Maher calls out Trumpkin evangelicals for what they are: Shameless hypocrites

[domer76]

So....evolution is not true.....these Koala bears were not first FISH? They were CREATED in Australia? Is that your point? The truth found in scriptures? The world geography was vastly different, before during and after the Flood. The Bible clearly states that the valley's rose and the mountains sank during the time period of the flood which encompasses the time before, during and after the flood. (Ps. 104:6-9) In other words.....the world was changing shape...and this is a scientific fact as Sea Animal fossils have been found atop the highest peaks on earth.

How do you KNOW that the continent of Australia was separated from the Eurasia before the time the animals recovered from the great flood? You cannot objectively prove it...because, testable, objective, reproducible history can be validated only for some 5000 years...without injecting, assumption, theories, hypothesis etc., into the conclusion.

But...as far a evolution goes....that bear is not really a bear....its a marsupial....and marsupials (a KIND of ANIMAL family) are located all over north America..etc.

A most recent example of animals relocating after some great geographical disaster would the example established by the eruption of Krakatoa. The island that remained was completely void of life after the eruption.....but, birds, Lizards, and several types of mammals appeared upon this once lifeless land mass. Deal....you explain how land animals migrated to Krakatoa....after all life was non-existent..... And we shall debate just how one example of a couple of types...i.e., a KIND of animal (marsupial) ended upon on the supposed Isolated land masses of Australia. Deal?

A bible lesson: Until the time of Noah and the Ark....rain was never mentioned in the history recorded in the Bible. Plants were watered by a mist like fog each morning and due was formed....from the existing bodies of water (Genesis 2:4-6) In order for water to cover even the highest peaks on earth...those peaks at some point in time MUST HAVE BEEN LOCATED on an ocea

Never invoke science again, moron. You insult the concept.

 

[Ralph]

wait for it......its coming.....

First you must wait....for him to find another shopping list on the net....parrot and paste it. And the next, and the next, and the next. My rule of thumb is to address the first 2, 3, or possibly 4 such attacks....and easy dispatch them with the logic found in scripture. After that.....I ignore them and declare that all can be dispatched with as much ease that first examples. Its a common tactic used by these type of individuals. They don't really debate....they steal their talking points from the net and keep repeating that until you grow weary of wasting time...and then they declare victory as he has demonstrated along this thread several times already...ASSUMING that I was growing weary of actually working to explain the facts while he had access to a shopping lest of nonsensical demands. I find it entertaining.....there are no good football games on today and I have a few hours to kill before services.....popcorn?

 

[Ralph]

Never invoke science again, moron. You insult the concept.

What....no shopping list? And I must ask you before I can use the scientific method of Experiment again? Really?

There goes my Applied Science experience....out the door. What about my MBA? Can I still use these skills to run my family pharmacy business and ranch?

 

[domer76]

not at all.....did you somehow believe a koala had to be on the ark?.......was it because they sinned against God and all the koalas had to be destroyed?......

It's difficult to believe you are that stupid. Perhaps you should go back and review the children's story that Ralphie takes as fact. Get your anti-giggle pills because it's a real laugher.

Did you know the first rain ever to fall on earth was only a few thousand years ago and that Eurasia and Australia were joined at that time?

 

[domer76]

First you must wait....for him to find another shopping list on the net....parrot and paste it. And the next, and the next, and the next. My rule of thumb is to address the first 2, 3, or possibly 4 such attacks....and easy dispatch them with the logic found in scripture. After that.....I ignore them and declare that all can be dispatched with as much ease that first examples. Its a common tactic used by these type of individuals. They don't really debate....they steal their talking points from the net and keep repeating that until you grow weary of wasting time...and then they declare victory as he has demonstrated along this thread several times already...ASSUMING that I was growing weary of actually working to explain the facts while he had access to a shopping lest of nonsensical demands. I find it entertaining.....there are no good football games on today and I have a few hours to kill before services.....popcorn?

Pathetic little child. Cite me more "science" from your Bronze Age goatfuckers. This is hysterical!

How do people of your mentality make it to adulthood?

 

[Ralph]

Pathetic little child. Cite me more "science" from your Bronze Age goatfuckers. This is hysterical!

