Comments by "Jackie Wu" (@jwu1950) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell"
channel.
-
stoneman472 Okay, let's count your lies.
Lie #1: "I never said Evolution was false"
"Evolution is a godless fairytale"
Evolution is a real and true godless fairy tale, not false. Similarly, Santa and tooth fairies are real and true fictional characters, not false.
To say that evolution is a science is a false statement because it is not. There is not a single theory of evolution, scientific or otherwise, only opinions.
Lie#2: "Einstein was a believer in the Jewish God ....." Per Wiki, "Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"."
Lie#3: You said Jesus is religious because he is Jewish. Jesus is Jewish by birth because he was born of Jewish parents. That doesn't mean he believed in Judaism as a religion. He pointed out that the religious leaders of his time were hypocrites. He disobeyed the ten commandments which were the Jewish law and gave reasons why they were not the laws of God. He was crucified for that same reason by the Jewish religious leaders of his time even when the Roman governor offered to release him. Religions are political organisations. Jesus did not hold any political office or associations. He was a teacher, not a politician like Abraham and Moses.
Lie#4: You said I am a Christian and that I am religious. I already told you Jesus is not Christ. He never said he was. And I told you that Jesus, Einstein, and I are not religious, and that we do not follow any religion. We believe in God, not religions.
Lie#5: you accused me of saying righteousness is bad. And you said, "Allow me to quote you sir
"Love out of righteousness is not love. It is bigotry."
"Jesus taught us love not righteousness"
Where in that quote can you find me saying "righteousness is bad" ? You are a liar and a self-righteous and obnoxious bigot just like those militant atheistic hate mongers.
"In Matthew Jesus says that, if His hearers want to enter into the kingdom of heaven, their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, who were the experts in the Law."
Exactly, self-righteous, hypocritical people like you and the Pharisees don't get to enter the kingdom of heaven. Like I said and I repeat, "Love out of righteousness is not love. It is bigotry."
"Jesus taught us love, not righteousness"
You assumed wrong. I don't give a shit about the Bible. I only believe in the teachings of Jesus, not the Bible. People believe Jesus is righteous. Jesus is not self-righteous. He condemned self-righteousness and hypocrisy as displayed by the Pharisees and now you.
"Also as a bonus:
The term "right" means
morally good, justified, or acceptable."
Exactly. Good, justified, or acceptable are all subjective and self professed, thus the term "self-righteousness". I demonstrated that the torture and murder of Muslim and the murder of unborn babies are justified by the U.S. self-righteousness which they called their
humanism, a pure bullshit you seemed to endorse. You even profess that gay marriages is humanism and the self-righteous law of your government is unquestionably "right". How ridiculous is that ? LMAO !
Lie#6: You said, "... that by reciting the wiki def of a word you in turn then successfully def the word?" I quoted Wiki's definition of humanism which I suppose and which you later confirmed is the meaning of humanism to you. But that is not my definition because it is not what humanism means to me. Humanism is a synthesized bullshit to justify subjective political agendas. People like you who profess humanism are self-righteous and hypocritical. They use some bullshit to justify torturing and killing of Muslims, murdering millions of unborn babies each and every year, and even gay marriages. You are the imbecile 1 and 2.
Lie#7: "So now your blaming Americans for the deaths of Iraqi citizens? You mean the same America that follow the teachings of Jesus?"
No. I mean the same Americans that believed in their bullshit humanism rather than following the teachings of Jesus which include "Love thy enemy", "Let the one without sin throw the first stone", and "those who live by the sword die by the sword". The Americans chose to live by the sword rather than by the love and peace of Jesus, and they called that their humanism.
Lie#7: " I can easily make the claim that the rise of Humanism is playing a key roll in this trend."
No. The belief in the humanism bullshit is what brought forth the murder of unborn babies by the millions in the first place. It is as I said which you initially rejected and now concurred, "a belief system can cause the death of millions." You and the U.S. are still stuck in this self-professed, self-righteous, hypocritical belief system you folks called your humanism. I have nothing against the law of your government. Just don't call it "righteous". Political laws are made by politicians and has nothing to do with righteousness other than self-righteousness.
