Reflecting back on when i thought i was 'an Atheist'
ilbe...@gmail.com
any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
entitlement to living life the way i saw fit. This included such
things as the uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned
phsyics parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA
molecule, and the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the
sun shining down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000
mile away ...yet it feels just right . How our Lungs are quite
compatible for the precise amount of gasses that make up our
atmosphere and how the atmoshperic pressure is just right. How the
Universe expansion rate is at a critical tolerance of just 1/1,000,000
th (Prof. Stephen Hawkins). How the tilt of the earth, the rotation
of the earth, the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth, and all
the MANY other alleged 'accidents' , were...just right.
I found my lifestyle , my entitlement to live as i desired, to be so
strong , that, virtually nothing else mattered . I had placed mySELF
at the center of the Universe being the most important thing there
is . And, i believed i had the right to that liberty. Now that
several decades have passed, how silly I was to think that I was
numero uno. It is by the grace of God that he reaches us , and it is
by our cooperation that we invite him into our lives ; first...a
little at a time...then....more and more as we learn to have humility
by making the Creator more important than ourselves.
haiku jones
> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit. This included such
> things as the uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned
> phsyics parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA
> molecule, and the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the
> sun shining down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000
> mile away ...yet it feels just right . How our Lungs are quite
> compatible for the precise amount of gasses that make up our
> atmosphere and how the atmoshperic pressure is just right. How the
> Universe expansion rate is at a critical tolerance of just 1/1,000,000
> th (Prof. Stephen Hawkins). How the tilt of the earth, the rotation
> of the earth, the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth, and all
> the MANY other alleged 'accidents' , were...just right.
Lessee here...I count eight silly claims, one arguable one,
and one utter howler ("the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth"!!)
in the first paragraph. Anyone else?
(by the way, does "IllBeBauck" actually ever come back, and
answer objections to his posts? Or is he purely a WOP
-- a write-only poster?)
Haiku Jones
Enkidu
> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine any
> potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the entitlement to
> living life the way i saw fit.
Never had kids, never had a girlfriend/wife you had to compromise with,
eh? I can understand why . . . you're a lying sack-o-shit, and nobody can
stand you for long.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion,
and religious men without intelligence."
-- Abu Ala Al-Ma'arri
atheistobserver
It's a good thing I haven't eaten dinner yet or else I'd be puking all
over myself right this minute.
C'mon. You were never an "atheist". Those actual atheists reading these
words know exactly what I'm talking about. Short of a "Saul on the Road
to Damascus" experience, or the Hubble Space Telescope providing us with
footage of a deity out in deep space winking into its cameras, or
perhaps Jesus-God poking one of his supernatural arms through the
clouds and waving "Howdy" to we mortals, there's absolutely no reason on
this planet a real atheist would suddenly become religious. The only
thing that would explain that is an emotional or psychological failing
of some sort. It would certainly not be based on any material "proof".
So you're in awe of the universe. Well aren't we all. But to believe
some creature that never even had a beginning yet sired a son who also
never had a beginning; aided by an invisible cloud of interstellar gas
that, working together, created the universe as we know it, is beyond
preposterous. Which one of th three of Him do you figure came first? The
Son or the Father God. Or was it Interstellar Gas Cloud-God?
And why are you lying about being an atheist when you were never any
such thing?
Christopher A. Lee
It's a standard lie for other believers as part of the "I was a sinner
until I got saved" rhetoric. Heck, what they describe isn't an atheist
but what narcissistic, pig-ignorant Christian bigots imagine one was.
And no matter how much you explain what an atheist is to them, and
that it's not what they think, they'll never admit they were wrong.
But do these Liars For God seriously imagine they will convince an
atheist that they were once one themselves, when it's usual insulting
stereotype?
>So you're in awe of the universe. Well aren't we all. But to believe
>some creature that never even had a beginning yet sired a son who also
>never had a beginning; aided by an invisible cloud of interstellar gas
>that, working together, created the universe as we know it, is beyond
>preposterous. Which one of th three of Him do you figure came first? The
> Son or the Father God. Or was it Interstellar Gas Cloud-God?
You have to already believe in a god, or at least start off from its
presumption to see it that way.
So what kind of atheist would ever explain what theists imagine are
special circumstances, in terms of a gpd he doesn't believe in?
He will _always_ have better explanations, even off the cuff ones, for
what simply isn't a problem.
These imagined special circumstances betray the theist's belief that
the universe was creatd for us, not that we are simply a product of
it.
If the circumstances had been any different then perhaps some other
ife form would be saying that, or perhaps nobody would.
Whenever I hear this silly argument I get a mental picture of chlorine
breathing life forms on Clorox II saying how the universe had to have
been created just for them.
In spite of the fact that the vast majority of the universe is hostile
to the point of fatal to human life. Heck, even most of our planet is.
Try living on top of Everest, in Antarctica, a desert or the middle of
an ocean.
>And why are you lying about being an atheist when you were never any
>such thing?
Because he's a narcissist.
Smiler
> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit. This included such
> things as the uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned
> phsyics parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA
> molecule, and the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the
> sun shining down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000
> mile away ...yet it feels just right . How our Lungs are quite
> compatible for the precise amount of gasses that make up our
> atmosphere and how the atmoshperic pressure is just right. How the
> Universe expansion rate is at a critical tolerance of just 1/1,000,000
> th (Prof. Stephen Hawkins). How the tilt of the earth, the rotation
> of the earth, the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth, and all
> the MANY other alleged 'accidents' , were...just right.
Another lying idiot who imagines that the hole in the ground was specially
made for the puddle of water that fills it.
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
raven1
>When i was a proclaimed atheist
No one believes you, as you haven't the faintest idea of how atheists
actually think. I may not agree with Christian beliefs, but I
understand them. You're completely clueless as to what atheism
actually entails, so spare us the "I was an atheist" lie. It insults
our intelligence, and reveals you to be devoid of it.
Syd
And your lies continue, huh, Dave?
That is not what being an atheist is, Dave.
We are not 'mad at god.' No matter how many times you repeat this lie.
PDW
panam...@hotmail.com
ROFL! Do you reallly think we haven't seen this kind of bullshit
before? Every idiot fundie that was angry at their gods as an
adolecent claims that they were once an "atheist". It's so common here
in the NG that we've hung an old `50s B-movie style name on it..
"I WAS A TEENAGE ATHIEST!!"
Damn shame you're too dishonest to call yourself a "proclaimed" liar..
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
MarkA
> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
>> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
>> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit. This included such
>> things as the uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned
>> phsyics parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA
>> molecule, and the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the
>> sun shining down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000
>> mile away ...yet it feels just right . How our Lungs are quite
>> compatible for the precise amount of gasses that make up our
>> atmosphere and how the atmoshperic pressure is just right. How the
>> Universe expansion rate is at a critical tolerance of just 1/1,000,000
>> th (Prof. Stephen Hawkins). How the tilt of the earth, the rotation
>> of the earth, the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth, and all
>> the MANY other alleged 'accidents' , were...just right.
>
> Another lying idiot who imagines that the hole in the ground was specially
> made for the puddle of water that fills it.
I like Mark Twain's twist on that: the Eiffel Tower exists to hold up the
piece of paint that coats the ball at the top.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
MarkA
> I found my lifestyle , my entitlement to live as i desired, to be so
> strong , that, virtually nothing else mattered . I had placed mySELF
> at the center of the Universe being the most important thing there is .
This just has to be the most amazing example of "Irony Blindness" that
religionists are so good at. It is the *atheists* who believe that humans
are just another product of evolution, with no divine mandates or special
status. It is the *atheists* who believe that the Earth is just one
planet, out of potentially trillions, that happens to be habitable, so
whatever property of our Universe makes matter self-organize, gave rise to
life, which eventually gave rise to us. It is the religionists who
believe that the entire Universe was created specifically for man, yet
they call us "arrogant". You just can't buy entertainment that good!
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit. This included such
> things as the uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned
> phsyics parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA
> molecule, and the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the
> sun shining down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000
> mile away ...yet it feels just right . How our Lungs are quite
> compatible for the precise amount of gasses that make up our
> atmosphere and how the atmoshperic pressure is just right. How the
> Universe expansion rate is at a critical tolerance of just 1/1,000,000
> th (Prof. Stephen Hawkins). How the tilt of the earth, the rotation
> of the earth, the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth, and all
> the MANY other alleged 'accidents' , were...just right.
You forgot to mention that puddle, whose hole was just the right size for
it.
You also forgot to mention the places on Earth that are uninhabitable by
humans. A human organ whose sole purpose is to become inflamed and kill
us. Children born with horrible defects. Mmm-hmmm. Juuuuuust right.
You decided not to view the facts above as the reason we're here, instead
you mistakenly turned to believe the environment was made just for you.
That's why you were never an atheist - those are theistic tenets.
>
> I found my lifestyle , my entitlement to live as i desired, to be so
> strong , that, virtually nothing else mattered . I had placed mySELF
> at the center of the Universe being the most important thing there
> is . And, i believed i had the right to that liberty. Now that
> several decades have passed, how silly I was to think that I was
> numero uno. It is by the grace of God that he reaches us , and it is
> by our cooperation that we invite him into our lives ; first...a
> little at a time...then....more and more as we learn to have humility
> by making the Creator more important than ourselves.
>
alt.ATHEISM
No "creators" here.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
My modern calendar ends on 12/31/09. There are no days after that, so
it's obviously the date of the end of the world!
Mike
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:13:18 -0700, IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I found my lifestyle , my entitlement to live as i desired, to be so
> > strong , that, virtually nothing else mattered . I had placed mySELF
> > at the center of the Universe being the most important thing there is .
>
> This just has to be the most amazing example of "Irony Blindness" that
> believe that the entire Universe was created specifically for man, yet
> they call us "arrogant". You just can't buy entertainment that good!
Yes! The universe is all about us. The Architect of all things
created 100,000,000,000 galaxies, each with about 100,000,000,000
stars just so that WE would eventually come to exist. After creating
this extraordinary cosmos the creator has nothing better to do than to
watch us, fret over our sexual habits, and keep a tally list of who
believes in him and who does not. It seems to me that the universe is
not so intelligently designed. 100,000,000,000 galaxies seems like
overkill, wouldn't you think. If its all about us, a much smaller
universe would have sufficed.
Syrinx
http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/736939-reflections-my-time-professed-atheist.html
Glad to see we aren't the only ones having the pleasure of ripping
this sad sack a new asshole.
Smiler
Never heard that one before, but it's just as good an analogy as the puddle
one, if not better.
Smiler
That's not so much of a revelation, more of a confirmation.
Smiler
Yep. One star, our sun, would have been sufficient.
L.Roberts
I had placed mySELF at the center of the Universe...,?
No, you didn't, but, just like everybody else, you have, for your
whole life, been at the exact center of infinite space and time; and,
further, will continue to be there, for the rest of your life, even if
you could somehow travel several million lightyears from here.
Infinite space and time can have infinite centers.
L.Roberts
aa # 2258
� Reality Check� �
"Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:a9cbef1e-7920-4d02...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
============================
And it wouldn't have taken 6 grueling days either ...
� Reality Check� �
"L.Roberts" <ozzca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b5bb61f-e847-438e...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
What evidence do you have that space and time are infinite?
L.Roberts
> "L.Roberts" <ozzcat2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
None whatsoever, I just like to think it is, I mean, of course, if
that is ok with you. Have you any idea of what space, as we know it,
might be contained in if it is finite?
Davej
> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
Fine, then be a Deist. What you refuse to examine is the basis of your
own idiot religion. Try reading Exodus 20-31. It is the most absurd
pile of crap that anyone could spew.
MarkA
> Mike wrote:
>> On Aug 18, 8:04 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:13:18 -0700, IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I found my lifestyle , my entitlement to live as i desired, to be so
>>>> strong , that, virtually nothing else mattered . I had placed mySELF
>>>> at the center of the Universe being the most important thing there
>>>> is .
>>>
>>> This just has to be the most amazing example of "Irony Blindness"
>>> that religionists are so good at. .... It is the religionists who
>>> believe that the entire Universe was created specifically for man,
>>> yet they call us "arrogant". You just can't buy entertainment that
>>> good!
>>
>> Yes! The universe is all about us. The Architect of all things
>> created 100,000,000,000 galaxies, each with about 100,000,000,000
>> stars just so that WE would eventually come to exist. After creating
>> this extraordinary cosmos the creator has nothing better to do than to
>> watch us, fret over our sexual habits, and keep a tally list of who
>> believes in him and who does not. It seems to me that the universe is
>> not so intelligently designed. 100,000,000,000 galaxies seems like
>> overkill, wouldn't you think. If its all about us, a much smaller
>> universe would have sufficed.
>
> Yep. One star, our sun, would have been sufficient.
He really could have made the stars as little holes in the firmament,
letting the light of Heaven shine thru!
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
MarkA
Well, we all know God is a bit of a show-off. But who is HE showing off
to? Us? He worries about impressing US? Doesn't that seem a little....