How do people of your mentality make it to adulthood?

Nope....ALL SCIENCE....ALL PRAGMATIC REALISM.....no personal ad homenim attacks here....no deflections. Moving on.org....clearly you are the pragmatic representative of Adulthood here. Clear precise retorts with no childish emotionalism whatsoever. Maybe a coloring book about the ascent of man by Darwin....to paste.

 

[domer76]

Nope....ALL SCIENCE....ALL PRAGMATIC REALISM.....no personal ad homenim attacks here....no deflections. Moving on.org....clearly you are the pragmatic representative of Adulthood here. Clear precise retorts with no childish emotionalism whatsoever. Maybe a coloring book about the ascent of man by Darwin....to paste.

I love this. So koalas were actually not on the Ark? Your book says all animals of the world were. Who's wrong here? You or the children's book? Did the kangaroo and platypus also miss the boat and were created later?

Does your book say Eurasia and Australia were connected or did you just make that bullshit up for convenience? Were they just right next to each other or were they still over 7000 miles apart?

Go ahead. Give me all the "science" you have. I love a good dose of "science"

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It's difficult to believe you are that stupid. Perhaps you should go back and review the children's story that Ralphie takes as fact. Get your anti-giggle pills because it's a real laugher.

Did you know the first rain ever to fall on earth was only a few thousand years ago and that Eurasia and Australia were joined at that time?

If you actually believe that then you are the one who ought not invoke science....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I love this. So koalas were actually not on the Ark? Your book says all animals of the world were. Who's wrong here? You or the children's book? Did the kangaroo and platypus also miss the boat and were created later?

Does your book say Eurasia and Australia were connected or did you just make that bullshit up for convenience? Were they just right next to each other or were they still over 7000 miles apart?

Go ahead. Give me all the "science" you have. I love a good dose of "science"

Actually neither he or scripture is wrong....you are...there is no mention of koalas in Genesis. ..your error is your attempt to treat it as a zoological text....

 

[Ralph]

I love this. So koalas were actually not on the Ark? Your book says all animals of the world were. Who's wrong here? You or the children's book? Did the kangaroo and platypus also miss the boat and were created later?

Does your book say Eurasia and Australia were connected or did you just make that bullshit up for convenience? Were they just right next to each other or were they still over 7000 miles apart?

Go ahead. Give me all the "science" you have. I love a good dose of "science"

Debunked....move along. What part of modern Australia not existing as an Island and Isolated Continent until after the flood and shifting plate tectonics, earth quakes, etc. did you not comprehend? Now prove through the scientific method that there is no such record of shifting plate tectonics, moving and shifting of entire continents...etc.....or no evidence of the highest peaks on earth being under water meaning they at one time nowhere near that high as all the water on earth could not place those peaks under water TODAY....or yesterday or never Why?

Because you certainly cannot prove anything in an objective observable, testable, repeatable fashion of scientific experimentation passed the last 5000 years. The only thing you can provide is a shopping list of supposed theories, assumptions, speculations and opinions on dating to include carbon dating and its assumption that the rate of decay and the universe has been constant since creation...which is obviously un-scientific due to the fact that the Universe and everything in it is in a constant state of change.

As I said....movingon.org. Why? Because the supposed "Gotcha question" is a negative that no one can prove nor disprove, as there is no direct mention of animals in any specifics mentioned in scriptures except those that were used directly by man as food..etc., cattle, sheep, etc....all others mentioned were only Kinds of animals within specific groups such as K-9 that would be inclusive of all K-9 type animals, wolves, dogs, coyotes etc. Why would the Kind of animal in a "Marsupial Kind" be any different? Who knows....what the dna chain of this group of creatures might led to in a changing environment....could an Opossum adapt to eat the same leaves if isolated on an Island? Prove that they cannot. The Scriptures are clear.....horizontal evolution (adaptation within species is very real)...why? Reason and Logic...if man or beast did not process the DNA code to adapt for change....man and beast would have died with their 1st introduction to a simple virus or bacterial infection. There'd be no human or warm blooded biological life on earth.

