Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disapproving Creation: Sophisticated Theology Fail Part 1
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
Aug 15, 2012, 5:45:43 AM8/15/12
to
Andrew
Aug 15, 2012, 9:58:02 AM8/15/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/sophisticated-theology-plantinga-explains-why-god-makes-animals-suffer/
>
> Budikka
More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/sophisticated-theology-plantinga-explains-why-god-makes-animals-suffer/
>
> Budikka
More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
Andrew
Aug 15, 2012, 10:16:00 AM8/15/12
to
"Caranx latus" wrote in message news:01d7acc1-32fd-4420...@googlegroups.com...
> If anything, I would have thought that Budikka's obsession
> was with the absurdity of the "God" concept.
We see that it -IS- an obsession.
> was with the absurdity of the "God" concept.
We see that it -IS- an obsession.
Virgil
Aug 15, 2012, 3:11:42 PM8/15/12
to
In article <5tednRwjyYwMN7bN...@earthlink.com>,
Only of her obsession with the religionist's obsession to believe in
what no objective physical evidence justifies belief in.
--
what no objective physical evidence justifies belief in.
--
Virgil
Aug 15, 2012, 3:15:10 PM8/15/12
to
In article <JrOdnUdEDbBUM7bN...@earthlink.com>,
Almost as much of an obsession as that of those who obsess that 'their'
god exists, and insist on posting their obsession to alt.atheism and
talk.atheism.
--
god exists, and insist on posting their obsession to alt.atheism and
talk.atheism.
--
thomas p.
Aug 15, 2012, 4:14:11 PM8/15/12
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:JrOdnUdEDbBUM7bN...@earthlink.com...
You see many things that are not there. You are, after all, a theist.
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:JrOdnUdEDbBUM7bN...@earthlink.com...
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
Andrew
Aug 15, 2012, 10:51:42 PM8/15/12
to
"Caranx latus" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:183e3c78-2d7b-4077...@googlegroups.com...
>> We see that it IS an obsession.
>
> No argument there. Personally, I think it's a complete
> waste of time demonstrating that you creationists can't
> distinguish reality from fantasy over and over again.
Apparently Budikka does not concur.
And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> No argument there. Personally, I think it's a complete
> waste of time demonstrating that you creationists can't
> distinguish reality from fantasy over and over again.
Apparently Budikka does not concur.
And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
importance, and of which she is unsure of.
thomas p.
Aug 16, 2012, 1:18:06 PM8/16/12
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:WMedndxaP9d7wrHN...@earthlink.com...
posting to alt.atheism? That must be it.
Andrew
Aug 16, 2012, 5:36:56 PM8/16/12
to
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:502d2b4c$0$56781$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
I appreciate challenges to my beliefs because I love truth.
This reply to alt.atheism is from a thread started by one
who cross posted from alt.atheism to talk.creationism.
I find that many atheists are intelligent who think outside
the box. Unfortunately although, they have been deceived.
Andrew
This reply to alt.atheism is from a thread started by one
who cross posted from alt.atheism to talk.creationism.
I find that many atheists are intelligent who think outside
the box. Unfortunately although, they have been deceived.
Andrew
Virgil
Aug 16, 2012, 7:18:39 PM8/16/12
to
In article <Up-dnX7GnM08-rDN...@earthlink.com>,
Not anywhere nearly as badly as you theists deceive yourselves.
We atheists accept that which is supported by objective physical
evidence but are prone to reject that which is not so supported.
You theists, particularly you creationists, tend to reject that which is
supported by objective physical evidence but are prone to accept that
which is not so supported.
--
We atheists accept that which is supported by objective physical
evidence but are prone to reject that which is not so supported.
You theists, particularly you creationists, tend to reject that which is
supported by objective physical evidence but are prone to accept that
which is not so supported.
--
Budikka666
Aug 16, 2012, 7:47:06 PM8/16/12
to
On Aug 15, 9:51 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
The only obsession here is you and your ilk following my every message
> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
on Usenet like a bunch of dogs in heat, sniffing my ass, jerk wad.
This is no obsession, it's sport. Deal with it Asshole Andrew:
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in SIX
THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in TEN
THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Budikka
Caranx latus
Aug 16, 2012, 10:04:39 PM8/16/12
to
On 8/16/2012 7:47 PM, Budikka666 wrote:
> On Aug 15, 9:51 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
>> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
>> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> The only obsession here is you and your ilk following my every message
> on Usenet like a bunch of dogs in heat, sniffing my ass, jerk wad.
>
> This is no obsession, it's sport.
In my opinion, keeping track of every intellectually dishonest thing the
> On Aug 15, 9:51 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
>> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
>> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> The only obsession here is you and your ilk following my every message
> on Usenet like a bunch of dogs in heat, sniffing my ass, jerk wad.
>
> This is no obsession, it's sport.
creationists do goes beyond sport. But if it's what you want to do, then
by all means do it.
