The group of wankers collectively known as PPSimmons continues to produce some of the smuggest and yet most repugnantly dishonest creationist videos on …
This is a response to PPSimmons’ video,
'Evolution's Shameful Secret -What Does Science
Really Say?'
Well, PP, it seems that you’ve been polluting
the internet again by peddling your distinctive
brand of deliberate misinformation and downright
dishonesty. So once again I’ve taken it
upon myself to correct you on one or two of
the things you said.
It seems that since the last time I addressed
you, you’ve developed a distinctly unhealthy
interest in sex, a subject that appears to
be growing in popularity amongst YouTube creationists.
Unfortunately it’s also evident that you’ve
made the mistake of thinking about it a little
too much, because its led you to conclude
that the very fact of its existence disproves
evolutionary theory and that acceptance of
said theory necessitates support of the abuse
and mistreatment of women.
As you might imagine, I hardly concur with
these assertions and in fact find them extraordinarily
offensive. Allow me, therefore, to outline
the true nature and extent of your quite astonishing
“Here is a simple little secret the evolutionist
doesn’t want you to consider. The evolutionist
and the creationist are both looking at the
same scientific evidence and facts. So the
creation/evolution debate, then, is not really
a debate over the evidence – everyone is
looking at the same evidence. It really is
a debate over philosophy – that is how does
one ultimately interpret the evidence that
they’re looking at?”
It should be quite evident to anyone who’s
seen my two previous rebuttals to some of
material that you’re certainly not looking
at the same evidence that the rest of us,
and that you’ve just proved yourself to
be nothing less than an ignorant douchebag
or a blatant serial liar.
In your butterfly scale video you used one
layman’s article to spend five minutes on
nothing but arguments from ignorance and personal
incredulity while I read over a half-dozen
peer reviewed scientific papers and reviews
to educate myself on the subject before responding.
And in your chirality video you essentially
read verbatim from one article, this time
written by a creationist chemist and deposited
on a creationist website, which, as I pointed
out in my response, made absolutely no mention
of any of the scientific evidence that utterly
eviscerates your and your friend’s astonishingly
uninformed arguments.
Still think we’re all looking at the same
evidence, PP, or were you just lying again?
I suspect it was the latter because I could
hear the sound of your voice. Now, let’s
hear a little more about your thoughts on
philosophy, shall we?
“Therefore science itself doesn’t really
say anything –scientists do. And how one
philosophically interprets the evidence before
them really is very crucially important to
other conclusions that must be drawn.”
Thank you for introducing us to your friend,
the fucking obvious. Science is a set of rules
and guidelines for the systematic evaluation
of the natural world that allows us develop
useful and predictive models and explanations
of reality. Of course it doesn’t say anything
– it doesn’t even have a mouth (or from
your perspective, an arsehole).
Science constrains mankind’s philosophical
inclinations within the bounds of what can
be objectively observed, measured and verified,
and since this precludes the fanciful stories
of your and others’ religions, it’s not
surprising that you and your kind choose to
reject it and ignore any empirical evidence
that shows that they are just that – stories.
This is clearly demonstrated here by your
painfully obvious attempt to shift the goalposts
from a debate on the actual objective evidence,
which can’t refuted by anyone with even
a modicum of intellectual honesty, to one
on the subjective views of the parties involved.
Nice try PP, and it might have worked on a
fellow creationist, but you’ll have to do
better if you want to deal with people who
are capable of reason.
So we’ll get back to philosophy in a minute
or two, but first, lets hear what you had
to say on the subject of natural selection.
“The evolutionist says that there is no
intelligence behind creation. The driving
impetus for all of life is, all twenty million
species of it, is natural selection, the random,
non-intelligent, accidental process that produces
everything we know as life.”
Oh for fuck’s sake PP. You could have at
least made attempted to make an effort to
be original, but instead you once again give
us a demonstration of your duplicity and dishonesty.
And that’s because it’s impossible to
believe that you’ve not seen enough evolutionary
material to know that gene duplication, mutation
and sexual recombination are main the arbitrary
parts of evolution. While natural selection
is non-intelligent, in the same way that gravity
and electromagnetism are, it is far from random
or accidental. Neither is it the “driving
impetus” for “all of life”, but rather
the simple process by which the environment
favors phenotypic variations that are better
suited to survive within it.
And yet despite knowing this, you still insist
on misrepresenting the facts and the science
with no regard to personal integrity or honor.
The only things this clip established are
your absolute lack of any kind of common decency
in debate and what a spectacular tool you
“When then, did the sexes originate? How
did the sexes originate? How is it that they
could have, for they would have to have, originated
at the exact same time with all reproductive
functions present and working in both the
male and female in order for the species to
continue? On top of that, how is it that every
species, which is most of the twenty million
species, that reproduce sexually, male and
female, how is it that they arrived at the
same time within their species and with all
of their parts working?”
You do realize, PP, that that horse you’re
so ineffectively beating shuffled off this
mortal coil a long time ago don’t you? All
of these questions have been answered with
reasoned thought backed by real physical and
experimental evidence and I’m not going
to waste my limited time on doing what your
parents and school-system should have done
by educating you properly.
Instead I’ll point you toward three superb
YouTube videos by cdk007 that do a sterling
job in addressing all of these points. I highly
recommend that you watch them before asking
these questions again and making yourself
look like an unimaginably ignorant buffoon.
I will, however, point out that your naïve
assumption that in the absence of magical
pixies in the sky the sexes for each species
would have to appear simultaneously with private
parts fully compatible reveals your complete
ignorance of evolutionary theory and your
unquestioning belief that living creatures
can actually be conjured fully formed from
thin air. It astounds me that you actually
think that this somehow poses an intractable
conundrum for the theory of evolution when
it is in fact beautifully explained by it.
In reality no evolutionary biologists have
ever stated that the sexes of each species
appeared in a single generation, genitals
swollen with gametes and fully ready for action
because they are aware that it is populations
that evolve and not individuals. A fact that
you are either unaware of, or once again happy
to ignore. Reproductive systems evolved slowly
by gradual modifications that were compatible
with the rest of the population. Those that
were not would not reproduce while those that
resulted in more efficient fertilization were
Do try and think about it PP. It’s not that
hard, you know.
“Why? Why would sexual reproduction have
randomly originated through the natural selection
process when it takes so much energy? The
whole premise of natural selection is that
it randomly seeks the path of least resistance
– the least amount of energy expenditure
and the most beneficial processes to the species.”
What a crock of shit. Have you no shame, PP,
or are you really so dumb that you actually
believe what you’re saying? Natural selection
favors the propagation of individuals best
suited for survival in their given environment.
That’s it. Period. It has nothing to do
with solely energy expenditure or the “path
of least resistance” which you presumably
pulled from a rather unpleasant part of your
Sex does indeed extract a substantial energetic
price, but rather than ask yourself whether
there might be a compensating benefit that
might outweigh this expense, you simply jump
to your default position, your answer to everything.
You guessed it – God did it.
As it happens sexual organisms benefit in
terms of the enormous increase in the genetic
and phenotypic variation produced by the random
mixing of parental alleles. This produces
more varied populations that are better able
of adapt to changes in their environment and
therefore survive.
All this is common and easily available knowledge,
PP. So how is it that you act as if you are
completely unaware of it? I think that the
next clip will shed some light on the matter.
“Now, to be honest, some evolutionists have
attempted to give answers to each of these
questions. But regardless of their answers,
here is where the philosophy of evolutionary
conclusions comes into play.”
So, PP, it seems that you’re aware that
the answers to your questions have already
been provided, and this makes your utter lack
of sincerity and honesty all the more distasteful.
I find it very interesting that you admit
to knowing that science does have explanations
to the origins of sex, but rather than trying
to find real arguments to counter the specific
points presented or the data that underlie
them, you instead settle for dismissing them
out of hand and pathetically trying to steer
the topic away from the scientific evidence.
So with that said, let’s finally take a
look at the specific point you have been so
long windedly trying to get to.
“Why, and how, then, did natural selection
make, generally speaking, women weaker? So
you see, the result of this wonderful evolutionary
natural selection process is then that men
are by far dominant, and women have been more
abused, less powerful. Evolution gave women
the horrible short end of the stick. Therefore,
according to evolution thinking, women are
necessary only for producing babies and can
be abused. Of course no evolutionist would
admit this, but this is the conclusion at
which one arrives when evolution is your philosophical
interpretation of the scientific evidence.”
You disappoint me PP, because that truly wasn’t
worth the wait. Is that really the best you
can do? If so, you may want to reconsider
what to do with your spare time.
All I can say is that this is certainly not
the conclusion of “evolution thinking”
but of a warped and twisted mind that’s
willing to say anything to support its deluded
and intellectually unsupportable and ludicrous
beliefs. Nothing can damn you more that your
very words, PP, and I think you did a tremendous
job here in demonstrating the depths to which
you’re willing to sink your dignity to defend
your position. No wonder I have to check the
soles of my shoes every time I watch one of
your videos.
I’ll finish this portion by pointing out
that evolution merely describes how species
have diverged and continue to diverge from
a common ancestor and not, despite you vulgar
assertions, how having achieved sentience,
we should treat each other or other living
Acceptors of the fact of evolution no more
have to believe in the inferiority of women
as the followers of deities have to believe
that in the superiority of cabbage. You can
project all the negativity you like on the
rational, PP, but that doesn’t mean that
any of it has any basis in fact because they
have long since unshackled themselves from
the barbarism in which your religion is so
deeply rooted.
Your despicable accusation shows only your
willingness to brazenly slander anyone who
refuses to participate in your particular
delusion at the drop of a hat.
“Or it could it be that God purposely created
humans, male and female, equally glorious
in creation. Man and woman were created to
need each other to be complete. However, our
fallen condition, our sin nature, as clearly
portrayed in the Bible, has caused the warped
view and treatment of women.”
I suppose that technically that could be,
PP, and that he also left absolutely no physical
evidence for his work – in fact just the
opposite, that he planted a never-ending mountain
of evidence to speak to the contrary. But
then again, maybe it was someone else god
that did it. Or even one that humans are completely
unaware of. Is there any possibility that
you could provide us with even the smallest
shred of evidence to support your particular
line of shit in favor of anyone else’s’.
I doubt it.
It’s also clear that you haven’t even
paused for thought with regard to the consequences
of your groundless speculation. Let me throw
a couple at you.
If your god did create man and woman, then
why he he make women weaker. You claim he’s
omniscient and omnibenevolent , so he must
have known that we would become sinful. With
that in mind, why didn’t he make women at
least as strong as men so that they could
stand up for themselves. Bit of a dick, really.
Isn’t he?
Also, if it’s humans’ sinful nature that
leads to this abuse, then why is it that the
book that you claim is your God’s very word
repeatedly denounces women as wicked while
at the same time denying their right free
speech and promoting their inferiority, their
status as property, their rape, and their
violent murder.
In your worldview, it seems to me more likely
that the mistreatment of women isn’t due
to man’s sinful nature but to your God being
a complete and utter dipshit. You really should
take more care in choosing the non-existent
entities that you choose to blindly worship.
Not to mention the crap that you seem intent
on inflicting on us.
“Science, in and of itself, doesn’t really
say anything. Scientists do. We interpret
the exact same scientific evidence before
us. Ione starts with, ‘there can’t be
a God’, the other starts with, ‘there
must be a God.’”
Has it ever occurred to you that a thousand
years ago, pretty much everyone started with
“there must be a god?” That all changed
over the past 400 years as, using the tool
of the scientific method, great mean with
the bravery to change their minds finally
amassed enough evidence to allow them to conclude
that their probably is no god, or if there
is it is certainly not one of the primitive
entities currently imagined by the petty simians
that live on an utterly insignificant spec
of dust floating at the verges of the cosmic
And meanwhile, despite your assertions to
the contrary, you continue clinging to your
primitive beliefs not by looking at the same
evidence but by doing everything in your power
to avoid examining it, by ignoring its very
existence, by telling the most detestable
and despicable lies to discredit it, and by
denying it no matter how irrational or idiotic
it makes you look.
I don’t care if you choose to live in ignorance
and not enlightenment, PP, I really don’t
– it really is your loss, not mine. But
do be aware that as long as you keep trying
to spread your poison to others, keep demeaning
the achievements of those whose shadows you
are unfit to fall under, then I, or someone
like me, will be there to take you down a
peg or two and show you up for what you really

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published