The non-ordained self-appointed Dr. is back with another fabulous video. He totally debunks evolution in 11 minutes 22 seconds.
Love the word "Pathologic" that keeps popping up next to his head on the book. Is this subliminal seduction taking place?
This time the barking spirits seem to be gone, but one pesky spirit seems to be causing a lot of static. I still can't get over the impressive set with a door in the background and Walmart bookcases. Impressive! I love how he juggles his big floppy books and sheets of paper attempting to point things out. Impressive Bro! Really impressive! I just have to keep going back and watching that clip. I am so astounded!
The bookcases look like they have been straightened up this time around. Nothing is more impressive for a world renown leader such as Bob Thiel than having book selves filled with stacks of old paper and books showing their edges instead of the spines. Thiel seems to have learned nothing from Herbert Armstrong and the use of quality in all things produced.
34 comments:
Just pathetic. I would love to see Dr B sit down with this and explain it Dr. Neil Tyson Degrasse, Brian Green or Donald Prothero.
He would disintegrate and swept away for his ignorance of what we know about evolution and what can be demonstrated as true. dd
Mercy....someone direct the man to talkorigins.com at least before he speaks. Pretty good presentation though for 1247 AD.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson would hit him at every turn with questions, the obvious and incontrovertible answers to which would show what malarkey Bob was spewing. Either he would be forced to say something so stupid, so indefensible, so obviously false, or else he would be forced to backpeddle and recant. In 11:22, Bob would be so hemmed in by Tyson's questions, not statements, just questions, unanswerable questions, that all he would be able to say would be, "But...*sigh*..."
Preachers should keep their mouths shut about evolution until they know something about it. They won't though, they have to open their mouths and publicly reveal their ignorance.
There are no "Answers in Genesis" but only early iron-age explanations that were copied and edited from earlier myths. The people who wrote it were the same kind of misogynistic narcissists that we see in churches and cults today. People who hardly know anything pretending to know everything.
Some people learn not to listen to these ignorant men talking for and about a god they have no knowledge of outside of belief in a book - a book written by the same kind of ignorant men as themselves.
Bob is proving though that there is such a thing as DEVOLUTION! Bob is increasingly becoming a simpler life form.
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY
too-much-headroom
Bob is confused because he's Benjamin Button and doesn't know it.
Why did he take that long? It only takes a couple of minutes to debunk the theory of evolution; and that's using science not scripture.
Bob probably doesn't get out much. It'd be interesting to send him cave diving, or on a vacation to the Galapagos Islands, or parts of New Zealand.
But, as far as he's concerned, one of the rediscovered truths which "God's Apostle" revealed was gap theory creationism, as opposed to the much more logically constructed old earth creationism which has been around for centuries, and actually embraces evolution as being one of God's dynamic processes.
BB
Bob isn't talking about evolution here at all. What he's talking is abiogenesis. Bob is showing his ignorance by not addressing the RNA/PNA/PAH world hypotheses. So, he's just setting up a straw man. But Bob likes straw men. They're much easier to knock over and they don't fight back.
Ok Anon at 6:05. Please disprove evolution in 2 minutes or less.
See creation.com for the scientific evidence by real scientists; there's plenty there. Of course, faith in a theory that life came from non-life by random chance isn't even scientifically believable by anyone who is honest.
Let the monkey boys have their fun while it lasts. By the end of the year they are going to have to scientifically explain away why the head of the roman church is able to gain so much power in just a short period of time.
But don't worry; the science of eugenics and human lab mice will make a comeback in europe like it did in nazi germany and that should give a hard on to these analytically minded sons of apes.
Anonymous said...
Why did he take that long? It only takes a couple of minutes to debunk the theory of evolution; and that's using science not scripture."
Don't show your ignorance so openly or put your name on this so we can bathe in your brilliance.
You have two minutes.
Anon 10:33, creation.com undermines its own case for creation because it doesn't explain where God came from.
I don't think I have ever heard a more pathetic presentation on evolution not being true than this. Hold that book up a bit longer so I can see I can see your great proof. Oi!
He should be ashamed of having "Dr" in front of his name.
DEVOLUTION THEORY was proved by an experiment conducted by the United Church of God
They got into an argument over who owned a few cows, and suddenly the UCG devolved into half of what it was before the "Cowgate" affair, udderly PROVING DEVOLUTION THEORY!