> Deal with it Asshole Andrew:
>
> THREADS simultaneously:
> http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
> http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
> http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
> http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
> http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
> http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
>
> Coward-For-Christ� Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in TEN
> http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
> http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
> http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
> http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
> http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
> http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
>
> THREADS simultaneously:
> http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
> http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
> http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
> http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
> http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
> http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
> http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
> http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
> http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
> http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
>
> Coward-For-Christ� Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
> http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
> http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
> http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
> http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
> http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
> http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
> http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
> http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
> http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
> http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
>
Devils Advocaat
Aug 16, 2012, 11:57:00 PM8/16/12
to
On Aug 16, 10:36 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:502d2b4c$0$56781$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsennews:WMedndxaP9d7wrHN...@earthlink.com...
> >> "Caranx latus" <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:183e3c78-2d7b-4077...@googlegroups.com...
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:502d2b4c$0$56781$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsennews:WMedndxaP9d7wrHN...@earthlink.com...
> >> "Caranx latus" <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:183e3c78-2d7b-4077...@googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:16:00 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> >>>> "Caranx latus" wrote in messagenews:01d7acc1-32fd-4420...@googlegroups.com...
> >>>> > On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:58:02 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> >>>> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> >> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/sophisticated-theo...
> >>>> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >>>> >> > Budikka
>
> >>>> >> More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
>
> >>>> > If anything, I would have thought that Budikka's obsession
> >>>> > was with the absurdity of the "God" concept.
>
> >>>> We see that it IS an obsession.
>
> >>> No argument there. Personally, I think it's a complete
> >>> waste of time demonstrating that you creationists can't
> >>> distinguish reality from fantasy over and over again.
>
> >> Apparently Budikka does not concur.
>
> >> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
> >> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
> >> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> > Does that mean that you have doubts about your beliefs,
> > since you keep posting to alt.atheism? That must be it.
>
> I appreciate challenges to my beliefs because I love truth.
>
> This reply to alt.atheism is from a thread started by one
> who cross posted from alt.atheism to talk.creationism.
>
> I find that many atheists are intelligent who think outside
> the box. Unfortunately although, they have been deceived.
>
> Andrew
If you really love the truth, why do you ignore so much of it?
> >>>> >> > Budikka
>
> >>>> >> More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
>
> >>>> > If anything, I would have thought that Budikka's obsession
> >>>> > was with the absurdity of the "God" concept.
>
> >>>> We see that it IS an obsession.
>
> >>> No argument there. Personally, I think it's a complete
> >>> waste of time demonstrating that you creationists can't
> >>> distinguish reality from fantasy over and over again.
>
> >> Apparently Budikka does not concur.
>
> >> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
> >> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
> >> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> > Does that mean that you have doubts about your beliefs,
> > since you keep posting to alt.atheism? That must be it.
>
> I appreciate challenges to my beliefs because I love truth.
>
> This reply to alt.atheism is from a thread started by one
> who cross posted from alt.atheism to talk.creationism.
>
> I find that many atheists are intelligent who think outside
> the box. Unfortunately although, they have been deceived.
>
> Andrew
thomas p.
Aug 17, 2012, 4:03:49 AM8/17/12
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Up-dnX7GnM08-rDN...@earthlink.com...
>
> This reply to alt.atheism is from a thread started by one
> who cross posted from alt.atheism to talk.creationism.
>
> I find that many atheists are intelligent who think outside
> the box. Unfortunately although, they have been deceived.
there are very few who are so deceived.
>
>
> Andrew
Andrew
Aug 18, 2012, 8:25:13 AM8/18/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:f7e5b4a7-7f25-4d16...@l17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
Therefore all of your posts, insults and all, have the opposite
effect of what you overtly intend. Because truth shines more
brightly as it's enemies vainly battle against it.
Thanks Budikka!
> This is no obsession, it's sport.
Yes, but soon the game will be over and you will be called
to stand before your Maker to give account.
> Deal with it
I have, and so may you.
> Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
>> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
>> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> The only obsession here is you and your ilk following
> my every message on Usenet
Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
>> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
>> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> The only obsession here is you and your ilk following
> my every message on Usenet
and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
Therefore all of your posts, insults and all, have the opposite
effect of what you overtly intend. Because truth shines more
brightly as it's enemies vainly battle against it.
Thanks Budikka!
> This is no obsession, it's sport.
to stand before your Maker to give account.
> Deal with it
I have, and so may you.
> Budikka
Andrew
Free Lunch
Aug 18, 2012, 8:47:28 AM8/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 05:25:13 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:f7e5b4a7-7f25-4d16...@l17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
>>> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
>>> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>>
>> The only obsession here is you and your ilk following
>> my every message on Usenet
>
>Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
Your religious claims have been shown to be false long ago. You delude
yourself about your religion and about the facts.
>Therefore all of your posts, insults and all, have the opposite
>effect of what you overtly intend. Because truth shines more
>brightly as it's enemies vainly battle against it.
