Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What's stupid is this guy's poor understanding of evolution and his tendency to set up straw men and if something isn't understood fully use the God-of-the-gaps technique. Oh, we've never seen a star being formed before, so GOD and THE BIBLE!! This thinking stops inquiry and is the source of ignorance and stupidity. This guy is oozing with ignorance and stupidity.

He's got some natural comedic timing, though. He should quit brainwashing people for a living and do stand-up comedy.

k /thread

.

If he turned his skeptical inquiry on his own silly beliefs he would cease to spew such nonsense. He says we have never seen stars formed (I guess his assumption is that God spoke them all into existence?) but all the crazy bullshit he believes in about the Bible has never been seen before either. And where did God come from if he spoke everything into existence?



That's not how evolution works. So clearly he doesn't get it.

http://cdn3.bigcommerce.com/s-9v9slklr/products/1574/images/584/CIimGsrUMAERjmF__50682.1452381628.500.500.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/1ra3ne.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e384/super_hottie_2/mary.jpg

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
http://cdn3.bigcommerce.com/s-9v9slklr/products/1574/images/584/CIimGsrUMAERjmF__50682.1452381628.500.500.jpg

I guess I explained this one okay.

I don't see any questions.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
If he turned his skeptical inquiry on his own silly beliefs he would cease to spew such nonsense. He says we have never seen stars formed (I guess his assumption is that God spoke them all into existence?) but all the crazy bullshit he believes in about the Bible has never been seen before either. And where did God come from if he spoke everything into existence?



That's not how evolution works. So clearly he doesn't get it.



You're right, evolution doesn't work.

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
I guess I explained this one okay.

I don't see any questions.

http://www.noorderzononline.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hear-No-Evil-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil.png

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
"No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog."

That's not how evolution works. So clearly he doesn't get it.
Haven't watched the video, is that an acyual argument that he makes to "disprove" evolution?

Originally posted by SamZED
Haven't watched the video, is that an acyual argument that he makes to "disprove" evolution?

Yes, if you start at about 4:55 in the video, you'll hear it. The guy is a complete moron...

Fp6AkkgD5dI

A dog... came from a rock? What evolutionist believes that?

Originally posted by MythLord
A dog... came from a rock? What evolutionist believes that?

The straw-man type. One invented by a dishonest moron. F#ck that guy.

Like, the point of evolution is to show off how a primary organism can improve and become greater(which we see evidence of on a daily basis) not how a fish magically turns into a platypus and then into a dog.

Originally posted by MythLord
Like, the point of evolution is to show off how a primary organism can improve and become greater(which we see evidence of on a daily basis) not how a fish magically turns into a platypus and then into a dog.

Yeah, it's the Creationists who claim that animals just appear into existence without any explanation, except "God," something we don't see.

Whereas we do see gradual changes in organisms. They just ignore it, deny and/or lie about it.

Hopefully one day creationists will evolve working brains.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech


... we do see gradual changes in organisms. just ignore it, deny and/or lie about it.


Gonna have to back this up, PT.

Listen to what the very Creationist given in your "dogs from rock!" video (Kent Hovind) has to say on this matter, starting at the 6 min 30 sec mark:
(response is roughly 3 minutes or so)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nioA3L-j_Bk

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yes, if you start at about 4:55 in the video, you'll hear it. The guy is a complete moron...

Fp6AkkgD5dI



0Pfk8HOBWIw&t



He does understand the absurdity of evolution.



He (like all Christians/believers) does understand evolution. We just don't buy/believe it.



Click on video entitled,



"Dr. Kent Hovind 7-17-17 NO Charlie! "Populations" don't "evolve" either! Wake up!"



and start "exactly" at the 3:20 mark.

Haha... he started with a Christian praise song and prayer and then continued on to an ignorant straw-man rebuttal of evolution.

That is embarrassing.

No, it's not just micro evolution of bird beaks that proves evolution. It's mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that you Creationists refuse to try to understand.

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
0Pfk8HOBWIw&t

Hahaha... at 6:50 he has a Freudian slip: "National Pornographic." I wonder what he was doing before he filmed this?

And watching further he continues to misunderstand evolution:

"You'll never get a whale, a tomato, or a hamster to grow on your corn stalk."

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Haha... he started with a Christian praise song and prayer and then continued on to an ignorant straw-man rebuttal of evolution.

That is embarrassing.

No, it's not just micro evolution of bird beaks that proves evolution. It's mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that you Creationists refuse to try to understand.



Bird beaks prove evolution?







You guys are desperate for proof of evolution.



Please excuse me.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Hahaha... at 6:50 he has a Freudian slip: "National Pornographic." I wonder what he was doing before he filmed this?

And watching further he continues to misunderstand evolution:

"You'll never get a whale, a tomato, or a hamster to grow on your corn stalk."





He said that on purpose to belittle the magazine.



Bird beaks prove evolution not!

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
"You'll never get a whale, a tomato, or a hamster to grow on your corn stalk."



Just so you know, JLY, no evolutionist ever claims anything like that.

That's why he is setting up a straw man and knocking it down. It's a dirty, dishonest tactic.

And just so you know, 98% of scientists are Godless followers of evolution..



That's disturbing that the general population is so deluded.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Gonna have to back this up, PT.

Listen to what the very Creationist given in your "dogs from rock!" video (Kent Hovind) has to say on this matter, starting at the 6 min 30 sec mark:
(response is roughly 3 minutes or so)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nioA3L-j_Bk

When did Kent Hovind earn a biology degree? Was it while he was in prison for being a dishonest crook?

I feel like I could read the OP's 3 opening posts or I could inject acid directly into my brain and the results would more or less be identical.

Except a lot of scientists are usually prepared to concede and change their entire world-view assuming new empirical evidence arises. Religious blood suckers can be given a shit ton of proof about evolution and still say "Herr, I dont accept it!"

Originally posted by MythLord
Except a lot of scientists are usually prepared to concede and change their entire world-view assuming new empirical evidence arises. Religious blood suckers can be given a ... ton of proof ... and still say "Herr, I dont accept it!"


Anybody who thinks people in science and medicine are vastly different in terms of true open-mindedness probably doesn't know much about the actual history of science OR medicine.

You know something of German as well as English?
Ever seen the following by Max Planck in either language?

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

----------------

History abounds with examples of the above. I've been debating starting a thread concerning one case that struck me as the most profoundly tragic, senseless, and wasteful: that of Ignaz Semmelweis, whose work would have saved the lives of thousands, if only the fields of science and medicine really DID work the way you're suggesting they do ...


----------------

Came across an article that fairly accurately puts a name to what your stance and that of most others seems to be. Briefest of excerpts below; article itself is worth a few moments reading:


Kuhn ... singlehandedly changed the way we think about mankind's most organised attempt to understand the world. Before Kuhn, our view of science was dominated by philosophical ideas about how it ought to develop ("the scientific method", together with a heroic narrative of scientific progress as "the addition of new truths to the stock of old truths, or the increasing approximation of theories to the truth, and, in the odd case, the correction of past errors", as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy puts it. Before Kuhn, in other words, we had what amounted to the Whig interpretation of scientific history in which past researchers, theorists and experimenters had engaged in a long march, if not towards "truth", then at least towards greater and greater understanding of the natural world ...



https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions

Given I'm going to medical school, yeah I'm aware of the actual history of medicine and, to a degree, science.

Now you mention Ignaz Semmelweis, but that's a poor example because it only plays into my argument more. He was rejected because he lacked empirical data to prove him right at the time, thus he was rejected. Later when proof came up and it was confirmed his theories are true they earned widespread acceptance. Tragic it took them so long to do so, but they eventually did when enough evidence came to the table that he was right.

There will obviously be close-minded scientists and doctors who are hesitant to accept new theories, but at least they eventually will accept them if enough evidence is present. Religious people, however, usually don't give a damn about evidence and go straight to blind faith.

Originally posted by MythLord
Given I'm going to medical school, yeah I'm aware of the actual history of medicine and, to a degree, science.


Beware of spending too much time here, if that's true.
This website can be both life-saver AND life-drainer.


Originally posted by MythLord


Now you mention Ignaz Semmelweis, but that's a poor example because it only plays into my argument more.



It's something well-known and something you can relate to, so im thinking it even better now than I did originally.


Originally posted by MythLord


There will obviously be close-minded scientists and doctors who are hesitant to accept new theories, but at least they eventually will accept them if enough evidence is present.


Max Planck wrote what he wrote for a reason, and generally disagrees with you.
So, from everything I can tell, did Thomas Kuhn.
So do I.





Originally posted by MythLord
Semmelweis ... was rejected because he lacked empirical data to prove him right at the time, thus he was rejected. Later when proof came up and it was confirmed his theories are true they earned widespread acceptance. Tragic it took them so long to do so, but they eventually did when enough evidence came to the table that he was right.


It's easy enough to say this, however, there are several things you're overlooking, and after giving the first of these points, I might start that thread after all, just to give these the attention they need.
For now, for consideration of time, I'll just present the first:

1. Semmelweis HAD empirical data. He had observed and recorded death rates in midwife clinics versus his own. He observed and recorded what happened to death rates when chlorine hand washings were implemented. The death rates plummeted. He observed what happened after he left and chlorine hand washings ceased. The death rates went back up to what they had been.
Then Semmelweis introduced chlorine hand washings in his new place of hire.
Again, death rates dramatically plummeted.

This process of observing and testing is practically the definition of empirical, which means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic".
Semmelweis had that.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Beware of spending too much time here, if that's true.
This website can be both life-saver AND life-drainer.

Eh, I can find the free time. Appreciate the concearn, though.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Max Planck wrote what he wrote for a reason, and generally disagrees with you.
So, from everything I can tell, did Thomas Kuhn.
So do I.

And Max can have his opinion and anecdote all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that scientists are far more open-minded to new discoveries assuming proof exists, than extremists of any religion.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's easy enough to say this, however, there are several things you're overlooking, and after giving the first of these points, I might start that thread after all, just to give these the attention they need.
For now, for consideration of time, I'll just present the first:

1. Semmelweis HAD empirical data. He had observed and recorded death rates in midwife clinics versus his own. He observed and recorded what happened to death rates when chlorine hand washings were implemented. The death rates plummeted. He observed what happened after he left and chlorine hand washings ceased. The death rates went back up to what they had been.
Then Semmelweis introduced chlorine hand washings in his new place of hire.
Again, death rates dramatically plummeted.

This process of observing and testing is practically the definition of empirical, which means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic".
Semmelweis had that.

Semmelweis, when he first postulated, didn't have enough empirical data on his side hence why he was primarily rejected. Later on he did several tests which convinced a lot of people and chlorine hand-washing began slowly but surely being implemented. Now, I'll concede that not every scientist did in fact support his theory and denied his proof, but soon after his death even they said "fair enough, it works".

There'll obviously be the close-minded even among doctors, technicians, scientists, etc. But on a general-basis and on average, it's much easier to convince a scientist or atheist of something if you have enough proof, than a Christian, Muslim or any other religious blood-sucker. And I'm openly a Christian(Orthodox) but I definitely don't believe the Bible is 100% true nor do I believe that stuff like evolution and tons of other postulated scientific theories are impossible.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://i.imgflip.com/1ra3ne.jpg

Speaking of this...I forget, did this spirit ask Mary if it could impregnate her? Cuz if not it's also rape. I forget if consent was given or if she was only made aware of it after the fact.

Luke Chapter 1:

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Originally posted by Surtur
Speaking of this...I forget, did this spirit ask Mary if it could impregnate her? Cuz if not it's also rape. I forget if consent was given or if she was only made aware of it after the fact.

http://i.imgur.com/oXIsWZ7.jpg

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Luke Chapter 1:

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Okay despite the hilarity of the line "and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be" how is this not horrifying? She is not asked if she wants to have God's kid, she is *told* she is going to be having God's kid.

So a horrifying eldritch abomination appears in human form to her, informs her she gonna get knocked up real good by an unseen force, tells her the fact she is a virgin is not a deal breaker cuz his boss has super impregnation powers.

She does at the end essentially say "well okay then" but this is not presented in a manner where it seems she has a choice.

God also hilariously left out the part about her kid being crucified later on.

Wouldn't it be funny though if in reality she merely cheated on Joseph and then blamed spirit magic? That would be smart, because first how does one even disprove that? Joseph had no way to show spirit magic was not at play. Also if he doubts it he is also potentially doubting God himself, so a double whammy.

Originally posted by Surtur

Wouldn't it be funny ... if in reality merely cheated on Joseph and then blamed spirit magic?


That thought occurred to me long, long before now, as it has to many others.
Years ago, in fact, for me; decades ago for them.

I'm surprised YOU are just now pondering that.

