Why do we waste our time arguing with Creationists? Their laughably and intentionally ignorant--and very proud to be so. There is no way you can prove something to someone who bases their life upon faith, which by definition is acceptance without reason.
The ending comment revealed the evolutionists when Barry Lynn blasphemously misquoted the Gospel of John first chapter."In the beginning was the word, and the word was Evolution", implying that Evolution is God and thusly proclaiming Evolution as their religion.
Professor Miller because he submits 75 plus letters to the National Institute of Health, Evolution exists because I say so attitute, with all of his small posters, with overtones of establishing a new religion, never answered the questions posed by the creationists table, which during the whole debate, presented reasonable doubt in regards to the validity of the evolutionary Darwin based theory.
Berlinski was only there to flatter his ego by mouthing off on a subject he knows little about & does he not even share the same fundamental opinions of his side of debaters - He is an atheists whilst Bcukley et al are Christian creationists. He does not even have the good grace to apply to himself the same rules in answering questions that he expects from others - eg he refuses to answer some questions flat out, whilst pressing for the exact number of transitional species from dog to whale.
This is the most embarrassing display of Bill Buckley and he seems to know it. Buckley and Berlinski wanted to leave the entire time. I've never heard so much mumbling from either of them. That's not for course, to say that when they do speak clearly, the say anything intelligent. This was just pitiful. I like the format of the debate though and I would like to see a new one just like it.
A DOCTORED LIST of diseases sub-clinical is what the artisans of allopathy provide we: the doped up, underwhelmed, malnourished, vitamin-deficient, nutritionally-deprived, morally-depraved & Spiritually-vacant...
☼ [Atheism is the impossible condition, for Human Beings, of being dog-like/worm-like & maggot-like; of emulating inferior life-forms that are incapable of spiritual advancement.] ☼
The sermons of Darwin, Dawkins, Cousteau, Ted Turner, Margaret Sanger, Jane Goodall, Paul Ehrlich, the Huxleys, H.G. Wells, Elizabeth Regina's husband, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc. humanely stress the reduction of humanity through weaponized serums, laboratory-fabricated viruses (pathogens), perpetual war, food & water shortages/rationing, de-industrialization & aborticides. Eugenics is now "bio-ethics" & "sustainability."
"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." — Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in "The Courier," a publication of the U.N. Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (U.N.E.S.C.O.)
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." — Ted Turner of C.N.N., as quoted in the "McAlvany Intelligence Advisor," 6/96
Science ("scire": to know) is and will never be more than knowledge that can be registered by the human senses: taste, touch, see, hear and smell. This then denies atheism as a condition possible to humans with faculties intact.
@CelestialEmbodiment no its not about disbelief in a god.. but more towards the hurtful part an inbred like yourself does not like.WE ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY CHURCHES ANY MORE!!!! so plz fuck off with your 1000$ miracles and your other brides of BS.afterlife, heaven, never never land..decent people do not need fear tactics or bribes to act with good intentions.get that through that limited neo cortex of yours!! .you have lost control .. or more clearly the church leaders think they had control lol
This "common ancestor," of evolutionary THEORY, that links Man to simian, just happened to be covered in coarse hair, to possess a tail & a small brain pan. The pathology of evolutionary THEORY'S specimens remain theoretical. All aspects of this dogmatic, quasi-religious THEORY require extraordinary faith in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence.
give science more time religion has failed for the last 30k years .science and the shear amount of practice needed to remove the backward thinking of the past will take time.science is the cure for lack of mental development... magical tall tales do not cut it .we need evidence and an actual working model that refines itself per a perfect harmony of REAL understanding .belief not required.biased emotional involvement .not needed. a THEORY means a working model...religion still is a hypothesis!
I urge everyone to check he genetic information. Google humam chromosome#2. That is conclusive proof that we shared a common ancestor with the great apes. Again we did not evolved from apes but from.a common ancestor there is a difference.
Apes are comfortable in how they walk just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature.
@Mogley52 ahhh so the alternative is... that aliens or god put different kinds here in between before and after just like that.... well that makes sense lol....
@Mogley52 how would you know what an ape feels.... moron! .... we are apes... just with less hair and fantastical imaginations lol.. religion is dead and for the mentally lazy!
@CelestialEmbodiment yes we all are and still classed as apart of the ape family... due to many shared mental and physical attributes.... shame that wasn't mentioned in any of the man made scriptures... ;0)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
[Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
@CelestialEmbodiment no... because we share genetic traits as animals do ... from fucking, shiting, pissing and the need to feed... humans just fill it in with self importance where none is needed.... get that in that primate skull of yours and your offspring may jump up to the next step in the ladder of awareness and wisdom! .. we socialize like animals and also react irrationally like animals... if you cannot see that ... then your own ignorance will be your undoing!.. your not that special!
@CelestialEmbodiment your self importance is acknowledged! .... you are a speck on the anus of nature... your not even important... the amoeba is far more important! without that nature (as we define it) does not exist... amazing how nature does not write egotistical scripture... I wonder why that is!
@CelestialEmbodiment actually that is more to do with religions who consider sex a sick act... and in-turn start with animals and then small children.... so plz stfu.... you cant label it with just a ism... but more to do with a cause for sexual insecurities .... spread thy seed (in those days I can understand the need to create more bastards)... these days its not so needed...
@CelestialEmbodiment sodomy was not included in my biology paper ... will have to bring up that hard topic (no bun intended) lol.... stfu ... fucking idiot!
@CelestialEmbodiment well i am not gay... but you might find quite a few in the churches... you tunnel vision hick lol... ahh look your trying to separate yourself from the primate family... you must be special lol... god doesn't take sides and neither does nature.... face that cold harsh reality and you will become stronger... not some ass kissing god freak who hopes he;s gonna play favouritism in a universe with billions of possible religions... yours aint no different lol just the details lol
Self-proclaimed potentates, who are by decree & divine right above the law, had harems. State/church-sanctioned marriage concerned heredity, real estate, social status & propagation.
A son can impregnate his mother; a father cannot impregnate his son, therefore as logic dictates: to forbid a father & son from marrying makes no sense in this colorful world of homosexual rights of matrimony. To mar, to marry & to march across the multi-dimensional (perchance inter-dimensional) marshes what mingle, mix & mesh the spaces blank, hollow & vacuous into hyper-spacial & hyper-spherical realms restrict us from cannibalizing infants.
We use wheat flour for bread. We once used millet, a grain high in Amygdalin (comprised of hydro-gen cyanide, benzaldahyde & glucose). We get woefully-inadequate amounts of nitrilosidic (cyanide-rich) foods so, consequently, we cannot control the natural healing process (we lack the Amygdalin to turn it off).
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
It's a scary world as the allopathic medical dictatorship confounds gender with blood-intoxicating hormones and mutilates, through surgery, the genitalia of retardates in order to make barren, pseudo-women of homosexual men.
Adaptations are observable, as are extinctions & Medellin prin-ciples. Darwinian (more aptly: Sumerian) evolution is conjectural (and wildly so as it's based on extrapolations to the nth degree). Here Mankind stands in century 2 of the simian-worshiping, pro-eugenics religion of the liberally-tattooed, functionally-illiterate masses of community college "educated" 20-something-know-nothings.
@CelestialEmbodiment how is is conjectural when it has properly been used to predict occurrences in the human genetic code and the finding of entirely unheard of species? you...DO know what conjecture means, i hope.
On page 293 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: FAITH : acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credit, credulity, dependence, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, hope, loyalty, reliance, stock, store, sureness, surety, troth, truth, truthfulness
On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook,
Today's atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.
evolutionism n -s 1 : a theory of evolution (as in philosophy, biology, or sociology) – see DARWINISM 2 : adherence to or belief in evolution esp. of living beings [Fr. p. 789 of “Webster's Unabridged Dictionary” 1967]
Humans, bar none, are worshipful/Spiritual Beings by design. Atheism is the denial of Spiritualism & metaphysics. Atheism is a vacation from reality enjoyed by slugs, nematodes, adders, animalcules & maggots as these Earthen life-forms are intellectually deficient, ergo incapable of contemplating & fathoming the heavens.
