frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





From John Money's 1955 integration of "gender is a social construct" to intersex to Leftist Wokism

Debate Information

For years, we have faced a group of science deniers called "Critical Social Justice Community".. They have proven time and again to be hypocritical, toxic and not intellectual. They have proven to be uncivil as well. One disagreement and they call you a bigot. One hint that you are religious and they hate you for it. What kind of criticism is this? What kind of justice is this? It's neither justice nor criticism. These are simply the facts. I will now go onto explaining as much as I can about the Denial of Biological Sex and the lunacy of transgenderism that is indeed linked towards the Intersex topic. In Biology, we know that X and Y chromosomes determine a baby's gender. XY determine a baby to be male. XX determines a baby to be female. Gender and sex are debated today to be very different and unrelated. But this is the problem. Gender is co-related to the two biological sexes, that's why there are only 2 genders. Gender describes the features and aspects of males and females. Masculinity traits fall upon males only. such as body hair, the genitalia and certain likes, certain dislikes as well as personality traits. Femininity traits fall upon females only. This includes female genitalia such as breasts and no body hair except pubic hair. Now pubic hair happens for all males and females. Transgenderism is no doubt sexist, harmful and is a crime due to the amount of hormone blockers and these Mad Science ideologies being forcefully pushed upon underage youth besides forcing men to sleep with fake women. It is a form of emotional abuse and manipulation. Women's sports are only for women. Men SHOULD NOT be playing in women's sports. Women SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE MILITARY AS SOLDIERS. Men are men. Women are women. These gender specific roles are tied down to what gender specific traits look like and what it demonstrates to be what puts society forward. Marriage and true love is only to be shared between a real man and a real woman. Ellen Page is a woman still who denies being a woman. Bruce Jenner is still a man and denies it. The facts are the facts. Gender/sex cannot change. There is no other form of marriage. In Scientific research, it is stated that homosexuals and bisexuals are infected with AIDs/HIV, more so than heterosexuals because of the amount of sex they have, causing them to have over 1000 partners per year. This is what causes them to get infected with AIDs/HIV along with the disturbing fact that the rectum aka the butthole is not for sexual pleasure. I understand it is a common sex kink but it is not healthy. Schools are now allowing these drag queens to expose inappropriate content to innocent school boys and school girls. These are common events, denied by the very people asking for sympathy and acceptance for what is considered immoral from the religious communities. It is not false rumor, however, the media seems to be conjuring lies to seduce and to manipulate audiences further into believing everything is okay when it is not. Bisexuals and homosexuals also suffer from drug addictions and substance abuse as well as being traumatized from childhood, either sexually or physically or psychologically aka mentally. Sometimes boys are not treated as boys. Sometimes girls are not treated as girls. These are what puts them forward towards doing drugs, stealing, joining gangs and ofc, the problem of Teen Pregnancy. So, back to the intersex topic. Why does XXY aka Klinefelter's Syndrome still make an individual with this genetic condition, male? How does it not make an individual male when males are the ones who give off a Y sex chromosome? Simple. It doesn't make the individual female. The individual is male. Doctors of the past have often made an error in putting the individual in the wrong gender category, which today is causing massive confusion. On the topic of abortion, it takes a real man and a real woman to make a child. Therefore, the decision is up to both the man and the woman. How does intersex connect with all this? Well, think about it. Males are the ONLY ONES who can deliver a Y chromosome. If it was a different birth defect, specifically chromosomally, which only happens 1 in 1000 individuals, XXX is female. Only females deliver one X chromosome and males can deliver one as well. But in this case, the female chromosomal combination is indeed two X's. The extra X aka the third X sex chromosome is from the male while the female delivers two X chromosomes. Males CANNOT deliver two X sex chromosomes. Males can only deliver one X chromosome along with the smaller sex Y chromosome. In a rare case of sexual intercourse, females may deliver two X chromosomes. This does not make her asexual though. I can now see how people are confused to make the misconception that women can be asexual. Obviously, women are not asexual. They are heterosexual. So are males. To explain this further, males deliver one X chromosome and females deliver another one to make a girl not a boy. Therefore, in the rare case of a third X sex chromosome, it's from the female not from the male because females do not deliver a Y sex chromosome. This isn't a fine situation to mess with biological aspects. It is a rare deformity to have XXY or XXX alike. It is a different uncommon deformity. It's still a deformity altogether. This is how you know the child is absolutely female with an extra X chromosome. Only females have a combination of two X chromosomes not males because again, males do not deliver only an X chromosome. There is a 50% chance the male can deliver a Y chromosome. Females obviously 100% of the time deliver an X sex chromosome.. So the conclusion here on intersex and birth defects is, females can possibly deliver two X chromosomes in a rare case of procreation along with a male delivering his X sex chromosome and combined with the male's X chromosome, you get the baby with a chromosomal genetic disorder of two X sex chromosomes, making the baby female with an extra X sex chromosome. Now, with the rare case of the opposite, which is Klinefelter's syndrome, it is the male who delivers an X AND Y sex chromosome AT THE SAME TIME, combined with ONLY ONE female X sex chromosome. People out there reading this HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS! THE COMMON CONFUSION IS THAT PEOPLE THINK FROM THE XXY THAT THERE ARE TWO X SEX CHROMOSOMES MAKING THE BABY FEMALE? NO! That's the problem! Just because there are two X sex chromosomes, it doesn't make the baby female IF THERE IS A Y SEX CHROMOSOME INVOLVED FROM THE MALE! The responsibility falls on both the real man and the real woman as well. Without the man, the woman cannot get pregnant. People within the toxic woke alphabet dystopia claim asexuality is a thing too. This is an error and pure ignorance. Asexuality by definition is the ability to reproduce without a sexual partner of the opposite sex/gender. It is a fact in biology that no human female can fertilize her egg by herself, unlike the common aspect of mother birds. Humans are not animals. God created us separate from them. Without the human male to deliver a sperm to fertilize the human female's egg, she cannot have a child. This is how it is. That is why responsibility is important when you enter into a relationship. I am speaking exclusively when a real man and a real woman get together. 
smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyTheManofSteelSupermanWonder_WomanGreen_LanternThe_FlashMartian_Manhunterand 2 others.
«1345



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The problem with wokness and how to respond righteously to it.

    What's wrong with it? The amount of political correctness. What wokists today say is, "You can say what you want but be mindful" and when you do be mindful, they eject you as a bigot and as a menace to society. The mob of injustice no longer has authority as it has been tolerated over these years. But no longer. 1. They betrayed their promise of keeping to themselves. 2. They agreed to facts and then went against that. Second betrayal. What a Cult of Judas eh? Yep. Non-Negotiable. 3. They target children and do not stop putting them in harm's way. 4. They useful in nothing and are trouble. 5. They will be denounced continuously by public figures such as Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and even some females who have woken up from all the madness. Wokeness only goes towards political correctness and political correctness leads towards insanity, as said by Ben Shapiro. He is correct. Hypocrites have no power in this forum and space. All opposition will be denounced, lectured, denounced again and ejected  All opposition who do not have common sense will be ejected as well. All opposition's arguments so far have been invalidated and immoral, as well as irrelevant towards the topics I have posted. I reserve the absolute right to continue the election of electing toxic social injustice anti-human bigots out.  All opposition is silenced everytime they make a peep.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/tech-happy-life/202006/the-promise-and-problems-being-woke

    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyTheManofSteelSupermanWonder_WomanGreen_LanternThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Pro Common Sense side: Marriage is heterosexual only, kids need a mom and a dad, pro life is right. Abortion is murder. AIDS/HIV, Hepatitis, STDs and STIs are all the result from homosexuality and uncontrolled sex. The butt isn't for sex just so you know. Jesus had foretold of the wicked trying to deceive everybody into thinking that evil is good and good is evil etc. This obviously includes false philosophies of man being way more important than His Gospel and the eternal truths within it. For Jesus had said, there will be those who preach in the streets and those who praise loudly and yet are hypocrites. Snowflakes are hypocrites. Jesus also had made it clear that each man shall love his wife and each woman shall love her husband. God created male and female. Gender, sex, racial background and age aren't things we can change. God's laws never change. Can't get behind that? This forum isn't for you. So called "pronouns" that do not exist will not be tolerated. The use of his/him/his and her/she is accepted. Males are masculine. Females are feminine. The proper addressing of males is "Brother, Mr. and Sir". The proper addressing of females is "Sister, Mrs. , Madame, Ma'am and/or Miss"

    smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyTheManofSteelWonder_WomanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Let's focus on 1955, intersex and the problems the "Social Injustice cult" has brought because of their approach towards child abuse by forcing them to take hormone blockers

    Biology is absolute and there are only 2 genders that are co-related with the 2 biological sexes. Gender specific roles are tied in towards each biological sex. The male gender traits show masculinity. Men usually join the army, play sports, protect the women etc etc. Women do not go to war, they are mothers, they are good cooks and they usually stay at home to look after the house. Cross dressing is invalidated and unnatural. Men who wear dresses need to quit acting like women because they are fake females. Trans women are not real women, they are men refusing to be men. Trans men are not real men, they are women refusing to be women. Transgenderism is sexist, harmful and a crime. Heterophobic, truthphobic and Christophobic snowflakes are invalidated as hypocrites, irrationally fearful of heterosexuals, many facts/truths and Christians. The female gender traits show femininity. Males are masculine. Females are feminine. If men act feminine, it doesn't make them women. It just makes them men who want to be feminine. It's unnatural and it's also not proper. If women act masculine, it doesn't make them men, they are still women, who just portray and do things men would normally do. Hormone blockers is purely child abuse.  All drag queens will be removed from all institutions and religious beliefs will be replacing all the inappropriate NSFW content exposed to younglings who are underage. Now, let's begin talking about birth defects. Perhaps John Money made the error that just because you have a birth defect, that somehow your gender can be....altered? No. That is how things get worse. If you are male, you are male. If you are female, you are still female. People with the mental condition and illness of gender dysphoria still commit suicide EVEN AFTER HIS OR HER SURGICAL TRANSITION! The voice is still the same, the womb is artificial, body hair still grows if the individual is a male, the female still goes through periods. Gender Identity which is co-related to one out of the two existing Biological Sexes can NEVER be altered! 

    Like I said above, XXY is male. XXX is female. This is because males do not deliver only sex X chromosomes. They 50% of the time deliver a Y sex chromosome. It's the way we are designed. The common misconception is that XXX can be male and XXY can be female? How? XY is male. XX is female. Take it from there. You HAVE TO SEPARATE BOTH CONDITIONS FOLLOWING THE CATEGORIES THAT EXIST WHICH ARE TWO; MALE OR FEMALE. 

    A male has the 50/50 chance of delivering an X sex chromosome OR a Y sex chromosome. NORMALLY! Combined in sexual intimacy/intercourse with a female sex partner, often the wife or a girlfriend or sometimes just a common fling, the male delivers an X AND Y sex chromosome in the rare case of a birth defect known as Klinefelter's syndrome which has the extra X with the Y sex chromosome from the male combined with the female's X sex chromosome. Each human has a set of 46 chromosomes. Got it? 46, with two in each that separate them as MALE and FEMALE! Within each individual, there are 2 sex chromosomes. XY is male. XX is female. Each individual has an additional 44 chromosomes that are autosomes not sex chromosomes. Now aggressors from the critical social justice community of intoxicating lies, deception and immoral sexual abuse will claim that your gender can be fluid or not falling upon male or female. But this is just a common mistake and a lie that they have been allowed to spread since institutions have allowed this madness to be taught to brainwash everybody into turning insane. 

    A female 100% of the time delivers an X sex chromosome. In Biology, the Y sex chromosome automatically makes the baby male. The extra X is irrelevant to the case of the child being female. There are two X sex chromosomes, yes, but the Y is what makes the child male. Although it is argued commonly that XXY individuals have breasts forming up and yet a male genitalia, the individual has no female ovaries. The misconception is that there is apparently a vagina below the penis instead of testes on those rare individuals. In normal males, there are the testicles and ofc the penile. Therefore, it is scientifically and biologically proven that the individual is male. I understand that people will argue that individuals with this rare chromosomal genetical disorder will say the individual is female because of the breasts. This is wrong! If the individual has three X sex chromosomes, the individual is likely to feel out of place, due to the extra X chromosome delivered by the male and two X chromosomes delivered by the female since males CANNOT deliver two X sex chromosomes. It still does not in any way invalidate that individual as a female with the extra X sex chromosome combined with the normal female XX combination; one from the male and one from the female. Individuals with XXY are still male because the extra sex chromosome is the Y not the X, since only males can deliver a Y 50/50 of the time during the impregnation process with the female. if it is the other way around, the male can also deliver an X and the female can possibly deliver two X sex chromosomes. But not in the case of Klinefelter's syndrome because the Y is the extra one with the X sex chromosome. 

    smoothieThe_LoremasterVictor_van_HelsingLeon_KennedyTheManofSteelSupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Compelling Evidence that Charles Manson was not Jesus but "Dreamer" certainly has believed this deception because he is a Manson cultist and he will be arrested for being a Manson Family Fanatic, not to mention, he likes to make up conspiracy theories and point fingers at other people who speak the truth. "Dreamer" has zero truth within him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=segUqyF9ofw
    More evidence that Manson claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus but contradicted the very works of Christ Himself as Christ never taught about being gay, He taught about resisting lust and pride. Manson taught the opposite. Manson is obviously one of the many false Christs the Bible itself has prophesied: https://religionnews.com/2017/11/20/charles-manson-death/

    The article from the second link:

    The murders were particularly macabre. The killers painted the word “pig” on the front door of the house. Manson, who admired Hitler and the Nazis, had hoped that blacks would be blamed for the murders, thus triggering a race war.

    Manson had a Svengali effect on the young women who worked for him, and who were sexually available to him. He had told them that he was the reincarnation of Jesus, that they were the incarnations of the early Christians, and that American authorities were the Romans — and, therefore, should be killed. In that sense, Charles Manson was a false messiah.

    Jews have had plenty of experience with false messiahs. Several of them, such as Shabbetai Zevi and Jacob Frank, were known not only for their charisma but for their sexual depravity.

    If there had been T-shirts bearing their images, Manson would have worn them willingly.

    Let’s think about Charles Manson and the 1960s counterculture, upon which Manson left a bloody fingerprint. The Manson murders occurred in August 1969 — a few weeks before the Woodstock festival. Woodstock and Manson represented the twin sides of the 1960s — a hopeful, idyllic vision of a new Eden, as well as its nihilistic, destructive potential.

    Bizarrely, one rock star admired him enough to adopt his name, i.e., Marilyn Manson. As Paul Berman wrote in Tablet:

    The really frightening thing about Charles Manson was not so much his own murderousness (except from the standpoint of the people being murdered, of course), nor his hold over his insane Family, the cult murderers, but his acceptability and even his appeal to other people, the sane and high-minded and groovy bystanders…since Manson’s enemies were the established world, and the established world was loathsome, why shouldn’t Manson be accepted as one more voice in the chorus of rebellion?

    The late Leonard Cohen got it right — when he invoked Manson as a metaphor for the American apocalypse:

    You’ll see a woman hanging upside down her features covered by her fallen gown and all the lousy little poets coming round tryin’ to sound like Charlie Manson… (“The Future”)

    Back to my one-word reaction to Manson’s death. “Good.” Was that a “nice” thing to say about the dead? In fact, it wasn’t. And, for good reason. Judaism does not always require that we be nice. It does require that we be good, and that we strive for justice, and that we make clear ethical claims. In a world in which we frequently eschew such terms as “evil,” the life of Charles Manson bore grisly witness to the fact that, yes, there really is evil in the world. As Rabbi Meir Soloveichik wrote in his essay, “The Virtue of Hate”: 

    While Moses commanded us “not to hate our brother in our hearts,” a man’s immoral actions can serve to sever the bonds of brotherhood between himself and humanity. Regarding a rasha, a Hebrew term for the hopelessly wicked, the Talmud clearly states: one is obligated to hate him.

    So, yes — it is quite acceptable to (even quietly) cheer Manson’s death. Finally, the title of this piece. Do Jews believe in hell? As a matter of fact, yes.

    As I wrote recently, Judaism certainly believes in an afterlife. When we speak of it, which is rarely, we frame it as olam ha-ba, the World to Come, a place of eternal reward. But, along with the olam ha-ba, Judaism also believes in gehenna — the closest that Judaism gets to the idea of hell.

    The word gehenna comes from the Hebrew “gei hinnom,” or “gei ben hinnom,” the valley of Hinnom. It is the valley that separates the new city of Jerusalem from the walled old city. It is the place where ancient idolaters would sacrifice their children to the Canaanite god, Molech. That sounds like hell on earth to me. But, gehenna is really not hell. Conceptually, it is much closer to what Christians would call purgatory, a place of atonement for sin, and from which, presumably, you would finally gain entrance into the (far nicer) olam ha-ba.

    You might be agnostic (in the true sense of the word) about the notion of an afterlife. You might be skeptical about the idea of divine reward, and divine punishment. You would be in good company. But, if there is a world after this one, I refuse to believe that Charles Manson will be hanging out in the same neighborhood of eternity as, say, Mother Teresa. The world isn’t fair. But, God’s justice stretches far, far beyond what our mortal eyes can see.


    Just to add to my own knowledge regarding this, The peace sign is the upside down cross with it bent on both sides. It was never about peace in Manson's case, it was about impersonating Jesus Christ. He was one of many anti-Christs. 

    smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyTheManofSteelSupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Let's talk Intersex and the deeper aspects of Biology 101

    Now, let's begin talking about birth defects. Perhaps John Money made the error that just because you have a birth defect, that somehow your gender can be....altered? No. That is how things get worse. If you are male, you are male. If you are female, you are still female. People with the mental condition and illness of gender dysphoria still commit suicide EVEN AFTER HIS OR HER SURGICAL TRANSITION! The voice is still the same, the womb is artificial, body hair still grows if the individual is a male, the female still goes through periods. Gender Identity which is co-related to one out of the two existing Biological Sexes can NEVER be altered! 

    Like I said above, XXY is male. XXX is female. This is because males do not deliver only sex X chromosomes. They 50% of the time deliver a Y sex chromosome. It's the way we are designed. The common misconception is that XXX can be male and XXY can be female? How? XY is male. XX is female. Take it from there. You HAVE TO SEPARATE BOTH CONDITIONS FOLLOWING THE CATEGORIES THAT EXIST WHICH ARE TWO; MALE OR FEMALE. 

    A male has the 50/50 chance of delivering an X sex chromosome OR a Y sex chromosome. NORMALLY! Combined in sexual intimacy/intercourse with a female sex partner, often the wife or a girlfriend or sometimes just a common fling, the male delivers an X AND Y sex chromosome in the rare case of a birth defect known as Klinefelter's syndrome which has the extra X with the Y sex chromosome from the male combined with the female's X sex chromosome. Each human has a set of 46 chromosomes. Got it? 46, with two in each that separate them as MALE and FEMALE! Within each individual, there are 2 sex chromosomes. XY is male. XX is female. Each individual has an additional 44 chromosomes that are autosomes not sex chromosomes. Now aggressors from the critical social justice community of intoxicating lies, deception and immoral sexual abuse will claim that your gender can be fluid or not falling upon male or female. But this is just a common mistake and a lie that they have been allowed to spread since institutions have allowed this madness to be taught to brainwash everybody into turning insane. 

    A female 100% of the time delivers an X sex chromosome. In Biology, the Y sex chromosome automatically makes the baby male. The extra X is irrelevant to the case of the child being female. There are two X sex chromosomes, yes, but the Y is what makes the child male. Although it is argued commonly that XXY individuals have breasts forming up and yet a male genitalia, the individual has no female ovaries. The misconception is that there is apparently a vagina below the penis instead of testes on those rare individuals. In normal males, there are the testicles and ofc the penile. Therefore, it is scientifically and biologically proven that the individual is male. I understand that people will argue that individuals with this rare chromosomal genetical disorder will say the individual is female because of the breasts. This is wrong! If the individual has three X sex chromosomes, the individual is likely to feel out of place, due to the extra X chromosome delivered by the male and two X chromosomes delivered by the female since males CANNOT deliver two X sex chromosomes. It still does not in any way invalidate that individual as a female with the extra X sex chromosome combined with the normal female XX combination; one from the male and one from the female. Individuals with XXY are still male because the extra sex chromosome is the Y not the X, since only males can deliver a Y 50/50 of the time during the impregnation process with the female. if it is the other way around, the male can also deliver an X and the female can possibly deliver two X sex chromosomes. But not in the case of Klinefelter's syndrome because the Y is the extra one with the X sex chromosome. 

    The facts still stand. It is just neglected. I have studied biology to understand this. Even though I wasn't the top student....I always was fascinated by biology, especially what makes us each male and female, uniquely. Now there is no gender spectrum, that is another lie.

    Biology is absolute and there are only 2 genders that are co-related with the 2 biological sexes. Gender specific roles are tied in towards each biological sex. The male gender traits show masculinity. Men usually join the army, play sports, protect the women etc etc. Women do not go to war, they are mothers, they are good cooks and they usually stay at home to look after the house. Cross dressing is invalidated and unnatural. Men who wear dresses need to quit acting like women because they are fake females. Trans women are not real women, they are men refusing to be men. Trans men are not real men, they are women refusing to be women. Transgenderism is sexist, harmful and a crime. Heterophobic, truthphobic and Christophobic snowflakes are invalidated as hypocrites, irrationally fearful of heterosexuals, many facts/truths and Christians. The female gender traits show femininity. Males are masculine. Females are feminine. If men act feminine, it doesn't make them women. It just makes them men who want to be feminine. It's unnatural and it's also not proper. If women act masculine, it doesn't make them men, they are still women, who just portray and do things men would normally do. Hormone blockers is purely child abuse.  All drag queens will be removed from all institutions and religious beliefs will be replacing all the inappropriate NSFW content exposed to younglings who are underage. Now, let's begin talking about birth defects. Perhaps John Money made the error that just because you have a birth defect, that somehow your gender can be....altered? No. That is how things get worse. If you are male, you are male. If you are female, you are still female. People with the mental condition and illness of gender dysphoria still commit suicide EVEN AFTER HIS OR HER SURGICAL TRANSITION! The voice is still the same, the womb is artificial, body hair still grows if the individual is a male, the female still goes through periods. Gender Identity which is co-related to one out of the two existing Biological Sexes can NEVER be altered! 

    Like I said above, XXY is male. XXX is female. This is because males do not deliver only sex X chromosomes. They 50% of the time deliver a Y sex chromosome. It's the way we are designed. The common misconception is that XXX can be male and XXY can be female? How? XY is male. XX is female. Take it from there. You HAVE TO SEPARATE BOTH CONDITIONS FOLLOWING THE CATEGORIES THAT EXIST WHICH ARE TWO; MALE OR FEMALE. 

