Creationists Can't Explain Marsupials in Antarctica
Budikka666
marsupials didn't originate in Australia, but in North America, where
we find fossils 80 million years old. Their migration can be traced
southwards since we find marsupial fossils in south America which are
around 40 million years old.
Then of course we find marsupial fossils in Australia - around 10
million years old.
So what do the young-Earth creationists predict? That there was a
sudden one-time creation 6,000 years ago, and that the divinity
created two sets of marsupials - one in the Americas and one in
Australia. There is no continental drift, no marsupials can possibly
survive in the frozen Antarctic wasteland, so there's no reason to
look for fossils there.
What do evolutionists predict? Since marsupials originated in North
America, and migrated all the way down the Americas, across Antarctica
and into Australia (the continents were joined at one time and
Antarctica was not a frozen wasteland), there ought to be marsupial
fossils in Antarctica.
Guess what? The evolution prediction was correct. There are
marsupial fossils in Antarctica. The creationist prediction is
bullshit.
End of story.
Budikka
marks...@yahoo.com
Have you seen the Conservapedia article on how small animals were
distributed after the Noahic flood by Volcanic action ? Hard to
believe I know but would the Trustworthy Encyclopedia say it if it
wasnt true. Those volcanoes could throw a platypus a long long
way :)
Budikka666
I've never seen a word of conservapedia and I'm proud to announce that
here for the first time!
Budikka
Father Haskell
>
> - Show quoted text -
Damn. I KNEW Xenu was somehow involved.
Devils Advocaat
That would explain the smaller BCBs in the fat strata under Uberwald :P
Lorentz
1) The trip was so nauseating, the platypus lost its stomach!
2) The hard part wasn't the trip. The hard part was the landing!
Smiler
Godfarts?
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
ilbe...@gmail.com
We have absolutely no instruments that can measure 80,000,000 years of
something. None whatsoever. It is all based on presupisitions and a
strong desire to make excuses not to follow God or his desire for your
life. The secular Geologist depends on the Archeologist and the
Archeologist depends on the Geologist for how old things are.
80,000,000 years ago....there was only God . Period. Not another
finite thing existed because it wasnt Gods will yet for something to
exist. As who 'what caused God to exist' ??? An infinite Creator
doesnt need a cause ... only finite things that come into being, do.
Carl Sagan doesnt want you to join him , so, dont.
Wombat
Why do you persist in showing what a total moron you are. Please give
the name of ANY archaeologist who studies things from 80,000,000
years ago.
Also, do yourself a favour and look up http://tinyurl.com/yg3aggq
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
Of course, I know you won't because it might make you wonder if,
perhaps, you might be wrong. That, however, will be the first step in
your journey to join the rest of the human race. And guess what, some
of them are also Christians, just not as deluded as you have shown
yourself to be.
Wombat
marks...@yahoo.com
> Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
> Of course, I know you won't because it might make you wonder if,
> perhaps, you might be wrong. That, however, will be the first step in
> your journey to join the rest of the human race. And guess what, some
> of them are also Christians, just not as deluded as you have shown
> yourself to be.
>
> Wombat
I may be wrong but Archeologists study Human civilisations from the
past. I dont think there would be any surviving human habitats from
that long ago . Perhaps some caves ?
(I realize this shows my absolute ignorance of human history - I did
see 10,000 years BC with the woman in a fur bikini and dinosaurs, does
that count. ?)
Radiometric dating has shown to produce consistant results when
differnet tests are used to date the same sample. 80 million years is
well within the scope of many of the available tests. Yes its not the
same as using a clock , and it does rely on radioactive decay not
changing dramatically, the speed of light slowing down and some of the
basic constants of the universe being stable. No one has yet shown
that any of that actually has happened.
I believe radiactive decay processes rely a lot on quantum mechanics,
which sadly, I am not qualified to comment on. It does seem unlikely
that the decay rates have changed by the magnitude that would be
required to shift say Uranium - Lead from 700 million years half life
to less than 6000 (I think thats the right order of magnitude)
There is one obvious question to ask. If the world is actually younger
than say 4 billion years why did GOD set it up so it looks that old.
Is it a test of faith ? does God want his people to fail and go back
to unquestioning worship, or is God just lying , or worse , he is just
amusing himself before he slaughters everyone again. ???
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:426642c2-66a4-458f...@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
********** Obviously not true.
It is all based on presupisitions and a
strong desire to make excuses not to follow God or his desire for your
life.
******** That might mean something IF you had ANY valid evidence to support
your beliefs.
******** You don't!
The secular Geologist depends on the Archeologist and the
Archeologist depends on the Geologist for how old things are.
80,000,000 years ago....there was only God . Period.
****** Again, ignorant bellowing without a shred of evidence.
Not another
finite thing existed because it wasnt Gods will yet for something to
exist. As who 'what caused God to exist' ??? An infinite Creator
doesnt need a cause ... only finite things that come into being, do.
