Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disproving Creation: Yet Another One in the Eye For Creationist Junk DNA Denialists, Another Piece in the Evolution Jigsaw
61 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
Oct 20, 2012, 11:28:49 AM10/20/12
to
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
contributing to understanding how evolution works.
Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
*anything* they claim!
Budikka
virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
contributing to understanding how evolution works.
Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
*anything* they claim!
Budikka
Andrew
Oct 20, 2012, 12:39:26 PM10/20/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
We all have the same evidence, Budikka. Whereas we interpret
it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
That's the difference. BIG difference!
These same issues existed in the days of the apostle Paul.....
"From the creation of the world the invisible things of Him
are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse."
For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God,
nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools,
and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like corruptible man, and to birds and four footed beasts
and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among
themselves." ~ Romans 1:20-24 ~
Here we have insight as to the fundamental reason for the anti-
God origins model-> you refuse to control your lusts, and you
practice uncleanness by dishonoring 'your bodies' among your
selves.
Perhaps you would like to repent of your wickedness while
there is still time.
> Budikka
Andrew
it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
That's the difference. BIG difference!
These same issues existed in the days of the apostle Paul.....
"From the creation of the world the invisible things of Him
are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are
without excuse."
For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God,
nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools,
and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like corruptible man, and to birds and four footed beasts
and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among
themselves." ~ Romans 1:20-24 ~
Here we have insight as to the fundamental reason for the anti-
God origins model-> you refuse to control your lusts, and you
practice uncleanness by dishonoring 'your bodies' among your
selves.
Perhaps you would like to repent of your wickedness while
there is still time.
> Budikka
Andrew
Budikka666
Oct 20, 2012, 12:57:09 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 11:37 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
and LIE about it, just as you LIE when you fraudulently change the
subject header to "proving creation" when you yourself have repeatedly
admitted that you cannot even pffer evidence for a creation, much less
prove it.
If you were anything of a decent person at all, you would not
repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
deceiver, and a fraud.
> Whereas we interpret
> it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
I don't interpret *any* evidence. I follow the mainstream scientific
position, which is the only one qualified to interpret this evidence.
Now why don't you post right here what *your* academic qualifications
are to interpret this evidence? Why dont; you do that?
When your chronic cowardice prevents you from doing that as it
inevitably will, then why don't *you* post the creationist academic
qualifcations for the people whose position you follow?
When your chronic cowardice prevents you from doing that as it
inevitably will, then why don;t you explain how those qualifcations of
the handful of people *you* follow outrank the scientific
qualifcations of the many many thousands of scientists who disagree
with you? Go ahead, we'll wait.
Or you can RUN AWAY as you've done literally hundreds of times thereby
admitting that even *you* do not believe that there is an omnipotent
god supporting you:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/search%3Fgroup%3Dalt.talk.creationism%26q%3DAndrew%2B%2522run%2Baway%2522%26qt_g%3DSearch%2Bthis%2Bgroup&usg=AFQjCNHHtWFusm4uJ4RQgj7ckH4lI9bWGQ
> These same issues existed in the days of the apostle Paul.....
There was no such apostle:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/epistles2.htm
http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/44/32/
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>
> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>
> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
> > *anything* they claim!
>
> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>
> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>
> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
> > *anything* they claim!
>
> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
and LIE about it, just as you LIE when you fraudulently change the
subject header to "proving creation" when you yourself have repeatedly
admitted that you cannot even pffer evidence for a creation, much less
prove it.
If you were anything of a decent person at all, you would not
repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
deceiver, and a fraud.
> Whereas we interpret
> it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
position, which is the only one qualified to interpret this evidence.
Now why don't you post right here what *your* academic qualifications
are to interpret this evidence? Why dont; you do that?
When your chronic cowardice prevents you from doing that as it
inevitably will, then why don't *you* post the creationist academic
qualifcations for the people whose position you follow?
When your chronic cowardice prevents you from doing that as it
inevitably will, then why don;t you explain how those qualifcations of
the handful of people *you* follow outrank the scientific
qualifcations of the many many thousands of scientists who disagree
with you? Go ahead, we'll wait.
Or you can RUN AWAY as you've done literally hundreds of times thereby
admitting that even *you* do not believe that there is an omnipotent
god supporting you:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/search%3Fgroup%3Dalt.talk.creationism%26q%3DAndrew%2B%2522run%2Baway%2522%26qt_g%3DSearch%2Bthis%2Bgroup&usg=AFQjCNHHtWFusm4uJ4RQgj7ckH4lI9bWGQ
> These same issues existed in the days of the apostle Paul.....
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/epistles2.htm
http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/44/32/
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm
Budikka
Syd Maniac
Oct 20, 2012, 4:04:34 PM10/20/12
to
Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> *anything* they claim!
>
> We all have the same evidence, Budikka. Whereas we interpret
> it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
>
No.
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> *anything* they claim!
>
> We all have the same evidence, Budikka. Whereas we interpret
> it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
>
--
PDW
Check out my comic blogs:
http://theincognitomultiverse.blogspot.com/
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://warintime.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
http://thearrakiscycle.blogspot.com/
Smiler
Oct 20, 2012, 8:10:59 PM10/20/12
to
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:39:26 -0700, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> *anything* they claim!
>
> We all have the same evidence, Budikka. Whereas we interpret it correctly,
> and you interpret it incorrectly.
Nope. All you have are beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books, none of which
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> *anything* they claim!
>
> We all have the same evidence, Budikka. Whereas we interpret it correctly,
> and you interpret it incorrectly.
is evidence. We have logical objective verifiable evidence.
>
> That's the difference. BIG difference!
>
> These same issues existed in the days of the apostle Paul.....
>
>
> Here we have insight as to the fundamental reason for the anti- God
> origins model-> you refuse to control your lusts, and you practice
> uncleanness by dishonoring 'your bodies' among your selves.
And none of us are anti-god. How can we be anti that which we don't
believe exists? Are you anti-nessie or anti-leprechauns?
>
> Perhaps you would like to repent of your wickedness while there is still
> time.
>
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Hope Simmers
Oct 20, 2012, 8:39:36 PM10/20/12
to
On Oct 20, 10:37 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
It's sad when your #1 weapon is changing the subject.
Tattooed on Andrew's forehead: "Budikka's Bitch"
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k5ufvh$9r3$1...@dont-email.me...
Tattooed on Andrew's forehead: "Budikka's Bitch"
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 12:47:40 AM10/21/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
fact about DNA.
DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
specified, genetic information and instructions.
Now here's the question for you please........
*Who* is the Programmer that did all of this
programming for all of the life on this planet?
Think about this, then let me know. Thanks.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
fact about DNA.
DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
specified, genetic information and instructions.
Now here's the question for you please........
*Who* is the Programmer that did all of this
programming for all of the life on this planet?
Think about this, then let me know. Thanks.
Andrew
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 12:48:07 AM10/21/12
to
Hope Simmers" wrote in message news:2af2f253-9666-4884...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
Budikka frequently posts on creation subjects.
She has an obsession with creation, AND with
the Creator.
I did not change the subject. I merely made a
slight correction to the title.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
She has an obsession with creation, AND with
the Creator.
I did not change the subject. I merely made a
slight correction to the title.
Andrew
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 2:34:48 AM10/21/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> > *anything* they claim!
>>
>> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
>
> No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
No, I only dismiss your speculative interpretation of it.
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> > *anything* they claim!
>>
>> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
>
> No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
> and LIE about it, just as you LIE when you fraudulently change the
> subject header to "proving creation"
fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
> when you yourself have repeatedly admitted that you cannot
> even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
> If you were anything of a decent person at all, you would not
> repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
> deceiver, and a fraud.
>> Whereas we interpret it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
>
> I don't interpret *any* evidence. I follow the mainstream scientific
> position, which is the only one qualified to interpret this evidence.
believe ****what they tell you****. This helps to explain why you
have been so deceived!
Thanks Budikka!
Andrew
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 2:34:04 AM10/21/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> > *anything* they claim!
>>
>> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
>
> No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> > *anything* they claim!
>>
>> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
>
> No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
No, I only dismiss your speculative interpretation of it.
> and LIE about it, just as you LIE when you fraudulently change the
> subject header to "proving creation"
> subject header to "proving creation"
Your posts are mostly about *proving creation*. Because you cannot
fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
> when you yourself have repeatedly admitted that you cannot
> even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
> even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
I (and others) have repeatedly submitted such evidence.
> If you were anything of a decent person at all, you would not
> repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
> deceiver, and a fraud.
Beautiful!
> repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
> deceiver, and a fraud.
