To the first point made by Hitchens, I think it's a little simpler than that. In the context of a village that received no casualties the word "blessed" and the word "lucky" are interchangeable.
I love how grumpy Hitchens always looks at these things XD you can almost see him thinking "I can't believe I've agreed to subject my self to these cretinous protozoans again..."
I get happy and sad simultaneously while I watch Hitchens in his full health. Sad because it makes me realise what a strong man he was, and that now he is gone. Happy because he was such a strong man, before he was gone.
God beyond description? Natural disasters just....happen? How convenient. I gather your God hasn't the power to step in and stop these 'natural disasters', or is maniacal enough to permit them even though he KNEW it was going to happen, he knew the result and he knew the implication. How cheap and distasteful. Your God is either a coward, impotent, a homicidal maniac, or all three.
OMG!!, I just found out Hitchens died a month ago, how could I've miss that, I'm shocked!!, I want to think it was all over the news??.(I don't watch TV, but I'm on the web everyday)
even though i love christopher hitchens and he is one of my favorite debaters of all time...i feel bad for those who argue against him because he shits on their beliefs so hard hahaha
I love when it first pans to Christopher and he's kind of up one on shoulder shrugging away from the first guy and glairing out the corner of his eyes.He looks like a cat about to drop and tear someone apart and I think I know who the mouse is.
I'm an Aussie, and both Hitchens and Dawkins featuring on this program showed be how provincial and redneck my country has become, even to the level of political office. "shithouse" as we say here.
@cyberslick18 That is one reason to smile. You should check out 'The Athiest Experience' vids here. These guys run out of Austin Texas on public access t.v. . The only miracle I've ever witnessed is their patience with the crazy callers to the show. Entertaining as hell, Matt Dilahunty is a genius.
Chillax man. I have encountered that same feeling for decades when it comes to Irish audiences - only to discover its a form of anxious self reflection. Like the nervous parent - they are an extension of yourself.
As for this vid - Dude! - there are religious heads in the audience who can form full sentences - clearly way ahead of the curve internationally. You should be very proud that Australia's ignorant class are at least .. well spoken.
@pjt1 LOL! thanks man. "..ignorant class are at least .. well spoken.." True, and funny as hell. Catholicism is way more diluted out here, most people think lent is found in your bellybutton.
@joshuahardy95 Australia is far more suspicious of politicians when they claim religious convictions. We don't care that much, we just want the right person in the job otherwise the media hassles them until they quit or get voted out. Small population remember, no time for bullshit.
@breaneainn A friend directed me to the Dawkins episode. He made utter fools of politicians Fielding, Burke & Bishop, the latter two letting their emotions get the better of them. After ~15 mins, the discussion grew heated. Tony Jones pathetically (or mercifully?) stopped the fight, & IIRC, switched the discussion to the state of Aus mental healthcare. Dawkins sat silent for the rest of the show, probably thinking, 'WTF am I doing here? Can I be excused?' Complete waste of time.
@Haroog Yeah, saw that one. I've seen everything on Dawkins, but that was the only time I've ever seen him angry. I felt a bit embarrassed. You should see the one where he is in Adelaide South Australia, as redneck as it gets, but the crowd were awesome.
@breaneainn Yes but the point should be made that when Richard Dawkins inquired about whether Family First Senator (at the time) Stephen Fielding was a Young Earth Creationist, Stephen was so terrified of the humiliation of having to admit it that he desperately evaded the question for his own sake. The crowd laughed in response. This showed this in Australia we don't tolerate fundamentalists in the mainstream. They are laughed at. Far cry from the USA.
@NtoxicatedForum True. Hitchens is political, Dawkins is scientific and Harris is social. A free thinker would agree and disagree on many points with all of them.
Im australian and feel embarresed hitchens is around these idiots... strange isnt it? but the average australian is so dumb to logic.. its always like our politicians oooh welll ummm... yes equality for all... umm i beleive n he is great... ( those answers always set me off in rage ) give a clear answer fuck..
ps. you so want to blow each other.. open up man, fuck, we're in a day and age when these things are cool, go for it, no-ones gonna judge you, be true to yourself
_still_ going..(??!) you're the epitome of wank guy/s.. i mean you're not achieving anything but ostracizing people that might wanna have a bit of discourse around Hitchens and his life/message.. instead its all about you.. is this some meta-statement on the Hitch's ego?
Notice "infinity730" here, a 3 digit jesuit who works for the benefit Rome to help draw people away from the biblical texts by shilling his support for false-science hoax's created at the behest of the Jesuit Order, to reign the papal antichrist one world despotic enslavement of man tyranny well underway per Revelation.
>Having not a clue the so-called "peer review" means nothing. It's an obsolete term. Thrown about in a scientific community of deluded individuals caught up in a whirlwind politicized atmosphere corrupted by private interest funding. To save one's livelihood, rather than speak out, the majority of professors and scientists would sell their grandmother for mammon.
I'm not sure which I find more comical, you or your deluded worldview. Quoting the great Sir Peter Medawar, "... its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others, he has taken great pains to deceive himself."
wethedeluded SAYS, "Quoting the great Sir Peter Medawar, "... its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others, he has taken great pains to deceive himself." "
>Quoting the great Peter Sellers, "There is no me. I do not exist. There used to be a me but I had it surgically removed."
EVERY sentence coming out of Hitchens mouth us pure ownage of everyone else on the panel!!....cant believe only the smart ones die early !! carl sagan, george carlin and now hitchens! :(
@sunlitekid01 My three heroes right there. I just have to give a comment and thumbs up. their deaths wont be in vain if we can get the world to finally recognize the brilliance that's in our wake, and capitalize on the beauty and positivity we're capable of. We cannot let their words be wasted.
You brought us all so much, whether theist or non-theist (or anti-theist), and we are all grateful for the intellect and insight you provided to the world.
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."-Re 22:13
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
22:6-19 The Lord Jesus spake, solemnly confirming the contents of this book, particularly of this last vision. God calls every one to witness to the declarations here made. This book, thus kept open, will have effect upon men; the filthy and unjust will be more so, but it will confirm, strengthen, and further sanctify those who are upright with God.
>I am required to take great pains, as it is my duty, to "reveal" something to you..
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."
@dmmchn "What created god? If all things require a creator"
Clarke's Commentary
I am Alpha and Omega - I am from eternity to eternity. He adds also that he is the Almighty, the all-powerful framer of the universe, and the inspirer of men.
Geneva Study Bible
I am Alpha and Omega - He affirms his immutable eternity and his omnipotence in all things. I am he before whom there was nothing, indeed, by whom everything that is made, was made: and I shall remain though everything else should perish.
dmmchn ASKS, "What created god? If all things require a creator."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I am Alpha and Omega - The object for which this passage referring to the "first and the last - to him who was, and is, and is to come," is introduced here evidently to show that as he was clothed with omnipotence, and would continue to exist through all ages to come as he had existed in all ages past, there could be no doubt about his ability to execute all which it is said he would execute.
dmmchn ASKS, "What created god? If all things require a creator."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I am Alpha and Omega - It means that he is the beginning and the end of all things; that he was at the commencement, and will be at the close; and it is thus equivalent to saying that he has always existed, and that he will always exist.
dmmchn ASKS, "What created god? If all things require a creator."
>An excellent question for the intelligently curious mind. Let's see if we can't reveal the answer to the Youtube community.
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, says the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."-Revelation 1:8
The language here is what would properly denote "eternity" in the being to whom it is applied, and could be used in reference to no one but the true God.
dmmchn ASKS, "Still, you yet again avoid the question entirely. "God is not material" is not an adequate answer. What created god? If all things require a creator."
>What created God? Nothing and No one, for G_d was not created. But this is elementary and common knowledge. I wonder and scratch my head, from the thought, that someone as intelligent as you, would ask such a silly question.
"Mutation-the act or process of changing. Do you know what a... mutation is?"-dmmchn
>Mutations, in order to be the engine of evolution, not only have to be beneficial, but they have to add biological information, i.e. specified complexity. However, practically all beneficial mutations observed have been losses of specified complexity and molecules-to-man evolution requires huge volumes of new, functionally more complex information to arise.
dmmchn SHARES, " "I'm saying DNA is a great working model for Life."-S.B.2nd, ...
Not arguing with you there. Look at how well it evolves into new and exciting species."
>And I'm not arguing that speciation within genus dna barriers doesn't happen. It does. But this is not Darwinism morphology evolution.
And of course are whole argument (debate) stems on the universal fact, that organism "particle to people", a.k.a. goo-to-you evolution is an impossibility and has never occurred.
@dmmchn I put her out in a town that was so small. You could throw a rock from end to end. A dirt road main street, she walked off in bare feet. It's a shame I won't be passin' through again
@dmmchn I gave a girl a ride in the wagon. She crawled in and took control. She was tired as her mind was a-draggin. I said get some sleep - and dream of rock and roll
'Cause like a picture she was laying there. Moonlight dancing off her hair. She woke up and took me by the hand, She's gonna love me in my Chevy van, And that's alright with me
Her young face was like that of an angel. Her long legs were tanned and brown. Better keep your eyes on the road son. Better slow this vehicle down
"Also, magnetism and gravity are both single direction forces."-dmmchn
>A very important and critical observation. Bringing to light, their severe limitations in practical applications as the viable means and ability to carry out all they have been proposed to do.
These alone, one being theoretically bankrupt (gravity) and the other weak (earth's magnetic poles) are incapable of the energy necessary to drive the solar model perpetually.
dmmchn SAYS, "The levitation globe has 2 magnets. Where exactly is this other magnetic force, and where, exactly, does it originate."
>If reading entries steadily in order, you may be experiencing a gradual realization or thoughts that indoctrinated magnetic gravity ideals, don't necessarily stack up, or "compute". I used things such as magnetism and the magnets of the Levitating Globe novelty to ease you into new thought, about the "electric" universe about us.