Carl Sagan doesnt want you to join him , so, dont.
*******"An infinite creator" - for which there is no evidence????
SkyEyes
Ai-yi-yi. Those people will believe *anything*. Good grief.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Wombat
Paleontologists study fossils (inc. humans) not archeologists.
Hominids do date back several million years but 80,000,000 years ago
was in the Cretaceous Era before the demise of the dinosaurs.
>
> Radiometric dating has shown to produce consistant results when
> differnet tests are used to date the same sample. 80 million years is
> well within the scope of many of the available tests. Yes its not the
> same as using a clock , and it does rely on radioactive decay not
> changing dramatically, the speed of light slowing down and some of the
> basic constants of the universe being stable. No one has yet shown
> that any of that actually has happened.
>
> I believe radiactive decay processes rely a lot on quantum mechanics,
> which sadly, I am not qualified to comment on. It does seem unlikely
> that the decay rates have changed by the magnitude that would be
> required to shift say Uranium - Lead from 700 million years half life
> to less than 6000 (I think thats the right order of magnitude)
If you were to believe that radioactive decay happened fast enough in
the past to give a 6,000 year old earth with an apparent age of 4.55
billion years then the earth would be a molten ball.
>
> There is one obvious question to ask. If the world is actually younger
> than say 4 billion years why did GOD set it up so it looks that old.
> Is it a test of faith ? does God want his people to fail and go back
> to unquestioning worship, or is God just lying , or worse , he is just
> amusing himself before he slaughters everyone again. ???
One other trouble with a deceitful deity is how can you trust that
salvation and eternal life are not also a lie?
Wombat
Ralph
You stupid fool! You're so stupid that you should be ashamed to claim
creation by an intelligent designer.
> 80,000,000 years ago....there was only God . Period. Not another
> finite thing existed because it wasnt Gods will yet for something to
> exist. As who 'what caused God to exist' ??? An infinite Creator
> doesnt need a cause ... only finite things that come into being, do.
> Carl Sagan doesnt want you to join him , so, dont.
We'll all join Carl, you dim-witted fool!
Darwin123
> On Feb 1, 9:06 am, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
>
> Radiometric dating has shown to produce consistant results when
> differnet tests are used to date the same sample. 80 million years is
> well within the scope of many of the available tests. Yes its not the
> same as using a clock ,
Watches that use springs would change rates if the spring
constant would change. The sring can lose its elasticity. If the
gravitational constant changed suddenly, the rate of a pendulum clock
can change. If the electric charge of the universe would change, the
rate of an atomic clock would change. An hourglas would change its
rate if the density of sand changed. If the gravitational constant
changed even in your lifetime, the orbital period of the earth would
change. How do you know a year 2010 is as long as the year when you
were born.
I think you trust clocks because you can check one clock against
another. One can take a stop watch and time an hour glass. One can
check the frequency of different atoms against each other. Each clock
has its range of accuracy. However, one can check two clocks in the
range of time where they overlap. The implicit assumption is that
whatever changes the rate of a clock affects other types of clocks
differently.
> and it does rely on radioactive decay not
> changing dramatically, the speed of light slowing down and some of the
> basic constants of the universe being stable. No one has yet shown
> that any of that actually has happened.
It is not enough that the radioactive decay rates change with time.
In order to be consistent, the radioactive decay rates of different
isotopes and different elements would have to change by the same
factor. There is more than one isotope of uranium, and more than one
isotope of all the decay products. Scientists check the lifetimes of
one method versus the other.
Even if a basic "constant" of the universe changed, it is
unlikely that it would effect the radioactive decay rates of all the
elements and all the isotopes by the same amount. I think it would be
highly unlikely that the decay rates of U235 and U238 would change by
the same amount. I think it would be unlikely that the radioactive
decay products would be the same after a change in either strong force
or weak force. I seriously doubt that radioactive decay lifetimes
would be the same if the speed of light changed, since the speed of
light determines electromagnetic interactions.
The lifetime of an atom is determined by the balance of
electromagnetic, weak and strong forces in the isotope. If the
constituents of the isotope change, than the decay of that isotope
changes. It is difficult to believe that a shift in the weak force
constant will change the rate of beta decay in U235 and U238 by the
precise same amounts.
If all the universal constants changed by the same factor, then
the corresponding clocks would also change. Yes, the constants can
change as to keep the interval of time intervals measured by different
types of clocks the same. Even our metabolism would be changed by the
same factor of those clocks. However, the result would be that the
change in clock rate is unmeasurable.
>
> I believe radiactive decay processes rely a lot on quantum mechanics,
> which sadly, I am not qualified to comment on. It does seem unlikely
> that the decay rates have changed by the magnitude that would be
> required to shift say Uranium - Lead from 700 million years half life
> to less than 6000 (I think thats the right order of magnitude)
And that the heat generated by this rapidly decaying uranium
doesn't melt the earth.
