Disproving Creation #106: Not One Religion on Earth Can Assert This Fact
Budikka666
Nick Lane has written a book about the ten great inventions of
evolution.
He cheated a bit judged by the list of contents here at Google books:
http://tinyurl.com/23g29qb
Chapter one, on the origin of life, is really abiogenesis, not
evolution, although you could argue, just as living things evolved
(as *all* *of* *the* *available* *evidence* *shows*) over time into
the distribution and diversity of life we see today, molecules also
evolved into living things, as an increasing amount of evidence
shows. No evidence shows any gods involved.
We know for a fact that no one cheated on the 150 years of solid
science which today supports the Theory of Evolution, because unlike
religion, science actively works to find the truth and in this
process, dishonesty is inevitably caught and outed.
There is no such mechanism at play in any religion, because blind
faith offers no means whatsoever of distinguishing truth from
falsehood as the history of churches throughout the world shows.
Evolution (for which one hundred and fifty years of solid scientific
evidence has been provided by people of all faiths and creeds, and of
every nationality and ethnicity) far more than any fake god, has
brought every living thing together under one roof. Not one religion
on Earth can assert that fact and back it up with independent
evidence.
Nick lane offers the following as inventions of evolution:
1. The origin of life (arguably not evolution, but definitely
abiogenesis).
Creationists can offer no supported alternative.
2. DNA (which carries unmistakable evidence of evolution. Or of a
thoroughly stupid, wasteful, and incompetent creator, if you insist!)
3. Photosynthesis (this accounts for green plants, but not for the
yellow streak creationists invariably exhibit when asked for
evidence!)
4. The complex cell - which at least one creationist (you know who
you are Kent Hovind) has inhabited!
5. Sex (creationists claim - without a shred of evidence - that their
god invented it, but it's a sin to avail ourselves of it! How screwed
up can you get? LoL!)
6. Movement (of which we see none in creation science)
7. Sight (something which creationist have lost in their blind faith)
8. Hot Blood
9. Consciousness
10. Death
But let's teach both sides! What are the ten great inventions of
Creation? Well, as our vacuous creation friends on Usenet have proven
over ONE HUNDRED TIMES now, there are no inventions of creation! They
have no science, no arguments, nothing whatsoever to offer but threats
of abuse from this supposedly loving and long-suffering god of
theirs! How hypocritical is that - if you don't enslave yourself to
my fictional god of love, he'll torture you for eternity? I spit on
pathetic man-made gods like that.
Anyway, to be fair, here's my list of the ten greatest inventions of
creation. Feel free to add your own.
1. Lies
2. Cowardice
3. Hypocrisy
4. Vacuity
5. Science-free classrooms
6. Science free-science
7. Science-free evidence
8. Science free "science"
9. More lies
10. Nothing useful
Budikka
ilbe...@gmail.com
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/19/life-ascending-evolutio...
Not even world reknown ATHEIST scientists think abiogenesis could ever
remotely happen ; Hoyle, Wicksramaghe, and Crick all affirm a
probability of 10x40,000 power chance. They dont have the kind of
faith to be real Atheists, neither do you, and neither did I .
Atheism is just a convenient excuse to jettison God so One can call
his own lifestyle choices . Atheists arent really interested in
examining the evidence for Creation --- the chance of that is like a
Thief looking for a Policeman ! Theres just too much to loose.
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
More lies from you.
Devils Advocaat
Poor Dave, you really are stuck in the mud aren't you?
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe did not calculate the probability of
abiogenesis.
Francis Crick never supported any probability calculation performed by
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe.
The probability value in question is 1 in 10^40,000 and not 10x40,000.
And it is supposed to be the probability of the 2,000 proteins Hoyle
believed to be essential to life coming into being by chance alone.
Remember the late Frederick Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist.
And Chandra Wickramasinghe is an astronomer, not a biologist.
I am wondering why you need to be told all of this over and over again.
Syd M.
Still wrong.
PDW
Virgil
<7220e2bc-0fa4-44f0...@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
That looks like a universally quantified claim, so that if there is
anywhere even a single world reknown scientist who thinks that
abiogenesis is even remotely possible then IllBeDamned is totally wrong.
