@thespybreaker "Please show a single example over the last 400 years of observable microbiology that new DNA has been added to existing DNA or cells. I CHALLENGE YOU to show atleast ONE (1, one) example." Add this to the many other examples you have been given - HeLa cells. Go look them up and stop pretending that you know the first thing about evolutionary theory. Do some actual research instead of parroting creationist websites.
Could've sworn (not on a bible though) that I'd read or heard he was dead ... looks like it's not only weird creationists that make mistakes ... dickheads like me do too!
@thespybreaker Yeah you're right. I added that to further my own argument... except I didn't.
I just did a quick search on google to even double check that fact. And I wasn't surprised to see that I'm right and you're wrong... again.
Oh and I had some terms mixed up. Extra limbs is not polydactyly, its polymelia. Polymelia never has a genetic component and is not the result of mutations as you claim has many many examples of. And even if it did, mutations dont manifest themselves in such ways.
@thespybreaker No no. The origin of birds from dinosaurs is a theory yes. But if you'd look up what I told you to look up and actually read the article you'd see the evidence. But you're so wrapped up in your ceaseless denial of evolution that you can't be bothered by that. You keep claiming that there is ZERO evidence but it;s everywhere. And I told you, extra limbs rarely has a genetic component. How about you provide some empirical (not emperical btw) evidence of that.
@Ender8419 And I'm done with this. I'd love to stay to laugh some more at you cause it really has been fun Mr. (faux) Microbiologist. lolololololololololololololololololololololololol
I'll maybe check back later to see what drivel you have posted.
@thespybreaker The production of feathers and/or wings would take the accumulation of hundreds of different mutations and mutations that weren't fatal. The chance of that happening in the time frame you are giving is highly improbable. Polydactyly can and does have a genetic component and is passed down as an autosomal dominant trait. But most of the time it is the result of problems during development or twin fetuses that become conjoined. Once again, any geneticist should know these things.
@thespybreaker You know what's funny too? You have given no examples or evidence of your viewpoint. You just keep blindly asking me to provide the evidence... That's very telling indeed Mr. Microbiologist (lol).
@thespybreaker And how can I be running from a question that I've already answered. Just because you keep asking it over and over again doesn't mean I should provide different answers.
@thespybreaker Happens everyday and it's called mutation. Mutation is the only (natural) mechanism for that to occur. How many times do I need to say this?
@thespybreaker A rearrangement of the DNA sequence provides new information buddy. When you mix up and rearrange nucleotides you are giving a different message. The codon CGA is completely different from the codon GCA. This results in "new information" that was not previously there. Any moron studying genetics would know that.
@thespybreaker HAHAHAHAHAHA. No sir, you are wrong and any professor and scientist would attest to that. I gave you the definition yet you still cling to your obviously wrong views. And your wrong. Evolution claims that whales descended from ungulates, not wolves. You're a liar (microbiologist my ass) and an idiot... hmm. You're asking me to give an example of a dog giving birth to say, a bird. Not once has the theory of evolution put forth a claim as ludicrous as that.
@thespybreaker HAHAHAHAHAHA. No sir, you are wrong and any professor and scientist would attest to that. I gave you the definition yet you still cling to your obviously wrong views. And your wrong. Evolution claims that whales descended from ungulates, not wolves. You're a liar (microbiologist my ass) and an idiot... hmm. You're asking me to give an example of a dog giving birth to say, a bird. Not once has the theory of evolution put forth a claim as ludicrous as that.
@thespybreaker I have. And you have willfully ignored it. So good job. You're still right in your mind. But that is the only place where you are right.
@thespybreaker lol then all I can say to you is that your basic understanding is wrong. What you're talking about takes much longer than the time span you're restricting this conversation to. New information being added to DNA is mutation which is old information that is change. This talk of a dog begetting a non-dog doesn't happen like you're describing and no one is saying that it does. You are either lying about being a microbiologist or the worst microbiologist in the world.
@thespybreaker What you dont seem to understand is that that evidence has been giving. Speciation is evolution. An entirely new species arises from an old one. Just curious, what are your credentials? Im a major in molecular biology and biochemistry. I have actually studied genetics and evolution. Your "challenge" as well shows that you haven't the slightest concept of what evolution is. Once again; the DEFINITION of macro evolution is any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.
@thespybreaker Oh and this idea of monkey's developing wings because they swing in trees. That's not the theory of evolution. That is the theory of acquired characteristics. That's like saying that giraffes necks are long because they have strained to reach the leaves in the trees and they passed it on to their offspring because they were always straining their necks. This has proven to be false. Also another example that you don't know anything of what you're talking about.
@thespybreaker I call you an idiot because it is obvious that no matter what is said you will remain willfully ignorant. You lack even the most basic understanding of what evolution is and how it works. I have already given you examples and you correctly identified it as speciation (read: the creation of new species) and somehow that went over your head. Learn a basic understanding of the topics you try to defend before you continue to look even more idiotic.
@thespybreaker Your asking me to give an example of something that has nothing to do with evolution to prove evolution i.e., your absurd statements about wolfs with fins... Thats not how evolution works therefore you wont ever find that and you know it. Creating rules is a logical fallacy, typical within the IDers and Creationists. YOU CANNOT REFUTE MACROEVOLUTION: Intermediates, chromosomal fusion and endogenous retroviruses PROVE evolution by decent from common ancestry...CHROMOSOME!! ERVs!!!
@thespybreaker YOU DONT UNDERSTAND NATURAL SELECTION OR PHYLOGENETIC TREES( your looking for evidence of a wolf with fins as proof of evolution). Mutations happen and its caused by radiation and imperfect dna replication.DNA can expand (duplication and insertion) and shrink (deletion). Gene function is changed by mutation. There are a a series of intermediate fossils from our ancestor to now (MACROEVOLUTION). endogenous retro viruses and chromosomal fusion (human chromosome 2) WILL PROOVE THIS!
@thespybreaker LMAO! That last reply just shattered your credibility. Mutations are the change responsible for evolution. You will never ever see a monkey give birth to some winged monkey. That's not how this works. The changes are so slow that they take place over thousands of years. That's what you don't seem to get. And speciation is macro-evolution! Any change on the species level and above is macro-evolution. Any change below is micro-evolution.
@thespybreaker LMAO! That last reply just shattered your credibility. Mutations are the change responsible for evolution. You will never ever see a monkey give birth to some winged monkey. That's not how this works. The changes are so slow that they take place over thousands of years. That's what you don't seem to get. And speciation is macro-evolution! Any change on the species level and above is macro-evolution. Any change below is micro-evolution.
Another person who doesnt understand how evolution works.. What a shocker. Take the chicken for example. It doesnt have teeth yet if you turn on the deactivated gene (which we have done) it grows teeth bc it evolved from an ancestor that had teeth. These subtle changes over thousands of generations (micro evolution) point to what came before and what comes after. Horses can bread with Zebra but with difficulty and the offspring are sterile. More micro evolution and they wont breed at all.
@Johnf85 He's an idiot that clearly has no idea what he's talking about. All these people that deny evolution don't even understand the basic concept. It's always, "I don't see horses growing wings all of a sudden so evolution is obviously bullshit." It would be funny if it wasn't so widespread.
@thespybreaker You serious? New DNA isn't just added to existing DNA. The DNA that is already there mutates and is passed on. Eventually the mutation (if it was beneficial) gets passed on to more and more progeny. This process directly leads to macro evolution. There are numerous examples of macro evolution within the last 100 years. Look up the evening primrose (Oenothera lamarckiana), or Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), or more interesting is the fly (such as Drosophila melanogaster).
No. He's a creationist. Creationists never win. No matter what logical fallacies they rapid fire at scientists. They NEVER win.
Ever notice that Creationists demand ''debates''. If their idiotic position had any worth they'd be in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. They are not and will never be, so they demand worthless ''debates''..
@Primordialfan1 Don't make me laugh. The scientific establishment have given up objectivety on this matter. Many scientists who now oppose the darwinian myth which stands in the way of true scientific progress. The only observable evolution is micro evolutioon. Macro evolution is a myth.
@jeepsterrr Name them. Name these scientists. Show me the books, and Journals that say this. If you say you can't because its being supressed, then explain to me how you know it.
