Even Bats Have Oral Sex - Creationists Stymied Again!
Budikka666
everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:
http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
(www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? And
how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
evolution?
Budikka
ilbe...@gmail.com
> Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
> everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
> whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
> (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>
> If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? And
> how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
> from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
> Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
> evolution?
>
> Budikka
Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick (cofounder of the
dna structure) states the chance of your Theory is approx. 10x40,000
th power. How come an impossible Theory HAS TO be correct for you
personally ? Whats up with all that ? What personal benefits are
there to you by not having to answer to a personal Creator who loves
you ?
Budikka666
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story.
Budikka
Mark Evans
Kindly provide us with a source for your quote. Unless you can point
to where Crick said this it is pretty worthless. And by the way,
refering back to a source that claims he said this but does not give a
citation is not a valid response.
Mark Evans
raven1
>On Oct 29, 3:24�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
>> everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
>> whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
>> (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>
>> If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? �And
>> how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
>> from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
>> he
>> Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
>> evolution?
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick (cofounder
Your skill at the English language is still unmatched. "Cofounder"?
> of the
>dna structure)
"DNA" is normally capitalized.
>states the chance of your Theory is approx. 10x40,000
>th power.
What theory is that, and on what is this estimate based?
> How come an impossible Theory HAS TO be correct for you
>personally ? Whats up with all that ?
Again, what theory are you referring to?
> What personal benefits are
>there to you by not having to answer to a personal Creator who loves
>you ?
None at all. I'm not an atheist for some kind of personal benefit, I'm
an atheist because there's no indication that any kind of "God"
exists. What's so difficult for you to understand about that?
Ken
the usual mindless BS!
RU just 2 fucking stupid to comprehend your own inane stupidity?
Quote the Raven1: "Seriously, I''ve been on Usenet for 13 years, and
you have to be the dumbest, most ignorant person I've run across in
that time"
ilbe...@gmail.com
> Chicken I'll Be Bauck
> Chicken Pastor Dave
>
> Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
> find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
> has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
> pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>
> Case closed. End of story.
>
> Budikka
Ummm, no... your case is not closed im afraid. Please tell us why it
is imperative for you to believe Pond Scum is your great ancestor ,
when world famous ATHEIST Dr. Francis Crick said it is utterly
ludicrous . Dont bring other issues into play...please just focus on
THIS one issue presented here. We respectfully thank you for not
dodging .
ilbe...@gmail.com
> On Oct 29, 5:06 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 3:24 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
> > > everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
> > > whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
> > > (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>
> > > If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? And
> > > how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
> > > from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
> > > he
> > > Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
> > > evolution?
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick (cofounder of the
> > dna structure) states the chance of your Theory is approx. 10x40,000
> > th power. How come an impossible Theory HAS TO be correct for you
> > personally ? Whats up with all that ? What personal benefits are
> > there to you by not having to answer to a personal Creator who loves
> h
> Kindly provide us with a source for your quote. Unless you can point
> to where Crick said this it is pretty worthless. And by the way,
> refering back to a source that claims he said this but does not give a
>
> Mark Evans- Hide quoted text -
> o
> - Show quoted text -
Ive provided this many times . Here it is once again :
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/did-life-form-by-accident.htm
. ATHEIST Dr. Crick affirmed the calculation of 10x40,000 th power
probability for abiogenesis . You need abiogenesis to be true before
you can have Pond Scum to 206 bone human being to be true. Of course,
one doesnt need to read this probability figure to know that the Human
Anatomy with its 60 major systems ALL working collaboratively and
precisely and in balance ... doesnt look like a compilation of random
accidents ad infinitum . People reject the obvious Designer/Creator
due to personal pride of not wanting to be owned. Bottom line. How
about you...are you going to play this very dangerous game all of your
earthly life ? I hope not.
polymer
That is hardly a site that can be considered authoritative about anything
but religious drivel. I'm sure that on religious drivel, however, it is
really quite authoritative. Congratulations, you have cited religious
drivel.
