Disproving Creation: Adam and Eve still a major creationist fail

[Budikka666]

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-for-biologos-but-no-progress-on-the-adam-and-eve-question/

Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved. Period.

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666 wrote in message news:d7b4ec90-bb34-48d3...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-for-biologos-but-no-progress-on-the-adam-and-eve-question/
>
> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>

> Budikka

But you are unable to explain how.

And your obsession with it indicates
that it was true; since you would not
have an obsession with that which
was not.


Andrew

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ntWdnTHx4oOYr5bM...@earthlink.com>,

Take your meds.

Your thinking is COMPLETELY disordered. Call your doctor and show him
this message and other ones you've written and beg him to help you.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Landis Ragon]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:12:15 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

J.R.R. Tolkien was obsessed with Middle Earth. Does that make it true?

[Andrew]

"Landis Ragon" wrote in message news:ujemg8ltd7tqhth3a...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>"Budikka666 wrote:
>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-for-biologos-but-no-progress-on-the-adam-and-eve-question/
>>>
>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>>But you are unable to explain how.
>>
>>And your obsession with it indicates
>>that it was true; since you would not
>>have an obsession with that which
>>was not.
>>
>>
>>Andrew
>>
>
>
> J.R.R. Tolkien was obsessed with
> Middle Earth. Does that make it
> true?

Yes, for him.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <CaedndW5yZsx3ZbM...@earthlink.com>,

Why are you libeling Tolkien like this?

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 1, 3:12 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666 wrote in messagenews:d7b4ec90-bb34-48d3...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...

>
> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>
> > Budikka
>
> But you are unable to explain how.
>
> And your obsession with it indicates
> that it was true; since you would not
> have an obsession with that which
> was not.
>
> Andrew

Andrew, do you ever examine the evidence that Budikka supplies?

Or do you simply dismiss it without even looking at it?

[The Magpie]

On 01/02/2013 03:46, Landis Ragon wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:12:15 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Budikka666 wrote in message news:d7b4ec90-bb34-48d3...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-for-biologos-but-no-progress-on-the-adam-and-eve-question/
>>>
>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>

>> But you are unable to explain how.
>>
>> And your obsession with it indicates
>> that it was true; since you would not
>> have an obsession with that which
>> was not.
>

> J.R.R. Tolkien was obsessed with Middle Earth. Does that make it true?
>

Of course Middle Earth is true.... well, as true as the biblical
myths. It just happens to be Tolkein's take on the Wyrd mythology of
Anglo-Saxon pre-christian England.

[Ralph]

All of the physical sciences show the earth to be old. Where did you get
your scientific information? The bible:-))))?

[Ralph]

Yep, but not to the world of science.

[Landis Ragon]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:14:46 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Why the "for him" disclaimer, when you did not include it when you did
not make the same disclaimer for Budikka?

[Andrew]

"Landis Ragon" wrote in message news:hvlog81kc6une5mel...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>"Landis Ragon" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Budikka666 wrote:
>>>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-for-biologos-but-no-progress-on-the-adam-and-eve-question/
>>>>>
>>>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Budikka
>>>>
>>>>But you are unable to explain how.
>>>>
>>>>And your obsession with it indicates
>>>>that it was true; since you would not
>>>>have an obsession with that which
>>>>was not.
>>>>
>>>>Andrew
>>>>
>>> J.R.R. Tolkien was obsessed with
>>> Middle Earth. Does that make it
>>> true?
>>
>>Yes, for him.
>>
> Why the "for him" disclaimer, when you
> did not include it when you did not make
> the same disclaimer for Budikka?

Budikka's obsession pertains to a truth
in Budikka's mind that she is unable to
free herself from, because she knows it
is true (in her mind).

That of itself doesn't mean that it is in
fact true. However since Budikka is an
intelligent person, it indicates that it is
likely to be true, because otherwise she
wouldn't be so obsessed.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 2, 8:06 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Landis Ragon" wrote in messagenews:hvlog81kc6une5mel...@4ax.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"Landis Ragon" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>>"Budikka666 wrote:

> >>>>>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...

>
> >>>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>
> >>>>> Budikka
>
> >>>>But you are unable to explain how.
>
> >>>>And your obsession with it indicates
> >>>>that it was true; since you would not
> >>>>have an obsession with that which
> >>>>was not.
>
> >>>>Andrew
>
> >>> J.R.R. Tolkien was obsessed with
> >>> Middle Earth. Does that make it
> >>> true?
>
> >>Yes, for him.
>
> > Why the "for him" disclaimer, when you
> > did not include it when you did not make
> > the same disclaimer for Budikka?
>
> Budikka's obsession pertains to a truth
> in Budikka's mind that she is unable to
> free herself from, because she knows it
> is true (in her mind).
>
> That of itself doesn't mean that it is in
> fact true. However since Budikka is an
> intelligent person, it indicates that it is
> likely to be true, because otherwise she
> wouldn't be so obsessed.

What bothers Budikka is people like you.

People who make claims about their chosen deity.

People who then cannot back up those claims.

People who claim scientific theories are fantasy.

People who refuse to even examine those theories.

People who refuse to even examine the evidence supporting those
theories.

In other words you and all others of your ilk.

[Budikka666]

On Jan 31, 9:12 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666 wrote in messagenews:d7b4ec90-bb34-48d3...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>

> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>
> > Budikka
>
> But you are unable to explain how.

I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail. Are you
prepared to listen? If so, then let's you and me have a tit-for-tat
exchange right here in this thread.

You go ahead and post one item of *postive* *scientific* evidence
supporting your claim that a creator god created Adam and Eve, the
progenitors of the entire human race, as depicted in genesis, some
6,000 years ago, and I will post a similar item of evidence for my
position that it is impossible for the entire human race to have
descended from two and two only, humans just 6,000 years ago.

And let me derail one of the gazillion excuses with which you will
undoubtedly seek to litter the floor as you yet again beat a hasty
retreat from my generous offer: Yes, if you present adequate positive
scientific evidence for your case, I will accept your position and
abandon my own. Are you prepared to make this same offer to me?

Or will this be yet another example of my going the extra mile and you
ignoiring what I say, and running?

Will this be yet another example of my crossing the street to help
you, and you insulting me and running?

Will this be yet another example of my giving you my coat, and you
insulting science and running?

Will it be another example of me turning the other cheek, and you
judging and running?

Now does that take care of your quota of excuses on this occasion for
why *once* *again* you can't support your case? Why once again you
can't provide an iota of positive supportive evidence? Why once again
we find you giving us yet another de facto admission that your
purportedly omnipotent god fails to imbue you with sufficient
vertebral rigor to take me on, or are there more excuses we must
address before you can summon sufficient intestinal fortuitude to face
me?

I'm waiting.

Budikka

[Landis Ragon]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:06:12 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

JRR Tolkien was an intelligient person...

