Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disproving Creation: Still No Scientific Evidence for Noah's Flood
74 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
Dec 28, 2012, 2:23:55 PM12/28/12
to
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
flooding and natural catastrophe?
So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
And why can geologists find so *much* evidence refuting the Noahic
flood?
I'll tell you why - it's because creationism is the science of lying.
Budikka
See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
flooding and natural catastrophe?
So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
And why can geologists find so *much* evidence refuting the Noahic
flood?
I'll tell you why - it's because creationism is the science of lying.
Budikka
Andrew
Dec 28, 2012, 4:25:06 PM12/28/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
> evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
They have.... http://www.p2l.it/12t
> And why can geologists find so *much* evidence refuting
> the Noahic flood?
They haven't.
> I'll tell you why - it's because creationism is the science of lying.
Or, perhaps is it because you are *willfully ignorant*?
"For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was,
being overflowed with water, perished.
But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same
Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day
of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
2 Peter 3
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>
> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> flooding and natural catastrophe?
The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>
> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> flooding and natural catastrophe?
> So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
> evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
> And why can geologists find so *much* evidence refuting
> the Noahic flood?
> I'll tell you why - it's because creationism is the science of lying.
"For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was,
being overflowed with water, perished.
But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same
Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day
of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
2 Peter 3
R Brown
Dec 28, 2012, 5:04:49 PM12/28/12
to
Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com
> ...
> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/ts
> > unami-in-the-geological-record/
> >
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>
> > So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
> > evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
>
> They have.... http://www.p2l.it/12t
>
A mind-blowing website! "Detecting Design". Why these guys haven't won
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com
> ...
> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/ts
> > unami-in-the-geological-record/
> >
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>
> > So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
> > evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
>
> They have.... http://www.p2l.it/12t
>
a Nobel Prize is beyond me. I mean, they've been able to single
handedly re-write ALL of Science.
Sheer genius ... or something.
That's why I say ...
"Creationism licks the sweat off evolution's balls." - R.Brown
> > And why can geologists find so much evidence refuting
> > the Noahic flood?
>
> They haven't.
>
> > I'll tell you why - it's because creationism is the science of
> > lying.
>
> Or, perhaps is it because you are *willfully ignorant*?
>
> "For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of
> God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
> the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was,
> being overflowed with water, perished.
>
> But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same
> Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day
> of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
>
> 2 Peter 3
--
>
> They haven't.
>
> > I'll tell you why - it's because creationism is the science of
> > lying.
>
> Or, perhaps is it because you are *willfully ignorant*?
>
> "For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of
> God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
> the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was,
> being overflowed with water, perished.
>
> But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same
> Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day
> of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
>
> 2 Peter 3
Joe Bruno
Dec 28, 2012, 5:50:31 PM12/28/12
to
On Friday, December 28, 2012 11:23:55 AM UTC-8, Budikka666 wrote:
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>
>
>
> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>
> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>
> flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
>
The creation has nothing to do with the flood, jackass.Obviously you;ve never read the Old Testament.All this presumptive nonsense makes you a complete fraud.
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>
>
>
> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>
> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>
> flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
>
>
>
>
Joe Bruno
Dec 28, 2012, 7:37:31 PM12/28/12
to
The Noah story is at Genesis 6:1-9:17
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
Budikka666
Dec 28, 2012, 7:40:14 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 3:25 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a ***global*** flood
4,300 or so years ago..
Keep running you chickenshit liar.
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
>
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a ***global*** flood
4,300 or so years ago..
Keep running you chickenshit liar.
Budikka
Budikka666
Dec 28, 2012, 7:48:35 PM12/28/12
to
On Dec 28, 4:50 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, December 28, 2012 11:23:55 AM UTC-8, Budikka666 wrote:
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
> On Friday, December 28, 2012 11:23:55 AM UTC-8, Budikka666 wrote:
>
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The creation has nothing to do with the flood, jackass.
So why did the god of the OT bring down the flood, you incredibly
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The creation has nothing to do with the flood, jackass.
stupid waste of skin? It was because he screwed up the *creation* and
decided to destroy it. Go read your own Bible you blind piece of
theist trash.
But the bottom line here, dimwit, is that it doesn't matter what *I*
think about it, nor does it matter what *you* think about it. because
this thread is aimed at what the young-Earth creationists are
claiming. Got that moron?
Now I'm so sorry you're too profound of a monumental shithead to grasp
that, no matter how many times we hammer it into that stinking pigshit
you use for a brain, but please, get a clue; get a life, because I'm
not the only one who is tired of wasting time on giving simple
explanations over and over again to you brain-dead theists only to
find that you're *still* still too boning-fido stupid to grasp them.
But stupid is what religion does best, and you're definitely a leading
example of that.
Budikka
Free Lunch
Dec 28, 2012, 9:23:45 PM12/28/12
to
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:25:06 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>>
>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
>The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
But the evidence is clear that it was not Noah's Flood. You need to stop
preaching lies.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>>
>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
>The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
preaching lies.
Andrew
Dec 29, 2012, 7:13:00 AM12/29/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:adfb0984-7b9e-4265...@17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events. They may not all agree
as to the cause, the extent, or the timing of these ancient catastrophes. But
they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear evidence, as you have
been trying to do.
Nevertheless the Bible foretold that in the last days some would foolishly
try to deny the evidence that exists all throughout the earth that speaks of
ancient catastrophe.
"For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was,
being overflowed with water, perished.
But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same
Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day
of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3
Therefore since science and scripture agree that Earth has experienced
ancient catastrophe, then why not cease your rebellion against the truth,
accept the evidence..and also the God of all Creation who will keep you
in His care and keeping in the coming days, as we approach the close of
human history and the end of all things..at His return in power and great
glory in the event known as the Second Coming.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
>>
>> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>>
>> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>
> And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
> NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a
Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological evidence
>> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
>>
>> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>>
>> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>
> And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
> NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a
for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events. They may not all agree
as to the cause, the extent, or the timing of these ancient catastrophes. But
they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear evidence, as you have
been trying to do.
Nevertheless the Bible foretold that in the last days some would foolishly
try to deny the evidence that exists all throughout the earth that speaks of
ancient catastrophe.
"For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was,
being overflowed with water, perished.
But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same
Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day
of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3
ancient catastrophe, then why not cease your rebellion against the truth,
accept the evidence..and also the God of all Creation who will keep you
in His care and keeping in the coming days, as we approach the close of
human history and the end of all things..at His return in power and great
glory in the event known as the Second Coming.
Andrew
Devils Advocaat
Dec 29, 2012, 7:21:07 AM12/29/12
to
On 29 Dec, 12:13, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:adfb0984-7b9e-4265...@17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Andrew, no one is denying that geology presents evidence for past
catastrophic events. But you and others like you fail to present any
geological evidence for your alleged global flood that is supposed to
have occurred less than ten thousand years ago.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:adfb0984-7b9e-4265...@17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
catastrophic events. But you and others like you fail to present any
geological evidence for your alleged global flood that is supposed to
have occurred less than ten thousand years ago.
Free Lunch
Dec 29, 2012, 11:25:55 AM12/29/12
to
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 04:13:00 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Your claims about the Bible are totally dishonest.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Joe Bruno
Dec 29, 2012, 3:03:55 PM12/29/12
to
On Friday, December 28, 2012 4:48:35 PM UTC-8, Budikka666 wrote:
> On Dec 28, 4:50 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, December 28, 2012 11:23:55 AM UTC-8, Budikka666 wrote:
>
> > >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
>
> >
>
> > > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>
> >
>
> > > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>
> >
>
> > > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> >
>
> > The creation has nothing to do with the flood, jackass.
>
>
>
> So why did the god of the OT bring down the flood, you incredibly
>
> stupid waste of skin? It was because he screwed up the *creation* and
>
> decided to destroy it. Go read your own Bible you blind piece of
>
> theist trash.
It's right here, motormouth:
> On Dec 28, 4:50 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, December 28, 2012 11:23:55 AM UTC-8, Budikka666 wrote:
>
> > >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
>
> >
>
> > > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>
> >
>
> > > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>
> >
>
> > > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> >
>
> > The creation has nothing to do with the flood, jackass.
>
>
>
> So why did the god of the OT bring down the flood, you incredibly
>
> stupid waste of skin? It was because he screwed up the *creation* and
>
> decided to destroy it. Go read your own Bible you blind piece of
>
> theist trash.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
It's also in the Old Testament, which you can find just about anyplace.
You're not just stupid and ignorant. You're also pathetically lazy.
Go rant at a 10 year old. He might be intimidated. I'm not.
BTW, that invitation for a meeting still stands.
Go hide behind Momma.
>
>
>
Mike Painter
Dec 29, 2012, 3:11:38 PM12/29/12
to
2:4
"Who wrote The Bible" - Friedman.
"The Ten Commandments" -Davies.
"The faculty of the major graduate institutions in the U.S. for study
of the Bible are persuaded by the evidence for it: UCSD, Berkeley,
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt."
And as Jewish scholars and those with a rudimentary ability to read
the language knows Gen 1:1 does not deal with creation from nothing.
The correct translation by Hebrew scholars of the JPS, from the
traditional Hebrew text, which makes much more sense, is:
"When God [ELOHIM] began to create heaven and earth -- the earth being
unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a
wind from God [ELOHIM] sweeping over the water -- God [ELOHIM] said,
'Let there be light'; and there was light."
The story tells us that the ELOHIM found an "unformed and void",
water-covered earth, out of which was formed the whole universe,
referred to as "heaven and earth". How could this be? Only by
assuming, as the story does, that the Sun, Moon and all the stars are
tiny lights affixed to the solid sky dome which is also holding back
the "waters above".
The story reflects the primitive cosmography known and held by the
ancient authors.
Jeanne Douglas
Dec 29, 2012, 8:17:06 PM12/29/12
to
In article <psWdnaEQVKtWQEPN...@earthlink.com>,
Why can't you speak for yourself?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:adfb0984-7b9e-4265...@17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
> >>
> >> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> >> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> >> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
> >>
> >> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
> >
> > And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
> > NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a
<snip plagiarized material>
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:adfb0984-7b9e-4265...@17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
> >>
> >> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> >> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> >> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
> >>
> >> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
> >
> > And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
> > NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a
Why can't you speak for yourself?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
The Magpie
Dec 30, 2012, 11:02:00 AM12/30/12
to
On 28/12/2012 21:25, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>>
>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>
No, it is totally absent. As in there is no such "evidence" at all.