>
> There is one obvious question to ask. If the world is actually younger
> than say 4 billion years why did GOD set it up so it looks that old.
> Is it a test of faith ? does God want his people to fail and go back
> to unquestioning worship, or is God just lying , or worse , he is just
> amusing himself before he slaughters everyone again. ???
I think that this is a position that some Deists take. According
to them, Providence basically doesn't care about his Creations, and
doesn't have an moral constraints. It doesn't seem a very useful form
of religion. An uncaring God is practically indistinguishable from
random variation.
Budikka666
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.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
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 BAM
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
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. End of You.
Budikka
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I'm sure you are very proud that you mock God with the lies you tell.
Andrew
> Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
> died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
Him.
If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
about Him?
Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven
and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
Him?
Andrew
Tim Miller
You never WERE able to actually master the concepts of "proof"
and "evidence", were you?
Devils Advocaat
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0c2af2a7-43da-4290...@s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Lets see now, someone asks for evidence of the historicity of Jesus
and what do you do?
Completely fail to provide such evidence of the historicity of Jesus
Then go on to claim that Jesus exists in the here and now.
Which you will completely fail to provide evidence for when asked for
it.
You are a strange person indeed.
Devils Advocaat
This little story could be a parable about Andrew and his ilk :)
ilbe...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go to : www.answersingenesis.org and youll discover that EVERY
critical post youve made by misunderstanding/misconception CAN be
adequately explained so you dont keep making the same errors. If you
dont see an answer to your critique, then send them an emal and youll
get a prompt response back from a qualified degreed Scientist. But,
are you willing to do this, or, is it all about making up excuses not
to give God the reigns to your life because he would be a fly in your
( lifestyle ) ointment ????
Ken
offer supporting evidence for Noah's Flood?
Dimwit dave Saz: "However, THIS one is Creationists can certainly
prove an intelligent Designer/Creator for the Cosmos"
Dumbfuck Dave saz: "If you cant see the vast evidences for special
Creation..." there is good evidence that the leviathan described in
the book of Job was a large dinosaur.
What "supporting evidence",
What "proof",
What "vast evidences"?
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"SkyEyes" <skye...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:dee5afa3-a55e-48b6...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
?????????????? Ai-yi-yi ??????? You from Pittsburgh's South Side?
Tim Miller
> Go to : www.answersingenesis.org and youll discover that EVERY
> critical post youve made by misunderstanding/misconception CAN be
> adequately explained so you dont keep making the same errors. If you
> dont see an answer to your critique, then send them an emal and youll
> get a prompt response back from a qualified degreed Scientist.
Well, no, you won't. You'll get back a ration of nonsense from
someone who got his "degree" from a mail-order catalog.
Devils Advocaat
Just a small intrusion here.
Answers in Genesis and Creation Moments both peddle the same lies
about fossils, referring to fossilised ships bells and fence wire.
And these people know that these are artifacts that have undergone
concretion in a marine environment.
And that fossils are the remains of once living plants and animals.
Yet despite my having explained this to both organisations, they have
not amended the offending articles.
So why trust them on anything else?
Perhaps you should read and reflect on these words of St Augstine:
panam...@hotmail.com
ROFLMAO! And next, make sure you check the National Enquirer for the
news.
That steaming pile of crap has been debunked so many times it should
be ashamed of itself. Cretinists really *are* some of the dumbest
folks on Earth.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Ken
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Go to : www.answersingenesis.org and youll discover that EVERY
>> critical post youve made by misunderstanding/misconception CAN be
>> adequately explained so you dont keep making the same errors. If you
>> dont see an answer to your critique, then send them an emal and youll
>> get a prompt response back from a qualified degreed Scientist.
Let's see .............. on one hand answers in genesis ........... on the
other hand, tons upon tons of valid evidence and facts.
on one hand answers in genesis ........... on the other hand,
thousands of colleges, hundreds of thousands of educated students,
professors and graduates.
on one hand answers in genesis ........... on the other hand,
NO conclusions and or theories until AFTER you've examined the evidence.
on one hand answers in genesis ........... on the other hand,
no previous, and outrageously biased, agenda.
on one hand answers in genesis ........... on the other hand,
follow the valid evidence and facts wherever they take you.
The last time I looked, and that was a while ago, AIG - like many other
fraudulent, ignorant, sites DO NOT offer e-mail addressees open to the
public.
They, like all the other arrogant tyrants (from ministers to media smear
jockeys) speak only from a "podium" position where THEY bellow, and others
are allowed ONLY to listen.
I'll pass (and spit) on answers in genesis.
Andrew
> On 2 Feb, 12:34, "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>
>> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
>> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>>
>>
>> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
>> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
>> Him.
>>
>> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
>> about Him?
>>
>> Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven
>> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
>> in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
>> Him?
>>
>> Andrew
>
>
> Lets see now, someone asks for evidence of the historicity of Jesus
> and what do you do?
