooms us eternally is is sin that violates the Law. What saves us is grace from faith which includes repentance.
I'm not sure whether you're a "new Christian," an old one, or a former one but what is clear is you are uninformed on the topic and "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."
Wait so you're saying when God murdered all the first born of Egypt, just to get one man (Pharoh) to change his mind that was wrong/immortal? Then harden Pharoh's heart so he wouldn't change his mind that was wrong too? Next you'll try and tell me there are no talking Snakes or Buring bushes who speak or talking Donkeys.
God has nothing to do w. it. Facts come first , not confused beliefs. The Bible is not a book of recipes . Rely on your own judgment.
@@ntraha , Well I like your take here. I agree "rely on your own judgement". My judgement tells me the following: There are no race of giants, there are no guys who die for 3 days then come back (all rotty like after decaying for 3 days in a dark tomb), there are no ships that can hold all the types of animals in the world and feed them, there are no people silly enough to walk a round in the desert for 40 years and not find a way out. Finally I judge all religions have one thing in common
(from Scientology to Islam) all there Gods/Goddess are invisible.
Pure mythology . No chosen people . For no one.
ntraha And look at the evidence you presented; your worthless opinion Kudos.
@@TheMickeymental Yet he’s right. You hypocrite.
@@christopherhamilton3621
Wow, another worthless argument from an uneducated prig. The odds of this emanating from an atheist/evolutionist are 1-1.
Excellent. Thank you. I would like to add that Christian fundamentalism is almost exclusively a US phenomenon. Here in the UK and in Europe we have tiny pockets of them but they usually keep their heads down. Very occasionally you see one preaching loudly in the street but they are mostly ignored and often laughed at. So the other group who accepts evolution in vast numbers are most Christians.
I guess Catholic priests are not considered Christians by the fundos, especially Catholic priests who were mathematical physicists and understood Einstein's Relativity.
Fundies definitely don't consider Catholics to be Christians. They think they are "idolaters" and that they "worship Mary"
218Gallagher The Catholic religion is not Christian based upon salvation by works and salvation by grace. You obviously lack any education is logic with your use of a non sequitur.
I guess if you are a fundamentalist Christian everyone else is ignorant, though I consider the notion of grace to be the hypocrisy of those whose works place then on the road to Hell@@TheMickeymental
@@215Gallagher I never stated that everyone else is ignorant as that statement would be fallacious, just as the reference claim you made.
I do not care what you think about grace, your argument was destroyed and now you are acting all pouty.
Well first there is the thing with the virgin mary worship. Eucharist. And I am in a bad habit of referring to fundamentalist service as mass from that Catholic habit. (you'll hear me say that by mistake in vids) But no, they aren't. Cheers, DCF
There shouldn't even BE a debate. Both sides completely miss the point. The purpose of the creation stories in Genesis is not to teach us science.
There is no logical contradiction between a God creating the universe and this same God using completely natural means to do so over the course of billions of years.
"The purpose of the creation stories in Genesis is not to teach us science."
If the science in the bible isn't valid, then the bible can't be inerrant. No matter the purpose.
"There is no logical contradiction between a God creating the universe and this same God using completely natural means to do so over the course of billions of years."
It can work with lots of mental gymnastic, but the best explanation is: it's simply an outdated book of superstitions.
@@physnoct Do you not understand English? There is no science in "the Bible." The very idea that pre-scientific people could have been writing a science textbook is ludicrous.
The mental gymnastics is performed by people like you who think that the "Aron Ra" method of biblical hermeneutics is legitimate.
When the rising flood waters carried Noah's Ark to the 29,000 foot level, the oxygen ran out and the temperature plunged way below zero, killing all the passengers aboard within a few days. However through faith in the Lord they all survived and repopulated the earth.
When God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt and they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, he made it where their clothes didn't wear out and he fed them with bread from heaven. If God can do that, and he did, the amount of air at 29000 feet was not a problem for him.
@@jbutero1 funny because there's absolutely no proof of the flood or the jews wondering around the desert for 40 years. one would think someone would've found some artifacts in what, a 30 mile radius. out of all the papyrus papers of Egyptian written history, all of the hieroglyphs et cetera, not one single mention of the exodus and/or the jews being in captivity , not one .
@@cliftongaither6642 Funny how most of the earth is covered in sedimentary rock.
LOL!!!!! 😂
@@christopherhamilton3621 yeah Christopher, i laughed too . some funny stuff ! 🤣
You destroyed the Creationists maybe better than anyone I have ever heard 😊
johnfox9169 The video was pure sophistry and without merit, but believe any lie you desire. Evolution is not possible.
@@TheMickeymental An claim made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. The claims made in this video have mountains of evidence to back them up.
@@Bokonon999 There is zero evidence in this video. only an asinine narrator using fallacious arguments to reinforce the beliefs of the uneducated who will swallow this nonsense since it sounds good. There was not any science presented in this video.
I have three science based questions that destroy this video. Alack, alas the atheist/evolutionist will not even attempt to answer them. When I speak of science the evolutionist/atheist speaks of religion. Are the atheist/evolutionists unable to converse in science or do you hide behind religion, because "The atheist states there is no God and I hate him."