>> Whereas we interpret it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
>
> I don't interpret *any* evidence. I follow the mainstream scientific
> position, which is the only one qualified to interpret this evidence.
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 2:34:57 AM10/21/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> > *anything* they claim!
>>
>> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
>
> No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> > *anything* they claim!
>>
>> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
>
> No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
No, I only dismiss your speculative interpretation of it.
> and LIE about it, just as you LIE when you fraudulently change the
> subject header to "proving creation"
> subject header to "proving creation"
Your posts are mostly about *proving creation*. Because you cannot
fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
> when you yourself have repeatedly admitted that you cannot
> even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
> even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
I (and others) have repeatedly submitted such evidence.
> If you were anything of a decent person at all, you would not
> repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
> deceiver, and a fraud.
Beautiful!
> repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
> deceiver, and a fraud.
>> Whereas we interpret it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
>
> I don't interpret *any* evidence. I follow the mainstream scientific
> position, which is the only one qualified to interpret this evidence.
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 2:35:32 AM10/21/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> > *anything* they claim!
>>
>> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
>
> No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
>> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>>
>> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>> > *anything* they claim!
>>
>> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
>
> No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
No, I only dismiss your speculative interpretation of it.
> and LIE about it, just as you LIE when you fraudulently change the
> subject header to "proving creation"
> subject header to "proving creation"
Your posts are mostly about *proving creation*. Because you cannot
fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
> when you yourself have repeatedly admitted that you cannot
> even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
> even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
I (and others) have repeatedly submitted such evidence.
> If you were anything of a decent person at all, you would not
> repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
> deceiver, and a fraud.
Beautiful!
> repeatedly prove yourself to be a liar, a coward, a hypocrite, a
> deceiver, and a fraud.
>> Whereas we interpret it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
>
> I don't interpret *any* evidence. I follow the mainstream scientific
> position, which is the only one qualified to interpret this evidence.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 21, 2012, 3:34:40 AM10/21/12
to
In article <6q-dnYbd0IeA4x7N...@earthlink.com>,
No need to read further, then. excellent.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
> >> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
> >>
> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>
>
> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>
> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
> fact about DNA.
>
> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
> specified, genetic information and instructions.
No, it's not.
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
> >> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
> >>
> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>
>
> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>
> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
> fact about DNA.
>
> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
> specified, genetic information and instructions.
No need to read further, then. excellent.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 4:45:55 AM10/21/12
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-92B277...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> No need to read further, then. excellent.
Then you join the fools chorus who simply plug
their ears and shout...
"Lies, dammed lies!"
...when they hear truth that they refuse to accept.
Reminds me of the Duchess the last night of the
Titanic.
"Lies! Dammed lies!!" ...said the Duchess to the
steward who was trying to tell her the truth, the
last night of the Titanic just before it went under.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> >> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>> >>
>> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>>
>> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>>
>> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
>> fact about DNA.
>>
>> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
>> specified, genetic information and instructions.
>
> No, it's not.
You wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Ask a molecular biologist.
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>> >> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>> >>
>> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>
>>
>> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>>
>> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
>> fact about DNA.
>>
>> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
>> specified, genetic information and instructions.
>
> No, it's not.
> No need to read further, then. excellent.
their ears and shout...
"Lies, dammed lies!"
...when they hear truth that they refuse to accept.
Reminds me of the Duchess the last night of the
Titanic.
"Lies! Dammed lies!!" ...said the Duchess to the
steward who was trying to tell her the truth, the
last night of the Titanic just before it went under.
Joe Bruno
Oct 21, 2012, 5:09:23 AM10/21/12
to
People don't take creationists seriously and you less seriously.
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 5:37:16 AM10/21/12
to
"Joe Bruno" wrote in message news:388d8263-0684-433b...@googlegroups.com...
Moses was a creationist. He was not an idiot.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 21, 2012, 5:50:30 AM10/21/12
to
In article <a-OdnfT87uSCCh7N...@earthlink.com>,
If you mistakenly think you have I suggest you do some research on what
constitutes evidence because you seem not to know.
> >> Whereas we interpret it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
> >
> > I don't interpret *any* evidence. I follow the mainstream scientific
> > position, which is the only one qualified to interpret this evidence.
>
> So, you hereby publically acknowledge before all, that you simply
> believe ****what they tell you****. This helps to explain why you
> have been so deceived!
Nonsense.
They tell us exactly what they did and the data they received, along
with their own interpretation. Anyone is free to try to attempt the
experiment themselves and confirm or falsify the data.
If anyone could falsify an established theory, nothing awaits but glory
and perhaps a Nobel Prize.
There is no acceptance without evidence.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
> >> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
> >>
> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
> >>
> >> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
> >> > *anything* they claim!
> >>
> >> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
> >
> > No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
>
> No, I only dismiss your speculative interpretation of it.
>
> > and LIE about it, just as you LIE when you fraudulently change the
> > subject header to "proving creation"
>
> Your posts are mostly about *proving creation*. Because you cannot
> fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
>
> > when you yourself have repeatedly admitted that you cannot
> > even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
>
> I (and others) have repeatedly submitted such evidence.
Of course you haven't.
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:47b67f15-99bd-4b19...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
> >> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
> >>
> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
> >>
> >> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
> >> > *anything* they claim!
> >>
> >> We all have the same evidence, Budikka.
> >
> > No, we don't, because you dismiss the bulk of the scientific evidence
>
> No, I only dismiss your speculative interpretation of it.
>
> > and LIE about it, just as you LIE when you fraudulently change the
> > subject header to "proving creation"
>
> Your posts are mostly about *proving creation*. Because you cannot
> fight against the truth, and creationism IS the truth, regarding origins.
>
> > when you yourself have repeatedly admitted that you cannot
> > even pffer evidence for a creation, much less prove it.
>
> I (and others) have repeatedly submitted such evidence.
If you mistakenly think you have I suggest you do some research on what
constitutes evidence because you seem not to know.
> >> Whereas we interpret it correctly, and you interpret it incorrectly.
> >
> > I don't interpret *any* evidence. I follow the mainstream scientific
> > position, which is the only one qualified to interpret this evidence.
>
> So, you hereby publically acknowledge before all, that you simply
> believe ****what they tell you****. This helps to explain why you
> have been so deceived!
They tell us exactly what they did and the data they received, along
with their own interpretation. Anyone is free to try to attempt the
experiment themselves and confirm or falsify the data.
If anyone could falsify an established theory, nothing awaits but glory
and perhaps a Nobel Prize.
There is no acceptance without evidence.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 21, 2012, 6:01:57 AM10/21/12
to
In article <dJmdneDhe_FHKB7N...@earthlink.com>,
face.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-92B277...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophag
> >> >> > e-
> >> >> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
> >> >>
> >> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
> >> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
> >>
> >> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
> >> fact about DNA.
> >>
> >> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
> >> specified, genetic information and instructions.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> You wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Ask a molecular biologist.
I worked for a molecular biologist for 14 years. He would laugh in your
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-92B277...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophag
> >> >> > e-
> >> >> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
> >> >>
> >> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
> >> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
> >>
> >> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
> >> fact about DNA.
> >>
> >> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
> >> specified, genetic information and instructions.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> You wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Ask a molecular biologist.
face.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 21, 2012, 6:09:58 AM10/21/12
to
In article <kaydnaI634h6XB7N...@earthlink.com>,
He had an excuse for being ignorant of reality.
You don't.
You don't.
Andrew
Oct 21, 2012, 8:33:13 AM10/21/12
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-4E6C3A...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
you haven't learned anything from him.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophag
>> >> >>
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophag
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>> >> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>> >>
>> >> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>> >>
>> >> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
>> >> fact about DNA.
>> >>
>> >> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
>> >> specified, genetic information and instructions.
>> >
>> > No, it's not.
>>
>> You wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Ask a molecular biologist.
>
> I worked for a molecular biologist for 14 years.
What a privilege. It is unfortunate that
>> >> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>> >>
>> >> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>> >>
>> >> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
>> >> fact about DNA.
>> >>
>> >> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
>> >> specified, genetic information and instructions.
>> >
>> > No, it's not.
>>
>> You wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Ask a molecular biologist.
>
> I worked for a molecular biologist for 14 years.
you haven't learned anything from him.
duke
Oct 21, 2012, 11:40:07 AM10/21/12
to
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************
Ralph
Oct 21, 2012, 11:43:26 AM10/21/12
to
Budikka666
Oct 21, 2012, 11:59:56 AM10/21/12
to
On Oct 20, 11:46 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
People who lie like you do, who run when asked questions instead of
> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
witnessing, and who can not support a single claim they make are
friends to no one, not even your own 'kind'. You are certainly no
friend to us. The last thing we would want to do is spend eternity in
the company of someone like you. Congratulations on persuading us
that Heaven (even if it were not a myth) is the last place we ever
want to be if people like you are there.