@jeepsterrr who are the many scientists? micro evolution over thousands of generations produces macro evolution. when you have subtle change (micro) within a species for a prolonged period of time you will not recognize the new species from the original and it will not be able to reproduce with the original species.. you say many scientists oppose darwin? haha show us the list of these individuals, who probably also believe in a 6 thousand year old earth.
Gish is a moron..."can you see apes evolving into people."...how absurdly retarded. why is pilmer even debating this guy??? Dawkins is right...debating creationists is a waste of time and all it does is give them undeserved attention...science has been the force of the modern world and will continue to solve some of the toughest questions and problems we have.
I'd rather believe we "came from apes" (which of course is a gross misrepresentation of the theory of evolution) than from dirt as it says in Genesis. I also find it curious that Gish attacked evolution using the scientific argument that it is not repeatable, testable and verifiable (while ignoring the fossil record, DNA, and a host of other things). Okay then, using that standard, where is the repeatable, testable and verifiable evidence for creationism?
The term "Theory" In science does not mean what a lot of people think. Evolution is a fact, The theory of evolution only aims to describe why and how it works the same way the theory of gravity aims to explain how Gravity works.
Lol, Plimer is a joke. CMI (Creation Ministries International w w w.Creation . c o m) has refuted his ridiculous claims on many occasions, search for Plimer in their engine for the articles. Also he has been called an embarrassment and is disliked by many fellow skeptics. Dr. Gish was in no way "pwned" in this debate if you actually watch the entire thing. Also we Creationists choose not to believe in Chemical Evolution or the Big Bang because they have never been observed, it takes faith.
Why doesn't Plimer just show evidence of evolution instead of threatening someone with electric shock? Perhaps Gish, Who probably does believe in the 'electricity' should have conducted his own experiment and thrown his drinking water at Plimer whilst he was holding the live wire?.
It speaks volumes. Electricity is not evidence of evolution. And he knows it
@Charmolution Thanks, but I get the jist of his demonstration. However, electricity & gravity are all demonstrable, whereas evidently evolution is not.
Plimer should concentrate on providing evidence for evolution. He doesn't.
@Forceofbubbles Evolution is a fact, Change over time is a fact. The theory is on how it happens(natural selection, mutations, genetic recombinations, Which are all conected in one way or another) You can see natural selection at work with bacteria, which become antibiotic resistant very quickly. Bacteria reproduce quickly within weeks you will have past 100's of generation, and see evolution. Humans reproduce at a slower rate, and changes are so subtle that will be hard to notice
@cuevasdecamuy Evolution is not a fact. How can you claim that the mechanism by how it happens is theory, yet the result is factual? That is a religious belief, not scientific evidence.
Natural selection is observable, natural selection NOT evolution. How many billions of reproductive cycles have taken place since bacterial evolution has been studied? The result - bacteria.
@Forceofbubbles "Evolutionists expect mermaids" Evolutionists? What are you on about? People who practise evolution? Scientists predicted novel strains of bacteria, and indeed that is what they observed. Novel proteins. Every living thing is made of proteins. Change enough proteins, as has happened since our last common ancestor with bacteria, and you get mammals. If you claim there is some sort of barrier to this then you need to explain the biological mechanism.
@Misterb0z You bought mermaids up. Why are mermaids unlikely to an evolutionist? Evolutionists often make fun of the idea of dragons, unicorns, mermaids, yet they are just as likely products of the nonsense of evolutionary theory as anything else.
There is no evidence whatsoeverat all that mammals were bacteria. If you claim otherwise, what is your evidence.
@Forceofbubbles "(Mermaids) are just as likely products of the nonsense of evolutionary theory as anything else." Err... They don't exist. I shouldn't really have to explain what my comment meant, but with you it would seem I have to. Nobody would expect to see bacteria evolving to become any other form of life in the time of a laboratory study.
@Misterb0z Mermaids don't exist? You seem quite sure. Yet I bet you are equally sure that the mythical common ancester of man existed. Evolutionists believe that Whales evolved from land mammals - why is belief in mermaids equally unlikely to you?
Yes bacteria has evolved into bacteria. Bacteria has not evolved into mammals. Genetics is not proof that it did.
Someone saying the word genetics might convince you of evolution, but some people are a little more critical
@Forceofbubbles "why is belief in mermaids equally unlikely to you?" How hard to I have to hammer this point home before it enters your head? **There is no evidence of mermaids' existence** Wibbling on about it is making you look like a moron.
"Bacteria has not evolved into mammals. Genetics is not proof that it did." ERVs are proof that we share a common ancestor. Your lack of understanding of science might convince you magic man dunnit, but some people are a little less ignorant.
@Misterb0z There is also no evidence of 'missing links', by definition they are missing but presumed to exist by inference only.
ERVs are proof that the genome is not fully understood, and if you look into it, you will find that more is being discovered and that some retrovirus are shown to be not retrovirus but vital to how DNA expresses itself. Please don't forget that evolutionists labelled 98.5% of human dna junk!
@Forceofbubbles "ERVs are proof that the genome is not fully understood" No. The fact that you don't know what they are (or pretend not to) shows that there's no point in discussing any evidence with you. Phylogeny is evinced by genetics. The fossil record has shown us since ancient times that life has changed dramatically over geologic time. Evolution happens, that is not in doubt. How it happens, now that's what the theory describes.
I meant to say, that unlike gravity, whose effect is observable, evolution is a process. We all agree that there are various species. The debate is how did they arrive. To claim that the process of evolution is a fact, yet not know if this self same process even produces the results is a belief. Evolution is a process, not a law
I believe in the germ theory of disease, circuit theory, quantum theory, big bang theory (OMG!), evolutionary theory (OMG!), cell theory, tectonic theory, etc.
"they are both two sides of the same religious coin"
Just as heliocentrism and geocentrism were? Nope. The evidence pointed towards heliocentrism- but it was rejected w/ hostility due to challanging religious interpretation of the day. The evidence points towards evolution- being rejected w/ hostility by biblical literalists.
There is no unbiased debate between creationism and evolution. They are both two sides of the same religious coin. Creationism is backed by Christians and Evolution since its beginning has been pushed by occultists, theosophists, freemasonry and now the NAM- the same groups in power today and pushing their agenda in this country. Study the history of evolution. Evolution was the backbone of Hitler's occultism. Your a fool if you believe ANY argument on theory of origins is objective
@CLEVERBRA1N I expect you can back up every claim you make with at least some evidence? Evolution is ocultism, is it? What does Hitler have to do with a theory that was formalized 29.5 years before he was born? If a biochemist creates a doomsday biological weapon, do we blame (or even connect to it) Louis Pasteur? Do we blame Newton for Cruise missiles? Please answer, your statements cannot go undefended.
@labrat1807 Evolution is NOT occultism. Evolution is a major religious belief OF occultism. Thats what Hitler had to do with it. I will try to fit these two quotes in for you to compare/contrast:
@CLEVERBRA1N Evolution is a scientific principle. Nothing more. If world leaders want to try to rearrange the world based on the opposition it poses to literalist religions then that is their doing. You can't blame evolutionary theory for Hitler, you can't blame it for NWO leaders. Truth is truth no matter how distastefully it is used. This is the real war embarked on by the NWO, a war on truth and popular advancement. That is why the fund both sides of an argument or war.
@labrat1807 "What is coming to pass today-is not a generation gap or a communications gap-Rather, it is a species gap. A new species is making its way onto the planet and asserting its right to life. This inevitably brings it into conflict with the dominant species. And that dominant species is a dying species. These events-are manifestations of a new, more intelligent species coming into existence, with resistance from the dominant species, and developing a unified planetary culture.
@CLEVERBRA1N You should be aware now that i share your concerns about the NWO, very much so. But I am a scientist and know that it is not possible to orchestrate an undetected conspiracy in any scientific field. If evolution fits their agenda then that is unfortunate for science and the world. But let us not discard truth because our enemies also hold it to be true. Remain watchful of the applications, base our actions on principles higher than science. Let us not be divided by the truth.
@labrat1807 "Creation is not yet completed. Man must pass through many further stages of metamorphosis. Post-Atlantean man is already in a state of degeneration and decline, barely able to survive-All creative forces will be concentrated in a new species. The two types of man, the old and the new, will evolve rapidly in different directions. One will disappear from the face of the earth, the other will flourish...This is the real motive behind the National Socialist Movement!"
