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

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.

More ad homenim BS. Nothing more. Some SCIENCE. You are engaging "philosophy" while attempting to claim its SCIENCE...real...science that can apply the scientific method....but you never apply the scientific method...why? You are engaging in RELIGION..whether you accept that reality or not...its the religions of secular humanism and Darwinism. But...you don't even have a testable guide to reference as truth. Why? Because you are against NOTHING and thus you can neither prove nor disprove anything within the realm of applying the scientific method to prove your positions as FACTS. If there were facts in evidence....why argue? Simply present these FACTS of SCIENCE. And its over...who can argue with the application of the laws of physics and science? FYI: A consensus has never established a scientific fact...facts are established by evidences recorded from applying SCIENCE ACTUAL....not philosophical conjecture, assumption, speculation or popular opinion.

Hell when and if you ever do agree with "ME"....its time for me to back up and PUNT, I have made a wrong turn somewhere. LAMO. :)
 
Last edited:
More ad homenim BS. Nothing more. Some SCIENCE. You are engaging "philosophy" while attempting to claim its SCIENCE...real...science that can apply the scientific method....but you never apply the scientific method...why? You are engaging in RELIGION..whether you accept that reality or not...its the religions of secular humanism and Darwinism. But...you don't even have a testable guide to reference as truth. Why? Because you are against NOTHING and thus you can neither prove nor disprove anything within the realm of applying the scientific method to prove your positions as FACTS. If there were facts in evidence....why argue? Simply present these FACTS of SCIENCE. And its over...who can argue with the application of the laws of physics and science? FYI: A consensus has never established a scientific fact...facts are established by evidences recorded from applying SCIENCE ACTUAL....not philosophical conjecture, assumption, speculation or popular opinion.

Hell when and if you ever do agree with "ME"....its time for me to back up and PUNT, I have made a wrong turn somewhere. LAMO. :)


I love your bizarre and twisted version of "science". So you now claim that two of every animal WASN'T on the Ark, but two of every "kind". Then those kinds evolved into the diversity we have today. How convenient! I thought you thumpers didn't believe in evolution, but now you do when you need it to try to defend this children's story? Priceless! Or that they were "created"later. Where does your book of myths mention that? Pretty significant set of events, wouldn't you say?

Noah 500 years old and building an Ark? Really?
No rain before the flood? Really?
Australia close to Turkey a few thousand years ago? Really?

Ralphie, science does not exist up your ass. That's where you're pulling this shit from.
 
Yeah, sure we are. Descended from a guy who was 500 years old when he built the Ark.

Cite references dealing with the DNA confirmation of that claim.

actually I recall DNA studies that indicate everyone alive today is descended from a common ancestor in the not so distant past......what was the date for mitochondrial eve?.......100k years ago?......was he any older than the rest of the folks in the neighborhood at the time?......
 
I love your bizarre and twisted version of "science". So you now claim that two of every animal WASN'T on the Ark, but two of every "kind". Then those kinds evolved into the diversity we have today. How convenient! I thought you thumpers didn't believe in evolution, but now you do when you need it to try to defend this children's story? Priceless! Or that they were "created"later. Where does your book of myths mention that? Pretty significant set of events, wouldn't you say?

Noah 500 years old and building an Ark? Really?
No rain before the flood? Really?
Australia close to Turkey a few thousand years ago? Really?

Ralphie, science does not exist up your ass. That's where you're pulling this shit from.

You still are to face the simple reality of your circular argument; What "you" believe...or don't believe has absolutely no effect upon the "faith that rests in MY HEART"....Why? Because I know that you are not capable of presenting any evidence (because none exists) that would cause doubt in relation to the foundation of that faith....the truth presented in the Word of God....as there is no reason for me to doubt that Word as truth because its impossible to factually prove a lie, a deceit, a deception or any other act of duplicity. The first fact of reality that must be accepted....personally I have as much EDUCATION...if not demonstrably MORE EDUCATION in the field of applied science than you. As you have attempted time and time again to paste internet shopping lists in order to prove "your" intellect. Why are you not capable of articulating your argument void of these parroted lists? Because you lack something...something that you claim you have, an ability to reason and think in cognitive streams of LOGIC.