I don't know.....arrogant?
Don Martin
>> Yep. One star, our sun, would have been sufficient.
>
>He really could have made the stars as little holes in the firmament,
>letting the light of Heaven shine thru!
It would appear, then, that this "god" of theirs could not get a job as a set
designer on Broadway. Backlit little holes are not exactly cutting edge
stagecraft.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Smiler
Pin pricks.
(refers to both the believers and the holes in the firmament)
� Reality Check� �
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C6B88DF...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
>> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
>> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit. This included such
>> things as the uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned
>> phsyics parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA
>> molecule, and the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the
>> sun shining down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000
>> mile away ...yet it feels just right . How our Lungs are quite
>> compatible for the precise amount of gasses that make up our
>> atmosphere and how the atmoshperic pressure is just right. How the
>> Universe expansion rate is at a critical tolerance of just 1/1,000,000
>> th (Prof. Stephen Hawkins). How the tilt of the earth, the rotation
>> of the earth, the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth, and all
>> the MANY other alleged 'accidents' , were...just right.
>
> You forgot to mention that puddle, whose hole was just the right size for
> it.
Or the cancer which perfectly attacks the lungs of idiots stupid enough to
smoke.
MarkA
You make a good point.
MarkA
Mark Twain has some amazing quotes. Too bad most people only know about
Huck Finn & Tom Sawyer.
Budikka
> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
Present the evidence. I'll debate it with you right here. This is
your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
Go ahead, bring it on. Post your best evidence - the evidence that
changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
Budikka
Budikka
> On Aug 17, 4:13 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> > any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> > things as the uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned
> > phsyics parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA
> > molecule, and the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the
> > sun shining down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000
> > mile away ...yet it feels just right . How our Lungs are quite
> > compatible for the precise amount of gasses that make up our
> > atmosphere and how the atmoshperic pressure is just right. How the
> > Universe expansion rate is at a critical tolerance of just 1/1,000,000
> > th (Prof. Stephen Hawkins). How the tilt of the earth, the rotation
> > of the earth, the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth, and all
> > the MANY other alleged 'accidents' , were...just right.
>
> and one utter howler ("the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth"!!)
> in the first paragraph. Anyone else?
>
> (by the way, does "IllBeBauck" actually ever come back
[snipped rest]
He very rarely comes back which is what makes his monika so idiotic,
but you will note, I trust, that I offered a reasonable challenge in a
separate response to him devoid of any name calling and invective.
Let's see where that gets me!
Either way he loses. If he presents his "evidence" I'll shred it. If
he runs away as he always does, I'll capitalize on his cowardice!
LoL!
Budikka
ilbe...@gmail.com
> On Aug 17, 6:13 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> > any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> > entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
> Present the evidence. I'll debate it with you right here. This is
> your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
> Go ahead, bring it on. Post your best evidence - the evidence that
> changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
>
> Budikka
As you are aware...being an atheist means that youve come to the table
with your mind made up already ; atheism MUST be the only thing that
you will consider and no amount of creation evidence offered will ever
be enough, there isnt any compelling type of evidence that would be
enough to make you change your mind because it isnt about the
evidence...its about The Will for an atheist to remain a proclaimed
One, as an atheist you are not willing to engage in an honest
investigation of the evidence for Creation which is readily available
from book and online , as an atheist you are not willing to admit
there is a personal Creator (if it were shown designs can only come
from a personal Designer), due to the personal ramifications it would
have to your life, and, no amount of evidence (short of you standing
before the Creator himself on a one on one basis) would ever be
sufficent for you to bow your knee in humility.
Therefore, you are not 'an honest atheist' as your opening statement
asserts thereby making it nothing but a lesson in futility if I were
to present the evidence for special Creation in a reasonable,
rational, cogent, and compelling manner. However, if you go back
and look at the many Posts I have made on apologetics of The Christian
Faith including creationism, you will discover content which atheism
cannot refute in a sensible way ... nor can any Atheist cogently
defend raw Naturalism and Materialism (natural causes) for the
massive specified complexity we see in the Cosmos .
But instead of playing Ping Pong with a dishonest person on
Cosmological evidences , Im wondering if you would be willing to
explain why at all costs you do not want a personal Creator to exist ,
can you afford for a personal Creator to exist , and how do you think
you will fare when he reviews your earthly life in your presence ?
Thank you.
haiku jones
wrote:
Oh, a personal Creator would be fine. I rather like that idea,
myself. It has definite appeal.
But that all-too-human YHWH, with his insanely violent
temper -- grudge-holding, jealous, endlessly self-centered,
much too fallible, bloody-minded, genocidal, capricious,
arbitrary ... in short, just as much a reflection of
the tribe which invented him as any Zeus or Loki:
sorry, not so much.
Haiku Jones
> Thank you.
Christopher A. Lee
<575j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 20, 11:27 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 7:13 am, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 17, 6:13 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
>> > > any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
>> > > entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
>> > th
>> > Present the evidence. I'll debate it with you right here. This is
>> > your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
>> > Go ahead, bring it on. Post your best evidence - the evidence that
>> > changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> As you are aware...being an atheist means that youve come to the table
>> with your mind made up already ;
Why do theists need to keep lying like this? What message do they
imagine they send?
>> atheism MUST be the only thing that
>> you will consider and
Learn what atheism is and what it isn't, and stop being so stupid.
>> no amount of creation evidence offered will ever
>> be enough,
Liar.
There has never been any. Instead you resort to slander and libel to
try and cover up the fact you have none.
>> there isnt any compelling type of evidence that would be
There isn't ANY evidence, liar.
>> enough to make you change your mind because it isnt about the
>> evidence...
Of course it is, serial liar. Because that's what it would take.
But none of you liars has ever provided any.
>> its about The Will for an atheist to remain a proclaimed
Liar.
>> One, as an atheist you are not willing to engage in an honest
>> investigation of the evidence for Creation which is readily available
What "evidence for creation" is there to investigate, serial liar?
>> from book and online , as an atheist you are not willing to admit
>> there is a personal Creator
Demonstrate one, serial liar.
>> (if it were shown designs can only come
>> from a personal Designer),
So show this, serial liar.
>> due to the personal ramifications it would
>> have to your life, and,
Liar.
>> no amount of evidence (short of you standing
Liar.
>> before the Creator himself on a one on one basis) would ever be
What "the Creator", imbecile?
>> sufficent for you to bow your knee in humility.
What a fucking moron.
>> Therefore, you are not 'an honest atheist'
Liar.
>> as your opening statement
>> asserts thereby making it nothing but a lesson in futility if I were
>> to present the evidence for special Creation in a reasonable,
What "the evidence for special Creation", liar?
>> rational, cogent, and compelling manner.
SO PROVIDE IT, LIAR. If you did and it were dismissed you might have
had a point. But you didn't and you haven't.
>> However, if you go back
>> and look at the many Posts I have made on apologetics of The Christian
>> Faith including creationism, you will discover content which atheism
>> cannot refute in a sensible way
Where did you ever do that, serial liar?
>> ... nor can any Atheist cogently
>> defend raw Naturalism and Materialism (natural causes)
NEITHER OF WHICH ARE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM OR VICE VERSA,
IMBECILE.
>> for the
>> massive specified complexity we see in the Cosmos .
What "specified complexity", serial liar?
SCIENCE which is nothing to do with atheism or vice versa understands
a heck of a lot more about the universe than you do. Including
scientists who happen to be Christian.
>> But instead of playing Ping Pong with a dishonest person on
>> Cosmological evidences , Im wondering if you would be willing to
>> explain why at all costs you do not want a personal Creator to exist ,
Why the fuck should we defend your personal lies about atheists?
>> can you afford for a personal Creator to exist , and how do you think
>> you will fare when he reviews your earthly life in your presence ?
Demonstrate one and then you might have a point, imbecile.
>Oh, a personal Creator would be fine. I rather like that idea,
>myself. It has definite appeal.
However the imbecile can't grasp that the only reason to believe in
one is childhood brainwashing.
>But that all-too-human YHWH, with his insanely violent
>temper -- grudge-holding, jealous, endlessly self-centered,
>much too fallible, bloody-minded, genocidal, capricious,
>arbitrary ... in short, just as much a reflection of
>the tribe which invented him as any Zeus or Loki:
>sorry, not so much.
It disproves itself, over and above there being no reason to believe
in it in the first place.
>
>Haiku Jones
>
>
>
>> Thank you.
Dan Listermann
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52d98005-d453-4e99...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 20, 7:13 am, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 6:13 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> > any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> > entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
> th
> Present the evidence. I'll debate it with you right here. This is
> your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
> Go ahead, bring it on. Post your best evidence - the evidence that
> changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
>
> Budikka
"As you are aware...being an atheist means that youve come to the table
with your mind made up already ; atheism MUST be the only thing that
you will consider and no amount of creation evidence offered will ever
be enough, there isnt any compelling type of evidence that would be
enough to make you change your mind because it isnt about the
evidence."
Look who is talking! What flaming projection?
raven1
>On Aug 20, 7:13�am, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 6:13�pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > When i was a proclaimed atheist, �I found myself refusing to examine
>> > any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
>> > entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
>> th
>> Present the evidence. �I'll debate it with you right here. �This is
>> your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
>> Go ahead, bring it on. �Post your best evidence - the evidence that
>> changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>As you are aware...
As you falsely claim.
>being an atheist means that youve come to the table
>with your mind made up already ; atheism MUST be the only thing that
>you will consider and no amount of creation evidence offered will ever
>be enough,
That gives the lie to your claim to have been an atheist, then,
doesn't it? Do you *ever* think before you type?
> there isnt any compelling type of evidence that would be
>enough to make you change your mind because it isnt about the
>evidence...
Yes, it is. Got any? Then present it already, instead of whining that
we won't listen to it.
>its about The Will for an atheist to remain a proclaimed
>One, as an atheist you are not willing to engage in an honest
>investigation of the evidence for Creation
Again, giving the lie to your claim to have been an atheist. Do you
never tire of shooting yourself in the foot?
>which is readily available
>from book and online , as an atheist you are not willing to admit
>there is a personal Creator (if it were shown designs can only come
>from a personal Designer),
You have to demonstrate design first before you can postulate a
designer.
> due to the personal ramifications it would
>have to your life,
Actually, it would have no effect on my life. Contrary to what you
claim, atheists generally aren't the selfish, depraved people you
think we are. I don't need a God to behave morally and ethically; that
you do speaks only about you, not anyone else.
> and, no amount of evidence (short of you standing
>before the Creator himself on a one on one basis) would ever be
>sufficent for you to bow your knee in humility.
Even if there was a Creator, I wouldn't bow my knee before it in
humility. Why would a purportedly omnipotent being even desire such a
thing?
>
>Therefore, you are not 'an honest atheist'
Whereas you are not honest at all.
>as your opening statement
>asserts thereby making it nothing but a lesson in futility if I were
>to present the evidence for special Creation in a reasonable,
>rational, cogent, and compelling manner.
Translation: you know you've got nothing to present, and you're
frantically hand-waving, hoping to distract everyone from that.
> However, if you go back
>and look at the many Posts I have made on apologetics of The Christian
>Faith including creationism, you will discover content which atheism
>cannot refute in a sensible way ...
If you mean the nonsense like the Earth being the "right" distance
from the Sun, it's nothing that we haven't heard before, nor is it
remotely compelling as evidence. There are hundreds of billions of
galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars. It would be
surprising if there weren't *many* planets at an appropriate distance
from their star to support life. The rest of your "content" is just as
vapid, and just as easily refuted.
>nor can any Atheist cogently
>defend raw Naturalism and Materialism (natural causes) for the
>massive specified complexity we see in the Cosmos .
What is "massive specified complexity"? By what metric is it measured?
If you can't quantify it, you're spouting meaningless nonsense that
you don't even understand.
>But instead of playing Ping Pong with a dishonest person on
>Cosmological evidences ,
You're the one who's being dishonest here.
> Im wondering if you would be willing to
>explain why at all costs you do not want a personal Creator to exist
I honestly don't care one way or another, but I am not in the habit of
believing in unsupported claims of undetectable magical entities.
Particularly coming from someone who claims that they were an atheist
converted by the evidence, but won't present any, because atheists
would never be convinced by it. Can you understand why such a position
on your part doesn't exactly increase your credibility?
>can you afford for a personal Creator to exist ,
What if you've guessed wrong as to the identity of that Creator? If
the Muslims are right, you're going to have a lot of explaining to do
to Allah about your blasphemous worship of one of His prophets as a
Deity.
>and how do you think
>you will fare when he reviews your earthly life in your presence ?
Just fine. How do you think He'll look upon your dishonesty and
cowardice?
Devils Advocaat
Funny how you and various other folk in the newsgroups claim to have
evidence for this, that and the other, but when it comes to the
crunch, when someone actually asks you to present that evidence you
all dance away from the idea of showing it to everyone here and then
claim that the people who are asking for it will reject it. Such a
cowardly dodge, and not something anyone with real evidence would do.