>The whole scope of modern man’s "knowledge" rests on the acceptance of the Copernican foundation hoax thats been Jesuitically promoted by an increasingly powerful and sacrosanct Theoretical Science Establishment, that's successfully sandbagged real science and real math, turning modern cosmology into little more than a mouthpiece for the evolution fraud and a bulwark against any challenge to heliocentricity.
@dmmchn "AND AGAIN with relation to other celestial bodies."
>All the pseudo-scientific stuff from Kepler & Galileo--and on thru Newton and Einstein and Sagan and the rest of the gang--laid a cosmological foundation based upon a heliocentristic model of the Earth & sun, which foundation violated God’s Word and paved the way for the successful promotion of evolutionism thru Darwinism and now attenuated panspermiaism.
This foundation is built on Jesuit frauds in a grand romish despotic scheme.
@dmmchn "AND AGAIN with relation to other celestial bodies."-dmmchn
>Gravity is an exhausted and bankrupt concept. Electromagnetic forces can repel or attract. Gravity only attracts. The Plasma cosmology of the Electric Universe Model (EUM), is verifiable by experiment because of the enormous scalability of the phenomena.
For centuries unknown, then centuries suppressed, the Electric Universe Model portends a knowledge revolution about the size and nature of the universe whose time has come.
>Indubitably. It is further than geostationary orbit, (I assume you believe this,...)-dmmchn
>Assuredly
"If gravity "drops off" at this point, how then does the sun manage to orbit the earth (remember, orbiting is a function of gravity)"-dmmchn
>The orbit of the orb called sun a "function of gravity"? No. Are you suggesting that the orbiting of celestial bodies is a result of so-called "gravity"? Don't be ridiculous!
@dmmchn "Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations..."-dmmchn
>Coincidence? I can show you the calculations if you like, they're pretty simple.
On Oct. 24, 1601, Tycho Brahe finally succumbed to the poison: "And so, on the twelfth day from this, which was October 24, when he had lived 54 years, 9 months, and 29 days, the illustrious and most noble Lord Tycho Brahe, a singular gift of nature and an ornament to literature, was taken away."(Heavenly Intrigue, p. 201).
@dmmchn "Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations..."-dmmchn
>On Oct. 13, 1601, Brahe attended a banquet with some friends:
"While there, the illness that would take his life came on with alarming rapidity. For the next ten days he would writhe in agony, on the last night feverishly repeating the refrain, "May I not have appeared to have lived in vain!" On the morning of the eleventh day, the most famous astronomer in all Europe drew his last breath" (Heavenly Intrigue, p. 198).
@dmmchn "Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations),..."-dmmchn
>Two men were used by the Jesuits to destroy the life and work of the great Dane Tycho Brahe. Their names were Nicholas Reimers Ursus and Johannes Kepler.
This sinister Jesuit and Unholy Roman empire court mathematician from 1601 to 1612, managed to become the assistant of the great scientist and astronomer Tycho Brahe.
Brahe is poisoned at a banquet by Johannes Kepler. 2 days later, Kepler replaces him as court mathematician.
@dmmchn "Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations),..."-dmmchn
>In 1588, the Jesuits moved to shut down Brahe's observatory. His patron, King Frederick II, died at the young age of 54 (poisoned of course) and he was replaced by a regency.
When Frederick's son, Jesuit puppet "Christian" IV, became king in 1596, the Inquisition really came after Tyco Brahe. He left Denmark for good with his wife and family never to return.
Ursus and Johannes Kepler destroyed the life and work of Tycho Brahe.
dmmchn SAYS, "incidentally, the Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations),..."
>Incidentally, a self "educated" son of a swineherd named Nicholas Reimers Ursus visited Tyhco Brahe's observatory and managed to copy some of his heavenly charts.
This Nicholas Reimers Ursus was appointed court mathematician to the unholy Roman emperor Rudolf II in Prague. The trap was now set to lure Brahe to Prague, murder him, and replace his model with the corrupt Copernican moving earth system.
dmmchn SAYS, "... which NASA use to calculate the..."
>As anti-Christos Vatican Rome has false open public policies for public consumption which cover their true secret inner policies, so to NASA carries out the same premise in propaganda - their open false calculations designed for public consumption, covering true calculations and that which is carefully hidden.
The Jesuit Big Bang Model now controlling Astronomy, Physics and NASA’s evolution-premised "Origins Program". Mind-blowing
dmmchn SAYS, "What you're implying is that "geostationary orbit" is the point where there is no further force. Doesnt make sense."
>"Levitational equilibrium" is not an instance where forces are no longer at work or non-existent. Rather, ELECTRO-plasma-magnetic forces are in perfect equalized balance top & bottom throughout 165,000 miles of invisible “tubing” allowing satellites to be popped into a slot anywhere along this "tube" and hang there in perfect sense essentially motionless.
>In electricity, like charges repel, and in magnetism like poles repel. The magnetic field is a dipole field, meaning every magnet must have two poles. On the other hand, a positive (+) or negative (−) electrical charge can stand alone. Electrical charge, called monopoles, since they can exist without the opposite charge. Plasma in response to electric & magnetic fields forms complex electrical forces w/long-range attraction & short-range repulsion
"What are we balancing this force against. What is this "outer force"?"-dmmchn
>Electromagnetism is infinitely greater than so-called "gravity". And vastly different than the compelling and repelling forces of earths magnetic poles as the electromagnetic forces of plasma cosmology that are at work in our Electric Universe is incredibly exciting and amazing.
The magnetic and electric fields are both similar and different. They are also inter-related.
@dmmchn "The earths magnetic gravity pull gets weaker,.."-Spencer
"Gravity isn't magnetic,..."-dmmchn
>So is gravity caused by a push or a pull or both?
The magnetic attraction of star-crossed lovers is not based on gravity or the negative and positive poles of the magnetic field, and like star-crossed lovers, i was referring to the "magnetic" attraction of things to the earth in a more figurative sense.
dmmchn SAYS, "The problem with your idea of "transition" is that you expect it to have a human face. Doesn't work that way"
>Go ahead and work it "your" way then and describe in imaginative detail what the body of that human thing which first started to develop a human face (with eyes that can't evolve btw) looked like. Remember, "your way". I'm all ears,... er, I mean eyes.
(p.s. "proto-birds that predate mammals"??? FYI, Mammals did not "predate" anything.)
"what the body of that human thing which first started to develop a human face (with eyes that can't evolve btw) looked like"
What on earth do you think you mean? So you think at some point there was a human like animal with no eyes??
Your understanding of evolution is a joke, do you really believe that evolution theory teaches that at some point there were human beings without digestive tracts?
(Regular folks "create" art, i.e., folk-art. Humanoids influenced by the indoctrination's of institutions and the guidance of professors, instructors, directors or anyone above the artist, "produce" subliminal psychological advertisements in the guise of "art". This is first and foremost in the minds of the Institution "Masters" in charge of the "underlings".)
dmmchn ASKS, "Also I have an interesting question.. catholics believe in mary as the perpetual virgin, but the scriptures refer to the siblings of jesus (explained away by catholic interpretation). Your thoughts? Was James the brother of Jesus?"
>The one who wrote the "book" entitled "James" is probably the brother of Jesus--so I have heard. He would have been a pillar of the church in Jerusalem at that time. James, the apostle who was martyred, was not the brother of Jesus.
(Regular folks "create" art, i.e., folk-art. Humanoids influenced by the indoctrination's of institutions and the guidance of professors, instructors, directors or anyone above the artist, "produce" subliminal psychological advertisements in the guise of "art". This is first and foremost in the minds of the Institution "Masters" in charge of the "underlings".)
That phrase is used to describe the way people take their cues from art, from the nonsensical things people do.
(There is no question, in a dual dichotomy fashion, that one feeds the other. This is a given. In Folk-Art, where the "art" has no influence of an "institution" and the direction/manipulation of the artist by a "master" or higher authority, this dichotomy favors the Art imitating Life view. Institution "Art" is "product" influencing Life.)
(Yes it most certainly does. More-so than you realize, comprehend or possibly imagine)
"Not in the absolute sense"
(Life imitates Art ABSOLUTELY. It always has. Like a chameleon adapting to its environment the human psyche can not help but adapt to what he/she SEES. This is the ONLY world where adaptations of the human psyche result in an "evolution" of the mind; our grey matter molded like silly-putty)
@dmmchn I propose that "Life imitates Art" (more-so than vice versa), due to a knowledge that the Creative & Performing Arts world, is an incredible subliminal vehicle that has been used as an ever-powerful Social Engineering Tool -- from Shakespeare to the studios of the jesuit theatre dubbed "Hollywood" and every art in between from architecture to fashion to interior design to literature to broadway.
A vast array of so many styles, styled to style and direct our thoughts and course of Life.
"He assumes that Neanderthals are human, when, genetically, they are not."-dmmchn
>They were. In conclusion, given the fact "neanderthal" folks lived more than 3000 yrs ago the differences simply represent normal Human genetic drift over the last 3000+ yrs. The mtDNA data of these old bones is consistent with them being totally human. The evolutionists conclusion indicating they were not is based on their deluded evolutionary presuppositions rather than objective analysis of the data.
@SpencerBenedict2nd "The mtDNA data of these old bones is consistent with them being totally human."
OK, cool! So I'm glad that you've admitted that neanderthals and humans are related. Now, there's only a difference of 1400 odd pairs between humans and chimps, at a difference range of only 50-55 - only double that between humans and neanderthals.
So, although chimps aren't fully human like neanderthals, the relatively small difference between them indicates that we are certainly from the same lineage!
