"Furthermore even if we assumed the particular theory of evo you believe in is true for the sake of argument, those extrapolations from fossils and DNA would not prove that it was a naturally occuring phenomena or the mechanisms/processes involved."
"The other problem is that even evolutionists admit that similarity does not mean that one organism shares common ancestry with another organism because when a trait in one organism is found in an organism that is not meant to be directly related then the excuse that is made is the trait must have evolved seperately in the organism, ie: because it offered an advantage,Similarity is evidence that two organisms share a common ancestor except when it doesn't, Convergent evo."
"You can make excuses and bring in ad hoc explanations but this shows how plastic and maleable evolution is that it is more of a research program than a theory.
"Billions of years would be evolution in total not the amphibian to reptile evolution specifically"
"That's the problem of joining a conversation late, That is his argument that it took billions of years, I never get every evolutionist arguing the same thing on every video, I am pointing out his argument to him."
"Punctuated equillibrium was brought in to explain away the lack of evolutionary change in the fossil record, If evolution can be used to explain change and no change then the fossil record cannot be used as evidence because it explains both occurences, You have organisms that are not said to have evolved for millions of years, no evolution in organisms for millions of years cannot be evidence for a theory cont:"
His abiogenesis faith that a living organism arose from non living matter in a natural enviroment with no intelligent intervention is not well supported either, he demands Proof and yet he cannot prove this happened at all,Yet he claims it as fact, he also posted a quote from a skeptic site saying that all facts are open to challenge and there are no sacred cows, Yet he seems to think that what he claims to be facts are exceptions to this rule. He does not practise what he preaches.
Paraphrasing and quote mining now eh? That doesn't support your concluding assertion at all. Neither does it provide any evidence for any sort of designer or intelligence that you seem to be hung up on. From an epistemological standpoint, the inability to point to either an empirical or logical proof, does suggest the concept was made up; simply because that is the only other way to know something.
@FSApetheist Are retard and dumbass the only insults you know? And you seem to focus on abiogenesis and one type of evolution without looking at the evidence of all other forms of it. It's funny, because it seems you'd dismiss evolution as a whole because you're not willing to research transition between reptiles and amphibians. Also the theory of gravity explains how gravity works. Amphibians to Reptile evolution can also be simply googled. I doubt you've bothered to look it up.
Maybe if you PROVED that these "pseudoskeptics" are inerrantly unhappy instead of merely asserting the fact, based on your own ethnocentric (and egocentric) experiences that I would be able to agree with anything you said. However, you're just plain wrong, as a strong atheist (perhaps a "pseudoskeptic"?) by your logic I would have to have "deep unhappiness". And yet I'm not. The only unhappiness I have is in knowing I share the world with such dim-witted individuals such as yourself.
@RyuOni1989 How feeble minded can you be? Read all of the skeptic comments here over many years. 300 videos. NOT ONE JOKE. NOT ONE PLEASANTRY. NOT ONE APOLOGY.
NOT ONE ACT OF KINDNESS. Thousand of entries. Your sneering is an act of aggression- narcissism actually. Video coming on this- how you can get that way. Accidental discovery in a far away place and it so objective its beautiful
@kimbo99 Maybe you don't understand it because of the way you see things- but whenever you see a skeptic insult you mockingly, that is a joke to them. YOU are are joke to them. Perhaps if you didn't come off as a self-righteous, holier-than-thou asshole people would be nice to you. For instance, I have made many friendly connections with those of opposite opinions to me, because we started with a level of respect. You, sir, show no such respect. Therefore you deserve no respect in kind.
@RyuOni1989 Self righteous? NO. And I have very thick skin. And skeptics do not originate humour. I simply list the many defects of Pseudoskeptics (look it up in wiki its actually a skeptics word ! - A large group of dysfunctionally timid men) My information is often from the superb website debunking skeptics tactics. debunkingskepticsDOTcom It has a Nobel, prize winner on its board and other leading lights. He calls pseudoskeptics Pathological Denialists. Good PDF file look it up.
And why do you think you deserve kindness from actual skeptics and atheists, Kimbo??? You strawmen there arguments and their proof. You play armchair psycho analyst and accuse them of having a bias when the ONLY reason they pick apart the sorts of things you talk about here (dousing, homeopathy, etc) is phenomena that has never been proven in any legitimate controlled experiment ever? You accuse others of slinging the level of bullshit you sling. It's cowardice.
You are appealing to peer review, if you want to use a peer review paper and then make an argument from it then so be it, But here is the evidence that you need to produce.
When did scientists test amphibian to reptile evolution occuring in a natural enviroment?
if they cannot test it then you cannot claim it is a fact and if extraordinary evidence is your criteria then you have to be consistent, Where is this extraordinary evidence for this?
"dousing, homeopathy,etc" that has never been prove"
He does not have to prove anything to you.
AA asked you which, scientific test was carried out on the claim that something is not true unless it is proven?
Thus to say that something is not true unless it has been scientifically proven is a self refuting claim because it is a claim itself that has not been scientifically proven.
It is also an argument from ignorance, It is so easy to expose your fallacious arguments you dumbshit.
HAHAHAHA!
Furthemore, There has been no test proving amphibian to reptile evolution occuring by naturalistic mechanisms and to say it happened over billions of years by naturalistic mechanisms like you did is begging the question, You are assuming that which you have to demonstrate to be true.
It's easy to expose your fallacies, You hypocrite and phony skeptic.
The test is the existence of transitional fossils, as well as DNA similarities in the genome of comparable modern variations of such animals. Billions of years would be evolution in total, not the amphibian to reptile evolution specifically. Even if he was assuming it to be true, which he isn't, that would be presupposition, but not begging the question specifically, as that requires the conclusion to be in a premise.
Are you a friend of his?, I checked the comments and all of a suddent it seems that there was not much commentary on this video but after he got upset people started posting here to support him.
Thanks for the message, That vadi followed me onto another video and was also bitching about me on another kimbo video because he could not get over his humiliation.
I don't have to establish anything, You are putting a view of how life came into being which is not established
What you believe violates the law of biogenesis.
I asked your friend vadi to prove that a living organism arose in a natural enviroment all on its own from non living matter, You have come to take over his role, you have to prove this not burden shift. You can't prove it then you shouldn't have come to defend it.
@sonnygll "A species does not necessarily go extinct after another evolves from it." HAR HAR HAR you idiot. No species has EVER evolved from another. Have you lost your rabbit mind?
Punctuated equillibrium was brought in to explain away the lack of evolutionary change in the fossil record, If evolution can be used to explain change and no change then the fossil record cannot be used as evidence because it explains both occurences, You have organisms that are not said to have evolved for millions of years, no evolution in organisms for millions of years cannot be evidence for a theory cont:
You can make excuses and bring in ad hoc explanations but this shows how plastic and maleable evolution is that it is more of a research program than a theory.
"Billions of years would be evolution in total not the amphibian to reptile evolution specifically"
That's the problem of joining a conversation late, That is his argument that it took billions of years, I never get every evolutionist arguing the same thing on every video, I am pointing out his argument to him.
If I have paintings of an amphibians and a reptile and we compare the paint that was used (the chemicals) they could show similarities but that does not mean one painting evolved from the other, they would both be the result of a painter, A painter could have created both of those two paintings.
The other problem is that even evolutionists admit that similarity does not mean that one organism shares common ancestry with another organism because when a trait in one organism is found in an organism that is not meant to be directly related then the excuse that is made is the trait must have evolved seperately in the organism, ie: because it offered an advantage,Similarity is evidence that two organisms share a common ancestor except when it doesn't, Convergent evo.
Furthermore even if we assumed the particular theory of evo you believe in is true for the sake of argument, those extrapolations from fossils and DNA would not prove that it was a naturally occuring phenomena or the mechanisms/processes involved.
Thanks for telling me, Unfortunately it looks like VagWart has brought out his socks again because your comments are spammed down, he is a retarded prick and cry baby that is stalking this video and spamming down comments because he has been humiliated.
