"I'll Be Baulked" Balked Again: Both Theists and Atheists have the same evidence - But "I'll Be Baulked" is Too Stupid to Figure it Out
Budikka
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> out of nothing when it didnt have to
There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
Yet "I'llBeBalked" would rather outright LIE about it. But who can
blame him? it's the onyl thing he's good at after all.
2. We have a Universe with over
> 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
> called Earth.
Again, proven LIAR "I'llBeBalked" would rather LIE about things than
address them honestly., here we see his unsupported assumption that
the constants are finely tuned for *Earth*, without offering a shred
of evidence.
Here we see his blind and stupid assumption that this is the only
universe and therefore it's remarkable for having these constants. He
doesn't even entertain the definite possibility that there could be an
infinity of universes, which would make this one entirely
unremarkable.
He doesn't even imagine that it's entirely unremarkable that only a
universe which could support intlelgient life would actually have
intelligent life capable of ponf\derign the unvierse. this has
nothing to dow ith any god.
3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from
> existing life and not arise spontaneously.
No one but creation snits have ever claimed that life arose from
nothing.
4. LIfe consists of
> thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
> specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
> therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).
Outright LIE.
5. LIfe
> which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.
This isn't anyhting. It's not even a sentence.
6. Life which
> cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).
This is an outright LIE.
7.
> Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear
> suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
This is an outright LIE.
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Budikka
Ken
Dumbfuck Dave is/was too stupid to reproduce...fortunately for the
human gene pool
Andrew
"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> out of nothing when it didnt have to
There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
(Budikka)
___________________________________________________
And that part of "reality that many have yet to discover" is
the Creator.
duke
>"Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>(Budikka)
Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for her.
According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
is the one and only.
Isn't God wonderful!!!!
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>On Jul 3, 7:36�am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> � 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
Nope, no previous universe as the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
It lacks the mass to reverse, and hence couldn't not have reversed before.
Better luck next time, you big dud.
Uncle Vic
> "Budikka" wrote in message
> news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com..
> . "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
> the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
> previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
> (Budikka)
> ___________________________________________________
>
> And that part of "reality that many have yet to discover" is
> the Creator.
>
And you know this how, exactly? Try to stay within the realm of reality,
if you attempt to answer.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
Dan Listermann
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:6c-dnYHvAsKJstPX...@earthlink.com...
Discover or imagine?
Dan Listermann
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:obcs45hjcktma08oj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Budikka" wrote in message
>>news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>
>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>(Budikka)
>
> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for
> her.
>
> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing
> rate,
> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big
> crunch.
> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the
> universe
> is the one and only.
Maybe, maybe not?
John Baker
wrote:
>"Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Fucking imbecile.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ken
nothing worth quoting
>
> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan-AmeriKKKan
Syd
> "Budikka" wrote in messagenews:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
No.
PDW
Bill M
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>
>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>
> Nope, no previous universe as the universe is expanding at an increasing
> rate.
> It lacks the mass to reverse, and hence couldn't not have reversed before.
A totally unsubstantiated and unscientific 'opinion'!
Ken
>
> A totally unsubstantiated and unscientific 'opinion'!
What else could we possibly expect from Puke?
Ralph
No Puke, the expansion of the universe is accelerating now but there is
nothing to say that the expansion won't
slow in the future.
Having said that, even if your premise is true that doesn't prevent
other universes.
Budikka
> "Budikka" wrote in messagenews:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> > out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
> (Budikka)
> ___________________________________________________
>
> And that part of "reality that many have yet to discover" is
> the Creator.
And now when I ask you to actually support your flaccid statement with
OBJECTIVE or SCIENTIFIC evidence, you will run away.
Watch everyone.
See Andrew.
See Andrew RUN.
RUN, RUN, RUN, Vacuous Chicken Andrew.
Budikka
Budikka
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >"Budikka" wrote in messagenews:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> >> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> >There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
> >there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>
> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for her.
>
> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
> is the one and only.
Notice how Duck Egg Duke lays a big fat duck egg again in his flaccid
and ultimately doomed attempt to come to grips with reality?
Notice how he employs scientists to "support" him here, but when
scientists provide evidence which overturns one of his beliefs (such
as a global flood, for example), then these same scientists are
utterly unreliable, ignorant, or stupid? LoL!
That's why Duck-Egg Duke is a hypocrite.
Notice how Duck-Egg Duke is so ill-educated and ignorant of science
that he cannot even imagine what I was talking about, so he's reduced
to inventing a LIE about what I said and addressing that, instead of
actually addressing what I said?
That's why Duck-Egg is a LIAR.
Notice that I said nothing about a big crunch or about this universe
reversing its expansion, yet Dishonest Duke invents his own straw man,
fails to demolish that, then assumes victory?
Thank you Duck Egg Dick head Dumb-Ass Duke for proving why you're the
Internet's most useless object.
Budikka
duke
>On Jul 3, 11:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >"Budikka" wrote in messagenews:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> >"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> >> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>
>> >There's your first LIE. �In your first sentence. We don't know what
>> >the universe came out of. �It could well have been nothing (after all,
>> >there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>> >previous universe or from a part of reality we have yet to discover.
>>
>> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. �But then again, that's nothing new for her. �
>>
>> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
>> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
>> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. �Hence, the universe
>> is the one and only.
>Notice how Duck Egg Duke lays a big fat duck egg again in his flaccid
>and ultimately doomed attempt to come to grips with reality?
Science does you in every time, dud the dickehad [sic].
>Notice how he employs scientists to "support" him here, but when
>>scientists provide evidence which overturns one of his beliefs (such
>as a global flood, for example), then these same scientists are
>utterly unreliable, ignorant, or stupid? LoL!
Science hasn't done that, you big dud. What you can't come to grips with is
that science is God's gift to mankind.
>That's why Duck-Egg Duke is a hypocrite.
>Notice how Duck-Egg Duke is so ill-educated and ignorant of science
>that he cannot even imagine what I was talking about, so he's reduced
>to inventing a LIE about what I said and addressing that, instead of
>actually addressing what I said?
No big crunch, you big dud. Maybe you should pay attention to more scientific
sites rather than the vacant lot between your ears.
>That's why Duck-Egg is a LIAR.
Oh, dud, why don't you just admit that you're not near as bright as you think
you are.
>Notice that I said nothing about a big crunch or about this universe
>reversing its expansion, yet Dishonest Duke invents his own straw man,
>fails to demolish that, then assumes victory?
Sure you did - here's your words: "but it could also have arisen form a
previous universe". The big crunch is the likely scenario.
>Thank you Duck Egg Dick head Dumb-Ass Duke for proving why you're the
>Internet's most useless object.
>Budikka
Many people laugh at you, dud.
duke
Yet the current mass and the ever expanding say one and only. For a big crunch
in the past, where did the mass, which is the key, go? It's not there now.
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>> There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>> the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>> previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>> (Budikka)
>>
>> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for her.
>>
>> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
>> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
>> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
>> is the one and only.
>>
>> Isn't God wonderful!!!!
>No Puke, the expansion of the universe is accelerating now but there is
>nothing to say that the expansion won't
> slow in the future.
Where's the mass? Distance is increasing. Each day takes more and more mass.
>Having said that, even if your premise is true that doesn't prevent
>other universes.
Only to a scientific dumbass as yourself.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:4ics45l2ncb27puiv...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budi...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>>
>>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>
>> Nope, no previous universe as the universe is expanding at an increasing
>> rate.
>> It lacks the mass to reverse, and hence couldn't not have reversed before.
>
>A totally unsubstantiated and unscientific 'opinion'!
Really!!!!! YOU........are a totally unsubstantiated and unscientific opinion.
duke
>On Jul 3, 9:32�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>nothing worth quoting
I accept your accolades for my scientifically powerful statement.
duke
Between you and willie, I don't see the technical knowledge to fit on the head
of a pin. And you are living proof of that.
Ken
Nothing worth quoting, as usual
Puke.............AmeriKKKan AmeriKKKan
Syd
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:14:21 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >news:4ics45l2ncb27puiv...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> >>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> >>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
> >>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
> >>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
> >>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>
> >> Nope, no previous universe as the universe is expanding at an increasing
> >> rate.
> >> It lacks the mass to reverse, and hence couldn't not have reversed before.
>
> >A totally unsubstantiated and unscientific 'opinion'!
>
> Really!!!!! YOU........are a totally unsubstantiated and unscientific opinion.
>
Says the 'person' who believes the ultimate pseudoscience-
Creationism.
PDW
duke
>On Jul 4, 6:33�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Nothing worth quoting, as usual
It's all over your head. That's why you don't quote it.
Dan Listermann
There is much about black holes that we don't understand yet. Yet it is
very obvious that all deities sprout from the imaginations of humans.
John Smith
You're years behind in your (alleged) education.
Such assertions were true until they discovered "dark matter".
Ralph
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:25:32 -0400, Ralph <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>>> There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>>> the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>>> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>>> previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>>> (Budikka)
>>> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for her.
>>>
>>> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
>>> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
>>> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
>>> is the one and only.
>>>
>>> Isn't God wonderful!!!!
>
>> No Puke, the expansion of the universe is accelerating now but there is
>> nothing to say that the expansion won't
>> slow in the future.
>
> Where's the mass? Distance is increasing. Each day takes more and more mass.
Read a good scientific paper on dark energy and get back to me.
>> Having said that, even if your premise is true that doesn't prevent
>> other universes.
>
> Only to a scientific dumbass as yourself.
Funniest statement you've ever made, Puke.
Budikka
As you can see, even after I directly explained it to him in detail,
he's still too stupid to grasp it! He's still too dumb to understand
that all he's done is attack his own straw man. He hasn't even begun
to address what I actually wrote! He's blindly convinced that this is
the only universe and that Big Bang - Big Crunch is all that could
ever happen!
That's why he's not worth talking to. He actually gets more stupid
with each passing month. Back in the past (but even then only once in
a while) he would, perhaps purely by accident, make some sort of half-
sense in an occasional thing he posted. Now he makes no sense at all
in anything he posts. That senile dementia is a killer isn't it?!
(At least I assume it is!)
Budikka
Budikka
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:q7mu45dr7acevcm0u...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:12:28 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>news:obcs45hjcktma08oj...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
Duck-Egg thinks that dark matter is just another name for Satan...!
Budikka
Dr. Omgorna Hackenslash MD
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:obcs45hjcktma08oj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>
>>"Budikka" wrote in message
>>news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>
>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>(Budikka)
>
> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for
> her.
>
> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing
> rate,
> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big
> crunch.
> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the
> universe
> is the one and only.
>
Which God? There are at least 10,000 known gods out there.