>Yes they were. The jesuitical mislabeled "neanderthal" (humans 4000-5000 years ago) simply represent an extinct human mtDNA line. Our historical record indicates pre-Flood folks lived 900+years and the first few post Flood generations still lived 200-400 yrs. The so-called "neanderthal" were folks who lived in the 300-400 year range and as we age our DNA accumulates more mutations, so the differences are a mere result of extreme old age
>Yes they were. The living humans and "neanderthal" do over lap meaning that both are humans. There are living humans with more mtDNA differences than some "neanderthal". You can't say one is human and one is not just because one is living and one is not.
The comparison was made between living humans and "neanderthal" humans who died thousands of years ago. Living humans can not represent the full range of ancient human mtDNA lines.
dmmchn SAYS "assumes that Neanderthals are human when genetically they are not"
>This claim is based on the degree of differences in so-called "Neanderthal" and living human mtDNA. The bases for the claim is a comparison with Neanderthal mtNA positions 16,024 to 16,383 which is just 360 nucleotides. 25 of these differences are in 225 positions that also vary among living humans.
While true these results are outside the range of living humans that doesn't mean they weren't human.
@SpencerBenedict2nd So, like I said, when allowing such a broad range of differences to enter into "human" territory, we can absolutely see that chimpanzees are at least our cousins.
You can't really have it both ways with this argument - the more human neanderthals are by way of "loose" interpretation, the more human chimpanzees are.
dmmchn SAYS, "He assumes that Neanderthals are human, when, genetically, they are not."
>Catch up. In 2006, news was released that scientists had found Neanderthal DNA to be as much as 99.9% identical to modern humans. It is recognized by the mainstream scientific community that any two humans on earth have genes that are 99.9% identical to each other. Such recognition of modern genetic divergence also serves to acknowledge so-called "Neanderthals" as fully human genetically.
dmmchn SAYS, "No. The possible becomes possible. Again, confusion. If it wasn't possible it wouldn't have happened, see?"
>You have quite a peculiar imagination. Popular imaginings no doubt, but peculiar none the less.
What i "see", is that you (multitudes) have been deceived by jesuit sponsored corruption's of science; creating clever hoax's via false-science fabrications; all supported by a controlled media "programming" system; results in society living in a land of delusion.
@SpencerBenedict2nd All I see is someone desperately clinging to a fictional worldview wherein ones struggle for eternal life is constantly pushed down in some sort of conspiracy theory.
This would be an example of you being backed into a corner and invoking the Jesuits, or the idea that everything is fiction (OMG WE ARE IN THE MATRIX.. are you neo? hahaha).
@dmmchn Numbers 13:32-33 32And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
33And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight
"and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes."
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
There we saw the giants - נפלים nephilim. It is evident that they had seen a robust, sturdy, warlike race of men, and of great stature; for the asserted fact is not denied by Joshua or Caleb.
Goliath appears to have been at least nine feet high: this was very extraordinary.
dmmchn SAYS, "...youre getting mixed up! Which is it? A) human B) Nephilim?"
>You appear to be "mixed up" with a misunderstanding that nephilim were somehow not human. The nephilim were nothing but human. They were as much human as evolutionists are human,... (no offense to the nephilim). I am suggesting that because, the sons of Anak, documented in Bible record as giants, and/or/also "Nephilim", could in fact be the discovered remains of big human skeletons, mislabeled "neanderthal".
dmmchn SAYS, Wait, so they're no longer Methuselah and people from the antideluvian era? I want your final answer, lets lock it in.
> 1. All humans from the first man Adam, through and up to Noah's grandfather Methuselah, living during the antediluvian age (4004 B.C. to 2348 B.C. Deluge), were all bigger, taller and more intelligent than modern man.
2. The concept of "Neanderthal" or any human ancestor sold as the jesuit 'pre'-historic caveman" idea is nothing but fabricated fiction
@SpencerBenedict2nd "were all bigger, taller and more intelligent than modern man."
Well, that rules out Neanderthals as being the bones of those ancestors, as their average height, as found, was 5' 5". Also, their brain pan shape and volume would suggest at best similar intelligence.
Many were not only robust or bulkier but also tall, like Samson and Andre, but not like Jolly Green or Fe Fi Fo Fum.
I also heard through the grapevine, that Moses was a rather tall man of stature compared to the Eloi humanoids we're beginning to see on every street corner throughout the world today.
dmmchn SAYS, "..provide me ONE example of a creature that exists today that has been found in the fossil record. Let's say, in the Permian era"
>It's quite silly to ask for something that supports a fiction. Science has relegated your so-called "Permian-era" to that of myth and wild imaginings. Haven't you heard? The Hydrologic Sorting Column, a result of the historic 2348 BC deluge event, formed in the matter of weeks to months, trapping all in that "record" at the same time, dim-wit.
It doesn't support a fiction, it supports the facts of your world view.
If the creatures alive today were alive at the point of creation, and all of the OTHER creatures in the world were alive at the point of creation, there should be at least ONE example of their coexistence.
But, sorry, I used terminology that allowed you to get out of it.
Show me evidence that they were all trapped at the same time.
- show me a modern mammal, like a giraffe, or even a modern bird like a peacock, fossilised near what "science" considers an "early" animal, like a trilobite. Should be easy for you, if the evidence for the deluge is so compelling.
dmmchn SAYS, "I said - there should be evidence of todays animals in the fossil record. Is there?"
>How could "todays animals" ever become part of a fossil record when the criteria necessary for them to become fossils has not happened in 4359 years?
In order for a animal to become fossilized or a part of any fossil record, it has to be trapped by rapid burial and preserved from decay caused by the elements and oxidation.
The Flood event provided these necessary and unique conditions
@SpencerBenedict2nd "How could "todays animals" ever become part of a fossil record when the criteria necessary for them to become fossils has not happened in 4359 years?"
Obviously not ever single elephant in existence managed to get onto the ark. Obviously you are avoiding the question.
"Modern animals" = animals who are not extinct today.
In the deluge, since they existed, would not a large number of them been fossilised? Where are they?
@SpencerBenedict2nd "were both global elitists whose minds and ideas are used as "new world order" blueprints"
>INCORRECT
HG Wells was a ninja assassin who discovered the secret of immortality some time in the 15th century. He unfortunately, and quite literally, "fell on his own sword", which is the story no one will tell you, but at least we got some nice books.
No doubt we're in some way related to mammals, since we are mammals. And since mammals evolved from birds, probably whichever mammal we evolved from had a common ancestor with some kind of bird, or proto bird.
In evolution theory, do you think a chimpanzee and a human came from the same earlier point?
@SpencerBenedict2nd Regardless of whether or not that is true, he still used Brahes work to prove heliocentricity. Brahe himself knew that it did and he begged Kepler not to pursue it. Brahe was an excellent astronomer, if you are so certain it is a lie I am sure you could get his notes and, if it is so obvious, prove it.
@SpencerBenedict2nd Four corners. Square. Like I said, you would definitely have believed Fergusons model 100 years ago, probably up until the point they explored antarctica in which case you would have said, no, they just went around the rim, and you cant prove otherwise.
"geocentric" implies everything rotates around the earth, being that it is the centre of the universe.Nowhere in the bible does it claim exceptions to this rule - mars can't do it, biblically.
@SpencerBenedict2nd All experiments done to prove time is affected by velocity rely on physical properties - for example, decay rates, as in nuclear clocks. By increasing the clocks velocity in a direction, they have proved it slows down. I've read other experiments too but in all cases they're looking at (IMO) a physical effect not on time. Although to be honest, the overall effect is the same, I could be splitting conceptual hairs.
@SpencerBenedict2nd I too would love to see a reasonable argument for a young earth that doesn't at some point start dribbling incoherently about the evolutionist geologist agenda and how truth is suppressed and how there has to be a 6000 year old earth created by a loving creator. I've never seen one that does not mention "a creator".
So really, you shouldn't really be that surprised considering the basic counter argument to "old earth" is "god did it, the end".
@SpencerBenedict2nd Also, with respect to the moon - you can trace the moons path over the night sky. In that respect, the "phase" or face of the moon remains (visually) constant throughout that time. (obviously this being the reflected light of the sun)
If the sun were moving (especially at the velocity required to orbit the earth in 24 hours), you would be able to watch the phase of the moon change in one night.
@SpencerBenedict2nd Yes, and that is because the earth is also rotating at a rate about 3 times that of the speed of the moon.
If you were to plot the positions and times that you saw the moon at particular times of night, you would see a very obvious pattern around a 28 day cycle.
Heck, people 10,000 years ago noticed.(ancient moon calculator) Why is it called a "month".. its related to the moon.
@SpencerBenedict2nd That's absolutely untrue, there is lots of evidence for these planets having an iron core. But of course since it doesnt fit with your beliefs you will ignore 100% of that evidence :)
@SpencerBenedict2nd Well, the other 8 dimensions of the universe aren't material either.
If something immaterial can self create, the parts of the universe that are not material could create themselves, by your own argument.
Space does not contain nothing.
God could create things, yes, I'm not saying god couldn't. But god would also need a creator - god is much more complex than the material universe, much, much more.
@SpencerBenedict2nd Well, unless you can tell me exactly what you think the theory professes and can define what you consider evidence, you are right.
Please provide evidence of a catamaran.
See how vague that is? I can say "that isn't what I'm looking for" again and again.
I've provided plenty of cases and in every single one you find some linguistic or other loophole that excuses it. So.. like I said, the ball is in your court to define the terms.
@SpencerBenedict2nd God could easily kill the devil and chooses not to, so I would think you should perhaps be a bit more respectful. There must be a reason god allows such evil, right?
The more you say things like that the more I think of you as a 2 year old who wants candy, but in your case candy is "eternal, satisfying life". It cheapens this whole thing, really.
@SpencerBenedict2nd Again, I'm quite confused as to what evolution theory you think we're referring to. It's not impossible. When two animals with different genetic code breed, the offspring also has unique genetic code.
That part is fact, right? Everything else pretty much follows from there.
