Comments by "☆Aurora666⭐" (@Lexi2019AURORA) on "Biographics" channel.

What are you talking about?
7
People do have a problem with islam. The same problem as with christian fundamentalism, that they try to hinder scientific progress. It has nothing to do with accepting the existence of a deity whose existence is not verified.
7
@Ryallison-XP Stephen Hawking and Nicolas Copernicus, I am an astrophysics and astronomy enthusiast.
6
People often ask why do atheists talk about god so much if he doesn't exist.. "The irony is that this whole argument further proves that God exists because you're arguing against God, that you say doesn't exist. Do you argue against Santa Claus too? Are you an ACLAUSTIC? LOL." This false equivalence fallacy only proves that bible thumpers know nothing. Most kids outgrow Santa Claus by the time they reach middle school. That's why there are no adults who try to push St Nick down people's throats via legislation or door knocking. The same cannot be said about your Canaanite deity believed to have spoken the world into existence 6000 years ago. Most adults still believe in at least one god, some even go as far as to hating nonbelievers. That's why there are atheists but no "ACLAUSTICS". Now if adults did believe in Santa Claus and started doing the same things that fundamentalist Christians were doing, I would most definitely be fighting against claustianity.
6
Poisoning the well fallacy and red herrings.
6
Wow very "loving" of you. 😂 There's no hate like Christian love, they say.😂😂😂
5
@Ryallison-XP Yes, me too.
5
@guyparrish4349 guyparrish4349 First of all (and my name is not "Lex") I'm not speechless. I didn't get notified of your initial message, because it was too much nonsense for my device to handle. Second, I'm not a "god hater". I just don't believe in your god's or in your religion. And I can't force myself to believe that which has zero evidence whatsoever. You wrote a whole lot, but you made no real point. All that blabber you took the time to write means absolutely NOTHING. Why don't you focus on the actual arguments of evolution instead of bringing up nothing-burgers about a man who died long ago. Once again: ad hominem, poisoning the well, AND red herring fallacy all in one. Wanna try again with that "speechless" quip?
5
@guyparrish4349 Of course they exist dear. Your denial of your logical fallacies doesn't make then go away. Anyways, thanks for reminding me that you have no evidence whatsoever to refute evolution.
5
@guyparrish4349 I already answered your "questions". Since your reading comprehension is that of a 5-year old, I'll just repeat myself. 1-Quantum fluctuations, nothing to do with evolution. 2-Miller Urrey experiment, still nothing to do with evolution. 3-Yes. Still nothing to do with evolution. Try to stay on topic, it's not that hard. I don't care how many emotional outbursts you have, every time you argue with red herrings and other logical fallacies, I will address them. Again: poisoning the well fallacy AND red herring fallacy. 🤡😂
5
@Vaultboythefightingmachine It's not an assumption, it's an observed fact. It takes a lot of hate to wish eternal conscious torment upon a fellow human being, let alone one who did nothing wrong.
4
@Vaultboythefightingmachine You'd have to prove such a disgusting repulsive place exists to begin with. Your god sends atheists there for not believing in him whilst remaining hidden from plain sight? Then he's not God. More like the god of hatred and ego.
4
@guyparrish4349 "8 Days ago" Nothing to say back? That's what I thought! :face-blue-smiling:😆
4
@guyparrish4349 Do you have anything original, or do you always fall back on accusing your interlocutor of "emotional replies"? The fact that I already answered those questions of yours and you repeat them as nauseam indicates that you are not capable of making a valid point. As for "your delinquent debt", I never asked about your personal life. My replies are clearly visible to other users (I actually took the time to verify). Again, another emotional bible thumper bites the dust! 💯🤡
4
@guyparrish4349 I replied back 4 days ago 🤡 Whether you're incapable of searching through the replies, that's your problem. Not to mention, you've been constantly tagging me for the past two weeks. I thought you were going. What's wrong, the troll inside you pulled you back? 🤣😆
4
@guyparrish4349 I wrote: "Do you have anything original, or do you always fall back on accusing your interlocutor of 'emotional replies'? The fact that I already answered those questions of yours and you repeat them as nauseam indicates that you are not capable of making a valid point. As for 'your delinquent debt', I never asked about your personal life. My replies are clearly visible to other users (I actually took the time to verify). Again, another emotional bible thumper bites the dust! 💯🤡" My replies are invisible to you, just like your invisible god of the gaps? Oh please! 🤦‍♀️What a wimpy reply! Own up and acknowledge your fallacious argument, or 🤐 it why don't you? What do I expect from the one who's "general comment" consisted of "this is a bunch of cow excrement". Very "mature" of you 🤣.
4
@guyparrish4349 Got answers? You DO think so. 💯🤡🤡 Sort by newest.