We've told you this before. The fact that you refuse to listen means
you are not a friend, not even close.
The fact that you are evidently not in possession of the wherewithal
to grasp the import of this is fine with us, because it means that you
are, with your every message, doing far more harm to your cause than
we can claim to have done.
You do this by demonstrating that you are ignorant, stupid, unable to
learn, that you refuse to listen, all of which means that you are
thoroughly incapable of actually being a true friend. Therein lies
your lie.
Worse than this from your own blinkered perspective is that you are
proving every day how far you have strayed from your supposedly
Chrstian roots. You have the wrong name, Andrew. It should be Peter,
because every day you emulate his cowardice and betrayal: denying and
running instead of standing up to be counted.
You do not cross the street to help. Instead you refuse to, and in
fact run away. You do not go the extra mile; you refuse to go even
the first mile. You do not hold out your hand; you turn and run from
every effort to reach out to you. You do not give your coat; instead,
you lie that you even have a shirt. You are the very antithesis of
what a Christian is supposed to be.
Have you honestly never rnoticed how no one supports you when you make
these asinine claims of yours - not even your own people? So please
accept our grateful thanks that, with no effort on our part
whatsoever, you betray, every single day, the very cause you claim to
stand for and make our case for us far more eleoquently than we ever
dream of achieving.
> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
> fact about DNA.
design lie? Go ahead (see our acceptance of your offer below).
> DNA is a package filled of
> digital, programmed
As you have had explained to you repeatedly, DNA is a molecule. it's
chemistry, There's nothing digital about it.
Yoiu really honestly don't have the first clue how DNA works, do you?
Once again, let us ask you what your academic qualifications are to
make these claims unsupproted by any professionally published science
paper. Are you a microbiologist or a geneticist? Have you published
papers supporting your "DNA is digital" claim?
Can you point me to any professionally published science paper (not
news article, not quote, but a peer-reviewed science paper) which
shows that DNA is digital and programmed in the same way that computer
software is digital and programmed? Can you show that it has cyclic
redundancy checking? Can you show that it has backup?
Can you show that DNA is as error-free as the designed packets of
information which travel the Internet - the very same packets of
designed information which you are even now using to post your
childishly delusional and thoroughly unsupported claims on Usenet?
Where are the fixed ones and zeroes which make up the digital DNA?
Do you even know what "digital" means in this context? We've
explained this to you before on more than one occasion, but once
again, and *unlike* *a* *friend* you have chosen to ignore everything
we've said to you. A firned is someone who listens, who empathizes.
You are congenitally incapable of actually being a friend, Andrew.
What you are is a dictator.
You know you can keep telling your lies - in fact, I hope you will
becuase you're undermining your own cause by doing so - but the fact
that you ran away when we challenged you on this particular lie means
that you have openly admitted to the world that you lied. Everyone
knows what you are.
> specified, genetic information and instructions.
translation goes nowhere. It's not conserved as the random mutaitosn
in it show only too clearly. Only DNA which is conserved over time
truly contributes anything materially to the ongoing development of a
species.
> Now here's the question for you please........
when you answer none in return? When you start standing your ground
instead of running like diarrhea, and offer scientifically supported
answers to the serious questions you have been asked, then we will
answer yours.
> *Who* is the Programmer that did all of this
> programming for all of the life on this planet?
accept, yes or no?
> Think about this, then let me know. Thanks.
again prove that you wll not cross the street. You will not go the
exta mile. You will not give your coat. You will prove, as you have
done before (see below for documentation) that you have absolutely no
faith whatsoever in this supposedly omnipotent god you want us all to
accept.
You can either champion this creator of yours by accepting our debate
offer, or you can run away once more as you have done before
(documented below), and thereby again openly confess before the world
that even *you* have no faith in your own god.
And if you have no faith, then why should anyone else?
Budikka
Budikka666
Oct 21, 2012, 12:07:58 PM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 4:09 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:28:50 AM UTC-7, Budikka666 wrote:
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>
> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>
> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>
> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>
> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>
> > *anything* they claim!
>
> > Budikka
>
> Your continous chest beating and posturing is the actions of an idiot.
Were you looking in your cracked mirror when you wrote that, Jonah
> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:28:50 AM UTC-7, Budikka666 wrote:
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophage-
>
> > virus-transpoviron-amoeba-eye/
>
> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>
> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>
> > Meanwhile, on the creationist front, still ZERO scientific evidence for
>
> > *anything* they claim!
>
> > Budikka
>
> Your continous chest beating and posturing is the actions of an idiot.
Brunothing? But hey, thanks for proving that you are obsessed with me
and care nothing about setting straight your own kind when they lie.
> People don't take creationists seriously and you less seriously.
à-vis reality. It's evidently escaped your limited attention that
some 40% of the US adult population is young-Earth creationist.
It's evidently escaped your limited attention that they're largely
voting republican. It's evidently escaped your limited attention that
that they're regularly trying to get their lies pushed onto kids in
school.
Seriously, I'm sorry you're too self-obessed and clueless to see what
a threat this is to education.
I'm sorry you don't surprise me at all.
Budikka
Free Lunch
Oct 21, 2012, 2:19:09 PM10/21/12
to
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 05:33:13 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-4E6C3A...@news.giganews.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> >> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophag
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>>> >> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>>> >>
>>> >> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
>>> >> fact about DNA.
>>> >>
>>> >> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
>>> >> specified, genetic information and instructions.
>>> >
>>> > No, it's not.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Ask a molecular biologist.
You know you are wrong. You know you are lying, Andrew.
>> I worked for a molecular biologist for 14 years.
>
>What a privilege. It is unfortunate that
>you haven't learned anything from him.
>
So you claim, but you have shown us that you have nothing but disdain
for knowledge and that you will make any claim, no matter how false, to
try to sell the false religious doctrines that you keep trying to con
people into believing.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-4E6C3A...@news.giganews.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> >> >> > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/10/15/virophag
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > In one article, an unarguable case for junk DNA, and another piece
>>> >> >> > contributing to understanding how evolution works.
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Budikka! This is Andrew here (your friend).
>>> >>
>>> >> Just to remind you of one little, yet profound,
>>> >> fact about DNA.
>>> >>
>>> >> DNA is a package filled of digital, programmed
>>> >> specified, genetic information and instructions.
>>> >
>>> > No, it's not.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Ask a molecular biologist.
>> I worked for a molecular biologist for 14 years.
>
>What a privilege. It is unfortunate that
>you haven't learned anything from him.
>
for knowledge and that you will make any claim, no matter how false, to
try to sell the false religious doctrines that you keep trying to con
people into believing.
Free Lunch
Oct 21, 2012, 2:22:54 PM10/21/12
to
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:35:32 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
How many times will you repeat your dishonest interpretation of what was
said? Does God demand that you lie about things four times each? Is that
your magic?
>Thanks Budikka!
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
said? Does God demand that you lie about things four times each? Is that
your magic?
>Thanks Budikka!
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
Free Lunch
Oct 21, 2012, 2:23:40 PM10/21/12
to
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:48:07 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You do not correct anything. You repeat your totally indefensible
religious dogma. You tell us lies and blame God for the lies you tell.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
religious dogma. You tell us lies and blame God for the lies you tell.
Free Lunch
Oct 21, 2012, 2:21:50 PM10/21/12
to
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:34:04 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Why are you so desperate for us to believe your false religious dogmas?
Why do you insist on lying about science and defaming those who you are
discussing this with? Why do you take God's name in vain?
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Why do you insist on lying about science and defaming those who you are
discussing this with? Why do you take God's name in vain?
Smiler
Oct 21, 2012, 6:53:01 PM10/21/12
to
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
Budikka666
Oct 21, 2012, 7:47:43 PM10/21/12
to
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&
So are you going to finally debate me - yes or no?
Budikka
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 21, 2012, 8:21:20 PM10/21/12
to
Budikka666
Oct 23, 2012, 8:48:35 PM10/23/12
to
> 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/9rm86ajhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4...
> 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.
>
> 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/8o3wsmghttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a8427...
> 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.
>
> 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/9hpgy2vhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe...
> 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.
>
> 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/986crjkhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb677165...
> 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.
>
> 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/ckeaadmhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453...
> 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.
>
> 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 ...
> unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
> Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
>
> read more »
What's worng, Andrew? Suddenly you have no faith in this omnipotent
god of yours? Why are you so scared?
Budikka
Budikka666
Oct 24, 2012, 5:05:07 PM10/24/12
to
If your god is omnipotent, then why are you scared shitless of formally
debating me, Andrew-a-Blank?
If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked to provide
it?
If your creator is so powerful, then why are *you* such a flaming coward?
If your creator is so desirous of helping us, then why do *you* run every
time you're put on the spot instead of witnessing?
Why do you not even have the courage to come back into this thread and
say "I can't do it"?
Budikka
debating me, Andrew-a-Blank?
If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked to provide
it?
If your creator is so powerful, then why are *you* such a flaming coward?
If your creator is so desirous of helping us, then why do *you* run every
time you're put on the spot instead of witnessing?
Why do you not even have the courage to come back into this thread and
say "I can't do it"?
Budikka
Andrew
Oct 24, 2012, 7:31:28 PM10/24/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> to provide it?
The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
> If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
> then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
> of witnessing?
It is obvious that you want to find God. The one and only,
true and living God. The One who loves you. Here's what
to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
"If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
> Budikka
Andrew
> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> to provide it?
> If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
> then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
> of witnessing?
true and living God. The One who loves you. Here's what
to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
"If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
> Budikka
Andrew
Caranx latus
Oct 24, 2012, 8:13:22 PM10/24/12
to
On 10/24/2012 7:31 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>
>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>> to provide it?
>
> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
Everything you've ever suggested as evidence has a far more plausible
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>
>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>> to provide it?
>
> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
natural explanation. Why not suggest something demonstrably real that
can have no natural explanation? That would be a good step in the right
direction.
>> If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
>
> Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
people's fault when they can't find him.
>> then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
>> of witnessing?
>
> It is obvious that you want to find God. The one and only,
> true and living God. The One who loves you. Here's what
> to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
>
> "If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
> if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> ~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
>
> First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
"If thou shalt seek the Sasquatch, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him
with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
Off you go. Report back your findings. Take your time.
Free Lunch
Oct 24, 2012, 9:15:30 PM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:31:28 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>
>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>> to provide it?
>
>The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
We know that you know that you are lying when you make that claim.
Why do you take God's name in vain?
>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>
>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>> to provide it?
>
>The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
Why do you take God's name in vain?
>
Smiler
Oct 25, 2012, 7:15:30 PM10/25/12
to
believe without evidence.
Smiler
Oct 25, 2012, 7:22:35 PM10/25/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:31:28 -0700, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>
>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked to provide
>> it?
>
> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
That's just your unevidenced belief.
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>
>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked to provide
>> it?
>
> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>
>
>> If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
>
> Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
There's no evidence that your supposed god character has done anything.
>
> Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
>
>> then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead of
>> witnessing?
>
> It is obvious that you want to find God.
> The one and only, true and living God. The One who loves you. Here's
> what to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
>
> "If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
> if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> ~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
>
> First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
>
you are.
Devils Advocaat
Oct 26, 2012, 12:51:37 PM10/26/12
to
On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
Restore the kidney function of all dialysis patients?
Eliminate poverty and greed in one fell swoop?
They've found nothing.
Why you do deny the truth?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Andrew
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> > to provide it?
>
> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
Where is this evidence?
> > to provide it?
>
> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
> > If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
>
> Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
Restore the missing limbs of all amputees?
> > If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
>
> Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
Restore the kidney function of all dialysis patients?
Eliminate poverty and greed in one fell swoop?
>
> > then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
> > of witnessing?
>
> It is obvious that you want to find God. The one and only,
> true and living God. The One who loves you. Here's what
> to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
>
> "If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
> if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> ~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
>
> First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
Many have done just that.
> > then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
> > of witnessing?
>
> It is obvious that you want to find God. The one and only,
> true and living God. The One who loves you. Here's what
> to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
>
> "If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
> if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> ~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
>
> First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
They've found nothing.
Why you do deny the truth?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Andrew
gord...@swbell.net
Oct 26, 2012, 3:23:56 PM10/26/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>> > to provide it?
>>
>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
>Where is this evidence?
>
All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>> > to provide it?
>>
>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
>Where is this evidence?
>
accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
the option to reject Him and go their own way.
Smiler
Oct 26, 2012, 6:04:57 PM10/26/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:23:56 -0500, gordonlr wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked to
>>> > provide it?
>>>
>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>
>>Where is this evidence?
>>
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be accepted or
> rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them. Had God given us
> objective proof of His existence no one would have the option to reject
> Him and go their own way.
Another stupid excuse as to why you have no evidence.
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked to
>>> > provide it?
>>>
>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>
>>Where is this evidence?
>>
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be accepted or
> rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them. Had God given us
> objective proof of His existence no one would have the option to reject
> Him and go their own way.
"All evidence of leprechauns' existence is given in a form that can be
accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them. Had
leprechauns given us objective proof of their existence no one would have
the option to reject them and go their own way."
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 26, 2012, 6:25:50 PM10/26/12
to
In article <slol88td59p9idmhj...@4ax.com>,
gord...@swbell.net wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> > to provide it?
> >>
> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
> >
> >Where is this evidence?
> >
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
Where is it?
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> > to provide it?
> >>
> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
> >
> >Where is this evidence?
> >
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
Barry OGrady
Oct 26, 2012, 9:24:25 PM10/26/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:23:56 -0500, gord...@swbell.net wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
><manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Where is this evidence?
>>
>All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>the option to reject Him and go their own way.
That would have been good, right?
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
><manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Where is this evidence?
>>
>All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>the option to reject Him and go their own way.
Seth lePod
Oct 26, 2012, 9:56:48 PM10/26/12
to
On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> > to provide it?
>
:
> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
:
> >Where is this evidence?
:
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
Wait? What?
> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> > to provide it?
>
:
> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
:
> >Where is this evidence?
:
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
Adam and Eve rejected Him, and I'm fairly sure they
were convinced of His existence.
As did Satan and quite a number of angels, who also
doubtless knew of God's existence.
I'm sure if your God gave utterly undeniable proof of
His existence this very moment, quite a few would shrug
and go on about their business.
But let's consider a couple of scenarios:
A) God gives only the most tenuous, elusive, and
unconvincing evidence -- remember, two of every three
people in the world don't see it your way, so it's not
convincing at all -- and as a result billions upon
billions upon billions end up in Hell, in unbearable
torment for ever and ever and ever and ever (or, in
Andrew's view, quickly burn to death)
B) God gives as much evidence of His existence as a
realtor does before expecting me to buy a house from
him or a car dealer does in proving to me that the car
actually exists -- and far far fewer end up in Hell.
Which option would any god with a lick of morality
choose?
Seth
SkyEyes
Oct 27, 2012, 4:32:09 AM10/27/12
to
On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> > to provide it?
>
> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
> >Where is this evidence?
>
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
Of all the arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, this
> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> > to provide it?
>
> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
> >Where is this evidence?
>
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
one is the silliest. Of *course* one could choose to reject a god;
isn't that what Lucifer and the fallen angels are supposed to have
done?
You people don't read your own propaganda, do you?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 27, 2012, 6:09:14 AM10/27/12
to
In article
<c6f49e06-1dad-4337...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
would acknowledge that. But there's no chance I would worship such a
genocidal torturing psychopathic monster.
> You people don't read your own propaganda, do you?
Nope.
<c6f49e06-1dad-4337...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> >
> > <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> > >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> > >> > to provide it?
> >
> > >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
> >
> > >Where is this evidence?
> >
> > All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> > accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
> > Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
> > the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>
> Of all the arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, this
> one is the silliest. Of *course* one could choose to reject a god;
> isn't that what Lucifer and the fallen angels are supposed to have
> done?
If somebody provided irrefutable proof that the Abrahamic god is real, I
> On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> >
> > <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> > >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> > >> > to provide it?
> >
> > >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
> >
> > >Where is this evidence?
> >
> > All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> > accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
> > Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
> > the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>
> Of all the arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, this
> one is the silliest. Of *course* one could choose to reject a god;
> isn't that what Lucifer and the fallen angels are supposed to have
> done?
would acknowledge that. But there's no chance I would worship such a
genocidal torturing psychopathic monster.
> You people don't read your own propaganda, do you?
Ken
Oct 27, 2012, 10:24:21 AM10/27/12
to
Remember............Don't believe everything you think!
gord...@swbell.net
Oct 27, 2012, 10:36:38 AM10/27/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT), Seth lePod
<v.infe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>> >> > to provide it?
>>
>
>:
>> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
>:
>> >Where is this evidence?
>
>:
>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>
>Wait? What?
>
>Adam and Eve rejected Him, and I'm fairly sure they
>were convinced of His existence.