Point. Set. Match.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Andrew is bat-shit crazy.

Over and above being fundamentalist and a creationist, he wipes his
stupid bullshit in everybody's faces here - and then he imagines not
letting him get away with it, is being obsessed with it?

He is a stupid, nasty, pathological liar.

But then he's a creationist and a fundamentalist.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:08:46 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew worships his own immoral teachings and condemns all who stand for
integrity and honesty. Andrew knows that he preaches falsehoods, but
refuses to confront himself about this.

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:e7100c7a-a072-47dc...@w7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Budikka666 wrote:
>> > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>>
>> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> But you are unable to explain how.
>
> I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.

Then go ahead.

> Are you prepared to listen?

Yes, until the point when you try to support
your position with fantasies or assumptions.

I'm waiting.

Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.

[Joe Bruno]

As you are,malcontent.

>
>
>
> Over and above being fundamentalist and a creationist, he wipes his
>
> stupid bullshit in everybody's faces here - and then he imagines not
>
> letting him get away with it, is being obsessed with it?

It's no worse than your bullshit about theists and your ludicrous attempts to read out minds and know what we think.What's more ridiculous are your claims that theists are "mentally ill".You are neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist and not qualified to make any such diagnosis.Moreover, no mental health professional would even attempt such a diagnosis without a personal interview face to face.

Posing as someone you are not is called "FRAUD".

YOU ARE A FRAUD.
>
>
>

[Virgil]

In article <etgqg81ihaklujh6s...@4ax.com>,

Actually, there is still a lot that science does not know about how the
world came to be as it is today, but science still knows that things
could not have transpires ad the bible claims.

But the Bible is not about facts so much as about faith, so no one
should have relied on it for facts in the first place.
--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <lIidndvVivdxBJDM...@earthlink.com>,

Do you think nuclear bombs work? Do you think nuclear power plants work?

Then you declare that dating methods based on the exact same science are
not fantasy, but are rather fact.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <etgqg81ihaklujh6s...@4ax.com>,
Landis Ragon <landis...@attgobal.net> wrote:

Brilliantly so. With an amazing creative mind that led him to create an
entire world with a level of detail that is astounding.

> Point. Set. Match.

Absolutely.

A small aside: I got an urge to read "Silmarillion". But I've heard that
parts of it are as dreary as the "begats" part of the bible.

Has anyone read it, and can you recommend for or against reading it?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <virgil-D17CAB....@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>,

We've seen many theists unclear about what symbolism, analogy, and
metaphor are. With that kind of brain damage, it's hard to accept the
symbolic nature of the bible. (And, yes, I meant it when I said brain
damage; whether it's damage one was born with, or caused by brainwashing
from the earliest age creating it, it's still brain damage.)

[Joe Bruno]

EVIDENCE???????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Virgil]

In article <baaa30b6-b097-477f...@googlegroups.com>,

Why should we be requires to provide what you do not, and can not?
--

[Virgil]

In article <lIidndvVivdxBJDM...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

Why not when YOUR position is so totally indefensible without both of
them?
--

[Budikka666]

On Jan 31, 9:12 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666 wrote in messagenews:d7b4ec90-bb34-48d3...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>

> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>
> > Budikka
>
> But you are unable to explain how.

Why don't you dig up the guts to take me up on my offer? Then you
find out exactly how: exactly how big of a vacuous liar you are )as
well as a shameless coward) and how solidly science has completely
overturned your childish little fantasy world.

Where are your guts ? Do you have an omnipotent god backing you up or
not? if you do, then why are oyu so spineless?

So are you going to take me on or not? The answer is a simple 'yes'.
or a simple 'no'. No answer or answering no means that you yourself
openly and unconditionally admit that you do not believe in any gods
and are therefore a hypcorite as well as a coward and a vacuous liar.

Can you not even find the guts to give me a simple yes or a simple
no? Or do you have more excuses and cheap lies to hide behind? Your
own religious ilk are reading this and watching what you do. Are you
going to show them how you witness, or show them how you run like
diarrhea?

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On Feb 3, 12:36 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> EVIDENCE???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Why aren't you asking Andrew-a-Blank for evidence that this universe
is only 6,000 years old, numbnuts? That's what he believes, so why
are you supporting him in his delusion instead of joining us in
reality? There's the evidence of *your* mental instability right
there! lol!

Here's evidence of your cowardice and vacuity, Joenuts Bugout:
http://tinyurl.com/8m38v5w

And you've been running from me for over a month here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/83efa6ba335c4823?scoring=d&

So you are a coward, a vacuous liar, and evidently mentally unstable.
There's your evidence.

Keep running you cheap-ass waste of skin.

Budikka

[hypatiab7]

On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:08:28 AM UTC-5, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <CaedndW5yZsx3ZbM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Landis Ragon" wrote in message
> > news:ujemg8ltd7tqhth3a...@4ax.com...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >>"Budikka666 wrote:
> > >>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-for-bio
> > >>> logos-but-no-progress-on-the-adam-and-eve-question/
>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>

> > >>But you are unable to explain how.
>
> > >>And your obsession with it indicates
> > >>that it was true; since you would not
> > >>have an obsession with that which
>

> > > J.R.R. Tolkien was obsessed with
> > > Middle Earth. Does that make it
> > > true?
>
> > Yes, for him.
>
> Why are you libeling Tolkien like this?

Tolkien's main interests were languages (Germanic, Nordic and Celtic)
and the cultures they developed in. This is very obvious in his writings.
His biggest interest was languages and this is gone into in great detail
in biographies of his life. Want the titles, Andrew? Tolkien wasn't obsessed with Middle Earth. He used Middle Earth as a way to create his own languages.

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:fefc9620-517d-44f3...@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 3, 12:36 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> EVIDENCE???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> Why aren't you asking Andrew-a-Blank for evidence that this universe
> is only 6,000 years old, numbnuts? That's what he believes,

I attest that the Universe was created, and that it is *older* than
the above. Also that God created the life therein, and that there
has been no ''naturalistic only'' origin of man, apart from special
creation. Therefore you and others have been -greatly- deceived.


> Budikka



Andrew

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 5:57:09 PM UTC-5, Virgil wrote:
> In article <baaa30b6-b097-477f...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Joe Bruno <atan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, February 2, 2013 7:23:27 PM UTC-8, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
> > > In article <virgil-D17CAB....@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>,
>
> > >
>
> > > Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Actually, there is still a lot that science does not know about how the
>
> > > > world came to be as it is today, but science still knows that things
>
> > > > could not have transpires ad the bible claims.
>
> > > > But the Bible is not about facts so much as about faith, so no one
>
> > > > should have relied on it for facts in the first place.
>
> > > We've seen many theists unclear about what symbolism, analogy, and
>
> > > metaphor are.
>
> > EVIDENCE?
>

> Why should we be requires to provide what you do not, and can not?