    A male has the 50/50 chance of delivering an X sex chromosome OR a Y sex chromosome. NORMALLY! Combined in sexual intimacy/intercourse with a female sex partner, often the wife or a girlfriend or sometimes just a common fling, the male delivers an X AND Y sex chromosome in the rare case of a birth defect known as Klinefelter's syndrome which has the extra X with the Y sex chromosome from the male combined with the female's X sex chromosome. Each human has a set of 46 chromosomes. Got it? 46, with two in each that separate them as MALE and FEMALE! Within each individual, there are 2 sex chromosomes. XY is male. XX is female. Each individual has an additional 44 chromosomes that are autosomes not sex chromosomes. Now aggressors from the critical social justice community of intoxicating lies, deception and immoral sexual abuse will claim that your gender can be fluid or not falling upon male or female. But this is just a common mistake and a lie that they have been allowed to spread since institutions have allowed this madness to be taught to brainwash everybody into turning insane. 

    A female 100% of the time delivers an X sex chromosome. In Biology, the Y sex chromosome automatically makes the baby male. The extra X is irrelevant to the case of the child being female. There are two X sex chromosomes, yes, but the Y is what makes the child male. Although it is argued commonly that XXY individuals have breasts forming up and yet a male genitalia, the individual has no female ovaries. The misconception is that there is apparently a vagina below the penis instead of testes on those rare individuals. In normal males, there are the testicles and ofc the penile. Therefore, it is scientifically and biologically proven that the individual is male. I understand that people will argue that individuals with this rare chromosomal genetical disorder will say the individual is female because of the breasts. This is wrong! If the individual has three X sex chromosomes, the individual is likely to feel out of place, due to the extra X chromosome delivered by the male and two X chromosomes delivered by the female since males CANNOT deliver two X sex chromosomes. It still does not in any way invalidate that individual as a female with the extra X sex chromosome combined with the normal female XX combination; one from the male and one from the female. Individuals with XXY are still male because the extra sex chromosome is the Y not the X, since only males can deliver a Y 50/50 of the time during the impregnation process with the female. if it is the other way around, the male can also deliver an X and the female can possibly deliver two X sex chromosomes. But not in the case of Klinefelter's syndrome because the Y is the extra one with the X sex chromosome. 

    smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1154 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: How Is This A Debate?

    These are the random rantings of a religious fanatic who keeps replying to himself. This is not a debate.
    smoothieOakTownADr_BatmanVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyTheManofSteelSupermanThe_FlashMartian_Manhunterand 1 other.
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Why Political Correctness is Toxic

    It all starts out from the 60s or so when cults arose, claiming to be for free love, equality, and peace. But was it really? No. 5 years prior to these dramatic changes in society, we have a psychologist from New Zealand who claimed gender can be changed and therefore changed the definition. He said it can be "bendable". He then experimented on his little brother along with several other boys & girls. His little brother did not want to go through with the procedure but he had no say. His parents blindly agreed to the procedure without thinking what he was gonna experience. He got mutilated and John Money called him a woman. His little brother refused to admit he was a woman because he knew he was still a man. Today, we have gender deniers who claim "gender is a social construct" and claim gender can be changed. Biology says otherwise.

    Evidence of the two lesbians from Brazil who murdered a young boy:


    Lesbians who murdered a man to steal his inheritance. Seems more and more of God's commandments are being broken here and yes, the law is being broken too as people are being murdered:


    There you have the "L" in LGBT.

    Proof of there being homosexual serial killers before ever since the 60s-70s:

    Becoming evil: A cult of personality (Homosexual Serial Killers)


    Evidence of 4 gay men who are serial killers. Homophobia doesn't exist because we are not scared of gay people. We know who they are. We know what they've done. We know what they still do and still are; scum.


    Activists today claim that they have been oppressed throughout the ages. But this is just not true because historically, there have been statistics of homosexual convicts. There you have it, the "G" of LGBTQIAMAPEDOPHILE. Yes, they are attempting to make normal people say they are pedophiles. However, it is lgbt who are the pedophiles since they want minorly attracted people aka an alias for pedophiles to be included. What does this mean? They want to be inclusive towards kiddie rapists and to call it a "valid sexual orientation".

    He was originally sentenced to death in 1971, his sentence was commuted to life with the possibility of parole after the California Supreme Court invalidated the state's death penalty statute in 1972. He served his life sentence at the California State Prison, Corcoran, and died at age 83 in late 2017. There's your "B" in LGBT. Don't forget BLM too! They are included in this too! Burning, Looting & Murder! Oh yes, very "inclusive". Not to mention racist and hypocritical from all sides. They claim to be against white supremacy and yet they ARE WHITE SUPREMACISTS.

    What's this? A bisexual serial killer? Well well well.

    In the year 1955, there was a man named John Money. He was a psychologist of New Zealand. He decided to change the definition of gender, believing it can be rearranged physically. He was wrong but he experimented on his little brother and several other boys & girls. His little brother refused to believe he had turned into a girl and killed himself eventually because he had lost his manhood. Ask yourself, did he really want to be castrated just because he had some manhood issue down there? Apparently, his parents allowed it. They were either in fear or they were naive enough to believe John Money was right. Obviously, they had no idea. Years later, John was arrested for pedophilia. Amidst the 60s, you know which president was murdered. President John F. Kennedy. Amidst this time, there was also a growing group called the Manson Family. They were led by a so called musician named Charles Manson. He was a convict for a time, had to do time in jail for shoplifting. Within 1969 though, that's when it happened. After convincing so many teen girls and guys to have sex with him, do drugs etc etc, he decided to order them to commit murder upon the LaBianca and Tate families. Both were families of actors and actresses from Hollywood. Manson believed there was a conspiracy of a race war but he began it. He blamed the murders on black Americans. He was shown to be bisexual in the tv show "Aquarius" where he had raped a man who was a father to a daughter who he had seduced into joining his "cause". So are bisexuals susceptible to murder too? Absolutely. The other links prove gays and lesbians are also susceptible to murder. Within the Manson Family, there were bisexuals, gays and lesbians included. John Money only added in the "T" for "trans" people who still are not the opposite gender of who he or she claims he or she was born as. Ellen Page is still a woman. Bruce Jenner is still a man. It's interesting right? Since John Money lived way before the Manson Murders occurred and way before Manson became some crook and drug addicting sex cult leader.


    Today, we have toxic snowflakes forcing this ideology onto innocent children in schools, kids' shows etc. They should be banned immediately because boys will be boys. Girls will be girls. Don't like it? You are truthphobic. Anyone who debates back will be silenced immediately by the truth and only the truth.

    There you have the "T" in LGBT

    Q for Qanon: Qanon is known as a cult. Lgbt seem to be denying they are a cult. Evidence suggests otherwise. Their indenial only adds more suspicion to the populace who knows them for who they are. It's only a matter of time before they admit it.

    "Murder most Queer", a novel about a homocidal homosexual. Tsk tsk tsk. Shame on you lgbt. Shame shame shame.


    I for Intersex: They claim that this is a new gender discovery and thus "gender theory" is born. But nope. Gender theory is destroyed by logical factual debaters including me, Ben Shapiro, etc.

    2 is unexplained but still sus. Perhaps it stands for #metoo?

    A for Asexual or Animal, yet normal humans; men, women, boys, and girls are not animals. We are not, in fact, asexual beings.

    I can pretty much point out that "Lgbtaiapedos" are now accepting MAPs aka pedophiles. Yes they deny it so they can hide the truth from the public eye because pedophilia is illegal and immoral. They have already been exposed and will continue to be exposed for their immoral actions to the point where cops will arrest them on charges of child abuse. They claim that "asexual" is a human sexuality. Take biology 101 and you will find that asexuality doesn't exist amongst humans. Asexuality means being able to reproduce without a partner of the opposite gender/sex. Is gender/sex binary? Absolutely. Science dictates it. "Non binary, genderfluid etc" does not exist.

    Asexuality is only within certain animals who can reproduce without having a partner since the female animal, such as a lizard, doesn't need to get it's egg fertilized by sperm from a male lizard. Or a bird for instance can hatch baby birds with unfertilized eggs. In humans, females aka biological women CANNOT have a baby unless her egg within her ovaries is fertilized by a male with his sperm. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE EXCLUSIVELY BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Intersex isn't a new gender either. Intersex aka the condition of being born without a penis for men or being born with both a penis and a vagina is called a birth defect. Eunuchs are males without a penis. Hermaphroditism is a condition where women apparently have a attached to her vagina. It is a genetic disorder connected towards chromosomal disorder as well. Normally, you have XY being the male chromosomes and XX being the female chromosomes. You cannot mess with biological features and if you do, you get distorted, messed up humans who look like trolls. Lgbt thinks they can sway people in a way to fulfill their sick fantasies. It isn't logical to self mutilate yourself nor mutilate the kids out there being indoctrinated into this stuff. "Love is love" is a lie because lgbt isn't about love, it's about lust, pride, vanity and hubris. It's about being blinded to the wrong, "calling it good".

    And now for M. Yes. They deny they include pedophiles right?

    Evidence suggests they have a hidden pedo flag and M stands for MAP aka a Minorly Attracted person. Yes. They want to include people who are attracted to little boys or little girls. They are indeed pedophiles. Lgbt is guilty of everything sexually immoral.



    Do I know what MAPs mean?

    Yes I do know what it means and it's harmful to kids. MAP stands for minorly attracted person. "Lgbt" is toxic and subjective just as I had always perceived. They want to include pedophiles. Lgbt content needs to be eradicated from schools, movies, shows etc. It is inappropriate and they have always been immoral in all of their actions. They are hypocrites, snowflakes and subjective toxic retards with a mind to change gender, family structure and everything we've built from the ground up. Who are they to dictate what we can and cannot say? Biology goes against gender theory, gender cannot be changed. There is no gender spectrum. Marriage and true love is only between a man and a woman. Men are men. Women are women. Boys are boys. Girls are girls. Those are aboslute objective facts. John Money tried to change gender in 1955. He experimented on kids illegally, forced his little brother to be mutilated. HIs little brother refused to admit he's a woman and committed suicide because he lost his penis. John was arrested on charges of child abuse and pedophilia.

    No matter how much you pursue a career to push your ideologies onto us while denying that you support the normalization of pedophilia, I will bash you in with full truths right now with zero mercy. You are not a transwoman nor a transman. There is no such thing. Gender cannot be changed. Biology already states it. With you retards indoctrinating trans ideology onto kids in schools, it already shows you are pedohiles and you are not good at hiding it. You are a hypocrite for pointing out that anti lgbt are the bad guys when we anti lgbt supporters are for morality and not sexual immorality.  

    If you continue to argue otherwise, I will debate you and destoy you with more facts. I do not care how many times you insult me. "Transphobia" doesn't exist because we are not irrationally in fear of you pedophiles. In fact, it is YOU lgbt pedophiles who are irrationally in fear of us Christians, the truth and heterosexuals. Catholics are not Christians and they are as corrupt as you are. You support BLM who murder and burn, btw they do not protect black people, you do realize that right? No? Hypocritical ignorant and snowflake. My words are aboslute and God would have you all eradicated. 

    What's next? S for Serial Killers? M doesn't just stand for MAPs does it? Could it stand for murder?


    2 Sociopathic Lesbians Got Bisexually Transformed Into A Minorly Attracted Person.
    smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyTheManofSteelSupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    These are the random rantings of a religious fanatic who keeps replying to himself. This is not a debate.
    It is a debate as these topics are issues we face today. "Religious fanatic" you say? Tripping over your own words now eh? You self-destructive, self-righteous narcissist you are an irreligious fanatical zealot and you seem to be offended by the truth. Let this be a lesson to you, you are not winning this debate. You have produced useless information by going off topic. This is a debate and I have spoken facts and truths that you wholeheartedly are irrationally fearful of. Cry me a river and get over it. Your arguments are invalidated and your hypocritical irreligious comments does not scare me. I will continue my March of the Eternal Truths of God and btw, atheism has already been debunked. Cope about it. 


    Speaking of irreligious fanatical zealots, Ken Ham has a message for atheists who HATE the truth! xD

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYswvGoaPU&t=3102s

    And guess what? According to a real factual professional scientist named Henry M. Morris, he discovered evolution is a religion of pseudoscience. Who's the real fanatical one here? Not Christians. But you cringy toxic atheists. Not to mention Richard Dawkins is a flying hypocritical example of an atheist who have gone on a "religious crusade" against Christians. Who is the fanatic again? Atheists. You have lost this argument and you have been vanquished on a hill by the truth and only the truth by starting low and attempting to go high. Get off your high horse and what are you? NOTHING! While I have the truth and only the truth and so I shalt never lose. God prevails!

    With you approaching here and trying to prove me wrong which has not worked so far by your subjective opinion and self-destructive behavior, you have proven this is indeed a debate. It starts with toxic hypocrites like you who think you are entitled to everything in society which in fact, you are not in charge of the world and never will be. You are in fact debunked in this short debate. 

    smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyTheManofSteelSupermanMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Evolution and it's relation to wokism.

    Below are compelling pieces of absolute objective universal evidence from actual scientific research done by actual professionals who have proven that macroevolution never occurred. If you don't know the difference between the two types of evolution, not including Darwin's unapproved theoretical version, then you are not a true knowledgeable science nerd. Amongst them, Henry M. Morris who has proven evolution pseudoscience has never been a science but has always been an anti-god "religion" related to atheistic beliefs rather than Creationist Science. Ken Ham has won compared to false expert bill nye, who thinks we are all apes when the only ape in the room is him. Wokist supremacists believe that evolution is a proven science but indeed it is still an ongoing debate about the lack of evidence to prove it. The responses of these undercritical anti-social injustice ignorants are that "religious people are demented" or "deluded", however, Henry M. Morris has proven that evolution is a religion of atheism tied in to naturalistic philosophy. Christians are insulted but in fact, what about Ken Ham? It takes a creationist scientific Christian to explain the deep roots of DNA and biology to disprove evolution itself. Compared to him, bill nye is indeed a fraud. 

    Below is a video of how Ken Ham has a video that atheists HATE to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYswvGoaPU&t=3103s

    Because AGAIN, it takes a Christian who knows scientific facts to explain it since alot of people are denying it! And they call religious peeps the bigots? Hypocrisy alert!

    More evidence to point out macro evolution never occurred, DNA disproves Darwinian Theoretical Evolutionary Philosophy & Atheistic Religion: (https://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution

    More Scientific Releases on past organism that has not evolved in 2 billion years: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203104131.htm
    ICR research has discovered reasons behind "Why Evolutionary Origins are impossible". Science is about facts. Theories are theories and it is absolute fact that Darwin's evolution was flawed from the very beginning. He obviously did not know any better.

    More evidence to suggest that DNA has all the answers:

    Yeah that's right, DNA doesn't prove evolution is real.

    More Supporting Evidence: DNA disapproves of evolution (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)




    smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: The Issue of Abortion and the hypocrisy of pro-abotionists

    Abortionists claim it is women's right to kill a baby. Yet, who decided to have sex with a man? The woman and the man. The responsibility falls on both of them. Killing the baby will mean blood on your hands. Abortionists fail to hear the story of real women who have experienced real abortions. It's not a pretty situation. Abortionists claim fetuses are not living yet they were once a fetus too, in his or her mother's womb. Abortionists are hypocrites in dehumanizing other developing fetuses within a mother's womb, while claiming they are "progressive" in the process? I think not!! All abortionists should be arrested, tried and executed if necessary because killing babies without a conscience is subject towards devilish Moloch worship. Yes, Moloch is the demon of hell who flourishes in infant blood sacrifice. I do not care what atheists say. Their arguments are invalidated what so ever. Their deluded hypocrisy is what drives them to think God isn't real, and sometimes, claim there is no good nor evil, yet the killing of babies is evil itself. Relativism at it's finest within the anarchy loving hypocritical snowflakes of the leftist extremist socialist dystopia!


    Do baby lives matter?

    Yes absolutely. He or she is a new human born into this world. Otherwise, it is murder. If this isn't a serious post though, I'd say the post maker is a troll and this would be the bait. Despite I'm here, I will say the truth regardless.

    I find it hilarious how the right side is "cherry picking" when the left side obviously is exactly what it is; Leftists today are cherry picking what they like and don't like. It's now wonder trolls like norwich and "sciencerules" will always lose in every debate. They are hypocrites of the left claiming to be helpful in society.


    Men and women, boys & girls are the sons & daughters of God. That is an absolute objective truth. Today, we face many atrocities such as identification issues. The truth is, there are only 2 genders. There is no gender spectrum and religious zealots such as catholics are not true Christians. Therefore, the undercritical, anti-social injustice cult of demeaningful hypocrisy has been debunked again. God prevails over all!.


    What do you want to prove? Take away baby lives and it makes us as ugly as you? I THINK NOT!

    Abortionists claim that pro lifers make a profit off of baby making....how is this true? Abortions cost money and it's the WRONG approach to deal with things. If anything, abortion is a sign of cowardice, running from responsibility when you are responsible for a child you created. Babies are not to blame for the circumstances of rape nor incest. Babies are certainly not guilty of the sins of his or her mother & father.

    smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1154 Pts   -  
    Let this be a lesson to you, you are not winning this debate
    This isn't a debate. These are the grandiose rantings of an unhinged religious zealot who launches into personal attacks the moment anybody disagrees with him about anything. Nobody replies to you because you don't want conversation. You simply want to force your long-winded religious bigotry down the throats of other people.
    smoothieOakTownADr_BatmanVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Pro-Lifers are justified, JFK was a Pro-Family President and how AIDs/HIV do in fact, infect bisexuals & homosexuals due to excessive sexual activity with up to 1000 partners/year.

    28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

    79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: “The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

    Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: “In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

    1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: “A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999, and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000-lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.” (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)

    There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females, 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170. This is extracted from )

    Evidence: https://www.hrc.org/resources/hrc-issue-brief-hiv-aids-and-the-lgbt-community


    It is extremely remarkable that JFK was indeed a pro life president. I agree with his values and it is sad that the opposition who had him murdered are the same people today who are dehumanizing babies, attempting to change the institution of marriage and more. The facts remain the same. Snowflakes cant do anything about it.

    Supporting Evidence: 60 Days of JFK's life. Was he a pro-lifer? I bet yes. (https://marchforlife.org/60-days-of-life-was-jfk-pro-life/)

    smoothieVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1154 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Shut Up Batman

    Debates pose a question to an audience, or at least adopt a position on a specific topic and invite rebuttals. Your "debates" are the random rantings of an unhinged religious lunatic. 
    smoothieDr_BatmanVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanMartian_ManhunterZmoney
  • smoothiesmoothie 434 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Batman is a closet case?

    This is one of the funniest misinformation threads I have seen in a long time. Get a hobby



    NomenclatureOakTownADr_BatmanVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
    why so serious?
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: The Truth Marches On and All Trolls will be stomped on

    Debates pose a question to an audience, or at least adopt a position on a specific topic and invite rebuttals. Your "debates" are the random rantings of an unhinged religious lunatic. 
    No. I will never because I speak absolute objective facts. Again, you have posted irrelevant information. You have lost and will continue to lose.
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Nonmenclature has no facts

    Let this be a lesson to you, you are not winning this debate
    This isn't a debate. These are the grandiose rantings of an unhinged religious zealot who launches into personal attacks the moment anybody disagrees with him about anything. Nobody replies to you because you don't want conversation. You simply want to force your long-winded religious bigotry down the throats of other people.
    Your argument is weak and subjective. You have gone off topic and you are irrelevant to this forum. You have lost and you will keep losing.
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  

    Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

    Evolution Is Not Happening Now

    First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

    Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

    A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

    . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

    The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

    Evolution Never Happened in the Past

    Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

    Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

    Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

    Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

    The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

    With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

    And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

    Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

    The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

    Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

    Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

    Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

    The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

    Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

    Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

    Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

    It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

    So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

    Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

    As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

    All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

    Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

    The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

    Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

    Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

    Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

    Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

    Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

    The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

    Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

    Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

    The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

    Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

    The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

    Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

    The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

    There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

    The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

    Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

    It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

    At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

    The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

    A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

    Evolution Could Never Happen at All

    The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

    This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

    No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

    The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

    Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

    Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

    This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

    The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

    Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

    From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

    Evolution Is Religion -- Not Science

    In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

    Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

    The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

    The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

    Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

    The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

    It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

    Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

    Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

    They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

    The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

    We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

    A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

    And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29

    Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30

    Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

    (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

    Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

    The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

    As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33

    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

    That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

    In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

    References

    1. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
    2. Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
    3. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
    4. Ibid.
    5. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78.
    6. Ibid., p. 83.
    7. Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24.
    8. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
    9. J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
    10. Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.
    11. Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.
    12. Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24.
    13. Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
    14. N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.
    15. Lewin, op. cit., p. 36.
    16. Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from 'Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
    17. Ibid.
    18. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
    19. Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274.
    20. Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education.
    21. Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
    22. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
    23. Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
    24. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
    25. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
    26. Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
    27. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
    28. Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
    29. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
    30. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
    31. Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
    32. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
    33. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125.
    34. Ibid., p. 222.
    35. Ibid.
    All I got to say is, today's woke movements are toxic and very fanatical, not to mention hypocritical, prideful, lustful and full pf hubris along with all the other deadly sins of man. They deny scientific facts and scream at people who speak the truth. Henry M. Morris is someone who has debunked evolution, calling it out to be a religion of atheists. Those who say religious people are bigots are indeed wrong and have tripped over their own words because they believe in evolution itself, which is indeed a religion of atheists, meant to counter the One True Faith. The atheists believe no God exists yet they directly call atheism a religion when it's not. God is real, atheism has been debunked and evolution never occurred. Creationism is absolute. Nomenclature has lost this entire argument. I have won with the facts on my side. The only fanatics around are those who believe in evolution and 
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D and it's connections to the Woke movement's religion of atheism that is anti-human

    The Scientific Case Against Evolution

    by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.


    Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

    Evolution Is Not Happening Now

    First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

    Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

    A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

    . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

    The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

    Evolution Never Happened in the Past

    Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

    Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

    Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

    Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

    The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

    With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

    And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

    Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

    The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

    Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

    Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

    Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

    The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

    Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

    Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

    Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

    It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

    So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

    Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

    As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

    All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

    Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

    The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

    Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

    Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

    Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

    Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

    Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

    The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

    Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

    Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

    The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

    Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

    The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

    Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

    The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

    There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

    The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

    Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

    It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

    At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

    The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

    A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

    Evolution Could Never Happen at All

    The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

    This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

    No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

    The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

    Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

    Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

    This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

    The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

    Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

    From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

    Evolution Is Religion -- Not Science

    In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

    Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

    The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

    The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

    Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

    The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

    It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

    Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

    Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

    They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

    The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

    We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

    A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

    And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29

    Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30

    Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

    (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

    Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

    The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

    As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33

    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

    That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

    In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

    References

    1. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins (New York, John Wiley, 1999), p. 300.
    2. Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
    3. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, op. cit., p.89.
    4. Ibid.
    5. Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American (vol. 271, October 1994), p. 78.
    6. Ibid., p. 83.
    7. Massimo Pigliucci, "Where Do We Come From?" Skeptical Inquirer (vol. 23, September/October 1999), p. 24.
    8. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Evolution of Life," chapter 1 in Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, ed. by J. William Schopf (San Diego, CA., Academic Press, 1999), p. 9.
    9. J. O. Long, The Rise of Fishes (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), p. 30.
    10. Niles Eldredge, The Pattern of Evolution (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1998), p. 157.
    11. Neil Shubin, "Evolutionary Cut and Paste," Nature (vol. 349, July 2, 1998), p.12.
    12. Colin Tudge, "Human Origins Revisited," New Scientist (vol. 146, May 20, 1995), p. 24.
    13. Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
    14. N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.
    15. Lewin, op. cit., p. 36.
    16. Rachel Nowak, "Mining Treasures from 'Junk DNA'," Science (vol. 263, February 4, 1994), p. 608.
    17. Ibid.
    18. E. H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason, "A Fresh Look at Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," Physics Today (vol. 53, April 2000), p. 32.
    19. Norman A. Johnson, "Design Flaw," American Scientist (vol. 88. May/June 2000), p. 274.
    20. Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named, The National Center for Science Education.
    21. Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
    22. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
    23. Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
    24. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423.
    25. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism fron the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
    26. Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
    27. Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
    28. Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
    29. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
    30. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
    31. Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
    32. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
    33. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 125.
    34. Ibid., p. 222.
    35. Ibid.
    All I got to say is, today's woke movements are toxic and very fanatical, not to mention hypocritical, prideful, lustful and full pf hubris along with all the other deadly sins of man. They deny scientific facts and scream at people who speak the truth. Henry M. Morris is someone who has debunked evolution, calling it out to be a religion of atheists. Those who say religious people are bigots are indeed wrong and have tripped over their own words because they believe in evolution itself, which is indeed a religion of atheists, meant to counter the One True Faith. The atheists believe no God exists yet they directly call atheism a religion when it's not. God is real, atheism has been debunked and evolution never occurred. Creationism is absolute. Nomenclature has lost this entire argument. I have won with the facts on my side. The only fanatics around are those who believe in evolution and 

    NomenclatureVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Tell me, do you ever grow up? No? Then get lectured like a disobedient child because you will grow up and learn some manners.

    smoothie said:
    This is one of the funniest misinformation threads I have seen in a long time. Get a hobby



    Get a hobby you say? HA! What a clown you are.

    Says the hypocrite who trolls around on forums without any facts. That hypocrite being you! How about you take your own words and put it to good use? I have a life and a beautiful fiancé who is a real woman in my life unlike you. You've got no evidence just posting immaturely and going off topic. I'd say this is indeed you having no hobby. While I do have fun hobbies such as spending time with real friends and writing a good book. From what I've seen, you act no better than an internet troll. Grow up. Your comments are useless.

    This isn't how it works, internet clown. 

    What exactly do you want to prove? Take away our free speech and everybody is as ugly as you?!
    Batman vs Joker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24cQfQJ79Rs&t=217s

    You truly contradict yourself. 

    Unlike you, I have a private life and you know nothing about it. Real women love me for who I am because they know homosexuals for who they are; disgusting creepy serial killers and I am the opposite of a homosexual. I am super heterosexual and I like it because I can keep myself chaste. You have now been exposed as a fanatic who believe in a false religion of pseudoscience. You seem vastly offended by the truth. That doesn't stop me nor motivates me to "soothe" you with lesser honesty. 
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Tell me, do you ever grow up? No? You will once I lecture you enough.

    smoothie said:
    This is one of the funniest misinformation threads I have seen in a long time. Get a hobby



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24cQfQJ79Rs&t=217s

    You do indeed have no hobbies, therefore speak for yourself, hypocrite. 
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: "Transgenderism" is homosexuality with the mental illness of believing in mental insanity, self harm and "reverse therapy"

    Bruce Jenner is still a man. Ellen Page is still a woman. "Gender neutral bathrooms" will only cause an intrusion of privacy. Why? Because there is something called unisex. There are clothes these days being sold where males and females can wear it. Unisex bathrooms is essentially where males and females can go to it at the same time. It is an intrusion of privacy. That is why segregation of the sexes/genders is useful. That way women can feel comfortable and men can also feel comfortable. Only peeping toms and perverted lgbtpedos will scream about making unisex bathrooms available so they can peep in on the opposite sex while falsely claiming as the opposite sex. Lying about being a man while being a woman is a crime. Lying about being a woman while you are a man is also a crime. Think about your kids and think logically, not using your feelings. Think morally what is right vs wrong. Analyze the issues on this whole "gender neutral bathroom" "request" and then resolve it by saying "no" because it is pointless, wasteful and sexist. For the sake of the young boys and girls, they will be screaming at each other, especially the girls because yes, girls are more delicate and boys are also precious. Both most likely will get a little aggressive with each other, trust me. Protect your kids and say NO to "gender neutral bathrooms". Libtards and idiots of the bidencratic government are to allow it. Republicans still have common sense left. Thank you, DeSantis, for banning abortion and for overturning unjustified roe v wade. Like all totalitarian dictatorships, yeah "they claim to have good intentions" and then what? Disastrous catastrophe. The French revolutionists led by Robespierre who hypocritically turned into a dictator himself and self proclaimed himself "a divine being", only to be executed by the people by being tied to the guillotine, Lenin led a revolution against the Tsar with his family all slaughtered. For what? For the glory of some revolution that never brought food to everyone's bellies? Seriously?, Hitler claiming to make Germany better but slaughtered so many innocent Jewish citizens amongst other victims such as Christians etc, Stalin claiming that Communism will make everything better but makes millions starve in those gulag camps?, Mao claiming he has a dream to make China strong and great again, yet also makes the people suffer including Tiananmen square, Charles Manson claiming to be a leader against racial discrimination but ultimately causes a race war by blaming the immoral deeds of his followers on the Black Panther Movement? And all the serial killers in America, including homosexual serial killer Jeff Dahmer etc etc etc.

    "Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8

    Gender theory, subjective toxic "transgenderism and transracialism", sexist and racist as well as toxic. Plus the whole of lgbtpedos' agenda to include MAPs; minorly attracted persons etc etc. You name it. All of these philosophies are not for eternal happiness. It distorts the meaning of life itself. None of these leftist "beliefs" are valid nor righteous. It is all abominable. Jesus was right. Lgbtpedos have proven to be self destructive snowflakes who can't handle facts, not even scientific ones. His hubris, pride, wrath amongst all the sins of man will be exposed. I will continue to defy francis who is not God nor the authority who speaks for God.

    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Lgbt's dangerous hypocrisy in banning gay therapy conversion, only to replace it with their own version to target innocent children and adults alike

    More evidence of hypocrisy from Lgbt. Their agenda is clear:

    Get rid of "gay conversion therapy", meaning gay to straight but allowing conversion from straight to gay or queer or whatever. HYPOCRISY EXPOSED! Their main targets: Kids Their secondary targets: Adults

    So far, they are failing. We will not let them win. God prevails!

    Supporting Evidence: Lgbt movements dangerous hypocrisy towards conversion therapy ban but allowing another in it's place....lgbt's own conversion agenda to turn youth into one of them (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-lgbt-movements-dangerous-hypocrisy-on-conversion-therapy/)


    Yeah asexuality isn't humanly possible. It's only possible in certain animals who don't need a partner of the opposite gender/sex to reproduce. Human females are very different. They require a male's sperm to fertilize the egg. In female birds? It's different. Lgbt have misinterpreted the meaning of asexuality and assume it's about "unattraction or a low sex drive". This just isn't true. It's either abstinence or low sexual hormones. It could be a biological disorder within the genes of the individual; male or female wise but it isn't a sexuality because individuals who identify as "asexual" are still having sex with people so they are lying about low attraction most definitely. Lgbt wants revenge and they will lose because of this.


    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited March 16
    Argument Topic: Leftist Wokism; The problems it has brought to society and how to counter it righteously

    Are there issues today that divides us such as sexuality, gender, and racial background identities etc?

    Yes, division is caused because of these freakish celebrations. It is what it is. It's as real as when Columbus discovered Haiti for the first time. The side that claims for equality aka lgbt etc etc, prove contradictive. They claim to be anti racist but they are racist in denying the history of European settlers who arrived in the Americas. This includes the English, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch & Irish as well as many other settlers from all around the world eventually. Although there have been conflicts with the First Nations, this doesn't mean that we should be kicked out nor kick them out. People managed to make agreements with one another. What matters is we live together and we have to get along. The real issues are those who stir up trouble. Those are the certain activists who scream when people don't agree with their views. The objective truth is out there. Truth is ultimately universal.

    Richard Dawkins has been destroyed by his own self destructive delusional self.



    Even Ken Ham explains everything. From debunking Darwin's Theory of Evolution to explaining the depths of DNA & Biology along with the different kinds of animals like dogs(And how dogs are dogs, no matter how many types there are) to Natural Disasters to Noah's Ark (Land animals were saved not all animals were on the Ark, especially sea creatures.) and ofc last but not least, debunking Global Warming. The Ice Age only occurred once. It's not happening again. God had said, the earth shall never be flooded again. Hence why He showed the rainbow which isn't a symbol of pride as snowflakes have stolen it and twisted it just as Hitler twisted the Swastika symbol from the sign of good fortune to the hatred of the Jewish people. It takes a Christian scientific expert on science itself to explain in depth all the things about it itself. All opposition are most likely atheists who can't accept the truth as it is; that the Bible and History go hand in hand. Richard Dawkins proved nothing. He has now gone AWOL and has been destroying his own reputation. Sucks for him but he has already chosen to go delusional. Those who delusionally believe him are the same as him.

    I've posted all the evidence before and I will post it again to silence snowflakes such as "sciencerules" the retarded & criminally insane hypocrite. As an subjective toxic hypocritical atheist, he HATES FACTS. You know what? I LOVE TRUTH AND YOU SHALL BE SILENCED ONCE MORE!

    It is said Richard Dawkins was smart.....but has said some dumb things that don't show he is smart. Where is his common sense? He acts with all godliness but denies the power of God and existence of God? Oh yes, hypocrites like him are dangerous to society. Supporting the act of abortion; murder of infants is just one of the first of many that is insane, immoral and evil. I believe he was never smart. No atheist is ever smart.

    Supporting Evidence: 13 times Richard Dawkins was smart but said dumb things. He is EXPOSED FOR HIS INSANITY! (www.sbs.com.au)

    I am beginning to think there is a new condition, a new syndrome, known as the Dawkins Delusional Syndrome aka DDS. It is what all atheists have. Richard Dawkins has been known right now to be on a wild insane crusade for atheism against Christianity itself. Yes, the Dawkins Delusional Syndrome is based off of his name. He is a disgrace to humanity and belongs in a mental institute.

    Children and guns do not mix. Ever. Child soldiering is a crime. That is an absolute objective fact. The false Christ is mad at himself. Not surprised concerning your self destructive behavior.

    Matthew 18:5-6 "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

    I have spoken the biblical truth to rebuke this false Christ who is possessed by a demon. The real Jesus will judge you on that day.

    Political Correctness breeds insanity:

    Biologists do not agree with gender being non binary. Any claim, such as "sciencerules" false claim of gender having a spectrum is solely insane and invalidated. They are deluded and need professional help. Facts are facts. You know nothing about gender and sex in biology. Both are the same and it remains the same. Can't accept it? Must be a pity because you failed grade school and basic science.

    Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder aka a medical condition. Men are men. Women are women. Refusing a "trans women" is not gay, it's heterosexual. Men who falsely identify as women are in fact gay, hypocritical and are weak. I will continue to reject fake women who are actually men. I will continue to love and date my real girlfriend who is a real woman. Can't handle it? You are heterophobic, truthphobic and Christophobic.

    Feminazism has failed. It has fallen from grace because the toxic activists pushing for "harassment" and "hatred" towards women are just lies. Man hate is hypocritical. Men are supposed to protect women, yet feminists want men to not do that. So then, why complain when women are attacked? Women attack other women too just as men attack other men. Feminazis are exposed as hypocrites and snowflakes. They are crazy and are objectively a disgrace to all women kind. Real women do not like feminazism.

    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Leftist Wokism; The Problems It Brings to Society and How to Counter it

    Are there issues today that divides us such as sexuality, gender, and racial background identities etc?

    Yes, division is caused because of these freakish celebrations. It is what it is. It's as real as when Columbus discovered Haiti for the first time. The side that claims for equality aka lgbt etc etc, prove contradictive. They claim to be anti racist but they are racist in denying the history of European settlers who arrived in the Americas. This includes the English, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch & Irish as well as many other settlers from all around the world eventually. Although there have been conflicts with the First Nations, this doesn't mean that we should be kicked out nor kick them out. People managed to make agreements with one another. What matters if we live together and we have to get along. The real issues are those who stir up trouble. Those are the certain activists who scream when people don't agree with their views. The objective truth is out there. Truth is ultimately universal.

    Richard Dawkins has been destroyed by his own self destructive delusional self.



    Even Ken Ham explains everything. From debunking Darwin's Theory of Evolution to explaining the depths of DNA & Biology along with the different kinds of animals like dogs(And how dogs are dogs, no matter how many types there are) to Natural Disasters to Noah's Ark (Land animals were saved not all animals were on the Ark, especially sea creatures.) and ofc last but not least, debunking Global Warming. The Ice Age only occurred once. It's not happening again. God had said, the earth shall never be flooded again. Hence why He showed the rainbow which isn't a symbol of pride as snowflakes have stolen it and twisted it just as Hitler twisted the Swastika symbol from the sign of good fortune to the hatred of the Jewish people. It takes a Christian scientific expert on science itself to explain in depth all the things about it itself. All opposition are most likely atheists who can't accept the truth as it is; that the Bible and History go hand in hand. Richard Dawkins proved nothing. He has now gone AWOL and has been destroying his own reputation. Sucks for him but he has already chosen to go delusional. Those who delusionally believe him are the same as him.

    I've posted all the evidence before and I will post it again to silence snowflakes such as "sciencerules" the retarded & criminally insane hypocrite. As an subjective toxic hypocritical atheist, he HATES FACTS. You know what? I LOVE TRUTH AND YOU SHALL BE SILENCED ONCE MORE!

    It is said Richard Dawkins was smart.....but has said some dumb things that don't show he is smart. Where is his common sense? He acts with all godliness but denies the power of God and existence of God? Oh yes, hypocrites like him are dangerous to society. Supporting the act of abortion; murder of infants is just one of the first of many that is insane, immoral and evil. I believe he was never smart. No atheist is ever smart.

    Supporting Evidence: 13 times Richard Dawkins was smart but said dumb things. He is EXPOSED FOR HIS INSANITY! (www.sbs.com.au)

    I am beginning to think there is a new condition, a new syndrome, known as the Dawkins Delusional Syndrome aka DDS. It is what all atheists have. Richard Dawkins has been known right now to be on a wild insane crusade for atheism against Christianity itself. Yes, the Dawkins Delusional Syndrome is based off of his name. He is a disgrace to humanity and belongs in a mental institute.

    Children and guns do not mix. Ever. Child soldiering is a crime. That is an absolute objective fact. The false Christ is mad at himself. Not surprised concerning your self destructive behavior.

    Matthew 18:5-6 "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

    I have spoken the biblical truth to rebuke this false Christ who is possessed by a demon. The real Jesus will judge you on that day.

    Political Correctness breeds insanity:

    Biologists do not agree with gender being non binary. Any claim, such as "sciencerules" false claim of gender having a spectrum is solely insane and invalidated. They are deluded and need professional help. Facts are facts. You know nothing about gender and sex in biology. Both are the same and it remains the same. Can't accept it? Must be a pity because you failed grade school and basic science.

    Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder aka a medical condition. Men are men. Women are women. Refusing a "trans women" is not gay, it's heterosexual. Men who falsely identify as women are in fact gay, hypocritical and are weak. I will continue to reject fake women who are actually men. I will continue to love and date my real girlfriend who is a real woman. Can't handle it? You are heterophobic, truthphobic and Christophobic.

    Feminazism has failed. It has fallen from grace because the toxic activists pushing for "harassment" and "hatred" towards women are just lies. Man hate is hypocritical. Men are supposed to protect women, yet feminists want men to not do that. So then, why complain when women are attacked? Women attack other women too just as men attack other men. Feminazis are exposed as hypocrites and snowflakes. They are crazy and are objectively a disgrace to all women kind. Real women do not like feminazism.
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: New Diagnosis for all who believe in insane political correctness; Dawkins Delusional Syndrome

    I am beginning to think there is a new condition, a new syndrome, known as the Dawkins Delusional Syndrome aka DDS. It is what all atheists have. Richard Dawkins has been known right now to be on a wild insane crusade for atheism against Christianity itself. Yes, the Dawkins Delusional Syndrome is based off of his name. He is a disgrace to humanity and belongs in a mental institute.

    Children and guns do not mix. Ever. Child soldiering is a crime. That is an absolute objective fact. The false Christ is mad at himself. Not surprised concerning your self destructive behavior.

    Matthew 18:5-6 "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

    I have spoken the biblical truth to rebuke this false Christ who is possessed by a demon. The real Jesus will judge you on that day.

    Political Correctness breeds insanity:

    Biologists do not agree with gender being non binary. Any claim, such as "sciencerules" false claim of gender having a spectrum is solely insane and invalidated. They are deluded and need professional help. Facts are facts. You know nothing about gender and sex in biology. Both are the same and it remains the same. Can't accept it? Must be a pity because you failed grade school and basic science.

    Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder aka a medical condition. Men are men. Women are women. Refusing a "trans women" is not gay, it's heterosexual. Men who falsely identify as women are in fact gay, hypocritical and are weak. I will continue to reject fake women who are actually men. I will continue to love and date my real girlfriend who is a real woman. Can't handle it? You are heterophobic, truthphobic and Christophobic.

    Feminazism has failed. It has fallen from grace because the toxic activists pushing for "harassment" and "hatred" towards women are just lies. Man hate is hypocritical. Men are supposed to protect women, yet feminists want men to not do that. So then, why complain when women are attacked? Women attack other women too just as men attack other men. Feminazis are exposed as hypocrites and snowflakes. They are crazy and are objectively a disgrace to all women kind. Real women do not like feminazism.

    There are 50 states in the USA with California aka Commiefornia as the worst state to ever exist along with Texas and Florida as the top two best ones so far due to it's absolute universally justified Republican majority who accept facts and religious freedom as well as having common sense. Bidencrats aka corrupt democrats have gone criminally insane with a hint of antisemitism thanks to Kamala Harris. There are 2 genders in the human race; male & female. There are 46 chromosomes per human; male and female wise individually. But with rare genetic disorders and stuff, this could vary...sadly. Although rare, missing or extra chromosomes can cause rare mental disorders such as down syndrome and such. I remember what I remember from Biology 101. XY are the sex chromosomes for a male infant. XX are the sex chromosomes for the female infant. XXY is still male but with a biological defect. XXX is still female but with a biological defect. Intersex is a birth defect and such defects do not count as new genders. Leftists who claim it is are ignorant truthphobes. The man aka the dad gives the infant within the mother either an X or Y sex chromosome. The woman aka the mother gives her the child in her womb an X sex chromosome. Therefore, marriage & true love is only between a real man and a real woman as God eternally intended it. This will never change. As a right winged absolutist, adhered to moral values of Restorationist Christianity, I have spoken absolute universal facts. Opposition and fools will be invalidated, exposed for their hubris, pride, vanity, lust, sloth, wrath, gluttony, greed and hypocrisy by the truth and only by the truth.

    Why do I not accept the alphabet cult of liars, idolaters, sexists, hypocrites, femnazis, & neo-communist-marxist snowflakes?

    1. The truth is they are harmful to everyone because of their indoctrination of children into their gross ideologies

    2. Gender cannot be changed and this toxic group is imposing that it's a "social construct". Facts cannot be changed.

    3. MAPs aka Minorly attracted people. Yeah, they are about to accept pedophiles under a "safe alias" in order to go undetected. Trust me, we who have common sense are onto you.

    4. Homophobia, transphobia etc does not exist. How? We aren't irrationally scared of you, that's why we are not afraid to continue opposing your agenda for control, power and to dismantle the absolute objective structure of family; One man(Husband), one woman(wife) and ofc, sons & daughters.

    5. The truth is, lgbt brings aids/hiv, STDs, STIs etc. It brings no beneficial contribution to society neither does it bring newborns into this world.

    6. They work alongside BLM who are terrorists not for black lives at all.

    8. They support abortion which is murder and ofc, yes, religiously, it is to go against God, to kill babies to worship the devil. That is evil.

    9. They aren't as nice as you think they are.

    10. True love and marriage is only between a man and a woman and yet, this dystopia cult wants to replace the definition of marriage while lying and saying they are not. Who do they think they are? Denying it will only be denying the inevitable truth. Homosexuality is not normal. That is an absolute universal truth.

    11. Their pronouns does not exist. Yet they claim there are more than 2 genders. They are mentally ill and need to be placed in a mental institution for re correctional purposes.

    Men are men. Women are women. You cannot change your gender nor your age. If you do, pedophiles can do the same thing. They can claim they are a girl when they are not. They can seemingly legally change their age and then go after kids. Let me ask you, would you want that? If you have common sense, you will say no. These days, the subjective, toxic, hypocritically demeaningful dystopia of snowflakes claim they are for equality and such. But are they? No. They indoctrinate their sexuality, false ideologies and such into schools to force kids to believe it. Some people may claim, "they don't care". But that's only if it's harmless right? Well, it's gotten personal to where they think they own the world and are seeking sympathy by hiding their true intentions. Leave kids alone or face the full force of the Law Enforcement and Justice System. The pride group will face a fall. Their lust is not love. These are simple facts. Truthphobia is real and this group denies facts and truth. They are Christophobic and heterophobic. They are the pinnacle of hypocrisy itself. Anyone who fails to see this and seeks to attack me for speaking facts will find themselves surrounded, debunked and reasonably doubted.

    Common sense will triumph because God will not allow children to be targeted nor us to mess with our biological features. Men cannot play women's sports on a women's team. Women cannot play men's sports on a men's team. It is only acceptable when you have a unisex sports team that allows both men and women to play together. But if it's exclusively a men's team or women's team, yes, members of the other sex will not be included. They can watch though. Now another fact is, men cannot claim to be women nor can women claim to be men. Bruce Jenner is still a man. Ellen Page is still a woman.

    Is it necessary to have so many pronouns we never heard of? Nope. The toxic group thinks they can control how the population thinks eh? Not on tik tok, facebook, nor any social media. Freedom of speech will silence them in under 2 milliseconds and it will continue because we, the people will not comply.

    The left is typically offended by this one question: What is a woman?

    Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and other Champions of truth continue to destroy the leftists agenda of lies, deception and utter hypocrisy.