You spew lies and call your lies truth. You invent a god to blame for
the lies you tell.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:f7e5b4a7-7f25-4d16...@l17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
>>> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
>>> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>>
>> The only obsession here is you and your ilk following
>> my every message on Usenet
>
>Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
yourself about your religion and about the facts.
>Therefore all of your posts, insults and all, have the opposite
>effect of what you overtly intend. Because truth shines more
>brightly as it's enemies vainly battle against it.
the lies you tell.
Syd M.
Aug 18, 2012, 9:08:49 AM8/18/12
to
On Aug 15, 9:58 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/sophisticated-theo...
>
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/sophisticated-theo...
>
> > Budikka
>
> More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
More evidence of Andrew's complete inability to think, period.
>
> More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
Syd M.
Aug 18, 2012, 9:09:13 AM8/18/12
to
On Aug 15, 10:16 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Caranx latus" wrote in messagenews:01d7acc1-32fd-4420...@googlegroups.com...
> "Caranx latus" wrote in messagenews:01d7acc1-32fd-4420...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:58:02 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/sophisticated-theo...
> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >> > Budikka
>
> >> More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
>
> > If anything, I would have thought that Budikka's obsession
> > was with the absurdity of the "God" concept.
>
> We see that it -IS- an obsession.
No, we see you desperatly wanting it to be.
> >> > Budikka
>
> >> More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
>
> > If anything, I would have thought that Budikka's obsession
> > was with the absurdity of the "God" concept.
>
> We see that it -IS- an obsession.
Syd M.
Aug 18, 2012, 9:10:57 AM8/18/12
to
On Aug 18, 8:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:f7e5b4a7-7f25-4d16...@l17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
What truth, liar?
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:f7e5b4a7-7f25-4d16...@l17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
> >> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
> >> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> > The only obsession here is you and your ilk following
> > my every message on Usenet
>
> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
>
'Truth of creation'?
> >> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
> >> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
> >> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>
> > The only obsession here is you and your ilk following
> > my every message on Usenet
>
> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
>
What truth, liar?
Syd M.
Aug 18, 2012, 9:09:44 AM8/18/12
to
On Aug 15, 10:51 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Caranx latus" <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:183e3c78-2d7b-4077...@googlegroups.com...
> "Caranx latus" <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:183e3c78-2d7b-4077...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:16:00 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> >> "Caranx latus" wrote in messagenews:01d7acc1-32fd-4420...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:58:02 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/sophisticated-theo...
> >> >> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:d9c09885-eceb-403f...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> >> >> > Budikka
>
> >> >> More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
>
> >> > If anything, I would have thought that Budikka's obsession
> >> > was with the absurdity of the "God" concept.
>
> >> We see that it IS an obsession.
>
> > No argument there. Personally, I think it's a complete
> > waste of time demonstrating that you creationists can't
> > distinguish reality from fantasy over and over again.
>
> Apparently Budikka does not concur.
>
> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
And we see that you are full of shit.
> >> >> > Budikka
>
> >> >> More evidence of Budikka's obsession with ---> God.
>
> >> > If anything, I would have thought that Budikka's obsession
> >> > was with the absurdity of the "God" concept.
>
> >> We see that it IS an obsession.
>
> > No argument there. Personally, I think it's a complete
> > waste of time demonstrating that you creationists can't
> > distinguish reality from fantasy over and over again.
>
> Apparently Budikka does not concur.
>
> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
Budikka666
Aug 18, 2012, 11:26:21 AM8/18/12
to
On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
Then let us see if I can or I cannot. Let's you and me formally
> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
debate "the truth of creation" right here in this thread, beginning
with you presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator and for a
creation, because if you cannot make a solid, independently supported
case for your god, then you have failed because science explains the
universe without need of recourse to any gods.
Here's what you need to do:
1. Demonstrate with independent objective evidence and/or with
positive scientific evidence that this deity of yours exists.
2. Demonstrate with independent objective evidence and/or with
positive scientific evidence that this deity of yours is the only
deity there is
3. Demonstrate with independent objective evidence and/or with
positive scientific evidence that this deity of yours created the
universe and life on Earth
4. Demonstrate with independent objective evidence and/or with
positive scientific evidence that this deity of yours is not a figment
of your imagination
Scientists the world over, of all faiths, have already demosntrated
beyond any reasonable doubt that no gods are requried to explain what
we see in this universe. You need to refute that ***AND*** to make an
independent case *for* your creator god.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Bible quotes in support of Bible claims do not
constitute objective evidence and they sure as hell are not positive
scientific evidence for a creation! LoL!
You need to ask yourself: if you were in trouble and your friend ran
instead of helping you, would you consider that an example of
friendship or love? I certainly would not. Since ***YOU*** are the
one who claims I am in trouble, then it is your Christian duty to
witness right ehre, right now, and make a solid case for your god,
otherwise why shoudl anyone beleive a word you say? This is what your
god has told you to do if you truly believe in the Bible as the word
of this god. How can you pretend you love and support and work for
this god if you RUN every time you're asked to witness?
