Discussion:
Science Confirms Biblical Creation
Add Reply
Bob
2016-12-30 12:57:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message

Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-30 13:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
lol - at exactly 3 minutes the circular argument starts:

"I start with "God"'s word, the bible... Why start with guesswork when
you can start with certain truth?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Talk about assuming your conclusions as a premise.
--
Poster to Jeanne 'fuckhead' Douglas:
Geography is no education. It's child play.

Jeanne 'fuckhead' Douglas:
You think the science of how human beings interact with the natural
world is "child's play"? Seriously?

Kadaitcha Man:
You think the science of geography is about how human beings interact
with the natural world? Seriously?

<news:***@Magnetospirillum.Moriokaense.Remo>
John Locke
2016-12-30 17:47:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
b***@m.nu
2016-12-30 20:14:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:47:34 -0800, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
common sense confirms robert duncans stupidity
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 22:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:47:34 -0800, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
common sense confirms robert duncans stupidity
I would say common sense PROCLAIMS his stupidity.
Or confirms he is a troll.
Nobody is that stupid.
Except for Duke, JTEM, Mad Joe, aaa, and every fundamentalist Christian on earth.
You have to work to be that stupid.
Bob
2016-12-30 20:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Salvation is reserved only for a select number of people.

He keeps the rest from ever having the "evidence". That way they won't
repent and be converted.

When will you ever learn?

"And when [Jesus] was alone, they that were about him with the twelve
asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to
know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without,
all these things are done in parables. So that seeing they may see, but
not perceive; and hearing they may hear, but not understand; lest at any
time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven."
(Mark 4:10-12)
Davej
2016-12-30 20:37:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Salvation is reserved only for a select number of people.
He keeps the rest from ever having the "evidence". That way
they won't repent and be converted.
Who gives a sh*t? It's your insane 29 virgin religious fantasy.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-12-30 22:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Bob
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Salvation is reserved only for a select number of people.
He keeps the rest from ever having the "evidence". That way
they won't repent and be converted.
What was the in-your-face, proven serial liar lying that there is to
repent?
Post by Davej
Who gives a sh*t? It's your insane 29 virgin religious fantasy.
Christianity makes people stupid, psychopathic and a whole slew of
other things nobody would consciously want to be.
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 22:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Salvation is reserved only for a select number of people.
He keeps the rest from ever having the "evidence". That way they won't
repent and be converted.
When will you ever learn?
"And when [Jesus] was alone, they that were about him with the twelve
asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to
know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without,
all these things are done in parables. So that seeing they may see, but
not perceive; and hearing they may hear, but not understand; lest at any
time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven."
(Mark 4:10-12)
Jesus? Jesus never existed.
Prove me wrong.
Bob
2016-12-31 03:30:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Salvation is reserved only for a select number of people.
He keeps the rest from ever having the "evidence". That way they won't
repent and be converted.
When will you ever learn?
"And when [Jesus] was alone, they that were about him with the twelve
asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to
know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without,
all these things are done in parables. So that seeing they may see, but
not perceive; and hearing they may hear, but not understand; lest at any
time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven."
(Mark 4:10-12)
Jesus? Jesus never existed.
Prove me wrong.
Jesus doesn't want me to.
Andrew
2016-12-31 04:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Jesus? Jesus never existed. Prove me
wrong.
The fact that you are fighting against
truth is proof that you are wrong.
Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-31 06:36:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Andrew, a slippery and rabid sworn rioter waggish boy. Thou art a
sanctimonious rude despiser of good manners, a seven-chinned minion of
the moon, an evil-eyed work for bread, an undesirable abandoner of
Post by Andrew
Jesus? Jesus never existed. Prove me
wrong.
The fact that you are fighting against
truth is proof that you are wrong.
Logical fallacy of circulus in demonstrando.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org
Andrew
2016-12-30 21:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.

You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.

Ergo, we have a most awesome and wonderful
Creator..
~ GOD ~
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 22:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
Why is it that think any unanswered question in science proves god? I know you can't be that stupid of an asshole that you thnk this could possibly be true.
What can't be explained by science does not then mean god did it.
Post by Andrew
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
Nothing, NOTHING points too a biblical creation.
Post by Andrew
Ergo, we have a most awesome and wonderful
Creator..
~ GOD ~
Ergo you can't prove god, so clearly there isn't one and the universe must have been created by pixies. Makes as much sense as what you said.
Andrew
2016-12-31 00:12:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
Why is it that think any unanswered question in science
proves god?
I didn't say that, or believe that. Now consider the following
theorems of information as pertaining to the above question
about the origin of the quaternary digital code that we find
in all living things.

1. No information can exist without a code.

2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

5. No information can exist without a transmitter.

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

8. No information can exist without a will.

These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has 'ever' been found.

Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of
the quaternary digital code we find in every living thing apart from
a creation by a super intelligent Creator?

Absolutely no way. Then for the honest in heart the debate is over.

It happened ---> Creation.

"All *life forms* definitely must have an enormous
amount of information to keep all their structures
functioning." ~ Vincent Maycock

The -source- of such "information" according to the
above theorems, is of necessity..a super intelligence.

The evidence is in folks.

It's over.
Smiler
2016-12-31 03:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science
and it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot
be verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will
you ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find in every
living thing on this planet that is imperative for them to be alive
and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
Why is it that think any unanswered question in science proves god?
I didn't say that, or believe that. Now consider the following theorems
of information as pertaining to the above question about the origin of
the quaternary digital code that we find in all living things.
1. No information can exist without a code.
Bullshit. Language is information and even this post is information, moron.
2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
SFW?
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
Why is statistics needed for language?
4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
Then what is the point of statistics?
5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
Your posts appear to break that rule.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
A letter (snail mail) isn't material in your world?
8. No information can exist without a will.
I give you the information that I have yet to make a will.
These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has 'ever' been found.
I just did, moron.
Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of the
quaternary digital code
It's not a code.
we find in every living thing apart from a
creation by a super intelligent Creator?
First show evidence for this supposed super intelligent Creator.
Then show evidence that he created the supposed code, which isn't a code.
Absolutely no way.
...does it make sense. It's merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Then for the honest in heart the debate is over.
Honesty is a property you have yet to show.
It happened ---> Creation.
It happened ---> Evolution.
And it is still happening.
"All *life forms* definitely must have an enormous
amount of information to keep all their structures functioning."
~ Vincent Maycock
The -source- of such "information" according to the above theorems, is
of necessity..a super intelligence.
Then what super-duper intelligence created your supposed god character?
The evidence is in folks.
Yep. You have none.
It's over.
I wish it were.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Kadaitcha Man
2016-12-31 06:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Smiler, boy, lean and raw-boned rascal, fat and greasy citizen, most
wicked fiend, canker. Ye manic spotted snake with double tongue, ye
Post by Smiler
Post by Andrew
1. No information can exist without a code.
Bullshit. Language is information and even this post is information, moron.
Language is a code. Posts are written in a language therefore it is the
case that posts are written in code.

International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics
"No information can exist without a code."

<https://books.google.com/books?id=XCn2mn98uEAC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=information+can+exist+without+a+code&source=bl&ots=DgOgaXDNrS&sig=jfBwL8RX-lAKEnUKkBBgw2-u4bw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9n4624J3RAhUEHZQKHYwlD30Q6AEIIjAD#v=onepage&q=information%20can%20exist%20without%20a%20code&f=false>

<https://goo.gl/pUQMQ5>

You stupid fucking macaroon.

And where's that goddamned proof you owe me?

Smiler: Now you're trying to confuse him with sciencey stuff.

Me: ...wrote the fuckwit who believes the moon orbits earth the same
way a ball on a string spun about the head rotates.

