Discussion:
Dorothy discovers ID Land
Add Reply
John Locke
2020-09-16 07:10:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dorothy discovers ID Land :
Loading Image...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew
2020-09-16 10:39:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons1.uclick.gif
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
Mitchell Holman
2020-09-16 12:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoon
s1.uclick.gif
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
Which ID story is your favorite, and why?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creation_myths
John Locke
2020-09-16 15:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:39:58 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons1.uclick.gif
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no merit
as a scientific explanation. The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern biological
science.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
LinuxGal
2020-09-16 15:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no merit
as a scientific explanation. The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern biological
science.
Predatory judges hunted creationism to extinction, which
gave rise to a species called scientific creationism. This,
too, was hunted to extinction, which gave rise to
intelligent design. Lather, rinse, repeat.
--
Linux Geeks: Smart. Single. Sexy.
Well, two out of three ain't bad!

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Malte Runz
2020-09-16 18:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no merit
as a scientific explanation. The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern biological
science.
Predatory judges hunted creationism to extinction, which
gave rise to a species called scientific creationism. This,
too, was hunted to extinction, which gave rise to
intelligent design. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I'm just waiting for them to introduce the concept of a 'Benevolent
Selector'. Would make a great initialism.
--
Malte Runz
Andrew
2020-09-16 20:11:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no merit
as a scientific explanation.
This is what you chant repeatedly, but you have *no scientific alternative*!
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..
Diversity of life is not disputed.

Where're talking about origins.

Evidence points to ID.

What is your alternative?

Evolution does not address """origins""".

So--> don't say that it does!

Because that only exposes --> your dishonesty.

What does the science say?

What is the truth?

There is --> no scientific alternative to ID.
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern biological
science.
Predatory judges hunted creationism to extinction, which
gave rise to a species called scientific creationism. This,
too, was hunted to extinction, which gave rise to
intelligent design. Lather, rinse, repeat.
What does the evidence tell us? It tells us that our
origins was the result of an *intelligent causation*.

Please give an alternative model that is not based
upon unscientific fantasy.

Please!

If you can't, then ID wins the argument.

Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
JWS
2020-09-16 20:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no merit
as a scientific explanation.
This is what you chant repeatedly, but you have *no scientific alternative*!
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..
Diversity of life is not disputed.
Where're talking about origins.
Evidence points to ID.
You keep saying this.
Why don't you provide the evidence?
Where is the Intelligent Designer?
Post by Andrew
What is your alternative?
Evolution does not address """origins""".
So--> don't say that it does!
Because that only exposes --> your dishonesty.
What does the science say?
What is the truth?
There is --> no scientific alternative to ID.
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern biological
science.
Predatory judges hunted creationism to extinction, which
gave rise to a species called scientific creationism. This,
too, was hunted to extinction, which gave rise to
intelligent design. Lather, rinse, repeat.
What does the evidence tell us? It tells us that our
origins was the result of an *intelligent causation*.
Please give an alternative model that is not based
upon unscientific fantasy.
Please!
If you can't, then ID wins the argument.
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
Christopher A. Lee
2020-09-16 21:17:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no merit
as a scientific explanation.
This is what you chant repeatedly, but you have *no scientific alternative*!
Post by John Locke
The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..
Diversity of life is not disputed.
Where're talking about origins.
Evidence points to ID.
A deliberate lie from a deliberate liar who has had it repeatedly
explained why there is no way to determine ID.
Post by JWS
You keep saying this.
Why don't you provide the evidence?
Because he knows he has none, but the house of cards which is is
religious will come tumbling down.
Post by JWS
Where is the Intelligent Designer?
He crapped it last time he took a dump.
Ted
2020-09-16 20:47:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:11:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no merit
as a scientific explanation.
This is what you chant repeatedly, but you have *no scientific
alternative*!
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..
Diversity of life is not disputed.
Where're talking about origins.
Evidence points to ID.
What is your alternative?
Evolution does not address """origins""".
So--> don't say that it does!
Because that only exposes --> your dishonesty.
What does the science say?
What is the truth?
There is --> no scientific alternative to ID.
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern
biological
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
science.
Predatory judges hunted creationism to extinction, which
gave rise to a species called scientific creationism. This,
too, was hunted to extinction, which gave rise to
intelligent design. Lather, rinse, repeat.
What does the evidence tell us? It tells us that our
origins was the result of an *intelligent causation*.
Please give an alternative model that is not based
upon unscientific fantasy.
Please!
If you can't, then ID wins the argument.
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
Do you believe in creation science?
John Locke
2020-09-17 04:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:11:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no
merit
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
as a scientific explanation.
This is what you chant repeatedly, but you have *no scientific
alternative*!
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science.
There's
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..
Diversity of life is not disputed.
Where're talking about origins.
Evidence points to ID.
What is your alternative?
Evolution does not address """origins""".
So--> don't say that it does!
Because that only exposes --> your dishonesty.
What does the science say?
What is the truth?
There is --> no scientific alternative to ID.
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern
biological
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
science.
Predatory judges hunted creationism to extinction, which
gave rise to a species called scientific creationism. This,
too, was hunted to extinction, which gave rise to
intelligent design. Lather, rinse, repeat.
What does the evidence tell us? It tells us that our
origins was the result of an *intelligent causation*.
Please give an alternative model that is not based
upon unscientific fantasy.
Please!
If you can't, then ID wins the argument.
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
Do you believe in creation science?
...isn't that an oxymoron ? Two highly incongruous
terms for sure !