Father Haskell
(snip)
If there IS a god, it won't be yhwh or any of his
family.
Budikka
> On Aug 20, 7:13 am, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 6:13 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> > > any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> > > entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
> > th
> > Present the evidence. I'll debate it with you right here. This is
> > your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
> > Go ahead, bring it on. Post your best evidence - the evidence that
> > changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
>
> > Budikka
>
> As you are aware...being an atheist means that youve come to the table
> with your mind made up already
That's an outright LIE. I find it very revealing that in the first
sentence of your excuse for a response, you're already reduced to
telling lies.
The *fact* is that if my mind were made up, I wouldn't be asking you
to present your best evidence, now would I?
But what everyone wants to know is, why are people like you and
Chicken Andrew reduced to making every excuse you can think of rather
than simply presenting your evidence? Didn't your god demand that you
tell all the world about the "Good News"? So why are the both of you
making excuses *every* *single* *time* we beg you to give us the Good
News?
Such cowardice can only force every honest person who reads this to
the conclusion that you actually have no evidence and that all you
*can* do is make excuses to hide that deficit.
Please do explain to us all why it is that you theists cannot even
meet one simple request with an honest, straight-forward response.
Doesn't your own Bible demand of you that if you're asked for your
shirt, you give your coat as well; that if you're asked to go one
mile, you go two? Yet you can't even show that you're wearing a shirt
let alone that you're prepared to share it, or that you have the
stamina to go even one mile with me, let alone two.
Why is that?
> ; atheism MUST be the only thing that
> you will consider and no amount of creation evidence offered will ever
> be enough,
NO. LIAR.
First of all, I didn't ask for "creation evidence". Get that part
right first. *I* asked for the evidence which turned you from being
an atheist (so you claim) into being a theist. That may be creation
evidence or it may not. I have no idea since you haven't been able to
dig up the courage, wherewithal, honesty or Christian ethic to show
this "evidence" yet, but you *have* clearly stated that you do indeed
have this evidence. All I did was ask to see the evidence, whatever
it is.
You're the one who flat refuses to do as your god demanded of you and
present the evidence. Why is that? Why are you defying your own god?
And why are you such a hypocrite? We've presented mountains of
evidence for evolution and you ignore it and demand ever more. Please
do NOT accuse us of *your* failings by dishonestly pretending that
it's us who suffer your condition.
Now where is your evidence? Why are you so terrified of witnessing
for the very god who demanded (according to your scriptures) that you
witness for him?
> there isnt any compelling type of evidence that would be
> enough to make you change your mind
Another LIE. Why is it that you think you can read my mind? Do you
think you have omniscience like this god of yours is supposed to have?
Isn't it blasphemous to pretend you have the powers of a god?
No, one flimsy item of shoddy "evidence" would *not* make me throw
away the mountain of evidence for evolution, for example. One
unscientific item of "evidence" for a creator god wouldn't make me
throw away all the evidence which refutes your god. BUT - and I
guarantee you cannot say this from your perspective - a mountain of
positive scientific evidence for a creator or a creation which better
explains what we see than does the Theory of Evolution definitely
*would* make me change sides because it's not about atheism or theism,
it's about the evidence and that's all it's ever been about. It's
that simple. I'm sorry you haven't been able to internalize even that
much but your inability to act upon the weight of the facts against
you is one of your greatest weaknesses.
> because it isnt about the
> evidence...
Outright LIE! The evidence is *precisely* what it's about, and you
apparently have none, therefore you have no case. You've been told
this repeatedly. I'm sorry you have the attention span of a Bible
scribe, but that's par for the course.
> its about The Will for an atheist to remain a proclaimed
> One,
This is a LIE and it has nothing to do with whether or not you have
the evidence. These are the arguments you should be making *after*
you've supplied this evidence you claim to have, not instead of.
Now it's really very simple. Either you have the evidence or you're a
LIAR. Which is it? If you fail to present the evidence in response
to this you leave everyone who reads this with no other recourse but
to assume you're a LIAR. Is that what you want? Do you want to be
known internationally in these public fora as a LIAR and to have this
particular thread haunt you for the rest of your time on Usenet?
Because it will. I guarantee you it will.
It's down to the wire. Do you have the evidence or not? Did you LIE
or not? Are you a Christian or not? Are you prepared to witness for
your god or not? Are you prepared to spread the "Good News" or not?
The choice is in your hands right here, right now. The choice that
*you* make - not that I make but that **YOU** make right now - is what
will liberate us all or condemn you forever.
> as an atheist you are not willing to engage in an honest
> investigation
It was the honest pursuit of the evidence which lead me from *your*
creator. That's the truth. You're fooling no one by LYING about me,
because all of us can see that it's nothing but the most transparent
and puerile of excuses employed by you to avoid dealing with a request
that both you and I know you cannot meet. I firmly believe it to be a
fact, and you confirm my belief with your every vacuous message, that
you have zero objective or scientific evience for this creator or for
a creation.
You could prove me completely wrong and embarrass me forever in these
public world-wide fora by presenting this objective or scientific
evidence right here, right now. So what you need to do is quit
blasphemously pretending you have the purported omniscience of this
god of yours and actually present the evidence.
Why is that so hard for you to do? Why is it easier for you to make
excuses than it is to witness for your god? Isn't that what Jonah
did? Look what happened to him.
> of the evidence for Creation which is readily available
> from book and online
Where is it? I've seen no objective or scientific evidence online or
anywhere else that there is a creator or that there was a creation.
That's ***WHY*** I'm asking you. Duhh!.
Now why are you continuing to make every lousy excuse you can think
of? Your behavior is distinctly reminiscent of a six-year old child
who has been accused of stealing a cookie and is condemning himself
with every silly excuse he makes. Is that how you wish these world-
wide fora to perceive you? A liar and a child? Because your every
excuse is sealing that perception of you more and more permanently.
> , as an atheist you are not willing to admit
> there is a personal Creator
Not without evidence, no, I'm not. But if you present sufficient
evidence of scientific or objective quality and I guarantee you I'll
change my mind. That's a statement not a single one of your
creationists on Usenet can make and you prove it every day. Now where
is this evidence you stated you have?
> (if it were shown designs can only come
> from a personal Designer),
Then show it. Show it objectively; show it intelligently; show it
scientifically, but show it. No more excuses. Where is it?
> due to the personal ramifications it would
> have to your life, and, no amount of evidence (short of you standing
> before the Creator himself on a one on one basis) would ever be
> sufficent for you to bow your knee in humility.
Where is the evidence? Instead of showing how fundamentally ignorant
you are about me and my motivation and possible reactions, why don't
you actually present your evidence and *see* what I will do? Why are
you such a sad little coward? Why are you flat refusing to obey the
command of your own god and witness? Why are you flying in the face
of your god's demand that you spread the good news? Your god, your
god, why have you forsaken him?
Your Jesus, according to scripture, was prepared to die on a cross for
people. All I'm asking of you is that you present your evidence, and
you can't even do that for a man who died for you because you're so
terrified of what i *might* do? You're scared I'll reject you? LoL!
What a lousy example you set for your fellow Christians. You should
be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. People like you are the reason
Jesus wept.
> Therefore, you are not 'an honest atheist' as your opening statement
> asserts
I'm being more honest than you. I didn't open my response with an
outright LIE in the first sentence, and I'm right here begging you to
present your evidence!
This is *the* last effort at being polite and respectful you will ever
get from me, and here's why: No matter how polite and respectful I am,
as this thread proves beyond contestation, no matter how much I *beg*
you to witness to me, you LIE about me and run from your
responsibility as a Christian to give me the Good News.
How sad is that? No one will blame me afterwards because every one of
them will see, when I reference this thread, how dishonest and
deceitful you are. You claim you have the Good News but you're making
every excuse - even tot he sad extent of telling LIES about me -
rather than share it. Not only are you being thoroughly dishonest to
the core with me, but you're failing to meet the direct command your
own god gave to you to witness and spread the Good News.
How sad is that? Now which of us is going to look worse in your god's
eyes, assuming he exists (which ironically is the very point at
issue)? Me who is literally *begging* you to share the Good News with
me, or you, who is flat refusing to share anything and who is outright
lying about me into the bargain?
> thereby making it nothing but a lesson in futility if I were
Telling the world the Good News about your god is an exercise in
futility? LoL! can I quote you on that? I wonder how your god feels
about that statement you just made? Is that what your Jesus thought
when he came to die on the cross (according to your gospels)? Did he
hang up there saying, "God! this is an exercise in futility" or did he
get on with it and see what he could do?
> to present the evidence for special Creation in a reasonable,
> rational, cogent, and compelling manner.
I've been waiting for months for you to do that. This is your last
chance. In the words of King Louis XV, après moi le déluge. This is
your last warning.
> However, if you go back
> and look at the many Posts I have made on apologetics of The Christian
> Faith including creationism, you will discover content which atheism
> cannot refute in a sensible way
I've yet to see anything you wrote that:
B. Established a creation or a creator
and
B. was supported with objective and/or scientific evidence.
>... nor can any Atheist cogently
> defend raw Naturalism and Materialism (natural causes) for the
> massive specified complexity we see in the Cosmos .
"Specified complexity" has been completely refuted. it's a myth.
Sorry. If you'd actually paid attention to the objective and
scientific evidence instead of blindly sucking up to your myth, you'd
know this.
I have a question: When your Jesus was asked to witness did he push
people off with vague tales of "Oh, I mentioned this in Capernaum, go
ask there"? I don't think he did. I didn't request that you to
present vague "Chicken Duke" claims that you already posted it, and
I'm *not* going to waste my time using a shitty Google groups search
in the faint hope that I might dig up something of that nature from
you when I've *never* seen anything of that nature from you in all the
messages you've posted that I've read. Got it? Your messages are so
devoid of logic, intelligence, scientific support or objective support
that they establish nothing.
Now let's get back to the topic of this thread which is the *evidence*
you've stated you have. I asked you to witness. I asked you for the
Good News. Where is it?
> Cosmological evidences , Im wondering if you would be willing to
> explain why at all costs you do not want a personal Creator to exist ,
> can you afford for a personal Creator to exist , and how do you think
> you will fare when he reviews your earthly life in your presence ?
> Thank you.
I already explained that, but rather than push you off to do your own
Google search as excuse-ridden people like you and Chicken Duke here
it is once more. Are you paying attention? Here we go:
I don't care if a creator exists or not. If the evidence shows there
isn't one, fine. If the evidence shows there was one, fine. I don't
care one way or the other because I go with the evidence. That's not
the issue and your persistent LYING about that will *never* *ever*
*ever* make it the issue. Have you internalized that? Seriously,
because I'm tired of repeatedly telling you and your ilk that.
The *reason* I don't believe is because I've never seen any scientific
or objective evidence which is compelling or convincing. There is no
reason to believe, with the emphasis on reason. Got that? Because
I'm equally tired of repeatedly having to tell you and your ilk that,
too.
I'm an atheist. I'm sorry you don't grasp how important that is, but
let me get in your face with it one more time in the faint and
desperate hope-against-hope that something might actually register
with you and your ilk this time.
Your god does not enter into the equation for me, so threats from you
about what your fiction might do to me are water off a duck's back.
Claims that I hate your mythological creation or that I'm trying to
avoid some consequence of your blindly believing in a farcical legend
are just plain STUPID from the ground up.
Why is it that you're too fundamentally devoid of even a iota of
rationality which would make that crystally clear to you? I'll tell
you why: Because the truth is, and I'm as willing to be proven wrong
here as I am to bet that you won't *ever* offer scientific or
objective evidence to prove me wrong, but the truth is that you have
no such evidence for a creator or for a creation, and this is *why*
you make all these ridiculous and transparently juvenile excuses.
Pay attention now: The issue isn't some god. The issue is the
evidence or in your case the total* *lack* of objective or scientific
evidence supporting your claims. That's what this very thread is
about. That's my contention and you're PROVING my contention with
every word you write.
Can you grasp that? Because I've been telling that to you and your
ilk quite literally for years, and here you are still admitting how
ignorant you are on this topic. Still making the same excuses year
after year, still lying, still **RUNNING** from every reasonable
request that you support your claims.
This is why I have no patience with you or time for you and why you
will *never* get another respectful or polite response from me ever
again unless you actually bring on the objective or scientific
evidence you have stated that you have: the evidence which supposedly
converted you from atheist to theist, in your response to this.
Please note clearly that it has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism
or with theism. It has nothing to do with loving a god or hating a
god. It has nothing to do with the fall of man or the rise of woman.
it has nothing to do with sin or beatification. It is entirely and
solely to do with *what* the *weight* of the *evidence* points to.
Got it now?
Weight of the evidence. You claim you have the evidence, why do I
have to wait?
The ball is firmly back in your court. This is your last chance.
Post the objective or scientific evidence. Your failure to do so or
your avoidance of an intelligent response to this message will be
taken as an unconditional admission from you that I was right all
along. Got that?