But....there has never been any evidence....Scientific or otherwise...outside of speculation and conjecture of any living creature changing from a fish to a Marsupial beast. If so....prove it. Demonstrate any change from one species to another...or VERTICAL EVOLUTION. Show us the fossil record....or explain to us why there are still primates on earth...were they just to stupid to evolve into humans? And...if they are that stupid and inferior...what happened to survival of the fittest should these beasts that did not or could not vertically evolve into a higher species BE DEAD and EXTINCT now?

 

[domer76]

Actually neither he or scripture is wrong....you are...there is no mention of koalas in Genesis. ..your error is your attempt to treat it as a zoological text....

I'm merely quizzing you and Ralphie on the contents of this children's book of yours.

It says two of every animal in the world were on the boat. Now, are you telling me that koalas were NOT included. They are animals, you know. So which is it? Were they or were they not on the Ark?

Ralphie claims they may have been created in Australia later. Pretty damn funny. So were kangaroos and platypus, I guess.

The question I'm asking and you two are too uncomfortable to answer is:

1) Did the Ark and the flood occur? Yes or no
2) If so, how did the animals found only in Australia get from Turkey (Ararat) to Australia? Both of the two.

Not difficult questions to answer from men of "science"! lol

 

[domer76]

Debunked....move along. What part of modern Australia not existing as an Island and Isolated Continent until after the flood and shifting plate tectonics, earth quakes, etc. did you not comprehend? Now prove through the scientific method that there is no such record of shifting plate tectonics, moving and shifting of entire continents...etc.....or no evidence of the highest peaks on earth being under water meaning they at one time nowhere near that high as all the water on earth could not place those peaks under water TODAY....or yesterday or never Why?

Because you certainly cannot prove anything in an objective observable, testable, repeatable fashion of scientific experimentation passed the last 5000 years. The only thing you can provide is a shopping list of supposed theories, assumptions, speculations and opinions on dating to include carbon dating and its assumption that the rate of decay and the universe has been constant since creation...which is obviously un-scientific due to the fact that the Universe and everything in it is in a constant state of change.

As I said....movingon.org. Why? Because the supposed "Gotcha question" is a negative that no one can prove nor disprove, as there is no direct mention of animals in any specifics mentioned in scriptures except those that were used directly by man as food..etc., cattle, sheep, etc....all others mentioned were only Kinds of animals within specific groups such as K-9 that would be inclusive of all K-9 type animals, wolves, dogs, coyotes etc. Why would the Kind of animal in a "Marsupial Kind" be any different? Who knows....what the dna chain of this group of creatures might led to in a changing environment....could an Opossum adapt to eat the same leaves if isolated on an Island? Prove that they cannot. The Scriptures are clear.....horizontal evolution (adaptation within species is very real)...why? Reason and Logic...if man or beast did not process the DNA code to adapt for change....man and beast would have died with their 1st introduction to a simple virus or bacterial infection. There'd be no human or warm blooded biological life on earth.

But....there has never been any evidence....Scientific or otherwise...outside of speculation and conjecture of any living creature changing from a fish to a Marsupial beast. If so....prove it. Demonstrate any change from one species to another...or VERTICAL EVOLUTION. Show us the fossil record....or explain to us why there are still primates on earth...were they just to stupid to evolve into humans? And...if they are that stupid and inferior...what happened to survival of the fittest should these beasts that did not or could not vertically evolve into a higher species BE DEAD and EXTINCT now?

Plate tectonics shoved Australia that far away in a couple thousand years? Really? Just fucking hysterical! Who makes this shit up for you? Wait. Let me guess. The creation "science" idiots. This is straight out of their book and you're spouting the same bullshit other creationists have when I quizzed them on the same subject.

(laughing again) Your understanding of evolution theory is on the level of an 8 year old.

But, answer that simple question. Your children's book then does NOT say there were two of every animal in the world?

Oh, and while you're at it, quote the passage talking about vertical evolution. (This should be good!)