Artie always expects us to explain things for him, though he refuses
to explain anything to us.

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 9:59:43 PM UTC-5, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <etgqg81ihaklujh6s...@4ax.com>,
> Landis Ragon <landis...@attgobal.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:06:12 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> > wrote:
> > >"Landis Ragon" wrote in message
> > >news:hvlog81kc6une5mel...@4ax.com...

> > >> "Andrew" wrote:
> > >>>"Landis Ragon" wrote:
> > >>>> "Andrew" wrote:
> > >>>>>"Budikka666 wrote:
> > >>>>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-for-biologos-but-no-progress-on-the-adam-and-eve-question/
>
> > >>>>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.

> > >>>>>But you are unable to explain how.

>
> > >>>>>And your obsession with it indicates
>> > >>>>>that it was true; since you would not
> > >>>>>have an obsession with that which
> > >>>>>was not.

That makes no sense at all.

>
> > >>>> J.R.R. Tolkien was obsessed with
> > >>>> Middle Earth. Does that make it
> > >>>> true?
>
> > >>>Yes, for him.
>
> > >> Why the "for him" disclaimer, when you
> > >> did not include it when you did not make
> > >> the same disclaimer for Budikka?
>
> > >Budikka's obsession pertains to a truth
> > >in Budikka's mind that she is unable to
> > >free herself from, because she knows it
> > >is true (in her mind).
>
> > >That of itself doesn't mean that it is in
> > >fact true. However since Budikka is an
> > >intelligent person, it indicates that it is
> > >likely to be true, because otherwise she
> > >wouldn't be so obsessed.
> > JRR Tolkien was an intelligient person...
>
> Brilliantly so. With an amazing creative mind that led him to create an
> entire world with a level of detail that is astounding.
>
> > Point. Set. Match.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> A small aside: I got an urge to read "Silmarillion". But I've heard that
> parts of it are as dreary as the "begats" part of the bible.
>
> Has anyone read it, and can you recommend for or against reading it?

I wouldn't recommend reading it straight through like a novel.
It does get rather dry in places. But, it fills in Middle Earth
history in an earlier age.

[Mike Painter]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:32:06 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Which version of the creation story do you hold true and should we ask
you about Lilith?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <d0f0bee0-3230-431d...@googlegroups.com>,

Thanks. I'll ponder it some more.

I've just begun Rachel Maddow's book: "Drift: The Unmooring of American
Military Power":

<http://www.amazon.com/Drift-Unmooring-American-Military-Power/dp/0307460
983/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359959805&sr=1-1&keywords=rachel+madd
ow>

The book has gotten excellent reviews from people on both sides of the
ideological divide.

[Alan Ferris]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:32:06 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

>> Why aren't you asking Andrew-a-Blank for evidence that this universe
>> is only 6,000 years old, numbnuts? That's what he believes,
>
>I attest that the Universe was created, and that it is *older* than
>the above. Also that God created the life therein, and that there
>has been no ''naturalistic only'' origin of man, apart from special
>creation. Therefore you and others have been -greatly- deceived.

Right..........do you always ignore things that do not agree with your ?
--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Atheist #1211
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.

SERV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q

[The Magpie]

I do have it and yes, it is true that some bits are quite dull.

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:e7100c7a-a072-47dc...@w7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666 wrote:

>> > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>>
>> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> But you are unable to explain how.
>

> I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.

Please do.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <eqidnQebXfwQzI3M...@earthlink.com>,

What you call fantasies, everyone who lives in the real world call fact.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-5326E9...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666 wrote:
>> >> > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>> >>
>> >> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>> >>
>> >> > Budikka
>> >>
>> >> But you are unable to explain how.
>> >
>> > I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.
>>
>> Please do.
>>
>> > Are you prepared to listen?
>>
>> Yes, until the point when you try to support
>> your position with fantasies or assumptions.
>>
>> I'm waiting.
>>
>> Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.
>
> What you call fantasies, everyone who lives
> in the real world call fact.

They have so long been told that fantasies are
fact, that they believe that fantasies *are* fact.

Thus you hereby acknowledge your deception.

That the Universe created itself, and that life
arose by itself (without God) from non living
chemicals. This is the "Fool's Fantasy" which
has deceived the masses who accept fantasies
for fact.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ZqKdnUgXwP-x-o3M...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-5326E9...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666 wrote:
> >> >> > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo.
> >> >> > ..
> >> >>
> >> >> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Budikka
> >> >>
> >> >> But you are unable to explain how.
> >> >
> >> > I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.
> >>
> >> Please do.
> >>
> >> > Are you prepared to listen?
> >>
> >> Yes, until the point when you try to support
> >> your position with fantasies or assumptions.
> >>
> >> I'm waiting.
> >>
> >> Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.
> >
> > What you call fantasies, everyone who lives
> > in the real world call fact.
>
> They have so long been told that fantasies are
> fact, that they believe that fantasies *are* fact.

Wrong again. I have seen the evidence of the facts of the things I know.
You know, evidence, that thing you don't understand.

> Thus you hereby acknowledge your deception.

One of your stupidest lies.

[Virgil]

In article <eqidnQebXfwQzI3M...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

Why would you object our using the only forms of "evidence" that you
have in support of your own claims?

>

>
> Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.

Only after you show that you can totally avoid either.

Which on present evidence will be never.
--

[Virgil]

In article <ZqKdnUgXwP-x-o3M...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-5326E9...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666 wrote:
> >> >> > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo.
> >> >> > ..
> >> >>
> >> >> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Budikka
> >> >>
> >> >> But you are unable to explain how.
> >> >
> >> > I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.
> >>
> >> Please do.
> >>
> >> > Are you prepared to listen?
> >>
> >> Yes, until the point when you try to support
> >> your position with fantasies or assumptions.
> >>
> >> I'm waiting.
> >>
> >> Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.
> >
> > What you call fantasies, everyone who lives
> > in the real world call fact.
>
> They have so long been told that fantasies are
> fact, that they believe that fantasies *are* fact.

They get that from your arguments, not ours.
The claims of science are derived from conformity to available objective
physical evidence, and only so long as it continues to conform to the
the available objective physical evidence.

Religious claims are not required to conform to available objective
physical evidence, and on numerous occasions are opposed by considerable
amounts of available objective physical evidence.

>

>
> That the Universe created itself, and that life
> arose by itself (without God) from non living
> chemicals.

Atheists need not claim that there was no god involved, because if there
are gods, there is nothing preventing them from using nature to do what
they want done.

> This is the "Fool's Fantasy" which
> has deceived the masses who accept fantasies
> for fact.

