It is important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between religious belief systems and science. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are stories you believe in. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Likewise, you don't believe in evolutionary theory, rather; you use it to solve problems. What you DON'T do is "believe" or confuse science for "truth".
A. Generalizing a large group of people is just as bad. B. We were opposed to the building of the museum because museum implies that it has something to do with science. Museums are often seen as secular building for education through factual information. Using the title of museum would be misleading. Diorama would be more appropriate.
Anyone has the right to express any philosophical assertion they wish as far as I am concerned. Just don't automatically expect it to be treated as science, rational thought, or given as much credibility as other counter-assertions which actually have evidence & common sense rationale, based on real world observation, to back them up.
I support your right to say whatever you want, no matter how insane or ridiculous it may be. But when you flaunt your stupidity like a badge of honour using Debussy as your background music, it makes me want to go old testament on your ass.
kent hovind is a half with and ken ham is a twat, my scruffy old mutt out back of the house probably knows more science then those two put together. hovind thinks DNA unwinds and combines with another person's DNA to make babies and ken ham wouldn't know a transitional fossil if he got sodomized with one
I want to teach your kids that we were brought here by aliens 10, 000 years ago and I'm going to build a amusement park like museum to show do that. If you protest and say you don't want me to be pushing my believes on your children then you are censoring me. The fact is that its the protesters free speech right to speak out against what they don't like and you can say anything you want to counter that, were is the censorship your speaking of, seems everyone has a voice to me.
What a crock of shit. To prove this videos wrong we simply need to look at the case of naomiknight, who filled in a false dmca against a creationist. Nearly all the highly subscribed 'evolutionist' ( even though there's no such word) all mirrored the creationists videos and were disgraced at naomiknights actions.
Creationist deserve as much free speech as neo-nazi's (which is to say, very limited).
Your backward's and antiquated views are a pain that must be endured only so that the rest of us can see the importance of pursuing knowledge. For if we stop learning, stop growing, we will end up like the bitter creationists you associate with.
The "church" once tried to stop the truth about the halo-centric solar system. This is just another step in your war against reason and knowledge. You will lose.
I never said creationists are as bad as neo-nazi's. It's impossible to generalize an entire group, not to mention to apply some arbitrary label as "bad".
No, what I am saying is that public air time, the ability to promote one's message, for creationists should be as limited as it is for hate groups. Why? Because both groups are poor food for the soul. They provide nothing but zealotry, and a closed mind.
what kent hovind did- abused the DMCA system to censor people and remove videos he didnt like (or rather CSE didnt like)
what "evolutionists" did - tried to stop nonsense from being publicised through entirely legal processes like protesting and reporting copyright infringement
you have no idea what copyrighted material is. none of hovind's material is copyrighted, he says so himself. that has nothing to do with censorship tard.
Oh my god! He's right! Though the creationists have censored hundreds of videos...the atheists censored one 7 years ago! The scandal! Obviously, the atheists are alot more immoral
This seems to be against ALL types of censoring. Tell me something, how is it censoring to stop someone from telling lies? Never mind it is, but that kind of censoring we need. Idiots like you and other creationists(assuming you are a creationist) like to spout your completely unbelievable bullshit and pass it off as truth and your angry cause we want to censor bullshit and lies? How stupid.
Wow. I never cease to be amazed by creationist stupidity. You really can't see the difference between "borrowing" theme music and using a short clip of a video for criticism? Have you ever heard the term "fair use"?
Do you really think any criticism of your Museum of Lies constitutes censorship?
Really? The day that you evolutionists can create life in a laboratory is the day you proved that intelligence can create life. The fact is, all origin of life experiments have created nothing but L and R aminos. Life has only L aminos. Something to consider. And if L and R get together, which is what happens, it's instant ruin.
rofl, so one sided and unfair videos it hurts the mind that smoene think this is "revealing".
Someone makes something with copyright, like the Jurrasic Park Theme and you got to pay to use it, unless it is under fair use that you do so.
If you make something without copyright, then you can never ever deny anyone to use it. The moment Hovind and company said that none of their material was copyrighted, it became public domain and they got no say in what happens with it at all
monkey says things. the jesus is strong in this monkey. The baboon probably was an angel sent by jebus to post hovinds bail wich could not be paid in bananas.
That is so lame that an evolutionist would stoop so low to contact Universal and accuse Hovind of using the Jurassic Park theme without permission. I don't see why he even thought it was that big a deal to do such an action.
Wait, so the entire basis of DebateCrusher's argument here is that someone let it be known Hovind was using copyrighted material without permission? Uh, Hovind explicitly said in his videos that they're free. And where's the evidence that people tried to deny Hamms permit to build that place? Weak arguments, little-to-no supporting evidence, fail.
How great! You do know that protesting is like the opposite of censorship, right? Hah! You're so hopelessly backwards on everything!
Also, making money using something from another company's movie that IS copyrighted is TOTALLY different than NOT making money using non-copyrighted material in youtube videos!
Like I say, please keep making videos and exposing your stupidity to the world.
Calling the truth "ignorance" isn't going to help you to deal with the facts. Fact: no one has seen abiogenesis/spontaneous generation. Fact: No scientists has created life yet. Naturalism states that everyday observation is all that there is. Observation tells us that life cannot be created from abiogenesis. That's an EVERYDAY OBSERVATION. So you're telling me to discard observation in favor of imagination. Stop doing that.
There's a lot of design in the world to which we haven't seen the creator yet assume the creator done it. We don't assume that erosion, wind, and rain did it, we assume a creator. So you're view is to ignore design when it comes convenient to you.
People always use the watch as an example. Erosion can't create a working watch. No argument.
If one could provide an environment that occurs naturally that would produce a watch, we would believe it appeared naturally. As this situation does not occur, we assume a watchmaker.
The point of abiogenesis research in the lab, is to produce a situation, that is likely to have existed without human intervention and see if life can form.
The problem is, one can choose to see design when there is none. How many people insist they see mary in their toast or a man on the moon? Just because our minds see order, dose not mean the order was preplanned.
Imagine a game of poker in which you are dealt a royal flush in your first hand. What are the odds of that? It must have been an act of God right? But that combo is only ordered because we chose to make it so. It is no more meaningful to the laws of physics or chemistry than any other hand. We CHOOSE to see order when there has been nothing more than the forces of nature at work.
@DebateCrusher "we assume a creator". No we don't. Creationists do. How many geologists do you think go out and say "interesting rock formations; I wonder how they got here"
"well this is a volcanic area, so perhaps this ultramafic caprock caused a scarp retreat during the last glaciation, which was then replaced only on the southwest by pyroclastic flow sticking to the softer limestone underneath "
"Nah, God did it. Lets go home"
How does that blanket statement help anyone acheive anything?