I mean a lot of what you have said, ie, the belief that there were "human waddlers" is not in any way congruent with evolution theory. So, again, please clarify.
dmmchn SAYS, "When two animals with different genetic code breed, the offspring also has unique genetic code. That part is fact, right? Everything else pretty much follows from there."
>Just saying "Everything else pretty much follows from there.", is east to say, but it doesn't mean anything, because the "everything else", doesn't follow.
"... "human waddlers" is not in any way congruent with evolution theory."-dmmchn
Your lacking the liquid intelligence required to see that it is.
dmmchn SAYS, "But anyway, that point is typically irrelevant to this argument."
>Interesting that you would consider a known and confirmed deception in the Evolution Hoax, "irrelevant". This is very telling as to your frame of mind and provides insight into your denial and shines light, on it.
"Now, let us continue with that particular point in mind, shall we?"
@SpencerBenedict2nd OK, sure. I forget that you prefer to refer to 200 years ago rather than now, my bad.
Anyway, as I said, in this century that doesn't happen, we have actual real neanderthal remains and, for the most part, all of the aboriginal skulls have been returned to their rightful homes. They don't remain on display as "neanderthal" skulls, and there are plenty of aboriginal lobby groups who retrieve ones on display as what they are.
@dmmchn Nice to see your doing some fact checking about the "aborigine/neanderthal" deceptions. (am aware of retrieval lobby groups)
dmmchn SAYS, "I forget that you prefer to refer to 200 years ago rather than now, my bad."
>If you are compelled to discount history and not consider it as relative or important, have at it. A great way to remain and live in ignorance for sure, but it's not my 'cup-of-tea'.
A blind dmmchn SAYS, "... for the most part, all of the aboriginal skulls have been returned to their rightful homes."
ALSO, "They don't remain on display as "neanderthal" skulls,"-dmmchn
AND THIS, "... and there are plenty of aboriginal lobby groups who retrieve ones on display as what they are."
>So get this, while dmmchn's able to see and confirm this piece of the jesuit Evolution Deception, he remains unable and adamant about not seeing the bigger picture of the hoax. Incredible.
Every single time you mention jesuits. You do it as a way to have a valid argument without having to have a valid argument. - For example - "Don't play coy and be jesuitical."
Wasn't even arguing with me :D
If you aren't backed into a corner, well, by all means I would like you to completely stop referring to them.
"I would like you to completely stop referring to them (*Jesuit Order).-dmmchn
(*added)
>You could not have made a more ignorant and asinine (extremely foolish) request. Your asking that i remove the ORIGIN and CRUX of the reason this universal debate exists in the first place. If it were not for the jesuits and the existence of the Jesuit Order, you and I (and millions of others) would not even be having this discourse, dim-wit. Evolution is their 'baby'.
@SpencerBenedict2nd Well, if that's the case, you have just admitted a complete and total loss.
You admit that the entire lynchpin of your argument is a strawman, something that no one can refute, as its shady and secretive.
So, I graciously accept victory. If you would like to continue to argue using actual evidence, I will gladly continue. Unless you'd like me to make up my own strawman? I like the reptilian agenda, I'm happy to go that way too. Your choice.
Anyway, population reduction wouldn't exactly be a bad thing. Consider your point on "food production". That nutritional sapping is about making food profitable.
Does the earth contain the resources to feed 7 billion humans a "nutritionally sound" diet? Nope. So, one or the other.
dmmchn SAYS, "Anyway, population reduction wouldn't exactly be a bad thing."
>Incredible. I was just beginning to warm to you know this? With thoughts such as this, and attitude to back it, i could quickly develop a great disdain.
It is a universal truth that society has been systematically socially conditioned (i.e., brainwashed via media "programming" indoctrination) to believe that human populations are a cancer to earth. This simply isn't true.
@SpencerBenedict2nd Calm down there, Nancy. Refer to your bible, Matthew 7:1.
Did I any point say humanity needed to be killed? No.
I think its immoral for two people, who cannot afford to feed themselves, who have a low standard of living themselves, to bring another life into the world, to share in their suffering. That's all.
Do you understand the economic disparity in this world? Obviously not. That's the ONLY thing I'm referring to.
@SpencerBenedict2nd And also, it's really insulting that you try to make this personal -
"I was just starting to like you and then you said something I didn't like".
You don't like anything I say. Try to be objective, please? I'm endlessly patient and I do try to understand your point of view without jumping to conclusions. Please at least attempt to extend me the same courtesy.
dmmchn SAYS, "Anyway, population reduction wouldn't exactly be a bad thing."
>Incredible. I was just beginning to warm to you know this? With thoughts such as this, and attitude to back it, i could quickly develop a great disdain.
It is a universal truth that society has been systematically socially conditioned (i.e., brainwashed via media "programming" indoctrination) to believe that human populations are a cancer to earth. This simply isn't true.
dmmchn SAYS, "Anyway, population reduction wouldn't exactly be a bad thing."
>Incredible. I was just beginning to warm to you know this? With thoughts such as this, and attitude to back it, i could quickly develop a great disdain.
It is a universal truth that society has been systematically socially conditioned (i.e., brainwashed via media "programming" indoctrination) to believe that human populations are a cancer to earth. This simply isn't true.
dmmchn VOMITS, "Consider your point on "food production". That nutritional sapping is about making food profitable."
>Are you whacked Mr. Malthus? You, bloke, are an exceptional example of new world order product. "Nutritional sapping" is about making food profitable? And is there for good for us?
First off, i am unable to fathom how on earth, destroying nutritional content could make things profitable for anyone except Big Pharma and the medical industry.
@SpencerBenedict2nd Excuse me? So, I agree with your pont of view, but in the wrong way and that somehow makes me "Whacked"?
"how on earth, destroying nutritional content could make things profitable"
Simple. Making plants grow faster and more cheaply means they have less nutritional contect. Compare the protein content of commercial corn to "heirloom" corn.
It's not intentional or malicious, they just want more product to make more money.
To the first point made by Hitchens, I think it's a little simpler than that. In the context of a village that received no casualties the word "blessed" and the word "lucky" are interchangeable.
standinstann 1 day ago
I love how grumpy Hitchens always looks at these things XD you can almost see him thinking "I can't believe I've agreed to subject my self to these cretinous protozoans again..."
hmspinaforethisisspa 4 days ago 2
I dont know how a computer processer works so god makes it work!
Todda468 6 days ago
Im glad he wasn't smoking because its more than likely his "water" is pure alcohol.
Todda468 6 days ago
what is she doin with that feckin glass
dvrn86 1 week ago
I get happy and sad simultaneously while I watch Hitchens in his full health. Sad because it makes me realise what a strong man he was, and that now he is gone. Happy because he was such a strong man, before he was gone.
MojoRisinist 1 week ago 2
Is the cameraman eating icecream or something from a glass bowl or something towards the end of the video?
osheae22 1 week ago
RIP Hitchens. WE MISS YOU!
Domzdream 1 week ago
God beyond description? Natural disasters just....happen? How convenient. I gather your God hasn't the power to step in and stop these 'natural disasters', or is maniacal enough to permit them even though he KNEW it was going to happen, he knew the result and he knew the implication. How cheap and distasteful. Your God is either a coward, impotent, a homicidal maniac, or all three.
Godtardism 1 week ago
OMG!!, I just found out Hitchens died a month ago, how could I've miss that, I'm shocked!!, I want to think it was all over the news??.(I don't watch TV, but I'm on the web everyday)
giorgiomx 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from nonameisacat
@giorgiomx Don't worry, Hitchens is in Heaven now with his maker. ha ha
TheLaw055 1 week ago
even though i love christopher hitchens and he is one of my favorite debaters of all time...i feel bad for those who argue against him because he shits on their beliefs so hard hahaha
DP719 2 weeks ago
I love when it first pans to Christopher and he's kind of up one on shoulder shrugging away from the first guy and glairing out the corner of his eyes.He looks like a cat about to drop and tear someone apart and I think I know who the mouse is.
Digg175 3 weeks ago
lived in Aus for like 14years and didnt know that Q&A was screened on the ABC hahaha GOOOOOOOOOO HITCHENS!!!!!!
shave23 3 weeks ago
hitchens seriously look pissed the entire time...
gabebuchanan 3 weeks ago
@gabebuchanan He always does
GoddyofWar 1 week ago
He tore shreds off anyone who dared to question him!
RiseOfThePro 4 weeks ago
I'm an Aussie, and both Hitchens and Dawkins featuring on this program showed be how provincial and redneck my country has become, even to the level of political office. "shithouse" as we say here.
breaneainn 4 weeks ago 32
@breaneainn Well, when you get depressed and look around and see idiots running your country, just remember:
At least you aren't in the US!
:)
cyberslick18 3 weeks ago
@cyberslick18 That is one reason to smile. You should check out 'The Athiest Experience' vids here. These guys run out of Austin Texas on public access t.v. . The only miracle I've ever witnessed is their patience with the crazy callers to the show. Entertaining as hell, Matt Dilahunty is a genius.
breaneainn 2 weeks ago
@breaneainn
Chillax man. I have encountered that same feeling for decades when it comes to Irish audiences - only to discover its a form of anxious self reflection. Like the nervous parent - they are an extension of yourself.
As for this vid - Dude! - there are religious heads in the audience who can form full sentences - clearly way ahead of the curve internationally. You should be very proud that Australia's ignorant class are at least .. well spoken.
Cept for that first guy tho ya!
pjt1 2 weeks ago
@pjt1 LOL! thanks man. "..ignorant class are at least .. well spoken.." True, and funny as hell. Catholicism is way more diluted out here, most people think lent is found in your bellybutton.
breaneainn 2 weeks ago
@breaneainn well im happy we are know where as fucked up as the USA (by religion)
joshuahardy95 2 weeks ago
@joshuahardy95 Australia is far more suspicious of politicians when they claim religious convictions. We don't care that much, we just want the right person in the job otherwise the media hassles them until they quit or get voted out. Small population remember, no time for bullshit.
breaneainn 2 weeks ago 3
@breaneainn A friend directed me to the Dawkins episode. He made utter fools of politicians Fielding, Burke & Bishop, the latter two letting their emotions get the better of them. After ~15 mins, the discussion grew heated. Tony Jones pathetically (or mercifully?) stopped the fight, & IIRC, switched the discussion to the state of Aus mental healthcare. Dawkins sat silent for the rest of the show, probably thinking, 'WTF am I doing here? Can I be excused?' Complete waste of time.
Haroog 1 week ago
@Haroog Yeah, saw that one. I've seen everything on Dawkins, but that was the only time I've ever seen him angry. I felt a bit embarrassed. You should see the one where he is in Adelaide South Australia, as redneck as it gets, but the crowd were awesome.
breaneainn 1 week ago
@breaneainn Yes but the point should be made that when Richard Dawkins inquired about whether Family First Senator (at the time) Stephen Fielding was a Young Earth Creationist, Stephen was so terrified of the humiliation of having to admit it that he desperately evaded the question for his own sake. The crowd laughed in response. This showed this in Australia we don't tolerate fundamentalists in the mainstream. They are laughed at. Far cry from the USA.
marsglorious 9 hours ago
Hitchens is NOT THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL to religious questions and answers, people. Think for yourselves.
NtoxicatedForum 4 weeks ago
@NtoxicatedForum True. Hitchens is political, Dawkins is scientific and Harris is social. A free thinker would agree and disagree on many points with all of them.
breaneainn 2 weeks ago
Please! Someone could stop that human in red clothes from hiting her ring on the glass!!!! Is so anoying!
oandarilhocinzento 1 month ago
I have to say, the Islamic guy is very well spoken. He's a good spokesman for them , probably the only one though.
Antifaith29 1 month ago 2
I just skip to the parts with Hitch.
iamajibber 1 month ago
What that old chick said was great, but she kept tapping that damn glass...
crazyrahul97 1 month ago
Catholic Intellectual, oh the irony!
turbosvenska 1 month ago 116
@turbosvenska I think you mean "oxymoron".
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 Yes but, that's less poetic ;o
turbosvenska 1 month ago
@turbosvenska You sir, just got a thumbs up.
FascistRabbit89 3 weeks ago
@turbosvenska beat me to it. lol
sjewitt22 3 weeks ago
@turbosvenska oxymoron :D
tuck295q 1 week ago
@turbosvenska Tipical "femenazi" & "politically correct" comment.
TheLaw055 1 week ago
@TheLaw055 Meow
turbosvenska 1 week ago
he will be missed...
Adsmunk 1 month ago
one of the Hitch's finest TV appearances :)
ohfasure 1 month ago
Youll be missed !
shanelebrocq 1 month ago
Im australian and feel embarresed hitchens is around these idiots... strange isnt it? but the average australian is so dumb to logic.. its always like our politicians oooh welll ummm... yes equality for all... umm i beleive n he is great... ( those answers always set me off in rage ) give a clear answer fuck..
mrzazzaable 1 month ago
Comment removed
hlb101 1 month ago
ps. you so want to blow each other.. open up man, fuck, we're in a day and age when these things are cool, go for it, no-ones gonna judge you, be true to yourself
justjaseyeah 1 month ago
_still_ going..(??!) you're the epitome of wank guy/s.. i mean you're not achieving anything but ostracizing people that might wanna have a bit of discourse around Hitchens and his life/message.. instead its all about you.. is this some meta-statement on the Hitch's ego?
justjaseyeah 1 month ago
Notice "infinity730" here, a 3 digit jesuit who works for the benefit Rome to help draw people away from the biblical texts by shilling his support for false-science hoax's created at the behest of the Jesuit Order, to reign the papal antichrist one world despotic enslavement of man tyranny well underway per Revelation.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
Notice Spencer here gets all his info copy/pasted from creation(dot)com and not an actual accreted website or peer reviewed paper.
infinity730 1 month ago
@infinity730
infinity730jesuit SAYS, "... peer reviewed..."
>Having not a clue the so-called "peer review" means nothing. It's an obsolete term. Thrown about in a scientific community of deluded individuals caught up in a whirlwind politicized atmosphere corrupted by private interest funding. To save one's livelihood, rather than speak out, the majority of professors and scientists would sell their grandmother for mammon.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
The world is not as bright after Hitchens died. RIP.
symplythebest 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
I'm not sure which I find more comical, you or your deluded worldview. Quoting the great Sir Peter Medawar, "... its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others, he has taken great pains to deceive himself."
Good day.
wetheatheists 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wetheatheists
wethedeluded SAYS, "Quoting the great Sir Peter Medawar, "... its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others, he has taken great pains to deceive himself." "
>Quoting the great Peter Sellers, "There is no me. I do not exist. There used to be a me but I had it surgically removed."
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
EVERY sentence coming out of Hitchens mouth us pure ownage of everyone else on the panel!!....cant believe only the smart ones die early !! carl sagan, george carlin and now hitchens! :(
sunlitekid01 1 month ago 35
@sunlitekid01 I wouldn't say 71 is early. Hell, I wouldn't say 62 is early but I'd rather he were still alive.
Maddolis 1 month ago
@sunlitekid01
Not a difficult task for a fervent Q&A panel.
Samsgarden 4 weeks ago
@sunlitekid01 You forgot Bill Hicks in your list of gone but not forgotten's ;)
DAZCreativeContests 3 weeks ago
@sunlitekid01 My three heroes right there. I just have to give a comment and thumbs up. their deaths wont be in vain if we can get the world to finally recognize the brilliance that's in our wake, and capitalize on the beauty and positivity we're capable of. We cannot let their words be wasted.
StOnion 3 weeks ago
R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens
You brought us all so much, whether theist or non-theist (or anti-theist), and we are all grateful for the intellect and insight you provided to the world.
TwiztedTBone 1 month ago
@dmmchn "you mad bro"? go fuck yourself you mediocre shit :)
justjaseyeah 1 month ago
@justjaseyeah I'm genuinely surprised you know a word with more than 5 letters. Good for you!
dmmchn 1 month ago
Ffs, Anne, stop tapping the glass with your rings..
ruinawish 1 month ago
Helping people .. the most overrated rubbish in the world...
OOhhhYeahh100 1 month ago
@dmmchn
King James Bible
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."-Re 22:13
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
22:6-19 The Lord Jesus spake, solemnly confirming the contents of this book, particularly of this last vision. God calls every one to witness to the declarations here made. This book, thus kept open, will have effect upon men; the filthy and unjust will be more so, but it will confirm, strengthen, and further sanctify those who are upright with God.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
>I am required to take great pains, as it is my duty, to "reveal" something to you..
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."
-Revelation 22:13-15
"Still, you yet again avoid... entirely."-d
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
Comment removed
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "What created god? If all things require a creator"
Clarke's Commentary
I am Alpha and Omega - I am from eternity to eternity. He adds also that he is the Almighty, the all-powerful framer of the universe, and the inspirer of men.
Geneva Study Bible
I am Alpha and Omega - He affirms his immutable eternity and his omnipotence in all things. I am he before whom there was nothing, indeed, by whom everything that is made, was made: and I shall remain though everything else should perish.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn ASKS, "What created god? If all things require a creator."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I am Alpha and Omega - The object for which this passage referring to the "first and the last - to him who was, and is, and is to come," is introduced here evidently to show that as he was clothed with omnipotence, and would continue to exist through all ages to come as he had existed in all ages past, there could be no doubt about his ability to execute all which it is said he would execute.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn ASKS, "What created god? If all things require a creator."
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I am Alpha and Omega - It means that he is the beginning and the end of all things; that he was at the commencement, and will be at the close; and it is thus equivalent to saying that he has always existed, and that he will always exist.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn ASKS, "What created god? If all things require a creator."
>An excellent question for the intelligently curious mind. Let's see if we can't reveal the answer to the Youtube community.
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, says the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."-Revelation 1:8
The language here is what would properly denote "eternity" in the being to whom it is applied, and could be used in reference to no one but the true God.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn ASKS, "Still, you yet again avoid the question entirely. "God is not material" is not an adequate answer. What created god? If all things require a creator."
>What created God? Nothing and No one, for G_d was not created. But this is elementary and common knowledge. I wonder and scratch my head, from the thought, that someone as intelligent as you, would ask such a silly question.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
"Mutation-the act or process of changing. Do you know what a... mutation is?"-dmmchn
>Mutations, in order to be the engine of evolution, not only have to be beneficial, but they have to add biological information, i.e. specified complexity. However, practically all beneficial mutations observed have been losses of specified complexity and molecules-to-man evolution requires huge volumes of new, functionally more complex information to arise.
Read the jesuit wikipedia? Very funny.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "... a mechanism of evolution."-dmmchn
>The egg a "mechanism" for the jesuit theoretical evolution fraud, eh? And how is that exactly, pray-tell? Please. Thrill us with your acumen.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SHARES, " "I'm saying DNA is a great working model for Life."-S.B.2nd, ...
Not arguing with you there. Look at how well it evolves into new and exciting species."
>And I'm not arguing that speciation within genus dna barriers doesn't happen. It does. But this is not Darwinism morphology evolution.