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>>
>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>
>
>> So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
>> evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
>
> They have.... http://www.p2l.it/12t
>
That is not even remotely "evidence" - it is in fact one nutter trying
>> So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
>> evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
>
> They have.... http://www.p2l.it/12t
>
hard to cast doubt on the evidence *against* the claims.
>
>> And why can geologists find so *much* evidence refuting
>> the Noahic flood?
>
> They haven't.
>
Oh, but they have. See your own link (which tries to refute it).
>> And why can geologists find so *much* evidence refuting
>> the Noahic flood?
>
> They haven't.
>
The Magpie
Dec 30, 2012, 11:06:50 AM12/30/12
to
On 29/12/2012 12:13, Andrew wrote:
>
> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>
But not for a "global flood" at all. How come they seem to "miss" that
>
> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>
particular one then?
>
> They may not all agree as to the cause, the extent, or the timing
> of these ancient catastrophes.
>
Most *do* agree the details.
> They may not all agree as to the cause, the extent, or the timing
> of these ancient catastrophes.
>
>
> But they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear
> evidence, as you have been trying to do.
>
Buddika did not deny *other* ecological catastrophes in the past. Just
> But they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear
> evidence, as you have been trying to do.
>
the one you keep claiming.
>
> [snip]
>
> Therefore since science and scripture agree that Earth has
> experienced ancient catastrophe,
>
They do *not* agree at all.
> Therefore since science and scripture agree that Earth has
> experienced ancient catastrophe,
>
>
> then why not cease your rebellion against the truth, accept the
> evidence
>
We do *not* deny the evidence - you do.
> then why not cease your rebellion against the truth, accept the
> evidence
>
>
> ..and also the God of all Creation who will keep you in His care
> and keeping in the coming days, as we approach the close of human
> history and the end of all things..at His return in power and great
> glory in the event known as the Second Coming.
>
More religious drivel, Andrew.
> ..and also the God of all Creation who will keep you in His care
> and keeping in the coming days, as we approach the close of human
> history and the end of all things..at His return in power and great
> glory in the event known as the Second Coming.
>
Andrew
Dec 31, 2012, 1:29:11 AM12/31/12
to
"The Magpie" wrote in message news:xEZDs.1446995$Ak.2...@fx24.am4...
flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
______________________________________________________
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>
> How come they seem to "miss" that particular one then?
Because of willful ignorance, just as we have been told......
> Andrew wrote:
>>
>> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
>> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>>
> But not for a "global flood" at all.
Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
>>
>> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
>> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>>
> But not for a "global flood" at all.
flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
______________________________________________________
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>
> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> flooding and natural catastrophe?
_______________________________________________________
> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> flooding and natural catastrophe?
> How come they seem to "miss" that particular one then?
Andrew
Dec 31, 2012, 1:30:06 AM12/31/12
to
"The Magpie" wrote in message news:_zZDs.333898$kt5.1...@fx08.am4...
> Andrew wrote:
>>> So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
>>> evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
>>
>> They have.... http://www.p2l.it/12t
>>
> That is not even remotely "evidence" - it is in fact one nutter trying
> hard to cast doubt on the evidence *against* the claims.
>>
>>> And why can geologists find so *much* evidence refuting
>>> the Noahic flood?
>>
>> They haven't.
>>
> Oh, but they have. See your own link (which tries to refute it).
Which you obviously never read. If you did, then cite specifics.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>>>
>>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
>>
>> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>>
> No, it is totally absent. As in there is no such "evidence" at all.
....said the blind man.
>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>>>
>>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
>>
>> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>>
> No, it is totally absent. As in there is no such "evidence" at all.
>>> So why can't the young-Earth creationists find *any scientific*
>>> evidence confirming a global flood as told in Genesis?
>>
>> They have.... http://www.p2l.it/12t
>>
> That is not even remotely "evidence" - it is in fact one nutter trying
> hard to cast doubt on the evidence *against* the claims.
>>
>>> And why can geologists find so *much* evidence refuting
>>> the Noahic flood?
>>
>> They haven't.
>>
> Oh, but they have. See your own link (which tries to refute it).
Jeanne Douglas
Dec 31, 2012, 1:35:58 AM12/31/12
to
In article <Y4idnTHxsrmorXzN...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:xEZDs.1446995$Ak.2...@fx24.am4...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
> >> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
> >>
> > But not for a "global flood" at all.
>
> Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
> flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
> ______________________________________________________
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in
> > -the-geological-record/
> >
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
> _______________________________________________________
>
> > How come they seem to "miss" that particular one then?
>
> Because of willful ignorance, just as we have been told......
<snipping Andrew's proof that he can't speak for himself>
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:xEZDs.1446995$Ak.2...@fx24.am4...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
> >> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
> >>
> > But not for a "global flood" at all.
>
> Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
> flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
> ______________________________________________________
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in
> > -the-geological-record/
> >
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
> _______________________________________________________
>
> > How come they seem to "miss" that particular one then?
>
> Because of willful ignorance, just as we have been told......
harry k
Dec 31, 2012, 12:04:43 PM12/31/12
to
On Dec 28, 1:25 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
Noahic flood and
mega tons written in the rocks that there never was one.
<snip> another example of an idiot trying to deny what has been known
for a couple centureis.
Harry K
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsu...
>
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
Correct but there is a very glaring lack of _ANY_ evidence for a
> > See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
> > don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
> > flooding and natural catastrophe?
>
> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
Noahic flood and
mega tons written in the rocks that there never was one.
<snip> another example of an idiot trying to deny what has been known
for a couple centureis.
Harry K
Free Lunch
Dec 31, 2012, 12:09:17 PM12/31/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:29:11 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Quoting from a book full of false claims and unsupported nonsense does
nothing but show us that you are hopelessly ignorant.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
nothing but show us that you are hopelessly ignorant.
Ken
Dec 31, 2012, 12:24:41 PM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31, 9:09 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote concerning
Andrew:
> Quoting from a book full of false claims and unsupported nonsense does
> nothing but show us that you are hopelessly ignorant.
Hopelessly delusional gullible and ignorant, but what else should we
expect from a biblethumping loser?
Andrew:
> Quoting from a book full of false claims and unsupported nonsense does
> nothing but show us that you are hopelessly ignorant.
expect from a biblethumping loser?
Joe Bruno
Dec 31, 2012, 12:26:53 PM12/31/12
to
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 10:29:11 PM UTC-8, Andrew wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:xEZDs.1446995$Ak.2...@fx24.am4...
>
> > Andrew wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
>
> >> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>
> >>
>
> > But not for a "global flood" at all.
>
>
>
> Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
>
> flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
Buttfucka wil deny whatever she doesn't like.
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:xEZDs.1446995$Ak.2...@fx24.am4...
>
> > Andrew wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
>
> >> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>
> >>
>
> > But not for a "global flood" at all.
>
>
>
> Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
>
> flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
The Magpie
Jan 1, 2013, 3:23:26 PM1/1/13
to
On 31/12/2012 06:29, Andrew wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:xEZDs.1446995$Ak.2...@fx24.am4...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
>>> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>>>
>> But not for a "global flood" at all.
>
> Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
> flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
> ______________________________________________________
>>
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:xEZDs.1446995$Ak.2...@fx24.am4...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
>>> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>>>
>> But not for a "global flood" at all.
>
> Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
> flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
> ______________________________________________________
>>
>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
> _______________________________________________________
>
>> How come they seem to "miss" that particular one then?
>
That is no such denial at all. In fact, it makes the point that the
>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
> _______________________________________________________
>
>> How come they seem to "miss" that particular one then?
>
evidence for them is relatively easy to find.
The Magpie
Jan 1, 2013, 3:28:14 PM1/1/13
to
On 31/12/2012 06:30, Andrew wrote:
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:_zZDs.333898$kt5.1...@fx08.am4...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>>>
>> No, it is totally absent. As in there is no such "evidence" at all.
>
> ....said the blind man.
>
You have - *repeatedly* - been asked to provide some. SO far, you have
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:_zZDs.333898$kt5.1...@fx08.am4...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> The Earth is replete with evidence of ancient catastrophe.
>>>
>> No, it is totally absent. As in there is no such "evidence" at all.
>
> ....said the blind man.
>
singularly failed even to *try* to do so.
>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>> Oh, but they have. See your own link (which tries to refute it).
>
> Which you obviously never read. If you did, then cite specifics.
>
Oh, Andrew! How dishonest of you - it is *obvious* that I read your
>> Oh, but they have. See your own link (which tries to refute it).
>
> Which you obviously never read. If you did, then cite specifics.
>
link since I saw through your claim of what it was to the fact that it
is an argument for "alternative explanations" of the mountains of
evidence *against* a global flood.
To then ask for "specifics" of that evidence - from your *OWN* link of
all places - is incredible dishonesty!
Father Haskell
Jan 1, 2013, 5:08:47 PM1/1/13
to
On Dec 28 2012, 5:50 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The whopper about the creation has nothing to do with
> the whopper about the flood, jackass.
No surprise, really, seeing how the rest of the book
contradicts itself from breakfast to dinner.
> The whopper about the creation has nothing to do with
> the whopper about the flood, jackass.
No surprise, really, seeing how the rest of the book
contradicts itself from breakfast to dinner.
thomas p.
Jan 4, 2013, 10:11:55 AM1/4/13
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Y4idnTHxsrmorXzN...@earthlink.com...
lying again Andrew.
> ______________________________________________________
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>>
>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
> _______________________________________________________
>
>> How come they seem to "miss" that particular one then?
>
> Because of willful ignorance, just as we have been told......
>
> "For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of
> God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
> the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was,
> being overflowed with water, perished.
>
> But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same
> Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day
> of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3
>
Is a Bible verse the reason you ignore science or lie about it? You are the
one who is willfully ignorant.
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:Y4idnTHxsrmorXzN...@earthlink.com...
> "The Magpie" wrote in message news:xEZDs.1446995$Ak.2...@fx24.am4...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
>>> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>>>
>> But not for a "global flood" at all.
>
> Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
> flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
Only for events that would justify belief in the Biblical stories. You are
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological
>>> evidence for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>>>
>> But not for a "global flood" at all.
>
> Budikka is denying evidence, not only of large-scale
> flooding, but also large-scale natural catastrophe.
lying again Andrew.
> ______________________________________________________
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:b68269ed-d5cb-4dcc...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/12/26/tsunami-in-the-geological-record/
>>
>> See how easy it is (relatively speaking, that is. The geologists
>> don't have such an easy time of it) to find evidence of large-scale
>> flooding and natural catastrophe?
> _______________________________________________________
>
>> How come they seem to "miss" that particular one then?
>
> Because of willful ignorance, just as we have been told......