Smiler: I don't believe it, liar. I know it and can prove it.

Me: Go ahead. Prove it.

<crickets>
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$***@registered.motzarella.org
Malte Runz
2016-12-31 14:47:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
Why is it that think any unanswered question in science
proves god?
I didn't say that, or believe that. Now consider the following
theorems of information as pertaining to the above question
about the origin of the quaternary digital code that we find
in all living things.
1. No information can exist without a code.
2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. No information can exist without a will.
These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has 'ever' been found.
http://tinyurl.com/6v6ae7c

(snip)
Post by Andrew
It's over.
When you're right, you're right.
--
Malte Runz
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-03 22:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
Why is it that think any unanswered question in science
proves god?
I didn't say that, or believe that.
It seems to be your go to whenever science gets in your way.

Now consider the following
Post by Andrew
theorems of information as pertaining to the above question
about the origin of the quaternary digital code that we find
in all living things.
1. No information can exist without a code.
2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source;
that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. No information can exist without a will.
These theorems are similar to the laws of gravity and the laws of
thermodynamics, in that no counterexample has 'ever' been found.
Now please answer my question. Can you explain the *origin* of
the quaternary digital code we find in every living thing apart from
a creation by a super intelligent Creator?
Absolutely no way. Then for the honest in heart the debate is over.
It happened ---> Creation.
You just did it again! if someone has not got an answer at a particular point in history it does not mean you can posit god. There is no evidence of a god.
There is evidence of evolution. So much evidence that it is considered a fact.

There is no evidence of god so evolution must be true. Makes as much sense as your above statements. Evolution is true because it has been demonstrated to be true for 150 years and there have been no scientifically sound arguments against it.
Post by Andrew
"All *life forms* definitely must have an enormous
amount of information to keep all their structures
functioning." ~ Vincent Maycock
The -source- of such "information" according to the
above theorems, is of necessity..a super intelligence.
The evidence is in folks.
It's over.
Finally, Evolution is a fact. God is a fantasy.
Evolution has evidence to support it.
God has nothng.
Bob
2017-01-03 22:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.

But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in this
lifetime.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-04 00:11:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then. Why haven't you?
Post by Bob
But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in this
lifetime.
I don't choose to go to hell because there is no such place, at least no so far as anyone can prove.

Science does not confirm creation if it did you wouldn't be linking to moronic Youtube videos, you would be showing us the papers that prove it. There aren't any. Science thinks that creationism is pseudo-science and that the people that believe in it have no evidence and lack the understanding of what they are talking about, to do so intelligently. Either that or they ae so blinded by religious dogma that they get it wrong.

Show any scientific evidence not sourced from a whacko group like the IRC or the Discovery Institute. I don't think any exist.

While some of the people who advocate for ID or creationism are real scientists, they tend to not be from the disciplines they are talking about.
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian, mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority about the "science" of creationism.

Others are just people who were nobody in the real world and decided to work for one of these looney bins so the looney bin could claim they had a PhD working and writing "scholarly" articles for them.

They don't do real science they do religious science which instead of looking at evidence and then forming a theory, starts with an assumption and then looks for evidence to support it.

Where is te evidence that science confirms biblical creation? Where is the consensus?

Based on what science?

I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Big surprise.
You still have nothing.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 01:02:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian,
mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority
about the "science" of creationism.
And biologists don't know probability theory but they think they are qualified
to argue over watch making.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Is experimental science the only way to decide what is real?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-04 11:48:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian,
mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority
about the "science" of creationism.
And biologists don't know probability theory but they think they are qualified
to argue over watch making.
For the purposes of a hypothetical, yes.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Is experimental science the only way to decide what is real?
There are multiple scientific disciplines that are qualified to speak on the idea of evidence of a biblical creation.

I don't know how much experimentation goes on in geology or paleontology, but I think there should be some kind of physical evidence that would have to lead one either towards or away from a biblical creation theory. There's no reason to think that such evidence is being hidden or some kind of anti-creation hoax is going on. There is simply nothing that leads one to consider it as a sopund hypothesis.
Post by Siri Cruise
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 16:07:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian,
mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority
about the "science" of creationism.
And biologists don't know probability theory but they think they are qualified
to argue over watch making.
For the purposes of a hypothetical, yes.
Uh, no. These kind of arguments usually depend on naive notions of infinity:
assuming an infinite set of trials, the probabilty of an event happenning once
is one. However if the cardinality of trials is aleph-i and the cardinality of
candidates is aleph-k, k>i, the probability goes to zero.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Is experimental science the only way to decide what is real?
There are multiple scientific disciplines that are qualified to speak on the
idea of evidence of a biblical creation.
I don't know how much experimentation goes on in geology or paleontology, but
I think there should be some kind of physical evidence that would have to
lead one either towards or away from a biblical creation theory. There's no
reason to think that such evidence is being hidden or some kind of
anti-creation hoax is going on. There is simply nothing that leads one to
consider it as a sopund hypothesis.
What a lot of words to say nothing.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Nadegda
2017-01-04 12:13:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"SCIENCE" *IS* "BULLSHIT" *AND* "THE" *BIBLE* "PROVES" *IT*.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian,
mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority
about the "science" of creationism.
And biologists don't know probability theory but they think they are qualified
to argue over watch making.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Is experimental science the only way to decide what is real?
--
This is what the Cabal did to me.
Kook of the Month, July 2012
Looney Maroon Award, July 2012
Palmjob Paddle, July 2012
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, July 2012
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck, July 2012
Goofy Azzed Babboon, July 2012
Tinfoil Sombrero, July 2012
Village Pump Award, July 2012

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com.au/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-05 01:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
"SCIENCE" *IS* "BULLSHIT" *AND* "THE" *BIBLE* "PROVES" *IT*.
So science is bullshit? Tell me on which day did god create the computer you used to post your stupid comment?

Prove God or shut up.
Post by Nadegda
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian,
mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority
about the "science" of creationism.
And biologists don't know probability theory but they think they are qualified
to argue over watch making.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Is experimental science the only way to decide what is real?
--
This is what the Cabal did to me.
Kook of the Month, July 2012
Looney Maroon Award, July 2012
Palmjob Paddle, July 2012
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, July 2012
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck, July 2012
Goofy Azzed Babboon, July 2012
Tinfoil Sombrero, July 2012
Village Pump Award, July 2012
http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com.au/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html
Bob
2017-01-04 03:25:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then.
We don't need to prove his existence to those who already have the
evidence, or who are elect and will have it one day.

Those who are non-elect and will never know what the evidence is (here's
where 9 out of 10 anti-theists get lost) are being kept from knowing
what the evidence is. It's right in front of you. You see it every day.
But God doesn't want you to know it as evidence. He wants you to see it
as nature working itself out in a materialistic way, with nothing
spiritual or supernatural happening at all. God doesn't want you to be
saved. I can't put it in any simpler terms.

Although the Gospel of Mark puts it very plainly and unmistakably with:

"As soon as [Jesus] was alone, His followers, along with the twelve,
began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, 'To you
has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are
outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see
and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand,
otherwise they might repent and be forgiven.'"
(Mark 4:10-12)
God
2017-01-04 22:06:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
God doesn't want you to be saved.
Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have
in mind the concerns of God.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness,
but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but
that all should reach repentance.
- 2 Peter 3:9

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God,
and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?
- Ezekiel 18:23

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones
those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children
together as a hen gathers her brood punder her wings, and you were not
willing!
- Matthew 23:37

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be
saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 2:3-4

Christ died for sins once for all.
- 1 Peter 3:18

Not "once for some," not "once only for Gentiles", not "once only for
Jews," but "once for all."
Bob
2017-01-05 01:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Explain to me what Romans 9:18 means.



Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-05 01:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then.
We don't need to prove his existence to those who already have the
evidence, or who are elect and will have it one day.
What you mean is you can't and this was the first lie you could think of to justify that.
Post by Bob
Those who are non-elect and will never know what the evidence is (here's
where 9 out of 10 anti-theists get lost) are being kept from knowing
what the evidence is.
There is no evidence to find. There is no god.

It's right in front of you. You see it every day.
Post by Bob
But God doesn't want you to know it as evidence. He wants you to see it
as nature working itself out in a materialistic way, with nothing
spiritual or supernatural happening at all. God doesn't want you to be
saved. I can't put it in any simpler terms.
You are describing reality and it has nothing to do with your imaginary god.
Post by Bob
"As soon as [Jesus] was alone, His followers, along with the twelve,
began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, 'To you
has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are
outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see
and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand,
otherwise they might repent and be forgiven.'"
(Mark 4:10-12)
How many years after imaginary Jesus was killed did this imaginary gospel get written? None of it proves a damn thing. Some guy who didn't exist says something and you wet your pants over it.
Bob
2017-01-05 01:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then.
We don't need to prove his existence to those who already have the
evidence, or who are elect and will have it one day.
What you mean is you can't and this was the first lie you could think of to justify that.
No, you're wrong. That makes no sense.
Why would we prove his existence to someone who already has the same
evidence we have, and believes he exists?

Are you really that stupid?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Those who are non-elect and will never know what the evidence is
(here's where 9 out of 10 anti-theists get lost) are being kept
from knowing what the evidence is.
There is no evidence to find.
Yes there is. But only the elect are given the internal innate evidence.

What you really meant was "There is no evidence for me to find." And
you'd be right.
You're being kept from finding out what that evidence is.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
It's right in front of you. You see it every day.
Post by Bob
But God doesn't want you to know it as evidence. He wants you to
see it as nature working itself out in a materialistic way, with
nothing spiritual or supernatural happening at all. God doesn't
want you to be saved. I can't put it in any simpler terms.
You are describing reality and it has nothing to do with your
imaginary god.
You see it as your "reality". But it's not my reality.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
"As soon as [Jesus] was alone, His followers, along with the
twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to
them, 'To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but
those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while
seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may
hear and not understand, otherwise they might repent and be
forgiven.'" (Mark 4:10-12)
How many years after imaginary Jesus was killed did this imaginary
gospel get written?
The same number of years it was being accurately repeated verbatim
orally by scribes trained in the oral tradition.

It's God's Word. He's not going to let any of it get lost, or
misrepresented.
No matter how much you wish He would.

<smirk>
Malte Runz
2017-01-04 11:31:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:11:19 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then. Why haven't you?
Let me guess. You have to believe in God in order to be able to see
the evidence for what it is.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in this
lifetime.
I don't choose to go to hell because there is no such place, at least no so far as anyone can prove.
Science does not confirm creation if it did you wouldn't be linking to moronic Youtube videos, you would be showing us the papers that prove it. There aren't any. Science thinks that creationism is pseudo-science and that the people that believe in it have no evidence and lack the understanding of what they are talking about, to do so intelligently. Either that or they ae so blinded by religious dogma that they get it wrong.
Show any scientific evidence not sourced from a whacko group like the IRC or the Discovery Institute. I don't think any exist.
''Newton believed in God!!!'
Post by Cloud Hobbit
While some of the people who advocate for ID or creationism are real scientists, they tend to not be from the disciplines they are talking about.
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian, mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority about the "science" of creationism.
Others are just people who were nobody in the real world and decided to work for one of these looney bins so the looney bin could claim they had a PhD working and writing "scholarly" articles for them.
They don't do real science they do religious science which instead of looking at evidence and then forming a theory, starts with an assumption and then looks for evidence to support it.
Or they point to honest scientific work and use it to debunk the straw
man they have created. Like in 'C14 dating only works on relatively
young material, and therefore you cannot used it and say that
dinosaurs are millions of years old, duh!!!'
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Where is te evidence that science confirms biblical creation? Where is the consensus?
In the Mega Church in Corpus Christi, Tx?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Based on what science?
'True science!'
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Big surprise.
You still have nothing.
Bingo, and it ain't ever gonna change.
--
Malte Runz
Nadegda
2017-01-04 12:28:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"NEWTON" *GOT* "IT" *RIGHT*!
Post by Malte Runz
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:11:19 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then. Why haven't you?
Let me guess. You have to believe in God in order to be able to see
the evidence for what it is.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in this
lifetime.
I don't choose to go to hell because there is no such place, at least no so far as anyone can prove.
Science does not confirm creation if it did you wouldn't be linking to moronic Youtube videos, you would be showing us the papers that prove it. There aren't any. Science thinks that creationism is pseudo-science and that the people that believe in it have no evidence and lack the understanding of what they are talking about, to do so intelligently. Either that or they ae so blinded by religious dogma that they get it wrong.
Show any scientific evidence not sourced from a whacko group like the IRC or the Discovery Institute. I don't think any exist.
''Newton believed in God!!!'
Post by Cloud Hobbit
While some of the people who advocate for ID or creationism are real scientists, they tend to not be from the disciplines they are talking about.
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian, mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority about the "science" of creationism.
Others are just people who were nobody in the real world and decided to work for one of these looney bins so the looney bin could claim they had a PhD working and writing "scholarly" articles for them.
They don't do real science they do religious science which instead of looking at evidence and then forming a theory, starts with an assumption and then looks for evidence to support it.
Or they point to honest scientific work and use it to debunk the straw
man they have created. Like in 'C14 dating only works on relatively
young material, and therefore you cannot used it and say that
dinosaurs are millions of years old, duh!!!'
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Where is te evidence that science confirms biblical creation? Where is the consensus?
In the Mega Church in Corpus Christi, Tx?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Based on what science?
'True science!'
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Big surprise.
You still have nothing.
Bingo, and it ain't ever gonna change.
--
This is what the Cabal did to me.
Kook of the Month, July 2012
Looney Maroon Award, July 2012
Palmjob Paddle, July 2012
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, July 2012
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck, July 2012
Goofy Azzed Babboon, July 2012
Tinfoil Sombrero, July 2012
Village Pump Award, July 2012