@labrat1807 Those statements were from a NAM occultist John White and also Adolph Hitler. study the term "New World Order". Our past several decades of presidents have held it up as this great thing but did you know the term comes from the occult? Occultists the past hundred years have been writing about the NWO and now our leaders are all excited about it??? The NAM is the prevailing religion in this country- Thus evolution prevails, the winners publish the textbooks- science conforms.
1.) Hitler was a devout Christians and he rejected any occult claims thats was also his main reason why he hated the jews. Gott mit uns was the nazi motto.
2.) Can you provide any evidence that Hitler was evolutionist?
There is none but there is tons of evidence that he was a christian and a creationist.
3.) Christians use occult practices too like exorcism, symbolism even prayer.
Occult means hidden knowledge like magic read the story of moses and his magic staff.
@PhreakStep Nope nope and nope. The occult is man's attempt to bend nature and the elements to his will. Christianity is about sacrificing ones own will to accomplish God's.
Hitler was not even remotely a Christian. If he quoted the Bible it was to use to his own advantage. Hitler rose to power through the occult Thule society. The Thule society was heavily into Norse Mythology and also influenced by American socialism and the Theosophical society which later evolved into the NAM.
When you pray to god to help you with something and he helps you you are bending god to your own will.
2.) The Christianity that you follow now is 200 years old do you even know what Christianity was like before?
The most funny thing is how you claim Hitler was not a Christian because he was killing people well dint Paul kill alot of people and got saved in his Damascus road experience?
@PhreakStep 1. No, why would anyone think that, it is illogical. God answers some prayers and not others, he wants us to ask Him for thing even though he already knows what we need. He just wants to have a relationship with him, read your Bible...
2. The Bible and history tells us, of course people will not follow what God's Word days and do unbiblical things, we are human after all.
Hitler was only a Christian in name because Germany requires citizens to declare a religion. He was not in pract.
3.) Do you have any proof that he was influenced by the Norse mythology?
4.) Who is true christian for you?
The guy who owns slaves?
Because in New Testament you have slaves obey your EARTHLY masters and that you should respect them more if they are more cruel.
Not to mention Old Testament now if you say old testament doesnt apply because of Jesus then you are ignoring when he said not a jar of tittle of the law shall be changed.
@PhreakStep Wow, maybe you should keep your thoughts to your self, you just made an absolute fool of your self if you think that is what God's Word means. Try reading the Bible again...
Ever hear "History is written by the winners?" Same goes for anything else. The NAM is in power in this country and as such force feeds us its own belief system. SCIENCE FOLLOWS THE LEADERS! Nazi rocket scientists fought the allied powers. When they were captured by the Russians they used science against the Americans and when they were captured by the Americans they waged for for them against the Russians. The prevailing view of science is the prevailing view of the nation.
Theories don't have to be vague at all, merely unproven. Plimer's stunt does no credit to his side of the debate, and frankly I wouldn't want to share a room with either of these two wallies.
@webbtje The point I was making is that Plimer makes a great leap from someone referring to something as a theory to inferring that that means that the idea is vague. I would rather see people like Duane Gish discredited by legitimate methods, rather than by equally unsound arguments.
@CLEVERBRA1N Nope Gravity is actually also a theory. A law is something observable. A theory is an explanation of that law or group of laws. In science a theory is actually further up the scale as it were than a law.
@CLEVERBRA1N "I coulda sworn gravity was a law of science not a theory" Newton's Law of Gravity:
F = -GMm/r^2
The theory of gravity; that all objects with mass attract each other with a force that is proportional to their mass.
Note that the theory has an explanatory power that the law does not, it is also refutable. The theory explains the laws and the observations to hand. Any subsequent observation could in fact refute the theory. This is why we don't talk about the 'fact' of gravity.
@jbinpo Yes. I can see you as one of those in the audience clapping so happily because a preacher says "but you haven't proven that man evolved from a monkey".. blithely, blissfully, ignorantly ignoring all evidence of evolution that IS available. Is there a videtape of man evolving from "monkeys" generation by generation? No.. Are there fossil records, DNA blueprints, and chromosomal markers that reliably outline the progression? Yes
@xESOTERlC and yet still, no PROOF that man evolved from a monkey. So, you, with all your insults, snobbery and bigotry are still WRONG. By the way, I'm also doubtful that the monkey evolved from a lizard that evolved from a fish that evolved from a paramecium that evolved from an amino acid.
@jbinpo Well, fortunately reality isn't dependent on your refutation. I've already given you some of the "PROOF" lol. However, you morons are just as quick to overlook simple logic as you are to overlook the hypocrisies in your bible.. Of course, I'd think it was kind of cool if the bible was real.. That slavery was moral because certain lineages were condemned to it.. That dragons and unicorns were real.. That I not only had the right, but obligation to put ppl to death. Bible world is awesome
unfortunately for you, reality is dependent on facts, none of which support much less prove your evolutionary religion. You have never seen the evolutionary process, yet you believe in it, because of some books written by people who lived "millions of years" after the events supposedly took place, based on :facts" they derived from artifacts they dug up from the ground, all centered around a predetermined belief that "there is no God, therefore, whatever theory we come up with must be true".
@jbinpo o.O Um.. actually a lot of christian scientists substantiate such finds--so much for the whole "presupposition" conspiracy..
And evolution still takes place all the time in certain bacteria and plants(well, observable.. regular evolution takes place in everything as it always has)
I've never seen an atom either... OMG.. intellectuals want answers.. not told they are right and patted on the back. But you're probably right.. because you listen to men reading from a book of men
@xESOTERlC evolution doesn't take place in any bacteria and plants. adaptation and mutation does, and neither of those is evidence of evolution, much less evolution itself.
Anyway.. blah.. this is one of my weaknesses.. always the impulse to respond when addressed. Seriously, educate yourself. The only person looking at things with "presupposition" is you. People like me want the truth--not quick easy answers..
@xESOTERlC so you're saying that we can debate whether the tooth fairy exists or not? Ok. I'll take the DOES NOT EXIST side. Let's debate. NOT everything can be debated. A debate takes at least two sides and both sides need to have SOME merit in their argument. Evolution is debatable. Tooth fairies, not so much.
@xESOTERlC -by the way, I like Ian Plimer, especially his scientific opinion on the fraud that is "man-made global warming". I wonder, what's your opinion on the religion of global warming?
@jbinpo global warming is also fact o.O Whether or not humanity is having a significant role in it is the only part that is debatable. . and it is only debatable for people that wish to ignore simple truths.. Carbon concentration in atmosphere affects retention of short wave radiation- causing a rise in overall global temperature.
@xESOTERlC wrong. A rise in global temperature causes CO2 to rise, not vice versa. What causes global warming? The sun. The earths climate has been changing, cooling and warming, for "millions of years" because of it.No help from humans.Not now, not ever.
"Whether or not humanity is having a significant role in it is the only part that is debatable. . and it is only debatable for people that wish to ignore simple truths"-you. Umm...didn't you just admit it was debatable?
@jbinpo *facepalm* yes, global temp rise DOES cause CO2 to rise.. which causes temps to rise further.. which causes more CO2 release.. in the NATURAL order.. but when you have men releasing MORE CO2 it acts as a catalysts and potentially bolsters the process.
The existence of the tooth fairy is also "debatable" .. that doesn't validate the merit of both arguments
@xESOTERlC umm..no, the existence of the toothfairy is not debatable. the tooth fairy does not exist. There is no debate. I don't think you know what the word debatable means.
@jbinpo The facts are there.. Hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed and accepted facts pertaining to evolution. Even debating it makes me feel foolish.. makes me feel like I'm debating the existence of the easter bunny with a child.. If you want to make random stupid statements, why not just tell me that atoms don't exist.. or gravity.. or electricity.. that the world is flat.. that the earth is 6k yrs old..
@xESOTERlC there are millions more who believe in creation by a supreme being. So if quantity is what you want to base who wins this argument, you lose. Debating it should make you feel foolish, because you are.
when did I say evolution had anything to do with creation by a supreme being? They are opposites. You believe that nothing evolved into something that eventually evolved into humans. I believe humans were created as is. Humans came from other humans. Not monkeys, not lizards, not fish.