So are you going to witness by making a supported case for what you
claim or are you going to RUN again, as you have done countless times
before from our challenges?
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
Aug 18, 2012, 1:03:08 PM8/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
He just can't stop lying, can he?
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>Then let us see if I can or I cannot. Let's you and me formally
>debate "the truth of creation" right here in this thread, beginning
>with you presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator and for a
>creation, because if you cannot make a solid, independently supported
>case for your god, then you have failed because science explains the
>universe without need of recourse to any gods.
He wipes his lies in our faces and we correct him.
That's all there is to it.
It's not up to us to give him the equivalent of several high school
education courses in the various sciences.
thomas p.
Aug 18, 2012, 1:14:39 PM8/18/12
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:x8KdnRXGObDNFLLN...@earthlink.com...
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:f7e5b4a7-7f25-4d16...@l17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
>>> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
>>> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>>
>> The only obsession here is you and your ilk following
>> my every message on Usenet
>
> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
What truth would that be little Andy?
> news:f7e5b4a7-7f25-4d16...@l17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>> And the fact that this is an obsession with her indicates
>>> to me that she is struggling with issues that are of great
>>> importance, and of which she is unsure of.
>>
>> The only obsession here is you and your ilk following
>> my every message on Usenet
>
> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> Therefore all of your posts, insults and all, have the opposite
> effect of what you overtly intend. Because truth shines more
> brightly as it's enemies vainly battle against it.
That's right Andy; your beliefs are still silly no matter how many lies you
> Therefore all of your posts, insults and all, have the opposite
> effect of what you overtly intend. Because truth shines more
> brightly as it's enemies vainly battle against it.
tell.
>
> Thanks Budikka!
>
>> This is no obsession, it's sport.
>
> Yes, but soon the game will be over and you will be called
> to stand before your Maker to give account.
snip
Budikka666
Aug 18, 2012, 1:39:13 PM8/18/12
to
On Aug 18, 12:03 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:
He will run as he has before, or he will bullshit and *then* run as he
has before. I guarantee you right here and now that he will not even
*pretend* he can support his lies with positive objective or
scientific evidence.
I never expect these losers to debate; I expect them to run, which is
all the more reason to insure that they're solidly slapped down on a
routine basis! I don't think atheists like Caranx quite get that.
Budikka
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>
>
has before. I guarantee you right here and now that he will not even
*pretend* he can support his lies with positive objective or
scientific evidence.
I never expect these losers to debate; I expect them to run, which is
all the more reason to insure that they're solidly slapped down on a
routine basis! I don't think atheists like Caranx quite get that.
Budikka
Caranx latus
Aug 18, 2012, 2:10:16 PM8/18/12
to
On 8/18/2012 1:39 PM, Budikka666 wrote:
> On Aug 18, 12:03 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>
>> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>>>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>>
>> He just can't stop lying, can he?
>>
>>> Then let us see if I can or I cannot. Let's you and me formally
>>> debate "the truth of creation" right here in this thread, beginning
>>> with you presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator and for a
>>> creation, because if you cannot make a solid, independently supported
>>> case for your god, then you have failed because science explains the
>>> universe without need of recourse to any gods.
>>
>> Reality isn't up for debate.
>>
>> He wipes his lies in our faces and we correct him.
>>
>> That's all there is to it.
>>
>> It's not up to us to give him the equivalent of several high school
>> education courses in the various sciences.
>
> He will run as he has before, or he will bullshit and *then* run as he
> has before. I guarantee you right here and now that he will not even
> *pretend* he can support his lies with positive objective or
> scientific evidence.
I agree with that.
> On Aug 18, 12:03 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>
>> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>>>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>>
>> He just can't stop lying, can he?
>>
>>> Then let us see if I can or I cannot. Let's you and me formally
>>> debate "the truth of creation" right here in this thread, beginning
>>> with you presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator and for a
>>> creation, because if you cannot make a solid, independently supported
>>> case for your god, then you have failed because science explains the
>>> universe without need of recourse to any gods.
>>
>> Reality isn't up for debate.
>>
>> He wipes his lies in our faces and we correct him.
>>
>> That's all there is to it.
>>
>> It's not up to us to give him the equivalent of several high school
>> education courses in the various sciences.
>
> He will run as he has before, or he will bullshit and *then* run as he
> has before. I guarantee you right here and now that he will not even
> *pretend* he can support his lies with positive objective or
> scientific evidence.
> I never expect these losers to debate; I expect them to run, which is
> all the more reason to insure that they're solidly slapped down on a
> routine basis! I don't think atheists like Caranx quite get that.
it. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
Jeanne Douglas
Aug 18, 2012, 5:23:09 PM8/18/12
to
In article
<94475312-463e-4697...@o3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
But he's stupid enough to continue to think we'll just one day give up
reality and agree with his fervent lies.