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com.au/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 16:35:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
"NEWTON" *GOT* "IT" *RIGHT*!
Isn't it time to clean out your shit bucket?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 16:34:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then. Why haven't you?
Let me guess. You have to believe in God in order to be able to see
the evidence for what it is.
Nonsense. That would mean no one would convert to christianity. 'I don't believe
in the foundational principles of your religion, but sign me up anyway.'
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Show any scientific evidence not sourced from a whacko group like the IRC or
the Discovery Institute. I don't think any exist.
''Newton believed in God!!!'
So do other christians. Most of whom accept a four billion year old earth and
biological evolution through natural selection.
Post by Malte Runz
Or they point to honest scientific work and use it to debunk the straw
man they have created. Like in 'C14 dating only works on relatively
young material, and therefore you cannot used it and say that
dinosaurs are millions of years old, duh!!!'
Carbon 14 is useful for human history because humans change rapidly and the
dates are more precise than other isotopes. But other isotopes with longer half
lives and lower precision are available back way beyond dinosaurs.
Post by Malte Runz
In the Mega Church in Corpus Christi, Tx?
Texans can't lie. They're too stupid.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Malte Runz
2017-01-04 23:04:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then. Why haven't you?
Let me guess. You have to believe in God in order to be able to see
the evidence for what it is.
Nonsense. ...
Have you really never heard anyone make that argument?
... That would mean no one would convert to christianity. 'I don't believe
in the foundational principles of your religion, but sign me up anyway.'
That's not quite the way it is meant. 'Once you believe in God [on
faith alone], you'll be able to see that aaaall the evidence points to
God's existence'.
Of course it's nonsense.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Show any scientific evidence not sourced from a whacko group like the IRC or
the Discovery Institute. I don't think any exist.
'Newton believed in God!!!'
So do other christians. Most of whom accept a four billion year old earth and
biological evolution through natural selection.
Post by Malte Runz
Or they point to honest scientific work and use it to debunk the straw
man they have created. Like in 'C14 dating only works on relatively
young material, and therefore you cannot used it and say that
dinosaurs are millions of years old, duh!!!'
(Note that when i use single 'quotation marks' I'm merely
paraphrasing.)
Carbon 14 is useful for human history because humans change rapidly and the
dates are more precise than other isotopes. But other isotopes with longer half
lives and lower precision are available back way beyond dinosaurs.
I know. Of course I know, and the creationist apologetics often also
know.
Post by Malte Runz
In the Mega Church in Corpus Christi, Tx?
Texans can't lie. They're too stupid.
Aron Ra is smart, and he's from Texas!
--
Malte Runz
Smiler
2017-01-05 01:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then. Why haven't you?
Let me guess. You have to believe in God in order to be able to see the
evidence for what it is.
Nonsense. That would mean no one would convert to christianity. 'I don't
believe in the foundational principles of your religion, but sign me up
anyway.'
But that is exactly what the theist loons want us to do.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Show any scientific evidence not sourced from a whacko group like the
IRC or the Discovery Institute. I don't think any exist.
''Newton believed in God!!!'
So do other christians. Most of whom accept a four billion year old
earth and biological evolution through natural selection.
Few of the ones we get here do.
Post by Siri Cruise
Or they point to honest scientific work and use it to debunk the straw
man they have created. Like in 'C14 dating only works on relatively
young material, and therefore you cannot used it and say that dinosaurs
are millions of years old, duh!!!'
Carbon 14 is useful for human history because humans change rapidly and
the dates are more precise than other isotopes. But other isotopes with
longer half lives and lower precision are available back way beyond
dinosaurs.
In the Mega Church in Corpus Christi, Tx?
Texans can't lie. They're too stupid.
Some stupid theists manage that all the time.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-05 01:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:11:19 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then. Why haven't you?
Let me guess. You have to believe in God in order to be able to see
the evidence for what it is.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in this
lifetime.
I don't choose to go to hell because there is no such place, at least no so far as anyone can prove.
Science does not confirm creation if it did you wouldn't be linking to moronic Youtube videos, you would be showing us the papers that prove it. There aren't any. Science thinks that creationism is pseudo-science and that the people that believe in it have no evidence and lack the understanding of what they are talking about, to do so intelligently. Either that or they ae so blinded by religious dogma that they get it wrong.
Show any scientific evidence not sourced from a whacko group like the IRC or the Discovery Institute. I don't think any exist.
''Newton believed in God!!!'
Maybe, maybe not. He had to say he did. He did not let it affect his work.
If he were alive today he'd likely be on our side not yours.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Cloud Hobbit
While some of the people who advocate for ID or creationism are real scientists, they tend to not be from the disciplines they are talking about.
For instance, William Demski is not a biologist he is a theologian, mathematician, and philosopher. He is not qualified to talk with authority about the "science" of creationism.
Others are just people who were nobody in the real world and decided to work for one of these looney bins so the looney bin could claim they had a PhD working and writing "scholarly" articles for them.
They don't do real science they do religious science which instead of looking at evidence and then forming a theory, starts with an assumption and then looks for evidence to support it.
Or they point to honest scientific work and use it to debunk the straw
man they have created. Like in 'C14 dating only works on relatively
young material, and therefore you cannot used it and say that
dinosaurs are millions of years old, duh!!!'
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Where is the evidence that science confirms biblical creation? Where is the consensus?
In the Mega Church in Corpus Christi, Tx?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Based on what science?
'True science!'
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can not find one legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you.
Big surprise.
You still have nothing.
Bingo, and it ain't ever gonna change.
--
Malte Runz
I know, I guess I just like a bit of mental exercise. Showing how lame any defense of god is, is kinda fun. If it makes Bob angry, even better. His smug, smarmy, and dishonest discourse need to be smacked around so others can see how stupid it really is to believe in bullshit.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-05 02:06:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Malte Runz
''Newton believed in God!!!'
Maybe, maybe not. He had to say he did. He did not let it affect his work.
Newton was a unitarian. What the university want him to say was he was an
anglican. His stated religion hamperred his university career which is why he
left academia to work at the mint.

He was also an alchemist and wrote weird private biblical commentaries.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
If he were alive today he'd likely be on our side not yours.
He also wrote weird private biblical commentaries.

You should start a contest with the Mormons racing postmortem baptisms vs
postmortem excommunication.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I know, I guess I just like a bit of mental exercise. Showing how lame any
defense of god is, is
Uh, right.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Andrew
2017-01-04 12:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then.
Why haven't you?
You can't prove anything to those who refuse to see.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
~ "Cloud Hobbit"
kensi
2017-01-04 12:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then. Why haven't
you?
You can't prove anything to those who refuse to see.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." ~ "Cloud Hobbit"
There is a fault in the quadra-axionic shunting patch. You will have
to circumvent the phase-shifted deviator using a modular-nut otherwise
the quantum-mechanical baryonilocking-nut will give out. You may need
a new dynamic cache. Check the ordinal of the tomoshaft console. Also
coil the cyberenvironmental peering impulse drive if necessary.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-05 01:35:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
Then it should be a snap to prove his existence then.
Why haven't you?
You can't prove anything to those who refuse to see.
I have not refused to see. There is nothing to see in the first place.
Post by Andrew
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
~ "Cloud Hobbit"
And that was written by me about you. Of course, that was before I decided you are a troll and an obvious liar.
Malcolm McMahon
2017-01-04 11:51:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in this
lifetime.
It seems to me that, not so long ago, you were quoting the doctrine of Election, which basically says no choice of ours is involved.
Bob
2017-01-04 12:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in this
lifetime.
It seems to me that, not so long ago, you were quoting the doctrine
ofElection, which basically says no choice of ours is involved.
But then we'd just be robots, wouldn't we?

No, you're just having a hard time grappling with the entire concept,
and you can't see the forest for the trees.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His
own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered
to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of
second causes taken away, but rather established."
[Taken from: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3]

(Warning: You will not fully understand what that means without the
Holy Spirit of God. So do yourself a favor, and move on.)
kensi
2017-01-04 12:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in
this lifetime.
It seems to me that, not so long ago, you were quoting the doctrine
ofElection, which basically says no choice of ours is involved.
But then we'd just be robots, wouldn't we?
No, you're just having a hard time grappling with the entire
concept, and you can't see the forest for the trees.
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of
His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to
pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is
violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
[Taken from: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3]
(Warning: You will not fully understand what that means without the
Holy Spirit of God. So do yourself a favor, and move on.)
Replicate the focused datablock using a statisingularity. The
neoharmonic turgescing torpedo launcher is faulty. You can also try to
suspend the infinite cummutator and stop the cellular-duodynetic
classification. Check the manual for instructions. You may need a new
negative silicon chip. Check the category of the sonic-nut photonic
inversion. Also restart the decadirectional ferreting reducer if
necessary.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Kevrob
2017-01-05 00:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(So do yourself a favor, and move on.)
You are the one proselytizing in the group, contrary to the charter.
You move on, Oh Most Insistent and Persistent Troll!

Kevin R
Bob
2017-01-05 01:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(So do yourself a favor, and move on.)
You are the one proselytizing in the group.
By telling you that you're already doing exactly what God wants you to do,
so you don't need to do anything different?