You're not retarded I take that back, sorry. It's just the fact that you said,
"Fact: no one has seen God
Fact: No christian has gotten God to show himself yet."
When yes we have. No way can you deny the existence of God if he literaly came to the Earth by the name of Jesus Christ. But again, sorry. We have freedom of religion so you have the God given right to believe what you want.
You clearly know nothing of copyright & fair use. Ripping off a piece of copyrighted music (like perhaps the one used in your video here) without the permission of the copyright holder is 100% illegal (you can use copyrighted music for purposes of criticism of the music or music education but that is it).
Using clips of someone's video for editorial comment or criticism is Fair Use. But that doesn't even matter when YouTube owns everything LEGALLY posted on it; all derivatives are legal
The Talk.origins folks were actively trying to cause Kent Hovind all sorts of problems. They started it. Secondly, when evolutionists try to prevent Answers In Genesis from building a museum and prevent them from having a sign, you know something is up.
You know that Muserum protest was not only evolutionists, but also alot of Christians.... Christians who claim to be well aware of Answers In Genesis's scheme .....
The Scopes Monkey Trial was a fraud. The ACLU advertised in the local paper looking for a teacher willing to go through a lawsuit. John Scopes wasn't even teaching evolution in the schools there.
What you call christianity is really Catholicism. Catholicism is a synthesis of paganism dressed up in Christian garb. The notion of purgatory is a pagan idea. It started with the tower of Babel, worship of statues, chanting, and strange rituals. Christ taught men to be humble. Yet the Catholic church is about wealth, ritual, and works.
Might be so.... but I dont find it funny you state that Evolutionists start the idea of cernsorship and then back it up with chat logs of ppl talking about Kent Hovind using Jurrasic park content in his movies, which btw is illigal if i am correct ? :D
So really well its not a thing i would care about, but some would, still censorship or not... it does not invaldate the basic of the Theory, the theory of evolution and I feel a bit your trying to backwash it are you?
In my experience, the posters here on YouTube who are anti-evolution are more prone to censorship than those who are pro-evolution. In fact, I haven't seen one pro-evolution poster make it so that the comments his videos receive need to await approval, but this happens in droves over at the creationists' field.
My experience on atheist and evolutionist newsgroups is that these individuals are the worst offenders for trying to kick creationists off their groups and to the point of blocking via hacking and other methods.
Not in my experience. That usually occurs when the creationist won't stop using logical fallacies or ignoring scientific principles and just keeps spamming the board with inane bullshit.
You ignore the huge amounts of creationists that pull out the exact same shit! Votebots, ratings disabled, accounts suspended, they'll sink to anything. (Venomfangx, Ken Ham and hovinds sites being the worst offenders)
Votebots is a mythical entity, ratings disabled is just a device to prevent sockpuppet voting, accounts suspended (usually for copying videos- although I don't advocate it), and of course DC doesn't approve of everything that everyone does.
No, they're not. People use them to repeat-vote on any site that allows voting.
'... ratings disabled is just a device to prevent sockpuppet voting...'
I honestly doubt that, since the purpose of preventing sock-puppet voting would be to clear things up for REAL voters, but disabling the ratings effectively prevents real and sock-puppets alike from voting.
Creationists have no place in evolutionist newsgroups. In the same sense, evolutionists have no place in creationist groups.
Why should a group that supports scientific principles and peer review welcome someone who believes in magic? If I were to go to a church and argue with the message the minister was trying to deliver, I wouldn't be welcome.
Any group, religious, educational, or racial, has every right to EXPEL members who are not conducive to their mission.
Hovind's videos were NOT copyrighted (and he usually even made a point to explicitly say so), meaning that his DMCA claims were FRAUDULENT! THAT is the issue that his critics have with him.
You fail to address the point. His videos were under fair use law. Even Expelled, the movie uses footage under the fair use law. It's legit. And it's hypocritical for atheists to claim the higher ground.
Stein lied to the people he spoke to about what the title and intent of his documentary was. He then took quotes out of context (at least, that's what his interviewees say) and actually lied about their statements.
Ex. The guy who was talking about life growing on the backs of crystals. Stein said he wasn't kidding, while he was clearly smirking while he said that. That professor was not a proponent of that theory. (According to a later interview)
If by "under fair use law" you mean that Hovind's videos were fair use of Jurassic Park, you're delusional. He wasn't parodying, critiquing or in any other way responding to the film he was aping. Hovind was just trying to ride the popularity of another film to get his own bullshit some undeserved attention and to make himself a buck in the process (even though all of his income was really God's and God was just letting Hovind use it, and all that).
What the creationist are doing is, illegally trying to censor their opponents. Just look at the cases of, thunderf00t vs PCS, ExtantDodo vs Ken ham and the list goes on and on.
Creationist always accuse their opponents of faul play, when they cannot counter their opponents reasoning. So with no arguments left they always turn to accusations. It is quite laughable :)
VFX has admitted to filling FALSE reports that claim the other users were violating the law. He attempted to "control other peoples' property"
Fascism by your own definition.
Oh, and if I haven't made this clear, fOng has already commented on this video and explained his use of the word Nazi. By keeping this video up without an edit(at least in the comment section) that is a mischaracterization. Awfully close to baring false witness I might add.
VFX read a statement that was written by who? The video that Thunderf00t incorportated into his material belongs to VFX. It does not belong to Thunderf00t. That's a fact and you lied.
About what? Are you saying his use of the word Nazi is inaccurate or the creation of fake accounts?
I don't really know about the fake accounts for sure but I have seen many comments with low ratings that are created by users who no longer exist two days after they post.
As for Nazi, it's an excepted synonym for fascist. VFX admitted to trying to sensor other users (illegally) and he claimed to having friends help.
I know both evolutionists (I hate to use that term since evolution is not just some cult idea, it's the foundation of all modern biology) and creationists who censor. And people like Thunderf00t, a pretty hot-headed evolutionist, even says that censoring creationist comments is wrong and should be avoided. So did DonExodus.
Just because talkorigins is afraid to use the word "evolution-ist" doesn't make it a bad word. Evolutionist has long been a self-described word, just as athe-ist, scient-ist, creation-ist, etc. I'm gladly a creationist and it's too bad that evolutionists are ashamed of who they are.
The thing is, it wrongly implies that evolution is some sub-portion of science with limited followers. It's not. If you're a biologist, you're an evolutionist. Or paleontologist. Evolution has so much proof it's grown to be more than just a hypothesis, it's actually THE pillar of biology.
Evolutionist was first used by an evolutionist. Also,what do you call someone who believes in evolution but isn't a scientist? Looks like you've got a problem.
No you don't. Unless I'm also a Gravitationalist, an Germ Theory-ist, etc. There is no need to use the term to cast the idea that evolution is any less a part of modern science and must be singled out.