Budikka
Budikka
You seem to have missed "I'll Be Bauck"'s faux pas: "As you are
aware...being an atheist means that youve come to the table with your
mind made up already"
And the corollary to this? "As you are aware...being A THEIST means
that you've come to the table with your mind made up already"!
In short, his opening sentence is pure, unadulterated, excuse-making
bullshit!
His comment is once again is made with no other thought in mind than
than to RUN AWAY from my request that he provide evidence. All he had
to do was provide this evidence he claims he has, then I would have no
objection to anything else he said, regardless of whether it made
sense or not. But for him to say all that *without* offering his
evidence means without a doubt that he has none - at least none of the
objective/scientific kind! Why isn't *that* a surprise?
Budikka
Ken
Quote the Raven1: "Seriously, I've been on Usenet for 13 years, and
you have to be the
dumbest, most ignorant person I've run across in that time"
Christopher A. Lee
Obviously he can't.
He's spouting the standard lies pre born-again theists tell other
theists who don't know what an atheist is either.
Part of the problem is that these idiots don't have a word for the
kind of non- born again they used to be. So they exaggerate what they
used to do as part of the "I was a sinner and now I'm redeemed"
rhetoric and at the same time they pretend they were the Christian's
bigoted caricature of an atheist.
Like most Christians he is a sociopath incapable of understanding how
and why ordinary decent people outside his religion have no reason to
believe as he does. Yet don't do all the things he imagines he would
do without his imaginary alpha male to tell him not to.
Which actually tells us just how amoral he is - as if we didn't know
already from his appalling behaviour towards us.
>Budikka
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Aug 20, 7:13 am, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 6:13 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> > > any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> > > entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
> > th
> > Present the evidence. I'll debate it with you right here. This is
> > your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
> > Go ahead, bring it on. Post your best evidence - the evidence that
> > changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
>
> > Budikka
>
> As you are aware...being an atheist means that youve come to the table
> with your mind made up already ;
Setting aside for the moment your complete misunderstanding of
atheism, are you going to present your evidence or not?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
><budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 17, 6:13�pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> When i was a proclaimed atheist, �I found myself refusing to examine
>>> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
>>> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
>>
>>Present the evidence. I'll debate it with you right here. This is
>>your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
>>Go ahead, bring it on. Post your best evidence - the evidence that
>>changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
>
>Obviously he can't.
>
>He's spouting the standard lies pre born-again theists tell other
>theists who don't know what an atheist is either.
Oops...
I inserted the "pre" in the wrong place. It was a pun on the loonies
and their "pre-born", which should have replaced the "non" in the next
paragraph.
Ralph
> On Aug 20, 7:13 am, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 6:13 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
>>> any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
>>> entitlement to living life the way i saw fit.
>> th
>> Present the evidence. I'll debate it with you right here. This is
>> your chance to witness for your god and convert us honest atheists.
>> Go ahead, bring it on. Post your best evidence - the evidence that
>> changed your mind - right here and let's see it.
>>
>> Budikka
>
> As you are aware...being an atheist means that youve come to the table
> with your mind made up already ;
Does the irony of this strike anyone else?
> atheism MUST be the only thing that
> you will consider and no amount of creation evidence offered will ever
> be enough,
I wouldn't know because I've never seen a creationist offer any real
evidence.
there isnt any compelling type of evidence that would be
> enough to make you change your mind because it isnt about the
> evidence...its about The Will for an atheist to remain a proclaimed
> One,
Sure Dave, just present some compelling evidence. Just remember that
your personal incredulity isn't considered compelling evidence.
> as an atheist you are not willing to engage in an honest
> investigation of the evidence for Creation which is readily available
> from book and online ,
I have investigated many claims made by creationists but none of them
have ever withstood the light of scientific inquiry.
> as an atheist you are not willing to admit
> there is a personal Creator (if it were shown designs can only come
> from a personal Designer),
All you have to do Davy, as show how these 'designs' can come only from
a 'personal designer'. You can start now.
> due to the personal ramifications it would
> have to your life, and, no amount of evidence (short of you standing
> before the Creator himself on a one on one basis) would ever be
> sufficent for you to bow your knee in humility.
Just show the evidence, Davy, just show the evidence.
> Therefore, you are not 'an honest atheist' as your opening statement
> asserts thereby making it nothing but a lesson in futility if I were
> to present the evidence for special Creation in a reasonable,
> rational, cogent, and compelling manner.
Well do it Dave, do it!!
> However, if you go back
> and look at the many Posts I have made on apologetics of The Christian
> Faith including creationism, you will discover content which atheism
> cannot refute in a sensible way ... nor can any Atheist cogently
> defend raw Naturalism and Materialism (natural causes) for the
> massive specified complexity we see in the Cosmos .
Specified complexity is a buzz word created by the ID movement. To see
how strong the ID movement is I suggest a through reading of the opinion
of Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Board of Education trial. I'll
tell you this much Davy, you and all of your friends shouting buzz
words aren't evidence. You also are under the false impression that if
an explanation of a design event isn't known then ID wins by default.
Sorry Dave, you must provide your own evidence.
> But instead of playing Ping Pong with a dishonest person on
> Cosmological evidences , Im wondering if you would be willing to
> explain why at all costs you do not want a personal Creator to exist ,
> can you afford for a personal Creator to exist , and how do you think
> you will fare when he reviews your earthly life in your presence ?
> Thank you.
Just a general comment, did anyone ever teach you about run on sentences
and paragraphs when you were in school?
I wonder why you keep harping constantly on personal behavior as the
reason for not believing in your god. You must have led one screwed up
life if that is the way you think.
I'll leave you with a comment by Ruth H. Green from the introduction to
her book, "Born Again Skeptics Guide to the Bible":
"Suppose you had never heard of Christianity, and that next Sunday
morning a stranger standing in a pulpit told you about a book whose
authors could not be authenticated and whose comments, written hundreds
of years ago, including blood-curdling legends of slaughter and intrigue
and fables about unnatural happenings such as virgin births, devils that
inhabit human bodies and talk, people rising from the dead and ascending
live into the clouds, and suns that stand still. Suppose he then asked
you to believe that an uneducated man described in that book was a god
who could get you into an eternal fantasy-place called Heaven, when you
die. Would you, as an intelligent rational person, even bother to read
such nonsense, let alone pattern your entire life upon it?"
I guess you are not an intelligent rational person:-(.
Andrew
> I have investigated many claims made by creationists
> but none of them have ever withstood the light of scientific inquiry.
Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
And you actually believe that this withstands
the light of scientific inquiry? Interesting!
Andrew
A Nony Mouse
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Ralph" wrote in message news:h4idnbKoFtoEnBLX...@giganews.com...
>
> > I have investigated many claims made by creationists
> > but none of them have ever withstood the light of scientific inquiry.
>
> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
There is nothing in what "Ralph" said to justify such an illogical
speculation. Ralph may well have no idea at all as to how life started.
There are , at present, a few scientific speculations s to how it might
have started, but no one, other than creationists, claim to be certain.
>
> And you actually believe that this withstands
> the light of scientific inquiry? Interesting!
Interesting how Andrew has to set up straw men to attack.
The "Straw Man Fallacy", which Andrew just descended to, is well known
form of fallacy, and is not needed by those with a solid case to argue.
MoreOfAn...@idi.ot
wrote:
>"Ralph" wrote in message news:h4idnbKoFtoEnBLX...@giganews.com...
>
>> I have investigated many claims made by creationists
>> but none of them have ever withstood the light of scientific inquiry.
>
>Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
Liar.
>came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
Liar.
>And you actually believe that this withstands
>the light of scientific inquiry? Interesting!
Liar.
If you had any honesty at all you would address people's actual
positions not invent ones they don't have and demand they defend them.
But then you are a christian.
>Andrew
>
>
>
Budikka
creation, and we have no soul, as you'll all see when he RUNS AWAY
from addressing these nine challenges, all of which arise *directly*
from things *he* stated.
Unmet challenge #1
The challenge I offered Chicken Andrew, Chicken "I'll be Baulked",
Chicken Gabriel et al in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009. All of them RAN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Budikka
Ralph
> "Ralph" wrote in message news:h4idnbKoFtoEnBLX...@giganews.com...
>
>> I have investigated many claims made by creationists
>> but none of them have ever withstood the light of scientific inquiry.
>
> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
Not at all, nor even close. What you described more closely aligns with
creation from nothing by a deity.
> And you actually believe that this withstands
> the light of scientific inquiry? Interesting!
>
>
> Andrew
No, the only interesting thing is that you don't have a clue as to what
science says or why it says it.
a@b.c
>Andrew wrote:
>> "Ralph" wrote in message news:h4idnbKoFtoEnBLX...@giganews.com...
>>
>>> I have investigated many claims made by creationists
>>> but none of them have ever withstood the light of scientific inquiry.
>>
>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>
>Not at all, nor even close. What you described more closely aligns with
>creation from nothing by a deity.
It's a projection.
But these dishonest caricatures are deliberate. They're meant to
obstruct discussion instead of facilitating it.
Free Lunch
>"Ralph" wrote in message news:h4idnbKoFtoEnBLX...@giganews.com...
>
>> I have investigated many claims made by creationists
>> but none of them have ever withstood the light of scientific inquiry.
>
>Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
That is as well as you will ever be able to understand it.
>And you actually believe that this withstands
>the light of scientific inquiry? Interesting!
Scientists discovered these things. It is not their fault that you have
made yourself incapable of learning.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Free Lunch
>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:10:35 -0400, Ralph <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Andrew wrote:
>>> "Ralph" wrote in message news:h4idnbKoFtoEnBLX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>> I have investigated many claims made by creationists
>>>> but none of them have ever withstood the light of scientific inquiry.
>>>
>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>>
>>Not at all, nor even close. What you described more closely aligns with
>>creation from nothing by a deity.
>
>It's a projection.
>
>But these dishonest caricatures are deliberate. They're meant to
>obstruct discussion instead of facilitating it.
Andrew chose not to learn. He chose to simplify things into parody. He
chose to teach religious doctrines that call his god a liar.
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>
> Liar.
This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>
> Liar.
It always amuses me when evolutionists say this. :)
The fact is, you believe that there was nothing,
then an explosion, which you will try to deny
by calling an "expansion", but the bottom line
is that there was nothing, then this event happened
and now, here we are. So why try to deny it?
I mean, if that's what you believe and it makes
so much sense, then why do you evolutionists
spend so much time denying it?
>> And you actually believe that this withstands
>> the light of scientific inquiry? Interesting!
>
> Liar.
No, it's true. You claim that the time before
the "Planck Interval", i.e., "we can't prove it"
is beyond scientific inquiry, at least as we
know it now.
So again, why do you deny it?
Could it be because you know it's a load of crap?
After all, why would someone deny what they
claim is "science", if it is indeed science?
> If you had any honesty at all you would address
> people's actual positions not invent ones they
> don't have and demand they defend them.
>
> But then you are a christian.
Translation: I know, but I do it anyway and I am
stupid enough to think that if I say
what I did above, that means that
I'll look intelligent, because I"m one
of those idiots that thinks that no matter
how stupid something is, it will look
intelligent, if only it is typed into usenet.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The greatest Bible software out there is found at:
Two of the greatest Windows utilities ever made!
WindowsXP/Vista/7, 32/64 bit (replaces XP ver):
CacheMan7 Single: http://cac71.notlong.com
CacheMan7 Two : http://cac72.notlong.com
StartEd Pro : http://started.notlong.com
"Wisdom is in the sight of him who has understanding,
but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth."
- Proverbs 17:24
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:40:23 -0400, MoreOfAn...@idi.ot
>spake thusly:
>
>
>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>
>> Liar.
>
>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
Your ignorance of science is noted.
Your arrogance makes it impossible for you to learn.
L.Roberts
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:57:34 -0400, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
He's just a numb old religi-idiot.
raven1
>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:40:23 -0400, MoreOfAn...@idi.ot
>spake thusly:
>
>
>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>
>> Liar.
>
>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen instead of bothering
to learn the first thing about what it is that they're criticizing?
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It
describes how it diversified after it arose. You are quite free to
believe that some kind of God created life by divine fiat (although,
as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong in a science
classroom), but even if that is the case, it demonstrably *evolved*
from there. *That* is what the TOE is about, not how life began. But
since you already knew that, having had it explained to you ad
infinitum, the word "liar" readily comes to mind to describe you.
Either that or the phrase "invincibly ignorant".
>>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>>
>> Liar.
>
>It always amuses me when evolutionists say this. :)
>
>The fact is, you believe that there was nothing,
>then an explosion, which you will try to deny
>by calling an "expansion", but the bottom line
>is that there was nothing, then this event happened
>and now, here we are. So why try to deny it?
>I mean, if that's what you believe and it makes
>so much sense, then why do you evolutionists
>spend so much time denying it?
The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the TOE. But
then, you know that as well. Why continue to lie? You're not fooling
anyone who knows anything about science. Have you considered that
you're fooling yourself, because your faith is so weak that you can't
face the possibility that maybe, just maybe, when your interpretation
of scripture and observed reality conflict, the problem might lie with
your interpretation of scripture? Or with the scripture itself?