Couldn't stand more than about three minutes of that travesty! "Dr.," indeed. C. Z. Myers would make mincemeat out of that clown, but he's a real Dr. teaching real biology at the University of Minnesota. His blog is called Pharyngula. It would boggle Thiels befoddled mind.
Anonymous (May 6, 2013 at 10:56) has confused me with his "monkey boys", "human lab mice" and "nazi germany" references.
Was that a tongue-in-cheek post, or is he just another Bob Thiel in the making?
If he's serious (and looking for a mate), I'd suggest he go a-courtin' after Christine O'Donnell- the Christian Tea Party politician (and former Satanist) who believes that scientists have now created "human-mouse hybrids".
The thing is, what everyone wants to understand is the nuts and bolts, the mechanics, in full detail, of how biology arose from mere chemistry.
It is true, that by the naturalistic principles of physics/chemistry/biology--that we currently are aware of--life arising from nonlife relying merely on random combination is statistically improbable. But that does not mean that there are not higher-order principles, what are called "emergent properties"--of which we are not aware--that make the emergence of life from nonlife probable over much shorter time frames.
The trouble with the god hypothesis or the miracle theory is that it suggests that there is nothing to be known. It theorizes that the universe momentarily violated known naturalistic principles--by which it has always otherwise been observed to operate--for no scientifically discernable reason. And the support for the miracle theory essentially boils down to guesswork that all scientific inquiry into the subject is probably futile anyway, so why don't scientists give up already.
Unfortunately, the hypothesis that the human mind is incapable of understanding in the future what is not understood today, and that the scientific method is inadequate to the task of discovering the mechanics of what initially looks like a "miracle" is a hypothesis that has been in steady retreat since the renaissance, and there's no reason to suspect we've reached the limits of human inquiry yet, or even that such limits exist within the confines of the universe.
The fact is, it's too late for the god hypothesis to shut down scientific inquiry now, much as fundamentalists would enjoy that. There is simply too much momentum to the progress of science now. Whatever flaws exist in our current understanding, and however politics distorts the scientific method in the short term, the tendency toward curiosity and inquiry will soon iron those wrinkles out. So you religious people can pick at the flaws of current science, especially at the frontiers, but 100 years from now those "frontiers" will have moved dramatically, and fundamentalism will have been forced to retreat even further.
I have no doubts that eventually self-replicating molecules will be shown to arise spontaneously under unremarkable conditions. Probably not during my lifetime, but eventually. But if fundamentalists had their way, we'd all just give up and stop searching now. We'd all just stop being curious and asking so many questions that every fundamentalist knows were answered thousands of years ago, so many questions that all have the same answer--"god did it, now shut up"!
"It is true, that by the naturalistic principles of physics/chemistry/biology--that we currently are aware of--life arising from nonlife relying merely on random combination is statistically improbable. But that does not mean that there are not higher-order principles, what are called "emergent properties"--of which we are not aware--that make the emergence of life from nonlife probable over much shorter time frames."
I understand what you are saying. But what needs to be addressed is not just one life form - but the intricate dependence of one life form for another life form.
Examples: Trees and Flowers vs. Bees and Wasps.
Trees, Flowers, and some grasses require each other. Honeybees are needed to spread pollen from a flower to another flower for germination. Then the honeybee takes such pollen to the hive for production of honey, as one example.
These pairings are very common on Earth, where one species is absolutely dependent on another species for each species' survival. On land, sea, and in the air, species compliment each other in an accurate and precise balance. There is not even deviation in size - where one species dependent on another species is too large, too small, has a poisonous compount, the wrong tools, etc.... they "developed" for each other.
It is easy to make scientific theories that can seem to prove evolution as near-fact based on our research. OK, take that a step further, and explain the chances of these evolved species working for, and complimenting, each other for each other's existence, as well as being the proper size, material, and with the proper tools. To me, the chances of that happening so perfectly is what needs to be looked at, not the theory of individual evolutionary theory on individual species.That's easy to accept. However, accepting the fact that they all developed perfectly to serve each other is a different avenue.