@jbinpo evolution has nothing to do with "nothing".. and you said:
"there are millions more who believe in creation by a supreme being. So if quantity is what you want to base who wins this argument, you lose. ".. You are saying that evolution means no supreme being(god, you're retarded.. forget 1 minute later?).. In response to that, I said---Evolution has nothing to do with supreme being. What you BELIEVE is that you KNOW god--which i think is a sin in your bible ^^
@jbinpo of course, not that you care about what's a sin in the bible, cuz you'll only choose to accept the parts of it that conform to the type of life that you want to live and that help to give you a sense of superiority in life.
Theists believe man was created from nothing. People of science do not.
@jbinpo anyway, i've given you too much attention as it is.. you should expand your imagination and start looking into nephilim, etc.. I'm sure you'll enjoy adding that to your delusions Enjoy your blissfully ignorant existence
@xESOTERlC Expand my imagination? hehe, seems to me you're the one who can't believe in anything unless some "scientist" says its real. Enjoy life in your closed-minded little world.
@jbinpo Or maybe you could explain to me how man has a free will when he only has an ultimatum. Or tell me who it was that tempted Eve.. or the why Chistianity so strongly correlates with the ancient sumerian religion.. Tell me why only certain books were accepted in bible while others rejected. Tell me why there are tens of thousands versions of christianity and which is right.. tell me why your religion is right and that you're not going to hell.. Why your god is a hypocrite..?
@jbinpo ugh, had to get in a comment before I could close leave.. xD
No, I don't care about your god's ultimatum. The point is that it is another example of the dishonest and hypocrisy that saturates your ironically labeled book of "Truth".. I really can't be any simpler than I was.. If there is only ultimatum, that mean no free will... If that IS a choice, then I'm kidnapping some woman close to you, putting a gun to her head and tellin her to suck my dick. Hey, I gave her a choice.
@xESOTERlC that's what I don't like about people in your religion, they're so vulgar. You Evolution-evangelists also can't seem to have a conversation or debate unless you namecall and insult people. But I guess that's what you get after hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution :)
@jbinpo Best yet.. perhaps you could explain to me the purpose of this conspiracy theory of "evolution" and why over 95% of the scientific community accept it as general knowledge and it is only the uneducated religious people that know better..? Even the majority of the christian community accepts evolution.. including the last 3 popes..
@xESOTERlC I could care less what the last 3 popes said or believe. They're Catholic, which is one of those "tens of thousands" of versions of Christianity I don't subscribe to. And I'd like to know where you get your stats, because the majority of the Christian community does NOT believe in the religion of evolution, and I suspect that "95%" of scientists don't believe it either.
Lol Plimer did prove jack shit. He just puts people down, him neither evolutionists have any concrete evidence for evolution. Plimer has a dick stuck up his ass.
100% of the diseases (including children's diseases) cured thus far have been cured by the love & mercy of SCIENCE; 0% have been cured by the love & mercy of all the gods combined!
Good job, rookie. You deluded atheist. I'd like to see you even challenge this response. Best response possible would be, "hmm.. you're right."
the most likely response from you would be: "the bible is not a science textbook." or "those laws are shown to be false." Face it, odinata, you have no way out of the hole you have dug yourself.
@odinata THAT IS WHAT WINDS DO. Whirleth about! Now its quite funny, you are so desperate, you keep repeating points I have cleared up. lol. you're like a broken record. I haven't seen responses from atheists like this, lol, keep it up. you are amusing me.
@odinata I never said it was a sceince textbook. I said what information it has, is scientifically accurate. I suggest you look at a map of wind currents/jet streams. You'll find that's what they do. Try again.
@odinata Which it is. No. Why is creationism retarded? We follow science. We don't twist laws of science, re-invent what nothing is, re-invent what SCIENCE means in the dictionary lol! we look at the facts, not faith! Evolution is a theory that keeps falling apart with new evidence! when a proposal breaks a scientific law, it must be discarded.
@odinata LOL do you think that Jesus created the universe!!! YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THAT YOU ARE ONE DELUDED MISINFORMED ATHEIST!! XD
God created the Universe. apparently you don't know jack squat about religion, only what your dweeby atheist scientists tell you!! IGNORANCE SUBMITS WHAT IS DICTATED TO IT! XD XD
@thespybreaker "Please show a single example over the last 400 years of observable microbiology that new DNA has been added to existing DNA or cells. I CHALLENGE YOU to show atleast ONE (1, one) example." Add this to the many other examples you have been given - HeLa cells. Go look them up and stop pretending that you know the first thing about evolutionary theory. Do some actual research instead of parroting creationist websites.
labrat1807 1 week ago
Could've sworn (not on a bible though) that I'd read or heard he was dead ... looks like it's not only weird creationists that make mistakes ... dickheads like me do too!
sporran66 4 months ago
Duane Gish missed school to much!
masala505 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People ARE apes.
BohemianBlasphemy 5 months ago
The best thing about that moron Gish, is that he is now dead
sporran66 5 months ago
@sporran66
Duane Gish isn't dead actually. He is 89 or 90 years old as far as I know.
SanRafaelSwell 4 months ago
@thespybreaker Yeah you're right. I added that to further my own argument... except I didn't.
I just did a quick search on google to even double check that fact. And I wasn't surprised to see that I'm right and you're wrong... again.
Oh and I had some terms mixed up. Extra limbs is not polydactyly, its polymelia. Polymelia never has a genetic component and is not the result of mutations as you claim has many many examples of. And even if it did, mutations dont manifest themselves in such ways.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker No no. The origin of birds from dinosaurs is a theory yes. But if you'd look up what I told you to look up and actually read the article you'd see the evidence. But you're so wrapped up in your ceaseless denial of evolution that you can't be bothered by that. You keep claiming that there is ZERO evidence but it;s everywhere. And I told you, extra limbs rarely has a genetic component. How about you provide some empirical (not emperical btw) evidence of that.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker Also I like how you completely ignored me shooting down your theory of extra limbs (which rarely has a genetic component).
Ender8419 5 months ago
@Ender8419 And I'm done with this. I'd love to stay to laugh some more at you cause it really has been fun Mr. (faux) Microbiologist. lolololololololololololololololololololololololol
I'll maybe check back later to see what drivel you have posted.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker Ok i got one. The origin of birds from dinosaurs. BAM! Ji Qiang from China. Look it up.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker The production of feathers and/or wings would take the accumulation of hundreds of different mutations and mutations that weren't fatal. The chance of that happening in the time frame you are giving is highly improbable. Polydactyly can and does have a genetic component and is passed down as an autosomal dominant trait. But most of the time it is the result of problems during development or twin fetuses that become conjoined. Once again, any geneticist should know these things.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker You know what's funny too? You have given no examples or evidence of your viewpoint. You just keep blindly asking me to provide the evidence... That's very telling indeed Mr. Microbiologist (lol).
Ender8419 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thespybreaker And how can I be running from a question that I've already answered. Just because you keep asking it over and over again doesn't mean I should provide different answers.
Ender8419 5 months ago
Comment removed
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker Happens everyday and it's called mutation. Mutation is the only (natural) mechanism for that to occur. How many times do I need to say this?
Ender8419 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thespybreaker A rearrangement of the DNA sequence provides new information buddy. When you mix up and rearrange nucleotides you are giving a different message. The codon CGA is completely different from the codon GCA. This results in "new information" that was not previously there. Any moron studying genetics would know that.
Ender8419 5 months ago
Comment removed
Ender8419 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thespybreaker HAHAHAHAHAHA. No sir, you are wrong and any professor and scientist would attest to that. I gave you the definition yet you still cling to your obviously wrong views. And your wrong. Evolution claims that whales descended from ungulates, not wolves. You're a liar (microbiologist my ass) and an idiot... hmm. You're asking me to give an example of a dog giving birth to say, a bird. Not once has the theory of evolution put forth a claim as ludicrous as that.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker HAHAHAHAHAHA. No sir, you are wrong and any professor and scientist would attest to that. I gave you the definition yet you still cling to your obviously wrong views. And your wrong. Evolution claims that whales descended from ungulates, not wolves. You're a liar (microbiologist my ass) and an idiot... hmm. You're asking me to give an example of a dog giving birth to say, a bird. Not once has the theory of evolution put forth a claim as ludicrous as that.
Ender8419 5 months ago
The defintion of macro evolution: Any evolutionary change at the species level or above.
Some people can't seem to grasp that...