Lie#8: You called it a lie my assertion ""Christians believe in the Christ, not the man Jesus". By doing so you were in effect asserting that Christians believe Jesus is a man rather than Christ the Messiah, God, the only Son of God, and a prophet. Now that is your lie.
I don't give a shit what your stupid mother in law or her stupid Catholic priest said. They are your imbecile 3. Ask them what is the Holy Trinity and whether or not they believe in it (The Holy Trinity referred to Jesus as the Son of God and as God). Tell them to come to this debate. My first challenge to them is "Jesus never claimed he is Christ, God, or the only Son of God". Jesus claimed he is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus also never prophecies because to prophecies is to undermine, marginalise, and misrepresent God. Jesus warned us of false prophets. Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad are false prophets because they undermined, marginalized, and misrepresented God by self-professed that they knew God and the Will of God. No one knows God or the Will of God, not even Jesus. God is unknowable to humans, and God cannot be God if God needs a human to do God's bidding.
Stop lying and let the truth set you free. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Slickslash 27 Why ? I have always backed up my arguments with evidence and logical explanations, and everything I said is based on truth and verifiable facts. In addition to that I have always been consistent with my argument which I believe is what he took as insistent. Insistency can be just being stubborn, but consistency means integrity. My presentation is full of integrity, yet you guys are just being stubborn regarding your blind faith in Darwinism and it's godless fairy tale.
I can understand that due to the fact a lot of religious people in power are hypocrites and they use their power to control and manipulate others, thus causing plenty of resentments particular among the young who is not yet in a position of power until they get on a debate on YT and that's the time they stubbornly resist any arguments for God regardless of logic and evidence. These young felt particularly lost when confronted with the truth that what they learned in school, or more appropriately what they were stuffed with in school, were in fact garbage, lies, and propagandas. They have been screwed both ways, by the hypocritical religious people in power as well as by the godless conspirators in power. That is the reason I am here. My mission is to save the souls of our youth from these pollution and mishandling by sharing the truth with logic and evidence and to empower them with the truth and the style of free expression without guilt, uncertainty, or shame. Take heart and learn. You can be like me if you can just stop resisting and start embracing the truth. You can then not be intimidated by any rejection but be able to boomerang back with powerful, awakening, and life transforming ideas that is true and consistent to the core. I have successfully transformed the lives of doctors, engineers, physicists, biologists, teachers, grad students, college students, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists. Everyone can benefit from the truth I share.
May the love and the peace of Jesus be with you.
1
-
1
-
a stoneman472Â 1) I was busy with other students.
2) For sure science cannot prove or disprove God. Science is very limited in scope. Besides, God is metaphysical  and is therefore unobservable and unknowable to humans, same as other metaphysical entities like gravity, life, and time.
3) No, I am sober. I don't give a shit how many great-great-great grand fathers you have, you have zero empirical evidence to prove any one of them was a man and not a female pig.Â
4) The only ones asking stupid questions here were you and Slickslash 27.You two were asking for empirical evidence for God, knowing that it was a ridiculous request.  And no one gives a shit about the Bible here besides your mother in law and her Catholic priest boyfriend.
Slickslash 27 No. You cannot observe gravity, life, or time. What we measure are the effects of gravity, life, and time but not the entities themselves because they are unobservable and unknowable to humans. We measure the effects of God also, we count the human and whales population, and we count and measure the stars and the planets, all effects caused by God the Creator.
May the truth open your eyes so the two of you can begin to see.
1
-
stoneman472 1) You think you two are the only students I have ? You two are not my only students. LOL.
2) No, we cannot measure gravity, life, or time, only their effects like we do with effects of God.
3) We are talking empirical evidence, not some stupid opinion by some stupid web site. Just admit it, you have zero empirical evidence to prove any one of your many great-great-great grand father was a human and not a female pig.
4) "major Fallacy of Creationism" ? WTF is that ? Why you believe your great-great-great grand father was a man and not a female pig without a single piece of empirical evidence and you don't consider that a major Fallacy ? Why don't you ask your mother in law and her Catholic priest boyfriend if they may have some empirical evidence to prove their great-great-great grand father was a man and not a female pig ?
"The Creation model" ? WTF are you talking about ? No one here is talking about any model. We have been talking about God the creator which is metaphysical, unobservable, and unknowable to humans. WTF are you thanking me for ? I said if you do not believe in God you are irrational and illogical, and if you believe that there is no God you are outright delusional, in view of the overwhelming evidence and logical proofs for God.
May the truth set you free.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DriftLV1 You wrote, "There is plenty of evidence for evolution." If that is the case, you should be able to provide at least one piece of valid evidence for Evolution, and the argument is over, isn't that right ? But you have zero evidence. Don't forget, there is also zero logic for Evolution, and zero theory of Evolution that has been or can be scientifically tested. Evolution is a fairytale.
"creationist website" ??? What creationist website ? Who gives a shit for creationists ? You ? Not me. The following is unsubstantiated. But hypothetically, new species could have been manufactured by intelligent beings living in planets billions of light years away from earth and deliberately or accidentally transported to earth through meteors once in a while. So creationists are wrong but closer to the truth whereas Evolutionists are totally out to lunch.
"Evolution is so gradual" ??? You mean it's like "once upon a time" ? I've heard that one before, but that's to fool kids. Scientifically speaking, complexity and order always disintegrate into simplicity and chaos in time, and never ever the other way round, unless there is intelligence involved. The ancient Greek and Egyptian ruins are good example of this fact. The more time is involved, the less likely is Evolution. Period.
You asked, "So are you saying that at one point every single extinct species that ever existed occupied the earth at the same time as all the species that are on the earth now? Since no new species can be created, right?" I never said no new species can be created. I said there is no Evolution in real life. All species exists on earth at the same time is a possibility, but that doesn't have to be the case, because new species may pop out of rocks in some other galaxies and transported to earth via meteors from time to time. That, at least is logical, considering there are trillions of galaxies out there we don't have a clue what life is like there.
You asked, "why don't we find fossils of current species? Only ones that don't exist?" You tell me. May be you have not looked thoroughly enough. May be many species were transported to earth recently. Evolutionists have the burden of proof, not non-evolutionists.
You wrote, "trying to apply everything we know about the world to creationism literally doesn't make sense." I agree. Creationists also have no evidence for their claim, and no theory that can be scientifically tested. One thing they do have, and that is logic. Intelligence is definitely involved, though it is not likely human intelligence. Aliens, perhaps.
You asked, "Mislead people for what purpose exactly?" Money, power, fame, status, all of the above, same purpose creationists are misleading people for. Obviously.
You wrote, "it's easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled." Exactly. You are speaking about yourself. Learn the truth. The truth will set you free.
May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** What you described there is an opinion, not a theory. Darwin's opinion cannot be tested by the scientific method because there is not a single theory, there is a collection of theory each applied towards a different casual question. For example, there is theories in mutation and there are theories in genetics, but there is nothing linking these theories to speciation or evolution. You said "...creatures will adapt to their surroundings via natural selection ...." This is bull shit because natural selection does not exist in real life unless by nature you mean God and by natural you mean God's design and creation. Creatures adapt to their surrounding via the intelligence designed into each and every living organism that enables living organisms to live, reproduce, mutate, act, choose, select, and otherwise manipulate their natural environment which has been designed to be inanimate and impotent. This is a fact like " organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring." is a fact, but there is no theory to explain these facts other than GOD DID IT.
1
-
***** There is zero evidence for evolution, and evolution has never been observed. Fossil records only proved that some species had died out in the past. They are not proofs of speciation by design or by spontaneous existence which is what evolution boils down to. We have evidence for mutation and genetics, but mutation and genetics are not evolution. Mutation and genetics are parts of design.
Darwin's opinion cannot be tested by the scientific method and has never been tested by the scientific method. Natural selection makes no sense unless by nature we mean God, and by natural we mean God's design and creation. That is the reason evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method. God cannot be tested by the scientific method. You need to understand varieties within species is not speciation. White cats and black cats are still cats, white humans and black humans are still humans (don't let the white supremacists fool you into believing whites are fitter, they are not), and big dogs and small dogs are still dogs.
You said, "...what we define as species is inherently tied to evolution and as a result genetics." May be we should revise or remove these definitions for they are arbitrary and they don't mean squat anyways.
What cheery picking are you talking about ? I was saying " organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring." is a fact because that is what we can observe, but it is not a definition like you said that's what natural selection is defined as, and there is no theory that explains this fact. The rest of what you said in that paragraph is irrelevant.
You said, "the theory explaining that animals that are unfit for an environment are weeded out and the ones that are fittest for the environment survive and reproduce is called evolution." Bull shit. You just made that up. Prove me wrong. Quote a credible source that says that is the theory of evolution.
I can tell you how even Darwin himself admitted that his so called theory of evolution by the process of natural selection is absurd. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Our eyes are one of such complex organ to which Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
1
-
1
-
***** You made up what you called the theory. I did not try to redefine natural, evolutionists did. Natural has always means the way of God by believers of God and "nothing" by believers of Nothingness.
I have explained how the hypothetical evidence for evolution you quoted are not facts. They are still evidence though as anything can be called evidence. But you need logical proof to tie these evidence to evolution. l pointed out the logical proof is not there and I explained why : the causal points of reference continue to be organisms. In fact you can use these hypothetical evidence for design and that would make logical sense. You should deal with it yourself.
There is zero confirming evidence for evolution in what you have presented. These evidence you quoted only serve to prove design because they are all based on living organisms and the intelligence designed into each and everyone of them. You should know that rocks are not designed with this intelligence and that is why rocks cannot reproduce, mutate, and carry out life functions like act, choose, select, and otherwise manipulate their surroundings.
You said, "so you agree evolution exists? because nowhere in there did you say this process didn't happen. sure its a processes but a processes can be a theory." I have never agreed evolution exists. I said it numerous times evolution does not exist in the real world. We were arguing if evolution is a theory and you showed me proof that it is not by quoting me that it is a process. It is true processes can hypothetically be theories but all the evidence you have proved only serve to prove design and not evolution because they are all based on living organism as the causal point of reference. The process describes GOD DID IT, not the inanimate and impotent natural environment.
Re. the videos you quoted, they have not debunk design. Darwin said it himself that natural selection is absurd and he said what seemed absurd can still be true as in earth orbiting the sun. His logic is flawed because what is absurd does not only sometimes seemed absurd and sometime not, it is absurd, period. The earth orbiting the sun seemed absurd but is not absurd, the sun orbiting the earth is absurd. Design is one of the causes, the primary one or the nucleus, for mutations to be orbiting around, and it is not absurd. Evolution is basically saying the surrounding is the primary cause and the nucleus of mutations and mutations orbit around the surrounding, that is absolutely absurd. The author of these videos can explain how eyes can be constructed piece by piece because they are using human intelligence designed in humans, inanimate environments are not designed with this intelligence. No matter how much time is involved, an eye cannot be formed without intelligence and human intelligence is currently not sufficient to perform such a task. But humans may be able to clone eyes using God's design in stem cells. I must therefor say that these videos you quoted only proved design, not evolution. Let me remind you also that time works against evolution. The more time is involved, the less likely is evolution.
May the truth be with you and help you deal with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** I thought so, like a dog, when you run out of valid argument you bark and run away with your tail stuck between your hind legs. Dogs don't understand embarrassment but you should. It is an embarrassing sight. In your situation I would rather acknowledge the truth and thank my teacher.
"what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating" is equivalent to saying "the truth is not worth pursuing". Even Alder admitted, ""While the Newtonian insistence on ensuring that any statement is testable by observation [...] undoubtedly cuts out the crap, it also seems to cut out almost everything else as well", as it prevents taking position on several topics such as politics or religion." That is just MATERIALISM, like I was saying, metaphysics is the foundation of science, science without metaphysics is empty and is not science but MATERIALISM. Also, Alder was being dishonest here. Newton said "testable by observation", not "testable by the scientific method", There is no scientific method employed to test Newton's law of gravity. That is why it remained a law, an unexplained observation. No one knows what gravity is. We can only believe in gravity based on our observation applying our logic. Logic and mathematics cannot be tested by the scientific method but that's what all science is based on. Without the metaphysical logic and mathematics there is no science, only MATERIALISM.
Appeal to emotion or not, everything I said is based on truth and verifiable facts. Just watch a few video by militant atheists and evolutionists like Dawkins, Krauss, Harris, and Hitchens, and see if you agree they all promote hate, violence, and bigotry. Sure, it cannot be scientifically tested, but it is the truth.
If that was your last response to me, may you find truth and wisdom to replace the lies and propagandas that plagues you brain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Are you trying to lie again ? May be you are just confused. I have never tried to re-define science. Evolution is not science, never has been science, and never been tested by the scientific method because evolution is not a single theory and so there is no theory to be scientifically tested. I never challenged the definition of scientific theories you quoted. Your definition is perfectly fine : "A scientific theory is an explanation of observable fact, backed up by empirical evidence and subject to repeated testing against said observable fact."
Without an explanation, you ranted, "You similarly and arbitrarily decide to turn reality on its head to conform with your delusions." What delusions are you referring too ? Everything I said is based on truth and verifiable facts. Don't throw temper tangent like a spoiled brad, use your words if you don't understand anything that I said, say so, okay ?
The 404,626 published papers PubMed listed explain mutation and genetics, not evolution. I'll repeat it so hopefully it will get through to you head, mutations and genetics are not evolution, they are designed. The many designed and re-designed computers and space stations are products of human intelligent design, not evolution by some baloney selection process.
Thank you anyways, but I do not believe in luck. Only naïve and ignorant people believe in luck and evolution. The law of cause and effects does not allow any random chance, accidents, or luck to exist, and therefore they don't exist in real life, only in fairy tales like evolution. The space capsule that carried Armstrong landed on the moon not by luck, random chance, or accident. It landed by design and by cause and it could not have landed on Mar or Jupiter by luck either because it was not designed to land on those planets.
May the truth deliver you from the conspiracy of lies and propagandas, and may the love and the peace of Jesus be with you.
1
-
***** Wow ! that's your logic ? If b is (b) and a is not b then I have re-defined b. Talking about morons ! You disappoint me.
Use your words and explain. Everything I said is based on truth and verifiable facts. How can that be hypocritical ? You have not explained what delusion you were referring to either.
You are a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I am not a Christian. I do not follow any religion. I believe in Jesus. Jesus is not Christ, not God, not the only Son of God, not the messiah, and Jesus never prophecies. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life as he claimed, and he never claimed what he is not.
I cannot be regarded as a troll precisely because I never call white black and black white nor do I ever call day night and night day, I call a spade a spade, white as white, black as black, day as day, and night as night.
You find me amusing because you are very fortunate to come across someone so wise and so truthful. For the sake of humanity, I hope you can carry forward these wisdom and truth bestowed on me to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
You should be teaching this kid logic and reasoning based on evidence, not luck. Only naïve and ignorant people like believers of evolution would believe in luck. Luck, random chance, and accidents do not exist in real life. Everything that exist is caused to exit. This is the law, the law of cause and effect. And this law does not allow random chance, accident, and luck to exist. The capsule carrying Armstrong did not land on the moon by random chance, accidents, or luck. It was designed and caused to land on the moon. It couldn't have landed on Mars or Jupiter by random chance, accidents, or luck either because it was not designed and caused to land anywhere other than the moon. For a young person to believe in luck and evolution is the recipe for disaster, superstition and credulity most often leads to no good. This is the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1