You know it's funny because when I make an error in a vid I post a small correction on top comment. And I've made some small errors or haven't explained a source or point like I meant to, but the difference is when you show the creationist their error they just dig in their heels. Cheers,DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist That is not true, most of the arguments in this video are disputed by valid sources. Many of these sources are not creationist sources.
Christopher Hutchens stated that the "fine tuning of the universe is the most troubling for him and his atheist belief.
If you would like to debate my on this video I will be more than happy to do so politely and respectfully using basic debate rules.
You forgot the kitchen sink! But seriously, if you're trying to persuade anyone maybe stick to actual discussion of evidence and arguments. This makes it seem like you're trying to base truth on a vote: fundamentalists are wrong because so many people disagree with them. The obvious followup to which point would be, "so what?"
Everyone of the scientists, historians, archeologists etc have overwhelming evidence. It isn't just one opinion vs another. It's every genre of science that is telling the fundamentalist they are completely wrong based on this overwhelming evidence. And I have many specific videos on this evidence. What I am arguing is a complete disregard for basically everyone in the scientific community based on what? . . . the bible. And their researchers have been repeatedly debunked for lack of scientific method. That was the point of the video. How all the mainstream repeated information would have to be wrong for the fundamentalist to be right. Cheers, DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist I get it. But the problem with that argument can be summed up in a single question: has the scientific establishment ever been jointly wrong, even about a fundamental point of science? And the answer, of course, is yes. For one fun example, the dominant scientific position used to be that the universe was static and eternal and therefore had and required no beginning. (Incidentally, the Bible-thumpers turned out to be on the right side of that one.) The point being, "you're wrong because there are more of us than there are of you" is a bad argument. Truth isn't determined by the number of smart people, or even the number of experts in a relevant field, who believe a thing. All the best.
I'm going to let it go at this. We are not talking about the origin of the universe or big bang theory. What I am addressing is their belief that the world and universe was made in six days, their was a great flood and we procreated from there 5000 years ago. And they are 100% overwhelmingly wrong--point blank. All genres of science, all methods of science. It is no different than someone believing the earth is flat---and their point may have validity because "more of us smart guys think it isn't." There are flat earth groups who have the same zero validity who would have validity with your argument point. There are certain things we now know for a fact. We don't know how the universe was made. I hope by a God--stating they have a point that it was made in six days? Cult mentality that shouldn't be respected or entertained. Cheers ,DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist The flat-earthers would only have a valid point insofar as they could indicate that mere appeals to consensus make for poor arguments, which they do. (I don't suppose any of us would, if we could, advise the people of the early 20th century to simply follow the "scientific consensus" regarding the relative worth and quality of non-white races, right?) My only point is that if you're going to fault either group for appealing to authority figures instead of thinking critically, you might do better than simply mocking them for not following a different and more numerous set of authority figures, which is how this specific video came off.
lol ever hear of “Appealing to authority”? Look it up. And you totally ignore that the number of Christian fundamentalist and the years that Christian fundamentalism has been around far outweighs your authorities
Yeah. The heresy of Fundamentalism has been around for all of 200 years vs. 2000 for anything like halfway sensible.
Furthermore, citing evidence from the work of actual authorities in a field is not the appeal to Authority fallacy.
This is your big answer? The number of people who would have to be wrong for Christians to be right? Just how many people are we talking about? I would suggest that if we took all those people, they don't come close in number to the number of evangelicals that disagree with them.
Scientists are great at observing things, but much of what they say must be taken by faith, like their dating methods and their theories about what would be the result if this event happened or that event happened. They weren't eye witnesses so they make their best educated guesses.
Even with their best guesses, they still can't explain what was before the big bang theory so they can't give us proof of any of their claims about how we exist. They just have a competing idea. The atheists promote unintelligent design and Christians believe in intelligent design. The kind of argument you are bringing here won't convince any thinking Christian to stop believing the Bible. There are more of us than there are of you so you don't even win the numbers game.
do you know what a scientific theory is? apparently not.
@@cliftongaither6642 I know it is unproven and can change when there is more knowledge.
@@richardlaiche8303 I stand by what I said. To believe we came about by random chance requires more faith than to believe in God.
@@jbutero1 wrong !
a scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of aspects of the natural world, based on a body of "facts" that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. such fact supported theories are not guesses but reliable accounts of the "real" world. nothing "unproven".
@@cliftongaither6642 Wrong. Sometimes there are even competing theories on the same topic. There are two theories about where oil came from and they are both theories. One is the most popular that it was formed from fossils and the other is that it is a naturally occurring substance. Theories are not proven facts.
It seems dcf does no like to debate. Too bad it would be a pleasure to destroy his arguments.
I'm pretty sure I just did with this video and also have entire playlists on specifics of Genesis and Exodus claims.
Here are some of those facts
-we have fossils, many with transitional changes showing progression. Ken Miller showed those in a debate to Henry Morris. Showed them right to him. Morris just kept stating there are no transitional fossils (I'm using the term TF for gradual change not inbetween creatures in the middle of transition)
-DNA sequencing---speaks for itself.
