9:09 INSTANT PROOF, this IDIOT doesnt have a clue what he's talking about. He clearly doesnt know anything about evolution. Yet he says he was once an evolutionist? I highly doubt that. Must be either lying, or woefully ignorant.
No, Richard Dawkins should not speak with these people anymore because that´s an infection and i fear the virus could spread through scientists of the world and then we would be totally screwed.
I am amazed at some of the misinformation uttered by Dr. Mcmurty. He doesn't understand information theory. Histories comment about be genetics only copying information perfectly or less perfectly is misleading. It in an exactly copy or change slightly due to mutation.
If only Richard Dawkins could have been there when Howard Conder was with Ian MacCormack. God was so real. It is my belief that no matter how theologically correct some are, or even scientifically correct, some will just never be able to see God, or have God reveal himself to you. Philosophy and science debates are often filled with pride from both participants, and that is what God hates most (in my opinion).
One cant help but be arrogant, or at least seem arrogant in ridiculing these people and I hate to say it, but feel superior to them. It's like being in a class of 3rd graders, with having a current knowledge of physics. It's literally that bad.
McMurty is amazingly difficult to watch, so arrogant and yet most of his arguments shown here ad up to naught science. He doesn't do his side any favors, and does more to discredit his understanding of evolution than anything else
@1way2salvation Macrevolution has been shown. Every transition stage in the evolution of the horse has been found through fossil records. Also, evolution has been induced in our lifetimse. Ever heard of bacterial anti-biotic resistance? That's evolution. Even new mutants of the influenza virus that arise is an example of evolution.
@1way2salvation Oh really? So the mutation in CCR5 doesn't induce resistance to HIV? The glutamate to valine mutation at the position 6 of the beta chain in hemoglobin in Sickle Cell disease doesn't confer resistance to malaria? They are adding information to the gene whether you like it or not. Furthermore many genes have been duplicated throughout the existence of life because of translocation events. Having a extra copies of a gene allows mutation to occur in them. I'm not making this up.
@1way2salvation Oh really? So the mutation in CCR5 doesn't induce resistance to HIV? The glutamate to valine chain at the position 6 of the beta chain in hemoglobin in Sickle Cell disease doesn't confer resistance to malaria? They are adding information to the gene whether you like it or not. Furthermore many genes have been duplicated throughout the existence of life because of translocation events. Having a extra copies of a gene allows mutation to occur in them. I'm not making this up.
Umm I think Grady McMurtry is seriously deluded. Mutations can add information to the genome. You can have substitutions, insertions, and deletions. Most of the time it's detrimental to the organism or it doesn't do anything but once in a while there is a benefit. Plus you can have whole chtomosomal mutations such as transversions and translocations. This mean is seriously blind or has an agenda.
@LordVader89 That is a complete lie. Mutations do not add any information and never will, there is a loss of information or copying the same information - nothing more. Dogs will always produce dogs. Some of the so-called scientific comments from the evolutionists on this thread are either severely misinformed or purposefully deceitful. You are clearly wilfully ignorant.
@1way2salvation "Mutations do not add any information and never will, there is a loss of information or copying the same information - nothing more"
The facts prove otherwise. Denying them doesn't make them go away.
"You are clearly wilfully ignorant" We are not the ones who ignore 21st century science while clinging to a 2800 year old story borrowed from even older polytheistic bullshit.
Wow... "there is no opportunity to add beneficial information" LOL! What a FOOL! I hope this guy is a geneticist to even speak on this topic... oh... maybe not... He said "Why can't mutations produce BLAH BLAH BLAH"... The answer? They can! They have! They do! We use it! It's true!
Here's my prediction for any debate between Dawkins and this McMurtry character. Dawkins will absolutely mop the floor with this cretin, exposing all the falacies and outright lies (Evolutionists say whales are descended from cows? That's nothing less than a fucking LIE!) that McMurtry presents here. McMurtry will then get right back up and declare victory despite just having his ass handed to him. I don't think Dawkins should do it. It's a waste of time.
5:03 "How does a creature with a skeleton on the outside become a creature with a skeleton on the inside?"
OMFG! Either this guy is being deliberately misleading or he's an utter imbecile! Vertebrates aren't descended from crustaceans, they're descended from fish! Chalk one straw man up for him on that. (I haven't watched the rest of it yet, I assume there'll be more.)
@Guitcad1 This isn't every stupid thing he said in that 'lecture', but they're the highlights. A full hour of this guy is like a compilation of creationism's greatest hits.
@Guitcad1 he's a scientist who has a lot more experience on this subject than you. If he was still an evolution scientist you'd believe every word he said. And when he shows us the truth for example the whale myth you just ignore it because you don't want to be wrong. That's dumb. People just hope evolution is right (using faith just like religion if i may add) because they hope god doesn't exist due to there lifestyle.
@irishbarrycooper Barry, he is not a scientist. Has has a degree in forestry, that is as close as he gets to science. If you believe that the tiny vestigial leg bones on a modern whale are 'pivot points' then you don't know enough about either biology *or* engineering to make the claim that what this charlatan claims is 'true'. Can I ask you, why do you use faith like an accusation?
@DaithiDublin without the bones whales would not be able to reproduce so i'd say they are for reproduction, not leg bones. I love science but when theories without evidence are said to be true then i'm afraid i'm not going to believe them. i don't want to offend. Please look at the other side of evolution and then decide for yourself.
@irishbarrycooper No offence taken! It's funny, but I'd say the exact same to you about theories without evidence. Notice that McMurtry never supplies any evidence. Not peer reviewed scientific evidence. He quotes an orthodontist he's associated with as an expert on skulls. On the basis that teeth are found in skulls! I'm very familiar with his work. He also talks about Spanish Christian history as though he were a historian. Yet never produces any credible evidence for anything he claims.
@irishbarrycooper I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about if you agree with this. You only have to do your own research to see that evolution is as true as the earth rotating around the sun. McMurtry does not understand evolution; a simple subject. To make sense of the world he chooses religion - humanities first attempt at science - a primitive and simplistic attempt of understanding our world.
@irishbarrycooper Please watch this and if anything is wrong then we can talk about it. Evolution No Evidence, The Facts By Dr Grady McMurtry Part 1 of 10.
@irishbarrycooper "Evolution No Evidence, The Facts By Dr Grady McMurtry Part 1 of 10"
There's no reason to watch that vid. From this little clip of the blithering idiot it's quite obvious that the guy has NO understanding AT ALL about evolutionary theory or indeed science in general. Literally every sentence he said was simply WRONG.
His entire talk was an argument against a HUGE strawman. It's epicly insane.
@irishbarrycooper I mean, seriously... The part about whales specifically made me want to vommit. Whales didn't evolve from cows, they share an ancester. Transitional forms are NOT crockoducks (half x, half y). Transitional forms are 'complete' creatures of their own that have properties of both ancesters and off spring. In the case of whales, ironically, this is EXTREMELY well documented. You can literally SEE the blow hole moving from nose to the back of the head on these fossils.
The part where he spoke about the vestigial bones being a pivot point to move up and down to swim is interesting. Ever wondered WHY a whale moves up and down unlike EVERY OTHER NON-MAMMALIAN FISH? It's because whales didn't always swim. They used to RUN. There skeleton evolved to live on the LAND. Watch a cow run. Then watch a whale swim. The very fact that whales (and indeed other fish-like mammals) don't swim like fish because they come from mammalian LAND living ancestors.
@ScientificBob Im a fisherman and i see cows run all the time. they run nothing like a whale swimming. Next thing you'll say is we all evolved from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. haha. wait a minute that is what you believe. lol.
@irishbarrycooper "they run nothing like a whale swimming" The point is that whales go up and down instead of left to right like all fish do. Just like any land mammal does. Interestingly, crockodiles for example don't bop like mammals. They have a sideways motion...like fish. Although they did evolve a gallop type sprint where they also bop, although it's visibly different from the mammal bop.
@ScientificBob There was no life found 3.6 billion years ago. There is no way of accurately dating anything past 50,000 years old. And im sorry for being a bit of an idiot saying haha. That was childish. i Apologise.
@irishbarrycooper "There was no life found 3.6 billion years ago" Yes, there was. You can easily look this up. Just google "oldest life". Denying it doesn't make it go away.
"There is no way of accurately dating anything past 50,000" Not with carbon. But there are other elements to, you know... There's uranium-lead, samarium-neodymium, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium-thorium, radiocarbon,...
You should really inform yourself on these matters before speaking out against it.