Ralph
Crick was, however, a firm critic of Young earth creationism
Young Earth creationism.
Young Earth creationism is the religious belief that Heaven, Earth, and
life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period,
sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago....
. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard
Edwards v. Aguillard
Edwards v. Aguillard, was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the
United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a
Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public
schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was
specifically intended to advance a particular religion....
Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that,
"Creation-science ' simply has no place in the public-school science
classroom." Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day
Cory Albrecht
No, moron. That is somebody *else* claiming that Crick said that. Try
again by producing an actual citation of Crick's *own* published words.
Ralph
Crick was, however, a firm critic of Young earth creationism
Young Earth creationism
Young Earth creationism is the religious belief that Heaven, Earth, and
life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period,
sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago....
Ralph
Tim Miller
> On Oct 29, 3:24 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
>> everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
>> whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
>> (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>
>> If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? And
>> how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
>> from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
>> he
>> Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
>> evolution?
>>
>> Budikka
>
> Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick (cofounder of the
> dna structure) states the chance of your Theory is approx. 10x40,000
> th power.
No, you ignorant liar, he doesn't. How many times do we have
to correct you??
I know. ONCE more.
> How come an impossible Theory HAS TO be correct for you
> personally ? Whats up with all that ? What personal benefits are
> there to you by not having to answer to a personal Creator who loves
> you ?
What makes you think YOU picked the "right creator" to
fawn over?? After all, most of YOUR fables were simply
plagiarized...
Tim Miller
He can't. When we showed him that the website he USED to quote
had the attributions screwed up, he had to find another one...
Mark Evans
A reference to a sight with no indication of where the quote came from
is not what I was asking for. When and where did Crick say this?
BTW, such sloppiness would result in you getting a failing grade in
elementary school.
Mark Evans
ilbe...@gmail.com
> > doesnt need to read this probability figure to know that the Human
> > Anatomy with its 60 major systems ALL working collaboratively and
> > precisely and in balance ... doesnt look like a compilation of random
> > accidents ad infinitum . People reject the obvious Designer/Creator
> > due to personal pride of not wanting to be owned. Bottom line. How
> > about you...are you going to play this very dangerous game all of your
li>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rubbish ! Dr. Crick even put it in his own book . See the footnotes.
Now...if a world reknown Atheist Biologist says atheistic first life
on earth is utterly impossible, it most certainly is . So, now
what .... continue to play the charade ? Atheism is the religion of
denial and excuses which is quite evident.
ilbe...@gmail.com
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote, on 09-10-29 06:26 PM:
>
>
Wrong . It comes from the Mans own book . You dont want to believe
in Creationist Scientists nor do you want to believe in Atheist
Scientists . You need to think up another wild desperate theory.
osugeography
IBB wrote that "Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick
(cofounder of the dna structure) states the chance of your Theory is
approx. 10x40,000 > th power.
Answer: Wasn't it Crick who co-authored the book "Evolution From Outer
Space", neatly begging the question? (This strictly from memory...)
And if the evolution of life is so unlikely, how much more unlikely is
it that your God evolved to a point immeasurably beyond your 10^40,000
chance, to a point where he set the laws of the universe, etc? And
please, no "God is eternal" from you. I notice you continue to dodge
much the same question from me in another thread.
And you ask: "What personal benefits are there to you by not having to
answer to a personal Creator who loves you ?" Answer: Not having to
practice deceit to support God. If you believe that "Satan is the
great Deceiver" (memory), why would one lie to support a God who is
all-powerful? And if deceivers are disfavored in God's sight, you, in
your own beliefs, are in mortal peril...
It is still difficult to imagine the actions of some God-believers
here as anything but the most repulsive image of representatives of
your God and his works. It has been (mostly) my pleasure to be
associated with people of many religions during my life, and most of
them are fine, decent people. We can discussed and disagreed,
pleasantly. And sometimes agreed. But then again, I believe that
religious fundamentalists of any stripe were not present. For this
reason, I believe many people here are Loki-Trolls, or maybe just
demented.
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
ilbe...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
True. The Earth is no older than roughly 15,000 years . Theres so much
compelling evidence for a Young Earth if you do a simple Google .
This crap that it takes millions and millions of years is simply a
requirement for chance to have a chance at producing what ONLY a
willful MIND at work can do via design and build . Bow before your
Creator now in humility and accept he owns you. To do so takes
strength . Do it and have hope for eternity instead of fear of death
looming.
Free Lunch
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in
<b9caa229-9b16-4390...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
You know you are lying here. Why do you lie to us? What does it get you?
> Theres so much
>compelling evidence for a Young Earth if you do a simple Google .
There is zero evidence for a young earth. You know that.
>This crap that it takes millions and millions of years is simply a
>requirement for chance to have a chance at producing what ONLY a
>willful MIND at work can do via design and build . Bow before your
>Creator now in humility and accept he owns you. To do so takes
>strength . Do it and have hope for eternity instead of fear of death
>looming.
You are again providing us evidence that your religion is false.
polymer
> On Oct 29, 5:37 pm, polymer <poly...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
> li>
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> Rubbish ! Dr. Crick even put it in his own book .
Then you should be able to at least name the book.
SkyEyes
> On Oct 29, 3:24 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
> > everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
> > whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
> > (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>
> > If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? And
> > how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
> > from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
> > he
> > Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
> > evolution?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick (cofounder of the
> dna structure)
Francis Crick didn't "found" the DNA structure. He hypothesized it,
and, along with James Watson, gathered data to support the
hypothesis.
> states the chance of your Theory is approx. 10x40,000
> th power. How come an impossible Theory HAS TO be correct for you
> personally ?
In the first place, whoever came up with that number did the math
wrong. It is predicated on the whole system resetting with each
"try." It also assumes that only one organism/lineage of organisms is
involved, sequentially.
In reality, genetic changes, if beneficial or even neutral, are easily
"fixed" (incorporated into) in the population. On top of that, the
genetic changes show up in populations; many, many individuals are
involved, not just one at a time. This gives us an entirely different
set of numbers.
And lastly, Boychik, even long odds don't indicate an event is
"impossible." Please go back to school. A real school, not a home
skool.
> Whats up with all that ? What personal benefits are
> there to you by not having to answer to a personal Creator who loves
> you ?
1. There is absolutely *no* evidence that any god exists, let alone
one who "created" everything.
2. The god depicted in the bible is *not* a loving god. Please read
the damn book sometime, instead of just believing what your handlers
tell you it says.
3. Reality beats fantasy, hands-down and walkin' away. That's the
"personal benefit."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Oct 29, 2:06�pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 3:24�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
>> > everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
>> > whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
>> > (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>>
>> > If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? �And
>> > how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
>> > from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
>> > he
>> > Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
>> > evolution?
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick (cofounder of the
>> dna structure)
>
>Francis Crick didn't "found" the DNA structure. He hypothesized it,
>and, along with James Watson, gathered data to support the
>hypothesis.
Actually that happened a lot earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research
DNA was first isolated by the Swiss physician Friedrich Miescher who,
in 1869, discovered a microscopic substance in the pus of discarded
surgical bandages. As it resided in the nuclei of cells, he called it
"nuclein".[132] In 1919, Phoebus Levene identified the base, sugar and
phosphate nucleotide unit.[133] Levene suggested that DNA consisted of
a string of nucleotide units linked together through the phosphate
groups. However, Levene thought the chain was short and the bases
repeated in a fixed order. In 1937 William Astbury produced the first
X-ray diffraction patterns that showed that DNA had a regular
structure.[134]
In 1928, Frederick Griffith discovered that traits of the "smooth"
form of the Pneumococcus could be transferred to the "rough" form of
the same bacteria by mixing killed "smooth" bacteria with the live
"rough" form.[135] This system provided the first clear suggestion
that DNA carried genetic information�the Avery-MacLeod-McCarty
experiment�when Oswald Avery, along with coworkers Colin MacLeod and
Maclyn McCarty, identified DNA as the transforming principle in
1943.[136] DNA's role in heredity was confirmed in 1952, when Alfred
Hershey and Martha Chase in the Hershey-Chase experiment showed that
DNA is the genetic material of the T2 phage.[137]
Tim Miller
No, you ignorant fuck, he didn't. You've SCREWED UP THE ATTRIBUTIONS.
AGAIN.
No WONDER you can't even get your OWN fairy tales right.
Tim Miller
No, pinhead, it doesn't. How many times do we have to point
out your mistake?
Cory Albrecht
What book? If he actually did so then it would be trivial for you to
give a proper citation.
Cory Albrecht
Then it should be trivial for you to provide a proper citation of the
exact book title, year of publishing and page number.
Devils Advocaat
> On Oct 29, 3:24 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
> > everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
> > whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
> > (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>
> > If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? And
> > how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
> > from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
> > he
> > Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
> > evolution?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick (cofounder of the
> dna structure) states the chance of your Theory is approx. 10x40,000
> th power. How come an impossible Theory HAS TO be correct for you
> personally ? Whats up with all that ? What personal benefits are
> there to you by not having to answer to a personal Creator who loves
> you ?
Why do you keep churning out this blatant lie?
Francis Crick NEVER made any reference to such a probability value.
The real source of this figure is one Fred Hoyle.
How many more times do you have to be told this?
Devils Advocaat
Let's look at the actual content of your cited source rather than what
you have written above.
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would
have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
This first part is correctly attributed to Francis Crick, and comes as
stated in the footnotes from his book entitled "Life Itself".
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in
(1020)2,000=1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not
be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."
This part is referred to as coming from a book entitled "Evolution
from Space", but it fails to mention the author of that book.
That book was actually co-authored by Fred Hoyle and Chandra
Wickramasinghe, and Francis Crick had nothing to do with it.
You really should double check the honesty of your sources before
making use of them.
Syd M.
> On Oct 29, 3:24 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
> > everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
> > whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
> > (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>
> > If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? And
> > how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
> > from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
> > he
> > Or is the actual truth that there is no creator at all, just
> > evolution?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Atheist world reknown Biologist Dr. Francis Crick (cofounder of the
> dna structure) states the chance of your Theory is approx. 10x40,000
> th power. How come an impossible Theory HAS TO be correct for you
> personally ? Whats up with all that ? What personal benefits are
> there to you by not having to answer to a personal Creator who loves
> you ?
You mean, besides the fact that no evidence for this creature exists?
PDW
Syd M.
You respect no one, and you have failed her challenge.
PDW
Syd M.
Wrong again.
PDW
Syd M.
Just won't stop lying, will you?
PDW
ilbe...@gmail.com
> Creationist morons try to pretend humans are something special, but
> everywhere we look in nature we find the things that the creationists
> whine are sinful - homosexuality, infanticide, oral sex:http://tinyurl.com/ygn652f
> (www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience)
>
> If these things are so bad, why did their creator create them? And
> how can the creationists pretend even for a second that morality comes
> from their pathetic god when there's none to be found in nature?
>
>
> Budikka
So what if Bats have oral sex . So do Rabbits and a few other
animals. The Creator saw fit for some animals to experience a
pleasurable venue even if its instinctive , the same as humans. Oral
sex existing between the animal kingdom and humans doesnt mean
humans evolved from Pond Scum to lower forms of life anymore than
going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger if you order a Big Mac.
Instead of looking for excuses for not allowing yourself to be OWNED
by the Creator of the Cosmos, it is much wiser to move closer to him
in relationship, learn about him, grow in him, honor him, and make
him your Creator instead of hoping youre nothing but graduated
accidental unpurposed Pond Scum so you can live as you like. For,
that is really what rejection of the Creator is fundamentally about.
Been there and done that myself many years ago --- peel off the
pride , humble yourself to the Creator whom youre going to meet either
NOW or Later. Its better Now.
Devils Advocaat
How about admitting that you have lied about what Francis Crick is
supposed to have said or written regarding the odds of a certain event
happening?
Ken
the usual unsupported BULLCRAP
How about admitting you were totally duped by The Onion, FOOL?
Quote the Raven1: "Seriously, I''ve been on Usenet for 13 years, and
you have to be the dumbest, most ignorant person I've run across in
that time"
Ken
this crapola:
> True. The Earth is no older than roughly 15,000 years .
URA FUCKING IDIOT
raven1
>So what if Bats have oral sex . So do Rabbits and a few other
>animals. The Creator saw fit for some animals to experience a
>pleasurable venue even if its instinctive , the same as humans. Oral
>sex existing between the animal kingdom and humans doesnt mean
>humans evolved from Pond Scum to lower forms of life anymore than
>going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger if you order a Big Mac.
>Instead of looking for excuses for not allowing yourself to be OWNED
>by the Creator of the Cosmos, it is much wiser to move closer to him
>in relationship, learn about him, grow in him, honor him, and make
>him your Creator instead of hoping youre nothing but graduated
>accidental unpurposed Pond Scum so you can live as you like. For,
>that is really what rejection of the Creator is fundamentally about.
>Been there and done that myself many years ago --- peel off the
>pride , humble yourself to the Creator whom youre going to meet either
>NOW or Later. Its better Now.
Got any particular reason I should believe this "Creator" exists in
the first place?
Tim Miller
> Instead of looking for excuses for not allowing yourself to be OWNED
> by the Creator of the Cosmos, it is much wiser to move closer to him
> in relationship, learn about him, grow in him, honor him, and make
> him your Creator instead of hoping youre nothing but graduated
> accidental unpurposed Pond Scum so you can live as you like. For,
> that is really what rejection of the Creator is fundamentally about.
> Been there and done that myself many years ago --- peel off the
> pride , humble yourself to the Creator whom youre going to meet either
> NOW or Later. Its better Now.
Sorry sport, no one is going to meet your "creator", now or
ever. The sad part is, you'll never know. You'll go to your
pauper's grave thinking SOMETHING is going to happen, then,
you'll die, and... nothing. But you won't know. Your consciousness
will have simply ended.
And all the while you're wasting the only life you DO get.
It's really kind of sad.
Ralph
No one is more desperate than you Dave, no one. What is 'Mans own book'?
Ralph
The only evidence that measures the age of the earth is radiometric
dating, so I don't need to do a search.
I have no fear of death now that I know the truth. I don't want to go
but I know that death is nothing more than an eternal sleep.
Ralph
No one is going to meet the creator, you damn fool!
Budikka666
Budikka666
Budikka666
Budikka666
Budikka666
Budikka666
haiku jones
> On Oct 29, 4:10 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Chicken I'll Be Bauck
> > Chicken Pastor Dave
>
> > Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
> > find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
> > has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
> > pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>
> > Case closed. End of story.
>
> > Budikka
>
> is imperative for you to believe Pond Scum is your great ancestor ,
> when world famous ATHEIST Dr. Francis Crick said it is utterly
> ludicrous . Dont bring other issues into play...please just focus on
> THIS one issue presented here. We respectfully thank you for not
> dodging .
And of course, what Crick speculated was that life did arise initially
from "Pond Scum" -- to use your characterization of it -- but from
pond scum on another planet, whence it then drifted here.
So, since you apparently feel that the "world famous ATHEIST
Dr. Francis Crick" is the final word in these matters, have we
settled the matter for you?
Haiku Jones