>
> "For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of
> God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
> the water and in the water, whereby the world as it then was,
> being overflowed with water, perished.
>
> But the heavens and the earth which now are, by the same
> Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the Day
> of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3
>
one who is willfully ignorant.
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
Budikka666
Jan 4, 2013, 2:00:24 PM1/4/13
to
On Dec 29 2012, 6:13 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:adfb0984-7b9e-4265...@17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
very *failure* to show us published scientific evidence that points
unequivocally to a global flood some 4,300 years ago as described in
Genesis 6 & 7.
> They may not all agree
> as to the cause, the extent, or the timing of these ancient catastrophes.
Thank you for admitting that you just lied. YES, scientists can point
to local and regional flooding events at different times throughout
history, but none of these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as
the Bible describes.
> they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear evidence, as you have
> been trying to do.
Clear evidence of local and even regional floods. If such evidence is
widely available, as it clearly is, then why is it that YOU CANNOT
POINT TO ***ANY*** SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD SOME 4,300
years ago?
> Nevertheless the Bible foretold that in the last days some would foolishly
> try to deny the evidence that exists all throughout the earth that speaks of
> ancient catastrophe.
Who gives a shit about what your book of proven lies and myths says?
I'm talking about actual scientific evidence, and you have once again
admitted here than you cannot provide any such evidence, and that you
are, by your own admission, nothing but a vacuous, hypocritical, lying
fraud.
[irrelevant bible bullshit flushed where it belongs]
So here's my offer that I *guarantee* you will run from:
Present your *scientific* *evdience* which shows a one time global
flood some 4,3000 years ago, and let's formally debate it right here
in this thread.
Or you can, as you've done countless times from me before, RUN AWAY
form this challenge and thereby prove yet agian that you have ZERO
FAITH in the ability of your supposedly omnipotent god to help you
beat me in a debate. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:adfb0984-7b9e-4265...@17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
> > NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a global flood
>
> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological evidence
> for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
But not a one of them points to a global flood as you admit by your
> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological evidence
> for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
very *failure* to show us published scientific evidence that points
unequivocally to a global flood some 4,300 years ago as described in
Genesis 6 & 7.
> They may not all agree
> as to the cause, the extent, or the timing of these ancient catastrophes.
to local and regional flooding events at different times throughout
history, but none of these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as
the Bible describes.
> they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear evidence, as you have
> been trying to do.
widely available, as it clearly is, then why is it that YOU CANNOT
POINT TO ***ANY*** SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD SOME 4,300
years ago?
> Nevertheless the Bible foretold that in the last days some would foolishly
> try to deny the evidence that exists all throughout the earth that speaks of
> ancient catastrophe.
I'm talking about actual scientific evidence, and you have once again
admitted here than you cannot provide any such evidence, and that you
are, by your own admission, nothing but a vacuous, hypocritical, lying
fraud.
[irrelevant bible bullshit flushed where it belongs]
So here's my offer that I *guarantee* you will run from:
Present your *scientific* *evdience* which shows a one time global
flood some 4,3000 years ago, and let's formally debate it right here
in this thread.
Or you can, as you've done countless times from me before, RUN AWAY
form this challenge and thereby prove yet agian that you have ZERO
FAITH in the ability of your supposedly omnipotent god to help you
beat me in a debate. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
Budikka
Budikka666
Jan 4, 2013, 2:03:45 PM1/4/13
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&
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&
Andrew
Jan 5, 2013, 7:38:17 AM1/5/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:f78c7629-4729-4093...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> If such evidence is widely available, as it clearly is,
If you acknowledge the evidence, then what is your
question?
> then why is it that YOU CANNOT POINT TO ***ANY***
>SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD SOME
> 4,300 years ago?
All kinds of evidence if you want it. And you have just
acknowledged that regional evidence is widely available.
>> Nevertheless the Bible foretold that in the last days some would foolishly
>> try to deny the evidence that exists all throughout the earth that speaks of
>> ancient catastrophe.
>
> Who gives a shit about what your book of proven lies and myths says?
> I'm talking about actual scientific evidence, and you have once again
> admitted here than you cannot provide any such evidence, and that you
> are, by your own admission, nothing but a vacuous, hypocritical, lying
> fraud.
>
> [irrelevant bible bullshit flushed where it belongs]
>
> So here's my offer that I *guarantee* you will run from:
>
> Present your *scientific* *evdience* which shows a one time global
> flood some 4,3000 years ago, and let's formally debate it right here
> in this thread.
Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
ago is itself evidence that it happened. Probably because you know that
it is a harbinger of the great judgment to come - by FIRE.
"As the lightning that lighteneth one part under heaven shineth unto
the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of Man be in His
day.
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of
the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were
given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and
the flood came and destroyed them all." Luke 17
> Budikka
Andrew
" But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;
in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also
and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
2 Peter 3
Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
>> > NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a global flood
>>
>> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological evidence
>> for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>
> But not a one of them points to a global flood as you admit by your
> very *failure* to show us published scientific evidence that points
> unequivocally to a global flood some 4,300 years ago as described in
> Genesis 6 & 7.
>
>> They may not all agree
>> as to the cause, the extent, or the timing of these ancient catastrophes.
>
> Thank you for admitting that you just lied. YES, scientists can point
> to local and regional flooding events at different times throughout
> history, but none of these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as
> the Bible describes.
>
>> they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear evidence, as you have
>> been trying to do.
>
> Clear evidence of local and even regional floods.
Yes.
>> > And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
>> > NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a global flood
>>
>> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological evidence
>> for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>
> But not a one of them points to a global flood as you admit by your
> very *failure* to show us published scientific evidence that points
> unequivocally to a global flood some 4,300 years ago as described in
> Genesis 6 & 7.
>
>> They may not all agree
>> as to the cause, the extent, or the timing of these ancient catastrophes.
>
> Thank you for admitting that you just lied. YES, scientists can point
> to local and regional flooding events at different times throughout
> history, but none of these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as
> the Bible describes.
>
>> they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear evidence, as you have
>> been trying to do.
>
> Clear evidence of local and even regional floods.
> If such evidence is widely available, as it clearly is,
question?
> then why is it that YOU CANNOT POINT TO ***ANY***
>SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD SOME
> 4,300 years ago?
acknowledged that regional evidence is widely available.
>> Nevertheless the Bible foretold that in the last days some would foolishly
>> try to deny the evidence that exists all throughout the earth that speaks of
>> ancient catastrophe.
>
> Who gives a shit about what your book of proven lies and myths says?
> I'm talking about actual scientific evidence, and you have once again
> admitted here than you cannot provide any such evidence, and that you
> are, by your own admission, nothing but a vacuous, hypocritical, lying
> fraud.
>
> [irrelevant bible bullshit flushed where it belongs]
>
> So here's my offer that I *guarantee* you will run from:
>
> Present your *scientific* *evdience* which shows a one time global
> flood some 4,3000 years ago, and let's formally debate it right here
> in this thread.
ago is itself evidence that it happened. Probably because you know that
it is a harbinger of the great judgment to come - by FIRE.
"As the lightning that lighteneth one part under heaven shineth unto
the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of Man be in His
day.
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of
the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were
given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and
the flood came and destroyed them all." Luke 17
> Budikka
Andrew
" But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;
in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also
and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
2 Peter 3
Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
Free Lunch
Jan 5, 2013, 9:30:25 AM1/5/13
to
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 04:38:17 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
The regional evidence is actually evidence against the Noah Flood story.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Budikka666
Jan 5, 2013, 11:07:28 AM1/5/13
to
On Jan 5, 6:38 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:f78c7629-4729-4093...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Which part of "YES, scientists can point to local and regional
Are you *truly* that stupid? Because you sure as hell sound ever more
profoundly stupid with every message you post. Seriously, if you want
to win converts, then get an education, learn your topic, learn to
actually ***READ*** what your opponents post, and then dig deep and
find the guts to address it, because you're looking so stupid right
now that you yourself are losing your own case.
>> then why is it that YOU CANNOT POINT TO ***ANY***
> >SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD SOME
> > 4,300 years ago?
>
> All kinds of evidence if you want it. And you have just
> acknowledged that regional evidence is widely available.
Again, why can you not point us to this evidence? Every initial
message I post in this series contains a link to the source of the
evidence which ultimately shows you creationists to be vacuous liars
and a cowardly hypocrites. So why can you not do the same for us?
Why can you not go the extra mile when I've personally gone hundreds
of extra miles for you? There were 666 items posted when this series
began. They were numbered. Anyone can find them with a simple search
of alt.atheism. I went 666 extra miles for you and you can't even go
*one* for us? What a worthless hypocrite for Christ you are. All you
can do is stand there stamping your childish little feet like a
spoiled brat kid in the schoolyard and lie to us in the name of your
Christ?
Why can *you* not give your coat? I gave it 666 times and that was
only when I was actually numbering these. There have undboutedly been
at least as many more since then unnumbered.
Why can *you* not cross the street when I've crossed it to you
hundreds of times?
Why is it that you can always LIE that you have evidence, but you can
never ever ever ever ever point to it?
Why is it that you RUN whenever you're challenged it as I've
repeatedly documented?
> > So here's my offer that I *guarantee* you will run from:
Yes, as I prophesied, you did indeed RUN from my offer. How does it
feel to have your every move predicted down to the last millimeter,
your every cowardly act exposed, your every lie documented, your
comprehensive *lack* of evidence shown to the world?
> > Present your *scientific* *evdience* which shows a one time global
> > flood some 4,3000 years ago, and let's formally debate it right here
> > in this thread.
>
> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
> ago is itself evidence that it happened. Probably because you know that
> it is a harbinger of the great judgment to come - by FIRE.
And your continuous obsession with evoltuion proves that it happened.
Now do you see why you are the hands-down most stupid person in
Usenet? I would hope so, but you've shown yourself to be so addicted
to stupidity that I doubt you will ever see it.
You've shown yourself to be shameless in your pathological lying, to
be so consistent in your hypocrtical cowardice in the face of your
claim to be backed by an omnipotent god that you have nothing to offer
anyone. No one in their right mind would listen to a vacuous, lying,
cowardly loser like you, especially when the *only* exmaple you set is
that of having ZERO faith in your own god!
Get yourself an education. Shed your abysmal ignorance, and maybe
you'll lose some of that stupidity along the way but given what a
chronic coward you are, I seriously doubt that you will ever find any
guts to shed the scales from your eyes.