@ScientificBob Yes scientists use these methods on igneous rocks and are very accurate at measuring isotope concentrations but not dates. To get ages from this method guesswork has to be made. Its still not proper dating, honestly. One example is that decay is proposed to be a constant and over the supposed amount of time is not possible. Even over a 100 years the measurement of decay wouldn't be a constant. Lava from a volcano in nz in1949 dated 3.5 million years using these methods.
@irishbarrycooper "To get ages from this method guesswork has to be made" This is simply false. Unstable isotopes decay at a constant rate. This has been tested and proven over and over again. Again, you should really inform yourself. wiki/Radioactive_decay#Radioactive_decay_rates
"Lava from a volcano in nz in1949 dated 3.5 million" You have again fallen victim to creationist propaganda. Snelling's science is bogus. Look it up. And not a on creationtard site.
@ScientificBob They supposedly found life around the same location in the 90s and were dated older than this supposed find and were proven not to be life but just bacteria like shapes formed in a mineral process that had nothing to do with life. And as i have told you ,the dating for rocks is not reliable.
this guys is hilarious! and he stated that he was a teacher? really listen to what he
s saying! the first parts of his argument contradict the later half! lol and the rest is just plane bullshit! lol whales did not evolve from cows! do your homework please! your embarrassing yourself! lol
I don't think Dawkins should debate this man. Dr. McMurtry to me is not an intelligent man and doesn't seem to have a grasp on the topic of evolution, either that or he's a poor presenter. For this reason it would just be a waste of time.
On the other hand, I did find his presentation amusing and would like to see Ricky Gervais debate with him.
@paolovf McMurtry runs from the slightest rational investigation into his unverified "information". ........He wouldn't debate anyone! They'd show him for the fool he is!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institute for Creation Research. They only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE has no ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning has to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
I've noticed that God or Allah always seems to resemble his believers. This ranges from slaver, murderer and depraved megalomaniac to fraudulent, stupid or just plain boneheaded. Ditch reason at the door and wipe your feet on it; with Abraham's God, anything is permissable, absolutely anything (you know Abraham, the one with the fetish for damaged genitals).
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
At the end of this interview, Dawkins said he would be happy to recieve an invitation to talk further, with more "informed" interviewers. This constitutes a willingness to defend his point of view against whatever academic challenge the other side made available . Dawkins constantly defends his position in debateand yet, because he stated up front he won't debate idiots and why, fundies still accuse him of running scared from twits like Comfort and McMurtry here, who daren't debate !
I would agree with you about Mr Conders warms and apparent sincerity (also his wife's) - But, watching him over the last couple of years, I detect a most obvious fear of factual information which might take the faith, which he is clinging to like a drowning man, away from him. I've actually heard him suggesting that christians might have something to fear from visiting a science museum!
In one of the emails to me, on the other hand, he considered atheist dissention "encouraging"
@Tobytrim Yes, he has that kind of likeable persona that a lot of the other presenters don't. But, yes, he is far too credulous. It's almost child-like. I have to remind myself, though, that we was savvy enough to set up a TV station. And it's that station that helps support people like McMurtry, and spread their lies. There's really no excuse for him to remain so ignorant.
A couple of years ago, I wrote into this show to complain about their presentation of McMurtry as an "expert". I was immediately contacted by one of their presenters ,Tim Vince, inviting me onto the show to "defend my atheism". I immediately agreed.
Setting this up turned into an email debate with long rhetoric, other presenters having their say too.
My responses to their arguments,closed down their dialogue without further explanation, and they would not respond to any more of my mails!
@Tobytrim Tim Nice-but-dim? No surprises that they wanted to screen you first. I posted another video a while back where Tim and two other hosts took time out of their 'Bible study' (they mustn't have had any exams coming up!) to comment on newspaper reports about Christopher Hitchens' cancer diagnosis, and pondered whether it might bring about a conversion. Pathetic viewing: watch?v=0IjR8ee5b9k
@redslippedaway Have you ever tried the Bible's recipe for curing lepracy? I cannot remember for the life of me what to do after I kill the two pidgeons!
Science brought you: Vaccine, internet, television, radiotransmitters, cellphones, cancer treatment, x-rays, cars, the ability to fly and travel underwater, and put man on the moon and sent probes to the edge of the solar system. AND MORE!
The bible brought the dark ages, the crusades and the inquisition
@redslippedaway "The Bible has been proven by archeology time and time again."
Ha ha! - I'm afraid you would find the very opposite to be true, if you ever looked for yourself at what REAL archeologists had found out, instead of simply taking what bogus evangelistic preachers were feeding you, while they grab your "tithe"
@redslippedaway Are you implying that it being a theory is bad? I think you must be mistaking it for a hypothesis. Anyway as for the archaeology evidence of the Bible, where is the evidence of a massive ark, a trip across the desert etc.?
Howard Conder is a gentleman and i like him and was sorry to here about his son very sad,a very brave man to do this so soon after losing his son.Whereas McMurtry is neither and comes across as a very bitter and dishonest individual as he constantly lies on rev tv which does Howard no favours at all and i sent email to rev tv to tell them this.So yes would love to see him as you {DaithDublin} put it get schooled, but by the Hitch as Dawkins would go to easy on him a bloody good Hitch slap YEAH
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
This McMurtry guy has not got the feintest clue about evolution. If you are genuinely interested in having evolution explained properly, read Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth". McMurtry simply misrepresents evolutionary theory to a gullible and uneducated audience.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and saying it is "only a theory" is the same as saying the Earth orbiting the Sun is "only a theory" because it is proved by a fact called Heliocentric Theory of the Universe.
I just want to say serving GOD is a priviledge and in no way does it make us superior to non believers. I personally have NEVER felt more at peace then I do now knowing that I am doing as GOD commanded. If I am wrong and there is no Heaven or hell........no biggy. If I am right though...Well, Lets just say I like those odds alot more than if I believed otherwise: ) I urge you to get right with GOD before it's too late.
@roddy35wv Thanks, Roddy. I'm glad it's working out for you. I just hope you don't do everything God commanded, because he commanded some pretty reprehensible things. So long as you obey the golden rule that the bible mirrored from far older philosophies then you'll live a good and just life, causing no harm to your fellow man. Personally, I believe this life is all there is. I won't squander my only shot at it by pretending I was born sinful and feeling like I owe gratitude to a creator for it.
@roddy35wv "I personally have NEVER felt more at peace then I do now knowing that I am doing as GOD commanded." So did the people who flew those planes into the two towers. Your point being?
No its because he is too busy to debate people who think we were all walking around blind and with enormous bladders, just waiting to evolve cocks and eyes. Stupid people.
@53dumey For the same reason that an airline pilot would be unwilling to debate with a bus driver about avionics. One of the 'experts' that McMurtry's creationworldview uses to debunk evolution is an orthodontist. He claims that this makes him qualified to determine the age of skeletal remains and whether or not they are modern humans. 'He's an orthodontist' McMurtry explaims constantly, 'that makes him an expert on teeth, jaws and skulls.' What next: Dawkins vs. a Dentist?!!
@53dumey That's just plain incorrect. Just because *you* don't have the knowledge doesn't mean it isn't there. You can hide in a closet with your fingers in your ears all you like, that's your right, but the longer you stay there the more foolish you will appear. Nobody is trying to prove common ancestry any more, that job is done. What biology is doing these days is using the knowledge gained about evolution to improve our lives. If you get a flu jab this year, thank evolutionary biology.
He hasnt got the time, thats the point. There are millions of people out there with the sort of alledged knowledge we have seen from this bafoon and he could not go round them all could he? We should also get Stephen Hawkings to debate the flat earth society and Brian Cox to argue about the Earth being the center of the Universe!!!!
He is. He still debates serious people as well as appearing on many programs and the like. It would be like Stephen Hawkings debating some geek off the street on the subject of the earth being flat!!
Like I said I would debate these fools, they are a million miles behind a man of Dawkins intelligence.
@53dumey You give intelligence too much credit. Einstein rejected the lack of causality in quantum mechanics. He could not accept that something could come from nothing and have no prime cause, which resulted in his famous, but unfortunate quote that 'He doesn't throw dice." Nobody would question or doubt Einstein's intelligence, but almost a century on you would not find many physics students taking his side over Bohr. I don't doubt McMurtry's intelligence. Or yours. But evidence? That I trust!
@DaithiDublin " I don't doubt McMurtry's intelligence."
I would be inclined to doubt either his intelligence or his intellectual honesty. And judging by his obvious assessment of the credulity and intelligence in his audience, I would assume both!
@Tobytrim I've no problem granting his objective intelligence, I think it's a poor tactic to assume that those we disagree with are less intelligent than they are simply because they hold different views. But as for his intellectual honesty, I don't think he has any. His delivery suggests that he understands the evidence well enough to know where to place his criticisms in order to convince his audience, who are not so aware. This stops them from even seeking out their own answers.