Don't pull that canard. Nobody uses the word gravitationalist because there is nothing to contrast it to. No one advocates antigravitation. I'm a creationist and using "ist" to describe me doesn't bother me. I'm not a cry-baby.
According to a Greek philosopher, objects fall because they long to return to earth. Suppose I took that philosophy up and decided to reject gravity--would that mean "gravitationalist" would apply to everyone else? Of course not. And creationism has just as much scientific evidence as that earth-longing philosophy in the scientific community.
The rule: we don't deal with hypotheticals but only with actualities. Nobody advocates the Greek position, and nobody calls himself a gravitationalist. The word is too long and bulky with awkward syllables, which is why you used it anyway. Evolutionist was used by Thomas Huxley, who said "And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to give to the evolutionists of 1851-8.",
Creationism is just as hypothetical, there's just more people advocating it. And you are referring to the Thomas Huxley from the 1800s, correct? The one who advocated Darwin's from of evolution, back before evolution was undeniably confirmed. At that time it would have been fair to call him that, as evolution was the new, radical theory. Today evolution is the foundation of all modern biology; it is dishonest for the creationist to use the term to indicate that early debate still exists.
Can you please give some sort of source for your claim that evolutionists first used the term? It's not that I don't believe you it's just that I AM interested to know who coined the term.
Go through the lengthy historic archives on wikipedia. The early versions of the "evolutionist" clearly tell which evolutionists used those terms. Also, there is a book out entitled, "Why I am an evolutionist" Thomas Huxley said According to Huxley, he could not believe the creationists, because they had no convincing evidence. "And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to give to the evolutionists of 1851-8." [5] - From wikipedia
you are a fucking hypocrite, no one censors their comment like venomfangx, and the DMCA the creationists filed about usage of hovind's video were false, so was the DMCA filed by venomfangx to thunderf00t, while no atheist sensors their comment as far as i know, and no atheists filed false DMCAs, yet, you do not say "creationists likes censorship" i wonder why?
That's not hypocrisy. I've been nothing but a nuisance to crusher but he hasn't censored me. What you're talking about is a bias double standard. His whole point is that they (the atheists) started the censorship war.
There's no point in a "creationists like censorship" video because creationists like VFX are open about their censorship.
Right now answering the comments is low priority as I'm engaged in producing another video, which is time consuming. It's been a couple of weeks so far and I don't even spend all my time on it. Even FakeSagan refers to himself in the third person. If it were my personal name I guess I would not refer to myself in a third person. I just read a an essay written by evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith where he referred to his own name as a third person. Didn't they teach you to use it in school?
You address some questions but not all within the same comment. It shouldn't take more than a few more minutes to address all questions within the same comment. This is a great example.
You refer to yourself in the third person because other people do it? Really?
No, I was not taught to refer to myself in the third person in school.
Why not DebateCrusher? It sounds ridiculously stupid and every time I hear someone repeat the name I Iaugh. It's better than some names that I have seen, you know, the ones that have a bunch of random letters so when ever you want to find it again you can't.
Why not DebateCrusher? Because it implies you're a debater or that you put an end to debate. This implication is only supported by the controversial nature of your video topics. Because your videos don't seem to debate these topics or end any debates, I'd like to know if your name is meant to be ironic or if you really think you're a crusher of debates.
Simple question. Why not answer it rather than reply with a question of your own?
Your contention is ridiculous. IF the IRS had the authority to tax individuals, all you need to do is cite the law that says so. I can't produce a law that says the IRS has no authority - such a law doesn't exist. The IRS has authority per law that exists, not by laws that don't exist. So it is up to you to prove that such a law exists.
This has been explained to you many times, you confounded moron. The US constitution gives the Government the right to tax individuals. The Government does this through the IRS. What part of this is so confusing for you?
Why dont you get this? The 16th amendment grants congress the power to collect taxes. The IRS was created by congress to collect taxes.
In different words:
The IRS is a government agency that acts as a proxy in the name of congress because, theoretically, congress is too busy to deal with collecting taxes.
What gives the IRS the power to collect taxes? Congress. What gives congress this power? Amendment 16.
I won't argue that the IRS has overstepped it's bounds but it CAN demand income tax
HMMM. Was my comment deleted? It was up on Saturday and now it's gone...
Let me repost it:
Crusher, I stated that Hovind's actions (actually the CSE and vicariously Hovind) were a violation of copyright law and that his actions against YouTubers were almost all purgerous and therefor criminal. Because you have had ample opportunity to reply and chose not to, you concede this point and I win this "issue." DebateCrusher, you have now acknowledged that Hovind is a criminal and should be in jail.
Copyright laws allow a reasonable amount of material to be copied by nonprofit organizations such as Hovind's ministry. Let's see. His videos went for less than $10 each, and he also encouraged people to copy them. Well, looks like you're also encouraging the US government to violate the separation of church and state. By taxing ministries the IRS, which has taken a law upon itself, has violated that separation.
That's a false claim. You don't have to register with the IRS to be nonprofit. The purpose of the IRS is not to give permission to everything everyone does. And it isn't the purpose of government to take authority upon itself to give permission to everything we do.
IF nonprofits have special privileges within copyright law, the government (state or federal) would have to legally recognize the NPO as "Not for Profit." Because neither did, CSE would NOT have special NPO privileges.
In fact I already said that one could argue that CSE is a nonprofit.
False, registering with the IRS is voluntary. The IRS offers this so your organization can attract more donations, as those donating can receive a tax write-off. Additionaly, registering with the IRS means abiding by it's rules. But you don't need to.
Registering with the IRS IS voluntary. Registering with you state (which is what most NPOs do) is also voluntary. What we're talking about is a (fictional) exemption for NPOs under copyright LAW. For such a company to receive such benefits, they must be recognized as Non-Profits by the LAW.
Even if we all accepted them as a NPO, because the GOVERNMENT did not, the GOVERNMENT will not grant them special non-profit privileges.
It is important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between religious belief systems and science. Science is a tool used to solve problems. Religious belief systems are stories you believe in. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems. Likewise, you don't believe in evolutionary theory, rather; you use it to solve problems. What you DON'T do is "believe" or confuse science for "truth".
blaisingm 11 months ago
What is an 'Evolutionist' ?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Fail.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Evolution is now accepted by anyone in a first world country, with a brain, even Christians. Thought you should know.
bansee100 1 year ago
he used copyrights for profit i just read that in that email u showed and protesting is a right of americans.....
linkforever92 1 year ago
The reason the museum was protested was because it was promoting pseudo-science.
June28July 1 year ago
I think we are justified in opposing both censorship and propoganda.
AndrewWSUDE 1 year ago
I don't think you realize that there is a huge difference between falsely filing copyright notices, and filing copyright notices. Please see "false".
But I do admit they wouldn't have done it to a standard video, I think they were more doing it to annoy Kent then to censor his views.