Anyone want to bet on IllBeDamned being right?
Reverend Dave
news:7220e2bc-0fa4-44f0...@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 2, 9:05 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/19/life-ascending-evolutio.
>> .. Nick Lane has written a book about the ten great inventions of
In other words a 1 in 400000 chance? Those are pretty good odds!
Even though you've been told more than once that Hoyle's Fallacy isn't
valid, you insist on pretending it is.
What sort of delusional thinking makes you believe that repeating the
same lies over and over will convince me of the existence of your god?
> They dont have the kind of
> faith to be real Atheists,
Sorry, Francis Crick was an atheist, Hoyle was an agnostic.
Who the fuck is Wicksramaghe? Do you mean Chandra Wickramasinghe? He
doesn't believe in your god either! He thinks life arrived from outer
space some 3.6 billion years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7136269/All-humans-are-aliens-
from-outer-space-scientist-claims.html
> neither do you, and neither did I .
> Atheism is just a convenient excuse to jettison God so One can call
> his own lifestyle choices . Atheists arent really interested in
> examining the evidence for Creation --- the chance of that is like a
> Thief looking for a Policeman ! Theres just too much to loose.
The one thing that's "loose" for sure is your brain.
--
Yet again it is demonstrated that monotheistic religion is a plagiarism
of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion
extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few non-events.
Christopher Hitchens - god is not Great
duke
wrote:
>We know for a fact that no one cheated on the 150 years of solid
>science which today supports the Theory of Evolution, because unlike
>religion, science actively works to find the truth and in this
>process, dishonesty is inevitably caught and outed.
There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
solid.
The dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
> On Oct 4, 6:31 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > Once again I challenge the creationists to define "kind"
> > scientifically, and then provide a supported explanation of exactly
> > what the mechanism is which prevents one "kind" from evolving into a
> > different "kind" over time. Creationists always RUN from this
> > challenge. I wonder why?
> > Budikka
> Kind is the same as Family.
Are you serious? You *really* want to make that admission in public?
> IE: The Dog Family,
It really is not surprise that you said that; you've been going to the
dogs as long as I've known you. But since you're making an effort
here, I'm prepared to let you off the leash for a while see if you can
dress up your claims like a dog's dinner or if you've got scratch.
All I see up there is you repeating - without giving it a smidgeon of
thought as usual - something that you read on some idiotic creationist
web site. Does that make you a part of the parrot family? Or am I
barking up the wrong tree?
Unfortunately, I requested a *scientific* definition, and I see no
such thing there. Are you admitting that you're prepared to accept
the definition of those evolutionists you so despise for the sake of
this exchange? Why? Why trust them with this when you're calling
them liars and frauds every single day of your life?
So what is it, in the genome, which makes a dog a dog and not a cat?
Can you describe what it is in the genome which not only
differentiates a dog from a cat, but which also keeps them separate
such that no matter how far back in time we go, they could *never*
have had a relative in common? Can you demonstrate that for us?
So after you've repeatedly sworn on Usenet (without a shred of support
as usual) that there's no such thing as speciation, you're now freely
admitting that there's not only speciation, but generation - evolution
between genera?
If that's your position now, what biological mechanism is it which
allows all manner of evolution that you evidently previously LIED did
not take place, but slams the door shut at this "family barrier" you
still haven't defined?
*That* was part of my question and I see you've carefully avoided
addressing it.
The dog family is Canidae (no, that's not the country just north of
the USA). That's the scientific name. You haven't given a scientific
definition, which is what I asked for. Instead, you just spewed up
something you read, to which you never gave a moment's thought, and
now you're going to have to deal with your thoughtlessness in public
here in these world-wide news groups.
You said a wolf is part of the family, but what about an aardwolf? Is
that part of the family? How can you tell if it is or it isn't?
What about bears? Are they part of the "greater dog family"? They're
kinda like dogs, aren't they? If they're not, what is it which, on a
scientific basis, excludes them from your dog family?
