Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Tom Dye
9,800 followers -
We are the ones we've been waiting for. Keeper of esoteric and nonsensical knowledge
We are the ones we've been waiting for. Keeper of esoteric and nonsensical knowledge

9,800 followers
About
Tom's posts

Post has attachment
Public

Post has attachment
Photo

Post has attachment
"Moldy Christmas"
#GoogleFirstFriday
Photo

Post has attachment
"Enchanted Forest"
#GoogleFirstFriday
Photo

Post has attachment
"Plumeria"
#GoogleFirstFriday
Photo

Post has attachment
"Hyacinth Subtracted"
#GoogleFirstFriday
Photo

Post has attachment
"Evolution No.1"
#GoogleFirstFriday
Photo

I just watched the Bill Nye, the Science Guy debate Greg Hamm the famous creationist and founder of the creationism museum. debate the age old question of; creationism Vs evolution, and wow!! Bill Nye was  articulate, intelligent and convincing and easily won this debate hands down. I was really seriously considering going out and buying several bow ties and start wearing them everyday. However, Bill Nye, the Science Guy didn't convert everyone to the side of science and critical thinking.

Below, is a comment I pulled off one of the news sites regarding the debate. I am not able to follow all the reasoning in this comment as it is way too convoluted for me. This response reminded me of the oral exam for Rodney Dangerfield, in the movie, "Back to School. "I only have one question, in 53 parts" 

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.............

julianpenrod commented 19 minutes ago

#7
comment author avatar
In fact, there is no reason to trust the “evolutionary” story. Among other things, “science” has never once provided actual, incontrovertible proof placed tangibly in “rank and file” hands that “fossils” aren't just reason molds to support the lie of “evolution”. All they ever did was state what they wanted everyone to believe and ordered them to believe it! The “scientists” who didn't call the fraud on George H.W. Bush's “Nayirah” swindle; those who did not oppose George W. Bush's lies about banned weapons systems in Iraq before the occupation; those who did not warn about thalidomide, fen-phen, Vioxx or using radium on clock dials and wristwatch faces. “Science” has a pernicious histroy of never contradicting big money corporate interests or political power. And how many defending “science” know that, in the first part of the 19th Century, the AMA itself threatened to remove the license of any doctor who washed their hands? “Science” has a standard way of handling the situation. When before an audience of dutiful dullards, they declare that everything they say is true, they are the only path to truth, they can never make mistakes. Then, when their lies are thrust before them, they insist that their “superiority” is that they will always admit their mistakes and change their ideas from that. Then, when they are before the gullible, again, they again declare themselves incapable of fault. And never once was any living species actually seen to change into another species, a genetic group that would not interbreed with predecessors. Shills trundle frauds like the speckled moth in England breeding mostly black moths in soot covered cities. That was a case of a genetic quality already present in the population gaining an ascendancy in a particular niche. That is genetic drift or genetic radiation. The black moths could still breed with speckled moths away from the cities. They were not a separate species. The key of “evolution” is speciation, the arrival of new forms that are so different from predecessors that they cannot breed with them. That has never been seen to occur. Faced with this, “evolution” defenders just lie and say that genetic drift is speciation. By the same token, “evolution” does not explain animals in pellucid or lightless environments. In caves and such, animals are declared to become blind and colorless. The shallow “explain” this by saying that animals in areas with light don't need eyes or coloration, so they lose it. But “evolution” isn';t about that. It's about gaining a survival advantage. In an environment without light, having eyes or not, having bright colors or not, do not provide a survival advantage! So bright coloration and eyes should not disappear by “evolution”! Faced with this, defenders of “evolution” simply respond with mockery and ridicule. A strange facet of “evolution” is that they are demanding to refer to the religious view as “young earth creationism”. Why the qualifier “young earth”? Creationism is creationism. Why does it make a difference if a “young earth” or “old earth” is involved? Both require a deity bringing species into existence from the nothingness! Is “science” willing to accept that creationism occurred as long as it is accepted that the earth is very old? Bring this issue up and defenders of “evolution” will say, “Religion describes the earth being young, therefore, creationism is 'young earth creationism'!” Add such things, too, as the recent declaration in a number of “science” journals that the human race arose from a mating of a chimpanzee and a pig! This sounds very much like creationsism! “Science” cannot be trusted in anything they say!

Post has attachment
This is a must see interview. This is essentially a prophesy from beyond the grave. This interview from May 1996 just two months before Carl Sagan died, where he describes exactly what we are seeing and experiencing now.
Wait while more posts are being loaded