@Tobytrim I've no problem granting his objective intelligence, I think it's a poor tactic to assume that those we disagree with are less intelligent than they are simply because they hold different views. But as for his intellectual honesty, I don't think he has any. His delivery suggests that he understands the evidence well enough to know where to place his criticisms in order to convince his audience, who are not so aware. This stops them from even seeking out their own answers.
@DaithiDublin " I think it's a poor tactic to assume that those we disagree with are less intelligent than they are simply because they hold different views"
It's not for his disagreement I would question his intelligence.
But no intelligent mind would posit hearsay tales of fantasy as though it is peer review observation, and dismiss, skeptically acquired testable and repeatably re-testable , consistently verified, observable fact, as though it is ridiculous speculation.
@Tobytrim = no intelligent mind would posit hearsay =
I don't want to get into a debate with you about the nature of intelligence, Toby, but what you said there leads me to believe that you somehow equate intelligence with honesty. I don't believe that follows. What I do believe, and I think you'd agree, is that there's nothing like religion to induce dishonesty in an intelligent mind. Faith practically demands it, if evidence contradicts the bible.
@Tobytrim = no intelligent mind would posit hearsay =
I don't want to get into a debate with you about the nature of intelligence, Toby, but what you said there leads me to believe that you somehow equate intelligence with honesty. I don't believe that follows. What I do believe, and I think you'd agree, is that there's nothing like religion to induce dishonesty in an intelligent mind. Faith practically demands it, if evidence contradicts the bible.
@DaithiDublin "but what you said there leads me to believe that you somehow equate intelligence with honesty."
Nope!! - As I said in the first comment on this subject, my assessment of McMurtry's intelligence is not just based on his opinions nor what he believes. But his assessment of OTHER peoples credulity, in the information he passes off as factual or rational, is a good gauge of his own level of intellect!
As it stands, I have no doubt about his dishonesty!
@DaithiDublin" but what you said there leads me to believe that you somehow equate intelligence with honesty."
Actually, while I was writing out the last response on this thread, I was listening to McMurtry's lecture on the whales' vestigal pelvis and it's "evolution from a cow", on the Video - However you cut it - There can be no doubt.......The guy's a bloody moron!!1
@Tobytrim Holy cow, Tommy! You've been twisting my melon here... ;¬)
Yes, he's an A-1 moron. But he's not a stupid one, that's what I've been saying. Stupid morons don't bother me half as much as intelligent morons. Their sphere of influence tends to be small. Intelligent morons like McMurtry attract stupid morons like flies to shit. It's guys like this who invent bullshit like the whale's 'pivot point', which the credulous morons take as fact. That's what bothers me most about this moron!
@DaithiDublin I think you'll find that the "whale pivot point" , and many other "strategic" rebuttals of real science, is vintage Hovind. I have been spitting disgust at McMurtry for years, and I have yet to hear original bullshit from him. He is also a keen disciple of Duane Gish.
I'm afraid he is just the common or garden variety of moron.
I would agree he is annoying , mainly because of his tone andhe seems to be getting away with it. He avoids rational confrontations like the plague too.
You mention that you have a degree. Regardless of what it is a degree in, the inference is that you have spent time educating yourself. There is little excuse for not understanding the structure of debate/discussion. Without such structure progress is impossible, that is why it must be insisted on, because without structure debate is just the exhalation of hot air. If you don't understand something. here's a hint: You are at a computer. Use it. Please.
Yes he has, by promoting evolution which is true!!
You seem to be arguing against yourself here. The fact that he is a Christian has more to do with where he was born. If he was from Europe then chances are he would be Atheist/ Agnostic as many of our top scientists are. Why did you bring him up any way, did he debate one of these IDiots?
@Mikeybetts You just don't get it... All those things you listed are operational science - things that can be tested over and over to prove they are true.... HOWEVER, evolution is a lie, which cannot be proved and goes against every scientific law known to man. The more facts we learn in science, the more we see how foolish evolution is. Evolution is a religion, it is not science.
get your facts straight, you deny the evidence because of your "holy book"
evolution has been proven time and again, we have all the evidence we would ever need to prove evolution, but you fucktards would rather believe the ramblings of a sun-mad dog-fucker from 2000 years ago.
Evolution has met it's burden of proof, if you had the slightest interest in learning about it, you would be convinced as well by the sheer volume of evidence
@Mikeybetts Met it's burden of proof? Is that why Dawkins only just realised his book claiming that he proves evolution therein, but still there is nothing listed to prove evolution. All he does is the bait and switch tactic of using natural selection (which allows species of the same KIND of animal to adapt to the environment). However he has never shown and never will show macro evolution because it is a fairy tale. Dawkins also acknowledges that his belief of spontaneous life is religious.
//but still there is nothing listed to prove evolution//
we have seen evolution with out own eyes, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of recorded cases where people have seen evolution over the last 100 years or so.
and what evodence is there for your "god"?
Dawkins calls his spontanious life "religious" as a figure of speech dumbass, no "god" needed.
if Evolution is a fairy tale, then explain the coccyx, thats proof that humans could be evolving tails.
//However he has never shown and never will show macro //
Macro evolution is the same as Micro evolution, just over a different timescale.
saying micro-evolution like bacteria changing is possible and marco evolution is impossible like a fish species growing legs, is exactly the same as saying "i can walk to the fridge but its impossible to walk to the mall"
do research on this before you come here flaunting your ignorance.
@1way2salvation "Evolution is a religion, it is not science."
-Funny, how come nearly all in the scientific community (95%+) accepts evolution while creationism is only accepted by the religious? And that is to say not all people of faith rejects evolution. Even the Vatican accepts evolution.
It looks like you've been duped. I guess that's what happens when you believe things on faith instead of evidence.
@ChemEBeaver It is like talking to a brick wall! Scientists who believe in evolution chose that philosophy as their world view, which is their religion. Therefore, you completely miss the point. Who cares what the Vatican says anyway - that institution was overrun by the Rothschild family a long time ago and it is serving the agenda of the global elite. The figure of 95% is a total fabrication anyway. Also, the censorship is extreme anyway and many remain silent for fear of 'academic' Siberia!
@1way2salvation You're deeply diluted. Here is a reality check: try naming a major science university that doesnt teach evolution.
The theory of evolution is as much a philosophy as the theory of gravity. You should try getting your information in places other than creationist's websites where you gullibly believe every crap they say.
@ChemEBeaver You are an idiot if you think that the theory of gravity has any link whatsoever with the theory of evolution. The theory of gravity is a relative fact because it can be proved and tested. The word theory associated with evolution is in a different context and is purely to do with conjecture on your pre-supposed world view . The big bang theory can never be tested. No life has ever spawned from non-life and macro-evolution is a fairy tale. All in all, it's a deluded religion.
@1way2salvation Its hilarious how science-illiteracy is the only argument you creationists have. You dont even have a clue on what the words theory, fact & law means in science, yet talk as if you are more knowledgeable than scientists. And instead of learning any science, you just go around repeating the same nonsense crap you got from creationist's propaganda.
Try getting a degree in science like I did & learning science before arguing on science. Until then, it is you that is the idiot.
@Mikeybetts He listens, alright. But he often listens to the wrong people. This channel of his has become a soapbox for some of the craziest anti-science nonsense you've ever heard. These people seem to think that Science is equivalent to God in that everyone on the side of science is of one mind. They seem to miss the greatest asset of science: it's constant questioning of itself. They miss the fact that every advance in science has come from disputes among scientists. Progress is combative...
yes, but the point I was making is that, unlike Fox "news" and the such, this debate was civil and fair, the host, although Christian actually asked reasonable questions and listened tot he answer, and asked sensible follow up questions.
he acknowledged that he us unaware of how Christianity works and he is willing to learn. this is VERY refreshing, i am sick of seeing bill O'Riley screaming at Atheists, i want to see a civil, even debate, and that is what is delivered.
@Mikeybetts I think you should follow the link in the description box to the original interview. You'll see then just how closely he listens to what he is told. Pretending to listen is little more than a tactic. Even after hearing a proper exaple of how evolution works he asked that ridiculous question about waiting millions of years to take a piss. That's because he gets his opinions from McMurtry. Who also claims that climate change can't be true because it isn't in the bible! Seriously...
like the host pointed out, the host aknowleged that he didn't know about evolution.
but the point i was making, is that the host is at least polite, dosen't talk over Mr Dawkins and lets him make his points.
i know the host is an idiot, he's a creationist, but i was just saying how the host was polite and considerate to Richard Dawkins's point of view, instead of just yelling his own dogma at him, like Bill O'Riley did.
and i was pointing that out, because its different.