>
>As did Satan and quite a number of angels, who also
>doubtless knew of God's existence.
>
There is a different assessment of these events if you'd care to
<v.infe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>> >> > to provide it?
>>
>
>:
>> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
>:
>> >Where is this evidence?
>
>:
>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>
>Wait? What?
>
>Adam and Eve rejected Him, and I'm fairly sure they
>were convinced of His existence.
>
>As did Satan and quite a number of angels, who also
>doubtless knew of God's existence.
>
consider. None of these beings "rejected" God. They were motivated to
try to put themselves above the most high God.
There was no other Satan leading them away from God. Llucifer and
those angels who sided with him were overwhelmed with curiosity as to
what they might achieve if they dropped away from God and went along
another path. They had no in-depth understanding of all that they were
getting into, but they were overwhelmed with curiosity and very much
impelled to explore these things in depth.
God had no other option than to let them have a go at it. That is,
restricting them or intimidating them into compliance would not have
gotten the results that God wants from all of us. God wants us to be
able and reliable to interact with Him at His own level in a fully
sovereign manner. Pre-programmed puppets or restricted slaves are not
what God wants.
So, God allowed Lucifer and his fallen angels to have ago at exploring
all the vagaries of sin and rebellion while we humans tag along for
the purpose of learning. That's what it's all about. We humans are
expected to learn enough to assure God that we will NEVER, EVER, want
to go back and explore these things any further, once we've been
granted immortality and absolute sovereignty.
I don't know what will become of Lucifer and his grouip of fallen
angels, but I believe that they will be saves from the mess they have
gotten themselves into. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God is not
willing that any should perrish.
Gordon
Ken
Oct 27, 2012, 10:55:46 AM10/27/12
to
pathological psychotic?
Seek out professional help for your religious delusions
Caranx latus
Oct 27, 2012, 11:16:18 AM10/27/12
to
On 10/27/2012 4:32 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>> to provide it?
>>
>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>
>>> Where is this evidence?
>>
>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>
> Of all the arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, this
> one is the silliest. Of *course* one could choose to reject a god;
> isn't that what Lucifer and the fallen angels are supposed to have
> done?
>
> You people don't read your own propaganda, do you?
The Word of God is like unto a swiftly running brook of clear, pure
> On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>> to provide it?
>>
>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>
>>> Where is this evidence?
>>
>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>
> Of all the arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, this
> one is the silliest. Of *course* one could choose to reject a god;
> isn't that what Lucifer and the fallen angels are supposed to have
> done?
>
> You people don't read your own propaganda, do you?
water; the True Christian is as a rock, strong and durable as granite.
The Word of God washes over the True Christian and is gone, none of it
having been absorbed.
Caranx latus
Oct 27, 2012, 11:21:59 AM10/27/12
to
On 10/27/2012 10:36 AM, gord...@swbell.net wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT), Seth lePod
> <v.infe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>>
>>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>>> to provide it?
>>>
>>
>> :
>>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>
>> :
>>>> Where is this evidence?
>>
>> :
>>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>>> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>>> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>>
>> Wait? What?
>>
>> Adam and Eve rejected Him, and I'm fairly sure they
>> were convinced of His existence.
>>
>> As did Satan and quite a number of angels, who also
>> doubtless knew of God's existence.
>>
> There is a different assessment of these events if you'd care to
> consider. None of these beings "rejected" God. They were motivated to
> try to put themselves above the most high God.
I see. They didn't 'reject' God; they just rejected his leadership.
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:56:48 -0700 (PDT), Seth lePod
> <v.infe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>>
>>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>>> to provide it?
>>>
>>
>> :
>>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>
>> :
>>>> Where is this evidence?
>>
>> :
>>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>>> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>>> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>>
>> Wait? What?
>>
>> Adam and Eve rejected Him, and I'm fairly sure they
>> were convinced of His existence.
>>
>> As did Satan and quite a number of angels, who also
>> doubtless knew of God's existence.
>>
> There is a different assessment of these events if you'd care to
> consider. None of these beings "rejected" God. They were motivated to
> try to put themselves above the most high God.
You'll forgive me if I don't see a clear distinction.
> <snip> Llucifer
I had never though of Satan as Welsh before.
<snip>
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 27, 2012, 11:29:04 AM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:16:18 -0400, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 10/27/2012 4:32 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>>
>>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>>> to provide it?
>>>
>>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
What fucking evidence is the pathological liar lying about?
And why does he lie about and to us?
>>>> Where is this evidence?
>>>
>>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>>> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>>> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
Why does Gordon the moron keep lying about this to atheists in an
atheist newsgroup?
Does he seriously imagine this satisfies the burden of "put up or shut
up" that he took on when he bullshat here?
>> Of all the arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, this
>> one is the silliest. Of *course* one could choose to reject a god;
>> isn't that what Lucifer and the fallen angels are supposed to have
>> done?
However none of these pathological liars have ever demonstrated there
is anything for us to reject in the real world beyond the delusional
fantasies of their mythology.
>> You people don't read your own propaganda, do you?
>
>The Word of God is like unto a swiftly running brook of clear, pure
>water; the True Christian is as a rock, strong and durable as granite.
>The Word of God washes over the True Christian and is gone, none of it
>having been absorbed.
They're a potent combination of dishonest, aggressively stupid and
nasty.
wrote:
>On 10/27/2012 4:32 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 12:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>>
>>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>>> to provide it?
>>>
>>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
And why does he lie about and to us?
>>>> Where is this evidence?
>>>
>>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>>> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
>>> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
atheist newsgroup?
Does he seriously imagine this satisfies the burden of "put up or shut
up" that he took on when he bullshat here?
>> Of all the arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, this
>> one is the silliest. Of *course* one could choose to reject a god;
>> isn't that what Lucifer and the fallen angels are supposed to have
>> done?
is anything for us to reject in the real world beyond the delusional
fantasies of their mythology.
>> You people don't read your own propaganda, do you?
>
>The Word of God is like unto a swiftly running brook of clear, pure
>water; the True Christian is as a rock, strong and durable as granite.
>The Word of God washes over the True Christian and is gone, none of it
>having been absorbed.
nasty.
Devils Advocaat
Oct 27, 2012, 1:54:34 PM10/27/12
to
On 26 Oct, 20:23, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> > to provide it?
>
> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
> >Where is this evidence?
>
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
So why do theists go round claiming that this alleged deity will
> >On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> >> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> > to provide it?
>
> >> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
> >Where is this evidence?
>
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
punish those who choose to go their own way?
> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
>
believe that Jesus had risen?
Caranx latus
Oct 27, 2012, 5:35:50 PM10/27/12
to
On 10/27/2012 1:54 PM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On 26 Oct, 20:23, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>> to provide it?
>>
>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>
>>> Where is this evidence?
>>
>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>
> So why do theists go round claiming that this alleged deity will
> punish those who choose to go their own way?
<accent nationality="italian" tone="threatening"> That's a lovely soul
> On 26 Oct, 20:23, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>
>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>> to provide it?
>>
>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>
>>> Where is this evidence?
>>
>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
>
> So why do theists go round claiming that this alleged deity will
> punish those who choose to go their own way?
you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it... </accent>
<snip>
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 27, 2012, 5:42:36 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:35:50 -0400, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 10/27/2012 1:54 PM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On 26 Oct, 20:23, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>>
>>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>>> to provide it?
>>>
>>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
Lie noted.
>>>> Where is this evidence?
>>>
>>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
Lie noted
imagine that his bullshit is the evidence people only demand, to get
him to shut the fuck up because he obviously can't put up?
wrote:
>On 10/27/2012 1:54 PM, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On 26 Oct, 20:23, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>>
>>> <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 25 Oct, 00:29, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
>>>>>> to provide it?
>>>
>>>>> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>>>> Where is this evidence?
>>>
>>> All evidence of God's existence is given in a form that can be
>>> accepted or rejected, as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
.
>> So why do theists go round claiming that this alleged deity will
>> punish those who choose to go their own way?
>
><accent nationality="italian" tone="threatening"> That's a lovely soul
>you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it... </accent>
>
><snip>
Does the pig ignorant, aggressively stupid, proven serial liar really
>> So why do theists go round claiming that this alleged deity will
>> punish those who choose to go their own way?
>
><accent nationality="italian" tone="threatening"> That's a lovely soul
>you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it... </accent>
>
><snip>
imagine that his bullshit is the evidence people only demand, to get
him to shut the fuck up because he obviously can't put up?
Caranx latus
Oct 27, 2012, 6:18:41 PM10/27/12
to
is constantly surprised that nothing that he hits with it shows the
slightest sign of impact. It's almost as though he had *nothing* to work
with. After all, when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems
look like nails.
SkyEyes
Oct 27, 2012, 6:26:14 PM10/27/12
to
of angels like this. Where on earth did you get this ability?
>
> God had no other option than to let them have a go at it. That is,
> restricting them or intimidating them into compliance would not have
> gotten the results that God wants from all of us. God wants us to be
> able and reliable to interact with Him at His own level in a fully
> sovereign manner. Pre-programmed puppets or restricted slaves are not
> what God wants.
I see not one shred of evidence that *any* god exists, including
> God had no other option than to let them have a go at it. That is,
> restricting them or intimidating them into compliance would not have
> gotten the results that God wants from all of us. God wants us to be
> able and reliable to interact with Him at His own level in a fully
> sovereign manner. Pre-programmed puppets or restricted slaves are not
> what God wants.
yours. If you have some, please post it; otherwise, kindly FOAD.
>
> So, God allowed Lucifer and his fallen angels to have ago at exploring
> all the vagaries of sin and rebellion while we humans tag along for
> the purpose of learning. That's what it's all about. We humans are
> expected to learn enough to assure God that we will NEVER, EVER, want
> to go back and explore these things any further, once we've been
> granted immortality and absolute sovereignty.
You know, I've read the bible through a number of times, and none of
> So, God allowed Lucifer and his fallen angels to have ago at exploring
> all the vagaries of sin and rebellion while we humans tag along for
> the purpose of learning. That's what it's all about. We humans are
> expected to learn enough to assure God that we will NEVER, EVER, want
> to go back and explore these things any further, once we've been
> granted immortality and absolute sovereignty.
this is actually *in* the bible.
>
> I don't know what will become of Lucifer and his grouip of fallen
> angels, but I believe that they will be saves from the mess they have
> gotten themselves into. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God is not
> willing that any should perrish.
Except the billions that he's going to roast forever in the Lake of
> I don't know what will become of Lucifer and his grouip of fallen
> angels, but I believe that they will be saves from the mess they have
> gotten themselves into. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God is not
> willing that any should perrish.
Fire because they had a wrong belief.
SkyEyes
Oct 27, 2012, 6:26:55 PM10/27/12
to
On Oct 27, 8:20 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
He's Latino. It's pronounced "Yewcifer."
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 27, 2012, 6:27:22 PM10/27/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:18:41 -0400, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com>
Otherwise known as the Glasgow screwdriver.
SkyEyes
Oct 27, 2012, 6:27:56 PM10/27/12
to
On Oct 27, 8:15 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Word of God is like unto a swiftly running brook of clear, pure
> water; the True Christian is as a rock, strong and durable as granite.
> The Word of God washes over the True Christian and is gone, none of it
> having been absorbed.
An observation both poetic and apt.
> The Word of God is like unto a swiftly running brook of clear, pure
> water; the True Christian is as a rock, strong and durable as granite.
> The Word of God washes over the True Christian and is gone, none of it
> having been absorbed.
Brenda
Budikka666
Oct 28, 2012, 7:13:57 AM10/28/12
to
I asked for a simple yes or no answer and you're too big of a
spineless little coward even have the guts to say no! lol! And you
want us to be like *you*?
On Oct 24, 6:29 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> > to provide it?
>
> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
Yet despite your unsupported *claim* that there's an all-powerful god
supporting you, you are still too cowardly to face me on a formal
debate. Why is that? Is it because you know only too well that your
god doesn;t exist?
> > If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
>
> Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
Give you the courage to face me in a debate. Yet he fails you time
after time after time. Why is that? Is it because he doesn't even
exist and you know it just as well as we do?
> > then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
> > of witnessing?
>
> It is obvious that you want to find God.
There is no god and you've admitted it every time you've failed to
provide independent objective evdience for one. If there were a god
and he wanted us to come to him, then why does he use losers like
you? Why doesn't he make himself known as he supposedly did in the
Bible repeatedly?
Even if someone wanted to find this fake god of yours, what good would
it do them when you run every time *instead* of witnessing? Why
should anyone follow a god that you're too terrifed to testify about,
you sad little Loser for Christ™?
> The one and only,
That's not what the Bible says.
> true and living God.
That remains to be seen, and since you won't even witness because you
have ZERO faith that this supposedly omnipotent god will back you up
then you've lost already! lol! How pathetic is that?
>The One who loves you.
Evidently not, since he's as big a chicken as you are! lol! That's
what the *evidence* shows - that your god is a no-show!
> Here's what
> to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
I asked you to witness for your god and YOU RAN. That tells me
everything I need to know right there, and what it tells me is that
your god doesn;t exist, you know it, and your;e too dishonest to even
admit it.
> "If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
> if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> ~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
I did that when I was a kid. Guess what? He was a no show then, too.
> First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
Been there, done that. Now do you have the guts to face me in a
formal debate or not?
The debate topic is "My God Exists and I'll Prove it" - you to take
the pro, I'll take the con.
The answer right here right now is yes or no: Will you debate on this
topic here in this thread?
Budikka
spineless little coward even have the guts to say no! lol! And you
want us to be like *you*?
On Oct 24, 6:29 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
> > If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> > to provide it?
>
> The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
supporting you, you are still too cowardly to face me on a formal
debate. Why is that? Is it because you know only too well that your
god doesn;t exist?
> > If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
>
> Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
after time after time. Why is that? Is it because he doesn't even
exist and you know it just as well as we do?
> > then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
> > of witnessing?
>
> It is obvious that you want to find God.
provide independent objective evdience for one. If there were a god
and he wanted us to come to him, then why does he use losers like
you? Why doesn't he make himself known as he supposedly did in the
Bible repeatedly?
Even if someone wanted to find this fake god of yours, what good would
it do them when you run every time *instead* of witnessing? Why
should anyone follow a god that you're too terrifed to testify about,
you sad little Loser for Christ™?
> The one and only,
That's not what the Bible says.
> true and living God.
That remains to be seen, and since you won't even witness because you
have ZERO faith that this supposedly omnipotent god will back you up
then you've lost already! lol! How pathetic is that?
>The One who loves you.
what the *evidence* shows - that your god is a no-show!
> Here's what
> to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
everything I need to know right there, and what it tells me is that
your god doesn;t exist, you know it, and your;e too dishonest to even
admit it.
> "If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
> if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> ~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
> First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
formal debate or not?
The debate topic is "My God Exists and I'll Prove it" - you to take
the pro, I'll take the con.
The answer right here right now is yes or no: Will you debate on this
topic here in this thread?
Budikka
Budikka666
Oct 28, 2012, 7:31:08 AM10/28/12
to
On Oct 26, 2:23 pm, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a from that can be
> accepted or rejected,
You are yet another person who cannot provide a shred of independent,
objective evidence that unquivocally points to a single god who is
behind all existence. Do you want to take Andrew's place and formally
debate me on the topic I've offered him? This is alt.atheism, We
don't take Bible quotes and unsupported assertions. They are *not*
evidence. You're not the witness we're looking for. Move along.
> as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
There is no free will. That's another delusion you're holding on to
so desperately.
> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
According to Bible mythology, this god of yours provided endless
"proof" of his existence by appearing in person and manuufacturing all
kinds of miracles, but the only "evidence" we have of this is the
unreliable testimony of the anonymous authors of the Bible, and we
know for a fact that much of the Bible is a lie. It's not anywhere
near a reliable source and it is not independent.
The real question here is: if the Bible is reliable in what it says
about your god, then why has he been so completely *absent* for the
last several thousand years?? If he could pop up and perform miracles
and offer evidence of his existence to a primitive, superstitious
people, then why can he not do it now? Your "logic" is thoroughly
flawed.
> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
We don't have that choice if the Bible is right, This is yet another
delusion you hold. If the Bible is true and we reject your god, then
we rot in hell for eternity in pain and suffering. What kind of a
universally longsuffering and loving god would do that? And why would
any of us want to spend eternity in a heaven with people like Andrew,
who are liars, cowards, hypocrites and dishonest to their core? I
sure don't. I'd rather be in hell than be with delusional, spineless,
vacuous witnesses like you and Andrew. I reject your heaven and
substitute my own.
Look at it this way: what if I were to tell you that you had a
compeltely free choice between accepting me as your god and going your
own way; it's no pressure, your own sovreign free will, *but* if you
reject me, I would slowly and painfully torture your children for the
rest of their life, then would you consider that a completely free
choice?
If you would, you're even more delusional than you've hitherto shown
yousrself to be.
So you want to take Andrew's place and formally debate me on this or
not? If not, then there's no need for you to be in this thread.
Budikka
> All evidence of God's existence is given in a from that can be
> accepted or rejected,
You are yet another person who cannot provide a shred of independent,
objective evidence that unquivocally points to a single god who is
behind all existence. Do you want to take Andrew's place and formally
debate me on the topic I've offered him? This is alt.atheism, We
don't take Bible quotes and unsupported assertions. They are *not*
evidence. You're not the witness we're looking for. Move along.
> as the indifidual's soverein will impels them.
so desperately.
> Had God given us objective proof of His existence no one would have
"proof" of his existence by appearing in person and manuufacturing all
kinds of miracles, but the only "evidence" we have of this is the
unreliable testimony of the anonymous authors of the Bible, and we
know for a fact that much of the Bible is a lie. It's not anywhere
near a reliable source and it is not independent.
The real question here is: if the Bible is reliable in what it says
about your god, then why has he been so completely *absent* for the
last several thousand years?? If he could pop up and perform miracles
and offer evidence of his existence to a primitive, superstitious
people, then why can he not do it now? Your "logic" is thoroughly
flawed.
> the option to reject Him and go their own way.
delusion you hold. If the Bible is true and we reject your god, then
we rot in hell for eternity in pain and suffering. What kind of a
universally longsuffering and loving god would do that? And why would
any of us want to spend eternity in a heaven with people like Andrew,
who are liars, cowards, hypocrites and dishonest to their core? I
sure don't. I'd rather be in hell than be with delusional, spineless,
vacuous witnesses like you and Andrew. I reject your heaven and
substitute my own.
Look at it this way: what if I were to tell you that you had a
compeltely free choice between accepting me as your god and going your
own way; it's no pressure, your own sovreign free will, *but* if you
reject me, I would slowly and painfully torture your children for the
rest of their life, then would you consider that a completely free
choice?
If you would, you're even more delusional than you've hitherto shown
yousrself to be.
So you want to take Andrew's place and formally debate me on this or
not? If not, then there's no need for you to be in this thread.
Budikka
Budikka666
Oct 28, 2012, 7:43:08 AM10/28/12
to
On Oct 27, 9:36 am, gordo...@swbell.net wrote:
[proselytizing snipped]
"God is omniscient and omnipotent. God is not willing that any should
perrish. "
Then why create us at all? If your god had created nothing, then *no
one* would be suffering eternally in hell. Your god is *entirely* and
*solely* responsible for every soul in hell, (or he would be if your
position were not pure fantasy) by the veyr act of creation.
If your god is omniscient, he surely woudl have known this. In fact,
he would have known before he created anything *exactly* which souls
would end up in hell. Why did he not refrain from creating *those*
souls?
And if he's omnipotent, how come he couldn't defeat warriors using
iron? Isn't iron supposed to be the substance which trips up satan?
so why does it trip up yoru god? Is he satan too? Is your god
schizophrenic?
There is no free will BTW:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/the-no-free-will-experiment/
Now do you want to take that coward Andrew's place and formally debate
me on the topic? You don't get to have a free ride in this thread -
to proselytize and run like Andrew tries to do. If you want to be
posting in here, then you need to support your claims isnetad of just
preaching them. Answer yes or no: Will you debate the topic I offered
Andrew and bring independent obejctive evidence to the table
supporting your claims?
Budikka
[proselytizing snipped]
"God is omniscient and omnipotent. God is not willing that any should
perrish. "
one* would be suffering eternally in hell. Your god is *entirely* and
*solely* responsible for every soul in hell, (or he would be if your
position were not pure fantasy) by the veyr act of creation.
If your god is omniscient, he surely woudl have known this. In fact,
he would have known before he created anything *exactly* which souls
would end up in hell. Why did he not refrain from creating *those*
souls?
And if he's omnipotent, how come he couldn't defeat warriors using
iron? Isn't iron supposed to be the substance which trips up satan?
so why does it trip up yoru god? Is he satan too? Is your god
schizophrenic?
There is no free will BTW:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/the-no-free-will-experiment/
Now do you want to take that coward Andrew's place and formally debate
me on the topic? You don't get to have a free ride in this thread -
to proselytize and run like Andrew tries to do. If you want to be
posting in here, then you need to support your claims isnetad of just
preaching them. Answer yes or no: Will you debate the topic I offered
Andrew and bring independent obejctive evidence to the table
supporting your claims?
Budikka
Don Martin
Oct 28, 2012, 10:37:41 AM10/28/12
to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:18:41 -0400, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com>
Or his own thumb.
--
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/
--
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/
Budikka666
Oct 29, 2012, 7:46:35 PM10/29/12
to
Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit that your
"omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
Budikka
"omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
Budikka
Andrew
Oct 29, 2012, 9:21:58 PM10/29/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:2188b78f-1b99-49a8...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
He is the One who loves you.
> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
He is the One who loves you.
John Locke
Oct 29, 2012, 11:18:56 PM10/29/12
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:21:58 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
..no, no. Love is an animal characteristic facilitated by
biochemistry in the brain. So now your telling us that your all
powerful god is endowed with and effectively handicapped by a human
neurobiological system ? I don't think that neurocellular anatomy
would survive very long out there in the old void without atmospheric
pressure and oxygen. (and NO, your god didn't send Jeebus to earth
to get around the problem !) You theists should really rethink your
god story. It's full of holes. Great big holes.
wrote:
biochemistry in the brain. So now your telling us that your all
powerful god is endowed with and effectively handicapped by a human
neurobiological system ? I don't think that neurocellular anatomy
would survive very long out there in the old void without atmospheric
pressure and oxygen. (and NO, your god didn't send Jeebus to earth
to get around the problem !) You theists should really rethink your
god story. It's full of holes. Great big holes.
Devils Advocaat
Oct 30, 2012, 3:55:16 PM10/30/12
to
On Oct 30, 1:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:2188b78f-1b99-49a8...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Isn't your god supposed to be eternal and unchanging?
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:2188b78f-1b99-49a8...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Budikka666
Oct 30, 2012, 5:02:19 PM10/30/12
to
On Oct 29, 8:20 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:2188b78f-1b99-49a8...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist. Instead
I am focused on your shameful cowardice and your juvneile lies which
only too palpably exist.
But thanks once again for proving to everyone on Usenet what a
diseminating piece of lowlife theist trash you are. Keep up the good
work. You and other losers like you are making my job of discrediting
your faith far easier.
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:2188b78f-1b99-49a8...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>
> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
LIE
> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>
> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist. Instead
I am focused on your shameful cowardice and your juvneile lies which
only too palpably exist.
But thanks once again for proving to everyone on Usenet what a
diseminating piece of lowlife theist trash you are. Keep up the good
work. You and other losers like you are making my job of discrediting
your faith far easier.
Budikka
Andrew
Oct 30, 2012, 10:09:46 PM10/30/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
agree with me.
> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
Therefore your obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>
>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>
> LIE
I simply refer to your posts. Any objective observer would
>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>
>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>
> LIE
agree with me.
> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
Devils Advocaat
Oct 31, 2012, 3:32:04 AM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 2:08 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
> >> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>
> >> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>
> > LIE
>
> I simply refer to your posts. Any objective observer would
> agree with me.
No they won't.
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
> >> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>
> >> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>
> > LIE
>
> I simply refer to your posts. Any objective observer would
> agree with me.
>
> > I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>
> Therefore your obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
No it isn't.
> > I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>
> Therefore your obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
Devils Advocaat
Oct 31, 2012, 3:46:09 AM10/31/12
to
On Oct 25, 12:12 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> natural explanation. Why not suggest something demonstrably real that
> can have no natural explanation? That would be a good step in the right
> direction.
> people's fault when they can't find him.
>
> "If thou shalt seek the Sasquatch, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him
If thou shalt seek the Great White Phone, thou shalt find Him, if thou
> On 10/24/2012 7:31 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
> > "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>
> >> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> to provide it?
>
> > The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
> Everything you've ever suggested as evidence has a far more plausible
>
> > "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:k69l63$ael$8...@dont-email.me...
>
> >> If you have so much evidence, then why do you RUN when asked
> >> to provide it?
>
> > The evidence is everywhere. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
>
> natural explanation. Why not suggest something demonstrably real that
> can have no natural explanation? That would be a good step in the right
> direction.
>
> >> If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
>
> > Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
>
> He could stop being so damnably coy, and he could stop making it other
> >> If your creator is so desirous of helping us,
>
> > Yes, and what more could He do than what He has already done?
>
> people's fault when they can't find him.
>
> >> then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
> >> of witnessing?
>
> >> then why do *you* run every time you're put on the spot instead
> >> of witnessing?
>
> > It is obvious that you want to find God. The one and only,
> > true and living God. The One who loves you. Here's what
> > to do. Follow these instruction, and you _*will*_ find Him:
>
>
> > "If thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him,
> > if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> > ~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
>
> > if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> > ~ Deuteronomy 4:29 ~
>
> > First follow the above instructions, then get back to me.
>
> Those aren't instructions. Here, I'll illustrate...
>
>
> "If thou shalt seek the Sasquatch, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him
> with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
>
> Off you go. Report back your findings. Take your time.
>
If thou shalt seek the Great White Phone, thou shalt find Him, if thou
seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Off you go. Report back your findings. Take your time. :P
Andrew
Oct 31, 2012, 5:54:21 AM10/31/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
By your own testimony even!
> Budikka
Thanks Budikka!
You have hereby confessed the truth.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>
>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>
>> >
>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>
>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>
> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
By your own testimony even!
> Budikka
Thanks Budikka!
You have hereby confessed the truth.
Andrew
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 31, 2012, 5:55:52 AM10/31/12
to
In article <DN2dneJete19aQ3N...@earthlink.com>,
Are you stupid or merely dishonest?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 31, 2012, 6:11:59 AM10/31/12
to
Devils Advocaat
Oct 31, 2012, 7:59:33 AM10/31/12
to
On 31 Oct, 09:52, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
that it does exist.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>
> >> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
> >> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>
> >> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>
> > I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>
> Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
> your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
So when someone says something doesn't exist you take that as evidence
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>
> >> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
> >> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>
> >> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>
> > I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>
> Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
> your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
that it does exist.
Caranx latus
Oct 31, 2012, 9:14:58 AM10/31/12
to
On 10/30/2012 10:09 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>
>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>
>> LIE
>
> I simply refer to your posts. Any objective observer would
> agree with me.
By "objective observer", I presume you mean "observer that agrees with
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>
>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>
>> LIE
>
> I simply refer to your posts. Any objective observer would
> agree with me.
my misinterpretations". Budikka666's obsession is with creationists.
>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>
> Therefore your obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
Hannele
Oct 31, 2012, 9:24:05 AM10/31/12
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:55:52 +0100, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <DN2dneJete19aQ3N...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>>> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>>
>>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>>
>> Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
>> your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>>
>> By your own testimony even!
>>
<hlwd...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <DN2dneJete19aQ3N...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>>> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>>
>>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>>
>> Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
>> your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>>
>> By your own testimony even!
>>
>> Thanks Budikka!
>>
>> You have hereby confessed the truth.
>
> Are you stupid or merely dishonest?
>
Yes, he is.
>>
>> You have hereby confessed the truth.
>
> Are you stupid or merely dishonest?
>
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
There are at least as many gods as there are believers.
Mike Painter
Oct 31, 2012, 11:42:37 AM10/31/12
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 02:54:21 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
If there is any obsession it is with those propagating such stories.
If a continuous obsession is proof that something exists it also means
that all versions of all gods exist and that all the Christians
obsessed with the "fact" that they are right and everybody else is
wrong are all correct.
And those who are controlled by rays from aliens or computers are also
right.
Based on this I am going to start obsessing about the billion dollar
checking account I have.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig
wrote:
If a continuous obsession is proof that something exists it also means
that all versions of all gods exist and that all the Christians
obsessed with the "fact" that they are right and everybody else is
wrong are all correct.
And those who are controlled by rays from aliens or computers are also
right.
Based on this I am going to start obsessing about the billion dollar
checking account I have.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig
Ralph
Oct 31, 2012, 1:02:50 PM10/31/12
to
On 10/31/2012 5:54 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
> Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
> your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>
> By your own testimony even!
You don't even know what evidence is, do you?
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
> Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
> your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>
> By your own testimony even!
Ralph
Oct 31, 2012, 1:07:05 PM10/31/12
to
On 10/30/2012 10:09 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>> LIE
> I simply refer to your posts. Any objective observer would
> agree with me.
That is certainly not so.
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>> that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>> LIE
> I simply refer to your posts. Any objective observer would
> agree with me.
>
>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
> Therefore your obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>
>
>
mindless wanderings are evidence?
Free Lunch
Oct 31, 2012, 7:06:00 PM10/31/12
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 02:54:21 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:712b247f-fcdb-418b...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>
>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>
>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>
>Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
>your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>By your own testimony even!
you spread.
Andrew
Nov 1, 2012, 6:25:10 AM11/1/12
to
"Mike Painter" wrote in message news:lbh2985c9e0nu3r97...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
This is by the testimony of Budikka, that she is not obsessing
over something that does not exist. Therefore since she has an
obsession with the Creator, then the Creator exists, according
to her own testimony.
She knows, but she has not yet surrendered to His great love
for her. And since she is unable to remove the issue from her
mind, thus the obsession, as everyone here may cleary see.
Andrew
> Based on this I am going to start obsessing about the
> billion dollar checking account I have.
Move to Zimbabwe, you need will more than a billion
to buy half a sack of potatoes.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>>
>>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>>
>>Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
>>your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>>
>>By your own testimony even!
>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>>Thanks Budikka!
>>
>>You have hereby confessed the truth.
>
> If there is any obsession it is with those propagating such stories.
>
> If a continuous obsession is proof that something exists..
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>>
>>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>>
>>Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
>>your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>>
>>By your own testimony even!
>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>>Thanks Budikka!
>>
>>You have hereby confessed the truth.
>
> If there is any obsession it is with those propagating such stories.
>
This is by the testimony of Budikka, that she is not obsessing
over something that does not exist. Therefore since she has an
obsession with the Creator, then the Creator exists, according
to her own testimony.
She knows, but she has not yet surrendered to His great love
for her. And since she is unable to remove the issue from her
mind, thus the obsession, as everyone here may cleary see.
Andrew
> Based on this I am going to start obsessing about the
> billion dollar checking account I have.
to buy half a sack of potatoes.
Jeanne Douglas
Nov 1, 2012, 7:10:14 AM11/1/12
to
Ralph
Nov 1, 2012, 4:56:36 PM11/1/12
to
Budikka666
Nov 1, 2012, 4:57:16 PM11/1/12
to
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank's most recent denials of his creator
god:
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
god:
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
Free Lunch
Nov 1, 2012, 6:55:49 PM11/1/12
to
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 03:25:10 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Mike Painter" wrote in message news:lbh2985c9e0nu3r97...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>>>
>>>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>>>
>>>Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
>>>your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>>>
>>>By your own testimony even!
>>>
>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>>Thanks Budikka!
>>>
>>>You have hereby confessed the truth.
>>
>> If there is any obsession it is with those propagating such stories.
>>
>> If a continuous obsession is proof that something exists..
>
>This is by the testimony of Budikka, that she is not obsessing
>over something that does not exist. Therefore since she has an
>obsession with the Creator, then the Creator exists, according
>to her own testimony.
>
>She knows, but she has not yet surrendered to His great love
>for her. And since she is unable to remove the issue from her
>mind, thus the obsession, as everyone here may cleary see.
>
You still preach an evil god of your own imagination. You know that you
have absolutely no evidence at all that your god exists.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Mike Painter" wrote in message news:lbh2985c9e0nu3r97...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>"Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks for reliably proving once again that even *you* admit
>>>>> > that your "omnipotent" creator god is completely useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you have a continuous obsession with Him.
>>>>
>>>> I don't obsess over something which patently does not exist.
>>>
>>>Yes, thank you. That's why by your own testimony (above),
>>>your continuous obsession is evidence that He DOES exist.
>>>
>>>By your own testimony even!
>>>
>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>>Thanks Budikka!
>>>
>>>You have hereby confessed the truth.
>>
>> If there is any obsession it is with those propagating such stories.
>>
>> If a continuous obsession is proof that something exists..
>
>This is by the testimony of Budikka, that she is not obsessing
>over something that does not exist. Therefore since she has an
>obsession with the Creator, then the Creator exists, according
>to her own testimony.
>
>She knows, but she has not yet surrendered to His great love
>for her. And since she is unable to remove the issue from her
>mind, thus the obsession, as everyone here may cleary see.
>
have absolutely no evidence at all that your god exists.
>
>Andrew
>
>
>> Based on this I am going to start obsessing about the
>> billion dollar checking account I have.
>
>Move to Zimbabwe, you need will more than a billion
>to buy half a sack of potatoes.
>
No, US dollars are worth the same there as they are here.
>Andrew
>
>
>> Based on this I am going to start obsessing about the
>> billion dollar checking account I have.
>
>Move to Zimbabwe, you need will more than a billion
>to buy half a sack of potatoes.
>
0 new messages