> I never expect these losers to debate; I expect them to run, which is
> all the more reason to insure that they're solidly slapped down on a
> routine basis! I don't think atheists like Caranx quite get that.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
<94475312-463e-4697...@o3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 12:03 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >
> > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> > >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
> >
> > He just can't stop lying, can he?
> >
> > >Then let us see if I can or I cannot. Let's you and me formally
> > >debate "the truth of creation" right here in this thread, beginning
> > >with you presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator and for a
> > >creation, because if you cannot make a solid, independently supported
> > >case for your god, then you have failed because science explains the
> > >universe without need of recourse to any gods.
> >
> > Reality isn't up for debate.
> >
> > He wipes his lies in our faces and we correct him.
> >
> > That's all there is to it.
> >
> > It's not up to us to give him the equivalent of several high school
> > education courses in the various sciences.
>
> He will run as he has before, or he will bullshit and *then* run as he
> has before. I guarantee you right here and now that he will not even
> *pretend* he can support his lies with positive objective or
> scientific evidence.
Oh, he WILL claim to have all the evidence necessary.
> On Aug 18, 12:03 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >
> > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> > >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
> >
> > He just can't stop lying, can he?
> >
> > >Then let us see if I can or I cannot. Let's you and me formally
> > >debate "the truth of creation" right here in this thread, beginning
> > >with you presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator and for a
> > >creation, because if you cannot make a solid, independently supported
> > >case for your god, then you have failed because science explains the
> > >universe without need of recourse to any gods.
> >
> > Reality isn't up for debate.
> >
> > He wipes his lies in our faces and we correct him.
> >
> > That's all there is to it.
> >
> > It's not up to us to give him the equivalent of several high school
> > education courses in the various sciences.
>
> He will run as he has before, or he will bullshit and *then* run as he
> has before. I guarantee you right here and now that he will not even
> *pretend* he can support his lies with positive objective or
> scientific evidence.
But he's stupid enough to continue to think we'll just one day give up
reality and agree with his fervent lies.
> I never expect these losers to debate; I expect them to run, which is
> all the more reason to insure that they're solidly slapped down on a
> routine basis! I don't think atheists like Caranx quite get that.
JD
"the lybian lier"
Andrew
Aug 18, 2012, 5:45:49 PM8/18/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
> Let's you and me formally debate "the truth of creation"
> right here in this thread, beginning with you
The very fact that you state you wish to debate "the truth"
is evidence that your position is in contrast to.."the truth".
> presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator and for
> a creation
We've been here before, but you never would answer my
question that would permit any progress in such discussion.
Which was for you to state precisely what would be the
reasonable criteria that you would accept as evidence for
the *intelligent causation* for the origin of life.
For if there was an *intelligent causation* of life's origin,
then there was a creator, or should we say with respect....
Creator.
And if He is our Creator, then most likely He is the Creator
of the whole universe. For He would be a super, intelligent,
all-powerful Creator.
What is the agreed upon criteria that would be acceptable
to show that there was an *intelligent causation* for the
origin of life?
Please be specific. And please do not run off as you have
done in the past. If I am in error and you have answered
this, then accept my apologies and please kindly restate.
Thanks Budikka!
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
> Let's you and me formally debate "the truth of creation"
> right here in this thread, beginning with you
is evidence that your position is in contrast to.."the truth".
> presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator and for
> a creation
question that would permit any progress in such discussion.
Which was for you to state precisely what would be the
reasonable criteria that you would accept as evidence for
the *intelligent causation* for the origin of life.
For if there was an *intelligent causation* of life's origin,
then there was a creator, or should we say with respect....
Creator.
And if He is our Creator, then most likely He is the Creator
of the whole universe. For He would be a super, intelligent,
all-powerful Creator.
What is the agreed upon criteria that would be acceptable
to show that there was an *intelligent causation* for the
origin of life?
Please be specific. And please do not run off as you have
done in the past. If I am in error and you have answered
this, then accept my apologies and please kindly restate.
Thanks Budikka!
Budikka666
Aug 18, 2012, 6:05:08 PM8/18/12
to
those who are going after the creationists, you'll get it.
Or maybe you just have a soft spot for people who are determined to
destory science and lie to children in schools.
Budikka
Budikka666
Aug 18, 2012, 6:05:43 PM8/18/12
to
On Aug 18, 4:23 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <94475312-463e-4697-9ef2-8d8682438...@o3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
He didn't even do that! He just ran!
Budikka
> In article
> <94475312-463e-4697-9ef2-8d8682438...@o3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka
Budikka666
Aug 18, 2012, 6:07:12 PM8/18/12
to
On Aug 18, 4:45 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
for admitting that you're a lying piece of trash for Christ.
I'm done with you. You can go now. I'll let you know if I can ever
be bothered to kick your cowardly, lying, vacuous, hypocrtiical ass
again.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in SIX
THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in TEN
THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> > Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
>
> You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
> you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
> the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
So once again you DENY CHRIST and RUN. No surprises there. Thanks
> >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> > Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
>
> You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
> you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
> the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
for admitting that you're a lying piece of trash for Christ.
I'm done with you. You can go now. I'll let you know if I can ever
be bothered to kick your cowardly, lying, vacuous, hypocrtiical ass
again.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in SIX
THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in TEN
THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
Budikka
Devils Advocaat
Aug 19, 2012, 2:15:35 AM8/19/12
to
On Aug 18, 10:45 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Andrew, the criteria for acceptable evidence has been presented to you
over and over again. And every time it's presented you fail to offer
up any evidence that fits the criteria.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
over and over again. And every time it's presented you fail to offer
up any evidence that fits the criteria.
thomas p.
Aug 19, 2012, 3:03:24 AM8/19/12
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:3dqdnQXGY6Qoka3N...@earthlink.com...
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>>
>> Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
>
> You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
> you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
> the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
In that case why don't you stop lying? Do you enjoy looking foolish?
> news:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>>
>> Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
>
> You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
> you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
> the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
Andrew
Aug 19, 2012, 11:49:11 PM8/19/12
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:16cbb404-851b-4d71...@r9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>"Andrew" wrote:
"Formal Debate Challenge to Andrew-a-Blank"
I respond with a simple question in relation to this debate.
(See below).
Then the challenger, Budikka, responds by saying,
"I'm done with you." (See above).
This is tantamount to concession. Which is probably wise
for her, because she is unable to answer my question, and
she knows that the evidence shows that there is a Creation.
Andrew
_______________________________________________________________________________________
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>"Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>>
>> > Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
>>
>> You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
>> you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
>> the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
>
> So once again you DENY CHRIST and RUN. No surprises there. Thanks
> for admitting that you're a lying piece of trash for Christ.
>
> I'm done with you. You can go now. I'll let you know if I can ever
> be bothered to kick your cowardly, lying, vacuous, hypocrtiical ass
> again.
Folks notice that Budikka makes a public debate challenge entitled,
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>>
>> > Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
>>
>> You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
>> you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
>> the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
>
> So once again you DENY CHRIST and RUN. No surprises there. Thanks
> for admitting that you're a lying piece of trash for Christ.
>
> I'm done with you. You can go now. I'll let you know if I can ever
> be bothered to kick your cowardly, lying, vacuous, hypocrtiical ass
> again.
"Formal Debate Challenge to Andrew-a-Blank"
I respond with a simple question in relation to this debate.
(See below).
Then the challenger, Budikka, responds by saying,
"I'm done with you." (See above).
This is tantamount to concession. Which is probably wise
for her, because she is unable to answer my question, and
she knows that the evidence shows that there is a Creation.
Andrew
_______________________________________________________________________________________
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
>> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
>> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
fasgnadh
Aug 20, 2012, 2:23:59 AM8/20/12
to
On Aug 18, 10:03 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> > Let's you and me formally
> >debate "the truth of creation" right here in this thread,
But you always run away and try and change the subject to
direct, rather than indirect, Creation by the God you are clearly
obsessed with.
Your claim to have "Disproved" the "truth of creation" is clearly
bogus.
>> beginning
> >with you presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator
I just did, you and your post.
Did you, or did you not, create it?
If you did, (as you have already claimed as SENDER) then you have
proven creation.
B^)
> > and for a creation,
your post.
> >because if you cannot make a solid, independently supported
> >case
My case rests on the evidence produced by you, NOT ME.
My case cannot be based on evidence more independent of me,
than that.
You are already defeated.. lets watch you squirm and try to
REDEFINE the subject.
>> for your god
I'm an agnostic... why are you NOW introducing this
change of subject?
> > then you have failed because science explains the
> >universe
Indeed it is proof of it being created by awesome processes!
> Reality isn't up for debate.
WHAT A PROFOUNDLY UNSCIENTIFIC BELIEF!!!
SCIENCE IS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE-BASED DEBATE
ABOUT REALITY!
Atheists are unscientific cretins.
> That's all there is to it.
You are as dogmatic in your atheist absolutism as any fundie! B^p
> It's not up to us to give him the equivalent of several high school
> education courses in the various sciences.
Your ad hom reveals that you atheists have no rational argument
Abuse is all they have:
# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go f*ck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
* edited because children should not be exposed to atheist filth.
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:26:21 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>
>
> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> >On Aug 18, 7:25 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> >Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
OK Deny your creation of the post you posted.
> > Let's you and me formally
> >debate "the truth of creation" right here in this thread,
direct, rather than indirect, Creation by the God you are clearly
obsessed with.
Your claim to have "Disproved" the "truth of creation" is clearly
bogus.
>> beginning
> >with you presenting your *best* *evidence* for a crerator
Did you, or did you not, create it?
If you did, (as you have already claimed as SENDER) then you have
proven creation.
B^)
> > and for a creation,
your post.
> >because if you cannot make a solid, independently supported
> >case
My case cannot be based on evidence more independent of me,
than that.