Whereas science is fanatically into only following the facts without
any fantasies.
--

[The Magpie]

On 05/02/2013 00:28, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:e7100c7a-a072-47dc...@w7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666 wrote:
>>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>>>
>>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>>

>>> But you are unable to explain how.
>>
>> I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.
>
> Please do.
>
>> Are you prepared to listen?
>
> Yes, until the point when you try to support
> your position with fantasies or assumptions.
>
> I'm waiting. Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.
>

So in short Andrew, no you are not prepared to listen.

[alen]

"guts, liar, shameless coward, spineless, hide, run" -
what an amazing farrago of idiotic, competitive, and
meaningless triumphalism

Alen

[Andrew]

"The Magpie" wrote in message news:T%7Qs.4272$mi6....@fx01.fr7...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666 wrote:
>>>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>>>>
>>>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>>>
>>>> But you are unable to explain how.
>>>
>>> I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.
>>
>> Please do.
>>
>>> Are you prepared to listen?
>>
>> Yes, until the point when you try to support
>> your position with fantasies or assumptions.
>>
>> I'm waiting. Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.
>>
> So in short Andrew, no you are not prepared to listen.

By so stating, you acknowledge that you have nothing
to present that is not filled with fantasy or assumption.

[Tom McDonald]

No, Andrew, that's not what the Magpie was saying. What was said was
that you have erected a defense against things you don't like in science
by calling the research findings fantasy or assumption.

That's interesting, since all you have presented to support your beliefs
is fantasy based on assumptions.

In science, assumptions are explicitly stated. There is nothing wrong
with assumptions, if they are overt and not unspoken. What you don't
seem to get is that science tests, among other things, the assumptions
it states. Religion, not so much.

As for fantasy, again, there is nothing wrong with fantasy in science if
it is directed properly--that is, if it is used to brainstorm novel
ideas to be tested.

What you call fantasy, though, is nothing of the kind. It is simply
conclusions based on scientific work with which you happen to disagree.

If you don't think I'm right, perhaps you could show me an example of
what you consider to be fantasy in science; and then an assumption by
scientists that you think is inappropriate.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 3, 10:32 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fefc9620-517d-44f3...@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

Thanks for openly admitting there's no creator. If there were one,
you would have provided evidence, but as usual, you RAN like the
stinking coward you are. Only a hypocrite asks for evidence when he
can provide none himself. The Theory of Evolution is backed by over
one hundred and fifty years of solid scientific evidence. Your
creator is backed by your bullshit excuses and nothing else.

End of story. Case closed.

Keep running Chicken Andrew

Budikka

[Budikka666]

Budikka writes:

> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:e7100c7a-a072-47dc...@w7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666 wrote:
>>> > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-
fo...
>>>
>>> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>>

>>> > Budikka

>>>
>>> But you are unable to explain how.
>>
>> I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.
>

> Then go ahead.

>
>> Are you prepared to listen?
>
> Yes, until the point when you try to support your position with
> fantasies or assumptions.
>
> I'm waiting.
>
> Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.

The offer I made to you is that ***YOU*** go first. Here is the offer:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d2131c2b9f450e9b?hl=en

Here is what i said: "You go ahead and post one item of *postive*
*scientific* evidence supporting your claim that a creator god created
Adam and Eve, the progenitors of the entire human race, as depicted in
genesis, some 6,000 years ago, and I will post a similar item of evidence
for my position that it is impossible for the entire human race to have
descended from two and two only, humans just 6,000 years ago."

Do you recall that offer? it was just three days ago. Now here i am
rising again after three days and you are running. Why have you not
posted the first item as I requested?

We know why, don't we, you and I? It's because you're a vacuous lying
cowardly poseur who cannot find *even* *one* *iota* of positve science to
support your juvneile bullshit and lies.

And now all that remains is to thank you for once again proving me right
and you dogshit.

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:gtgQs.155104$Sl.4...@newsfe27.iad...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "The Magpie" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>> "Budikka666 wrote:
>>>>>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you are unable to explain how.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.
>>>>
>>>> Please do.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you prepared to listen?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, until the point when you try to support
>>>> your position with fantasies or assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> I'm waiting. Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.
>>>>
>>> So in short Andrew, no you are not prepared to listen.
>>
>> By so stating, you acknowledge that you have nothing
>> to present that is not filled with fantasy or assumption.
>>
> No, Andrew, that's not what the Magpie was saying.

It was, but go ahead.

> What was said was that you have erected a defense against things
> you don't like in science by calling the research findings fantasy or
> assumption.

I do not refer to "findings" as fantasy or assumption.

> That's interesting, since all you have presented to support
> your beliefs is fantasy based on assumptions.

ALL of the evidence support the Creation model of origins.

Please name some items of evidence which do not.

That is, items of evidence that are - without fantasy or assumption.

> In science, assumptions are explicitly stated. There is nothing wrong
> with assumptions, if they are overt and not unspoken. What you don't
> seem to get is that science tests, among other things, the assumptions
> it states.

And they remain assumptions *until* they are tested.

> Religion, not so much.

True religion should be testable by such things as
fulfilled prophecy, answered prayer, changed lives,
and other things.

> As for fantasy, again, there is nothing wrong with fantasy in science
> if it is directed properly--that is, if it is used to brainstorm novel ideas
> to be tested.

Theoretical physics is most interesting.

Just remember, you are dealing with fantasy mixed with ~some~ facts.

> What you call fantasy, though, is nothing of the kind. It is simply
> conclusions based on scientific work with which you happen to
> disagree.

How do you know that I disagree?

> If you don't think I'm right, perhaps you could show me an example
> of what you consider to be fantasy in science; and then an assumption
> by scientists that you think is inappropriate.

That the Universe created itself, and that life arose by itself (without God)

from non living chemicals. This is the "Fool's Fantasy" that has deceived
the masses, (including some scientists) who accept fantasies for fact.

[The Magpie]

I am not the one who offered you an explanation, but with your history
of claiming science is "fantasy" it is clear you are refusing to
listen to explanations.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 6, 12:53 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" wrote in messagenews:gtgQs.155104$Sl.4...@newsfe27.iad...

Where is this evidence? I made you an offer: you present one item of
positive scientific evidence for your position, and I will present one
for mine. Where is yours? Why are you running and hiding if you have
so much evidence? Where is your positive scientific evidence that a
creator created Adam and Eve some 6,000 years ago?

Or is it that you're nothing but a lowlife liar who has no evidence at
all and doesn't even have the honesty, integrity, guts, and common
decency to admit it?

You've been caught and exposed. You have nothing to offer, and
everyone on Usenet knows it. The fact that you you're too stupid to
realize this merely adds to your legendary stupidity.

Budikka

[Budikka666]

You want to take me on? You want to step in for that coward? Then
*you* go ahead and post one item of postive scientific evidence
demonstrating that a god created Adam, and Eve 6,000 years ago. Go
on. I'll wait and watch you run like all the others.

Meanwhile you might want to browse Andrew-a-Blank's solid, unblemished
record of RUNNING before you open your ignorant mouth in these
newsgroups. Got that?