@CelestialEmbodiment Another rather interesting term whose root is 'scire,' happens to be 'sciolism', or the pretense of knowledge. An immediate example of its usage would be that your comments with regard to Evolution, and their attendant feeble attempts at formal logic, show you to be quite a sciolist.
@CelestialEmbodiment Is it really? I hadn't known that people who are discharged from hospitals for the mentally deficient were considered to be on parole. Well, if that's what your going through then you do have my sympathy. Hopefully you'll find some peace during this period in pouring over the Creationist literature you're so obviously fond of. Best of luck.
Chihuahuas & evolutionism: Evolved logic dictates that if for the next million years many Chihuahuas are routinely lobbed to their deaths from cliffs eventually (the key word) some will develop the type of evolved webbing that allows flying squirrels to glide & land safely. It's true. Everyone who understands the way evolution works understands that.
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
( ̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅[̲̅ ̲̅]̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅ ) Religion is Man's attempt to explain the metaphysical world. "Atheism" is the elitists' religion designed to subjugate Man by denying his incomparable value. Elitism spawns Darwinism, infanticide, "terra"-forming, collectivism, eugenics, fluoridated water, animal "rights," the E.R.A., the Z.P.G. movt., fiat money, gun & water rights, land confiscation. Elitism = death to self-sovereignty, redress of grievances against the govt., & free speech.
animalitarianism (noun) : the view that animals are more natural, happier, and admirable than human beings [Fr. p. 85 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary," 1967]
By definition there's no such thing as a scientific theory. Either you know or you don't. On the other hand, if it's the goal of collectivists to destroy traditional Western Culture then muddling about with language is the way to go.
oh one last comment would someone please slap that douchebag at the beginning of this vid . People like him shouldnt be allowed to talk... an asshole advocating for creationism rofl
[cont] I want my old beliefs to be true, but the evidence of scientific theories is overwhelming. There are some things in science that u have to be a complete imbecile to ignore and not accept it, evolution being one out of the countless many. Im currently on the road to getting my degree in physics. my heart still believes there is a God and he intervenes when necessary, but that it is slowly fading. I dont go to church nemore bcuz the bible is really just a collection of parables
I come from a religious family. I grew up in church, studied the bible, did work in the church, gave my offerings, considered becoming a minister and above all heavily believed in God and his creations. Having said that I have always had a big interest in science, but being surrounded by Creationists; sort of speak, I always put off researching more into science. I am sad to say the more i learn about scientific theories the less I believe in what I used to believe in.
When an intelligent person draws out an idea and sets to create something by that idea, they need to work time in both directions, You make a model and it fails and you take it apart and reconsider and try new designs and it fails and you take it apart and consider another idea and you keep on increasing information because your brain can move time forward and back ,to meditate and create and so it shows that a natural world only moving forward in time is a failure , and can never "Create"
Any System that is only running down hill in one timely direction , from an energy source to a material outcome, cannot decide upon success or failure of design and must be full of JUNK and Litter from various attempts and failures that burden the Universe with itself, like Space Junk, and so, the idea of Darwinist Universes is a failure, to consider that Time must be moving in other directions to bring in New Designs and Eliminate Failures. but what is Judging the Failure from the Success ?
Random Events would have so distorted the Universe, that any chance of success would become harder to achieve, the more time went by. It is a matter of garbage and trash events taking room away from successful events, it no outside controls are applied to renewal or erasure of events that would grow to hopeless chaotic failure to achieve anything in Creation. What goes into Design, must be able to go out of Design , and that Traffic Pattern needs a Memory System that can Judge Events.
"Random Events would have so distorted the Universe, that any chance of success would become harder to achieve, the more time went by. It is a matter of garbage and trash events taking room away from"
- incorrect, it is basic component of physics that any system that is supplied with energy has the potential to grow in complexity and increase in order.
@types10000 You are wrong, any system that is itself "Creative" by itself, Cannot be so directed in just one way to produce an outcome, no !!! The system you are trying to believe brings Random Events to Order, must be able to have Events and ERASE the Events, so as to clear the field of STATIC and Random DECAY so that the advance of a "Self Assembly" concept, must be able to work in all directions, not just the one you are thinking of as a forward evolution, but also backwards
"You are wrong, any system that is itself 'Creative' by itself, Cannot be so directed in just one way to produce an outcome"
- it's not about whether it's 'creative' or not, it's about the second law of thermodynamics which clearly explains that any system that receives an energy/matter input has the potential to decrease in entropy and conversely increase in order.
No new life is evolving out of inorganic matter and so the Evolutionists have claimed that it must be that Life only could have begun on a much younger Earth and it cannot happen today, which is just an easy cop out of any technological proving of their belief that God is not needed. So, it all goes to a special time of the world and that time is gone and all the evolutionists can do is claim it must be a product of another age, that we should never expect to demonstrate a need to prove it
"So, it all goes to a special time of the world and that time is gone and all the evolutionists can do is claim it must be a product of another age"
- incorrect, the 'evolutionists' (not actually evolutionists) to which you refer have demonstrated how EVERY STAGE between INORGANIC MATTER and MOLECULAR MACHINES can be accomplished via unguided naturalistic means on a primordial earth.
@types10000 If you propose that you know how materialism produces life, then show me in the laboratory, For the issue of Intelligence must mean the elimination of Time , A Diamond naturally takes millions of years to form in the Earth , but by Technological Prowess, we can eliminate the concept of "Time" and knowing how to do it, make diamonds in the Factory. We cannot say the same for Life, we cannot show prowess of Technologically Proving how Life is begun or Evolves. Can't be touched.
um (grumph) um (ughugh) let me (guugh) read a um(blurb) script from a (bruumgh) from an a ( ugh ugh ugh) esay (ughghmm) lol. that guy was bugging me lol
The fallacy of Evolution is about looking at the appearances of creatures , while not having their Genomes to examine. That a horse looks like a modern horse, does not conclude that the two horses were ever ancestral, that they may be the outcomes of entirely unique and forever separate Genomes or Parenting of DNA Designs. A fin on a shark may look like a fin on a dolphin, but different genetic histories produced those fins, seeing is not believing that similar looking creatures evolved.
"The fallacy of Evolution is about looking at the appearances of creatures , while not having their Genomes to examine. That a horse looks like a modern horse, does not conclude that the two horses were ever ancestral"
- evolutionists dont do this. the field you are misrepresenting is called COMPARATIVE ANATOMY which uses the intricate changes in biological structures through a lineage to establish relatedness.
You think it's their appearance that is examined, it's not.
@types10000 are you saying that the type of land mammals they claim evolved into whales, have a DNA map comparison to prove at the Genetic Level, they are the same Genome ? They got Genome info out of the Fossil Record ? Where is that ? Explain the Cambrian explosion, where did the creatures evolve from that just appeared all at once ? Even Dawkins said they just appear as if they had evolved, but they did not have any history of it, in the fossil record.
To sum up, "to cast your fate with angels" is the best rationale spokesman Buckley can come up with for opposing Darwin. He would have been a brilliant orator in the time of Disraeli himself, when this kind of chivalrous speech was popular. The most I gained from the creationist position is that evolutionists have no right to be smug because they have so much work left to do. On the other hand, it would appear most creationist will soon be on unemployment. Ain't natural selection grand?
in a debate like this, there is not enough time to point out the problems with the "evidence" for transitional forms, the strategy of the "creationists" (term doesn't really fit) is simply to point out 1) that evolutionary arguments can not explain everything and 2) many have arrogantly suggested that they do
I don't think anyone with any credibility has suggested that the theory of evolution and the supporting evidence within "explains everything". The theory of evolution, as of now, explains the diversity of life.
When referring to "diversity" in the context of evolution, we are referring to genetics. So, evolution is used to explain the genetic variation among the different species that exist. Homosexuality appears to have many factors involved, not simply genetic.
If I'm not mistaken, you were trying to make the point that scientists try to explain everything with evolution but it appears that you are expecting evolution to explain everything.
Somehow you were able to access a partially premature statement that I did not have the time to finish and therefore attempted to withdraw. As I am busy right now with other matters, I still don't have time to finish my post. However, I will come back a little later. But please note that "evolutionary" perspectives have been offered outside of mere genetic variation, for example, within psychology. Thus, evolution has been offered as an explanation for social behavior as well.
I'm sent an e-mail every time someone replies to a comment of mine. I was e-mailed with your response, so I replied to it. Behavior can be linked to genetics. Evolution is the study of genetic change. Anything discussed in evolution involves genetic change.
Sure no problem. Definitely behavior can be linked to genetics, and nobody who studies behavior would deny that. However, the point here is that evolution (and genetics) is not the only game in town, or perhaps even the best explanation (as in the case of evolutionary perspective of homosexuality). But there are some that talk, rather arrogantly, as if that is the case. That's my only point.
I've actually never even heard of an evolutionary perspective on homosexuality. The research I've read regarding homosexuality indicates that there are many factors involved in what makes someone homosexual. Perhaps you could link me somewhere?
In psychology, whereas at the end of the day the typical nature vs. nurture debate is usually settled in textbooks by a draw (i.e., its both), the truth is many researchers nonetheless still argue for dominance of their perspective over others. Of course, where there is a paucity of supporting data, they just seem to ignore those areas. Such has been the case for evolutionary perspectives in psychology when it comes to homosexuality.
YouTube forbids the posting of links. So frequently people just post the portion that comes after the backslash, namely: watch?v=a_random_string_of_letters
Berlinski is neither Religous nor a creationist. Furthermore, he is not just a philosopher, he has a background in both mathematics and science. Furthermore, a focus of his philosophy is in fact the philosophy of science. While his presentation is awkward, what he is simply trying to do is to get the "scientists" to recognize the fact that all of science is based upon a set of unproven philosophical assumptions, and scientific conclusions can only be deduced if we simply accept those assumpts
Berlinski has done a fantastic job at convincing me philosophers have no place in a scientific debate, which is really a shame because philosophy is supposed to be a fundamental building block for science. The approach of trying to tear down an established scientific theory with no attempt at an alternative and no evidence to support your side is absolutely disgusting to me. Arguing just for the sake of arguing is a waste of everyone's time, money, and intellectual curiosity. Get a real job.
Atheists if you want to believe there is nothing more than man's science, which is full of holes, then that is your choice.Tribulation hasn't yet begun, but the writing is on the wall.Economies are crumbling with no solutions..Morals by man say abortion and homesexuality is fine, but Christianity and Israel is wrong? The Bible says in the end, man will say good is evil and evil is good.Sounds like we're there.Holocaust was about destroying Jews--Gods chosen people. No coincidence, just end times
So, you basically have no response despite the bold assertions you make? I ask you some simple questions and the best you can do is rant about what your unsubstantiated beliefs state? Also, I don't think anyone thinks that "abortion is fine". It's interesting how you have to misrepresent the arguments that you are against because you have no logical rebuttal to those arguments.
@TheSeventhSon I'm still waiting for the moral code of atheists, and I haven't seen it yet....I've asked and asked, then I get accused of not answering questions?
You assumed I was an atheist. I'm not sure why I'm obliged to answer based on your assumptions. Either way, it's irrelevant to discuss atheist morals if you can't even defend the morals that you claim are objectively true. You answered some of my questions and then ignored others which suggests to me that you're dodging those that you're not capable of answering. I've exposed the fallacies of your arguments and the best you can do is divert attention from them.
Atheists have the same moral code as theists. The difference is we don't need to read it from a book and we don't need to be scared with the fires of hell to be moral.
Atheists..Whats a moral code? Seems like man's moral code is evolving.Now the family, according to man, can be guys with guys, girls with girls ect.The problem is, they couldn't have kids together, unless they use the opposite sex for help.Man has a dilemma here, because SCIENCE is trying to say that your born that way.Science says you're born an alcoholic, racist, even pedophiliacs are starting to get scientific suport as a disease. Today's science tries to take away man's RESPONSIBILITY
Could you explain how homosexuality is a bad thing? Why does it even affect you? Why does their inability to have kids matter here? Science supports a lot of things. Do you reject science just because it challenges your world view? If you do, that suggests to me that you're just looking for the answers that you want to hear and rejecting those that you don't want to hear. I can ignore my genetic predisposition to various ailments, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.
@TheSeventhSon You have made 'mans THEORY' the basis for your beliefs.People have left that lifestyle also....ofcourse you would never hear that from the liberal media.To answer why on homesexuality--its is a perversion of Gods plan of man being with a women....anal sex simply rips anal tissue and promotes easier transfer of std's--its not natural..They can't procreate...God calls homesexuality an ABONIMNATION....Recent science has become more political than scientific in some areas.
I haven't made anything the basis of my beliefs. You know nothing about my beliefs. Oh, okay. So your explanation for why homosexuality is wrong relies on the presupposition that the biblical teachings on homosexuality are correct. So, you failed to answer my question. Heterosexual couples also engage in sodomy, so that was a useless point to make. Many heterosexual do not procreate, so, again, a useless point. Perhaps you'll want to try again?
@TheSeventhSon by all means, ENLIGHTEN me on your beliefs.I hear atheist after atheist dance around right/wrong, moral/immoral..You don't find animals are homesexual.Aids rate is 50 times higher in homesexuals(center for disease control).So just from a health stand-point, I would say that's not a coincidence.the study is done by 'center for disease control'.the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, to state in 2006 that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease," .so to say it doesn't hurt anyone is gay(lol)
You seem to have already assumed what my beliefs are. Actually, significant numbers of species have been observed to engage in homosexuality. Being homosexual doesn't mean you have a disease, so you're still not making a case. Correlation is NOT causation. Based on your responses, you're either a bigot or just incredibly uneducated.
@TheSeventhSon significant number? Yeah, animals eat their own excrement too.do homos--wait some do--but thats normal right?Animals do act like, well, animals at times, but they aren't gay.I once saw a friends dog try to hump a chair..Did that mean he's a chair-osexual? probably to you it does.Maybe if science comes out with the chair-osexual theory, you will believe it.There is DEFINITELY correlation to the cause&effect sickness with a particular group of people that willfully sin against God.
Oh, okay. Thanks for demonstrating to me you're not capable of critical thinking and that you're basically a frightened bigot. It saves me a lot of time. You originally said that animals don't engage in homosexuality but then I pointed out to you that they do so you change your argument. How convenient. You make me want to be a Christian! I can be ignorant and accept only that which I want to accept! How lovely!
You never did address the fact that, based on your beliefs, your god created you so that you would fail. That's nice, isn't it? It's sort of how we can scientifically prove (though you conveniently reject his evidence since it challenges your beliefs) that people are actually homosexual without choice, yet your god condemns them to eternal suffering. How nice!
Again I ask, without presupposing that your beliefs are true, how is homosexuality wrong? Your profile says you're 35, so surely you're capable of some decent logic here. Without logical fallacies and presuppositions, demonstrate how homosexuality is wrong. Can you do this or are you going to continue rambling on and on, demonstrating to YT viewers that you're incapable of rational thought?
So, I'll ask again, what is wrong about a man loving a man and a woman loving a woman? This has nothing to do with their sexual habits. Why can't a man be attracted to a man and a woman be attracted to a woman? I'm asking you to think here. I know what your beliefs say. I don't need you to reiterate them to me nor do I wish for you to presuppose that your beliefs are objectively true. Can you do this?
@TheSeventhSon Its not natural....Is mudpacking normal to you? You can't see that as perverted or at least abnormal? Studies show that aprox 18%-25% initiate in anal sex.That's men supposedly 'loving' each other...Women have to wear straps, which imitate men's parts or use dildos.hmmm, why not just have a man?.The worlds definition of love is warped..The Bible says God is love.The worlds definition is exactly the opposite--not a coincidence.Can't u c the world is polar-opposite of God?
It is natural. That's why many other species experiences homosexuality; that's why some humans are born homosexual. But again I ask, do you have any actual arguments against being attracted to the same sex, or are you going to continue generalizing every homosexual and attacking those generalizations? What the Bible says is irrelevant unless you can prove that the Bible truly is inspired by a god.
You insist on bringing up sodomy, but you refuse to acknowledge that heterosexual couples engage in sodomy as well. Since your argument has suggested that the act of sodomy therefore means that homosexuality is wrong, does that mean that heterosexuality, by extension, is also wrong? I asked you a question earlier, is it wrong to be a certain race if that race is associated with higher rates of STDs? Please don't dodge these questions.
Berlinski is weird. I have no idea what his argument is based on. Basically he's just a stubbornly saying it's not enough evidence, for no particular reason. It's a classic case of moving the goalpost. His goalpost "evolves" to be farther and farther away the more evidence he is presented. I think that there is no amount of evidence that would convince him. At one point he said they would need a "complete" fossil record, which is , quite obviously, impossible.
I meant fda not fka...But think about it...Governments and business are deserately trying to stop counterfeit and forgeries of peoples personal info....A chip implanted would help to do that.All it would take is these WORLD banks to decide, that printed money and cc/dc are no longer the way to go...Research it for yourself.They are already talking about a new world currency, the chip will be the eventual SOLUTION that man will use...Cashless society is quickly becoming a reality.
The Bible also suggests that god created man to be imperfect. This either suggests that god is incompetent or sadistic. If that's the god you place your trust in, I pity you. So please, talk about the vague predictions of the Bible all you want, but don't neglect the logical fallacies present in the book.
@TheSeventhSon Take the time to read Genesis' first couple chapters, before clearly sounding ignorant on the matter....God created man and saw that His creation was good..He gave Adam a choice though...Adam was decieved, sin entered, which caused death...satan wasn't a human, but a fallen angel..He deceived man, just as he does today, with different philosophies.sin is a force, that you don't believe in, yet you try to come up your own moral code, which I have yet to hear an ahteist explain.
Oh, I have read Genesis. I've read much of the Bible. You're failing to apply basic logic here. Before god created man, he knew that if he created man the way he did, man would fail. Since god is the almighty creator of everything, man can only do what god created him to do. Since man failed and sinned, god therefore must have created man to be imperfect and, therefore, a sinner.
@TheSeventhSon moral code based on what? man's 'beliefs', based on what himself? based on other atheists? An atheist world is unrealistic...Why? You so called atheists couldn't live on the fence of what is right or wrong anymore...You would have to make moral laws, based on--?????.....Ofcourse man would say, who are you telling us how to live and what I can or cannot do....This is what is happening now...Again, I would love to know the Atheistic MORAL rules for society.
I don't think I ever claimed to be atheist. It's fairly easy to tell what is right and wrong based on what benefits a community of individuals as a whole. This is likely how humans evolved the way they did and grew so rapidly. I'm not sure why that's difficult to imagine or understood. On the flip side, you're admitting that you aren't capable of understanding the concept of right and wrong without being told. How is that, in any way, useful?
@asiandawn69 Revelation 13:16-17.the 'mark of the beast'.The Bible written 2000 years ago, tells how man will have a 'mark' required on their right hand or forehead to be able to buy or sell anything.The verichip, an 'implant', goes beneath your skin, and houses all of your health and financial information.It's been around since the 90's, and is backed by ibm, and FKA approved since 2004. Some parts of the world are using it, including USA. some r against it, but it will happen
I guess if you bring pop-up books, you can convince evolutionists, as the one guy did...Could you imagine how many transitions it would require to go from a dog to a whale, and how confusing it would become during that transition?...this is why evolution has had to change its THEORY from slow to fast transition periods...otherwise the poor dog would have big eyes, a 200 lb tail, a half grown flipper, and so on....poor dog...
@TheSeventhSon Apparently you didn't watch this debate, because this is EXACTLY what the evolutionists say happened over a long period of time...Great cut downs by the way, you must have a public school education...
Why do we waste our time arguing with Creationists? Their laughably and intentionally ignorant--and very proud to be so. There is no way you can prove something to someone who bases their life upon faith, which by definition is acceptance without reason.
martymad0001 1 month ago
@LandofMoriah Either you didn't hear Barry Lynn's closing or you are being satirical in your comment. Either way, poorly done.
xebek 1 month ago
OH Gosh, If Kent Hovind was There, these evolutionist would be in the ground.
kdash64 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kdash64
"OH Gosh, If Kent Hovind was There, these evolutionist would be in the ground"
First he needs to get out of jail?
DIGITALSCREAMS 1 month ago
Does anyone know Miller's full name? That guy made the best case for evolution I've ever heard in a debate of this nature
martymad0001 2 months ago in playlist Evolution -VS- Creationism - DEBATE
@martymad0001 Kenneth R. Miller
jsmitt06 1 month ago
The ending comment revealed the evolutionists when Barry Lynn blasphemously misquoted the Gospel of John first chapter."In the beginning was the word, and the word was Evolution", implying that Evolution is God and thusly proclaiming Evolution as their religion.
LandofMoriah 3 months ago
Professor Miller because he submits 75 plus letters to the National Institute of Health, Evolution exists because I say so attitute, with all of his small posters, with overtones of establishing a new religion, never answered the questions posed by the creationists table, which during the whole debate, presented reasonable doubt in regards to the validity of the evolutionary Darwin based theory.
LandofMoriah 3 months ago
Berlinski was only there to flatter his ego by mouthing off on a subject he knows little about & does he not even share the same fundamental opinions of his side of debaters - He is an atheists whilst Bcukley et al are Christian creationists. He does not even have the good grace to apply to himself the same rules in answering questions that he expects from others - eg he refuses to answer some questions flat out, whilst pressing for the exact number of transitional species from dog to whale.
jontibloom 3 months ago
That is really creepy that he took John 1:1 out of context.
John 1
The Deity of Jesus Christ 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John chapter 1 verse 1 (NASB literal translation from the original Greek)
The "Word" is Jesus Christ, not a command to evolve.
GreenSlugg 4 months ago
This is the most embarrassing display of Bill Buckley and he seems to know it. Buckley and Berlinski wanted to leave the entire time. I've never heard so much mumbling from either of them. That's not for course, to say that when they do speak clearly, the say anything intelligent. This was just pitiful. I like the format of the debate though and I would like to see a new one just like it.
delataylor 5 months ago
Why do husbands die before their wives?
Because they want to.
CelestialEmbodiment 5 months ago
A DOCTORED LIST of diseases sub-clinical is what the artisans of allopathy provide we: the doped up, underwhelmed, malnourished, vitamin-deficient, nutritionally-deprived, morally-depraved & Spiritually-vacant...
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
“Honor is like an island, rugged and without a beach; once we have left it we can never return.” — Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
theory [Gr. "theōria" speculation as opposed to practice] 1. the doctrine or the principles underlying an art as distinguished from the practice of that particular art. 2. a formulated hypothesis or, loosely speaking, any hypothesis or opinion not based upon actual knowledge. (Fr. p. 1,595 of “Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Twenty-Fifth Edition,” © 1974 by W.B. Saunders Company)
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
☼ [Atheism is the impossible condition, for Human Beings, of being dog-like/worm-like & maggot-like; of emulating inferior life-forms that are incapable of spiritual advancement.] ☼
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment spiritual advancement dont hold shit to honesty!
jammapcb 5 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment spiritual advancement dont hold shit to honesty!
jammapcb 5 months ago
The sermons of Darwin, Dawkins, Cousteau, Ted Turner, Margaret Sanger, Jane Goodall, Paul Ehrlich, the Huxleys, H.G. Wells, Elizabeth Regina's husband, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates etc. humanely stress the reduction of humanity through weaponized serums, laboratory-fabricated viruses (pathogens), perpetual war, food & water shortages/rationing, de-industrialization & aborticides. Eugenics is now "bio-ethics" & "sustainability."
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago 2
"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." — Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in "The Courier," a publication of the U.N. Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization (U.N.E.S.C.O.)
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." — Ted Turner of C.N.N., as quoted in the "McAlvany Intelligence Advisor," 6/96
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
Science ("scire": to know) is and will never be more than knowledge that can be registered by the human senses: taste, touch, see, hear and smell. This then denies atheism as a condition possible to humans with faculties intact.
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment no its not about disbelief in a god.. but more towards the hurtful part an inbred like yourself does not like.WE ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY CHURCHES ANY MORE!!!! so plz fuck off with your 1000$ miracles and your other brides of BS.afterlife, heaven, never never land..decent people do not need fear tactics or bribes to act with good intentions.get that through that limited neo cortex of yours!! .you have lost control .. or more clearly the church leaders think they had control lol
jammapcb 6 months ago
This "common ancestor," of evolutionary THEORY, that links Man to simian, just happened to be covered in coarse hair, to possess a tail & a small brain pan. The pathology of evolutionary THEORY'S specimens remain theoretical. All aspects of this dogmatic, quasi-religious THEORY require extraordinary faith in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence.