You are already defeated.. lets watch you squirm and try to
REDEFINE the subject.
>> for your god
I'm an agnostic... why are you NOW introducing this
change of subject?
> > then you have failed because science explains the
> >universe
> Reality isn't up for debate.
SCIENCE IS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE-BASED DEBATE
ABOUT REALITY!
Atheists are unscientific cretins.
> That's all there is to it.
> It's not up to us to give him the equivalent of several high school
> education courses in the various sciences.
Abuse is all they have:
# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go f*ck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
* edited because children should not be exposed to atheist filth.
thomas p.
Aug 20, 2012, 3:28:19 AM8/20/12
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:QtSdnTdTOpjDLqzN...@earthlink.com...
Devils Advocaat
Aug 20, 2012, 5:44:52 AM8/20/12
to
On Aug 18, 10:45 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
acceptable as evidence.
A fact that you choose to ignore, then complain that you haven't been
told what's acceptable.
That amounts to lying, and you know what your god thinks about liars
and lying.
That is presuming your god exists, and that the words in the bile come
from your god.
And presuming you actually believe the bible contains the inerrant
words of your god.
Budikka
Aug 20, 2012, 8:54:47 AM8/20/12
to
> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
> # Subject: Merry Christmas
> # Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
> # Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a566...@news.aliant.net>
> # Subject: Merry Christmas
> # Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
> #
> # Hello Folks;
> #
> # I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
> # and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
> #
> # Cheers,
> # John
>
> # From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
> # Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
> # Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
> # Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3bmf0dog125nccm...@4ax.com>
> # Hello Folks;
> #
> # I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
> # and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
> #
> # Cheers,
> # John
>
> # From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
> # Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
> # Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
> #
> # "go f*ck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
>
> * edited because children should not be exposed to atheist filth.
Another brain-dead creationist openly confesses how abysmally stupid
> # "go f*ck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
>
> * edited because children should not be exposed to atheist filth.
he truly is. Flatnads has had his lying juvenile ass kicked many
times on these news groups, and he's too stupid to know it! lol!
Budikka
Budikka
Aug 20, 2012, 8:58:07 AM8/20/12
to
I offered you tha chance to make your case. YOU RAN as you have done
endlessly. Scientists have made their case. Not a single creationist
has refuted the scientific case or even called it into question
scientifically, and *every* *single* *time* *you* have been asked to
make your scientific or objective case for a divine creation you have
FLED (see below). End of story, case closed.
endlessly. Scientists have made their case. Not a single creationist
has refuted the scientific case or even called it into question
scientifically, and *every* *single* *time* *you* have been asked to
make your scientific or objective case for a divine creation you have
FLED (see below). End of story, case closed.
Budikka
Aug 20, 2012, 9:10:49 AM8/20/12
to
On Aug 19, 10:49 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:16cbb404-851b-4d71...@r9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for openly confessing that you are a congenital LIAR as well as
a chronic coward. You seem to have forgotten that you have used this
kind of cheap excuse before and I have repeatedly met your criteria
only to see you RUN as YOU ALWAYS DO! Do you not remember this
exchange back in October last year:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/0fd462092e412ef4
Here, let me repost it since you have shown that you neither read nor
comprehend references:
ANDREW:
> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
> you.
BUDIKKA's Response:
Why do you ask this question, and then RUN when I answer in the
affirmative? Once again, I base my understanding ON THE EVIDENCE.
Got that numbnuts? because I've explained that to you a gazillion
times and here you are demanding that everyone understand that you're
a monumental retard with the attention span of a gad fly.
Here's my statement *yet* *again*: YES, ANDREW, *IF* *YOU* *CAN*
*PRESENT* *SUFFICIENT* *POSITIVE* *SCIENTIFIC* *EVIDENCE* *SUPPORTING
* *YOUR * POSITION, then I will accept it.
Now is there any other way in which I can dumb that down so that even
you get it?
YES, The Answer is YES.
Got that now?
Now are you going to debate this with me and support your position or
will you RUN as you have done *every* *single* *time* I've Challenged
you?
(End of BUDIKKA RESPONSE)
Now you have proven yourself a LIAR. I quite clearly state there (and
have done so many other times, including in this message), exactly
what it is I will accept. AND YOU RAN.
Thanks for falling blindly right into it yet agian. Cowardly,
vacuous, scientifically ignorant Imbeciles like you do far more damage
to young-Earth creationism than I ever could. LOL!
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:16cbb404-851b-4d71...@r9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> >"Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> >> >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> >> > Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
>
> >> You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
> >> you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
> >> the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
>
> > So once again you DENY CHRIST and RUN. No surprises there. Thanks
> > for admitting that you're a lying piece of trash for Christ.
>
> > I'm done with you. You can go now. I'll let you know if I can ever
> > be bothered to kick your cowardly, lying, vacuous, hypocrtiical ass
> > again.
>
> Folks notice thatBudikkamakes a public debate challenge entitled,
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> >> Your posts are of interest to me because of your vehemence
> >> >> and your inability to successfully refute the truth of creation.
>
> >> > Then let us see if I can or I cannot.
>
> >> You've already had your chance, but please keep trying if
> >> you want. Because the truth only shines more brightly as
> >> the enemies thereof foolishly battle against it - it remains.
>
> > So once again you DENY CHRIST and RUN. No surprises there. Thanks
> > for admitting that you're a lying piece of trash for Christ.
>
> > I'm done with you. You can go now. I'll let you know if I can ever
> > be bothered to kick your cowardly, lying, vacuous, hypocrtiical ass
> > again.
>
>
> "Formal Debate Challenge to Andrew-a-Blank"
>
> I respond with a simple question in relation to this debate.
>
> (See below).
>
> Then the challenger,Budikka, responds by saying,
> "Formal Debate Challenge to Andrew-a-Blank"
>
> I respond with a simple question in relation to this debate.
>
> (See below).
>
>
> "I'm done with you." (See above).
>
> This is tantamount to concession. Which is probably wise
> for her, because she is unable to answer my question, and
> she knows that the evidence shows that there is a Creation.
>
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________
>
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:fe45f1af-dfe1-4819...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> "I'm done with you." (See above).
>
> This is tantamount to concession. Which is probably wise
> for her, because she is unable to answer my question, and
> she knows that the evidence shows that there is a Creation.
>
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________
>
a chronic coward. You seem to have forgotten that you have used this
kind of cheap excuse before and I have repeatedly met your criteria
only to see you RUN as YOU ALWAYS DO! Do you not remember this
exchange back in October last year:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/0fd462092e412ef4
Here, let me repost it since you have shown that you neither read nor
comprehend references:
ANDREW:
> Then will you accept the truth, and surrender to
> the God of creation? He is the One who loves
> you.
BUDIKKA's Response:
Why do you ask this question, and then RUN when I answer in the
affirmative? Once again, I base my understanding ON THE EVIDENCE.
Got that numbnuts? because I've explained that to you a gazillion
times and here you are demanding that everyone understand that you're
a monumental retard with the attention span of a gad fly.
Here's my statement *yet* *again*: YES, ANDREW, *IF* *YOU* *CAN*
*PRESENT* *SUFFICIENT* *POSITIVE* *SCIENTIFIC* *EVIDENCE* *SUPPORTING
* *YOUR * POSITION, then I will accept it.
Now is there any other way in which I can dumb that down so that even
you get it?
YES, The Answer is YES.
Got that now?
Now are you going to debate this with me and support your position or
will you RUN as you have done *every* *single* *time* I've Challenged
you?
(End of BUDIKKA RESPONSE)
Now you have proven yourself a LIAR. I quite clearly state there (and
have done so many other times, including in this message), exactly
what it is I will accept. AND YOU RAN.
Thanks for falling blindly right into it yet agian. Cowardly,
vacuous, scientifically ignorant Imbeciles like you do far more damage
to young-Earth creationism than I ever could. LOL!
Budikka
fasgnadh
Aug 20, 2012, 11:24:19 AM8/20/12
to
So you concede the debate and RUN AWAY.. AGAIN!!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA
> how abysmally stupid he truly is.
> has had his lying juvenile ass kicked many
> times on these news groups, and he's too stupid to know it! lol!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
> Budikka
GM Smerkoff
Aug 20, 2012, 5:47:27 PM8/20/12
to
On 21/08/2012 1:24 AM, fasgnadh wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:54 am, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 1:23 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
...
> On Aug 20, 5:54 am, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 1:23 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> # From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
>>> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
>>> # Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
>>> # Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
>>> # Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3bmf0dog125nccm...@4ax.com>
>>> #
>>> # "go f*ck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
>>
>>> * edited because children should not be exposed to atheist filth.
>>
>> Another brain-dead creationist
>
> Sure, he's an atheist, ergo brain dead, and he created that post.
>
> So you concede the debate and RUN AWAY.. AGAIN!!!!
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA
It's time for your monthly checkup. If the pills stop working this time
>>> # From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
>>> # Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
>>> # Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
>>> # Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
>>> # Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3bmf0dog125nccm...@4ax.com>
>>> #
>>> # "go f*ck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
>>
>>> * edited because children should not be exposed to atheist filth.
>>
>> Another brain-dead creationist
>
> Sure, he's an atheist, ergo brain dead, and he created that post.
>
> So you concede the debate and RUN AWAY.. AGAIN!!!!
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA
SSU have yourself committed.
>
>> how abysmally stupid he truly is.
>
>
> And abusive.. like you it's ALL HE HAS! B^]
>
>> has had his lying juvenile ass kicked many
>> times on these news groups, and he's too stupid to know it! lol!
>
>
> As have you !
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
>
>> Budikka
>
>
Scott Morrison...
"They've said yes to Nauru, finally, after four years. If they had done
that four years ago, we might have avoided all this chaos and tragedy"
0 new messages