There has also been no experiment to prove a living organism can arise from non living matter over time all on its own in a natural enviroment without any intelligent intervention.
Yet you claim it is true even though it has not been proven to occur, You Hypocrite and Phony Skeptic.
There can be no one experiment to prove such an array of ideas. It would be many of them. You are making the mistake of conflating some knowledge gaps in a theory, with a total lack of understanding of said theory. You do not go from 0% to 100% knowledge upon filling in the last gap. So we do know that's how it happened, we are just lacking evidence on some of the details. Some of the hypotheses are still being worked on.
"There can be no one experiment to prove such an array of ideas"
He came here demanding proof and arguing against the validity of things on the basis that they are not proven, I have just turned the tables on him and used his same standard, Except he does not seem to have a very high standard when it comes to what he claims to be true while he puts this proof standard and extraordinary evidence standard against the things he disagrees with.
I see. Well, in seeing you question theories for which there is quite a mountain of supporting evidence, while at the same time speaking of "intelligent intervention", I do have to wonder what you were trying to get at, as well as question the validity thereof.
Biology is a hundred percent dependent on selection. No matter what we do in synthetic biology, synthetic genomes, we're doing selection. It's just not natural selection any more. It's intelligently designed selection" Craig Venter
Evolutionists practice intelligent design while calling it "intelligent selection" and think they can get away with it
@kimbo99 And why do u think u deserve kindness from actual skeps+ atheists, Kimbo??? U strawmen their arguments+evidence against constantly. U play armchair psychoanalyst+accuse them of having a biases and fractured psyches when the ONLY reason they pick apart the sorts of things u talk about (dousing, homeopathy, etc) is cuz it's phenomena that has never proven to work in any legit controlled exp. ever? You accuse others of slinging the level of bullshit YOU sling. It's cowardice.
Remember how you argued that people cannot trust their senses and they can lie therefore it is not evidence while you believe in things that have not even been sensed and you think they are solid facts and require no evidence.
Listen Dipshit, from here on in if anything is to be asked or clarified it'll be through Kimbo, (aka you're true identity). I'll answer anything he asks and then you can pounce on it and strawman it and quote mine it and bullshit about it all you like. I can at least have a halfway decent discussion with Kimbo and that alterego would be embarrassed to employ the conversational tactics you do...
Look at you whining and bitching and complaining like a little girl because all of your silly arguments have been shot down.
You Dumbass!
You failed to apply the same standard of skepticism to things you claim to be true, You said facts are open to challenge and yet when it comes to what you call facts you do not challenge them, You provide 0 credible evidence for them.
You did not know that abiogenesis is chemical evolution, You argued that a World leading chemist like Dr Whitesides could not understand Abiogenesis because he was a chemist not a biologist,Time and time again you have shown what a retard you are.
It's been fun, I gotta get some work done, let your alter ego sock accounts run wild and I'll come back and interact with them for a disturbing laugh later on once I get a little further along with my shit... Love you FSAptheist, you're da best!!!!
"Steve told me that he has been sending you the hand clapping video"
"it is not a suprise that you do not know how to clap your hands"
You are making is SO obvious that you are just another sock account for Kimbo. Oh my god. Do you know how demented you are? I mean is your basement filled with rotting corpses or something? Because this is seriously some disturbing Jeffrey Dahmer shit.
Har har! Your so funny! Durp durp, nobodiez tawt me how to clap maw hands!!! Har har. Fart fart fart... bleep bloop...
But seriously... So kimbo just wrote you on a friday night and was like, "hey man, I keep telling this guy vadimcream to clap his hands and he won't do it"... I mean honestly, how the fuck do you think you would not come across as a kimbo sock account right now... You are THE biggest, saddest nut-job I've encountered in a long time. And that is saying A LOT.
Lovely how these guys just pop out of the woodwork onto a video of yours that you uploaded well over two years ago and defend you Kimbo! So interesting that they parrot so many of your arguments and use even the same terms and have many of the same typing idiosynchrisies and have nearly all the telltale signs of a sock account... Fascinating. And then the best they can do is accuse me of being a sock in return... All so very intriguing...
Please, I am a crap speller, especially when I'm just breezing through comments like this. That I'll admit to... Einstein was too, so I suppose I'm in good company.
You are a crap speller, Your arguments are crap and you do not even know how to clap your hands, No wonder you got so pissed when AA pwned you because you are tired of everyone pwning you, You silly ass.
I am also curious Kimbo, why you said to me "May I say I am a skeptic also. Possibly more than most." On this video and on your "Pseudo skeptics Vandals Hooligans Randi Shermer" video you say to user AtheistTabbiChan "I have never been a skeptic darling, its a personalty disorder I just don't have."???
The "hahahahaha" tactic for instance I find coming from several users that fit the same description. Again, all of which seem to only be active on Kimbo videos. Most of whom Kimbo is one of the only, if not the only subscriber to. These are telltale signs of sock account activity. I have found several of them on various videos.
So AA are you a kimbo sock account or not?
Please leave your snarky denial here and realize that if you do not find me through PM then I won't be reading it.
Are you AA, a Kimbo sock account and do you, KImbo have sock accounts you use to discuss with others on your channel? I have found by watching his videos that there are many accounts with little information on them, (many carrying the word "atheist" in the handle), that say nearly the same things and use indentical terms and arguments.
@vadimcream NO. AA is a damned good talented teacher. He teaches solid critical reasoning skills. He is in the UK. I am kimbo in Sydney. And Stop calling everything AA enters SPAM. Its t not. AA is probably the bets thing that ever happened to you.You could be grateful
I am not grateful 4 idiots. And I never marked any of his comments as spam, It certainly made for a headache for me because I had to fish around the comments and click every comment to find them, very hard to do... Anyway the guy is a moron, anyone that would earnestly challenge the simple truth that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is either a purposeful contrarian or an idiot or both. Anyhow I'm through with that dipshit. Yup, he's a dipshit. Sue me for saying it.
And the sock accounts are on parade tonight folks!!! Right on cue!!! Hilarious. Yeah, I've seen your worthless point of view in commentary form on several videos. Believe me, what you just said is a freaking badge of honor and any insult you give me from here on in is just gravy. If I got compliments from you I'd be doing it wrong...
You really are butthurt, Look at you here still whining and crying cause AA pwned your sorry ass, You cried and wanted to hide away because you were being made to look the fool that you are, keep crying vagi, did you wet your diddy because you got pwned too much, go grab your comfort blanket you poor baby.
The truth about you is not an insult, You might be insulted by the truth but you know it is the truth because you are here crying and bitching when you said you would no longer post here.
I said I would no longer post to AestheticAtheist, and although I'm pretty sure you're him I'll post to you for a little while, since I can't say 100% and I fortunately do not have to deal with all of the posts being registered as spam which makes it way harder to respond to.
I can understand you using your socks to spam down his comments after he completely Humiliated you, though I shouldn't give him too much credit when you are such a lousy and moronic debate opponent.
Why would I continue talking to him if I was that embarassed? Why would I continue to talk and why wouldn't I spam my own comments if that was the truth??? Oh wait... Your an idiot, you can't answer my question properly.
Hey vagi prove to me that you exist, after all this could be an illusion, Seeing as you don't believe our senses can be trusted You better prove you exist, HAHAHA
what a shame you don't know if your mother loves you, after all you cannot trust your senses can you vagi.
@Vagicream the angry retard who keeps whining and bitching because he got humiliated so much, I don't blame you for wanting to hide behind private messages vagi, AA was really giving you a beating, So much so that you can't get over it.
Like I said, it's a badge of honor to be insulted by a creatard such as yourself. I hope you post a thousand comments just like this one so anyone with half a brain can see what an idiotic, dickless dipshit you are...
Hey, if AA teaches "solid critical reasoning skills" in the UK, please direct me to his website or anywhere that I can verify his existence on planet earth and that what you're saying about him is true. If he does do what you say he does, I should be able to verify this. Yes, I do think you are full of it.