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker I have. And you have willfully ignored it. So good job. You're still right in your mind. But that is the only place where you are right.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker And speciation is macro evolution.... that is all.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker lol then all I can say to you is that your basic understanding is wrong. What you're talking about takes much longer than the time span you're restricting this conversation to. New information being added to DNA is mutation which is old information that is change. This talk of a dog begetting a non-dog doesn't happen like you're describing and no one is saying that it does. You are either lying about being a microbiologist or the worst microbiologist in the world.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker What you dont seem to understand is that that evidence has been giving. Speciation is evolution. An entirely new species arises from an old one. Just curious, what are your credentials? Im a major in molecular biology and biochemistry. I have actually studied genetics and evolution. Your "challenge" as well shows that you haven't the slightest concept of what evolution is. Once again; the DEFINITION of macro evolution is any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker Oh and this idea of monkey's developing wings because they swing in trees. That's not the theory of evolution. That is the theory of acquired characteristics. That's like saying that giraffes necks are long because they have strained to reach the leaves in the trees and they passed it on to their offspring because they were always straining their necks. This has proven to be false. Also another example that you don't know anything of what you're talking about.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker I call you an idiot because it is obvious that no matter what is said you will remain willfully ignorant. You lack even the most basic understanding of what evolution is and how it works. I have already given you examples and you correctly identified it as speciation (read: the creation of new species) and somehow that went over your head. Learn a basic understanding of the topics you try to defend before you continue to look even more idiotic.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker Your asking me to give an example of something that has nothing to do with evolution to prove evolution i.e., your absurd statements about wolfs with fins... Thats not how evolution works therefore you wont ever find that and you know it. Creating rules is a logical fallacy, typical within the IDers and Creationists. YOU CANNOT REFUTE MACROEVOLUTION: Intermediates, chromosomal fusion and endogenous retroviruses PROVE evolution by decent from common ancestry...CHROMOSOME!! ERVs!!!
Johnf85 5 months ago
@thespybreaker YOU DONT UNDERSTAND NATURAL SELECTION OR PHYLOGENETIC TREES( your looking for evidence of a wolf with fins as proof of evolution). Mutations happen and its caused by radiation and imperfect dna replication.DNA can expand (duplication and insertion) and shrink (deletion). Gene function is changed by mutation. There are a a series of intermediate fossils from our ancestor to now (MACROEVOLUTION). endogenous retro viruses and chromosomal fusion (human chromosome 2) WILL PROOVE THIS!
Johnf85 5 months ago
@thespybreaker I bet you don't believe in plate tectonics either. Since the North American continent hasn't visibly moved your entire life... idiot.
Ender8419 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thespybreaker LMAO! That last reply just shattered your credibility. Mutations are the change responsible for evolution. You will never ever see a monkey give birth to some winged monkey. That's not how this works. The changes are so slow that they take place over thousands of years. That's what you don't seem to get. And speciation is macro-evolution! Any change on the species level and above is macro-evolution. Any change below is micro-evolution.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker LMAO! That last reply just shattered your credibility. Mutations are the change responsible for evolution. You will never ever see a monkey give birth to some winged monkey. That's not how this works. The changes are so slow that they take place over thousands of years. That's what you don't seem to get. And speciation is macro-evolution! Any change on the species level and above is macro-evolution. Any change below is micro-evolution.
Ender8419 5 months ago
Another person who doesnt understand how evolution works.. What a shocker. Take the chicken for example. It doesnt have teeth yet if you turn on the deactivated gene (which we have done) it grows teeth bc it evolved from an ancestor that had teeth. These subtle changes over thousands of generations (micro evolution) point to what came before and what comes after. Horses can bread with Zebra but with difficulty and the offspring are sterile. More micro evolution and they wont breed at all.
Johnf85 5 months ago
@Johnf85 He's an idiot that clearly has no idea what he's talking about. All these people that deny evolution don't even understand the basic concept. It's always, "I don't see horses growing wings all of a sudden so evolution is obviously bullshit." It would be funny if it wasn't so widespread.
Ender8419 5 months ago
@thespybreaker You serious? New DNA isn't just added to existing DNA. The DNA that is already there mutates and is passed on. Eventually the mutation (if it was beneficial) gets passed on to more and more progeny. This process directly leads to macro evolution. There are numerous examples of macro evolution within the last 100 years. Look up the evening primrose (Oenothera lamarckiana), or Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), or more interesting is the fly (such as Drosophila melanogaster).
Ender8419 5 months ago
Gish and the audience are fucking morons.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
You should watch the whole debate. Gish wiped the floor with Pilmer. He won the debate by a landslide.
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr
No. He's a creationist. Creationists never win. No matter what logical fallacies they rapid fire at scientists. They NEVER win.
Ever notice that Creationists demand ''debates''. If their idiotic position had any worth they'd be in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. They are not and will never be, so they demand worthless ''debates''..
Primordialfan1 6 months ago
@Primordialfan1 Don't make me laugh. The scientific establishment have given up objectivety on this matter. Many scientists who now oppose the darwinian myth which stands in the way of true scientific progress. The only observable evolution is micro evolutioon. Macro evolution is a myth.
jeepsterrr 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr
LOL thanks for making ME laugh.
Creationists always use the EVIL CONSPIRACY card to explain why no one takes the ''Institute for Creation Research'' seriously.
Primordialfan1 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr Name them. Name these scientists. Show me the books, and Journals that say this. If you say you can't because its being supressed, then explain to me how you know it.
Ironman1o1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeepsterrr "The only observable evolution is micro evolutioon. Macro evolution is a myth."
What is micro evolution, over 2.5 million years?
stevenmonster 6 months ago
@jeepsterrr who are the many scientists? micro evolution over thousands of generations produces macro evolution. when you have subtle change (micro) within a species for a prolonged period of time you will not recognize the new species from the original and it will not be able to reproduce with the original species.. you say many scientists oppose darwin? haha show us the list of these individuals, who probably also believe in a 6 thousand year old earth.
Johnf85 6 months ago
Gish is a moron..."can you see apes evolving into people."...how absurdly retarded. why is pilmer even debating this guy??? Dawkins is right...debating creationists is a waste of time and all it does is give them undeserved attention...science has been the force of the modern world and will continue to solve some of the toughest questions and problems we have.
oceans19711 6 months ago
Man, this audience must have been right out of the damn bible belt.
jerico641 7 months ago
Electricity killed ma Babbies!
twistedH3L1X 7 months ago
Monkey boy playing with electricity
nonsulen 7 months ago
Evolution is just a THEORY, just like electricity, gravity etc are just theories.
BlueAvantiGuy 7 months ago
yeah plimer used a bad analogy
natdavi 7 months ago
A classic example of Evolutionist twisting facts. The most valuable weapon Evolutionist have is lying.
ValRoyD 7 months ago
You closed minded people have GOT to be kidding! Gish makes Plimer look like a fool!
ZealfortheCross 7 months ago
@ZealfortheCross How so? With his ignorance?
rrpostalagain 6 months ago
@rrpostalagain No. With your ignorance. Obviously.
ZealfortheCross 6 months ago
this is so embarrassing. the crowd makes me want to shoot myself.
nilbog44 7 months ago 2
Jesus Effing Christ! I thought we put all this shit behind us after the Scopes trial.
fdasherv 8 months ago
Where is this debate held?
z3my4l 8 months ago
Dear Lord that audience is entirely composed of retarded people.
villainousturtle 8 months ago
I'd rather believe we "came from apes" (which of course is a gross misrepresentation of the theory of evolution) than from dirt as it says in Genesis. I also find it curious that Gish attacked evolution using the scientific argument that it is not repeatable, testable and verifiable (while ignoring the fossil record, DNA, and a host of other things). Okay then, using that standard, where is the repeatable, testable and verifiable evidence for creationism?
Oracle195608 8 months ago
@Oracle195608
Evolution is repeatable. Its called domestication.
yonskii 7 months ago
I take it that you know the role of RNA? It controls gene expression. Perhaps I was giving youtoo much credit?
Still no evidence.......