What about the raccoon? They kind look like dogs. Are they part of
the "greater dog family"? What about the raccoon dog? Is that part
of the family? How can you tell?
What about seals, sea lions and walruses? Are they part of the
family, and if not, why not? Given that they lead lifestyles which
are significantly different from that of dogs, why do they have so
much DNA in common if they're not even related? Or are they related?
How can you tell?
The earliest dog fossil dates back to before the Earth was created on
*your* time scale: 10,000BC. How would you know if it was related to
modern dogs?
Was this primitive otter-like organism related to the seal family?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30350884/
How can you tell if it was or it wasn't? How would you be able to
tell if a fossil skull was related to the dog family or if it was
related to the seal family? What's the scientific basis you use to
include one organism in a family and exclude another?
What about bacteria? Do you know that there's more diversity between
families of bacteria than there is between all the chordata? Are you
saying that bacteria cannot exchange genetic code if they're from
different families? What science can you present which shows that a
bacterial species from one family evolving into a different family
over time?
> The Cow Family,
Are sheep in the cow family? What about bison? What about
gazelles? How can you tell how to include one and exclude another?
> The Pig Family
Are pigs related to the porcula? If not, why not? If so, why?
> The Adams Family. Your silly unscientific theory,
How can it be unscientific when it's bolstered by 150 years of solid
science, much of which has been supplied by people who worship the
same god you worship? Are they atheists? Are your fellow Christians
liars, frauds, and cheats? Why isn't *that* controversy being
publicized by creationists?
> has a Cow turning into a Whale
Where does the Theory of Evolution say that? You made the
statement. You must support it, because if you can't, you'd be
bearing false witness, wouldn't you?
> and a one celled Amoeba eventually
> turning into a 206 bone / 600 muscle Human Being with an alleged
> 'accidental' Brain that is the most complicated complex thing known
> to Man.
Where does the theory of Evolution state that an amoeba evolved into
humans? You made the statement. You must support it, because if you
can't, you'd be bearing false witness, wouldn't you?
> Not even YOU really believe in this desperate imagination
No I don't *believe* - I *know* it's a fact based on the freely
available evidence, and I know for a fact that the best explanation
for the fact of evolution is the fully-supported scientific Theory of
Evolution. There's no belief involved at all, only demonstrable,
testable science,
Why doesn't creation have any of that? I mean if creation had science
you'd be boasting about it all over Usenet instead of whining about
the overwhelmingly massive amount of evidence that there is for
evolution wouldn't you now?
> all so you can jettison God our wonderful personal and loving Creator
> whom your knee shall bow to one day soon. As all of us will .
Your god is fake until and unless you prove it isn't, and even if you
did prove that it isn't a fairy tale, your god will not let me in
since I blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Where's the infinite mercy now?
I await your answers to the questions I asked - *supported answers*.
Got that?
Budikka
The Magpie
>
> There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
> solid.
>
and every single part of it supports the simple fact that evolution is
real, true and pretty much exactly as Darwin defi9ned.
And for creation - nothing. Not one iota.
Syd M.
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >We know for a fact that no one cheated on the 150 years of solid
> >science which today supports the Theory of Evolution, because unlike
> >religion, science actively works to find the truth and in this
> >process, dishonesty is inevitably caught and outed.
>
> There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
> solid.
>
No matter how much you try, the FACT of evolution will not go away,
Dork.
PDW
John Locke
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>>We know for a fact that no one cheated on the 150 years of solid
>>science which today supports the Theory of Evolution, because unlike
>>religion, science actively works to find the truth and in this
>>process, dishonesty is inevitably caught and outed.
>
>There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
>solid.
>
So why exactly has creation theory been rejected by every university,
every science journal, every scientific peer group and every research
lab on the planet ?
And why is creation theory NOT employed in medical, agricultural or
industrial research programs and in practical application ?
And why is creation theory illegal to teach in public schools ?
...could it be that creation theory is useless religious nonsense and
evolution theory works ? Even a child could figure this out, if his
mind hasn't been destroyed by Jesus camp brain washing.
---------------------------------------------------------------
""All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-- Thomas Paine
Smiler
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>We know for a fact that no one cheated on the 150 years of solid science
>>which today supports the Theory of Evolution, because unlike religion,
>>science actively works to find the truth and in this process, dishonesty
>>is inevitably caught and outed.
>
> There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is
> rock solid.
>
Like your brain, puke.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Alan Ferris
>There is no line of evidence that anything evolved.
So why does your church and pope accept evolution?
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
duke
wrote:
>On 03/11/2010 18:53, duke wrote:
>>
>> There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
>> solid.
>There is 150 years of investigation, examination and solid evidence
>and every single part of it supports the simple fact that evolution is
>real, true and pretty much exactly as Darwin defi9ned.
There are gargantuan gaps in supposed evolution over the 4.5 billion
history of the earth. Those gaps have not been filled with anything but
supposition.
>And for creation - nothing. Not one iota.
As far as creation is concerned, the world of science and astrophysicists
have been able to determine using most ordinary means to reverse what is
seen today back to the time t=0. And the evidence that goes with it is
that an infinitely small point of mass of infinite density appeared from
whence there was nothing and proceeded to expand outward to form all mass,
energy, time and outer space. Creation is something from nothing into
nothingness because outer space is the void between the masses moving
outward.
Heeheehee.
duke
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:53:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>We know for a fact that no one cheated on the 150 years of solid
>>>science which today supports the Theory of Evolution, because unlike
>>>religion, science actively works to find the truth and in this
>>>process, dishonesty is inevitably caught and outed.
>>
>>There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
>>solid.
>So why exactly has creation theory been rejected by every university,
>every science journal, every scientific peer group and every research
>lab on the planet ?
Because they're talking about one concept and you are talking about
another.
That God created the universe and everything it 13.7 billion years ago is
beyond question. The world's astrophysicists and scientists conclude that.
When you can define what you mean by "creation" then we can talk.
>
>And why is creation theory NOT employed in medical, agricultural or
>industrial research programs and in practical application ?
>
>And why is creation theory illegal to teach in public schools ?
>
>...could it be that creation theory is useless religious nonsense and
>evolution theory works ? Even a child could figure this out, if his
>mind hasn't been destroyed by Jesus camp brain washing.
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>""All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
>or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
>terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
>-- Thomas Paine
The dukester, American-American
duke
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:53:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>There is no line of evidence that anything evolved.
>
>So why does your church and pope accept evolution?
God created the heavens and the universe, something from nothing into
nothingness, and then turned it all over to evolution.
The Magpie
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 20:07:54 +0000, The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/11/2010 18:53, duke wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
>>> solid.
>
>
> There are gargantuan gaps in supposed evolution over the 4.5 billion
> history of the earth. Those gaps have not been filled with anything but
> supposition.
>
are gaps in the fossil record. Which is inevitable, natural and itself
a clear evidence that evolution happens.
>
>> And for creation - nothing. Not one iota.
>
> As far as creation is concerned, the world of science and astrophysicists
> have been able to determine using most ordinary means to reverse what is
> seen today back to the time t=0. And the evidence that goes with it is
> that an infinitely small point of mass of infinite density appeared from
> whence there was nothing and proceeded to expand outward to form all mass,
> energy, time and outer space. Creation is something from nothing into
> nothingness because outer space is the void between the masses moving
> outward.
>
cosmology and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
Budikka666
> There are gargantuan gaps in supposed evolution over the 4.5 billion
> history of the earth. Those gaps have not been filled with anything but
> supposition.
List two right here and demonstrate how they represent "gargantuan
gaps".
What do you think Duck? Time to RUN AWAY Again?
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 4, 2:37 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Good grief, but you just fell off the deep end, and can't get back out.
Watch out - that gap in knowledge around the corner is going to jump on
you.
Haahaahaa. Haahaahaa. Poor dud.
duke
wrote:
>On 04/11/2010 19:37, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 20:07:54 +0000, The Magpie <use...@pigsinspace.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/11/2010 18:53, duke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
>>>> solid.
>>
>>> There is 150 years of investigation, [snip]
>>
>> There are gargantuan gaps in supposed evolution over the 4.5 billion
>> history of the earth. Those gaps have not been filled with anything but
>> supposition.
>No there are not. I presume what you *really* mean here are that there
>are gaps in the fossil record. Which is inevitable, natural and itself
>a clear evidence that evolution happens.
Bud da dud de caca must be laughing at you now. How do we know that the
wanda, the fish, that walked out of the ocean is the same george, the fish,
that became man?
Haahaahaa.
>>> And for creation - nothing. Not one iota.
>> As far as creation is concerned, the world of science and astrophysicists
>> have been able to determine using most ordinary means to reverse what is
>> seen today back to the time t=0. And the evidence that goes with it is
>> that an infinitely small point of mass of infinite density appeared from
>> whence there was nothing and proceeded to expand outward to form all mass,
>> energy, time and outer space. Creation is something from nothing into
>> nothingness because outer space is the void between the masses moving
>> outward.
>And all of this - the so called "Big Bang Theory" - is to do with
>cosmology and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
I know. IT'S CREATION. Praise be God.
Syd M.
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 4, 2:37 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> There are gargantuan gaps in supposed evolution over the 4.5 billion
> >> history of the earth. Those gaps have not been filled with anything but
> >> supposition.
>
> >List two right here and demonstrate how they represent "gargantuan
> >gaps".
> >What do you think Duck? Time to RUN AWAY Again?
>
> Good grief, but you just fell off the deep end, and can't get back out.
>
> Watch out - that gap in knowledge around the corner is going to jump on
> you.
>
> Haahaahaa. Haahaahaa. Poor dud.
>
Keep laughing, Oh Ignorant One.
The only one in a cliff is you.
PDW
Syd M.
Unsupported assertion, Oh Ignorant One.
PDW
John Locke
>On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:44:39 -0700, John Locke <johnlo...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:53:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>We know for a fact that no one cheated on the 150 years of solid
>>>>science which today supports the Theory of Evolution, because unlike
>>>>religion, science actively works to find the truth and in this
>>>>process, dishonesty is inevitably caught and outed.
>>>
>>>There is no line of evidence that anything evolved. But creation is rock
>>>solid.
>
>>So why exactly has creation theory been rejected by every university,
>>every science journal, every scientific peer group and every research
>>lab on the planet ?
>
>Because they're talking about one concept and you are talking about
>another.
>
>That God created the universe and everything it 13.7 billion years ago is
>beyond question. The world's astrophysicists and scientists conclude that.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-02/world/hawking.god.universe_1_universe-abrahamic-faiths-divine-creator?_s=PM:WORLD
>
No they don't. Are you living under a rock ?
God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen
Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from
physics.
Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence
of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing,"
according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.
>When you can define what you mean by "creation" then we can talk.
>
From the theist perspective, creation is the defunct notion that some
god created the universe and all life on earth. There is no evidence
for any god, thus no creation.
Budikka666
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
I'll add this to the ever-growing list of threads from which Duck &
Run ducked and ran. Here's a short list of some of them. This
doesn't even begin to track them all, nor does it include the threads
or messages of very many others that he's also fled.
Duck & Run claimed there are "gargantuan holes" in the Theory of
Evolution and then RAN when I called him on it (11/5/2010):
http://tinyurl.com/27kf2da
The entire "Why There Isn't a God" series, started here:
Duck & Run Ran Away - that is to say he failed 100% to actually get to
grips with the subject matter in any of those threads, his 'response'
consisting solely of chanting "no it isn't" or words to that effect.
He could offer no rebuttal, let alone refutation, he could not support
a single thing he claimed and he could offer zero rationale for his
position.
Let's face it, on this basis, he's run away from the entire "Why the
Holy Bible Lies" series, the entire "Why There Was No Flood" series,
and all of the the "Issues The Anti-Choice Crowd Carefully Avoid"
series so far.
Petition to Save the Hubble Telescope
Duck & Run makes yet another blind claim "it's the same old sky" he
blathers, like there couldn't possibly be anything new to discover,
yet I proved him entirely wrong - again.
Scientists find new face on back of Turin shroud
Duck & Run, shrouded in cowardice, ran away.
The Inquisition
Duck & Run didn't expect the inquisition....
Another Problem for Creation IDiots
Duck & Run proved to be a creation IDiot.
Human aspect of Jesus
Duck and Run has provided us with a de facto admission that there was
no Jesus Christ, miracle-working son-of-a-god.
Jesus's three days sacrifice
Duck & Run sacrificed the truth and got caught.
Which is the real God???
Duck & Run didn't know.
God isn't very smart about spreading his word, is he?
Neither is Duck & Run.
Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13?
Duck & Run opened this thread to accuse someone else of running away.
As soon as he was challenged, Duck & Run ran away!
Why Didn't Jesus Die Sooner?
Duck & Run's claims died sooner.
Why is Duke Such a Coward?
Duck & Run ran away, proving what a coward he is.
Duck & Run's five evidences of god
(that he later admitted were not evidences):
Questions that Duke Can't Answer
(in which I accused Duck & Run of running away and from which
he...**RAN AWAY**! The questions remain unanswered. There are only
ten numbered questions in this thread, assembled from previous threads
from which
Duck & Run ran away. Duck & Run lied there were 75 questions
and...ran away!)
There are now well over one hundred unanswered questions that Duck &
Run has fled. Here's the bulk of them:
Duck & Run thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven
centuries, gave rise to Mithraism:
Duck & Run ran away.
Duke: Global Flood Challenge
A thread which I opened specifically at Duck & Run's request, and from
which he, predictably, ran away. He admitted there is no evidence for
a global flood, I presented abundant evidence that there never was
one,
Duck & Run offered zero rebuttal and ran away as he again did in the
recent flood series.
Evidence that Duke can't refute:
Duck & Run failed to refute the evidence and ran away, thereby proving
my case
An Answer to Pascal's Wager
In which I accuse Duck & Run of running away. He ran away!
Thread: "Why Puke is Such a Pathological, Unregenerate, Cowardly,
Lying, Hypocritical Asshole"
Duck & Run ran away because he's a pathological, unregenerate,
cowardly, lying hypocritical asshole.
Thread: "Duke's Chronic lying"
Duck & Run ran away.
Thread: "aqotm - bud(ikka) style"
Duck & Run ran away from his own clueless stupidity
Thread: "Duke: Global Flood Challenge"
Duck & Run was out of his depth - as he's recently proven again - and
so he...ran away!
Thread: "The Bland Assumption of Jesus' Existence"
Duck & Run ran away as I blandly assumed he would.
Thread: "Running Scriptural Circles Around Duke"
Duck & Run ran away after I ran scriptural circles around him
And my favorite:
This was a cowardly thread Duck & Run opened titled "Budikka Runs
Away". He set this up because he was peeved that he didn't get an
instant response from me in another thread! He never told me he'd
opened this alternate thread, yet he accused me of running away in
it! LoL! When I finally happened across it and challenged him in it,
he ran away! How pathetic is that?!
And more than once/month for the last entire year!
April 21st, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzywu7q
July 12th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrmfxp
August 16th,2009: http://tinyurl.com/kjjmn4
September 10th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/oasqn8
October 3rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybvtw53
November 9th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yjlmbrf
November 19th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yj64yqj
November 20th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybrkvyh
November 22nd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ycw6s8l
November 25th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakpje3
November 29th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ygafw5d
December 5th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yzt9f4m
December 7th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yllcb6q
December 8th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/ybzvv33
December 13th, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yakex6v
December 23rd, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/y9k8kpv
January 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnesb2
January 24th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
January 27th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycgm8u8
January 31st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 3rd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybsqw3l
February 15th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjjj93v
February 16th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ycemfpo
February 22nd, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ye59brz
March 1st, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ykgtezr
March 6th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yjhe3fe
March 9th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/ybnahkb
March 11th, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/yl8hcea
The best comment from him was in alt.atheism on January 5th, 2004, at
5:46 pm when he said, "I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things,
but I've never heard myself think." (http://tinyurl.com/f48bq). This
explains everything, including why he's such a gashole. All he can do
is impotently snipe at people, since he has nothing of value or
intelligence to say and he demonstrably cannot support a single claim
he makes.
He has no proof, no evidence - not even an intelligent argument. He
does not think because he cannot. He's quite loco, and like a loco,
he's stuck on a pair of narrow rails. He has no clue he's on them,
let alone how to get off. And the track to which he's limited leads
to a dead end - which he hilariously thinks is "Heaven"!
The best "evidence" of a god he was ever capable of producing was a
lackluster five items he posted in thread "Scientists find new face on
back of Turin shroud" in a.a. on April 18 2004, 9:52 am:
He appears to have appropriated "his" five evidences from Thomas
Aquinas who, c1245, published "Summa theologiae" which contained five
"Ways" to "prove" some god's existence, all of which have been
thoroughly discredited.
He admitted his "own" five ways were nothing but blind belief in alt
atheism in a thread called "The Inquisition" message posted on
Saturday, 12 June, 2004 11:52am:
but that was all he could do after the massive pounding he got.
I used those same five items in a spoof edition of my "Why There is no
God" series (http://tinyurl.com/bz54w). I changed a word here and
there and all of his five "evidences" miraculously became evidence for
the non-existence of a god! Naturally I didn't count them in the 666
since they were so pathetic.
His comments aren't born of smarts, logic, rational or evidence,
they're born of desperation. Neither are his comments aimed at the
material - they rarely are. He's incapable of having a rational
exchange on a topic. He spits out idiocy and insult and runs away.
His comments are not designed to enlighten, help, or exchange
anything, but to abuse people. He's the very antithesis of this
purported Christian love he's supposed to dispense.
He never documents or supports a single thing he says, whereas the
cowardice and lies of this pathetic hypocrite for Christ have been
fully documented on Usenet. His despicable behavior and his
slanderous unfounded charges (he thinks turning the other cheek means
mooning someone) are why he was mass-plonked by pretty near the entire
regular set on a.a.:
It's a sign of how pathetic he is, how low he's sinking and how
desperate he's become since he was cut off, that he now has to beg for
atheists to talk to him by posting inane rants against us - this from
the guy who claims to be a Christian, who claims to do unto others as
he would be done by, and who lies about turning the other cheek!
His cowardice in "debate" or even discussion is legendary:
He thinks Christianity, which post-dates Mithraism by seven centuries,
gave rise to Mithraism:
He's quite literally astronomically stupid:
("the same "sky" that's already been looked at."!)
He claims he can run rings around anyone on scripture, but when he was
actually taken up directly on this claim:
he ran away!
He has numerous documented lies:
He regularly demands people open discussions on his god, and when they
do, he runs away. I personally had him run from the *same topic* well
over 100 times in direct response to a challenge *he* made!
He dismally failed the simplest intelligence test imaginable:
He has fifty questions he can't answer or daren't answer honestly
here:
http://tinyurl.com/ad89u (October 22nd 2004)
and fifty more here:
http://tinyurl.com/9ky7y (July 16th 2005)
In short, he's a waste of a human being and not worth any response
other than this.
End of Douche. Case closed.
Budikka
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >And all of this - the so called "Big Bang Theory" - is to do with
> >cosmology and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
>
> I know. IT'S CREATION. Praise be God.
Firstly, no form of big bang theory has yet been unequivocally
established, there are alternate theories still which do not require any
"big bang".
Secondly, there is no need for any god in any scientific form of big
bang theory.
Thirdly, if there were a creator which wiled the big bang, there is no
evidence that such a creator either knows or cares about what happens on
our little backwater world.
And it is the height of arrogance, the sin of pride to you theists, to
assume that anything powerful enough to have created the universe would
waste its time and energy on anything as miniscule as one solar system
out of the billions upon billions of others.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 4, 2:37 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> There are gargantuan gaps in supposed evolution over the 4.5 billion
> >> history of the earth. Those gaps have not been filled with anything but
> >> supposition.
> >
> >List two right here and demonstrate how they represent "gargantuan
> >gaps".
>
> >What do you think Duck? Time to RUN AWAY Again?
>
> Good grief, but you just fell off the deep end, and can't get back out.
>
> Watch out - that gap in knowledge around the corner is going to jump on
> you.
The thing is that despite those gaps, there are also places without
gaps, and those places confirm Evolution.
There are masses upon masses of unequivocal objective physical evidence
supporting Evolution and not one iota of unequivocal objective physical
evidence opposing it.
And there is not one iota of unequivocal objective physical evidence
supporting the existence of any god, and there are logical
inconsistencies in your creationist IDeology which make it quite
impossible for sensible people to accept.
Budikka666
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/msg/e0a4757fdeca9684
one of the biggest liars on Usenet stated his conviction that "We
Christians define creationism as a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a
universe as 14.5 billion years old."
I have no beef at all with that since it fits (to within a small
margin of error) what *all* of the available scientific evidence -
testable, repeatable scientific evidence - shows.
My beef is that this liar said it in response to a statement I made
that "What this proves is that the creationists are liars when they
claim that Earth is only six thousand years old (or whatever their
ridiculous young-Earth claim happens to be) and they are liars when
they claim humans have been around since the "beginning". "
These are also facts, as solid as the established science which
supports a ~14 billion year old universe and a ~4.6 billion year old
Earth.
The problem with this particular creationist is that he's both a liar
and a hypocrite.
His lie is not in the age of the universe and of Earth, but in his oft
repeated lie that *I* think Earth is 6,000 years old. Nope. When I
report that age, I'm not reporting my belief, but the belief of 42% -
44% of the US adult population who believe that Earth was create din
six days and that living things have continued almost unchanged since
that creation.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-evolution-creationism
Two-Thirds of US Republican adults believe that Earth is definitely or
probably less than 10,000 years old:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx
and older surveys show that this percentage hasn't really changed
much:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/2014/Public-Favorable-Creationism.aspx
(the equivalent percentage form the previously referenced study was
39%. the percentage in this study averaged ~45%)
What this proves is that Chicken Duke is either monumentally ignorant
or an outright liar or both.
The reason he's a hypocrite is that he's never supported the
evolutionists against the young-Earth creationists, even though he
knows for a fact that the young-Earth creationists are completely and
utterly wrong about the age of Earth.
That's the kind of lowlife trash he is.
Budikka
Budikka666
> How do we know that the
> wanda, the fish, that walked out of the ocean is the same george, the fish,
> that became man?
That alone shows what a monumental ignoramus Chicken Duck & Run truly
is.
The *fact* is that no fish walked out of the ocean and became a human
in that fairytale manner, and anyone who tries to represent evolution
in that dishonest fashion ought to be ashamed of himself for bearing
false witness and breaking one of the commandments he hypocritically
LIES that he holds so dear.
All of the available scientific evidence shows that over three or four
billion years, chemistry became capable of reproducing and the DNA
which originated then has traveled down to us. We know this because
of the similarities in DNA.
Every living thing is connected by DNA; we see DNA mutate, we see
these mutations give rise to new species. It's been proven that in
order to facilitate evolution all you need is mutation and
reproduction.
We know we're related to everything else not just by similarities but
also by the mistakes in DNA. We have the exact mistakes in the same
places in our DNA as chimpanzees do in theirs. No amount of
creationist weaseling and excuses can explain that.
We're genetically closer to a chimpanzee than a chimpanzee is to the
other great apes. We're genetically closer to a chimpanzee than are
two genera of gibbons to each other. We're genetically closer to a
chimpanzee than are rats to mice.
These are the facts. Evolution has been proven beyond any
*reasonable* doubt.
What has not been proven - in fact what has absolutely ZERO scientific
evidence - is *CREATION*. So now that I've answered that question let
me ask one in return - one from which I guarantee you the creationists
will RUN: How do we know scientifically that dirt walked out of the
ground to become Adam the man, and calcium walked out of Adam to
become Eve the woman?
Budikka