@vadimcream Not every person on earth runs a website. You are not aware of that? My Mother doesnt have a website but she exists." AA teaches "solid critical reasoning skills" in the UK," TRUE. He is one of the worlds finest skeptics. Cyber bullying is one of the daily practices of Skeptics. Right? Your own deranged bullying is being mirrored back to you for educational purposes. Rejoice ! What education ! I am Educational Foundation I have a few Fellows on the board. AA is one
I don't believe you for a second Kimbo, about you not being these sock accounts OR this guy teaching "critical reasoning skills". His critical reasoning skills are about as pronounced as the thoroughly debunked bogus on this channel is rooted in reality. And cyber bullying? Please! You're the sock accounts here and both of them bullied me and used childish, fallacy ridden tactics and arguments long before I took off the gloves + started cursing at them... U are a joke Kimbo.
@vadimcream Your religious belief in your own thought process is your own undoing. You cannot be wrong, correct ? LOL Nothing is ever your fault. Correct ? I am going to work on my house building project in Sydney right now. I dont have much spare time. I will leave you to AA. He has an English Email address What could that mean?. Thanks fr displaying your disabilties. Its most instructive for others. Ciao.
Ah yes, equating atheism and the acceptance of peer reviewed science to religion, the mark of a true bullshit artist. Me being wrong and the accumalated data and research of thousands of scientists through out history being wrong are two very different things. I've read and seen enough on the subject to know it's as sound as the theory of gravity... So when do your alter ego AA comeback to misrepresent and quotemine every single thing I say???
"The acceptance of peer reer review science to religion"
Hey dumb dumb published just so stories about the untestable past are not science, that is your religion, Kimbo has you sussed down to a tee and instead of whining about it why do you not just provide the evidence for your faith.
Now dumb dumb, Instead of whining like a bitch, Just provide this extraordinary evidence, Where is the extraordinary evidence for amphibian to reptile evolution occuring by naturalistic processes?
You said all facts are open to challenge, you quoted from a website in which you said this is true skepticism, Yet you do not seem willing to provide any evidence for your faith.
Where is the evidence that a living organism arose all by itself in a natural enviroment?
"So when does your alter ego AA comeback to misrepresent and quotemine every single thing I say???"
Look at you crying again and blaming AA because he pwned your silly ass, Instead of crying like a bitch why do you not just get over it.
I see you making more unsubstantiated Allegations about steve being AA, For somebody who goes on about Extraordinary Evidence, You don't care to substantiate your claims.
Now instead of crying like a bitch about AA, about me and about steve and your paranoia because you are not just a dumbass but a paranoid dumbass, Instead of trying to divert the attention from your failures, Do keep on topic, I know it is hard for a retard like you but do try.
@vadimcream I dont know who you are talking to. "I've read and seen enough on the subject to know it's as sound as the theory of gravity... " Then explain gravity to me. If you know so much. There is NO gravity explanation. Ergo you know nothing LOL. Your mindless quarrelling is repetitive. What do you think it will lead to, very soon, oh Great Wise One ?
Newton laid out the theory of gravity as well as other physical laws in a pretty straight forward way. Why would you need an explanation of Newtonian gravity? Now if you mean quantum gravity, or gravitational principles related to astronomical scales and/or relativity, you are assuming too much, as stating "gravity" without qualifiers is understood to refer to Newtonian gravity.
@sonnygll "Newton laid out the theory of gravity" NO he didnt explain gravity at all. He only quantified by guessing it was inversley proportional to distance.The Apple never fell. he made that up decades later. Another commenter said his view was as solid as the theory of gravity.. Its still unknown. NOT explained.Newtons laws dont apply in galaxies it has been discovered.
We have variation within existing living organisms and this is due to the DNA that already exists within organisms,If more than variation could occur which there is no proof of and your friend that you are cheerleading for needs proof because that is the standard he demands of others, that would be as a result of changes to existing DNA, There is no proof the the first cell and the DNA within arose without design.
You start off in this post talking about evolution, and then wind up at abiogenesis somehow. I think you might be a little confused.
If more variation COULD occur? LOL mutations happen all the time, DNA replications are frequently a little off. Then what works survives and what doesn't, doesn't.
The first cell predates DNA actually, and there is no evidence of a "designer", so that is a presuppositional assertion you are making there.
Well stop saying things that are so dumb it makes me laugh.
You don't get instantaneous changes from one mutation. This is a process that takes a long time. You seem to have all the usual misconceptions about what evolution is.
fruit flies and moths are used in experiments because they go thru many generations rapidly and yet after being subject to mutations in decades of experiments we end up with dead and deformed fruit flies.
The fossil record does not show gradual change, punctuated equillibrium was brought in to explain away the discontinuity and you have organisms that have the same morphology as millions of years ago which is not evidence of mutations gradually accumulating to cause evolutionary change.
Variation is not evidence for your evolutionary faith because no new traits are being generated, variation within existing traits is not the creation of new traits, For example you might have a son that is taller than you has a bigger head than you, is fatter than you but he does not have any non human traits, if a trait is not in the genes of the parent then it cannot be passed on to the offspring, cont:
Variation within existing traits is no more going to cause new morphological traits to appear amymore than shuffling around chinese letters will bring you the english alphabet.
so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as 'changes in gene frequencies' in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another. . No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but
That the universe and everything within including biological life was created has not been falsified, to say there is no evidence of a designer can only be true if you know everything came into being without design, You don't know this so your statement is false.
Thus if you want to argue against design you have to show how a living organism can arise on its own from non living matter without intelligent intervention because no life then nothing to evolve from
Furthemore the law of biogenesis has never once been violated thus what you believe is outside of what has been shown to be true time and time again through all of recorded history.
What you believe violates this but you have no proof for your faith.
"This is the negative proof fallacy,followed by burden proof shifting. You are pressuposing this entity"
Wrong again.
You claimed there is no evidence for design, But there are only two options either there was design or not. The only way you can claim there is no evidence of design is if you know that biological life came into being without design, If you do not know that biological life can come into being without design then it is false to say there is no evidence.
if you said that you do not believe the interpretation of design then you would have been ok but you said no evidence of design, the only way you can know that there is no evidence of design in biology is if you know that non designed processes can cause all of the biological life that we have, You don't know this thus your statement was false.
You have the burden of proof, Abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis which has never once been observed to be violated and you believe that one form of life ie:amphibians can evolve over time to reptiles, Something that cannot be confirmed experimentally and goes against the genetic principle of like begets like.
I am well within what is observed to occur in nature, You are outside of empericism and believe in something not known to occur.
Nope I did not say life is designed because it has not been proven false, You really should not appeal to fallacies that you do not understand.
You made the claim that there is no evidence of design, But there are only two options either design or without design, You did not say that you do not believe the interpretation of design is not correct, cont:
How do you know that biological organisms are not designed unless you know that unguided and unintelligent processes could have caused biological life?
If you do not know that biological organisms came into being without design then you should not have made the hyper skeptical claim of no evidence of fesign, You are the one pressuposing that non intelligent processes can bring everything into being, cont:
And you are the one that is shifting the burden when you do not prove your position because I challenged your friend who I am using the same standard as he uses against others,You have assumed his position, You seem to think that your faith is fact, but you do not provide this proof that I have asked, if you want to get involved in my conversation with him and continue it then you have to provide the proof that I have asked of you and you are failing to do so.
"You start off in this post talking about evolution, and then wind up at abiogenesis somehow, I think you might be a little confused"
I don't think you are confused I know you are confused, Abiogenesis is chemical evolution and you cannot use biological evolution as an argument against design because even if we for arguments sake pretended Darwinian evolution occured it would be the result of life existing in the first place, no life and thus no darwinian evolution, cont
"if more variation COULD occur? LOL mutations happen all the time"
I said if more than variation could occur, now that is a quote mine, No wonder you used your girly abbrevation of LOL and laughed like a girlyman because you were aware of your dishonesty.
I have no problem with you using quotes but don't quote mine and then project that onto others, You can use quotes and I can use quotes, don't project your dishonesty onto me though.