>
> Completely fail to provide such evidence of the historicity of Jesus
>
> Then go on to claim that Jesus exists in the here and now.
~
I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
thereof.
Andrew
Syd M.
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:e17b2365-1167-470d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
You gave nothing.
PDW
huge
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:0c2af2a7-43da-4290...@s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
>> died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your mind
> as when you continually ask this same question concerning Him.
This confuses an idea with a person or supernatural being.
It is mere word play produced by someone who has no real
talent with words.
>
> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking about
> Him?
It is a nasty idea, not unlike like a bad cold. Some things are bad for us,
but reproduce anyway. Someday science will wipe it out.
>
> Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven and
> earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you in love,
> that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with Him?
Because no one in her right mind would want to spend eternity
making low level word play with the likes of you.
>
>
>
> Andrew
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:0c2af2a7-43da-4290...@s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
>> died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
>One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
>mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
>Him.
A liar as well as an idiot.
>If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
>about Him?
We wouldn't give it a thought if you assholes kept your bullshit to
yourselves.
>Therefore since He does exist,
Prove it, liar.
> and since He is Maker of heaven
Prove it, liar.
>and earth,
Prove it, liar.
> why not accept the salvation
What "salvation", brainwashed moron?
> that He freely offers you
Prove it, liar.
>in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
>Him?
What a fucking moron.
>Andrew
Oh. That explains it.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
Where, liar?
>The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
>of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
>thereof.
What "fact", liar?
>
>Andrew
>
>
Budikka666
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:e17b2365-1167-470d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
You offered no objective or scientific evidence, and you offered no
rationale, which makes you a vacuous LIAR. If Jesus were everywhere
as you LIE, he oughta be a hell of a lot easier to find! LoL!
But keep purveying your pathetic and dangerous lies, jackass, and
let's see how your god loves you then.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0c2af2a7-43da-4290...@s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
> Him.
>
> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
> about Him?
I don't. I do spend a lot of time proving that not one of you LIARS
can even witness for him, much less offer any useful evidence, nor
even a rationale for the existence of anything in which you place all
your blind faith. Clearly if you can't even grasp that, you're a
professional moron and that's all you'll ever be.
But do please keep playing into my hands by proving my contention:
that you can't offer a shred of objective or scientific evidence for
your Jesus. And please visit my new thread, where you'll prove for me
you can't do that same thing for this god of yours either.
Budikka
Erwin Moller
> "Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:e17b2365-1167-470d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>> On 2 Feb, 12:34, "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
>>>> died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>>>
>>> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
>>> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
>>> Him.
>>>
>>> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
>>> about Him?
>>>
>>> Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven
>>> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
>>> in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
>>> Him?
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>
>> Lets see now, someone asks for evidence of the historicity of Jesus
>> and what do you do?
>>
>> Completely fail to provide such evidence of the historicity of Jesus
>>
>> Then go on to claim that Jesus exists in the here and now.
>
> ~
>
> I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
>
Andrew,
Very interesting indeed!
Could you please provide this evidence again?
It might save my soul, being an atheist and such...
I would surely rethink my current postition regarding God if you could
present some of this evidence.
> The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
> of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
> thereof.
>
Interesting hypothesis, but let's rest that for now while we await this
evidence of yours.
It is Jesus existance that is in need of evidence, not Budikka's morale
response.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
thomas p.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:WcGdnaYDnJWqt_TW...@earthlink.com...
Only someone with no shame would present such an inane argument as evidence.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:e17b2365-1167-470d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> > On 2 Feb, 12:34, "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>
> >> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
> >> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
> >> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
> >> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
> >> Him.
>
> >> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
> >> about Him?
>
> >> Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven
> >> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
> >> in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
> >> Him?
>
> >> Andrew
>
> > Lets see now, someone asks for evidence of the historicity of Jesus
> > and what do you do?
>
> > Completely fail to provide such evidence of the historicity of Jesus
>
> > Then go on to claim that Jesus exists in the here and now.
>
> ~
>
> I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
Where?
>
> The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
> of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
> thereof.
Evasion noted.
>
> Andrew
Jimbo
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:e17b2365-1167-470d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> > On 2 Feb, 12:34, "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>
> >> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
> >> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
> >> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
> >> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
> >> Him.
>
> >> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
> >> about Him?
>
> >> Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven
> >> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
> >> in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
> >> Him?
>
> >> Andrew
>
> > Lets see now, someone asks for evidence of the historicity of Jesus
> > and what do you do?
>
> > Completely fail to provide such evidence of the historicity of Jesus
>
> > Then go on to claim that Jesus exists in the here and now.
>
> ~
>
> I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
>
You've given no objective evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Budikka666
Yes, Andrew, and by your "logic", phlogiston, the ether, and Santa
Claus are very real since you've no doubt talked about them at some
point in your life. LoL! How shamefully pathetic it is that this is
the very best argument you Christians came come up with! Seriously.