4
@guyparrish4349 Hey smarta$$, there are exactly 21 comments in this thread. I know you can see them, you're playing mind games on me. Nice try! _"Got answers? You DO think so. 💯🤡🤡 Sort by newest."_ is what I wrote. Everybody else can see them but you.🙀
4
@guyparrish4349 Quit being an evasive coward, I can see it from a distance. 💯🐥
4
@guyparrish4349 Is that why you're crying and recycling your replies? 🤣🤡
4
 @guyparrish4349 Hail Satan 🤣
4
 @guyparrish4349 And you got triggered 😭😤 by my reply, so there's that.😂
4
@guyparrish4349 I don't worship Satan. In fact I don't "worship" anything. I wrote it anyway because somehow those two words send you bible wingnuts trembling panicking running for the holy water. Anyway, hail Satan.
4
@guyparrish4349 1- Define "nothing". Quantum fluctuations and singularities are not "nothing". That has nothing to do with evolution. 2- Miller Urrey experiment. That has nothing to do with evolution. 3- There is no such thing as "kinds" in biology, so your question is nonsensical. Evolution is evolution, whether "micro" or "macro" (both of which are made up labels). It applies to ALL life forms, not just animals. 4- No. That has nothing to do with science whatsoever.
4
@guyparrish4349 1- Being gay was never immoral and it never will be. Your raging homophobia is however, and it always will be. Religious bigotry harms people, being gay doesn't. 2- Iran's laws are inherently immoral because they aim to appease a being that doesn't exist, even if it means controlling people's lives and trampling their freedom. You want similar laws here in the USA, but you can't have it because I stand in the way. 3- That will always be immoral, as it permanently harms kids for life. There's no way around that one. Go tell that to all the handsy priests and predator pastors, starting with those in your own congregation. That hits you close to home, no? 4- Yes
4
@guyparrish4349 So my magical invisible replies finally appeared out of nothing??🙀 Most mutations are neutral, whilst some are helpful and increase the "information". Such is the case for the point insertion mutation that allows primates to see in 3 colors. You choose not to believe evolution because of the ramifications it has on your fundamentalist religious beliefs. I don't believe in gods because I have yet to see solid evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Same logic for the universe coming "from nothing". In fact, even the atheist scientists agree the universe didn't come "from nothing" (hence your quoting of Professor Hawking). Cats and dogs are both mammals of the order carnivora. But dogs are of the family canidae and cats are of the family felidae. Ok, so kind means "family". Good to know. 👍🏻 You just proved evolution correct. Thanks again 😁. As for your "law of biogenesis", it merely states that spontaneous generation is impossible . It has nothing to do with the very origin of life in a pre-biotic environment. Zero. Nada. 零。Law of biogenesis=rebuttal against spontaneous generation, not evolution or abiogenesis (origin of life) hypothesis. Otherwise there wouldn't be a "first living organism", as that one too came from previous existing life forms, and so on ad infinitum. Abiogenesis is not the same as spontaneous generation. While the subject is still under study, that doesn't mean goddidit. Lightning was a mystery thousands of years ago, but that didn't mean Thor did it. "Because the creator designed it that way. That's not hard to understand." It's not hard to understand, because it's a faulty premise, an unscientific hasty generalization. Your made a premise first, and then massaged the evidence to suit that preconception. But I can't blame you for resorting to such fallacious argument, you quote George Wald , who is just as guilty as you are of hasty generalizations. He incorrectly assumed that the first life forms originated via spontaneous generation. Sorry, spontaneous generation is not prerequisite for evolution. That's rubbish, BS talk. You never asked me for examples of speciation, otherwise I would've presented them, cause there are many. Don't worry, with the power of CAPS LOCK, they may magically appear in your screen, just like my "doggone invisible replies". 🤠 You have more faith in a creator than all the scientists in the world combined have "faith" in scientific facts.
4
@guyparrish4349 The only "implosion" is your conciense when you realize we do good out of compassion for others and for the sake of doing right, while you do it to appease a capricious deity. That pretty much sums it all up.
4
@guyparrish4349 1: How the hell are you comparing same sex marriage to abortion? 🤦‍♀️ It's not even the same thing. One of them literally involved killing an unborn baby (the epitome of a cowardly heinous act) and the other one is just two loving consenting adults getting married. "Social construct" doesn't determine right from wrong". Remember we live in a time when gender is "jUsT a cOnStRuCt". First you should start by asking yourself "what are the implications of my actions" and "do my actions cause harm to anyone"? You think I'm not aware of that creepy agenda you talk about? It's pretty damn obvious. I stand against for the same reason I stand against fundamentalism. 2: The lesser severity of your version of shari'a doesn't dismiss the fact that your group was throwing a hissy fit when Ober Vs Hodges was decided in 2015. You did the same in late 2020 because your lame duck leader was "appointed by God" or whatever. And now you baselessly accuse me of "christianophobia"?? Gosh, do you guys LOVE being labeled as "victims" so much? Ad hominem "?? You started with ad hominem attacks on a dead scientist who is not hurting anyone today, but you get defensive when I bring out the dirty laundry from your side. Is THAT the hypocrisy you're talking about? I'm not angry at christians, I'm angry at bigoted fundamentalists. My atheist anger is justified. "Fake priests"?? No, I said real priests and real pastors, not people who are dressed as priests for Halloween. This is a very serious issue. 3: So what homosexuality doesn't favor evolution? That's a nothing burger. Evolution is not a moral compass, it's simply a fact of biology. Many animal species practice homosexuality, not just humans. In fact, there are more gay giraffes than straight ones. Why aren't they going extinct, then? 4: You get your "fixed standards" from an entity not proven to exist. It's written in stone, but the stone is imaginary. Take into account that your version of this entity is the one who: Drowned a lot of men, women, and children (Genesis 7), forced victims to marry their therapists (without the "the") (Deuteronomy 22 28) condones slavery (1 peter 2: 18) and ordered a genocide that included women, children, and livestock (1 Samuel 15, several verses of the Pentateuch). I'm against slavery, genocide, and murder. Just like that, my moral standard is higher than yours. Class dismissed, sorry for the delay.
4
 @guyparrish4349 PS one more thing, talking snakes don't exist.
4
@guyparrish4349 Good one! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I don't believe that, because nobody believes that. That's the most pathetic STRAWMAN fallacy argument used by creationists against "origin of life" hypotheses.
4
@guyparrish4349 "What's so funny"??👀 It's so funny how you keep crying and stomping your feet because you don't want to accept that you LOST the debate!:text-green-game-over: It's evident, since you keep wasting MY time by fighting for the last word. You even declare your own "victory", which indicates that I DID in fact refute all your talking points.:face-blue-smiling:
4
@guyparrish4349 😂🤣😂
4
@guyparrish4349 Of course they don't. I direct my laugh at your previous late reply that consisted solely of laughter and no substance. In short, "I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing AT you". What exactly were you expecting with that one?
4
@guyparrish4349 I'll tell you what. Since you believe in "taking an L with dignity" go ahead, do it! Put up what you preach "You're the one that believes it's biologically possible for..." I already stated clearly I don't believe that nonsense, yet you bring that argument back from the dead anyway. I won't give you a pass for your geriatric memory loss. "You just like to argue" Oh yes, I LOVE to argue with trolls. I get a kick out of watching you guys run around and squirm. "You probably don't have a job, so you have plenty of time. But I'm a busy man" Too busy scrubbing toilets at truck stops while I decimate your arguments? I got all day for this. We have smartphones where I live. Apparently you need to be in an internet café to get online because you live in a third world hellhole. That's not my problem. "Stay on the porch" I don't take orders from trolls. Nice try. Good job at putting your intellectuall dishonesty on full display.
4
 @Ryallison-XP That's so true! 😂
4
@Vaultboythefightingmachine Also Darwin never tried to make the world atheist. He had no need to. We already have people like YOU and Kent Hovind to push rational people away from your faith.
3
 @Vaultboythefightingmachine Then try to lead by example instead of spewing hate. It would do better favors for your religion. ☺️
3
 @Vaultboythefightingmachine "K weeb 👍" I'm not a weeb, but thanks. 👍🏻
3
 @Vaultboythefightingmachine I don't think so.
3
Religious much?
3
Poisoning the well fallacy.
3
@guyparrish4349 You made an asinine "general claim" and I replied by merely pointing out your logical fallacies. No insults, no bs talk "Poisoning the well fallacy and red herring". That alone got you so triggered that you went on an angry tirade about Charles Darwin's personal life which has nothing to do with evolution. Was that enough to straighten you out?? 😆🤣❄️ I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence to refute the actual theory of evolution. But alas, all you do is cry and change the subject. "You should get a little bit more educated about the internet" Nice projection, little one! Every reply here is visible and counted when I log out. Learn yourself before trying to "educate" others, lest you embarrass yourself further.
3
@guyparrish4349 In spite of this, I'm glad we found a key common ground. I don't believe there are "64 genders" or whatever, and it doesn't take a god-believer to know that. These days there are people who believe 5 year olds can "choose" their gender, which is absolutely ridiculous in so many levels.🤦‍♀️ That's not science, that's "soyence". As an agnostic, I don't believe in gods because I'm not convinced there is a supreme deity, let alone one who created the world in 6 days and flooded it, not because I "want to keep sinning" or whatever. I'm open to the possibility of a higher power though. I don't know what atheists you've been talking to, but it sounds like you cherry picked from the shallow end where all the hypocrites congregate. They tend to follow science only when it suits their beliefs. And when it doesn't, they would twist it for their agenda. That's pretty much just what young earth creationist do too. As for militant atheism: there are no adults who believe in Santa Claus and try to ram their belief down society's throat, just like there are fundies who try to legislate their beliefs. That's why there are no "ACLAUSTICS" either, we don't need to. Otherwise I would fight back against claustianity with greater fervor than militant atheism, because belief in Santa Claus is much more ludicrous than belief in gods. God is a much more nuanced concept than children's fairytales.
3
 @guyparrish4349 Atheists don't believe in that nonsense. It's you who believes men came from dirt and women from ribs. Get your facts straight. 😆🤣
3
:face-blue-smiling:
2
No
2