I never...and never have had to TOUT my own intelligence and educational level. Why? Its a simple and logical thing.....show me your works by the faith of your own revelations and I will show you my faith BY MY WORKS. Its easy to simply calculate the abilities or lack of ability of anyone...based upon the simple evidence found in the prima facie realm of THEIR OWN WORDS. I don't have to prove...my intellect exists by claiming that it does. I allow my words to judge me in their consistency...they hide nothing....but they reveal a great deal about anyone who attempts to place thoughts into script.

If you could cause doubt by injecting FACTS OF SCIENCE...you would have done as much instead of attempting to argue in an ever growing negative circle of the things you accuse but can't prove.

What is apparent...you are not interested in a discussion as why that faith rests in MY HEART...you are attempting to disclaim My faith by the content of what or what does not rest in YOUR HEART. That's an impossible negative for you to navigate. Why?

You state that YOU KNOW....the age of the earth, the dates of the ages and history of this earth in their entirety...etc., yada, yada, yada...and you claim that you know this based upon scientific facts. A lie. This....more than Suggests that you are incapable of proving to me...that your knowledge indeed is based upon FACTS as defined by Science. For your suggestions as to the ages and dates of anything are errant due to one reality of Science.... in order to prove all....as facts of Science....observance has to occur. Science itself requires observed calibrations to any tests or testing equipment. There is not now...nor never will be any capacity to calibrate that which preceded HISTORICAL RECORDS. Radio Carbon dating is nothing but a theory that can't be calibrated past the age of recorded history. Why? Because it first assumes a constant rate of decay in certain radio active elements....when science proves that there are many natural circumstances (variables) that can and does effect the rate of decay. The assumption is that none of the factors have ever effected this theory and its calibration is based upon that errant assumption.

The only blind faith that I see realized is your BLIND FAITH in secular humanism and Darwinian Cultism. When it comes to Science.....facts are not concluded based upon Theory, Speculation, Conjecture....or Opinions...either personal or consensus. Facts are always concluded based upon the scientific method of observable, reproducible, consistent experiments. What you call Science is not science actual.... errantly calling Cosmology Science...and Theoretical Science....anything but Philosophy based upon a way of THINKING....is not Science Actual because its impossible to APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Again. You have presented nothing to cause doubt beyond ANY REASON.....for the faith resting in MY Heart. I am tasked with working out my own salvation first and foremost. Then....the task of edifying others to the reason of why that faith rests in my heart. I have more than accounted for the reason that faith rests within ME. As for your faith or lack thereof.....that's just it....ITS YOUR FAITH OR LACK THEREOF...not mine.

But....you indeed are a piss poor representative of the religion called secular humanism and Darwinian Cultism. Why? Real Science does not attempt to exclude any possibility as you have attempted time and time again...real science tests things and seeks out facts that are not in evidence...it never attempts to suppress any evidence in order to attempt to conform to some consensus based upon philosophical THINKING. :)

I am open to being proven wrong by any introduction of REAL SCIENCE....but, as of yet...you have introduced nothing but personal philosophy while attempting to claim that its factual science.
 
Last edited:
You still are to face the simple reality of your circular argument; What "you" believe...or don't believe has absolutely no effect upon the "faith that rests in MY HEART"....Why? Because I know that you are not capable of presenting any evidence (because none exists) that would cause doubt in relation to the foundation of that faith....the truth presented in the Word of God....as there is no reason for me to doubt that Word as truth because its impossible to factually prove a lie, a deceit, a deception or any other act of duplicity. The first fact of reality that must be accepted....personally I have as much EDUCATION...if not demonstrably MORE EDUCATION in the field of applied science than you. As you have attempted time and time again to paste internet shopping lists in order to prove "your" intellect. Why are you not capable of articulating your argument void of these parroted lists? Because you lack something...something that you claim you have, an ability to reason and think in cognitive streams of LOGIC.

I never...and never have had to TOUT my own intelligence and educational level. Why? Its a simple and logical thing.....show me your works by the faith of your own revelations and I will show you my faith BY MY WORKS. Its easy to simply calculate the abilities or lack of ability of anyone...based upon the simple evidence found in the prima facie realm of THEIR OWN WORDS. I don't have to prove...my intellect exists by claiming that it does. I allow my words to judge me in their consistency...they hide nothing....but they reveal a great deal about anyone who attempts to place thoughts into script.

If you could cause doubt by injecting FACTS OF SCIENCE...you would have done as much instead of attempting to argue in an ever growing negative circle of the things you accuse but can't prove.

What is apparent...you are not interested in a discussion as why that faith rests in MY HEART...you are attempting to disclaim My faith by the content of what or what does not rest in YOUR HEART. That's an impossible negative for you to navigate. Why?

You state that YOU KNOW....the age of the earth, the dates of the ages and history of this earth in their entirety...etc., yada, yada, yada...and you claim that you know this based upon scientific facts. A lie. This....more than Suggests that you are incapable of proving to me...that your knowledge indeed is based upon FACTS as defined by Science. For your suggestions as to the ages and dates of anything are errant due to one reality of Science.... in order to prove all....as facts of Science....observance has to occur. Science itself requires observed calibrations to any tests or testing equipment. There is not now...nor never will be any capacity to calibrate that which preceded HISTORICAL RECORDS. Radio Carbon dating is nothing but a theory that can't be calibrated past the age of recorded history. Why? Because it first assumes a constant rate of decay in certain radio active elements....when science proves that there are many natural circumstances (variables) that can and does effect the rate of decay. The assumption is that none of the factors have ever effected this theory and its calibration is based upon that errant assumption.

The only blind faith that I see realized is your BLIND FAITH in secular humanism and Darwinian Cultism. When it comes to Science.....facts are not concluded based upon Theory, Speculation, Conjecture....or Opinions...either personal or consensus. Facts are always concluded based upon the scientific method of observable, reproducible, consistent experiments. What you call Science is not science actual.... errantly calling Cosmology Science...and Theoretical Science....anything but Philosophy based upon a way of THINKING....is not Science Actual because its impossible to APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Again. You have presented nothing to cause doubt beyond ANY REASON.....for the faith resting in MY Heart. I am tasked with working out my own salvation first and foremost. Then....the task of edifying others to the reason of why that faith rests in my heart. I have more than accounted for the reason that faith rests within ME. As for your faith or lack thereof.....that's just it....ITS YOUR FAITH OR LACK THEREOF...not mine.

But....you indeed are a piss poor representative of the religion called secular humanism and Darwinian Cultism. Why? Real Science does not attempt to exclude any possibility as you have attempted time and time again...real science tests things and seeks out facts that are not in evidence...it never attempts to suppress any evidence in order to attempt to conform to some consensus based upon philosophical THINKING. :)

I am open to being proven wrong by any introduction of REAL SCIENCE....but, as of yet...you have introduced nothing but personal philosophy while attempting to claim that its factual science.

Laughing at your novels here. I get about 2 sentences in. You have more education in applied science than I do? How do you know that? The same way you know all the animals in the world were on one boat for nesrly a year? Now THAT is fucking hilarious!

You crap on Darwinism yet need it to account for the diversity after just two of a "kind" got on your boat. Isn't that the height of irony?

Other questions:

How did Noah gather all those kinds in one spot?
How did he get them all on the boat in one day?
How was there enough space for all of them?
How fid he store enough food and water for all of them?
How did they all survive in those close quarters for almost a year without massive disease?
How did the fresh water fish survive?
How did he determine gender of each of the two?
How did tropical and arctic specues survive in one environment?
When they disembarked at the same spot, how did the "kinds" migrate to their present locations with only the fossil record in those locations? (Koalas, kangaroos, platypus, etc)

More questions for you to be unable to answer coming.
 
You crap on Darwinism yet need it to account for the diversity after just two of a "kind" got on your boat. Isn't that the height of irony?

let me correct your error.....no one NEEDS Darwinism to apply the scientific rules of evolution.....Darwin didn't create evolution, God did......Darwin just noticed it and made some erroneous conclusions about it.......
 