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
The term "Theory" In science does not mean what a lot of people think. Evolution is a fact, The theory of evolution only aims to describe why and how it works the same way the theory of gravity aims to explain how Gravity works.
casualvideos 9 months ago
Lol, Plimer is a joke. CMI (Creation Ministries International w w w.Creation . c o m) has refuted his ridiculous claims on many occasions, search for Plimer in their engine for the articles. Also he has been called an embarrassment and is disliked by many fellow skeptics. Dr. Gish was in no way "pwned" in this debate if you actually watch the entire thing. Also we Creationists choose not to believe in Chemical Evolution or the Big Bang because they have never been observed, it takes faith.
Devin82m 9 months ago
Why doesn't Plimer just show evidence of evolution instead of threatening someone with electric shock? Perhaps Gish, Who probably does believe in the 'electricity' should have conducted his own experiment and thrown his drinking water at Plimer whilst he was holding the live wire?.
It speaks volumes. Electricity is not evidence of evolution. And he knows it
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
@Forceofbubbles
The point was that the argument of it being wrong because it's 'just a theory' is stupid.
Charmolution 9 months ago 2
@Charmolution Thanks, but I get the jist of his demonstration. However, electricity & gravity are all demonstrable, whereas evidently evolution is not.
Plimer should concentrate on providing evidence for evolution. He doesn't.
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
@Forceofbubbles Evolution is a fact, Change over time is a fact. The theory is on how it happens(natural selection, mutations, genetic recombinations, Which are all conected in one way or another) You can see natural selection at work with bacteria, which become antibiotic resistant very quickly. Bacteria reproduce quickly within weeks you will have past 100's of generation, and see evolution. Humans reproduce at a slower rate, and changes are so subtle that will be hard to notice
cuevasdecamuy 9 months ago
@cuevasdecamuy Evolution is not a fact. How can you claim that the mechanism by how it happens is theory, yet the result is factual? That is a religious belief, not scientific evidence.
Natural selection is observable, natural selection NOT evolution. How many billions of reproductive cycles have taken place since bacterial evolution has been studied? The result - bacteria.
Still no evidence yet.........
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
@Forceofbubbles "How many billions of reproductive cycles have taken place since bacterial evolution has been studied? The result - bacteria.
Still no evidence yet........."
What were you expecting, mermaids?
Misterb0z 9 months ago
@Misterb0z I expected nothing. Evolutionists expect mermaids
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
@Forceofbubbles "Evolutionists expect mermaids" Evolutionists? What are you on about? People who practise evolution? Scientists predicted novel strains of bacteria, and indeed that is what they observed. Novel proteins. Every living thing is made of proteins. Change enough proteins, as has happened since our last common ancestor with bacteria, and you get mammals. If you claim there is some sort of barrier to this then you need to explain the biological mechanism.
Misterb0z 9 months ago
@Misterb0z You bought mermaids up. Why are mermaids unlikely to an evolutionist? Evolutionists often make fun of the idea of dragons, unicorns, mermaids, yet they are just as likely products of the nonsense of evolutionary theory as anything else.
There is no evidence whatsoeverat all that mammals were bacteria. If you claim otherwise, what is your evidence.
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
@Forceofbubbles "(Mermaids) are just as likely products of the nonsense of evolutionary theory as anything else." Err... They don't exist. I shouldn't really have to explain what my comment meant, but with you it would seem I have to. Nobody would expect to see bacteria evolving to become any other form of life in the time of a laboratory study.
"what is your evidence."
Genetics.
Misterb0z 9 months ago
@Misterb0z Mermaids don't exist? You seem quite sure. Yet I bet you are equally sure that the mythical common ancester of man existed. Evolutionists believe that Whales evolved from land mammals - why is belief in mermaids equally unlikely to you?
Yes bacteria has evolved into bacteria. Bacteria has not evolved into mammals. Genetics is not proof that it did.
Someone saying the word genetics might convince you of evolution, but some people are a little more critical
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
@Forceofbubbles "why is belief in mermaids equally unlikely to you?" How hard to I have to hammer this point home before it enters your head? **There is no evidence of mermaids' existence** Wibbling on about it is making you look like a moron.
"Bacteria has not evolved into mammals. Genetics is not proof that it did." ERVs are proof that we share a common ancestor. Your lack of understanding of science might convince you magic man dunnit, but some people are a little less ignorant.
Misterb0z 9 months ago
@Misterb0z There is also no evidence of 'missing links', by definition they are missing but presumed to exist by inference only.
ERVs are proof that the genome is not fully understood, and if you look into it, you will find that more is being discovered and that some retrovirus are shown to be not retrovirus but vital to how DNA expresses itself. Please don't forget that evolutionists labelled 98.5% of human dna junk!
Try and keep the insults to a minimum.
Now, where is your evidence?
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
@Forceofbubbles "ERVs are proof that the genome is not fully understood" No. The fact that you don't know what they are (or pretend not to) shows that there's no point in discussing any evidence with you. Phylogeny is evinced by genetics. The fossil record has shown us since ancient times that life has changed dramatically over geologic time. Evolution happens, that is not in doubt. How it happens, now that's what the theory describes.
Misterb0z 9 months ago
@Forceofbubbles "vital to how DNA expresses itself" What does that even mean?
"Try and keep the insults to a minimum." You can't get much more minimum than zero. I haven't even called you a creationist yet.
Misterb0z 9 months ago
I meant to say, that unlike gravity, whose effect is observable, evolution is a process. We all agree that there are various species. The debate is how did they arrive. To claim that the process of evolution is a fact, yet not know if this self same process even produces the results is a belief. Evolution is a process, not a law
Forceofbubbles 9 months ago
Fuck that audience.
TheLiberalSoup 10 months ago
touch the wire, it is for science
afaultytoaster 10 months ago
where is this? in a church?
Cdubzhappy 11 months ago
God, could this audience clap more for bullshit?
BigLundi 11 months ago
I believe in the germ theory of disease, circuit theory, quantum theory, big bang theory (OMG!), evolutionary theory (OMG!), cell theory, tectonic theory, etc.
"they are both two sides of the same religious coin"
Just as heliocentrism and geocentrism were? Nope. The evidence pointed towards heliocentrism- but it was rejected w/ hostility due to challanging religious interpretation of the day. The evidence points towards evolution- being rejected w/ hostility by biblical literalists.
therock27374 11 months ago
There is no unbiased debate between creationism and evolution. They are both two sides of the same religious coin. Creationism is backed by Christians and Evolution since its beginning has been pushed by occultists, theosophists, freemasonry and now the NAM- the same groups in power today and pushing their agenda in this country. Study the history of evolution. Evolution was the backbone of Hitler's occultism. Your a fool if you believe ANY argument on theory of origins is objective
CLEVERBRA1N 11 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N I expect you can back up every claim you make with at least some evidence? Evolution is ocultism, is it? What does Hitler have to do with a theory that was formalized 29.5 years before he was born? If a biochemist creates a doomsday biological weapon, do we blame (or even connect to it) Louis Pasteur? Do we blame Newton for Cruise missiles? Please answer, your statements cannot go undefended.
labrat1807 11 months ago
@labrat1807 Evolution is NOT occultism. Evolution is a major religious belief OF occultism. Thats what Hitler had to do with it. I will try to fit these two quotes in for you to compare/contrast:
CLEVERBRA1N 11 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N Evolution is a scientific principle. Nothing more. If world leaders want to try to rearrange the world based on the opposition it poses to literalist religions then that is their doing. You can't blame evolutionary theory for Hitler, you can't blame it for NWO leaders. Truth is truth no matter how distastefully it is used. This is the real war embarked on by the NWO, a war on truth and popular advancement. That is why the fund both sides of an argument or war.
labrat1807 11 months ago
@labrat1807 "What is coming to pass today-is not a generation gap or a communications gap-Rather, it is a species gap. A new species is making its way onto the planet and asserting its right to life. This inevitably brings it into conflict with the dominant species. And that dominant species is a dying species. These events-are manifestations of a new, more intelligent species coming into existence, with resistance from the dominant species, and developing a unified planetary culture.
CLEVERBRA1N 11 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N You should be aware now that i share your concerns about the NWO, very much so. But I am a scientist and know that it is not possible to orchestrate an undetected conspiracy in any scientific field. If evolution fits their agenda then that is unfortunate for science and the world. But let us not discard truth because our enemies also hold it to be true. Remain watchful of the applications, base our actions on principles higher than science. Let us not be divided by the truth.
labrat1807 11 months ago
@labrat1807 "Creation is not yet completed. Man must pass through many further stages of metamorphosis. Post-Atlantean man is already in a state of degeneration and decline, barely able to survive-All creative forces will be concentrated in a new species. The two types of man, the old and the new, will evolve rapidly in different directions. One will disappear from the face of the earth, the other will flourish...This is the real motive behind the National Socialist Movement!"