As for mutations happening all the time, I am aware of all those mutational disorders just like I am aware of the deformed children of chernobyl watch?v=mXMUTaSortI
So if they hired retards like VacantCrud to bring a living organism into being then it should be more likely than intelligent individuals struggling to create a living organism from scratch and taking your logic further if the scientists do not use any intelligence at all then they should give up, lock up the lab and then one day they might come back and be shocked to see a living organism has formed on its own from materials that were just left lying around.
Nope I never said anything even remotely like that.
it does not mean that is what logically follows, You believe there is no intelligence for how life came into being, You argue against intelligence in the process, therefore if you are logically consistent then you would find it more likely if we removed intelligence from the process altogether, If you think it is more likely with intelligence then it is funny you arguing against it.
@sonnygll I learned that in high school You are attmepting to carry on another persons conversation. While he spams AA s entries. That conversation is finished. Vadim simple met a real skeptic. He should be grateful not spiteful
@vadimcream So sorry Mr-Foot-in-Mouth. You base your beliefs on the explanation of gravity "I've read and seen enough on the subject to know it's as sound as the theory of gravity" You are confessing to knowing nothing. There is no explanation of gravity LOL Its still a mystery. And AA has UK email address and I am in Sydney. Occasionally we correspond. Is that so hard? So surprising ? I also write to my Mother sometimes, Is that evil ? You have worn out your welcome here
I see you are back VagiCream and spamming up the board with your nonsense.
"His critical reasoning skills"
You are not in a position to talk about Critical reasoning skills Dumbass, Everyone of your bogus arguments has been shot down by me and AA, that is why all you can do is whine and bitch, You are severely retarded.
You have been shown to be a fake skeptic, You seem to have 0 standards of evidence when it comes to your own Faith dumbass.
wah wah wah, what a cry baby you are, You get shown up for being the retard that you are, all of your arguments fail and then you start crying about tactics, If the tactics were so bad then you would have defeated me and AA easily, but no you wanted to run and hide behind Private messages because all of your dumb arguments have been defeated.
You didn't even know abiogenesis was chemical evolution, You said Dr whitesides is a Chemist and not a biologist as if that was an argument against him, You dumbass.
Remember when you said " they created" and then you said " How is that intelligent design?"
" I am Brad Pit and I'm typing this comment as I'm having sex with Angelina jolie"
The claim could be evidenced in rather ordinary ways. A person could come to your home and observe you on the vadicream account and If you appear to be Brad Pitt then the claim that you are Brad Pitt is justified . If one is not convinced by their eyes, then perhaps they could take a DNA sample and compare it to Brad Pitt's mothers DNA, cont:
Yeah, but the freaking point is you obviously need more evidence to believe the Pitt claim than that I happen to be human, you have made my point.
I think it is hysterical that you would even try to argue with a common sense propostion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It may have been uttered by one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, but it doesn't take a great thinker at all to perceive it's simple, yet universal truth.
"but the freaking point is that you need more evidence"
But shifting the goalposts is not going to help you, The evidence that would show that you are brad pitt is still evidence that I am believe most people would consider ordinary not extraordinary.
NOT shifting the GP. Extraordinary means beyond that which is ordinary. You would need beyond the level of evidence required to believe that I am Brad Pitt than you would to believe simply that I am a human being, and the standard of proof would have to be higher. If I just sent you a cheap photoshop of brad pitts face with me holding a sign saying "see, I'm brad pitt" that would not be convincing... In comparison to the first claim the evidence is extraordinary for the 2nd.
i knew,that was my last performance in mettalica.
garciaalvin3 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Furthermore even if we assumed the particular theory of evo you believe in is true for the sake of argument, those extrapolations from fossils and DNA would not prove that it was a naturally occuring phenomena or the mechanisms/processes involved."
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Which theory of evolution do you believe in?"
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Even if he was assuming it to be true which he wasn't"
"Yes he was
Assume.
[verb] take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof."
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The other problem is that even evolutionists admit that similarity does not mean that one organism shares common ancestry with another organism because when a trait in one organism is found in an organism that is not meant to be directly related then the excuse that is made is the trait must have evolved seperately in the organism, ie: because it offered an advantage,Similarity is evidence that two organisms share a common ancestor except when it doesn't, Convergent evo."
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You can make excuses and bring in ad hoc explanations but this shows how plastic and maleable evolution is that it is more of a research program than a theory.
"Billions of years would be evolution in total not the amphibian to reptile evolution specifically"
"That's the problem of joining a conversation late, That is his argument that it took billions of years, I never get every evolutionist arguing the same thing on every video, I am pointing out his argument to him."
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Punctuated equillibrium was brought in to explain away the lack of evolutionary change in the fossil record, If evolution can be used to explain change and no change then the fossil record cannot be used as evidence because it explains both occurences, You have organisms that are not said to have evolved for millions of years, no evolution in organisms for millions of years cannot be evidence for a theory cont:"
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
His abiogenesis faith that a living organism arose from non living matter in a natural enviroment with no intelligent intervention is not well supported either, he demands Proof and yet he cannot prove this happened at all,Yet he claims it as fact, he also posted a quote from a skeptic site saying that all facts are open to challenge and there are no sacred cows, Yet he seems to think that what he claims to be facts are exceptions to this rule. He does not practise what he preaches.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Abiogenesis cannot be faith because there is evidence which serves as the basis for such ideas. Whereas faith typically has no such basis.
Intelligent intervention of any natural process has absolutely no evidence at all. Therefore I find a great deal of irony in what you say.
sonnygll 3 months ago
@sonnygll
"Abiogeneis cannot be faith because there is evidence"
Nope, What we have is the law of biogenesis that has never been refuted and that is life come from life so abiogenesis is a faith based belief.
"Faith typically has no basis"
Merriam Webster-Faith- Belief in something for which there is no proof.
You have faith that abiogenesis can occur but the law of biogenesis has never been violated not once, thus you have faith.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
"Biologists have accepted the concept of biogenesis for more than 100 years.”
Glencoe Biology, 2006."
Reporting on the origin of life conference 2011 for Scientific American where leading orign of life researchers had gathered, John Horgan said:
"Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began. "
So in 2011 scientists do not have a clue for abiogenesis and the law of biogenesis has never once been observed to be violated.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Paraphrasing and quote mining now eh? That doesn't support your concluding assertion at all. Neither does it provide any evidence for any sort of designer or intelligence that you seem to be hung up on. From an epistemological standpoint, the inability to point to either an empirical or logical proof, does suggest the concept was made up; simply because that is the only other way to know something.
sonnygll 2 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist Are retard and dumbass the only insults you know? And you seem to focus on abiogenesis and one type of evolution without looking at the evidence of all other forms of it. It's funny, because it seems you'd dismiss evolution as a whole because you're not willing to research transition between reptiles and amphibians. Also the theory of gravity explains how gravity works. Amphibians to Reptile evolution can also be simply googled. I doubt you've bothered to look it up.
CannibalMolly 3 months ago
@Vacant&Clueless
When did scientists witness a living organism arise from non living matter in a natural enviroment with no intervention whatsoever?
if this was not observed or it is not possible to observe this occuring then you cannot claim it is a fact.
You dumbass!
You are a phony skeptic.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Maybe if you PROVED that these "pseudoskeptics" are inerrantly unhappy instead of merely asserting the fact, based on your own ethnocentric (and egocentric) experiences that I would be able to agree with anything you said. However, you're just plain wrong, as a strong atheist (perhaps a "pseudoskeptic"?) by your logic I would have to have "deep unhappiness". And yet I'm not. The only unhappiness I have is in knowing I share the world with such dim-witted individuals such as yourself.
RyuOni1989 3 months ago
@RyuOni1989 How feeble minded can you be? Read all of the skeptic comments here over many years. 300 videos. NOT ONE JOKE. NOT ONE PLEASANTRY. NOT ONE APOLOGY.