When they disembarked at the same spot, how did the "kinds" migrate to their present locations with only the fossil record in those locations? (Koalas, kangaroos, platypus, etc)

why do you keep asking the same question after your error has already been pointed out?......there is absolutely no need for koalas, kangaroos or platypus to have been on the ark......
 
let me correct your error.....no one NEEDS Darwinism to apply the scientific rules of evolution.....Darwin didn't create evolution, God did......Darwin just noticed it and made some erroneous conclusions about it.......

Stand back, pal, and brace yourself. The creationists like Ralphie here deny evolution. Yet he needs it in the context of ALL animals on the Ark versus the "kinds".

I love all the gymnastics you guys have to go through to explain all the absurdities of you book.

Ralphie claims it didn't rain on earth before the Ark. Are you fucking kidding?
You need "kinds" versus all species to justify the space problems on the Ark.

So many holes that none of you can plug. From denying the true sciences of chemistry, biology, genetics, archeology, physics, anthropology, geology, and so on. You abandon all of those for your own version of pseudoscience that you get from your creationist websites.

Pathetic
 
Stand back, pal, and brace yourself. The creationists like Ralphie here deny evolution. Yet he needs it in the context of ALL animals on the Ark versus the "kinds".

I love all the gymnastics you guys have to go through to explain all the absurdities of you book.

Ralphie claims it didn't rain on earth before the Ark. Are you fucking kidding?
You need "kinds" versus all species to justify the space problems on the Ark.

So many holes that none of you can plug. From denying the true sciences of chemistry, biology, genetics, archeology, physics, anthropology, geology, and so on. You abandon all of those for your own version of pseudoscience that you get from your creationist websites.

Pathetic
I'm not debating Ralph....I'm not even reading his posts.....I'm correcting YOUR errors.....you haven't raised an issue yet that's even a hole in need of plugging.....every time I answer your questions you turn in a different direction......the least you could do is say "okay, your right about that, but....."

nothing more amusing than an atheist who is ignorant about science trying to win an argument by pasting arguments he doesn't understand and pretending he has a superior understanding......
 
why do you keep asking the same question after your error has already been pointed out?......there is absolutely no need for koalas, kangaroos or platypus to have been on the ark......

What animals were placed there in their place? What "kind"? And why no fossil evidence until Australia?

Ralphie loves "science". Defend it.
 
I'm not debating Ralph....I'm not even reading his posts.....I'm correcting YOUR errors.....you haven't raised an issue yet that's even a hole in need of plugging.....every time I answer your questions you turn in a different direction......the least you could do is say "okay, your right about that, but....."

nothing more amusing than an atheist who is ignorant about science trying to win an argument by pasting arguments he doesn't understand and pretending he has a superior understanding......

Be correct on this. On every topic I've ever seen from you, you have been on the opposite side of correct.

Defend all the aspects of this SINGLE absurdity of your children's book. The Ark.

After you have demonstrated the scientific validity of that event, we can go forward on virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and eternal life after death and who qualifies.
 
Be correct on this. On every topic I've ever seen from you, you have been on the opposite side of correct.

Defend all the aspects of this SINGLE absurdity of your children's book. The Ark.

After you have demonstrated the scientific validity of that event, we can go forward on virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and eternal life after death and who qualifies.

don't be ignorant, child....why do you believe every culture on earth has a legend of an event where humanity was nearly destroyed in a flood......Occam's Razor should make it clear to you that's its because there was a flood that nearly destroyed humanity.....did you think the message to be found in scripture is where did koalas come from?......nobody needs to explain the science of the event to you.......but obviously you need to have the spirituality of the event explained to you, because you are lost in the vapors......
 
I am amused at atheists who think that man's study of reality restricts the deity who created reality......science is not violated by your ignorance......it isn't even scratched....
 
actually I recall DNA studies that indicate everyone alive today is descended from a common ancestor in the not so distant past......what was the date for mitochondrial eve?.......100k years ago?......was he any older than the rest of the folks in the neighborhood at the time?......

That study said one person from 6000 years ago. Right?
 
Back
Top