By telling you that God has rejected you?

You know you just proved how stupid you really are.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-05 01:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Bob
There is no evidence of god....
Yes there is.
But those who choose to go to Hell will never know what it is in this
lifetime.
It seems to me that, not so long ago, you were quoting the doctrine
ofElection, which basically says no choice of ours is involved.
But then we'd just be robots, wouldn't we?
No, you're just having a hard time grappling with the entire concept,
and you can't see the forest for the trees.
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His
own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered
to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of
second causes taken away, but rather established."
[Taken from: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3]
(Warning: You will not fully understand what that means without the
Holy Spirit of God. So do yourself a favor, and move on.)
It says that God is holy and therefore his own counsel is all that he needs.
It also says the future is set and can not be changed. It's also a cop out saying that just because god created people doesn't mean he claims any responsibility for the sin that humans do. Like all things religious it makes little sense. And it's bullshit. Why do have such an attraction to stupid stuff? What do you accomplish by making yourself look like a complete ass in front of however many people read this?
Bob
2017-01-05 02:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His
own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet
so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered
to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of
second causes taken away, but rather established."
[Taken from: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3]
(Warning: You will not fully understand what that means without the
Holy Spirit of God. So do yourself a favor, and move on.)
It says that God is holy and therefore his own counsel is all that he
needs. It also says the future is set and can not be changed. It's
also a cop out saying that just because god created people doesn't
mean he claims any responsibility for the sin that humans do. Like
all things religious it makes little sense.
See? I told you you wouldn't. Should've listened.
Davej
2016-12-30 22:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
It doesn't prove this creator was Yahweh. Based on the Bible
falsehoods we must conclude that Yahweh was a liar and fraud,
so it was apparently some other creator -- or creative process.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-12-30 23:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
The proven serial liar knows perfectly well that calling it "the
genetic code" is a dumbed down analogy.
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
The proven serial liar has his own private definition for the word
"evidence".
Post by Davej
It doesn't prove this creator was Yahweh. Based on the Bible
falsehoods we must conclude that Yahweh was a liar and fraud,
so it was apparently some other creator -- or creative process.
Drooling Andy knows perfectly well that there are natural
explanations, because he has been given these over and over again.

For example, the protocells formed using simple natural processes, did
not originally have a nucleic acid coding system - but they evolved
one over subsequent generations.
Andrew
2016-12-31 00:12:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
It doesn't prove this creator was Yahweh. Based on the Bible
falsehoods we must conclude that Yahweh was a liar and fraud,
so it was apparently some other creator -- or creative process.
But at least you now acknowledge that there was a creation.

Finally!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-03 22:24:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
It doesn't prove this creator was Yahweh. Based on the Bible
falsehoods we must conclude that Yahweh was a liar and fraud,
so it was apparently some other creator -- or creative process.
But at least you now acknowledge that there was a creation.
Finally!
It was not an acknowledgment.

There was no creation as far as anyone can prove.

The universe is eternal.
Bob
2017-01-03 22:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.

There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.

You would know that if you'd only watched the videos.

But, you chose to be stupid.

And now that's your problem, not ours.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-04 00:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Post by Bob
You would know that if you'd only watched the videos.
I have watched some of them, I stopped when I saw the pattern of disinformation,
misinformation, distortion, and flat out lies.
Post by Bob
But, you chose to be stupid.
I choose not to believe nonsense.
Post by Bob
And now that's your problem, not ours.
No, it's yours. I am just one of a growing number of people who have rejected the imaginary in favor of reality. That means there will be less and less of you as time and education marches on.

When the flying Spaghetti Monster comes for you and determines that you have been sinning against him he will no doubt sentence you to an eternity of drowning in marinara.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 00:49:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Smiler
2017-01-04 01:28:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
Technically correct, because there was no 'bang!', but what expanded from
what?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Christopher A. Lee
2017-01-04 01:39:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
Technically correct, because there was no 'bang!', but what expanded from
what?
Google virtual particles and the Casimir effect which was their
experimental verification.

"Virtual particles" is a bit of a misnomer.

But the most parsimonious of the various scenarios, is that it was a
similar quantum event because this breaks no known laws of physics.

Of course, this may or may not be refuted by the unified theory of
everything for which physicists are searching.
Nadegda
2017-01-04 12:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"SHITBAG" *ATHEIST*.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
Technically correct, because there was no 'bang!', but what expanded from
what?
Google virtual particles and the Casimir effect which was their
experimental verification.
"Virtual particles" is a bit of a misnomer.
But the most parsimonious of the various scenarios, is that it was a
similar quantum event because this breaks no known laws of physics.
Of course, this may or may not be refuted by the unified theory of
everything for which physicists are searching.
--
This is what the Cabal did to me.
Kook of the Month, July 2012
Looney Maroon Award, July 2012
Palmjob Paddle, July 2012
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, July 2012
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck, July 2012
Goofy Azzed Babboon, July 2012
Tinfoil Sombrero, July 2012
Village Pump Award, July 2012

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com.au/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-05 01:38:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
"SHITBAG" *ATHEIST*.
Inbred theist.
Post by Nadegda
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
Technically correct, because there was no 'bang!', but what expanded from
what?
Google virtual particles and the Casimir effect which was their
experimental verification.
"Virtual particles" is a bit of a misnomer.
But the most parsimonious of the various scenarios, is that it was a
similar quantum event because this breaks no known laws of physics.
Of course, this may or may not be refuted by the unified theory of
everything for which physicists are searching.
--
This is what the Cabal did to me.
Kook of the Month, July 2012
Looney Maroon Award, July 2012
Palmjob Paddle, July 2012
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, July 2012
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck, July 2012
Goofy Azzed Babboon, July 2012
Tinfoil Sombrero, July 2012
Village Pump Award, July 2012
http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com.au/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html
Nadegda
2017-01-04 12:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"OF" *COURSE* "IT" *WENT* "BANG"! *YOU* "DIPSHIT" *ATHEIST*.
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
Technically correct, because there was no 'bang!', but what expanded from
what?
--
This is what the Cabal did to me.
Kook of the Month, July 2012
Looney Maroon Award, July 2012
Palmjob Paddle, July 2012
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, July 2012
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck, July 2012
Goofy Azzed Babboon, July 2012
Tinfoil Sombrero, July 2012
Village Pump Award, July 2012

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com.au/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html
Smiler
2017-01-05 01:32:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a
beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
Technically correct, because there was no 'bang!', but what expanded
from what?
"OF" *COURSE* "IT" *WENT* "BANG"! *YOU* "DIPSHIT" *ATHEIST*.
No it didn't, moronic theist.
The 'Big Bang' was just a stupid name given to it by Hoyle.
It was an expansion, not an explosion.
And how could there be a "bang!" in the vacuum of space?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-05 01:37:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
"OF" *COURSE* "IT" *WENT* "BANG"! *YOU* "DIPSHIT" *ATHEIST*.
Were you there?
Post by Nadegda
Post by Smiler
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
Technically correct, because there was no 'bang!', but what expanded from
what?
--
This is what the Cabal did to me.
Kook of the Month, July 2012
Looney Maroon Award, July 2012
Palmjob Paddle, July 2012
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, July 2012
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck, July 2012
Goofy Azzed Babboon, July 2012
Tinfoil Sombrero, July 2012
Village Pump Award, July 2012
http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com.au/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-04 11:37:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my view to think that the universe is eternal. Gets rid of the problem of matter and energy not being possible to create or destroy. Neither thing happens if the universe is eternal, they just are.

It will be interesting to see what comes from the new quantum equation that predicts the universe has no beginning.