NOT ONE ACT OF KINDNESS. Thousand of entries. Your sneering is an act of aggression- narcissism actually. Video coming on this- how you can get that way. Accidental discovery in a far away place and it so objective its beautiful
kimbo99 3 months ago
@kimbo99 Maybe you don't understand it because of the way you see things- but whenever you see a skeptic insult you mockingly, that is a joke to them. YOU are are joke to them. Perhaps if you didn't come off as a self-righteous, holier-than-thou asshole people would be nice to you. For instance, I have made many friendly connections with those of opposite opinions to me, because we started with a level of respect. You, sir, show no such respect. Therefore you deserve no respect in kind.
RyuOni1989 3 months ago
@RyuOni1989 Self righteous? NO. And I have very thick skin. And skeptics do not originate humour. I simply list the many defects of Pseudoskeptics (look it up in wiki its actually a skeptics word ! - A large group of dysfunctionally timid men) My information is often from the superb website debunking skeptics tactics. debunkingskepticsDOTcom It has a Nobel, prize winner on its board and other leading lights. He calls pseudoskeptics Pathological Denialists. Good PDF file look it up.
kimbo99 3 months ago
@kimbo99
And why do you think you deserve kindness from actual skeptics and atheists, Kimbo??? You strawmen there arguments and their proof. You play armchair psycho analyst and accuse them of having a bias when the ONLY reason they pick apart the sorts of things you talk about here (dousing, homeopathy, etc) is phenomena that has never been proven in any legitimate controlled experiment ever? You accuse others of slinging the level of bullshit you sling. It's cowardice.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@Vagicream
You are appealing to peer review, if you want to use a peer review paper and then make an argument from it then so be it, But here is the evidence that you need to produce.
When did scientists test amphibian to reptile evolution occuring in a natural enviroment?
if they cannot test it then you cannot claim it is a fact and if extraordinary evidence is your criteria then you have to be consistent, Where is this extraordinary evidence for this?
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApethetic
So you recon there are no current amphibians to look at and extrapolate results?
cookeladoo 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@VagiCream said to Kimbo
"You strawman there arguments and proof"
Which argument of yours specifically has kimbo made a strawman out of?
how specifically has he made a strawman out of their proof?
Which proof specifically?
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@vadimcream
Said To Kimbo
"dousing, homeopathy,etc" that has never been prove"
He does not have to prove anything to you.
AA asked you which, scientific test was carried out on the claim that something is not true unless it is proven?
Thus to say that something is not true unless it has been scientifically proven is a self refuting claim because it is a claim itself that has not been scientifically proven.
cont:
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@vadimcream
It is also an argument from ignorance, It is so easy to expose your fallacious arguments you dumbshit.
HAHAHAHA!
Furthemore, There has been no test proving amphibian to reptile evolution occuring by naturalistic mechanisms and to say it happened over billions of years by naturalistic mechanisms like you did is begging the question, You are assuming that which you have to demonstrate to be true.
It's easy to expose your fallacies, You hypocrite and phony skeptic.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
The test is the existence of transitional fossils, as well as DNA similarities in the genome of comparable modern variations of such animals. Billions of years would be evolution in total, not the amphibian to reptile evolution specifically. Even if he was assuming it to be true, which he isn't, that would be presupposition, but not begging the question specifically, as that requires the conclusion to be in a premise.
sonnygll 3 months ago
@sonnygll
Are you a friend of his?, I checked the comments and all of a suddent it seems that there was not much commentary on this video but after he got upset people started posting here to support him.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Thanks for the message, That vadi followed me onto another video and was also bitching about me on another kimbo video because he could not get over his humiliation.
He is not just stupid but he is a weirdo as well.
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
I think that idiot vadi may be using socks to spam your comments, it happened to me too, i will post them back for you.
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
I just noticed several posts youtube thought was spam, probably because of how many posts in a row you tend to make. Let me respond.
I don't know him.
A species does not necessarily go extinct after another evolves from it.
Research is usually part of any theory.
I'm just responding to your comments, your motivation for making them is irrelevant.
Your painting analogy is faulty, as they are created, and you have yet to establish this for life.
The rest is a straw man.
sonnygll 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"and you have yet to establish this for life"
I don't have to establish anything, You are putting a view of how life came into being which is not established
What you believe violates the law of biogenesis.
I asked your friend vadi to prove that a living organism arose in a natural enviroment all on its own from non living matter, You have come to take over his role, you have to prove this not burden shift. You can't prove it then you shouldn't have come to defend it.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll We are back to the questions.
When was a living organism observed to come into being from non living matter all on its own without any intelligent intervention?
When did scientists observe amphibian to reptile evolution occuring by naturalistic mechanisms/Processes?
Where were they proven?
FSApetheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll "A species does not necessarily go extinct after another evolves from it." HAR HAR HAR you idiot. No species has EVER evolved from another. Have you lost your rabbit mind?
MaximusArurealius 2 months ago
@sonnygll
Punctuated equillibrium was brought in to explain away the lack of evolutionary change in the fossil record, If evolution can be used to explain change and no change then the fossil record cannot be used as evidence because it explains both occurences, You have organisms that are not said to have evolved for millions of years, no evolution in organisms for millions of years cannot be evidence for a theory cont:
FSApetheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sonnygll
You can make excuses and bring in ad hoc explanations but this shows how plastic and maleable evolution is that it is more of a research program than a theory.
"Billions of years would be evolution in total not the amphibian to reptile evolution specifically"
That's the problem of joining a conversation late, That is his argument that it took billions of years, I never get every evolutionist arguing the same thing on every video, I am pointing out his argument to him.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
"Dna similarities"
If I have paintings of an amphibians and a reptile and we compare the paint that was used (the chemicals) they could show similarities but that does not mean one painting evolved from the other, they would both be the result of a painter, A painter could have created both of those two paintings.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
The other problem is that even evolutionists admit that similarity does not mean that one organism shares common ancestry with another organism because when a trait in one organism is found in an organism that is not meant to be directly related then the excuse that is made is the trait must have evolved seperately in the organism, ie: because it offered an advantage,Similarity is evidence that two organisms share a common ancestor except when it doesn't, Convergent evo.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
So similarity is evidence that two organisms are related except when it is evidence that they are not related (convergent evolution)
When evolution can be used to explain its opposite then it cannot be used as evidence.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"So similarity is evidence that two organisms are related except when it is evidence that they are not related (convergent evolution)
When evolution can be used to explain its opposite then it cannot be used as evidence."
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sonnygll
"Even if he was assuming it to be true which he wasn't"
Yes he was
Assume.
[verb] take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sonnygll
Furthermore even if we assumed the particular theory of evo you believe in is true for the sake of argument, those extrapolations from fossils and DNA would not prove that it was a naturally occuring phenomena or the mechanisms/processes involved.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSApetheist
I have reposted your comments for you, If they turn up as spam then it is a good bet vadi is using socks to vote them down.
Thanks.
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist
Thanks for telling me, Unfortunately it looks like VagWart has brought out his socks again because your comments are spammed down, he is a retarded prick and cry baby that is stalking this video and spamming down comments because he has been humiliated.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@Vagicream
There has also been no experiment to prove a living organism can arise from non living matter over time all on its own in a natural enviroment without any intelligent intervention.
Yet you claim it is true even though it has not been proven to occur, You Hypocrite and Phony Skeptic.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
There can be no one experiment to prove such an array of ideas. It would be many of them. You are making the mistake of conflating some knowledge gaps in a theory, with a total lack of understanding of said theory. You do not go from 0% to 100% knowledge upon filling in the last gap. So we do know that's how it happened, we are just lacking evidence on some of the details. Some of the hypotheses are still being worked on.
sonnygll 3 months ago
@sonnygll
"There can be no one experiment to prove such an array of ideas"
He came here demanding proof and arguing against the validity of things on the basis that they are not proven, I have just turned the tables on him and used his same standard, Except he does not seem to have a very high standard when it comes to what he claims to be true while he puts this proof standard and extraordinary evidence standard against the things he disagrees with.
He is a hypocrite.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
I see. Well, in seeing you question theories for which there is quite a mountain of supporting evidence, while at the same time speaking of "intelligent intervention", I do have to wonder what you were trying to get at, as well as question the validity thereof.
sonnygll 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
Biology is a hundred percent dependent on selection. No matter what we do in synthetic biology, synthetic genomes, we're doing selection. It's just not natural selection any more. It's intelligently designed selection" Craig Venter
Evolutionists practice intelligent design while calling it "intelligent selection" and think they can get away with it
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
Which theory of evolution do you believe in?
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
If you turn around and say that you cannot prove them because there is not enough time then that is a problem for you.
Merriam Webster- Faith-Belief in something for which there is no proof.
You won't be able to prove them thus you have faith whether you like it or not.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@kimbo99 And why do u think u deserve kindness from actual skeps+ atheists, Kimbo??? U strawmen their arguments+evidence against constantly. U play armchair psychoanalyst+accuse them of having a biases and fractured psyches when the ONLY reason they pick apart the sorts of things u talk about (dousing, homeopathy, etc) is cuz it's phenomena that has never proven to work in any legit controlled exp. ever? You accuse others of slinging the level of bullshit YOU sling. It's cowardice.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@VagiCream
Remember when you thought Brad Pitt sitting at his computer and having DNA that could be compared to his mother was extraordinary!
You dumbass!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@Vagicream
Remember how you argued that people cannot trust their senses and they can lie therefore it is not evidence while you believe in things that have not even been sensed and you think they are solid facts and require no evidence.
You retard!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Listen Dipshit, from here on in if anything is to be asked or clarified it'll be through Kimbo, (aka you're true identity). I'll answer anything he asks and then you can pounce on it and strawman it and quote mine it and bullshit about it all you like. I can at least have a halfway decent discussion with Kimbo and that alterego would be embarrassed to employ the conversational tactics you do...
vadimcream 3 months ago
@Vacant&Clueless
Look at you whining and bitching and complaining like a little girl because all of your silly arguments have been shot down.
You Dumbass!
You failed to apply the same standard of skepticism to things you claim to be true, You said facts are open to challenge and yet when it comes to what you call facts you do not challenge them, You provide 0 credible evidence for them.
You hypocrite and fake skeptic, You dunce.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VagiCream
You did not know that abiogenesis is chemical evolution, You argued that a World leading chemist like Dr Whitesides could not understand Abiogenesis because he was a chemist not a biologist,Time and time again you have shown what a retard you are.
YOU DUMBASS!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
It's been fun, I gotta get some work done, let your alter ego sock accounts run wild and I'll come back and interact with them for a disturbing laugh later on once I get a little further along with my shit... Love you FSAptheist, you're da best!!!!
vadimcream 3 months ago
@Vagicream
Run and get your comfort blankey you dunce, I didn't mean to hurt your net feelings.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
"Steve told me that he has been sending you the hand clapping video"
"it is not a suprise that you do not know how to clap your hands"
You are making is SO obvious that you are just another sock account for Kimbo. Oh my god. Do you know how demented you are? I mean is your basement filled with rotting corpses or something? Because this is seriously some disturbing Jeffrey Dahmer shit.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@vadimcream
You can't even clap your hands, I apologize for comparing you to a clown, I did not mean to insult clowns.
HAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Har har! Your so funny! Durp durp, nobodiez tawt me how to clap maw hands!!! Har har. Fart fart fart... bleep bloop...
But seriously... So kimbo just wrote you on a friday night and was like, "hey man, I keep telling this guy vadimcream to clap his hands and he won't do it"... I mean honestly, how the fuck do you think you would not come across as a kimbo sock account right now... You are THE biggest, saddest nut-job I've encountered in a long time. And that is saying A LOT.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@vadimcream
Look at you getting so defensive because you can't clap your hands, You dummy.
HAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@VagiCream
"Your so funny"
You still didn't learn how to spell "You're" even after it has been pointed out to you.
You are such a retard, You must have a really steep learning curve, You moron.
HAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@vadimcream
"Har har! Your so funny! Durp durp, nobodiez tawt me how to clap maw hands!!! Har har. Fart fart fart... bleep bloop"
"But seriously"
You were being serious, Don't try to pretend any differently, You are an illiterate dunce.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Lovely how these guys just pop out of the woodwork onto a video of yours that you uploaded well over two years ago and defend you Kimbo! So interesting that they parrot so many of your arguments and use even the same terms and have many of the same typing idiosynchrisies and have nearly all the telltale signs of a sock account... Fascinating. And then the best they can do is accuse me of being a sock in return... All so very intriguing...
vadimcream 3 months ago
@VagiCream
So as well as your crap arguments which show you to be stupid, You are also an illiterate dunce.
And it wasn't a typo because you have been putting Your instead of You're in your posts on this video.
HAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Please, I am a crap speller, especially when I'm just breezing through comments like this. That I'll admit to... Einstein was too, so I suppose I'm in good company.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@vadimcream
"I am a crap speller"
You are a crap speller, Your arguments are crap and you do not even know how to clap your hands, No wonder you got so pissed when AA pwned you because you are tired of everyone pwning you, You silly ass.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am also curious Kimbo, why you said to me "May I say I am a skeptic also. Possibly more than most." On this video and on your "Pseudo skeptics Vandals Hooligans Randi Shermer" video you say to user AtheistTabbiChan "I have never been a skeptic darling, its a personalty disorder I just don't have."???
vadimcream 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pt. 2
The "hahahahaha" tactic for instance I find coming from several users that fit the same description. Again, all of which seem to only be active on Kimbo videos. Most of whom Kimbo is one of the only, if not the only subscriber to. These are telltale signs of sock account activity. I have found several of them on various videos.
So AA are you a kimbo sock account or not?
Please leave your snarky denial here and realize that if you do not find me through PM then I won't be reading it.
vadimcream 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pt. 1
To Kimbo +Aestheticatheist:
Are you AA, a Kimbo sock account and do you, KImbo have sock accounts you use to discuss with others on your channel? I have found by watching his videos that there are many accounts with little information on them, (many carrying the word "atheist" in the handle), that say nearly the same things and use indentical terms and arguments.
(continued)
vadimcream 3 months ago
@vadimcream NO. AA is a damned good talented teacher. He teaches solid critical reasoning skills. He is in the UK. I am kimbo in Sydney. And Stop calling everything AA enters SPAM. Its t not. AA is probably the bets thing that ever happened to you.You could be grateful
kimbo99 3 months ago
@kimbo99
I am not grateful 4 idiots. And I never marked any of his comments as spam, It certainly made for a headache for me because I had to fish around the comments and click every comment to find them, very hard to do... Anyway the guy is a moron, anyone that would earnestly challenge the simple truth that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is either a purposeful contrarian or an idiot or both. Anyhow I'm through with that dipshit. Yup, he's a dipshit. Sue me for saying it.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@VagiCream
I see that AA kicked your ass so bad that you are whining like a bitch, wah wah cry to mommy little baby.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
And the sock accounts are on parade tonight folks!!! Right on cue!!! Hilarious. Yeah, I've seen your worthless point of view in commentary form on several videos. Believe me, what you just said is a freaking badge of honor and any insult you give me from here on in is just gravy. If I got compliments from you I'd be doing it wrong...
vadimcream 3 months ago
@VagiCream
You really are butthurt, Look at you here still whining and crying cause AA pwned your sorry ass, You cried and wanted to hide away because you were being made to look the fool that you are, keep crying vagi, did you wet your diddy because you got pwned too much, go grab your comfort blanket you poor baby.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@VagiCream
"any insult you give me"
The truth about you is not an insult, You might be insulted by the truth but you know it is the truth because you are here crying and bitching when you said you would no longer post here.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
I said I would no longer post to AestheticAtheist, and although I'm pretty sure you're him I'll post to you for a little while, since I can't say 100% and I fortunately do not have to deal with all of the posts being registered as spam which makes it way harder to respond to.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@VagiCream
I can understand you using your socks to spam down his comments after he completely Humiliated you, though I shouldn't give him too much credit when you are such a lousy and moronic debate opponent.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Why would I continue talking to him if I was that embarassed? Why would I continue to talk and why wouldn't I spam my own comments if that was the truth??? Oh wait... Your an idiot, you can't answer my question properly.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@vadimcream
"Your an idiot"
You don't know the difference between Your and You're, Before you call somebody an idiot then it is best you learn how to spell.
If you want to call others an idiot make sure you are not an illiterate dunce Vagi.
HAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@Vagicream
Hey vagi prove to me that you exist, after all this could be an illusion, Seeing as you don't believe our senses can be trusted You better prove you exist, HAHAHA
what a shame you don't know if your mother loves you, after all you cannot trust your senses can you vagi.
HAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@Vagicream
You didn't prove you are an atheist to AA or anyone here, However your retarded comments make me think you probably are.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
And I should prove I'm an atheist for what reason and lack of doing so proves what????
vadimcream 3 months ago
@VagiCream
Hey vagi tell us again how dna evidence and seeing brad pitt on his computer is extraordinary evidence.
that is good for a laugh.
LMFAO HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@Vagicream the angry retard who keeps whining and bitching because he got humiliated so much, I don't blame you for wanting to hide behind private messages vagi, AA was really giving you a beating, So much so that you can't get over it.
HAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Like I said, it's a badge of honor to be insulted by a creatard such as yourself. I hope you post a thousand comments just like this one so anyone with half a brain can see what an idiotic, dickless dipshit you are...
vadimcream 3 months ago
@Vagi
Hey vagi
Don't get upset maybe this conversation isn't happening at all, seeing as you do not believe that you can trust your senses.
You stupid idiot.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@kimbo99
Hey, if AA teaches "solid critical reasoning skills" in the UK, please direct me to his website or anywhere that I can verify his existence on planet earth and that what you're saying about him is true. If he does do what you say he does, I should be able to verify this. Yes, I do think you are full of it.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@vadimcream Not every person on earth runs a website. You are not aware of that? My Mother doesnt have a website but she exists." AA teaches "solid critical reasoning skills" in the UK," TRUE. He is one of the worlds finest skeptics. Cyber bullying is one of the daily practices of Skeptics. Right? Your own deranged bullying is being mirrored back to you for educational purposes. Rejoice ! What education ! I am Educational Foundation I have a few Fellows on the board. AA is one
kimbo99 3 months ago
@kimbo99
I don't believe you for a second Kimbo, about you not being these sock accounts OR this guy teaching "critical reasoning skills". His critical reasoning skills are about as pronounced as the thoroughly debunked bogus on this channel is rooted in reality. And cyber bullying? Please! You're the sock accounts here and both of them bullied me and used childish, fallacy ridden tactics and arguments long before I took off the gloves + started cursing at them... U are a joke Kimbo.
vadimcream 3 months ago
@vadimcream Your religious belief in your own thought process is your own undoing. You cannot be wrong, correct ? LOL Nothing is ever your fault. Correct ? I am going to work on my house building project in Sydney right now. I dont have much spare time. I will leave you to AA. He has an English Email address What could that mean?. Thanks fr displaying your disabilties. Its most instructive for others. Ciao.
kimbo99 3 months ago
@kimbo99
Ah yes, equating atheism and the acceptance of peer reviewed science to religion, the mark of a true bullshit artist. Me being wrong and the accumalated data and research of thousands of scientists through out history being wrong are two very different things. I've read and seen enough on the subject to know it's as sound as the theory of gravity... So when do your alter ego AA comeback to misrepresent and quotemine every single thing I say???
vadimcream 3 months ago
@vadimcream
"The acceptance of peer reer review science to religion"
Hey dumb dumb published just so stories about the untestable past are not science, that is your religion, Kimbo has you sussed down to a tee and instead of whining about it why do you not just provide the evidence for your faith.
HAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@vadimcream
Now dumb dumb, Instead of whining like a bitch, Just provide this extraordinary evidence, Where is the extraordinary evidence for amphibian to reptile evolution occuring by naturalistic processes?
You said all facts are open to challenge, you quoted from a website in which you said this is true skepticism, Yet you do not seem willing to provide any evidence for your faith.
Where is the evidence that a living organism arose all by itself in a natural enviroment?
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@Vagicream
"So when does your alter ego AA comeback to misrepresent and quotemine every single thing I say???"
Look at you crying again and blaming AA because he pwned your silly ass, Instead of crying like a bitch why do you not just get over it.
I see you making more unsubstantiated Allegations about steve being AA, For somebody who goes on about Extraordinary Evidence, You don't care to substantiate your claims.
You retard.
HAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@VagiCream
Now instead of crying like a bitch about AA, about me and about steve and your paranoia because you are not just a dumbass but a paranoid dumbass, Instead of trying to divert the attention from your failures, Do keep on topic, I know it is hard for a retard like you but do try.
HAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@vadimcream I dont know who you are talking to. "I've read and seen enough on the subject to know it's as sound as the theory of gravity... " Then explain gravity to me. If you know so much. There is NO gravity explanation. Ergo you know nothing LOL. Your mindless quarrelling is repetitive. What do you think it will lead to, very soon, oh Great Wise One ?
kimbo99 3 months ago
@kimbo99
Newton laid out the theory of gravity as well as other physical laws in a pretty straight forward way. Why would you need an explanation of Newtonian gravity? Now if you mean quantum gravity, or gravitational principles related to astronomical scales and/or relativity, you are assuming too much, as stating "gravity" without qualifiers is understood to refer to Newtonian gravity.
sonnygll 3 months ago
@sonnygll "Newton laid out the theory of gravity" NO he didnt explain gravity at all. He only quantified by guessing it was inversley proportional to distance.The Apple never fell. he made that up decades later. Another commenter said his view was as solid as the theory of gravity.. Its still unknown. NOT explained.Newtons laws dont apply in galaxies it has been discovered.
kimbo99 3 months ago
@kimbo99
lol
Let me then refer you to the Principia, which was first published in 1687.
as well as F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\ , which is the primary equation of Newton's law of universal gravitation.
Again, why are you speaking of galaxies, when "gravity" with no qualifiers is understood to refer to Newtonian gravity?
This seems like an evasion tactic to me.
sonnygll 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
We have variation within existing living organisms and this is due to the DNA that already exists within organisms,If more than variation could occur which there is no proof of and your friend that you are cheerleading for needs proof because that is the standard he demands of others, that would be as a result of changes to existing DNA, There is no proof the the first cell and the DNA within arose without design.
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
You start off in this post talking about evolution, and then wind up at abiogenesis somehow. I think you might be a little confused.
If more variation COULD occur? LOL mutations happen all the time, DNA replications are frequently a little off. Then what works survives and what doesn't, doesn't.
The first cell predates DNA actually, and there is no evidence of a "designer", so that is a presuppositional assertion you are making there.
sonnygll 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"LOL"
putting LOL like a girlieman is not gonna help you.
"mutations happen all the time"
And mutations have never been observed to cause morphological change in the failed fruit fly experiments and moth experiments.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
Well stop saying things that are so dumb it makes me laugh.
You don't get instantaneous changes from one mutation. This is a process that takes a long time. You seem to have all the usual misconceptions about what evolution is.
sonnygll 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"Well stop saying things that are so dumb it makes me laugh"
You laugh because you are ignorant, You didn't know that abiogenesis is Chemical evolution.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"You don't get changes from one mutation"
Who said anything about one mutation?
"This is a process that takes a long time"
ahhhhhhhhhhhh time is the hero of the story
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
fruit flies and moths are used in experiments because they go thru many generations rapidly and yet after being subject to mutations in decades of experiments we end up with dead and deformed fruit flies.
Not great evidence for mutations as a mechanism.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
The fossil record does not show gradual change, punctuated equillibrium was brought in to explain away the discontinuity and you have organisms that have the same morphology as millions of years ago which is not evidence of mutations gradually accumulating to cause evolutionary change.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
Variation is not evidence for your evolutionary faith because no new traits are being generated, variation within existing traits is not the creation of new traits, For example you might have a son that is taller than you has a bigger head than you, is fatter than you but he does not have any non human traits, if a trait is not in the genes of the parent then it cannot be passed on to the offspring, cont:
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
Variation within existing traits is no more going to cause new morphological traits to appear amymore than shuffling around chinese letters will bring you the english alphabet.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"I was taught and so were my contemporaries. And
so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as 'changes in gene frequencies' in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another. . No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish-fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but
not verified, were taught as fact.”
Lynn marguilis
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"There is no evidence of a designer"
That the universe and everything within including biological life was created has not been falsified, to say there is no evidence of a designer can only be true if you know everything came into being without design, You don't know this so your statement is false.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
This is the negative proof fallacy, followed by burden of proof shifting. You are presupposing this entity.
sonnygll 2 months ago
@sonnygll
Thus if you want to argue against design you have to show how a living organism can arise on its own from non living matter without intelligent intervention because no life then nothing to evolve from
Furthemore the law of biogenesis has never once been violated thus what you believe is outside of what has been shown to be true time and time again through all of recorded history.
What you believe violates this but you have no proof for your faith.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"This is the negative proof fallacy,followed by burden proof shifting. You are pressuposing this entity"
Wrong again.
You claimed there is no evidence for design, But there are only two options either there was design or not. The only way you can claim there is no evidence of design is if you know that biological life came into being without design, If you do not know that biological life can come into being without design then it is false to say there is no evidence.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
if you said that you do not believe the interpretation of design then you would have been ok but you said no evidence of design, the only way you can know that there is no evidence of design in biology is if you know that non designed processes can cause all of the biological life that we have, You don't know this thus your statement was false.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"Burden of proof shifting"
You have the burden of proof, Abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis which has never once been observed to be violated and you believe that one form of life ie:amphibians can evolve over time to reptiles, Something that cannot be confirmed experimentally and goes against the genetic principle of like begets like.
I am well within what is observed to occur in nature, You are outside of empericism and believe in something not known to occur.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"The negative proof fallacy"
Nope I did not say life is designed because it has not been proven false, You really should not appeal to fallacies that you do not understand.
You made the claim that there is no evidence of design, But there are only two options either design or without design, You did not say that you do not believe the interpretation of design is not correct, cont:
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
How do you know that biological organisms are not designed unless you know that unguided and unintelligent processes could have caused biological life?
If you do not know that biological organisms came into being without design then you should not have made the hyper skeptical claim of no evidence of fesign, You are the one pressuposing that non intelligent processes can bring everything into being, cont:
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@FSApetheist
*hyper skeptical claim on no evidence of design.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
And you are the one that is shifting the burden when you do not prove your position because I challenged your friend who I am using the same standard as he uses against others,You have assumed his position, You seem to think that your faith is fact, but you do not provide this proof that I have asked, if you want to get involved in my conversation with him and continue it then you have to provide the proof that I have asked of you and you are failing to do so.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"You start off in this post talking about evolution, and then wind up at abiogenesis somehow, I think you might be a little confused"
I don't think you are confused I know you are confused, Abiogenesis is chemical evolution and you cannot use biological evolution as an argument against design because even if we for arguments sake pretended Darwinian evolution occured it would be the result of life existing in the first place, no life and thus no darwinian evolution, cont
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
"if more variation COULD occur? LOL mutations happen all the time"
I said if more than variation could occur, now that is a quote mine, No wonder you used your girly abbrevation of LOL and laughed like a girlyman because you were aware of your dishonesty.
I have no problem with you using quotes but don't quote mine and then project that onto others, You can use quotes and I can use quotes, don't project your dishonesty onto me though.
Cont:
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll
As for mutations happening all the time, I am aware of all those mutational disorders just like I am aware of the deformed children of chernobyl watch?v=mXMUTaSortI
FSApetheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@sonnygll
So if they hired retards like VacantCrud to bring a living organism into being then it should be more likely than intelligent individuals struggling to create a living organism from scratch and taking your logic further if the scientists do not use any intelligence at all then they should give up, lock up the lab and then one day they might come back and be shocked to see a living organism has formed on its own from materials that were just left lying around.
HAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Stop equivocating. That makes your inane post an order of magnitude more fatuous than it already was.
sonnygll 2 months ago
@sonnygll
That should be, You think no intelligence makes it a certainty.
HAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@FSApetheist
Nope, I never said anything even remotely like that.
sonnygll 2 months ago
@sonnygll
Nope I never said anything even remotely like that.
it does not mean that is what logically follows, You believe there is no intelligence for how life came into being, You argue against intelligence in the process, therefore if you are logically consistent then you would find it more likely if we removed intelligence from the process altogether, If you think it is more likely with intelligence then it is funny you arguing against it.
FSApetheist 2 months ago
@sonnygll I learned that in high school You are attmepting to carry on another persons conversation. While he spams AA s entries. That conversation is finished. Vadim simple met a real skeptic. He should be grateful not spiteful
kimbo99 2 months ago
@sonnygll And you are practising heterophobia with your swarm group. All blocked and swatted like flies.
kimbo99 2 months ago
@vadimcream So sorry Mr-Foot-in-Mouth. You base your beliefs on the explanation of gravity "I've read and seen enough on the subject to know it's as sound as the theory of gravity" You are confessing to knowing nothing. There is no explanation of gravity LOL Its still a mystery. And AA has UK email address and I am in Sydney. Occasionally we correspond. Is that so hard? So surprising ? I also write to my Mother sometimes, Is that evil ? You have worn out your welcome here
kimbo99 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kimbo99
"Mr-Foot-in-Mouth"
Vacant&Clueless can't seem to get his foot out of his mouth.
He is really stupid.
HAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@Vagicream
I see you are back VagiCream and spamming up the board with your nonsense.
"His critical reasoning skills"
You are not in a position to talk about Critical reasoning skills Dumbass, Everyone of your bogus arguments has been shot down by me and AA, that is why all you can do is whine and bitch, You are severely retarded.
You have been shown to be a fake skeptic, You seem to have 0 standards of evidence when it comes to your own Faith dumbass.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@vadimcream
"chidlish fallacy ridden tactics"
wah wah wah, what a cry baby you are, You get shown up for being the retard that you are, all of your arguments fail and then you start crying about tactics, If the tactics were so bad then you would have defeated me and AA easily, but no you wanted to run and hide behind Private messages because all of your dumb arguments have been defeated.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
@vadimcream
You didn't even know abiogenesis was chemical evolution, You said Dr whitesides is a Chemist and not a biologist as if that was an argument against him, You dumbass.
Remember when you said " they created" and then you said " How is that intelligent design?"
You dumbass
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
FSApetheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
FSApetheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vadimcream
"Ur an idiot"
You are projecting again, Your frustation is showing because I have shown that your criteria of proof for a claim to be valid fails.
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
Comment removed
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" I am Brad Pit and I'm typing this comment as I'm having sex with Angelina jolie"
The claim could be evidenced in rather ordinary ways. A person could come to your home and observe you on the vadicream account and If you appear to be Brad Pitt then the claim that you are Brad Pitt is justified . If one is not convinced by their eyes, then perhaps they could take a DNA sample and compare it to Brad Pitt's mothers DNA, cont:
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist
Yeah, but the freaking point is you obviously need more evidence to believe the Pitt claim than that I happen to be human, you have made my point.
I think it is hysterical that you would even try to argue with a common sense propostion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It may have been uttered by one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, but it doesn't take a great thinker at all to perceive it's simple, yet universal truth.
vadimcream 3 months ago
Comment removed
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vadimcream
"but the freaking point is that you need more evidence"
But shifting the goalposts is not going to help you, The evidence that would show that you are brad pitt is still evidence that I am believe most people would consider ordinary not extraordinary.
AestheticAtheist 3 months ago
@AestheticAtheist
NOT shifting the GP. Extraordinary means beyond that which is ordinary. You would need beyond the level of evidence required to believe that I am Brad Pitt than you would to believe simply that I am a human being, and the standard of proof would have to be higher. If I just sent you a cheap photoshop of brad pitts face with me holding a sign saying "see, I'm brad pitt" that would not be convincing... In comparison to the first claim the evidence is extraordinary for the 2nd.
vadimcream 3 months ago