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted
2020-09-17 06:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:40:18 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by Ted
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:11:38 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no
merit
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
as a scientific explanation.
This is what you chant repeatedly, but you have *no scientific
alternative*!
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science.
There's
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..
Diversity of life is not disputed.
Where're talking about origins.
Evidence points to ID.
What is your alternative?
Evolution does not address """origins""".
So--> don't say that it does!
Because that only exposes --> your dishonesty.
What does the science say?
What is the truth?
There is --> no scientific alternative to ID.
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern
biological
Post by Andrew
Post by LinuxGal
Post by John Locke
science.
Predatory judges hunted creationism to extinction, which
gave rise to a species called scientific creationism. This,
too, was hunted to extinction, which gave rise to
intelligent design. Lather, rinse, repeat.
What does the evidence tell us? It tells us that our
origins was the result of an *intelligent causation*.
Please give an alternative model that is not based
upon unscientific fantasy.
Please!
If you can't, then ID wins the argument.
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
Do you believe in creation science?
...isn't that an oxymoron ? Two highly incongruous
terms for sure !
Indeed it is. But they have their Institute of Creation Research,
which they claim is scientific
Siri Cruise
2020-09-17 06:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
Indeed it is. But they have their Institute of Creation Research,
which they claim is scientific
Which shows their insecurity of their stated beliefs.

If I claim the world is 6000 years old but created to look 4
billion years old, there's way to prove or disprove that
assertion. You either accept the assertion or reject it.

But the Ken Hams of the world are unsure of their beliefs. So
they try to prop their beliefs up with this crap distorted
geology, physics, and biology. This crap can be disproven.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Ted
2020-09-17 18:12:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 23:29:49 -0700, Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Ted
Indeed it is. But they have their Institute of Creation Research,
which they claim is scientific
Which shows their insecurity of their stated beliefs.
If I claim the world is 6000 years old but created to look 4
billion years old, there's way to prove or disprove that
assertion. You either accept the assertion or reject it.
But the Ken Hams of the world are unsure of their beliefs. So
they try to prop their beliefs up with this crap distorted
geology, physics, and biology. This crap can be disproven.
Thanks Siri. They're filthy liars.
aaa
2020-09-17 18:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Ted
Indeed it is. But they have their Institute of Creation Research, >
which they claim is scientific
Which shows their insecurity of their stated beliefs.
If I claim the world is 6000 years old but created to look 4 billion
years old, there's way to prove or disprove that assertion. You either
accept the assertion or reject it.
But the Ken Hams of the world are unsure of their beliefs. So they try
to prop their beliefs up with this crap distorted geology, physics,
and biology. This crap can be disproven.
Thanks Siri. They're filthy liars.
That's just your misunderstanding. The 6000 years is about the human
world that is otherwise known as our current civilization. There were
previous human worlds and previous animal worlds like the world of
dinosaurs on this planet.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
Peter Pan
2020-09-17 23:56:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by aaa
Post by Ted
Post by Ted
Indeed it is. But they have their Institute of Creation Research, >
which they claim is scientific
Which shows their insecurity of their stated beliefs.
If I claim the world is 6000 years old but created to look 4 billion
years old, there's way to prove or disprove that assertion. You either
accept the assertion or reject it.
But the Ken Hams of the world are unsure of their beliefs. So they try
to prop their beliefs up with this crap distorted geology, physics,
and biology. This crap can be disproven.
Thanks Siri. They're filthy liars.
That's just your misunderstanding. The 6000 years is about the human
world that is otherwise known as our current civilization. There were
previous human worlds and previous animal worlds like the world of
dinosaurs on this planet.
That's amazing!

Did the dinosaur civilization know how to build
spaceships? Really HUGE spaceships?

How did they stop the dinosaur astronauts from eating
each other on long trips?
Siri Cruise
2020-09-18 00:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Ted
Post by Ted
Indeed it is. But they have their Institute of Creation Research, >
which they claim is scientific
Which shows their insecurity of their stated beliefs.
If I claim the world is 6000 years old but created to look 4 billion
years old, there's way to prove or disprove that assertion. You either
accept the assertion or reject it.
But the Ken Hams of the world are unsure of their beliefs. So they try
to prop their beliefs up with this crap distorted geology, physics,
and biology. This crap can be disproven.
Thanks Siri. They're filthy liars.
That's just your misunderstanding. The 6000 years is about the human
world that is otherwise known as our current civilization. There were
previous human worlds and previous animal worlds like the world of
dinosaurs on this planet.
That's amazing!
Did the dinosaur civilization know how to build
spaceships? Really HUGE spaceships?
Yes.

Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Peter Pan
2020-09-18 21:54:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Ted
Post by Ted
Indeed it is. But they have their Institute of Creation Research, >
which they claim is scientific
Which shows their insecurity of their stated beliefs.
If I claim the world is 6000 years old but created to look 4 billion
years old, there's way to prove or disprove that assertion. You either
accept the assertion or reject it.
But the Ken Hams of the world are unsure of their beliefs. So they try
to prop their beliefs up with this crap distorted geology, physics,
and biology. This crap can be disproven.
Thanks Siri. They're filthy liars.
That's just your misunderstanding. The 6000 years is about the human
world that is otherwise known as our current civilization. There were
previous human worlds and previous animal worlds like the world of
dinosaurs on this planet.
That's amazing!
Did the dinosaur civilization know how to build
spaceships? Really HUGE spaceships?
Yes.
Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
Ted
2020-09-18 23:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Yes.
Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
Do you remember a snivelling little rat-faced git?
Peter Pan
2020-09-19 08:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Yes.
Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
Do you remember a snivelling little rat-faced git?
I remember, i think, the 12th Dr. Who. After that I
never liked any of the other ones.
Ted
2020-09-19 17:51:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Yes.
Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
Do you remember a snivelling little rat-faced git?
I remember, i think, the 12th Dr. Who. After that I
never liked any of the other ones.
I'll have to check them out, I've never seen Dr Who.
Asnivellinglittleratfaced Git is a character from a Monty Python
skit.
Siri Cruise
2020-09-19 00:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Did the dinosaur civilization know how to build
spaceships? Really HUGE spaceships?
Yes.
Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_on_a_Spaceship
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
Peter Pan
2020-09-19 08:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Did the dinosaur civilization know how to build
spaceships? Really HUGE spaceships?
Yes.
Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_on_a_Spaceship
So there really was a dinosaur civilization! With
spaceships and timelords! Who aaa could be right about
that.
Siri Cruise
2020-09-19 09:22:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Did the dinosaur civilization know how to build
spaceships? Really HUGE spaceships?
Yes.
Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_on_a_Spaceship
So there really was a dinosaur civilization! With
spaceships and timelords! Who aaa could be right about
that.
The truth will set you for a fee.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed
aaa
2020-09-19 17:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Peter Pan
Did the dinosaur civilization know how to build
spaceships? Really HUGE spaceships?
Yes.
Don't you keep up with the Doctor Who Documentaries?
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_on_a_Spaceship
So there really was a dinosaur civilization! With
spaceships and timelords! Who aaa could be right about
that.
The truth will set you for a fee.
Spaceship is just a human fantasy. There is nothing to explore in a
desolate physical illusion. The real world isn't out there.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
SkyEyes
2020-09-20 12:21:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 2:54:07 PM UTC-7, Peter Pan wrote:

<Snippage>
Post by Peter Pan
Wellll... i may have missed entire seasons of Dr. Who.
But lest I lose all atheistic cred, I haven't missed much
Monte Python. Does that make up for it?
I certainly hope so. I've never seen a single episode of Dr. Who, but I never missed a single Monte Python performance or movie. I hope that saves my atheistic cred along with yours.

Brenda Nelson, A.A. #34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding

aaa
2020-09-18 15:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by aaa
Post by Ted
Post by Ted
Indeed it is. But they have their Institute of Creation Research, >
which they claim is scientific
Which shows their insecurity of their stated beliefs.
If I claim the world is 6000 years old but created to look 4 billion
years old, there's way to prove or disprove that assertion. You either
accept the assertion or reject it.
But the Ken Hams of the world are unsure of their beliefs. So they try
to prop their beliefs up with this crap distorted geology, physics,
and biology. This crap can be disproven.
Thanks Siri. They're filthy liars.
That's just your misunderstanding. The 6000 years is about the human
world that is otherwise known as our current civilization. There were
previous human worlds and previous animal worlds like the world of
dinosaurs on this planet.
That's amazing!
Did the dinosaur civilization know how to build
spaceships? Really HUGE spaceships?
How did they stop the dinosaur astronauts from eating
each other on long trips?
Animals have different lessons to learn according to their level of
intelligence. All living things live their life to learn from God. To
learn from God is the universal purpose of life.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

God's spiritual evidence is evident in everyone.
Find it and treasure it because it's the covenant of God.
It's the reason why we are given this life on earth.
It's the foundation why we can have meaning in life.

Let's all honor our personal spiritual evidence of God for the sake of
Christ!
LinuxGal
2020-09-16 21:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have atheist friends.
--
Linux Geeks: Smart. Single. Sexy.
Well, two out of three ain't bad!

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Ted
2020-09-16 21:30:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have atheist friends.
LOL.
Christopher A. Lee
2020-09-16 21:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have atheist friends.
LOL.
Or any other - if he did, he be in the bar, the restaurant, out hiking
etc with them. But even his fellow religious loonies won't go near him
Ted
2020-09-17 00:38:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:36:29 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have atheist friends.
LOL.
Or any other - if he did, he be in the bar, the restaurant, out hiking
etc with them. But even his fellow religious loonies won't go near him
LOL. I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Andrew
2020-09-17 10:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<>
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have atheist friends.
LOL.
I've always tried to be kind to
her.

And this is how she treats me.
Ted
2020-09-17 18:17:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:34:46 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have atheist friends.
LOL.
I've always tried to be kind to
her.
And this is how she treats me.
Yeah, women can be difficult to understand.
Kevrob
2020-09-17 18:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:34:46 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have atheist friends.
LOL.
I've always tried to be kind to
her.
And this is how she treats me.
Yeah, women can be difficult to understand.
Androol might have (or have had) atheist friends, but I'd bet that,
if he proselytizes IRL the way he does here, he wouldn't have them
for long! Or, they may not be willing to talk atheism with him.
Once that starts, I wouldn't give the friendship long. I might
not give any unbroken status of Androol's nose long. Some people
aren't all the peaceful type I am!