CLEVERBRA1N 11 months ago
@labrat1807 Those statements were from a NAM occultist John White and also Adolph Hitler. study the term "New World Order". Our past several decades of presidents have held it up as this great thing but did you know the term comes from the occult? Occultists the past hundred years have been writing about the NWO and now our leaders are all excited about it??? The NAM is the prevailing religion in this country- Thus evolution prevails, the winners publish the textbooks- science conforms.
CLEVERBRA1N 11 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N
1.) Hitler was a devout Christians and he rejected any occult claims thats was also his main reason why he hated the jews. Gott mit uns was the nazi motto.
2.) Can you provide any evidence that Hitler was evolutionist?
There is none but there is tons of evidence that he was a christian and a creationist.
3.) Christians use occult practices too like exorcism, symbolism even prayer.
Occult means hidden knowledge like magic read the story of moses and his magic staff.
PhreakStep 11 months ago
@PhreakStep Nope nope and nope. The occult is man's attempt to bend nature and the elements to his will. Christianity is about sacrificing ones own will to accomplish God's.
Hitler was not even remotely a Christian. If he quoted the Bible it was to use to his own advantage. Hitler rose to power through the occult Thule society. The Thule society was heavily into Norse Mythology and also influenced by American socialism and the Theosophical society which later evolved into the NAM.
CLEVERBRA1N 11 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N
1.) Occult just means hidden knowledge.
When you pray to god to help you with something and he helps you you are bending god to your own will.
2.) The Christianity that you follow now is 200 years old do you even know what Christianity was like before?
The most funny thing is how you claim Hitler was not a Christian because he was killing people well dint Paul kill alot of people and got saved in his Damascus road experience?
PhreakStep 11 months ago
@PhreakStep 1. No, why would anyone think that, it is illogical. God answers some prayers and not others, he wants us to ask Him for thing even though he already knows what we need. He just wants to have a relationship with him, read your Bible...
2. The Bible and history tells us, of course people will not follow what God's Word days and do unbiblical things, we are human after all.
Hitler was only a Christian in name because Germany requires citizens to declare a religion. He was not in pract.
Devin82m 9 months ago
Comment removed
bigsubwayman1 9 months ago
@Devin82m Wow, I should have proof read my response, lol.
Devin82m 9 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N
3.) Do you have any proof that he was influenced by the Norse mythology?
4.) Who is true christian for you?
The guy who owns slaves?
Because in New Testament you have slaves obey your EARTHLY masters and that you should respect them more if they are more cruel.
Not to mention Old Testament now if you say old testament doesnt apply because of Jesus then you are ignoring when he said not a jar of tittle of the law shall be changed.
Jesus just changed the sacrificial law.
PhreakStep 11 months ago
@PhreakStep Wow, maybe you should keep your thoughts to your self, you just made an absolute fool of your self if you think that is what God's Word means. Try reading the Bible again...
Devin82m 9 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N
4.) Creationism is barley a hypothesis, evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY which means facts and proof is presented and has been observed.
PhreakStep 11 months ago
@PhreakStep
Ever hear "History is written by the winners?" Same goes for anything else. The NAM is in power in this country and as such force feeds us its own belief system. SCIENCE FOLLOWS THE LEADERS! Nazi rocket scientists fought the allied powers. When they were captured by the Russians they used science against the Americans and when they were captured by the Americans they waged for for them against the Russians. The prevailing view of science is the prevailing view of the nation.
CLEVERBRA1N 11 months ago
Fucking retarded audience.
MelvinThe42 1 year ago
Theories don't have to be vague at all, merely unproven. Plimer's stunt does no credit to his side of the debate, and frankly I wouldn't want to share a room with either of these two wallies.
dfarmbrough 1 year ago
@dfarmbrough "Theories don't have to be vague at all, merely unproven"
The theory of gravity's unproven? The word 'theory', in its scientific meaning, doesn't mean the same as in common speech.
webbtje 1 year ago
@webbtje The point I was making is that Plimer makes a great leap from someone referring to something as a theory to inferring that that means that the idea is vague. I would rather see people like Duane Gish discredited by legitimate methods, rather than by equally unsound arguments.
dfarmbrough 1 year ago
@webbtje I coulda sworn gravity was a law of science not a theory
CLEVERBRA1N 11 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N Nope Gravity is actually also a theory. A law is something observable. A theory is an explanation of that law or group of laws. In science a theory is actually further up the scale as it were than a law.
kartmankai 11 months ago
@CLEVERBRA1N "I coulda sworn gravity was a law of science not a theory" Newton's Law of Gravity:
F = -GMm/r^2
The theory of gravity; that all objects with mass attract each other with a force that is proportional to their mass.
Note that the theory has an explanatory power that the law does not, it is also refutable. The theory explains the laws and the observations to hand. Any subsequent observation could in fact refute the theory. This is why we don't talk about the 'fact' of gravity.
Misterb0z 10 months ago
This is sad
05brassmonkey 1 year ago
looks to me like Plimer got owned.
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo Yes. I can see you as one of those in the audience clapping so happily because a preacher says "but you haven't proven that man evolved from a monkey".. blithely, blissfully, ignorantly ignoring all evidence of evolution that IS available. Is there a videtape of man evolving from "monkeys" generation by generation? No.. Are there fossil records, DNA blueprints, and chromosomal markers that reliably outline the progression? Yes
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC and yet still, no PROOF that man evolved from a monkey. So, you, with all your insults, snobbery and bigotry are still WRONG. By the way, I'm also doubtful that the monkey evolved from a lizard that evolved from a fish that evolved from a paramecium that evolved from an amino acid.
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo Well, fortunately reality isn't dependent on your refutation. I've already given you some of the "PROOF" lol. However, you morons are just as quick to overlook simple logic as you are to overlook the hypocrisies in your bible.. Of course, I'd think it was kind of cool if the bible was real.. That slavery was moral because certain lineages were condemned to it.. That dragons and unicorns were real.. That I not only had the right, but obligation to put ppl to death. Bible world is awesome
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
unfortunately for you, reality is dependent on facts, none of which support much less prove your evolutionary religion. You have never seen the evolutionary process, yet you believe in it, because of some books written by people who lived "millions of years" after the events supposedly took place, based on :facts" they derived from artifacts they dug up from the ground, all centered around a predetermined belief that "there is no God, therefore, whatever theory we come up with must be true".
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo o.O Um.. actually a lot of christian scientists substantiate such finds--so much for the whole "presupposition" conspiracy..
And evolution still takes place all the time in certain bacteria and plants(well, observable.. regular evolution takes place in everything as it always has)
I've never seen an atom either... OMG.. intellectuals want answers.. not told they are right and patted on the back. But you're probably right.. because you listen to men reading from a book of men
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC evolution doesn't take place in any bacteria and plants. adaptation and mutation does, and neither of those is evidence of evolution, much less evolution itself.
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo Debatable: capable of being debated..
Anything can be debated, dumbass.. lol..
Anyway.. blah.. this is one of my weaknesses.. always the impulse to respond when addressed. Seriously, educate yourself. The only person looking at things with "presupposition" is you. People like me want the truth--not quick easy answers..
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC so you're saying that we can debate whether the tooth fairy exists or not? Ok. I'll take the DOES NOT EXIST side. Let's debate. NOT everything can be debated. A debate takes at least two sides and both sides need to have SOME merit in their argument. Evolution is debatable. Tooth fairies, not so much.
jbinpo 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC -by the way, I like Ian Plimer, especially his scientific opinion on the fraud that is "man-made global warming". I wonder, what's your opinion on the religion of global warming?
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo global warming is also fact o.O Whether or not humanity is having a significant role in it is the only part that is debatable. . and it is only debatable for people that wish to ignore simple truths.. Carbon concentration in atmosphere affects retention of short wave radiation- causing a rise in overall global temperature.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC wrong. A rise in global temperature causes CO2 to rise, not vice versa. What causes global warming? The sun. The earths climate has been changing, cooling and warming, for "millions of years" because of it.No help from humans.Not now, not ever.