Plus it will drive the fundies nuts if it's right.
Post by Siri Cruise
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 16:18:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Melzzzzz
2017-01-04 16:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
We can't even imagine nothing...
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Christopher A. Lee
2017-01-04 16:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
We can't even imagine nothing...
It's like the difference between a null variable and the complete
absence of that variable,
Melzzzzz
2017-01-04 16:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
We can't even imagine nothing...
It's like the difference between a null variable and the complete
absence of that variable,
Yeah, something like that. When you imagine nothing you actually imagine
something and that isn't nothing...
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Christopher A. Lee
2017-01-04 18:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
Cloud needs to Google "virtual particles" (which is actually a
misnomer) and "Casimir effect" for their experimental verification.
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
We can't even imagine nothing...
It's like the difference between a null variable and the complete
absence of that variable,
Yeah, something like that. When you imagine nothing you actually imagine
something and that isn't nothing...
Not necessarily.

The quantum event is possibly the most parsimonious of the many
scenarios proposed by astrophysicists and cosmologists, because it
breaks no known physical laws.

Like all the scenarios they propose, nobody insists it actually
happened that way - but unlike goddidit, they are all minimal
extensions of current knowledge.

It's a mistake to demand knowledge where there isn't any. just as it's
a mistake to invent something unjustified and omnipotent.
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 17:21:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
We can't even imagine nothing...
Math and physics don't require imagining.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Melzzzzz
2017-01-04 17:25:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
We can't even imagine nothing...
Math and physics don't require imagining.
They require. One have to imagine, then realize... there is no such
thing as nothing.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 17:39:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible
in
my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
We can't even imagine nothing...
Math and physics don't require imagining.
They require. One have to imagine, then realize... there is no such
thing as nothing.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UiZRvkBqTqE/SSAwNhqGpxI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/eo7VcRV-x6w/s400/is
+nothing+sacred.jpg

Gahan Wilson's cartoon.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Kadaitcha Man
2017-01-04 21:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Melzzzzz, a monster, a very measle in apparel. Ye perverted midge, ye
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
We can't even imagine nothing...
That's because nothing is something.
--
Winner January 2017, Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog-Whistle Award as
trainer of Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire and his two brown-nosing
sockpuppets, Nadegda & kensi.

<news:o4g0np$1gri$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire admits spending hours attempting to decipher
randomly typed gibberish.
Malcolm McMahon
2017-01-04 16:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Siri Cruise
Nothing.
Nothing can not go bang. It can't do anything. It's far more sensible in my
A vacuum is nothing but space and time. And quantum fluctuations (with
probabilty inverse of the energy) can occur in a vacuum. Particles come into
existence out of nothing. Because we currently have no theory of anything
outside of the universe, we don't know if the universe is vacuum fluctuation,
but we do know the concept of something from nothing is plausible.
Time is an illusion: Lunchtime doubly so - Douglas Adams.

I think Quantum Loop Gravity is likely to change a lot of perceptions. In this view space is quantised, it occurs in discreet units (places ?) whose only property is really a list of adjacent places.

Space and gravitational field are one, which suggests matter can create space (and space, matter?).
Siri Cruise
2017-01-04 17:20:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Space and gravitational field are one, which suggests matter can create space
(and space, matter?).
If space is an infinite set, it does not have to be created. Map rational
numbers to themselves and they remain as dense. Map real numbers to themselves
an omega number of times and they remain as dense. General relativity assumes
space is cardinality c and maps spacetime into itself.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Bob
2017-01-04 03:35:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a
beginning.
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
We're not talking about "what went bang". That's you trying to change
the subject. And when any of you try changing the subject that's when I
know that you know you're wrong. So, thanks.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
You would know that if you'd only watched the videos.
I have watched some of them, I stopped when I saw the pattern of
disinformation, misinformation, distortion, and flat out lies.
Oh, well I guess God didn't want you to see too much. He wants you to stay
stupid, just the way you are now.

"Otherwise you might repent and be forgiven."

And that's not a part of God's plan.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-01-05 01:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
Prove it.
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a
beginning.
There is also strong evidence that it did not.
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You mean the big bang? That doesn't answer the question of what went bang?
We're not talking about "what went bang".
Kinda hard to separate the two. If there was a bang it had to have been composed of something.

That's you trying to change
Post by Bob
the subject.
Nope, I was asking a question.

And when any of you try changing the subject that's when I
Post by Bob
know that you know you're wrong. So, thanks.
You don't know shit from Shinola. You have yet to say anything true about god, religion, or any of the shit you try to rub in our faces. You believe in a nothing god, and a nothing savior, neither of who can be shown to have ever existed. You bveleive in a bible that is full of lies and forgeries and you reject any science that contradicts with your beliefs.
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
You would know that if you'd only watched the videos.
I have watched some of them, I stopped when I saw the pattern of
disinformation, misinformation, distortion, and flat out lies.
Oh, well I guess God didn't want you to see too much. He wants you to stay
stupid, just the way you are now.
See I thought it was the other way round. He wants you to stay stupid and believing nonsense so he can laugh at your stupid ass when he sends you to hell.
Post by Bob
"Otherwise you might repent and be forgiven."
And that's not a part of God's plan.
Of course not, God has no plan because he does not exist.

George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.------Sam Harris

But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me. Richard Feynman

Religion is unusual among divisible labels in being spectacularly unnecessary. If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them, we might had to respect them in spite of their concomitant unpleasantness. But there is no such evidence. To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons, and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic.-------Richard Dawkins
Siri Cruise
2017-01-05 01:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You don't know shit from Shinola. You have yet to say anything true about
god, religion, or any
Oh, my.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Bob
2017-01-05 01:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Bob
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The universe is eternal.
No, you're wrong, again.
Prove it.
Already have, you idiot. Watch the videos.
Post by Kadaitcha Man
Post by Bob
There is very strong evidence the Universe must have had a
beginning.
There is also strong evidence that it did not.
You're lying, again.
John Locke
2016-12-31 04:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
...hogwash. Here's some reading for you:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314000113

Evolution of the genetic code in an early RNA world is dependent on
the steadily improving specificity of the coevolving protein synthesis
machinery for codons, anticodons, tRNAs and amino acids. In the
beginning, there is RNA but the machinery does not distinguish yet
between the codons, which therefore all encode the same information.
Synonymous codons are equivalent under a symmetry group that exchanges
(permutes) the codons without affecting the code. The initial group
changes any codon into any other by permuting the order of the bases
in the triplet as well as by replacing the four RNA bases with each
other at every codon position. This group preserves the differences
between codons, known as Hamming distances, with a 1-distance
corresponding to a single point mutation. Stepwise breaking of the
group into subgroups divides the 64 codons into progressively smaller
subsets – blocks of equivalent codons under the smaller symmetry
groups, with each block able to encode a different message. This
formalism prescribes how the evolving machinery increasingly
differentiates between codons. The model indicates that primitive
ribosomes first identified a unique mRNA reading frame to break the
group permuting the order of the bases and subsequently enforced
increasingly stringent codon–anticodon basepairing rules to break the
subgroups permuting the four bases at each codon position. The modern
basepairing rules evolve in five steps and at each step the number of
codon blocks doubles. The fourth step generates 16 codon blocks
corresponding with the 16 family boxes of the standard code and the
last step splits these boxes into 32 blocks of commonly two, but
rarely one or three, synonymous codons. The evolving codes transmit at
most one message per codon block and as the number of messages
increases so does the specificity of the code and of protein
synthesis. The selective advantage conferred by better functioning
proteins drives the symmetry breaking process. Over time paralogous
tRNA evolution expands the anticodon repertoire, which is divided into
anticodon blocks matching the codon blocks under the stage-specific
ribosomal basepairing rules. Contemporaneously an expanding family of
primitive aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs) divides the tRNA
diversities into various different and overlapping subsets: each aaRS
accepts some tRNAs but rejects all others and several aaRSs may accept
the same tRNA species. Selection favoring less ambiguous codes
eliminates these overlaps and also imposes the ribosomal anticodon
block division as ambiguity arises when different aaRSs accept tRNAs
of the same anticodon block. Only when the tRNAs of one or several
anticodon blocks are accepted by a unique aaRS does the code become
specific. This coding pattern is observed in the standard code and the
evolution of amino acid assignments by primitive aaRSs onto tRNAs is
traced back via tRNA trees that picture a gradual division of tRNA
diversities into blocks with increasingly specific amino acid
assignments. Symmetry breaking combined with continuous selection for
codes carrying more information evolves increasingly specific codes
and efficiently traverses an immense space of all possible codes
(>1084) to give rise to the standard code.
Andrew
2016-12-31 06:15:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314000113
Evolution of the genetic code in an early RNA world is dependent on
the steadily improving specificity of the coevolving protein synthesis
machinery
You are citing a theoretical biology journal. The article happens to be
pure fantasy filled with nonsense phrases that have been amalgamated
with technical terms enough to have the thing printed.