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm merely quizzing you and Ralphie on the contents of this children's book of yours.
l

and well you should, since like most atheists you lack even a rudimentary understanding of scripture....

did you think two of every animal that exists today were on the ark, child........do we need two of every one of the 37,000 species of beetle?.......do we need two St. Bernards and two Shitzus?.....were there lions and tigers and leopards as well as kitty cats?.....

of course koalas could have been created later.....or evolved later......or shaped by a deity manipulating DNA in the womb of another creature.......there are limitless possibilities not one of which you could ever disprove, despite your arrogant attitude about your superiority in science.....

and even that begs the question of why the animals of Australia (who did not need to be punished) would have to be drowned.......
obviously, if no one lived in Australia yet at the time of the flood there would have been no reason for the ground to have even gotten wet....

do I believe there was a catastrophic flooding which killed all except a handful of people that God spared.......yes.....in fact I am certain of it because the native lore of nearly every people on earth includes it as part of their ancestors memories....

animals found only in Australia didn't have to get to Turkey, since that would require a Biblical literalism that only atheists share with approximately 5% of Christianity.....

sorry that your insight into scripture is so limited......cue the expected response.....

 

[domer76]

and well you should, since like most atheists you lack even a rudimentary understanding of scripture....

did you think two of every animal that exists today were on the ark, child........do we need two of every one of the 37,000 species of beetle?.......do we need two St. Bernards and two Shitzus?.....were there lions and tigers and leopards as well as kitty cats?.....

of course koalas could have been created later.....or evolved later......or shaped by a deity manipulating DNA in the womb of another creature.......there are limitless possibilities not one of which you could ever disprove, despite your arrogant attitude about your superiority in science.....

and even that begs the question of why the animals of Australia (who did not need to be punished) would have to be drowned.......
obviously, if no one lived in Australia yet at the time of the flood there would have been no reason for the ground to have even gotten wet....

do I believe there was a catastrophic flooding which killed all except a handful of people that God spared.......yes.....in fact I am certain of it because the native lore of nearly every people on earth includes it as part of their ancestors memories....

animals found only in Australia didn't have to get to Turkey, since that would require a Biblical literalism that only atheists share with approximately 5% of Christianity.....

sorry that your insight into scripture is so limited......cue the expected response.....

Lot's of "could haves" there, pally boy. Not so sure about the truth of your little book? It's your children's book, not mine. Read it and weep from Genesis:

"Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

You explain it, pal. If you can't, I understand.

 

[Ralph]

I'm merely quizzing you and Ralphie on the contents of this children's book of yours.

It says two of every animal in the world were on the boat. Now, are you telling me that koalas were NOT included. They are animals, you know. So which is it? Were they or were they not on the Ark?

Ralphie claims they may have been created in Australia later. Pretty damn funny. So were kangaroos and platypus, I guess.

The question I'm asking and you two are too uncomfortable to answer is:

1) Did the Ark and the flood occur? Yes or no
2) If so, how did the animals found only in Australia get from Turkey (Ararat) to Australia? Both of the two.

Not difficult questions to answer from men of "science"! lol

Again....Kind is specific only to species. Clearly.....these animals on Australia are there...and the negative argument? You can't prove that Australia was never part of another continent...as Science certainly reveals the truth behind continental plate tectonic shifting. Your point is made moot...because you are so ignorant that you refuse to accept the reality that TWO of every KIND.....does not have to include a kind of Marsupial that has adapted with in that KIND to the environment that is modern day Australia. Example: Wovles have adapted to their surrounding to the point that there are now 3lb examples of that KIND in a great deal of modern households. Why should the Marsupial Kind be any different? I am still awaiting your first example of Science. What you can't present is any objective evidence of these Marsupials first having been sea faring cold blooded creatures. But you demand evidence of them having adapted to the environment of Australia? Really? Again....you are demanding that another prove YOUR NEGATIVE ARGUMENT. Priceless.

Your argument is "circular"....you continue to argue in the same negative circle....while Science has been presented that explains about the evidence of Continental Plate Tectonic shifting. What? That does not fit in your circle? So you demand....a negative opinion that can't possibly be addressed because there is now, nor ever will be any possibility of anyone having OBSERVED the reason these animals are now not part of another Continent? Why don't you explain...how this Island Continent was never a part of another Continent...via using the Scientific Method?