"Whether or not humanity is having a significant role in it is the only part that is debatable. . and it is only debatable for people that wish to ignore simple truths"-you. Umm...didn't you just admit it was debatable?
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo *facepalm* yes, global temp rise DOES cause CO2 to rise.. which causes temps to rise further.. which causes more CO2 release.. in the NATURAL order.. but when you have men releasing MORE CO2 it acts as a catalysts and potentially bolsters the process.
The existence of the tooth fairy is also "debatable" .. that doesn't validate the merit of both arguments
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC umm..no, the existence of the toothfairy is not debatable. the tooth fairy does not exist. There is no debate. I don't think you know what the word debatable means.
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo The facts are there.. Hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed and accepted facts pertaining to evolution. Even debating it makes me feel foolish.. makes me feel like I'm debating the existence of the easter bunny with a child.. If you want to make random stupid statements, why not just tell me that atoms don't exist.. or gravity.. or electricity.. that the world is flat.. that the earth is 6k yrs old..
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC there are millions more who believe in creation by a supreme being. So if quantity is what you want to base who wins this argument, you lose. Debating it should make you feel foolish, because you are.
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo ACTUALLY more muslims completely discount evolution than christians do
and evolution has NOTHING to do with creation by a supreme being.. but from your logic, it's obvious that such simple rationale would escape you..
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
when did I say evolution had anything to do with creation by a supreme being? They are opposites. You believe that nothing evolved into something that eventually evolved into humans. I believe humans were created as is. Humans came from other humans. Not monkeys, not lizards, not fish.
jbinpo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jbinpo evolution has nothing to do with "nothing".. and you said:
"there are millions more who believe in creation by a supreme being. So if quantity is what you want to base who wins this argument, you lose. ".. You are saying that evolution means no supreme being(god, you're retarded.. forget 1 minute later?).. In response to that, I said---Evolution has nothing to do with supreme being. What you BELIEVE is that you KNOW god--which i think is a sin in your bible ^^
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC ok, so tell me what part of your evolutioary religion includes God or God creating anything?
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo of course, not that you care about what's a sin in the bible, cuz you'll only choose to accept the parts of it that conform to the type of life that you want to live and that help to give you a sense of superiority in life.
Theists believe man was created from nothing. People of science do not.
lol
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC for a guy who doesn't believe in anything the bible says, you sure try to quote it a lot.
Good night, you religious fanatic.
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo anyway, i've given you too much attention as it is.. you should expand your imagination and start looking into nephilim, etc.. I'm sure you'll enjoy adding that to your delusions Enjoy your blissfully ignorant existence
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC Expand my imagination? hehe, seems to me you're the one who can't believe in anything unless some "scientist" says its real. Enjoy life in your closed-minded little world.
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo Or maybe you could explain to me how man has a free will when he only has an ultimatum. Or tell me who it was that tempted Eve.. or the why Chistianity so strongly correlates with the ancient sumerian religion.. Tell me why only certain books were accepted in bible while others rejected. Tell me why there are tens of thousands versions of christianity and which is right.. tell me why your religion is right and that you're not going to hell.. Why your god is a hypocrite..?
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC what ultimatum? if you don't believe in God, there is no ultimatum, right? So what do you care?
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo ugh, had to get in a comment before I could close leave.. xD
No, I don't care about your god's ultimatum. The point is that it is another example of the dishonest and hypocrisy that saturates your ironically labeled book of "Truth".. I really can't be any simpler than I was.. If there is only ultimatum, that mean no free will... If that IS a choice, then I'm kidnapping some woman close to you, putting a gun to her head and tellin her to suck my dick. Hey, I gave her a choice.
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC that's what I don't like about people in your religion, they're so vulgar. You Evolution-evangelists also can't seem to have a conversation or debate unless you namecall and insult people. But I guess that's what you get after hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution :)
jbinpo 1 year ago
@jbinpo Best yet.. perhaps you could explain to me the purpose of this conspiracy theory of "evolution" and why over 95% of the scientific community accept it as general knowledge and it is only the uneducated religious people that know better..? Even the majority of the christian community accepts evolution.. including the last 3 popes..
xESOTERlC 1 year ago
@xESOTERlC I could care less what the last 3 popes said or believe. They're Catholic, which is one of those "tens of thousands" of versions of Christianity I don't subscribe to. And I'd like to know where you get your stats, because the majority of the Christian community does NOT believe in the religion of evolution, and I suspect that "95%" of scientists don't believe it either.
jbinpo 1 year ago
Lol Plimer did prove jack shit. He just puts people down, him neither evolutionists have any concrete evidence for evolution. Plimer has a dick stuck up his ass.
Jsirr13 1 year ago
100% of the diseases (including children's diseases) cured thus far have been cured by the love & mercy of SCIENCE; 0% have been cured by the love & mercy of all the gods combined!
CASE CLOSED!
96rorrim 1 year ago
This audiance is full of idiots.
radahad000 1 year ago
Good choice, drifter.
You don't stand a chance
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata YOU IDIOT!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NOW YOU ARE JUST DESPERATE!! YOU JUST GENUINELY PUT A SMILE ON MY FACE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
Evolution doesn't break ANY of those Laws, rookie.
Try again.
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata
1st law of thermodynamics
2nd law of thermodynamics
Laws of probability
Laws of biogenesis
Good job, rookie. You deluded atheist. I'd like to see you even challenge this response. Best response possible would be, "hmm.. you're right."
the most likely response from you would be: "the bible is not a science textbook." or "those laws are shown to be false." Face it, odinata, you have no way out of the hole you have dug yourself.
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21
Start with the first one, then.
Show us how Evolution violates the first law of thermodynamics.
Don't forget to cite the first law of thermodynamics, and cite your reference that PROVES Evolution violates this.
Then you can move on to the 2nd law.
odinata 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21 You are an idiot.
ThePsychoReturns 1 year ago
@ThePsychoReturns Blocked! :D
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21 Ask me if I give a fuck.
ThePsychoReturns 1 year ago
@ThePsychoReturns Oh no, I thought I blocked you!! THE PYSCHO RETURNED!! XD
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21 Keep chirping, dipshit.
ThePsychoReturns 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21 What do the laws of thermodynamics have to do with evolution on earth? Nothing.
jib1000 1 year ago
Duane Gish isn't a scientist.
He's an advocate for a political position.
odinata 1 year ago
WHY do the winds "whirleth about?"
odinata 1 year ago
The bible says "The winds whirleth about"
That roughly describes it? So that amounts to science?
Look up the term "science".
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata THAT IS WHAT WINDS DO. Whirleth about! Now its quite funny, you are so desperate, you keep repeating points I have cleared up. lol. you're like a broken record. I haven't seen responses from atheists like this, lol, keep it up. you are amusing me.
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21
Thats what winds do.
So the Bible is a science textbook for stating that?
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata I never said it was a sceince textbook. I said what information it has, is scientifically accurate. I suggest you look at a map of wind currents/jet streams. You'll find that's what they do. Try again.
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21
Actually, you said QUOTE bible is the most scientifically accurate holy book in the world. UNQUOTE.
And the as evidence you went to a creatard website and pulled "the winds whirleth about as your evidence for this assertion.
Try again, failure.
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata Which it is. No. Why is creationism retarded? We follow science. We don't twist laws of science, re-invent what nothing is, re-invent what SCIENCE means in the dictionary lol! we look at the facts, not faith! Evolution is a theory that keeps falling apart with new evidence! when a proposal breaks a scientific law, it must be discarded.
Laws broken:
Law of biogenesis
Laws of probability
First Law of Thermodynamics
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Conservation Laws
...try again.
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21
Apparently you don't know what science is.
Creationism starts with an assumption--that baby Jeebus created the Universe--and then creates evidence that only supports the assumption.
That's why it isn't taught outside of Church.
odinata 1 year ago
@odinata LOL do you think that Jesus created the universe!!! YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THAT YOU ARE ONE DELUDED MISINFORMED ATHEIST!! XD
God created the Universe. apparently you don't know jack squat about religion, only what your dweeby atheist scientists tell you!! IGNORANCE SUBMITS WHAT IS DICTATED TO IT! XD XD
EZdrifter21 1 year ago
@EZdrifter21
You are failing, drifter.
Hard.
odinata