@Mikeybetts I agree with you Mikey. He's a polite man. No argument there. And it's definitely refreshing to see. Even for him to admit the possibility of his being in error is refreshing. I have a bigger problem with the people he allows air time too. See another clip from Revelation TV that I've posted, about a discussion of Christopher Hitchens' illness to see how little respect they actually have. Politeness comes very hard to them when it comes to anyone who holds different views to theirs.
Maybe is enough parents took personal responsibilty for the upbringing of their children you would not have to attend public schools because those with all those wacky religious folks because they would be at home being schooled by their parents. Then again if that happened all the athiests would be attending school with all like minded people, which would me much, much....much fewer than public school population as is!
It's very telling that "comments" were disabled for the Revelation interview with Dawkins. The interviewer came off as being such a sad, desperate man. Dawkins face had pity for the poor guy written all over it.
@SarniaLute Turning off the comments was a ridiculous move. At the end of this video he welcomes the fact that they have opened a dialogue with atheists!
As for the interviewer, if you read the description box here you'll get a better sense of his behaviour. This would have been hard for him at the best of times, but given his personal circumstances at the time I'd go easy on him. Having said that, his personal crusade started Revelation TV and it supports some very wacky people.
Why is this thumbed up? This is the spread of misinformation. I'd like to posit that whales do not come from "cows" and that cows are indeed a terrestrial animal. Yes, whales descend from a terrestrial animal. There is molecular data showing this fact, bone structure, the fact that they are mammal, etc. Let's show some additions of genetic material: point mutation, duplications, inversions, etc. You invert something, you can get a different protein. point mutations add or delete letters of code
@iliveon In all honesty I only uploaded this because McMurtry, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't upload anything himself. I found very little of him on YouTube. I wanted to get him nominated for this year's golden crocoduck award. He's on the potholer54debunks channel but has yet to make it over to potholer54. When they hide, we need to flush them into the open. Dawkins wont debate him, but we can still debunk his nonsense. Go nominate him!! He so bloody deserves it.
@iliveon Funny...before I read your comment I was trying to decide if I should give this a thumbs up or down. Thumbs down on content, for sure, but thumbs up for the uploader, because now I'm aware of one more creationist out there who is spreading lies.
@johnjsal A moral quandary? Surely not. We're atheists, we're not supposed to have a moral compass! ;¬)
I appreciate the dilemma. I uploaded another clip from the channel that broadcasts this buffoon, where three religiots gloat over Hitch's cancer diagnosis and muse about a possible conversion and where he'll end up when he's dead. over 50 thumbs down on that and I love every one! Go nominate this spanner and you can thumb any way you choose! And check out the Gordon's Blog link in here...
I had to stop watching this McMurtry dude cause I could feel myself losing brain cells by the second. Oh man, what a load of bullcrap. Every other word out of his mouth was either a lie or a misinterpretation of actual evolutionary theory.
@ByronC900 No, I'm not agreeing with this Idiot. I'm just saying that the Universe IS young in terms of the time it will take for it to be completely destroyed.
"When was the last time you saw an explosion construct a building?" Ha ha...... What an imbesile idiot. There is no way to discuss honest with this people. They have their agenda: God + his "Bible.". And in the name of their allmighty, loving, truthfully Gods name (including Jesus) they are being dishonest, lying - sons of bitches. (Forgetting their own gods demadment - Do not lie.
yes, he should intellectually demolish him infront of as many people as possable. creationionist need to be pushed all the way to the frige of society so they wont have the power to influence the education of our childeren.
I haven't laughed so much in a long time hahaha... As two examples of his complete failure at science: (1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to an isolated thermal system, which the Earth is not., so I haven't a clue what he was getting at there. (2) We didn't evolve from apes, we diverged along with the apes from a common ancestor.
Gentics are conservative? Okay, what about mutation?
needru1 2 days ago
Please tell me this guy's lecturing to an empty auditorium.
timchilli 1 week ago
This guy is an idiot.
fizk 3 weeks ago
9:09 INSTANT PROOF, this IDIOT doesnt have a clue what he's talking about. He clearly doesnt know anything about evolution. Yet he says he was once an evolutionist? I highly doubt that. Must be either lying, or woefully ignorant.
Blake4014 1 month ago
I'm sure anyone sitting in that audience had no no idea what he is talking about, just sitting there nodding and agreeing
DoctorWong1979 1 month ago
No, Richard Dawkins should not speak with these people anymore because that´s an infection and i fear the virus could spread through scientists of the world and then we would be totally screwed.
1984serpiente 1 month ago
Mr. McMurtry obviously went crazy
1984serpiente 1 month ago
lol.
molokozor 1 month ago
I am amazed at some of the misinformation uttered by Dr. Mcmurty. He doesn't understand information theory. Histories comment about be genetics only copying information perfectly or less perfectly is misleading. It in an exactly copy or change slightly due to mutation.
EinSofQuester 2 months ago
My image of half whale half cow looked like a hippo
Band0fThieves 2 months ago
Dr. McMurtry is either completely misinformed about Evolution or is deliberately attempting to mislead people. I suspect it is a mix of the two.
skymashups 3 months ago
If only Richard Dawkins could have been there when Howard Conder was with Ian MacCormack. God was so real. It is my belief that no matter how theologically correct some are, or even scientifically correct, some will just never be able to see God, or have God reveal himself to you. Philosophy and science debates are often filled with pride from both participants, and that is what God hates most (in my opinion).
spt439 3 months ago
Preaching to the choir, in its fullest state of the phrase.
BigDwarren 3 months ago
Any imperfect copying done of this guy's genome was clearly not beneficial when it comes to IQ. I love the image of a half whale half cow! lolol!
sincerelyyours100 3 months ago
omg this ''mcmurty'' or what ever is really ignorant.
FuBarracuda 3 months ago
This retard is slagging Charles Darwin for stating an incorrect definition- we're evolved from monkeys.
That's because it was in the past, fucker.
With time, new ideas and theories evolve, scuse the pun here, dumbass professor of idiocy.
That's like laughing at surgeons in the 16 hundreds who thought drilling holes in one's head will releave them of their head aches.
It's unfair and it's illogical, 'professor'.
Creationism is RE-TAR-DED!
Domzdream 4 months ago
One cant help but be arrogant, or at least seem arrogant in ridiculing these people and I hate to say it, but feel superior to them. It's like being in a class of 3rd graders, with having a current knowledge of physics. It's literally that bad.
Domzdream 4 months ago
I'll never understand how a scientist can even entertain the possibility of a deiety (namely HIS particular brand), but especially creationism.
It's literally facepalming stuff right there. And EASY to strike off as utter nonsense.
Domzdream 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
McMurty is amazingly difficult to watch, so arrogant and yet most of his arguments shown here ad up to naught science. He doesn't do his side any favors, and does more to discredit his understanding of evolution than anything else
axolotl5 4 months ago
ow...my...god... at that "Dr" Grady McMurtry...
The stupid... it's too much... it actually hurts.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@1way2salvation Macrevolution has been shown. Every transition stage in the evolution of the horse has been found through fossil records. Also, evolution has been induced in our lifetimse. Ever heard of bacterial anti-biotic resistance? That's evolution. Even new mutants of the influenza virus that arise is an example of evolution.
LordVader89 5 months ago
@1way2salvation Oh really? So the mutation in CCR5 doesn't induce resistance to HIV? The glutamate to valine mutation at the position 6 of the beta chain in hemoglobin in Sickle Cell disease doesn't confer resistance to malaria? They are adding information to the gene whether you like it or not. Furthermore many genes have been duplicated throughout the existence of life because of translocation events. Having a extra copies of a gene allows mutation to occur in them. I'm not making this up.
LordVader89 5 months ago
Comment removed
LordVader89 5 months ago
@1way2salvation Oh really? So the mutation in CCR5 doesn't induce resistance to HIV? The glutamate to valine chain at the position 6 of the beta chain in hemoglobin in Sickle Cell disease doesn't confer resistance to malaria? They are adding information to the gene whether you like it or not. Furthermore many genes have been duplicated throughout the existence of life because of translocation events. Having a extra copies of a gene allows mutation to occur in them. I'm not making this up.
LordVader89 5 months ago
Umm I think Grady McMurtry is seriously deluded. Mutations can add information to the genome. You can have substitutions, insertions, and deletions. Most of the time it's detrimental to the organism or it doesn't do anything but once in a while there is a benefit. Plus you can have whole chtomosomal mutations such as transversions and translocations. This mean is seriously blind or has an agenda.