Go read your Bible. Even a worthless piece of fiction like that can
educate a dedicated dumb-ass like you: read the part about removing
the plank from your eye, because you've just hit yourself upside the
head with it
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:f78c7629-4729-4093...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
> >> > NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a global flood
>
> >> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological evidence
> >> for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>
> > But not a one of them points to a global flood as you admit by your
> > very *failure* to show us published scientific evidence that points
> > unequivocally to a global flood some 4,300 years ago as described in
> > Genesis 6 & 7.
>
> >> They may not all agree
> >> as to the cause, the extent, or the timing of these ancient catastrophes.
>
> > Thank you for admitting that you just lied. YES, scientists can point
> > to local and regional flooding events at different times throughout
> > history, but none of these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as
> > the Bible describes.
>
> >> they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear evidence, as you have
> >> been trying to do.
>
> > Clear evidence of local and even regional floods.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If such evidence is widely available, as it clearly is,
>
> If you acknowledge the evidence, then what is your
> question?
Which part of "But not a one of them points to a global flood as you
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > And yet all you can offer us is bullshit Bible quotes and, as usual,
> >> > NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for a global flood
>
> >> Scientists acknowledge positive, geological and paleontological evidence
> >> for ancient catastrophes and mass extinction events.
>
> > But not a one of them points to a global flood as you admit by your
> > very *failure* to show us published scientific evidence that points
> > unequivocally to a global flood some 4,300 years ago as described in
> > Genesis 6 & 7.
>
> >> They may not all agree
> >> as to the cause, the extent, or the timing of these ancient catastrophes.
>
> > Thank you for admitting that you just lied. YES, scientists can point
> > to local and regional flooding events at different times throughout
> > history, but none of these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as
> > the Bible describes.
>
> >> they are not so foolish as to attempt to deny the clear evidence, as you have
> >> been trying to do.
>
> > Clear evidence of local and even regional floods.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If such evidence is widely available, as it clearly is,
>
> If you acknowledge the evidence, then what is your
> question?
admit by your very *failure* to show us published scientific evidence
that points unequivocally to a global flood some 4,300 years ago as
described in Genesis 6 & 7." are oyu unclear on??
that points unequivocally to a global flood some 4,300 years ago as
Which part of "YES, scientists can point to local and regional
flooding events at different times throughout history, but none of
these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as the Bible
describes." is not clear to you?
these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as the Bible
Are you *truly* that stupid? Because you sure as hell sound ever more
profoundly stupid with every message you post. Seriously, if you want
to win converts, then get an education, learn your topic, learn to
actually ***READ*** what your opponents post, and then dig deep and
find the guts to address it, because you're looking so stupid right
now that you yourself are losing your own case.
>> then why is it that YOU CANNOT POINT TO ***ANY***
> >SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A GLOBAL FLOOD SOME
> > 4,300 years ago?
>
> All kinds of evidence if you want it. And you have just
> acknowledged that regional evidence is widely available.
message I post in this series contains a link to the source of the
evidence which ultimately shows you creationists to be vacuous liars
and a cowardly hypocrites. So why can you not do the same for us?
Why can you not go the extra mile when I've personally gone hundreds
of extra miles for you? There were 666 items posted when this series
began. They were numbered. Anyone can find them with a simple search
of alt.atheism. I went 666 extra miles for you and you can't even go
*one* for us? What a worthless hypocrite for Christ you are. All you
can do is stand there stamping your childish little feet like a
spoiled brat kid in the schoolyard and lie to us in the name of your
Christ?
Why can *you* not give your coat? I gave it 666 times and that was
only when I was actually numbering these. There have undboutedly been
at least as many more since then unnumbered.
Why can *you* not cross the street when I've crossed it to you
hundreds of times?
Why is it that you can always LIE that you have evidence, but you can
never ever ever ever ever point to it?
Why is it that you RUN whenever you're challenged it as I've
repeatedly documented?
> > So here's my offer that I *guarantee* you will run from:
feel to have your every move predicted down to the last millimeter,
your every cowardly act exposed, your every lie documented, your
comprehensive *lack* of evidence shown to the world?
> > Present your *scientific* *evdience* which shows a one time global
> > flood some 4,3000 years ago, and let's formally debate it right here
> > in this thread.
>
> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
> ago is itself evidence that it happened. Probably because you know that
> it is a harbinger of the great judgment to come - by FIRE.
Now do you see why you are the hands-down most stupid person in
Usenet? I would hope so, but you've shown yourself to be so addicted
to stupidity that I doubt you will ever see it.
You've shown yourself to be shameless in your pathological lying, to
be so consistent in your hypocrtical cowardice in the face of your
claim to be backed by an omnipotent god that you have nothing to offer
anyone. No one in their right mind would listen to a vacuous, lying,
cowardly loser like you, especially when the *only* exmaple you set is
that of having ZERO faith in your own god!
Get yourself an education. Shed your abysmal ignorance, and maybe
you'll lose some of that stupidity along the way but given what a
chronic coward you are, I seriously doubt that you will ever find any
guts to shed the scales from your eyes.
Go read your Bible. Even a worthless piece of fiction like that can
educate a dedicated dumb-ass like you: read the part about removing
the plank from your eye, because you've just hit yourself upside the
head with it
Budikka
Andrew
Jan 5, 2013, 5:21:28 PM1/5/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:945fb553-c337-4697...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
OK, you acknowledge that the earth has had floods that have devastated
entire regions of the earth. So tell me, exactly what regions of the earth
do NOT have evidence of regional flooding. We'll proceed from there.
> Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
entire regions of the earth. So tell me, exactly what regions of the earth
do NOT have evidence of regional flooding. We'll proceed from there.
> Budikka
Andrew
Free Lunch
Jan 5, 2013, 5:19:57 PM1/5/13
to
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 14:21:28 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Regional flooding includes evidence that Noah's Flood never happened.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Budikka666
Jan 5, 2013, 5:38:10 PM1/5/13
to
On Jan 5, 4:21 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:945fb553-c337-4697...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
No. We don't dance to your tune you excuse-ridden cowardly peice of
trash. We'll proceed from ***YOUR*** scientific evidence that there
was a global flood some 4,300 years ago since YOU are the one
asserting that there was one. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE supporting this
assertion? All I'm asserting is that neither you nor science in
general can find any evidence of a global flood, and your every
failure to produce it proves me right. Got that?
Your failure to post any such evidence in your next response will be
taken as your unconditional admission that you have NO evidence for
the Noahic flood, which is *precisely* what scientists have actually
found. Your failure to produce any evidence for the Noahic flood will
be proof that you are a liar and a fraud.
Budikika
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:945fb553-c337-4697...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
trash. We'll proceed from ***YOUR*** scientific evidence that there
was a global flood some 4,300 years ago since YOU are the one
asserting that there was one. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE supporting this
assertion? All I'm asserting is that neither you nor science in
general can find any evidence of a global flood, and your every
failure to produce it proves me right. Got that?
Your failure to post any such evidence in your next response will be
taken as your unconditional admission that you have NO evidence for
the Noahic flood, which is *precisely* what scientists have actually
found. Your failure to produce any evidence for the Noahic flood will
be proof that you are a liar and a fraud.
Budikika
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 5, 2013, 6:00:01 PM1/5/13
to
In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
the stupidest thing anybody here for the entire year of 2013.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
> ago is itself evidence that it happened.
Even though it's only January 4, I think this statement could reign as
> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
> ago is itself evidence that it happened.
the stupidest thing anybody here for the entire year of 2013.
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 5, 2013, 6:00:44 PM1/5/13
to
> Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
Virgil
Jan 5, 2013, 7:29:15 PM1/5/13
to
In article <476dnceVjMN7O3XN...@earthlink.com>,
irrelevant. And while many areas can be shown to have flooded, there is
no evidence of a time at which they were all simultaneously flooded.
At least no geologically acceptable such evidence.
--
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> > Which part of "YES, scientists can point to local and regional
> > flooding events at different times throughout history, but none of
> > these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as the Bible
> > describes." is not clear to you?
>
> OK, you acknowledge that the earth has had floods that have devastated
> entire regions of the earth. So tell me, exactly what regions of the earth
> do NOT have evidence of regional flooding. We'll proceed from there.
Evidence of floodings in different areas at widely different times is
> > Which part of "YES, scientists can point to local and regional
> > flooding events at different times throughout history, but none of
> > these show a global flood some 4,300 years ago as the Bible
> > describes." is not clear to you?
>
> OK, you acknowledge that the earth has had floods that have devastated
> entire regions of the earth. So tell me, exactly what regions of the earth
> do NOT have evidence of regional flooding. We'll proceed from there.
irrelevant. And while many areas can be shown to have flooded, there is
no evidence of a time at which they were all simultaneously flooded.
At least no geologically acceptable such evidence.
--
Joe Bruno
Jan 5, 2013, 9:12:11 PM1/5/13
to
YOu can call it a whopper all you want, but that will not stop anybody from accepting it as faith. No theist gives a damn what you want.
Joe Bruno
Jan 5, 2013, 9:13:52 PM1/5/13
to
On Saturday, January 5, 2013 3:00:44 PM UTC-8, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
>
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
>
>
> First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
That's already been done several times:
> In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
>
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
>
>
> First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45841
>
Free Lunch
Jan 5, 2013, 9:33:07 PM1/5/13
to
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:00:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
>> ago is itself evidence that it happened.
>
>Even though it's only January 4, I think this statement could reign as
>the stupidest thing anybody here for the entire year of 2013.
You underestimate how foolish fools can be. Andrew, Jason and the rest
will be doing all they can to top that each week.
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
>> ago is itself evidence that it happened.
>
>Even though it's only January 4, I think this statement could reign as
>the stupidest thing anybody here for the entire year of 2013.
will be doing all they can to top that each week.
Virgil
Jan 5, 2013, 10:16:32 PM1/5/13
to
In article <a75d33e0-f983-43d2...@googlegroups.com>,
--
Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> YOu can call it a whopper all you want, but that will not stop anybody from
> accepting it as faith. No theist gives a damn what you want.
Why do you feel compelled to post your theist shit to alt.atheism?
> YOu can call it a whopper all you want, but that will not stop anybody from
> accepting it as faith. No theist gives a damn what you want.
--
Joe Bruno
Jan 5, 2013, 10:39:56 PM1/5/13
to
>
> --
Atheists can argue all they want.They should not attempt to pressure anyone to change their beliefs.
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 6, 2013, 1:42:11 AM1/6/13
to
Virgil
Jan 6, 2013, 2:38:18 AM1/6/13
to
In article <1febaf4b-201a-45ce...@googlegroups.com>,
No one is forcing you to monitor alt.atheism, are they?
So if you do, it must be because you want to.
Or are you into masochism along with your idiot theism?