Just how pathetic are you? Well, however pathetic that is, the world
now knows it, which was the whole point of this thread.
> You've given no objective evidence for the existence of Jesus.
I find it helps to specify "Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a
god" otherwise they take the easy way out and claim there were many
Jesuses in Palestine. In fact Josephus mentions several. Pity he
doesn't say squat (other than forged additions) about the most
outstanding one of them all (according to believers)! That alone
pretty much disproves Christian claims.
Andrew's claim is based, predictably, on a LIE: that discussing
ficiton makes it real! LoL! Seriously, how lame do you have to be to
have that pure bullshit as the only argument in your entire arsenal?
Budikka
panam...@hotmail.com
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0c2af2a7-43da-4290...@s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
> Him.
>
> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
> about Him?
Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it.
It has been explained to you over and over again that to many
atheists, the existence/non-existence of your god/s is irrelevant.
What *does* matter is the damaging effect upon modern society caused
by the people that belief such creatures exist. Cretinism is a perfect
example..spreading ignorance instead of knowledge.
We only debunk your gods because those of you who believe in them are
roadblocks on the path of progress.
snip crap
SkyEyes
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:e17b2365-1167-470d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> > On 2 Feb, 12:34, "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>
> >> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
> >> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
> >> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
> >> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
> >> Him.
>
> >> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
> >> about Him?
>
> >> Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven
> >> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
> >> in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
> >> Him?
>
> >> Andrew
>
> > Lets see now, someone asks for evidence of the historicity of Jesus
> > and what do you do?
>
> > Completely fail to provide such evidence of the historicity of Jesus
>
> > Then go on to claim that Jesus exists in the here and now.
>
> ~
>
> I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
No you did, cupcake.
> The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
> of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
> thereof.
The matter very much *is* the historicity of Jesus. And you've got
nothing to present as evidence.
Free Lunch
>"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:e17b2365-1167-470d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>> On 2 Feb, 12:34, "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>>
>>> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
>>> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
>>> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
>>> Him.
>>>
>>> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
>>> about Him?
>>>
>>> Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven
>>> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
>>> in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
>>> Him?
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> Lets see now, someone asks for evidence of the historicity of Jesus
>> and what do you do?
>>
>> Completely fail to provide such evidence of the historicity of Jesus
>>
>> Then go on to claim that Jesus exists in the here and now.
>
>~
>
>I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
Andrew, you do not understand the concept of evidence. You made a
religious assertion.
>The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
>of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
>thereof.
Even if there happened to be a teacher named Jesus, that does not mean
that Jesus was a (part of) God. Your religion has turned you into a
dishonest person.
Andrew
"Andrew" wrote:
> > The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
> > of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
> > thereof.
>
> The matter very much *is* the historicity of Jesus. And you've got
> nothing to present as evidence.
Then why are all historical events referenced to being either
before Him ~or~ after Him?
Whenever you reference the date of your own birth, that very
date has a relationship to Jesus.
Andrew
"Andrew" wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote:
> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
> Him.
>
> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
> about Him?
-I don't. (Budikka)
You are indeed thinking about Him right now, because we are talking
about Him. WHY are we talking about Him??? because of YOUR
questions about Him, which you have been asking for a number of
years now, which -proves- that you are unable to stop thinking about
Him!
Andrew
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:32eb582c-47b4-4ef9...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> > The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
>> > of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
>> > thereof.
>>
>> The matter very much *is* the historicity of Jesus. And you've got
>> nothing to present as evidence.
>
>Then why are all historical events referenced to being either
>before Him ~or~ after Him?
Because the power of a religious body caused it to dominate the West.
The West eventually dominated the world, after it threw off the worst
effect of that religion.
>Whenever you reference the date of your own birth, that very
>date has a relationship to Jesus.
No evidence supports that claim that Jesus was born in either AD 1 or 1
BC. The best estimate is that the stories leave us at 4 BC, though there
isn't enough evidence to conclude that the story is about a specific
individual.
>Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of heaven
No, you cannot draw that conclusion.
>and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
>in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
>Him?
If He gave salvation to everyone, I have it and don't have to waste my
time listening to your self-righteous ignorant twaddle.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:4555bc2c-491d-4104...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
You are a very silly man. Does Gandalf exist because people talk about
him?
huge
Oh, for joy -- another silly little Andrew word game to dissect.
They are so stupid that I like to try to find the shortest sentence
that will do the trick:
That Jesus-stories exist does not imply that a Jesus existed
or exists.
Merci. Send donations to Haiti.
haiku jones
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:32eb582c-47b4-4ef9...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> > > The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the historicity
> > > of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral response to the fact
> > > thereof.
>
> > The matter very much *is* the historicity of Jesus. And you've got
> > nothing to present as evidence.
>
> Then why are all historical events referenced to being either
> before Him ~or~ after Him?