There is no such Animal as a Gotcha! When the truth has been presented. That truth? You are incapable of proving your negative....so you attempt to deflect that burden upon others. The negative is the fact that no one can prove nor disprove the argument that you have chosen. That reality simply makes null and void....your worthless demands. Making your circle grow larger and larger each time the same DEBUNKED argument is presented ad nauseam....proves what? The fact that you are incapable of presenting any objective evidence to end that circular reasoning.

Either you can PROVE something is a fact via a presentation of objective, reproducible, consistent experimentation within the scientific method or YOU CAN'T. As of now you have presented no evidence...that Australia was never connected to another land mass...thus, you can present no factual statement that these animals have always been isolated from the rest of the world....and away from THEIR KIND.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Lot's of "could haves" there, pally boy. Not so sure about the truth of your little book? It's your children's book, not mine. Read it and weep from Genesis:

"Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

You explain it, pal. If you can't, I understand.

what's to explain.....I'm not bogged down in the literalism that atheists and young earth Christians require of Genesis.....the story of the ark is written in the Hebrew genre of legend, not that of narrative.....reality is full of "could haves".......atheists reject many "could haves" without having a rational basis for doing so......

 

[Ralph]

Lot's of "could haves" there, pally boy. Not so sure about the truth of your little book? It's your children's book, not mine. Read it and weep from Genesis:

"Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

You explain it, pal. If you can't, I understand.

Indeed...KIND. Allow the same Source that you are now attempting to use as TRUTH to prove the negative that's its not TRUTH. Priceless....now you are using a source that you claim is not truthful, as a truth in an attempt to prove its not a truth? Nope nothing contradictory with that logic or lack thereof.

Allow the Scriptures to define KIND....since you are attempting to debunk it by now presenting it as evidence. 1. What the Scriptures actually declare about kind, "Of the Birds...AFTER THEIR KIND, of Animals (no specifics of subgroups...just animals)after their KIND, TWO OF EVERY KIND (not 2 of every creature within that group..but two of that kind of animal)." -- Genesis 6:20

Seven animals of every species that represented THEIR KIND of "clean animal" (domesticated animals) where placed in the ark. That is a misconception.....there were never only 2 of every kind of animal. The Clean or domesticated animals were brought in in groups of "7". "You will bring with you 7 each of every clean animal...a male and a female; 2 each of all unclean animals, a male and a female (does that mean that there had to be 2 wolves, 2 dogs, 2 coyotes..etc.? of course not, just a male and female of THAT KIND..i.e, the species known as "Canidae" or K9.)...7 each of the birds of the air..male and female....to keep the (get this...SPECIES) species alive upon the earth." -- Genesis 7:2-3

Clear...plain...unambiguously stated. Kind = Species...not every animal upon the earth, but 7 clean, 2 unclean and 7 birds of the air....all within their kind or SPECIES.

There had to be NO Australian Marsupial that has adjusted and adapted to its modern environment now known as a KOALA BEAR (that's not really a bear but rather an example of the species known as "Phascolerctos"...latin for meaning to HAVE A BAG. What are you suggesting that a Koala is the only KIND of animal within that species that has a bag? Laugh My Ass off. The only Marsupial on earth....and Australia was never either part nor in whole connected to another world landmass? That about sum up your negative argument? I say PROVE your negative. You are declaring the negative that a Koala is uniquely solitary and the only example of this species upon earth....that's much like declaring that the Raccoon is not now nor never has shared a species commonality with the BEAR family....something Science proves to be a misconception based upon the modern day appearance of these species that have adapted to their environment needs.


Now....moveon.org with your ever widening circle....present the same argument...with no factual evidence, just ad hominem BS. Maybe this time if you say it fast enough....it will suddenly debunk the facts.

