PZ Myers Vs Jerry Bergman 4 - 5
Uploader Comments (integralmath)
Top Comments
-
...and Godwin's Law is invoked. Bergman is a very foolish man
All Comments (68)
-
@ScientificBob Sorry maybe the word "See" was a poor choice to describe scientific discoveries. BTW they have imaged atoms over 40 years ago.... Physicist Albert Crewe first imaged single atoms in June 1970 in the journal Science, he published a research report titled “Visibility of Single Atoms,” he used his newly invented scanning transmission electron microscope. Oh and there are even better images of Atoms now Just google, you'll find some. =)
-
@GodKillerAtheist "don't regard what they don't see as science" So I guess they don't consider atomic theory to be "science" since nobody ever saw an atom. :-)
-
@ScientificBob =) They have all sorts of stuff they've renamed as science. I actually read a page on Answers in Genesis that said that scientists using the scientific method call things they can't see like evolution, science but creationists scientists using the same scientific method don't regard what they don't see as science. Sadly for the cretard macro evolution was proven in the 1980's yet still they persist in their lies.
-
@GodKillerAtheist You forgot to mention research meant to perfect the art of obfuscation. :-)
-
LOL 3:53 the moderator was falling asleep due to Berman's sheer brilliance.. I meant ignorance..
-
So far I haven't heard any evidence for ID from Bergman. All he does is play the victim card as if it explains anything.
All they say is things are too complex to have evolved naturally so there must be a designer. Isn't science based on observations? When did they observe something being designed? When did they observe a design being implemented? When did they observe a designer?
Is ID game over? ID never even inserted a coin!
-
The accusations: evolutionists say vestigial organs are functionless; creationists say irreducibly complex systems are functionless without their parts.
PZ objects by saying, "Vestigials are not functionless, they just don't serve the original function"; now Bergman is saying basically the same thing about irreducible complexity.
OhmyGOD, the words in this debate are all getting mashed together into redefinition and equivocation by the Bergmeister -- irreducible vestigial complexity is BORN!
-
Wow. I can't believe the guy had the balls to claim that evolution dealt with Hitler and that no scientists resisted him...
I always do that... I always think they can't get any worse, but they do, every single time.
I learnt something from this debate:
ID proponents are really dumb.
If you ask a dumb person an intelligent question, don't expect an intelligent answer.
PZ Myers is awesome.
Oh wait... I already new all this. I guess this was a waste of my time :p
devdred 8 months ago 8
@devdred: yeah. Right now, I'm rendering a version with the fixed audio, and as one video. So, you can have that to share with people too!
integralmath 8 months ago
What kind of fucking research do you do for ID anyways? That may be the reason why they don't give them money.
TekLok 8 months ago 2
@TekLok: well, I'm sure it involves an exceptionally difficult method of staring real hard at shit.
integralmath 8 months ago 11
How many reliable resources has Bergman used this entire debate?
asdfbobbyasdf 8 months ago
@asdfbobbyasdf: if by reliable, you mean unnamed professor at an unnamed university or conference, then tons!
integralmath 8 months ago