The author freely makes *fantasized assumptions* without regard for
truth or logic. You won't find any reputable biologist endorsing such
nonsense as presented here.

In spite of all that, I figure you should get credit for trying. And since
this is the best you can come up with, my premise stands un-refuted.

Thank you.
Post by John Locke
for codons, anticodons, tRNAs and amino acids. In the
beginning, there is RNA but the machinery does not distinguish yet
between the codons, which therefore all encode the same information.
Synonymous codons are equivalent under a symmetry group that exchanges
(permutes) the codons without affecting the code. The initial group
changes any codon into any other by permuting the order of the bases
in the triplet as well as by replacing the four RNA bases with each
other at every codon position. This group preserves the differences
between codons, known as Hamming distances, with a 1-distance
corresponding to a single point mutation. Stepwise breaking of the
group into subgroups divides the 64 codons into progressively smaller
subsets - blocks of equivalent codons under the smaller symmetry
groups, with each block able to encode a different message. This
formalism prescribes how the evolving machinery increasingly
differentiates between codons. The model indicates that primitive
ribosomes first identified a unique mRNA reading frame to break the
group permuting the order of the bases and subsequently enforced
increasingly stringent codon-anticodon basepairing rules to break the
subgroups permuting the four bases at each codon position. The modern
basepairing rules evolve in five steps and at each step the number of
codon blocks doubles. The fourth step generates 16 codon blocks
corresponding with the 16 family boxes of the standard code and the
last step splits these boxes into 32 blocks of commonly two, but
rarely one or three, synonymous codons. The evolving codes transmit at
most one message per codon block and as the number of messages
increases so does the specificity of the code and of protein
synthesis. The selective advantage conferred by better functioning
proteins drives the symmetry breaking process. Over time paralogous
tRNA evolution expands the anticodon repertoire, which is divided into
anticodon blocks matching the codon blocks under the stage-specific
ribosomal basepairing rules. Contemporaneously an expanding family of
primitive aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs) divides the tRNA
diversities into various different and overlapping subsets: each aaRS
accepts some tRNAs but rejects all others and several aaRSs may accept
the same tRNA species. Selection favoring less ambiguous codes
eliminates these overlaps and also imposes the ribosomal anticodon
block division as ambiguity arises when different aaRSs accept tRNAs
of the same anticodon block. Only when the tRNAs of one or several
anticodon blocks are accepted by a unique aaRS does the code become
specific. This coding pattern is observed in the standard code and the
evolution of amino acid assignments by primitive aaRSs onto tRNAs is
traced back via tRNA trees that picture a gradual division of tRNA
diversities into blocks with increasingly specific amino acid
assignments. Symmetry breaking combined with continuous selection for
codes carrying more information evolves increasingly specific codes
and efficiently traverses an immense space of all possible codes
(>1084) to give rise to the standard code.
Malte Runz
2016-12-31 14:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314000113
Evolution of the genetic code in an early RNA world is dependent on
the steadily improving specificity of the coevolving protein synthesis
machinery
You are citing a theoretical biology journal. The article happens to be
pure fantasy filled with nonsense phrases that have been amalgamated
with technical terms enough to have the thing printed.
In other words, you didn't understand it.
Post by Andrew
The author freely makes *fantasized assumptions* without regard for
truth or logic. You won't find any reputable biologist endorsing such
nonsense as presented here.
'And no matter how many links you provide to prove the contrary, I'll
never admit to have been wrong!!!'
Post by Andrew
In spite of all that, I figure you should get credit for trying. ...
I wish I could say the same to you.
--
Malte Runz
Christopher A. Lee
2016-12-31 15:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:53:22 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314000113
Evolution of the genetic code in an early RNA world is dependent on
the steadily improving specificity of the coevolving protein synthesis
machinery
You are citing a theoretical biology journal. The article happens to be
pure fantasy filled with nonsense phrases that have been amalgamated
with technical terms enough to have the thing printed.
In other words, you didn't understand it.
The in-your-face, proven serial liar has been given the example of the
late Sidney Fox's protocells which were formed using simple natural
processes, metabolised and reproduced, and over subsequent generations
_evolved_ nucleic acids which the didn't originally have.

The real issues are why he ignores everything he has had explained,
and why he repeats the same old falsehoods which are nothing to do
with atheism and are now deliberate.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
The author freely makes *fantasized assumptions* without regard for
truth or logic. You won't find any reputable biologist endorsing such
nonsense as presented here.
The proven serial liar projects the religious fundamentalist's way of
thinking.
Post by Malte Runz
'And no matter how many links you provide to prove the contrary, I'll
never admit to have been wrong!!!'
It's a brainwashed Christian fundamentalist. 'Nuff said..
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
In spite of all that, I figure you should get credit for trying. ...
I wish I could say the same to you.
He lies routinely and deliberately.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-01-03 03:44:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
....young earth creationism is religious nonsense. Its not science and
it confirms nothing. Your "creator" is not testable and cannot be
verified. You have no evidence with which to form a workable
hypothesis let alone confirmation of Biblical creation. When will you
ever learn ??
Explain the origin of the quaternary digital code we find
in every living thing on this planet that is imperative for
them to be alive and to reproduce~apart from a creation.
You can't. Evidence clearly points to ---> Creation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314000113
Evolution of the genetic code in an early RNA world is dependent on
the steadily improving specificity of the coevolving protein synthesis
machinery
You are citing a theoretical biology journal. The article happens to be
pure fantasy filled with nonsense phrases that have been amalgamated
with technical terms enough to have the thing printed.
In other words, you didn't understand it.
Bingo.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
The author freely makes *fantasized assumptions*
Name one or 2 of these "fantasized assumptions".
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Andrew
without regard for
truth or logic. You won't find any reputable biologist endorsing such
nonsense as presented here.
Prove it.
Post by Malte Runz
'And no matter how many links you provide to prove the contrary, I'll
never admit to have been wrong!!!'
Post by Andrew
In spite of all that, I figure you should get credit for trying. ...
I wish I could say the same to you.
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Davej
2016-12-30 18:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous
to start with anything else, wouldn't it?"

Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and therefore
the Bible is not the word of god.

If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away. If science discovered that the oldest fossils were
6000 years old. If god continued to make appearances as a burning
bush or as a man who could repeatedly come back from the dead. If
amputees could regularly regrow lost limbs after prayers to god.

We don't see any of that.
Andrew
2016-12-30 21:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous
to start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
Post by Davej
If science discovered that the oldest fossils were 6000 years old.
Fossils are evidence of the worldwide deluge.
Post by Davej
If god continued to make appearances as a burning bush
Unreasonable.
Post by Davej
or as a man who could repeatedly come back from the dead.
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which
*all* that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall
come forth." ~ Jesus
Post by Davej
If amputees could regularly regrow lost limbs after prayers
to god.
"The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality." ~ 1 Cor 15
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 22:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous
to start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
Why not?
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
If science discovered that the oldest fossils were 6000 years old.
Fossils are evidence of the worldwide deluge.
No, they are evidence of evolution and the ages of the earth.
No legitimate scientist has ever said that fossils prove a world wide deluge.
It never happened. There is NOTHING that points to it ever happening.
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
If god continued to make appearances as a burning bush
Unreasonable.
For anomnipotent being? Why?
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
or as a man who could repeatedly come back from the dead.
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which
*all* that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall
come forth." ~ Jesus
Ever wonder who really wrote that crap? Jesus never existed.
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
If amputees could regularly regrow lost limbs after prayers
to god.
"The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality." ~ 1 Cor 15
Blah, blah, blah. Just more bullshit from the piece of crap known as the worst fiction in histry, the Bible.
Malte Runz
2016-12-31 13:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:25:06 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous
to start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
Why not?
Because we know God created the light coming from the stars was made
to look old. It must have been... because it looks old!
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
If science discovered that the oldest fossils were 6000 years old.
Fossils are evidence of the worldwide deluge.
No, they are evidence of evolution and the ages of the earth.
No legitimate scientist has ever said that fossils prove a world wide deluge.
It never happened. There is NOTHING that points to it ever happening.
Everything, even that which is absent, points to it never happening.

(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
2016-12-31 13:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:48:50 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
Because we know God created the light coming from the stars was made
to look old. It must have been... because it looks old!
What a messed up sentence! But you all know what I mean.
--
Malte Runz
Don Martin
2016-12-31 15:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:48:50 +0100, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:25:06 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Davej
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous
to start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
Why not?
Because we know God created the light coming from the stars was made
to look old. It must have been... because it looks old!
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make light with wrinkles!

(I know it doesn't rhyme or scan, but then neither does god.)
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-01-01 02:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:25:06 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous to
start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
Why not?
Because we know God created the light coming from the stars was made to
look old. It must have been... because it looks old!
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make light with wrinkles!
(I know it doesn't rhyme or scan, but then neither does god.)
Aged photons pass us by,
Some are seen by the naked eye,
More are seen by telescope Hubble,
But none are seen from gawd's heavenly bubble.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Don Martin
2017-01-01 19:44:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Malte Runz
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:25:06 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous to
start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
Why not?
Because we know God created the light coming from the stars was made to
look old. It must have been... because it looks old!
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make light with wrinkles!
(I know it doesn't rhyme or scan, but then neither does god.)
Aged photons pass us by,
Some are seen by the naked eye,
More are seen by telescope Hubble,
But none are seen from gawd's heavenly bubble.
I couldn't resist a bit of theft (I am sure Mr Shelley wouldn't mind).

A wrinkled photon from an antique planet
Announced: 'Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in my desert, if you'll but grant it,'
Near by, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The imprint of heartlessness made blood red:

And on the left leg these words appear:
'Behold me, God of men, to whom nature sings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
The right leg says, 'Me too!' Round the decay
Of that crotchless wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Davej
2016-12-30 22:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous
to start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
Post by Davej
If science discovered that the oldest fossils were 6000 years old.
Fossils are evidence of the worldwide deluge.
No they aren't. A worldwide deluge would not exclude modern
species from the fossil record.
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
If god continued to make appearances as a burning bush
Unreasonable.
Not unreasonable for an infinitely powerful being. You want to
play it both ways -- God is infinite and also too busy or too lazy.
Jesus accomplished very little -- he didn't even cure all the
sick in one tiny town or eliminate one disease.
Andrew
2016-12-31 00:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous
to start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
Post by Davej
If science discovered that the oldest fossils were 6000 years old.
Fossils are evidence of the worldwide deluge.
No they aren't. A worldwide deluge would not exclude modern
species from the fossil record.
They ~are~ there. However since some modern species evolved
from' the types that survived the delude. Therefore they did not
exist at the time of the Event.

Adaption and variation have been programmed into the original
creation by our wonderful Creator~ GOD~. Call that evolution
if you want, but it is always in accord with genetic limits of the
*kind* it descended from.
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
If god continued to make appearances as a burning bush
Unreasonable.
Not unreasonable for an infinitely powerful being. You want to
play it both ways -- God is infinite and also too busy or too lazy.
Jesus accomplished very little -- he didn't even cure all the
sick in one tiny town
"All those who had any that were sick with various diseases
brought them to Him; and He laid His hands on *every one*
of them and healed them." Lk 4:40

"Great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all."
Mt 12:15
Smiler
2016-12-31 03:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous to
start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and
therefore the Bible is not the word of god.
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away.
No.
If science discovered that the oldest fossils were 6000 years old.
Fossils are evidence of the worldwide deluge.
No they aren't. A worldwide deluge would not exclude modern species
from the fossil record.
They ~are~ there. However since some modern species evolved
Thanks for the admission that macro-evolution occurs.
Post by Andrew
from' the types that survived the delude.
Delude indeed.
Post by Andrew
Therefore they did not exist at the time of the Event.
The event that never happened, nor could it have happened.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Malte Runz
2016-12-31 13:53:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(snip)
Post by Davej
Post by Andrew
Fossils are evidence of the worldwide deluge.
No they aren't. A worldwide deluge would not exclude modern
species from the fossil record.
They ~are~ there. ...
Where? Google and show me the evidence. Even one of your usual links
to a jpg-image will do.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
2016-12-31 13:38:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(snip)
Post by Andrew
Post by Davej
If science discovered that the oldest fossils were 6000 years old.
Fossils are evidence of the worldwide deluge.
Really? Rationalize this:

http://tinyurl.com/glgo8uk
--
Malte Runz
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 22:12:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
"If the Bible really is the word of god it would be ridiculous
to start with anything else, wouldn't it?"
But first, you have to demonstrate there is a god.
Post by Davej
Yet the Bible CONFLICTS with scientific discoveries and therefore
the Bible is not the word of god.
Either that or their god doesn't know everything.
Post by Davej
If science discovered that the most distant stars were 6000 light-
years away. If science discovered that the oldest fossils were
6000 years old. If god continued to make appearances as a burning
bush or as a man who could repeatedly come back from the dead. If
amputees could regularly regrow lost limbs after prayers to god.
We don't see any of that.
Hmmm, what could it possibly mean?

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. --------------Stephen Roberts

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.
Unknown

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, 1988 We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected.

Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.-----Carl Sagan
Cloud Hobbit
2016-12-30 22:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob
http://youtu.be/XatoDTlXRgY
Not another video from Jason Lisle, one of the princes of the anti-science brigades headed by the Discovery institute and such like.

He is a fucking moron.

That video was posted in August, funny how we have not heard anything about science confirming biblical creation. That's because that statement is a lie. No such confirmation has happened. That's because there is no scientific evidence that a biblical creation ever happened. In fact, science has never commented one way or another on biblical creation or any other issue in the bible.
Irreverend Dave
2016-12-31 14:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30 Dec 2016, Bob <***@null.null> wrote:

Nothing, just posted a link to a video of some mindless shit featuring
Jason Lisle.

Everything you need to know about Jason Lisle.






Lisle's logic: Unless the Bible is true you can't prove anything is true.
--
"Theology is not a source of genuine knowledge and therefore is not a
science. Reason and religion are thus at odds with each other."
- William Lane Craig - Reasonable Faith
Loading...