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment so genetic traits and matching has nothing to do with it then lol
jammapcb 6 months ago
give science more time religion has failed for the last 30k years .science and the shear amount of practice needed to remove the backward thinking of the past will take time.science is the cure for lack of mental development... magical tall tales do not cut it .we need evidence and an actual working model that refines itself per a perfect harmony of REAL understanding .belief not required.biased emotional involvement .not needed. a THEORY means a working model...religion still is a hypothesis!
jammapcb 6 months ago
I urge everyone to check he genetic information. Google humam chromosome#2. That is conclusive proof that we shared a common ancestor with the great apes. Again we did not evolved from apes but from.a common ancestor there is a difference.
Seamn31 6 months ago
Apes are comfortable in how they walk just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature.
Mogley52 7 months ago
@Mogley52 ahhh so the alternative is... that aliens or god put different kinds here in between before and after just like that.... well that makes sense lol....
jammapcb 6 months ago
@Mogley52 how would you know what an ape feels.... moron! .... we are apes... just with less hair and fantastical imaginations lol.. religion is dead and for the mentally lazy!
jammapcb 6 months ago
@jammapcb : You are an ape.
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment yes we all are and still classed as apart of the ape family... due to many shared mental and physical attributes.... shame that wasn't mentioned in any of the man made scriptures... ;0)
jammapcb 6 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 7 months ago
@Mogley52 well genetic matches in dolphins and wolfs... that's odd aint it!
jammapcb 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
The Darwinists must reduce Man to the lowest common denominator—to animals—so that the animalistic/cannibalistic side of Man may prevail.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment no... because we share genetic traits as animals do ... from fucking, shiting, pissing and the need to feed... humans just fill it in with self importance where none is needed.... get that in that primate skull of yours and your offspring may jump up to the next step in the ladder of awareness and wisdom! .. we socialize like animals and also react irrationally like animals... if you cannot see that ... then your own ignorance will be your undoing!.. your not that special!
jammapcb 6 months ago
@jammapcb : Your monkeyshines are acknowledged.
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment your self importance is acknowledged! .... you are a speck on the anus of nature... your not even important... the amoeba is far more important! without that nature (as we define it) does not exist... amazing how nature does not write egotistical scripture... I wonder why that is!
jammapcb 6 months ago
@jammapcb : All evolutionists allude to sodomy.
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment actually that is more to do with religions who consider sex a sick act... and in-turn start with animals and then small children.... so plz stfu.... you cant label it with just a ism... but more to do with a cause for sexual insecurities .... spread thy seed (in those days I can understand the need to create more bastards)... these days its not so needed...
jammapcb 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment does that include gay christians as well lol
jammapcb 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment sodomy was not included in my biology paper ... will have to bring up that hard topic (no bun intended) lol.... stfu ... fucking idiot!
jammapcb 6 months ago
@jammapcb : Where's your gay-pride now, monkey boy?
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment well i am not gay... but you might find quite a few in the churches... you tunnel vision hick lol... ahh look your trying to separate yourself from the primate family... you must be special lol... god doesn't take sides and neither does nature.... face that cold harsh reality and you will become stronger... not some ass kissing god freak who hopes he;s gonna play favouritism in a universe with billions of possible religions... yours aint no different lol just the details lol
jammapcb 6 months ago
@jammapcb : You are a homosexual.
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment no lol.... trollboy!
jammapcb 6 months ago
Self-proclaimed potentates, who are by decree & divine right above the law, had harems. State/church-sanctioned marriage concerned heredity, real estate, social status & propagation.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
A son can impregnate his mother; a father cannot impregnate his son, therefore as logic dictates: to forbid a father & son from marrying makes no sense in this colorful world of homosexual rights of matrimony. To mar, to marry & to march across the multi-dimensional (perchance inter-dimensional) marshes what mingle, mix & mesh the spaces blank, hollow & vacuous into hyper-spacial & hyper-spherical realms restrict us from cannibalizing infants.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
We use wheat flour for bread. We once used millet, a grain high in Amygdalin (comprised of hydro-gen cyanide, benzaldahyde & glucose). We get woefully-inadequate amounts of nitrilosidic (cyanide-rich) foods so, consequently, we cannot control the natural healing process (we lack the Amygdalin to turn it off).
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weeb¬ly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
is anyone else tired of charleton heston's arguments?
imnotdavidxnsx 7 months ago
It's a scary world as the allopathic medical dictatorship confounds gender with blood-intoxicating hormones and mutilates, through surgery, the genitalia of retardates in order to make barren, pseudo-women of homosexual men.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
Adaptations are observable, as are extinctions & Medellin prin-ciples. Darwinian (more aptly: Sumerian) evolution is conjectural (and wildly so as it's based on extrapolations to the nth degree). Here Mankind stands in century 2 of the simian-worshiping, pro-eugenics religion of the liberally-tattooed, functionally-illiterate masses of community college "educated" 20-something-know-nothings.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment how is is conjectural when it has properly been used to predict occurrences in the human genetic code and the finding of entirely unheard of species? you...DO know what conjecture means, i hope.
imnotdavidxnsx 7 months ago
@imnotdavidxnsx : Hope springs eternally.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment +faith (same thing?)
imnotdavidxnsx 7 months ago
On page 293 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: FAITH : acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credit, credulity, dependence, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, hope, loyalty, reliance, stock, store, sureness, surety, troth, truth, truthfulness
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rational, scheme, speculation, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook,
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
Proper evolution, chemical & otherwise, requires extraordinary patience.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
Today's atheistic Darwinists/evolutionists are the high priests of corporate science. They sermonize & pontificate, from lecterns & in clumsily-written tomes, on the "over-population" dilemma and the necessity of, foisting upon a stupefied populace, eugenic measures (sterilants & abortifacients) to curtail growth.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
evolutionism n -s 1 : a theory of evolution (as in philosophy, biology, or sociology) – see DARWINISM 2 : adherence to or belief in evolution esp. of living beings [Fr. p. 789 of “Webster's Unabridged Dictionary” 1967]
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
Science fr. Latin "scire" to know
theory : conjecture : to assume
To assume is to guess and not to know.
Therefor, as logic demands, evolutionary THEORY does not meet the criteria of scientific study..
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
Humans, bar none, are worshipful/Spiritual Beings by design. Atheism is the denial of Spiritualism & metaphysics. Atheism is a vacation from reality enjoyed by slugs, nematodes, adders, animalcules & maggots as these Earthen life-forms are intellectually deficient, ergo incapable of contemplating & fathoming the heavens.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment Another rather interesting term whose root is 'scire,' happens to be 'sciolism', or the pretense of knowledge. An immediate example of its usage would be that your comments with regard to Evolution, and their attendant feeble attempts at formal logic, show you to be quite a sciolist.
WilliamBlackWolf 7 months ago
@WilliamBlackWolf : Exactly. Evolutionists pretend to know the events of prehistorical Earth. I know I've been of help to you.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment Oh indeed, providing me with a hearty thirty seconds of derisive laughter, has been a great help ;)
WilliamBlackWolf 7 months ago
@WilliamBlackWolf : Parole is tough.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment Is it really? I hadn't known that people who are discharged from hospitals for the mentally deficient were considered to be on parole. Well, if that's what your going through then you do have my sympathy. Hopefully you'll find some peace during this period in pouring over the Creationist literature you're so obviously fond of. Best of luck.
WilliamBlackWolf 7 months ago
@WilliamBlackWolf : Where's your gay-pride now?
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment Ah, you've a predilection for indulging in Freudian projection as well I see. Very sad.
WilliamBlackWolf 7 months ago
@WilliamBlackWolf : Nonetheless, you haven't addressed gay-pride. Why?
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
Chihuahuas & evolutionism: Evolved logic dictates that if for the next million years many Chihuahuas are routinely lobbed to their deaths from cliffs eventually (the key word) some will develop the type of evolved webbing that allows flying squirrels to glide & land safely. It's true. Everyone who understands the way evolution works understands that.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
( ̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅[̲̅ ̲̅]̲̅:̲̅:̲̅:̲̅ ) Religion is Man's attempt to explain the metaphysical world. "Atheism" is the elitists' religion designed to subjugate Man by denying his incomparable value. Elitism spawns Darwinism, infanticide, "terra"-forming, collectivism, eugenics, fluoridated water, animal "rights," the E.R.A., the Z.P.G. movt., fiat money, gun & water rights, land confiscation. Elitism = death to self-sovereignty, redress of grievances against the govt., & free speech.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
Atheism {sans quotes} is the religion of the animal world as animals don't contemplate the Heavens nor wage planetary war.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
SCIENCE is a synonym for KNOWLEDGE. It isn't knowledge if it can't be demonstrated mathematically.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
animalitarianism (noun) : the view that animals are more natural, happier, and admirable than human beings [Fr. p. 85 of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary," 1967]
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
1) science isnt a synonym for knowledge
2) animals cant be atheists because they cant understand the concept which they would have to reject to be an atheist
almostskater3210 7 months ago
@almostskater3210 : Science fr. "scire" to know
Theory fr. "theoria" to suppose
By definition there's no such thing as a scientific theory. Either you know or you don't. On the other hand, if it's the goal of collectivists to destroy traditional Western Culture then muddling about with language is the way to go.
CelestialEmbodiment 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment
what you're taking the root and defining the word from another language? read a scientific dictionary, not a latin or greek one.
almostskater3210 7 months ago
@CelestialEmbodiment lol how is there "by definition" no scientific theory? it's right here...ht tp://en .wikipedia. org/wiki/Sc ientific_theory
imnotdavidxnsx 7 months ago
oh one last comment would someone please slap that douchebag at the beginning of this vid . People like him shouldnt be allowed to talk... an asshole advocating for creationism rofl
Darklogix 7 months ago
[cont] I want my old beliefs to be true, but the evidence of scientific theories is overwhelming. There are some things in science that u have to be a complete imbecile to ignore and not accept it, evolution being one out of the countless many. Im currently on the road to getting my degree in physics. my heart still believes there is a God and he intervenes when necessary, but that it is slowly fading. I dont go to church nemore bcuz the bible is really just a collection of parables
Darklogix 7 months ago
I come from a religious family. I grew up in church, studied the bible, did work in the church, gave my offerings, considered becoming a minister and above all heavily believed in God and his creations. Having said that I have always had a big interest in science, but being surrounded by Creationists; sort of speak, I always put off researching more into science. I am sad to say the more i learn about scientific theories the less I believe in what I used to believe in.
Darklogix 7 months ago
When an intelligent person draws out an idea and sets to create something by that idea, they need to work time in both directions, You make a model and it fails and you take it apart and reconsider and try new designs and it fails and you take it apart and consider another idea and you keep on increasing information because your brain can move time forward and back ,to meditate and create and so it shows that a natural world only moving forward in time is a failure , and can never "Create"
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
Any System that is only running down hill in one timely direction , from an energy source to a material outcome, cannot decide upon success or failure of design and must be full of JUNK and Litter from various attempts and failures that burden the Universe with itself, like Space Junk, and so, the idea of Darwinist Universes is a failure, to consider that Time must be moving in other directions to bring in New Designs and Eliminate Failures. but what is Judging the Failure from the Success ?
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"Any System that is only running down hill in one timely direction"
- incorrect, this exactly what the second law speaks AGAINST ie. if the system receives an energy input then it can decrease in entropy.
"the idea of Darwinist Universes"
Now i've debunked your statement it's time to correct your other stupidity.
- evolutionary theory refers ONLY to biology
- Darwinism refers ONLY to evolutionary theory via the gradualist model
types10000 7 months ago
Random Events would have so distorted the Universe, that any chance of success would become harder to achieve, the more time went by. It is a matter of garbage and trash events taking room away from successful events, it no outside controls are applied to renewal or erasure of events that would grow to hopeless chaotic failure to achieve anything in Creation. What goes into Design, must be able to go out of Design , and that Traffic Pattern needs a Memory System that can Judge Events.
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"Random Events would have so distorted the Universe, that any chance of success would become harder to achieve, the more time went by. It is a matter of garbage and trash events taking room away from"
- incorrect, it is basic component of physics that any system that is supplied with energy has the potential to grow in complexity and increase in order.
Welcome to thermodynamics bitch.
types10000 7 months ago
@types10000 You are wrong, any system that is itself "Creative" by itself, Cannot be so directed in just one way to produce an outcome, no !!! The system you are trying to believe brings Random Events to Order, must be able to have Events and ERASE the Events, so as to clear the field of STATIC and Random DECAY so that the advance of a "Self Assembly" concept, must be able to work in all directions, not just the one you are thinking of as a forward evolution, but also backwards
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"You are wrong, any system that is itself 'Creative' by itself, Cannot be so directed in just one way to produce an outcome"
- it's not about whether it's 'creative' or not, it's about the second law of thermodynamics which clearly explains that any system that receives an energy/matter input has the potential to decrease in entropy and conversely increase in order.
Earth is such a system.
types10000 7 months ago
No new life is evolving out of inorganic matter and so the Evolutionists have claimed that it must be that Life only could have begun on a much younger Earth and it cannot happen today, which is just an easy cop out of any technological proving of their belief that God is not needed. So, it all goes to a special time of the world and that time is gone and all the evolutionists can do is claim it must be a product of another age, that we should never expect to demonstrate a need to prove it
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"No new life is evolving out of inorganic matter and so the Evolutionists"
a). We know why new life wouldnt arise.
b). life's origin is the field of abiogenesis NOT EVOLUTION.
types10000 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"So, it all goes to a special time of the world and that time is gone and all the evolutionists can do is claim it must be a product of another age"
- incorrect, the 'evolutionists' (not actually evolutionists) to which you refer have demonstrated how EVERY STAGE between INORGANIC MATTER and MOLECULAR MACHINES can be accomplished via unguided naturalistic means on a primordial earth.
types10000 7 months ago
@types10000 If you propose that you know how materialism produces life, then show me in the laboratory, For the issue of Intelligence must mean the elimination of Time , A Diamond naturally takes millions of years to form in the Earth , but by Technological Prowess, we can eliminate the concept of "Time" and knowing how to do it, make diamonds in the Factory. We cannot say the same for Life, we cannot show prowess of Technologically Proving how Life is begun or Evolves. Can't be touched.
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"If you propose that you know how materialism produces life, then show me in the laboratory"
- every stage between inorganic matter and molecular machines has been shown
- each of these stages provides a testable prediction of abiogenesis
- Testable predictions are one of the best kinds of evidence in science.
that is why abiogenesis IS the BEST and MOST WELL EVIDENCED explanation for the origin of life.
types10000 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - abenteuer-universum[.]de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf
amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi[.]nlm.nih[.]gov/pubmed/909793
ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule) - wired[.]com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
RNA to primitive ribosomes (basic molecular machine) - biology-direct[.]com/content/5/1/36
types10000 7 months ago
Comment removed
PureAirSolutions 7 months ago
um (grumph) um (ughugh) let me (guugh) read a um(blurb) script from a (bruumgh) from an a ( ugh ugh ugh) esay (ughghmm) lol. that guy was bugging me lol
skinnycopdude24 8 months ago
The fallacy of Evolution is about looking at the appearances of creatures , while not having their Genomes to examine. That a horse looks like a modern horse, does not conclude that the two horses were ever ancestral, that they may be the outcomes of entirely unique and forever separate Genomes or Parenting of DNA Designs. A fin on a shark may look like a fin on a dolphin, but different genetic histories produced those fins, seeing is not believing that similar looking creatures evolved.
CarmineFragione 8 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"The fallacy of Evolution is about looking at the appearances of creatures , while not having their Genomes to examine. That a horse looks like a modern horse, does not conclude that the two horses were ever ancestral"
- evolutionists dont do this. the field you are misrepresenting is called COMPARATIVE ANATOMY which uses the intricate changes in biological structures through a lineage to establish relatedness.
You think it's their appearance that is examined, it's not.
types10000 7 months ago
@types10000 are you saying that the type of land mammals they claim evolved into whales, have a DNA map comparison to prove at the Genetic Level, they are the same Genome ? They got Genome info out of the Fossil Record ? Where is that ? Explain the Cambrian explosion, where did the creatures evolve from that just appeared all at once ? Even Dawkins said they just appear as if they had evolved, but they did not have any history of it, in the fossil record.
CarmineFragione 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"are you saying that the type of land mammals they claim evolved into whales, have a DNA map comparison to prove at the Genetic Level"
- only if dyslexic, as i just pointed-out genetics is only one way that relatedness can be established, another way is through COMPARATIVE ANATOMY.
in any-event a genetic comparison of whales and land-mammals alone is enough to establish relatedness.
types10000 7 months ago
@CarmineFragione
"Explain the Cambrian explosion"
- what about it would you like explained? it hasnt been a problem for evolution since punctuated equilibrium came out tne 60's
"where did the creatures evolve from that just appeared all at once"
- they didnt 'just appear all at once' that's your stupidity, they infact evolved from earlier pre-cambrian organisms of which we have fossils.
"Even Dawkins said" - now your just talking complete bullshit.
types10000 7 months ago
Wow. I wonder how anyone can be moved by Buckley's closing. Who would possibly believe that man could be considered anything like an angel? Ugh.
drumrnva 8 months ago
Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble
shaneomcgrath 9 months ago
To sum up, "to cast your fate with angels" is the best rationale spokesman Buckley can come up with for opposing Darwin. He would have been a brilliant orator in the time of Disraeli himself, when this kind of chivalrous speech was popular. The most I gained from the creationist position is that evolutionists have no right to be smug because they have so much work left to do. On the other hand, it would appear most creationist will soon be on unemployment. Ain't natural selection grand?
Upstreamswimmer 9 months ago
in a debate like this, there is not enough time to point out the problems with the "evidence" for transitional forms, the strategy of the "creationists" (term doesn't really fit) is simply to point out 1) that evolutionary arguments can not explain everything and 2) many have arrogantly suggested that they do
rich8683 10 months ago
@rich8683
I don't think anyone with any credibility has suggested that the theory of evolution and the supporting evidence within "explains everything". The theory of evolution, as of now, explains the diversity of life.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
Comment removed
rich8683 10 months ago
@rich8683
When referring to "diversity" in the context of evolution, we are referring to genetics. So, evolution is used to explain the genetic variation among the different species that exist. Homosexuality appears to have many factors involved, not simply genetic.
If I'm not mistaken, you were trying to make the point that scientists try to explain everything with evolution but it appears that you are expecting evolution to explain everything.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
@TheSeventhSon
Somehow you were able to access a partially premature statement that I did not have the time to finish and therefore attempted to withdraw. As I am busy right now with other matters, I still don't have time to finish my post. However, I will come back a little later. But please note that "evolutionary" perspectives have been offered outside of mere genetic variation, for example, within psychology. Thus, evolution has been offered as an explanation for social behavior as well.
rich8683 10 months ago
@rich8683
I'm sent an e-mail every time someone replies to a comment of mine. I was e-mailed with your response, so I replied to it. Behavior can be linked to genetics. Evolution is the study of genetic change. Anything discussed in evolution involves genetic change.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
@TheSeventhSon
Sure no problem. Definitely behavior can be linked to genetics, and nobody who studies behavior would deny that. However, the point here is that evolution (and genetics) is not the only game in town, or perhaps even the best explanation (as in the case of evolutionary perspective of homosexuality). But there are some that talk, rather arrogantly, as if that is the case. That's my only point.
rich8683 10 months ago
@rich8683
I've actually never even heard of an evolutionary perspective on homosexuality. The research I've read regarding homosexuality indicates that there are many factors involved in what makes someone homosexual. Perhaps you could link me somewhere?
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
@TheSeventhSon
In psychology, whereas at the end of the day the typical nature vs. nurture debate is usually settled in textbooks by a draw (i.e., its both), the truth is many researchers nonetheless still argue for dominance of their perspective over others. Of course, where there is a paucity of supporting data, they just seem to ignore those areas. Such has been the case for evolutionary perspectives in psychology when it comes to homosexuality.
rich8683 10 months ago
Respond to this video...
rich8683 10 months ago
Respond to this video... Nevertheless, here is a link to an article that is attempting to rebut the idea that there is no evoluationary perspective:
rich8683 10 months ago
Respond to this video... sorry, trying to post the link, but keeping getting an error message. is there some policy against posting links in youtube?
rich8683 10 months ago
@rich8683
If you just post the portion of the URL that comes after the backslash, it will display.
TheSeventhSon 10 months ago
@rich8683
YouTube forbids the posting of links. So frequently people just post the portion that comes after the backslash, namely: watch?v=a_random_string_of_letters
pupsenok 9 months ago
@TheSeventhSon Some behaviors might be genetic. Some not.
LesPaul2006 9 months ago
@LesPaul2006
Right.
TheSeventhSon 9 months ago
Comment removed
rich8683 10 months ago
Berlinski is neither Religous nor a creationist. Furthermore, he is not just a philosopher, he has a background in both mathematics and science. Furthermore, a focus of his philosophy is in fact the philosophy of science. While his presentation is awkward, what he is simply trying to do is to get the "scientists" to recognize the fact that all of science is based upon a set of unproven philosophical assumptions, and scientific conclusions can only be deduced if we simply accept those assumpts
rich8683 10 months ago
Berlinski has done a fantastic job at convincing me philosophers have no place in a scientific debate, which is really a shame because philosophy is supposed to be a fundamental building block for science. The approach of trying to tear down an established scientific theory with no attempt at an alternative and no evidence to support your side is absolutely disgusting to me. Arguing just for the sake of arguing is a waste of everyone's time, money, and intellectual curiosity. Get a real job.
arsawyer84 10 months ago
Berlinski comes across as a pathetic, contentious fool. A perfect example of creationist thinking.
pharyngealized 11 months ago
Atheists if you want to believe there is nothing more than man's science, which is full of holes, then that is your choice.Tribulation hasn't yet begun, but the writing is on the wall.Economies are crumbling with no solutions..Morals by man say abortion and homesexuality is fine, but Christianity and Israel is wrong? The Bible says in the end, man will say good is evil and evil is good.Sounds like we're there.Holocaust was about destroying Jews--Gods chosen people. No coincidence, just end times
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
So, you basically have no response despite the bold assertions you make? I ask you some simple questions and the best you can do is rant about what your unsubstantiated beliefs state? Also, I don't think anyone thinks that "abortion is fine". It's interesting how you have to misrepresent the arguments that you are against because you have no logical rebuttal to those arguments.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@TheSeventhSon I'm still waiting for the moral code of atheists, and I haven't seen it yet....I've asked and asked, then I get accused of not answering questions?
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
You assumed I was an atheist. I'm not sure why I'm obliged to answer based on your assumptions. Either way, it's irrelevant to discuss atheist morals if you can't even defend the morals that you claim are objectively true. You answered some of my questions and then ignored others which suggests to me that you're dodging those that you're not capable of answering. I've exposed the fallacies of your arguments and the best you can do is divert attention from them.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@76reliant
Atheists have the same moral code as theists. The difference is we don't need to read it from a book and we don't need to be scared with the fires of hell to be moral.
aimonaali 11 months ago
Atheists..Whats a moral code? Seems like man's moral code is evolving.Now the family, according to man, can be guys with guys, girls with girls ect.The problem is, they couldn't have kids together, unless they use the opposite sex for help.Man has a dilemma here, because SCIENCE is trying to say that your born that way.Science says you're born an alcoholic, racist, even pedophiliacs are starting to get scientific suport as a disease. Today's science tries to take away man's RESPONSIBILITY
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
Could you explain how homosexuality is a bad thing? Why does it even affect you? Why does their inability to have kids matter here? Science supports a lot of things. Do you reject science just because it challenges your world view? If you do, that suggests to me that you're just looking for the answers that you want to hear and rejecting those that you don't want to hear. I can ignore my genetic predisposition to various ailments, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@TheSeventhSon You have made 'mans THEORY' the basis for your beliefs.People have left that lifestyle also....ofcourse you would never hear that from the liberal media.To answer why on homesexuality--its is a perversion of Gods plan of man being with a women....anal sex simply rips anal tissue and promotes easier transfer of std's--its not natural..They can't procreate...God calls homesexuality an ABONIMNATION....Recent science has become more political than scientific in some areas.
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
I haven't made anything the basis of my beliefs. You know nothing about my beliefs. Oh, okay. So your explanation for why homosexuality is wrong relies on the presupposition that the biblical teachings on homosexuality are correct. So, you failed to answer my question. Heterosexual couples also engage in sodomy, so that was a useless point to make. Many heterosexual do not procreate, so, again, a useless point. Perhaps you'll want to try again?
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@TheSeventhSon by all means, ENLIGHTEN me on your beliefs.I hear atheist after atheist dance around right/wrong, moral/immoral..You don't find animals are homesexual.Aids rate is 50 times higher in homesexuals(center for disease control).So just from a health stand-point, I would say that's not a coincidence.the study is done by 'center for disease control'.the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, to state in 2006 that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease," .so to say it doesn't hurt anyone is gay(lol)
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
You seem to have already assumed what my beliefs are. Actually, significant numbers of species have been observed to engage in homosexuality. Being homosexual doesn't mean you have a disease, so you're still not making a case. Correlation is NOT causation. Based on your responses, you're either a bigot or just incredibly uneducated.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@TheSeventhSon significant number? Yeah, animals eat their own excrement too.do homos--wait some do--but thats normal right?Animals do act like, well, animals at times, but they aren't gay.I once saw a friends dog try to hump a chair..Did that mean he's a chair-osexual? probably to you it does.Maybe if science comes out with the chair-osexual theory, you will believe it.There is DEFINITELY correlation to the cause&effect sickness with a particular group of people that willfully sin against God.
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
Oh, okay. Thanks for demonstrating to me you're not capable of critical thinking and that you're basically a frightened bigot. It saves me a lot of time. You originally said that animals don't engage in homosexuality but then I pointed out to you that they do so you change your argument. How convenient. You make me want to be a Christian! I can be ignorant and accept only that which I want to accept! How lovely!
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@76reliant
You never did address the fact that, based on your beliefs, your god created you so that you would fail. That's nice, isn't it? It's sort of how we can scientifically prove (though you conveniently reject his evidence since it challenges your beliefs) that people are actually homosexual without choice, yet your god condemns them to eternal suffering. How nice!
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@76reliant
Again I ask, without presupposing that your beliefs are true, how is homosexuality wrong? Your profile says you're 35, so surely you're capable of some decent logic here. Without logical fallacies and presuppositions, demonstrate how homosexuality is wrong. Can you do this or are you going to continue rambling on and on, demonstrating to YT viewers that you're incapable of rational thought?
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@76reliant
Question: Is it wrong to be a certain race if that race is associated with a higher rate of an STD?
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@76reliant
So, I'll ask again, what is wrong about a man loving a man and a woman loving a woman? This has nothing to do with their sexual habits. Why can't a man be attracted to a man and a woman be attracted to a woman? I'm asking you to think here. I know what your beliefs say. I don't need you to reiterate them to me nor do I wish for you to presuppose that your beliefs are objectively true. Can you do this?
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@TheSeventhSon Its not natural....Is mudpacking normal to you? You can't see that as perverted or at least abnormal? Studies show that aprox 18%-25% initiate in anal sex.That's men supposedly 'loving' each other...Women have to wear straps, which imitate men's parts or use dildos.hmmm, why not just have a man?.The worlds definition of love is warped..The Bible says God is love.The worlds definition is exactly the opposite--not a coincidence.Can't u c the world is polar-opposite of God?
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
It is natural. That's why many other species experiences homosexuality; that's why some humans are born homosexual. But again I ask, do you have any actual arguments against being attracted to the same sex, or are you going to continue generalizing every homosexual and attacking those generalizations? What the Bible says is irrelevant unless you can prove that the Bible truly is inspired by a god.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@76reliant
You insist on bringing up sodomy, but you refuse to acknowledge that heterosexual couples engage in sodomy as well. Since your argument has suggested that the act of sodomy therefore means that homosexuality is wrong, does that mean that heterosexuality, by extension, is also wrong? I asked you a question earlier, is it wrong to be a certain race if that race is associated with higher rates of STDs? Please don't dodge these questions.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
Berlinski is weird. I have no idea what his argument is based on. Basically he's just a stubbornly saying it's not enough evidence, for no particular reason. It's a classic case of moving the goalpost. His goalpost "evolves" to be farther and farther away the more evidence he is presented. I think that there is no amount of evidence that would convince him. At one point he said they would need a "complete" fossil record, which is , quite obviously, impossible.
rrpostalagain 11 months ago
I meant fda not fka...But think about it...Governments and business are deserately trying to stop counterfeit and forgeries of peoples personal info....A chip implanted would help to do that.All it would take is these WORLD banks to decide, that printed money and cc/dc are no longer the way to go...Research it for yourself.They are already talking about a new world currency, the chip will be the eventual SOLUTION that man will use...Cashless society is quickly becoming a reality.
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
The Bible also suggests that god created man to be imperfect. This either suggests that god is incompetent or sadistic. If that's the god you place your trust in, I pity you. So please, talk about the vague predictions of the Bible all you want, but don't neglect the logical fallacies present in the book.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@TheSeventhSon Take the time to read Genesis' first couple chapters, before clearly sounding ignorant on the matter....God created man and saw that His creation was good..He gave Adam a choice though...Adam was decieved, sin entered, which caused death...satan wasn't a human, but a fallen angel..He deceived man, just as he does today, with different philosophies.sin is a force, that you don't believe in, yet you try to come up your own moral code, which I have yet to hear an ahteist explain.
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
Oh, I have read Genesis. I've read much of the Bible. You're failing to apply basic logic here. Before god created man, he knew that if he created man the way he did, man would fail. Since god is the almighty creator of everything, man can only do what god created him to do. Since man failed and sinned, god therefore must have created man to be imperfect and, therefore, a sinner.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@76reliant
"sin is a force, that you don't believe in, yet you try to come up your own moral code, which I have yet to hear an ahteist explain."
Sin is something in the Bible. It's not something that necessarily exists. One can devise a moral code without sin existing.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@TheSeventhSon moral code based on what? man's 'beliefs', based on what himself? based on other atheists? An atheist world is unrealistic...Why? You so called atheists couldn't live on the fence of what is right or wrong anymore...You would have to make moral laws, based on--?????.....Ofcourse man would say, who are you telling us how to live and what I can or cannot do....This is what is happening now...Again, I would love to know the Atheistic MORAL rules for society.
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
I don't think I ever claimed to be atheist. It's fairly easy to tell what is right and wrong based on what benefits a community of individuals as a whole. This is likely how humans evolved the way they did and grew so rapidly. I'm not sure why that's difficult to imagine or understood. On the flip side, you're admitting that you aren't capable of understanding the concept of right and wrong without being told. How is that, in any way, useful?
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
Creationists = Trolls.
asiandawn69 11 months ago
@asiandawn69 Revelation 13:16-17.the 'mark of the beast'.The Bible written 2000 years ago, tells how man will have a 'mark' required on their right hand or forehead to be able to buy or sell anything.The verichip, an 'implant', goes beneath your skin, and houses all of your health and financial information.It's been around since the 90's, and is backed by ibm, and FKA approved since 2004. Some parts of the world are using it, including USA. some r against it, but it will happen
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant You're talking about the RFID tags correct? I'm aware of this, so you and I are not so different after all :)
asiandawn69 10 months ago
I guess if you bring pop-up books, you can convince evolutionists, as the one guy did...Could you imagine how many transitions it would require to go from a dog to a whale, and how confusing it would become during that transition?...this is why evolution has had to change its THEORY from slow to fast transition periods...otherwise the poor dog would have big eyes, a 200 lb tail, a half grown flipper, and so on....poor dog...
76reliant 11 months ago
@76reliant
Dogs to whales? Again, how is that relevant? You're either a troll or stupid. I can't figure out which.
TheSeventhSon 11 months ago
@TheSeventhSon Apparently you didn't watch this debate, because this is EXACTLY what the evolutionists say happened over a long period of time...Great cut downs by the way, you must have a public school education...
76reliant 11 months ago