I've been the "religious friend" of non-believers, and after I
dropped theism, the "atheist friend" of religious folks. The
gears of social interaction turn most smoothly if the matter
is not brought up. Androol should learn some frackin' manners.
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Ted
2020-09-17 21:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Ted
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:34:46 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have atheist friends.
LOL.
I've always tried to be kind to
her.
And this is how she treats me.
Yeah, women can be difficult to understand.
Androol might have (or have had) atheist friends, but I'd bet that,
if he proselytizes IRL the way he does here, he wouldn't have them
for long! Or, they may not be willing to talk atheism with him.
Once that starts, I wouldn't give the friendship long. I might
not give any unbroken status of Androol's nose long. Some people
aren't all the peaceful type I am!
I've been the "religious friend" of non-believers, and after I
dropped theism, the "atheist friend" of religious folks. The
gears of social interaction turn most smoothly if the matter
is not brought up. Androol should learn some frackin' manners.
Hopefully Andrew keeps his silly crap to himself IRL.
Peter Pan
2020-09-18 00:06:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Androol might have (or have had) atheist friends, but I'd bet that,
if he proselytizes IRL the way he does here, he wouldn't have them
for long! Or, they may not be willing to talk atheism with him.
Once that starts, I wouldn't give the friendship long. I might
not give any unbroken status of Androol's nose long. Some people
aren't all the peaceful type I am!
I've been the "religious friend" of non-believers, and after I
dropped theism, the "atheist friend" of religious folks. The
gears of social interaction turn most smoothly if the matter
is not brought up. Androol should learn some frackin' manners.
But... but... if Andrew didn't talk religion on aa, what
reason would he have for posting here?
Andrew
2020-09-18 01:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
Androol might have (or have had) atheist friends, but I'd bet that,
if he proselytizes IRL the way he does here, he wouldn't have them
for long! Or, they may not be willing to talk atheism with him.
Once that starts, I wouldn't give the friendship long. I might
not give any unbroken status of Androol's nose long. Some people
aren't all the peaceful type I am!
I've been the "religious friend" of non-believers, and after I
dropped theism, the "atheist friend" of religious folks. The
gears of social interaction turn most smoothly if the matter
is not brought up. Androol should learn some frackin' manners.
But... but... if Andrew didn't talk religion on aa, what
reason would he have for posting here?
My only religion is the 'truth'. The reason you don't
like me is because the *truth* exposes your foolish
deceptions. And this makes you feel silly.
Peter Pan
2020-09-18 22:17:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
Androol might have (or have had) atheist friends, but I'd bet that,
if he proselytizes IRL the way he does here, he wouldn't have them
for long! Or, they may not be willing to talk atheism with him.
Once that starts, I wouldn't give the friendship long. I might
not give any unbroken status of Androol's nose long. Some people
aren't all the peaceful type I am!
I've been the "religious friend" of non-believers, and after I
dropped theism, the "atheist friend" of religious folks. The
gears of social interaction turn most smoothly if the matter
is not brought up. Androol should learn some frackin' manners.
But... but... if Andrew didn't talk religion on aa, what
reason would he have for posting here?
My only religion is the 'truth'.
In most cases, "truth" is better arrived at via science
than religion. In the religious cases, "truth" is too
mushy to be of any value.

That being said, lollity lol. Your religion is all about
clinging to the Genesis fantasy. No offending field of
study is safe from your relentless juggernaut.
Post by Andrew
The reason you don't
like me is because the *truth* exposes your foolish
deceptions. And this makes you feel silly.
Who said I don't like you? You the most entertaining
theist in aa, except when Ass7 occasionally shows up. Who
else could be the guru of semiotic applesauce?
Ted
2020-09-18 23:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
Androol might have (or have had) atheist friends, but I'd bet that,
if he proselytizes IRL the way he does here, he wouldn't have them
for long! Or, they may not be willing to talk atheism with him.
Once that starts, I wouldn't give the friendship long. I
might
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
not give any unbroken status of Androol's nose long. Some people
aren't all the peaceful type I am!
I've been the "religious friend" of non-believers, and after I
dropped theism, the "atheist friend" of religious folks. The
gears of social interaction turn most smoothly if the matter
is not brought up. Androol should learn some frackin' manners.
But... but... if Andrew didn't talk religion on aa, what
reason would he have for posting here?
My only religion is the 'truth'.
In most cases, "truth" is better arrived at via science
than religion. In the religious cases, "truth" is too
mushy to be of any value.
That being said, lollity lol. Your religion is all about
clinging to the Genesis fantasy. No offending field of
study is safe from your relentless juggernaut.
Post by Andrew
The reason you don't
like me is because the *truth* exposes your foolish
deceptions. And this makes you feel silly.
Who said I don't like you? You the most entertaining
theist in aa, except when Ass7 occasionally shows up. Who
else could be the guru of semiotic applesauce?
LOL!
Peter Pan
2020-09-19 08:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
Androol might have (or have had) atheist friends, but I'd bet
that,
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
if he proselytizes IRL the way he does here, he wouldn't have
them
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
for long! Or, they may not be willing to talk atheism with
him.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
Once that starts, I wouldn't give the friendship long. I
might
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
not give any unbroken status of Androol's nose long. Some
people
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
aren't all the peaceful type I am!
I've been the "religious friend" of non-believers, and after I
dropped theism, the "atheist friend" of religious folks. The
gears of social interaction turn most smoothly if the matter
is not brought up. Androol should learn some frackin' manners.
But... but... if Andrew didn't talk religion on aa, what
reason would he have for posting here?
My only religion is the 'truth'.
In most cases, "truth" is better arrived at via science
than religion. In the religious cases, "truth" is too
mushy to be of any value.
That being said, lollity lol. Your religion is all about
clinging to the Genesis fantasy. No offending field of
study is safe from your relentless juggernaut.
Post by Andrew
The reason you don't
like me is because the *truth* exposes your foolish
deceptions. And this makes you feel silly.
Who said I don't like you? You the most entertaining
theist in aa, except when Ass7 occasionally shows up. Who
else could be the guru of semiotic applesauce?
LOL!
He is.