--
Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:16:32 PM UTC-8, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <a75d33e0-f983-43d2...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > YOu can call it a whopper all you want, but that will not stop anybody
> > > from
> >
> > > accepting it as faith. No theist gives a damn what you want.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why do you feel compelled to post your theist shit to alt.atheism?
>
>
> I don't like atheist shit, either.
Then stay away from it.
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:16:32 PM UTC-8, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <a75d33e0-f983-43d2...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > YOu can call it a whopper all you want, but that will not stop anybody
> > > from
> >
> > > accepting it as faith. No theist gives a damn what you want.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why do you feel compelled to post your theist shit to alt.atheism?
>
>
> I don't like atheist shit, either.
No one is forcing you to monitor alt.atheism, are they?
So if you do, it must be because you want to.
Or are you into masochism along with your idiot theism?
--
Andrew
Jan 6, 2013, 7:24:48 AM1/6/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:845390f4-4570-4aae...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
So you have no answer. After acknowledging that the earth
has experienced floods that have devastated entire regions,
you cannot cite *any* region which has *not* experienced
a regional flood.
Certainly if there was even one, you would state so and cite
evidence. But you cannot, which strongly indicates that there
is none. Therefore if there is no region of the earth that has
*not* had a regional flood, then this is strong evidence that
there really was a global flood as depicted in the Holy Book.
It says that some choose to remain "willingly ignorant"
of this global catastrophic event.
"They willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
2 Peter 3:5,6
>
> Budikika
Andrew
has experienced floods that have devastated entire regions,
you cannot cite *any* region which has *not* experienced
a regional flood.
Certainly if there was even one, you would state so and cite
evidence. But you cannot, which strongly indicates that there
is none. Therefore if there is no region of the earth that has
*not* had a regional flood, then this is strong evidence that
there really was a global flood as depicted in the Holy Book.
It says that some choose to remain "willingly ignorant"
of this global catastrophic event.
"They willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing
out of the water and in the water:Whereby the world
that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
2 Peter 3:5,6
>
> Budikika
Andrew
Andrew
Jan 6, 2013, 7:30:36 AM1/6/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-FE8BDA...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
> First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
Then exactly what would you do?
>> Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
> First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
Devils Advocaat
Jan 6, 2013, 7:42:20 AM1/6/13
to
On 6 Jan, 12:24, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:845390f4-4570-4aae...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
There are many parts of the world that haven't experienced flooding
during the whole of human history. For example, Egypt, while the Nile
Valley floods regularly, there is no geological evidence to show that
the whole of Egypt was flooded at any time during its being occupied
by people, and certainly not during the time of the Pharaohs. Will
that satisfy you?
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:845390f4-4570-4aae...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
during the whole of human history. For example, Egypt, while the Nile
Valley floods regularly, there is no geological evidence to show that
the whole of Egypt was flooded at any time during its being occupied
by people, and certainly not during the time of the Pharaohs. Will
that satisfy you?
Free Lunch
Jan 6, 2013, 10:56:37 AM1/6/13
to
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:42:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Andrew as well, asserting that the willingness of atheists to engage in
discussion with theists shows to their uncritical satisfaction that we
are showing that we do believe gods exist.
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>In article <9hohe85tsi6j7ko9h...@4ax.com>,
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:00:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>> >In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
>> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
>> >> ago is itself evidence that it happened.
>> >
>> >Even though it's only January 4, I think this statement could reign as
>> >the stupidest thing anybody here for the entire year of 2013.
>>
>> You underestimate how foolish fools can be. Andrew, Jason and the rest
>> will be doing all they can to top that each week.
>
>I dunno. This one seems in a class by itself.
I've seen similar related to gods, at least one may have come from
>In article <9hohe85tsi6j7ko9h...@4ax.com>,
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:00:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>> >In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
>> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
>> >> ago is itself evidence that it happened.
>> >
>> >Even though it's only January 4, I think this statement could reign as
>> >the stupidest thing anybody here for the entire year of 2013.
>>
>> You underestimate how foolish fools can be. Andrew, Jason and the rest
>> will be doing all they can to top that each week.
>
>I dunno. This one seems in a class by itself.
Andrew as well, asserting that the willingness of atheists to engage in
discussion with theists shows to their uncritical satisfaction that we
are showing that we do believe gods exist.
Free Lunch
Jan 6, 2013, 10:57:58 AM1/6/13
to
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 04:30:36 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
If you show us that the demi-god named Jesus, not just an itinerant
teacher, but the demi-god, really existed, I will accept the other
claims found in the Bible.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
teacher, but the demi-god, really existed, I will accept the other
claims found in the Bible.
Message has been deleted
Budikka666
Jan 6, 2013, 11:31:43 AM1/6/13
to
On Jan 5, 8:13 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 3:00:44 PM UTC-8, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <puadndozqJiqg3XNnZ2dnUVZ_qedn...@earthlink.com>,
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 3:00:44 PM UTC-8, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > > Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
> > First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
>
> That's already been done several times:
>
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45841
Another LIE from one of Usenet's most prolific liars. Those claims of
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > > Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
> > First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
>
> That's already been done several times:
>
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45841
yours were refuted. I posted the refutations. I formally challenged
you to debate them. YOU RAN AWAY.
Keep running you chickenshit jackass.
Budikka
Budikka666
Jan 6, 2013, 11:32:59 AM1/6/13
to
On Jan 5, 9:39 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:16:32 PM UTC-8, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <a75d33e0-f983-43d2...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> On Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:16:32 PM UTC-8, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <a75d33e0-f983-43d2...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > YOu can call it a whopper all you want, but that will not stop anybody from
>
> > > accepting it as faith. No theist gives a damn what you want.
>
> > Why do you feel compelled to post your theist shit to alt.atheism?
>
> I don't like atheist shit, either.
Neither do we. That's why we flush it. Theist shit, unfortunately,
>
> > > YOu can call it a whopper all you want, but that will not stop anybody from
>
> > > accepting it as faith. No theist gives a damn what you want.
>
> > Why do you feel compelled to post your theist shit to alt.atheism?
>
> I don't like atheist shit, either.
keeps being dumped into a.a. by stinking assholes like you.
Budikka
Budikka666
Jan 6, 2013, 11:37:55 AM1/6/13
to
On Jan 6, 6:24 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:845390f4-4570-4aae...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Another lie from Usenet's most pathological liar. How many times have
I offered to formally debate all of these topics with you only to see
you RUN? (See below for documentation, from which you will also run).
How many messages have I posted in the Disproving Creation series each
with at least one supportive reference?
How many messages have you dishonestly changed to read 'proving
creation' and then have failed to offer an iota of evidence, let alone
proof?
[Rest of your self-serving fraudulent bullshit flushed where it
belongs]
ONCE AGAIN, WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD?
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:845390f4-4570-4aae...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I offered to formally debate all of these topics with you only to see
you RUN? (See below for documentation, from which you will also run).
How many messages have I posted in the Disproving Creation series each
with at least one supportive reference?
How many messages have you dishonestly changed to read 'proving
creation' and then have failed to offer an iota of evidence, let alone
proof?
[Rest of your self-serving fraudulent bullshit flushed where it
belongs]
ONCE AGAIN, WHERE IS YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD?
Budikka
Budikka666
Jan 6, 2013, 11:49:27 AM1/6/13
to
On Jan 6, 6:30 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-FE8BDA...@news.giganews.com...
have I personally *guaranteed you* that I will accept the evidence if
it is indepdent, objective, scientific and sufficient? And how many
times have you not only *failed* to even pretend you have *any*
evidence, but have also quietly disappeared from those threads when
I've made you that offer?
You're without question the lowest of the low. The fact that this
doesn't even cause you a moment's pause when you dishonestly pretend
you're trying to witness to us shows what a lousy scam artist you are.
You are the most dishonest of the dishonest, the most worthless of
scum. And people wonder why I have absolutely no hesitation in
calling you what you are? Why bother being decent with someone like
you who doesn't have a decent bone in his entire body? Who penly and
repeatedly lies not only abotu scienc ebut abotu me personally, and
who has never apologised *once* for the evil he's done.
The very fact that ***NO-ONE*** of your ilk supports you in your lies,
that no-one in the atheist community has any respect at all for you
ought to give you *some* pause for thought - that at the very best
you're approaching us wrongly, or at the very worst you are, yourself,
completely in the wrong.
It would give pause for thought to anyone who had even an ounce of
rationality left in him. The fact that you're completely blind to the
disaster-for-Christ that you are, completely clueless as to how far
you've fallen and how dismally you've failed is more than sufficient
proof of how wrong you went somewhere along the line and how blinded
you are to your failures.
Why should *anyone* try to reason with someone who lies and RUNS? Why
be respectful to someone who wants us to accept a worthless god in
which he himself has zero faith?
Keep running, you cowardly, worthless, lowlife, vacuous, hypocritical
piece of theist trash.
Budikka
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-FE8BDA...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
> > First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
>
> Then exactly what would you do?
How many times have you asked *me* that, Drew-a-Blank? How many times
> >> Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
> > First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
>
> Then exactly what would you do?
have I personally *guaranteed you* that I will accept the evidence if
it is indepdent, objective, scientific and sufficient? And how many
times have you not only *failed* to even pretend you have *any*
evidence, but have also quietly disappeared from those threads when
I've made you that offer?
You're without question the lowest of the low. The fact that this
doesn't even cause you a moment's pause when you dishonestly pretend
you're trying to witness to us shows what a lousy scam artist you are.
You are the most dishonest of the dishonest, the most worthless of
scum. And people wonder why I have absolutely no hesitation in
calling you what you are? Why bother being decent with someone like
you who doesn't have a decent bone in his entire body? Who penly and
repeatedly lies not only abotu scienc ebut abotu me personally, and
who has never apologised *once* for the evil he's done.
The very fact that ***NO-ONE*** of your ilk supports you in your lies,
that no-one in the atheist community has any respect at all for you
ought to give you *some* pause for thought - that at the very best
you're approaching us wrongly, or at the very worst you are, yourself,
completely in the wrong.
It would give pause for thought to anyone who had even an ounce of
rationality left in him. The fact that you're completely blind to the
disaster-for-Christ that you are, completely clueless as to how far
you've fallen and how dismally you've failed is more than sufficient
proof of how wrong you went somewhere along the line and how blinded
you are to your failures.
Why should *anyone* try to reason with someone who lies and RUNS? Why
be respectful to someone who wants us to accept a worthless god in
which he himself has zero faith?
Keep running, you cowardly, worthless, lowlife, vacuous, hypocritical
piece of theist trash.
Budikka
Budikka666
Jan 6, 2013, 11:53:07 AM1/6/13
to
And we all know *exactly* why that is, don't we Joenuts?
Budikka
Budikka
harry k
Jan 6, 2013, 11:57:02 AM1/6/13
to
On Jan 6, 4:24 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:845390f4-4570-4aae...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
So now you can show where all those referenced floods HAPPENED AT THE
SAME TIME.
Of course a moron like you won't get the point.
Harry K
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:845390f4-4570-4aae...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
SAME TIME.
Of course a moron like you won't get the point.
Harry K
harry k
Jan 6, 2013, 11:58:29 AM1/6/13
to
period. Somehow they forgot to mention breathing water for a year.
Harry K
harry k
Jan 6, 2013, 12:00:06 PM1/6/13
to
On Jan 6, 4:30 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-FE8BDA...@news.giganews.com...
Harry K
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-FE8BDA...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
> > First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
>
> Then exactly what would you do?
Die of shock that you finally backed up one of your lies.
> >> Just repent of your sins. Come to Jesus who loves you.
>
> > First, provide evidence that this Jesus person ever existed.
>
> Then exactly what would you do?
Harry K
Free Lunch
Jan 6, 2013, 12:03:47 PM1/6/13
to
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 08:31:43 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Andrew has made it clear that he has no idea what evidence is and that
he has no idea if the people who write articles that he thinks support
his position are trustworthy. Mr. Kelly O'Connell is clearly just
writing religious pablum here, to make fools like Andrew feel good about
being misled by his lying religious leaders.
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
he has no idea if the people who write articles that he thinks support
his position are trustworthy. Mr. Kelly O'Connell is clearly just
writing religious pablum here, to make fools like Andrew feel good about
being misled by his lying religious leaders.
Mike Painter
Jan 6, 2013, 1:00:20 PM1/6/13
to
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:38:18 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
>Or are you into masochism along with your idiot theism?
>--
It certainly seems this way to me.
>
>Or are you into masochism along with your idiot theism?
>--
He behaves a lot like Earl in this respect.
His refusal to use a news reader gets him a lot of negative attention.
Mike Painter
Jan 6, 2013, 1:04:58 PM1/6/13
to
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:03:47 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Andrew carries on in the tradition of the famed Bible Bob and
Rockinghorse winner.
Bible Bob says,
" A theory is a guess, speculation, abstract thought, a guess based on
some facts; but then facts are not truth so it is all about theory."
and
" Of course I understand the scientific method (the true one, not the
false one made up by money grubbing deceivers who stole and corrupted
the words "the scientific method." Apparently you have been misled by
them so I will try to make it easy for you to understand."
"Trial and error; screw up till ya get it right. By wrong until you
get it right. Develop theories and make wild guesses and try them
out until you get one out of ten thousand right and are able to repeat
the process."
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
"Facts start out as theories, and then when enough evidence
accumulates
become fact. There is no hard and fast rules as to what is fact and
what is theory. Nevertheless, 'facts' can be overturned quite easily,
either slowly through the accumulation of new knowledge"
wrote:
Rockinghorse winner.
Bible Bob says,
" A theory is a guess, speculation, abstract thought, a guess based on
some facts; but then facts are not truth so it is all about theory."
and
" Of course I understand the scientific method (the true one, not the
false one made up by money grubbing deceivers who stole and corrupted
the words "the scientific method." Apparently you have been misled by
them so I will try to make it easy for you to understand."
"Trial and error; screw up till ya get it right. By wrong until you
get it right. Develop theories and make wild guesses and try them
out until you get one out of ten thousand right and are able to repeat
the process."
Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
"Facts start out as theories, and then when enough evidence
accumulates
become fact. There is no hard and fast rules as to what is fact and
what is theory. Nevertheless, 'facts' can be overturned quite easily,
either slowly through the accumulation of new knowledge"
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 6, 2013, 8:09:53 PM1/6/13
to
In article <4i7je8li5etd0jh17...@4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:42:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >In article <9hohe85tsi6j7ko9h...@4ax.com>,
> > Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:00:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >>
> >> >In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
> >> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
> >> >> ago is itself evidence that it happened.
> >> >
> >> >Even though it's only January 4, I think this statement could reign as
> >> >the stupidest thing anybody here for the entire year of 2013.
> >>
> >> You underestimate how foolish fools can be. Andrew, Jason and the rest
> >> will be doing all they can to top that each week.
> >
> >I dunno. This one seems in a class by itself.
>
> I've seen similar related to gods, at least one may have come from
> Andrew as well, asserting that the willingness of atheists to engage in
> discussion with theists shows to their uncritical satisfaction that we
> are showing that we do believe gods exist.
Andrew is the person making that statement, too.
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:42:11 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >In article <9hohe85tsi6j7ko9h...@4ax.com>,
> > Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:00:01 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >>
> >> >In article <puadndozqJiqg3XN...@earthlink.com>,
> >> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Your continuous obsession with the global Deluge some 4,300 years
> >> >> ago is itself evidence that it happened.
> >> >
> >> >Even though it's only January 4, I think this statement could reign as
> >> >the stupidest thing anybody here for the entire year of 2013.
> >>
> >> You underestimate how foolish fools can be. Andrew, Jason and the rest
> >> will be doing all they can to top that each week.
> >
> >I dunno. This one seems in a class by itself.
>
> I've seen similar related to gods, at least one may have come from
> Andrew as well, asserting that the willingness of atheists to engage in
> discussion with theists shows to their uncritical satisfaction that we
> are showing that we do believe gods exist.
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 6, 2013, 8:11:29 PM1/6/13
to
Budikka666
Jan 8, 2013, 7:16:44 PM1/8/13
to
you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
Budikka
Budikka666
Jan 9, 2013, 7:19:42 PM1/9/13
to
Budikka666
Jan 11, 2013, 7:11:22 PM1/11/13
to
Andrew
Jan 11, 2013, 9:26:19 PM1/11/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:8dba042b-9a96-47f0...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Why would you make your faith dependent upon what my faith would
be? Just accept the evidence which shows that there has been an ancient
world wide deluge exactly as depicted in the Holy Book. Study it out...
accept the truth, and cease your rebellion against your Maker, because
He is the One who loves you.
>
> Budikka
Andrew
be? Just accept the evidence which shows that there has been an ancient
world wide deluge exactly as depicted in the Holy Book. Study it out...
accept the truth, and cease your rebellion against your Maker, because
He is the One who loves you.
>
> Budikka
Andrew
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 11, 2013, 10:03:10 PM1/11/13
to
In article <9J-dnY1sTOfbVG3N...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:8dba042b-9a96-47f0...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > Keep running you lowlife chickenshit for Christ. Every time you run,
> > you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
> > have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
> > invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
>
> Why would you make your faith dependent upon what my faith would
> be? Just accept the evidence which shows that there has been an ancient
> world wide deluge exactly as depicted in the Holy Book.
What evidence would that be?
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:8dba042b-9a96-47f0...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > Keep running you lowlife chickenshit for Christ. Every time you run,
> > you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
> > have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
> > invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
>
> Why would you make your faith dependent upon what my faith would
> be? Just accept the evidence which shows that there has been an ancient
> world wide deluge exactly as depicted in the Holy Book.
thomas p.
Jan 12, 2013, 2:11:29 AM1/12/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hlwdjsd2-DFEF9C...@news.giganews.com...
Let me suggest some possibilities.
The evidence is all around us.
What evidence would you accept?
Even if you were given the evidence you would ignore it.
I already posted it.
And so on.
>
> --
> JD
>
> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:hlwdjsd2-DFEF9C...@news.giganews.com...
The evidence is all around us.
What evidence would you accept?
Even if you were given the evidence you would ignore it.
I already posted it.
And so on.
>
> --
> JD
>
> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 12, 2013, 3:34:31 AM1/12/13
to
In article <50f10c9e$0$56778$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
And yet they present these excuses every time as if they hadn't been
exposed as lies hundreds of times. And are surprised that we don't
believe them.
The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:hlwdjsd2-DFEF9C...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <9J-dnY1sTOfbVG3N...@earthlink.com>,
> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> >> news:8dba042b-9a96-47f0...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Keep running you lowlife chickenshit for Christ. Every time you run,
> >> > you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
> >> > have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
> >> > invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
> >>
> >> Why would you make your faith dependent upon what my faith would
> >> be? Just accept the evidence which shows that there has been an ancient
> >> world wide deluge exactly as depicted in the Holy Book.
> >
> > What evidence would that be?
>
> Let me suggest some possibilities.
>
> The evidence is all around us.
>
> What evidence would you accept?
>
> Even if you were given the evidence you would ignore it.
>
> I already posted it.
>
> And so on.
Yep, that pretty much covers it.
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:hlwdjsd2-DFEF9C...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <9J-dnY1sTOfbVG3N...@earthlink.com>,
> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> >> news:8dba042b-9a96-47f0...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Keep running you lowlife chickenshit for Christ. Every time you run,
> >> > you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
> >> > have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
> >> > invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
> >>
> >> Why would you make your faith dependent upon what my faith would
> >> be? Just accept the evidence which shows that there has been an ancient
> >> world wide deluge exactly as depicted in the Holy Book.
> >
> > What evidence would that be?
>
> Let me suggest some possibilities.
>
> The evidence is all around us.
>
> What evidence would you accept?
>
> Even if you were given the evidence you would ignore it.
>
> I already posted it.
>
> And so on.
And yet they present these excuses every time as if they hadn't been
exposed as lies hundreds of times. And are surprised that we don't
believe them.
The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
Alan Ferris
Jan 12, 2013, 6:26:38 AM1/12/13
to
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:11:29 +0100, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:hlwdjsd2-DFEF9C...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <9J-dnY1sTOfbVG3N...@earthlink.com>,
>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>>> news:8dba042b-9a96-47f0...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Keep running you lowlife chickenshit for Christ. Every time you run,
>>> > you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
>>> > have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
>>> > invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
>>>
>>> Why would you make your faith dependent upon what my faith would
>>> be? Just accept the evidence which shows that there has been an ancient
>>> world wide deluge exactly as depicted in the Holy Book.
>>
>> What evidence would that be?
>
>Let me suggest some possibilities.
>
>The evidence is all around us.
>
>What evidence would you accept?
Any peer reviewed evidence.
>"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:hlwdjsd2-DFEF9C...@news.giganews.com...
>> In article <9J-dnY1sTOfbVG3N...@earthlink.com>,
>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>>> news:8dba042b-9a96-47f0...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>> > Keep running you lowlife chickenshit for Christ. Every time you run,
>>> > you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
>>> > have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
>>> > invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
>>>
>>> Why would you make your faith dependent upon what my faith would
>>> be? Just accept the evidence which shows that there has been an ancient
>>> world wide deluge exactly as depicted in the Holy Book.
>>
>> What evidence would that be?
>
>Let me suggest some possibilities.
>
>The evidence is all around us.
>
>What evidence would you accept?
>Even if you were given the evidence you would ignore it.
people consider to be evidence turns out to be anything but.
>I already posted it.
So it should be easy for you to post it again or provide a link to that post.
--
Hiary Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q
thomas p.
Jan 12, 2013, 8:28:31 AM1/12/13
to
"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:juh2f8hhb9ukotbhh...@4ax.com...
You missed the fact that I was being sarcastic, that I am not J.
> --
> Hiary Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q
>
>
>
news:juh2f8hhb9ukotbhh...@4ax.com...
> --
> Hiary Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q
>
>
>
The Magpie
Jan 12, 2013, 5:03:52 PM1/12/13
to
On 12/01/2013 02:26, Andrew wrote:
>
> Why would you make your faith
>
What "faith" would that be? We have no "faith" like you do.
>
> Why would you make your faith
>
>
> dependent upon what my faith would be? Just accept the evidence
> which shows that there has been an ancient world wide deluge
>
Would that be the evidence we keep asking you for but which you keep
> dependent upon what my faith would be? Just accept the evidence
> which shows that there has been an ancient world wide deluge
>
failing to provide, Andrew?
>
> exactly as depicted in the Holy Book.
>
I ask, because there is certainly no evidence to support a biblical
> exactly as depicted in the Holy Book.
>
global flood at all.
>
> Study it out...
>
You provide it, then we can study it. Of course, the snag is that
first you have to provide it... and there is none.
>
> accept the truth, and cease your rebellion against your Maker,
> because He is the One who loves you.
>
Oh dear me Andrew - grasping at straw-men again.
> accept the truth, and cease your rebellion against your Maker,
> because He is the One who loves you.
>
Budikka666
Jan 13, 2013, 4:55:19 PM1/13/13
to
Keep running you lowlife chickenshit for Christ. Every time you run,
you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
you prove to everyone in these world-wide public fora that even you
have no faith whatsoever in this worthless, fictional creator you
invented for yourself. And if you have no faith, then why should we?
creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
vacuious lies?
Budikka
Message has been deleted
Budikka666
Jan 16, 2013, 7:28:30 AM1/16/13
to
Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
admit you have no faith in it?
Andrew
Jan 16, 2013, 2:05:35 PM1/16/13
to
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
of debate is "how the evidence is interpreted"; and if one has an a priori
adherence to an anti-God worldview, then they will be confined within a
box where they will "refuse to acknowledge" what the evidence points to,
-if- it is outside of their arbitrary, self-imposed *box*, regardless of what
the evidence is. Such is the condition of those who accept the anti-God
science [so called science] paradigm.
If you want truth, you must break free from those restrictions. Otherwise
you will remain in confusion, darkness and frustration as is so obviously
exhibited in the poster, Budikka.
Andrew
of debate is "how the evidence is interpreted"; and if one has an a priori
adherence to an anti-God worldview, then they will be confined within a
box where they will "refuse to acknowledge" what the evidence points to,
-if- it is outside of their arbitrary, self-imposed *box*, regardless of what
the evidence is. Such is the condition of those who accept the anti-God
science [so called science] paradigm.
If you want truth, you must break free from those restrictions. Otherwise
you will remain in confusion, darkness and frustration as is so obviously
exhibited in the poster, Budikka.
Andrew
Simon Balfre
Jan 16, 2013, 2:08:06 PM1/16/13
to
On Jan 16, 7:05 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
It seems to me Andrew, that your argument could be applied to your
stance on this issue.
You have a habit of rejecting evidence that supports evolution as
fantasy.
And you cannot explain why you claim certain things as evidence for
your chosen deity.
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
stance on this issue.
You have a habit of rejecting evidence that supports evolution as
fantasy.
And you cannot explain why you claim certain things as evidence for
your chosen deity.
Andrew
Jan 16, 2013, 3:38:07 PM1/16/13
to
"Simon Balfre" wrote in message news:97878aa9-7861-4291...@p1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> You have a habit of rejecting evidence that supports evolution as
> fantasy.
I do not reject evidence, but I reject interpretations thereof that are
mixed with fantasy.
> And you cannot explain why you claim certain things as evidence
> for your chosen deity.
I maintain that evidence that points to an intelligent causation is
evidence that also points to an intelligent Creator. It is just such
a stance that led one of the most renowned atheists of all time to
renounce atheism.
****
"Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained
in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts
that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages,
systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words
on the world of matter?"
"It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty
years of DNA research have provided materials for a new
and enormously powerful argument to design."
"What I think the DNA material has done is show that
intelligence must have been involved in getting these
extraordinarily diverse elements together. . .
The enormous complexity by which the results were
achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."
~ Antony Flew (former atheist)
His, "whole life has been guided by the principle of..
follow the evidence, wherever it leads." He was an
honest man. He accepted the evidence and admitted
his errors, thus showing that it is possible for any
atheist to do the same.
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
>> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
>> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
>> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
>> > admit you have no faith in it?
>>
>> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
>> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
>> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
>> > vacuious lies?
>>
>> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
>> of debate is "how the evidence is interpreted"; and if one has an a priori
>> adherence to an anti-God worldview, then they will be confined within a
>> box where they will "refuse to acknowledge" what the evidence points to,
>> -if- it is outside of their arbitrary, self-imposed *box*, regardless of what
>> the evidence is. Such is the condition of those who accept the anti-God
>> science [so called science] paradigm.
>>
>> If you want truth, you must break free from those restrictions. Otherwise
>> you will remain in confusion, darkness and frustration as is so obviously
>> exhibited in the poster, Budikka.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> It seems to me Andrew, that your argument could be applied to your
> stance on this issue.
It should be applied to everyone's stance.
>> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
>> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
>> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
>> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
>> > admit you have no faith in it?
>>
>> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
>> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
>> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
>> > vacuious lies?
>>
>> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
>> of debate is "how the evidence is interpreted"; and if one has an a priori
>> adherence to an anti-God worldview, then they will be confined within a
>> box where they will "refuse to acknowledge" what the evidence points to,
>> -if- it is outside of their arbitrary, self-imposed *box*, regardless of what
>> the evidence is. Such is the condition of those who accept the anti-God
>> science [so called science] paradigm.
>>
>> If you want truth, you must break free from those restrictions. Otherwise
>> you will remain in confusion, darkness and frustration as is so obviously
>> exhibited in the poster, Budikka.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> It seems to me Andrew, that your argument could be applied to your
> stance on this issue.
> You have a habit of rejecting evidence that supports evolution as
> fantasy.
mixed with fantasy.
> And you cannot explain why you claim certain things as evidence
> for your chosen deity.
evidence that also points to an intelligent Creator. It is just such
a stance that led one of the most renowned atheists of all time to
renounce atheism.
****
"Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained
in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts
that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages,
systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words
on the world of matter?"
"It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty
years of DNA research have provided materials for a new
and enormously powerful argument to design."
"What I think the DNA material has done is show that
intelligence must have been involved in getting these
extraordinarily diverse elements together. . .
The enormous complexity by which the results were
achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."
~ Antony Flew (former atheist)
His, "whole life has been guided by the principle of..
follow the evidence, wherever it leads." He was an
honest man. He accepted the evidence and admitted
his errors, thus showing that it is possible for any
atheist to do the same.
Andrew
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 16, 2013, 7:33:53 PM1/16/13
to
In article <SbqdnQrnjrrlZGvN...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
> > admit you have no faith in it?
> >
> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
> > vacuious lies?
>
> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
Why did you put quote marks around the word same?
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
> > admit you have no faith in it?
> >
> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
> > vacuious lies?
>
> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 16, 2013, 7:35:29 PM1/16/13
to
In article <FoKdnUfGVrm1kmrN...@earthlink.com>,
Even if that were true, so what?
How can he be "renowned" if I'd never heard of him before I came here?
How can he be "renowned" if I'd never heard of him before I came here?
Hope Simmers
Jan 16, 2013, 7:48:00 PM1/16/13
to
On Jan 16, 12:05 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
adherence to a theistic worldview, then they will be confined within
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
a
box where they will "refuse to acknowledge" what the evidence points
to,
-if- it is outside of their arbitrary, self-imposed *box*, regardless
of what
the evidence is. Such is the condition of those who accept the
theistic
box where they will "refuse to acknowledge" what the evidence points
to,
-if- it is outside of their arbitrary, self-imposed *box*, regardless
of what
the evidence is. Such is the condition of those who accept the
science [so called science] paradigm.
If you want truth, you must break free from those restrictions.
Otherwise
you will remain in confusion, darkness and frustration as is so
obviously
exhibited in the poster, Andrew.
If you want truth, you must break free from those restrictions.
Otherwise
you will remain in confusion, darkness and frustration as is so
obviously
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 16, 2013, 7:48:56 PM1/16/13
to
Apart from there being no such thing as "evolutionists" because it is
a creationist canard that dishonestly attempts to turn the acceptance
of reality into an ideology that competes with theirs, creationists do
actually have access to the same evidence.
Too bad they dismiss it because it refutes their fairy stories.
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 16, 2013, 7:59:01 PM1/16/13
to
has ever been presented.
Nor will it ever, because evolution is a set of observations
observation that won't un-happen, a solidly researched and well
understood phenomenon.
.
>> I do not reject evidence, but I reject interpretations thereof that are
>> mixed with fantasy.
>>
>> > And you cannot explain why you claim certain things as evidence
>> > for your chosen deity.
>>
>> I maintain that evidence that points to an intelligent causation is
>> evidence that also points to an intelligent Creator. It is just such
>> a stance that led one of the most renowned atheists of all time to
>> renounce atheism.
The liar keeps saying this but never says what it is and why it points
>> I do not reject evidence, but I reject interpretations thereof that are
>> mixed with fantasy.
>>
>> > And you cannot explain why you claim certain things as evidence
>> > for your chosen deity.
>>
>> I maintain that evidence that points to an intelligent causation is
>> evidence that also points to an intelligent Creator. It is just such
>> a stance that led one of the most renowned atheists of all time to
>> renounce atheism.
to a deity.
And he is lying about "renouncing atheism" because there is nothing
top renounce - it would be like "renouncing not believing in Father
Christmas".
>Even if that were true, so what?
argument from ignorance which would have flunked his students a couple
of decades earlier.
In fact his later books were ghost written for him by American
fundamentalists so narcissistic they couldn't grasp that an Englishman
wouldn't have used the Americanisms.
>How can he be "renowned" if I'd never heard of him before I came here?
There's a lengthy article on the secular web that documents his
decline and how the evangelical fundamentalists took advantage of him,
by Richard Carrier...
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article369.html
It's well worth reading.
Andrew
Jan 16, 2013, 8:08:36 PM1/16/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-E61605...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> How can he be "renowned" if I'd never
> heard of him before I came here?
Could be a number of reasons.
> "Andrew" wrote:
> Even if that were true, so what?
It proves that there are some honest atheists.
> How can he be "renowned" if I'd never
> heard of him before I came here?
Andrew
Jan 16, 2013, 8:09:20 PM1/16/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-0CA2EB...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
>> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
>> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
>> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
>> > admit you have no faith in it?
>> >
>> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
>> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
>> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
>> > vacuious lies?
>>
>> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
>
>> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
>> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
>> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
>> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
>> > admit you have no faith in it?
>> >
>> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
>> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
>> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
>> > vacuious lies?
>>
>> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
>
> Why did you put quote marks around the word same?
Those aren't quote marks.
Simon Balfre
Jan 16, 2013, 8:26:33 PM1/16/13
to
On Jan 16, 8:38 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Simon Balfre" wrote in messagenews:97878aa9-7861-4291...@p1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
That is not really supporting your claim, you're simply repeating the
same thing but using different words.
Have you taken them from the original source?
If so, then kindly provide the source.
> "Simon Balfre" wrote in messagenews:97878aa9-7861-4291...@p1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
same thing but using different words.
>
> ****
>
> "Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained
> in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts
> that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages,
> systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words
> on the world of matter?"
>
> "It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty
> years of DNA research have provided materials for a new
> and enormously powerful argument to design."
>
> "What I think the DNA material has done is show that
> intelligence must have been involved in getting these
> extraordinarily diverse elements together. . .
> The enormous complexity by which the results were
> achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."
>
> ~ Antony Flew (former atheist)
Have you presented these quotes in context?
> ****
>
> "Can the origins of a system of coded chemistry be explained
> in a way that makes no appeal whatever to the kinds of facts
> that we otherwise invoke to explain codes and languages,
> systems of communication, the impress of ordinary words
> on the world of matter?"
>
> "It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty
> years of DNA research have provided materials for a new
> and enormously powerful argument to design."
>
> "What I think the DNA material has done is show that
> intelligence must have been involved in getting these
> extraordinarily diverse elements together. . .
> The enormous complexity by which the results were
> achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."
>
> ~ Antony Flew (former atheist)
Have you taken them from the original source?
If so, then kindly provide the source.
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 16, 2013, 8:46:12 PM1/16/13
to
Jeanne Douglas
Jan 16, 2013, 8:47:49 PM1/16/13
to
In article <mcief8prfk9p00mga...@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:33:53 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <SbqdnQrnjrrlZGvN...@earthlink.com>,
> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >> news:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
> >> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
> >> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
> >> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
> >> > admit you have no faith in it?
> >> >
> >> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
> >> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
> >> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
> >> > vacuious lies?
> >>
> >> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
> >
> >Why did you put quote marks around the word same?
>
> They were asterisks for emphasis.
Yeah, I already apologized by my bad eyes.
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:33:53 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <SbqdnQrnjrrlZGvN...@earthlink.com>,
> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >> news:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
> >> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
> >> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how hypocritical
> >> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
> >> > admit you have no faith in it?
> >> >
> >> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
> >> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you have
> >> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
> >> > vacuious lies?
> >>
> >> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence. So the point
> >
> >Why did you put quote marks around the word same?
>
> They were asterisks for emphasis.
Virgil
Jan 16, 2013, 10:07:50 PM1/16/13
to
In article <hlwdjsd2-E61605...@news.giganews.com>,
And if "Andrew" was referring to Albert Einstein, the evidence of
Einsein's own words refutes that lie:
"I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes
his creatures or has a will of the kind we experience
in ourselves. Neither can I�nor would I want to�
conceive of an individual that survives his physical
death. Let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mys-
tery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the mar-
velous structure of the existing world, together with
the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it
ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature."
-- Albert Einstein
Einsein's own words refutes that lie:
"I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes
his creatures or has a will of the kind we experience
in ourselves. Neither can I�nor would I want to�
conceive of an individual that survives his physical
death. Let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism,
cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mys-
tery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the mar-
velous structure of the existing world, together with
the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it
ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature."
-- Albert Einstein
Virgil
Jan 16, 2013, 10:23:06 PM1/16/13
to
In article <YaudnRia0PcQ02rN...@earthlink.com>,
existence of any gods nor the validity of any religion.
--
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-E61605...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Simon Balfre" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
> >> >> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
> >> >> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how
> >> >> > hypocritical
> >> >> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
> >> >> > admit you have no faith in it?
> >> >>
> >> >> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
> >> >> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
> >> >> > vacuious lies?
> >> >>
> >> >> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence.
Creationists have no objective physical evidence supporting the
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-E61605...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Simon Balfre" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> >> > Every time you run, you prove to everyone in these world-wide public
> >> >> > fora that even you have no faith whatsoever in this worthless,
> >> >> > fictional creator you invented for yourself. And just how
> >> >> > hypocritical
> >> >> > is it to demand that we follow your fake creator when you yourself
> >> >> > admit you have no faith in it?
> >> >>
> >> >> > Every time you fail to provide positive scientific evidence for a
> >> >> > creator/creation, you're admitting that you have none, and if you
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > no evidence and evolutionists do, then why should anyone believe your
> >> >> > vacuious lies?
> >> >>
> >> >> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence.
existence of any gods nor the validity of any religion.
--
Virgil
Jan 16, 2013, 10:28:56 PM1/16/13
to
unrealistic idea of what constitutes reliable evidence.
Creationists accept as reliable evidence what the scientific method says
must be rejected, like mere hearsay, and reject what the scientific
method says must be accepted, like objective physical evidence.
--
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 16, 2013, 10:34:03 PM1/16/13
to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:07:50 -0700, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> > I maintain that evidence that points to an intelligent causation is
>> > evidence that also points to an intelligent Creator. It is just such
>> > a stance that led one of the most renowned atheists of all time to
>> > renounce atheism.
>>
>> Even if that were true, so what?
>
>And if "Andrew" was referring to Albert Einstein, the evidence of
>Einsein's own words refutes that lie:
I think the pathological liar means Anthony Flew.
>> > I maintain that evidence that points to an intelligent causation is
>> > evidence that also points to an intelligent Creator. It is just such
>> > a stance that led one of the most renowned atheists of all time to
>> > renounce atheism.
>>
>> Even if that were true, so what?
>
>And if "Andrew" was referring to Albert Einstein, the evidence of
>Einsein's own words refutes that lie:
Most of us had never herd of him, but he was a cause celebre among
evangelical fundamentalists when he was targeted by a glib Liar For
God while he was going senile.
The liar lied about the state of modern scientific research and used
the "you can't get something from nothing therefore it must have been
God" multiple dishonesty to persuade him of a deist god.
He admitted afterward that he hadn't realise that quantum mechanics
knows about the spontaneous appearance of particles. I don't know if
he realised that the rest of it was both a non-sequitur and the
argument from ignorance which would have flunked any of his students
who had used it a decade or so earlier.
Richard Carrier documents his decline and how the Liars For God took
advantage of him even to the extent of ghost writing his later books
whose content he was unaware of.
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article369.html
.didn't know about quantum mechanic
Message has been deleted
nature bats_last
Jan 18, 2013, 2:51:41 PM1/18/13
to
On Jan 16, 12:05 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:2934b494-2131-408e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
thinking outside the current paradigm, looking at facts
differently from the way everyone else is doing, can
lead to Truth that others, who are going along with the
prevailing point of view, will miss.
I often criticize Andrew for coming in here unarmed,
knowing just about nothing about science, but
nonetheless trying to use science to persuade us that
all the facts point to some kind of designer.
But hey: when he's right, he's right. And this time he
is right: examining the world from a different point of
view can lead to truths others have missed.
Just to take one example -- for over two thousand years
people who strugged to understand and explain the world
viewed the ways of this world as being controlled by
spirits, beings outside our comprehension. You want to
explain disease or lightning or eclipses, then you must
first figure out what God or Satan or demons or the
Spirit of the Elm tree is doing to cause these
phenomena. Once you get a handle on what the invisible
world is doing in this world, then maybe you can do
something about it.
And two millennia of thinking inside that particular
box got us nowhere. Zilch, nothing, nada, the null
set.
But around three centuries ago, a few men started
thinking -- just as Andrew advises us to do -- started
thinking outside that box, started looking at phenomena
on their own terms. Forget (for the moment) gods and
demons, what is this thing DOING? Can we predict what
it will do next? Can we explain what it did in the
past -- all solely in its own terms?
And you know what? three centuries of that, and men
were walking on the Moon On the MOON!!! Would you not
just love to go back and tell Moses or Paul or Mohammed
"Guys, we listened to you for eighty generations of
men, and things stayed just like they were in your
time. And then -- forgive me -- and then we started
listening to other voices, and a few generations later
men were cavorting about on the Moon"?
Of course meen on the Moon, while astonishing, was in
many ways a cheap political trick. Far more important
were things such as this: after innumerable
generations of men, the entity which wrought more
misery and suffering and death than any single other
thing in human history -- smallpox -- was as extinct as
the dinosaurs Adam (some claim) cavorted with.
Consider: countless generations praying and cursing and
sacrificing over the sick cured not a one; three
centuries of ignoring prayers and curses and the spirit
world lead to a future where no one sickens and died of
smallpox.
Got leprosy? You can gather your priests and your
sacred woods and oils and doves and ceremonial garments
-- or you can look through your microscopes and
meditate on your cellular receptors and actually do
some good.
Notice that lightning in many ways resembles the
sparks from your Leyden jar, reason from there to
putting up lightning rods... and suddenly you
don't have to tie yourself in theological knots to
explain why God keeps striking down your church
steeples.
So all I am saying is that Andrew was correct --
looking at old facts through fresh eyes can indeed
create miracles.
NBL
Budikka666
Jan 19, 2013, 10:15:00 AM1/19/13
to
On Jan 16, 1:05 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence.
No, we don't, because you *ignore* all the evidence that you can't
> Creationists and evolutionists all have the *same* evidence.
warp, twist, bend, and lie about.
The evidence, ***all*** of it, is that the universe is some 14 billion
years old and Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. Where is
***YOUR*** postive scientific evidence that it's not?
[rest of your self-serving lies and preaching fluished where it
belongs]
NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION
Budikka
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages