ABriefHistoryOfTime's channel

@alyosha24601 That's because creation 'scientists' are the only ones scientifically illiterate enough to buy into them.

When someone begins rambling about 'this is impossible based on odds from pure chance' in regards to a process that isn't chance-based, you can be assured they have no idea wha...

@LoricaLady Don't you ever get tired of pathetically dodging and running under the guise of 'They won't have a civil debate' once you've been thoroughly trounced? I mean anyone who cares to can read the discussion and see that you had yours handed to you all throughout.

There are some that aren't necessarily a scam or a virus, but link you to a gpt/ptc site where they make money off of you.

Even so, this doesn't get you XBL points either.

@BereanBeacon1 If creationists were interested in real science, they wouldn't be creationists.

@alyosha24601 The problem (read; ignorance) here is that protein formation isn't chance so odds based on chance are completely irrelevant.

@LoricaLady So how was it a strawman? Be specific.

@LoricaLady I've already answered your questions. You are now projecting your inability to debate onto me, given that you weren't even dimly aware of something as basic as tectonic uplift. But you're right, making cheap thinly veiled insinuations and running is probably your best option now

@LoricaLady Actually what you're doing is attempting to dodge the debate by accusing others of personal attacks when all we've done is refute you and ask you very plain and simple questions you cannot answer.

For instance;

How many terrestrial organisms were present in the Cambrian?

@LoricaLady Now, are you ever going to stop dodging?

How was calling creationism invisible magic a strawman?

How many terrestrial organisms were present in the Cambrian?

@LoricaLady I've done nothing but ask you questions without personal attacks. I've asked you how it was a strawman and I've asked you were there any terrestrial organisms in the Cambrian. You have done nothing but dodge and then actually commit the same ad homs you accuse me of by implying that...

@LoricaLady What really happened there was the exposition of your inability to comprehend basic operational science.

As was said, science is not a 'this is how it happened, period' venture.

@drcraigvideos So then he doesn't believe a supernatural/metaphysical entity is responsible for the existence of the universe and life?

Modern animals didn't live next to dinosaurs, their ancestors did. For instance the modern Coelacanth isn't even in the same family as the fossil Coelacanth. Even so, 'living fossils' pose no problem for evolution as it has never said an organism must evolve, it just describes the process when ...

God can't exactly say that, seeing as how he doesn't exist.

Yes, we get that the bible says that the fool says there is no god, but that's just painfully circular logic from the *humans* that wrote it.

If I write on a box of spaghetti, 'The fool says in his heart there is no flying spaghetti ...

@jgaseb So instead of just admitting you were utterly wrong, you play the appeals card, appeal to emotion, appeal to consequence "What if you're wrong?" etc.

A pathetic attempt to change the subject from a topic on which you were losing.

@9pt9 We already have the mountains of evidence for every major transition in every field. From embryology to genetics, just let me know what field you want the mountain of evidence for.

The willful ignorance which has to be undertaken by this mean to sell the garbage he speaks is nothing short of stifling, he spouts demonstrably wrong stupidity with every breath he can muster and as long as you people buy it, he'll keep doing it.