This just in:
University of Pennsylvania closes Paleontology Program after watching Dr. Thiel's crushing of evolution. Neil Degrasse Tyson seen applying for work at McD's. Evolution-What the Fossils Tell Us and Why It is Important taken from shelves and burned. Grand Canyon Guides now admit, "The Flood did it all in one day." Cosmologists and Archaeologists on Food Stamps. Asking where can they find a local Continuing Church of God congregation.
Dr. Thiel Considered for Nobel Prize for Science and Creationism.
All schools now required to teach Adam and Eve started it all.
World Rejoices in the victory of truth over silly.
Anonymous said...
I understand what you are saying. But what needs to be addressed is not just one life form - but the intricate dependence of one life form for another life form.
It's a good question, if only you weren't so...anonymous, you know?
Anyway, you can perhaps see why 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. One species depending on another species for its survival is a precarious situation. However, clover does not depend entirely on bees for survival and bees do not depend entirely on clover for survival.
All species evolved over time with all other species (dependent and independent) which were also evolving at the same time. They either adapted to each other or they became extinct. Those that didn't become extinct (yet) are the ones we see today which have the appearance of interdependence. Not too hard to understand.
I understand what you are saying. But what needs to be addressed is not just one life form - but the intricate dependence of one life form for another life form.
That's not really what needs to be addressed at all, is it. What needs to be addressed is whether Darwinian processes like natural selection are capable of moving against the gradient of entropy, to become increasingly complex over time.
I don't know. What do you think? I am not sure if fundamentalists even believe that genetic mutation is even possible, and certainly not beneficial genetic mutation--deleterious, maybe--but the whole "cattle after the cattle kind" seems to give divine authority to the idea that adaptation is impossible.
If you accept abiogenesis, then evolution is merely the idea that living things that adapt survive. Sometimes adaptation means more complexity, sometimes it doesn't. Different organisms adapting and becoming more complex together are naturally going to develop some interdependencies.
I can't think of a third option, so, either that or else god did it. Case closed. Keep calm and carry on. Nothing to see here.
I could never figure out why you say Bob is "sitting on the floor." Now I get it. In almost every single video he is looking UP at the camera instead of straight into it. He does look like he is sitting on the floor.
History proves that sons of apes have no empathy and if given half the chance they will conduct human experimentation in the interest of the various sciences like weaponry or medicine.
You people also have no qualms about eugenics and unnatural selection;after all, some people are simply more evolved than others and in the interest of scientific or political self interest you believe the less intelligent to be expendable.
"You people..."
This two word phrase never fails to precede statements that are totally offensive and totally inaccurate.
Don't fret about it, anon 8:47. God wouldn't allow any of that to happen if it wasn't part of the divine plan.
Hugh Jennicks
The science of eugenics was invented by a relative of darwin, one of you people; it was practiced officially in the state of vermont by you people:;
it was you people who experimented on Jewish children in the name of science at the German death camps.
It was you people who experimented on syphillis patients; it was you people who invented the atom bomb, napalm, cluster bombs.
It is you people, the one's that think that science is more important than humanity:;it is you people who think yourselves superior in evolutionary developmen
You people, without moral compass, superior in your own minds, you worship knowledge and intellect:
and if the political mood is right you will once again openly commit atrocities in the name of science.
Who is "you people"?
Clarification, please.
You people: you who believe mankind is nothing more than an advanced ape; you who look at yourselves as being more highly advanced simply because you don't believe in religious doctrine.
You people, if given the opportunity, would, without conscience callously use other human beings as lab rats to advance science;
you people who think your superior reasoning gives you the right to look down upon and ridicule others of less intelligence;
you people, along with the god boys are the scourge of the earth, for it is you who build the instruments of death that they deploy to massacre those who disagree with them; yet you think yourselves better than they?
Which "religious doctrine"?
Clarification, please.
Certainly not disputing that which the monkey boys have done historically are you; it is because you cannot .
But at least you don't resort to the grunting and farting of personal insults like many on this blog.
I truly look forward to this country experiencing the same kinds of problems that are common in other nations.
I'd like to see how many of you would deny the existence of a higher power then. They say their are no athiests in a foxhole; I'd even add that this superiority complex that atheist suffer from could use a healthy dose of starvation and disease epidemic.
As long as our soft flesh is properly clothed, bathed and well fed we will forget just how soft and vulnerable to death we are, hence we begin thinking we are a superior species.
Post a Comment