    I will be happy to join the conservative movement for all American citizens who have common sense to not deny facts of biology and truth overall. Lgbt need to be arrested for their aggressions against normies, hypocritical verbal abuse, heterophobia, Christophobia, truthphobia and ofc, the tendency to force everybody especially kids to be seduced by insane ideologies on gender/sex and sexual orientation aspects.

    There are only 2 genders; male and female.

    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: New Diagnosis Found for the cult of alphabet banditry: Dawkins Delusional Syndrome

    I am beginning to think there is a new condition, a new syndrome, known as the Dawkins Delusional Syndrome aka DDS. It is what all atheists have. Richard Dawkins has been known right now to be on a wild insane crusade for atheism against Christianity itself. Yes, the Dawkins Delusional Syndrome is based off of his name. He is a disgrace to humanity and belongs in a mental institute.

    Children and guns do not mix. Ever. Child soldiering is a crime. That is an absolute objective fact. The false Christ is mad at himself. Not surprised concerning your self destructive behavior.

    Matthew 18:5-6 "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

    I have spoken the biblical truth to rebuke this false Christ who is possessed by a demon. The real Jesus will judge you on that day.

    Political Correctness breeds insanity:

    Biologists do not agree with gender being non binary. Any claim, such as "sciencerules" false claim of gender having a spectrum is solely insane and invalidated. They are deluded and need professional help. Facts are facts. You know nothing about gender and sex in biology. Both are the same and it remains the same. Can't accept it? Must be a pity because you failed grade school and basic science.

    Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder aka a medical condition. Men are men. Women are women. Refusing a "trans women" is not gay, it's heterosexual. Men who falsely identify as women are in fact gay, hypocritical and are weak. I will continue to reject fake women who are actually men. I will continue to love and date my real girlfriend who is a real woman. Can't handle it? You are heterophobic, truthphobic and Christophobic.

    Feminazism has failed. It has fallen from grace because the toxic activists pushing for "harassment" and "hatred" towards women are just lies. Man hate is hypocritical. Men are supposed to protect women, yet feminists want men to not do that. So then, why complain when women are attacked? Women attack other women too just as men attack other men. Feminazis are exposed as hypocrites and snowflakes. They are crazy and are objectively a disgrace to all women kind. Real women do not like feminazism.

    There are 50 states in the USA with California aka Commiefornia as the worst state to ever exist along with Texas and Florida as the top two best ones so far due to it's absolute universally justified Republican majority who accept facts and religious freedom as well as having common sense. Bidencrats aka corrupt democrats have gone criminally insane with a hint of antisemitism thanks to Kamala Harris. There are 2 genders in the human race; male & female. There are 46 chromosomes per human; male and female wise individually. But with rare genetic disorders and stuff, this could vary...sadly. Although rare, missing or extra chromosomes can cause rare mental disorders such as down syndrome and such. I remember what I remember from Biology 101. XY are the sex chromosomes for a male infant. XX are the sex chromosomes for the female infant. XXY is still male but with a biological defect. XXX is still female but with a biological defect. Intersex is a birth defect and such defects do not count as new genders. Leftists who claim it is are ignorant truthphobes. The man aka the dad gives the infant within the mother either an X or Y sex chromosome. The woman aka the mother gives her the child in her womb an X sex chromosome. Therefore, marriage & true love is only between a real man and a real woman as God eternally intended it. This will never change. As a right winged absolutist, adhered to moral values of Restorationist Christianity, I have spoken absolute universal facts. Opposition and fools will be invalidated, exposed for their hubris, pride, vanity, lust, sloth, wrath, gluttony, greed and hypocrisy by the truth and only by the truth.

    Why do I not accept the alphabet cult of liars, idolaters, sexists, hypocrites, femnazis, & neo-communist-marxist snowflakes?

    1. The truth is they are harmful to everyone because of their indoctrination of children into their gross ideologies

    2. Gender cannot be changed and this toxic group is imposing that it's a "social construct". Facts cannot be changed.

    3. MAPs aka Minorly attracted people. Yeah, they are about to accept pedophiles under a "safe alias" in order to go undetected. Trust me, we who have common sense are onto you.

    4. Homophobia, transphobia etc does not exist. How? We aren't irrationally scared of you, that's why we are not afraid to continue opposing your agenda for control, power and to dismantle the absolute objective structure of family; One man(Husband), one woman(wife) and ofc, sons & daughters.

    5. The truth is, lgbt brings aids/hiv, STDs, STIs etc. It brings no beneficial contribution to society neither does it bring newborns into this world.

    6. They work alongside BLM who are terrorists not for black lives at all.

    8. They support abortion which is murder and ofc, yes, religiously, it is to go against God, to kill babies to worship the devil. That is evil.

    9. They aren't as nice as you think they are.

    10. True love and marriage is only between a man and a woman and yet, this dystopia cult wants to replace the definition of marriage while lying and saying they are not. Who do they think they are? Denying it will only be denying the inevitable truth. Homosexuality is not normal. That is an absolute universal truth.

    11. Their pronouns does not exist. Yet they claim there are more than 2 genders. They are mentally ill and need to be placed in a mental institution for re correctional purposes.

    Men are men. Women are women. You cannot change your gender nor your age. If you do, pedophiles can do the same thing. They can claim they are a girl when they are not. They can seemingly legally change their age and then go after kids. Let me ask you, would you want that? If you have common sense, you will say no. These days, the subjective, toxic, hypocritically anti human dystopia of snowflakes claim they are for equality and such. But are they? No. They indoctrinate their sexuality, false ideologies and such into schools to force kids to believe it. Some people may claim, "they don't care". But that's only if it's harmless right? Well, it's gotten personal to where they think they own the world and are seeking sympathy by hiding their true intentions. Leave kids alone or face the full force of the Law Enforcement and Justice System. The pride group will face a fall. Their lust is not love. These are simple facts. Truthphobia is real and this group denies facts and truth. They are the pinnacle of self destructive itself. Anyone who fails to see this and seeks to attack me for speaking facts will find themselves surrounded, debunked and reasonably doubted.

    Common sense will triumph because God will not allow children to be targeted nor us to mess with our biological features. Men cannot play women's sports on a women's team. Women cannot play men's sports on a men's team. It is only acceptable when you have a unisex sports team that allows both men and women to play together. But if it's exclusively a men's team or women's team, yes, members of the other sex will not be included. They can watch though. Now another fact is, men cannot claim to be women nor can women claim to be men. Bruce Jenner is still a man. Ellen Page is still a woman.

    Is it necessary to have so many pronouns we never heard of? Nope. The toxic group thinks they can control how the population thinks eh? Not on tik tok, facebook, nor any social media. Freedom of speech will silence them in under 2 milliseconds and it will continue because we, the people will not comply.

    The left is typically offended by this one question: What is a woman?

    Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and other Champions of truth continue to destroy the leftists agenda of lies, deception and utter hypocrisy.

    I will be happy to join the conservative movement for all American citizens who have common sense to not deny facts of biology and truth overall. Lgbt need to be arrested for their aggressions against normies, hypocritical verbal abuse, irrational hate towards Christ followers, the truth, ordinary men, women, teen boys, teen girls of all ages (not under 18) who are heterosexuals and ofc, the tendency to force everybody especially kids to be seduced by insane ideologies on gender/sex and sexual orientation aspects.

    There are only 2 genders; male and female.
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Lgbt believe that age can be fluid. This is a BIG RED FLAG as that MEANS THEY ARE SLOWLY LEANING TOWARDS PEDOPHILIA!

    Men are men. Women are women. Women give birth to children. Men do not give birth. Chromosomes determine an infant's gender at birth. XY is male. XX is female. XXX is a female with a defect. XXY is a male with a defect.

    Gender/sex cannot be changed are one and the same. There is a large biological difference between men and women.

    Age cannot be changed.

    An anonymous tip from Youtube told me and she's a real woman speaking against you perverts.

    Racial background cannot be changed. Transracialism is racist. Transgenderism is sexist. Feminazism is also sexist. Lgbt are harmful to the core towards men, women and young children; boys & girls.

    Transgenderism is based on mutilating and targeting children. This is immoral and no, transgenderism is not a valid ideology.

    Lgbt are sexually targeting children and adults alike, encouraging sexual immorality and insane identifications

    Feminazism is based on man hate and are also hypocritical towards real women who know who they are. In other words, feminazis are sexist towards men and against members of the female gender/sex.

    BLM claim to be for black lives but are racist towards everybody, they are terrorists.

    Eco terrorists for climate change are simply terrorists who want humanity to be extinct. In fact, all these movements are hypocritically and factually a danger to society itself. Misinformation and slander plus insults only come from lgbt, BLM, feminazis, eco terrorists etc.

    "Freedom is the right to be wrong. Freedom is not the right to do wrong." - Motto of the Supreme Court of Canada

    Fighting for family rights and to protect your children is not wrong. Indoctrinating kids into immoral content through an agenda meant to harm humanity slowly? That is unacceptable. Everybody makes mistakes but if you are proud of your mistakes, hubris has taken over your soul.

    "Man or woman, anyone with a sick mind can do anything." - Batman to Poison Ivy

    God shall always prevail and He is prevailing.

    A poll shows Trump supporters are the stupidest people in the United States of America. I do not believe it because it may be no doubt the democrats pulling all the strings to produce massive false news, propaganda which are biased for the sole purpose to manipulate, deceive and ofc to gain support.

    That's what they say right? But here are some fun facts: Democrats are corrupt ran by a man named Biden who is delusional, old and dumb, ironically. Democrats are also antisemitic because Kamala Harris clapped after a student supposedly called out for the blood of the Jews. The Jewish American citizens now lean towards Republicans. Trump has done a fair share of bad stuff and a helpful amount of positive stuff, especially on speaking the truth on many topics such as religious freedom and the concern on what's been taught in schools these days to the next generation. Of course, to keep their face, democrats will do anything to gain support, whether that's using methods of extortion, deception, manipulation and since the media is already in their back pocket, they will use any resource they have to make republicans and Trump supporters look . Yet, democrat supporters have proven time and again that they are in fact the ones. Democrats are hypocrites, that's why Trump supporters exist. It's basically common sense "idiocy" vs actual idiotic nonsense. At least Trump supporters have common sense left while most democrats don't. Not counting the Kennedys, they are fine and are in fact, victims of the deep state in the USA. No one truly knows who Trump and his supporters deeply. Only God and Jesus do. We, the people, whether American or not, can only take guesses at what their motives could be.
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Age can be fluid according to the dystopia of alphabet banditry. This is a BIG RED FLAG GOING TOWARDS PEDOPHILIA!

    Men are men. Women are women. Women give birth to children. Men do not give birth. Chromosomes determine an infant's gender at birth. XY is male. XX is female. XXX is a female with a defect. XXY is a male with a defect.

    Gender/sex cannot be changed are one and the same. There is a large biological difference between men and women.


    Birth years cannot be changed but a toxic self-destructive community of corruption and deception out there has declared that it can be fluid? This is going towards a big red flag called pedophilia.
    An anonymous tip from youtube sent out a signal about this. This is a red flag indeed.


    Racial background cannot be changed. Transracialism is racist. Transgenderism is sexist. Feminazism is also sexist. Lgbt are harmful to the core towards men, women and young children; boys & girls.

    Transgenderism is based on mutilating and targeting children. This is immoral and no, transgenderism is not a valid ideology.

    Lgbt are sexually targeting children and adults alike, encouraging sexual immorality and insane identifications

    Feminazism is based on man hate and are also hypocritical towards real women who know who they are. In other words, feminazis are sexist towards men and against members of the female gender/sex.

    BLM claim to be for black lives but are racist towards everybody, they are terrorists.

    Eco terrorists for climate change are simply terrorists who want humanity to be extinct. In fact, all these movements are hypocritically and factually a danger to society itself. Misinformation and slander plus insults only come from lgbt, BLM, feminazis, eco terrorists etc.

    "Freedom is the right to be wrong. Freedom is not the right to do wrong." - Motto of the Supreme Court of Canada

    Fighting for family rights and to protect your children is not wrong. Indoctrinating kids into immoral content through an agenda meant to harm humanity slowly? That is unacceptable. Everybody makes mistakes but if you are proud of your mistakes, hubris has taken over your soul.

    "Man or woman, anyone with a sick mind can do anything." - Batman to Poison Ivy

    God shall always prevail and He is prevailing.
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Homosexuality likely to cause the molesting of children

    A real case study done by Baptists with common sense

    Matthew 18:6, "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

    LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)–A social researcher who has studied sexual behavior for 24 years believes the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has sound reasons for maintaining its prohibition against gay scoutmasters.

    A homosexual cannot automatically be considered a child molester, said Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education in suburban Louisville, Ky.

    But with 17-24 percent of boys being abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls, there is cause for concern, she said.

    Since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals, she said.

    “You’re looking at a much higher rate of abuse,” said Reisman, a former university research professor who recently completed a study titled, “Crafting Gay Children.” “The Department of Justice just released data and the rate of abuse are off the charts.”

    BSA’s policy has been the subject of constant attacks from gay activists, who have convinced a number of school boards to oust the Scouts from board property.

    In a story that aired Apr. 1 on CBS, “60 Minutes” also questioned its validity. After California congressman Dana Rohrabacher called the prohibition common sense, reporter Lesley Stahl remarked that common sense turns out to be a myth.

    According to the FBI and several clinical studies published in reputable journals, gay men aren’t more likely to sexually abuse boys, she said.

    “In fact, the largest database of child molesters in the country shows that those who molest boys are over three times more likely to be heterosexual in their adult relationships than homosexual,” she said.

    But Reisman points to figures from a 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

    It showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men. However, 6-8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1-2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3-5 victims for every gay adult.

    Questioned about Reisman’s claims, CBS stuck by its story.

    Spokesman Kevin Tedesco said “60 Minutes” staffers spoke with leading sources of information on child molestation, including the FBI, American Psychological Association and several clinical researchers.

    The database was assembled by psychologist Dr. Gene Able, director of the Behavioral Sciences Institute in Atlanta, he added.

    However, Reisman also cites a past study by Able to bolster her contention that BSA has reason to fear admitting homosexuals to the scoutmaster ranks. It found that 150 boys are abused by one male homosexual offender, compared to 19.8 girls by heterosexual offenders.

    In a study published in 1987 in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Able said homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence five times greater than the molestation of girls. (Calls to Able seeking further comment were not returned.)

    “We looked at the leading gay travel guide,” Reisman said of her research. “Forty-seven percent of the 139 nations they talked about identified places to find boys. The average heterosexual travel guide is not concerned with finding children.”

    Crime statistics also pose concerns. Figures released last summer by the Justice Department reveal that adults are not the primary victims of sexual assault, she said.

    They showed that 67 percent of all reported sex abuse victims are children and 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims are boys under 12.

    Two analysts with Washington-based, pro-family organizations agree that homosexuals pose a greater risk to boys.

    Tim Daily of the Family Research Council questioned “60 Minutes” claim that adults who molest boys can even be called heterosexual.

    “I guess you determine someone’s sexual orientation by their relationships,” said Dailey, who wrote a paper on pedophilia in the fall of 1999.

    “If a man is married and has sexual relations with boys, he’s obviously a combination. To say he’s heterosexual is an outrage. Overall he’s a pedophile. Whether you call it omni-sexual or pan-sexual, he’s indiscriminate…in relationships.”

    “Who cares if a guy is married?” echoed Peter LaBarbera, senior policy analyst for the Culture and Policy Institute, a division of Concerned Women of America. “If he’s into molesting boys, that’s homosexual behavior. It’s academic nonsense to talk about these people as heterosexuals.”

    Editor of the monthly Lambda Report, LaBarbera has been following the homosexual movement for a decade. He said it is disproportionately involved in pedophilia, as shown by the large number of males among sexual abuse victims.

    “The homosexual movement is shameless,” he said. “Gay activists are the ones who are trying to bring down (the Boy Scouts), a venerated institution which has very little to do with sexuality. They’re making it seem those who are against homosexuals are the problem.”

    Among the reasons Dailey cited for being concerned about the potential for homosexual molestation of boys:

    — Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men and significant numbers of victims are males. In 1996, the journal Adolescence reported several studies indicate that up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys.

    — Even homosexual activists don’t try to hide the connection with pedophilia. In The Gay Report — a book published back in 1979 — authors Karla Jay and Allen Young found that 73 percent of those surveyed had had sexual relations with males 16 to 19 or younger.

    — A 1999 article in the Journal of Homosexuality by Helmut Graupner argued that same-sex relations with minors should be considered a gay rights issue. The article argued that children wouldn’t necessarily be harmed by sexual contact with adults.

    This debate flared up in New Jersey when a column by Toni Meyer, senior research analyst with the New Jersey Family Policy Council, appeared in several newspapers around the state.

    Citing Reisman’s research, she wrote, “We must speak up in support of the Boy Scouts to our community leaders and not allow them to be unfairly and unethically pressured to go against their standards.

    “To allow them to be denied the support they need or public privileges they are entitled because of that stance would be a total disservice to, and a potentially dangerous decision, for society and our local communities.”

    That brought an angry response from New York’s Glennda Testone, northern regional media manager for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

    “The incorrect stereotype of the gay man as a pedophile is one that has been medically and scientifically debunked,” she said. “Heterosexual men were responsible for 74 percent of assaults on male victims and 77 percent of assaults on female victims, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics study (July 1994).”

    However, Meyer says those statistics only prove her point — a small number of the population is responsible for 26 percent of the assaults on boys.

    “She overlooks there are a lot more heterosexuals than homosexuals,” Meyer told Baptist Press. “People don’t understand. You have to balance these numbers by overall population to see there’s a greater incidence of abuse by gay men.”
    –30–



    https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/homosexuals-more-likely-to-molest-kids-study-reports/
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: John Money and his intoxicated Mad Science Experiment that targeted innocent children; boys & girls alike

    In the year 1955, there was a man named John Money. He was a psychologist of New Zealand. He decided to change the definition of gender, believing it can be rearranged physically. He was wrong but he experimented on his little brother and several other boys & girls. His little brother refused to believe he had turned into a girl and killed himself eventually because he had lost his manhood. Ask yourself, did he really want to be castrated just because he had some manhood issue down there? Apparently, his parents allowed it. They were either in fear or they were naive enough to believe John Money was right. Obviously, they had no idea. Years later, John was arrested for pedophilia.

    the mid-1960s, psychologist,due to a failed circumcision.

    Today, we have toxic snowflakes forcing this ideology onto innocent children in schools, kids' shows etc. They should be banned immediately because boys will be boys. Girls will be girls. Don't like it? You are truthphobic. Anyone who debates back will be silenced immediately by the truth and only the truth

    The Story: Supporters of the LGBT movement are working to ban one form of conversion therapy on minors while endorsing another.

    The Background: Earlier this week, the Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill to end conversion therapy for minors. The state of Utah also recently passed a similar law. To date, 18 other states have passed similar bans.

    The Utah law adds conversion therapy to a list of practices considered to be “unprofessional conduct” for state-licensed mental health therapists. Punishments could include suspending or revoking their license, according to state law.

    The new rule does not apply to clergy members or religious counselors acting in a “religious capacity,” nor does it apply to parents or grandparents “acting substantially in the capacity of a parent or grandparent and not in the capacity of a mental health therapist.”

    Last fall the Utah ban received support from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In a statement on the Utah Psychologist Licensing Act Rule, the LDS church issued a statement saying, “The Church denounces any therapy, including conversion and reparative therapies, that subject an individual to abusive practices, not only in Utah, but throughout the world.”

    By implying that all conversion therapies are abusive, the LDS church has adopted the position of LGBT advocacy groups. For example, in 1998, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) formally issued a statement opposing psychiatric treatment “based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation” and describes attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation by practitioners as unethical.

    Why It Matters: Is sexual orientation fixed or fluid? For LGBT activists, the answer depends on what position most benefits their cause. When it comes to conversion therapy to change sexual orientation, the LGBT lobby claims that homosexuality is immutable and cannot be changed. Yet in other contexts they claim that sexual orientation is fluid, especially in adolescence.

    “Far from being a fixed preference,” notes Carly Cassella of Science Alerts, “the findings [of a recent large long-term study] suggest that sexual identity and attraction undergo extensive and often subtle changes throughout a person’s life, continuing long past adolescence and into adulthood, with women showing slightly more fluidity than men.”

    If sexual orientation is fluid, then it seems reasonable that some minors would seek therapy to change unwanted sexual feelings. And indeed, until the LGBT lobby intervened, the psychiatric community largely agreed.

    In 1973, the APA famously removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It was initially replaced in 1980 by the classification of “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality,” characterized by having a sexual orientation or an attraction at odds with one’s idealized self-image, causing anxiety and a desire to change one’s orientation or become more comfortable with one’s sexual orientation. In the 1987 revision of the DSM, this classification was removed for political reasons. “In so doing, the APA implicitly accepted a normal variant view of homosexuality in a way that had not been possible fourteen years earlier,” says Jack Drescher, in a 2015 journal article for Behavioral Sciences.

    As Drescher points out, critics contended that if ego dystonic homosexuality was allowed as a classification, all kinds of identity disturbances could be considered psychiatric disorders: “’Should people of color unhappy about their race be considered mentally ill?’ critics asked. What about short people unhappy about their height?”

    Ironically, many of those same critics who opposed changing one’s feeling to match their preferred sexual orientation now support changing one’s body to match a person’s preferred gender identity.

    Admittedly, some forms of reparative therapy conducted on minors were harmful and abusive. But few forms were as harmful and abusive as the “treatments” for gender dysphoria, such as destroying sexual function and fertility through hormones, or surgically removing genitals or breasts.

    Studies have also shown that between 65 percent to 94 percent of children who initially identify as transgender identify with their birth gender by the time they are adults. Yet LGBT activists say we should ignore such findings and promote irreversible “conversion therapies.” As journalist Madeline Kearns points out,

    A study published in 2017 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine entitled “Age Is Just a Number” endeavored to investigate “WPATH-affiliated surgeons’ views, experiences, and attitudes toward performing vaginoplasty,” i.e., castration, inversion of the penis, and dilation of a cavity to form a pseudo-vaginal canal, “on transgender minors in the United States.” (WPATH is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.) Of 20 surgeons who were interviewed, eleven reported having done the procedure “1 to 20” times on children under age 18. The youngest patient was 15.

    One surgeon gave an indication as to why this might be a bad idea. He or she described the new clinical landscape as a “new Wild West” where “a bunch of solo practitioners, basically cowboys or cowgirls who kind of build their little house, advertise and suck people in.” In the U.K., the Times of London has covered a whistleblower scandal at Britain’s main clinic for gender-confused youth, from which multiple clinicians have resigned, citing dangerous, experimental, and inadequate care.

    Whether conversion therapy for minors to change sexual orientation is helpful or harmful is debatable. It’s also unclear whether that should be the primary option for Christians struggling with same-sex attraction. As TGC Council member Russell Moore has said, instead of depending on psychologists for a cure for same-sex attraction, those with homosexual inclinations should look to Jesus and the gospel for the strength to withstand their particular temptation to sin. “The Bible doesn’t promise us freedom from temptation,” Moore said. “The Bible promises us the power of the spirit to walk through temptation.”

    Christians who support conversion therapy for sexual orientation should nevertheless be willing to oppose forms that have proven the be dangerous and destructive. Similarly, LGBT supporters who oppose conversion therapies for sexual orientation should be logically consistent and oppose conversion therapies for children with gender dysphoria. The hypocrisy supporting such dangerous “treatments” is morally repugnant, and the harm they are doing to children cannot be undone.

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-lgbt-movements-dangerous-hypocrisy-on-conversion-therapy/

    The_LoremasterVictor_van_HelsingLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1154 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    @Dr_Batman

    Henry Morris was a hydraulic engineer, not a biologist. Your referencing of him as a supposed authority on either evolution or biology is disinformation. 

    Morris was a crackpot who interpreted the Bible literally, despite being educated enough to know that much of its content is contrary to the known laws of physics. His argument is riddled with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese. For example, demanding "observable" evidence of macro evolution, a process which takes place over periods of time far greater than a single human lifespan.

    Stop spamming the internet with this rubbish and get a life.
    OakTownADr_BatmanVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Child Abuse Is REAL!

    The truth about hormone blockers is risky. Men are men. Women are women. Boys are boys. Girls are girls. Boys are not girls. Men are not women. Girls are not boys. Women are not men. Gender Dysphoria is a mental condition. Hormone blockers are dangerous towards boys and girls alike. It is a freakshow and yeah, girls may feel bold like boys but this causes unnatural occurrences biologically. There is no hate speech. There is no such thing as transphobia. People have gone wacky. Boys who suffer from hormone blockers will suffer from unnatural occurrences too. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUPHqTkL5Nw

    Transgender Interventions Harm Children

    No Evidence that Transgender Interventions are Safe for Children

    There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth. This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.

    Puberty blockers may cause mental illness

    Puberty blockers may actually cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide. In fact, the package insert for Lupron, the number one prescribed puberty blocker in America, lists “emotional instability” as a side effect and warns prescribers to “Monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment.”  Similarly, discussing an experimental trial of puberty blockers in the U.K., Oxford University Professor Michael Biggs wrote, “There was no statistically significant difference in psychosocial functioning between the group given blockers and the group given only psychological support. In addition, there is unpublished evidence that after a year on [puberty blockers] children reported greater self-harm, and the girls also experienced more behavioral and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body—so puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria.”

    Puberty blockers may cause permanent physical harm

    Temporary use of Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures,  cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility.

    Cross-sex hormones (testosterone for women; estrogen for men) may disrupt mental health

    Women who identify as men are given enough testosterone to raise their levels 10-40 times above the female reference range. Past studies have documented multiple psychiatric problems with similar high doses of anabolic steroids like testosterone such that 23% of subjects met DSM criteria for a major mood syndrome such as mania, hypomania, and major depression, and 3.4-12% developed psychotic symptoms. Estrogen also impacts mood in complex ways. Post menopausal women treated with estrogen often experience severe anxiety despite being placed on physiologic doses of the hormone. Men who identify as women are given supraphysiologic doses of estrogen; theoretically, this has the potential to worsen both depression and anxiety.

    Other health risks are correlated with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones

    Temporary use of puberty blocker Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility. In addition to the harm from Lupron, cross-sex hormones put youth at an increased risk of heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, blood clots and cancers across their lifespan. Add to this the fact that physically healthy transgender-believing girls are being given double mastectomies at 13 and hysterectomies at 16, while their male counterparts are referred for surgical castration and penectomies at 16 and 17, respectively, and it becomes clear that affirming transition in children is about mutilating and sterilizing emotionally troubled youth.  

    Transgender interventions for children are experimental and dangerous

    Many medical organizations around the world, including the Australian College of Physicians,  the Royal College of General Practitioners in the United Kingdom, and the Swedish National Council for Medical Ethics have characterized these interventions in children as experimental and dangerous. World renowned Swedish psychiatrist Dr. Christopher Gillberg has said that pediatric transition is “possibly one of the greatest scandals in medical history” and called for “an immediate moratorium on the use of puberty blocker drugs because of their unknown long-term effects.”


    Source; http://https//acpeds.org/transgender-interventions-harm-children
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Body Integrity Dysphoria and Gender Dysphoria: The Relatable End of an individual's physical and psychological self

    We are not okay with people becoming trans. Boys are boys. Girls are girls. Men are men. Women are women. Gender/sex cannot be changed nor can age be fluid. These are absolute objective universal facts. Doctors are in fact the only ones who professionally know what's best for you. They usually will have common sense and will say, "I understand you may feel that you may need hormone blockers or feeling like you need an amputation etc, however, you are fine. You are not suffering from anything." Body Integrity Dysphoria is very relatable to Gender Dysphoria. Why? Because of the common delusional view that something isn't right about the individual, whether it's a boy, girl or adult men, or adult women. It doesn't matter who, it's all the same when it comes to mental conditions. You cannot change your gender/sex that YOU WERE BORN WITH! And if you DO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MUTILATION, IT IS PERMENANTLY DAMAGING YOURSELF, PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY. Suicide is the ultimate result when John Money experimented on two young twin brothers, who refused to be girls. They were boys who were CASTRATED! CASTRATED AND HARMED! IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL JUSTICE? THAT'S WHAT I CALL CHILD ABUSE! The Doctor is always right if he isn't about to MUTILATE YOU AND USE MAD SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS APPROACH. WHICH IN FACT, JOHN MONEY WAS INDEED THE REAL LIFE DR FRANKENSTEIN IN 1955!

    Cambridge did a study of the relation between Gender Dysphoria and Body Integrity Dysphoria:

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/article/body-integrity-identity-disorder-clinical-features-and-ethical-dimensions/C5D03563635EBBA854B517CD8730FDF6
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Body Integrity Dysphoria and Gender Dysphoria: The Relatable Issues Extended

    Summary

    Body integrity identity disorder (BIID) is a rare and complex identity disorder described by the desire to acquire a physical disability and an associated sense of incompleteness at being able-bodied. Individuals with the disorder often delay presentation until later in life because of perceived stigma about wishing to acquire a physical disability, and may have sought amputation already through ‘underground’ means or self-harm (attempts at self-amputation). In this article we present an account of the recent history and origins of the disorder, from its early descriptions and case reports through to the current neuropsychiatric theory of right superior parietal lobe dysfunction as basis for the disorder. We consider the epidemiology, pathogenesis and clinical features of this identity disorder of bodily integrity, highlighting the associations with conditions such as gender identity disorder. With this we then discuss the ethical considerations for available treatment options, mainly elective surgical amputation.

    LEARNING OBJECTIVES

    • • Understand the current definition and clinical features of body integrity identity disorder

    • • Be familiar with the conceptual history of the disorder, epidemiology and current neuropsychiatric perspective

    • • Be aware of the ethical aspects of elective surgical amputation as a treatment for the disorder

    DECLARATION OF INTEREST

    None.


    Type
    Articles
    Copyright
    Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2018 

    The term body integrity identity disorder (BIID) refers to a psychiatric disorder characterised by the persistent desire to acquire a physical disability such as amputation or paraplegia, or other severe disability such as blindness. Individuals with BIID typically report a desire to achieve their sense of ‘true-self’ and that obtaining the desired amputation or disability would enable them to feel ‘whole’ or ‘complete’. Although previously described in the literature as a paraphilia, there is a more recent and growing body of evidence to support a multifactorial psychiatric and neurological explanation for this disorder, with right superior parietal lobe dysfunction as one proposed neurobiological hypothesis. There are, similarly, strong parallels between BIID and other identity disorders, such as transsexualism and gender identity disorder. In BIID there is a mismatch between actual and perceived body schema, such that to have the desired amputation or acquired disability becomes a key part of the person's own identity. Onset of this desire also typically occurs in childhood or adolescence and is associated with chronic feelings of dysphoria which are somewhat alleviated by the desire to seek surgical intervention or to pretend to have the acquired disability – as with cross-dressing in transsexualism. Furthermore, several studies have shown that people with BIID sometimes go to extreme lengths to achieve the desired physical disability and therefore requests to surgeons for amputation of healthy limbs must balance the ethical argument opposing such a decision against the potential risk of self-harm.

    The nosological status of this condition is yet to be fully determined. It is included in ICD-11 (WHO 2018) as body integrity dysphoria, code 6c21 but not included in DSM-V (APA 2013) except in section III for research purpose as body integrity disorder.

    In this article we describe the historical development of the concept of BIID, consider the main features and the growing body of literature exploring the pathogenesis of the condition and address ethical aspects of the surgical management of the condition. It is important to make clear at the outset that the literature is relatively poor and much is dependent on self-reports from telephone interviews or online message boards. These sources limit the degree to which the findings can be regarded as secure and reliable. Nonetheless, given the paucity of information there is little choice but to rely on these reports, though taking account of the limitations.

    Conceptual history

    The concept of desire for amputation of a healthy limb is relatively new. Money et al (Reference Money, Jobaris and Furth1977) wrote about the cases of two men who both sought an elective above-knee amputation. The authors had identified a paraphilia associated with amputees or self-amputeeism in a series of letters published in Penthouse magazine 5 years earlier. This syndrome was termed ‘apotemnophilia’ (amputation love) or ‘acrotomophilia’ (attraction to amputees) – see Box 1. The two men suffered from apotemnophilia, and their desire for self-amputation was described as ‘an idée fixe rather than a delusion’.

    BOX 1 Historical terms used to describe desire for amputation of a healthy limb or limbs

    Apotemnophilia

    From the Greek ‘love to cut’ or ‘love for amputation’. Patients whose desire for self-amputation was felt to be related to sexual fantasy and arousal (Money Reference Money, Jobaris and Furth1977).

    Acrotomophilia

    Refers to the direction of the sexual fantasy felt in apotemnophilia towards other persons/sexual partners who are amputees; also known as allo-apotemnophilia.

    Factitious disability disorder (FDD)

    Used to describe two cases of patients seeking amputation whose motivations appeared to be driven by seeking care or attention for themselves (Bruno Reference Bruno1997).

    Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD)

    It was suggested that patients seeking self-amputation must be suffering from body dysmorphia, characterised by a persistent and delusional belief that some part of their body is deformed or excessively ugly (and therefore, by extension, there is motivation to seek removal of the offending body part) (Dyer Reference Dyer2000).

    Amputee identity disorder (AID)

    Offered as an alternative theory to those above, Fisher & Smith (Reference Fisher and Smith2000) wrote that this was an identity disorder rather than a paraphilia or body dysmorphia; the patient's primary motivation was a sense that they would become ‘complete’ once they became amputees.

    Body integrity identity disorder (BIID)

    The categorisation was broadened to describe a new identity disorder in which there is a persistent desire to acquire a physical disability and an associated sense of incompleteness at being able-bodied; there are similarities to gender identity disorder (First Reference First2005Reference First and Fisher2012).

    Xenomelia

    Literally ‘foreign limb’: this most recent term draws parallels with somatoparaphrenia (a neuropsychological syndrome that occurs mainly after right-hemisphere brain damage in which the patient denies ownership of a limb) (Sedda Reference Sedda and Bottini2014).

    Two decades later, Bruno (Reference Bruno1997) proposed a different psychological concept for similar cases, that of factitious disability disorder (FDD). Bruno noted that internet forums and discussion groups were becoming more common and in such places people looking for sexual partners who were amputees were known as ‘devotees’. Other categories were also established, known as ‘pretenders’ – people who pretended to have a disability through use of devices such as crutches or a wheelchair – and ‘wanabees’ – people who themselves sought to acquire a disability, usually through limb amputation. Bruno proposed a psychological explanation for this disorder, in that FDD provided an opportunity for the person to be loved or attended to, and that the disability could be their own or in someone else, real or pretended.

    In September 1997, a Scottish surgeon, Dr Robert Smith, performed an elective above-knee amputation of a healthy limb on a patient from England. Two years later, in April 1999, he carried out a further above-knee amputation on a similar patient from Germany. Smith reported that both patients belonged to a small subgroup who desired elective amputation in order to feel they had only three limbs, not four (Dyer Reference Dyer2000). Sufferers of the condition that Smith described found their condition extremely distressing and disabling and often resorted to self-harm to get rid of the limb (Dyer Reference Dyer2000; Fisher Reference Fisher and Smith2000). Smith’s employers, a National Health Service (NHS) trust, stopped any further procedures just before a third similar operation was to be carried out on an American. Since then there have been no further accounts of surgeons openly performing elective amputations of healthy limbs in the UK.

    First (Reference First2005) reported a telephone interview study of 52 individuals who self-identified as having a desire for amputation. It was noted that none of the people included in the study were delusional or psychotic. In about three-quarters of the sample, their desire for amputation extended back to childhood or adolescence and was associated with distress, attempts at self-amputation or impairment in social or occupational functioning. In the majority (73%) of those interviewed the primary goal of the amputation was to restore their perceived body identity, and not sexual arousal or gratification, therefore arguing against the idea that the amputation was driven by primary paraphilia (apotemnophilia). Hence, apotemnophilia was reconstrued as a disorder of body integrity and identity.

    Epidemiology

    Money's initial case reports (Money Reference Money, Jobaris and Furth1977) were both males and both identified as bisexual. Although separated, the first had been married and also had homosexual relationships and was able to recall a desire for amputation that began in early childhood and became a fixed desire from age 13 years. He recalled an injury to the affected leg when he was 2 years of age that left him unable to walk for 2 years. He was reported as having made a number of attempts to damage his leg either by introducing infection or using a tourniquet, although pain was in no way pleasurable for him. The second man recalled onset of desire for amputation from about the age of 11 years. He had attempted to secure an elective amputation a number of ways, but had not attempted self-amputation.

    A better indication of the characteristic age and gender distribution of BIID came from First's telephone survey (First Reference First2005), which included 52 individuals, 47 of whom were male, 4 female and 1 male who was intersex at birth. This individual subsequently underwent male-to-female gender reassignment surgery. First noted a degree of potential referrer bias, as approximately two-thirds of participants were recruited to the study through the internet and the others through referral by other participants. There was a high incidence of homosexual males, possibly explained by the fact that one individual referred a further eight. Excluding those nine participants, 72% were heterosexual, 19% homosexual and 9% bisexual. All but two of the participants were white and most (90%) had some education beyond high school. At the time of the study approximately 65% were unemployed, 7% were students and 23% had retired; the age range was 23–77 years.

    A more recent survey of 54 individuals (Blom Reference Blom, Hennekam and Denys2012) reported findings consistent with First's (Reference First2005): 80% of the participants interviewed were male, and over 90% of white origin. Two-thirds were educated to university degree level and the age range of participants was 18–76 years. Respondents were sorted into two groups – amputation or paralysation (seeking severance of the spinal cord) – depending on the specific desire for disability that they exhibited. Across both groups onset occurred in childhood or adolescence, at a mean age of 6–7 years.

    Actual incidence of individuals who desire amputation is unknown but it is possible that the condition is not as rare as initially thought. Between 2000 and 2003 much media hype followed on from articles written about Dr Robert Smith and the elective amputations carried out in Scotland. Smith himself knew of other patients who desired similar operations (Fisher Reference Fisher and Smith2000; First Reference First and Fisher2012) and membership of online message board groups ranged from 1 to 2000 (Johnston Reference Johnston and Elliott2002; First Reference First and Fisher2012). Accurate figures are difficult to determine from news articles and reports written about individuals who had sought or had surgical amputation as they have generally remained anonymous, probably owing to fears of stigma associated with wishing to acquire a disability. A review of the current internet presence of BIID suggests that some sites continue to exist (e.g. www.biid.org and www.overground.be) that, although primarily aimed at ‘devotees’ and ‘wannabes’, do contain information relating to BIID and personal stories and accounts of people who have successfully sought amputation. Blog posts by some individuals suggest that the larger groups have ‘gone underground’ because of the post-millennial explosion of the internet and the increased risk of susceptible individuals being targeted by people wishing to exploit their interest in finding a surgeon who would perform amputations. On the amputee-by-choice internet message board there are currently posts offering to put ‘wannabe’ amputees in touch with willing surgeons all over the world, but for a substantial fee (https://96528.activeboard.com). As can be expected, some responses to these posts are hopeful whereas others are sham. One message refers to a man known as the ‘gatekeeper’, who facilitates trips to Asia where amputations are performed on seemingly ordinary ‘tourists’ who present with ‘symptoms of limb ischemia’ and are then consented for limb-/life-saving surgery. However ordinary this approach to seeking treatment may seem, it is important to remember that unregulated surgical procedures are risky business and in 1998 US citizen Philip Bondy paid an unlicensed surgeon in Tijuana, Mexico, $10 000 for a healthy leg amputation and died of gangrene 2 days later in a San Diego hotel (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1300186.html).

    Pathogenesis

    There is currently no established or widely accepted understanding of the underlying pathogenesis of BIID. It was originally conceived as a paraphilia but there is growing evidence that this is not the whole story. Lawrence (Reference Lawrence2006) described a similarity with transsexualism because both conditions shared a number of features, including profound dissatisfaction with embodiment, sexual arousal from simulation of the sought-after status (pretending to be an amputee or transvestism) and attraction to persons with the same body type as the desired/target body type. This last feature is said to be prominent in non-homosexual male-to-female transsexuals (transsexual individuals who are not exclusively attracted to males) and is explained by a process termed erotic target location error. This process is thought to be present in some people with BIID. This hypothesis predicts that individuals who desire limb amputation will be noted also to be sexually attracted to amputees and in part this is determined by the fact that sexual ‘aesthetic preference’ for certain body morphology is dictated by the cortical representation of one's own body image (Ramachandran Reference Ramachandran, Brang and McGeoch2009). In a related but distinct thesis De Preester (Reference De Preester2013) argued for a closer overlap between BIID and paraphilias, making the point that the sexual component is essential to the phenomenology of the condition. De Preester applied Merleau-Ponty's notion of sexual schema interacting with body image to produce the disorder that is manifest as BIID. The two hypotheses are complex and speculative in nature.

    Attention has turned in recent times to probing and examining neurological aspects of BIID. There is reported evidence of heightened skin conductance response to pinprick below the line of the desired amputation in two individuals who had a longstanding wish for amputation of a limb (Brang Reference Brang, McGeoch and Ramachandran2008). This finding was interpreted as arising from a congenital dysfunction of the right superior parietal lobule and its connections to the insula. Earlier Ramachandran & McGeoch (Reference Ramachandran and McGeoch2007) had proposed that BIID was probably due to dysfunction of the right superior parietal lobule. This view was principally based on the reported preponderance of left-sided bias for the limb in question and the similarity between BIID and somatophrenia (a condition that occurs mainly after right hemisphere brain damage whereby patients deny ownership of their own limb/s, rejecting them as ‘alien’). Furthermore, magnetoencephalography scans revealed that tactile stimulation of regions above and below the desired amputation line produced statistically reduced activation in the right superior parietal lobule (McGeoch Reference McGeoch, Brang and Song2011). This was interpreted as evidence of inadequate activation of the right superior parietal lobule, a brain area thought to integrate disparate sensory inputs into a coherent body image. The authors propose that BIID be renamed xenomelia to reflect the sense of estrangement of the affected limb. In a separate but similar investigation using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), it was shown that individuals with BIID showed heightened responsivity of a large somatosensory network, including the parietal cortex and right insula, regardless of whether the stimulated limb felt ‘alien’ or not (van Dijk Reference van Dijk, van Wingen and van Lammeren2013). Assessments of temporal order judgements of tactile stimulation proximal and distal to the desired amputation line revealed defective spatiotemporal integration specifically on the parts of the body that are undesired (Aoyama Reference Aoyama, Krummenacher and Palla2012). These findings seem to indicate that abnormal neural processes are likely to be at play in BIID (Sedda Reference Sedda2011Reference Sedda and Bottini2014), although it is probably premature to foreclose other possibilities (Giummarra Reference Giummarra, Bradshaw and Nicholls2011). Finally, there is evidence of reduced cortical thickness in the superior parietal lobule and reduced cortical surface area in the primary and secondary somatosensory cortices in the inferior parietal lobule, as well as in the anterior insular cortex (Hilti Reference Hilti, Hänggi and Vitacco2013).

    It has been suggested that the similarity between somatophrenia secondary to parietal lobe stroke means that BIID might be amenable to caloric vestibular stimulation (CVS) just as somatophrenia transiently responds to CVS (Ramachandran Reference Ramachandran and McGeoch2007). However, this has proven not to be the case (Lenggenhager Reference Lenggenhager, Hilti and Palia2014a). Nonetheless, there is evidence from the ‘rubber foot illusion’ (in which the individual feels illusory ownership of a fake foot after synchronous and asynchronous stroking of a visible rubber foot and their hidden foot) that individuals with BIID experienced an increase in the vividness of the illusion for the undesired foot compared with healthy controls (Lenggenhager Reference Lenggenhager, Hilti and Brugger2014b). This finding was interpreted as demonstrating a weakened representation of the affected body part and it strengthens the possibility that multisensory stimulation might provide therapeutic benefit.

    Clinical features

    The clinical features described below and summarised in Box 2 are drawn from the following studies: First (Reference First2005), Blom et al (Reference Blom, Hennekam and Denys2012), Bou Khalil & Richa (Reference Bou Khalil and Richa2012) and First & Fisher (Reference First and Fisher2012). There is a persistent desire to acquire a significant disability, the onset of which occurs during childhood or early adolescence, that is, between 8 and 12 years of age. The primary motivation is to feel ‘whole’ or ‘complete’ and serves to rectify the individual's image of their true identity (as an amputee or paraplegic or with a significant disability), without which a sense of intense discomfort or inappropriateness would persist. There is impairment in social or occupational functioning and/or frequent attempts at self-amputation resulting from significant psychological distress. Despite the early age at onset, presentation most commonly occurs between 30 and 50 years of age, and often following a failed self-amputation attempt. This delay is thought to be due to perceived stigma or a fear of adverse judgement from relatives or medical professionals.

    Box 2 Clinical features of body integrity identity disorder

    • •Onset in childhood or early adolescence

    • •Delay in presentation to 30–50 years of age

    • •Predominantly affects males

    • •Increased prevalence of homosexual or bisexual orientation

    • •Association with gender identity disorder or other paraphilia

    • •Association with early exposure to an amputee during childhood

    • •Attempts at self-amputation

    • •Significant psychological distress and impairment of functioning

    • •No family history of psychiatric disorders

    • •No association with trauma or impairment to the limb

    • •No predominant laterality of affected limb

    • •Possible association with personality disorder

    (First Reference First2005Reference First and Fisher2012; Blom Reference Blom, Hennekam and Denys2012; Bou Khalil Reference Bou Khalil and Richa2012)

    In addition, there is a predominance of males with BIID. There appears to be an important sexual component, in that the majority of respondents to the survey by First (Reference First2005) reported sexual attraction to other amputees and around half reported that sexual arousal was a secondary reason for desiring amputation. Many people with BIID also engage in ‘pretending’ behaviour such as wrapping up their limbs or using aids and adaptions (Blom Reference Blom, Hennekam and Denys2012). This is often compared with cross-dressing in transsexualism.

    There is no evidence that individuals with BIID have a positive family history of psychiatric disorder. Bou Khalil & Richa (Reference Bou Khalil and Richa2012) suggest that there may be an association with DSM-IV cluster B personality disorders, but this view is based on individual case reports rather than large-scale surveys.

    Treatment

    Individuals with BIID are most likely to be offered a psychological intervention such as cognitive–behavioural therapy or psychotherapy as a management option or pharmacological treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or other antidepressant medication. First (Reference First2005) reported that 65% of respondents in his survey had been in psychotherapy at some point but almost half of those had never disclosed their BIID to their therapist. Although not curative, these treatments may well alleviate distress temporarily and would suggest that there is an association with mood symptoms that are probably experienced secondary to the psychological distress associated with BIID.

    Ethics

    Medical ethical considerations are considered using the four-principles approach developed by Beauchamp & Childress (Reference Beauchamp and Childress2013), namely respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. This approach has become very influential, especially in the English-speaking world. In this approach, it is recognised that these principles are not absolute and often require balancing in order to come to clinical decisions. The framework allows for a reasoned approach to decision-making in situations in which moral dilemmas exist. The principles are general guides that allow for judgement, taking into account the specificities and contextual aspects of each case, in reaching decisions. Our aim here is not to provide a detailed ethical or conceptual analysis of BIID but to summarise the headline considerations currently evident in the literature.

    BIID came to widespread public attention in the UK in 2000, following a BBC television documentary about the amputation of healthy limbs in two individuals by Dr Robert Smith, a surgeon at Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary, Scotland (Horizon 2000). Dr Smith later reported that follow-up of three patients who had had elective amputations between 1997 and 2000 revealed that none required further treatment (Fisher Reference Fisher and Smith2000).

    The emotions aroused in thinking about ethical aspects of the surgical treatment of BIID are well illustrated in the following statement, which was published shortly after the amputation of the healthy limbs of the two individuals was first revealed in the press: ‘Removing people's physically healthy limbs because they have a psychological condition is not only a dangerous precedent to set but also is a case where the few must suffer to safeguard the majority. These amputations could eventually lead to the acceptance of self-harm without significant attempts to address the underlying psychological causes of self-loathing’ (Beckford-Ball Reference Beckford-Ball2000). There appear to be at least two concerns here, namely that the surgical removal of healthy limbs for the treatment of a psychological condition cannot be right and that accepting this approach to the management of psychological distress may be the thin edge of the wedge that could lead to even more unacceptable demands for surgical interventions that are merely a means of achieving self-harm. There are a number of implicit assumptions in Beckford-Ball's paper, many of which hint at moral disapproval and not merely professional disagreement over the nature of disease and what counts as appropriate treatment. In other words, BIID raises fundamental moral issues regarding its status as a medical condition, the appropriateness of surgical intervention that causes harm by amputating a healthy limb and the possibility of harmful consequences not merely for the individual patient but for society as a whole.

    This is only part 1

    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Body Integrity Dysphoria and Gender Dysphoria: The Relatable Issues Extended Part 2

    Non-maleficence

    In this section we examine whether surgical treatment for BIID is in breach of the ethical principle of non-maleficence. There is an already well-established principle in medicine to ‘at least do no harm’, this being the maxim primum non nocere. This obligation to do no harm and its related but distinct obligation to use treatment to benefit the sick are foundational obligations in medicine. The conceptual problem is how to determine the nature of harm and this is a truly complex matter. Beauchamp & Childress (Reference Beauchamp and Childress2013) make the case that serious harm involves setbacks to physical and psychological interests, including such physical harms as pain, disability and death. Therefore, on the face of it, surgical amputation of a healthy limb self-evidently causes harm as it causes manifest disability. This issue of the amputation of a healthy limb seems to be at the root of much of the negative emotional response against surgical treatment for BIID.

    Johnston & Elliot (Reference Johnston and Elliott2002) make a strong case against the amputation of healthy limbs in BIID. They acknowledge that the problem here is not simply that of the surgical removal of a healthy limb, since there are at least three other situations in which there is elective removal of a healthy body part: cosmetic surgery that is justified by the patient's own aesthetic preference; living-donor organ transplantation; and gender reassignment surgery. The pivotal argument seems to be that a surgeon who performs elective amputations of healthy limbs may be at risk of a medical malpractice suit because the procedure is not yet considered by a responsible body of medical opinion to be an appropriate and effective treatment of a medical condition. Perhaps more importantly, they make the case that a surgeon in this situation might be liable to a charge of criminal assault. They base their argument on R v Brown [1994], in which a group of men who had videotaped themselves performing consensual sadomasochistic activities, which included branding, burning, hitting of the genitals, whipping, caning, biting and stinging with nettles, were found guilty under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (governing England, Wales and Northern Ireland). The House of Lords, by a majority ruling, held that the presence of consent is not a defence against a charge of assault that has caused actual bodily harm. The dissenting minority opinion in this case drew a distinction between actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, specifically that consent would not even in their view be a defence against a charge of grievous bodily harm. Johnston & Elliot continue, ‘Whatever the roots of the desire for amputation may be, the boundaries of the condition are flexible and overlapping with other social phenomena’. They conclude, ‘It is not yet clear that the desire for amputation is properly seen as a medical disorder, let alone that amputation of the limb is the appropriate response’.

    To summarise, the argument seems to be that surgical intervention in BIID is unethical because the provenance of the condition is yet to be fully established. In other words, healthy organs can be surgically removed if and only if there is consensus about the underlying nature of the condition under consideration. And, in Johnston & Elliot's view, consent of the patient to the surgery will be of no assistance to the surgeon should litigation arise.

    Beneficence and autonomy

    We now examine whether there are moral arguments in support of surgical intervention for BIID. Bayne & Levy (Reference Bayne and Levy2005), unlike Johnston & Elliot above, argue in favour of a limited role for elective amputation for BIID. In essence, their argument is that (a) elective amputation minimises harm by securing proper medical treatment under appropriate supervision rather than exposing patients with BIID to risky unsupervised surgery, (b) individuals who are acting autonomously and who have capacity ought to have their preferences and desires given due weight, (c) treatment – that is, elective amputation – is likely to secure relief from suffering that cannot be obtained by less radical means, and (d) the relief of suffering is therefore worth the cost of surgery. Bayne & Levy are aware that, whatever the arguments for elective amputation of a healthy limb in BIID are, many people will continue to find the idea objectionable or repugnant.

    The case that is being made by Bayne & Levy derives from the principles of beneficence and autonomy. There is a conceptual distinction between non-maleficence and beneficence. It is usually argued that beneficence is promoted by action that prevents harm, removes harm or promotes good. The point Bayne & Levy seem to be making is that BIID is a condition that causes harm, namely mental suffering, and that doctors have a duty to relieve harm and suffering and are under an obligation to act with beneficence in mind. We reiterate that patients with BIID suffer from psychological distress and often seek to secure amputations either through self-harm or from unorthodox and suspect agents. Beauchamp & Childress (Reference Beauchamp and Childress2013: p. 207) specify the conditions that need to be satisfied for an obligation of beneficence to exist between two people (A and B) and these are the following: (a) A is at significant risk of loss or damage to life or health; (b) B's actions are needed to prevent this loss or damage; (c) B's actions have a high probability of preventing the loss or damage; (d) B's actions would not present significant risks, costs or burdens to B; and (e) the benefit that A can expect to gain outweighs any harms, costs or burdens that B is likely to incur.

    A structured approach such as that proposed by Beauchamp & Childress helps us to disentangle the complex of possible responses to BIID. It is true that some people with BIID are at significant risk of loss or damage and it can be argued that B's action, namely surgery, is required to prevent the risks to A described above. It is also true that B's action of surgical intervention stands a high chance of preventing the presumed loss but paradoxically it can only achieve this by causing loss and disability. There are considerable risks to B, including the likelihood of litigation as well as loss of professional reputation for performing surgery that is yet to be accepted as appropriate in this set of circumstances. The surgical amputation of a healthy limb to cause disability remains stubbornly problematic.

    The other arm of Bayne & Levy's argument is that autonomous individuals have a compelling right to expect that their reasonable requests are responded to with due consideration. It is not that an individual who has capacity has an unquestionable right to require another person to cause harm to them but that the request must be given due weight. The principle of respect for autonomy is an overarching and deeply important moral principle in Western society. It presupposes that individuals are autonomous actors who act freely in accordance with a self-chosen life goal. As Beauchamp & Childress put it ‘To respect an autonomous agent is, at a minimum, to acknowledge that person's right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs’ (Beauchamp & Childress Reference Beauchamp and Childress2013: p. 106). It matters not that the choice may not accord with the action preferred by another person or that the action may even be deemed wrong and ill judged by others. Such is the dominance of the principle of autonomy in the healthcare arena that is assumed that patients are acting autonomously until proven otherwise. Issues of consent, of the capacity to give consent and of refusal of treatment all flow from our concepts of autonomy. But equally, autonomy only has prima facie standing and can be overridden by competing moral considerations. And there are limits to what an autonomous agent can ask other autonomous actors to do for or to them. We have shown above that there is a line of reasoning that argues that doctors who intentionally cause harm to an autonomous and consenting person may still be in legal jeopardy.

    The view put forward by Bayne & Levy above is not without its critics. In particular, Patrone (Reference Patrone2009) argues among other things that wider social costs such as disabled parking places, social support and adaptations to buildings and homes complicate matters. In other words, that the so-called treatment has wider implications, including the just distribution of resources for the benefit of others within a community, is of relevance here. This further argument is that due regard must be paid to the ways in which medical interventions influence resource use. This view is already incorporated in the list of conditions that Beauchamp & Childress say must be satisfied for an obligation of beneficence to exist between two people – see (d) and (e) above. However, these conditions refer only to costs or burdens that B bears, whereas here Patrone refers to societal costs and burdens. The concern that Patrone expresses is best described as distributive justice, a term that refers to the fair, equitable and appropriate distribution of resources in society determined by justified norms that structure the terms of social cooperation. This principle is important in a healthcare system such as the NHS, which has limited and finite resources. Resources that are allocated for one procedure, for example surgical amputation of a healthy limb, will by definition affect the funding of some other procedure for another condition. It is a truism that issues of distributive justice arise and become salient under conditions of scarcity and competition.

    Our own view is that BIID is likely to be a neuropsychiatric disorder reflecting abnormalities of body image and body representation due to dysfunction in the right superior parietal lobule. This view suggests that BIID is not simply a personal preference but a rare and distressing medical condition. On this view, it could be argued that the treatments available, including elective amputation, are designed to manage a neuropsychiatric disorder rather than a socially desirable preference. In any case it can hardly be plausibly argued that seeking a disability is a socially desirable outcome. In other words, BIID can be conceived as a disorder with demonstrable underlying abnormality that causes suffering. It is therefore appropriate to relieve suffering with the treatments that are available. This is not to argue that surgical amputation or spinal transection ought to be first-line treatments but simply to state that BIID is a condition that, despite our natural moral feelings of repugnance or disapproval, merits our compassion and concern and that the treatments that are available, including surgical amputation of a healthy limb, ought to be given serious consideration. There is no doubt, however, that in due course non-surgical, and thereby less radical, treatment may become available. The possibility that multimodal sensory stimulation might produce therapeutic benefit has to be kept in mind. BIID is a complex condition that requires sensitivity and awareness of the distress that it causes and also an openness about what the appropriate and morally correct position towards it ought to be.

    Conclusions

    BIID is a rare but intriguing condition that is yet to be fully understood. The conceptual framework for investigating it has evolved over the past 40 years, from a description that privileged the paraphilic aspects of the clinical features to more recent accounts that favour neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric processes that are thought to be manifestations of dysfunction in the right superior parietal lobule. There is undoubted moral discomfort, if not repugnance, at the notion of elective amputation of a healthy limb but this may be partially modified by a realisation that this unusual phenomenon is a reflection of underlying pathophysiology. There is, in our view, no logical difference between the conceptual status of BIID and transsexualism. Hence, given that individuals with transsexualism are offered gender reassignment surgery it seems to us that individuals with BIID ought at least to be considered for treatment, including elective amputation in some cases. It may be that the need for this radical and controversial form of treatment would soon be obviated by novel treatments involving multimodal sensory stimulation. There is no doubt though that BIID is a morally challenging condition and that the use of surgical amputation or transection of the spine as treatment is deeply troubling.

    MCQs

    Select the single best option for each question stem

    1. 1Giving consideration to the ethical arguments for the role of elective surgical amputation as a treatment for body integrity identity disorder (BIID), which of the following is thought to be incorrect?

      1. arelief of suffering is worth the cost of surgery

      2. belective amputation minimises harm by preventing patients with BIID being exposed to risky, unsupervised surgery or making attempts at self-amputation

      3. cit is patients' right to have their preferences or desires given true weight and consideration, provided they are acting autonomously and there is no impairment of decision-making capacity

      4. dthere are no current elective surgical practices that condone the removal of healthy body parts

      5. eit is a treatment that may have an impact on the just distribution of resources.

    2. 2The clinical features of body integrity identity disorder include all of the following, except:

      1. apredominantly affects male

      2. bpredominantly affects the right lower limb (leading to requests for right above-knee amputations)

      3. cprevious attempts at self-amputation, or self-amputation behaviour

      4. ddelay in onset of presentation (usually to between 30 and 50 years of age)

      5. eassociated with significant psychological distress or impairment in functioning.

    3. 3Body integrity identity disorder is defined as:

      1. aa type of body dysmorphia in which the individual believes that the affected limb is ugly or deformed

      2. bthe persistent desire to acquire a physical disability such as amputation, paraplegia or other severe disability such as blindness

      3. cthe desire for self-amputation in order to fulfil sexual gratification or sexual preference

      4. dattraction to amputees

      5. ethe desire to aquire a disability in order to receive care.

    4. 4Non-maleficence is an ethical principle that:

      1. arelies on the person's capacity to make decisions for themselves

      2. binvolves the requirement that the person be willing to accept harmful care

      3. cis an example of the just distribution of resources

      4. dis based on the professional–patient relationship

      5. eflows from the ethical principle primum non nocere.

    5. 5The principle of autonomy:

      1. ademands that the patient's request for particular treatment must always be met

      2. binvolves treating the patient's wishes with respect

      3. cis an absolute moral principle in medicine

      4. dis the same as the capacity to give consent to treatment

      5. eis synonymous with the principle of beneficence.

    MCQ answers

    1 d 2 b 3 b 4 e 5 b


    References

    Aoyama, A, Krummenacher, P, Palla, A, et al. (2012) Impaired spatial-temporal integration of touch in xenomelia (body integrity identity disorder). Spatial Cognition & Computation, 12: 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th edn) (DSM-5). APA.Google Scholar
    Bayne, T, Levy, N (2005) Amputees by choice: body integrity identity disorder and the ethics of amputation. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF (2013) Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th edn). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
    Beckford-Ball, J (2000) The amputation of healthy limbs is not an option. British Journal of Nursing, 9(4): 188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Blom, RM, Hennekam, RC, Denys, D (2012) Body integrity identity disorder. PloS One, 7(4): e34702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Bou Khalil, R, Richa, S (2012) Apotemnophilia or body integrity identity disorder: a case report review. International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds, 11: 313–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Brang, D, McGeoch, PD, Ramachandran, VS (2008) Apotemnophilia: a neurological disorder. Neuroreport, 19: 1305–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Bruno, RL (1997) Devotees, pretenders and wannabes: two cases of factitious disability disorder. Sexuality and Disability, 15: 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    De Preester, H (2013) Merleau-Ponty's sexual schema and the sexual component of body integrity identity disorder. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 16: 171–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Dyer, C (2000) Surgeon amputated healthy legs. BMJ, 320: 332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    First, MB (2005) Desire for amputation of a limb: paraphilia, psychosis, or a new type of identity disorder. Psychological Medicine, 35: 919–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    First, MB, Fisher, CE (2012) Body integrity identity disorder: the persistent desire to acquire a physical disability. Psychopathology, 45: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Fisher, K, Smith, R (2000) More work is needed to explain why patients ask for amputation of healthy limbs. BMJ, 320: 1147.Google ScholarPubMed
    Giummarra, MJ, Bradshaw, JL, Nicholls, ME, et al. (2011) Body integrity identity disorder: deranged body processing, right fronto-parietal dysfunction, and phenomenological experience of body incongruity. Neuropsychology Review, 21: 320–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Hilti, LM, Hänggi, J, Vitacco, DA, et al. (2013) The desire for healthy limb amputation: structural brain correlates and clinical features of xenomelia. Brain, 136: 318–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Horizon (2000) Complete obsession. BBC 2, 17 February (https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/obsession_script.shtml).Google Scholar
    Johnston, J, Elliott, C (2002) Healthy limb amputation: ethical and legal aspects. Clinical Medicine, 2: 431–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Lawrence, AA (2006) Clinical and theoretical parallels between desire for limb amputation and gender identity disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35: 263–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Lenggenhager, B, Hilti, L, Palia, A, et al. (2014a) Vestibular stimulation does not diminish the desire for amputation. Cortex, 54: 210–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Lenggenhager, B, Hilti, L, Brugger, P (2014b) Disturbed body integrity and the ‘rubber foot illusion’. Neuropsychology, 29: 205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    McGeoch, PD, Brang, D, Song, T, et al. (2011) Xenomelia: a new right parietal lobe syndrome. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 82: 1314–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Money, J, Jobaris, R, Furth, G (1977) Apotemnophilia: two cases of self-demand amputation as a paraphilia. Journal of Sex Research, 13: 115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Patrone, D (2009) Disfigured anatomies and imperfect analogies: body integrity identity disorder and the supposed right to self-demanded amputation of healthy body parts. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35: 541–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212.Google Scholar
    Ramachandran, VS, McGeoch, P (2007) Can vestibular caloric stimulation be used to treat apotemnophilia? Medical Hypotheses, 69: 250–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Ramachandran, VS, Brang, D, McGeoch, PD, et al. (2009) Sexual and food preference in apotemnophilia and anorexia: interactions between ‘beliefs’ and ‘needs’ regulated by two-way connections between body image and limbic structures. Perception, 38: 775–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Sedda, A (2011) Body integrity identity disorder: from a psychological to a neurological syndrome. Neuropsychology Review, 21: 334–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Sedda, A, Bottini, G (2014) Apotemnophilia, body integrity identity disorder or xenomelia? Psychiatric and neurologic etiologies face each other. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 10: 1255–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    van Dijk, MT, van Wingen, GA, van Lammeren, A, et al. (2013) Neural basis of limb ownership in individuals with body integrity identity disorder. PloS One, 8(8): e72212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    The_LoremasterVictor_van_HelsingLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Body Integrity Dysphoria and Gender Dysphoria: The Relatable Issue Extended Part 2

    Non-maleficence

    In this section we examine whether surgical treatment for BIID is in breach of the ethical principle of non-maleficence. There is an already well-established principle in medicine to ‘at least do no harm’, this being the maxim primum non nocere. This obligation to do no harm and its related but distinct obligation to use treatment to benefit the sick are foundational obligations in medicine. The conceptual problem is how to determine the nature of harm and this is a truly complex matter. Beauchamp & Childress (Reference Beauchamp and Childress2013) make the case that serious harm involves setbacks to physical and psychological interests, including such physical harms as pain, disability and death. Therefore, on the face of it, surgical amputation of a healthy limb self-evidently causes harm as it causes manifest disability. This issue of the amputation of a healthy limb seems to be at the root of much of the negative emotional response against surgical treatment for BIID.

    Johnston & Elliot (Reference Johnston and Elliott2002) make a strong case against the amputation of healthy limbs in BIID. They acknowledge that the problem here is not simply that of the surgical removal of a healthy limb, since there are at least three other situations in which there is elective removal of a healthy body part: cosmetic surgery that is justified by the patient's own aesthetic preference; living-donor organ transplantation; and gender reassignment surgery. The pivotal argument seems to be that a surgeon who performs elective amputations of healthy limbs may be at risk of a medical malpractice suit because the procedure is not yet considered by a responsible body of medical opinion to be an appropriate and effective treatment of a medical condition. Perhaps more importantly, they make the case that a surgeon in this situation might be liable to a charge of criminal assault. They base their argument on R v Brown [1994], in which a group of men who had videotaped themselves performing consensual sadomasochistic activities, which included branding, burning, hitting of the genitals, whipping, caning, biting and stinging with nettles, were found guilty under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (governing England, Wales and Northern Ireland). The House of Lords, by a majority ruling, held that the presence of consent is not a defence against a charge of assault that has caused actual bodily harm. The dissenting minority opinion in this case drew a distinction between actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, specifically that consent would not even in their view be a defence against a charge of grievous bodily harm. Johnston & Elliot continue, ‘Whatever the roots of the desire for amputation may be, the boundaries of the condition are flexible and overlapping with other social phenomena’. They conclude, ‘It is not yet clear that the desire for amputation is properly seen as a medical disorder, let alone that amputation of the limb is the appropriate response’.

    To summarise, the argument seems to be that surgical intervention in BIID is unethical because the provenance of the condition is yet to be fully established. In other words, healthy organs can be surgically removed if and only if there is consensus about the underlying nature of the condition under consideration. And, in Johnston & Elliot's view, consent of the patient to the surgery will be of no assistance to the surgeon should litigation arise.

    Beneficence and autonomy

    We now examine whether there are moral arguments in support of surgical intervention for BIID. Bayne & Levy (Reference Bayne and Levy2005), unlike Johnston & Elliot above, argue in favour of a limited role for elective amputation for BIID. In essence, their argument is that (a) elective amputation minimises harm by securing proper medical treatment under appropriate supervision rather than exposing patients with BIID to risky unsupervised surgery, (b) individuals who are acting autonomously and who have capacity ought to have their preferences and desires given due weight, (c) treatment – that is, elective amputation – is likely to secure relief from suffering that cannot be obtained by less radical means, and (d) the relief of suffering is therefore worth the cost of surgery. Bayne & Levy are aware that, whatever the arguments for elective amputation of a healthy limb in BIID are, many people will continue to find the idea objectionable or repugnant.

    The case that is being made by Bayne & Levy derives from the principles of beneficence and autonomy. There is a conceptual distinction between non-maleficence and beneficence. It is usually argued that beneficence is promoted by action that prevents harm, removes harm or promotes good. The point Bayne & Levy seem to be making is that BIID is a condition that causes harm, namely mental suffering, and that doctors have a duty to relieve harm and suffering and are under an obligation to act with beneficence in mind. We reiterate that patients with BIID suffer from psychological distress and often seek to secure amputations either through self-harm or from unorthodox and suspect agents. Beauchamp & Childress (Reference Beauchamp and Childress2013: p. 207) specify the conditions that need to be satisfied for an obligation of beneficence to exist between two people (A and B) and these are the following: (a) A is at significant risk of loss or damage to life or health; (b) B's actions are needed to prevent this loss or damage; (c) B's actions have a high probability of preventing the loss or damage; (d) B's actions would not present significant risks, costs or burdens to B; and (e) the benefit that A can expect to gain outweighs any harms, costs or burdens that B is likely to incur.

    A structured approach such as that proposed by Beauchamp & Childress helps us to disentangle the complex of possible responses to BIID. It is true that some people with BIID are at significant risk of loss or damage and it can be argued that B's action, namely surgery, is required to prevent the risks to A described above. It is also true that B's action of surgical intervention stands a high chance of preventing the presumed loss but paradoxically it can only achieve this by causing loss and disability. There are considerable risks to B, including the likelihood of litigation as well as loss of professional reputation for performing surgery that is yet to be accepted as appropriate in this set of circumstances. The surgical amputation of a healthy limb to cause disability remains stubbornly problematic.

    The other arm of Bayne & Levy's argument is that autonomous individuals have a compelling right to expect that their reasonable requests are responded to with due consideration. It is not that an individual who has capacity has an unquestionable right to require another person to cause harm to them but that the request must be given due weight. The principle of respect for autonomy is an overarching and deeply important moral principle in Western society. It presupposes that individuals are autonomous actors who act freely in accordance with a self-chosen life goal. As Beauchamp & Childress put it ‘To respect an autonomous agent is, at a minimum, to acknowledge that person's right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs’ (Beauchamp & Childress Reference Beauchamp and Childress2013: p. 106). It matters not that the choice may not accord with the action preferred by another person or that the action may even be deemed wrong and ill judged by others. Such is the dominance of the principle of autonomy in the healthcare arena that is assumed that patients are acting autonomously until proven otherwise. Issues of consent, of the capacity to give consent and of refusal of treatment all flow from our concepts of autonomy. But equally, autonomy only has prima facie standing and can be overridden by competing moral considerations. And there are limits to what an autonomous agent can ask other autonomous actors to do for or to them. We have shown above that there is a line of reasoning that argues that doctors who intentionally cause harm to an autonomous and consenting person may still be in legal jeopardy.

    The view put forward by Bayne & Levy above is not without its critics. In particular, Patrone (Reference Patrone2009) argues among other things that wider social costs such as disabled parking places, social support and adaptations to buildings and homes complicate matters. In other words, that the so-called treatment has wider implications, including the just distribution of resources for the benefit of others within a community, is of relevance here. This further argument is that due regard must be paid to the ways in which medical interventions influence resource use. This view is already incorporated in the list of conditions that Beauchamp & Childress say must be satisfied for an obligation of beneficence to exist between two people – see (d) and (e) above. However, these conditions refer only to costs or burdens that B bears, whereas here Patrone refers to societal costs and burdens. The concern that Patrone expresses is best described as distributive justice, a term that refers to the fair, equitable and appropriate distribution of resources in society determined by justified norms that structure the terms of social cooperation. This principle is important in a healthcare system such as the NHS, which has limited and finite resources. Resources that are allocated for one procedure, for example surgical amputation of a healthy limb, will by definition affect the funding of some other procedure for another condition. It is a truism that issues of distributive justice arise and become salient under conditions of scarcity and competition.

    Our own view is that BIID is likely to be a neuropsychiatric disorder reflecting abnormalities of body image and body representation due to dysfunction in the right superior parietal lobule. This view suggests that BIID is not simply a personal preference but a rare and distressing medical condition. On this view, it could be argued that the treatments available, including elective amputation, are designed to manage a neuropsychiatric disorder rather than a socially desirable preference. In any case it can hardly be plausibly argued that seeking a disability is a socially desirable outcome. In other words, BIID can be conceived as a disorder with demonstrable underlying abnormality that causes suffering. It is therefore appropriate to relieve suffering with the treatments that are available. This is not to argue that surgical amputation or spinal transection ought to be first-line treatments but simply to state that BIID is a condition that, despite our natural moral feelings of repugnance or disapproval, merits our compassion and concern and that the treatments that are available, including surgical amputation of a healthy limb, ought to be given serious consideration. There is no doubt, however, that in due course non-surgical, and thereby less radical, treatment may become available. The possibility that multimodal sensory stimulation might produce therapeutic benefit has to be kept in mind. BIID is a complex condition that requires sensitivity and awareness of the distress that it causes and also an openness about what the appropriate and morally correct position towards it ought to be.

    Conclusions

    BIID is a rare but intriguing condition that is yet to be fully understood. The conceptual framework for investigating it has evolved over the past 40 years, from a description that privileged the paraphilic aspects of the clinical features to more recent accounts that favour neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric processes that are thought to be manifestations of dysfunction in the right superior parietal lobule. There is undoubted moral discomfort, if not repugnance, at the notion of elective amputation of a healthy limb but this may be partially modified by a realisation that this unusual phenomenon is a reflection of underlying pathophysiology. There is, in our view, no logical difference between the conceptual status of BIID and transsexualism. Hence, given that individuals with transsexualism are offered gender reassignment surgery it seems to us that individuals with BIID ought at least to be considered for treatment, including elective amputation in some cases. It may be that the need for this radical and controversial form of treatment would soon be obviated by novel treatments involving multimodal sensory stimulation. There is no doubt though that BIID is a morally challenging condition and that the use of surgical amputation or transection of the spine as treatment is deeply troubling.

    MCQs

    Select the single best option for each question stem

    1. 1Giving consideration to the ethical arguments for the role of elective surgical amputation as a treatment for body integrity identity disorder (BIID), which of the following is thought to be incorrect?

      1. arelief of suffering is worth the cost of surgery

      2. belective amputation minimises harm by preventing patients with BIID being exposed to risky, unsupervised surgery or making attempts at self-amputation

      3. cit is patients' right to have their preferences or desires given true weight and consideration, provided they are acting autonomously and there is no impairment of decision-making capacity

      4. dthere are no current elective surgical practices that condone the removal of healthy body parts

      5. eit is a treatment that may have an impact on the just distribution of resources.

    2. 2The clinical features of body integrity identity disorder include all of the following, except:

      1. apredominantly affects male

      2. bpredominantly affects the right lower limb (leading to requests for right above-knee amputations)

      3. cprevious attempts at self-amputation, or self-amputation behaviour

      4. ddelay in onset of presentation (usually to between 30 and 50 years of age)

      5. eassociated with significant psychological distress or impairment in functioning.

    3. 3Body integrity identity disorder is defined as:

      1. aa type of body dysmorphia in which the individual believes that the affected limb is ugly or deformed

      2. bthe persistent desire to acquire a physical disability such as amputation, paraplegia or other severe disability such as blindness

      3. cthe desire for self-amputation in order to fulfil sexual gratification or sexual preference

      4. dattraction to amputees

      5. ethe desire to aquire a disability in order to receive care.

    4. 4Non-maleficence is an ethical principle that:

      1. arelies on the person's capacity to make decisions for themselves

      2. binvolves the requirement that the person be willing to accept harmful care

      3. cis an example of the just distribution of resources

      4. dis based on the professional–patient relationship

      5. eflows from the ethical principle primum non nocere.

    5. 5The principle of autonomy:

      1. ademands that the patient's request for particular treatment must always be met

      2. binvolves treating the patient's wishes with respect

      3. cis an absolute moral principle in medicine

      4. dis the same as the capacity to give consent to treatment

      5. eis synonymous with the principle of beneficence.

    MCQ answers

    1 d 2 b 3 b 4 e 5 b


    References

    Aoyama, A, Krummenacher, P, Palla, A, et al. (2012) Impaired spatial-temporal integration of touch in xenomelia (body integrity identity disorder). Spatial Cognition & Computation, 12: 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th edn) (DSM-5). APA.Google Scholar
    Bayne, T, Levy, N (2005) Amputees by choice: body integrity identity disorder and the ethics of amputation. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF (2013) Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th edn). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
    Beckford-Ball, J (2000) The amputation of healthy limbs is not an option. British Journal of Nursing, 9(4): 188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Blom, RM, Hennekam, RC, Denys, D (2012) Body integrity identity disorder. PloS One, 7(4): e34702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Bou Khalil, R, Richa, S (2012) Apotemnophilia or body integrity identity disorder: a case report review. International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds, 11: 313–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Brang, D, McGeoch, PD, Ramachandran, VS (2008) Apotemnophilia: a neurological disorder. Neuroreport, 19: 1305–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Bruno, RL (1997) Devotees, pretenders and wannabes: two cases of factitious disability disorder. Sexuality and Disability, 15: 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    De Preester, H (2013) Merleau-Ponty's sexual schema and the sexual component of body integrity identity disorder. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 16: 171–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Dyer, C (2000) Surgeon amputated healthy legs. BMJ, 320: 332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    First, MB (2005) Desire for amputation of a limb: paraphilia, psychosis, or a new type of identity disorder. Psychological Medicine, 35: 919–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    First, MB, Fisher, CE (2012) Body integrity identity disorder: the persistent desire to acquire a physical disability. Psychopathology, 45: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Fisher, K, Smith, R (2000) More work is needed to explain why patients ask for amputation of healthy limbs. BMJ, 320: 1147.Google ScholarPubMed
    Giummarra, MJ, Bradshaw, JL, Nicholls, ME, et al. (2011) Body integrity identity disorder: deranged body processing, right fronto-parietal dysfunction, and phenomenological experience of body incongruity. Neuropsychology Review, 21: 320–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Hilti, LM, Hänggi, J, Vitacco, DA, et al. (2013) The desire for healthy limb amputation: structural brain correlates and clinical features of xenomelia. Brain, 136: 318–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Horizon (2000) Complete obsession. BBC 2, 17 February (https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/obsession_script.shtml).Google Scholar
    Johnston, J, Elliott, C (2002) Healthy limb amputation: ethical and legal aspects. Clinical Medicine, 2: 431–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Lawrence, AA (2006) Clinical and theoretical parallels between desire for limb amputation and gender identity disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35: 263–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Lenggenhager, B, Hilti, L, Palia, A, et al. (2014a) Vestibular stimulation does not diminish the desire for amputation. Cortex, 54: 210–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Lenggenhager, B, Hilti, L, Brugger, P (2014b) Disturbed body integrity and the ‘rubber foot illusion’. Neuropsychology, 29: 205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    McGeoch, PD, Brang, D, Song, T, et al. (2011) Xenomelia: a new right parietal lobe syndrome. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 82: 1314–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Money, J, Jobaris, R, Furth, G (1977) Apotemnophilia: two cases of self-demand amputation as a paraphilia. Journal of Sex Research, 13: 115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    Patrone, D (2009) Disfigured anatomies and imperfect analogies: body integrity identity disorder and the supposed right to self-demanded amputation of healthy body parts. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35: 541–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212.Google Scholar
    Ramachandran, VS, McGeoch, P (2007) Can vestibular caloric stimulation be used to treat apotemnophilia? Medical Hypotheses, 69: 250–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Ramachandran, VS, Brang, D, McGeoch, PD, et al. (2009) Sexual and food preference in apotemnophilia and anorexia: interactions between ‘beliefs’ and ‘needs’ regulated by two-way connections between body image and limbic structures. Perception, 38: 775–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Sedda, A (2011) Body integrity identity disorder: from a psychological to a neurological syndrome. Neuropsychology Review, 21: 334–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Sedda, A, Bottini, G (2014) Apotemnophilia, body integrity identity disorder or xenomelia? Psychiatric and neurologic etiologies face each other. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 10: 1255–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    van Dijk, MT, van Wingen, GA, van Lammeren, A, et al. (2013) Neural basis of limb ownership in individuals with body integrity identity disorder. PloS One, 8(8): e72212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Nomenclature has no truth

    @Dr_Batman

    Henry Morris was a hydraulic engineer, not a biologist. Your referencing of him as a supposed authority on either evolution or biology is disinformation. 

    Morris was a crackpot who interpreted the Bible literally, despite being educated enough to know that much of its content is contrary to the known laws of physics. His argument is riddled with more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese. For example, demanding "observable" evidence of macro evolution, a process which takes place over periods of time far greater than a single human lifespan.

    Stop spamming the internet with this rubbish and get a life.
    Henry Morris was telling the truth. No, it is you who is spamming rubbish. Your hypocrisy is real and FYI, I DO HAVE A LIFE xD

    Someone's obviously lying and it isn't me. Your arguments are invalidated and useless. Cry me a river and get over it.

    Your slandering only destroys you further. You are technically asking for it. Offended? I do not care. You should silence yourself and seclude yourself, snowflake.

    Compared to him, your knowledge of biology is beneath you. While him being an engineer and all? At least he knows biology, at least he knows his facts. Just because someone is skilled at being a professional in another profession, doesn't make them unknowledgeable in other aspects of science. This is where you are wholeheartedly wrong in, assuming he's an engineer and then assuming he knows nothing in biology when he proved you wrong and you are offended. This bash will continue until you disappear. 


    I reserve the absolute right to speak here as this is my space with my rules. You have no facts within you. Even I have more facts than you do. All you do is spam useless information and hypocrisy rings from you. Your ignorance defines you as a massive troll. 


    The fact doesn't change that evolution is indeed a religion of atheism and atheism is already debunked because of Richard Dawkins going on a mad anti-Christian crusade. And they say Christens are violent? Wow. 

    Your prideful ego only brings you so far before a fall. 
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: It takes Christian Creationists to lecture "science believers" on how evolution has become a religion of atheism. Wow. How fanatical.

    The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

    Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

    The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

    The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

    Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7

    It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8

    Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

    Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9

    They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10

    The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

    We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11

    A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

    And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12

    Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13

    Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:

    (Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14

    Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

    The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

    As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

    Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16

    Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18

    That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

    In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

    References

    1. Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part I," (Impact No. 330, December 2000), pp. i-iv.
    2. Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part II," (Impact No. 331, January 2001), pp. i-iv.
    3. Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.
    4. Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
    5. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
    6. Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
    7. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.
    8. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
    9. Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
    10. Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
    11. Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
    12. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
    13. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
    14. Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
    15. Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
    16. Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and 'Row, 1964), p. 125.
    17. Ibid., p. 222.
    18. Ibid.

    * Dr. Morris (1918-2006) was Founder of the Institute for Creation Research.



    https://www.icr.org/article/455/
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: Nomenclature's display shows many unilateral attacks directed towards Creationists such as Henry M. Morris and myself

    It is very uncivilized for the evolutionary cult of fanatic atheists to believe evolution is a science when it's never been proven. Instead of making a scientific approach, they unilaterally insult and say "Ooh you're a religious fanatical Christian, therefore you are not a scientist at all."

    This argument has proven to be a fallacy and therefore is invalidated from every direction.


    The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

    Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

    Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

    The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

    The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4

    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

    Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5

    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6

    A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

    Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7


    From Henry M. Morris's article.
    The_LoremasterVictor_van_HelsingLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Argument Topic: Is Delusion Bad?

    It depends on the situation really. If it's just mere fantasy, it should be fine. But if the individuals believe themselves to be something they are not, that's when it gets bad. For example, the whole toxic transgenderism movement. They believe in mad science technically that gender can be changed and bendable aka fluid. But is it? 


    The answer is no. There are only 2 genders, gender/sex cannot be changed, age is not fluid.


    It's a very rhetorical question. Biology goes against "gender theory". So yes, in this case, delusion is bad, especially when these people, the cultists of the snowflake alphabet stealing cult want to push it further onto kids and adults alike to force them to believe their beliefs are real when it's mere delusions. Age is also not fluid. Those who believe it is are pedophiles and are masking themselves as "normal" folks in society. Delusion is a danger to the individuals themselves as well as to others. If you've heard and studied about Body Integrity Dysphoria, it's the same condition as Gender dysphoria, "the belief that something isn't right with the individual, whether male or female alike". In the case of body integrity dysphoria, it's the belief that an arm or a leg doesn't belong to the individual. With gender dysphoria, it's the belief that an individual is not male or is not female when he is born as he is as a man or she is born as she is as a woman. Ellen Page is a delusional snowflake who is still a woman, yet she believes she's a man. That's what I call bad delusions. Bruce Jenner suffers from the same condition of gender dysphoria and yet, he is still a man. He refuses to be a man but he is still a man. Facts do not care about your feelings. I have spoken all absolute objective universal truths.
    The_LoremasterDr_BatmanLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Victor_van_HelsingVictor_van_Helsing 113 Pts   -   edited March 5
    Argument Topic: Are psychopaths Anti-Conformists?

    No. psychopaths do the opposite of anti conformity. They try to blend in. Just because people who anti conform to society, it doesn't make them psychopaths. In fact, they do it for his or her own reasons or sometimes it's because society has gone bad, they just want to be left alone. Noclemature is surely a retarded snowflake who doesn't know any truth and will do anything to make others feel bad. You see, disagreeing with ideologies such as transgenderism and wokism, this is justified. It brings NO benefits to society. The alphabet cult are unjustified and yet, they want homosexuality and such to be normalized. They are also narcissists and they force children and adults alike to become like them. The silent majority refuses and will continue to refuse because the alphabet cult, BLM, antifa and sexist hypocritical feminazis who are man haters will do anything to claim they are for justice but they do the opposite. They are liars, hypocrites, snowflakes, screamers, devil worshippers and most of all, criminals. They are also racist on top of that while they scream that everything is racist, they are the racist perpetrators. They have fallen to a fatal flaw; Hubris. Easy to trick, easy to provoke, easy to anger. The alphabet cult are humans who reject societal norms that are positive, natural and good such as heterosexual marriage and true love between a real man and a real woman. There is no other form. The rest is based on lust, mutilation, greed, hubris, pride especially, wrath, sloth and gluttony. The alphabet cult are the real psychopaths who claim they don't conform and yet want to conform to society as normal while being unnatural and very abnormal in their behavior. Homosexuality is a mental illness. I have spoken absolute universal facts and all trolls will be destroyed on sight by the truth and only by the truth.

    God prevails! 
    The_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • The_LoremasterThe_Loremaster 295 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Lgbtpedos are not good for society.

    They have been claiming, they are claiming still and they continue to claim, which is all false btw, that they fight for freedom and equality. Their actions contradict their words. They don't stand for justice. They stand for injustice. They claim they speak the truth but they have no evidence to prove whatever they see. Pseudoscience is their religion of atheism. Yet they claim they are believers in Christ? Sexualizing the Savior is the first step away from Christ. Jesus was a male. He was never a female. There are many dangers of homosexuality; AIDs/HIV, STDs, STIs and Hepatitis. Biology proves this already. However, knowing the screamers and the loud hypocrites of the alphabet cult, they are racist, offended, their ignorance is blissful and they do not have the ears nor the wisdom to listen. That is why they are fools. There is a big error when they think it's natural. There are a wide variety of statistics that prove homosexuals and bisexuals are infected with aids plus the numerous amounts of reports that they have raped a child and were abused as a child. They are also known for having 1000 sexual partners per year, this is how they are infected with sexually transmitted diseases. They are also known for drug addictions and drug abuse.
    Victor_van_HelsingDr_BatmanLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • The_LoremasterThe_Loremaster 295 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Evidence Presented to debunk lgbtpedos and their heterophobic, truthphobic and Christophobic irrationality

     Hypocrisy is now exposed. The statistics are here and it is all 100% valid facts. Any snowflake who denies it will be called out to be a Stalin sympathizer and a Holocaust denier. All snowflakes will then be bombarded with truth until they either surrender or they are annihilated with more truth. There will be no mercy for any of them. None. Jesus doesn't tolerate those who cause the little ones to sin who believe in Him. In fact, all those who are causing the little ones to sin by saying "It's okay to be gay" or that "it's okay to be a girl when you are a boy or a boy when you are a girl", yeah, you will be exposed as a pedophile.



    Victor_van_HelsingDr_BatmanLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Victor_van_HelsingVictor_van_Helsing 113 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Heterosexuality and monogamy does not equal to pedophilia. However, the alphabet cult has been lying while hiding their own acts of wickedness.

    While a homosexual cannot automatically be considered a child molester, nevertheless there is cause for concern, Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education in suburban Louisville, Ky., and a social researcher who has studied sexual behavior for 25 years, stated in a May 2001 article in Baptist Press.

    Reisman noted, first, that 17-24 percent of boys are abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls. Then, she noted, since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals.

    “You’re looking at a much higher rate of abuse,” said Reisman, a former university research professor who had completed a study titled, “Crafting Gay Children.” Department of Justice data at the time showed the rate of abuse by homosexuals as “off the charts,” she said.

    An extensive analysis titled “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse” by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., senior fellow for culture studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, is available on the Internet at www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm.

    Dailey, in his study spanning 13 pages and 76 footnotes, wrote, “Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offense. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.”

    Referencing “the 10 percent fallacy,” Dailey noted, “Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.” Among such studies, Dailey wrote, are those in the journal Demography in May 2000, in the journal Family Planning Perspectives in March/April 1993 and the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior in 1993.

    Thus, Dailey wrote, “The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls.”

    Dailey concluded his article by noting: “For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions — including those wrapped in scholastic garb — of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us.”

    Yet the erroneous assertions abound. In a story that aired on CBS’ “60 Minutes” in April 2001, for example, correspondent Lesley Stahl asserted that the FBI and several clinical studies published in reputable journals report that homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse boys.

    “In fact,” Stahl asserted, “the largest database of child molesters in the country shows that those who molest boys are over three times more likely to be heterosexual in their adult relationships than homosexual.”

    But Reisman, in the Baptist Press article, pointed to figures from a 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The study showed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men — while 6 million to 8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1 million to 2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3 to 5 victims for every gay adult.

    Questioned about Reisman’s claims, however, CBS stuck by its story.

    Spokesman Kevin Tedesco said “60 Minutes” staffers spoke with leading sources of information on child molestation, including the FBI, American Psychological Association and several clinical researchers.

    The database was assembled by psychologist Gene Able, director of the Behavioral Sciences Institute in Atlanta, Tedesco added.

    However, Reisman also cited a past study by Able that found that 150 boys are abused on average by a male homosexual offender, compared to 19.8 girls per heterosexual offender.

    In a study published in 1987 in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Able said homosexuals sexually molest young boys with an incidence five times greater than the molestation of girls.

    Dailey, in an interview in the Baptist Press story, questioned 60 Minutes’ claim that adults who molest boys can even be called heterosexual. “If a man is married and has sexual relations with boys, he’s obviously a combination. To say he’s heterosexual is an outrage. Overall he’s a pedophile. Whether you call it omni-sexual or pan-sexual, he’s indiscriminate … in relationships.”

    Among the reasons Dailey cited for being concerned about the potential for homosexual molestation of boys:

    — Even homosexual activists don’t try to hide the connection with pedophilia. In “The Gay Report” — a book published back in 1979 — authors Karla Jay and Allen Young found that 73 percent of those surveyed had had sexual relations with males 16 to 19 or younger.

    — A 1999 article in the Journal of Homosexuality by Helmut Graupner argued that same-sex relations with minors should be considered a gay rights issue. The article argued that children wouldn’t necessarily be harmed by sexual contact with adults.

    “We looked at the leading gay travel guide,” Reisman also said of her research. “Forty-seven percent of the 139 nations they talked about identified places to find boys. The average heterosexual travel guide is not concerned with finding children.”

    Bill Maier, a child and family psychologist who serves as psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo., recounted in an article in July:

    “Children who are involved in [Big Brothers Big Sisters] programs are primarily from single-parent homes. Many of these kids are emotionally fragile and desperate for attention and affirmation from an adult of their own gender. Yet the national board of directors of BBBSA (at the urging of local agencies in New York and New Jersey) has determined that these same boys and girls should be paired with homosexual mentors.

    “In light of the ongoing sex scandal involving Catholic priests, the new policy of ‘inclusion’ by Big Brothers Big Sisters appears reckless and irresponsible,” Maier wrote. “Many of the priests charged with sexually abusing children and adolescents have admitted they are homosexuals. They used their position of authority to sexually violate those who trusted them the most. BBBSA’s decision to match fatherless boys, starving for male attention, with gay men is a recipe for disaster.”

    Maier continued, “While gay activists insist there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, the evidence indicates that a substantial number of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners,” in findings from the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

    “It is also important to note that many pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual,” Maier wrote. “A study of 229 convicted child molesters found that 86 percent of offenders who molested boys described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

    “Themes of adult-child sex are common in gay publications,” Maier also noted. “The nation’s largest gay publisher, Alyson Publications, which distributes ‘Daddy’ s Roommate’ and other books that promote homosexuality to children, also publishes books advocating man-boy sex, or pedophilia, including:

    — “‘The Radical Case,’ which contains detailed information on how to engage in sexual relations with young boys, and

    — “The Age Taboo,’ which claims ‘Boy-lovers … are not child molesters. The child abusers are … parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.'”

    Dailey, of the Family Research Council, wrote in his analysis that researchers “have long been aware that pedophiles exhibit a wide variety of sexual attractions and behavior — often to draw attention away from their primary lust for boys.” Dailey cited a study on sex offenders in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, for example, which noted that “the reason child sexual abusers are successful at remaining undetected is because they do not fit a stereotype.”
    –30–


    https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/homosexuals-despite-the-assertions-more-likely-to-commit-sexual-abuse/

    Dr_BatmanThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited March 5
    Argument Topic: Since there are wide variety of unnatural man made sexualities now, what does this prove?

    It only proves one thing. Heterosexuality is not the cause of pedophilia because we, who have common sense, we know that marriage and true love is only to be shared monogamously between a real man and a real woman. We accept the facts of biology on gender/sex sharing correlation and are much of the same term. But why more "sexualities"? Because activists of the alphabet cult have proven guilty of supporting pedophilia. They now believe age can be fluid which it is not morally correct and worse before that, they already think that sexuality is fluid even though they've claimed they are born homosexual or bisexual even though they are not. Every male and female is born heterosexual. Boys and girls don't discover it until puberty.  Now the problem with sexuality being believed to be fluid is the fact behind the belief that "any individual can have sex with anyone. Even animals.....even underage children." The alphabet cult is guilty and will be demolished immediately. All pride flags will be burnt. All cultists of this disgusting dystopia will be annihilated by the truth and by society itself. Jeff Dahmer was a homosexual, he forced boys under the age of 18 to give him intimate photos, he sometimes even raped males overall and than killed them, than ate them. Charles Manson was another one, except he was a bisexual. People who lie about being heterosexual are homosexuals and bisexuals trying to frame actual heterosexuals in society who are not polyamorous.

    "Polyamorous is toxic and a lie." - The Truthphobic, Heterophobic and Christophobic Hypocrite from MRU

    "Heterosexual monogamous marriage is universally flourishing, natural and brings true happiness." - Dr. Batman

    "Freedom is the right to be wrong, freedom is not the right to do wrong." - Motto of the Queen's Royal Court of Canada
    "— Even homosexual activists don’t try to hide the connection with pedophilia. In “The Gay Report” — a book published back in 1979 — authors Karla Jay and Allen Young found that 73 percent of those surveyed had had sexual relations with males 16 to 19 or younger." - The Article above by the Baptist Press on pedophilia and it's connections to homosexuality/bisexuality and even all the other ones, pansexuality etc. 

    Yes. Pedophiles are not heterosexuals, but they do that in order to frame up actual heterosexual men and women who have NEVER hurt nor harmed children in that way. This another MAJOR FACT of WHY the alphabet cult are NOT GOOD FOR SOCIETY. 

    Victor_van_HelsingLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • The_LoremasterThe_Loremaster 295 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Why Lgbtpedos continues to pose a threat to society?

    They deny facts. They want to drag us to Hell. They have been worshiping the devil. They have been deceiving people time and again. Families are now alerted to protect their children from bad influence. Pride parades ban police from it's grounds which causes large suspicions. The list of accusations continue. The alphabet cult have stolen God's rainbow, they have claimed to be the followers of Christ but prove otherwise. They are sexist, racist, discriminate and very hypocritical every time they speak. Noclemature is an example of a retard who has no intellect. He is blindly following a trend that will lead him nowhere because he is indeed walking in darkness. He has no love of God nor Christ within himself. The bash will continue until all snowflakes are gone.
    Victor_van_HelsingDr_BatmanLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Victor_van_HelsingVictor_van_Helsing 113 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: John Money and his link to the movements today for "progressive" causes that are far from progressive and instead are degeneratively degressive.

    There is no progressive feature in anything that is being promoted in schools that are related to the pride cult that stole the alphabet, stole Pikachu (Which has now been taken back officially by people of common sense) and other definitions such as marriage, love etc. Love is not proud. Love does not boast. Love is patient. Love is kind. Lust is the opposite. Lust is forceful. Lust is not love and for sure, we do see child abuse coming from the alphabet cult aka the pride cult who want to mutilate kids and push onto them the unnatural ideology that "gender" can be fluid when it is clearly not. Do not mix gender/sex which is biologically set in stone universally for all males and females with personality identification. Even than, gender/sex is linked to how someone behaves. Men and boys are masculine. Women and girls are feminine. Toxic masculinity is the subjective belief of misandrist feminazis, both male and female, who want female dominance and they believe that males are all about using females for sex and than throwing them away. Not all men do this but the new feminists of this age are hypocrites because they want to abuse men back, even when they are innocent. Not only is this unjust, the so called "social justice warriors" are proving otherwise in their "War against Injustice." They ARE the anti social injustice villains. It's ironic and it is universally true. I have spoken absolute objective truths. All snowflakes will be destroyed on sight with repeated facts and truths that they are easily offended by. No mercy will be shown.
    Dr_BatmanThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited March 5
    Argument Topic: Is the Doctrine of Sola Fide biblical?

    @ProudToBeCatholic
    No. It is not, it is somewhat put into it's own words but outside the Bible. This isn't what Jesus taught.

    Here is why.  First, it was written by a man. Second, there is evidence in the Bible obviously said by James the Apostle aka James the Just that Faith without Works is dead. Third, Sola Fide is not exactly what James nor Jesus meant. Lastly, Martin Luther just wanted the roman church to reform to be better and more Christ centered but up till today, it is still full of hypocrisy, pride, greed, golden statues, idols and worthless trinkets that God and Jesus DO NOT CARE ABOUT. IN FACT, IT ANGERS JESUS BECAUSE REMEMBER WHEN HE WENT INTO THE TEMPLE AND PEOPLE WERE SELLING STUFF FOR MONEY? YEAH, HOLY GROUNDS OF WORSHIP ARE NOT FOR MAKING MONEY. "Sacred relics" are not what Jesus taught because He taught the opposite. To love the things of this world means you have no love of the Father nor Jesus within you. Jesus meant lust for money and power instead of being humble, kind and generous. 

    Usually, people do indeed take this out of context and assume that means, "Oh so you are saved by your works not just your faith?"

    Nay. It's like this. If you do not present yourself as a devoted servant of Christ and just remain idle, even when bad things happen, that's not correct and it's not God's will. Yes we are given free will and agency but that doesn't mean we are free from consequences. There is no salvation within the roman church and if you say otherwise, you are invalidated. I will deny the pope for he isn't the vicar of Christ and I will continue to destroy roman catholicism for it's falsehood and it's persecution of innocence throughout all the centuries. The vatican will burn and will fall. Also, the roman catholic church isn't the true church nor the original ministry that Jesus placed on this earth. The roman church didn't exist until the 3rd to 5th centuries. The original ministry of Christ existed in the first century and He already developed a church community with elders and deacons. The Apostle Paul spoke of this in the New Testament. If you prove to be somewhat violent, that's also not okay and ofc you need to seek forgiveness from God for that and accept responsibilities if it is severe such as murder and abortion. There is one part of the Bible where Paul says something about people being saved not for their righteous deeds, and instead it was for their willingness to go unto Christ and beg for His mercy because they either committed crimes or whatever they felt was wrong, felt guilty about it and needed love, forgiveness and mercy from Christ Himself. Jesus obviously healed and forgave them because His forgiveness is eternally given except if people blaspheme against the Holy Ghost and if people deny the Father and the Son, they will be equally denied back. That's what I call celestial double standards. Even God and Jesus has this logical rule up their sleeves. Don't confuse this with what James was saying. Each of the Twelve Apostles were teaching a different lesson. Do not mix and match, even though all of them were teaching important stuff that are linked towards what Jesus wanted and had spoken about. Remember the part where Jesus had spoken about loving your neighbors and loving your enemies as well. That counts as a work for Christ not your own works. If you follow your own thoughts and do your own works based on what YOU THINK, it isn't going to get you saved. YOU MUST FOLLOW WHAT CHRIST TAUGHT AND THAN YOUR FAITH WILL BE JUSTIFIED BY YOUR WORKS FOR GOD NOT FOR YOURSELF. For example, doing missionary work is one of these things. Jesus did command us all to spread His Gospel to all nations. Now alot of mainstreamers who are protestant are claiming Baptism isn't important anymore. This isn't true. Jesus had specifically said, "A man cannot enter thy Kingdom of God unless he be reborn by water and of the spirit!" 

    What did this verse mean? What does it still mean today? To officially become a follower of Christ, you MUST BE REBORN FROM BAPTISM BY FULL IMMERSION IN WATER JUST AS JOHN THE BAPTIST DID WHEN JESUS ASKED HIM TO BAPTIZE HIM. not sprinkles of water over the head. This is another thing the catholics have all wrong. They also mixed in paganism and mystic rituals with the Sabbath? Not what Jesus taught. Jesus was indeed Jewish and He studied in the Temple during the ancient Biblical days. When Jesus was baptized, He saw the Holy Spirit in a form of a dove descend down upon him and the voice of Heavenly Father speak to him, saying, "Behold my beloved Son whom I am so proud of!"

    That shows that Jesus is also separate from the Father in Heaven and remains the Only Begotten Son of God. You do not repeat prayers nor pray to Mary nor pray to Saints. It is idolatry if you do that. We pray to God the Father and than end the prayer in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ. For no man goes unto the Father except through Jesus Christ and therefore, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God. So your works do count as something you'd be judged for. All things good and all things bad included ofc. It's not what gets you saved. Primarily, faith and grace through the Atonement of Jesus Christ is what gives you Salvation. Your works based on what He wants not what you want is what helps build your faith and it is what keeps you strong. So for example, being a good Samaritan besides spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Clothing the poor, helping the sick etc. These are things you can do to show you are much like Jesus. You obviously can't perform miracles like He could. Now, the Bible supports the works that we would be doing, the works that Jesus basically did. In the Epistle of John, Jesus spoke of how we would do works as He did, even greater works because He goes unto His Father in Heaven. The purpose behind these works which are upon His command is to glorify God and Christ, it is to make them happy. So going to church, keeping the Sabbath Day Holy, that's another one. Keeping and Obeying His commandments is another work of God that we believers of Christ MUST REMEMBER TO DO. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I know the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I know Jesus and God lives. I know that the Holy Spirit is within me. There is indeed Salvation and it only comes from God and Christ. It does not come from man, therefore the pope is once again debunked from the picture. Jesus said to the Romans, "You shall never believe lest you see a miracle happen before your eyes."

    This means, the Roman Catholics will never believe until that Day of Judgement and for all the wickedness they have done....I can't say it's going to be a happy ending unless you quit your hubristic behavior and HUMBLE YOURSELVES BEFORE GOD AND CHRIST NOT BEFORE THE FALSE POPES, NOT BEFORE MARY AND NOT BEFORE THE SAINTS. The current pope has said that homosexuality is a sin but isn't a crime. This only shows that his works have proven false and misleading. It doesn't glorify God. It glorifies himself. I DENOUNCE ALL POPES FROM ALL ACROSS HISTORY. THEIR WORKS HAVE BEEN PROVEN DEAD AND SO HAS THEIR SO CALLED FAITH!!!

    The Godhead is absolute for all three members of it are separate for one purpose. The nicene trinity will be further destroyed because it is unbiblical. "I and the Father are one" is a verse taken out of context for trinitarian paganistic "Christians" to assume Jesus is God when He clearly prays to the Father and talks to Him several times, even before dying on the cross, which proves He and the Father share purpose and power but not the same embodiment. John had a vision of seeing Jesus on the right hand side of God the Father Himself upon His eternal throne in Heaven. Again, the Bible proves certain roman catholic doctrines to be false.

    My testimony in Jesus Christ remains unbroken and if anyone says otherwise, they will be destroyed by their own self destructive strawman nature. I have spoken absolute objective universal truths. Anyone who speaks "anti mormon" statements are automatically debunked and have no salvation within themselves. False accusations towards me such as "pride" or "wrath" etc will be debunked and redirected towards all trolls who DO NOT GLORIFY GOD AND INSTEAD GLORIFY THEMSELVES AND LIE BEFORE GOD!
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -   edited March 7
    Argument Topic: Catholicism is debunked

    @ProudToBeCatholic

    Actually from your childish responses and subjective thoughts, you have proven I am right and you are wrong. All that I have said are absolute objective universal truths. You deny the truth as usual just like any pagan catholic. Once more, you have lost this debate. You are not a true follower. The "trinity" isn't in the Bible, so what you've said about the Godhead not being correct is invalidated. As for homosexuality being a crime and a sin, it is exactly as it is. It brings AIDs/HIV and it is indeed unnatural. "And so God gave them to their unnatural ways, men with men, even the women with women and that to an error of which is the result they have received."

    The error sodomites receive is AIDs/HIV, STDs, STIs and Hepatitis. 

    I have paraphrased and put verses into my own words from the Bible which means I do follow the Bible instead. Just from knowing what you've written down, you do not have the knowledge of the Bible nor do you accept it. Therefore, you are not of the true church and you are no true believer. The roman church is the false church upon this earth and never was the original that Jesus instituted. You have been debunked and you will continue to be debunked. I have spoken absolute objective universal truths.

    Your hubris has been displayed all over, denying the facts, denying the truth and especially denying the Bible. God will punish you and you will be thrown in Hell for your hypocrisy, lies, slander and so called "Faithfulness" in Christ when you've proven guilty when I said that most roman catholics claim to be Christian and yet deny everything that God and Christ has taught. You do realize Jesus prayed to the Father many times? Yeah so they aren't the same being! They are for the same purpose with shared power and authority. By denying the Godhead is the actual nature of God Himself, you are denying John and James as well as all the Twelve Apostles. It's not a surprise because Romans did in fact persecute Christians because they "accepted the faith". Jesus did say Romans would never believe and those words RANG TRUE AND STILL CAME TRUE. YOU ARE JUST A LIVING EXAMPLE OF A FALSE BELIEVER. While I HAVE PROVEN YOU WRONG and therefore, I AM A TRUE BELIEVER BECAUSE I PROVE IT WITH MY ACTIONS RATHER THAN JUST MY WORDS!

    Anymore subjective replies from you are automatically debunked. The Vatican will fall and the pope has zero authority. Homosexuality is still a sin and a crime. By supporting it, you are a lukewarm and a pedophile.

    True love and marriage is only between a real man and a real woman. So long roman catholic pagan of Babylon. Wait until His Second Coming because yea, I say unto you, He is Coming and before He does, you catholics will fall to the Anti Christ which comes from the east. 

    Catholicism is not Biblical: 
    Source: https://thesetapartwalk.com/catholicism-is-not-biblical-christianity/

    Every time an ignorant snowflake and a false catholic, false believer claims I am wrong, it will backfire towards themselves because it has been proven once again, they do not have the truth within themselves. They love the things of this world and they like to deny everything of Christ and everything of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed the true church restored upon this earth by the Prophet Joseph Smith. I read your little denial statement of the Restoration. it's again, typical of you catholics to do that. Btw, the Reformation started by Martin Luther lasted 500 years from 1517 A.D. That goes up until 2017 which was probably the year Protestantism began to decline and some protestants betrayed Martin Luther's teachings in order to "regain favour" with false Catholics of the false roman church. Haha, the Reformation still lasted 500 years from 1517 A.D, which confirms the Restoration did indeed occur in the 1820s. History and your denial of history only confirms you are a false believer. We believe in Jesus Christ and He is our Savior, He is the Redeemer of the World. Denying that statement just shows how much you DON'T believe you in the Savior nor do you listen to the true followers of Him which shows you are the hypocrite and the of the world. You, "proudtobecatholic" have proven to be prideful, full of hubris, greed, lust and you are also full oy gluttony and sloth. There is no salvation within the false roman church and that is an absolute universal objective truth. By your denials, you have proven to be a typical offended snowflake. By my calculations, you are as weak as you are a debater. You have lost and you are no child of God because all you do is walk in darkness. YOU KNOW NOT WHERE YOU GO BECAUSE YOU WOULD RATHER CHOOSE DARKNESS OVER LIGHT! My testimony in Jesus Christ as my Lord & Savior remains unbroken because as Jesus said, "If a man builds his faith upon His rock, no opposition nor hell can destroy it."

    My faith is built upon the rock of Jesus Christ. My resistance to the false teachings of the abominable roman church continues and I will testify, the angels speak through me. Especially Raguel, who wants nothing more than to smite unjustly liars such as yourself. 

    Do you not know the unrighteous cannot enter thy Kingdom of God? For homosexuals, adulterers, idolaters, murders, pedophiles etc will never know it. 

    Oh yes, you roman catholics believe you are SO RIGHTEOUS and YET, YOU PROVE OTHERWISE WITH YOUR ACTIONS JUST AS JESUS PREDICTED! While I testify, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have proven to be faithful, loving, merciful and Christ-like, MORE CHRIST LIKE THAN YOU EVER WILL BE. That is how and why you have lost this argument in an absolute manner. Continue up the hill and you will be shot down by more biblical truths. The trinity doctrine is unbiblical. 

    I have not seen you once accept the Lord & Savior and instead, I have seen you misjudge, assume, spewing nonsense and also slandering about me here. I will say it one last time, you have tripped over your own words of lies and deceit, you have proven yourself wrong and proven me right. You deny the pope ever said anything contradictory. That is what makes you full of hubris and pride. You are TOO PROUD to admit you are wrong when you ARE WRONG.  Roman Catholicism is wokist, the false counterfeit religion of paganism while it's "founders" and "leaders" assume it's the original ministry that Jesus put upon this earth when the Roman catholic church didn't exist until the 3rd to 5th Centuries which is historically accurate in an absolute universal manner. Anymore replies from the three trolls of the devil will mean I have won. I am not surprised if you three deny it but you three do not have the love of Christ nor the Father within you.

    "For if the world hates you, know it hated me first." - Jesus Christ to His disciples, Apostles and followers

    Just as I expected, "anti mormon" comments and full denial of the Bible from the ignorant Atheist, the pedophilic Prideful Hubristic Catholic and the not-so-different Protestant; 21CenturyIconoclast. Do I look like I worship Mormon to you? If you assume yes, I am not surprised, however, we do indeed worship God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost instead of a man dressed in fancy clothes and wearing a tiara. We don't worship Mormon nor any of the ancient prophets. We acknowledge their teachings that are primarily from Jesus Christ. Elders and Deacons were indeed mentioned by the Apostle Paul. Roman Catholics deny this. Pathetic if you ask me because Paul never spoke of popes and cardinals. No other church has Elders and Deacons. Jesus was humble and meek compared to all the popes of the anti christ. As I know that the Bible had books removed by false catholics, I know the roman church is the false church upon this earth, full of lies and centuries of blood, death and oppression had been put upon the common people. Deny this historical event ever occurred and you'll be seen as a Marxist sympathizer as well as a holocaust denier. 


    God has won for me in this debate. You three are denounced from His presence and uh....praying to Mary and the Saints will not help you, "Mr.Catholic Pride" aka ProudetobeCatholic. So long hypocritical false believers who choose what is evil over what is good. You are exactly what you are. As a humble servant of Christ, I shall now walk away just as Jesus did when people began assaulting Him xD. You are all labelled as truthphobic, Christophobic and heterophobic. My words are objectively factual, absolute and universally correct. Even if you don't reply, which you most likely will because you get triggered easily by the truth, you will still have lost. I DENOUNCE ROMAN CATHOLICISM AS TRUE CHRISTIANITY, I DENOUNCE ATHESM BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY PROVEN TO BE A FALLACY, I DENNOUNCE ALL FORMS OF TRINITARIAN PAGANISM BEING FASELY PERCEIVED AS CHRISTIANITY! MY TESTIMONY IN MY LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST REMAINS UNBROKEN! 

    God prevails! 

    IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AMEN!!!
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 1986 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: How does Catholicism relate to today's Wokism and Extreme Leftist ideologies?

    Roman Catholics always assume that everything, even the most worst of things that happen are automatically "God's will."

    I am not surprised that some popes believe Hell doesn't exist. What does this tell you? Roman Catholics are deceived by the devil. I am not so surprised that francis the fool has declared homosexuality to be a sin still but not a crime anymore? What does this tell you? HE DENIES THE BIBLE ONCE MORE! HE IS WOKIST! HE IS A THREAT! HE IS NO FOLLOWER OF CHRIST LET ALONE BEING THE SO CALLED VICAR OF CHRIST. 
    Victor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedySupermanThe_FlashMartian_ManhunterGreen_LanternZmoney
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch