Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disproving Creation: 2.6 Billion year old water found
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
May 19, 2013, 9:25:53 AM5/19/13
to
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-old-water-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
lie everything is, but several billion years.
Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never was
science!
But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
Budikka
Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
lie everything is, but several billion years.
Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never was
science!
But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
Budikka
Andrew
May 21, 2013, 12:34:45 AM5/21/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> was science!
To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
cited.
> But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
> themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
> they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
> creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
You do it all the time, which is why I appreciate your posts,
because they all turn out to support-->the truth of Creation.
> Budikka
"And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters
from the waters."
And God made the firmament, and divided the
waters which were under the firmament from
the waters which were above the firmament;
and it was so."
~ Genesis 1:6,7 ~
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-old-water-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>
> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> lie everything is, but several billion years.
What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> lie everything is, but several billion years.
> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> was science!
science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
cited.
> But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
> themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
> they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
> creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
because they all turn out to support-->the truth of Creation.
> Budikka
"And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters
from the waters."
And God made the firmament, and divided the
waters which were under the firmament from
the waters which were above the firmament;
and it was so."
~ Genesis 1:6,7 ~
Jeanne Douglas
May 21, 2013, 1:52:21 AM5/21/13
to
In article <0PednYUCp6P_ZAfM...@earthlink.com>,
Of course I know the answer. Comets in the earliest part of the solar
system during The Late Heavy Bombardment.
> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> > was science!
>
> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
Why is it fantasy? How can water not be water anymore?
You're making even less sense than usual.
> > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
> > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
> > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
> > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> You do it all the time, which is why I appreciate your posts,
> because they all turn out to support-->the truth of Creation.
When was the Commandment against bearing false witness repealed? Because
you're sure doing that every time you post your lies.
You assert the most ridiculous things imaginable and then refuse to
provide any kind of evidence for your ridiculous assertions. Are you so
deficient that you think you're exempt from having to provide evidence
for the things you say?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-old-wa
> > ter-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
> >
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
Where. There's no answer to the question below.
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-old-wa
> > ter-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
> >
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
Of course I know the answer. Comets in the earliest part of the solar
system during The Late Heavy Bombardment.
> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> > was science!
>
> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
You're making even less sense than usual.
> > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
> > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
> > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
> > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> You do it all the time, which is why I appreciate your posts,
> because they all turn out to support-->the truth of Creation.
you're sure doing that every time you post your lies.
You assert the most ridiculous things imaginable and then refuse to
provide any kind of evidence for your ridiculous assertions. Are you so
deficient that you think you're exempt from having to provide evidence
for the things you say?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Christopher A. Lee
May 21, 2013, 2:14:44 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:52:21 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <0PednYUCp6P_ZAfM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-old-wa
>> > ter-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>> >
>> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
>Where. There's no answer to the question below.
>
>Of course I know the answer. Comets in the earliest part of the solar
>system during The Late Heavy Bombardment.
The three most common elements in the universe are hydrogen helium and
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <0PednYUCp6P_ZAfM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-old-wa
>> > ter-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>> >
>> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
>Where. There's no answer to the question below.
>
>Of course I know the answer. Comets in the earliest part of the solar
>system during The Late Heavy Bombardment.
oxygen . Helium is inert and won't react. Oxygen is highly reactive -
so the most common molecule in the universe is H2O, water.
>> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>> > was science!
>>
>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>> cited.
>Why is it fantasy? How can water not be water anymore?
>
>You're making even less sense than usual.
>> > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
>> > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
>> > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
>> > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>>
>> You do it all the time, which is why I appreciate your posts,
>> because they all turn out to support-->the truth of Creation.
>When was the Commandment against bearing false witness repealed? Because
>you're sure doing that every time you post your lies.
>
>You assert the most ridiculous things imaginable and then refuse to
>provide any kind of evidence for your ridiculous assertions. Are you so
>deficient that you think you're exempt from having to provide evidence
>for the things you say?
casey
May 21, 2013, 2:30:15 AM5/21/13
to
On 20 May, 22:52, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <0PednYUCp6P_ZAfMnZ2dnUVZ_jCdn...@earthlink.com>,
they claimed under high pressure water can remain in very
hot molten rock. The heavy water signature was used to
show the current oceans were not all from comet water.
> In article <0PednYUCp6P_ZAfMnZ2dnUVZ_jCdn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Budikka666" wrote in message
> >news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Budikka666" wrote in message
> >news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > > ter-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>
> > > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> > What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> Where. There's no answer to the question below.
>
> Of course I know the answer. Comets in the earliest part of the solar
> system during The Late Heavy Bombardment.
You may want to google that one. In a recent documentary
>
> > > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> > What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> Where. There's no answer to the question below.
>
> Of course I know the answer. Comets in the earliest part of the solar
> system during The Late Heavy Bombardment.
they claimed under high pressure water can remain in very
hot molten rock. The heavy water signature was used to
show the current oceans were not all from comet water.
Yap
May 21, 2013, 2:32:36 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 12:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
All you have is ancient words from the herders.
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
While they were clever enough to con you, you have shown us how zero
your brain is.
>
> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> > was science!
>
> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
do with any pixie.
>
> > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
> > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
> > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
> > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> You do it all the time, which is why I appreciate your posts,
> because they all turn out to support-->the truth of Creation.
the time.
Yap
May 21, 2013, 2:34:15 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 2:14 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:52:21 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:52:21 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> >>news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> >>news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Jeanne Douglas
May 21, 2013, 3:24:00 AM5/21/13
to
In article
<ffdabf22-fc6d-419e...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
I won't object to that. There doesn't have to be only one source.
<ffdabf22-fc6d-419e...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew
May 21, 2013, 7:59:27 AM5/21/13
to
"casey" wrote in message news:ffdabf22-fc6d-419e...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> > "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear:
and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth;
and the gathering together of the
waters called he Seas: and God saw
that it was good."
~ Genesis 1:9,10 ~
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> > "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>>
>> > > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> > > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> > What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>>
>> > > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> > > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> > What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>>
>> Of course I know the answer. Comets in the earliest part of the solar
>> system during The Late Heavy Bombardment.
>
> You may want to google that one. In a recent documentary
> they claimed under high pressure water can remain in very
> hot molten rock. The heavy water signature was used to
> show the current oceans were not all from comet water.
"And God said, Let the waters under
>> system during The Late Heavy Bombardment.
>
> You may want to google that one. In a recent documentary
> they claimed under high pressure water can remain in very
> hot molten rock. The heavy water signature was used to
> show the current oceans were not all from comet water.
the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear:
and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth;
and the gathering together of the
waters called he Seas: and God saw
that it was good."
~ Genesis 1:9,10 ~
Mitchell Holman
May 21, 2013, 9:09:55 AM5/21/13
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:0PednYUCp6P_ZAfM...@earthlink.com:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-
>> old-water-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>>
>> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
>> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>> was science!
>
> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
>
Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
If your flood theory is right then all fresh
and salt water mixed together and then settled
into their present positions, after all.
news:0PednYUCp6P_ZAfM...@earthlink.com:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-
>> old-water-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>>
>> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
>> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>> was science!
>
> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
>
If your flood theory is right then all fresh
and salt water mixed together and then settled
into their present positions, after all.
Devils Advocaat
May 21, 2013, 9:23:47 AM5/21/13
to
On 21 May, 05:34, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> > was science!
>
> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
Go and read the very first paragraph of the article. Notice the key
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> > was science!
>
> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
word "could", its presence exposes your lie. Well done Andrew.
Wombat
May 21, 2013, 9:46:26 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 3:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote innews:0PednYUCp6P_ZAfM...@earthlink.com:
Just a point. In the 4,300 or so years since Ye Floode, surely the
rain year after year will have diluted the salt in the lakes, flushing
it out to the seas?
Wombat
> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote innews:0PednYUCp6P_ZAfM...@earthlink.com:
rain year after year will have diluted the salt in the lakes, flushing
it out to the seas?
Wombat
vivapa...@aol.com
May 21, 2013, 9:49:13 AM5/21/13
to
Mitchell Holman
May 21, 2013, 10:20:35 AM5/21/13
to
Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in
news:d09dc622-6305-4a2f...@s8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
> On May 21, 3:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote
>> innews:0PednYUCp6P_ZAfMnZ2dnUVZ_
> jCd...@earthlink.com:
Great Lakes - largest fresh water lakes in the
world - were landlocked until canals were built.
http://www.globalchange.gov/resources/educators/toolkit/explore/great-
lakes
news:d09dc622-6305-4a2f...@s8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
> On May 21, 3:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote
> jCd...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> >news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com
>> >..
>> > .
>> >>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-yea
>> >>r-
>> >> old-water-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>>
>> >> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth
>> >> creationists lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> > What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See
>> > below.
>>
>> >> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>> >> was science!
>>
>> > To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>> > science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the
>> > site cited.
>>
>> Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
>>
>> If your flood theory is right then all fresh
>> and salt water mixed together and then settled
>> into their present positions, after all.
>
> Just a point. In the 4,300 or so years since Ye Floode, surely the
> rain year after year will have diluted the salt in the lakes, flushing
> it out to the seas?
>
Most lakes don't flush out to the sea. The
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> >news:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com
>> >..
>> > .
>> >>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-yea
>> >>r-
>> >> old-water-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>>
>> >> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth
>> >> creationists lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> > What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See
>> > below.
>>
>> >> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>> >> was science!
>>
>> > To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>> > science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the
>> > site cited.
>>
>> Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
>>
>> If your flood theory is right then all fresh
>> and salt water mixed together and then settled
>> into their present positions, after all.
>
> Just a point. In the 4,300 or so years since Ye Floode, surely the
> rain year after year will have diluted the salt in the lakes, flushing
> it out to the seas?
>
Great Lakes - largest fresh water lakes in the
world - were landlocked until canals were built.
http://www.globalchange.gov/resources/educators/toolkit/explore/great-
lakes
Tom McDonald
May 21, 2013, 11:29:48 AM5/21/13
to
Wombat
May 21, 2013, 2:30:53 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 4:20 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
¿qué? I have seen the Niagara Falls, which drains ALL the other lakes
into Lake Ontario then to the St Lawrence River then to the sea.
I once saw the outflow of a freshwater Scottish loch where you could
see the "slope" of the water as it entered the exit river. The sound
as my jaw hit the floor was almost audible. It was as if the joke of
the Irishman who bought a set of water skis then looked for sloping
water could work!
Wombat
> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote innews:d09dc622-6305-4a2f...@s8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 3:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote
> >> innews:0PednYUCp6P_ZAfMnZ2dnUVZ_
> > jCdn...@earthlink.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 3:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote
> >> innews:0PednYUCp6P_ZAfMnZ2dnUVZ_
into Lake Ontario then to the St Lawrence River then to the sea.
I once saw the outflow of a freshwater Scottish loch where you could
see the "slope" of the water as it entered the exit river. The sound
as my jaw hit the floor was almost audible. It was as if the joke of
the Irishman who bought a set of water skis then looked for sloping
water could work!
Wombat
Mitchell Holman
May 21, 2013, 5:35:44 PM5/21/13
to
Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in
news:f24fae24-37ee-46ac...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On May 21, 4:20 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote
>> innews:d09dc622-6305-4a2f-8f9b-a1391829
> 96...@s8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
"Due to the sheer size of these water bodies and the fact
that they are landlocked, the Great Lakes create their own
weather patterns."
news:f24fae24-37ee-46ac...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On May 21, 4:20 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote
> 96...@s8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
that they are landlocked, the Great Lakes create their own
weather patterns."
Don Martin
May 21, 2013, 7:27:22 PM5/21/13
to
canal engineering gone awry.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Christopher A. Lee
May 21, 2013, 6:50:18 PM5/21/13
to
existing river was widened, deepened, straightened out and locks
built.
The word comes from non-navigable rivers being made navigable - and
the men who built them were the navvies.
Rivers that drain into landlocked lakes bring dissolved minerals, but
there is no outlet to carry them on down to the sea so they end up
saline like the Dead Sea or the Great Salt Lake, Lesser examples are
Tahoe and Mono.
Free Lunch
May 21, 2013, 7:00:01 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 15:50:18 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
All freshwater lakes are part of a river system that ends at a (saline)
sea. I'm not sure what Mitchell really intended to say.
>>I find it difficult to believe that the Niagara Falls were created by
>>canal engineering gone awry.
>
>The St. Lawrence Seaway is actually a navigation, not a canal - the
>existing river was widened, deepened, straightened out and locks
>built.
There are locks along the Great Lakes, but most come in clusters. The
Sault locks are a group (4?) going around those falls from Superior to
Huron/Michigan. Are there no locks in the St. Mary's River
(Detroit/Windsor -- Huron to Erie)? Welland Canal connects Erie to
Ontario. I'm not sure what that river is like. Several locks come along
the river after that.
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
sea. I'm not sure what Mitchell really intended to say.
>>I find it difficult to believe that the Niagara Falls were created by
>>canal engineering gone awry.
>
>The St. Lawrence Seaway is actually a navigation, not a canal - the
>existing river was widened, deepened, straightened out and locks
>built.
Sault locks are a group (4?) going around those falls from Superior to
Huron/Michigan. Are there no locks in the St. Mary's River
(Detroit/Windsor -- Huron to Erie)? Welland Canal connects Erie to
Ontario. I'm not sure what that river is like. Several locks come along
the river after that.
Andrew
May 21, 2013, 7:41:49 PM5/21/13
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA1C7522BCCCB4...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-
> and then settled into their present positions,
Eventually, but there are other factors that would
account for differences of salinity that exist today.
Yes, the flood happened folks.
Jesus compares the days of Noah and the days of
Lot to our present day.
He said.
"When the Son of Man returns, it will be
like it was in Noah's day. In those days, the
people enjoyed banquets and parties and
weddings right up to the time Noah entered
his boat and the flood came and destroyed
them all.
"And the world will be as it was in the days
of Lot. People went about their daily business
-eating and drinking, buying and selling,
farming and building- until the morning Lot
left Sodom.
Then fire and burning sulfur rained down from
heaven and destroyed them all. Yes, it will be
'business as usual' right up to the day when
the Son of Man is revealed."
~ Luke 17:26-30 ~
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-
>>>
>>> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>>> lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>>
>>> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>>> was science!
>>
>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>> cited.
>>
> Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
>
> If your flood theory is right then all fresh
> and salt water mixed together
Most likely.
>>> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>>> lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>>
>>> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>>> was science!
>>
>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>> cited.
>>
> Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
>
> If your flood theory is right then all fresh
> and salt water mixed together
> and then settled into their present positions,
account for differences of salinity that exist today.
Yes, the flood happened folks.
Jesus compares the days of Noah and the days of
Lot to our present day.
He said.
"When the Son of Man returns, it will be
like it was in Noah's day. In those days, the
people enjoyed banquets and parties and
weddings right up to the time Noah entered
his boat and the flood came and destroyed
them all.
"And the world will be as it was in the days
of Lot. People went about their daily business
-eating and drinking, buying and selling,
farming and building- until the morning Lot
left Sodom.
Then fire and burning sulfur rained down from
heaven and destroyed them all. Yes, it will be
'business as usual' right up to the day when
the Son of Man is revealed."
~ Luke 17:26-30 ~
Free Lunch
May 21, 2013, 7:44:44 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:41:49 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA1C7522BCCCB4...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-
>>>>
>>>> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>>>> lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>>
>>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>>>
>>>> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>>>> was science!
>>>
>>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>>> cited.
>>>
>> Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
>>
>> If your flood theory is right then all fresh
>> and salt water mixed together
>
>Most likely.
>
>> and then settled into their present positions,
>
>Eventually, but there are other factors that would
>account for differences of salinity that exist today.
If your claim were not false, evolution would happen much faster than
all evidence implies.
>Yes, the flood happened folks.
We all know that it could not have happened.
>Jesus compares the days of Noah and the days of
>Lot to our present day.
>
>He said.
>
>"When the Son of Man returns, it will be
>like it was in Noah's day. In those days, the
>people enjoyed banquets and parties and
>weddings right up to the time Noah entered
>his boat and the flood came and destroyed
>them all.
>
>"And the world will be as it was in the days
>of Lot. People went about their daily business
>-eating and drinking, buying and selling,
>farming and building- until the morning Lot
>left Sodom.
>
>Then fire and burning sulfur rained down from
>heaven and destroyed them all. Yes, it will be
>'business as usual' right up to the day when
>the Son of Man is revealed."
> ~ Luke 17:26-30 ~
>
You preach lies and wallow in your sin.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA1C7522BCCCB4...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year-
>>>>
>>>> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>>>> lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>>
>>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>>>
>>>> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>>>> was science!
>>>
>>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>>> cited.
>>>
>> Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
>>
>> If your flood theory is right then all fresh
>> and salt water mixed together
>
>Most likely.
>
>> and then settled into their present positions,
>
>Eventually, but there are other factors that would
>account for differences of salinity that exist today.
all evidence implies.
>Yes, the flood happened folks.
>Jesus compares the days of Noah and the days of
>Lot to our present day.
>
>He said.
>
>"When the Son of Man returns, it will be
>like it was in Noah's day. In those days, the
>people enjoyed banquets and parties and
>weddings right up to the time Noah entered
>his boat and the flood came and destroyed
>them all.
>
>"And the world will be as it was in the days
>of Lot. People went about their daily business
>-eating and drinking, buying and selling,
>farming and building- until the morning Lot
>left Sodom.
>
>Then fire and burning sulfur rained down from
>heaven and destroyed them all. Yes, it will be
>'business as usual' right up to the day when
>the Son of Man is revealed."
> ~ Luke 17:26-30 ~
>
casey
May 21, 2013, 7:57:58 PM5/21/13
to
On 21 May, 04:59, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "casey" wrote in messagenews:ffdabf22-fc6d-419e...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
A poetic piece of magical thinking. What has that
to do with the geological history of the Earth
which is being unravelled by science?
> "casey" wrote in messagenews:ffdabf22-fc6d-419e...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
to do with the geological history of the Earth
which is being unravelled by science?
Father Haskell
May 21, 2013, 8:04:02 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 12:34 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth?
Comets, same as the origin of all of the water on the Moon,
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth?
as well as Mercury, Mars, Europa, Enceladus, and Titan.
Why does Europa have more water than Earth?
Father Haskell
May 21, 2013, 8:05:46 PM5/21/13
to
internal combustion engines.
Father Haskell
May 21, 2013, 8:08:11 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 9:49 am, "vivapadre...@aol.com" <vivapadre...@aol.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:25:53 AM UTC-7, Budikka666 wrote:
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never was
>
> > science!
>
> > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
>
> > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
>
> > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
>
> > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> > Budikka
>
> Scientists make up the numbers. There's no 100% dating accuracy beyond seven or so thousand years. Hence, theories.
What accuracy are you looking for?
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never was
>
> > science!
>
> > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
>
> > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
>
> > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
>
> > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> > Budikka
>
> Scientists make up the numbers. There's no 100% dating accuracy beyond seven or so thousand years. Hence, theories.
casey
May 21, 2013, 8:13:48 PM5/21/13
to
The rocks that formed planets and moons already
had water and under high pressures molten rock
does not lose its water. The ratio of heavy and light
water is different in comets than in our oceans.
> Why does Europa have more water than Earth?
according to their geological history.
Jeanne Douglas
May 21, 2013, 8:18:01 PM5/21/13
to
In article <e4318f4a-d7b2-4d14...@googlegroups.com>,
You DO know, don't you, that there are many dating methods other than
carbon-14??
carbon-14??
Father Haskell
May 21, 2013, 8:20:19 PM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 7:59 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "casey" wrote in messagenews:ffdabf22-fc6d-419e...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Rubbish. Water is all thanks to Ra, who created Shu, the air god
and his wife Tefnut, the goddess of moisture.
> "casey" wrote in messagenews:ffdabf22-fc6d-419e...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
and his wife Tefnut, the goddess of moisture.
Budikka666
May 21, 2013, 8:44:12 PM5/21/13
to
On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
I'd much rather go by what the cosmologists say that by your LIES.
>
> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> > was science!
>
> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
Where is your scientific refutation? Nowhere - because I stated and
> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> cited.
as you've now agreed, YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE
Budikka
casey
May 21, 2013, 9:16:56 PM5/21/13
to
On 21 May, 17:18, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <e4318f4a-d7b2-4d14...@googlegroups.com>,
instead of making use of the internet to look at how
science works things out.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_scientists_tell_the_age_of_the_Earth
> In article <e4318f4a-d7b2-4d14...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "vivapadre...@aol.com" <vivapadre...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:25:53 AM UTC-7, Budikka666 wrote:
> > >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "vivapadre...@aol.com" <vivapadre...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:25:53 AM UTC-7, Budikka666 wrote:
> > > ter-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>
> > > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>
> > > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> > > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never was
>
> > > science!
>
> > > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
>
> > > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
>
> > > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
>
> > > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > Scientists make up the numbers. There's no 100% dating accuracy beyond seven
> > or so thousand years. Hence, theories.
>
> You DO know, don't you, that there are many dating methods other than
> carbon-14??
It seems theists rely 100% on creationist fairy tales
>
> > > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>
> > > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> > > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never was
>
> > > science!
>
> > > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
>
> > > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
>
> > > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
>
> > > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > Scientists make up the numbers. There's no 100% dating accuracy beyond seven
> > or so thousand years. Hence, theories.
>
> You DO know, don't you, that there are many dating methods other than
> carbon-14??
instead of making use of the internet to look at how
science works things out.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_scientists_tell_the_age_of_the_Earth
Message has been deleted
Mitchell Holman
May 21, 2013, 9:52:51 PM5/21/13
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:9eadnX9qifKimwHM...@earthlink.com:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsA1C7522BCCCB4...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-yea
>>>> r-
>>>>
>>>> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth
>>>> creationists lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>>
>>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>>>
>>>> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>>>> was science!
>>>
>>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>>> cited.
>>>
>> Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
>>
>> If your flood theory is right then all fresh
>> and salt water mixed together
>
> Most likely.
>
>> and then settled into their present positions,
>
> Eventually, but there are other factors that would
> account for differences of salinity that exist today.
>
> Yes, the flood happened folks.
>
Consider all things that exist but should not if
Noah's flood happened.
1) Carlbad Caverns. Formed 250 million years ago,
but should have been totally destroyed by a worldwide
flood. Same with all the other deep earth caverns
around the world, millions of years old and untouched
any flood.
2) Cave paintings at Alta Mira and Lascoux, created
14,000 years ago. A flood 5,000 years ago would have
destroyed them. Ditto for the Neanderthal paintings
at Nerja Caves in Spain, 43,000 years old, untouched
by any flood.
3) Death Valley. Lowest point in the US, would have
filled up with mud and sediment and marine fossils in
a Noah flood. Instead the place is volcanic pit of
gravel and volcanic ash that been that way for millions
of years.
4) Dalarna Spruce tree, Sweden, 9,000 years old
and still growing. Not killed by any year long flood.
news:9eadnX9qifKimwHM...@earthlink.com:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsA1C7522BCCCB4...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-yea
>>>> r-
>>>>
>>>> Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth
>>>> creationists lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>>
>>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>>>
>>>> Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>>>> was science!
>>>
>>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>>> cited.
>>>
>> Why aren't all lakes and seas of equal salinity?
>>
>> If your flood theory is right then all fresh
>> and salt water mixed together
>
> Most likely.
>
>> and then settled into their present positions,
>
> Eventually, but there are other factors that would
> account for differences of salinity that exist today.
>
> Yes, the flood happened folks.
>
Noah's flood happened.
1) Carlbad Caverns. Formed 250 million years ago,
but should have been totally destroyed by a worldwide
flood. Same with all the other deep earth caverns
around the world, millions of years old and untouched
any flood.
2) Cave paintings at Alta Mira and Lascoux, created
14,000 years ago. A flood 5,000 years ago would have
destroyed them. Ditto for the Neanderthal paintings
at Nerja Caves in Spain, 43,000 years old, untouched
by any flood.
3) Death Valley. Lowest point in the US, would have
filled up with mud and sediment and marine fossils in
a Noah flood. Instead the place is volcanic pit of
gravel and volcanic ash that been that way for millions
of years.
4) Dalarna Spruce tree, Sweden, 9,000 years old
and still growing. Not killed by any year long flood.
Jeanne Douglas
May 21, 2013, 9:53:55 PM5/21/13
to
In article <6c7op8lofggagk22o...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Suppose you tell us how water can be 2.6 billion years old, mister
> science?
Water is 13 billion years old.
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> science?
Water is 13 billion years old.
Andrew
May 22, 2013, 2:08:59 AM5/22/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:824191e2-26bd-4bb6...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
then it would be best to go to the word of the living God;
of the One who Created the heavens and the earth the seas
and the fountains of waters.
"Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his
judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven,
and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
>> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>> > was science!
>>
>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>> cited.
>
> Where is your scientific refutation?
The refutation is the fact that your claim is based on
conjecture and pure fantasy.
> Nowhere - because I stated and as you've now agreed,
> YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE
Lol! You cite from a magazine that says its a magazine of
science, but that doesn't mean that it is without fantasy and
conjecture forced to fit with currently acceptable theories.
You swallowed the story. You thought it was real.
Thus your gullibility has been exposed to everyone.
> Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>>
>> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> I'd much rather go by what the cosmologists say that by your LIES.
If you want to know the truth about the origin our water,
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>>
>> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>>
>> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> I'd much rather go by what the cosmologists say that by your LIES.
then it would be best to go to the word of the living God;
of the One who Created the heavens and the earth the seas
and the fountains of waters.
"Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his
judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven,
and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
>> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
>> > was science!
>>
>> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
>> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
>> cited.
>
> Where is your scientific refutation?
conjecture and pure fantasy.
> Nowhere - because I stated and as you've now agreed,
> YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE
science, but that doesn't mean that it is without fantasy and
conjecture forced to fit with currently acceptable theories.
You swallowed the story. You thought it was real.
Thus your gullibility has been exposed to everyone.
> Budikka
Andrew
Devils Advocaat
May 22, 2013, 2:57:16 AM5/22/13
to
On 22 May, 07:08, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:824191e2-26bd-4bb6...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
Still don't get it, do you Andrew?
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:824191e2-26bd-4bb6...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
Wombat
May 22, 2013, 3:09:18 AM5/22/13
to
On May 21, 11:35 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
Still does not change the fact that water flows to the sea from them.
Rain in - diluting the salt water - excess runs out. Repeat for 4
thousand years.
Wombat
> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote innews:f24fae24-37ee-46ac...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 4:20 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote
> >> innews:d09dc622-6305-4a2f-8f9b-a1391829
> > 9...@s8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 4:20 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote
> >> innews:d09dc622-6305-4a2f-8f9b-a1391829
Rain in - diluting the salt water - excess runs out. Repeat for 4
thousand years.
Wombat
Jeanne Douglas
May 22, 2013, 4:27:31 AM5/22/13
to
In article <tI-dnV2RJ6xh_QHM...@earthlink.com>,
NO. It's based on facts and evidence.
> > Nowhere - because I stated and as you've now agreed,
> > YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE
>
> Lol! You cite from a magazine that says its a magazine of
> science, but that doesn't mean that it is without fantasy and
> conjecture forced to fit with currently acceptable theories.
>
> You swallowed the story. You thought it was real.
>
> Thus your gullibility has been exposed to everyone.
Serioously, dude. Seek medical help. You seem to actually have no
concept of what is real and what is fantasy. Living in the real world
with that pathology has to be extra dangerous.
> > Nowhere - because I stated and as you've now agreed,
> > YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE
>
> Lol! You cite from a magazine that says its a magazine of
> science, but that doesn't mean that it is without fantasy and
> conjecture forced to fit with currently acceptable theories.
>
> You swallowed the story. You thought it was real.
>
> Thus your gullibility has been exposed to everyone.
concept of what is real and what is fantasy. Living in the real world
with that pathology has to be extra dangerous.
Message has been deleted
Wombat
May 22, 2013, 9:27:44 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> how can water be 13?
Thank you for yet again shewing your ignorance of life, the universe
and everything.
Wombat
snip sanctimonious twaddle
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> >> messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.co
> >> >> m...
> >> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> >> >> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> >> >> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> >> >> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> >> >I'd much rather go by what the cosmologists say that by your LIES.
>
> >> >> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> >> >> > was science!
>
> >> >> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> >> >> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> >> >> cited.
>
> >> >Where is your scientific refutation? Nowhere - because I stated and
> >> >as you've now agreed, YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE
>
> >> >Budikka
>
> >> Suppose you tell us how water can be 2.6 billion years old, mister
> >> science?
>
> >Water is 13 billion years old.
>
> According to athiest lies, the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old so
>
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> >> messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.co
> >> >> m...
> >> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> >> >> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> >> >> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> >> >> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> >> >I'd much rather go by what the cosmologists say that by your LIES.
>
> >> >> > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never
> >> >> > was science!
>
> >> >> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old is not
> >> >> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer' for the site
> >> >> cited.
>
> >> >Where is your scientific refutation? Nowhere - because I stated and
> >> >as you've now agreed, YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE
>
> >> >Budikka
>
> >> Suppose you tell us how water can be 2.6 billion years old, mister
> >> science?
>
> >Water is 13 billion years old.
>
> how can water be 13?
Thank you for yet again shewing your ignorance of life, the universe
and everything.
Wombat
snip sanctimonious twaddle
James
May 22, 2013, 11:09:52 AM5/22/13
to
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
how old it says the earth is.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
>On May 20, 11:34�pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>>
>> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
The Bible has no problem with an 'old' earth. Just read Ge 1:1 and see
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>>
>> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
how old it says the earth is.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Christopher A. Lee
May 22, 2013, 12:04:01 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:09:52 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:
>Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>>On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>>>
>>> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>>> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
>The Bible has no problem with an 'old' earth. Just read Ge 1:1 and see
>how old it says the earth is.
>
>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org
1. Why do you imagine we give a shit what the Bible says, in-your-face
sociopathic moron?
2. When you do the math using what the NT says, you get the 4004 BCE
that the young Earth creationists believe - that's where they get
it from, in-denial sociopathic moron.
3. If you don't like it, tough, take it up with them, in-your-face,
sociopathic moron.
4. And do it where they give a crap, in-your-face, sociopathic moron.
wrote:
>Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>>On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>>>
>>> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>>> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
>The Bible has no problem with an 'old' earth. Just read Ge 1:1 and see
>how old it says the earth is.
>
>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org
sociopathic moron?
2. When you do the math using what the NT says, you get the 4004 BCE
that the young Earth creationists believe - that's where they get
it from, in-denial sociopathic moron.
3. If you don't like it, tough, take it up with them, in-your-face,
sociopathic moron.
4. And do it where they give a crap, in-your-face, sociopathic moron.
Message has been deleted
Budikka666
May 22, 2013, 7:03:57 PM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 1:08 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:824191e2-26bd-4bb6...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
trash like you who has a track record of RUNNING and a track record of
ZERO evidence.
What's it going to take to bitch slap those FACTS into ignorant skull?
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admits he has nothing to
offer:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/71c25fd4761b099d?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4bb6ab05a33bab1a?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/dae5640e44de4e8b?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/52822b1a5c47205a?hl=en&scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank's most recent admission that his
omnipotent god is worthless in four threads simultaneously:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8b50cdfc13197e8?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/7b801d93211e51e7?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits he has no faith in his own
god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits that even he doesn't believe:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
More excuses from Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/cbe97ddc53be5a00?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/59b246e0c8e3e4f9?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e9b89ac33e01ce5b?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/836bea1f79468d9b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/728ceae4eb1d55e3?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3a31410d460b908e?hl=en&scoring=d&
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:824191e2-26bd-4bb6...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> >> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> >> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> >> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> > I'd much rather go by what the cosmologists say that by your LIES.
>
> If you want to know the truth about the origin our water,
Then I wouldn't come to a lying, vacuous, cowardly piece of theist
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
>
> >> > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
> >> > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> >> What is the *origin* of all of the water on planet Earth? See below.
>
> > I'd much rather go by what the cosmologists say that by your LIES.
>
> If you want to know the truth about the origin our water,
trash like you who has a track record of RUNNING and a track record of
ZERO evidence.
What's it going to take to bitch slap those FACTS into ignorant skull?
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admits he has nothing to
offer:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/71c25fd4761b099d?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4bb6ab05a33bab1a?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/dae5640e44de4e8b?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/52822b1a5c47205a?hl=en&scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank's most recent admission that his
omnipotent god is worthless in four threads simultaneously:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8b50cdfc13197e8?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/7b801d93211e51e7?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits he has no faith in his own
god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits that even he doesn't believe:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
More excuses from Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/cbe97ddc53be5a00?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/59b246e0c8e3e4f9?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e9b89ac33e01ce5b?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/836bea1f79468d9b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/728ceae4eb1d55e3?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3a31410d460b908e?hl=en&scoring=d&
Budikka
Budikka666
May 22, 2013, 7:07:55 PM5/22/13
to
On May 21, 8:21 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
formal debate you agreed to. Start it right here and now by posting
your five best items of evidence for this creator god of yours, or
your five best items of evidence for this Jesus Christ, miracle-
working son of a god you claim loves us, or your five best items of
evidence for the Noahic flood you claim happened, or your five best
items of evidence showing that there was a creation some 6,000 years
ago.
Or you can keep on running and making excuses like every creationist
does. Your choice.
Budikka
wrote:
> Suppose you tell us how water can be 2.6 billion years old, mister
> science?
I'll be delighted to if you can ever find the GUTS to face me in the
> science?
formal debate you agreed to. Start it right here and now by posting
your five best items of evidence for this creator god of yours, or
your five best items of evidence for this Jesus Christ, miracle-
working son of a god you claim loves us, or your five best items of
evidence for the Noahic flood you claim happened, or your five best
items of evidence showing that there was a creation some 6,000 years
ago.
Or you can keep on running and making excuses like every creationist
does. Your choice.
Budikka
casey
May 22, 2013, 7:12:17 PM5/22/13
to
On 22 May, 04:29, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> [...]
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >Water is 13 billion years old.
>
>
> According to athiest lies, the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old so
> how can water be 13?
Are you really that ignorant? Or are you just being infantile?
> how can water be 13?
If it is ignorance I suggest you read up the science
for the answer.
Jeanne Douglas
May 22, 2013, 7:46:15 PM5/22/13
to
In article <uuapp85e5net56c6n...@4ax.com>,
I don't know how long into the process water was formed).
> According to athiest lies, the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old so
> how can water be 13?
Because that's how old the universe is (yeah, it's older than that, but
> how can water be 13?
I don't know how long into the process water was formed).
Jeanne Douglas
May 22, 2013, 7:46:44 PM5/22/13
to
In article
<83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
For some reason, he seems to believe that the only water in the universe
is on planet Earth.
<83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
is on planet Earth.
Christopher A. Lee
May 22, 2013, 7:48:53 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:15 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
Why does the pathetic, in-your-face proven serial liar pretend that
the scientific knowledge base is "atheist lies" when it is nothing to
do with atheism?
the scientific knowledge base is "atheist lies" when it is nothing to
do with atheism?
Christopher A. Lee
May 22, 2013, 7:51:24 PM5/22/13
to
Message has been deleted
Jeanne Douglas
May 22, 2013, 9:53:25 PM5/22/13
to
In article <bspqp8pqlnrojmkcs...@4ax.com>,
> Jeanne, this is a no braner. What other water could there be?
Oh, dear, I was half joking, but it seems I was completely accurate.
There's water in Mars. There's water in the Moon. Jupiter's moon Europa
may have more water than the Earth. There's water in interplanetary and
interstellar space.
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> > >> >> messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googleg
> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> > >> >> rou
> >> > >> >> ps.co
> >> > >> >> m...
> >> > >> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-y
> >> > >> >> >ear
> >> > >> >> ps.co
> >> > >> >> m...
> >> > >> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-y
> >> > >> >> >ear
Oh, dear, I was half joking, but it seems I was completely accurate.
There's water in Mars. There's water in the Moon. Jupiter's moon Europa
may have more water than the Earth. There's water in interplanetary and
interstellar space.
Jeanne Douglas
May 22, 2013, 9:53:40 PM5/22/13
to
In article <ldmqp8hrjkmgnbui0...@4ax.com>,
Good grief.
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >
> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >
> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> > >> >> messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googleg
> >> > >> >> rou
> >> > >> >> ps.co
> >> > >> >> m...
> >> > >> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-y
> >> > >> >> >ear
> >> > >> >> rou
> >> > >> >> ps.co
> >> > >> >> m...
> >> > >> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-y
> >> > >> >> >ear
Christopher A. Lee
May 22, 2013, 10:15:27 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
If you watch Thunderf00t's "Why do people laugh at creationists"
videos, the loonie in the first one is reading Hovind's bullshit
including this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&list=PLAC3481305829426D
videos, the loonie in the first one is reading Hovind's bullshit
including this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&list=PLAC3481305829426D
Message has been deleted
Daryl
May 22, 2013, 10:59:57 PM5/22/13
to
On 5/22/2013 8:19 PM, Brother Love wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> Please, Jeanne, stop and think for a second, will you? How *MUCH*
> water is on Mars? And how "MUCH" water is on Jupiter's satellites? And
> if water really is plentiful in interplanetary space, then shouldn't
> there be as much water (proportionately to there gravitys) on all the
> other planets as on Earth?
Easy answer on Europa, which is an ice covered moon of Jupiter that has
under ice water. It even has an oxygen based atmosphere. It is
speculated that there might be life under the ice due to the conditions
are there to create or have life. It may only be microbes but there is
a good chance it may exist. The next probe for Europa is in 2022
where they will do a landing.
>
> Please, Jeanne, have an opened mind for a change, will you?
Now, you need to open that mind up a bit, don'cha think?
>
> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> water is on Mars? And how "MUCH" water is on Jupiter's satellites? And
> if water really is plentiful in interplanetary space, then shouldn't
> there be as much water (proportionately to there gravitys) on all the
> other planets as on Earth?
Easy answer on Europa, which is an ice covered moon of Jupiter that has
under ice water. It even has an oxygen based atmosphere. It is
speculated that there might be life under the ice due to the conditions
are there to create or have life. It may only be microbes but there is
a good chance it may exist. The next probe for Europa is in 2022
where they will do a landing.
>
> Please, Jeanne, have an opened mind for a change, will you?
Now, you need to open that mind up a bit, don'cha think?
>
> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!
>
Jeanne Douglas
May 22, 2013, 11:21:24 PM5/22/13
to
In article <40vqp85kqunkhbb4q...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> And how "MUCH" water is on Jupiter's satellites?
What part of " Europa may have more water than the Earth" didn't you
understand? In fact, there may be twice the water that the Earthy has.
> And
> if water really is plentiful in interplanetary space, then shouldn't
> there be as much water (proportionately to there gravitys) on all the
> other planets as on Earth?
Why?
> Please, Jeanne, have an opened mind for a change, will you?
I have a perfectly open mind. That's why I know the facts, not the
fantasies.
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> Please, Jeanne, stop and think for a second, will you? How *MUCH*
> water is on Mars?
We don't know yet, but it could be a lot.
> water is on Mars?
> And how "MUCH" water is on Jupiter's satellites?
understand? In fact, there may be twice the water that the Earthy has.
> And
> if water really is plentiful in interplanetary space, then shouldn't
> there be as much water (proportionately to there gravitys) on all the
> other planets as on Earth?
> Please, Jeanne, have an opened mind for a change, will you?
fantasies.
Wombat
May 23, 2013, 1:48:53 AM5/23/13
to
On May 22, 11:08 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Do you drink water, Wombat?
Relevance? The hydrogen in water came (mainly) from the Big Bang and
oxygen is formed in stars which exploded as supernovae. The reaction
between the two forms dihydrogen monoxide. Next question?
Wombat
wrote:
Relevance? The hydrogen in water came (mainly) from the Big Bang and
oxygen is formed in stars which exploded as supernovae. The reaction
between the two forms dihydrogen monoxide. Next question?
Wombat
Wombat
May 23, 2013, 1:51:54 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 2:50 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017-bfaf-435b0675f...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017-bfaf-435b0675f...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Jeanne, this is a no braner. What other water could there be?
>
Comets, Europa, even on Mars. Try again.
>
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
SkyEyes
May 23, 2013, 1:55:58 AM5/23/13
to
On May 22, 4:46 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <83e1017b-f81f-4017-bfaf-435b0675f...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> In article
-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
blutarsky
May 23, 2013, 8:30:17 AM5/23/13
to
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:g42sp853047tp883e...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:21:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com
@a8g200
> Proove it.
proof it.
blutarsky
--
I swear: if I live to complete this autobiography, I will go through it
again and cross out all the 'Hi ho's.'
Hi ho.
news:g42sp853047tp883e...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:21:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <40vqp85kqunkhbb4q...@4ax.com>,
>> Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <bspqp8pqlnrojmkcs...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article
>>> >> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017-bfaf-435b0675f912
>
>>In article <40vqp85kqunkhbb4q...@4ax.com>,
>> Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <bspqp8pqlnrojmkcs...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article
@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com
>>> >> >>,
>>> >> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love
>>> >> >> <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>> >> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
>>> >> >> > >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
>>> >> >> > >> >> messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd-8504-1fc4fa107016
>>> >> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love
>>> >> >> <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>> >> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
>>> >> >> > >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
@a8g200
proof it.
blutarsky
--
I swear: if I live to complete this autobiography, I will go through it
again and cross out all the 'Hi ho's.'
Hi ho.
Wombat
May 23, 2013, 9:26:54 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 2:17 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:51:54 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> I can't stomach people like you, Wombat.
Because I show you to be an ignoramus?
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:51:54 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
Because I show you to be an ignoramus?
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
Father Haskell
May 23, 2013, 10:16:14 AM5/23/13
to
On May 21, 9:16 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 21 May, 17:18, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <e4318f4a-d7b2-4d14...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > "vivapadre...@aol.com" <vivapadre...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:25:53 AM UTC-7, Budikka666 wrote:
> > > >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
> > > > ter-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>
> > > > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
>
> > > > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
>
> > > > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> > > > Budikka
>
> > > Scientists make up the numbers. There's no 100% dating accuracy beyond seven
> > > or so thousand years. Hence, theories.
>
> > You DO know, don't you, that there are many dating methods other than
> > carbon-14??
>
> It seems theists rely 100% on creationist fairy tales
> instead of making use of the internet to look at how
> science works things out.
>
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_scientists_tell_the_age_of_the_Earth
"... we can date zirconium crystal samples back to nearly 4
billion years with an accuracy of + or - a few million years... "
That's an accuracy of what, 0.1%?
> On 21 May, 17:18, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <e4318f4a-d7b2-4d14...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > "vivapadre...@aol.com" <vivapadre...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:25:53 AM UTC-7, Budikka666 wrote:
> > > >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion-year...
> > > > ter-found-in-reservoirs-under-canada/#.UZjR0eJtJyA
>
> > > > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>
> > > > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> > > > Yup - not "less than 6,000 years old" as the young-Earth creationists
>
> > > > lie everything is, but several billion years.
>
> > > > Young-Earth creation is dead. It never was alive because it never was
>
> > > > science!
>
> > > > But don't take my word for it! Take the word of the creationists
>
> > > > science!
>
>
> > > > themselves, not a single one of whom will so much as even pretend that
>
> > > > they can offer positive scientific evidence for a creator or for a
>
> > > > creation, and they will admit that right here in this thread.
>
> > > > Budikka
>
> > > Scientists make up the numbers. There's no 100% dating accuracy beyond seven
> > > or so thousand years. Hence, theories.
>
> > You DO know, don't you, that there are many dating methods other than
> > carbon-14??
>
> It seems theists rely 100% on creationist fairy tales
> instead of making use of the internet to look at how
> science works things out.
>
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_scientists_tell_the_age_of_the_Earth
"... we can date zirconium crystal samples back to nearly 4
billion years with an accuracy of + or - a few million years... "
That's an accuracy of what, 0.1%?
Message has been deleted
Alex W.
May 23, 2013, 10:58:20 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
wrote:
How does that compare with other reputable dating methods
like throwing darts at a board while blindfolded, picking
lottery numbers, divining the answer in the entrails of a
sacrificial dove, or asking the president of the Dyscalculia
Society of America (branches in all 69 states!) to tease
apart the restaurant bill at the annual office dinner?
wrote:
like throwing darts at a board while blindfolded, picking
lottery numbers, divining the answer in the entrails of a
sacrificial dove, or asking the president of the Dyscalculia
Society of America (branches in all 69 states!) to tease
apart the restaurant bill at the annual office dinner?
Ken
May 23, 2013, 11:51:51 AM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 7:30 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote
this mindless load of shit:
> No! Three words for you: Keep your mouth shut!
The Fucking Dumbass can't even count!
And here's three words for you: "Eat shit and Die"
Oh wait
That's four, but you can't count, so why tell you
this mindless load of shit:
> No! Three words for you: Keep your mouth shut!
The Fucking Dumbass can't even count!
And here's three words for you: "Eat shit and Die"
Oh wait
That's four, but you can't count, so why tell you
Father Haskell
May 23, 2013, 12:07:49 PM5/23/13
to
Wombat
May 23, 2013, 12:29:26 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 4:30 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
you going to continue to froth at the mouth?
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> No! Three words for you: Keep your mouth shut!
Why? Anyway, are you ever going to answer those points I made, or are
you going to continue to froth at the mouth?
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jeanne Douglas
May 23, 2013, 5:23:43 PM5/23/13
to
In article <g42sp853047tp883e...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:21:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> Proove it.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)>
<http://io9.com/theres-more-water-on-jupiters-moon-europa-than-there-5913
104>
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:21:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <40vqp85kqunkhbb4q...@4ax.com>,
> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <bspqp8pqlnrojmkcs...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article
> >> >> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> >> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> >> >> > >> >> messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd-8504-1fc4fa107016@a8g2000yqp.g
>
> >In article <40vqp85kqunkhbb4q...@4ax.com>,
> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <bspqp8pqlnrojmkcs...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article
> >> >> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> >> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)>
<http://io9.com/theres-more-water-on-jupiters-moon-europa-than-there-5913
104>
casey
May 23, 2013, 5:40:07 PM5/23/13
to
On 23 May, 14:18, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is why science is self correcting unlike religious
beliefs which are resistant to new evidence for they
have to admit they their interpretations were wrong
or the source of their beliefs was rubbish.
> Not like God's Word which is infalable.
Nope. The writers of the Bible got it wrong
and some believers just will not admit it.
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> For some reason, he seems to believe that the only water in the universe
> >> is on planet Earth.
>
> >That was the prevalent scientific opinion prior to about 1930 or so.
>
> Thanks for admitting that scientests make mistakes.
> wrote:
>
> >> For some reason, he seems to believe that the only water in the universe
> >> is on planet Earth.
>
> >That was the prevalent scientific opinion prior to about 1930 or so.
>
That is why science is self correcting unlike religious
beliefs which are resistant to new evidence for they
have to admit they their interpretations were wrong
or the source of their beliefs was rubbish.
> Not like God's Word which is infalable.
Nope. The writers of the Bible got it wrong
and some believers just will not admit it.
Message has been deleted
Jeanne Douglas
May 23, 2013, 11:25:06 PM5/23/13
to
In article <0qdtp81p7db6i1rag...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:43 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Young-Earth creation is dead. 锟絀t never was alive
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > because
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > never
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > 锟絯as science!
> You call that proof? LOL. That's not proof! Now THIS is proof:
What are my full headers proof of?
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:23:43 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <g42sp853047tp883e...@4ax.com>,
> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:21:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <40vqp85kqunkhbb4q...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <bspqp8pqlnrojmkcs...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article
> >> >> >> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On May 22, 1:29锟絧m, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
>
> >In article <g42sp853047tp883e...@4ax.com>,
> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 20:21:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <40vqp85kqunkhbb4q...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:53:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <bspqp8pqlnrojmkcs...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:46:44 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article
> >> >> >> ><83e1017b-f81f-4017...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> >> >> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > >> >On May 20, 11:34锟絧m, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> >> >> >> > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > because
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > it
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > never
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > 锟絯as science!
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> not
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer'
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> site
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> cited.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > >> >Where is your scientific refutation? 锟絅owhere - because I
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> To make a claim that some water is 2.6 billion years old
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> not
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> science, but rather the fantasy of the 'science writer'
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> site
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> cited.
> >> >> >> >> >
What are my full headers proof of?
Jeanne Douglas
May 23, 2013, 11:25:50 PM5/23/13
to
In article <bs1tp8d8gqpre9k0e...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 22, 4:46 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <83e1017b-f81f-4017-bfaf-435b0675f...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> > On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >>
> >> > > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> > > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
But, of course, that's how science works--it's self-correcting.
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 22, 4:46 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <83e1017b-f81f-4017-bfaf-435b0675f...@w5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> > On May 22, 1:29 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:53:55 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >>
> >> > > <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >In article <6c7op8lofggagk22omh2ujtjn082o2a...@4ax.com>,
> >> > > > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> > > >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > >> >On May 20, 11:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in
> >> > > >> >> messagenews:d0241e3b-e8be-48cd...@a8g2000yqp.googl
> >> > > >> >> egrou
> >> > > >> >> ps.co
> >> > > >> >> m...
> >> > > >> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion
> >> > > >> >> >-year
> >> > > >> >> egrou
> >> > > >> >> ps.co
> >> > > >> >> m...
> >> > > >> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/05/15/2-6-billion
> >> > > >> >> >-year
> Thanks for admitting that scientests make mistakes.
Of course they make mistakes; they're human.
But, of course, that's how science works--it's self-correcting.
Wombat
May 24, 2013, 4:47:50 AM5/24/13
to
On May 23, 11:17 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> What points, Wombat? Yes of course I'll answer them one at a time. I'm
> not afraid of liers like you.
Get on with it then and stop waffling.
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> not afraid of liers like you.
Get on with it then and stop waffling.
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Wombat
May 24, 2013, 10:16:34 AM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 2:27 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> Well? If you want to debate me, then you first have to offer a
> challenge.
Shouldn't you first start that debate with Buddika? The one you keep
dancing from.
Meanwhile, you stated that Earth was the only place in the universe
with water. Heard of the moon Europa. Liquid water with a layer of
ice.
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:47:50 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> challenge.
Shouldn't you first start that debate with Buddika? The one you keep
dancing from.
Meanwhile, you stated that Earth was the only place in the universe
with water. Heard of the moon Europa. Liquid water with a layer of
ice.
Wombat
sanctimonious twaddle deleted
Wombat
May 24, 2013, 10:30:32 AM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 2:28 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:25:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <bs1tp8d8gqpre9k0e54cns01fb2t2v4...@4ax.com>,
> > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> But God's Word is never mistaken, dear Jeanne.
From http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm giving the wise words of St
Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430), one of the early
church fathers.
Dare you read and can you understand them?
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and
orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about
the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years
and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so
forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and
experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an
infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show
up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is
not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people
outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such
opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we
toil,
the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned
men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they
themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions
about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters
concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life,
and
the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of
falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from
experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent
expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their
wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false
opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly
foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon
Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages
which they think support their position, although they understand
neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
[1 Timothy 1.7]"
Wombat
Snip sanctimonious twaddle
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:25:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <bs1tp8d8gqpre9k0e54cns01fb2t2v4...@4ax.com>,
> > Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
From http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm giving the wise words of St
Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430), one of the early
church fathers.
Dare you read and can you understand them?
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and
orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about
the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years
and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so
forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and
experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an
infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show
up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is
not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people
outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such
opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we
toil,
the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned
men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they
themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions
about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters
concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life,
and
the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of
falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from
experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent
expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their
wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false
opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the
authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly
foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon
Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages
which they think support their position, although they understand
neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
[1 Timothy 1.7]"
Wombat
Snip sanctimonious twaddle
WrongWayWade
May 24, 2013, 11:52:05 AM5/24/13
to
Daryl wrote:
> Easy answer on Europa, which is an ice covered moon of Jupiter that
> has under ice water. It even has an oxygen based atmosphere. It is
> speculated that there might be life under the ice due to the
> conditions are there to create or have life. It may only be microbes
> but there is a good chance it may exist. The next probe for Europa
> is in 2022 where they will do a landing.
No, No NO!!!
"All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use
them together. Use them in peace. "
> Easy answer on Europa, which is an ice covered moon of Jupiter that
> has under ice water. It even has an oxygen based atmosphere. It is
> speculated that there might be life under the ice due to the
> conditions are there to create or have life. It may only be microbes
> but there is a good chance it may exist. The next probe for Europa
> is in 2022 where they will do a landing.
No, No NO!!!
"All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use
them together. Use them in peace. "
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
casey
May 24, 2013, 6:27:05 PM5/24/13
to
On 24 May, 05:28, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:25:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> [...]
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:25:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> Thanks for admitting that scientests make mistakes.
>
> >Of course they make mistakes; they're human.
>
> >But, of course, that's how science works--it's self-correcting.
>
>
> >Of course they make mistakes; they're human.
>
> >But, of course, that's how science works--it's self-correcting.
>
> But God's Word is never mistaken, dear Jeanne.
But your belief it is God's word is mistaken and
you have no self correcting methods to fix that
mistake because the way you think makes the
lie self affirming.
Jeanne Douglas
May 24, 2013, 7:43:48 PM5/24/13
to
In article <j6nup8hcuigndr3cf...@4ax.com>,
> But God's Word is never mistaken, dear Jeanne.
Bullshit.
Wombat
May 25, 2013, 3:19:04 AM5/25/13
to
On May 24, 11:39 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> Budikka runs from me, Wombat.
>
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
>
Ever heard of science and space probes? I thought not. BTW, I'm not
an atheist (note correct spelling).
Sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
>
> >Meanwhile, you stated that Earth was the only place in the universe
> >with water. Heard of the moon Europa. Liquid water with a layer of
> >ice.
>
> And so you athiests keep saying. But where's your proof?
> >Meanwhile, you stated that Earth was the only place in the universe
> >with water. Heard of the moon Europa. Liquid water with a layer of
> >ice.
>
>
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
>
Ever heard of science and space probes? I thought not. BTW, I'm not
an atheist (note correct spelling).
Sanctimonious twaddle deleted
Wombat
May 25, 2013, 3:25:55 AM5/25/13
to
On May 24, 11:42 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:30:32 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> >Fromhttp://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htmgiving the wise words of St
inerrant Bible is a 19th century heresy? Augustine's homily was to
tell his readers NOT to treat the Bible as inerrant as it brings
Christianity into disrepute, as you are showing here, in spades.
Wombat
snip sanctimonious twaddle
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:30:32 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> >Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430), one of the early
> >church fathers.
> >Dare you read and can you understand them?
>
> Augustine is not the Bible, Wombat. I believe God's Word the Bible.
> >church fathers.
> >Dare you read and can you understand them?
>
>
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
So you didn't bother to read it. Are you aware that the idea of an
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
inerrant Bible is a 19th century heresy? Augustine's homily was to
tell his readers NOT to treat the Bible as inerrant as it brings
Christianity into disrepute, as you are showing here, in spades.
Wombat
snip sanctimonious twaddle
Budikka666
May 25, 2013, 11:23:16 AM5/25/13
to
On May 24, 7:27 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The challenge was to post your five best evidences for your creator
god and we would debate them. I issued that challenge a week or so
ago and you've been running from it ever since.
I also offerd you two alternatives: to post your five best evidences
for this Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god you claim loves
us, or to post your five best for the Noahic flood - and you've been
fleeing those too.
What do you want to debate - your cowardice and vacuity? You already
lost that debate.
Budikka
wrote:
> Well? If you want to debate me, then you first have to offer a
> challenge.
I did that, and YOU RAN, hypocrite.
> challenge.
The challenge was to post your five best evidences for your creator
god and we would debate them. I issued that challenge a week or so
ago and you've been running from it ever since.
I also offerd you two alternatives: to post your five best evidences
for this Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god you claim loves
us, or to post your five best for the Noahic flood - and you've been
fleeing those too.
What do you want to debate - your cowardice and vacuity? You already
lost that debate.
Budikka
Budikka666
May 25, 2013, 11:26:05 AM5/25/13
to
On May 24, 4:39 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
I've challenged you several times to do? Is that your not-so-subtle
way of admitting to everyone on Usenet that you cannot support a
single one of these bland platitudes which you mindlessly spout?
Budikka
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> Budikka runs from me, Wombat.
So why have you not found the guts to post your five best evidences as
I've challenged you several times to do? Is that your not-so-subtle
way of admitting to everyone on Usenet that you cannot support a
single one of these bland platitudes which you mindlessly spout?
Budikka
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Wombat
May 25, 2013, 1:27:36 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 7:24 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> Of course I've heard of them, but how is that proof?
Wombat
Sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
>
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
Look up what they shew.
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
Wombat
Sanctimonious twaddle deleted
Message has been deleted
Wombat
May 25, 2013, 1:45:04 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 7:25 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:25:55 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> >> >Fromhttp://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htmgivingthe wise words of St
> because the early Church Fathers believed the Bible.
modern times"? The early Church Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church
believed in the Bible, but only the books they allowed into the Bible
concocted at the Council of Nicea. When you take a rest from trolling
here, take a gander at the Codex Sinaiticus, particularly in one of
the gospels where the phrase "Son of God" is inserted. Which version
do you believe in?
Wombat
Sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:25:55 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> >> >Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 28 August 430), one of the early
> >> >church fathers.
> >> >Dare you read and can you understand them?
>
> >> Augustine is not the Bible, Wombat. I believe God's Word the Bible.
>
> >> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> >> Chiropractic Physician
> >> Doctor of Homeopathy
> >> Master of Reiki Therapy
>
> >So you didn't bother to read it. Are you aware that the idea of an
> >inerrant Bible is a 19th century heresy? Augustine's homily was to
> >tell his readers NOT to treat the Bible as inerrant as it brings
> >Christianity into disrepute, as you are showing here, in spades.
>
> >Wombat
>
> >
>
> Augustine must of been a writer from the more modern times, then,
> >> >church fathers.
> >> >Dare you read and can you understand them?
>
> >> Augustine is not the Bible, Wombat. I believe God's Word the Bible.
>
> >> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> >> Chiropractic Physician
> >> Doctor of Homeopathy
> >> Master of Reiki Therapy
>
> >So you didn't bother to read it. Are you aware that the idea of an
> >inerrant Bible is a 19th century heresy? Augustine's homily was to
> >tell his readers NOT to treat the Bible as inerrant as it brings
> >Christianity into disrepute, as you are showing here, in spades.
>
> >Wombat
>
> >
>
> because the early Church Fathers believed the Bible.
>
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
St. Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 - 28 August 430) is from "more
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
> Chiropractic Physician
> Doctor of Homeopathy
> Master of Reiki Therapy
modern times"? The early Church Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church
believed in the Bible, but only the books they allowed into the Bible
concocted at the Council of Nicea. When you take a rest from trolling
here, take a gander at the Codex Sinaiticus, particularly in one of
the gospels where the phrase "Son of God" is inserted. Which version
do you believe in?
Wombat
Sanctimonious twaddle deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Wombat
May 25, 2013, 2:25:52 PM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 7:59 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> You don't understand, dear Wombat. There liers because there
> evolutionists. Unless you can explain the science behind there
> findings then your just a fool following other fools.
probes were lying why should anyone take any notice of your ignorant
posturing about this and just about every other subject you have
thought you were pontificating about.
Wombat
Woo-woo qualifications and sanctimonious twaddle deleted
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
> evolutionists. Unless you can explain the science behind there
> findings then your just a fool following other fools.
>
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
Until you can explain why the instrumentation on the various space
> Doctor Love, DC, ND, MRT
probes were lying why should anyone take any notice of your ignorant
posturing about this and just about every other subject you have
thought you were pontificating about.
Wombat
Woo-woo qualifications and sanctimonious twaddle deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages