Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Wertbag last won the day on January 15

Wertbag had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

843 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Wertbag

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/21/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Auckland, NZ
  • Interests
    MMA, gaming
  • More About Me
    Married father of 2 from New Zealand

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Recent Profile Visitors

2,369 profile views
  1. Atheists don't solve exponential equations because they don't believe in higher powers.
  2. Did I say science doesn't know? Oh no, that means the only other possibility is magic! And it must be Christianity, cos no other God could have possibly trained spiders! Job 8:14 - "His confidence is severed, and his trust is a spider's web" - See, the bible literally says God's trust made spiders, what more proof do you need?
  3. Instincts are fascinating. We usually think of instincts being base reactions, but when you see a tiny spider build a large symmetrical web, with no training and basically no brain, it is quite amazing just how complex those hard coded abilities can be.
  4. Do you think it flows that being taught fundamentalist ideology makes you more open to the other conspiracy theories? I have certainly seen many flat earthers who will quote the bible, but no idea what percentage of them that would be. Is it just being taught anti-science, anti-teacher, anti-authority, kind of thing that then makes these other crazy ideas sound very believable because you are starting from that negative view of mainstream education? Do you think being taught religion is a gateway to other crazy ideas?
  5. Had a family friend with brain tumours. Her choice was radiotherapy or death, so she picked life. That was almost a decade ago now, and she is still cancer free to this day. Sure you wouldn't pick radiation as your first choice, but it absolutely saves lives. Are you an anti-vaxxer?
  6. Oh right, the old already debunked Buzz statement. When put on the spot he gave a poorly worded reply to a completely different question. The question was why didn't we go back? To which he replied that we never did in regards to returning, nothing to do with the original missions. If you watched the full video he went on to talk about the mission funding and costs, clarifying the point. Here's a snopes article from 2 years ago: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/ But of course you haven't addressed any of the many issues that have been raised about any of the conspiracy theories you are holding to, in brief: Flat Earth - Why does it fail to explain the phenomena we see that the globe earth model perfectly explains? Seasons, eclipses, sun rise/set, different night skies to the northern and southern hemispheres, 24hr sun at the poles etc. Why is there no working flat earth map and yet the globe map works for measurements and travel but you are saying it doesn't correctly reflect the shape of the planet? Why has no one visited the edge or seen the dome? Young Earth - Why does it fail to explain the numerous dating techniques such as the 26 different radiometric methods, to the chalk density, to the speed of fossilization, to the depth of the ice cores, to the speed of erosion, to the growth rate of coral, to the human population growth etc. Moon Landing - Cannot explain the reflectors, the physical moon rock samples given to universities around the world, the fact they repeated the landing 6 times, and how any of this could have been faked using 1960's technology. This anti-NASA view also leads to denying the ISS exists, even when we can photograph it from the ground. God - Hiddenness, apparently He wants a personal relationship but can't be bothered to show up.
  7. Have you tried looking into any of these already debunked claims or are you happy to accept them without checking both sides? NASA said we can't leave low Earth orbit - yes, because we don't have a rocket built to do so. Not that we couldn't ever, but we couldn't right now. Neil admitted they didn't go to the moon - I couldn't find anything like this outside of satire sites, but give us a link if you have something that is actually what you claim. NASA lost tapes - yes, quite true. Except they lost the first tapes, they still have all the data from the other 5 moon landings. As well as the tons of moon rocks collected, thousands of photos and hours of video. The conspiracy theorists seem to like to pick on the oldest mission with the worst technology, when they repeated the mission multiple times with many improvements each time. The loss of the first tapes has no bearing on their ability to return to the moon. Its hard to know which of your conspiracy theories is weakest. A young earth which flies in the face of every field of science, a flat earth which has no map, no model and for some strange reason no one has seen the edge or dome, and now the moon landing hoax which can't explain the reflectors left on the moon, the ability to fake such events using 1960's technology, the tons of moon rocks returned and donated to research institutes around the world or why communist Russia and China tracked their cold war enemy and agree the US succeeded. Your magic beans comment is quite ironic considering you've accepted every bit of nonsense from every non-scientific source. You seem gullible enough to accept the world of charlatans like Dubay and Hovind, yet don't bat an eye when its pointed out there isn't even a working flat earth map. If the world is really flat, a map of how it really is should be the easiest thing to put together shouldn't it?
  8. Yeah, combine that with your working flat earth map and model and you'll actually have something that makes sense.
  9. Wonder if he's an anti-vaxxer? Seems to have jumped on board all the other conspiracy wagons...
  10. If Hydrochloric acid eats all flesh why aren't we dissolving from the inside out? If life cannot live in an environment that is toxic/acidic why do we find life forms teeming around volcanic vents? " the microbial life found at hydrothermal vents are chemosynthetic; they fix carbon by using energy from chemicals such as sulfide, as opposed to light energy from the sun. In other words, the symbiont converts inorganic molecules (H2S, CO2, O) to organic molecules that the host then uses as nutrition. However, sulfide is an extremely toxic substance to most life on Earth. For this reason, scientists were astounded when they first found hydrothermal vents teeming with life in 1977." The very fact there are billions of butterflies seems to fly in the face of them struggling to survive. A creature going from larval stage to adult is very common in the insect world, with everything from flies, bees, wasps and beetles doing this. One immediate advantage is flight. You have your larva consume the food source around it, but with its limited mobility it struggles to reach a new source of food. However turn at that point into a flying creature and suddenly you can reach food sources that are many miles distant. Staying on the same tree that is swarming with larva and all the leaves will be consumed and everyone dies. Change your food type to something you haven't just wiped out and you have a higher chance of finding it abundant.
  11. It seems that some Christians really get hung up on these god of the gaps arguments. "You don't know, therefore God!" While it appears most atheists understand that these distant and incredibly hard to test ideas are not something to tie your belief to. You'll make a lot more progress figuring out Gods hiddenness rather than showing incredulity at events billions of years ago.
  12. Where does this strange idea come from? I've heard Kent Hovind say the same thing, and even when repeatedly corrected he goes back to "life from a rock". That's never been claimed or suggested, so it sounds ridiculous from the start. We are talking about chemistry not geology. This really seems to be lacking an understanding of just how hardy and robust life is. We find life in the arctic, middle of the worlds deserts, in the deepest crushing depths of the ocean, miles underground where the light doesn't reach, and swarming in the toxic/acidic waters around volcanic vents. We have extremophiles that have been dropped on the moon and could potentially still be alive. So sure, the water was more or less acidic, had a different composition and in a different environment, but none of that says life couldn't survive somewhere in some way. Any volcanic vent would kill a mammal in seconds and yet we find thriving colonies of microbes happily living there. You already gave an example of a mudskipper which has both lungs and gills, then go on to say a creature would have to be unable to breathe under water... There's a whole load of amphibians in the world. Creatures born in the water and climbing out onto land as they get older. Back in the day there was an argument by a Christian "If fish turned into land animals why don't we see any fish with lungs?" Of course since those days we've found several examples, plus aquatic mammals like dolphins and whales who will drown if they stay under water too long. The hypothesis I heard was that creatures would be feeding in the shallows when the tide goes out. Those trapped in tidal pools have a limited oxygen environment, so a strong environmental push to select for those who can survive. Wrong. The majority of Christians accept these theories and simply say they were Gods tools to make the world how He wanted. You can believe He set off the big bang and then walked away. You can believe He created the first life then allowed evolution to diversify that to what we now see. None of these theories conflict with religion until you try to shoehorn a young earth into the picture. As an atheist I would say "I don't know the full answer when it comes to big bang/abiogenesis/evolution" but those hard to know, hard to test subjects are not a requirement for atheism. Plausible but needs more data doesn't equal god did it. And yet we don't dissolve from the inside out. Its almost like our flesh survives in a acid rich environment. Who wouldn't thunk? Surely the shape of the world wouldn't change either of those theories? You would still have an early chemistry set and still have lifeforms changing over time. The fact the world was flat or round shouldn't matter. Certainly it would throw the world into turmoil, so many questions would be raised and a new understanding of the world would be needed. Thankfully we know the shape of the world, so other than hypothetical questions there is nothing to worry about. Am I reading it correctly that you are a flat earther and a young earther?
  13. Solutions I've heard mentioned: - defund or even abolish the police - abolish prisons or at least for profit prisons - ban choke holds (done by Trump) - reparation in the form of cash handout to the descendants of slaves or land handouts - setup a trust that can lend money to blacks at rock bottom rates - make body cameras compulsory with punishment for failure to use - increase funding for public defenders - make investigations into police conduct handled by an external body - increase funding for departments who can attend to non-violent situations and take such work away from the police What have I missed?
  14. When the term "white supremacy"is being thrown around, then that is more blanket racism that we expect to see from kkk and neo-nazis. Someone who says white is superior doesn't usually give a pass to Asians, Indians or other non-white ethnic groups. In particular regarding the example of Chinese they did suffer deliberate systemic racism, they were looked down upon by the ruling white elite back in the day and had laws suppressing them. The historic racism is clear, yet those historic injustices haven't worked to hold back Chinese in the modern day. If historic racism caused current poverty then these other minority groups should show at least similar problems, but we don't see that. Yes, we agree. The history is bad but its not clear that the impact on the modern age is all that some make it out to be. Based on this what would your view on reparations be? Certainly a lot of BLM folks are calling for it, but it seems a subject full of fish hooks.
  15. Sorry, maybe I was being uncharitable, maybe it just stripped too much nuance leaving it sounding overly harsh. The way it reads is "blacks are bad, blacks are liars and they should just 'get over it'". The caveats that it's not a majority but just a significant enough number to give us statistically negative outcomes is important. There are bad people in every social group, we are just seeing statistically more crime from this one particular group. I would think there's a massive difference in threat level between these groups. The klan is famous for historic violence but not so much these days and not generally for other criminality. MS13 is famous for excessive use of violence, for running the drug trade and for human trafficking. I would absolutely expect the cops to focus much more on one group over the other. Which was never said. Exclusivity is not a requirement for it to be a negative. What I'm saying is many anecdotal stories about racist experiences are given under this bias but of course not all. This means telling the difference between the true racist activity and the perception of the racism where it is not the case is very hard. Of course you do have some commentators saying blacks cannot be racist at all but that view definitely seems to be a tiny minority.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.