Christopher A. Lee
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:57:34 -0400, Pastor Dave
><ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:40:23 -0400, MoreOfAn...@idi.ot
>>spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
>>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
>>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
>
>Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen instead of bothering
>to learn the first thing about what it is that they're criticizing?
Because they are dishonest and stupid.
And there is no such thing as an "evolutionist".
>THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It
>describes how it diversified after it arose. You are quite free to
>believe that some kind of God created life by divine fiat (although,
>as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong in a science
>classroom), but even if that is the case, it demonstrably *evolved*
>from there. *That* is what the TOE is about, not how life began. But
>since you already knew that, having had it explained to you ad
>infinitum, the word "liar" readily comes to mind to describe you.
>Either that or the phrase "invincibly ignorant".
Deliberately and dishonestly stupid IMO.
>>>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>>It always amuses me when evolutionists say this. :)
>>
>>The fact is, you believe that there was nothing,
Liar.
>>then an explosion,
Liar.
>> which you will try to deny
>>by calling an "expansion",
Liar.
>> but the bottom line
>>is that there was nothing,
Liar.
>> then this event happened
>>and now, here we are. So why try to deny it?
I'm denying nothing except your own lies, liar.
>>I mean, if that's what you believe and it makes
Liar.
>>so much sense, then why do you evolutionists
There's no such thing as an "evolutionist", liar. 200 years ago the
word was valid but not since evolution was proven.
And you know perfectly well that evolution is about the change and
divergence of life.
Nothing to do with big-bang cosmology.
So why keep lying about it, about big-bang cosmology anus - to the
very people lie about?
>>spend so much time denying it?
The fact is that Dave isn't a mind reader and is lying through his
teeth when he tells me what I do or don't believe. Because he is
incapable of grasping the real world outside his religion.
He also lies through his teeth when he turns well understood
scientific fact derived from observation and investigation, into a
caricature that he pretends is a belief.
It's deliberate and dishonest. Designed to obstruct discussion and
explanation.
>The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the TOE. But
>then, you know that as well. Why continue to lie? You're not fooling
>anyone who knows anything about science. Have you considered that
>you're fooling yourself, because your faith is so weak that you can't
>face the possibility that maybe, just maybe, when your interpretation
>of scripture and observed reality conflict, the problem might lie with
>your interpretation of scripture? Or with the scripture itself?
He doesn't even fool himself.
Budikka
dumb ass and made you run like a startled cat, but I haven;t forgotten
you, so let's do it once more and bring you up to date. Here's what
you AND EVERY CREATIONIST ON USENET is currently fleeing.
Unmet challenge #1
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken "I'll Be Bauck"
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story.
Budikka
Andrew
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>> WhyIsAndr...@praise.com spake thusly:
>>
>>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
>>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
>>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
>
> Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen instead of bothering
> to learn the first thing about what it is that they're criticizing?
> THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It
> describes how it diversified after it arose.
This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE generally speaking. http://micurl.com/ssybz
You are quite free to
> believe that some kind of God created life by divine fiat (although,
> as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong in a science
> classroom), but even if that is the case, it demonstrably *evolved*
> from there.
It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within genetic limits exactly
as God created it to do.
>*That* is what the TOE is about, not how life began.
>>>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>>It always amuses me when evolutionists say this. :)
>>
>>The fact is, you believe that there was nothing,
>>then an explosion, which you will try to deny
>>by calling an "expansion", but the bottom line
>>is that there was nothing, then this event happened
>>and now, here we are. So why try to deny it?
>>I mean, if that's what you believe and it makes
>>so much sense, then why do you evolutionists
>>spend so much time denying it?
>
> The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the TOE.
Yes it does... http://micurl.com/lElvw
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Andrew
> Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
> find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
> has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
> pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>
> Case closed. End of story.
>
> Budikka
If you would simply learn of Jesus, accept Him, and
follow His teachings, then the anxieties which are so
obviously troubling you would melt into the infinite
love and wonderful peace which come from Him.
Andrew
A Nony Mouse
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka" wrote in message
> news:07247c17-b5b9-483f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
> > find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
> > has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
> > pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
> >
> > Case closed. End of story.
> >
> > Budikka
>
>
> If you would simply learn of Jesus
Why don't you first learn of Buddha, accept Him, and
follow His teachings, then the anxieties which are so
obviously troubling you would melt into the infinite
love and wonderful peace which comes from Him.
magicus
> In article <2cqdncwaM5xb4gzX...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Budikka" wrote in message
>> news:07247c17-b5b9-483f-989c-
a4f8bb...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
>> > find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
>> > has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
>> > pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>> >
>> > Case closed. End of story.
>> >
>> > Budikka
>>
>>
>> If you would simply learn of Jesus
>
> Why don't you first learn of Buddha, accept Him, and
> follow His teachings, then the anxieties which are so obviously
> troubling you would melt into the infinite love and wonderful peace
> which comes from Him.
;-P
ciao,
f
--
"A sense of humor, properly developed, is superior to any religion so far
devised."
-- Tom Robbins
A Nony Mouse
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "raven1" wrote in message news:m8e29513uhor2solk...@4ax.com...
> > Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> WhyIsAndr...@praise.com spake thusly:
> >>
> >>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
> >>>
> >>> Liar.
> >>
> >>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
> >>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
> >>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
> >
> > Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen instead of bothering
> > to learn the first thing about what it is that they're criticizing?
> > THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It
> > describes how it diversified after it arose.
>
> This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE generally speaking.
> http://micurl.com/ssybz
The Darwnian version of evolution (evolution of species) is the only
form of evolution that creationists and IDiots standardly lie abut.
>
> You are quite free to
> > believe that some kind of God created life by divine fiat (although,
> > as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong in a science
> > classroom), but even if that is the case, it demonstrably *evolved*
> > from there.
>
> It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within genetic limits exactly
> as God created it to do.
Which god? There are so many of them that have been proposed that the
unprejudiced cannot choose any one of them from among the horde as
preeminent.
jemcd
wrote:
You mean turn into vegetable?
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
Free Lunch
Persistent vegetative state.
They think their god wants them to be brain damaged.
AndrewLiesOnceMore@z.z
wrote:
>"raven1" wrote in message news:m8e29513uhor2solk...@4ax.com...
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>> WhyIsAndr...@praise.com spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
>>>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
>>>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
Why do you keep lying about "evolutionists" when you know perfectly
well there is no such thing? And that it is a rhetorical creationist
canard to make it look as if the acceptance of well researched and
understood scientific fact, is some kind of ideology?
>> Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen instead of bothering
>> to learn the first thing about what it is that they're criticizing?
>> THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It
>> describes how it diversified after it arose.
>
>This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE generally
>speaking. http://micurl.com/ssybz
Why do you feel the need to keep lying to cover up the fact that you
know absolutely nothing about the subject?
It might fool your fellow equally pig-ignorant and equally deluded
religious fanatics.
But it doesn't even fool mainstream Christians.
The TofE describes the change and divergence of life.
Not how it originated.
No matter how many lying religious fanatics like you pretend
otherwise.
> You are quite free to
>> believe that some kind of God created life by divine fiat (although,
>> as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong in a science
>> classroom), but even if that is the case, it demonstrably *evolved*
>> from there.
>
>It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within genetic limits exactly
You know this is a lie because it has been explained over and over
again.
>as God created it to do.
What kind of fucking moron insists that the god of somebody else's
religion does anything, in the real world outside it? Especially when
he denies the researched and well understood facts that show no need
for a deity to have done anything?
>>*That* is what the TOE is about, not how life began.
>
>>>>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>>It always amuses me when evolutionists say this. :)
Why?
Because it is a stupid, deliberate lie designed to obstruct
communication and explanation.
Why don't you listen to what we say instead of twisting it into a
deliberate lie on your part?
>>>The fact is, you believe that there was nothing,
>>>then an explosion, which you will try to deny
>>>by calling an "expansion", but the bottom line
>>>is that there was nothing, then this event happened
>>>and now, here we are. So why try to deny it?
Why do you keep lying by telling us what we believe, inventing a
deliberate caricature of the results of investigation and observation
which you pretend is a belief and that we hold it?
>>>I mean, if that's what you believe and it makes
It isn't, liar.
It's what lying creationists tell us we believe.
Even you understand the difference, so stop pretending.
>>>so much sense, then why do you evolutionists
No such thing as an "evolutionist", liar.
It is a dishonest creationist canard, an attempt to dismiss the
acceptance of reality including scientific fact, as an ideology
competing with creationism,.
It isn't.
>>>spend so much time denying it?
Because liars like you make it personal by lying not just about
science but also scientists and educated lay people.
Which makes it very personal.
>> The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the TOE.
>
>Yes it does... http://micurl.com/lElvw
Liar.
The TofE is about the change and divergence of life, It says nothing
about the big bang or even how life originated.
Why do you keep repeating this lie?
Why do you feel the need to keep telling us that you are thoroughly
dishonest as well as pig-ignorant and stupid?
>http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Lots of things evolve not just life.
Even religions and how they see their god(s). Eg Christianity and
Islam both evolved from their common ancestor Judaism. The various
sects and denominations evolved from earlier ones.
But the TofE has nothing to say about any of these.
And while you're at it, look up what "theory" means in science.
Here's a clue:
I cut'n'pasted this from the online Merriam Webster at Carnegie Mellon
more than a decade ago.
Read Sir W, Hamilton's note about your misuse of the word.
Theory \The"o*ry\, n.; pl. Theories. [F. th['e]orie, L. theoria, Gr. ?
a beholding, spectacle, contemplation, speculation, fr. ? a
spectator, ? to see, view. See Theater.] 1. A doctrine, or scheme of
things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without
a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.
Note: ``This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and
improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into
hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for
conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in
opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they
were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they
are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.''
--Sir W. Hamilton.
2. An exposition of the general or abstract principles of any science;
as, the theory of music.
3. The science, as distinguished from the art; as, the theory and
practice of medicine.
4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or
moral; as, Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Adam Smith's theory
of moral sentiments.
Atomic theory, Binary theory, etc. See under Atomic, Binary, etc.
Syn: Hypothesis, speculation.
Usage: Theory, Hypothesis. A theory is a scheme of the relations
subsisting between the parts of a systematic whole; an
hypothesis
John Locke
a...@def.ghi
wrote:
>"Budikka" wrote in message news:07247c17-b5b9-483f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
>> find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
>> has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
>> pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>>
>> Case closed. End of story.
>>
>> Budikka
Andrew once again refuses to put up or shut up by rudely and stupidly
preaching a complete non sequitur:
>If you would simply learn of Jesus, accept Him, and
Where did you demonstrate anything to accept, imbecile?
>follow His teachings,
What "teachings", serial liar?
> then the anxieties which are so
>obviously troubling you
The serial liar amateur psychologises lies about others rather than
address points.
> would melt into the infinite
>love and wonderful peace which come from Him.
Are you an example of this, you thoroughly nasty, dishonest liar?
>Andrew
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "raven1" wrote:
>>
>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>
>> >>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>> >>>
>> >>> Liar.
>> >>
>> >>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
>> >>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
>> >>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
>> >
>>> Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen
>>> instead of bothering to learn the first thing about
>>> what it is that they're criticizing?
>>>
>>> THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING
>>> ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It describes
>>> how it diversified after it arose.
>>
>> This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE
>> generally speaking. http://micurl.com/ssybz
>
> The Darwnian version of evolution (evolution of species)
> is the only form of evolution that creationists and IDiots
> standardly lie abut.
The only liars are evolutionists. The fact is, they want
to claim that evolution does not deal with origins.
And yet, it does exactly that and this "separation"
comes after it has been proved just how ridiculous
abiogenesis is. But it remains a fact that as you take
evolution back, you end up in a position where you
must answer how life came about and that, even
according to evolution, is evolution and is a question
that must be answered, since "the rock" "evolved"
into living matter, somehow, all by itself.
And another thing that evolutionists are dishonest
about, is that evolution does not deal with the
question of God, since it most certainly does,
since evolution states mindless evolution, which
means that God was not involved and that is
indeed a fact of what you believe.
So this crap that you spew out, about evolution not
questioning God and not dealing with abiogenesis
is just a load of crap and we all know it.
And the truth is, that if you really believed what you
claim to believe to be true, then you wouldn't waste
on single second on trying to dodge abiogenesis,
nor claiming that evolution doesn't question the
existence of God. You would just state outright
what we all know evolutionists portray, which is
that God had nothing to do with it and that life
started from non-living matter, all by itself. So don't
bother trying to sell this garbage to me, because
I know better and so do you! And yet, you claim
that evolutionists are the honest ones. Please! (:
You claim one thing and then when called on it,
claim another. Yea, that makes you honest, right!
Now if someone wants to deal with the facts, then
they will find that abiogenesis was always considered
part of the "Theory of Evolution", which doesn't even
qualify as a theory, since a theory requires readily
verifiable facts, which evolution doesn't.