Actually, this is one reason why a lot of secular historians and scholars believe Jesus really DID exist -- take away the supernatural elements and you have the very plausible scenario of a young woman telling a tale tailored to the hopes of a religious community, endorsed by a kind older man (Joseph), that could save her life from what could otherwise be a lot of shame to herself and her family, and possibly even death sentence by stoning.


It's a point in favor of the historicity of Jesus.

Originally posted by Surtur

That would be smart, because first how does one even disprove that? Joseph had no way to show spirit magic was not at play. Also if he doubts it he is also potentially doubting God himself, so a double whammy.


Actually, the Bible directly answers those questions.
Joseph does NOT, assuming he was told it by this point, believe the virgin birth scenario. He thinks to quietly annul his relationship with Mary.
It takes Joseph's OWN encounter with God's messenger
to convince him the story is true ...

Matthew 1:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Nah man, you got it all wrong

Verse 1: R2D2 came and created a man to enact his holy commands, Landon Donovan

Verse 2: Landon Donovan created his own holy enactor known as Wayne Gretzky

Verse 3: Gretzky lifted his great stick to create Rocky

Verse 4: Rocky demanded a theme song, and then created rock and roll

Verse 5: The heavenly music needed a vessel to embody it, that vessel was space Jesus

Verse 6: Space Jesus, the savior of all, created the universe

Proof?
The world you live in is proof

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That thought occurred to me long, long before now, as it has to many others.
Years ago, in fact, for me; decades ago for them.

I'm surprised YOU are just now pondering that.

Actually, this is one reason why a lot of secular historians and scholars believe Jesus really DID exist -- take away the supernatural elements and you have the very plausible scenario of a young woman telling a tale tailored to the hopes of a religious community, endorsed by a kind older man (Joseph), that could save her life from what could otherwise be a lot of shame to herself and her family, and possibly even death sentence by stoning.


It's a point in favor of the historicity of Jesus.




Actually, the Bible directly answers those questions.
Joseph does NOT, assuming he was told it by this point, believe the virgin birth scenario. He thinks to quietly annul his relationship with Mary.
It takes Joseph's OWN encounter with God's messenger
to convince him the story is true ...

Matthew 1:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

It's good to know Joey wasn't a complete simp, but it's still quite disturbing she didn't really seem to be given a choice about getting spirit-pregnant.

And you better be careful about quoting Kent Hovind around here.

You'll send these evolutionists/atheists into a frenzy lol. No one triggers them quite like he does even after all these years.


No creationist has more web sites devoted specifically to attacking them than he has. He is so despised by the atheist community because he so easily and so often exposes their unscientific lies.

laughcry

Brilliant trolling Star

Star's existence is an important reminder that fundamentalists are not just some strawman atheists use to get a chuckle. There really are anti-evolution creationists in existence, who think evolution is just some unfounded hypothesis with no evidence backing it up.

Yet, they believe in God.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.-- 1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV


That's what evolutionism is: science falsely so called.

xDDDDDDDDDD XDDDd XDdx DSdd xDDDD

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.-- 1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV


That's what evolutionism is: science falsely so called.
The Bible literally has telekinetic heroes, magical transmutation, and folks walking on water.

It's not a good source of scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.-- 1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV


That's what evolutionism is: science falsely so called.

Ah yes, the Bible in English. As it was originally conceived. Without translation errors or liberties taken of any kind.

Tl;dr thread

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Hopefully one day creationists will evolve working brains.


Your childish insulting of creationists does not change the fact that you have literally zero proof that your retarded evolutionism religion is scientifically based. It is a faith based, although tax-funded, religion.

Which is fine.... you can believe whatever you want but you shouldn't be calling it "science" and taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that crap being used to brainwash children.


I realize you're a neo-marxist though and without the unscienfic lie of Darwinism marxism and/or communism would never exist so I get why those on your side of the political spectrum want children to continue to be indoctrinated with that shit.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Your childish insulting of creationists does not change the fact that you have literally zero proof that your retarded evolutionism religion is scientifically based. It is a faith based, although tax-funded, religion.

Which is fine.... you can believe whatever you want but you shouldn't be calling it "science" and taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that crap being used to brainwash children.


I realize you're a neo-marxist though and without the unscienfic lie of Darwinism marxism and/or communism would never exist so I get why those on your side of the political spectrum want children to continue to be indoctrinated with that shit. durwank

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Hopefully one day creationists will evolve working brains.

^Benni was a cool dude and funny. Too bad he went AFK permanently