Still, you found one incident. There are MANY on you.
Also, Debatecrusher: I know I'm only 14 and all (Turning 15 next Friday, OMG!) but I could pwn you in a debate :-p.
khatool 1 year ago
@khatool "I know I'm only 14 and all (Turning 15 next Friday, OMG!) but I could pwn you in a debate :-p."
Don't be so sure; "never argue with an idiot; they pull you down to their level, then beat you with experience"
But the fact he didn't reply does show something :D
05swanbe 1 year ago
A. Generalizing a large group of people is just as bad. B. We were opposed to the building of the museum because museum implies that it has something to do with science. Museums are often seen as secular building for education through factual information. Using the title of museum would be misleading. Diorama would be more appropriate.
sunset261 1 year ago
This HAS to be a satirical video, because half of the videos from this user have disabled comment/video ratings themselves...
iamzemasta 2 years ago
alot of really stupid claims in this vid.
mastela88 2 years ago
lame
sleeplessmind 2 years ago
..end.
000SMITH000 2 years ago
I liked the close up of Kent Hovind at the ned.
000SMITH000 2 years ago
Anyone has the right to express any philosophical assertion they wish as far as I am concerned. Just don't automatically expect it to be treated as science, rational thought, or given as much credibility as other counter-assertions which actually have evidence & common sense rationale, based on real world observation, to back them up.
xalysta13 2 years ago
I support your right to say whatever you want, no matter how insane or ridiculous it may be. But when you flaunt your stupidity like a badge of honour using Debussy as your background music, it makes me want to go old testament on your ass.
jmg94j 2 years ago
kent hovind is a half with and ken ham is a twat, my scruffy old mutt out back of the house probably knows more science then those two put together. hovind thinks DNA unwinds and combines with another person's DNA to make babies and ken ham wouldn't know a transitional fossil if he got sodomized with one
thisis3d 2 years ago
Would you please lay off the cheesy sound effects and the false equivalencies?
I weep for our gene pool when I reflect that people like you are allowed to reproduce.
donquickoats 2 years ago
This guy does not even know what censorship is.
foodisthestiff 2 years ago 3
I want to teach your kids that we were brought here by aliens 10, 000 years ago and I'm going to build a amusement park like museum to show do that. If you protest and say you don't want me to be pushing my believes on your children then you are censoring me. The fact is that its the protesters free speech right to speak out against what they don't like and you can say anything you want to counter that, were is the censorship your speaking of, seems everyone has a voice to me.
fireflygirl246 2 years ago
What a crock of shit. To prove this videos wrong we simply need to look at the case of naomiknight, who filled in a false dmca against a creationist. Nearly all the highly subscribed 'evolutionist' ( even though there's no such word) all mirrored the creationists videos and were disgraced at naomiknights actions.
manhunt48 2 years ago
Wow, that video just sucked. Big time sucked.
13shadowwolf 2 years ago
Creationist deserve as much free speech as neo-nazi's (which is to say, very limited).
Your backward's and antiquated views are a pain that must be endured only so that the rest of us can see the importance of pursuing knowledge. For if we stop learning, stop growing, we will end up like the bitter creationists you associate with.
The "church" once tried to stop the truth about the halo-centric solar system. This is just another step in your war against reason and knowledge. You will lose.
ulgrum 2 years ago
wow, what an enlightened view you hold! creationists as bad as neo nazi's!
I'm no creationist, but that is most definatly way over the mark
hebrews13v5 2 years ago
I never said creationists are as bad as neo-nazi's. It's impossible to generalize an entire group, not to mention to apply some arbitrary label as "bad".
No, what I am saying is that public air time, the ability to promote one's message, for creationists should be as limited as it is for hate groups. Why? Because both groups are poor food for the soul. They provide nothing but zealotry, and a closed mind.
ulgrum 2 years ago
It's not evolutionsits nor is it creationists who like to censor, it is people who like to censor in general...don't forget that.
krum1987 2 years ago
I agree with boring and what PhilosopherEight said.
Joeri12 2 years ago
WTF? This video sucked! If I could, 0 stars...
June28July 2 years ago
what kent hovind did- abused the DMCA system to censor people and remove videos he didnt like (or rather CSE didnt like)
what "evolutionists" did - tried to stop nonsense from being publicised through entirely legal processes like protesting and reporting copyright infringement
hmmm ye those evolutionists are censors alright
ajgrovery 2 years ago 2
This video iz boring. Kthnxbai
Bardlettt 2 years ago
good video
AllenFTW 2 years ago
you have no idea what copyrighted material is. none of hovind's material is copyrighted, he says so himself. that has nothing to do with censorship tard.
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago
Looks like this guy has his own 'special' definitions of words.
Censorship = Any opposition to his position
Evolution = Satanic denial of God's power
Museum = Large-scale church diorama
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago 3
What's an evolutionist..? I've been asking around for a while but I haven't gotten a serious answer yet.
Yoshimiko951 2 years ago
Oh my god! He's right! Though the creationists have censored hundreds of videos...the atheists censored one 7 years ago! The scandal! Obviously, the atheists are alot more immoral
khatool 2 years ago 2
atheist a lot more immoral?! hahahahahha
what an incompetent statement.
you actually admitted that theists are immoral...
and atheists are by far more moral, than theists
exist209 2 years ago
If you didnt see the sarcasm in my statement, I think I want to boil my head .
VenomToothY 2 years ago
why are you talking to me?
exist209 2 years ago
@exist209 I know I'm replying to a really old post, but I only just saw it, and I want to defend my honor:
I was being sarcastic, making fun of theists.
khatool 1 year ago
oh and by the way,, thats NOT A MONKEY YOU DUMBASS!!!
hahahhahahahahhah FAAAAAAIIIIIL
MattChez 2 years ago
the only person censoring anything is your best buddy VFX,
please redefine,,
what are you talking about??
have you not read the comments people leave you or are you just ignoring the fact that you have ZERO valid points?
MattChez 2 years ago
Please tell me what kind of censorship. VenomfangX censorship or thunderf00t censorship? Oh wait, thunderf00t doesn't have censorship!
Thothsglyphs 2 years ago 2
Apparently you don't know the definition of censorship
ProcInc 2 years ago 7
hahaha!
Filing a claim for illegal use of material is NOT censorship ... making fake DMCA claims against fair use material IS.
Protesting is not censorship ...
SupremeChimp 2 years ago 2
This seems to be against ALL types of censoring. Tell me something, how is it censoring to stop someone from telling lies? Never mind it is, but that kind of censoring we need. Idiots like you and other creationists(assuming you are a creationist) like to spout your completely unbelievable bullshit and pass it off as truth and your angry cause we want to censor bullshit and lies? How stupid.