Then why are you posting this on a day named after
Wodin, the All-Father, God of Wisdom, Poetry,
and the Gallows?
>
> Whenever you reference the date of your own birth, that very
> date has a relationship to Jesus.
Whenever you post on Wednesday, that very day has a
relationship with Old One-Eye, who hung on a tree nine
days and nine nights, a spear piercing His side, in
order to gain Wisdom.
>
> Therefore since He does exist,
and therefore Wotan reigns supreme in Asgard,
> and since He is Maker of heaven
> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
> in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
> Him?
Excuse me? You want Brenda to accept Jesus *again*?
Seems redundant, doesn't it? Did her Cosmic Warranty expire?
And by the way: don't bother replying to me tomorrow.
I don't really want to go through all this again, this
time over Thor.
Haiku Jones
>
> Andrew
Ralph
I imagine it is becasue you keep bringing up the subject, you brainless
idiot. Same old Andrew, still dumb as a fence post. Welcome back Andrew,
like a toothache.
Devils Advocaat
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:32eb582c-47b4-4ef9...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Not everyone uses the BC and AD annotation, even in the Western World
they have been replaced for many people by BCE and CE, in which the
letters CE stand for Common Era.
And while we are on the subject if the Romans still dominated the
world we would be in the year 2763 anno urbis conditae.
And if the Muslims were the dominant influence this would be the year
1431 anno hegirae.
And for the Jews who still used their old calendar this would be the
year 5770 after the beginning of the world.
And if we were dominated by the Greeks this would be the year 2322
from the beginning of the reign of King Seleucus.
Devils Advocaat
I know some fence posts that would object to such a comparison and
find it very upsetting.
Bob T.
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:32eb582c-47b4-4ef9...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
I just want to congratulate, you Andrew. That is the dumbest argument
I've ever seen.
- Bob T
>
> Andrew
thomas p.
How very pathetic of you - reduced to adolescent word games.
thomas p.
> "SkyEyes" wrote in message
> news:32eb582c-47b4-4ef9...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> The pertinent issue in Budikka's question is not "the
>>> historicity of Jesus" but rather of Budikka's moral
>>> response to the fact thereof.
>>
>> The matter very much *is* the historicity of Jesus. And
>> you've got nothing to present as evidence.
>
> Then why are all historical events referenced to being
> either before Him ~or~ after Him?
>
> Whenever you reference the date of your own birth, that
> very date has a relationship to Jesus.
>
> Therefore since He does exist, and since He is Maker of
> heaven
Wow, you just get sillier and sillier.
> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely
> offers you in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend
> eternity with Him?
No such offer was made.
>
>
>
> Andrew
thomas p.
Thor also exists, otherwise why would today be named after him?
Accept Thor as your protector and avoid being hit by his hammer.
haiku jones
And of course, as previously pointed out, the fact that your post
is prominently dated "Thursday", a day named after the
heroic Asgardian God, is sufficent proof that Thor exists,
and that "Andrew" would be foolish not to seek His protection.
Haiku Jones
Lorentz
> I just want to congratulate, you Andrew. That is the dumbest argument
> I've ever seen.
>
> - Bob T
duke
wrote:
>> > I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
>Yes, Andrew, and by your "logic", phlogiston, the ether, and Santa
>Claus are very real since you've no doubt talked about them at some
>point in your life.
But then we turned about 8 years old.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Tim Miller
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:11:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
>
>> Yes, Andrew, and by your "logic", phlogiston, the ether, and Santa
>> Claus are very real since you've no doubt talked about them at some
>> point in your life.
>
> But then we turned about 8 years old.
You STILL talk to imaginary friends, don't you, duke??
Figured out that ball-on-a-string problem yet, "enjineer"??
LOL!!
Budikka666
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:11:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
> >Yes, Andrew, and by your "logic", phlogiston, the ether, and Santa
> >Claus are very real since you've no doubt talked about them at some
> >point in your life.
>
> But then we turned about 8 years old.
And you never advanced since.
Budikka
Budikka666
I just got thru responding to a decent exchange - vacuous but decent -
with Andrew in the "God" thread of this series, then I come here and
see that argument from him. Do you think he's bipolar? or are there
two Andrews (not counting the moron creationist who seems to have fled
a.a.)?
Budikka
huge
I have to agree. He's usually an irritating ass who depends on
legalistic word definitions and vacuous historical argument,
but here he's really jumped the shark. Perhaps Alzheimer's disease
is beginning to take its toll. I fear the students he allegedly teaches
science to may start paying him back for displaying Xian symbols
in the classroom, using him for a piñata.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:11:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
>
> >Yes, Andrew, and by your "logic", phlogiston, the ether, and Santa
> >Claus are very real since you've no doubt talked about them at some
> >point in your life.
>
> But then we turned about 8 years old.
Whatever duckgumbo's physical age, his mental age will never reach as
high as 8 years old.