"Semiotic applesauce" is a cool phrase coined by Kevrob.
Kevrob
2020-09-20 05:47:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 4:36:46 AM UTC-4, Peter Pan wrote:

[snip]
Post by Peter Pan
"Semiotic applesauce" is a cool phrase coined by Kevrob.
Credit where credit is due. That was the esteemed Marvin S.

Message-ID: <b094f65c-18cf-48d8-9698-***@googlegroups.com>

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.atheism/8kfXbtldYD4/2N3h3a3NDgAJ

(At least, I don't remember coining that term.)
--
Kevin
a.a #2310
Peter Pan
2020-09-20 07:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
Post by Peter Pan
"Semiotic applesauce" is a cool phrase coined by Kevrob.
Credit where credit is due. That was the esteemed Marvin S.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.atheism/8kfXbtldYD4/2N3h3a3NDgAJ
(At least, I don't remember coining that term.)
Doh! Thanks for that.

Sorry, Marvin. It *is* a cool phrase.
Ted
2020-09-18 23:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:16:17 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
Androol might have (or have had) atheist friends, but I'd bet that,
if he proselytizes IRL the way he does here, he wouldn't have them
for long! Or, they may not be willing to talk atheism with him.
Once that starts, I wouldn't give the friendship long. I might
not give any unbroken status of Androol's nose long. Some
people
Post by Andrew
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Kevrob
aren't all the peaceful type I am!
I've been the "religious friend" of non-believers, and after I
dropped theism, the "atheist friend" of religious folks. The
gears of social interaction turn most smoothly if the matter
is not brought up. Androol should learn some frackin' manners.
But... but... if Andrew didn't talk religion on aa, what
reason would he have for posting here?
My only religion is the 'truth'. The reason you don't
like me is because the *truth* exposes your foolish
deceptions. And this makes you feel silly.
You don't care anything about truth, Andrew
Andrew
2020-09-17 10:35:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Andrew
Which means that our atheist friends
are woefully deceived.
You are deceived if you think you have
atheist friends.
I though you were my friend, Teresita.

Years ago I always defended you from
the wicked cyberdemoniac.
Ted
2020-09-16 18:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:00:59 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:39:58 -0700, "Andrew"
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons
1.uclick.gif
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no merit
as a scientific explanation. The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..it's been tested and verified and established as an
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern biological
science.
But that's the truth, John, and truth doesn't matter a bit to these
christers.
John Locke
2020-09-16 18:25:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:00:59 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:39:58 -0700, "Andrew"
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons
1.uclick.gif
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no
merit
Post by John Locke
as a scientific explanation. The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..it's been tested and verified and established as
an
Post by John Locke
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern biological
science.
But that's the truth, John, and truth doesn't matter a bit to these
christers.
..just think how advanced we'd be today if there had never been
any stinking religion. Religion, over the ages, has had a severe,
detrimental impact on the progress of science and culture.
Even today, when the facts of nature are staring them in the face,
they'll deny the obvious truth and attempt to substitute irrational
religious buffoonery for solid scientific evidence. Fortunately,
however, religion is in a downward death spiral...I can hear the death
knoll sounding in the not too distant future ! Hurray ! ...let's try
and speed that up a bit.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted
2020-09-16 20:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:25:51 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
Post by Ted
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:00:59 -0700, John Locke
Post by John Locke
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:39:58 -0700, "Andrew"
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoon
s
Post by John Locke
Post by Ted
1.uclick.gif
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a
scientific
Post by John Locke
Post by Ted
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness;
because
Post by John Locke
Post by Ted
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the
product of
Post by John Locke
Post by Ted
Post by John Locke
Post by Andrew
an intelligent causation.
...ID IS NOT a "scientific model". ID IS NOT testable and has no
merit
Post by John Locke
as a scientific explanation. The ID "model" was simply a device
conjured up for the purposes of sneaking "God" into science. There's
only one explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and
that's evolution..it's been tested and verified and established as
an
Post by John Locke
irrefutable fact of nature and the corner stone of modern
biological
Post by John Locke
Post by Ted
Post by John Locke
science.
But that's the truth, John, and truth doesn't matter a bit to
these
Post by John Locke
Post by Ted
christers.
..just think how advanced we'd be today if there had never been
any stinking religion. Religion, over the ages, has had a severe,
detrimental impact on the progress of science and culture.
Even today, when the facts of nature are staring them in the face,
they'll deny the obvious truth and attempt to substitute irrational
religious buffoonery for solid scientific evidence. Fortunately,
however, religion is in a downward death spiral...I can hear the death
knoll sounding in the not too distant future ! Hurray ! ...let's try
and speed that up a bit.
It's unfortunate so many people are eager to believe lies.
Andrew
2020-09-17 10:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
It's unfortunate so many people are eager
to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
Ted
2020-09-17 20:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:33:05 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
It's unfortunate so many people are eager
to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
You can still believe in God and choose not to lie about evolution
%
2020-09-17 20:41:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Andrew
It's unfortunate so many people are eager > to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
You can still believe in God and choose not to lie about evolution
the truth is nothing more than how many people you can get to believe you
Andrew
2020-09-18 09:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
It's unfortunate so many people are eager
to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
You can still believe in God and choose not to
lie about evolution
No need to lie about anything.

The "goo to you" story is a lie.
Ted
2020-09-18 22:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 02:44:21 -0700, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
It's unfortunate so many people are eager
to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
You can still believe in God and choose not to
lie about evolution
No need to lie about anything.
The "goo to you" story is a lie.
If you're not lying, then why do you run away from questions?
Peter Pan
2020-09-18 22:26:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
It's unfortunate so many people are eager
to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
You can still believe in God and choose not to
lie about evolution
No need to lie about anything.
The "goo to you" story is a lie.
Sure, Andrew. But the "clay & mud to flesh & blood"
story is the absolute gospel truth, right?
Christopher A. Lee
2020-09-19 00:10:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
It's unfortunate so many people are eager
to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
You can still believe in God and choose not to
lie about evolution
No need to lie about anything.
So why does he about evolution, the big bang, science in general,
scientists and atheists?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
The "goo to you" story is a lie.
Yep. It's a lie Ann Drool made up and attributes to anybody who
doesn't share his deluded fantasies.
Post by Peter Pan
Sure, Andrew. But the "clay & mud to flesh & blood"
story is the absolute gospel truth, right?
The deliberate liar has been given work by scientists working in
abiogenesis including the Nobel Prize winning Jack Szostak.
Ted
2020-09-19 00:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:10:32 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
It's unfortunate so many people are eager
to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
You can still believe in God and choose not to
lie about evolution
No need to lie about anything.
So why does he about evolution, the big bang, science in general,
scientists and atheists?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
The "goo to you" story is a lie.
Yep. It's a lie Ann Drool made up and attributes to anybody who
doesn't share his deluded fantasies.
Post by Peter Pan
Sure, Andrew. But the "clay & mud to flesh & blood"
story is the absolute gospel truth, right?
The deliberate liar has been given work by scientists working in
abiogenesis including the Nobel Prize winning Jack Szostak.
Proving he doesn't give a damn about truth.
Andrew
2020-09-19 19:14:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<>
Post by Ted
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The deliberate liar has been given work by scientists working in
abiogenesis including the Nobel Prize winning Jack Szostak.
Proving he doesn't give a damn about truth.
Szostak said,

"The question we're looking at is what do we need
to do to make these chemicals get together and work
like a cell?" ~ Jack Szostak

But you see ~ he never found the answer.

Because ~ there is no answer.

Chemicals will never "get together and work like a cell".

Same as words will never get together to make a book,
without the involvement of an author who has some
intelligence, and has a purpose to do it.

This brings us back to ID.

So if anything....Szostak has shown the necessity of ID
if there is to be any life.

Thanks Jack!

Creation wins again!

And atheists lose.

Lol.
Peter Pan
2020-09-20 04:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
<>
Post by Ted
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The deliberate liar has been given work by scientists working in
abiogenesis including the Nobel Prize winning Jack Szostak.
Proving he doesn't give a damn about truth.
Szostak said,
"The question we're looking at is what do we need
to do to make these chemicals get together and work
like a cell?" ~ Jack Szostak
But you see ~ he never found the answer.
Because ~ there is no answer.
Chemicals will never "get together and work like a cell".
Same as words will never get together to make a book,
without the involvement of an author who has some
intelligence, and has a purpose to do it.
This brings us back to ID.
So if anything....Szostak has shown the necessity of ID
if there is to be any life.
Thanks Jack!
Creation wins again!
And atheists lose.
Lol.
So you believe the "clay 'n mud to flesh 'n blood"
fantasy. Thanks for clearing that up.

Do you have any model to explain how clay & mud got
together to work like a multicellular, mammalian, perfect
human?
Ted
2020-09-19 00:28:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
Post by Andrew
Post by Ted
It's unfortunate so many people are eager
to believe lies.
Yes, the no-God origins myth is one of them.
You can still believe in God and choose not to
lie about evolution
No need to lie about anything.
The "goo to you" story is a lie.
Sure, Andrew. But the "clay & mud to flesh & blood"
story is the absolute gospel truth, right?
Heh. Well said.
Andrew
2020-09-17 10:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
.I can hear the death knoll sounding in the
not too distant future !
But what you fail to realize John, is that the
death knoll sounding you hear.... is actually
sounding for thee!
Hurray ! ...let's try and speed that up a bit.
As you wish John.

According to your words so be it unto you.

We will miss you, John!
Kevrob
2020-09-17 18:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
.I can hear the death knoll sounding in the
not too distant future !
But what you fail to realize John, is that the
death knoll sounding you hear.... is actually
sounding for thee!
We can tell nobody designed spell-checking into Androol.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knell

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/
Post by Andrew
Hurray ! ...let's try and speed that up a bit.
As you wish John.
According to your words so be it unto you.
We will miss you, John!
[quote]

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[/quote]

https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night

I suppose a "death knoll" could be a burial mound. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Andrew
2020-09-18 01:07:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Andrew
.I can hear the death knoll sounding in the
not too distant future !
But what you fail to realize John, is that the
death knoll sounding you hear.... is actually
sounding for thee!
We can tell nobody designed spell-checking into Androol.
Thanks. It's knell, not knoll.

I used the misspelled word from John's post.

So it's not entirely my bad.
Post by Kevrob
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knell
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/
Post by Andrew
Hurray ! ...let's try and speed that up a bit.
As you wish John.
According to your words so be it unto you.
We will miss you, John!
[quote]
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[/quote]
_____________________________________

The phrase,

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

Is from the original John Donne poem.

**For Whom the Bell Tolls**
by
John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Post by Kevrob
https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night
I suppose a "death knoll" could be a burial mound. :)
Yes, but John said, "I can hear the death knoll sounding"
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Kevrob
2020-09-18 04:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Kevrob
Post by Andrew
.I can hear the death knoll sounding in the
not too distant future !
But what you fail to realize John, is that the
death knoll sounding you hear.... is actually
sounding for thee!
We can tell nobody designed spell-checking into Androol.
Thanks. It's knell, not knoll.
I used the misspelled word from John's post.
So it's not entirely my bad.
You repeated the error, without "sic" or quotes.
Own it.
Post by Andrew
Post by Kevrob
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knell
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/
Post by Andrew
Hurray ! ...let's try and speed that up a bit.
As you wish John.
According to your words so be it unto you.
We will miss you, John!
[quote]
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[/quote]
_____________________________________
The phrase,
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
Is from the original John Donne poem.
**For Whom the Bell Tolls**
by
John Donne
No man is an island,...
[snip]
Post by Andrew
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Post by Kevrob
https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night
I know Donne. Do you know Matthew Arnold?

[quote]

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

[/quote] - excerpted from "Dover Beach"

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43588/dover-beach

I earned a B.A. and was exposed to my share of poetry.
Post by Andrew
Post by Kevrob
I suppose a "death knoll" could be a burial mound. :)
Yes, but John said, "I can hear the death knoll sounding"
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus
--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
youngbl...@gmail.com
2020-09-16 20:45:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons1.uclick.gif
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
Please cite the science that tells us that.
It doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
It does not have any scientific credence.
Why can't you give an example of the science that tells us about our origins?
Why have you NEVER provided a link to any such science?
It's as if it doesn't exist.
Andrew
2020-09-17 10:32:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons1.uclick.gif
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
Please cite the science that tells us that.
It doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
It does not have any scientific credence.
Why can't you give an example of the science that tells us about our origins?
Why have you NEVER provided a link to any such science?
It's as if it doesn't exist.
This has been done repeatedly.

Is it possible for spell checking and repair mechanisms
to originate through "naturalistic only" processes? No.

These mechanism exist in all living things that replicate.

You refuse to study, and you refuse to see anything that
is outside your box enclosed by your philosophical bias.
JWS
2020-09-17 15:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons1.uclick.gif
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
Please cite the science that tells us that.
It doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
It does not have any scientific credence.
Why can't you give an example of the science that tells us about our origins?
Why have you NEVER provided a link to any such science?
It's as if it doesn't exist.
This has been done repeatedly.
Is it possible for spell checking and repair mechanisms
to originate through "naturalistic only" processes? No.

Post by Andrew
These mechanism exist in all living things that replicate.
You refuse to study, and you refuse to see anything that
is outside your box enclosed by your philosophical bias.
Andrew
2020-09-17 18:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons1.uclick.gif
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
Please cite the science that tells us that.
It doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
It does not have any scientific credence.
Why can't you give an example of the science that tells us about our origins?
Why have you NEVER provided a link to any such science?
It's as if it doesn't exist.
This has been done repeatedly.
Is it possible for spell checking and repair mechanisms
to originate through "naturalistic only" processes? No.
http://youtu.be/sr-ajrgvg5s
Thanks, now do you wish to address the question that
is above your link regarding the origin of DNA repair
mechanisms?

I suspect not. Because you cannot.
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
These mechanism exist in all living things that replicate.
You refuse to study, and you refuse to see anything that
is outside your box enclosed by your philosophical bias.
JWS
2020-09-17 20:35:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons1.uclick.gif
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
Please cite the science that tells us that.
It doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
It does not have any scientific credence.
Why can't you give an example of the science that tells us about our origins?
Why have you NEVER provided a link to any such science?
It's as if it doesn't exist.
This has been done repeatedly.
Is it possible for spell checking and repair mechanisms
to originate through "naturalistic only" processes? No.
http://youtu.be/sr-ajrgvg5s
Thanks, now do you wish to address the question that
is above your link regarding the origin of DNA repair
mechanisms?
I suspect not. Because you cannot.
You see god in any of those videos?
I suspect not.
Have you shown god creating DNA or any of those mechanisms?
I KNOW not.
Do you know why god's perfect creation of DNA needs repair?
Because someone ate an apple?
I suspect you're just a fucking idiot.
Post by Andrew
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
These mechanism exist in all living things that replicate.
You refuse to study, and you refuse to see anything that
is outside your box enclosed by your philosophical bias.
Ted
2020-09-17 21:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:48:58 -0700, "Andrew"
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons
1.uclick.gif
Post by Andrew
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a
scientific
Post by Andrew
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness;
because
Post by Andrew
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the
product of
Post by Andrew
Post by JWS
Post by Andrew
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew
an intelligent causation.
Please cite the science that tells us that.
It doesn't seem to be in the public domain.
It does not have any scientific credence.
Why can't you give an example of the science that tells us about our origins?
Why have you NEVER provided a link to any such science?
It's as if it doesn't exist.
This has been done repeatedly.
Is it possible for spell checking and repair mechanisms
to originate through "naturalistic only" processes? No.
http://youtu.be/sr-ajrgvg5s
Thanks, now do you wish to address the question that
is above your link regarding the origin of DNA repair
mechanisms?
I suspect not. Because you cannot.
The DNA sequences capable of repair would be more successful in the
gene pool. That's a no-brainer, Andrew.
LinuxGal
2020-09-18 00:52:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The DNA sequences capable of repair would be more successful in the gene
pool. That's a no-brainer, Andrew.
But it would then never mutate, which would make that
species unable to adapt to changing conditions.
--
Linux Geeks: Smart. Single. Sexy.
Well, two out of three ain't bad!

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Ted
2020-09-18 04:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
The DNA sequences capable of repair would be more successful in the gene
pool. That's a no-brainer, Andrew.
But it would then never mutate, which would make that
species unable to adapt to changing conditions.
Dawkins's most important contribution to biology was proving that
natural selection took place primarily on the genetic level, not the
level of the individual organism or the species. That was c. 1976
(read his The Selfish Gene) and wasn't immediately accepted by the
scientific community but is now and has been for decades.
Peter Pan
2020-09-18 22:37:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LinuxGal
The DNA sequences capable of repair would be more successful in the gene
pool. That's a no-brainer, Andrew.
But it would then never mutate, which would make that
species unable to adapt to changing conditions.
The only mutations that count, evolutionarily speaking,
are the ones that happen in meosis when producing sperm
and eggs. Any mutations from skin cells dividing, etc,
are not going to be passed to posterity anyway.

I don't know if there's a repair mechanism in gametes.
You'd think there wouldn't be a repair manual published
before the product is designed.
Ted
2020-09-19 00:25:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by LinuxGal
The DNA sequences capable of repair would be more successful in the gene
pool. That's a no-brainer, Andrew.
But it would then never mutate, which would make that
species unable to adapt to changing conditions.
The only mutations that count, evolutionarily speaking,
are the ones that happen in meosis when producing sperm
and eggs. Any mutations from skin cells dividing, etc,
are not going to be passed to posterity anyway.
I don't know if there's a repair mechanism in gametes.
You'd think there wouldn't be a repair manual published
before the product is designed.
LOL. Well, gametes are haploid. Doesn't repair depend on the other
homolog? Or mebbe I'm thinking DNA ...
Peter Pan
2020-09-19 15:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Ted
The DNA sequences capable of repair would be more successful in
the gene
Post by Peter Pan
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Ted
pool. That's a no-brainer, Andrew.
But it would then never mutate, which would make that
species unable to adapt to changing conditions.
The only mutations that count, evolutionarily speaking,
are the ones that happen in meosis when producing sperm
and eggs. Any mutations from skin cells dividing, etc,
are not going to be passed to posterity anyway.
I don't know if there's a repair mechanism in gametes.
You'd think there wouldn't be a repair manual published
before the product is designed.
LOL. Well, gametes are haploid. Doesn't repair depend on the other
homolog? Or mebbe I'm thinking DNA ...
I don't know. It's a good question, but you're over my
head.
Ted
2020-09-19 17:48:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Peter Pan
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Ted
The DNA sequences capable of repair would be more
successful in
Post by Peter Pan
the gene
Post by Peter Pan
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Ted
pool. That's a no-brainer, Andrew.
But it would then never mutate, which would make that
species unable to adapt to changing conditions.
The only mutations that count, evolutionarily speaking,
are the ones that happen in meosis when producing sperm
and eggs. Any mutations from skin cells dividing, etc,
are not going to be passed to posterity anyway.
I don't know if there's a repair mechanism in gametes.
You'd think there wouldn't be a repair manual published
before the product is designed.
LOL. Well, gametes are haploid. Doesn't repair depend on the
other
Post by Peter Pan
homolog? Or mebbe I'm thinking DNA ...
I don't know. It's a good question, but you're over my
head.
Well you were obviously right about the mutations that count.
JWS
2020-09-20 09:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Peter Pan
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Ted
The DNA sequences capable of repair would be more successful in
the gene
Post by Peter Pan
Post by LinuxGal
Post by Ted
pool. That's a no-brainer, Andrew.
But it would then never mutate, which would make that
species unable to adapt to changing conditions.
The only mutations that count, evolutionarily speaking,
are the ones that happen in meosis when producing sperm
and eggs. Any mutations from skin cells dividing, etc,
are not going to be passed to posterity anyway.
I don't know if there's a repair mechanism in gametes.
You'd think there wouldn't be a repair manual published
before the product is designed.
LOL. Well, gametes are haploid. Doesn't repair depend on the other
homolog? Or mebbe I'm thinking DNA ...
I don't know. It's a good question, but you're over my
head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologous_recombination
Ted
2020-09-16 20:48:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:39:58 -0700, "Andrew"
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons
1.uclick.gif
Post by Andrew
You like to ridicule the ID model, but unless you have a scientific
alternative you simply expose your bias and.foolishness; because
science tells us that our origins was --> definitely the product of
an intelligent causation.
No it doesn't. Intelligence itself is a product of evolution.
Mitchell Holman
2020-09-16 12:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons
1.uclick.gif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I
absented myself from Christian assemblies." - Ben Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/jmx9ufu
Miloch
2020-09-18 04:14:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Locke
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4086/507/1600/content.todayscartoons1.uclick.gif
Dunno, Locke...there are those who think this refers to a "Friend of
Dorothy"...if ya know what I mean....



*
Loading...