Thothsglyphs 2 years ago
Protesting is not censorship, it's a way of expressing the group's viewpoint
McBurgerBob 2 years ago
You love making an ass out of yourself huh....good stuff
kmonster420 2 years ago 4
Wow. I never cease to be amazed by creationist stupidity. You really can't see the difference between "borrowing" theme music and using a short clip of a video for criticism? Have you ever heard the term "fair use"?
Do you really think any criticism of your Museum of Lies constitutes censorship?
mistergarth 2 years ago
If you're looking for blatant censorship, look at VenomfangX
Figured you would've attacked those who most deny free speech than those opposed to your religion.
rawwqq 2 years ago
censorship? like VFX? like thewayofthemaster? that kind of censorship?
Rib64 2 years ago 2
the creation museum costs 20 something million dollars and all it does is lie to children
any decent human being would want to shut it down and that is why many christians also protested
ajgrovery 2 years ago 7
Really? The day that you evolutionists can create life in a laboratory is the day you proved that intelligence can create life. The fact is, all origin of life experiments have created nothing but L and R aminos. Life has only L aminos. Something to consider. And if L and R get together, which is what happens, it's instant ruin.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
"The day that you evolutionists can create life in a laboratory is the day you proved that intelligence can create life"
There it is. You have fully admitted that there is no piece of evidence that could possibly change your mind.
That's ok. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to point out your lies to someone who might fall for your lies/misunderstandings.
Just out of curiosity, what would you need to believe that you might be wrong about God?
PatentPending3265 2 years ago 4
im afraid you crazy (sorry if im the first to tell you)
what you have said has nothing to do with what I stated in my comment
I always thought that replying to a persons argument was what debating was all about not going off on a tangent
ajgrovery 2 years ago 4
"The day that you evolutionists can create life in a laboratory is the day you proved that intelligence can create life."
You do realize that Evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate areas of study, right?
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
I think you need to go back to biology class instead of relying on Hovind to do accurate studying for you.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
@DebateCrusher Things have changed since you posted that comment. Google 'Synthia'
05swanbe 1 year ago
@05swanbe
Sorry but Synthia wasn't an example of abiogenesis.
PatentPending3265 1 year ago
@DebateCrusher Darwin wrote the "Origin of Species'' NOT the origin of life.
Creatard.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
rofl, so one sided and unfair videos it hurts the mind that smoene think this is "revealing".
Someone makes something with copyright, like the Jurrasic Park Theme and you got to pay to use it, unless it is under fair use that you do so.
If you make something without copyright, then you can never ever deny anyone to use it. The moment Hovind and company said that none of their material was copyrighted, it became public domain and they got no say in what happens with it at all
mhrby1985 2 years ago 3
monkey says things. the jesus is strong in this monkey. The baboon probably was an angel sent by jebus to post hovinds bail wich could not be paid in bananas.
TRUCKEEDOG666 2 years ago
That is so lame that an evolutionist would stoop so low to contact Universal and accuse Hovind of using the Jurassic Park theme without permission. I don't see why he even thought it was that big a deal to do such an action.
Rawk4Life 2 years ago
If by evolutionists you mean venomfangx, then yes. they do.
linkuei83 2 years ago
I've never been censored more on Youtube then when I started leaving comments on Nephillemfree and Venomfangx's videos.
You're video makes a weak point and is poorly presented, by the way. If I could rate it at 0 stars, I would.
Leehofooks 2 years ago 5
Wait, so the entire basis of DebateCrusher's argument here is that someone let it be known Hovind was using copyrighted material without permission? Uh, Hovind explicitly said in his videos that they're free. And where's the evidence that people tried to deny Hamms permit to build that place? Weak arguments, little-to-no supporting evidence, fail.
Cerberus1441 2 years ago 3
No reply to my last comment. In an academic debate, that's a concession of a point. You concede to me a lot DebateCrusher
PatentPending3265 2 years ago
How great! You do know that protesting is like the opposite of censorship, right? Hah! You're so hopelessly backwards on everything!
Also, making money using something from another company's movie that IS copyrighted is TOTALLY different than NOT making money using non-copyrighted material in youtube videos!
Like I say, please keep making videos and exposing your stupidity to the world.
Muchodelcrazy 2 years ago
You know, I actually made three points in my previous comment and You ignored two of them.
Why?
PatentPending3265 2 years ago
who do you think you are debatecrusher? 9/10 atheists are always open to discussion (some exceptions made as we do have lives)
most theists however wont even discuss anything relating to ... well anything
why? i guess they dont like being wrong
gamiezion 2 years ago
i love it when theists post these kind of videos. even the average theist watching can use this type of ignorance as a stepping stone toward reality.
the more theistic ignorance regaurding science they put out there, the more theists with half a brain will realize how completely ridiculous it is.
keep up the good work!
justPLAINolEZ 3 years ago
Calling the truth "ignorance" isn't going to help you to deal with the facts. Fact: no one has seen abiogenesis/spontaneous generation. Fact: No scientists has created life yet. Naturalism states that everyday observation is all that there is. Observation tells us that life cannot be created from abiogenesis. That's an EVERYDAY OBSERVATION. So you're telling me to discard observation in favor of imagination. Stop doing that.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Fact: no one has seen God
Fact: No christian has gotten God to show himself yet
What observation tells us life cannot be created from abiogenesis?
Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are not the same thing. Can you find a single scientific article or paper that uses the terms interchangeably?
PatentPending3265 2 years ago 3
There's a lot of design in the world to which we haven't seen the creator yet assume the creator done it. We don't assume that erosion, wind, and rain did it, we assume a creator. So you're view is to ignore design when it comes convenient to you.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
And there is the hole in your logic.
People always use the watch as an example. Erosion can't create a working watch. No argument.
If one could provide an environment that occurs naturally that would produce a watch, we would believe it appeared naturally. As this situation does not occur, we assume a watchmaker.
The point of abiogenesis research in the lab, is to produce a situation, that is likely to have existed without human intervention and see if life can form.
PatentPending3265 2 years ago 6
cont.
The problem is, one can choose to see design when there is none. How many people insist they see mary in their toast or a man on the moon? Just because our minds see order, dose not mean the order was preplanned.
PatentPending3265 2 years ago 6
Imagine a game of poker in which you are dealt a royal flush in your first hand. What are the odds of that? It must have been an act of God right? But that combo is only ordered because we chose to make it so. It is no more meaningful to the laws of physics or chemistry than any other hand. We CHOOSE to see order when there has been nothing more than the forces of nature at work.
PatentPending3265 2 years ago 6
@DebateCrusher "we assume a creator". No we don't. Creationists do. How many geologists do you think go out and say "interesting rock formations; I wonder how they got here"
"well this is a volcanic area, so perhaps this ultramafic caprock caused a scarp retreat during the last glaciation, which was then replaced only on the southwest by pyroclastic flow sticking to the softer limestone underneath "
"Nah, God did it. Lets go home"
How does that blanket statement help anyone acheive anything?
05swanbe 1 year ago
@PatentPending3265
You're fucking retarded. I guess you have never heard of Jesus have you, you dumbass piece of shit.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX
Care to expand on that line of reasoning?
How am I retarded? What evidence do you have that I have never heard of Jesus?
PatentPending3265 1 year ago
@PatentPending3265
You're not retarded I take that back, sorry. It's just the fact that you said,
"Fact: no one has seen God
Fact: No christian has gotten God to show himself yet."
When yes we have. No way can you deny the existence of God if he literaly came to the Earth by the name of Jesus Christ. But again, sorry. We have freedom of religion so you have the God given right to believe what you want.
XxFightinDirtyxX 1 year ago
@XxFightinDirtyxX 2000 years ago Jesus was a common name, what is your point?
gregrutz 1 year ago
"Fact: no one has seen abiogenesis/spontaneous generation. Fact: No scientists has created life yet."
FACT: Neither of those have anything to do with evolution. Even if abiogenesis is wrong, evolution is still undeniable.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Dear God, your videos suck.
EmeraldView 3 years ago
Why do you say that?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
You clearly know nothing of copyright & fair use. Ripping off a piece of copyrighted music (like perhaps the one used in your video here) without the permission of the copyright holder is 100% illegal (you can use copyrighted music for purposes of criticism of the music or music education but that is it).
Using clips of someone's video for editorial comment or criticism is Fair Use. But that doesn't even matter when YouTube owns everything LEGALLY posted on it; all derivatives are legal
DukeRaoul71 3 years ago
DebateCrusher uses copyright free music. Just do a web search and you'll probably find the same piece that I used.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
How is noting a copy right infringement a censorship issue?
Ephemerance 3 years ago 2
The Talk.origins folks were actively trying to cause Kent Hovind all sorts of problems. They started it. Secondly, when evolutionists try to prevent Answers In Genesis from building a museum and prevent them from having a sign, you know something is up.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
You know that Muserum protest was not only evolutionists, but also alot of Christians.... Christians who claim to be well aware of Answers In Genesis's scheme .....
C0ldhead 2 years ago
It's a political conflict, with political objectives.
Ephemerance 2 years ago
So DebateCrusher, would you like to explain what the Scopes Monkey Trial was? If you answered censorship you got a prize.
arkham1999 3 years ago
The Scopes Monkey Trial was a fraud. The ACLU advertised in the local paper looking for a teacher willing to go through a lawsuit. John Scopes wasn't even teaching evolution in the schools there.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
DebateCrusher is known for crushing his own arguments.
If DebateCrusher wants to learn talk about censorship and oppression, he simply has to look at the last few centuries of Christian history.
TheTruePatriot72 3 years ago 2
What you call christianity is really Catholicism. Catholicism is a synthesis of paganism dressed up in Christian garb. The notion of purgatory is a pagan idea. It started with the tower of Babel, worship of statues, chanting, and strange rituals. Christ taught men to be humble. Yet the Catholic church is about wealth, ritual, and works.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Just out of curiocity, do you celebrate Christmas?
Do you do so on Dec. 25th?
Buy presents?
Decorate a tree?
PatentPending3265 2 years ago
prolly the worst vid ever, I cant see what it says
C0ldhead 3 years ago
Maybe you are blind.
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Might be so.... but I dont find it funny you state that Evolutionists start the idea of cernsorship and then back it up with chat logs of ppl talking about Kent Hovind using Jurrasic park content in his movies, which btw is illigal if i am correct ? :D
So really well its not a thing i would care about, but some would, still censorship or not... it does not invaldate the basic of the Theory, the theory of evolution and I feel a bit your trying to backwash it are you?
C0ldhead 2 years ago
In my experience, the posters here on YouTube who are anti-evolution are more prone to censorship than those who are pro-evolution. In fact, I haven't seen one pro-evolution poster make it so that the comments his videos receive need to await approval, but this happens in droves over at the creationists' field.
Sorastor 3 years ago 2
My experience on atheist and evolutionist newsgroups is that these individuals are the worst offenders for trying to kick creationists off their groups and to the point of blocking via hacking and other methods.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Not in my experience. That usually occurs when the creationist won't stop using logical fallacies or ignoring scientific principles and just keeps spamming the board with inane bullshit.
Sorastor 3 years ago
You ignore the huge amounts of creationists that pull out the exact same shit! Votebots, ratings disabled, accounts suspended, they'll sink to anything. (Venomfangx, Ken Ham and hovinds sites being the worst offenders)
vicepresidentfru1tly 3 years ago 3
Votebots is a mythical entity, ratings disabled is just a device to prevent sockpuppet voting, accounts suspended (usually for copying videos- although I don't advocate it), and of course DC doesn't approve of everything that everyone does.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
'Votebots is a mythical entity...'
No, they're not. People use them to repeat-vote on any site that allows voting.
'... ratings disabled is just a device to prevent sockpuppet voting...'
I honestly doubt that, since the purpose of preventing sock-puppet voting would be to clear things up for REAL voters, but disabling the ratings effectively prevents real and sock-puppets alike from voting.
Sorastor 3 years ago 4
Creationists have no place in evolutionist newsgroups. In the same sense, evolutionists have no place in creationist groups.
Why should a group that supports scientific principles and peer review welcome someone who believes in magic? If I were to go to a church and argue with the message the minister was trying to deliver, I wouldn't be welcome.
Any group, religious, educational, or racial, has every right to EXPEL members who are not conducive to their mission.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
^^ Continued ^^
That being said, censorship on a public forum is destructive to intellectual growth. Not to mention pathetic.
The reason evolutionists are more likely to welcome comments is because they are more likely to support scientific principles, ie. peer review.
It is necessary for alternate points of view to be considered before we can except the one we have.
People on both side are still subject to closed-mindedness and bias, however, and will make mistakes.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
"...the worst offenders for trying to kick creationists off their groups..."
That's a lie.
Go to Panda's Thumb with your "Scinece is Conspiracy" pablum.
Your company will be enjoyed for as long as you can put up with it.
SpeakerForrTheDead 3 years ago
An evolutionist likes to censor creationists. i gave several examples in the video. What is too hard to understand?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
Last time I checked protesting isn't against the law but claiming false copyright in order to censor someone is.
sweatytoothmadman 3 years ago
Hovind's videos were NOT copyrighted (and he usually even made a point to explicitly say so), meaning that his DMCA claims were FRAUDULENT! THAT is the issue that his critics have with him.
theunforgivn81 3 years ago
You fail to address the point. His videos were under fair use law. Even Expelled, the movie uses footage under the fair use law. It's legit. And it's hypocritical for atheists to claim the higher ground.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Ben Stein just used the footage manipulatively and was dishonest about the purpose of his interviews.
Sorastor 3 years ago
Apparently you haven't seen the movie, as hasn't a lot of evolutionists who condemned the movie while admitting they haven't seen it.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Nope. I've seen it. (And that's never a good way to refute something someone said.)
Sorastor 3 years ago 3
"Apparently you haven't seen the movie"
Stein lied to the people he spoke to about what the title and intent of his documentary was. He then took quotes out of context (at least, that's what his interviewees say) and actually lied about their statements.
Ex. The guy who was talking about life growing on the backs of crystals. Stein said he wasn't kidding, while he was clearly smirking while he said that. That professor was not a proponent of that theory. (According to a later interview)
PatentPending3265 3 years ago 5
I saw the the pseudointellectual porno flick.
Dishonesty at it's most...
dishonest.
Pure filth.
And yet, available for purchase anywhere.
How about that for censorship.
SpeakerForrTheDead 3 years ago
I gave several facts in the video. Which do you say is dishonest?
DebateCrusher 2 years ago
If by "under fair use law" you mean that Hovind's videos were fair use of Jurassic Park, you're delusional. He wasn't parodying, critiquing or in any other way responding to the film he was aping. Hovind was just trying to ride the popularity of another film to get his own bullshit some undeserved attention and to make himself a buck in the process (even though all of his income was really God's and God was just letting Hovind use it, and all that).
theunforgivn81 3 years ago
Fair use does not cover using someone elses work and claimng it was your own. And even if it did that just makes him a greedy liar.
sroHex 3 years ago
You still do not address the tyranny of having evangelicals file (false) DMCA's against people debunking Kent's *UN-COPYRIGHTED* videos.
CweedPO 3 years ago
Excuse me for the lack of punctuation, in my last comments, but I am quite tired! It is very late here in Denmark right now :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
What the creationist are doing is, illegally trying to censor their opponents. Just look at the cases of, thunderf00t vs PCS, ExtantDodo vs Ken ham and the list goes on and on.
Creationist always accuse their opponents of faul play, when they cannot counter their opponents reasoning. So with no arguments left they always turn to accusations. It is quite laughable :)
And oh, by the way so is your reasoning :)
JRBendixen 3 years ago
I know for certain that you are unable to comprehend what my last comment was about!
So let me elaborate!
There is a difference between, pointing out that other people are breaking the law and actually breaking the law by ones own actions.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
And by the by, there is actually nothing wrong with pointing out, that people are breaking the law.
Unless you are actually also proposing that idea. It would not surprise me by now.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
Congratulations on making arguments for abolishment of freedom of speech, in a video which I can only assume, was supposed to be in favor of it!
JRBendixen 3 years ago
So you think that protesting should be illegal, as a means of freedom of expression.
Well then, I disagree with you. So are you now going to censor my comment.
Ok maybe not, but is it because I am not waving a poster around?
Bravo, your reasoning has reached a new levels of unbelief.
You are without ethics and moral values.
JRBendixen 3 years ago
VFX has admitted to filling FALSE reports that claim the other users were violating the law. He attempted to "control other peoples' property"
Fascism by your own definition.
Oh, and if I haven't made this clear, fOng has already commented on this video and explained his use of the word Nazi. By keeping this video up without an edit(at least in the comment section) that is a mischaracterization. Awfully close to baring false witness I might add.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
VFX read a statement that was written by who? The video that Thunderf00t incorportated into his material belongs to VFX. It does not belong to Thunderf00t. That's a fact and you lied.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
"I confirm that the contents of this apology are true and accurate"
-VenomFangX
Who wrote it is not in question if VFX confirms it's accuracy.
The terms of use policy gives other users rights to use the video. It was thunderfoot's legal right to use that content.
When did I lie?
I repeated what VFX himself said in his apology to the world.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
This is intended to be a response to a comment left by DC that I cannot find in the stream.
How does Fong's overuse of the word Nazi justify you maintaining a representation that he himself has said was a falacy?
"Fascist is when you control other people's property and not your own"
That's what Fong is accusing them of. You may claim that this accusation is false but don't try to imply the word fascist was in error
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
Fong was wrong.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
About what? Are you saying his use of the word Nazi is inaccurate or the creation of fake accounts?
I don't really know about the fake accounts for sure but I have seen many comments with low ratings that are created by users who no longer exist two days after they post.
As for Nazi, it's an excepted synonym for fascist. VFX admitted to trying to sensor other users (illegally) and he claimed to having friends help.
The law and VFX's apology say you're wrong.
VFX admitted it, why can't you?
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
I know both evolutionists (I hate to use that term since evolution is not just some cult idea, it's the foundation of all modern biology) and creationists who censor. And people like Thunderf00t, a pretty hot-headed evolutionist, even says that censoring creationist comments is wrong and should be avoided. So did DonExodus.
CKtheFat 3 years ago
Just because talkorigins is afraid to use the word "evolution-ist" doesn't make it a bad word. Evolutionist has long been a self-described word, just as athe-ist, scient-ist, creation-ist, etc. I'm gladly a creationist and it's too bad that evolutionists are ashamed of who they are.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
The thing is, it wrongly implies that evolution is some sub-portion of science with limited followers. It's not. If you're a biologist, you're an evolutionist. Or paleontologist. Evolution has so much proof it's grown to be more than just a hypothesis, it's actually THE pillar of biology.
CKtheFat 3 years ago
Evolutionist was first used by an evolutionist. Also,what do you call someone who believes in evolution but isn't a scientist? Looks like you've got a problem.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
No you don't. Unless I'm also a Gravitationalist, an Germ Theory-ist, etc. There is no need to use the term to cast the idea that evolution is any less a part of modern science and must be singled out.
CKtheFat 3 years ago
Don't pull that canard. Nobody uses the word gravitationalist because there is nothing to contrast it to. No one advocates antigravitation. I'm a creationist and using "ist" to describe me doesn't bother me. I'm not a cry-baby.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
According to a Greek philosopher, objects fall because they long to return to earth. Suppose I took that philosophy up and decided to reject gravity--would that mean "gravitationalist" would apply to everyone else? Of course not. And creationism has just as much scientific evidence as that earth-longing philosophy in the scientific community.
CKtheFat 3 years ago
The rule: we don't deal with hypotheticals but only with actualities. Nobody advocates the Greek position, and nobody calls himself a gravitationalist. The word is too long and bulky with awkward syllables, which is why you used it anyway. Evolutionist was used by Thomas Huxley, who said "And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to give to the evolutionists of 1851-8.",
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Creationism is just as hypothetical, there's just more people advocating it. And you are referring to the Thomas Huxley from the 1800s, correct? The one who advocated Darwin's from of evolution, back before evolution was undeniably confirmed. At that time it would have been fair to call him that, as evolution was the new, radical theory. Today evolution is the foundation of all modern biology; it is dishonest for the creationist to use the term to indicate that early debate still exists.
CKtheFat 3 years ago
Can you please give some sort of source for your claim that evolutionists first used the term? It's not that I don't believe you it's just that I AM interested to know who coined the term.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
Go through the lengthy historic archives on wikipedia. The early versions of the "evolutionist" clearly tell which evolutionists used those terms. Also, there is a book out entitled, "Why I am an evolutionist" Thomas Huxley said According to Huxley, he could not believe the creationists, because they had no convincing evidence. "And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to give to the evolutionists of 1851-8." [5] - From wikipedia
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Great video! The screeching chimp to the boon's photo was hilarious!!
Evolutionists love to mock the Lord, so here's a taste of their own medicine at the end. Those ungrateful apes!
KingofPepsi 3 years ago
I don't want to reiterate my point but please, when you get a chance, read all of the comments on this video. DebatCrusher is a joke.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago 2
are you a gravitationalist as well? a cellist? atomist?
1n354a 3 years ago
you are a fucking hypocrite, no one censors their comment like venomfangx, and the DMCA the creationists filed about usage of hovind's video were false, so was the DMCA filed by venomfangx to thunderf00t, while no atheist sensors their comment as far as i know, and no atheists filed false DMCAs, yet, you do not say "creationists likes censorship" i wonder why?
lianghaochen 3 years ago
That's not hypocrisy. I've been nothing but a nuisance to crusher but he hasn't censored me. What you're talking about is a bias double standard. His whole point is that they (the atheists) started the censorship war.
There's no point in a "creationists like censorship" video because creationists like VFX are open about their censorship.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
Thanks for your support. DebateCrusher certainly opposes suppressing points of view.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Please don't mistake my correction as support. I hope to correct fallacies not offer support to those who would misrepresent the opposition.
Why do you not address all points made in these comments?
Why "DebateCrusher" when you obviously need work in the debate department?
Why do you refer to yourself in the third person?
How do you feel about Hovind's Seminars?
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
Right now answering the comments is low priority as I'm engaged in producing another video, which is time consuming. It's been a couple of weeks so far and I don't even spend all my time on it. Even FakeSagan refers to himself in the third person. If it were my personal name I guess I would not refer to myself in a third person. I just read a an essay written by evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith where he referred to his own name as a third person. Didn't they teach you to use it in school?
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
You address some questions but not all within the same comment. It shouldn't take more than a few more minutes to address all questions within the same comment. This is a great example.
You refer to yourself in the third person because other people do it? Really?
No, I was not taught to refer to myself in the third person in school.
Why DebateCrusher?
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
Why not DebateCrusher? It sounds ridiculously stupid and every time I hear someone repeat the name I Iaugh. It's better than some names that I have seen, you know, the ones that have a bunch of random letters so when ever you want to find it again you can't.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Why not DebateCrusher? Because it implies you're a debater or that you put an end to debate. This implication is only supported by the controversial nature of your video topics. Because your videos don't seem to debate these topics or end any debates, I'd like to know if your name is meant to be ironic or if you really think you're a crusher of debates.
Simple question. Why not answer it rather than reply with a question of your own?
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
DebateCrusher does put an end to debates.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Care to give an example.
FTR, in an academic debate, it is you who must provide evidence if your assertion challenges the status quo.
When I am supported by the status quo, I must simply challenge the quality of your evidence.
I must not provide law to you. You must provide law that renders the 16 amendment unconstitutional.
Pecke V Lowe refereed to Exported goods and Overseas profits.
Coppage v Kansas had NOTHING to do with tax law.
Status quo survives.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
Your contention is ridiculous. IF the IRS had the authority to tax individuals, all you need to do is cite the law that says so. I can't produce a law that says the IRS has no authority - such a law doesn't exist. The IRS has authority per law that exists, not by laws that don't exist. So it is up to you to prove that such a law exists.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
This has been explained to you many times, you confounded moron. The US constitution gives the Government the right to tax individuals. The Government does this through the IRS. What part of this is so confusing for you?
legion22NO 3 years ago
Why dont you get this? The 16th amendment grants congress the power to collect taxes. The IRS was created by congress to collect taxes.
In different words:
The IRS is a government agency that acts as a proxy in the name of congress because, theoretically, congress is too busy to deal with collecting taxes.
What gives the IRS the power to collect taxes? Congress. What gives congress this power? Amendment 16.
I won't argue that the IRS has overstepped it's bounds but it CAN demand income tax
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
HMMM. Was my comment deleted? It was up on Saturday and now it's gone...
Let me repost it:
Crusher, I stated that Hovind's actions (actually the CSE and vicariously Hovind) were a violation of copyright law and that his actions against YouTubers were almost all purgerous and therefor criminal. Because you have had ample opportunity to reply and chose not to, you concede this point and I win this "issue." DebateCrusher, you have now acknowledged that Hovind is a criminal and should be in jail.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
Copyright laws allow a reasonable amount of material to be copied by nonprofit organizations such as Hovind's ministry. Let's see. His videos went for less than $10 each, and he also encouraged people to copy them. Well, looks like you're also encouraging the US government to violate the separation of church and state. By taxing ministries the IRS, which has taken a law upon itself, has violated that separation.
VortexDelta 3 years ago
Could you please site a source that gives nonprofits extra rights?
Hovind's ministries did not have a nonprofit tax ID number. In the eyes of the IRS, there was no nonprofit.
One could argue that he didn't make much money and was therefor a "nonprofit" but He was accused of hiding a lot of money from the IRS
Could you please explain how I've advocated the violation of church and state?
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
That's a false claim. You don't have to register with the IRS to be nonprofit. The purpose of the IRS is not to give permission to everything everyone does. And it isn't the purpose of government to take authority upon itself to give permission to everything we do.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
IF nonprofits have special privileges within copyright law, the government (state or federal) would have to legally recognize the NPO as "Not for Profit." Because neither did, CSE would NOT have special NPO privileges.
In fact I already said that one could argue that CSE is a nonprofit.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago
False, registering with the IRS is voluntary. The IRS offers this so your organization can attract more donations, as those donating can receive a tax write-off. Additionaly, registering with the IRS means abiding by it's rules. But you don't need to.
DebateCrusher 3 years ago
Oh Dear Buddha!
Registering with the IRS IS voluntary. Registering with you state (which is what most NPOs do) is also voluntary. What we're talking about is a (fictional) exemption for NPOs under copyright LAW. For such a company to receive such benefits, they must be recognized as Non-Profits by the LAW.
Even if we all accepted them as a NPO, because the GOVERNMENT did not, the GOVERNMENT will not grant them special non-profit privileges.
PatentPending3265 3 years ago