And of course are whole argument (debate) stems on the universal fact, that organism "particle to people", a.k.a. goo-to-you evolution is an impossibility and has never occurred.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn I put her out in a town that was so small. You could throw a rock from end to end. A dirt road main street, she walked off in bare feet. It's a shame I won't be passin' through again
Cause like a picture she was laying there
Moonlight dancing off her hair
She woke up and took me by the hand
We made love in my Chevy van
And that's alright with me
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn I gave a girl a ride in the wagon. She crawled in and took control. She was tired as her mind was a-draggin. I said get some sleep - and dream of rock and roll
'Cause like a picture she was laying there. Moonlight dancing off her hair. She woke up and took me by the hand, She's gonna love me in my Chevy van, And that's alright with me
Her young face was like that of an angel. Her long legs were tanned and brown. Better keep your eyes on the road son. Better slow this vehicle down
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
"Also, magnetism and gravity are both single direction forces."-dmmchn
>A very important and critical observation. Bringing to light, their severe limitations in practical applications as the viable means and ability to carry out all they have been proposed to do.
These alone, one being theoretically bankrupt (gravity) and the other weak (earth's magnetic poles) are incapable of the energy necessary to drive the solar model perpetually.
There has to be a greater expansive 'Force'
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "The levitation globe has 2 magnets. Where exactly is this other magnetic force, and where, exactly, does it originate."
>If reading entries steadily in order, you may be experiencing a gradual realization or thoughts that indoctrinated magnetic gravity ideals, don't necessarily stack up, or "compute". I used things such as magnetism and the magnets of the Levitating Globe novelty to ease you into new thought, about the "electric" universe about us.
polar shift thought
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "The sun also orbits the earth"-dmmchn
>The whole scope of modern man’s "knowledge" rests on the acceptance of the Copernican foundation hoax thats been Jesuitically promoted by an increasingly powerful and sacrosanct Theoretical Science Establishment, that's successfully sandbagged real science and real math, turning modern cosmology into little more than a mouthpiece for the evolution fraud and a bulwark against any challenge to heliocentricity.
Science-Fiction rules modern cosmology
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "AND AGAIN with relation to other celestial bodies."
>All the pseudo-scientific stuff from Kepler & Galileo--and on thru Newton and Einstein and Sagan and the rest of the gang--laid a cosmological foundation based upon a heliocentristic model of the Earth & sun, which foundation violated God’s Word and paved the way for the successful promotion of evolutionism thru Darwinism and now attenuated panspermiaism.
This foundation is built on Jesuit frauds in a grand romish despotic scheme.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "AND AGAIN with relation to other celestial bodies."-dmmchn
>Gravity is an exhausted and bankrupt concept. Electromagnetic forces can repel or attract. Gravity only attracts. The Plasma cosmology of the Electric Universe Model (EUM), is verifiable by experiment because of the enormous scalability of the phenomena.
For centuries unknown, then centuries suppressed, the Electric Universe Model portends a knowledge revolution about the size and nature of the universe whose time has come.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
"The sun also orbits the earth, right?"-dmmchn
>Indubitably. It is further than geostationary orbit, (I assume you believe this,...)-dmmchn
>Assuredly
"If gravity "drops off" at this point, how then does the sun manage to orbit the earth (remember, orbiting is a function of gravity)"-dmmchn
>The orbit of the orb called sun a "function of gravity"? No. Are you suggesting that the orbiting of celestial bodies is a result of so-called "gravity"? Don't be ridiculous!
The answer: EUM
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations..."-dmmchn
>Coincidence? I can show you the calculations if you like, they're pretty simple.
On Oct. 24, 1601, Tycho Brahe finally succumbed to the poison: "And so, on the twelfth day from this, which was October 24, when he had lived 54 years, 9 months, and 29 days, the illustrious and most noble Lord Tycho Brahe, a singular gift of nature and an ornament to literature, was taken away."(Heavenly Intrigue, p. 201).
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations..."-dmmchn
>On Oct. 13, 1601, Brahe attended a banquet with some friends:
"While there, the illness that would take his life came on with alarming rapidity. For the next ten days he would writhe in agony, on the last night feverishly repeating the refrain, "May I not have appeared to have lived in vain!" On the morning of the eleventh day, the most famous astronomer in all Europe drew his last breath" (Heavenly Intrigue, p. 198).
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations),..."-dmmchn
>Two men were used by the Jesuits to destroy the life and work of the great Dane Tycho Brahe. Their names were Nicholas Reimers Ursus and Johannes Kepler.
This sinister Jesuit and Unholy Roman empire court mathematician from 1601 to 1612, managed to become the assistant of the great scientist and astronomer Tycho Brahe.
Brahe is poisoned at a banquet by Johannes Kepler. 2 days later, Kepler replaces him as court mathematician.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations),..."-dmmchn
>In 1588, the Jesuits moved to shut down Brahe's observatory. His patron, King Frederick II, died at the young age of 54 (poisoned of course) and he was replaced by a regency.
When Frederick's son, Jesuit puppet "Christian" IV, became king in 1596, the Inquisition really came after Tyco Brahe. He left Denmark for good with his wife and family never to return.
Ursus and Johannes Kepler destroyed the life and work of Tycho Brahe.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "incidentally, the Kepler wrote based on Brahes observations),..."
>Incidentally, a self "educated" son of a swineherd named Nicholas Reimers Ursus visited Tyhco Brahe's observatory and managed to copy some of his heavenly charts.
This Nicholas Reimers Ursus was appointed court mathematician to the unholy Roman emperor Rudolf II in Prague. The trap was now set to lure Brahe to Prague, murder him, and replace his model with the corrupt Copernican moving earth system.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "... which NASA use to calculate the..."
>As anti-Christos Vatican Rome has false open public policies for public consumption which cover their true secret inner policies, so to NASA carries out the same premise in propaganda - their open false calculations designed for public consumption, covering true calculations and that which is carefully hidden.
The Jesuit Big Bang Model now controlling Astronomy, Physics and NASA’s evolution-premised "Origins Program". Mind-blowing
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "What you're implying is that "geostationary orbit" is the point where there is no further force. Doesnt make sense."
>"Levitational equilibrium" is not an instance where forces are no longer at work or non-existent. Rather, ELECTRO-plasma-magnetic forces are in perfect equalized balance top & bottom throughout 165,000 miles of invisible “tubing” allowing satellites to be popped into a slot anywhere along this "tube" and hang there in perfect sense essentially motionless.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
"What is this "outer force"?"-dmmchn
>In electricity, like charges repel, and in magnetism like poles repel. The magnetic field is a dipole field, meaning every magnet must have two poles. On the other hand, a positive (+) or negative (−) electrical charge can stand alone. Electrical charge, called monopoles, since they can exist without the opposite charge. Plasma in response to electric & magnetic fields forms complex electrical forces w/long-range attraction & short-range repulsion
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
"What are we balancing this force against. What is this "outer force"?"-dmmchn
>Electromagnetism is infinitely greater than so-called "gravity". And vastly different than the compelling and repelling forces of earths magnetic poles as the electromagnetic forces of plasma cosmology that are at work in our Electric Universe is incredibly exciting and amazing.
The magnetic and electric fields are both similar and different. They are also inter-related.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn "The earths magnetic gravity pull gets weaker,.."-Spencer
"Gravity isn't magnetic,..."-dmmchn
>So is gravity caused by a push or a pull or both?
The magnetic attraction of star-crossed lovers is not based on gravity or the negative and positive poles of the magnetic field, and like star-crossed lovers, i was referring to the "magnetic" attraction of things to the earth in a more figurative sense.
ELECTRO-"magnetism" is where it's at!
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens tribute song watch?v=VbLoJY41l5E
STEPASAUR 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "The problem with your idea of "transition" is that you expect it to have a human face. Doesn't work that way"
>Go ahead and work it "your" way then and describe in imaginative detail what the body of that human thing which first started to develop a human face (with eyes that can't evolve btw) looked like. Remember, "your way". I'm all ears,... er, I mean eyes.
(p.s. "proto-birds that predate mammals"??? FYI, Mammals did not "predate" anything.)
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "Predating" can also mean "dating earlier than":
"what the body of that human thing which first started to develop a human face (with eyes that can't evolve btw) looked like"
What on earth do you think you mean? So you think at some point there was a human like animal with no eyes??
Your understanding of evolution is a joke, do you really believe that evolution theory teaches that at some point there were human beings without digestive tracts?
dmmchn 1 month ago
Why do these UK and Australia based shows have to have a Muslim on panel? What about Hindus etc? I think they are a little less loony.
sameer137 1 month ago
@sameer137
Because a Muslim is much more relevant to the topic at hand.
CanadianPolybius 1 month ago
@dmmchn Thoughts Of dmmchn w/Corrections
Humans created art.
(Regular folks "create" art, i.e., folk-art. Humanoids influenced by the indoctrination's of institutions and the guidance of professors, instructors, directors or anyone above the artist, "produce" subliminal psychological advertisements in the guise of "art". This is first and foremost in the minds of the Institution "Masters" in charge of the "underlings".)
Humans are life.
(Are they?)
Art is propelled by life.
(Think again.)
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd
"Humans are life.
(Are they?)"
Yes, humans are alive. Duh.
"Art is propelled by life.
(Think again.)"
Without living humans there is no art. I'm thinking again and it's still correct.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn ASKS, "Also I have an interesting question.. catholics believe in mary as the perpetual virgin, but the scriptures refer to the siblings of jesus (explained away by catholic interpretation). Your thoughts? Was James the brother of Jesus?"
>The one who wrote the "book" entitled "James" is probably the brother of Jesus--so I have heard. He would have been a pillar of the church in Jerusalem at that time. James, the apostle who was martyred, was not the brother of Jesus.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn Thoughts Of dmmchn w/Corrections
Humans created art.
(Regular folks "create" art, i.e., folk-art. Humanoids influenced by the indoctrination's of institutions and the guidance of professors, instructors, directors or anyone above the artist, "produce" subliminal psychological advertisements in the guise of "art". This is first and foremost in the minds of the Institution "Masters" in charge of the "underlings".)
Humans are life.
(Are they?)
Art is propelled by life.
(Think again.)
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn Thoughts Of dmmchn w/Corrections
That phrase is used to describe the way people take their cues from art, from the nonsensical things people do.
(There is no question, in a dual dichotomy fashion, that one feeds the other. This is a given. In Folk-Art, where the "art" has no influence of an "institution" and the direction/manipulation of the artist by a "master" or higher authority, this dichotomy favors the Art imitating Life view. Institution "Art" is "product" influencing Life.)
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn Thoughts Of dmmchn w/Corrections
"Also, you know what? Life doesn't imitate art"
(Yes it most certainly does. More-so than you realize, comprehend or possibly imagine)
"Not in the absolute sense"
(Life imitates Art ABSOLUTELY. It always has. Like a chameleon adapting to its environment the human psyche can not help but adapt to what he/she SEES. This is the ONLY world where adaptations of the human psyche result in an "evolution" of the mind; our grey matter molded like silly-putty)
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn I propose that "Life imitates Art" (more-so than vice versa), due to a knowledge that the Creative & Performing Arts world, is an incredible subliminal vehicle that has been used as an ever-powerful Social Engineering Tool -- from Shakespeare to the studios of the jesuit theatre dubbed "Hollywood" and every art in between from architecture to fashion to interior design to literature to broadway.
A vast array of so many styles, styled to style and direct our thoughts and course of Life.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
"He assumes that Neanderthals are human, when, genetically, they are not."-dmmchn
>They were. In conclusion, given the fact "neanderthal" folks lived more than 3000 yrs ago the differences simply represent normal Human genetic drift over the last 3000+ yrs. The mtDNA data of these old bones is consistent with them being totally human. The evolutionists conclusion indicating they were not is based on their deluded evolutionary presuppositions rather than objective analysis of the data.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "The mtDNA data of these old bones is consistent with them being totally human."
OK, cool! So I'm glad that you've admitted that neanderthals and humans are related. Now, there's only a difference of 1400 odd pairs between humans and chimps, at a difference range of only 50-55 - only double that between humans and neanderthals.
CONT
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn CONT.
So, although chimps aren't fully human like neanderthals, the relatively small difference between them indicates that we are certainly from the same lineage!
Glad that you're finally coming around.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS "... when genetically they are not"
>Yes they were. The jesuitical mislabeled "neanderthal" (humans 4000-5000 years ago) simply represent an extinct human mtDNA line. Our historical record indicates pre-Flood folks lived 900+years and the first few post Flood generations still lived 200-400 yrs. The so-called "neanderthal" were folks who lived in the 300-400 year range and as we age our DNA accumulates more mutations, so the differences are a mere result of extreme old age
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd I'm so disappointed when you quite things without a source, like creationwiki. That's my job.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS "... when genetically they are not"
>Yes they were. The living humans and "neanderthal" do over lap meaning that both are humans. There are living humans with more mtDNA differences than some "neanderthal". You can't say one is human and one is not just because one is living and one is not.
The comparison was made between living humans and "neanderthal" humans who died thousands of years ago. Living humans can not represent the full range of ancient human mtDNA lines.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS "assumes that Neanderthals are human when genetically they are not"
>This claim is based on the degree of differences in so-called "Neanderthal" and living human mtDNA. The bases for the claim is a comparison with Neanderthal mtNA positions 16,024 to 16,383 which is just 360 nucleotides. 25 of these differences are in 225 positions that also vary among living humans.
While true these results are outside the range of living humans that doesn't mean they weren't human.
CONT
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd So, like I said, when allowing such a broad range of differences to enter into "human" territory, we can absolutely see that chimpanzees are at least our cousins.
You can't really have it both ways with this argument - the more human neanderthals are by way of "loose" interpretation, the more human chimpanzees are.
dmmchn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "He assumes that Neanderthals are human, when, genetically, they are not."
>Catch up. In 2006, news was released that scientists had found Neanderthal DNA to be as much as 99.9% identical to modern humans. It is recognized by the mainstream scientific community that any two humans on earth have genes that are 99.9% identical to each other. Such recognition of modern genetic divergence also serves to acknowledge so-called "Neanderthals" as fully human genetically.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
"The loser has to go on a space walk. Is your faith strong enough for that?"-dmmchn
>My faith is so strong and i am so certain that the Earth is not moving that i would bet your life on it.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd In this particular scenario we would each be betting our own lives.
Any time you like. Maybe we can make it into a publicity stunt. But I bet when push comes to shove you won't walk out the door :P
dmmchn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "No. The possible becomes possible. Again, confusion. If it wasn't possible it wouldn't have happened, see?"
>You have quite a peculiar imagination. Popular imaginings no doubt, but peculiar none the less.
What i "see", is that you (multitudes) have been deceived by jesuit sponsored corruption's of science; creating clever hoax's via false-science fabrications; all supported by a controlled media "programming" system; results in society living in a land of delusion.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd All I see is someone desperately clinging to a fictional worldview wherein ones struggle for eternal life is constantly pushed down in some sort of conspiracy theory.
This would be an example of you being backed into a corner and invoking the Jesuits, or the idea that everything is fiction (OMG WE ARE IN THE MATRIX.. are you neo? hahaha).
dmmchn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn Numbers 13:32-33 32And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
33And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight
"giants" - ( hebrew נפלים ) or nephilim.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn Numbers 13:33
Young's Literal Translation
"and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes."
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
There we saw the giants - נפלים nephilim. It is evident that they had seen a robust, sturdy, warlike race of men, and of great stature; for the asserted fact is not denied by Joshua or Caleb.
Goliath appears to have been at least nine feet high: this was very extraordinary.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "...youre getting mixed up! Which is it? A) human B) Nephilim?"
>You appear to be "mixed up" with a misunderstanding that nephilim were somehow not human. The nephilim were nothing but human. They were as much human as evolutionists are human,... (no offense to the nephilim). I am suggesting that because, the sons of Anak, documented in Bible record as giants, and/or/also "Nephilim", could in fact be the discovered remains of big human skeletons, mislabeled "neanderthal".
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, Wait, so they're no longer Methuselah and people from the antideluvian era? I want your final answer, lets lock it in.
> 1. All humans from the first man Adam, through and up to Noah's grandfather Methuselah, living during the antediluvian age (4004 B.C. to 2348 B.C. Deluge), were all bigger, taller and more intelligent than modern man.
2. The concept of "Neanderthal" or any human ancestor sold as the jesuit 'pre'-historic caveman" idea is nothing but fabricated fiction
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "were all bigger, taller and more intelligent than modern man."
Well, that rules out Neanderthals as being the bones of those ancestors, as their average height, as found, was 5' 5". Also, their brain pan shape and volume would suggest at best similar intelligence.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn
Many were not only robust or bulkier but also tall, like Samson and Andre, but not like Jolly Green or Fe Fi Fo Fum.
I also heard through the grapevine, that Moses was a rather tall man of stature compared to the Eloi humanoids we're beginning to see on every street corner throughout the world today.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd There's never been a tall neanderthal found, I invite you to prove otherwise.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "..provide me ONE example of a creature that exists today that has been found in the fossil record. Let's say, in the Permian era"
>It's quite silly to ask for something that supports a fiction. Science has relegated your so-called "Permian-era" to that of myth and wild imaginings. Haven't you heard? The Hydrologic Sorting Column, a result of the historic 2348 BC deluge event, formed in the matter of weeks to months, trapping all in that "record" at the same time, dim-wit.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Ah, I see you just completely avoid the question.
It doesn't support a fiction, it supports the facts of your world view.
If the creatures alive today were alive at the point of creation, and all of the OTHER creatures in the world were alive at the point of creation, there should be at least ONE example of their coexistence.
But, sorry, I used terminology that allowed you to get out of it.
Show me evidence that they were all trapped at the same time.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd continued.. and by evidence I mean
- show me a modern mammal, like a giraffe, or even a modern bird like a peacock, fossilised near what "science" considers an "early" animal, like a trilobite. Should be easy for you, if the evidence for the deluge is so compelling.
Go ahead, just one example.
dmmchn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "I said - there should be evidence of todays animals in the fossil record. Is there?"
>How could "todays animals" ever become part of a fossil record when the criteria necessary for them to become fossils has not happened in 4359 years?
In order for a animal to become fossilized or a part of any fossil record, it has to be trapped by rapid burial and preserved from decay caused by the elements and oxidation.
The Flood event provided these necessary and unique conditions
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "How could "todays animals" ever become part of a fossil record when the criteria necessary for them to become fossils has not happened in 4359 years?"
Obviously not ever single elephant in existence managed to get onto the ark. Obviously you are avoiding the question.
"Modern animals" = animals who are not extinct today.
In the deluge, since they existed, would not a large number of them been fossilised? Where are they?
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "were both global elitists whose minds and ideas are used as "new world order" blueprints"
>INCORRECT
HG Wells was a ninja assassin who discovered the secret of immortality some time in the 15th century. He unfortunately, and quite literally, "fell on his own sword", which is the story no one will tell you, but at least we got some nice books.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Well, there wouldn't have been humans, obviously.
No doubt we're in some way related to mammals, since we are mammals. And since mammals evolved from birds, probably whichever mammal we evolved from had a common ancestor with some kind of bird, or proto bird.
In evolution theory, do you think a chimpanzee and a human came from the same earlier point?
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Regardless of whether or not that is true, he still used Brahes work to prove heliocentricity. Brahe himself knew that it did and he begged Kepler not to pursue it. Brahe was an excellent astronomer, if you are so certain it is a lie I am sure you could get his notes and, if it is so obvious, prove it.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Four corners. Square. Like I said, you would definitely have believed Fergusons model 100 years ago, probably up until the point they explored antarctica in which case you would have said, no, they just went around the rim, and you cant prove otherwise.
"geocentric" implies everything rotates around the earth, being that it is the centre of the universe.Nowhere in the bible does it claim exceptions to this rule - mars can't do it, biblically.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "I have come to accept your inability to see anything more deeply than superficial."
Pff again, rich coming from you.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd All experiments done to prove time is affected by velocity rely on physical properties - for example, decay rates, as in nuclear clocks. By increasing the clocks velocity in a direction, they have proved it slows down. I've read other experiments too but in all cases they're looking at (IMO) a physical effect not on time. Although to be honest, the overall effect is the same, I could be splitting conceptual hairs.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd I too would love to see a reasonable argument for a young earth that doesn't at some point start dribbling incoherently about the evolutionist geologist agenda and how truth is suppressed and how there has to be a 6000 year old earth created by a loving creator. I've never seen one that does not mention "a creator".
So really, you shouldn't really be that surprised considering the basic counter argument to "old earth" is "god did it, the end".
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd At what point have I said that a billion year old universe is incompatible with the idea of "a" god.
You are debating with the underlying agenda that if you are right, so too your god is right.
I've never said that I am an absolute atheist, I accept the logical impossibility of knowing certainly that there is or is not a god.
It's pretty hard to leave god out though when you continually refer to the bible.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Also, with respect to the moon - you can trace the moons path over the night sky. In that respect, the "phase" or face of the moon remains (visually) constant throughout that time. (obviously this being the reflected light of the sun)
If the sun were moving (especially at the velocity required to orbit the earth in 24 hours), you would be able to watch the phase of the moon change in one night.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Yes, and that is because the earth is also rotating at a rate about 3 times that of the speed of the moon.
If you were to plot the positions and times that you saw the moon at particular times of night, you would see a very obvious pattern around a 28 day cycle.
Heck, people 10,000 years ago noticed.(ancient moon calculator) Why is it called a "month".. its related to the moon.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd That's absolutely untrue, there is lots of evidence for these planets having an iron core. But of course since it doesnt fit with your beliefs you will ignore 100% of that evidence :)
Denial blinkers, that is gold coming from you!!
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Well, the other 8 dimensions of the universe aren't material either.
If something immaterial can self create, the parts of the universe that are not material could create themselves, by your own argument.
Space does not contain nothing.
God could create things, yes, I'm not saying god couldn't. But god would also need a creator - god is much more complex than the material universe, much, much more.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Well, unless you can tell me exactly what you think the theory professes and can define what you consider evidence, you are right.
Please provide evidence of a catamaran.
See how vague that is? I can say "that isn't what I'm looking for" again and again.
I've provided plenty of cases and in every single one you find some linguistic or other loophole that excuses it. So.. like I said, the ball is in your court to define the terms.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd God could easily kill the devil and chooses not to, so I would think you should perhaps be a bit more respectful. There must be a reason god allows such evil, right?
The more you say things like that the more I think of you as a 2 year old who wants candy, but in your case candy is "eternal, satisfying life". It cheapens this whole thing, really.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Again, I'm quite confused as to what evolution theory you think we're referring to. It's not impossible. When two animals with different genetic code breed, the offspring also has unique genetic code.
That part is fact, right? Everything else pretty much follows from there.
I mean a lot of what you have said, ie, the belief that there were "human waddlers" is not in any way congruent with evolution theory. So, again, please clarify.
dmmchn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "When two animals with different genetic code breed, the offspring also has unique genetic code. That part is fact, right? Everything else pretty much follows from there."
>Just saying "Everything else pretty much follows from there.", is east to say, but it doesn't mean anything, because the "everything else", doesn't follow.
"... "human waddlers" is not in any way congruent with evolution theory."-dmmchn
Your lacking the liquid intelligence required to see that it is.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd But anyway, that point is typically irrelevant to this argument.
400 sets of remains from varying sites have been discovered. Now, let us continue with that particular point in mind, shall we?
dmmchn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "But anyway, that point is typically irrelevant to this argument."
>Interesting that you would consider a known and confirmed deception in the Evolution Hoax, "irrelevant". This is very telling as to your frame of mind and provides insight into your denial and shines light, on it.
"Now, let us continue with that particular point in mind, shall we?"
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd OK, sure. I forget that you prefer to refer to 200 years ago rather than now, my bad.
Anyway, as I said, in this century that doesn't happen, we have actual real neanderthal remains and, for the most part, all of the aboriginal skulls have been returned to their rightful homes. They don't remain on display as "neanderthal" skulls, and there are plenty of aboriginal lobby groups who retrieve ones on display as what they are.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn Nice to see your doing some fact checking about the "aborigine/neanderthal" deceptions. (am aware of retrieval lobby groups)
dmmchn SAYS, "I forget that you prefer to refer to 200 years ago rather than now, my bad."
>If you are compelled to discount history and not consider it as relative or important, have at it. A great way to remain and live in ignorance for sure, but it's not my 'cup-of-tea'.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "but it's not my 'cup-of-tea'."
No, your cup of tea tends to be "ignore the present".
"Nice to see your doing some fact checking"
One of us has to. I can't just wheel out the Jesuits every time things get hairy.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn
A blind dmmchn SAYS, "... for the most part, all of the aboriginal skulls have been returned to their rightful homes."
ALSO, "They don't remain on display as "neanderthal" skulls,"-dmmchn
AND THIS, "... and there are plenty of aboriginal lobby groups who retrieve ones on display as what they are."
>So get this, while dmmchn's able to see and confirm this piece of the jesuit Evolution Deception, he remains unable and adamant about not seeing the bigger picture of the hoax. Incredible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "unable and adamant about not seeing the bigger picture of the hoax. "
Do you admit that people have used your gods name to control people in the past? Would you then admit that it follows that your world view is lie?
Sheesh, you do jump to conclusions. I never said "jesuits stole aboriginal heads".
People who wanted to make money on popular science did, obviously. Please prove that Jesuits exclusively stole the remains.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd "Name one instance"
Every single time you mention jesuits. You do it as a way to have a valid argument without having to have a valid argument. - For example - "Don't play coy and be jesuitical."
Wasn't even arguing with me :D
If you aren't backed into a corner, well, by all means I would like you to completely stop referring to them.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn RIDICULOUS REQUESTS by dmmchn
"I would like you to completely stop referring to them (*Jesuit Order).-dmmchn
(*added)
>You could not have made a more ignorant and asinine (extremely foolish) request. Your asking that i remove the ORIGIN and CRUX of the reason this universal debate exists in the first place. If it were not for the jesuits and the existence of the Jesuit Order, you and I (and millions of others) would not even be having this discourse, dim-wit. Evolution is their 'baby'.
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Well, if that's the case, you have just admitted a complete and total loss.
You admit that the entire lynchpin of your argument is a strawman, something that no one can refute, as its shady and secretive.
So, I graciously accept victory. If you would like to continue to argue using actual evidence, I will gladly continue. Unless you'd like me to make up my own strawman? I like the reptilian agenda, I'm happy to go that way too. Your choice.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd I'm not denying that those aren't also valid concerns.
Anyway, population reduction wouldn't exactly be a bad thing. Consider your point on "food production". That nutritional sapping is about making food profitable.
Does the earth contain the resources to feed 7 billion humans a "nutritionally sound" diet? Nope. So, one or the other.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "Anyway, population reduction wouldn't exactly be a bad thing."
>Incredible. I was just beginning to warm to you know this? With thoughts such as this, and attitude to back it, i could quickly develop a great disdain.
It is a universal truth that society has been systematically socially conditioned (i.e., brainwashed via media "programming" indoctrination) to believe that human populations are a cancer to earth. This simply isn't true.
CONTINUED (hold comment)
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Calm down there, Nancy. Refer to your bible, Matthew 7:1.
Did I any point say humanity needed to be killed? No.
I think its immoral for two people, who cannot afford to feed themselves, who have a low standard of living themselves, to bring another life into the world, to share in their suffering. That's all.
Do you understand the economic disparity in this world? Obviously not. That's the ONLY thing I'm referring to.
dmmchn 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd And also, it's really insulting that you try to make this personal -
"I was just starting to like you and then you said something I didn't like".
You don't like anything I say. Try to be objective, please? I'm endlessly patient and I do try to understand your point of view without jumping to conclusions. Please at least attempt to extend me the same courtesy.
dmmchn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "Anyway, population reduction wouldn't exactly be a bad thing."
>Incredible. I was just beginning to warm to you know this? With thoughts such as this, and attitude to back it, i could quickly develop a great disdain.
It is a universal truth that society has been systematically socially conditioned (i.e., brainwashed via media "programming" indoctrination) to believe that human populations are a cancer to earth. This simply isn't true.
CONTINUED (hold comment)
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn SAYS, "Anyway, population reduction wouldn't exactly be a bad thing."
>Incredible. I was just beginning to warm to you know this? With thoughts such as this, and attitude to back it, i could quickly develop a great disdain.
It is a universal truth that society has been systematically socially conditioned (i.e., brainwashed via media "programming" indoctrination) to believe that human populations are a cancer to earth. This simply isn't true.
CONTINUED (hold comment)
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@dmmchn
dmmchn VOMITS, "Consider your point on "food production". That nutritional sapping is about making food profitable."
>Are you whacked Mr. Malthus? You, bloke, are an exceptional example of new world order product. "Nutritional sapping" is about making food profitable? And is there for good for us?
First off, i am unable to fathom how on earth, destroying nutritional content could make things profitable for anyone except Big Pharma and the medical industry.
CONTINUED
SpencerBenedict2nd 1 month ago
@SpencerBenedict2nd Excuse me? So, I agree with your pont of view, but in the wrong way and that somehow makes me "Whacked"?
"how on earth, destroying nutritional content could make things profitable"
Simple. Making plants grow faster and more cheaply means they have less nutritional contect. Compare the protein content of commercial corn to "heirloom" corn.
It's not intentional or malicious, they just want more product to make more money.
dmmchn 1 month ago