LordVader89 5 months ago
@LordVader89 That is a complete lie. Mutations do not add any information and never will, there is a loss of information or copying the same information - nothing more. Dogs will always produce dogs. Some of the so-called scientific comments from the evolutionists on this thread are either severely misinformed or purposefully deceitful. You are clearly wilfully ignorant.
1way2salvation 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1way2salvation "Mutations do not add any information and never will, there is a loss of information or copying the same information - nothing more"
The facts prove otherwise. Denying them doesn't make them go away.
"You are clearly wilfully ignorant" We are not the ones who ignore 21st century science while clinging to a 2800 year old story borrowed from even older polytheistic bullshit.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
Wow... "there is no opportunity to add beneficial information" LOL! What a FOOL! I hope this guy is a geneticist to even speak on this topic... oh... maybe not... He said "Why can't mutations produce BLAH BLAH BLAH"... The answer? They can! They have! They do! We use it! It's true!
ScholarlyGentleman81 5 months ago
Here's my prediction for any debate between Dawkins and this McMurtry character. Dawkins will absolutely mop the floor with this cretin, exposing all the falacies and outright lies (Evolutionists say whales are descended from cows? That's nothing less than a fucking LIE!) that McMurtry presents here. McMurtry will then get right back up and declare victory despite just having his ass handed to him. I don't think Dawkins should do it. It's a waste of time.
Guitcad1 5 months ago
5:03 "How does a creature with a skeleton on the outside become a creature with a skeleton on the inside?"
OMFG! Either this guy is being deliberately misleading or he's an utter imbecile! Vertebrates aren't descended from crustaceans, they're descended from fish! Chalk one straw man up for him on that. (I haven't watched the rest of it yet, I assume there'll be more.)
Guitcad1 5 months ago
@Guitcad1 This isn't every stupid thing he said in that 'lecture', but they're the highlights. A full hour of this guy is like a compilation of creationism's greatest hits.
DaithiDublin 5 months ago
@DaithiDublin I could barely stomach this much.
Guitcad1 5 months ago
@Guitcad1 he's a scientist who has a lot more experience on this subject than you. If he was still an evolution scientist you'd believe every word he said. And when he shows us the truth for example the whale myth you just ignore it because you don't want to be wrong. That's dumb. People just hope evolution is right (using faith just like religion if i may add) because they hope god doesn't exist due to there lifestyle.
irishbarrycooper 4 months ago
@irishbarrycooper Barry, he is not a scientist. Has has a degree in forestry, that is as close as he gets to science. If you believe that the tiny vestigial leg bones on a modern whale are 'pivot points' then you don't know enough about either biology *or* engineering to make the claim that what this charlatan claims is 'true'. Can I ask you, why do you use faith like an accusation?
DaithiDublin 4 months ago
@DaithiDublin without the bones whales would not be able to reproduce so i'd say they are for reproduction, not leg bones. I love science but when theories without evidence are said to be true then i'm afraid i'm not going to believe them. i don't want to offend. Please look at the other side of evolution and then decide for yourself.
irishbarrycooper 4 months ago
@irishbarrycooper No offence taken! It's funny, but I'd say the exact same to you about theories without evidence. Notice that McMurtry never supplies any evidence. Not peer reviewed scientific evidence. He quotes an orthodontist he's associated with as an expert on skulls. On the basis that teeth are found in skulls! I'm very familiar with his work. He also talks about Spanish Christian history as though he were a historian. Yet never produces any credible evidence for anything he claims.
DaithiDublin 4 months ago
@irishbarrycooper I'm sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about if you agree with this. You only have to do your own research to see that evolution is as true as the earth rotating around the sun. McMurtry does not understand evolution; a simple subject. To make sense of the world he chooses religion - humanities first attempt at science - a primitive and simplistic attempt of understanding our world.
villainandfox 2 months ago
@irishbarrycooper Please watch this and if anything is wrong then we can talk about it. Evolution No Evidence, The Facts By Dr Grady McMurtry Part 1 of 10.
irishbarrycooper 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@irishbarrycooper "Evolution No Evidence, The Facts By Dr Grady McMurtry Part 1 of 10"
There's no reason to watch that vid. From this little clip of the blithering idiot it's quite obvious that the guy has NO understanding AT ALL about evolutionary theory or indeed science in general. Literally every sentence he said was simply WRONG.
His entire talk was an argument against a HUGE strawman. It's epicly insane.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@irishbarrycooper I mean, seriously... The part about whales specifically made me want to vommit. Whales didn't evolve from cows, they share an ancester. Transitional forms are NOT crockoducks (half x, half y). Transitional forms are 'complete' creatures of their own that have properties of both ancesters and off spring. In the case of whales, ironically, this is EXTREMELY well documented. You can literally SEE the blow hole moving from nose to the back of the head on these fossils.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
The part where he spoke about the vestigial bones being a pivot point to move up and down to swim is interesting. Ever wondered WHY a whale moves up and down unlike EVERY OTHER NON-MAMMALIAN FISH? It's because whales didn't always swim. They used to RUN. There skeleton evolved to live on the LAND. Watch a cow run. Then watch a whale swim. The very fact that whales (and indeed other fish-like mammals) don't swim like fish because they come from mammalian LAND living ancestors.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@ScientificBob Im a fisherman and i see cows run all the time. they run nothing like a whale swimming. Next thing you'll say is we all evolved from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. haha. wait a minute that is what you believe. lol.
irishbarrycooper 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@irishbarrycooper "they run nothing like a whale swimming" The point is that whales go up and down instead of left to right like all fish do. Just like any land mammal does. Interestingly, crockodiles for example don't bop like mammals. They have a sideways motion...like fish. Although they did evolve a gallop type sprint where they also bop, although it's visibly different from the mammal bop.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@irishbarrycooper "4.6 billion years ago. haha. wait a minute that is what you believe"
No. What I acknowledge (not believe) is that the oldest life ever found is 3.6 billion years old.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@ScientificBob There was no life found 3.6 billion years ago. There is no way of accurately dating anything past 50,000 years old. And im sorry for being a bit of an idiot saying haha. That was childish. i Apologise.
irishbarrycooper 4 months ago
@irishbarrycooper "There was no life found 3.6 billion years ago" Yes, there was. You can easily look this up. Just google "oldest life". Denying it doesn't make it go away.
"There is no way of accurately dating anything past 50,000" Not with carbon. But there are other elements to, you know... There's uranium-lead, samarium-neodymium, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium-thorium, radiocarbon,...
You should really inform yourself on these matters before speaking out against it.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@ScientificBob Yes scientists use these methods on igneous rocks and are very accurate at measuring isotope concentrations but not dates. To get ages from this method guesswork has to be made. Its still not proper dating, honestly. One example is that decay is proposed to be a constant and over the supposed amount of time is not possible. Even over a 100 years the measurement of decay wouldn't be a constant. Lava from a volcano in nz in1949 dated 3.5 million years using these methods.
irishbarrycooper 4 months ago
Comment removed
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@irishbarrycooper "To get ages from this method guesswork has to be made" This is simply false. Unstable isotopes decay at a constant rate. This has been tested and proven over and over again. Again, you should really inform yourself. wiki/Radioactive_decay#Radioactive_decay_rates
"Lava from a volcano in nz in1949 dated 3.5 million" You have again fallen victim to creationist propaganda. Snelling's science is bogus. Look it up. And not a on creationtard site.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@ScientificBob They supposedly found life around the same location in the 90s and were dated older than this supposed find and were proven not to be life but just bacteria like shapes formed in a mineral process that had nothing to do with life. And as i have told you ,the dating for rocks is not reliable.
irishbarrycooper 4 months ago
@irishbarrycooper Again, denying it doesn't make it go away. Look up what a stromatolite is. The oldest found are 3.5 billion years old.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
So does that mean that Atheists have bad lifestyles? And do Christians have good lifestyles?
felixhare1990 2 months ago
this guys is hilarious! and he stated that he was a teacher? really listen to what he
s saying! the first parts of his argument contradict the later half! lol and the rest is just plane bullshit! lol whales did not evolve from cows! do your homework please! your embarrassing yourself! lol
leonardcua456 5 months ago
@leonardcua456 Contradiction is biblical! He's only being true to his sources when he does that.
DaithiDublin 5 months ago
I don't think Dawkins should debate this man. Dr. McMurtry to me is not an intelligent man and doesn't seem to have a grasp on the topic of evolution, either that or he's a poor presenter. For this reason it would just be a waste of time.
On the other hand, I did find his presentation amusing and would like to see Ricky Gervais debate with him.
paolovf 6 months ago
@paolovf McMurtry runs from the slightest rational investigation into his unverified "information". ........He wouldn't debate anyone! They'd show him for the fool he is!
Tobytrim 5 months ago
Almost word for word of all that I have been saying.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 6 months ago
Where do these nuts come from
MrHoolits 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at ICR, The Institute for Creation Research. They only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE has no ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning has to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
I've noticed that God or Allah always seems to resemble his believers. This ranges from slaver, murderer and depraved megalomaniac to fraudulent, stupid or just plain boneheaded. Ditch reason at the door and wipe your feet on it; with Abraham's God, anything is permissable, absolutely anything (you know Abraham, the one with the fetish for damaged genitals).
ritchloui 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
At the end of this interview, Dawkins said he would be happy to recieve an invitation to talk further, with more "informed" interviewers. This constitutes a willingness to defend his point of view against whatever academic challenge the other side made available . Dawkins constantly defends his position in debateand yet, because he stated up front he won't debate idiots and why, fundies still accuse him of running scared from twits like Comfort and McMurtry here, who daren't debate !
Tobytrim 6 months ago
I would agree with you about Mr Conders warms and apparent sincerity (also his wife's) - But, watching him over the last couple of years, I detect a most obvious fear of factual information which might take the faith, which he is clinging to like a drowning man, away from him. I've actually heard him suggesting that christians might have something to fear from visiting a science museum!
In one of the emails to me, on the other hand, he considered atheist dissention "encouraging"
Tobytrim 6 months ago
@Tobytrim Yes, he has that kind of likeable persona that a lot of the other presenters don't. But, yes, he is far too credulous. It's almost child-like. I have to remind myself, though, that we was savvy enough to set up a TV station. And it's that station that helps support people like McMurtry, and spread their lies. There's really no excuse for him to remain so ignorant.
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
A couple of years ago, I wrote into this show to complain about their presentation of McMurtry as an "expert". I was immediately contacted by one of their presenters ,Tim Vince, inviting me onto the show to "defend my atheism". I immediately agreed.
Setting this up turned into an email debate with long rhetoric, other presenters having their say too.
My responses to their arguments,closed down their dialogue without further explanation, and they would not respond to any more of my mails!
Tobytrim 6 months ago
@Tobytrim Tim Nice-but-dim? No surprises that they wanted to screen you first. I posted another video a while back where Tim and two other hosts took time out of their 'Bible study' (they mustn't have had any exams coming up!) to comment on newspaper reports about Christopher Hitchens' cancer diagnosis, and pondered whether it might bring about a conversion. Pathetic viewing: watch?v=0IjR8ee5b9k
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
Evolution is a theory and that is that. The Bible has been proven by archeology time and time again.
redslippedaway 6 months ago
@redslippedaway Have you ever tried the Bible's recipe for curing lepracy? I cannot remember for the life of me what to do after I kill the two pidgeons!
Science brought you: Vaccine, internet, television, radiotransmitters, cellphones, cancer treatment, x-rays, cars, the ability to fly and travel underwater, and put man on the moon and sent probes to the edge of the solar system. AND MORE!
The bible brought the dark ages, the crusades and the inquisition
Science, it works bitches!
QueeqegF 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redslippedaway "The Bible has been proven by archeology time and time again."
Ha ha! - I'm afraid you would find the very opposite to be true, if you ever looked for yourself at what REAL archeologists had found out, instead of simply taking what bogus evangelistic preachers were feeding you, while they grab your "tithe"
Tobytrim 6 months ago
@redslippedaway Are you implying that it being a theory is bad? I think you must be mistaking it for a hypothesis. Anyway as for the archaeology evidence of the Bible, where is the evidence of a massive ark, a trip across the desert etc.?
TheGamanic 6 months ago
Howard Conder is a gentleman and i like him and was sorry to here about his son very sad,a very brave man to do this so soon after losing his son.Whereas McMurtry is neither and comes across as a very bitter and dishonest individual as he constantly lies on rev tv which does Howard no favours at all and i sent email to rev tv to tell them this.So yes would love to see him as you {DaithDublin} put it get schooled, but by the Hitch as Dawkins would go to easy on him a bloody good Hitch slap YEAH
MrDAYDREAMER66 6 months ago
Dear me EPIC FAIL from the start. This dumb shit doesnt even know what an invertebrate is!!! He must have studied long and hard there.
1Munro3000 6 months ago
mark 16:18
drink up grady! Talk is cheap,
lets see if you believe the crap you shovel.
48mmwatch 7 months ago
why didnt jesus fix your eyes? i assume you got those coke bottles from doctor/scientist.
48mmwatch 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
i feel dumber after watching this shit
sayroni 7 months ago
How come McMurty's 'perfect' eyes need 6 inches of bullet proof glass to make him see?
KarlyP 7 months ago
This McMurtry guy has not got the feintest clue about evolution. If you are genuinely interested in having evolution explained properly, read Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth". McMurtry simply misrepresents evolutionary theory to a gullible and uneducated audience.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and saying it is "only a theory" is the same as saying the Earth orbiting the Sun is "only a theory" because it is proved by a fact called Heliocentric Theory of the Universe.
rawseaone 7 months ago
@TerumiYuuki16
of course i believe in spirits
i got wasted on them last week, that was a hangover i'll never forget
Mikeybetts 7 months ago
He's a doctor of theology? So he's like that cat with fake degrees?
SmartFool24 7 months ago
I just want to say serving GOD is a priviledge and in no way does it make us superior to non believers. I personally have NEVER felt more at peace then I do now knowing that I am doing as GOD commanded. If I am wrong and there is no Heaven or hell........no biggy. If I am right though...Well, Lets just say I like those odds alot more than if I believed otherwise: ) I urge you to get right with GOD before it's too late.
roddy35wv 7 months ago
@roddy35wv Thanks, Roddy. I'm glad it's working out for you. I just hope you don't do everything God commanded, because he commanded some pretty reprehensible things. So long as you obey the golden rule that the bible mirrored from far older philosophies then you'll live a good and just life, causing no harm to your fellow man. Personally, I believe this life is all there is. I won't squander my only shot at it by pretending I was born sinful and feeling like I owe gratitude to a creator for it.
DaithiDublin 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@roddy35wv "I personally have NEVER felt more at peace then I do now knowing that I am doing as GOD commanded." So did the people who flew those planes into the two towers. Your point being?
TomFynn 7 months ago
google "Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)".people think Dr grady is a clown haha i cannot believe dawkings is so popular
THEXMAN4509 7 months ago
@THEXMAN4509 I'm not surprised that you can't spot a fake.
DaithiDublin 7 months ago 5
Dawkins does'nt like to lose debates, which means this debate will never happen.
53dumey 7 months ago
@53dumey
No its because he is too busy to debate people who think we were all walking around blind and with enormous bladders, just waiting to evolve cocks and eyes. Stupid people.
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@1Munro3000
NAW, just plain cowardice on Dawkins side !
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey
Cowardice because of a man who knows less about the theory than my 7 year old hahahah Dont make me laugh, I would debate these morons.
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@1Munro3000
Then why does'nt he do it ?
He's got the time !
No longer a Professor or Scientist.
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey For the same reason that an airline pilot would be unwilling to debate with a bus driver about avionics. One of the 'experts' that McMurtry's creationworldview uses to debunk evolution is an orthodontist. He claims that this makes him qualified to determine the age of skeletal remains and whether or not they are modern humans. 'He's an orthodontist' McMurtry explaims constantly, 'that makes him an expert on teeth, jaws and skulls.' What next: Dawkins vs. a Dentist?!!
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
@DaithiDublin
There is NO true " common ancestor " !
One has never been found !
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey That's just plain incorrect. Just because *you* don't have the knowledge doesn't mean it isn't there. You can hide in a closet with your fingers in your ears all you like, that's your right, but the longer you stay there the more foolish you will appear. Nobody is trying to prove common ancestry any more, that job is done. What biology is doing these days is using the knowledge gained about evolution to improve our lives. If you get a flu jab this year, thank evolutionary biology.
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
@53dumey
He hasnt got the time, thats the point. There are millions of people out there with the sort of alledged knowledge we have seen from this bafoon and he could not go round them all could he? We should also get Stephen Hawkings to debate the flat earth society and Brian Cox to argue about the Earth being the center of the Universe!!!!
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@1Munro3000
He's got Plenty of time, he's not doing anything else !
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey
He is. He still debates serious people as well as appearing on many programs and the like. It would be like Stephen Hawkings debating some geek off the street on the subject of the earth being flat!!
Like I said I would debate these fools, they are a million miles behind a man of Dawkins intelligence.
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@1Munro3000
You are giving Dawkins too much credit !
Francis Collins is much more intelligent than Dawkins and is a devote Christian.
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey You give intelligence too much credit. Einstein rejected the lack of causality in quantum mechanics. He could not accept that something could come from nothing and have no prime cause, which resulted in his famous, but unfortunate quote that 'He doesn't throw dice." Nobody would question or doubt Einstein's intelligence, but almost a century on you would not find many physics students taking his side over Bohr. I don't doubt McMurtry's intelligence. Or yours. But evidence? That I trust!
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
@DaithiDublin " I don't doubt McMurtry's intelligence."
I would be inclined to doubt either his intelligence or his intellectual honesty. And judging by his obvious assessment of the credulity and intelligence in his audience, I would assume both!
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Tobytrim I've no problem granting his objective intelligence, I think it's a poor tactic to assume that those we disagree with are less intelligent than they are simply because they hold different views. But as for his intellectual honesty, I don't think he has any. His delivery suggests that he understands the evidence well enough to know where to place his criticisms in order to convince his audience, who are not so aware. This stops them from even seeking out their own answers.
DaithiDublin 5 months ago
@Tobytrim I've no problem granting his objective intelligence, I think it's a poor tactic to assume that those we disagree with are less intelligent than they are simply because they hold different views. But as for his intellectual honesty, I don't think he has any. His delivery suggests that he understands the evidence well enough to know where to place his criticisms in order to convince his audience, who are not so aware. This stops them from even seeking out their own answers.
DaithiDublin 5 months ago
@DaithiDublin " I think it's a poor tactic to assume that those we disagree with are less intelligent than they are simply because they hold different views"
It's not for his disagreement I would question his intelligence.
But no intelligent mind would posit hearsay tales of fantasy as though it is peer review observation, and dismiss, skeptically acquired testable and repeatably re-testable , consistently verified, observable fact, as though it is ridiculous speculation.
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Tobytrim = no intelligent mind would posit hearsay =
I don't want to get into a debate with you about the nature of intelligence, Toby, but what you said there leads me to believe that you somehow equate intelligence with honesty. I don't believe that follows. What I do believe, and I think you'd agree, is that there's nothing like religion to induce dishonesty in an intelligent mind. Faith practically demands it, if evidence contradicts the bible.
DaithiDublin 5 months ago
@Tobytrim = no intelligent mind would posit hearsay =
I don't want to get into a debate with you about the nature of intelligence, Toby, but what you said there leads me to believe that you somehow equate intelligence with honesty. I don't believe that follows. What I do believe, and I think you'd agree, is that there's nothing like religion to induce dishonesty in an intelligent mind. Faith practically demands it, if evidence contradicts the bible.
DaithiDublin 5 months ago
@DaithiDublin "but what you said there leads me to believe that you somehow equate intelligence with honesty."
Nope!! - As I said in the first comment on this subject, my assessment of McMurtry's intelligence is not just based on his opinions nor what he believes. But his assessment of OTHER peoples credulity, in the information he passes off as factual or rational, is a good gauge of his own level of intellect!
As it stands, I have no doubt about his dishonesty!
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@DaithiDublin" but what you said there leads me to believe that you somehow equate intelligence with honesty."
Actually, while I was writing out the last response on this thread, I was listening to McMurtry's lecture on the whales' vestigal pelvis and it's "evolution from a cow", on the Video - However you cut it - There can be no doubt.......The guy's a bloody moron!!1
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@Tobytrim Holy cow, Tommy! You've been twisting my melon here... ;¬)
Yes, he's an A-1 moron. But he's not a stupid one, that's what I've been saying. Stupid morons don't bother me half as much as intelligent morons. Their sphere of influence tends to be small. Intelligent morons like McMurtry attract stupid morons like flies to shit. It's guys like this who invent bullshit like the whale's 'pivot point', which the credulous morons take as fact. That's what bothers me most about this moron!
DaithiDublin 5 months ago
@DaithiDublin I think you'll find that the "whale pivot point" , and many other "strategic" rebuttals of real science, is vintage Hovind. I have been spitting disgust at McMurtry for years, and I have yet to hear original bullshit from him. He is also a keen disciple of Duane Gish.
I'm afraid he is just the common or garden variety of moron.
I would agree he is annoying , mainly because of his tone andhe seems to be getting away with it. He avoids rational confrontations like the plague too.
Tobytrim 5 months ago
@53dumey
He also a devote believer in evolution!!!
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@1Munro3000 Which is à propos of what, exactly?
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
@DaithiDublin
?
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@1Munro3000 " ? "
You mention that you have a degree. Regardless of what it is a degree in, the inference is that you have spent time educating yourself. There is little excuse for not understanding the structure of debate/discussion. Without such structure progress is impossible, that is why it must be insisted on, because without structure debate is just the exhalation of hot air. If you don't understand something. here's a hint: You are at a computer. Use it. Please.
DaithiDublin 6 months ago
@1Munro3000
Yes, he is !
And has done more for Science and Mankind that Dawkins ever will !
53dumey 6 months ago
@53dumey
Yes he has, by promoting evolution which is true!!
You seem to be arguing against yourself here. The fact that he is a Christian has more to do with where he was born. If he was from Europe then chances are he would be Atheist/ Agnostic as many of our top scientists are. Why did you bring him up any way, did he debate one of these IDiots?
1Munro3000 6 months ago
@1Munro3000
NO, he has done more for mankind with his involvment with the Human Genome Project, which is helping to find Cures !
Dawkins was very upset when Collins got the NAS award, simply because Collins is a Christian.
53dumey 6 months ago
@montrealwatcher
BUT the things we have in science books DO have proof
you can't see, hear, touch or smell radio waves, but we know they exist, like radiation.
things in science can be measured, "god" cannot.
you can't measure "god"
you can't observe "god"
you can't even show basic evidence for the existence of a "god"
Science actually meets it's burden of proof, religion has yet to do so.
Mikeybetts 8 months ago
@Mikeybetts You just don't get it... All those things you listed are operational science - things that can be tested over and over to prove they are true.... HOWEVER, evolution is a lie, which cannot be proved and goes against every scientific law known to man. The more facts we learn in science, the more we see how foolish evolution is. Evolution is a religion, it is not science.
1way2salvation 7 months ago
@1way2salvation
get your facts straight, you deny the evidence because of your "holy book"
evolution has been proven time and again, we have all the evidence we would ever need to prove evolution, but you fucktards would rather believe the ramblings of a sun-mad dog-fucker from 2000 years ago.
Evolution has met it's burden of proof, if you had the slightest interest in learning about it, you would be convinced as well by the sheer volume of evidence
Mikeybetts 7 months ago
@Mikeybetts Met it's burden of proof? Is that why Dawkins only just realised his book claiming that he proves evolution therein, but still there is nothing listed to prove evolution. All he does is the bait and switch tactic of using natural selection (which allows species of the same KIND of animal to adapt to the environment). However he has never shown and never will show macro evolution because it is a fairy tale. Dawkins also acknowledges that his belief of spontaneous life is religious.
1way2salvation 5 months ago
@1way2salvation
//but still there is nothing listed to prove evolution//
we have seen evolution with out own eyes, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of recorded cases where people have seen evolution over the last 100 years or so.
and what evodence is there for your "god"?
Dawkins calls his spontanious life "religious" as a figure of speech dumbass, no "god" needed.
if Evolution is a fairy tale, then explain the coccyx, thats proof that humans could be evolving tails.
Mikeybetts 5 months ago
@1way2salvation
//However he has never shown and never will show macro //
Macro evolution is the same as Micro evolution, just over a different timescale.
saying micro-evolution like bacteria changing is possible and marco evolution is impossible like a fish species growing legs, is exactly the same as saying "i can walk to the fridge but its impossible to walk to the mall"
do research on this before you come here flaunting your ignorance.
Mikeybetts 5 months ago
@1way2salvation "Evolution is a religion, it is not science."
-Funny, how come nearly all in the scientific community (95%+) accepts evolution while creationism is only accepted by the religious? And that is to say not all people of faith rejects evolution. Even the Vatican accepts evolution.
It looks like you've been duped. I guess that's what happens when you believe things on faith instead of evidence.
ChemEBeaver 7 months ago
@ChemEBeaver It is like talking to a brick wall! Scientists who believe in evolution chose that philosophy as their world view, which is their religion. Therefore, you completely miss the point. Who cares what the Vatican says anyway - that institution was overrun by the Rothschild family a long time ago and it is serving the agenda of the global elite. The figure of 95% is a total fabrication anyway. Also, the censorship is extreme anyway and many remain silent for fear of 'academic' Siberia!
1way2salvation 5 months ago
@1way2salvation You're deeply diluted. Here is a reality check: try naming a major science university that doesnt teach evolution.
The theory of evolution is as much a philosophy as the theory of gravity. You should try getting your information in places other than creationist's websites where you gullibly believe every crap they say.
ChemEBeaver 5 months ago
@ChemEBeaver You are an idiot if you think that the theory of gravity has any link whatsoever with the theory of evolution. The theory of gravity is a relative fact because it can be proved and tested. The word theory associated with evolution is in a different context and is purely to do with conjecture on your pre-supposed world view . The big bang theory can never be tested. No life has ever spawned from non-life and macro-evolution is a fairy tale. All in all, it's a deluded religion.
1way2salvation 5 months ago
Comment removed
ChemEBeaver 5 months ago
@1way2salvation Its hilarious how science-illiteracy is the only argument you creationists have. You dont even have a clue on what the words theory, fact & law means in science, yet talk as if you are more knowledgeable than scientists. And instead of learning any science, you just go around repeating the same nonsense crap you got from creationist's propaganda.
Try getting a degree in science like I did & learning science before arguing on science. Until then, it is you that is the idiot.
ChemEBeaver 5 months ago
Ignorant creationists are the worst kind of person, they either don't understand the evidence or can't accept that they are wrong.
ModernwarfareRoach 8 months ago
What a polite and pleasant Creationist Moron Mr. Conder is.
mylkTV 8 months ago
i must say, even though this host is a christian, at least he LISTENS!
Mikeybetts 8 months ago
@Mikeybetts He listens, alright. But he often listens to the wrong people. This channel of his has become a soapbox for some of the craziest anti-science nonsense you've ever heard. These people seem to think that Science is equivalent to God in that everyone on the side of science is of one mind. They seem to miss the greatest asset of science: it's constant questioning of itself. They miss the fact that every advance in science has come from disputes among scientists. Progress is combative...
DaithiDublin 8 months ago
@DaithiDublin
yes, but the point I was making is that, unlike Fox "news" and the such, this debate was civil and fair, the host, although Christian actually asked reasonable questions and listened tot he answer, and asked sensible follow up questions.
he acknowledged that he us unaware of how Christianity works and he is willing to learn. this is VERY refreshing, i am sick of seeing bill O'Riley screaming at Atheists, i want to see a civil, even debate, and that is what is delivered.
Mikeybetts 8 months ago
@Mikeybetts I think you should follow the link in the description box to the original interview. You'll see then just how closely he listens to what he is told. Pretending to listen is little more than a tactic. Even after hearing a proper exaple of how evolution works he asked that ridiculous question about waiting millions of years to take a piss. That's because he gets his opinions from McMurtry. Who also claims that climate change can't be true because it isn't in the bible! Seriously...
DaithiDublin 8 months ago
@DaithiDublin
like the host pointed out, the host aknowleged that he didn't know about evolution.
but the point i was making, is that the host is at least polite, dosen't talk over Mr Dawkins and lets him make his points.
i know the host is an idiot, he's a creationist, but i was just saying how the host was polite and considerate to Richard Dawkins's point of view, instead of just yelling his own dogma at him, like Bill O'Riley did.
and i was pointing that out, because its different.
Mikeybetts 8 months ago
@Mikeybetts I agree with you Mikey. He's a polite man. No argument there. And it's definitely refreshing to see. Even for him to admit the possibility of his being in error is refreshing. I have a bigger problem with the people he allows air time too. See another clip from Revelation TV that I've posted, about a discussion of Christopher Hitchens' illness to see how little respect they actually have. Politeness comes very hard to them when it comes to anyone who holds different views to theirs.
DaithiDublin 8 months ago
@DaithiDublin Your'e exactly correct its a strategy. Its would you like fries with that Mc theology.
flight1100 8 months ago
Maybe is enough parents took personal responsibilty for the upbringing of their children you would not have to attend public schools because those with all those wacky religious folks because they would be at home being schooled by their parents. Then again if that happened all the athiests would be attending school with all like minded people, which would me much, much....much fewer than public school population as is!
CherokeeApacheIrish 8 months ago
Just a question? How many major universities can you name off hand that were founded by athiests?
CherokeeApacheIrish 8 months ago
I think they should debate, Dawkins will own this clown any time
matbenja 8 months ago
It's very telling that "comments" were disabled for the Revelation interview with Dawkins. The interviewer came off as being such a sad, desperate man. Dawkins face had pity for the poor guy written all over it.
SarniaLute 9 months ago
@SarniaLute Turning off the comments was a ridiculous move. At the end of this video he welcomes the fact that they have opened a dialogue with atheists!
As for the interviewer, if you read the description box here you'll get a better sense of his behaviour. This would have been hard for him at the best of times, but given his personal circumstances at the time I'd go easy on him. Having said that, his personal crusade started Revelation TV and it supports some very wacky people.
DaithiDublin 9 months ago
Good video.
bambamgo98 9 months ago
Dawkins answered the 'information' argument sufficiently in his essay "The Information Challenge" which was included in 'A Devil's Chaplain'.
chebob2009 9 months ago
Is this new Kent Hovind ? His stile is kinda Familiar. Making shit smell like roses....only to a shit eater ofcourse.
Aleksamson 9 months ago
Why is this thumbed up? This is the spread of misinformation. I'd like to posit that whales do not come from "cows" and that cows are indeed a terrestrial animal. Yes, whales descend from a terrestrial animal. There is molecular data showing this fact, bone structure, the fact that they are mammal, etc. Let's show some additions of genetic material: point mutation, duplications, inversions, etc. You invert something, you can get a different protein. point mutations add or delete letters of code
iliveon 9 months ago
@iliveon In all honesty I only uploaded this because McMurtry, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't upload anything himself. I found very little of him on YouTube. I wanted to get him nominated for this year's golden crocoduck award. He's on the potholer54debunks channel but has yet to make it over to potholer54. When they hide, we need to flush them into the open. Dawkins wont debate him, but we can still debunk his nonsense. Go nominate him!! He so bloody deserves it.
DaithiDublin 9 months ago
@iliveon Funny...before I read your comment I was trying to decide if I should give this a thumbs up or down. Thumbs down on content, for sure, but thumbs up for the uploader, because now I'm aware of one more creationist out there who is spreading lies.
johnjsal 9 months ago
@johnjsal A moral quandary? Surely not. We're atheists, we're not supposed to have a moral compass! ;¬)
I appreciate the dilemma. I uploaded another clip from the channel that broadcasts this buffoon, where three religiots gloat over Hitch's cancer diagnosis and muse about a possible conversion and where he'll end up when he's dead. over 50 thumbs down on that and I love every one! Go nominate this spanner and you can thumb any way you choose! And check out the Gordon's Blog link in here...
DaithiDublin 9 months ago
I had to stop watching this McMurtry dude cause I could feel myself losing brain cells by the second. Oh man, what a load of bullcrap. Every other word out of his mouth was either a lie or a misinterpretation of actual evolutionary theory.
DeusExAstra 9 months ago
This man doesn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
No transitional forms have ever been found?
The universe is young?
This guy is an idiot.
ByronC900 10 months ago
@ByronC900 The Universe is young in terms of it's projected life.
EurofighterVsRaptor 9 months ago
@EurofighterVsRaptor but I do agree with you. That this guy is definitely an Idiot :P
EurofighterVsRaptor 9 months ago
@EurofighterVsRaptor Well that's not what he is saying.
If you think he Universe is 6,000 years old (Which is about the point Human beings started domesticating dogs...) then you're a fucking retard.
ByronC900 9 months ago
@ByronC900 No, I'm not agreeing with this Idiot. I'm just saying that the Universe IS young in terms of the time it will take for it to be completely destroyed.
EurofighterVsRaptor 9 months ago
@ByronC900 Sorry but science has never changed a animal into a human case closed
ada2step 8 months ago
"When was the last time you saw an explosion construct a building?" Ha ha...... What an imbesile idiot. There is no way to discuss honest with this people. They have their agenda: God + his "Bible.". And in the name of their allmighty, loving, truthfully Gods name (including Jesus) they are being dishonest, lying - sons of bitches. (Forgetting their own gods demadment - Do not lie.
mjusiqtube 10 months ago
yes, he should intellectually demolish him infront of as many people as possable. creationionist need to be pushed all the way to the frige of society so they wont have the power to influence the education of our childeren.
QuestionReadLearn 10 months ago
I like how that creationist dude took shots a Bill O'reily haha
Bill is stupid.
yunarikku2723 10 months ago
I haven't laughed so much in a long time hahaha... As two examples of his complete failure at science: (1) The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to an isolated thermal system, which the Earth is not., so I haven't a clue what he was getting at there. (2) We didn't evolve from apes, we diverged along with the apes from a common ancestor.
HarteJoe 10 months ago