 

[domer76]

Again....Kind is specific only to species. Clearly.....these animals on Australia are there...and the negative argument? You can't prove that Australia was never part of another continent...as Science certainly reveals the truth behind continental plate tectonic shifting. Your point is made moot...because you are so ignorant that you refuse to accept the reality that TWO of every KIND.....does not have to include a kind of Marsupial that has adapted with in that KIND to the environment that is modern day Australia. Example: Wovles have adapted to their surrounding to the point that there are now 3lb examples of that KIND in a great deal of modern households. Why should the Marsupial Kind be any different? I am still awaiting your first example of Science. What you can't present is any objective evidence of these Marsupials first having been sea faring cold blooded creatures. But you demand evidence of them having adapted to the environment of Australia? Really? Again....you are demanding that another prove YOUR NEGATIVE ARGUMENT. Priceless.

Your argument is "circular"....you continue to argue in the same negative circle....while Science has been presented that explains about the evidence of Continental Plate Tectonic shifting. What? That does not fit in your circle? So you demand....a negative opinion that can't possibly be addressed because there is now, nor ever will be any possibility of anyone having OBSERVED the reason these animals are now not part of another Continent? Why don't you explain...how this Island Continent was never a part of another Continent...via using the Scientific Method?

There is no such Animal as a Gotcha! When the truth has been presented. That truth? You are incapable of proving your negative....so you attempt to deflect that burden upon others. The negative is the fact that no one can prove nor disprove the argument that you have chosen. That reality simply makes null and void....your worthless demands. Making your circle grow larger and larger each time the same DEBUNKED argument is presented ad nauseam....proves what? The fact that you are incapable of presenting any objective evidence to end that circular reasoning.

Either you can PROVE something is a fact via a presentation of objective, reproducible, consistent experimentation within the scientific method or YOU CAN'T. As of now you have presented no evidence...that Australia was never connected to another land mass...thus, you can present no factual statement that these animals have always been isolated from the rest of the world....and away from THEIR KIND.

You like tectonics? Great. Australia has been moving TOWARD Asia since separating from Antarctica MILLIONS of years ago, not a few thousand. . Ain't that something?

I quoted your book and you come up with suppositional bullshit as excuses. I laugh and shake my head at the length you guys go to yo explain these absurd children's stories. Noah 500 years old? No shit? What gym did he go to? I want some of that!

No rain on earth before the flood? Just fucking priceless! Prove it without your circular arguments,

You fucking crack me up asking for proof when the only thing you base your opinions on is a bunch of creationist bullshit. Such a small, child's mind

 

[domer76]

what's to explain.....I'm not bogged down in the literalism that atheists and young earth Christians require of Genesis.....the story of the ark is written in the Hebrew genre of legend, not that of narrative.....reality is full of "could haves".......atheists reject many "could haves" without having a rational basis for doing so......

You just indicated a world flood did occur. Which is it? Was the Ark not part of it?

Myths of virgin birth with god-father and mortal mother are all over history. Does that mean all those other cultures also have a man-god on earth? Nope. It means they are all common myths.

 

[Ralph]

Plate tectonics shoved Australia that far away in a couple thousand years? Really? Just fucking hysterical! Who makes this shit up for you? Wait. Let me guess. The creation "science" idiots. This is straight out of their book and you're spouting the same bullshit other creationists have when I quizzed them on the same subject.

(laughing again) Your understanding of evolution theory is on the level of an 8 year old.

But, answer that simple question. Your children's book then does NOT say there were two of every animal in the world?

Oh, and while you're at it, quote the passage talking about vertical evolution. (This should be good!)

You are yet to prove the negative. Demonstrate to us using the Scientific Method by which you came up with the suggestion that something was moved in a specified time frame......no theories, like carbon dating, no theories like geological charting with a petrified tree protruding through the entirety of the vertical layers...stating that these levels magically represent different time lines....pay no attention to the reality of fossils penetrating these levels in a vertical fashion.

Prove your ad hominem accusations. Use Science to do as much....as its you that professes proof. I simply display the evidence that is based upon the scientific method....not the speculation, assumptions, conjectures etc., that you are now engaging. Now prove...exactly how you have observed, reproduced, in a consistent manner using facts to reach the conclusion that dates anything past the RECORDED HISTORY. Proceed. I refuse to argue about something that has no possibility of being tested by SCIENCE ACTUAL and the scientific method of observed reproducible facts of evidence. As I said....its a circular argument you are engaging....and I am not purchasing in the least. Prove your own negatives. LMAO.