And they will also find that evolutionists quote what
is called "microevolution" examples, claiming that it
proves "macroevolution," yet don't have one single
example of macroevolution to show us.
Then, when that is proved, they will claim that it is
Creationists that made up the word "macroevolution",
because they are stupid. There is no other way to
say it. People in usenet love to pretend that whatever
they claim, no matter how ridiculous, looks intelligent,
because they typed it into usenet! The fact is, that
research shows that "macroevolution" is a word that
was "created" by evolutionists! And isn't it interesting
that they "created" this word and yet, deny creation?!
>>> You are quite free to believe that some kind
>>> of God created life by divine fiat (although,
>>> as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong
>>> in a science classroom), but even if that is the
>>> case, it demonstrably *evolved* from there.
>>
>> It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within
>> genetic limits exactly as God created it to do.
>
> Which god? There are so many of them that have
> been proposed that the unprejudiced cannot choose
> any one of them from among the horde as preeminent.
This is the cop out that fools like you use! "Which god?"
All you're saying is; "I cannot deny what you said and so,
I will try to deflect, to avoid having to deal with it.".
We are talking about God Almighty and so, for you to ask;
"Which god?", knowing this (and you do know this), is at
best, disingenuous! And it is proof of your deception,
trying to avoid the issues regarding what you claim did
happen and what evolution means.
And no, you trying to ask questions and demand answers
as your next method of trying to play dodge ball won't work!
YOU need to PROVE macroevolution as a fact, since that's
what YOU claim it is! And no, demanding that I "disprove
it" will not work either, since it is not up to me to prove
a negative. Rather, it is up to you to prove YOUR claim!
And furthermore, just so you know, no, you don't get to
demand that I "prove God", since according to YOUR OWN
words, God is a matter of faith, while you claim evolution
is a matter of science. And any idiot knows that when
you claim that something is "proved scientifically", which
we both know you claim (so don't bother denying it),
that the burden of proof is ON THEM!
I.e.: Do not bother trying to turn the tables! The truth is,
that we both know that you have no clue what you are
talking about and that your whole amount of "research"
consists of you looking at a few web pages that said what
you wanted to hear and that you're doing nothing more
than parroting them!
But hey, you're always free to prove me wrong! But be
ready to have to deal with detailed, scientific facts! You
see, while you thought that you could come in and just
throw some supposed "facts" out at Christians, thinking
that they wouldn't know what they were talking about,
you made a HUGE MISTAKE, in that you ran into one
who is VERY FAMILIAR with the various sciences involved
and who does know all of your lame arguments and so,
you are welcome to try your standard crap, but it won't
work and you will end up looking foolish! So be prepared
to go into detail about your claims and to be able to discuss
intelligently each and every claim that you make!
And now, I fully expect you to go ahead and attack me,
because once again, you will be stupid enough to think
that because your avoidance maneuver was typed into
usenet, that it will somehow make it look like you are
making an intelligent argument by insulting me.
<chuckle>
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:46:24 -0600, A Nony Mouse <T...@mouse.hole>
>spake thusly:
>
>
>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "raven1" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>> >>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Liar.
>>> >>
>>> >>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
>>> >>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
>>> >>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
>>> >
>>>> Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen
>>>> instead of bothering to learn the first thing about
>>>> what it is that they're criticizing?
>>>>
>>>> THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING
>>>> ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It describes
>>>> how it diversified after it arose.
>>>
>>> This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE
>>> generally speaking. http://micurl.com/ssybz
>>
>> The Darwnian version of evolution (evolution of species)
>> is the only form of evolution that creationists and IDiots
>> standardly lie abut.
>
>The only liars are evolutionists.
You know that your claim is false.
>The fact is, they want
>to claim that evolution does not deal with origins.
It does not. It does tell us how life became what we know today.
>And yet, it does exactly that and this "separation"
>comes after it has been proved just how ridiculous
>abiogenesis is. But it remains a fact that as you take
>evolution back, you end up in a position where you
>must answer how life came about and that, even
>according to evolution, is evolution and is a question
>that must be answered, since "the rock" "evolved"
>into living matter, somehow, all by itself.
And the answer is "we don't know, yet." a much better answer than yours,
because yours is known to be false.
>And another thing that evolutionists are dishonest
>about, is that evolution does not deal with the
>question of God, since it most certainly does,
>since evolution states mindless evolution, which
>means that God was not involved and that is
>indeed a fact of what you believe.
You preach that God is too weak and too dishonest, that He needs you to
lie for Him.
>So this crap that you spew out, about evolution not
>questioning God and not dealing with abiogenesis
>is just a load of crap and we all know it.
Your opinion is based on religious doctrine only. It rejects scientific
evidence.
>And the truth is, that if you really believed what you
>claim to believe to be true, then you wouldn't waste
>on single second on trying to dodge abiogenesis,
Who is dodging? It is much more honest to say that we do not know yet
exactly how something happened than to make a claim that has already
been proven false by evidence. There is nothing at all that says that
abiogenesis could not happen. All we know about chemistry and biology
tells us that abiogenesis could have happened in a number of possible
ways. All we know about life, today, is that life began in this universe
and that there is no evidence at all that your claims about God are
true.
>nor claiming that evolution doesn't question the
>existence of God.
It does not, but you are too worshipful of your own falsehoods to admit
that.
> You would just state outright
>what we all know evolutionists portray, which is
>that God had nothing to do with it and that life
>started from non-living matter, all by itself. So don't
>bother trying to sell this garbage to me, because
>I know better and so do you! And yet, you claim
>that evolutionists are the honest ones. Please! (:
>You claim one thing and then when called on it,
>claim another. Yea, that makes you honest, right!
You hate science. You refuse to learn. You worship the lies that you
preach. Why would I care what your intentionally ignorant opinion is?
>Now if someone wants to deal with the facts, then
>they will find that abiogenesis was always considered
>part of the "Theory of Evolution", which doesn't even
>qualify as a theory, since a theory requires readily
>verifiable facts, which evolution doesn't.
You not only refuse to deal with facts, you lie about what has been
discovered. You are an immoral fool.
>And they will also find that evolutionists quote what
>is called "microevolution" examples, claiming that it
>proves "macroevolution," yet don't have one single
>example of macroevolution to show us.
Once again, you offer an objection that shows that you refuse to learn
anything, that you worship your own ignorance. Your objection is
meaningless and foolish.
>Then, when that is proved, they will claim that it is
>Creationists that made up the word "macroevolution",
>because they are stupid. There is no other way to
>say it. People in usenet love to pretend that whatever
>they claim, no matter how ridiculous, looks intelligent,
>because they typed it into usenet! The fact is, that
>research shows that "macroevolution" is a word that
>was "created" by evolutionists! And isn't it interesting
>that they "created" this word and yet, deny creation?!
Your proud ignorance, your foolish arrogance tell us that you worship
yourself alone. You refuse to learn. You mock God with your foolish
doctrines.
>>>> You are quite free to believe that some kind
>>>> of God created life by divine fiat (although,
>>>> as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong
>>>> in a science classroom), but even if that is the
>>>> case, it demonstrably *evolved* from there.
>>>
>>> It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within
>>> genetic limits exactly as God created it to do.
>>
>> Which god? There are so many of them that have
>> been proposed that the unprejudiced cannot choose
>> any one of them from among the horde as preeminent.
>
>This is the cop out that fools like you use! "Which god?"
>
>All you're saying is; "I cannot deny what you said and so,
>I will try to deflect, to avoid having to deal with it.".
>
>We are talking about God Almighty and so, for you to ask;
>"Which god?", knowing this (and you do know this), is at
>best, disingenuous! And it is proof of your deception,
>trying to avoid the issues regarding what you claim did
>happen and what evolution means.
You preach a weak and pitiful God. Your God is unable to defend Himself,
so you feel the need to lie to us about Him. Why would your God ever let
you into heaven?
>And no, you trying to ask questions and demand answers
>as your next method of trying to play dodge ball won't work!
>
>YOU need to PROVE macroevolution as a fact, since that's
>what YOU claim it is! And no, demanding that I "disprove
>it" will not work either, since it is not up to me to prove
>a negative. Rather, it is up to you to prove YOUR claim!
>
>And furthermore, just so you know, no, you don't get to
>demand that I "prove God", since according to YOUR OWN
>words, God is a matter of faith, while you claim evolution
>is a matter of science. And any idiot knows that when
>you claim that something is "proved scientifically", which
>we both know you claim (so don't bother denying it),
>that the burden of proof is ON THEM!
I don't really care what your opinion is. You have already demonstrated
that you are immoral and untrustworthy. Your lies are the lies of an
evil one. You mock everyone and everything with your foolish teachings.
>I.e.: Do not bother trying to turn the tables! The truth is,
>that we both know that you have no clue what you are
>talking about and that your whole amount of "research"
>consists of you looking at a few web pages that said what
>you wanted to hear and that you're doing nothing more
>than parroting them!
>
>But hey, you're always free to prove me wrong! But be
>ready to have to deal with detailed, scientific facts! You
>see, while you thought that you could come in and just
>throw some supposed "facts" out at Christians, thinking
>that they wouldn't know what they were talking about,
>you made a HUGE MISTAKE, in that you ran into one
>who is VERY FAMILIAR with the various sciences involved
>and who does know all of your lame arguments and so,
>you are welcome to try your standard crap, but it won't
>work and you will end up looking foolish! So be prepared
>to go into detail about your claims and to be able to discuss
>intelligently each and every claim that you make!
>
>And now, I fully expect you to go ahead and attack me,
>because once again, you will be stupid enough to think
>that because your avoidance maneuver was typed into
>usenet, that it will somehow make it look like you are
>making an intelligent argument by insulting me.
>
><chuckle>
Yes, you are a chucklehead. You are a great example of why people should
not believe that everyone who calls himself Christian is a Christian.
Cory Albrecht
> "raven1" wrote in message
> news:m8e29513uhor2solk...@4ax.com...
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>> WhyIsAndr...@praise.com spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what they believe.
>>> If you believe in evolution, then yes, you believe that life came
>>> from a rock.
>>
>> Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen instead of
>> bothering to learn the first thing about what it is that they're
>> criticizing? THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE
>> ORIGINATED. It describes how it diversified after it arose.
>
> This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE generally speaking.
> http://micurl.com/ssybz
Liar. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with those other type of
"evolution" that Chaisson mentioned. Rememeber, the word evolution
simply means change over time, and Chaisson is merely making an ordered
list of the various types of changes we know that have happened. He is
*not* saying that the Theory of Evolution is about all those other
things.
Chaisson's own words show how wrong you are when he talks about his
"cosmic evolution" as being a metaphorical frame. In any case, this is
just Chaisson's own way of thinking of things - it's not an actual
scientific theory.
Why do you misrepresent things like that, Andrew?
>
> You are quite free to
>> believe that some kind of God created life by divine fiat
>> (although, as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong in a
>> science classroom), but even if that is the case, it demonstrably
>> *evolved* from there.
>
> It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within genetic limits exactly
> as God created it to do.
Unsupported assertion. Why is it that you never give any evidence that
such limits actually exist like you claim? And how come you never
actually explicate the mechanisms necessary for preventing evolution
from going beyond those limits?
>
>> *That* is what the TOE is about, not how life began.
>
>>>>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> It always amuses me when evolutionists say this. :)
>>>
>>> The fact is, you believe that there was nothing, then an
>>> explosion, which you will try to deny by calling an "expansion",
>>> but the bottom line is that there was nothing, then this event
>>> happened and now, here we are. So why try to deny it? I mean, if
>>> that's what you believe and it makes so much sense, then why do
>>> you evolutionists spend so much time denying it?
>>
>> The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the TOE.
>
> Yes it does... http://micurl.com/lElvw
Just because somebody drew a fancy little chart titled "Cosmic
Evolution" does not mean that Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory
have anything to do with each other. They exist to explain two complete
different things.
> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:08:46 -0400, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com>
>wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:46:24 -0600, A Nony Mouse <T...@mouse.hole>
>>spake thusly:
>>
>>> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "raven1" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> >>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Liar.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>This is what all evolutionists say.
It's what lying creationists pretend people they label "evolutionists"
(another lie) even though there's no such thing, say.
>>>> >> Yet it is what
>>>> >>they believe.
Two more lies lie. Both the invention of beliefs people don't actually
have, and calling them "evolutionists".
>>>> >> If you believe in evolution, then
Dishonest replacement of "accept as scientific fact" as "believe".
>>>> >>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
Another multiple lie. Where do they get this bullshit from? They're
not mind readers to tell us what we do or don't believe.
And they twist scientific explanation into something completely
different to tell us what we believe.
>>>>> Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen
>>>>> instead of bothering to learn the first thing about
>>>>> what it is that they're criticizing?
>>>>>
>>>>> THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING
>>>>> ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It describes
>>>>> how it diversified after it arose.
>>>>
>>>> This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE
>>>> generally speaking. http://micurl.com/ssybz
Darwin provided about a third of the modern synthesis that explains
the fact of evolution. Which in spite of his lie, says nothing about
how life originated.
These liars have been given this video several times already, which
describes the current state of research at Harvard about life's
origins. It didn't all happen at once, and evolution didn't start
until after there was something to evolve, Which there isn't until
towards the end of the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
>>> The Darwnian version of evolution (evolution of species)
>>> is the only form of evolution that creationists and IDiots
>>> standardly lie abut.
>>
>>The only liars are evolutionists.
The lunatic lives in his own little deluded fantasy world.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". It is a creationist
carnard, a rhetorical tool to pretend that acceptance of scientific
and other facts is an ideology that competes with theirs.
>You know that your claim is false.
He's a Christian.
>>The fact is, they want
>>to claim that evolution does not deal with origins.
>
>It does not. It does tell us how life became what we know today.
Why can't these liars acknowledge this?
>>And yet, it does exactly that and this "separation"
>>comes after it has been proved just how ridiculous
>>abiogenesis is.
Have the Liars For God redefined abiogenesis as well?
>> But it remains a fact that as you take
>>evolution back, you end up in a position where you
>>must answer how life came about and that, even
>>according to evolution, is evolution and is a question
>>that must be answered, since "the rock" "evolved"
>>into living matter, somehow, all by itself.
The only people who say this are lying Christians putting words into
the mouths of scientists and other educated people, that they know
they didn't say.
It's a standard creationist tactic" argument by ridiculing a straw
man.
>And the answer is "we don't know, yet." a much better answer than yours,
>because yours is known to be false.
But research has thrown up a lot of things these pig-ignorant morons
cover their eyes and ears to make them go away.
>>And another thing that evolutionists are dishonest
>>about, is that evolution does not deal with the
>>question of God, since it most certainly does,
>>since evolution states mindless evolution, which
>>means that God was not involved and that is
>>indeed a fact of what you believe.
Which is the religionist's problem for not being able to keep their
deluded fantasies inside their religion.
But don't worry your pointy little head about it, it leaves Zeus,
Odin, Krishna and all the others out of the equation too. And for the
same reason.
He still hasn't explained why we should take his any more seriously
than all the others.
>You preach that God is too weak and too dishonest, that He needs you to
>lie for Him.
He can't help it. He's a Christian.
>>So this crap that you spew out, about evolution not
>>questioning God and not dealing with abiogenesis
>>is just a load of crap and we all know it.
What a fucking moron.
What is there to question unless one is Christian?
Like the rest of his brethren he is incapable of understanding the
rest of the world beyond his religion.
Why the heck does he imagine non-Christians should give a flying fuck
about what is merely somebody else's religious belief?
>Your opinion is based on religious doctrine only. It rejects scientific
>evidence.
What I don't understand is that they have to know they're lying
through their teeth.
I may not agree with the Amish, but at least they have the integrity
to reject the science they attack.
But these Liars For God take advantage every day of the fruits of what
they attack.
>>And the truth is, that if you really believed what you
>>claim to believe to be true, then you wouldn't waste
>>on single second on trying to dodge abiogenesis,
What the heck is he babbling about?
>Who is dodging? It is much more honest to say that we do not know yet
>exactly how something happened than to make a claim that has already
>been proven false by evidence. There is nothing at all that says that
>abiogenesis could not happen. All we know about chemistry and biology
>tells us that abiogenesis could have happened in a number of possible
>ways. All we know about life, today, is that life began in this universe
>and that there is no evidence at all that your claims about God are
>true.
Even without the last bit, abiogenesis is simply the parsimonious
label for the fact that at one point there was life and at another
there wasn't.
It's an area of research, and in spite of what the Liars For God
pretend, it simply follows where the evidence leads without any
preconceptions.
If it had found anything that pointed to a god it would have gone down
that road.
The Liars For God can't accept this and invent motivations that simply
aren't there, why it doesn't.
>>nor claiming that evolution doesn't question the
>>existence of God.
>
>It does not, but you are too worshipful of your own falsehoods to admit
>that.
>
>> You would just state outright
>>what we all know evolutionists portray, which is
>>that God had nothing to do with it and that life
The liar pretends this is a presumption instead of not actually
finding anything that requires any deity let alone his favourite one.
>>started from non-living matter, all by itself. So don't
>>bother trying to sell this garbage to me, because
>>I know better and so do you!
Here the liar pretends he is a mind reader to tell us what we do or
don't know.
>> And yet, you claim
>>that evolutionists are the honest ones. Please! (:
What's an "evolutionist", liar?
>>You claim one thing and then when called on it,
>>claim another. Yea, that makes you honest, right!
Why are Christians such dishonest liars?
>You hate science. You refuse to learn. You worship the lies that you
>preach. Why would I care what your intentionally ignorant opinion is?
It's part and parcel of Christianity.
>>Now if someone wants to deal with the facts, then
>>they will find that abiogenesis was always considered
>>part of the "Theory of Evolution", which doesn't even
>>qualify as a theory, since a theory requires readily
>>verifiable facts, which evolution doesn't.
The theory of evolution is the explanation for the fact, liar.
Or are atoms, music, graphs etc just theories on your planet?
>You not only refuse to deal with facts, you lie about what has been
>discovered. You are an immoral fool.
He's a Christian.
>>And they will also find that evolutionists quote what
>>is called "microevolution" examples, claiming that it
>>proves "macroevolution," yet don't have one single
>>example of macroevolution to show us.
The liar pretends he doesn't know that it was the change and
divergence in collected fossils more than two centuries ago, which was
given various labels before they settled on "evolution",
This won't un-happen and go away no ,matter how many liars like him
pretend it never happened.
Nor will the observed instances of speciation in the wild and in the
lab which are an extensive part of the talk.origins FAQs.
>Once again, you offer an objection that shows that you refuse to learn
>anything, that you worship your own ignorance. Your objection is
>meaningless and foolish.
He's a Christian.
>>Then, when that is proved, they will claim that it is
>>Creationists that made up the word "macroevolution",
They did,
>>because they are stupid.
No, because they are dishonest.
>> There is no other way to
>>say it. People in usenet love to pretend that whatever
>>they claim, no matter how ridiculous, looks intelligent,
Projection noted.
>>because they typed it into usenet! The fact is, that
>>research shows that "macroevolution" is a word that
>>was "created" by evolutionists!
A lie because both macroevolution and evolutionist are creationist
canards.
>> And isn't it interesting
>>that they "created" this word and yet, deny creation?!
Where did the liar demonstrate creation before lying about people
denying it?
>Your proud ignorance, your foolish arrogance tell us that you worship
>yourself alone. You refuse to learn. You mock God with your foolish
>doctrines.
He's a Christian.
>>>>> You are quite free to believe that some kind
>>>>> of God created life by divine fiat (although,
>>>>> as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong
>>>>> in a science classroom), but even if that is the
>>>>> case, it demonstrably *evolved* from there.
>>>>
>>>> It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within
>>>> genetic limits exactly as God created it to do.
>>>
>>> Which god? There are so many of them that have
>>> been proposed that the unprejudiced cannot choose
>>> any one of them from among the horde as preeminent.
>>
>>This is the cop out that fools like you use! "Which god?"
Was it Bramah, imbecile?
>>All you're saying is; "I cannot deny what you said and so,
>>I will try to deflect, to avoid having to deal with it.".
Liar.
>>We are talking about God Almighty and so, for you to ask;
Merely one of the thousands of equivalent religious belief objects,
whose followers are too stupid to grasp is not substantively different
than all the others.
I have never understood why these morons expect people outside their
religion to treat it any more seriously than they themselves treat
Zeus, Odin, Krishna and all the other equivalents from the rest of the
religions.
>>"Which god?", knowing this (and you do know this), is at
Liar.
>>best, disingenuous! And it is proof of your deception,
Liar.
It's to show YOU that it's no different than Zeus did it, Odin did it
etc.
But then you already knew this.
>>trying to avoid the issues regarding what you claim did
>>happen and what evolution means.
Liar.
You don't even know what evolution is.
>You preach a weak and pitiful God. Your God is unable to defend Himself,
>so you feel the need to lie to us about Him. Why would your God ever let
>you into heaven?
Worse than that - he's a deluded lunatic living in his own little
fantasy world.
>>And no, you trying to ask questions and demand answers
>>as your next method of trying to play dodge ball won't work!
Projection noted.
>>YOU need to PROVE macroevolution as a fact, since that's
What's "macroevolution", liar?
Why don't you go to your nearest natural history museum where you will
see all the evidence you ever wanted. There are excellent ones in both
London and New York.
>>what YOU claim it is! And no, demanding that I "disprove
>>it" will not work either, since it is not up to me to prove
You're the one making claims that observed reality is wrong.
>>a negative. Rather, it is up to you to prove YOUR claim!
Done over and over again, serial liar.
Just because you cover your eyes and ears while bellowing "it didn't
happen" even though it has been shown, won't make it go away.
>
>>And furthermore, just so you know, no, you don't get to
>>demand that I "prove God", since according to YOUR OWN
THEN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, IMBECILE.
>>words, God is a matter of faith, while you claim evolution
Faith is a worthless excuse to believe when there is no reason to.
And it's even more worthless when you use it to cop out of the burden
of proof you took on when you presumed it outside your religion.
>>is a matter of science. And any idiot knows that when
>>you claim that something is "proved scientifically", which
>>we both know you claim (so don't bother denying it),
>>that the burden of proof is ON THEM!
Which has been carried out over and over again. Just because you liars
cover your eyes and ears won't make it un happen.
>I don't really care what your opinion is. You have already demonstrated
>that you are immoral and untrustworthy. Your lies are the lies of an
>evil one. You mock everyone and everything with your foolish teachings.
He's a Christian.
>>I.e.: Do not bother trying to turn the tables! The truth is,
>>that we both know that you have no clue what you are
>>talking about and that your whole amount of "research"
>>consists of you looking at a few web pages that said what
>>you wanted to hear and that you're doing nothing more
>>than parroting them!
Projection noted.
>>But hey, you're always free to prove me wrong! But be
>>ready to have to deal with detailed, scientific facts! You
Done over and over again.
The observations more than 200 years ago that were eventually labelled
evolution won't go away. Including the transitionals the Liars For God
pretend don't exist.
>>see, while you thought that you could come in and just
>>throw some supposed "facts" out at Christians, thinking
>>that they wouldn't know what they were talking about,
>>you made a HUGE MISTAKE, in that you ran into one
>>who is VERY FAMILIAR with the various sciences involved
Who's that, liar? Certainly not yourself.
>>and who does know all of your lame arguments and so,
>>you are welcome to try your standard crap, but it won't
Projection noted.
>>work and you will end up looking foolish! So be prepared
>>to go into detail about your claims and to be able to discuss
>>intelligently each and every claim that you make!
Get an education. Visit ant natural history museum. Read the
talk.origins FAQs.
>>And now, I fully expect you to go ahead and attack me,
>>because once again, you will be stupid enough to think
>>that because your avoidance maneuver was typed into
>>usenet, that it will somehow make it look like you are
>>making an intelligent argument by insulting me.
More projection noted.
>><chuckle>
>
>Yes, you are a chucklehead. You are a great example of why people should
>not believe that everyone who calls himself Christian is a Christian.
He's a Christian all right.
Ralph
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:40:23 -0400, MoreOfAn...@idi.ot
> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>> Liar.
>
> This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
> they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
> yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
No "Pastor", we don't.
>>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>> Liar.
>
> It always amuses me when evolutionists say this. :)
You are easily amused, almost childlike in your amusement.
> The fact is, you believe that there was nothing,
> then an explosion, which you will try to deny
> by calling an "expansion", but the bottom line
> is that there was nothing, then this event happened
> and now, here we are. So why try to deny it?
> I mean, if that's what you believe and it makes
> so much sense, then why do you evolutionists
> spend so much time denying it?
Say "Pastor" since we are dealing with cosmology why do you continue to
use the term 'evolutionist'?
Was there nothing, "Pastor"? Do you know there was nothing? What if
there was energy that existed?
>>> And you actually believe that this withstands
>>> the light of scientific inquiry? Interesting!
>> Liar.
>
> No, it's true. You claim that the time before
> the "Planck Interval", i.e., "we can't prove it"
> is beyond scientific inquiry, at least as we
> know it now.
So?
> So again, why do you deny it?
Who denies it? I don't.
>
> Could it be because you know it's a load of crap?
> After all, why would someone deny what they
> claim is "science", if it is indeed science?
Looks like it is better explained than "gawd".
>> If you had any honesty at all you would address
>> people's actual positions not invent ones they
>> don't have and demand they defend them.
>>
>> But then you are a christian.
>
> Translation: I know, but I do it anyway and I am
> stupid enough to think that if I say
> what I did above, that means that
> I'll look intelligent, because I"m one
> of those idiots that thinks that no matter
> how stupid something is, it will look
> intelligent, if only it is typed into usenet.
More translation: "Pastor" Dave has pissed in these NG's for years and
he is yet to make an argument that stands against the light of day.