-ridiculous amounts of evidence why there isn't a global flood, scientifically and historically
The rogues at ICR and the Ken Hams and kent hovinds are always 100% of the time debunked. IE mollusks that are alive were dated 2000 years old (Hovind claim). Yes, because they are in hard water with calcium carbonate with additional older c-14 element in those living mollusks throwing off the test. And you guys never research that part, just repeat the mantra of Hovind. And every claim they make is debunked with factual science--every one. And the fundamentalist just digs in the heel. So why would I debate? The evidence which is overwhelming speaks for itself---all genres of science backed by historical archeology. Cheers, DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist
In this video you did not state science: you referenced cherry-picked scientists’ opinions.
This video also omitted several key areas scientific disciplines specifically the origin of first life. Are you ignoring this science right in front of you? You cite several scientists in your reply so I will presume you are familiar with chemical and biological characterizations along with the ability to research scientific papers so the following questions are well within your scientific acumen.
The following are science based questions which must be answered scientifically and logically in order to verify the existence of Darwinian-evolution and its variations.
Please characterize the chemical and electrical processes which created the first self-replicating cell?
Please characterize the chemical, electrical and biological processes which started biological evolution?
Please characterize the biological and chemical and electrical properties which created the human mind?
The following are caveats along with definitions and research parameters.
Any source in the universe may be used.
Abiogenesis is logically and scientifically the antecedent for evolution to begin and logically it demonstrates cause and effect. Otherwise the claim of evolutionary biology without life is a non-sequitur.
Speciation must occur at the family level of biological taxonomy or higher, otherwise it is variation within a kind.
The etymology of the term species, "...late 14c., in logic, "a class of individuals or things," from Latin species "a particular sort, kind, or type
No person is allowed to skip the first million steps of biological and chemical reactions to bolster false claims and issue pseudo-science.
@@debunkingthefundamentalist The reason why Christian fundamentalists must pretend that all scripture is inerrent is simply because they view the Bible as the inspired and revealed word of God, and God can not be a liar. The men who wrote the Bible couldn't possibly be ignorant and primitive savages, since they were acting under God's direction after all. The truth is that fundamentalist Christians worship a book rather than a loving Creator. Our ancient ancestors never had the resources of modern science we have today for one thing.
@TheMickeymental What does any of that have to do wirh Noah's flood? You have completely ignored everything he said just to raise the same old debunked creationist arguments. You do not need to provide evidence that life began as a chemical reaction to prove that Noah's flood did not happen. But the very quick answer to your all of your questions is natural processes, most of which are very well understood.
@@TheMickeymental Those are words but as with Hovind & Ham, are just nonsense strings without any bearing on the real debate whatsoever. For shame.
At a point in scientific history, someone tried to tell everyone else that the Earth revolves the sun not that the sun and all other heavenly bodies revolve around the Earth. That heretic (fundamentalist/science denier) was persecuted for not agreeing with the majority. He turned out to be right.
Your entire argument relies on logical fallacies, e.g. argumentum ad populum, and by your fallacious logic, we should continue to believe in geocentrism.
Perhaps you should actually do just a modicum of research into microbiology, geology, astrophysics/cosmology conducted by skeptics of modern, unproven theories. But you can't be bothered. Just as you're stuck on logical fallacies (an entire video), you're stuck on confirmation bias. You would never dare to look at an opposing scientific data/theories.
This video was an utter joke. But I didn't expect much from an atheist fundamentalist.
Actually, I'm an unspecified theist that uses what seems logical in science to suspect a Cosmic Designer. But he didn't do it in seven days. Cheers, DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist Making appeals to popularity, appeals to authority, etc. is not logic. In fact, it's anti-science which requires examining all the data/theories not just those that support your bias.
But at least you've leveraged your ignorance to convince yourself and some other uninformed individuals.
Your analogy and your reasoning are both flawed.
The majority view before heliocentrism was based entirely upon belief in the Bible. Science demonstrated that belief to be wrong. In doing so, science opened the doors to the understanding that religious belief itself could be wrong. Today, the groups mentioned in this video do not hold an irrational or uniformed position based upon a lack of information but the very opposite. It is not the numbers of these people that are the problem for fundamentalists, it is that what we know today may be tested and the rest of the world no longer simply believes in an old book and claims that cannot be tested.
@@theoutspokenhumanist "Your analogy and your reasoning are both flawed.
The majority view before heliocentrism was based entirely upon belief in the Bible."
Your history is wrong. It was based on observational science. If you're going to correct people, it'd help if you weren't so ignorant. Geocentrism was developed before Christ was ever born.
I can't be bothered to read the rest of your post when your start is so epically, historically, and scientifically wrong.
@@silverbackhayabusa Arrogant and deeply unpleasant. How very typical. Thank you for confirming the stereotype.
So confident in your superiority, you don't need to look at anything which might challenge it and therefore will never learn anything new.
I did not claim that Geocentrism was invented by the Bible, only that the predominant view before science corrected it, was based upon the Bible. Hopefully you can understand the difference.