Javs = "Jesusfreaks (like duckgumbo) Are Very Stupid"
thomas p.
"huge" <hu...@nomailaddress.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:9N2dnYnCKolJyPbW...@earthlink.com...
It's scary to think that he was being serious.
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:11:16 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > I gave evidence that for Budikka, Jesus' existence is indeed real.
>
> >Yes, Andrew, and by your "logic", phlogiston, the ether, and Santa
> >Claus are very real since you've no doubt talked about them at some
> >point in your life.
>
> But then we turned about 8 years old.
>
trog69
> On Feb 1, 3:37 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:27 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > Again from Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True", we learn that
> > > marsupials didn't originate in Australia, but in North America, where
> > > we find fossils 80 million years old. Their migration can be traced
> > > southwards since we find marsupial fossils in south America which are
> > > around 40 million years old.
>
> > > Then of course we find marsupial fossils in Australia - around 10
> > > million years old.
>
> > > So what do the young-Earth creationists predict? That there was a
> > > sudden one-time creation 6,000 years ago, and that the divinity
> > > created two sets of marsupials - one in the Americas and one in
> > > Australia. There is no continental drift, no marsupials can possibly
> > > survive in the frozen Antarctic wasteland, so there's no reason to
> > > look for fossils there.
>
> > > What do evolutionists predict? Since marsupials originated in North
> > > America, and migrated all the way down the Americas, across Antarctica
> > > and into Australia (the continents were joined at one time and
> > > Antarctica was not a frozen wasteland), there ought to be marsupial
> > > fossils in Antarctica.
>
> > > Guess what? The evolution prediction was correct. There are
> > > marsupial fossils in Antarctica. The creationist prediction is
> > > bullshit.
>
> > > End of story.
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > We have absolutely no instruments that can measure 80,000,000 years of
> > something. None whatsoever. It is all based on presupisitions and a
> > strong desire to make excuses not to follow God or his desire for your
> > life. The secular Geologist depends on the Archeologist and the
> > Archeologist depends on the Geologist for how old things are.
> > 80,000,000 years ago....there was only God . Period. Not another
> > finite thing existed because it wasnt Gods will yet for something to
> > exist. As who 'what caused God to exist' ??? An infinite Creator
> > doesnt need a cause ... only finite things that come into being, do.
> > Carl Sagan doesnt want you to join him , so, dont.
>
> Why do you persist in showing what a total moron you are. Please give
> the name of ANY archaeologist who studies things from 80,000,000
> years ago.
> Also, do yourself a favour and look uphttp://tinyurl.com/yg3aggq
> Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
> Of course, I know you won't because it might make you wonder if,
> perhaps, you might be wrong. That, however, will be the first step in
> your journey to join the rest of the human race. And guess what, some
> of them are also Christians, just not as deluded as you have shown
> yourself to be.
>
> Wombat
That's a great link. Thanks.
Wombat
You're welcome.
Wombat
Lisbeth Andersson
news:e021b365-83c9-43f4...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.c
om:
<...>
> (I realize this shows my absolute ignorance of human history - I
> did see 10,000 years BC with the woman in a fur bikini and
> dinosaurs, does that count. ?)
<...>
The creationists have made a new version of "One Million Years BC"?
http://www.10000bcmovie.com/ I didn't see any dinosaurs in the photos,
but of course it only showed a very small part of the film. Pyramids?
Really?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/ This one was definitely with
dinosaurs, and fur bikinis.
Lisbeth.
--
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
Smiler
> marks...@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:e021b365-83c9-43f4...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.c
> om:
>
> <...>
>> (I realize this shows my absolute ignorance of human history - I
>> did see 10,000 years BC with the woman in a fur bikini and
>> dinosaurs, does that count. ?)
> <...>
>
> The creationists have made a new version of "One Million Years BC"?
>
> http://www.10000bcmovie.com/ I didn't see any dinosaurs in the photos,
> but of course it only showed a very small part of the film. Pyramids?
> Really?
>
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/ This one was definitely with
> dinosaurs, and fur bikinis.
>
Fur bikinis. I bet they itched a lot!
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Tim Miller
> Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
>> marks...@yahoo.com wrote in
>> news:e021b365-83c9-43f4...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> <...>
>>> (I realize this shows my absolute ignorance of human history - I
>>> did see 10,000 years BC with the woman in a fur bikini and
>>> dinosaurs, does that count. ?)
>> <...>
>>
>> The creationists have made a new version of "One Million Years BC"?
>>
>> http://www.10000bcmovie.com/ I didn't see any dinosaurs in the photos,
>> but of course it only showed a very small part of the film. Pyramids?
>> Really?
>>
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060782/ This one was definitely with
>> dinosaurs, and fur bikinis.
>>
>
> Fur bikinis. I bet they itched a lot!
>
But there was NO shortage of folks volunteering to scratch.
Christopher A. Lee
Demonstrating as if we didn't already know, that Andrew is a
narcissist, a liar, totally out of touch with reality, stupid and just
plain nasty.
Keep your bullshit to yourself and nobody would give it or you a
thought.
>Andrew
>
>
Darwin123
I hope not. That would be bad for everybody. Worse for atheists
and agnostics.
Maybe they will rebel by reading good books about biology.
Personally, I hope he starts to trash Richard Dawkins in class. I
suggest he tells his students not to read any book by Richard Dawkins,
Stephen Gould or Neil Shubin.
About 2500 years ago, the Persian religious establishment
banned books by Herodotus. Now the Zorastrians are a small minority,
while Herodotus is required reading in many universities. Herodotus is
sometimes called "the father of History." That is the power of
censure !-)
Smiler
Of course. It wouldn't be gentlemanly of me, not to offer a helping hand to
a woman with a problem.
Smiler
> On Feb 4, 6:18 pm, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>> Budikka666 :
>>
>>> On Feb 4, 8:10 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 3, 5:13 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> "SkyEyes" wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:32eb582c-47b4-4ef9...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> I fear the students he allegedly teaches
>> science to may start paying him back for displaying Xian symbols
>
> I hope not. That would be bad for everybody. Worse for atheists
> and agnostics.
> Maybe they will rebel by reading good books about biology.
> Personally, I hope he starts to trash Richard Dawkins in class. I
> suggest he tells his students not to read any book by Richard Dawkins,
> Stephen Gould or Neil Shubin.
> About 2500 years ago, the Persian religious establishment
> banned books by Herodotus. Now the Zorastrians are a small minority,
> while Herodotus is required reading in many universities. Herodotus is
> sometimes called "the father of History." That is the power of
> censure !-)
Who'd have heard of Salman Rushdie or his Satanic Verses without the
'censure' and furore it caused?
Wombat
> Darwin123 wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 6:18 pm, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
> >> Budikka666 :
>
> >>> On Feb 4, 8:10 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 3, 5:13 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "SkyEyes" wrote in
> >>>>> messagenews:32eb582c-47b4-4ef9...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> I fear the students he allegedly teaches
> >> science to may start paying him back for displaying Xian symbols
>
> > I hope not. That would be bad for everybody. Worse for atheists
> > and agnostics.
> > Maybe they will rebel by reading good books about biology.
> > Personally, I hope he starts to trash Richard Dawkins in class. I
> > suggest he tells his students not to read any book by Richard Dawkins,
> > Stephen Gould or Neil Shubin.
> > About 2500 years ago, the Persian religious establishment
> > banned books by Herodotus. Now the Zorastrians are a small minority,
> > while Herodotus is required reading in many universities. Herodotus is
> > sometimes called "the father of History." That is the power of
> > censure !-)
>
> Who'd have heard of Salman Rushdie or his Satanic Verses without the
> 'censure' and furore it caused?
I only read the book because of the furore. It was turgid and
incomprehensible in parts. A waste of time.
Wombat
JohnN
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0c2af2a7-43da-4290...@s12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
> > died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
>
> One of the proofs.. is that you are unable to get Him out of your
> mind as when you continually ask this same question concerning
> Him.
>
> If He did not exist, why would you spend so much time thinking
> about Him?
>
> and earth, why not accept the salvation that He freely offers you
> in love, that you may meet Him in peace and spend eternity with
> Him?
>
Jesus was always the best hider in Hide-N-Go-Seek in the whole
village!
JohnN
Smiler
> On Feb 9, 1:54 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> wrote:
>> Darwin123 wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 6:18 pm, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>>>> Budikka666 :
>>
>>>>> On Feb 4, 8:10 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 3, 5:13 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "SkyEyes" wrote in
>>>>>>> messagenews:32eb582c-47b4-4ef9...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>>> I fear the students he allegedly teaches
>>>> science to may start paying him back for displaying Xian symbols
>>
>>> I hope not. That would be bad for everybody. Worse for atheists
>>> and agnostics.
>>> Maybe they will rebel by reading good books about biology.
>>> Personally, I hope he starts to trash Richard Dawkins in class. I
>>> suggest he tells his students not to read any book by Richard
>>> Dawkins, Stephen Gould or Neil Shubin.
>>> About 2500 years ago, the Persian religious establishment
>>> banned books by Herodotus. Now the Zorastrians are a small minority,
>>> while Herodotus is required reading in many universities. Herodotus
>>> is sometimes called "the father of History." That is the power of
>>> censure !-)
>>
>> Who'd have heard of Salman Rushdie or his Satanic Verses without the
>> 'censure' and furore it caused?
>
> I only read the book because of the furore. It was turgid and
> incomprehensible in parts. A waste of time.
>
I've never read the book, but your opinion agrees with most other critics of
it.
Without the furore, I doubt it would have made him famous.
Smiler
Yeah. But the game does get very boring after 2000 years of looking
everywhere and not finding him.