Christopher A. Lee
Because he's a Christian fundamentalist.
Ralph
> "raven1" wrote in message news:m8e29513uhor2solk...@4ax.com...
>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>>> WhyIsAndr...@praise.com spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>>>> Liar.
>>> This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
>>> they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
>>> yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
>> Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen instead of bothering
>> to learn the first thing about what it is that they're criticizing?
>> THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It
>> describes how it diversified after it arose.
>
> This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE generally speaking. http://micurl.com/ssybz
You stupid fool, can't you tell what the web sits is about? Sorry
Andrew, that is a rhetorical question for I know how dumb you really
are. You can't distinguish between the various ideas of the generic term
of evolution. Say Andrew, have you read of the theory of the evolution
of the Christian god? Why don't you study this and then get back to us
with the similarity with organic evolution.
> You are quite free to
>> believe that some kind of God created life by divine fiat (although,
>> as that is a religious opinion, it doesn't belong in a science
>> classroom), but even if that is the case, it demonstrably *evolved*
>> from there.
>
> It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within genetic limits exactly
> as God created it to do.
What happened to the 98% of species that didn't make it, Andrew? Was
that part of god's plan? It would appear to me that god meeds a new plan
if it was.
>> *That* is what the TOE is about, not how life began.
>
>>>>> came when -nothing- exploded. Is this correct?
>>>> Liar.
>>> It always amuses me when evolutionists say this. :)
>>>
>>> The fact is, you believe that there was nothing,
>>> then an explosion, which you will try to deny
>>> by calling an "expansion", but the bottom line
>>> is that there was nothing, then this event happened
>>> and now, here we are. So why try to deny it?
>>> I mean, if that's what you believe and it makes
>>> so much sense, then why do you evolutionists
>>> spend so much time denying it?
>> The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the TOE.
>
> Yes it does... http://micurl.com/lElvw
>
> http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Still unable to distinguish between generic terms. Please don't let
everyone know that you really are that stupid.
Ralph
Of course you are attacked. No one wants to deal with your lies. The
only time that a creationist can be forced into telling the truth is to
get him under oath in a court of law. Why do you think creationists lose
these battles? It is because you are forced to dispense with the
bullshit and since that is all you do have, the battle is over.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
...
>> <chuckle>
>
>
>Of course you are attacked. No one wants to deal with your lies. The
>only time that a creationist can be forced into telling the truth is to
>get him under oath in a court of law. Why do you think creationists lose
>these battles? It is because you are forced to dispense with the
>bullshit and since that is all you do have, the battle is over.
Of course, when they are hauled into court and lose, as they routinely
do, they make excuses, never admitting that their lies and their
flagrand disregard of the law are the problem.
When you read what Jesus said, just replace "born-again Christians" for
"scribes and Pharisees" to see what Jesus thought of his so-called
followers of today.
raven1
wrote:
>"Budikka" wrote in message news:07247c17-b5b9-483f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
There are plenty of Christians who are educated enough to accept the
fact of evolution. You apparently aren't one of them.
The Chief Instigator
Too bad that fairy tale's been creatively edited a few score of times over
the last two millennia by mortals just like us.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 2 at Manitoba, 7:35
panam...@hotmail.com
> "Budikka" wrote in messagenews:07247c17-b5b9-483f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
ROFL!
I already have.
http://tinyurl.com/2vhs39
http://tinyurl.com/2kg43d
http://tinyurl.com/3ay5hm
http://tinyurl.com/2wskdr
Regardless of whether someone thinks the "Historical Jesus" ever
existed (and for the record, I do *not*, although the author of a
couple of those books *does*), it is absurd to think that Christian
mythology is literally true.
I have observed with great amusement & joy your rapid decline into
irrelevancy here. You started out, as all Cretinists do, by claiming
there is "scientific" reason to agree with your nonsense. This is a
common tactic of the morons who would poison a nation's children with
your idiotic garbage. "..We're not saying it's OUR god, we're just
saying there must be `something' out there..", you say, as you try to
have your lies taught as truth.
But after being presented with data that debunks your claims, you
abandon rational debate, and start trying to get those of us who don't
believe you to abandon our knowledge before the face of your insipid
mythology. A mythology that we do not share, and do not fear.
The truly sad thing (as far as the continued existence of
"Christianity" goes..) about your behavior is that many "followers" of
the Christian mythology do not doubt the basic biological fact that
evolution exists. Have you not noticed that your pathetic superstition
is on the decline in your country? Are you so stupid that you cannot
see that the rejection of normal natural prossesses is responsible for
much of that?
Dumb question on my part, I suppose. If you could see something so
simple, you morons wouldn't be choosing to fight *this* one in the
first place.
As an atheist, I'm loving it. Every attempt at "questioning" evolution
you dumb fucks make causes more and more people (especially the
youngsters) to question everything *else* you claim about your
ridiculous Bronze Age fairy tale.
But as a former Christian...I feel a little sad to see you doing so
much to insure the Christian tradition will not last more than another
couple of generations.
Nah...I was lying, just trying to be polite to Christians that aren't
as ignorant as the average Cretinist. I recall how neurotic I was when
*I* was a Christian, and I'm delighted that you fuckers are "on the
way out".
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
John Smith
> wrote:
>
>>"Budikka" wrote in message
>>news:07247c17-b5b9-483f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
>>> find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
>>> has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
>>> pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>>>
>>> Case closed. End of story.
>>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>>
>>If you would simply learn of Jesus, accept Him, and
>>follow His teachings, then the anxieties which are so
>>obviously troubling you would melt into the infinite
>>love and wonderful peace which come from Him.
Oh?
and just take the world of a simpleminded moron who knows nothing but lies,
fantasies and fairy tales?
If you would simply "go to a "good psychiatrist" for some much needed (aka
years of) help ............
John Brockbank
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message >
> YOU need to PROVE macroevolution as a fact, since that's
> what YOU claim it is!
If you pop along to a natural history museum you will see fossilised bones,
about 80 million years old, of animals which certainly do not exist today,
and not a single example of fossilised large mammals and birds which are
fairly common these days.
That is complete total undeniable proof that macro-evolution (your term) has
taken place. The difference between a Diplodocus and an Ostrich, or a
Tyrannasurus Rex and an Elephant, should be macro enough for anyone.
Macro evolution is a proven fact.
Budikka
> "Budikka" wrote in messagenews:07247c17-b5b9-483f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Prove there is a god. Prove he created everything. Prove he had a
son Jesus. Prove that this Jesus is everything the Bible says he is
and I'll accept him. Deal?
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
He won't.
>Budikka
Budikka
> It diversified, adapted and *evolved* within genetic limits exactly
> as God created it to do.
Then why are you RUNNING away from unmet challenge #6 below, which
asks that you support this very claim which you've made repeatedly on
Usenet but from which you ****RUN AWAY LIKE THE PATHETIC COWARD YOU
ARE**** whenever any one of us asks that you support it?
I'll tell you why - it's because you're a pathetic LIAR. Every
religious claim which comes out of your mouth is a filthy LIE. This
particular LIE you repeat above has been proven a LIE over and over
and yet here you are continuing to use the same LIE.
What a piece of lousy SCUM you are. And fundamentally stupid, too.
Unmet challenge #1
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken "I'll Be Bauck"
Chicken Brother Ted
Budikka
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:46:24 -0600, A Nony Mouse <T...@mouse.hole>
> spake thusly:
>
>
>
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> "raven1" wrote:
>
> >>> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Yet you believe that life arose from a rock, which
>
> >> >>> Liar.
>
> >> >>This is what all evolutionists say. Yet it is what
> >> >>they believe. If you believe in evolution, then
> >> >>yes, you believe that life came from a rock.
>
> >>> Why do Creationists insist on attacking strawmen
> >>> instead of bothering to learn the first thing about
> >>> what it is that they're criticizing?
>
> >>> THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING
> >>> ABOUT HOW LIFE ORIGINATED. It describes
> >>> how it diversified after it arose.
>
> >> This is true of Darwinian evolution, not the TOE
> >> generally speaking. http://micurl.com/ssybz
>
> > The Darwnian version of evolution (evolution of species)
> > is the only form of evolution that creationists and IDiots
> > standardly lie abut.
>
> The only liars are evolutionists.
You've been proven a LIAR, a fraud, a coward, a hypocrite and a
vacuous imbecile by me and many others in these very news groups.
Anyone can Google the proof.
In fact, they don't even need do that in order to prove it! All they
need do is watch you RUN AWAY from my every message in this very
thread without even pretending you can scientifically support your
asinine claims, and they'll have all the proof they need that you're
nothing but pathetic Usenet Scum for Christ along with all your other
Chicken ilk:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
If you're going to support this religion of yours, at least find the
god damned guts to face me and your other critics, and support your
ridiculous claims instead of running every single time you're
challenged on the topic like the pathetic internet joke you are. LoL!
Budikka
Kevin Quinn
www.drdino.com that'll be the best I could come up with.
"Budikka" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:82059846-4af2-40c2...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Dan Listermann
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3r6695lm5vo78abs6...@4ax.com...
Correction. He can't.
Ralph
> I'm not educated enough to have a debate about evolution, but go to
> www.drdino.com that'll be the best I could come up with.
>
Dr. Dino????? ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!!
Thanks for playing.
Free Lunch
"Kevin Quinn" <mano...@gmail.com> wrote in
<h6v9gq$1jik$1...@adenine.netfront.net>:
>I'm not educated enough to have a debate about evolution, but go to
>www.drdino.com that'll be the best I could come up with.
Aside from the fact that you are referring to a criminal who is in
prison for tax fraud, you may not have been aware that he is a liar.
Dr. Dino made his money misleading people. Why would you encourage
others to be misled by him?
Ralph
> "Budikka" wrote in message news:07247c17-b5b9-483f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
>> find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
>> has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
>> pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
>>
>> Case closed. End of story.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>
> If you would simply learn of Jesus, accept Him, and
> follow His teachings, then the anxieties which are so
> obviously troubling you would melt into the infinite
> love and wonderful peace which come from Him.
>
>
>
>
Since the bible has Jesus saying so many contradictory things, how do
you know which position is the 'true' one?
SkyEyes
> On Aug 17, 4:13 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When i was a proclaimed atheist, I found myself refusing to examine
> > any potential evidence that would jeopardize maintaining the
> > entitlement to living life the way i saw fit. This included such
> > things as the uniqueness of our Planet, the Universe and its finetuned
> > phsyics parameters, the incredible complexity found in the DNA
> > molecule, and the many other wonders of life . I took for granted the
> > sun shining down on me when outside..even though its some 93,000,000
> > mile away ...yet it feels just right . How our Lungs are quite
> > compatible for the precise amount of gasses that make up our
> > atmosphere and how the atmoshperic pressure is just right. How the
> > Universe expansion rate is at a critical tolerance of just 1/1,000,000
> > th (Prof. Stephen Hawkins). How the tilt of the earth, the rotation
> > of the earth, the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth, and all
> > the MANY other alleged 'accidents' , were...just right.
>
> Lessee here...I count eight silly claims, one arguable one,
> and one utter howler ("the magnetic pull of the Moon on the earth"!!)
> in the first paragraph. Anyone else?
>
> (by the way, does "IllBeBauck" actually ever come back, and
> answer objections to his posts? Or is he purely a WOP
> -- a write-only poster?)
Nah, he's just a drive-by poster. He just posts hoping his pathetic
scribblings will persuade somebody to abandon reality and believe in
his SkyDaddy. He never engages in substantive discussions.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
SkyEyes
> I'm not educated enough to have a debate about evolution,
...but something tells me you're going to give it a shot anyway,
right? I mean, who needs education, anyway?
<Eye roll>
> but go towww.drdino.com that'll be the best I could come up with.
*Dr. Dino*??? DR. DINO??? That's the best you can do????
<Dies laughing>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>I'm not educated enough to have a debate about evolution, but go to
>www.drdino.com that'll be the best I could come up with.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha.....
The moron thinks we should look at Kent Hovind's bullshit.
chibiabos
<52d98005-d453-4e99...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
<"IlBe...@gmail.com"> wrote:
> creation evidence
When you present some, we'll consider it.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Wombat
> I'm not educated enough to have a debate about evolution, but go to www.drdino.com that'll be the best I could come up with.
If that's the best you can do I pity you.
Years ago now, Budikka checked the bilge produced by the jailbird,
'Dr' Kent Hovind.
The results are in http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html
Look at it and learn how you are being lied to.
Wombat
snip
John Locke
In his own mind, he can.
duke
I keep waiting on you to speak to me again.
Are you afraid? Is that why you keep running?
You fell flat on your ass with me, so I can understand your running and hiding
from me.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Tim Miller
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> I keep waiting on you to speak to me again.
>
> Are you afraid? Is that why you keep running?
>
> You fell flat on your ass with me, so I can understand your running and hiding
> from me.
Probably just waiting for you to figure out the "ball on a string"
problem...
ROFLMAO!!