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits he has no faith in his own
god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits that even he doesn't believe:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&

More excuses from Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/cbe97ddc53be5a00?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/59b246e0c8e3e4f9?scoring=d&

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e9b89ac33e01ce5b?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/836bea1f79468d9b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/728ceae4eb1d55e3?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3a31410d460b908e?hl=en&scoring=d&

Budikka

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <8984bb4f-eee4-4e31-93c7-
a40bf7...@googlegroups.com>, hypa...@comcast.net
says...

> > Why should we be requires to provide what you do not, and can not?
>
> Artie always expects us to explain things for him, though he refuses
> to explain anything to us.

It seems to me that Joe tosses out requests for proof as a
lark, and that he's just trying to trick people into
wasting their time. He does engage the evidences presented
or change his opinions based on those evidences. Instead he
either ignores the evidences entirely or temporizes for a
few posts before descending into a cascade of blather and
bile.


--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <MPG.2b7cc4f1...@news.eternal-
september.org>, brian...@newsgroup.reply.only says...

> He does engage the evidences presented

That was supposed to read, "He does not engage the
evidences presented..."

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:fc5cd970-5c17-4abf...@dp10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> alen wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> > > "Budikka666 wrote:

> Budikka

I attest that the Universe was created, and that it is *older* than
the above. Also that God created the life therein, and that there

has been no ''naturalistic only'' origin of man and woman, apart
from special creation. Also that you have been greatly deceived.

Andrew

[Yap]

On Feb 3, 7:20 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 8:55:40 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 10:50:16 -0600, Landis Ragon
>
> > <landis.ra...@attgobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:06:12 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >>"Landis Ragon" wrote in messagenews:hvlog81kc6une5mel...@4ax.com...
>
> > >>> "Andrew" wrote:

>
> > >>>>"Landis Ragon" wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>"Budikka666 wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>
> > >>>>>>> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>
> > >>>>>>> Budikka
>
> > >>>>>>But you are unable to explain how.
>

> > >>>>>>And your obsession with it indicates
>
> > >>>>>>that it was true; since you would not
>
> > >>>>>>have an obsession with that which
>
> > >>>>>>was not.
>
> > >>>>>>Andrew
>
> > >>>>> J.R.R. Tolkien was obsessed with
>
> > >>>>> Middle Earth. Does that make it
>
> > >>>>> true?
>
> > >>>>Yes, for him.
>
> > >>> Why the "for him" disclaimer, when you
>
> > >>> did not include it when you did not make
>
> > >>> the same disclaimer for Budikka?
>
> > >>Budikka's obsession pertains to a truth
>
> > >>in Budikka's mind that she is unable to
>
> > >>free herself from, because she knows it
>
> > >>is true (in her mind).
>
> > >>That of itself doesn't mean that it is in
>
> > >>fact true. However since Budikka is an
>
> > >>intelligent person, it indicates that it is
>
> > >>likely to be true, because otherwise she
>
> > >>wouldn't be so obsessed.
>
> > >JRR Tolkien was an intelligient person...
>

> > >Point. Set. Match.
>
> > Andrew is bat-shit crazy.
>
> As you are,malcontent.

No, you are crazy.

>
>
>
> > Over and above being fundamentalist and a creationist, he wipes his
>
> > stupid bullshit in everybody's faces here - and then he imagines not
>
> > letting him get away with it, is being obsessed with it?
>
> It's no worse than your bullshit about theists and your ludicrous attempts to read out minds and know what we think.What's more ridiculous are your claims that theists are "mentally ill".You are neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist and not qualified to make any such diagnosis.Moreover, no mental health professional would even attempt such a diagnosis without a personal interview face to face.

Christopher Lee has the same opinion of you ilks as we do.
Your post history has shown you believers are "quite" mentally ill
and all of us here need not be psychiatrists to derive that
conclusion.

>
> Posing as someone you are not is called "FRAUD".

A fraud will always libel other as fraud.

>
> YOU ARE A FRAUD.

That is you.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Yap]

On Feb 3, 2:36 pm, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 7:23:27 PM UTC-8, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <virgil-D17CAB.16452502022...@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>,
>
> >  Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <etgqg81ihaklujh6sc4jvurbcqt3lhc...@4ax.com>,

>
> > >  Landis Ragon <landis.ra...@attgobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 00:06:12 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >"Landis Ragon" wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:hvlog81kc6une5mel...@4ax.com...
>
> > > > >> "Andrew" wrote:
>
> > > > >>>"Landis Ragon" wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>>"Budikka666 wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>>>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo
>

> > > > >>>>>> r-
>
> > > > >>>>>> biologos-but-no-progress-on-the-adam-and-eve-question/

> > > Actually, there is still a lot that science does not know about how the
>
> > > world came to be as it is today, but science still knows that things
>
> > > could not have transpires ad the bible claims.
>
> > > But the Bible is not about facts so much as about faith, so no one
>
> > > should have relied on it for facts in the first place.
>
> > We've seen many theists unclear about what symbolism, analogy, and
>
> > metaphor are.
>
> EVIDENCE???????????????????????????????????????????????????

You and your ilks buying into con book stories as true.

[Yap]

On Feb 5, 10:00 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-5326E9...@news.giganews.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666 wrote:
> >> >> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>
> >> >> > Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.
>
> >> >> > Budikka
>
> >> >> But you are unable to explain how.
>
> >> > I'd be delighted to explain how, in supported detail.
>
> >> Please do.
>
> >> > Are you prepared to listen?
>
> >> Yes, until the point when you try to support
> >> your position with fantasies or assumptions.
>
> >> I'm waiting.
>
> >> Remember, no fantasies or assumptions.
>
> > What you call fantasies, everyone who lives
> > in the real world call fact.
>
> They have so long been told that fantasies are
> fact, that they believe that fantasies *are* fact.

Facts are facts, why would you call facts fantasies?

>
> Thus you hereby acknowledge your deception.

We all have analytical minds to be able to deceived.

>
> That the Universe created itself, and that life
> arose by itself (without God) from non living
> chemicals. This is the "Fool's Fantasy" which
> has deceived the masses who accept fantasies
> for fact.

How the universe came about is still an unknown....big bang theory is
just one of the big possibilities.
And the theory is based on evidence collected by science.

But science is incapable to have even a nano piece of evidence for
your deity.
Assuming your bible is the words of god, it did not even mention
dinosaurs, or our modern day planes and satellites.

But that does not cross your tiny little mind, isn't it?

[Virgil]

In article <3_qdnTt1n9XU047M...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

>
> I attest that the Universe was created, and that it is *older* than
> the above. Also that God created the life therein, and that there
> has been no ''naturalistic only'' origin of man and woman, apart
> from special creation. Also that you have been greatly deceived.

Then you are foresworn, as you have absolutely no objective physical
evidence supporting such claims.
--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3_qdnTt1n9XU047M...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> I attest that the Universe was created, and that it is *older* than
> the above. Also that God created the life therein, and that there
> has been no ''naturalistic only'' origin of man and woman, apart
> from special creation. Also that you have been greatly deceived.

Why should we believe you?

[Yap]

On Feb 7, 4:04 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <3_qdnTt1n9XU047MnZ2dnUVZ_vGdn...@earthlink.com>,

>
>  "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > I attest that the Universe was created, and that it is *older* than
> > the above. Also that God created the life therein, and that there
> > has been no ''naturalistic only'' origin of man and woman, apart
> > from special creation. Also that you have been greatly deceived.
>
> Why should we believe you?

Is Andrew another pixie in the sky to make those affirmation?
Or merely lying?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:04:20 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <3_qdnTt1n9XU047M...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> I attest that the Universe was created,

Perjury noted.

>> and that it is *older* than
>> the above. Also that God

Assumes "facts" not in evidence.

>> created the life therein, and that there
>> has been no ''naturalistic only'' origin of man and woman,

More perjury.

>> apart
>> from special creation.

More "facts" not in evidence.

>> Also that you have been greatly deceived.

Lie noted.

>Why should we believe you?

He's lying through his teeth when he says he attests to it.
He was perjuring himself, because he cannot "attest that the universe

[Y]

On Feb 1, 10:22 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-new-president-fo...
>

> Young Earth creationism has been categorically disproved.  Period.
>
> Budikka

Young Earth creationism is just a way for Christishams to cram their
illogical beliefs (the content of the bible) into reality.

On the other hand. They are right about one thing. The universe was
created by a deity. It was created by THE FORCE.

There is evidence that THE FORCE exists. Drop a ball. Gravity is one
aspect of THE FORCE. There are a few other ways that THE FORCE works.
THE FORCE does not have a mind. Some people recognise THE FORCE as the
grand designer of the universe, but this is just an anthropomorphism.
THE FORCE is only a designer by metaphor. In a literal sense, THE
FORCE is a mindless, omnipresent, omnipotent force behind everything.

THE FORCE is responsible for everything we see in nature, including
all life.

Christians, Muslims and Jews pollute people minds about claiming what
THE FORCE is. Star Wars and fiction, also pollute the idea of THE
FORCE.

-y

[Y]

I have proof of creation, but no proof of this 6000 year old planet
bullshit. Infact, I have proof against a 6000 year old planet.

In the beginning there was just one force. THE FORCE. Then THE FORCE
created mass out of its self-contained FORCE fields. It does this in
inumerous loctions around the universe. We observe and call these
locations galaxies. Galaxies are concentrations of matter, and are
locations where matter originated. The Big Bang theory is false. The
heavier matter materialises and gravitates to the galactic centers.
Lighter matter gravitates to the out arms. Spiral galaxies either
originated that way, or have not had collisions with other galaxies,
or other tidal influences for a long time. In the order of billions of
years.

All this matter floating in all these galaxies, was then guided by THE
FORCE, into the shapes we recognise in nature.

The universe appears to be designed because THE FORCE works in a
consistent manner. The universe is not designed. On the other hand the
universe was created by THE FORCE which also guides everything into
it's correct place. Heavier things go to centers, and lighter things
go to outskirts. Trees distribute themselves over ground in a way that
appears to be geometrical. The shape of a tree is just an emergent
outcome of THE FORCE.

Abrahamists are easy to debate. Believers in Abrahams God will lose
the debate because their thinking male God is weak. If the Christian
God has a mind, he has a mental illness.

No one can lose the debate with THE FORCE on their side. THE FORCE
doesn't need to think. It is just pure force. Only the weak need to
think, in their will to survive.

Money is an analogy for THE FORCE on Earth. The more money you have,
the more money will gravitate to your money.

-y

[alen]

On Feb 7, 11:26 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:02 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>

[...]

> > "guts, liar, shameless coward, spineless, hide, run" -
> > what an amazing farrago of idiotic, competitive, and
> > meaningless triumphalism
>
> > Alen
>
> You want to take me on?  You want to step in for that coward?  Then

> *you* go ahead and post one item of positive scientific evidence

> demonstrating that a god created Adam, and Eve 6,000 years ago.  Go
> on. I'll wait and watch you run like all the others.

Why should I want to 'take on' an idiotic triumphalist
like you? You assume the only rule that matters is that
of 'scientific evidence'. That's YOUR rule, not mine. and
you don't get to make rules for me. You think you can
make us do things by verbose triumphalist 'challenges'
which I guess we are supposed to be unable to resist.
Just because YOU call something 'running', we apparently
have to feel challenged to respond. Big deal - who are
YOU that everyone should have to respond to you and
the rules you suppose you can make for us all!

If there is a Creator, which we believe, it is not at all
improbable that such a creator would have given us
revelations and messages to inform us of what we
cannot discover by means of your precious 'scientific
evidence'. The Christian revelation is the major revelation
in scope and durability in all human history, and people
are therefore not idiots for giving it special consideration
or even in believing in it. They may well be idiots for
dismissing it out of hand, on the assumption that there
is no Creator. Human beings are only ignorant, blind and
powerless little beings, walking about in the dust of a
speck of dust of the cosmos. What do they really know
in their supreme overconfidence?

Alen

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <k1t6h8huuad0q33ln...@4ax.com>,

I actually think he believes this stuff, which makes him more delusional
than dishonest.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 7, 8:11 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 11:26 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:02 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > "guts, liar, shameless coward, spineless, hide, run" -
> > > what an amazing farrago of idiotic, competitive, and
> > > meaningless triumphalism
>
> > > Alen
>
> > You want to take me on?  You want to step in for that coward?  Then
> > *you* go ahead and post one item of positive scientific evidence
> > demonstrating that a god created Adam, and Eve 6,000 years ago.  Go
> > on. I'll wait and watch you run like all the others.
>
> Why should I want to 'take on' an idiotic triumphalist
> like you? You assume the only rule that matters is that
> of 'scientific evidence'. That's YOUR rule, not mine

Thanks for establishing for us up front that you're willing to beleive
in any fantastical fairy tale. Thanks for admitting that blind
gullibility triumphs over verifcation with you.

> you don't get to make rules for me.

Thanks for admitting that you cannot support a single claim you make.

I'm done with you. Next creaitonist loser for an ass-kicking right
this way, please, I'm here all week.
[Rest of your pompous self-importnat rant flushed where it belongs,
unread]

Budikka

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:51:30 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

He's still perjuring himself because of the strength of "attest", eg
authenticating that something is genuine.

[Y]

Bullshit. The creator of the universe is observable. Science even
regognises the creator. The four fundamental forces are responsible
for the universe and it's shapes.

-y

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:5224d1be-feb4-4714...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

While you are waiting, remember that
have an appointment with your Maker,
which may occur sooner that you think.

Whereupon you will be required to
answer for what you have done with
the life that He has given to you here.

"know thou, that for all these things,
God will bring thee into judgment."
~ Eccl 11:9 ~

The wise thing to do is to make
peace with Him beforehand.


> Budikka


Andrew

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <moSdnaXIWcGGp4nM...@earthlink.com>,

Why should we believe you?

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 22:51:02 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

You know that you are lying in your testimony.

[harry k]

On Feb 3, 8:32 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fefc9620-517d-44f3...@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 3, 12:36 am, Joe Bruno <atandy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> EVIDENCE???????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> > Why aren't you asking Andrew-a-Blank for evidence that this universe
> > is only 6,000 years old, numbnuts?  That's what he believes,

>
> I attest that the Universe was created, and that it is *older* than
> the above. Also that God created the life therein, and that there

> has been no ''naturalistic only'' origin of man, apart from special
> creation. Therefore you and others have been -greatly- deceived.
>
> > Budikka
>
> Andrew

Thanks for that admission of having a severe mental handicap.

You did notice that all it is are unsupported assertions?

Harry K

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:14:17 -0800 (PST), harry k <tur...@q.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew knows that his claims are completely unsupported. He worships
ignorance and has falsehoods as his god.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 7, 5:37 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:5224d1be-feb4-4714...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Since you openly admit by your cowardice, your vacuity, your lies, and
your hypocrisy that there is *no* such creator, you're even more full
of shit today than you normally are.

And your bullshit god can go fuck himself even if he *is* real. Why
is it that you too stupid to get *that* message through your pigshit
skull Jerkwad?

Which part of shake the dust from your shoes and fuck off is it that
*you* simply don't understand?

Budikka

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:9e26901f-4f9c-4ed4...@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote:
> > alen wrote:
> >> Budikka666 wrote:

> >> > alen wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > > "guts, liar, shameless coward, spineless, hide, run" -
> >> > > what an amazing farrago of idiotic, competitive, and
> >> > > meaningless triumphalism
>
> >> > > Alen
>
> >> > You want to take me on? You want to step in for that coward? Then
> >> > *you* go ahead and post one item of positive scientific evidence
> >> > demonstrating that a god created Adam, and Eve 6,000 years ago. Go
> >> > on. I'll wait and watch you run like all the others.
>
> >> Why should I want to 'take on' an idiotic triumphalist
> >> like you? You assume the only rule that matters is that
> >> of 'scientific evidence'. That's YOUR rule, not mine
>
> > Thanks for establishing for us up front that you're willing to beleive
> > in any fantastical fairy tale. Thanks for admitting that blind
> > gullibility triumphs over verifcation with you.
>
> >> you don't get to make rules for me.
>
> > Thanks for admitting that you cannot support a single claim you make.
>
> > I'm done with you. Next creaitonist loser for an ass-kicking right
> > this way, please, I'm here all week.
>
> While you are waiting, remember that
> have an appointment with your Maker,

> which may occur sooner than you think.

>
> Whereupon you will be required to
> answer for what you have done with
> the life that He has given to you here.
>
> "know thou, that for all these things,
> God will bring thee into judgment."
> ~ Eccl 11:9 ~
>
> The wise thing to do is to make
> peace with Him beforehand.
>
> > Budikka
>
> Andrew

-
- Since you openly admit by your cowardice,
- your vacuity, your lies, and your hypocrisy
- that there is *no* such creator..

Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
Nor will they be able to cancel the appointment that
you have with Him, which may occur much sooner
than you think. Therefore the wise thing to do is to
make peace with Him beforehand in the little bit of
time that you have left here, before the coming Day.

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 9, 12:29 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:9e26901f-4f9c-4ed4...@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

Threats prove diddly shit.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <vKSdnZWOwYLVQ4jM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:


> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
> Nor will they be able to cancel the appointment that
> you have with Him, which may occur much sooner
> than you think. Therefore the wise thing to do is to
> make peace with Him beforehand in the little bit of
> time that you have left here, before the coming Day.

[Andrew]

"Father Haskell" wrote in message news:b5da9c2c-d21c-4d42...@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
"Andrew" wrote:

-
- Threats prove diddly shit.

Why are you afraid?

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-00D4DA...@news.giganews.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
>> Nor will they be able to cancel the appointment that
>> you have with Him, which may occur much sooner
>> than you think. Therefore the wise thing to do is to
>> make peace with Him beforehand in the little bit of
>> time that you have left here, before the coming Day.
>
> Why should we believe you?

You don't have to believe me. But since our Day is soon
approaching, the wise thing to do would be to make peace
with Him beforehand, in the little bit of time that we have
left here.

~ Andrew

[Y]

On Feb 9, 4:29 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:9e26901f-4f9c-4ed4...@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

The force is not a Him, it is an IT.

Even then, it's not really an IT, it is more of a something.

Do you realy think that God is male ? I'm so glad women are standing
up to this bullshit and putting your religion into the dirt where it
belongs.

-y

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <RoydnYAApadouIvM...@earthlink.com>,

Why should I believe you?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3tqdnVI7cK4HuYvM...@earthlink.com>,

Where did he even hint at being afraid?

His EXACT words that you thought meant that.

[Y]

On Feb 9, 10:18 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <RoydnYAApadouIvMnZ2dnUVZ_rWdn...@earthlink.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> >news:hlwdjsd2-00D4DA...@news.giganews.com...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> > >> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
> > >> Nor will they be able to cancel the appointment that
> > >> you have with Him, which may occur much sooner
> > >> than you think. Therefore the wise thing to do is to
> > >> make peace with Him beforehand in the little bit of
> > >> time that you have left here, before the coming Day.
>
> > > Why should we believe you?
>
> > You don't have to believe me. But since our Day is soon
> > approaching, the wise thing to do would be to make peace
> > with Him beforehand, in the little bit of time that we have
> > left here.
>
> Why should I believe you?

Do you ever say anything else ? Is that your only purpose in life, to
sit here in this nuthouse forum saying that same line over and over
again ?

-y

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 03:35:07 -0800 (PST), Y <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

Are you defending Andrew's unending lies and misleading claims? Why
shouldn't people point out that religions like the one Andrew spews are
totally false?

[harry k]

On Feb 9, 2:35 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-00D4DA...@news.giganews.com...

So you think the old, worn out "BELIEVE! OR ELSE!" fear tactic works?
Anyone who believes out of fear
lying. Just another piece of evidence of your mental problem.

Harry K

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-A7B3ED...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
>> >> Nor will they be able to cancel the appointment that
>> >> you have with Him, which may occur much sooner
>> >> than you think. Therefore the wise thing to do is to
>> >> make peace with Him beforehand in the little bit of
>> >> time that you have left here, before the coming Day.
>> >
>> > Why should we believe you?
>>
>> You don't have to believe me. But since our Day is soon
>> approaching, the wise thing to do would be to make peace
>> with Him beforehand, in the little bit of time that we have
>> left here.
>
> Why should I believe you?

Please see above.

[Andrew]

"harry k" wrote in message news:e1ac847c-4ad5-4217...@mm7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

"Andrew" wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:

> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
> >> Nor will they be able to cancel the appointment that
> >> you have with Him, which may occur much sooner
> >> than you think. Therefore the wise thing to do is to
> >> make peace with Him beforehand in the little bit of
> >> time that you have left here, before the coming Day.
>
> > Why should we believe you?
>
> You don't have to believe me. But since our Day is soon
> approaching, the wise thing to do would be to make peace
> with Him beforehand, in the little bit of time that we have
> left here.
>
> ~ Andrew

-
- So you think the old, worn out "BELIEVE! OR ELSE!"
- fear tactic works?

Why are you afraid? No need to be.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:23:37 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Because you make indefensible claims and keep repeating your lies is a
reason not to believe you, Andrew.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:27:19 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

You are the one who is afraid. We are not. You preach lies, yet are
afraid to repent of those lies. Why?

[osugeography]

On Feb 9, 4:35 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-00D4DA...@news.giganews.com...

Meandering...

I certainly don't believe you, Andrew.

And how did your Creator come to be, Andrew?

What do you think about this, Andrew: Question with boldness even the
existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

That seems very reasonable to me, and likely to appeal to many (most?)
of the Atheists or Agnostics here. Most of us (big assumption on my
part) couch our beliefs in a reasoning which precludes racism,
miscogynism and misandry, for starters. I believe also, but don't
necessarily attest, that most A-A's posting here are more in line with
(very possibly very oversimplified) Kantian ethical thought, that
actions are good or bad in themselves, rather than using their likely
outcome as a judge of rightness. I will tell the truth, even if it
weakens my argument towards what I consider a good cause.

"Question with boldness" is a Thomas Jefferson quote, and, to me, a
brilliant thought. If, at our physical death, there are god-like
creatures who pronounce upon us (me) an everlasting existence in a
heaven or hell or a long slope in between (extremely unlikely), I
imagine they would make their decision based upon my demonstration of
reason and compassion, not ignorance, racism, and fear.

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <m5qdnQBloOURGIvM...@earthlink.com>,

[harry k]

On Feb 9, 9:23 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-A7B3ED...@news.giganews.com...

Why? Just more same old, same old lies.

Harry K

[harry k]

On Feb 9, 9:27 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "harry k" wrote in messagenews:e1ac847c-4ad5-4217...@mm7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

What have we told you about lying? Trying to put words in other
peoples mouths is justa as much lying and putting them in your own
mouth.

Dont you believe you go to hell for lying?



Harry K

[Olrik]

Le 2013-02-09 06:35, Y a �crit :

The FORCE is responsible. Are you against THE WILL of THE FORCE?

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Andrew]

"harry k" wrote in message news:2b271185-fc85-4b98...@sx3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
"Andrew" wrote:

> "harry k" wrote:
> "Andrew" wrote:
> > "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> > >> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
> > >> Nor will they be able to cancel the appointment that
> > >> you have with Him, which may occur much sooner
> > >> than you think. Therefore the wise thing to do is to
> > >> make peace with Him beforehand in the little bit of
> > >> time that you have left here, before the coming Day.
>
> > > Why should we believe you?
>
> > You don't have to believe me. But since our Day is soon
> > approaching, the wise thing to do would be to make peace
> > with Him beforehand, in the little bit of time that we have
> > left here.
> > ~ Andrew
>
> - So you think the old, worn out "BELIEVE! OR ELSE!"
> - fear tactic works?
>
> Why are you afraid? No need to be.

-
- What have we told you about lying? Trying to put words in other
- peoples mouths is justa as much lying and putting them in your own
- mouth.

These are your words, "fear tactic", not mine. What fear?

The future in a time of peace and great joy (not fear) for
those who have made their peace with Him.

[harry k]

On Feb 10, 12:57 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "harry k" wrote in messagenews:2b271185-fc85-4b98...@sx3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

So you have a _severe_ "comprehension challenged" problem. Just
another one to add to a long list of your deficiencies.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 8, 11:29 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.

He was neve rhere to disapprear, hence the ad homs; because i tried
polite and you still continued to lie about me, to insult me, to lie
about science, and to insult scientists. I guess that part of the
Bible where it says you must 'judge not that ye be not judged' was
right over your empty head, wasn't it?

> Nor will they be able to cancel the appointment that
> you have with Him,

Where i will kick his barbaric baby-slaughtering ass if he turns out
not to be the bullshit you've so far proven him to be.

> which may occur much sooner
> than you think.

Your death threat has been reported to the authorites, you cowardly
scum. But listen well: if you come anywhere near my family making
threats, you will go down and go down hard. Got that, asswipe?
There's no god going to protect you from me if you start anything.

>Therefore the wise thing to do is to
> make peace with Him

There's no one to make peace with, Liar, as you yourself admit every
single day that you run from me. But guess what, if I see him, I'll
piss on him just like I do on you creationist poweurs and cowards.

Budikka

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:28:25 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>On Feb 8, 11:29�pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
>
>He was neve rhere to disapprear, hence the ad homs; because i tried
>polite and you still continued to lie about me, to insult me, to lie
>about science, and to insult scientists. I guess that part of the
>Bible where it says you must 'judge not that ye be not judged' was
>right over your empty head, wasn't it?

Andrew doesn't actually care about facts or what folks like Jesus or
Buddha are said to have taught about how we ought to treat our fellow
man. He has invented a god, a nasty one much like the worst parts of the
the Old Testament JHVH and has no use for those who think that being
thoughtful, kind or willing to learn are important. Andrew would be one
of the people trying to crucify Jesus if he could.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 10, 3:48 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:28:25 -0800 (PST), Budikka666

> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>
> >On Feb 8, 11:29 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> Your ad homs and anger won't make Him disappear.
>
> >He was neve rhere to disapprear, hence the ad homs; because i tried
> >polite and you still continued to lie about me, to insult me, to lie
> >about science, and to insult scientists.  I guess that part of the
> >Bible where it says you must 'judge not that ye be not judged' was
> >right over your empty head, wasn't it?
>
> Andrew doesn't actually care about facts or what folks like Jesus or
> Buddha are said to have taught about how we ought to treat our fellow
> man. He has invented a god, a nasty one much like the worst parts of the
> the Old Testament JHVH and has no use for those who think that being
> thoughtful, kind or willing to learn are important. Andrew would be one
> of the people trying to crucify Jesus if he could.

Now that's going *too* far! Andrew-a-Blank is far too cowardly to
volunteer himself for something like that! he might get a splinter
for goodness sakes!

Budikka